Night of the Living Dead 3D: Re-Animation (2012)

2013-11-18

Just a normal day at the funeral home... — Just a normal day at the funeral home…

Twitter Plot Summary: Zombies are on the loose as a younger brother returns to the family mortuary, seeking his inheritance.

Genre: Action/Horror

Director: Jeff Broadstreet

Key Cast: Andrew Divoff, Jeffrey Combs, Sarah Lieving, Robin Sydney, Adam Chambers, Scott Thomson, Denise Duff

Five Point Summary:

1. 15 minutes about funeral parlours. Dull, dull, dull.
2. Jeffrey Combs arrives. Huzzah.
3. Zombie baby! In a fridge! For no reason!
4. A little bit of zombie action… but only a little bit.
5. How many bullets does he have in that gun?!

The original Night of the Living Dead was released without copyright back in 1968, leading to a spate of cheap DVD releases of that original film and, more recently, a spate of cheap straight to DVD prequels and remakes. In 2006 we had Bill Haig’s terrible 3D film, and in 2012 we had a double header of Resurrection and Re-Animation. I’ve yet to see Resurrection, but this is a prequel to the 2006 film from the same director, Jeff Broadstreet. So a prequel to a remake/reimagining of a film that has already been remade. Right… That should have been an instant clue for me that it wouldn’t be particularly good, but lessons learned and all that.

The opening 30 minutes give us one zombie, a funeral parlour and lots of discussions about how said funeral parlours work, in this case a small town, family owned parlour run by the rather stiff/bored Gerald Tovar (Divoff). It’s superfluous stuff that might be interesting to people who have an obsession with the process of burying bodies, but for the rest of us it’s just dull. It perks up when Jeffrey combs turns up, but that’s more to do with my appreciation of him as an actor more than anything else. He’s the younger half brother of Gerald and has come back seeking a share of the inheritance money left by their father. Whilst they’re debating that point, the new assistant funeral director Cristie gets high on ecstasy with employees DyeAnne and Russell and has a couple of zombie-related encounters herself. As far as story goes, that’s pretty much it, don’t expect anything approaching real characterisation, you’ll be bitterly disappointed.

"You don't want to know what I use this for." — “You don’t want to know what I use this for.”

Gore fans can at least be appeased by the special effects which are cheap but don’t look that terrible – put it this way, I’ve seen far worse in my time. More impressive is the fact that there are 130 effects shots throughout the film, and some of them aren’t as obvious as you might think. There’s an option to watch it in 3D, but it’s using the old red/blue specs so the effect is minimal on DVD and liable to cause a headache. The other problem with watching these “old school” style 3D films is that they look terrible when viewed in either standard or the 3D edition, which does raise the question as to why they bothered. Probably just because they could.

The problem is nothing of interest happens for the majority of the film. The script is jumbled and if nothing else overplays the fact it’s a zombie film in the promotional materials. Yes there are zombies, but they play such a minor role as to be inconsequential. Broadstreet has said that the story is all about Tovar, but even his motives are poorly constructed.

Thankfully it doesn’t outstay its welcome, but as nothing of interest happens until the last ten minutes it’s not a film I would recommend to anybody who isn’t a zombie obsessive. I’ll be honest, I’d be hard pressed to recommend it even to a zombie nut. Avoid like the zombie plague.

Favourite scene: Combs lists every official film in the Romero canon from Dead 68 to Dead 90 as covered up zombie outbreaks.

Quote: “And the zombie outbreaks. Pittsburgh, 1968. And then 78. And then Louisville in 1985 and again in Pittsburgh in 1990. They say that one was very similar to the outbreak in 68, only more gory.”

Silly Moment:

Score: 1/5

Saving Mr Banks (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-11-17

"Mrs Travers? These are what we in America call 'men'"? — “Mrs Travers? These are what we in America call ‘men'”.

Twitter Plot Summary: Disney wants to make a film of Mary Poppins. Author PL Travers disagrees. Then she gave in and they made it. The end.

Genre: Biography/Comedy/Drama/Family/History/Music

Director: John Lee Hancock

Key Cast: Tom Hanks, Emma Thompson, Ruth Wilson, Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwartzman, Bradley Whitford, BJ Novak, Rachel Griffiths

Five Point Summary:

1. Very prim, very proper. Let’s see how long it takes for her to melt.
2. Colin Farrell! And he’s not that bad!
3. Complaints about made up words. Oh dear…
4. Ahh, there we go – they’ve managed to wear her down. So to speak.
5. The film is released!

There’s always something disconcerting about a film studio that decides to release a self-referential movie that draws on its own history – there’s a fear that it will become a back-slapping exercise and not get into the gritty details – but seeing as this is from the almighty Disney there’s a certain element of forgiveness that can be applied. It’s the early 1960s and Walt Disney, portrayed by the always excellent Tom Hanks, has spent 20 years trying to acquire the film rights to the Mary Poppins novels by PL Travers. For various personal reasons she has always turned him down. Now, with the royalties from her book sales drying up, she makes the trip over to California but insists on having final script approval and, most importantly, absolutely no animation.

Emma Thompson is PL Travers, and it’s wonderful seeing her gradually morph from an uppity English lady to slowly coming to terms with, if not fully appreciating even at the end, what Disney intends to do with her characters. Hanks meanwhile is fun in his role as the Disney patriarch, albeit used more as someone who steps in on occasions rather than being the core focus. Suffice to say that the interactions between Disney and Travers are perhaps the highlight of the film based on the performances alone.

The story in the 1960s is intercut with flashbacks to Travers’ childhood in Australia, where the origins of the Mary Poppins character are played out. The focus during the flashbacks is almost front and centre on Colin Farrell as Travers’ father, and despite any misgivings people may have about Farrell (thanks, Family Guy), he puts in a strong performance as a man worn down by the daily trudge of working in a bank and being part of the system. These sequences add depth and context to Travers’ reasoning in the present of 1961, although some elements are not explained as fully as perhaps necessary.

Travers was not impressed by Walt Disney's Hitler impression. — Travers was not impressed by Walt Disney’s Hitler impression.

Whilst the story and performances are entertaining, it doesn’t break any new ground. Okay, for those people who are unaware of Walt Disney’s attempts to buy the rights to the Mary Poppins books, and the ensuing behind the scenes disgruntlement of author PL Travers, then there is perhaps a bit more going for it. Whilst I understand that it’s essentially a biopic, Mary Poppins is such a well known and loved film that we all know that it was released and the behind the scenes disagreements weren’t sufficient to derail the project. There’s a lot of nice touches dotted throughout – in particular the song composers hiding the lyrics sheet to “that” song when Travers complains about them making up words – it’s a film that relies too much on the good will that most of us hold towards the Mary Poppins film. It’s entertaining and offers an intriguing insight into the somewhat colourful background to how it was made, but that’s the extent of it. If I had script approval, I would have perhaps provided more substance to the disagreements between Travers and Disney, it’s not as barbed as it could have been. I would also have perhaps added a surprise element to the reason why Travers uses that surname instead of Goff when writing, as this is revealed a touch too early in the story for my liking. It’s a story told at surface level only, but as it’s designed as entertainment for the masses rather than as a commentary on the filmmaking process or any deep dark secrets about the Disney empire (understandably), to ask more of it would be inappropriate.

Favourite scene: Travers is won over by the proposed new ending.

Quote: “You think Mary has come to save the children? Oh dear…”

Silly Moment: Taking PL Travers to Disneyland.

Score: 3.5/5

The Descent (2005)

Simon Prior

2013-11-16

Twitter Plot Summary: A group of female friends go spelunking, where they encounter more than they bargained for. I’m talking about monsters!

Genre: Adventure/Horror

Director: Neil Marshall

Key Cast: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, Saskia Mulder, MyAnna Buring, Nora-Jane Noone, Oliver Milburn

Five Point Summary:

1. Okay, as openings go, that was quite a shocker.
2. Who in their right mind would go spelunking anyway? I think I’ve just answered my own question…
3. The soundtrack definitely has a “The Thing” tinge to it. Bom bom…
4. So that’s where Gollum ended up…
5. That’s a good ending.

For some reason the template created by The Thing in 1982 has not been used prominently in the last 30 years, be they horror films or otherwise. There are a few aspects to that film that are replicated here, and I would think that the parallels were a deliberate choice given that the soundtrack has a distinct John Carpenter feel at key points. The Descent also uses an all-female cast, in contrast to the all-male presence in The Thing. Without dipping too far into spoiler territory, both films also share a similar finale, at least tonally. In many ways Neil Marshall as a writer and a director borrows ideas from many different sources, but he’s more open about his influences compared to some creatively-minded people, or perhaps just more attuned to it. In any case, he takes elements from other films and genres and then adds his own twist to create something slightly new.

The Descent plays on classic horror movie traditions by taking an activity that grew in popularity in recent years – in this case, spelunking, or inverted mountain climbing as I like to describe it (perhaps inaccurately) – and adds a terror-related element to mess with our heads. The notion of spelunking is horror enough for most people, a claustrophobic and dimly lit setting made all the worse by the added presence of killer mutants living in this underground network of caves. Of course, there’s a twist – they handed in a plan for a completely different set of caves, so nobody in the outside world knows where they are. When a cave-in leaves them cut off from the only known exit, they have to make their way through this uncharted cave system and seek an alternative route to the surface.

In that same classic horror movie tradition the script is in no rush to kick off what I will call the “proper” scares. The worst you have to expect in the opening third is a couple of jump scares as central character Sarah (MacDonald) relives the car accident that now haunts her on a daily basis. Her story is the core narrative and influences how the other characters interact, and is one of the reasons why they all get together for this in the first place. The first hints of something being amiss come around the halfway point, and from this point forward it rarely lets up. Unfortunately for this group of friends, there are creatures lurking in the caves that feast on living flesh, so what was already a precarious situation becomes even more desperate as time goes on.

Of course, Neil Marshall does use a number of classic horror tropes to build up the tension – an array of jump scares, grasping for a weapon just out of arm’s reach, or using quick cuts so it’s not immediately clear what’s happening. Whilst it does adhere to the “seen it all before” mantra, that doesn’t detract from the fact it’s still really good fun and a creative use of the setting. It’s also laced with claret, appeasing gore hounds and steadfastly maintaining its desire to be as violent as possible within the boundaries of the story. It may not be entirely original, but it works.

Favourite scene: It’s a couple of scenes, but they’re linked – spoilers ahoy – Juno accidentally stabs Beth in the neck with a pickaxe, then later Sarah finds Beth… who is still alive. Just about.

Quote: “This is just a poxy cave and there’s nothing left to be afraid of, I promise.”

Silly Moment: One of them makes a break for daylight… and falls down a massive hole.

Score: 3.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I1q4KhKNU

Le Week-End (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-11-15

Their weekend away together was clearly going well.

Twitter Plot Summary: A couple from Birmingham head to Paris to rejuvenate their marriage. They meet Jeff Goldblum. Epic win.

Genre: Comedy/Drama

Director: Roger Michell

Key Cast: Jim Broadbent, Lindsay Duncan, Jeff Goldblum, Olly Alexander, Brice Beaugier

Five Point Summary:

1. Upgrading from a cheap hotel to a really expensive one. But of course.
2. Frolics around Paris. The mischief caused by an older couple. Fun.
3. Jeff Goldblum! Boom!
4. Now I’m not sure what their motives are – do they want to stay together or not?
5. Dinner party at Goldblum’s. Wish I had an invite.

A film set in France featuring a couple celebrating their wedding anniversary. Admittedly it’s not a plot that would normally warrant my interest, but when that couple are played by Jim Broadbent and Lindsay Duncan then it’s a clear must-see. That’s essentially the entire plot in a nutshell – they’ve been together for years and now that the kids have flown the nest, or thereabouts, they start to wonder if there’s any future for them now that all of their responsibilities are over. Thankfully unlike the majority of portrayals of the over-50s in today’s media, they’re both still full of life and despite their increasing years retain a curiosity and interest in the world.

Jeff Goldblum pops up in an extended cameo, and he’s as excellent as always by playing himself – full of charm, wit and easygoing if potentially somewhat irritating joviality. He also acts as a counterpoint for Broadbent’s character – one has it all (Goldblum, naturally) and the other had potential some years back but now thanks to life generally getting in the way, is a despondent older man. This is the best comment on aging and missed opportunities that the film provides, it’s certainly true that real life has a habit of getting in the way of things and that feeling is enhanced the older you get.

All hail our lord and saviour, Jeff Goldblum!

If there’s any complaints to be levelled at the story it’s that the whole sequence of events doesn’t feel natural – it isn’t, of course, because it’s a film. There doesn’t seem much logic behind Duncan’s character, jumping haphazardly between joyously running through the streets of Paris with her husband, then swinging in completely the opposite direction, threatening to divorce him or agreeing to go on a date with a man she’s just met. I’m really not clear on her motivations, which may have been a deliberate scripting choice but it doesn’t help us as an audience in what should have been quite an easy character to get to grips with. By all means show us her disillusionment and her desire for something more than what she has, but there are better ways of demonstrating it. On the other side of this is the paranoia, self-deprecation and desperation of Broadbent’s character, his last grasp at happiness in the form of his wife. His motivations were a little clearer, although much like Duncan’s character he does seem to jump about the place emotionally and never seems to settle on one for longer than a few minutes. It’s like ADD for seniors. Not that it matters much that they’re older, these are just two people doing the same things they always have, it’s just they’ve been doing it for longer than your standard movie couple.

So it’s less than perfect, but you could say that this accurately represents their relationship in the film, and relationships in general. It might not be perfect but we muddle through regardless. And that’s what our characters and the script does – there are hints of excellence littered throughout, but they’re marred by the inconsistent attitudes of both of the lead characters (“I want to stay with you!/I want new experiences!/I want to stay with you again!” etc) and I think cramming all of their various woes and worries into a single weekend is a bit much. Still, despite the meandering journey we reach the final destination and everything turns out as you would expect. So that’s alright then.

Favourite scene: The elaborate plan to escape from the restaurant without paying.

Quote: “You’ve never been to Birmingham.”

Silly Moment: The constant back and forth of will they/won’t they split up. Over-egged and inconsistent.

Score: 3/5

Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie (1997)

Simon Prior

2013-11-14

The same as before, but ever so slightly different.

Twitter Plot Summary: The Power Rangers must defeat a space pirate who intends on releasing an evil being from his volcano-based imprisonment.

Genre: Action/Adventure/Family/Fantasy/Sci-Fi/Thriller

Director: Shuki Levy, David Winning

Key Cast: Jason David Frank, Johnny Yong Bosch, Catherin Sutherland, Nakia Burrise, Blake Foster, Hilary Shepard, Donene Kistler, Winston Richard, Jon Simanton, Danny Wayne, Amy Jo Johnson, Austin St John, Paul Schrier, Jason Narvy, Michael Deak

Five Point Summary:

1. This intro reminds me of Masters Of the Universe. But worse. How is that possible?
2. Ooh goodie, cameos from former Rangers! Boom!
3. They made a kid a Ranger? Srsly?!
4. Say goodbye to the pirate ship.
5. That villain looks really bad. As in “cheap”.

By 1997 the Power Rangers had become a global brand, justifying another movie. Unlike the previous Power Rangers movie from 1995, Turbo does act as a bridging story between Power Rangers Zeo and Power Rangers Turbo, so in this instance it makes sense to watch it before moving onto between the series. If you can stomach the idea, of course. I’ll be honest, by the time Power Rangers Turbo came around I’d already jumped ship from the franchise. In fact I think the 1995 movie may have been the last time I watched it, other than briefly catching a few episodes of Dino Thunder in 2004 because it heralded the return of original Green Ranger Tommy to lead a new batch of teenage protectors of Earth. Based solely on this film, it’s probably a good job I got out when I did.

As any fan of the show will attest to, the action and acting is gloriously over the top, very much a slapstick feel which became a series staple. I think it may have also been intended to reduce the potentially negative feedback that could be associated with a kids TV show that features an excessive number of fights. And that’s hurdle number one that the script falls over – there isn’t actually that much fighting. In fact most of the running time is spent trying to figure out where to look as evil, barely dressed villain Divatox cackles evilly and orders her minions (sadly not that kind of minion) to do her bidding. Meanwhile the Rangers encounter a couple of minor problems that derail their attempts to save Lerigot, a creature who has the power to stop Divatox and her plans to release a malevolent being called Maligor from his volcanic prison. Is everyone still with me? Great. The whole sequence gives off a massive Masters of the Universe vibe, sadly minus a Skeletor or, indeed, anyone with real acting talent.

This is all kinds of disturbing. Don't let him touch you! — This is all kinds of disturbing. Don’t let him touch you!

Unlike the previous film, Turbo feels like an extended TV episode or, perhaps worse, a TV movie. The sets look cheap, the costumes look cheaper (or in the case of Divatox, barely existent), and the script feels like it was hastily cobbled together from an unwanted episode for the TV series and bulked up by mostly irrelevant side sequences and exposition. Not much of any interest or value happens until the final third, and its entire purpose is to set up the new Zords and powers that the Rangers will have in the forthcoming series. By the halfway point I was hoping something interesting would happen, but alas, it didn’t. Little wonder that this killed the franchise as a cinematic venture.

I quite liked the notion of adding a piratey vibe to the Power Rangers mythos but to call this a “film”, even when compared against the original Power Rangers movie, is stretching credulity. Even as a story it lacks logic, gravitas or purpose for the most part. Much like the TV series, you know exactly where the finale is leading and there are no surprises in store other than that one where a couple of former Rangers show up. On reflection, it’s for the best that the Power Rangers franchise has been limited to the television ever since – any future cinematic excursions would need to do something fresh and innovative in order to succeed.

Favourite scene: The big reveal that two former Rangers have been kidnapped!

Quote: “Good thing you don’t need a licence to drive a Zord.”

Silly Moment: The big reveal that a pre-teen is now the Blue Ranger! Humbug.

Is there an Alan Rickman plummet?: Yes

Score: 1.5/5

Vampyre Nation (2012)

Simon Prior

2013-11-13

Vampires and humans, working together as nature intended. Or something.

Twitter Plot Summary: Vampires and humans are able to co-exist after a synthetic blood is released, however there’s something worse than vamps out there…

Genre: Action/Horror/Sci-Fi

Director: Todor Chapkanov

Key Cast: Andrew Lee Potts, Heida Reed, Claudia Bassols, Ben Lambert, Neil Jackson, Roark Critchlow, Iliana Lazarova, Yana Marinova, Ewan Bailey, Hristo Balabanov

Five Point Summary:

1. How big is that office? Taking minimalism to extremes – so much floor space!
2. That chap from Scotland Yard is really annoying.
3. “From now on, flashlights off.” Er… the corridor is actually quite light anyway, you don’t need them.
4. Shooting the windows out despite there being no enemies nearby. Clever…
5. Quick, there’s a race against time before… never mind.

It’s the near future, where vampires and humans live in an uneasy truce. A synthetic blood is out on the market and it’s turning vampires into giant killer bats. A team of humans and a team of vampires must now join forces to stop the giant vampire bat epidemic. On the human side we have a disgruntled cop and a descendant of Jonathan Harker, and the vampires have a son of Vlad The Impaler, who in longstanding tradition speaks in Queen’s English. It takes rather a long time for the plot to properly get started, but when it does it’s actually not too bad. That came as quite a surprise to me as well.

Set in Romania, filmed in Bulgaria and featuring a cast of Brits and Eastern European locals, Vampyre Nation borrows/steals liberally from many other vampire films, and does so unashamedly. As a hotchpotch of other, better films it could have been worse. Like Against The Dark, for example. There’s a bit of Blade, a pinch of Daybreakers and a soupçon of Bram Stoker’s Dracula mythology thrown into the mix. That in itself isn’t where the problem lies. Nor is the production values which are, on the whole, actually quite impressive for a low budget feature. Even the CGI and practical effects are good, which is perhaps the most startling thing No, the problem is the script again. The core plot is quite linear and straightforward, but other elements regarding the character’s relationships with one another are dropped in haphazardly and at inopportune moments – one character has a heart to heart with his long lost wife at a crucial juncture in the story, where time is of the essence and, in all honesty, the conversation could have happened at any other point.

Somebody had just called his mother a vampire bat. He wasn't happy about it. — Somebody had just called his mother a vampire bat. He wasn’t happy about it.

There’s emphasis on the divide between humans and vampires, and the prejudices that exist between them, but it’s not written well enough to have any impact. Little effort is taken to explain the reason why the two races don’t get along, so by that token there’s little for the audience to care about. It’s also the fault of the director – it’s workmanlike in approach and it’s almost as if the script has been adapted literally word for word. In what was likely a rush to get the film finished on time and under budget, we move with reckless abandon from one scene to the next and the characters barely have time to breathe and/or get their dialogue out before we’re moving onto the next scene. I’m all in favour of fast pacing where appropriate, but at least give the story chance to actually happen.

The banter between human Harker and vampire Nikolai is perhaps the saving grace, because despite the material put in front of them Andrew Lee Potts and Ben Lambert make the most of it. Their verbal sparring zings despite the poor dialogue, making it more about the performance than anything else. If nothing else, it more than makes up for the poor story.

Favourite scene: Vlad The Impaler sliding in, looking completely excellent as he does so.

Silly Moment: A vampire runs out into direct sunlight, for no good reason, and promptly burns up.

Score: 2.5/5

Lovelace (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-11-12

"Sorry, you want me to do what?!" — “Sorry, you want me to do what?!”

Twitter Plot Summary: The story of Linda Lovelace, her career in the adult movie industry and the domestic violence she was subjected to.

Genre: Biography/Drama

Director: Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman

Key Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Peter Sarsgaard, James Franco, Juno Temple, Sharon Stone, Robert Patrick, Chris Noth, Bobby Cannavale, Hank Azaria, Adam Brody, Chloe Sevigny, Debi Mazar, Wes Bentley, Eric Roberts

Five Point Summary:

1. Linda Boreman becomes Linda Lovelace. By the Power of Greyskull!
2. Hank Azaria – lovely beard.
3. Tone change – now we see the same things again, but with added domestic violence.
4. Hotel room, Lovelace, group of men… not cool, Chuck.
5. Finally – wrongs have been made right. Kind of.

Lovelace is not an easy film to watch, for a number of reasons. Primarily because of its subject matter – how the unassuming girl next door Linda Boreman is discovered by control freak Chuck Traynor and, due to her “talents” is pushed into a career in the adult movie industry. Whilst this is one focus of the story, the main bulk of it is taken up by the relationship between Boreman, now Lovelace, and Chuck Traynor. We see them build their way up from having nothing to wining and dining with big names in the industry, Hugh Hefner included, and seeing her film Deep Throat make millions at the box office. Other than the adult movie industry angle, so far it’s your basic fairytale story of rags to riches.

But then around the halfway point the story switches. We’ve seen the apparently “happy” version of events as was understood by the people and the media of the time. The second half of the movie re-tells it from Lovelace’s perspective, which changes events for the worse. Where before everything seemed mostly happy and carefree, now we’re introduced to how manipulative and violent Traynor was. What was somewhat uncomfortable viewing in the first instance becomes even more so when the perspective shifts. The domestic violence ramps up and despite most people seeing what’s going on, nobody is either willing or able to step in and stop it.

Sharon Stone is excellent yet almost unrecognisable as Lovelace’s mother – you can’t say the same for Robert Patrick who, as Lovelace’s father, simply gives off the air of “former military man”. For obvious reasons they’re not happy with their daughter’s choice of career, but then fail to do anything when she says Traynor is abusing her. Her mother’s opinion is that she has made peace with her unhappy life, and thus her daughter should too. Indicative of the opinions held in that era perhaps, but still a harsh route to take. Seyfried portrays Lovelace with delicacy, and embodies the spirit of somebody who has been dealing with physical and emotional abuse for years. Her performance is excellent, but not quite on the same level as Peter Sarsgaard as Traynor. He starts off quite affable, pleasantly charismatic and a tall, imposing presence. His funky sideburns also add to the effect. Then at the halfway point he becomes a scary, demonic figure who will do whatever he can, and exploit Lovelace in a variety of different ways, in order to pay off his debts and, of course, to make more money. There’s also an element of jealousy to it – everybody loves Linda yet he thinks he should get most of the credit.

There is some humour to hand, ironically enough from the people involved directly in the adult movie industry. Hank Azaria in particular has a great character and some equally great dialogue to contribute, but otherwise it’s quite a bleak and unforgiving film. Rightfully so, given the subject matter. I applaud the fact that it highlights the immorality of domestic violence, but the fact that it’s so unrelenting – and regarding a figure involved in the adult movie industry – might be enough for people to pre-judge the film before seeing it. As a story of somebody who fought to have her voice heard and ultimately managed to do so, then it comes highly recommended.

Favourite scene: Lovelace on a “film set” for the very first time. She hasn’t a clue what she’s doing.

Quote: “You know I spent exactly seventeen days in the pornography industry and somehow these seventeen days are supposed to define who I am for the rest of my life, but I hope that people can see me for who I really am.”

Silly Moment: Lovelace auditions for an adult movie, clearly having no idea what she’s auditioning for.

Score: 3.5/5

Ain’t Them Bodies Saints (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-11-11

Mara was shocked at the very specific terms of her contract.

Twitter Plot Summary: After years in prison, Bob Muldoon escapes to be with his wife and the daughter he has never met.

Genre: Crime/Drama/Romance

Director: David Lowery

Key Cast: Rooney Mara, Casey Affleck, Ben Foster, Nate Parker, Keith Carradine, Robert Longstreet, Charles Baker, Augustine Frizzell, Kentucker Audley

Five Point Summary:

1. A shootout – this can end one of two… oh, they chose that one.
2. Ruth is settled, yet Bob isn’t. He’s gonna make a run for it, isn’t he?
3. Father/son relationship. Kind of.
4. Another shootout, this time with persons unknown…
5. It’s a bit like Mud, this finale…

Opening with a shootout in Texas, a wife and husband seek shelter inside an isolated house as the police surround them outside. The wife shoots an officer, but they quickly realise the odds are against them and escape is unlikely. With no hope for escape, Bob Muldoon (Affleck) gives himself up and tells his wife Ruth Guthrie (Mara) to say that he coerced her into helping him – complicating matters is she’s pregnant. Suffice to say, he’s arrested and she’s allowed to get on with her life. On parting, Bob and Ruth touch foreheads and without words clearly demonstrate their affection for one another. Simple storytelling at its finest.

Some time later, Ruth has moved on and is living with her daughter, however she receives some attention from local police officer Patrick Wheeler (Foster), who, ironically enough, is the officer Ruth shot during the shootout. Meanwhile Bob breaks out of prison and makes his way home to reunite with Ruth and to see the daughter he has never met. Just to further complicate things – beyond the police looking for him – is that another group of criminals are looking for the money that Bob stole, which leads to a finale reminiscent of the one we saw in the equally entertaining Mud earlier this year.

"There. Are. FOUR. Lights!" — “There. Are. FOUR. Lights!”

I’ve not seen much of Terence Malick’s work, but this embodies his style and could easily be mistaken for one of his films. There’s a sleepy, langorous quality to the film, but thankfully not to the same extreme as Only God Forgives. Whilst the story is nothing too exceptional, it’s a film that is beautifully shot with an interesting use of colour, shade and dark – it’s rare that you’ll have a scene shot at any other time other than sunrise, sunset or at some point in the night. One element of the script that came to the fore, for me at least, was the criminal mindset – how, despite the fact they are sent to prison and escape (thus setting up more prison time if they are caught), they still expect to live a normal life once they make it back home. As we see all too often, this is very rarely the case, but is still fascinating to see played out on the cinema screen.

No backstory is given to Ruth and Bob – we pick up with their shootout and that’s the extent of it. Thankfully the script and performances are adept enough that we don’t need such exposition – Mara gives an understated yet powerful performance as Ruth, who as time goes on finds her feelings for Bob waning. Affleck meanwhile is equally strong as Bob, cannily portraying a man who isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer but is passionate and caring about the things and people he loves. Add a dollop of Keith Carradine as Skerritt, Bob’s surrogate father figure and you have an entertaining mix of family politics, for want of a better term, alongside the “man on the run” drama. There’s almost a sense of inevitability as to where the finale eventually leads us, but then that doesn’t really matter. What matters is the journey and the characters that inhabit it.

Favourite scene: Muldoon visits Skerritt. Skerritt tells him in no uncertain terms to leave Ruth alone.

Quote: “Every day I wake up thinking today’s the day I’m gonna see you. And one of those days, it will be so. And then we can ride off to somewhere. Somewhere far away.”

Score: 4/5

Justin and the Knights of Valour (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-11-10

"Sorry, what was your name again?" — “Sorry, what was your name again?”

Twitter Plot Summary: Excessive legislation means knights are banned. But Justin wants to be one. So er, he goes off to train and stuff.

Genre: Animation/Adventure

Director: Manuel Sicilia

Key Cast: Freddie Highmore, Saoirse Ronan, Antonio Banderas, James Cosmo, Michael Culkin, Charles Dance, Tamsin Egerton, Rupert Everett, Stephen Hughes, Barry Humphries, Lloyd Hutchinson, Alfred Molina, Mark Strong, David Walliams, Julie Walters, Olivia Williams

Five Point Summary:

1. Excessive legislation is the problem, not the knights!
2. Charles Dance – evil villain mode enabled.
3. Sota – gloriously OTT. Much needed.
4. Training montage! Let me just crank up the Rocky theme.
5. Inevitable showdown, inevitable finale.

Knights have been outlawed in a kingdom more concerned with bureaucracy than the defence of the realm. This is a problem because a former knight of the realm has plans to create an army and take the crown for himself. With no army and no knights of their own, the kingdom appears doomed. Thankfully for the kingdom, young wannabe knight Justin decides to train up as a knight because they’re good roles models and all that jazz. Justin’s father doesn’t want him to go ahead with this – the last knight of the realm was Justin’s grandfather and there’s history there to explain why Justin’s father wants to keep him safe at home. This element of the story I liked – the characters have depth, there are reasons for why they do what they do, and there’s a relevant backstory that ties into current events. So far, so good. Then, for no apparent reason, it loses its way.

Even for the younger audience, for whom this is intended, there is little to recommend. There is almost nothing in terms of adventure – other than the training montage the only other set piece is the finale. In fact the character that gets the most to do is Saoirse Ronan’s Talia, the bar maid who believes in the need for knights and supports Justin on his quest to become one. Much of the entertainment value comes from three sources. The first is David Walliams as Melquiades, a magician/wizard who suffers from split-personality disorder. The other source is the three aging knights tasked with training Justin. Their constant bickering offers many laughs, as does the constant threat to the years-old game of chess that they are playing against another castle miles away. The final source is the effeminate Sota, voiced by Rupert Everett. Sota has a thing for fashion and design and is gloriously at odds with the harder-edged bad guys surrounding him.

It's a dragon! Honest! — It’s a dragon! Honest!

Despite the poor script, the voice cast is incredibly strong – Antonio Banderas, Charles Dance, Rupert Everett and Mark Strong are the heavy hitters, joined by up and comers Freddie Highmore and Saoirse Ronan as the two leads. This is one of the few things to recommend, as other than Justin’s history, there’s not much else offered to the remaining characters beyond their strong performances. Banderas’ character was a wasted opportunity, a hulking bulk of a man who is incredibly dim yet sees an opportunity to pretend to be a knight and thus have the people shower him with praise and glory. The thing is, his character doesn’t really go anywhere and could easily be removed from the story with little to no impact on the rest of it.

Rather ambitiously they leave the door wide open for a sequel, which will be fine if they can inject a little more passion and logic to proceedings. A few entertaining scenes does not a good animated movie make. It’s a genuine shame as I liked the initial set-up and the villainous plot – and David Walliams’ Melquiades is occasionally funny – but it seems like the scriptwriters just knocked a few scenes together and cobbled a story from it. Should a sequel emerge, I would hope that more work will go into the story before it enters production. If not, we’re going to end up with another disappointment.

Favourite scene: The simulated dragon attack, with a crocodile in place of an actual dragon.

Quote: “That’s not a stick – THIS is a stick!”

Silly Moment: Anything that comes out of Melquiades’ mouth.

Is there an Alan Rickman plummet?: Yes.

Score: 2.5/5

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-11-09

Twitter Plot Summary: Jonny Knoxville’s Bad Grandpa goes across country to play pranks on an unsuspecting public. There’s a plot in there somewhere.

Genre: Comedy

Director: Jeff Tremaine

Key Cast: Johnny Knoxville, Jackson Nicoll, Zia Harris, Georgina Cates, Spike Jonze, Catherine Keener

Five Point Summary:

1. Establishing the story within the first 5 minutes… and that’s it.
2. That scene from the trailer where he flies through the window.
3. Gross-out humour.
4. More gross-out humour.
5. It might have been in the trailer, but the beauty pageant is still moderately amusing.

The Jackass TV series and subsequent movies spoke to the modern MTV audience, so naturally there are certain preconceptions one might have before you even consider walking into this film. Rest assured, those preconceptions are right on the money. It’s another Jackass film albeit with 50% less pranks and 50% more pointless story. The story, as it goes, sees Knoxville’s Bad Grandpa character Irvin Zisman left in charge of his 9 year old grandson Billy, literally moments after Zisman has found out that his wife has died. He decides that the best option is to take Billy back to his father who lives a few states away and so a road trip movie takes hold. As the journey progresses Zisman starts to appreciate having his grandson around, in particular as it seems to help his efforts with the ladies.

Whilst this story plays out, it’s just an excuse to play pranks on real people and try and string it all together into a narrative akin to Little Miss Sunshine. If you’ve seen the trailer then you’ve seen all but a couple of the worthwhile pranks. The ones not in the trailer are the gross-out ones that would only show up in a red band trailer, and to be fair if they had included them there would be nothing about this movie to recommend, they’re best left for you to experience yourself. Even with this in mind, the American sense of gross-out humour lacks a certain something in my eyes, that something which defines the likes of Guest House Paradiso and, before that, Bottom. It’s funny and crude, sure, but they’re not jokes that will stand the tests of time, nor do I think they will retain their humour. At least the people involved in the film were self-effacing enough to allow their segments to appear in the film – I can imagine that there is a lot of material that didn’t get past the lawyers and contract people.

I applaud them for having a go a trying to combine a story with stunts, but narratively it’s paper thin, in particular in the final third of the story where the narrative possibilities dry up and they’re basically stalling for time to hit feature length. It needs a bit more substance in this respect in order to be a worthwhile venture. I’d go so far as to say that they try (and fail) to replicate the success of Borat, however that worked because it played on American (specifically small town American) fears and misunderstanding of foreigners. I’ll admit that I did laugh from start to finish, but that’s more to do with my childish sense of humour than anything else. Just because I laughed doesn’t mean it’s a good film, it’s merely passable. But if you’re a fan of Jackass and the three films the team have previously made then there is plenty to recommend. For the other 95% of the audience who don’t appreciate toilet humour then you’ll have no interest in this.

Favourite scene: The beauty pageant. 90% of it might be in the trailer, but it was still amusing.

Quote: “What’s your stripper stage name? I’ll just call you Cinnamon.”

Silly Moment: The ladies night.

Score: 2/5

1...717273...90 Page 72 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM