Laputa: Castle In The Sky (1986)

2013-07-05

Never accept gifts from strangers with long arms.

Twitter Plot Summary: She was a girl. He was a boy. She had a magic crystal. Pirates were after them. They went looking for a floating city. They found it. The end.

Genre: Animation/Action/Adventure/Family/Fantasy/Romance

Director: Hayao Miyazaki

Key Cast: English version – Anna Paquin, James Van Der Beek, Mark Hamill, Cloris Leachman, Tress MacNeille.

Five Point Summary:

1. Flying blind on a rocket cycle?!
2. There she is! Let’s all pretend it’s Carlito’s Way.
3. A muscle-popping, shirt ripping contest? Okay, sure.
4. It’s alive! IT’S ALIVE!!!
5. LAPUTAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Within 15 seconds of the start of Laputa: Castle In The Sky we are immediately thrust into a steampunk world where massive flying airships and Flash Gordon-style rocket cycles are everyday occurrences, and massive floating cities once patrolled the skies. And thus, with the reality of the world established, we jump in as the airship is attacked by pirates and young girl Sheeta, voiced in the English language version by Anna Paquin, falls out of an airship and floats gently to the ground. There she’s rescued, kind of, by Pazu, a boy working in the mines beneath her point of descent.

Before you know it they’re off on an adventure which sees them trying to evade the pirates and the government agents on their tail, who both want the magic crystal and to find the floating city of Laputa. Laputa is a myth, the last of the floating cities now lost and, if you’re a Gulliver’s Travels fan, the name of the floating city in that story as well (that’s actually where Miyazaki gained inspiration for the story from). The plot is reasonably action packed, but isn’t afraid to take a bit of time out for quieter character moments. Miyazaki knows how to balance the two so you remain engaged with the story from start to finish. You have the main love story between Pazu and Sheetu, of course, and there’s additional humour to be had from all of Okami’s sons fawning over Sheetu. In any other film this might be a bit creepy, but here the tone is perfect.

"This is way better than those Star Wars pod racers." — “This is way better than those Star Wars pod racers.”

I’ve always been partial to the steampunk sub-genre. If it’s a film with zeppelin-esque flying boats with a 19th century look, then I’m sold. Castle In The Sky satisfies this requirement in gleeful abundance. The combination of nautical styling transposed to the air instead of the oceans works in a way that’s hard to describe. Throw in some gorgeous looking locations and you have the movie equivalent of an epic win, if you’re into that sort of thing of course.
The animation looks fantastic, more so when you take into account that this was actually made in 1986. It puts 1986 alumni An American Tail and Transformers The Movie to shame. It could have easily been animated this year (and for reference, I’m writing this in 2013, Future Simon!). A lot of the animation is stylised, halfway between semi-realism and amusing cartoon caricature. As is typical with all of Studio Ghibli’s films, there’s nary a bad frame of animation throughout. Western animation studios could learn a thing or two from Studio Ghibli, for their attention to detail and their ability to craft a story that engages both adult and younger viewers without talking down to either. By the time Pazu and Sheetu reach Laputa, closely followed by the government army, you care for what happens to them. And incidentally, the whole Laputa sequence is worth the 90-odd minutes of build-up, it’s breathtaking stuff.

So… a story told with heart and ideal for all audiences? Yep, Studio Ghibli – spot on as always.

Favourite scene: The robot, previously thought completely dead, is resurrected by Sheetu’s crystal and helps facilitate her escape.

Quote: “There’s nothing worse than having your pigtails shot off!”

Silly Moment: The fight between Pazu’s boss and one of the pirate gang. Ripping your shirt using just your muscles is inherently daft.

Score: 4/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McM0_YHDm5A

The Iceman (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-07-04

I'm going to shoot you for crimes to facial hair. Do you like the sound of that? — I’m going to shoot you for crimes against facial hair. Do you like the sound of that?

Twitter Plot Summary: Not a spin-off superhero movie, but a tale about Richard Kuklinski, contract killer and family man. He kills people and loves his family…

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

Director: Ariel Vromen

Key Cast: Michael Shannon, Chris Evans, Winona Ryder, Ray Liotta, David Schwimmer, Robert Davi.
Tagline: Loving husband. Devoted father. Ruthless killer.

Five Point Summary:

1. Ray Liotta’s on a role. Intense. 
2. Look it’s James Franco! Maybe he’ll… oh, maybe not. 
3. David Schwimmer’s moustache is mesmerising. 
4. Robert Davi. Legend. 
5. Emote, man! EMOTE!

Based on the true story of Richard Kuklinski, aka The Polack, aka The Iceman, over a period of 20-odd years he was responsible for the deaths of at least 100 people, the “Iceman” moniker a result of him deep-freezing his victims to both disguise when the murder took place and to safely dispose of the bodies weeks or months after the fact.

Before anyone asks, yes that is Ross from Friends sporting a funky 70s tache. It’s yet another example of me seeing a film, vaguely recognising an actor and then spending 15-20 minutes trying to figure out who they are. No such problems with recognising Robert Davi. The man is a legend and it’s always a genuine pleasure to see him appear in anything. Except maybe my flat, late at night, while I’m asleep. That would be weird. Ray Liotta appears to be undergoing a bit of a renaissance lately. He put in a stellar performance in The Place Beyond The Pines and it’s no different here. His crime boss Roy is loyal to his troops but at the same time doesn’t suffer fools gladly. You know just from the way Liotta holds himself that to cross him would be a very, very bad idea. Keep it up Ray, you’re doing a fine job.

Michael Shannon puts in a typically intense performance, but based on a number of interviews I’ve heard with him I get the impression he’s like that most of the time. Not an easy person to interview, it seems. He’s excellent in the lead role though, even if he’s emotionally detached for most of the time. He even sports an incredible number of moustaches and sideburns. From what I understand of the real life Kuklinski, he liked to change his appearance now and again in order to draw less attention to himself. I don’t know how that applied in real life, but in the film you can still tell it’s Michael Shannon. Sorry bub.

Sorry, I'm all out of ice cream. How about this severed arm instead? — Sorry, I’m all out of ice cream. How about this severed arm instead?

Chris Evans appears to be the one having the most fun with the script, dialing down his Johnny Storm persona from Fantastic Four into a bearded, long-haired contract killer with an ice cream truck. In fact, wouldn’t that be a better film – following Mr Freezy around as he sells ice cream to kids and bumps people off in the background? Maybe turn it into one of those wacky family films and give him a wisecracking son/daughter who’s actually running their contract killer operation. I’d pay good money (and maybe even bad money) to see that.

Winona Ryder, no disrespect to her as she’s actually a good actor (well, adequate. Mostly.), comes across as being totally smacked off her face on drugs. Either that or incredibly stupid. Maybe that’s where they were coming from with her character, but the sole purpose for her existence appears to be to make doe-eyes at Michael Shannon and then shuffle around like a little mouse whenever he kicks off. For a family man, Mr Kuklinski is apparently an advocate of treat them mean to keep them keen, either deliberately or inadvertently. A flattering portrayal of women this is not.

The hits are well done for the most part, although the sheer number of them starts to grate towards the end. Okay, so most contract killings would likely follow a set style depending on the killer’s methods (I’ve never killed anyone so I wouldn’t know), but mixing it up a little would have helped. The nightclub scene is perhaps the most original death in the film, but it’s over before you’ve had time to absorb it. Hah, I made a funny (watch the film, this will make sense, kind of).

I have two gripes about the film. The first is that I get the impression we’re supposed to be sympathetic towards Shannon’s character. Much like After Earth, if the character barely emotes other than to, on occasion, release his pent-up anger and frustrations then as an audience we’re going to find it extremely difficult to connect to him on any level. Unless you’re also a sadistic contract killer, of course. The second is with regards to the ending. Yes, it reaches its natural conclusion and yes it resolve the story, but I thought the end came out of nowhere. Not that it was surprising or anything like that, it just finished – there wasn’t any indication that it was building up to a resolution. I’ve given it some thought and I’ve honestly no clue how they would go about resolving that issue without rewriting history, so I guess it will have to do as it is. Unless we add an alien invasion into the mix. Now that’s be a twist…

Favourite scene: Shannon making James Franco pray. Cold and sinister.

Quote: “You a family man now? Who you kiddin’?”

Silly Moment: David Schwimmer’s ponytail.

Score: 3.5/5

Despicable Me 2 (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-07-03

“I counted 22…”

Twitter Plot Summary: Gru isn’t that evil any more, but when a new villain emerges, he’s hired by the Anti Villain League to help them track them down.

Genre: Animation/Comedy/Crime/Family

Director: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud

Key Cast: Steve Carell, Kristen Wiig, Benjamin Bratt, Russell Brand, Ken Jeong, Steve Coogan,

Five Point Summary:

1. Wilhelm Scream!
 2. Gru dressed as a fairy princess – most peculiar. 
3. If Eduardo was actually  that shape/size, he wouldn’t be able to move.
4. Purple minions. Awesome. 
5. I knew that jam/jelly would be useful for something.

Okay, admission time before I get started – I haven’t seen the first Despicable Me yet. I will be watching it within the next few days though. In any case I apologise for my tardiness. Despite what people may think, there are still a lot of films I’ve never seen but I’m working my way towards. Sadly working a full time week does detract somewhat from my movie viewing habits, but I’m getting there. Very slowly.

Anyway, Despicable Me 2. The voice cast is typically excellent. Steve Carell returns as Gru, as does Russell Brand as Dr Nefario. From the trailer I actually assumed it was Eddie Izzard playing this character, but no – I was wrong. So very wrong. Steve Coogan pops up as Silas Ramsbottom (the Minions love his name), and for once he doesn’t sound like Steve Coogan as Alan Partridge. Bravo! Benjamin Bratt (best known, to me at least, as the Hispanic chap from Demolition Man) plays Eduardo, a huge barrel-chested man who runs a Mexican restaurant in the mall. He was a late replacement for Al Pacino who was originally scheduled to play the character, until “creative differences” led to him leaving the project. All due respect to Mr Pacino, but he doesn’t strike me as the easiest person to get along with, which for a family friendly film isn’t exactly helpful. Even Ken Jeong, not one of my favourite actors in the world, is rather good as Floyd, the owner of a wig emporium.

The story is so-so. Gru is recruited by the Anti Villain League to locate the thief of a purple serum that can turn ordinarily placid creatures into virtually indestructible monsters. Straight away you can see where this is going, right? Well it doesn’t surprise. In fact, given what I understand about the first movie, the story this time round is quite low-key and simple. Gru, without realising it at first, is looking for a woman but has been shunned in the past just because he was different and/or a bit weird. Step up Anti Villain League agent Lucy. It won’t take a genius to figure out that they’ll end up together by the end of the film. Add to this the fact that Gru’s youngest, Agnes, wants a mother, the middle daughter Edith rather typically finds any show of affection “gross”. That leaves eldest Margo, who discovers boys when her eyes are turned by Antonio. Yep, relationships are core to this story.

Hehe. Bottom.

Fans of the Minions are well served. Any possible lull in the story is compensated by their presence. In fact for me they provided almost all of the laughs. Gru’s entertaining, certainly, but the story feels far safer than it needs to be. Loose ends are tied up and the story is resolved reasonably satisfactorily, but I would have liked them to take a few more risks with it. There’s also a few areas where a leap in logic is required, within the reality of the world Gru inhabits at least – in a universe where a villain can steal the Moon, I suppose anything goes. If it’s not leaps in logic it’s the scenes where exposition seems to have been cut to move the film along a bit faster, and it’s not a short film by any stretch, clocking in at just shy of 100 minutes. We’re probably at the upper length of a child viewer’s tolerance before the boredom/ants in their pants barrier hits, so to extend the film’s length any more would likely be pushing their luck. Subsequently, I’ll allow them that one.

Despite my general dislike of seeing films in 3D, I am an advocate of using that technique in animated films. My main issue with 3D, which I’ll discuss in more detail elsewhere, is that you have to pay significantly more to watch a film in this format compared to the standard version. Because I’m an Unlimited card holder with Cineworld and only have to pay an extra £1.50 for 3D, I have less of an attitude towards it now. It all depends on the screening times though, I usually see it at whichever time suits my schedule. So, with some sadness I admit, I only caught this one in standard. I say “with some sadness” because there were a number of shots that were clearly intended for 3D viewing, and for once I felt like I was missing out. The animation is phenomenally good though, so whilst I missed out on some good 3D sequences I did at least get to see the animation clearly and in all its glory. And without the 30% reduction in light/brightness/colour that you get with 3D films.

If you can see past the relatively poor story and appreciate it for the Minions alone then as an adult viewer you’ll love it. Kids will love it regardless, which is the whole point. Thoroughly entertaining but plays it a little too safe for my liking.

Favourite scene: The Minions on a desert island.

Quote: “My name is Silas Ramsbottom.” “Hehe. Bottom.”

Silly Moment: Gru thrusting his crotch (okay, his belt buckle) at various items in the wig shop to determine if the serum is hidden there.

Score: 3/5

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

This Is The End (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-07-02

Twitter Plot Summary: There’s a party at James Franco’s new house when the end of the world happens. The surviving celebs bicker and argue. Except Jonah Hill.

Genre: Comedy/Fantasy

Director: Evan Goldberg, Seth Rogen

Key Cast: James Franco, Jonah Hill, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, Danny McBride, Craig Robinson.

Five Point Summary:

1. James Franco’s house looks like a fortress.
2. Look – celebrity cameos!
3. If Danny McBride is like this in real life… ugh.
4. Are they demons or… wait, it’s naked. Oh dear. Oh dearie dear.
5. I don’t want to spoil it, but 90s pop for the win!

What happens if the end of the world goes down while you’re at a party at James Franco’s house? I doubt many of us would find ourselves in this position, but that’s the setup for the latest writing partnership of Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen. This also marks the first time that the pair have stepped behind the camera and directed – thankfully they don’t make a complete hash of it, although they might want to have a word with the company that provided their CGI – most of it looks impressive but some shots looks awful.

After we’ve established that pretty much all of the Judd Apatow stable of actors are at the party (Michael Cera, Jason Segal, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Paul Rudd amongst others), 99% of those present are bumped off when a sinkhole opens up in Franco’s front garden. I’d have liked to have seen more celebs being killed as part of that sequence, and that’s not from any sadistic obsession on my part, I just think it would have made the whole sequence funnier. Other than the money shot of Michael Cera being impaled (which is also in the trailer), we get a few people falling down the sinkhole and that’s it. Given how funny the rest of the film is, it’s a surprise they didn’t include more celebrity deaths. Maybe something for the extended Blu-Ray edition, perhaps?

The group bicker and argue and play exaggerated/fictional versions of themselves. James Franco loves Seth Rogen; Jay Baruchel (the “everyman” of the script) can’t stand the LA lifestyle; Danny McBride is obnoxious and thoroughly unpleasant; and Jonah Hill is lovely. Michael Cera gets the biggest laughs in the opening act for being a coke-snorting, Rihanna-bothering sexual predator, sadly he’s only around for the first act. What follows is, essentially, what would happen when a group of less than manly men are forced together at the end of everything. So we get a plethora of penis jokes and male humour – never a bad thing in my book, but then I would say that. Given the amount of comedy talent (some might argue otherwise) that exists between the six main cast, it’s no surprise that the dialogue is snappy and consistently funny. Craig Robinson does his high pitched screaming thing, but it’s not used excessively. Jokes fly left right and centre and there’s barely a dull moment. When Emma Watson returns to the house and the group, taking a paternal approach, show her to a room upstairs for her to get some rest, the subsequent conversation that takes place in the corridor is comedy genius.

Something's at the door. Is it McLovin? — Something’s at the door. Is it McLovin?

You could easily make the argument that it’s quite a chauvinistic film given how women are treated throughout – Rihanna is the target of Michael Cera’s desires; Emma Watson misconstrues what’s being discussed in the corridor outside her room; and to an extent you’d be right. My counterargument is that films don’t always need to be balanced as far as attitudes towards men and women are concerned. Women get short shrift here, a film ostensibly about men being men during the apocalypse, and I know for a fact men get short shrift in any film where the female characters are the main focus. I don’t see why everything has to be balanced, films (and life in general) would be a lot less interesting if they were. Let’s just say it’s appropriate for its audience, and I don’t just mean men. The screening I went to was almost a 50-50 gender split, and not all of those women were there with husbands/boyfriends. Just saying.

From both a script and a directorial perspective it has a distinctly haphazard approach, like someone has taken a disparate batch of ideas and sticky-taped them together to make a feature length movie. For all I know, that’s what they did, but it works. I’ve read elsewhere that it gives the film an “anything could happen” vibe, which I agree with. Broadly we get the usual three act structure, but you’re never quite sure what’s going to happen next. Biblical apocalypse, hellspawn, exorcism, tripping on drugs, even making a sweded trailer for Pineapple Express 2 – it’s all on the table.

The film loses its way a little once they leave James Franco’s house. Luckily this is limited to the final act where Goldberg and Rogen obviously decided that the previously modest self-contained story needed to go up to 11. After a brief encounter with cannibals (and a frankly hilarious cameo appearance), we’re promptly shuffled along towards the end. Once again demonstrating the haphazard approach, it’s like we’ve jumped between two different films, or we’ve skipped five pages of script.

The finale is decent enough for what it’s worth, fans of 90s pop music will love it. It’s hard to see how else it could have ended in hindsight. It would’ve been nice to plug a couple of story strands that are left hanging (the cannibal thread in particular), but I laughed consistently from start to finish and, for a comedy film, that’s always a bonus.
Favourite scene: The Exorcism of Jonah Hill. To say any more would spoil it more than I have already.

Quote: “I don’t wanna die at James Franco’s house!”

Silly Moment: The decapitation. Again, to say more would spoil it.

Score: 4/5

Argo (2012)

Simon Prior

2013-07-01

"Okay, so the film's called Argo..." — “Okay, so the film’s called Argo…”

Twitter Plot Summary: The American embassy is attacked! Some get out and hide with the Canadians! More Americans decide to go in and… they don’t kill everyone?!

Genre: Drama/History/Thriller

Director: Ben Affleck

Key Cast: Ben Affleck, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston.

Five Point Summary:

1. It’s 1979! Everything’s still brown! Or orange!
2. Nice variety of facial hair
3. That fake film doesn’t sound too bad, actually…
4. Look, Ben Affleck has a beard!
5. Will they actually get out of there? Well yeah.

Ben Affleck’s previous directorial efforts have stayed in his comfort zone of Boston (Gone Baby Gone and The Town being the two in question), but this time he goes about as far away as he can – Iran, to be precise.

Argo was one of the movies last year I wanted to see but missed my chance, and I had plenty of chances to go see it. This was before I just thought “stuff it” and started going by myself. The plot: It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against… no, hang on. That’s Star Wars. It’s not far off this, however. Based on a true story, it’s 1979 and there’s unrest in Iran. The American embassy is besieged and a group of 6 Americans get out before the insurgents break in and hold the embassy staff hostage. The group take refuge with the Canadian ambassador and it’s here that we’re introduced to “exfiltrator” Ben Affleck. His job is to… well, do the opposite of infiltrate. Get people out of hot zones and all that jazz.

There's a good boy, Ben. — There’s a good boy, Ben.

John Goodman and Alan Arkin offer able support as the executives back in Hollywood responsible for “financing” and “producing” the fake film, the titular Argo. It’s their double act that adds some levity to the story. They’re entertaining and amusing, yet you never lose sight of the reason why they’re involved. They’re integral to everything that happens, but it could have easily been far too serious for its own good if they hadn’t received as much screen time as they did. As is discussed in the film, the whole “Argo” thing has to be believable at every level in order to succeed. It’s a shame that the Americans they’re trying to get out of Iran are so poorly represented. I keep coming back to this word but they’re ciphers, they are MacGuffins to the story and not really much more. They’re also an excuse to show off a hugely impressive array of facial hair choices. It was the 70s after all.

Affleck knows how to build tension, none more so than when the group are attempting to pass through customs at the airport. Luckily this is a story that not a huge number of people knew about, so you’re never quite sure if they will actually escape, or if one or more of them will be captured. I certainly had no knowledge of events until I read about the film. Certain elements are expanded on or reduced for the sake of dramatic tension – the runway chase (which didn’t actually happen), the fact that in 1979 the CIA wouldn’t have been able to feed the boarding information to the Iranian airports systems that quickly, the fact the idea actually came from the Canadians – but such matters are easily forgiven as you’re too absorbed in the story to give it thought. Unless you’re Canadian and obstinate, of course.

I’ve never considered Ben Affleck to be a bad actor – not stellar but certainly not bad – he’s put in some solid performances in his own films, but he’s also shown a real knack for this directing lark. He seems to be getting better with each film, so I’m looking forward to whatever he does next. IMDB seems to think he’s adapting Live By Night by Dennis Lehane. In any case, much like Argo it will be a fantastic film.

Favourite scene: Bryan Cranston shouting at his CIA underlings. He does angry well.

Quote: “This is the best bad idea we’ve had, sir.”

Silly Moment: Iranians chasing a plane on a runway. Just to add a bit of tension.

Score: 4/5

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004)

Simon Prior

2013-06-30

Now that's a big gun. — Now that’s a big gun.

Twitter Plot Summary: It’s 1889 and it’s up to Hiram Gummer to find out why men are being killed in a mine near Rejection, Nevada. Hint: it’s giant worms.

Genre: Action/Comedy/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller/Western

Director: S.S. Wilson

Key Cast: Michael Gross, Billy Drago, August Schellenberg, Ming Lo, Lydia Look, Sara Botsford.

Five Point Summary:

1. It’s Tremors, Jim, but not as we know it. 
2. Ahh so it’s the same town as Tremors but with a different name. Right. 
3. Billy Drago – probably the best thing he’s done. And that’s not saying much. 
4. The only way we’ll survive is by working together! 
5. That punt gun is sweet.

Boldly going where few direct-to-DVD sequels go, Tremors 4 takes the story back in time, Back to the Future Part 3-style, to the old West and the small proto-town of Rejection. In essence this is the same story we’ve seen played out over the previous three films – a small group of people band together to fight off the Graboids, or “Dirt Dragons” as they’re known here. Some people die, most people live, yadda yadda yadda. What’s key to the success of these films is that both the dialogue and the performances zing, much more than they have any right to, but that’s always been the appeal of this movie series. They acknowledge the fact they’re here for a laugh and maybe in places a bit of a scare (but not much of one, mind), but no more than that. High art this is not. The fun factor likely goes some way to explaining why Michael Gross keeps coming back for more – he even did that short-lived TV series set in the Tremors universe (yes, it’s called Tremors: The Series. Original).

The major twist to the formula this time round is Michael Gross doesn’t play Burt Gummer (obviously, given that this is a prequel), but Hiram Gummer, however many Great-Grandfathers back it actually is. The other key point to note is that Hiram Gummer is not obsessed with weaponry and is in fact quite a prudish East Coast resident who barely, even rarely, gets his hands dirty. He arrives in town to investigate the closure of the mine, where a number of men have been killed in mysterious circumstances underground. Events then unfold, as they do, and he has to take up arms to protect both himself and the people around him.

All together now - IT'S BEHIND YOU! — All together now – IT’S BEHIND YOU!

I was disappointed that there wasn’t more explanation as to why the creatures didn’t reappear for the 100 years or so that pass between this film and the original. All we get are three inventive ways to kill a giant worm using 19th century technology, and that seems to be the only way they could put a 4th film together. That and maybe they didn’t want to step on the toes of the TV series which was in production around the same time. It’s a 19th century rehash of the three previous films, but from a “back to basics” perspective. There’s a nice nod to the heritage of the “modern day” town of Rejection, with the 1889 version home to Chinese immigrants, Native Americans and a host of others who sent their wagons west, all trying to establish/re-establish themselves in the new world. Naturally, tensions rise as a result. It’s not a story without conflict, right? I’m sure scriptwriters misunderstand this all the time. Conflict doesn’t just mean people fighting, guy!

This somewhat major plot point aside, the film entertains and goes some way to explain why Michael Gross’ Burt Gummer is a gun nut in the modern day, and why he must always have a plan for every situation. As part four in a movie series, it has just enough going for it to make it entertaining viewing, and well worth a go if you’ve seen any of the previous entries in the series. For everyone else, obviously watch Tremors first and then see how you feel about the sequels. The first one works fine on its own, just bear in mind that Kevin Bacon doesn’t show up in any of the sequels.

Favourite scene: Hiram Gummer gets a taste for guns and sets his ancestors up for decades of gun-related obsession.

Quote: “I haven’t been on a horse since I… since my 6th birthday party. No, actually, that – that was a camel.”

Silly Moment: The punt gun. It’s the answer to “how do you kill a Graboid/Dirt Dragon in 1889.

Score: 2.5/5

I Was Monty’s Double (1958)

Simon Prior

2013-06-29

A real dead ringer for lurrrrve. I mean... Field Marshal Montgomery. — A real dead ringer for lurrrrve. I mean… Field Marshal Montgomery.

Twitter Plot Summary: The chap who actually was Monty’s double in WW2 reprises the role in a film. It’s all about misleading the Germans about D-Day.

Genre: Drama/History/War

Director: John Guillermin

Key Cast: John Mills, Cecil Parker, Leslie Phillips, Sid James, John Le Mesurier, ME Clifton James.

Five Point Summary:

1. Sid James! Hyahyahyahyah! 
2. He does look a lot like Monty.
 3. And there’s Leslie Phillips – well helllloooo! 
4. Those Americans are hard to please. 
5. Will the ploy work? Well, yes we know it did.

Unlike many war films of the era, I Was Monty’s Double is incredibly whimsical. Released in the same year as the excellent Ice Cold in Alex, John Mills (latterly Sir John Mills) is Major Harvey, a man tasked with coming up with a way of distracting the Germans away from the planned D-Day invasion. The solution was simple – to use an actor who bears an uncanny resemblance to Field Marshal Montgomery, ship him off to North Africa and pull German troops away from the Normandy beaches. Thankfully the ploy worked -and the tide of the war changed in favour of the Allies. This is just one of a number of initiatives that made the D-Day landings a success, and it’s nice for a film to show the war from a different angle. Absent are the epic fight scenes that you would usually expect to see and, bar one tense shoot-out towards the film’s end, is light on any action whatsoever beyond groups of people talking. A bit like Game of Thrones then. Also, you’d hardly expect a film about a Field Marshal, or even a film about his body double, to be high on action set pieces. That’s the whole point about being a Field Marshall, he’ll be back at HQ looking at maps or something.

ME Clifton James returns to the real-world role he played during World War 2 – that of General Montgomery’s double. In a slightly meta-plot James plays himself playing Monty. And also plays Monty. Given just a couple of weeks to train him up in Monty’s mannerisms, James is happy for the opportunity to take the role, but isn’t certain he can inhabit the character and personality of Monty. Doing that typically British thing, he’s told to buck up and get on with it. And so he does.

Given its whimsical tone it’s appropriate that future Carry On starts Sid James and Leslie Phillips show up in supporting roles. There’s even a brief appearance by John Le Mesurier as James’ commanding officer who looks down on actors. Wars are for fighting, how’s acting supposed to help with that? Well, as it turns out it helped quite a bit. If the Nazis had not fallen for the ploy, the outcome of D-Day (and at the risk of possibly over-emphasising the contribution this made to the war effort, potentially even the outcome of the war itself) could have been completely different. That would be an intriguing idea for a “what if?” movie, should anyone think to make it.

I’m of the opinion that the tone has been approached from the right angle (as opposed to an acute angle) and to have tried making this topic any more serious than they did would have been to its disservice. Suffice to say, if you want big explosions then go watch a Michael Bay film. Meanwhile the rest of us will just sit here and quietly enjoy one of the great success stories of WW2.

Favourite scene: James forgetting his speech to the American forces, but rallying with an improvised speech of his own.

Quote: “Who do you think you are? Monty?”

Silly Moment: ME Clifton James is following Monty around at a distance, trying to learn his mannerisms, then almost gets run down by a staff car. He ends up in a puddle of mud. Or maybe oil.

Score: 4/5

The Great Gatsby (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-06-28

You know what this room needs? More flowers!

Twitter Plot Summary: Baz Luhrmann inflicts his “technicolor” palette on Fitzgerald’s great American novel. Relationship intrigue, obsession and madness abound.

Genre: Drama/Romance

Director: Baz Luhrmann

Key Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, Isla Fisher.

Five Point Summary:

1. “Blah blah blah old sport.” 
2. DiCaprio doing physical comedy? Well I never. 
3. Tobey Maguire. Not sure what point he serves. Not in Gatsby, I mean generally. 
4. The tension, tis palpable. Yeah, very sweaty. 
5. “…old sport.”

I read The Great Gatsby in quite some depth whilst studying my A-Levels, so you would think that I’d know the plot, the characters, their motives and the settings inside and out. Nope. That’s not to say that Baz Luhrmann has made wholesale changes to any of that – far from it, this is a very faithful adaptation – no, nothing like that. I’d simply forgotten the story. Yep, my brain, overflowing with pointless trivia and general movie knowledge, had archived the plot of The Great Gatsby and decided it was not necessary to retrieve it until I’d seen at least 20 minutes of the film. When Gatsby shows up for the first time the whole plot came flooding back. I very nearly said “ahhhhh!” but, realising I was in the cinema, thought better of it. Despite the age of the source material I won’t spoil the story for those who have yet to see this film, but it’s rather good. The film takes a few liberties with the source material, mostly by providing a framing device of Maguire’s Nick Carraway recounting the tale of Gatsby to a psychiatrist. Somewhat unnecessary but it does at least distinguish it from the earlier 1974 adaptation with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow.

That and the contemporary music as well – it’s not as intrusive as you might expect, but it does stand out.

When I was a younger and more naive movie viewer I was never a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio. I found him slightly annoying. I couldn’t tell you why, maybe it’s because he was what I’d classed as the latest batch of teen heartthrobs (which usually means they’re terrible actors). I can’t quite put my finger on it, but in any case I wouldn’t go out of my way to view one of his films. Then, almost inevitably (although some might argue otherwise), I got older and a little wiser. I saw Shutter Island, thought his performance (and, indeed, the film) was excellent, and contemplated that I may have been wrong about him. Then earlier this year I saw Django Unchained, and yet another excellent performance. There are probably other films I’ve seen him in since Titanic, but their name’s elude me right now. So based on those two films I knew he’d be equally as excellent as Gatsby. And he is. The end!

Do you like my moustache? It's a little one. — Do you like my moustache? It’s a little one.

Only joking. He is very, very good indeed. By comparison Tobey Maguire is merely serviceable as Nick Carraway. In fact, I’m never too sure what the appeal of Mr Maguire is, he seems to be merely serviceable in everything, even the Spider-Man films. Hmm. Adapting The Great Gatsby has always proved a tricky endeavour. There’s a lot of subtext and emotional content that remains trapped within Fitzgerald’s pages – with that in mind, Luhrmann does choose a few select moments to have the text appear on the screen, a literal literary homage if you will.

I saw Gatsby in 3D, only because it was the most convenient screening time for me. My dislike of 3D has mellowed in recent months, but I will always see a film in standard 2D give the chance. I can’t say the 3D was amazing. There were a few moments where it was used well, specifically any time the camera swoops forward at speed or, more pertinently, to give a sense of depth in a number of scenes, particularly when Carraway enters Buchanan’s house and the curtains are just EVERYWHERE.

There’s one scene in particular that Luhrmann has got spot on, and it’s key to the plot – the characters all convene in a hotel room, dripping with sweat because of the sweltering heat outside, and all is revealed. The cheating, the lies, the lot. The direction is spot on and the performances from all involved are sizzling. Except maybe for Tobey Maguire, he’s just there.

It’s a naturally divisive film, from either the perspective that Fitzgerald’s novel just doesn’t work as well on screen, to those who simply don’t like Baz Luhrmann’s stylistic choices. Sat somewhere in the middle are the people like me – not overly enamoured with it, but appreciating the aesthetics if nothing else. If anything can be said about the film is that it got people interested in reading the novel for the very first time, and if it does nothing else then it’s served its purpose.

Favourite scene: The tense and literally heated argument between the five key characters, it starts with a simmer and erupts into SHOUTING. Then goes back on simmer.

Quote: “You can’t repeat the past.” “Can’t repeat the past?” “No…” “Why, of course you can… of course you can.”

Silly Moment: The CGI-heavy car sequences. Looks very silly.

Score: 3.5/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaBVLhcHcc0

The Poseidon Adventure (1972)

Simon Prior

2013-06-27

"Gene, put your clothes back on." — “Gene, put your clothes back on.”

Twitter Plot Summary: It’s New Year’s Eve! There’s a wave coming and a ship completely unprepared to deal with it! RAMMING SPEED!

Genre: Action/Adventure

Director: Ronald Neame

Key Cast: Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, Red Buttons, Carol Lynley, Roddy McDowall, Stella Stevens, Jack Albertson, Leslie Nielsen.

Five Point Summary:

1. He is serious. And don’t call him Shirley.
2. Hah, it’s Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory!
3. Ernest Borgnine makes pink look macho.
4. Seeing Gene Hackman with hair is weird.
5. Someone punch that kid in the face.

“The Poseidon Adventure! Gene Hackman plays a priest in it!” And thus, I received my introduction to the Poseidon Adventure via the genius that is Father Ted. Sadly for Ted and his priestly chums, watching the film didn’t solve their problem, that of rescuing Father Dougal from a “speeding” milk float, but it’s a classic of the disaster movie genre and if nothing else they’ll have had an entertaining couple of hours.

Gene Hackman does indeed play a priest, and the parallels to Father Ted become apparent – Hackman’s Reverend Scott was “banished” to the outskirts of the priesthood, yet unlike Ted Crilly he’s thoroughly enjoying himself and is a bit of a maverick. It’s probably a good thing, if he was your typical priest he may have insisted they all have a bit of a pray and probably would’ve drowned within five minutes.

Ensemble pieces are hit and miss depending on how the characters are introduced, how they’re presented within the context of the film, and so on. In quick succession we establish a multitude of characters within the first 15-20 minutes. Then we’re straight into the new year celebrations just as a huge wave approaches and, somewhat amusingly, flips the ship upside down. Unlike a lot of similarly-rated films, they’re not afraid to show death, injury and a smattering of the red stuff (blood, not ketchup.).

My mind has been tainted by Airplane and the Naked Gun movies, but seeing Leslie Nielsen in a serious role was confusing. I know at this stage he was still in “serious actor” mode, and Forbidden Planet was and remains a classic of the sci-fi genre, but hearing him say lines like “It must be mountainous!” just made me giggle for no apparent reason.

"This isn't what it looks like." — “This isn’t what it looks like.”

Ernest Borgnine does his usual shtick of shouting his lines., at first anyway. He slowly gets more nuanced as the film goes on and it’s actually a strong performance. I was too quick to judge him, it seems. As for Gene Hackman, he’s a commanding screen presence, and performs admirably in the lead role. Everybody else provides support in the form of a motley crew of survivors, all having distinct enough personalities to create conflict, but without delving too much into making them fully realised. Most are cyphers just so the group will argue at various essential points.

As is often the case in these big disaster films, they have to get from A to B while bickering all the way. Characters are randomly bumped off as the journey goes on. Fun is had seeing all of the normal sets flipped the opposite way round, watching the group slowly implode, and seeing everything get progressively more dirty and damaged. At times it’s genuinely shocking, and it’s nice to see a film and a script have the courage to do some of these things to its characters.

If I could go back in time and request one thing, it would be to have an option added to Gene Hackman’s contract optioning him to appear in “The Poseidon Adventure 2: The Sinkening”. It would be a direct follow-up to this film and see Hackman wondering around the empty corridors of the upturned liner like a 70s Phantom of the Opera. I’m sure it would have been excellent.

Favourite scene: The ship flipping over. Very nicely done for a 1972 production.

Quote: “They’re suppositories Mr Rogo. You don’t swallow them.” “Then what the hell do you do with them?”

Silly Moment: A man trying to climb up a Christmas tree to escape the oncoming water. And failing.

Score: 3.5/5

Man Of Steel (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-06-27

Twitter Plot Summary: Superman’s origins again, told in twisty-turny Batman Begins style. Zod turns up for a bit and looks angry. They hit each other for a bit.

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi

Director: Zack Snyder

Key Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne, Antje Traue, Harry Lennix.

Five Point Summary:

1. Hey look! It’s Gaeta and Helo from BSG!
2. Is NOBODY concerned about collateral damage?
3. Laurence Fishburne running is funny.
4. Look, a stereotypical mad German scientist – but he’s from Krypton!
5. The mere hint of the classic Superman theme within the score is awesome. In fact the score overall is awesome.

Seven years after the disappointment of Superman Returns, a lot was riding on Zack Snyder, director of the rather good Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen, and the slightly less impressive Sucker Punch and that one where he gave us CGI owls (Gwa… Gwer…. the owl film). Adding to the palpable sense of super-tension ahead of release was that the director and writer of the Dark Knight trilogy, the brace of Christopher Nolan and David S Goyer respectively, are attached as producer and er, writer again of this film. Can Superman be relevant in this day and age? Can Zack Snyder resist the urge to shoot everything in fast-slow-fast-slow motion?

Yes on both counts, Supes remains as relevant as ever (even Man of Steel is relevant to the themes of the movie), and Snyder trades his trademark slo-mo stuff for lots of super Kryptonians punching each other repeatedly. That is the one major flaw of Man of Steel – if you’ve seen one super-powered fight where they beat seven shades out of each other, you’ve seen them all. There’s very little variation in the action scenes as a result, although there’s a lot of subtle differences that Joe Public may not be attuned to. During the first fight in Smallville, you get the usual punch up, but you also have Faora being super fast and moving like a villain in a Metal Gear Solid game. It’s easy to suffer from action fatigue though, there’s a lot of action set pieces and once you think the film’s going to end, there’s a little bit more. And then a bit more. It could be worse, at least it’s not The Return of The King: Extended Edition.

The collateral damage is absolutely epic. Metropolis is left as a shell of its former self, chock full of destroyed buildings and no doubt countless deceased. The same goes for Smallville, they both take a pounding. This is barely mentioned after the fact and in my eyes it’s a huge flaw that they don’t even acknowledge this. Okay fine, Superman does fight to prevent the total annihilation of humanity and he can’t be expected to save them all, but they really could have done more to balance this out against the sheer level of destruction we’re subjected to.

Having now seen the film, I was more enamoured with how they presented it in the trailer, certainly when combined with Hans Zimmer’s frankly excellent score. The scenes where Kevin Costner is instilling a set of virtues in the young Clark Kent are perhaps the best thing in the film. The narrative jumps around all over the place, with flashbacks to Clark’s youth being thematically linked to the events taking place in the present. Naturally we start with Krypton, and incidentally see a lot more of it than we have in the past, including a flying dog dragonfly thing that is a mix of Jor-El’s pet and transport. It’s a funky and completely alien world, but with more than a hint of The Matrix to it.

There are funny moments, little comments here and there, but for the most part it’s a very po-faced approach to the character. That’s fine, but if we’re graced with a sequel I’d appreciate it being played a little less straight, a little less “Man of Steel Rises” and just add a little bit of fun to proceedings.

As for the cast – Cavill is more than adequate as Supes. He doesn’t steal the scenes he’s in and he lacks a certain something that Christopher Reeve had, for example, but at the same time I can’t really criticise his performance. Same again for Amy Adams, she’s a good Lois and incredibly smart to boot, a far cry from Margot Kidder’s version of the character. There’s a little too much of Supes having to rescue Lois after she’s dropped from great heights (okay, maybe only twice), but the scenes they share have a zing to them. To go into any more detail would spoil the film, but I’ll leave it by saying they have fantastic on-screen chemistry. There’s a lot I’ve not covered as well – Clark’s relationship in general with his Earth parents, the friction between Supes and the US military, Faora’s Kryptonian warrior not conforming to the usual “female comic book character” stereotype (“For every one you save we will kill a million more”), and Russell Crowe’s Jor-El. Zack Snyder certainly got his money’s worth there.

And finally – Zod. Michael Shannon is an imposing screen presence and his version of Zod is a far cry from Terence Stamp’s slightly camp “Kneel Before Zod!” incarnation. He can be summarised by the following piece of dialogue, in all its intensity-driven glory:

‘You think your son is safe? I will find him. I will find him. I will find him, Lara! I WILL FIND HIM!”

So – there’s a lot to recommend – Clark finding his way in the world, Lois investigating the origins of this mysterious heroic chap, and Zod shrieking at people – however the action sequences need variation should a sequel make it’s way to our cinema screens.

Favourite scene: Kevin Costner showing Clark the pod that brought him to Earth. Powerful, emotive stuff.

Quote: “You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.”

Silly Moment: Supes smacking Zod in the face. Again. And again.

Score: 4/5

1...868788...90 Page 87 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM