Wrong (2012)

By

-

2014-08-25

His offer to the Gods was not accepted. In fact it was frowned upon.

Twitter Plot Summary: When Dolph’s dog goes missing, he goes looking for him, whilst all manner of weird stuff takes place.

Five Point Summary:

1. A long conversation with a pizza girl.
2. An office where it rains inside.
3. William Fichtner: mystic dog friend.
4. She’s very annoying.
5. The car keeps on a-driving.

Quentin Dupieux is clearly a fan of non-standard storytelling, of collecting a random selection of images and motifs and throwing them together to form a vague yet incredibly twisted narrative. After just two feature length films, it’s clear that Dupieux will never garner mainstream success if he continues along this path, his stories are far too weird for anyone but those with the most twisted of minds – or those with an interest in analysing movie subtext – to appreciate. Despite potential thoughts to the contrary, this is certainly no bad thing as it acts as a much needed counterbalance to both the mainstream Hollywood productions and the indie movie scene, both of which follow the same structure no matter the budgetary differences between them.

The core plot of Wrong features a man called Dolph who wakes up one morning to find his dog Paul has gone missing and he sets out to find him, encountering a variety of oddball neighbours and local residents along the way. It’s clear that the kidnapped dog is a plot device so as to demonstrate Dolph’s loss of focus in his life, and perhaps the surreal element of his surroundings is representative of this. Or possibly not, it can be hard to tell.

His attempt at gaining additional sales for his book were not appreciated.

On his quest to recover his dog Dolph encounters his French gardener who looks a potential candidate to become a member of the Village People and/or The Vengaboys; there’s Emma, a woman who works with a pizza delivery company who latches onto Dolph after they exchange a phone call; Dolph’s neighbour Mike who jumps in his yellow car and just keeps driving, and William Fichtner who shows up as Master Chang, a mystic man who has two volumes of books about man, dog and latent telepathy. He is slightly hidden behind some melted face makeup and sports an accent that mixes Sigmund Freud with a potentially racist interpretation of how a Chinese mystic may speak, just to add an extra level of weird. Let’s not even get started on his ponytail.

It’s another thoroughly weird yet oddly enjoyable story that revels in being as weird as possible. Clocks tick from 7.59 to 7.60 and office workers sit at their desks being drenched by the fire sprinklers without batting an eyelid, for example. To many viewers Wrong will be a film that they switch off after 15 minutes, likely baffled by the nonsensical narrative and excessive amount of surreal imagery. Much like his previous film Rubber, Dupieux is probably making a point about the Hollywood system and/or following the established movie pattern. It’s a little less on the nose about it than Rubber was, but the signs are there. Or it could just be that he enjoys symbolism and there actually isn’t a point to any of this, it’s just a loose collection of scenes and thematic points and you’re left to make your own mind up about it. Either way, you’ll need to made of stern stuff to make it through to the end – if you’re strangeness radar isn’t tuned in to appreciate oddness then Wrong is not the film for you. Try something with Colin Firth instead.

Score: 3/5

Rubber (2010)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-24

0

Twitter Plot Summary: The tale of Robert, a tyre with psychic powers as it travels around the place and kills people randomly.

Five Point Summary:

1. A psychic tyre? That’s not that weird…
2. Scanners moment. Nice.
3. Stopping in a motel watching motorsports. Of course.
4. It’s getting very meta. As if it wasn’t already.
5. Hello, Hollywood.

Sometimes a film, or certain aspects of a film, don’t have to make sense in order for us to enjoy them. As the introduction to Rubber points out in its fourth-wall breaking opening monologue, some of the greatest films ever made have a certain level of “no reason” to their stories, certain points or aspects of plot that are just taken for granted so the story can continue without a needless amount of exposition that would just bring things to a grinding halt. Such as it is with Rubber, the story of a sentient tyre who goes on a killing spree when he realises that he has latent psychic powers. Yeah, just do what the man at the beginning said and go along with it.

After a deliberately nonsensical opening we’re introduced to Robert, that sentient tyre we were just talking about, as he makes his first tentative steps out into the world, crushing plastic bottles, smashing glass bottles and cans, and just having a general mooch around the place, all whilst a group of people stand around and watch him through binoculars. Robert is chased by an incredibly laid back police officer (Spinella) who is seemingly the only person who knows what’s going on – at least somebody does. It doesn’t become any more clearer than this as the story gets increasingly more meta and insane as it progresses, with characters aware that what they’re experiencing isn’t real, and the vague layers of a story within a story are more likely to instil confusion in its audience than anything else.

Why is he pouring that water away? No reason.

Suffice to say, Rubber does not go in the direction you might expect – it’s completely off the wall and insane, but doesn’t retain the grindhouse sensibilities that reading the premise might first suggest. It’s like a waking dream manifested for all to see, although doesn’t go completely down the rabbit hole of insanity that most dreams often follow, the script knowing when to rein itself in on occasion. In fairness it does start to lose its way around the halfway point, but a few exploding head sequences at the right moment make up for the lack of logic. It doesn’t help that, despite its modest budget, the picture quality is amazing, demonstrating the benefits of using decent high definition cameras.

The music’s good, almost too good in fact, some of it coming from Mr Oizo who many will remember for Flat Beat and the Flat Eric character associated with the track. It also transpires that Mr Oizo is in fact the director Quentin Dupieux.

You could probably read some subtext behind the story if you really wanted to, something about the perils of the Hollywood system or providing a clear story just because tradition and “The System” dictates it, but there’s a certain appeal in being deliberately obtuse and telling a story just because you can. It all comes back to that opening monologue, the fact that some things happen for no reason. If you can see it within yourself to just go with it and embrace the madness, Rubber is worthy of your time.

Score: 3/5

Snowpiercer (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-23

0

All of them are trying not to smirk, clearly.

Twitter Plot Summary: After an experiment turns the world to ice, the only survivors live aboard the Snowpiercer, a big train. Toot toot.

Five Point Summary:

1. This is a silly premise… oh well, might as well go with it!
2. Tilda Swinton – typically excellent.
3. Protein bars are… well, as icky as you might imagine.
4. What’s with the men dressed in balaclavas and wielding sharp weapons? Do they have a store of them on board?
5. Who puts the ravers at the front of the train?

The wonderful world of science fiction frequently requires a suspension of disbelief from its audience, as it recounts real world, modern day concerns projected into the future. Such as it is with Snowpiercer, a film by Joon-Ho Bong and adapted from the French graphic novel Le Transperceneige. Snowpiercer takes place entirely on a train that holds the last remnants of humanity within its walls. After an attempt at combating global warming went horribly wrong, a wealthy train guru allowed survivors to board his train, one that can traverse the entire world and never stop. One rotation of the global track takes one calendar year, so for anyone unclear as to this being in bonkers science fiction territory – this is your first clue.

On board are a number of actors who you will recognise – Chris Evans, John Hurt, Jamie Bell – and some like Tilda Swinton who appears to be doing her best to take on any job that requires a heavy amount of makeup. Given that this is a relatively unknown director it’s remarkable how many big names he has been able to hire. Naturally, they all perform admirably and the acting ability on show goes a long way to dispelling any concerns over the ludicrous story.

John Hurt has the power to stand tall over everyone else. Because he had all their legs chopped off.

The social commentary may be a little heavy handed, but then that’s pretty much the point, in this situation it needs to be on the nose. The well-offs live at the front of the train in a state of luxury and decadence whilst the poor (those in economy or who managed to board without a ticket) are trapped at the back, forced to live in squalor and survive off jelly-like protein bars. What follows is an attempt by the disadvantaged to progress all the way to the front where they can take control and end the imbalance. And, one would expect, get something decent to eat for a change.

The violence is bloody yet poetic, and the comic book origins are clear to anybody who has either read the source material or has ever read a comic book or graphic novel in their lives. There’s something about directly adapting panels from a comic that seems glaringly obvious when you can spot the conventions of sequential art. The tone is one of imbalance, both with regards to the social structure established on the train and the awkward combination of violence and humour. Swinton’s Mason is the most notable for this, providing some comic relief between the violent moments, whilst a call to the back of the train to bring fire to the front line is ridiculous.

Ignoring some of the sillier elements of the story, such as the design of the train and the fact most of the characters seem nonplussed at losing limbs, death in general or the scary men wielding swords and axes, the human story beneath it all is full of drama and enjoyable moments. It may very well be a tonal and visual potpourri, but it’s still an immensely enjoyable tale where the underlying tale of survival and the human spirit is more important than the rather silly premise that surrounds it.

Score: 3.5/5

Silence of the Lambs (1991)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-22

0

Such a well presented chap. Shame he'd eat your face if he got the chance. — Such a well presented chap. Shame he’d eat your face if he got the chance.

Twitter Plot Summary: Rookie FBI agent Clarice Starling interviews serial killer Hannibal Lecter hoping he can help her catch another killer.

Five Point Summary:

1. She’s tiny. Really tiny.
2. Did he just flick… yeah, he did. Ugh.
3. A head in a jar.
4. A cunning escape from his cell. Well done that man.
5. Pitch black basement.

It’s a brave script (or even a novel) that sets up an antagonist who isn’t really the main villain of the piece. So it is with The Silence of the Lambs, as Jodie Foster’s rookie FBI agent Clarice Starling uses the talents of serial killer Hannibal Lecter – a superbly creepy performance from Anthony Hopkins – to track down and stop another serial killer who is kidnapping women and skinning them, for reasons that will soon become apparent. Lecter isn’t to be trusted of course, and before long he’s following his own agenda.

We’re given frequent reminders as to Clarice Starling’s relative lack of physical stature as she finds herself surrounded by taller police officers time and time again. This only serves to make us root for her even more when we reach the final act as the net closes in on the serial killer known as Buffalo Bill. She may not be physically imposing but what she lacks in size she more than makes up for in mental acuity.

There are brief moments of graphic violence, although in our post-Saw world of torture porn movies it’s relatively tame by comparison. There’s much more of a psychological tension to these events, which in many respects is a far better than showing you every single gory moment. The picture created by your own mind is often a far more effective method at creating unease rather than having the images provided. Whilst the levels of violence are relatively low, it is rife with scenes of tension, in particular those of Starling interviewing Lecter in his cell. Thanks to the performances of Hopkins and Foster they are much, much more than just a simple tete-a-tete from two sides of a perspex prison cell window. It’s Starling’s aforementioned mental acuity that puts her almost on a par with Lecter, his clues and puzzles allowing Starling to try and resolve the case herself.

Clarice could feel the eyes burning into... well, the wall it seems. — Clarice could feel the eyes burning into… well, the wall it seems.

Hopkins is clearly at the top of his game at this point in his career, churning out performance after performance of Oscar-baiting quality. His Hannibal Lecter is certainly one of those performances, a combination of sinister charm and hidden motivations lurking just beneath the surface. That’s not to do a disservice to Foster’s performance, who manages to hold her own in terms of both the verbal and physical aspects of the role, creating perhaps one of the all-time great female characters in cinema, and quite frankly we don’t see enough of them.

The Silence of the Lambs is, frankly, an excellent piece of film making, combining great acting with a solid thriller story and clear direction. The plot unfolds at a natural pace and resolves itself with little in the way of superfluous story or confusing narrative. At its heart it also remains quite a chilling story, not overt with its horror element but providing just enough in terms of actual onscreen violence to ramp up the tension and keep you guessing as to the outcome all the way to the finale.

Score: 5/5

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-21

0

They just needed a sample of blood to see what made Sherlock tick.

Twitter Plot Summary: The crew of the Enterprise return for another trip around the galaxy, taking in foes old and new. And old.

Five Point Summary:

1. Red planet, very white aliens. Very nice.
2. A lot of death.
3. Klingons! Awesome.
4. That’s a convenient place to leave a Tribble.
5. KHHAAAAAAANNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

There was much promise in the rebooted Star Trek continuity, the possibility of doing brand new stories and not relying on the history of the TV and movie continuity that began in 1966. Into Darkness is a thoroughly enjoyable romp that maintains the sense of adventure that the 1960s Star Trek managed to convey, but it ties too closely into events that have been seen before and was not helped by such a ridiculous amount of secrecy leading to its release that fans were ultimately left disappointed in the choice of villain. With that said, Into Darkness does maintain pace with its predecessor and adheres strictly to the mantra of providing pure unadulterated entertainment to its audience.

Into Darkness has a story that holds up perfectly whilst you’re watching it, but doesn’t stand up to detailed scrutiny when you think about it afterwards. There are a number of plotting and logical inconsistencies that are liable to cause a Vulcan-esque raised eyebrow or two for anyone that cares at all about that sort of thing. It does itself no favours by heavily referencing Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan – what happened to our bright new future of fresh and original stories? Otherwise though there is the now-expected amount of peril and narrative twists to keep the audience on its toes, and it revels in providing a bright and primary coloured universe in which its story can take place, albeit with a number of darker references for good measure.

There are at least a sizeable number of references and homages to the Star Trek universe, so fans are well served in this respect. Abrams returns to his use of excessive lens flare, albeit to a slightly smaller extent than previously (thankfully), and remains a dynamic presence behind the camera as it barely stays still for longer than a few moments.

No favours are done by including a brief but incredibly gratuitous shot of Alice Eve down to her underwear (for reasons of balance there should probably be a shot of Chris Pine in a similar state of undress), and there’s a moment where Uhura’s backside is given its own starring moment as she walks away from the shuttlecraft, but apart from these minor slips there’s nothing here that shouldn’t be there. There’s even the added bonus of seeing the Klingons at last, who have been redesigned to appear even more gritty and violent in their choice of attire and facial markings. The original Klingons – those with head ridges and not the ones with bushy eyebrows from the 1960s – look positively cuddly in comparison.

Its photon torpedoes may not quite hit their targets on every occasion, but it gets near enough the mark for it to not matter so much in the grand scheme of things. It may be narratively incoherent at times but Into Darkness once again demonstrates that being fun for the audience is more important than detailed plotting that requires a degree in advanced screenwriting to understand. Plus there’s the added bonus of marvelling at Pike’s ever-growing sideburns. Them’s impressive.

Score: 4/5

Star Trek (2009)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-20

0

They couldn't believe how much lens flare there had been so far. — They couldn’t believe how much lens flare there had been so far.

Twitter Plot Summary: The Star Trek franchise gets a reboot and free reign to go off and do its own thing. So that’s what it does.

Five Point Summary:

1. Hey look, it’s Thor as Kirk’s dad!
2. So how did Bones get that nickname?….. never mind.
3. Vulcan is in a bit of bother.
4. Kirk’s kicked off the ship.
5. Showdown with Nero.

Before this 2009 reboot, the Star Trek franchise had always been reliant on the established continuity that began with the original Star Trek series in the 1960s and continued through ten films and four further television series. To say the franchise was over-saturated by that point with a level of detail only a dedicated Star Trek Encyclopaedia could explain would be an understatement. So for the eleventh feature film the decision was made to go back to the very beginning and establish a new continuity in a parallel universe, free from the restrictions of the original universe and to allow a fresh take on the classic characters.

The parallel universe is created inadvertently by characters from the established continuity, a freak disaster resulting in the destruction of the Romulan home planet Romulus. A Romulan ship heads back in time, captained by Erica Bana’s tattooed Nero, and sets off a chain of events that set things off along a different path. James Kirk was always a risk taker in the original continuity, but here he’s emotionally damaged by the death of his father and doesn’t join Starfleet until Captain Pike recommends he does so. There are numerous twists on what fans may have expected to take place which keeps things in the realm of the unknown. The names and the ship may be familiar, but it’s new and different. There’s even opportunity for a few goofy gags just for good measure, such as Kirk having unusually chubby hands, and a particularly amusing joke where a “red shirt” – someone who, traditionally, is a non-speaking security officer who joins the named actors on a mission and dies before the opening credits – joins Kirk and Sulu on a mission to skydive onto a drilling platform.

Even Scotty couldn't hack the lens flare. — Even Scotty couldn’t hack the lens flare.

JJ Abrams brings to the table a dynamic style and a bucket load of lens flare that clearly separates this film from any of the previous entries. It’s clearly a reboot in every sense of the word, and the prospect of a fresh crew and new stories is an exciting one going forward. The script immediately sets its stall out to do something slightly more unique wit the franchise by instigating some rather large changes to the universe that are best left unspoiled. For fans of the original run there’s a vast number of easter eggs and references that will keep you happy. And that is precisely where Star Trek gets it right, balancing between a general audience and the hardcore fans and providing a film that both groups can enjoy.

There are certain elements to the plot that might not make a whole lot of sense if you go away and think about it (more so if you are a longstanding fan), but that’s defeating the purpose of this reboot. It’s first and foremost about the tone of the original series mixed with modern film making techniques, so the plot is only there to serve as a reason for the characters to get into all sorts of peril and try and work their way out of it. When considered from that perspective, Star Trek does its job and does it well – save the thoughtful science fiction for other franchises, Star Trek is just here to entertain.

Score: 4/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PM1pvOzn_w

Beautiful Creatures (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-19

0

She wished she could convert all of this into a PDF.

Twitter Plot Summary: A love story between a witch approaching her 16th birthday and some high school kid.

Five Point Summary:

1. Typical YA love story. Ugh.
2. Some spinning tables.
3. Emma Thompson: underused.
4. Nothing. Is. Happening.
5. Did you expect a different ending? Hah.

Treading the same path as numerous attempts at nailing the young adult market, Beautiful Creatures is a standard young adult plot where a pair of young lovers are forced to contend with the machinations of her overbearing family and his family’s dark past, and must work through these issues before they can be together. It wouldn’t be a young adult adaptation without some form of supernatural influence (because that’s apparently the way to hook in a young female audience), and it just so happens that she’s a witch approaching her 16th birthday and will have to choose between the light and the dark at that time. Ignoring the slightly creepy notion of an underage relationship taking place in front of your very eyes, it’s as by the numbers as is possible without resorting to signposting every little twist and turn that’s supposed to keep the ending a surprise.

There are a couple of good points, notably the performances of Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson in supporting roles, and the two central characters of Ethan and Lena have a lot going for them, but it’s lost in a script that struggles to make sense of its surroundings. Characters appear without sufficient introduction and the mechanics of clear storytelling are apparently unknown to Richard LaGravanese who co-wrote and directed the film. That may seem harsh, but in comparison the direction is actually quite stylish and well presented. It keeps coming back to that script. The battle between light and dark isn’t given

nearly enough time to develop, and there isn’t much effort made to emphasise why joining the dark side (so to speak) would be so bad – there’s Lena’s sister Ridley (Rossum) and Emma Thompson’s Sarafine occasional bit of vamping up, but more time is spent with the townsfolk and their negative attitude towards witchcraft and the dark arts.

The themes and morals at work are clearly signposted, and perhaps mark the most notable aspect of the production. Again, when dealing with young adult stories these morals and thematic points aren’t hidden beneath layers of subtext – it’s there for all to see provided you pay just a little bit of attention. To cut a long story short (too late), it’s all about being yourself and not worrying about what others think of you and, to an extent, never being too much of one thing or another. Standard stuff really.

It goes to show that what works in a novel may not directly translate to the screen, and smells distinctly of a lazy adaptation of the source material. With some thought about structuring the story for a film rather than lifting the story structure apparently verbatim from the text, it lacks the punch of a solid three act structure and is a touch too ponderous and slow for the middle section to hold its own. It’s unlikely that we’ll see more of the books adapted, but if Warner Bros et al see any promise in producing a follow-up, let’s just hope that the story makes more sense next time.

Score: 2.5/5

Aladdin (1992)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-18

0

Twitter Plot Summary: Street urchin Aladdin finds himself the owner of a magic lamp and the Genie who resides within. He gets three wishes, y’know.

Five Point Summary:

1. Jafar’s an evil sort…
2. Genie Time!
3. That tiger will probably go all Seigfried and Roy eventually.
4. A whole new world.
5. Absolute power corrupts, etc etc.

Disney’s Renaissance period continued apace with 1992’s Aladdin, a tale adapted from One Thousand and One Nights. Aladdin is a street rat, a homeless urchin stealing scraps of food in order to survive. Through chance and circumstance he is accosted by Jafar, the Sultan’s sinister Grand Vizier, to retrieve a special lamp from a cave of treasures. This unleashes a genie who can grant the bearer of the lamp three wishes to use as they see fit. Through just two owners of the lamp in this film, a simple case of good versus evil, it becomes clear as to the power and the peril that having three wishes of almost unlimited power can behold.

It’s no surprise that Jafar has since entered the pantheon of classic Disney villains; the man oozes menace and is only interested in one thing. Well, two actually: power and the hand of Princess Jasmine. He’s got a sidekick in the form of Iago (a name for fans of Shakespeare to giggle at), voiced by Gilbert Gottfried who really doesn’t hold back – in fairness he rarely does. Jasmine, by the way, is no shrinking violet – she’s more than happy to tell the men (there are, strangely, no other women in Agrabah. At least, none with voices) exactly what she thinks and, basically, she will not be told what to do with her life or who she will choose as a husband. Aladdin finds himself drawn to Jasmine, so you can kind of see where that one’s going.

Guess which one of these is the bad guy. Go on, guess.

Aladdin is a fun lead character, rife with neuroses and concerns as to how The real star is the Genie, played to perfection by Robin Williams. He’s anarchic, fun and prone to some incredible improvisational moments that add an entire new level to the story. It gets better when combining Genie with Abu and the Magic Carpet, both of whom are anthropomorphised to the hilt and turn out to be incredibly fun characters to have around as a result. Even the Sultan is good fun, regularly unwittingly serving Jafar’s will yet still manages to get the odd jibe in over how old Jafar is – no black magic will solve that problem.

The songs continue the good work of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast by demonstrating a Broadway-level of quality alongside the more quirky (but no less catchy) Genie-led numbers, of which there are many. The tunes are quite simply joyous, and liable to put a big smile on your face just at the thought of them.

And that goes for the film as a whole. The songs are catchy, the animation is superb, the characters are enjoyable or enjoyably evil, and it’s a story that everyone in the family can enjoy. That and it also spawned perhaps the best Disney video game tie-in on the Sega MegaDrive. Other than the distinct lack of other female characters in the story, Jasmine more than makes up for this on her own and the message Aladdin provides is inspirational.

Score: 5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SHlwJmL1jY

The Great Mouse Detective (1986)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-17

0

The only thing more substantial than Basil's detective skills was his MASSIVE ego. — The only thing more substantial than Basil’s detective skills was his MASSIVE ego.

Twitter Plot Summary: An anthropomorphic version of Sherlock Holmes in the form of a mouse called Basil.

Five Point Summary:

1. Basil and Dawson? Right.
2. Ratigan, delightfully evil.
3. Fidget is awesome. Creepy, but awesome.
4. Cat VS Dog.
5. How will this all end? Erm, isn’t it obvious?

Based on the series of books Basil of Baker Street by Eve Titus, The Great Mouse Detective transports and transmorphs the stories of Sherlock Holmes into traditional Disney territory, albeit with Holmes, Watson et al going about their lives as normal in the human world whilst Basil, a mouse inspired to follow Holmes’ influence, and erstwhile ex-military sidekick Dawson try and solve a mystery involving a kidnapped toymaker, his occasionally irritating daughter, and and the evil machinations of Basil’s most notable enemy.

The script zings with fun dialogue and the voice cast are clearly enjoying themselves in this romp across what is almost but not quite alongside the best that Conan Doyle ever gave us. Vincent Price in particular seems like he’s having a ball as the big bad Professor Ratigan, a sinister rat-equivalent Professor Moriarty who smokes like a chimney – try getting that one past the focus groups these days. Not that he takes very well to being called a rat, such a faux pas might result in a less than pleasant encounter with the cat whom Ratigan has under his thrall.

Ratigan’s bat sidekick Fidget is one of the main reasons for The Great Mouse Detective being as enjoyable as it is. His croaky voice is instantly recognisable, his personality managing to find a strange balance between loveable and horrifyingly scary. On the opposite end of the scale is the loveable dog Toby, who provides balance on the scales of good and evil. It’s inevitable that Toby will face off against Ratigan’s cat, isn’t it?

For those aware of Disney’s back catalogue of animated classics, there are several points where they have clearly borrowed some frames of animation and visual flourishes from those earlier films. A scene from Lady and the Tramp in particular has almost been lifted frame for frame and added to The Great Mouse Detective, although this time there isn’t a Scotty dog trailing behind the action.

Ratigan and his bell. It's not to call room service. — Ratigan and his bell. It’s not to call room service.

The Great Mouse Detective had quite a prompt turnaround time, assisted through its subtle use of computer generated animation. The cogs inside Big Ben are all CGI, not that you would notice this unless looking for it specifically. Therein lies the beauty of the traditional animation style – it’s easy to slip something like that in with barely a raised eyebrow from the audience, but it adds an amazing amount of fidelity and variation that traditional hand animation simply can’t replicate.

It’s clear that Disney’s struggles in the 1980s were a result of the rise in popularity of the likes of Don Bluth’s animated movies that held a darker edge, and a departure from the formula that had proved so successful for them in the past led to diminishing returns and a critical bashing. Basil the Great Mouse Detective marks the start of Disney’s return to ascendance before they fully regained their mojo in The Little Mermaid, but that’s not to say it’s not good. Far from it in fact – it’s an enjoyable romp through Victorian England that’s not afraid to occasionally reference slightly darker themes and, let’s face it, the realities of everyday existence.

Score: 3/5

Big Ass Spider! (2013)

By

Simon Prior

-

2014-08-16

0

There's something familiar about this setup... something involving a giant gorilla, perhaps? — There’s something familiar about this setup… something involving a giant gorilla, perhaps?

Twitter Plot Summary: A spider escapes military hands and, doubling in size at regular intervals, goes on a rampage.

Five Point Summary:

1. Slow motion introduction. Not a bad start.
2. The mismatched buddy pairing is very good.
3. Obligatory romance angle.
4. Park carnage!
5. That’s a big ass spider.

Have you ever wanted to see Lin Shaye make a pass at Greg Grunberg? No? Well you’re probably better off not watching Big Ass Spider then, as that’s the opening sequence. Big Ass Spider doesn’t beat around the bush – it does exactly what it says on the tin and knows full well that it’s a ridiculous plot with a ridiculous premise, and never shies away from that fact.

It opens with a surprisingly mellow and well structured slow motion sequence as mayhem surrounds Greg Grunberg’s Alex Mathis, an exterminator who happens to find himself stuck in the middle of the pending disaster as it develops. In true B-Movie tradition, the army show up just moments too late to catch an experimental spider that will grow exponentially until they either find a way to take it down or the spider grows until it takes over the world. This sets off a chain of events that runs through the gamut of creature feature tropes leading up to an inevitable showdown between spider and man.

In his quest to take down the spider, Alex is joined by Jose, a security guard at the hospital where the incident begins, and their buddy cop-style partnership is frequently amusing and about as left-field as you can get. Jose is given some of the best dialogue, although Grunberg marks a close second place by giving Alex a predominantly deadpan delivery. Alex knows almost intuitively how spiders think – which is rather handy – whilst Jose fits nicely into typical sidekick territory. Alex also has eyes for a female lieutenant who spurns his incredibly lame advances, just to add a bit of (unnecessary) frisson to the story.

Those guns come with a warranty, y'know. — Those guns come with a warranty, y’know.

Eagle-eyed viewers may notice a particularly fun cameo from Lloyd Kaufman, no stranger to low budget schlock himself via his work with Troma Studios. It’s a calling card to other, similarly low budget features and ideally could do with Roger Corman showing up briefly just to emphasise how director Mike Mendez approached the production. Purists will no doubt criticise it because it’s not a polished production, but then if that’s all we ever had then the movie business would be much less interesting.

The effects are as bad as you might expect, but the performances are solid and proof that if you get some moderately talented performers you’ll go a lot further on a silly idea than if you just hire the cheapest actors available. It just goes to show that, with just a little bit of effort in terms of the script and the hiring of the actors that a bad idea can go a long way. In some respects it’s a shame that Ray Wise appears to be taking things a whole lot more seriously than is really necessary, but then you could easily argue that his performance enhances the silliness of those around him. However you choose to look at it, Big Ass Spider is big dumb fun and never tries to be anything more than that. For this alone it should be commended – it certainly won’t win any awards for anything else.

Score: 3/5

SIMONPRIOR.COM