La Haine (1995)

2013-12-08

Modern technology confused the French, even in 1995.

Twitter Plot Summary: A riot ensues on an estate in Paris after a local youth is beaten up by police.

Genre: Drama

Director: Matthieu Kassovitz

Key Cast: Vincent Cassel, Hubert Kounde, Souad Taghmaoui

Five Point Summary:

1. Spoofing Taxi Driver. In French. Nice.
2. There’s a cow on the streets!
3. Breakdancing! MNAGH!
4. Skinheads. Lovely bunch of lads. Not.
5. Oh, right. So that’s how we’re finishing this one then…

La Haine is not your typical view of France – the three main characters are all from ethnic minorities and we follow them as they don’t do anything of consequence over the course of 24 hours. There’s tensions aplenty as their suburban ghetto is the subject to heavy police enforcement following riots that occurred the day before. One of their friends was beaten up by a police officer and now lies critical in hospital, which does nothing to soothe tensions between the put-upon residents and the seemingly racist police.

Shot in black and white and emphasising that this isn’t the tourist-friendly side of France we’re used to seeing, there is an air of impotent rage on display, a feeling that things aren’t right yet those without power can do nothing other than talk about it. The central trio of Vinz, Hubert and Said are an intriguing bunch, all with personalities that are completely at odds with their outward persona. Hubert is a boxer but is actually the voice of reason for the most part, difficult to anger and often the first to diffuse a potentially violent situation. Vinz meanwhile is outwardly a gangster-type but ultimately is all bluster. Said is unfortunately the less well defined of the three, taking up the middle ground between the other two. They have little to define their existence other than the violence and hatred that surrounds them. Never getting into any real trouble, on the whole at least, they are still followed with suspicion by the police and other unpleasant groups such as French skinheads – yep, they have them on the continent too.

It ends almost inevitably, and it’s hard to see where else it could have gone after all that precedes it. Violence begets violence, hatred breeds hatred, and that becomes all too apparent. The opening of the film states that, when falling, it’s not the fall itself that is painful but the landing. It seems an obvious point to make, but whilst in freefall, either literally or figuratively, you are in control until the ground comes rushing up to meet you. From a purely metaphorical perspective, this notion plays out to dramatic effect, both in terms of Vinz, Hubert and Said and their perspective on events, as well as providing a commentary on French society as a whole.

The remaining point that is evident is that often both sides of the argument are as bad as the other. Whilst the ethnic minority groups threaten violence against the police, they are just as bad themselves, their intolerance to the non-white community in their own country is unpleasant to say the least. Whatever the truth may be in France with regards to the general consensus about other racial or political groups, the point is clear – if you respond in kind then you are just as bad as they are. Nothing good will come from this attitude to life, and La Haine makes its point beautifully without beating you up with it. Well, not too much.

Favourite scene: The old man in the bathroom provides a confusing but entertaining monologue.

Quote: “It’s not the fall that matters, it’s the landing.”

Score: 4.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk77VrkxL88

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Simon Prior

2013-12-07

She hadn't quite mastered the art of framing. — She hadn’t quite mastered the art of framing.

Twitter Plot Summary: Three film makers head into the woods to make a documentary about the Blair Witch. They never return…

Genre: Horror/Mystery

Director: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez

Key Cast: Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael C Williams

Five Point Summary:

1. Instantly I can see why people had motion sickness in the cinema…
2. Locals tell the myth of the Blair Witch. Funny bunch.
3. Piles of rocks and no map. Oh my.
4. Lots of screaming and shouting. Get a grip!
5. He’s stood against the wall and she’s all snotty! Oh noes!

The Blair Witch Project has a lot to answer for. Single handedly it spawned larger than expected box office returns by using viral marketing on the internet, and it also kicked off the “found footage” sub-genre, filling audiences with a 50/50 mix of scares and motion sickness. Whilst it has these elements in its favour, is it actually a good film? Well, no, not really.

The story goes that a group of three filmmakers head into the forest to make a documentary about the Blair Witch. They conduct some interviews with local folks to add some colour to proceedings before heading into the forest to seek out any evidence of the witch’s existence. Thankfully the interviews with the locals has given them an idea of what to look out and/or be afraid of. Piles of stones, myths regarding how people used to be bumped off, that sort of thing. So without further ado, they disappear into the woods, never to be seen again. Except you know it’s a film and that everybody’s actually fine. It’s entirely possible that back in the dark recesses of 1999 you could become intertwined with the marketing and, very briefly, believe that it was a true story, but these days? Jog on, sunshine.

There was only one response for being a naughty boy. Into the corner with you!

The first two thirds of the footage is taken up by the three film makers preparing for their journey, speaking to locals in and around town, and then heading into the woods/forest to see if they can find anything of interest. Around two thirds of the way through hysteria starts to set in. The trio can’t find their way back to the car and realise they’re walking around in circles. Then they hear things out there in the forest, they wake up to find piles of stones outside their tent, and they also find a number of symbols hanging in trees. Is this a sign that the Blair Witch is after them? A cabal of rednecks playing with their heads? The door to this question is left wide open. They begin to go a little stir crazy and we end up with half a movie of three people screaming and shouting at each other. Entirely believable given the circumstances, but after a while you just want them to shut up and display a little bit of rationality. But no, more shouting and screaming follows. It’s very difficult to sympathise with any of them simply because they quickly lose any redeeming qualities once the futility of their situation becomes apparent.

In terms of building up the mythical Blair Witch, the story at least helps conjure up a very specific image without ever giving anything away. The ending itself is open to a number of interpretations, and it did at least give us a number of semi-iconic images that are perhaps more potent when considered outside of the film rather than when actually watching it. As a viewing experience it mostly consists of tedium, brief flashes of intelligent storytelling and 75% shouting at each other. Nowadays it feels more like a legend in of itself, a film that you only need to have heard of, not necessarily viewed. In some ways the story of The Blair Witch Project as a movie has become a tale akin to that of the Blair Witch within the movie – oft-discussed, rarely seen. If nothing else, it’s an appropriate legacy for the film to have.

Favourite scene: She points the camera up her nose and monologues.

Quote: “I’m afraid to close my eyes, I’m afraid to open them.”

Silly Moment: All the screaming and shouting. Chill out, folks!

Score: 2.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51QgOHrCj0

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-12-06

The office were concerned over Mitty's obsession with the water cooler. — The office were concerned over Mitty’s obsession with the water cooler.

Twitter Plot Summary: Walter Mitty escapes from his mundane life and goes on a real world adventure seeking a missing photograph.

Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Drama/Fantasy

Director: Ben Stiller

Key Cast: Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig, Jon Daly, Kathryn Hahn, Adam Scott, Shirley MacLaine, Patton Oswalt, Sean Penn

Five Point Summary:

1. That’s a rather overactive imagination…
2. Is that shark real?
3. Ground Control to Major Tom…
4. Sean Penn. Howdy.
5. That final cover of the magazine. Yeah, makes sense.

Another month, another secret screening from Cineworld. This time for a film due to be released in a month’s time (or thereabouts as of the date this review goes live). The film of course, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, directed by and starring Ben Stiller as a man who has long since descended into a less than exciting existence that leads him to frequent and elaborate daydreams. He then discovers that Life Magazine, for whom he works, is about to be closed down. But there’s a problem – the cover photo for the final issue is missing and Mitty has to try and locate it. This leads him off on a journey of discovery, both literally and figuratively, as he tries to locate the photo, the guy who took said photo, and also re-learn a few things about himself as he does so.

There are times when the story seems to want to play to conventional means and tell the same old story we’ve seen time and time again, but to its credit it decides to weave its own path and ends up being a film that is hard to pigeonhole to a specific genre. I think gently humorous drama is the closest you can get to a description. It’s funny in places but not likely to incite riotous laughter in the audience. Mitty’s tendency to daydream, it transpires, is a result of his father’s death many years previously. His was a childhood with many opportunities available to him, which following his father’s death was switched off in favour of supporting his family and the cold reality of needing to earn money in order to survive. The quest for the missing photograph helps him rediscover those elements of himself that he’s buried for so long. As he gets to see more of the world and do things he never thought possible his daydreaming gradually starts to decrease and becomes less bombastic, blurring the line between reality and fantasy.

Within this story is also Mitty’s romantic interest in new co-worker Cheryl, played by Kristen Wiig. His interest in her embodies most of his daydreams, and also inspires him to press forward and do things in the real world. There were a few moments at first where it wasn’t clear if Mitty’s adventures were in the real world or simply extended daydreams, but that small matter is soon glossed over and ultimately isn’t important. There’s another important sub-plot where Mitty uses the eHarmony online dating service which provides a number of laughs and sterling support from Patton Oswalt. You may think the resolution to this sub-plot is somewhat far-fetched, but then it would be entirely in keeping with the tone established throughout the film.

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed it. I imagine that it’s going to be a devisive film, particularly if viewed by people who are either expecting a full-on character drama or even those perhaps expecting an old-school Stiller comedy. Walter Mitty is neither of these but exists in some limbo state between the two. The initial trailers emphasise his rather excessive daydreams, but that’s really not the focus. Yes they’re reasonably epic in scope compared to his mundane existence, but they aren’t the focus nor should they be considered as the focus. It’s all about Mitty himself. That’s probably worth keeping in mind when you see it. You never know, you might end up enjoying it.

Favourite scene: Mitty encounters a drunk helicopter pilot in Greenland.

Quote: “Hi, do you have any cars available?”  “Yeah. We have a blue one and a red one.”  “…I’ll take the red one.”

Silly Moment: All of Mitty’s daydreams

Score: 3.5/5

Krrish 3 (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-12-05

Don't feel sorry for those walls - they had spoken ill of Krrish's mother. — Don’t feel sorry for those walls – they had spoken ill of Krrish’s mother.

Twitter Plot Summary: Krrish, Indian superhero, must save Delhi from an insane disabled villain with telekinetic abilities.

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Director: Rakesh Roshan

Key Cast: Hrithik Roshan, Priyanka Chopra, Vivek Oberoi, Kangana Ranaut

Five Point Summary:

1. This film is brought to you by… BILLIONS of sponsors.
2. So, a cut price X-Men. Hmm.
3. Intermission?!
4. Er, it’s somehow become a music video…
5. Worst Iron Man/Mr Freeze costume ever.

There’s a specific area of cinema that I’ve never really dabbled with before, and that is Bollywood and/or general films made in India, which seems both daft and sensible in equal measure given the amount of material their film industry puts out each year. There’s a lot of films coming out of that region these days, and as the local crowds demand value for money, they’re always 2.5-3 hours long apiece. Bearing in mind how little time I usually have to watch everything that’s on my already epic movie list, perhaps limiting my exposure to Eastern cinema to one or two movies now and again is a wise choice. Krrish 3 seemed like a good film to ease myself into the world of Indian cinema as it’s a superhero movie and I’ve been known to be partial to some comic book action in the past.

This is, obviously, the third film in the series, but thankfully there was an extensive recap of the previous films in the opening that gets you up to speed – I’m not sure how easy it would be for me to locate the first two films without paying an exorbitant amount to get them with subtitles, but I might get round to it eventually. The plot is typical superhero stuff – an evil villain, paralysed from the neck down except for his index fingers, wants to take over the world and simultaneously find a cure for his paralysis. The twist is that he also has psychic powers which he can aim in a specific direction using his fingers. He’s been busy splicing human DNA with animals to create a small army of mutants, but the ultimate aim is to find a cure for his disability. Meanwhile Krishna is dealing with the news that his wife Priya has a baby on the way. Yep, completely mad stuff, yet strangely compelling. By the time you reach the intermission (because, as I said previously, it’s about 3 hours long) you’ve given up caring how insane the story actually is and you just go along for the ride. Krrish is an entertaining superhero character, and his message that “we can all be Krrish” is a blatant Peter Parker moment, but it works. The same goes for the songs too, of which surprisingly there are only 3 throughout the entire film. They all serve the plot and are catchy as well. That’s a win in my book.

He's the villain. Can't you tell?! — He’s the villain. Can’t you tell?!

Whilst the plot is somewhat out of left field, the special effects are surprisingly competent, in fact in most cases they’re more competent than what most of Hollywood is currently churning out. Even when it’s clearly a CGI event taking place, it still feels real. The same can’t be said for villain Kaal’s outfit for the final reel. Yes, I can understand the thinking behind it, but it looks terrible. I mean, really, really bad. Without wanting to spoil it, it’s like they took the notion of “Iron Man” literally. Just… see it for yourself, I guarantee laughter. On the subject of special effects, I didn’t notice that Hrithik Roshan was playing Krishna/Krrish and his father Rohit Mehra as well, although in hindsight it’s actually rather obvious. So it goes.

It might rip off a number of Western superhero features (X-Men, Superman, most of Marvel’s recent output, amongst others) but Krrish 3 tells a good story despite that, and other than some slightly less than impressive costume choices it’s worth a pop if you can stomach subtitles.

Favourite scene: Oddly enough, the Raghupati Raghav dance routine. Catchy song, some fun dance moves.

Quote: “Being human is not a weakness. It is my strength.”

Silly Moment: That final outfit worn by Kaal. So very, very silly…

Score: 3/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCVVgtI5xU

Inferno (1980)

Simon Prior

2013-12-04

Aghast at the sexually graphic graffiti in the taxi, she didn't notice that the heater was actually on fire. — Aghast at the sexually graphic graffiti in the taxi, she didn’t notice that the heater was actually on fire.

Twitter Plot Summary: An American brother and sister, in Rome and New York, investigate killings linked to witch covens. Yeah I know, just go with it.

Genre: Horror

Director: Dario Argento

Key Cast: Leigh McCloskey, Irene Miracle, Veronica Lazar, Gabriele Lavia, Feodor Chaliapin Jr

Five Point Summary:

1. Is the water filled room just an excuse to have her walk around in a wet shirt?
2. That cab driver looks like a cross between Tommy Lee Jones and Leslie Nielsen…
3. It’s the Moon! Dramatic close-up!
4. Why’s he drowning cats? Oh, just because.
5. Murder! Witches! More murder!

European horror was a genre in its ascendence in the 70s and early 80s. Figureheads such as Lucio Fulci and Dario Argento were spearheading a new take on horror, a more violent, blood soaked interpretation that rallied against the comparatively tame films from genre stalwarts Hammer. Whilst perhaps not one of his better known/commercially successful films, Dario Argento’s Inferno is a classic. Bathing each scene in heavy blues and reds, it creates an almost ethereal, unreal image.

The story follows an American brother and sister, one living in Rome and the other in New York. They are looking into the mystery of the Three Mothers, a coven of witches. She does some investigating in New York, whilst he does some investigating in Rome, as you do. Through various plot machinations, it seems that the book they read, The Three Mothers, incites evil forces to dish out a gruesome death to anybody investigating the phenomena. The film itself is the second of Argento’s Three Mothers trilogy, following Suspiria and preceding The Mother of Tears. In honesty, I’ve not yet seen Suspiria or The Mother of Tears, nor do I think I really have to as it appears they’re thematically linked rather than directly. Back to Inferno, the plot rarely makes any sense, characters do things that are entirely illogical and, true to Euro horror form, characters tend to exist just to be killed in a gruesome fashion before the end credits roll.

Keith Richards had really let himself go. — Keith Richards really had let himself go.

The soundtrack is equally insane. Turning his progressive rock leanings up to 11, Keith Emerson (of Emerson, Lake and Palmer) constructed a film score so bombastic that it works both as a representation of the film’s own excess and as a prog rock album in its own right. At times it threatens to obscure the film’s content, like at any moment it might just escape from the film entirely and disappear up Keith Emerson’s backside. Looked at from a particular angle, the soundtrack could rightfully be described as a bit silly. And… well, it is. Forget about that though, it’s really not important in the grand scheme of things.

What is important though is that by the end of the film lots of characters have died a grisly death, and we’re not any closer to receiving a traditional resolution. To be fair, any attempt at pandering to the big budget method of resolving a story wouldn’t have sat well with the Euro-insanity that would have preceded it. It won’t appeal to everybody, and the effects now look very much of their time, but Inferno is still a perfect example of what Euro horror does right – it provides effective scares, some truly diabolical dialogue and buckets of gore and violence. To call it accessible would be like calling the Greatest Hits of Michael Bolton the best thing to have ever existed, or to say Fifty Shades of Grey is on par with the likes of Dickens or one of the Bronte’s (doesn’t matter which one, take your pick), but for sheer entertainment value and inherent silliness it hits the mark.

Favourite scene: Diving into the water, not knowing what lurks beneath… apart from her keys which she dropped in there, of course.

Quote: “There are mysterious parts in that book, but the only true mystery is that our very lives are governed by dead people. Good night.”

Silly Moment: Why is everything so red?! Or so blue?!

Score: 4/5

Free Birds (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-12-03

It all looked so promising... — It all looked so promising…

Twitter Plot Summary: A couple of turkeys travel back in time to stop turkeys from being on the Thanksgiving menu.

Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy/Family

Director: Jimmy Hayward

Key Cast: Owen Wilson, Woody harrelson, Amy Poehler, George Takei, Colm Meaney, Keith David, Dan Fogler, Jimmy Hayward, Kaitlyn Maher, Carlos Ponce, Robert Beltran, Carlos Alazraqui

Five Point Summary:

1. George Takei: instant win.
2. The chem-suit guards are the best thing in this. Shame they’re only there for 10 mins.
3. Generic kids movie stuff…
4. An Angry Birds reference. Hmm.
5. Ohh myyyy!

You can usually tell when the holiday season is on its way – not only are we struck by a mass of seasonal adverts, a bevy of festive jumpers and flagrant exploitation of the Christmas season to make some money, but we also see a return of animated films to our screens. The area between summer and Christmas is a barren zone as far as films for kids are concerned, with the occasional exception during the Halloween period. For us in the UK we usually kick off with Christmas themed movies, but the US have a holiday before then, namely Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is a purely American tradition, so its unlikely that Free Birds is going to have much resonance with the UK audience, but that doesn’t mean we should be excluded from seeing it, of course. Unfortunately whilst the Thanksgiving setting doesn’t entirely exclude the international audience, the story itself is by the numbers. Jumping into a time machine created by the US government, big strong-arm turkey Jake kidnaps “pardoned turkey” Reggie (so called because the President pardons him from the annual turkey slaughter) and they head back to the very first thanksgiving in order to take turkey off the menu permanently. All well and good thus far, surprisingly. It ultimately degrades into Native American turkeys fighting off the evil, turkey-gobbling settlers. Did you see what I did there? Heh. Not funny at all, I know. Much like this film after 15 minutes.

Not enough of these guys. Besides George Takei, the best thing in the film.

Most disappointingly it starts strongly before quickly losing its way and, crucially, most of the humour. The opening 15 minutes are incredibly funny and perhaps expecting it to retain that level of humour for another hour was asking too much. Even so, it would have been nice for it to at least remain vaguely amusing, but once they head into the past that’s pretty much it as far as laughs are concerned. The trailer featured the laughing chem-suit guards quite prominently, and they are the best thing in the film. Shame they’re only seen in the present day. Same again for the funny gags in the trailer – there isn’t much more to see in the film itself, the trailer splurged on everything worthwhile about the film. Funny that…

The monotony is saved, albeit briefly, when George Takei does his thing. He does at least make it worth your while sticking with it until the end, but only just. The remaining voice cast are serviceable but there’s no sense of emotion or embodiment of the character for us to get to grips with. Everybody is a surface level caricature, with the possible exception of Jake’s troubled turkey. Attempts are made at giving him a back story but it lacks emotional heft. Furthermore, the human reaction to fighting turkeys makes no sense at all. Just to rub salt in the wound, some actual Native Americans turn up on the cusp of the climactic fight and barely bat an eyelid. Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but this whole sequence takes the biscuit. Go and watch Chicken Run instead, that’s a far better representation of animal anthropomorphism set in a realistic world.

Favourite scene: It’s basic stuff, but Jake saying “A Time Machine” three times.

Quote: “Goodbye is just Hello blowing in the wind until our paths intersect again.”

Silly Moment: Humans VS Turkeys. Completely straight-faced. Hmm.

Is there an Alan Rickman plummet?: Yes

Score: 2/5

The Counselor (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-12-02

Fassbender appreciated Bardem's fashion sense, but knew he'd never be able to pull it off himself. — Fassbender appreciated Bardem’s fashion sense, but knew he’d never be able to pull it off himself.

Twitter Plot Summary: Cormac McCarthy throws some words at the page and hopes it forms a coherent script. It doesn’t.

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

Director: Ridley Scott

Key Cast: Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, Brad Pitt, Bruno Ganz, Rosie Perez, Dean Norris, John Leguizamo, Natalie Dormer, Goran Visnjic

Five Point Summary:

1. Dirty pillow talk…
2. The deal goes bad. Nice way of doing it too.
3. Something interesting is going on, at last.
4. Whoop, it’s John Leguizamo and Dean Norris. For a bit.
5. Sorry, but that was the ending? Srsly?

Disappointed. That’s how I felt after walking out of my cinema viewing of The Counsellor. I also thought it was a shame, as so many big names are wasted in a story that doesn’t go anywhere and with a script that is awash with clunky dialogue. It’s the worst use of cinematic talent since Uwe Boll got his hands on a camera and started making movies.

In brief, Michael Fassbender is the titular Counsellor, a legal equivalent of the man with no name, as he gets involved in a drug deal that goes wrong. After an incredibly long build-up stuff starts to happen and Fassbender and his associates are forced to go on the run. In typical McCarthy style we don’t see absolutely everything that would normally be seen in a thriller, instead it’s left up to us, the audience, to piece it all together.

There’s a lot to complain about as far as the script is concerned. Characters move from A to B with no real sense of purpose, the narrative is jumbled/confusing/weird, and the film ends without any real sense of resolution. Cormac McCarthy may be an excellent novelist, but his scriptwriting currently leaves a lot to be desired. Dialogue like this would work on the page, but it doesn’t when it comes to having actors actually speaking it. It all has an air of a pseudo-philosophical ramble about it, content with being metaphysical simply because it can. Being obtuse with your dialogue is one thing, but it’s usually only limited to certain scenes or certain characters. Here? Everybody talks in riddles. It’s exhausting trying to decode what they’ve just said and keep up with the plot.

Guess what's going to happen next. Go on, guess! — Guess what’s going to happen next. Go on, guess!

There are also scenes included apparently for the sake of shocking and surprising the audience. I am speaking of course about Cameron Diaz having sex with a car. Why that scene exists, or why we even had to see it, is not immediately obvious other than the aforementioned desire to shock and surprise. Then there’s the horribly stilted opening scene where Fassbender and Cruz share pillow talk in an almost excruciatingly painful manner. I’ve no doubt that people do talk like that when it comes to pillow talk, but for a couple of big name actors reciting it as if they were performing Shakespeare, it’s cringeworthy to say the least. Blatant symbolism is littered throughout the film (do you like cheetahs? Then you’ll love this), and there’s a glut of small cameos that are welcome but leave you wondering what the point was, in particular as most of the cameo characters have a single scene and then they’re out the door. Kudos though to John Leguizamo and Dean Norris – best scene in the film by a long distance.

The big name stars do their best with what they’re given, but it’s a losing battle. Similarly, Ridley Scott’s direction is flawless but hamstrung by the script. If he’d had opportunity to adapt Blood Meridian like he wanted, then we’d have a far better film. By the time something interesting takes place I’d almost given up hope. There are some decent, albeit minor action sequences towards the second half of the film, typical of the type of action sequence you’ll find in most other films adapted from McCarthy’s novels. When the story finally engages you, it’s too late. Much like the device described by Javier Bardem’s Reiner, the script has already thrown an unbreakable loop of metal wire over your neck, hooked it up to a mechanical device and slowly tightened it until the arteries in your neck burst. Given a choice between a wire-loop related death and watching the Counsellor again, I know which I would go for.

Favourite scene: The biker courier is attacked.

Quote: “I believe truth has no temperature.”

Silly Moment: Cameron Diaz has sex with a car.

Score: 2/5

The Butler (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-12-01

Little did he know, but Robin Williams was silently judging Cecil on the quality of his tea.

Twitter Plot Summary: Following the life of Cecil Gaines as he moves from the cotton plantations to working as a butler in the White House.

Genre: Biography/Drama

Director: Lee Daniels

Key Cast: Forest Whitaker, David Banner, Mariah Carey, Vanessa Redgrave, Oprah Winfrey, David Oyelowo, Terence Howard, Cuba Gooding Jr, Lenny Kravitz, Robin Williams, John Cusack, Olivia Washington, James Marsden, Liev Shreiber, Alan Rickman, Jane Fonda

Five Point Summary:

1. Robin Williams!
2. James Marsden!
3. Liev Schrieber!
4. John Cusack!
5. Alan Rickman!

The Butler follows the life of Cecil Gaines, from his early years on a cotton farm to employment as a waiter in a bar, to ultimately serving as a butler in the White House, a position he holds for many years and across several presidential eras. A modern black history story in the same style as Forrest Gump, if you will. By comparison, The Butler falls short in almost every respect.

The problem with The Butler is that there is very little depth given to anybody in the story. Sure, there’s the disagreements between father and son and the comaderie between all of the butlers serving at the White House, but otherwise it’s a very passive look at this period in history. Also, other than the big historical events that take place, not much really happens to any of the characters we’re supposed to care about.The most depth goes to Cecil’s son Louis, but that’s only because he’s directly involved in the civil rights movement. Other than that he has no defining characteristics. Gaines lacks personality and just gets on with his job. Rarely prone to any form of emotional outburst, he just stands in the background whether he’s supposed to or not. This extends to his home life as well, where Oprah Winfrey does what she can as his wife, but ultimately has very little clout.

Furthermore you’re often distracted by the numerous cameos as each new President arrives to take office. It’s often a fun little distraction, but it does take you out of the story somewhat. There’s also the problem with the story itself – it’s inspired by real events rather than based on them, so the life of Cecil Gaines is fiction. I don’t have any issues at all with the themes raised (more on that shortly), but it would’ve grounded the character more in reality had he and his family not been quite so involved in key historical events. As it is, it’s all a touch too convenient in terms of narrative for it to feel real – having one son join the Black Panthers and the other head off to war in Vietnam for example, that’s a bit too on the nose. Even so, the script relies on these significant historical events to generate an emotional response, and that’s where my reactions came in. It certainly wasn’t based on the characters or their reaction to those events, as in all honesty they don’t have much to say about them – the same applies to the film as a whole. Yes these were important events, but ultimately it’s not saying anything noteworthy about those events.

Yes, that is Alan Rickman. The movie is saved.

Whilst all of the character’s background is fictionalised, I can at least applaud it for approaching the civil rights movement with an even hand. As a free thinking liberal type it still amazes me that racial intolerance still existed in such a vitriolic form only 50-odd years ago. It still exists even today, but thankfully not to the same extent. Even so, the mere fact that people can be so ignorant and biased towards others simply because they’re different appalls me. Without wanting to jump on my soapbox, the world needs less small-minded bigotry and more of an appreciation of the differences that make us all unique. Now, I’m not saying you have to like any of the qualities displayed by others, but you need to at least respect their right to exist without fear of persecution and their right to their own beliefs. There’s a lot out there that I disagree with because that’s a fact of human nature, but from a moral perspective I can at least apprciate that it’s the differences between us all that make the world a better place. I admit there’s a double standard in there – respect that others have the right to believe what they like, but think harshly of those with morally ambiguous beliefs – but despite that it’s films like The Butler that raise these ideas and whilst we have made great strides in terms of acceptance of other creeds, there’s still plenty to be done. I won’t be happy until we have a world like the one seen in Star Trek The Next Generation. One day we might get there.

Favourite scene: The civil rights movement sit in white-only seats at the diner and refuse to move.

Quote: “We have no tolerance for politics at the White House.”

Silly Moment: The 70s arrive and Olivia has a massive Foxy Brown afro.

Score: 3/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUA7rr0bOcc

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-11-30

The Donald Sutherland Beard Appreciation Society had been a success.

Twitter Plot Summary: There’s disorder in the districts thanks to Katniss’ act of defiance in the Hunger Games. President Snow ain’t got time for that.

Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi/Thriller

Director: Francis Lawrence

Key Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Josh Hutcherson, Paula Malcomson, Willow Shields, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, Toby Jones

Five Point Summary:

1. President Snow and Katniss have a chat.
2. Lots of political upset across the districts, that much is clear.
3. Stanley Tucci’s incredibly white teeth return!
4. Let the 75th Hunger Games… begin!
5. Ooh, a tense place to end the film…

Despite planning to read the book months ahead of the film’s release, I found myself having still not started it on the Monday, and plans to see the Friday. Plugging away as and when I had time, I managed to finish the book by the Thursday. Yay me. I did a similar thing with the first film and will do it again, hopefully in a much more timely manner, when the third book is adapted for the screen. I’m glad I did as, despite knowing where the story was heading, I did have the option of both comparing it to the original text and also to consider it as a movie in its own right.

After the events of the 74th Hunger Games, all is not well in Panem. Katniss and Peeta’s act of defiance has lit a spark under the disgruntled members of the nation and uprisings are now taking place across the various districts. After each Hunger Games tournament the victors go on a tour of the other districts in what is supposed to be a display of state strength, but this time round it further sows the seeds of dissent, despite Katniss and Peeta attempting to prove to President Snow that they had no intention on starting an uprising. This of course fails and subsequently Katniss and Peeta end up in the Hunger Games once more, this time in what is known as a Quarter Quell which happens on every 25th anniversary of the games. Mixing the political angle with the games creates a much larger sense of the world the film exists in, albeit helped by the fact that most of the world building took place in the first movie.

Katniss and Peeta didn't know what to think when they discovered they were sharing a room with a monkey. — Katniss and Peeta didn’t know what to think when they discovered they were sharing a room with a monkey.

There’s a number of subplots from the book that have been excised from the film, and on the whole it’s to the benefit of the cinema audience – I’m not sure seeing a couple of the Tributes weaving a hut made out of leaves overnight would’ve helped the audience’s suspension of disbelief. Another small section of story seeing Haymitch’s win in the Hunger Games would’ve been interesting to see, but ultimately adds nothing to the central narrative. Improvements see President Snow with slightly more to do than in the novel, and seeing as he’s played by Donald Sutherland, this is a very good thing. The majority of the contenders in the games barely get any screen time, but that is no different to the book and isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There are that many characters flying around that to focus in any depth on more than three or four of them would be a waste of time. As it is, we get enough on the characters that matter and the rest are essentially incidental. Effie Trinket, whilst not used extensively, does at least have a small character arc that shows her slowly moving away from embracing the extravagance of The Capital.

Reading the novel helped give context to the world and the character’s motivations, but I wouldn’t say it’s a necessity to enjoy the film. Katniss is also a much more sympathetic character than in the book – most of the novel focuses too much on her confused emotional state and general sense of bewilderment. In the case of the movie, less is so very much more in this instance. Much like the first movie I’d consider this on the higher end of the scale in terms of what is acceptable for a 12A rating, any increase in blood and/or violence would definitely push it into 15 territory. It’s rare that I say this, but I’m quite happy it’s in the 12A category. If nothing else it proves that hard hitting themes and concepts can be appropriate for a slightly younger audience. I will level one complaint at Catching Fire, and that’s the ending. It feels very much like the middle section of the story and ends rather suddenly. The book does this too, so again I can’t apportion too much blame to the film makers, but even so after over 2 hours of sitting through a mostly entertaining story to end in such a way is unfortunate. I understand that the third book is the weakest of the series, so I don’t have massively high hopes for the third/fourth films. But I’ve been surprised before, hopefully this will be another example.

Favourite scene: President Snow visits Katniss in her home to discuss her options…

Quote: “Remember who the real enemy is.”

Silly Moment: Monkeys!

Score: 4/5

Juan of the Dead (2011)

Simon Prior

2013-11-29

Juan wasn't having the best of days. Thanks to the zombies, he'd only managed to sleep with four women so far. — Juan wasn’t having the best of days. Thanks to the zombies, he’d only managed to sleep with four women so far.

Twitter Plot Summary: A zombie uprising takes place in Havana, Cuba. Everyone thinks the undead are anti-communist insurgents.

Genre: Action/Comedy/Horror

Director: Alejandro Brugues

Key Cast: Alexis Diaz de Villegas, Jorge Molina, Andrea Duro, Andros Perugorria, Jazz Vila, Eliecer Ramirez, Susana Pous, Pablo Alexandro Gonzalez Ramy

Five Point Summary:

1. How does Juan get these women to sleep with him? The man must be a magician.
2. Does nobody realise that these are the undead? Have they never been seen in Cuba?
3. Gratuitous male nudity. Ladies, complain no longer.
4. A Braindead reference. Nice.
5. The inevitable downbeat finale… or is it?

First impressions based on the title alone instantly make you think that Juan of the Dead is a cheap cash-in on Shaun of the Dead, the setting transposed from London to exotic Cuba. But no, rest easy weary traveller, for JOTD is not a cheap cash-in of what was already a loving homage to the genre. No, it’s got much more style and substance than that.

Juan is a strange looking guy living in Cuba. Bedecked with a John McClane-style white vest, he somehow has an irresistible quality that makes women love him (if he were real, I’d track him down and seek the answer). Just as he thinks life can’t get any better, a zombie outbreak takes place on the island and, seeing an opportunity to make some money (the filthy capitalist), he starts offering his services as a zombie killer. He’s aided by three friends – a stylish gay man, a hulking brute who faints at the sight of blood, and his best friend who’s a loveable cad. The story itself really isn’t up to scratch – it seems to lose impetus around the middle – but that’s less of an issue when considering the characters used to populate this zombie apocalypse. They may not be the most thoroughly drawn out characters ever committed to cinema, but they are all at least unique in voice and style. Without them, it would be much less interesting.

The Black Friday sales went down incredibly well in Cuba.

JOTD takes great delight in subverting the established tropes of the zombie genre, following the standard zombie outbreak template but veering off in a number of different directions, enhancing the already potent sense of dissent, whimsy and anarchy that would normally be frowned upon in a communist state. Suffice to say it’s also a very funny film. Many of the jokes are not specific to Cuba, so whilst it’s subtitled it never excludes the international audience. Fans of the zombie genre, of which there are many, should at least find entertainment in the genre subversion taking place, and also be delighted in the fact that this is in itself a completely new take on the genre. Who’d have thought that Cuba would be an ideal setting for a zombie film?

The script may not be as honed as its similarly named brethren Shaun…, but in terms of providing an entertaining movie it delivers. There isn’t a huge amount of blood and violence so it won’t detract the generally more easygoing comedy crowd, but there’s enough to satiate the needs of the horror fan as well. Comparatively, the humour is consistent throughout and proves that many of the more original ideas appearing in cinema lately all stem from what is considered “World Cinema” – in other words anything not produced by Hollywood. Juan fits perfectly into this template as it doesn’t feel the need to convert everything into English (subtitles will do just fine, thanks) and the style of the film is heavily influenced by Cuban attitudes. I would go so far as to say that Juan of the Dead is the zombie movie equivalent of System of a Down – it’s a familiar beast but with a regionalised style/ideal behind it. Sometimes, that’s all we want.

Favourite scene: The beheadings in Revolution Square. Blatantly CGI but still rather cool.

Quote: “Juan of the Dead, we kill your beloved ones.”

Silly Moment: The big guy can’t stand the sight of blood. He’s not going to last long is he?

Is there an Alan Rickman style plummet?: Yes

Score: 3.5/5

1...697071...90 Page 70 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM