Fire With Fire (2012)

2013-07-14

The Fire With Fire production meeting was not going well.

Twitter Plot Summary: A fireman is put into witness protection when a white supremacist bumps off a black shopkeeper. Mr Fireman goes postal when shiz gets real.

Genre: Action/Crime/Drama/Thriller

Director: David Barrett

Key Cast: Josh Duhamel, Bruce Willis, Rosario Dawson, Vincent D’onofrio, 50 Cent, Julian McMahon, Vinnie Jones, Kevin Dunn.

Five Point Summary:

1. No way is that the guy who played Edgar in Men in Black… 
2. Kevin Dunn, what the smurf happened to you? 
3. “He’s a tough kid.” Er, Josh Duhamel is, like, 40.  
4. Yeah, he just so happens to carry his fireman gear with him everywhere. 
5. So, Bruce Willis… did he really need to be in this?

What happens when a white supremacist goes into a shop run by a black man? That’s the basic concept that kicks off Fire With Fire, as Vincent D’Onofrio’s thoroughly unpleasant David Hagan, with two obligatory heavies in tow, nips into a shop to demand protection money, and it just so happens that Josh Duhamel’s Jeremy Coleman is in there shopping. And yes, Vincent D’Onofrio is the guy who played Edgar (the bug man) in Men in Black. Jeremy is forced to the ground and watches as Hagan pops a cap or three in the shopkeeper’s sun and then the shopkeeper. In time honoured tradition Hagan then leaves Jeremy’s fate in the hands of his goons (Vinnie Jones playing Vinnie Jones, and some guy with a beard playing Some Guy With A Beard). Naturally, Jeremy escapes and thus, the Plot Proper doth begin.

And the plot really doth begin as the opening credits roll, 15 minutes into the story. This was a nice touch – the credits occur as Jeremy’s identity is changed over a number of computer displays and he is sent into witness protection. It was nice to see a film that was in no rush to jump into the credits, it gave the opening a touch more gravitas. Only a touch, mind. With very few exceptions this is a run of the mill revenge flick.

With that in mind it’s surprising that so many big names said yes to appearing in this. From the headlining trio of Josh Duhamel, Rosario Dawson and Bruce Freakin’ Willis, you might expect it to be seven shades of awesome. Except maybe for Josh Duhamel. Bruce Willis’ character could have been played by anyone – it’s like he had a spare few days between making GI Joe Retaliation and A Good Day To Die Hard and this was what he did. He has one standout scene in a face-off with Hagan, however as he’s the cop trying to take him down, it doesn’t make that much sense. The argument would be that Willis needs warrants, proof of crimes committed etc in order to do so, but even taking that into account, walking into the lion’s den, as it were, is an incredibly silly thing to do. It’s safe to assume that much of the rest of the main cast did this as a stop-gap between bigger projects, it doesn’t look like they spent a huge amount of time on shooting the thing.

Running at just shy of 100 minutes including credits, it feels like 15-20 pages of relevant story or linking narrative has been cut out. Once Duhamel goes on the run it starts jumping around, seemingly randomly, from scene to scene and with very loose connecting tissue between each scene. Many action films work best when clocking in around the 2 hour mark, which would have been of benefit here. There are also surprisingly few twists and turns. There are a number of moments where you expect characters to betray one another, for there to be a mole within the police department, but none of that plays out. It’s as simple as A to B to C, brief sojourn at D, then onto the finale. Right at the beginning, after we discover that Jeremy is a crack shot with a gun, Rosario Dawson is shot by assassin/hitman Julian McMahon (playing completely against type and not doing particularly well with the role). The implication is that she’s shot in the head and killed, but alas no – she lives, twas but a scratch. If the character had died then there might have been some impetus to the second half of the film, and a surprise death that would have echoes of the mid-film switch in Psycho. But obviously nowhere near as good as that film.

"Yeah, I'm nasty. Look, I have a red swastika tattooed on my chest." — “Yeah, I’m nasty. Look, I have a red swastika tattooed on my chest.”

And talking of the script, it’s so cliche you know full well that Duhamel’s fireman skills will come into play by the film’s end, and lo and behold they do. There’s a nice build-up in the first 30 minutes that soon degrades into silliness. Most of the script is littered with characters shouting “Jeremy!” If I had a pound for every time somebody said this… well, I’d probably have about £15. As the story plods along, ticking off every revenge flick trope as we go, it turns out that Hagan is Mr Indestructable (watch the final act, you’ll get it), and Jeremy is averse to actually hurting people – he throws up more times than Regan does in The Exorcist, but perhaps not quite as voluminously.

Directorially there are some nice flourishes from David Barrett. A shootout between Duhamel, Dawson and a couple of assassin types sees the camera following the bullet a few times. It’s something a little different for an action film and would have benefitted from having more of these little moments as the rest of the direction comes across very much as being by the books and quite generic. For a director who has worked mainly in television then the reasons for this become clear. More interestingly is that Barrett appears to be more well known for his stunt work on a number of big films. With this background a bit more would be expected from the action sequences, and there really aren’t many of them, but no. It’s safe territory from start to finish.

It’s hard to recommend the film on any basis – the action’s relatively plain, the cast sleepwalk through most of the film, and the story itself doesn’t really engage. A note to all involved – must try harder.

Favourite scene: Vinnie Jones getting to fight for a couple of minutes. You know how that’s going to end.

Quote: “To Hell with witness protection. You’re gonna need protection from me.”

Silly Moment: *Spoilers* Hagan takes an axe to the chest. And that just makes him angry.

Score: 2.5/5

Iron Sky (2012)

Simon Prior

2013-07-13

I am the Fuhrer and you WILL respect my authoritaww!

Twitter Plot Summary: The Nazis have been hiding on the dark side of the Moon for 70 years. Now they are returning to have their revenge!

Genre: Action/Comedy/Sci-Fi

Director: Timo Vuorensola

Key Cast: Julia Dietze, Christopher Kirby, Götz Otto, Udo Kier, Peta Sergeant, Stephanie Paul.

Five Point Summary:

1. Nazis on the Moon! Genius! 
2. Udo Kier! YES!
 3. You’ll believe they can make a black man white. Kind of. 
4. I like the uniform/outfit designs. Very pulp.
 5. Well that was a wasted opportunity.

There’s a great idea lying at the core of Iron Sky, which if pulled off correctly would have made this an essential cult classic. As it is, that initial great idea is lost somewhere along the way, most likely for budgetary reasons. That great idea – after the war ended in 1945 a group of Nazis escape into space and hide on the dark side of the Moon. There, in a moon base that’s shaped like a swastika (just because they can), they build their “perfect” Aryan society and plot their revenge against the world. The story originated from the dream of writer Jarmo Puskala, which appears to be only one of two credits he has on IMDB at the time of writing. Make of that what you will, but seeing as the script calls for a wisecracking black astronaut (Christopher Kirby) to be converted into a white man and indoctrinated to believe in the Nazi cause – all using questionable science, no less – it’s obvious that the script was written following a fevered cheese dream.

Many were initially sold on the pre-release trailer, which made the film look like it would be the cult film to end all cult films. Nazis on the moon, how can it go wrong? The lesson learned here – don’t pay attention to the trailer. Trailers either lie blatantly about what the film is actually like, or they give away all of the set pieces. In this case the trailer hid that the middle act of the film is laborious. The opening and closing acts are excellent pieces of pulp sci-fi – The reveal of the Nazi moon base and establishing the universe in which this story exists, then the reveal of the Götterdammerung during the finale. Expertly done, just on the right side of ridiculous. Especially Nazi warship the Götterdammerung – if at any point during the film you wondered what the Nazis have been up to for 70 years, this is your answer.

So erm yeah... apparently I'm white now. Apparently. — So erm yeah… apparently I’m white now. Apparently.

If the pulp science fiction concept isn’t enough to pique your interest (and if you’re not sold on that, then there’s no hope for you), then how about Udo Kier playing Der Fuhrer? He’s an excellent piece of casting and, despite the brevity of his appearance, is one of the film’s highlights. He seems to be the only one taking thing seriously whilst everybody else dials it up to 11, but then wouldn’t you do the same if you were in this film?

Of course, it wouldn’t be a cheesy future cult classic if it didn’t have a bit of fun along the way. There are nods to the popular “Downfall” meme (for those of you unaware of what this is – see here), and the US President is a non-too-subtle caricature of Sarah Palin who is a warmonger, to say the least. Then there are some less obvious references, such as the attack on Earth beginning with an almost direct quote of the words Hitler spoke when the Blitzkrieg began in 1939, and a few notes from Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side of the Moon’ are heard at one point, albeit very briefly.

Comparing the two, The Asylum’s mockbuster “Nazis At The Center of the Earth” (its plot an inversion of Iron Sky’s) feels like a much better film, although the scores on IMDB would say otherwise. If not for the lacklustre middle section of the film it would otherwise be an excellent science fiction romp. It gets bogged down by focusing on 5 characters which, for reasons of budget, is understandable to an extent, but giving the Nazis a stylist? Really? After the ridiculous moon base sections where we are exposed to some rickety German technology and plenty of fun dialogue, going back down to Earth and experiencing its numerous green screen backdrops (was any of this film shot against a real background?) soon grows tiresome. It’s that the excellent concept is lost to 40 minutes of needless comparisons between the Nazis and George W Bush’s administration.

The main problem appears to be budget, and ironically it’s that they had too much to play with. If the budget had been half of the estimated €7.5 million it’s possible that the filmmakers would have had to be more creative and we would have a far better film.

Favourite scene: Finding out that Udo Kier is The Fuhrer.

Quote: “Remember me? The moon spook you turned into a snowflake?”

Silly Moment: There’s a lot of them, but making a black man white (well, kind of) is top of the list.

Score: 2.5/5

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

Epic (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-07-12

"Sorry, I'm not really into slugs." — “Sorry, I’m not really into slugs.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Modern girl MK is shrunk down to an inch tall where she helps save the forest folk from the evil Mandrake and his minions.

Genre: Animation/Adventure/Family/Fantasy

Director: Chris Wedge

Key Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, Colin Farrell, Christoph Waltz, Beyonce Knowles, Steven Tyler

Five Point Summary:

1. Okay, nice opening, let’s see where it goes… 
2. …oh, it went there. Yawn. 
3. Mandrake, you are so delightfully evil. 
4. Steven Tyler as a font of all knowledge? Srsly?  
5. One day, all MacGuffins will be outlawed. On pain of death.

Given that it’s gone for the lofty title of Epic, you’d probably expect a Lord of the Rings-style story that would be apt for the moniker. As it happens it’s a story we’ve seen many times before – good and evil are fighting for a MacGuffin that will either save or destroy the forest. So there’s the less than subtle eco message right there – we must save the forests or the world will die! So, our protagonist is a regular person-sized person called MK. She’s visiting her Dad who’s a wee bit loopy and insists that tiny people are living in the forest, who because of their relative size live at a slightly accelerated rate compared to the normal world. After her Dad heads out into the forest again, MK decides to leave but just happens to step into the middle of a battle between the Leafmen and the Boggans (can you tell which ones are the good guys? CAN YOU?!). She’s shrunk down to their size by Queen Tara (played by Beyonce Knowles) and thus the adventure doth begin!

The saving grace is Chris O’Dowd and Aziz Ansari as a wisecracking snail and slug accordingly. They elevate the story from its somewhat unambitious climbs – if this film was equivalent to a mountain expedition, it would be at best the equivalent to reaching Base Camp 1 – enough effort has been put in to justify doing it but it’s nothing to write home about. In fact it pretty much trots out all of the typical animated family feature stereotypes – there’s the dashing young anti-hero type in Josh Hutcherson’s Nod, the single-minded villain who will not stop until he succeeds in his quest to destroy everything, the slightly traumatised leader-type who has issues (of What Car? Magazine, possibly), the reluctant hero/heroine who’s only there as a victim of circumstance, and the obligatory comic relief.

Whilst O’Dowd and Ansari cover the comedic side of proceedings, Christoph Waltz adds the scares as the obligatory big bad, the rat skin-wearing Mandrake. He’s possibly the most fearsome villain I’ve seen in an animated feature since Aladdin’s Jafar, but with 25% more nastiness. Whilst his motives never really change – destroy the forest! DESTROY THE FOREST! – his motivations for doing so are in part fueled by the loss of his son. That’s the obligatory bit of villain-related characterisation you’re getting, don’t expect anything more than that. Im also not sure why people are so negative towards Colin Farrell – he’s not exceptional but his voice suits the weariness that Ronin feels.

The main focus of course is on MK and her relationship with her Dad. They’ve drifted apart over the years and, since the death of MK’s Mum (I don’t recall this being explained in any detail in the film) this is her final attempt at reconciling with what’s left of her family. Naturally, as her Dad is a mad scientist type and constantly blabbering on about the tiny forest people, it’s clear that they both have a lot of issues to talk through. I also have to give kudos to the writers for including a three legged dog – ignoring the obvious metaphor that the dog represents the dysfunctional family, it’s just nice to see an “imperfect” pet (I disagree with this term, but I can’t think of any other way of describing it) getting ample screen time and not being the target of a plethora of disability-related jokes. The next step – disabled people who are integral to the story.

Plus points go for the 3D (as I’ve said before, animation usually gets 3D right), and for the number of characters they are now able to animate on screen at any one time. In this respect it was suitably epic, although maybe more of an actual war between the two sides would have been more appropriate. The animation as well is fantastic – computer animation has really come into its own nowadays. Focusing on a small group is all well and good, but when you’re doing animation and the sky’s the limit, you can go a little crazy if need be. It’s not so much epic as “distinctly average” then, but it’s amusing enough for a single viewing. Any additional viewings will most likely be dictated by whether or not you have children. If like me you don’t have kids then repeat viewings may prove unlikely. Still, it was entertaining enough while it lasted.

Favourite scene: The initial attack of the Boggans, appearing from underneath the tree bark. Most impressive.

Quote: “I’m going to destroy the forest. But I’m only going to do it once, so try to pay attention.”

Silly Moment: A tiny team including Nod,

Score: 3/5

Death Train (2006)

Simon Prior

2013-07-11

Punch me. In the nipple. God demands it.

Twitter Plot Summary: Lasko, a soldier-turned-monk, has to stop bad guy Arnold Vosloo from releasing a virus on a train. So far, so Under Siege 2.

Genre: Action

Director: Diethard Kuster

Key Cast: Arnold Vosloo, Mathis Landwehr, Stephan Bieker, Ken Bones, Simon Dutton, Michelle MacErlean,

Five Point Summary:

1. It’s Under Siege 2 but with monks instead of Steven Seagal. 
2. If you’re going to pretend to be a monk, wear appropriate footwear. 
3. Arnold Vosloo. Oh how the mighty have fallen.
 4. Ooh, a helicopter! 
5. Explosions! From all angles! Brilliant!

There’s a strong possibility that made for TV movies are the bane of all existence and designed to make people suffer. With some notable exceptions aside, the recent Behind The Candelabra for example, the majority feature cheap stories, cheap production values and equally cheap acting. Anything shown on daytime TV, or Channel 5 in the UK, is usually a significant culprit.

Spun out from that popular German TV series Lasko: Die Faust Gottes (yeah, me neither), the titular Lasko is a monk who used to be a soldier, and now at the appropriate time (like when he’s about to beat up a villain) describes himself as The Fist of God. Okay then… He and his colleagues board a train which is conveniently about to have a deadly virus released on it by a band of terrorists led by Arnold Vosloo, of all people. The train’s full of pilgrims on their way to Lourdes, so the fact it’s being targeted by terrorists shouldn’t really surprise me. It’s up to Lasko, his chubby sidekick Matthias, and another older monk who’s name eludes me, to put a stop to their evil plans.

Lasko’s haunted by his time in the army, and we get frequent flashbacks to the SAME sequence. To give his story any emotional impact it would have been better to see multiple incidents that caused him to question his role, rather than the same one being played again and again. So some innocent people were killed – we get it. Now move on and show us something else. Vosloo is rather good as the villain – he plays it as if he’s starring in a big budget Hollywood film, which certainly helps.

Fans of explosions are well catered for, despite the relatively low production costs. In fact, this film’s particularly notable for doing the old-school action thing of filming the explosion from every angle (and I mean EVERY angle) and then putting all of them into the film. I’m pretty sure that at least half of the film’s running time is taken up by explosions from every conceivable angle. You can’t accuse them of not getting their money’s worth at least.

Reading the IMDB entry for the film made me laugh – the only plot keywords available are “exploding helicopter”. Well yes indeed, there is an exploding helicopter (which explodes from multiple angles, naturally), but surely the additional tags of “monk” and “train” would have been appropriate? It also made me giggle when I found out that the director’s name is Diethard – very close to a certain film franchise starring Bruce Willis. It’s quite appropriate given that this film transposes the Under Siege 2 story, which was itself transposed from Under Siege, which then itself was transposed from the Die Hard formula. That’s a lot of transposing. So from that way of thinking, does that make this a 4th generation Die Hard clone? Answers on a postcard.

Anyway, back on track (hah! I made a funny!). I’ve seen much worse TV movie fare over the years, and for the most part Death Train holds up as an extended TV episode, if not a movie in itself. Sadly I don’t have any inclination to watch the TV series, but as a filler for a Saturday afternoon it’s perfect “disengage your brain” material.

Favourite scene: Lasko, stood atop the train and minus his monk’s robes, beats up some bad guys. Then a helicopter explodes.

Quote: “My name for today… is Lucifer. Look on the bright side, you’re used to suffering.”

Silly Moment: Any time something blows up, you get to see the explosion from all angles.

Score: 2/5

The Hangover Part III (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-07-10

Hey look, Justin Bartha is th.... never mind. — Hey look, Justin Bartha is th…. never mind.

Twitter Plot Summary: Yet another Hangover film, this time the Wolf Pack have to retrieve the money Chow stole from John Goodman. Snore.

Genre: Comedy

Director: Todd Phillips

Key Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, John Goodman, Melissa McCarthy, Jeffrey Tambor, Heather Graham, Mike Epps.

Five Point Summary:

1. Justin Bartha – why are you even here, man? 
2. John Goodman’s actually pretty good. 
3. Chow – irritating. 
4. It’s like a greatest hits collection of the first film. Minus the entertainment. 
5. Where’s the funnies? I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

I was never a huge fan of the Hangover series, to the point where I’ve still not seen Part 2. That’s no huge loss though as apart from a couple of references in the first 10 minutes, you only really need to have seen the first film to “get” The Hangover Part 3.

The gang are back together again, this time planning on sending permanent man-boy Alan to a facility that will treat his mental health problems. As to be expected, they don’t make it to the facility, being kidnapped by big crime boss John Goodman en route and made to do his bidding. It turns out that Mr Chow stole money from Goodman, playing criminal kingpin Marshall, and now he wants it back. So how do you go about reclaiming $21 million? You get a bunch of guys who aren’t trained in the art of locating people to locate Mr Chow. You know, rather than use some of your impressive funds to locate your quarry. Oh no, far too easy that.

Now, to my biggest gripe with the film – I can understand why Justin Bartha only had a minor role in the first movie as he’s the MacGuffin that pushes the somewhat unbelievable story forward. I’m not sure though why his character is so horribly sidelined in the subsequent movies. Here he’s essentially the damsel in distress (lacking any other strong female characterisation throughout the film, as you’d expect), kept locked up by John Goodman whilst the Wolf Pack try to locate Mr Chow and retrieve the money – in gold bars, no less. Doug gets the plot moving and is almost immediately taken out of the narrative. Seems a waste to me.

All due respect to him, but I’m not a huge fan of Ken Jeong. His Chow is irritating and seems to be the only reason this film exists. It’s less about the Wolf Pack and more about him and his craaaazy ways. Yawn. Some humour comes from the encounter between Alan and Melissa McCarthy’s pawn shop owner, but as she basically plays the same character in everything (loud, obnoxious, not really that funny.) the appeal of the scene is rather limited.

If you’re expecting laughs akin to the first (and presumably second) movies, then you’re in for a turgid experience. Generally light on humour in favour of a generally dull heist caper. The Wolf Pack move from set piece to set piece, meandering through the plot until its inevitable conclusion. If it had just been left at one film I’d have been fine with it. It works in isolation and that’s fine. The problem appears to be that The Hangover made quite a bit of money so the studio said “I know, let’s make MORE of them!” And thus, a franchise was born. Now, as I said earlier, I can’t speak for The Hangover Part 2 as yet, but from what I’ve heard it’s essentially a rehash of the first film, but this time in Bangkok. Kudos to this film for at least not following the same template as the previous two, but you either make Ocean’s Eleven (which clearly Todd Phillips wanted to do here) or you make The Hangover. And make it funny, that also helps.

There are a lot of well-directed sequences, and the opening that shows Chow’s escape from prison is a nice homage to The Shawshank Redemption, and I can’t really fault the story overall as it works on the whole as a crime caper. Unfortunately its efforts to be more like the Ocean’s Eleven series are to its detriment.

Favourite scene: Alan taking a picture of Phil as he hangs off the Caesar’s Palace sign.

Quote: “I believe I can fly… I love cocaine!”

Silly Moment: Chow insisting he and Stu crawl around on their hands and knees like dogs. Then Chow eats some dog food.

Score: 2/5

Black Knight (2001)

Simon Prior

2013-07-09

Yep, it's as bad as this looks. — Yep, it’s as bad as this looks.

Twitter Plot Summary: Martin Lawrence works at a medieval theme park and is magically transported back in time. Hilarity ensues. Apparently.

Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Fantasy

Director: Gil Junger

Key Cast: Martin Lawrence, Marshall Thomason, Tom Wilkinson, Vincent Regan.

Five Point Summary:

1. So he’s transported through time AND space?  
2. He’s a modern day man in the Middle Ages! It’s supposed to be hilarious but it isn’t! 
3. His name is Skywalker. Hah. Hah. My sides have just split. 
4. White girl sleeps with Martin Lawrence. He gets locked up. This is supposed to be funny. 
5. “Eeeeeeennnnglaaaaaaannnnd!” Okay, so that bit actually was amusing.

Oh dear. It took than 30 seconds of the film before that thought popped into my head. I’m sure it must be a new personal record. Martin Lawrence arrives in the past and looks like he’s never seen a white man before. Which, based on the first five minutes of Black Knight where white folk are apparently a moribund species, appears to be the reason. Within a further 5 minutes Lawrence is in the past and doing that “hilarious” schtick of being a modern man sent back in time, as the only black man. So that’s where all the white folk ended up! It’s cheap, badly written and the comedy equivalent of smashing yourself repeatedly in the face with a hammer. I can imagine the script writing session now – “I know! Let’s roll out every black stereotype we can, roll it all up in the form of Martin Lawrence and send him back in time by 800 years!” Generally speaking I don’t have a problem with stereotypes, but if you’re going to go down that road you could at least twist it a little so it’s interesting. This is stereotype by the numbers, and is subsequently a chore to watch.

It’s rather telling that only Martin Lawrence appears to be enjoying himself. It’s a bit like watching the first Dungeons and Dragons film (yes, there’s more than one), but with somebody enjoying themselves. It amazes me sometimes how these films get made, particularly as this is a PG rated film. It’s nowhere near entertaining enough for adults, and it only just barely passes muster for the younger audience. It’s like the script is trapped between wanting to be a family-friendly “hilarious” adventure and… well, an adult comedy with swears and nudity and stuff. Bridging the middle ground between the two really doesn’t work. I bet this started as an R-rated cut (15 rating in the UK) and was then sanitised by the studio. Not that it helps the story by any stretch, even Eddie Murphy in his 80s heyday would have struggled to make this work. Post-2000 Eddie Murphy would have been about as effective as Martin Lawrence actually is.

"You said this film would be funny! You lied to me, Martin Lawrence!" — “You said this film would be funny! You lied to me, Martin Lawrence!”

The only positive thing I can say is that Vincent Regan is rather good as the unfortunately named Percival. He does what he can with the script put in front of him, but it’s a losing battle. Suffice to say his pectorals got more characterisation in 300 than his entire persona does in Black Knight. Tom Wilkinson too – he’s done far better than this (see just about any other film he’s made an appearance in). It very much has the whiff of Michael Caine doing Jaws 4 just so he can build a house.

There were four moments that I found moderately amusing. Lawrence struggling to get onto a horse (this happens twice but I’m counting it as one moment); Lawrence realising the beheading was actually real; the Queen trying to rally the troops and doing a terrible job, and Lawrence advising the rebels in the dungeon that drinking your own urine is a bad idea. That was it. I was hoping that the Black Knight of the title would be John Cleese reprising his role from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (or Third Rock From The Sun, fact fans!), but no, it’s about as obvious a pun as you can get. Which, given the 80 minutes of dross that preceded it, shouldn’t really come as a surprise.

Favourite scene: Martin Lawrence realising that the beheading looks so real… because it is real.

Quote: “911! White man down! White man down!”

Silly Moment: Getting the court to dance around to some strangely modern music. Groan-inducing.

Score: 1.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L8ddEnAGCA

The Warlords (2007)

Simon Prior

2013-07-08

"Steven Seagal's over there. He will die by my hand." — “Steven Seagal’s over there. He will die by my hand.”

Twitter Plot Summary: It’s the glory days of the Qing Dynasty and everybody’s off to war.

Genre: Action/Drama/History/War

Director: Peter Chan and Wai Man Lip.

Key Cast: Jet Li, Andy Lau, Takeshi Kaneshiro,

Five Point Summary:

1. Sever the head and the body will fall. Well… duh. 
2. Suicide attack! Yay! 
3. Trench warfare either means it’s WWI, or the Chinese were centuries ahead of us even in that respect!  (Before anyone says anything – I know China were well ahead of the West. Some might argue they still are).
4. More talking and drinking tea. Not enough action.
 5. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Qapla’!

A battle. A massacre. A sole survivor in the form of Jet Li’s General Pang Qingyun. This marks the beginning of The Warlords, based on the Qing Dynasty story “The Assassination of Ma”. It’s a mostly paper-thin story with a very quick and simple set-up, but let’s be honest, you’re here for the big fights and martial arts goodness that are Jet Li’s staple. The good news is that the action scenes are, as you’d expect, very nicely done, even if there aren’t a huge number of them. The camera’s close, but not too close so you can’t see anything (in your face Western action film directors!). Claret flows freely, the action is kinetic and it’s well choreographed.

So who cares if the actual story is about as wafer thin as a particular brand of chocolate mint served to Mr Creosote? There’s enough to see you through (with enough grim pallor to last a thousand films) and connect the impressive fight sequences. As I’ve said, there aren’t as many as you might think, and it’s clear most of the budget went on one of three things: The production design (lots of dark outfits, matching the film’s mood); the CGI blood; the post production filtering they’ve done on everything. It has that typically glossy, modern Eastern action film look to it, to the point where all of the major releases that have come out of the East in the last 10 years all look vaguely similar, even if they are stylistically poles apart. It’s a tad concerning and no different to the BBC’s approach to things like Casualty and all of their drama output. If it all looks the same, where’s the uniqueness that will make the good stuff stand out?

There’s that old adage that soldiers and bandits don’t mix (and if it wasn’t previously an old adage, it is now. Because I said so), but that’s soon out the window when the blood brothers win their first victory and they start to form up as a proper army rather than a collection of thieves and bandits, emphasised by the summary execution of a pair of men who partook in the usual raping and pillaging thing. The blood brothers’ moves are limited by a shady cabal of ministers that dictate where the fight will go, but oddly enough will not even contemplate attacking the two major strongholds of Nanking and Suzhou. At every turn they’re also confounded by cowardly General Ho, who lurks in the background like a gold-gilded and very obvious traitor stereotype. The minor twist here is that everybody knows General Ho is a bad one yet their hands are tied, and on occasion he is actually useful. Having a large army can result in that.

You may be surprised to discover that Jet Li doesn’t really get up to much, which is surprising when you take into account that he was only in his mid-40s when this was made. Still a good long while to go before he reaches Seagal territory, thankfully. He’s also not half bad an actor either, there’s a lot more to him than just a ludicrously talented action performer. Actually, perhaps Seagal should get in touch with Jet Li and take a few notes. He might learn how not to do terrible films. Stranger things have happened.

There’s some nice pathos regarding the vagaries of war, and the steps that are deemed necessary in order to win. Massacring men in cold blood following their surrender, whilst a morally abhorrent action, is shown as a necessity in order for the old “evil” regime to be taken down. Of course, then this expands into what do you do with the spoils of war after the battle is won? Is it enough to split a blood brother pact? I can’t imagine the Fellowship of the Ring managing quite as well.

Favourite scene: Jet Li showing off his awesome fighting skills, admittedly for only 15 seconds.

Quote: “A brother who harms a brother must die!”

Silly Moment: Prisoners of war complaining they don’t have enough food to eat, then pelt Jet Li with bread rolls.

Score: 3.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?nomobile=1&v=NOr8Dj1PxJg

A Field In England (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-07-07

I have no idea what's going on... — I have no idea what’s going on…

Twitter Plot Summary: Four deserters from the Civil War end up in a field, take some hallucinogenic mushrooms and dig for buried treasure. Standard.

Genre: Horror

Director: Ben Wheatley

Key Cast: Reece Shearsmith, Michael Smiley, Robert Glover, Julian Barratt, Peter Ferdinando, Ryan Pope.

Five Point Summary:

1. Nice field. 
2. What’s going on in that tent? Do I want to find out? 
3. Why is he vomiting up stones?
4. He dead! Or is he? OR IS HE?!
 5. Er… so what just happened?

A Field In England is a head trip. Shot in black and white and on a meagre budget, the story sees a disparate group of men from both sides of the conflict (or even neither) convene in a field away from the fight and, at the suggestion of one of them, decide to visit a nearby pub. They’re soon press-ganged into searching the field for buried treasure by an incredibly menacing Michael Smiley.

You may very well question what you’re watching. I certainly did at first. I actually found quite a bit of it amusing, but then I laughed at The Human Centipede Part 2, so I have a strong suspicion that I may be a little twisted in the head. That or I’m attuned to the black humour on offer. One scene sees a character taking time out to defecate over some nettles. You may consider things like this to be superfluous, but it’s another layer of, admittedly humorous, characterisation before the hammer comes down, so to speak.

An incredibly disturbing sequence sees Whitehead tortured (or worse – there’s definitely a hint of supernatural goings-on) by Smiley’s O’Neil, and then turned into a human divining rod. It’s a scene that will go down best late at night, equal parts surreal and terrifying. Soon enough, and after much digging for the treasure Whitehead has enough and resolves to be his own man – so naturally he hides from O’Neil and eats a few mushrooms.
And then it all gets weird. As if it wasn’t weird already.

There are a lot of questions raised. Despite the fact there’s a battle taking place just on the other side of the hedge, the sounds of combat are quickly lost and our characters are soon alone and isolated. A subtle metaphor for passing on, perhaps? Are they all dead? Is O’Neil actually the Devil? Is it Purgatory/Hell/Just a big field? It can be seen from many angles, that everything is happening as we see it, that they are tripping on mushrooms, or that they have descended into Hell/Purgatory after (maybe) dying in the battle. Without giving anything away, you will make up your own mind after seeing the end. Some would argue otherwise, but to me it’s a perfect example of spot-on scriptwriting and film making.

I’ve yet to see any of Wheatley’s other films (I have Kill List lined up and Sightseers was yet another of my 2012 cinema misses), but if this is anything to go by I’m sure I’ll love them. He has a particular style that combines traditional filmmaking with an avant-garde mixture of techniques including fast-cutting between two images to simulate a trip on magic mushrooms. Before everything goes crazy Wheatley uses several long, lingering shots and puts the focus on the characters. Probably a good job given that the only backdrop is a field and a few trees. Rather positively you never grow weary of the simple backdrop, Wheatley finds many interesting ways of framing the story.
It’s not an accessible film by any stretch, more likely than not most people who see it will either not have a clue what’s going on or simply find the surrealist narrative impenetrable. If you’ve ever watched Jam, Chris Morris’ surreal sketch show, then you’re off to a good start. It’s a disorienting experience throughout, from the initial first person perspective as Whitehead emerges from the hedge into the field, to the trip-out sequence after he indulges in a ring of mushrooms.

Throw in a smattering of Police Squad-style “freeze frame” moments (which are called “tableau vivant” – living pictures), a man getting his lad out, and Whitehead randomly vomiting up stones with strange symbols inscribed on them, and you have something original that hearkens back to the glory days of British horror. In years to come I would hope that A Field in England is placed alongside Witchfinder General and The Wicker Man as a classic of the genre. Suffice to say this one’s going to be a permanent resident in my collection.

Favourite scene: The torture of Whitehead. Terrifying. Truly terrifying.

Quote: “It does not surprise me that the Devil is an Irishman. Though I thought perhaps he might be a bit taller.”

Silly Moment: Man having his “parts” examined, and being told he has almost every disease under the sun except plague.

Score: 4.5/5

Pushing Tin (1999)

Simon Prior

2013-07-07

Twitter Plot Summary: John Cusack is a fast talking air traffic controller. He bumps heads with the more laid back Billy Bob Thornton. Hilarity and drama ensues.

Genre: Comedy/Drama/Romance

Director: Mike Newell

Key Cast: John Cusack, Billy Bob Thornton, Cate Blanchett, Angelina Jolie, Kurt Fuller, Jake Weber, Vicki Lewis.

Five Point Summary:

1. They’re showing kids around on the ACTUAL floor? Stupid, stupid, stupid. 
2. Billy Bob Thornton: Master of Burning Matchsticks. 
3. Cusackkeepstalkingrrsllyfsstitshardtokeepup. 
4. Did you see that? It was Angelina’s… and there they are again! 
5. Bomb scare!

Ignoring the poor late-90s CGI aeroplanes in the opening credits, the first thing you pay attention to is that terrible moustache and shirt worn by Jake Weber. His appearance is so very 90s that I almost didn’t believe that it was the same guy who later showed up in the surprisingly good Dawn of the Dead remake. That is nothing compared to the obligatory exposition scene in the diner, where we find out exactly what air traffic controllers actually do. It’s almost as if the scriptwriters were stealing notes from Quentin Tarantino and doing half a job ripping off the opening to Reservoir Dogs. Apparently the writers were heavily involved in writing Frasier and Cheers, and not much else it seems. John Cusack is Nick Falzone, and everything he does – job, talking, driving – goes at a billion miles an hour. He seems to have the attention span of a fish. It appears that this characteristic has also been passed onto his son, who is struggling at school for the very same reason – no attention span. With this clearly established, enter Billy Bob Thornton as Russell Bell, the yin to Cusack’s yang.

They establish a rivalry almost immediately, taking an instant dislike to each other. Falzone is a fast talker whereas Bell is seemingly as laid back as it gets. They’re both very good at their job, in different ways which, of course, adds to the tension between them. The games of oneupmanship inadvertently spreads to their private lives – specifically their partners, played by Cate Blanchett and Angelina Jolie (it was whilst filming this that Billy Bob and Angelina met). Naturally that doesn’t go down well. Even without the high pressure job of landing aeroplanes it would be a very bad idea.

I know Billy Bob Thornton is supposed to be the focus here, but just look at Jake Weber's moustache! — I know Billy Bob Thornton is supposed to be the focus here, but just look at Jake Weber’s moustache!

There’s a heavy emphasis on the stress levels of air traffic controllers – a school kid handily steps up to confirm they have the highest rates of depression, nervous breakdowns, heart attacks and alcoholism in any line of employment. Oh, and suicide too. This is established early on and is played to comic effect when a guy named Dr Freeze returns from long term illness… and gets as far as the front door before nerves get the better of him and he scurries back to his car. Kurt Fuller, in another one of his foreground-background roles, is easily irritated but doesn’t get to do much else other than act flustered. Thankfully he does this rather well.

The majority of John Cusack’s films have a dark, almost black comic tone to them, and Pushing Tin is no different. As the story unfolds the idea of air traffic controllers burning out comes to the fore. But does Nick burn out because of the job, or does he burn out because he takes exception to Russell Bell? You could argue it either way. I’m of the opinion that Falzone is a broken man before Bell turns up, it just takes the arrival of this maverick character and his slightly off kilter wife to push him over the edge.

It ends on a positive note, or at least the possibility of positivity. It wouldn’t suit a Cusack film to have everything tied up neatly by the film’s end, and there is always an element of redemption to whatever messed up character that Cusack inhabits. I’m glad we’re left wondering what will happen to him. At least he made it back into the building.

Favourite scene: The return of Dr Freeze. Played for laughs but with a serious undertone.

Quote: “Oh, you really think the pilot is controlling this plane? That would really scare me.”

Silly Moment: Bell and Falzone deliberately standing at the end of the runway so they can be knocked off their feet by the landing plane’s wake turbulence.

Score: 3.5/5

Destination Moon (1950)

Simon Prior

2013-07-06

The United Colors of Benetton, Moon Edition.

Twitter Plot Summary: 20 Years before the Moon landings, this film attempts to demonstrate, as accurately as possible, a trip to the Moon.

Genre: Adventure/Drama/Sci-Fi

Director: Irving Pichel

Key Cast: John Archer, Warner Anderson, Tom Powers, Dick Wesson.

Five Point Summary:

1. Woody Woodpecker! And he was culturally relevant at that time! 
2. American industry: best in the world? 
3. Go on a date or go to the Moon? And with only a day’s notice? Tough call. 
4. So we’re going to the Moon whilst strapped into bunk beds? 
5. The space suits have fish bowls for helmets. Funny.

The main triumph of Destination Moon is using Woody Woodpecker to explain how travel to the moon could be achieved. Ignore the real science being used, it’s all about Woody’s chucklesome inability to understand the basic concepts of space travel. The cartoon not only explains the process to the sceptical backers who will be involved in the project, but to us the audience as well. Obviously with 60 years of hindsight it’s a rather quaint method of explaining the science, but still makes a certain amount of sense. Based on the outfits they wear to reach the Moon everybody would most likely be crushed by the G-Forces involved, especially given that they start their journey strapped into a pair of bunk beds.

Typically of this period of cinema, almost every character spouts exposition at every opportunity, constantly needing to explain to last minute replacement Joe (and by that I mean – the audience) what’s going on, why they’re not going to fall off the ship whilst doing a spacewalk, and how to swallow pills and water in a zero-G environment. I expect, somewhere offscreen, they’re also explaining to Joe how to make toilet on a shuttle. Based on all my other observations of the character, there is absolutely no way he’d get onto a space mission. Giving all of the characters their own uniquely coloured space suit, whilst practical as far as audience recognition goes, smacks of using four colours just because they’re using Technicolor. I love some of the classic 50s directorial flushes used by Irving Pichel. Crash zooms on the ticking clock or turning the camera on its side so it looks like the actor is either upside down or on one of the walls.

You could make a huge cocktail with this helmet. Or put fish in it.

There’s a background motif of pioneers heading into the great unknown, similar to those who first traversed the United States back before there even was a United States. At one point Joe (ahh, ever reliable Joe!) busts out a harmonica and kicks out a tune. All we need is a tarpaulin and wagon attached to the rocket and the homage, however ludicrous, will be complete.

One scene tickled me in particular. Joe’s incredulous when he’s asked to go along, at the very last minute, after one of the crew ends up in hospital due to appendicitis. His reaction when he realises Barnes and Cargraves are serious about him going along (and about them making it to the Moon) is priceless. You know that look Father Dougal does when he’s surprised or alarmed? Yeah, he does that. It’s even funnier when they’re taking off and the G-Forces are squishing his face. He looks like the victim of a plastic surgery killer.

As far as the science goes, I can’t fault it. Yes, some of the ideas about space travel and landing on the Moon are dated even by 1969 standards, but on the whole it does at least have then-current scientific research behind it. The script is the key thing that lets it down, but that’s more indicative of the era it was made in over anything else. Most science fiction films were as clunky as this in the 1950s, even Forbidden Planet. Yes, I went there. Even so, that had an engaging story (even if it was half-inched from Shakespeare) whereas Destination Moon has no other purpose than “we need to get to the Moon before the Russians!” Actually, it works as a 1950s science lesson as well. A fantastical one certainly, but a science lesson all the same. Lucky for us Joe went along for the ride, otherwise we wouldn’t have a clue.

Favourite scene: Well, Woody Woodpecker, of course.

Quote: “The race is on and we’d better win it, because there is absolutely no way to stop an attack from outer space. The first country that can use the Moon for the launching of missiles will control the Earth.”

Silly Moment: Doc Cargraves detaching his boots from the hull whilst on a space walk. Like a moron.

Score: 3/5

1...858687...90 Page 86 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM