About Time (2013)

2013-09-14

"Wilkommen!" "I'm American." "Oh, sorry. Howdy, then!" — “Wilkommen!”
“I’m American.”
“Oh, sorry. Howdy, then!”

Twitter Plot Summary: When he discovers the male members of his family can time travel, Tim uses this power to get himself a girlfriend.

Genre: Comedy/Romance/Sci-Fi

Director: Richard Curtis

Key Cast: Domhall Gleeson, Bill Nighy, Rachel McAdams, Lydia Wilson, Lindsay Duncan, Tom Hollander.

Five Point Summary:

1. With great power comes great responsibility – thus, using time travel to get yourself a girlfriend is perfectly acceptable.
2. Fantastic – a final appearance of Richard Griffiths.
3. I’m not sure I understand the rules of time travel. I’m also not sure they’re important.
4. Montage! Even Rocky had a montage…
5. Saccharine and sentimental, but a worthy message to end the film on.

I wouldn’t describe myself as a huge fan of Richard Curtis’ movies, although I am a fan of his TV work – Blackadder, Mr Bean, French and Saunders… all classics. By comparison his cinematic career has hit the highs of Four Weddings and a Funeral/Bridget Jones to the lows of The Boat That Rocked. I don’t think his films will ever have universal appeal, but to that core market that have previously enjoyed the extensive collaborations between Curtis and Hugh Grant, they will get a lot from this. There may even be a certain portion of the science fiction crowd that might give this a go, although they may be put off by the aforementioned collaborations between Curtis and Hugh Grant. You can’t win them all.

Domhall Gleeson plays Tim who, upon turning 21, discovers that the men in his family have the ability to travel through time. The rules, such as they are, are relatively limited – you can only travel back to places you have been and no further back than your own timeline, and the repercussions of making changes are minimal. Tim decides to use this power to get himself a girlfriend. “Wow, massive” drolls Bill Nighy playing Bill Nighy as Tim’s Dad. There’s a certain disturbing element to this as Tim goes out of his way to ensure he ends up with Mary via time travel, to which she remains completely oblivious. If you think about it, that’s a bit creepy.

The Superman impressions club had seen better days.

I was expecting the main focus to be on the relationship between Tim and Mary, and the first half does in fact do this. It’s in the second half of the film where the narrative focus changes and it becomes more about Tim’s family and his Dad in particular. After all, by this point in the story Tim and Mary are settled so without breaking them up arbitrarily the family aspect is the only place to take the story. Beyond the time travel link they also have that father/son bond that you rarely get to see played out in cinema. This is where the film truly succeeds and the relationship between father and son is spot on.

It’s not perfect and if you think too much about the time travel thing then you’ll be picking holes in the story for weeks. The best thing you can do is just go along with the concept and disengage your reasoning for a couple of hours. As a narrative device time travel allows us to partake in Tim’s wish fulfillment and to fantasise over “What If?” situations. Did you completely mess up that first date? Easy, just travel back and do it all again, knowing exactly what’s going to happen next. Best man at your wedding not as good as you were hoping? Just go back and try another one. Or another one. Or another… The message by the end is clear though – we don’t need time travel to live our lives how we want to, although on occasion it might be nice to have the option.

Favourite scene: *spoilers* Tim realizes his Dad is dying, but thanks to their ability to time travel they get to spend more time together than would normally be available.

Quote: “It’s going to be a complicated life.”

Silly Moment: The whole date in the dark idea. I’m sure there are bars/restaurants that do this, but it just seems silly.

Score: 3.5/5

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-09-14

Be vewwy, vewwy quiet... I'm hunting wabbits. — Be vewwy, vewwy quiet… I’m hunting wabbits.

Twitter Plot Summary: Picking up directly from the end of Insidious, there’s more ghostly goings on with the Lambert family.

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Director: James Wan

Key Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Lin Shaye, Barbara Hershey, Steve Coulter, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson, Andrew Astor, Danielle Bisutti,

Five Point Summary:

1. Cliffhanger ending – swiftly resolved. Kind of.
2. The police really don’t have much to say about this, do they?
3. Creeping around an old hospital and an old house. So cliché…
4. It’s all gone a bit Sleepaway Camp…
5. Erm, okay then. Looks like we’re getting another film.

Okay, before reading ahead on this review, there may be spoilers relating to the first film, as it’s difficult to review this without making heavy references to the original. If you haven’t seen the original then I’d recommend doing so before watching Chapter 2 and then reading this review, otherwise you might spoil it for yourself. All sorted? Great.

Insidious ended with a cliffhanger, with Lin Shaye’s Elise strangled to death by the spirit that has spent years trying to take over Josh Lambert’s (Wilson) body. Whilst the police investigate the murder of Elise (and don’t get involved too much, surprisingly), Renai Lambert (Byrne) and Josh’s mum Lorraine (Hershey) are once again followed by spirits either trying to communicate with them from the other side or generally trying to freak them out. There’s also the small matter of Josh not acting the same as he did before he was sent into The Further to find his son. Whilst Renai is busy trying to work out if her husband is actually possessed (note: he is), her mother in law joins forces with the bumbling paranormal investigators of Specs and Tucker (Whannell and Sampson, respectively), and Carl (Coulter), an old friend of Elise’s who uses lettered dice to communicate with those beyond the grave and incidentally has an impressive beard. They get the Scooby Doo part of the narrative by investigating an abandoned hospital and an old house, Paranormal Activity style, and find out the real reason behind the malevolent spirits’ intentions.

SOMEBODY LEFT THE WINDOW OPEN! AAAARRGGGHHHH!

As you might expect, there’s little in terms of character development – Rose Byrne in particular, despite being the main character for all intents and purposes, only goes so far as screaming a lot and being thrown around the room. It’s the same for Patrick Wilson, although he does get to have a bit of fun in his possessed state. You could argue that the characters were developed in the first film so we don’t need to see them progress further, but even in the first Insidious the closest we got to character development was Josh believing Renai. There’s actual funnies for paranormal investigators Specs and Tucker this time round, designed to add levity from the scares. Except… there aren’t really that many scares. It seems most of those aspects are left to the first film, whilst this sequel focuses on expanding the narrative and explaining the reason why a particular spirit was after Josh Lambert when he was younger.

Thus, as far as being a scary film goes it’s not as impressive as the opening entry in the series, pushing more focus on the expanded narrative and plugging gaps established in the first film. It also sets up a possible third entry in the series, the implication of which is that there’s something even more evil and sinister lurking in the shadows of The Further, but we’ll see what the future brings. I also understand from some reviews that Chapter 2 riffs on many of the same scares as featured in The Conjuring earlier this year, but as I’ve not seen that film yet I’m not in a position to comment. Even so, a film should be judged on its own merits and, despite the relative low number of actual scares there are several elements that work well, and the story whilst somewhat convoluted and nonsensical is, surprisingly, reasonably solid even if it feels like it’s been padded out. Unfortunately there’s a number more elements that do not work (character logic, the whole Sleepaway Camp vibe), and the skeptic in me knows that the more films you make in a series, the more you suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Seeing as Insidious Chapter 3 seems inevitable, it does not fill me with confidence going forward.

Favourite scene: Renai realises something isn’t quite right and walks around the lounge, then an apparition appears behind her from nowhere. Nice editing.

Quote: “If she sees you in here she’ll make me kill you.”

Silly Moment: After being drugged and missing all the action, Tucker bursts into the room like a badly realised kung fu master, all too late.

Score: 2.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh6H7n4xmzM

Insidious (2010)

Simon Prior

2013-09-13

Darth Maul finally found some work post-Episode 1.

Twitter Plot Summary: Evil spirits haunt the family that have just moved into a big creepy house. Their son is the main target…

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Director: James Wan

Key Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Ty Simpkins, Lyn Shaye, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson, Barbara Hershey

Five Point Summary:

1. Creepy voices on the baby monitor… oh my.
2. They move house and it’s still freaky!
3. Is that Darth Maul?
4. Seance plus gas mask = weirdness.
5. CONTRA-ZOOM!

Many lamented the death of the horror movie some years back after the genre seemed to take a dive into torture porn waters never to return. More recently we’ve seen a resurgence in the paranormal films of old, and a wider variety of horror movies in general. For me, a horror fan of 11 years standing, this is no bad thing.

So what happens when a family move into a great big house? Simples – if it’s a horror movie then it’s going to be haunted. It seems that literally within minutes of a normal family, helmed by the entirely normal pairing of Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne, moving into their new home the eldest child ends up in a coma and spooky goings on start to take place. The thing is, after the scares get too much and the family move to a normal suburban household, the freaky goings on continue. Naturally one of the parents is a skeptic whereas the other is the one seeing freaky things yet despite best efforts can’t make the other see what’s happening. Eventually they have to take steps to figure out why they’re being targeted.

James Wan is particularly good at building tension, starting with some very gentle camera movements and then augmenting it with either sound effects, music or, if necessary, a sudden jump. Often he uses the camera voyeuristically, as if the spirit or whatever is spying on the family or the house. Leigh Whannell, the writer of Insidious and who arguably started off the whole torture porn genre with the original (and best) Saw film, also directed by James Wan, essentially writes a typically cliche horror film that in lesser hands would have been standard horror fare. That’s not to say his script isn’t good, but it retreads a lot of familiar territory and doesn’t break new ground in quite the same way as Saw did. You’ve seen everything done before, but there’s a couple of twists to the formula to keep it interesting. Sadly the second half lacks much of the scares of the first, although it does maintain a suitable level of tension to see you through to the finale. It’s when they have to resort to CGI, albeit very briefly, that it feels like it might lose its way, but that moment passes and we’re back to practical effect scares. As it should be.

Upstairs, something waited for them. It was probably Darth Maul.

Despite having a serious dislike of horror films when I was younger (and even the 1970s Incredible Hulk TV series – I was a cowardly child), since my university years I have slowly desensitised myself to supremely violent horror films and the gorier it is the less scary I find it. My weak spot, as in the horror films that genuinely can scare me, are those in the paranormal/supernatural sub-genre of horror, where something from another realm is interfering with the real world. Thus, anything like this has the potential, if done well, to scare the pants off me. Insidious does that and then some, but sadly falls flat in the final stretch. The scares are simple yet effective, lots of potent imagery and directorial flourishes to send shivers up your spine and to activate our fight or flight reflex. It’s not entirely successful but when it works, it works. For a horror film, that’s all we can ask for.

Favourite scene: Rose Byrne puts out the litter and we see what appears to be a little boy dancing to the record playing in the background.

Quote: “This is the first line of a joke, right? A guy comes home to find his wife with a priest.”

Silly Moment: The spirits in The Further. 50s Americana gone weird.

Score: 3.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1YbOMDI59k

Rush (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-09-12

Lauda had a suspicion that Hunt had fiddled with his gear stick.

Twitter Plot Summary: The 70s, when hair was big and F1 racing was rather dangerous. Step up rivals James Hunt and Niki Lauda.

Genre: Action/Biography/Drama/Sport

Director: Ron Howard

Key Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Bruhl, Olivia Wilde, Natalie Dormer, Alexandra Maria Lara, Pierfrancesco Favino, Stephen Mangan, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Christian McKay.

Five Point Summary:

1. Starting off in Formula 3. And for a second it looked like we were jumping in at the deep end.
2. So that’s the characters set up nicely – Hunt a playboy, Lauda a perfectionist.
3. Fireball! DRAMA!
4. That last race in Japan looks fantastic, very cinematic.
5. Is that Niki Lauda himself? I think so.

The best rivalries are born from two people who have the same goals but a completely opposite approach to reaching them. One such rivalry existed in motor racing between Niki Lauda and James Hunt, beginning in Formula 3 and escalating when they both reached Formula 1. Hunt (Chris “Thor” Hemsworth) is a party man who also happens to be very good at motor racing. When he can focus on this, of course – partying, smoking and sleeping with lots of women does have the potential to distract from his racing ambitions. Niki Lauda (Inglourious Basterd’s Daniel Bruhl) on the other hand, nicknamed “the rat” because… well, because he looks a bit like a rat… is focused and determined to succeed by any means necessary, but only within the strict boundaries he sets himself. He understands that there’s a 20% risk of him dying every time he races, but he’s accepting of that. James Hunt by comparison is reckless, but then this is what made him an excellent race driver.

The theme of marriage and having something to lose runs throughout the narrative. Hunt is well loved by everybody yet his marriage is doomed to fail (the perils of being a playboy racer), whereas Lauda is, shall we say, less than popular with everybody he meets, yet he maintains a successful marriage despite that – unfortunately we don’t get much of an insight into this world beyond seeing that his wife understands why he does what he does. Likewise, Olivia Wilde has a glorified cameo as the wife of James Hunt, seems a bit of a waste in hindsight. Both men are driven, no pun intended, to be the best they can be in motor racing, which naturally threads through the story and enhances their rivalry. I won’t go into any detail regarding the story specifics as it would potentially spoil the film and, in all honesty, those details are available elsewhere online if you really want to know the ins and outs. Race fans certainly will no doubt have knowledge of the facts.

The racing itself doesn’t overshadow the drama being played out off the track, yet it’s still very nicely shot and is full of tension despite the fact hardcore F1 fans will know the outcome of each race. The final showdown in Japan, in the rain, looks stunning and it’s understandable why shots from this part of the film were used for the trailers. On that note – the trailers don’t give absolutely everything away, and different takes for the trailer were used in places to subvert your expectations when going into the film, so that’s a bonus.

Ooh, that's going to leave a mark. — Ooh, that’s going to leave a mark.

Ron Howard is an accomplished director, but I’m not usually a huge fan of his style. More often than not it feels very matter of fact and without nuance or depth, which can occasionally be detrimental to the film. It’s often like we’re receiving a very basic, no frills version of the script, and it’s no different here, to an extent. That’s fine though, there’s too much information and story between these two characters to put in every little detail, so it’s better to tell the story you want to tell and leave it at that. It would also be remiss of me to not mention the score from Hans Zimmer, which is as emotive and powerful as what you would expect. So much so that I’m planning on buying the soundtrack shortly, it’s an excellent score that complements the film wonderfully. The cinematography as well is sublime, so a massive thumbs up to Anthony Dod Mantle for his work. Mantle has also been responsible for a few of Danny Boyle’s films (28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours, Trance) as well as last year’s Dredd, so I’m more familiar with his work than I realised.

There was a concern going in that too much emphasis would be placed on the racing, that it would be a shallow F1 film with little characterisation or depth. This turned out not to be the case, and the drama in the personal and professional lives of Lauda and Hunt are given enough room to breathe without going into excessive detail. If any complaints are to be pointed at the film is that it doesn’t go into as much depth about the world of F1 as it could have, nor does it make any significant comment on the risks involved with driving at high speeds around a race track, and maybe it could have explored more of the characters lives outside of F1, as this aspect of the story does get short shrift. With that said, if any more depth had been given to these areas, the movie would have been four hours long, or more – there’s a lot of potential narrative available. Better for it to focus on the main purpose of the story – the yin/yang of Lauda and Hunt, rather than get bogged down in all of the minutiae. Suffice to say, even with me not being a huge racing fan, it’s a fantastic movie and is accessible to all audiences, whether you’re a fan of the sport or not.

Favourite scene: Lauda recuperating in hospital. Gruelling, but an indication of his desire to get back in the car.

Quote: (I think I’m paraphrasing because I can’t remember it verbatim from the showing) “Men love women, but they love cars more.”

Silly Moment: The rich English chap who gives Hunt his first break in F1. I find it hard to take anyone seriously who speaks like that.

Score: 5/5

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-09-11

Twitter Plot Summary: After her mother disappears, Clary discovers she is a Shadowhunter and must help save our world from demons.

Genre: Action/Adventure/Drama/Fantasy/Mystery/Romance

Director: Harold Zwart

Key Cast: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Kevin Zegers, Jemima West, Robert Sheehan, Kevin Durand, Robert Maillet, Lena Headey, Godfrey Gao, CCH Pounder, Jared Harris, Jonathan Rhys-Meyer, Aidan Turner.

Five Point Summary:

1. The future Mrs P is clearly Lily Collins. Yowzer.
2. Kevin Durand’s hair is silly.
3. They have a mini Stargate under the stairs!
4. There’s a touch of Star Wars about this…
5. If you’re a werewolf then in human for you have a lovely beard. Fact.

We’re in an age of movie studios looking for the next young adult franchise following the massive success of the Harry Potter and Twilight adaptations. Many have fallen by the wayside after just one film (Golden Compass, Eragon, The Seeker), or faced big budget cuts for sequels designed to recoup some money (Chronicles of Narnia, Percy Jackson). Step up The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, where “Mundane” Clary discovers she’s the latest in a line of Shadowhunters and, after her mother disappears, must help the small remaining band of Shadowhunters defeat demons and protect all that is good, etc etc. As far as plot goes we’re very much in Potter/Twilight territory – obligatory love triangle, family issues, a generally ineffectual villain, and so on. Put it this way, if every modern fantasy film had a checklist of cliches, City of Bones would cover 99% of them.

I’ve not read the source material so I don’t know how big a part it plays there, but the titular City of Bones gets less than five minutes of screen time before we’re whisked away to the next obligatory story point. There’s a few amusing points that raise a chuckle, but they’re few and far between and don’t sit too well with the supposedly dark tone the film seems to wants to achieve. Still, the Ghostbusters gag towards the beginning of the film is pretty good. It’s also difficult to empathise with Clary as we don’t get enough time with her before she gets immersed in the world of angels and demons. She also doesn’t really seem to be fazed by anything that’s happening, which could either be Lily Collins’ acting ability or a massive problem with the script. I would lean towards the latter.

The problem is a confused narrative. There’s too much going on and too many plot threads to keep track of, and we’re not given any clear background to the world in which the story exists. We’re given the bare minimum information necessary before the story chugs forward. Here’s something for the film makers to take note of – exposition is usually handy so we have a vague idea as to what’s going on. Here we get little chunks of story that build to a somewhat inevitable final third – the aforementioned City of Bones, the runes, the vampires, the werewolves… not enough information about all of these aspects means we’re stumbling along in the dark (and there’s a lot of the film set in the dark) rather than enjoying the tale.

Below are a few spoilers, don’t open the tab if you don’t want any part of the story ruined.

[spoiler title=”Spoilers” open=”0″ style=”1″]There’s also quite a big point I want to raise regarding Clary’s best friend Simon. He’s kidnapped by vampires, in a ridiculously weak kidnap plot I might add – they drug his drink and, despite being surrounded by friendly faces, the vampires seem to take him away without any dramatic tension or conflict. Did nobody think to, you know, stop them? Then, after he’s been rescued, Clary discovers that he’s been bitten by one of the vampires yet doesn’t mention it to anybody, and nobody bothers to explain the consequences of receiving a vampire bite. Yes, Simon discovers that he doesn’t need his glasses any more, and later he has the ability to fade into the darkness (apparently), but none of this is explained to the audience. It’s a narrative mess. This is just one of the plot strands that doesn’t receive any/sufficient explanation and it’s frustrating as a result. The point of Clary being able to see other Shadowhunters, yet them being invisible to Mundanes, is also underdeveloped. So she’s in a nightclub and sees a guy bumped off, yet nobody else sees it. This is a nice idea, but what’s the real reasoning behind it? Again, we’re not given sufficient explanation and the entire concept of becoming invisible to Mundanes is not fully explored. There are a couple of points later on where this is referenced, but it’s not used to its full extent and I’d hope to see more of it when the sequel rolls around.[/spoiler]
Furthermore the fate of a number of characters is left unanswered, which I’m sure will be covered in the sequel and is apparently fast-tracked for release next year. And therein lies another problem. Because we’ve been given snatches of ideas throughout the 2 hour run time with little or no context, the film seems to end far too suddenly for its own good and leaves you questioning most of what has just happened. Did the good guys win, or was everybody too distracted by Lily Collins in leather outfits to notice or care? Again, I would lean towards the latter.

It’s big, dumb and silly, and yet another example of a young adult novel being on the receiving end of a poor film adaptation. More focus on telling a compelling story next time please. In fact, try and focus on the core story at the centre of the second book because trying to do a complete adaptation of the source material, as appears to be the case here, will not end as well as you might think. Great idea – lets have a stargate portal and werewolves and vampires and the ability to become invisible and demons and leather and… it’s the narrative equivalent of a child overdosing on sugar. Choosing the most appropriate sections to adapt for film (and which parts to drop) is the reason why the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises did as well as they did, and the production team for the Mortal Instruments franchise should take notes and learn from these examples. They certainly don’t want another Golden Compass on their hands.

Favourite scene: Despite its lack of setup, the fight with the vampires.

Quote: “The werewolves are here to save us. Never thought I’d say that.”

Silly Moment: Kvin Durand’s haircut. Every time you see it you can’t help but laugh.

Score: 2.5/5

Robin Hood (2010)

Simon Prior

2013-09-10

Twitter Plot Summary: Returning from the Crusades, Robin Longstride takes on the identity of Robin Loxley to protect Nottingham and fight the crown.

Genre: Action/Adventure/Drama

Director: Ridley Scott

Key Cast: Russell Crowe, Mark Strong, Mark Addy, Kevin Durand, Cate Blanchett, Max Von Sydow, William Hurt, Matthew Macfadyen, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Eileen Atkins.

Five Point Summary:

1. So Robin Hood isn’t Robin Loxley? Fair enough, Ridley.
2. Russell, please pick an accent and stick with it.
3. Liberty or death… or being ruled by the French. They’re interchangeable.
4. Political wrangling. Not what I expected from a Robin Hood film…
5. So… it’s Robin Hood Begins then?

There have been many versions of the Robin Hood tale since the inception of cinema, from Errol Flynn to Kevin Costner to er, Cary Elwes. This time round it’s Russell Crowe’s turn as the titular hero, but the story takes a slightly different path than you may expect, showing Robin’s origins and setting up the basis for his further adventures, the reasons for him being an outlaw and establishing what will become the Robin Hood fable we all know. Coming back from the Crusades after the death of King Richard, Robin Longstride takes on the identity of Robin Loxley, killed in an ambush. Returning King Richard’s crown to England, Longstride then takes Loxley’s sword to Sir Walter Loxley in Nottingham, where more subterfuge is required. Meanwhile there are political issues to contend with – the French are planning to invade and Britain lies in disarray after an increase in taxes to pay off the debts incurred by the Crusades.

Historical accuracy is always a tricky proposition where fictional characters are concerned, but the representation of 12th/13th century life is probably as close as you’re going to get without living it yourself. Thankfully being a film you also avoid having to smell it – I’m sure it would have ponged something rotten.

The cast and performances are all solid, although Russell Crowe finds it difficult to pick an accent and then stick with it. If he’d just done his Maximus voice all over again and kept that then there wouldn’t have been a problem. Instead you’re taken out of the story by his incessant desire to deviate his style of speech, which will either annoy or amuse. Mark Strong is a solid presence as Godfrey, but I’ll get onto the problems with that character momentarily. Cate Blanchett as Marian is anachronistic in that she’s a headstrong modern 21^st century woman trapped in the 13^th century. Still, at least she has a bit to do and isn’t the typical damsel in distress.

Nobody ever lines up like this other than in the movies. Ever.

Most of the Robin Hood fables place emphasis on the “steal from the rich, give to the poor” mantra, but in this case it acts more as a backdrop to the political and economic strife that afflicted the country. If you’re thinking this will have any of the derring do of the other Robin Hood films then you’ll mostly be mistaken. There’s plenty of dirt, a couple of scuffles and a bit of fire here and there, and that’s your lot. At least it stands out from the other Robin Hood movies, can you imagine Errol Flynn discussing foreign policy with King John before swinging down from a balcony and distracting his enemies with his fixed smile and suspect goatee? Thought not.

Ridley Scott has a very specific style as of late, which doesn’t help seeing Robin Hood as a 12th century England version of Gladiator, made all the more apparent by the presence of Russell Crowe in the lead role. What it also lacks, unlike the aforementioned Gladiator, is a compelling villain. The French king doesn’t do a whole lot other than eat mussels and chew on garlic (I may be lying about that last one), whilst Mark Strong looks the part but doesn’t get to do anything truly villainous other than bump people off here and there. Which, to be honest, everybody does throughout the film so it hardly makes him stand out. Likewise, Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham – usually vilified in other interpretations of the story – are supposed to be more rounded characters by not being entirely evil but instead have little to do and are nothing more than glorified extras. As mentioned at the beginning of the review, they are present to set up the fable we all know rather than to have a direct influence on this story, but even with that in mind it would be better if Mark Strong did… well, something. Anything. Be the antagonist, do something reproachable, we might feel something negative towards the character rather than the vague sense of ambivalence and/or “meh” that he generates. Still, it’s a well told story if nothing amazing.

Favourite scene: Longstride, three cups, and a pea. And Little John calling him a cheat.

Quote: “Rise and rise again, until lambs become lions.”

Silly Moment: Robin’s laser-guided arrow. Well, that’s what it seems like.

Score: 3/5

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

Simon Prior

2013-09-09

Twitter Plot Summary: When their mother dies in an air raid, Setsuko must look after his younger sister.

Genre: Animation/Drama/War

Director: Isao Takahata

Key Cast: Tsutomu Tatsumi, Ayano Shiraishi, Yoshiko Shinohara, Akemi Yamaguchi, Rhoda Chrosite, J Robert Spencer, Veronica Taylor, Amy Jones.

Five Point Summary:

1. That opening with the bombers is  scary to think about.
2. I’m not so keen on their aunt, she seems like a nasty sort.
3. Fireflies! So many fireflies!
4. Malnutrition – bad.
5. Bleak. So very bleak.

World War 2 has been a defining moment in Japanese culture and cinema, from the atomic horror of the Godzilla series to the less obvious but incredibly violent films of Takashi Miike or the likes of Battle Royale. Studio Ghibli have on occasion made ventures into such territory, but from a more oblique, less obvious perspective. Rest assured, when Ghibli stray away from their more surreal ideas they’re still films worth watching for the power of their storytelling alone. None more so than in Grave of the Fireflies, which starts with the powerful image of B-29 bombers hitting the city of Kobe towards the end of the war in 1945 and progressing into incredibly stark, incredibly powerful territory.

As Studio Ghibli films go it’s perhaps as bleak as they come. Gone are the wild fantasy elements that are typical of their output, and in their place is a real world setting. After their mother dies following the air raid on Kobe, Setsuko and Seita move in with their aunt. As time goes on and rations become scarce, the siblings leave and set up home in an abandoned bomb shelter. here Seita does what he can to support his sister and prevent them both from dying of malnutrition. Yet despite the bleakness of the situation there is always hope. For Setsuko and Seita, it’s the fireflies that live in the shelter that they make their home. They provide a brief period of wonder for Setsuko in particular, but they soon die and, for want of a better term, their light is extinguished and so are Setsuko and Seita’s hopes.

Probably burying their aunt for one snide comment too many.

The fireflies can be seen as an allegory, perhaps for life during wartime or for the prospects of the inhabitants of Japan post-war. The likelihood of a short lifespan despite your best efforts to survive any longer are perhaps the order of the day. Many describe it as an anti-war film in that it’s about the impact of war on normal people rather than the usual argument of right and wrong. I would say that, whilst not an anti-war film in itself, it does contain anti-war elements. I liken it more to a comment on the human spirit, attempting to make it through events despite the adversity you face, including the failure of those in charge to realise the full impact war has on its subjects and the ensuing hopelessness that will likely follow. This is all the more pertinent to the Japanese following what happened to them in WW2, but whichever way you look at it, it’s still powerful stuff.

Director Isao Takahata has said the film is in fact intended to make the younger generation in Japan aware of the plight faced by their parents/grandparents during the war, and I would hope that it succeeded on that level, but for the rest of us there is plenty of depth to the story and you can peel back several layers of meaning from multiple viewings.

Favourite scene: Where Setsuko and Seita first encounter the fireflies. Magical.

Quote: “Why must fireflies die so young?”

Score: 4.5/5

Crocodile Dundee (1986)

Simon Prior

2013-09-08

Now THAT'S a knife! — Now THAT’S a knife!

Twitter Plot Summary: An American reporter meets up with Crocodile Dundee and, inexplicably, invites him to New York. Cue fish out of water story.

Genre: Adventure/Comedy

Director: Peter Faiman

Key Cast: Paul Hogan, Linda Kozlowski, John Meillon, Mark Blum.

Five Point Summary:

1. Crocodile Dundee: Animal Whisperer.
2. Stalking a woman across the outback. Smooth.
3. The Twin Towers. That’s a poignant shot nowadays.
4. The guy driving the limo is Al “I shot a kid” Powell from Die Hard.
5. That is one crowded subway.

What happens when an Australian heads off to New York? Well generally speaking he does the same as the rest of us: has a look around, takes in the sights and then goes home without experiencing anything untoward. Of course, this being the movies there has to be more to it than that otherwise it has the potential to be an incredibly boring film. In this case the Australian in question is a guy who lives in the outback and has never been to a city before, so there’s plenty of potential for fish out of water humour, all derived from Paul Hogan’s own experiences on visiting New York for the first time. Hogan plays Michael J “Crocodile” Dundee, who is the subject of an article being written by adventure-seeking journalist Sue Charlton (Kozlowski). As Sue follows Dundee around the outback, the two form a bond that looks likely to be broken once Dundee is taken out of his natural habitat, as it were, and taken to New York.

All of the usual Australian cliches are dished out in the first half of the film, but because it’s written by a native of that land it doesn’t come across as gratuitous and an attempt at a cheap laugh. Instead it’s more of an homage to that way of life and the humour is subsequently derived from that, Australian slang and all. The second half of the movie puts Dundee in New York and this is where the real humour kicks in as he has to deal with bidets, transvestites, prostitutes and more besides.

Just taking his friend out for a stroll.

There’s conflict of course, in the form of Sue’s other half Richard (Blum), who despite her feelings for Dundee feels obliged to say yes when he asks her to marry him. Unlike almost literally everybody else that Dundee meets in New York, he’s the one who will smile at you but throw a snide remark or obvious putdown in your general direction. Slimey I think is the word to explain him. Dundee’s too cool a character to get genuinely annoyed by this man (or, indeed, any of the other things he encounters in the Big Apple), but seeing him deal with everything in such a cool, laid back manner, even a mugging, is great fun to watch.

I’d previously thought that Paul Hogan had made a lot of films. Nope, just the Crocodile Dundee films, a couple more that Hogan wrote and starred in, and erm… Flipper. Not exactly a stellar movie career then, but at least he’s retained most of the creative control over his career.

I will level one complaint at the film and that’s the final scene. I like the set up for it and I don’t have a problem with the resolution, but I think it could have been handled better. There’s likely only a few seconds in it, but a couple of changes in the edit would have helped as it ends more suddenly than you would usually expect. Other than that though it’s what I describe as a perfect ITV movie (for non-UK readers, ITV are the second largest of our TV stations, behind the BBC). It’s broad enough for lots of people to enjoy, it’s mostly inoffensive, and with a couple of cuts for language can be shown at any time of day. Ideal.

Favourite scene: The knife scene, of course.

Quote: “That’s not a knife. THAT’S a knife!”

Silly Moment: Crocodile Dundee walking around with a stuffed crocodile.

Score: 3/5

Son of the Mask (2005)

Simon Prior

2013-09-07

Twitter Plot Summary: The mask resurfaces and is used mostly by a dog. Meanwhile God of Mischief Loki is trying to find it.

Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Family/Fantasy

Director: Lawrence Guterman

Key Cast: Jamie Kennedy, Traylor Howard, Alan Cumming, Kal Penn, Ben Stein, Bob Hoskins.

Five Point Summary:

1. He doesn’t look blatantly evil in that black trench coat and hat…
2. Odin and Loki – Marvel do it way better.
3. The dog is jealous of the baby. This is going to be painful.
4. Cool, the baby watches Transformers Armada.
5. I’m glad that’s over. Never again.

Whomever decided a sequel to The Mask was a good idea deserves to be punched in the face. Not only for creating a sequel to a so-so movie (before I get hate mail – it was only good because Jim Carrey has a rubber face and Cameron Diaz wore that red dress – be honest), and not only for making a sequel over 10 years after the original, but for taking the decision to make it a kids film.

Sadly the film is linked directly with the original movie, so we can’t even pretend it’s an ill-advised reboot. The boring museum curator from the first film appears within the first few minutes, and the mask itself, having been washed away at the end of the first movie, washes ashore on the outskirts of Fringe City to cause more havoc and mayhem. And herein lies the first big problem with the film – the dog that finds the mask is a ringer for Milo, the dog from the original film. As the dog in this film is called Otis, it begs the question as to why they even bothered to use the same breed.

The Warner Brothers cartoon references are more overt this time round, to the point where characters are watching them on television. The lead character’s also called Tim Avery, an obvious reference to animation legend Tex Avery. He’s also a cartoonist, so it doesn’t get any more blatant than that. Then there’s all the hijinks that the characters get up to when wearing the mask, turning it into a live action cartoon. Say what you will about the Jim Carrey original but it at least had some form of internal logic to proceedings. This on the other hand splits the story right down the middle and feels like it will tear apart at any moment. On one side of the story we have Tim (Kennedy) who lives with girlfriend Tonya (Howard) and makes it abundantly clear to Tim that she wants to have kids. And I mean REALLY blatantly, as if we needed any subtlety to the script. Tim is averse to having children and/or responsibility, to the point where he has a daydream about having 15 kids – all of which have vampire teeth. Because we all know kids are drains on our health and finances, right? Instead Tim’s happy to act like a big kid and uses his dog as a surrogate little brother/child.

Uncanny valley alert! THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY!

On that point it’s obvious from the get-go what the theme of the film will be – taking responsibility, becoming a grown-up, all that jazz. Then after his dog gives him the mask, he becomes a strange parody of Jim Carrey with a huge chin and spawns a child with his wife. A child born of the mask. His son, when born, is then embodied with the powers of the mask and makes a mad dash for uncanny valley, never to return. Seriously, that CGI baby is scary. We end up with a strange triangle of affection between Tim, his son Alvey and dog Otis. It’s really, really odd. The only positive thing I can think to say that it works really well as an homage to the old Chuck Jones/Warner Brothers cartoons (Alvey and Otis have a Wile E Coyote/Road Runner thing going on as well), but you’re better off watching them rather than this as those cartoons are genuinely funny.

The other half of the story sees God of Mischief Loki (Alan Cumming, sporting an awful American accent) trying to locate the mask because if he doesn’t, his dad Odin will imprison him. Loki spends most of his time looking at babies and trying to discover if they have any mask-like powers. Ultimately he finds Alvey and this leads to a final showdown for Alvey’s affections. Seriously, Loki was a needless presence in the film, he adds less than nothing. On that note, go and have a word with Tom Hiddleston, that’s how you portray a God of Mischief. Just saying.

Bob Hoskins is known for calling Super Mario Brothers the worst film he’s ever made, and yet he plays Odin in this nonsense. Come on Bob, seriously? The only reason I can think of for this not being worse for him than Super Mario Brothers is that he likely only did a single day of filming on this, whereas he was required to be on set almost all the way through SMB. In any case, this is a far worse film than that and Bob should really know better by now. For shame, Mr Hoskins.

If you like the original film in any way, for the love of all that is good in this world don’t make any attempt to watch Son of the Mask. It’s truly diabolical and should receive the same fate as the unsold copies of the E.T. video game released on the Atari 2600. Find a big hole, bury all copies, and then cover it with concrete. It’s the humane thing to do. And the moral I took from this film? Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD do something.

Favourite scene: Oh, there’s so many to choose from… Actually I lie – none at all.

Quote: “Now, find that mask, before I open up a can of lightning on you!”

Silly Moment: It’s all silly, but when the baby decides to copy Chuck Jones’ dancing frog cartoon, you know we’re in bad territory.

Score: 0.5/5

Camping Holiday – Day 6 – Saturday 21st August 2010

Simon Prior

2013-09-07

This post was originally published on www.randomstoat.com on 28 August 2010.

Another early start to wrap up the holiday. Shower drains were clogged with something, I didn’t want to investigate too closely. Similarly, the toilets were hardly in fantastic condition. Glad we were leaving, quite frankly. Somehow we got everything packed away rather easily, throwing away a fair amount of unwanted stuff for reasons of space. We’d decided to pop into Newquay for the morning before heading home, so we squeezed into the car (back in full sardines mode as we were on Monday) and made the now regular trip to the top car park by the hotel. Yet again many drivers were trying to get into the car park on the opposite side of the road with roofboxes on their vehicles. The amount of times I’ve been at that car park and heard a crunch as they hit the maximum height barrier… Classic.

We had another walk down the high street and did some last minute shopping. For me it was mostly about the food – bought sticks of rock for the family and a small selection of fudges and coconut ice to see me through. At the top end of the high street there was a typical beach resort/fairground food seller, providing freshly cooked doughnuts at a vastly over inflated price. Still, it was £1.50 well spent, it’s always a good doughnut if you see it cooking right in front of you. Almost bought a hoodie at Fat Willy’s (a shop that looks massive from the outside but is about three feet square on the inside) but realised it was £30 I could put to better use elsewhere.

After folks had done the last of their shopping, we stopped off in another tea room for one final Newquay lunch. The food itself was very nice, in my case a cheese and ham sandwich with a side portion of chips shared between myself, Liz and Dee. Fun was had with paying. I paid £10 and had a £5 note given to me before we handed it to the waitress. Then the waitress handed both me and Dee £5 each as change, which was a bit odd because we’d all paid either the exact amount or had sorted out the change between us. Like the good people we are, we pointed out the mistake and handed the money back to them. Rather than buy a second drink I decided to save my money and buy two bottles of Pepsi from Poundland next door, also handy for the journey home. We doubled back and, after a final visit to the first sweet shop on the high street, we went back to the car. We bid our farewells to the other three, who were sticking around in Newquay for a little longer, and the four of us started the journey home. Not before stopping at Morrisons for petrol and snacks, however. I was quite pleased that I hadn’t had to fill the car up again all week, I still had about a quarter of a tank left from filling up the previous weekend. Alternating the driving all week no doubt helped, but given the mileage I still think it was impressive.

And so the journey home began, and not without incident. We hit traffic just past Bodmin and my diversionary tactic failed and brought us back out on the same road (navigation fail). The traffic did keep moving and we were soon making headway again. Then more traffic further up the A38, this time apparenty caused by an accident. We had to shift to one side to allow a police car through, and by the time we were moving again the police car driver was putting a road sign back in his car. We didn’t hit any more traffic until the M5, where it went ridiculously busy approaching Weston, but nowhere near as bad as it was going southbound. Traffic for at least 10 junctions. Glad we weren’t heading down there that Saturday.

We stopped at the same Bristol services as we had on the way down there. I finally crumbled and bought a Burger King meal. Even better, with every meal you got free onion rings or free chicken bites, which went down well. Just as we thought about leaving a storm rolled in. We decided to try sitting it out but that didn’t really work, so I bravely (foolishly) decided to get back out on the motorway and continue the journey home. Whilst it was rather nasty-going for half an hour, the rain soon relented and we made good time for the rest of the journey. I dropped off the other passengers and got home in one piece. After getting everything in from the car my first port of call was the shower. It was official: I was home again.

1...787980...90 Page 79 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM