The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009)

2013-06-26

Come on, good boy! And girl. And other girl.

Twitter Plot Summary: Dr Heiter wants to create a human centipede, so naturally he kidnaps a couple of American tourists and centipedes them.

Genre: Horror

Director: Tom Six

Key Cast: Dieter Laser, Ashley Williams, Ashylynn Yennie, Akihiro Kitamura.

Five Point Summary:

1. Dieter Laser is creepy yet awesome.
2. Tick off those horror movie cliches, most of them are here.
3. He spends so long talking about how he’s going to turn them into a human centipede. Get on with already!
4. How old are those cops? Budget cuts in Germany are hitting hard…
5. If you had to be any part of a human centipede, A is the one you want to be. Not B or C.

Slightly spoilerific reviewage lies ahead, so go and watch the movie before coming back.

All done? Enjoy it? Then let’s continue.

This movie quite clearly has a reputation preceding it. Most people were outraged at the concept behind the movie, of a mad scientist who stitches three people together into a “human centipede”, for reasons that are not fully disclosed within the movie. In fairness you’re probably still horrified by either the thought of the movie in general, or the concept at its core, so his reasons for being such a mad evil genius can be nicely glossed over.

I originally watched the movie out of morbid curiosity (and have since done the same with Human Centipede 2), expecting something terribly unpleasant and liable to give me a few nightmares, or at the very least some surreal blending of genres within a dream, like a Human Centipede fighting a Crab Person (craaab people…). To be honest, it wasn’t quite as violent or disturbing as I was expecting. Okay, so there’s a rather disturbing concept at its core, but in all other respects this is a typical horror movie.

That was a rough night, I hope I didn't... hang on, how did I get here?! — That was a rough night, I hope I didn’t… hang on, how did I get here?!

It has a normal slow-build, introducing us to two American tourists in Germany. They’re vaguely unlikeable, somewhat unpleasant to each other and generally acting, no pun intended, like real people who have spent a little too much time together on an overseas holiday. Typical tourists – they don’t even speak the local lingo. And German is such a gloriously guttural language to speak. Their car gets a puncture (implied that Dr Heiter, our obligatory mad scientist has shot it with his lovely rifle), and they struggle through the woods looking for help, rather than sit in the car and wait for help to come to them. They’re not even dressed for the bad weather. Tourists!

I thoroughly enjoyed the performance of Dieter Laser as Dr Heiter. The last time I’d seen him in anything was waaaaay back in time when Lexx was still on the air playing Mantrid, the villain of Series 2 (and a brief appearance in Series 3). A couple of things I learnt about him from watching this movie:

He’s a very tall man.

He looks incredibly cool in shades.
He looks incredibly cool in shades and carrying a gun.

There’s a very creepy sequence where Dr Heiter has all of his victims tied up in his basement. He waits for them to wake up and explains, in grisly detail, the full procedure for turning them into a human centipede. This scene no doubt came about through director Tom Six ensuring the procedure was medically accurate before making the movie. So, if you’ve ever had a desire to link a few friends together and make them eat each other’s faecal matter then watch this scene and have a good time chopping bits off people…

After a fair amount of subtle violence the movie ends in a slightly unexpected way, but at the same time reaches a typical movie climax with a showdown between Dr Heiter and a couple of plain clothes police officers. The two cops are almost on the same level as Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon – far, far too old.

One thing I really liked was that the violence and the horror of the story wasn’t all “in your face” and had a nice build-up to the body horror that was to follow, but it soon lapsed into traditional horror fare by the final third. This feels like a slight mis-step after the build-up, but never fear horror fans – Tom Six resolved this in the second Human Centipede movie. More on that in a later review.

As for the question over which part of the human centipede is best, my honest answer is none of them. But if you had no choice, then you’ll be better off being A, not B or C. You definitely don’t want to be B. After watching this film you’ll understand why.

Favourite scene: Dr Heiter explains, in meticulous detail, how to make your own human centipede.

Quote: “Do you already regret your little escape? In fact, I’m thankful for it, because now… I know definitely you are the middle piece!”

Silly Moment: When Katsuro has to make toilet.

Score: 3/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0piFZXT8Zxo

After Earth (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-06-26

Best shot in the film. It's not saying much. — Best shot in the film. It’s not saying much.

Twitter Plot Summary: Will Smith and his son crash on Earth centuries after it was abandoned by humanity. They have to call for help before they die. That’s it.

Genre: Action/Adventure/Mystery/Sci-Fi

Director: M Night Shyamalan

Key Cast: Will Smith, Jaden Smith, Sophie Okonedo, Zoe Kravitz, Glenn Morshower.

Five Point Summary:

1. All the best bits are in the trailer .
2. Never have I seen Will Smith being quite so… boring.
3. There’s a big eagle. Yay.
4. Lots of CGI makes Simon something something. Disappointed. Yeah, that’s the word.
5. We’re going from A to B, but never going to C. Yippy do dah.

I tried to like After Earth, I really did. My initial thoughts afterwards were that it was a mostly competent sci-fi film, but one in serious need of restructuring and a plot. That opinion still holds true, but my overall rating has been lowered after pondering it for a little while longer. The story meanders from minor set piece to minor set piece, and it’s rarely engaging. It’s a shame because there’s actually some good ideas dotted around the place. I’ll get to those in a bit. First of all – did you know that this is actually an M Night Shyamalan movie?

Given his previous bad press and the critical mauling his last few films have had, it’s no surprise that M Night Shyamalan’s name was almost completely absent from the pre-release advertising. It’s as if everybody involved thought that putting his name front and centre would be commercial suicide – just focus on Will Smith and it’ll be okay. Apparently not, it seems. It’s not done particularly well at the box office despite Mr Smith’s face being plastered all over the promotional materials. Whilst it’s Shyamalan’s best film in a long time, this doesn’t say much. It’s relatively well directed and realised, but the story and characters are poor. So very poor.

Will Smith looks bored. In fact, so does Jaden. Okay so there’s the argument that they’re both trying to do away with emotion (or just fear, actually) in order to become invisible to the strange alien things that can smell fear (like John Matrix in Commando – always stay downwind), but the end result is two characters who we don’t really care about. Can you engage emotionally with a sentient frown? No, clearly not. And there’s a lot of frowning in After Earth, frowning and the visual appearance of having had a few too many spoonfuls of chilli at your local Mexican diner. That, along with the incredibly linear and disengaging story do it no favours. There have been some surprisingly good sci-fi films out in the cinema this year (yep, it’s not just Star Trek) and After Earth isn’t one of them.

Is the film nearly finished? I'm dropping off... — Is the film nearly finished? I’m dropping off…

Good points – yes, there are a couple – I loved the design of the future human colony, lots of interesting building designs and reliance more on what looks like great big huge flaps of skin rather than solid doors and walls. Bearing in mind this is supposed to be centuries into the future and following a mass exodus of humanity to another world, the new designs are flawless. Same again for the accents they use in this strange future. To me it had an essence of the American Deep South, but as I’m not an expert on accents I could be completely wrong. Suffice to say it was sufficiently different to make it feel like quite a bit of time had since our current era without having to resort to futuristic slang.

Some of the settings and locations are also pretty good. That scene from the trailer with Jaden near the active volcano is visually arresting, as is the final scene on the volcano itself. Future tech is nicely realised and I get the impression that most of the pre-production work went into this aspect of the film.

It’s a massive missed opportunity. Fleshing out the post-abandonment Earth would have made for a much better film. More importantly, the story should have backed up what the trailers implied, a coming of age story set in the distant future, rather than the boring A to B story that we were treated to.

Also: Cypher Raige. Silly name. That is all.

Favourite scene: The crash sequence.

Quote: “Fear is not real. The only place that fear can exist is in our thoughts of the future. It is a product of our imagination, causing us to fear things that do not at present and may not ever exist. That is near insanity. Do not misunderstand me danger is very real but fear is a choice.”

Silly Moment: Will Smith walking through a battlefield, looking bored.

Score: 2/5

They Who Dare (1954)

Simon Prior

2013-06-26

We're terribly British. — We’re terribly British.

Twitter Plot Summary: A small group of plucky Brit commandoes attack a couple of Luftwaffe airbases on the Greek island of Rhodes.

Genre: Drama/History/War

Director: Lewis Milestone

Key Cast: Dirk Bogarde, Denholm Elliott, Eric Pohlmann, Akim Tamiroff.

Five Point Summary:

1. I think it would’ve worked better if made in black and white. 
2. I say old bean! Who dares wins is our motto don’t you know! 
3. Day for night! DAY FOR NIGHT! 
4. Flipping flippers and ruddy stuff – nobody swears in 1950s cinema.
5. Miniatures blowing up! BOOM!

They’re all so delightfully British. That’s all I could think while watching They Who Dare, the 1954 film about a British commando raid on 2 Luftwaffe airfields in the Greek islands. Well, except for the Greek chaps of course. And the Germans. But the British – sooo very British. It’s this that carries the film as they go up against the odds and attack important German airfields during WW2. It’s probably a propaganda piece designed specifically to raise morale and prove why we fought the war in those tough, post-1945 years of austerity. It does feel like a black and white film regraded to colour, and so it’s occasionally tough to watch, a bit like viewing the untold damage they inflicted on the Laurel and Hardy catalogue in the 80s. Thanks, Ted Turner.

Unfortunately the film suffers because very little actually happens for a good portion of the run time. The majority of the story is spent with Dirk Bogarde and his commando squad hiding in mountain caves approaching the airfields and planning their attack. In essence this is a good thing because by the time the action kicks in you’re hoping for something epic. That’s not the case. Some of the planes look good, but the model shots look cheap even by the standards of the day. The Dam Busters did a better job and that was released the same year. In black and white.
With all of that in mind, it still looks a bazillion times better than a lot of the CGI nonsense we get nowadays. I will keep saying it, but model shots look far more realistic than computer generated fakery. Yes, fine, CGI is often cheaper and you can do a lot more with it, but there’s a certain charm to using a humble scale miniature.
Bogarde is consistently good, and I was incredibly perturbed at the sight of a much younger Denholm Elliott. Yes, he did do a few films before appearing in the Indiana Jones franchise.

That was a waste of good wine! Nudge nudge, say no more!

Then, just as quickly as the action happens, we’re done and it’s back to the commandoes hiding and getting philosophical, at least for a short while. The scenes following the explosion and the getaway of Dirk Bogarde and crew are possibly the best part of the film. A platoon of German soldiers sweeping the island looks visually impressive and adds a little, if not much, tension to proceedings. If I were to write this script now, I’d be inclined to give the German forces a strong commander who doggedly pursues the commandoes back to their rendezvous point. I’d also be inclined to trim the first 60 minutes of build-up down to 40 minutes or so and spend more time with the commandoes playing cat and mouse with the German forces. But then what do I know?

Given its proximity to the end of the war you’d think there would be a bit more tension to, well, pretty much everything. As it stands it’s more of a damp squib to the face rather than a daring commando raid behind enemy lines.

Favourite scene: Where everything finally goes boom.

Quote: “That was a waste of good wine!”

Silly Moment: Dirk Bogarde breaking the 4th wall.

Score: 2.5/5

Out For A Kill (2003)

Simon Prior

2013-06-25

Let's do this. In slow motion. — Let’s do this. In slow motion.

Twitter Plot Summary: Seagal is a university professor who is wrongly imprisoned following a Chinese cocaine deal. He escapes and seeks revenge. In slow motion.

Genre: Action/Crime/Thriller

Director: Michael Oblowitz

Key Cast: Steven Seagal, Michelle Goh, Corey Johnson.

Five Point Summary:

1. Steven Seagal as a university professor archaeologist. If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
2. Lots of Chinese men in suits sat around a table spouting exposition does not an entertaining film make.
3. CGI thunderstorms look terrible.
4. Green screen = supposedly adequate replacement for just standing outside.
5. Seagal’s old, surely it’s time for him to appear in The Expendables?

Seagal, despite his lack of mainstream success, continues to churn out generic action films on a regular basis. I suppose in some respects it’s better than not getting paid, and there’s obviously a market out there for his films otherwise he wouldn’t be offered work. Now, Seagal making action films (and I use the term loosely) is fine if he brought a little more nuance to his characters. In essence he’s been playing Casey Ryback since he appeared in Under Siege. In fact, I like to play a game where I pretend the ever-whispering Seagal is that character in every subsequent film and has subsequently taken the roll of “world’s unluckiest man” from John McClane.

So, the story. Seagal is a university professor (yeah, right) who is wrongfully imprisoned after a Chinese drug deal goes wrong at the archaeology site where he’s working. Naturally, being the only Westerner there, the authorities immediately assume he’s involved. As the story meanders on, it’s revealed that Seagal was a master thief of Chinese artifacts before he became a university professor. Of course he was.

Almost every action scene featuring Seagal is done in slow motion, likely in an effort to hide his advancing years. The problem with this is that every action scene feels the same as the last one, with the exception of the brief hand-slapping fight he has with one of the bad guys. That appears to either be played at normal speed or it’s been sped-up to once again counter the fact that Seagal was about 50 when the film was made.

Whilst Seagal is running around trying to prove his innocence and seeking his revenge, a bunch of Chinese mafia-types sit around a table dictating what will happen to him next. The fact that we keep cutting back to them throughout the film’s run time is indicative of the quality you’d expect from a post-1992 Seagal film. Yeah, that’ll be everything after Under Siege. Thinking about it, I’ll allow him Machete as well. But everything else – oh dear.
It’s cheap, straight to video tosh that verges on having a story but is just an excuse for Seagal to twist a few arms, slap a few Chinese guys and ultimately get his revenge against the cabal of Chinese guys who never leave their big table. You know exactly how it will end, and you can’t even say it’s an entertaining road to get there. This is easily interchangeable with most of Seagal’s other straight to video releases. Same old nonsense with the same story beats, just a different setting.

Favourite scene: Seagal fighting a strange ratty chap inside a barber shop. The ratty chap can defy the laws of physics (in direct contravention to the reality previously established by the film). I smell wirework.

Quote: “But you made one very big mistake. You touched the most sacred thing in my life. You killed my wife. Now, you force me to dig two graves.”

Silly Moment: A typical Seagal hand-slap fight, this time with 100% less Tommy Lee Jones.

Score: 1.5/5

Puss In Boots (2011)

Simon Prior

2013-06-25

Salma Hayek and Antonio Banderas. For a second I didn't recognise them... — Salma Hayek and Antonio Banderas. For a second I didn’t recognise them…

Plot Summary: Puss In Boots gets his own spin-off. Some stuff happens with characters that don’t appear in the Shrek films. The end.

Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy

Director: Chris Miller

Key Cast: Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis, Salma Hayek, Billy Bob Thornton, Amy Sedaris.

Five Point Summary:

1. Antonio Banderas: perfect casting
2. Humpty Dumpty – surprisingly good.
3. Jack and Jill went up the hill and suddenly became quite evil.
4. Salma Hayek: Also perfect casting
5. Good egg/bad egg?

Out of all the myriad fairy tale creations to emerge from Shrek’s rather sizeable shadow, I think the best character to come out of the franchise was our eponymous feline hero. Combining the swashbuckling element that made Zorro what he is today (you know, somewhat marginalised) with the characteristics of a cat, it was only a matter of time before he ended up with his own cynical cash-in. Sorry, spin-off movie. Whilst the story and the overall plot are typical of what ultimately happened to the main Shrek franchise, there’s enough here to keep people entertained. I know I’m not the target audience for this so obviously from a kids perspective it works on a lot of levels, but whilst the story didn’t always hit the mark, the numerous parts where Puss did his “cat thing” worked well, even if they’re still exactly the same things he’s done since his introduction in the Shrek universe. The big cat eyes, chasing after a light moving around on the floor, even lapping milk out of a glass.

The character of Humpty Dumpty, played to near perfection by Zach Galafianakis, adds a welcome element of grey – specificallly the “is he good or is he bad?” aspect, and Salma Hayek teams up with Mr Banderas yet again. Their movie partnership seems to be the Mexican equivalent of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp (not that it’s a bad thing). Hayek plays Kitty Softpaws, a name clearly yanked from the James Bond Lead Female Character Random Name Generator.

The story, such as it is, sees Puss, Kitty and Humpty joining forces to steal magic beans from Jack and Jill (not the cute little kids you would imagine, far from it in fact), which when planted will allow access to the golden goose and untold wealth. There’s a couple of twists and turns as Kitty and Puss go from rivals to friends, all of which kicks off initially with a dance-off in a bar. Club? Disco? Not sure. That scene also introduces a cat that makes a surprised noise when a particular bit of news is divulged (it’s worth watching the film just for him, trust me). By the end of the film it all ends up falling a bit flat as a giant goose terrorises the town. This wouldn’t be so bad if we hadn’t already seen a giant Gingerbread Man in the Shrek films, but it gives Puss chance to show everyone what he’s got, after spending much of the movie on the run, and also allows room for sequels if it made enough at the box office – Wikipedia indicates it cost $130 million but made $507 billion, so I would say another one is likely.

If a sequel does emerge, I would only ask that they spend a bit more time on the story – Puss as a character needs no work and he’s entertaining enough on his own. Puss plus an engaging and compelling story that offers a stronger moral than good egg/bad egg would be a bonus.

Favourite scene: Puss chasing after the beam of light.

Quote: “You have made the cat angry. You do not want to make the cat angry!”

Silly Moment: Several, actually. The cat that goes “ooooh!”

Score: 3/5

Saw III (2006)

Simon Prior

2013-06-25

"You're completely crazy." "Yeah, well you're completely bald." — “You’re completely crazy.”
“Yeah, well you’re completely bald.”

Twitter Plot Summary: Jigsaw is dying and kidnaps a doctor to save him. He ruins things by leaving his trademark tests in the hands of his apprentice.

Genre: Crime/Horror/Thriller

Director: Darren Lynn Bousman

Key Cast: Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Donnie Wahlberg, Dina Meyer.

Five Point Summary:

1. Jigsaw’s operating theatre looks grotty. Surely there’s a risk of secondary infection? 
2. The freezer room is particularly nasty.
3. It’s clear that Amanda is crazy – Jigsaw chose wrong there. 
4. Tobin Bell is an imposing presence, but Jigsaw needs more to do.
5. The whole film is just an excuse to think up the nastiest thing possible and commit it to film. Which is moderately entertaining.

This review was originally posted on www.randomstoat.com on 04 February 2012.

A while back I didn’t see much point in watching the Saw sequels – I thought the first movie was pretty much perfect as it was and there was no need to expand the story further. That said, and bearing in mind I’m still subscribed to Lovefilm and Netflix (NB: as of 2013 I’m only subscribed to the latter), I thought I would check out the remaining six films. I’ve actually ended up watching them slightly out of order – Saw 5 is on Netflix streaming so I randomly watched that one in isolation, and have gone back and watched Saw 2 and 3 over the last couple of weeks.As for the story this time round, it picks up from the end of Saw 2 and events unfold from a more emotional perspective – Jigsaw is dying and a doctor is brought in by Amanda, his apprentice for want of a better term, to keep him alive.

Meanwhile a very angry man with stubble finds himself working through a set of puzzles set by Jigsaw. The reason why Angry Stubble Man is so angry is because his young son died after being hit by a car (sadly not a car with sentience, like Herbie) and now he has opportunity to gain revenge on those responsible, including the judge who sentenced the killer to a short six month sentence, the eye witness who saw the whole incident, and the killer himself.

Jigsaw couldn't work out how to cure his headache. — Jigsaw couldn’t work out how to cure his headache.

The traps are all as gruesome as you would expect – chests ripped open, limbs twisted the wrong way, and in one incredibly disconcerting scene, a naked woman chained between two poles, in a freezer, and intermittently sprayed with water. Suffice to say that the combination of freezer, cold water and naked woman does not end well. Ultimately Angry Stubble Man gets through the tasks for a showdown with Jigsaw. Whilst all of these tasks are going on, Amanda is overseeing the medical treatment of an ailing Jigsaw, and having a bit of a moral quandary of her own. In some ways it’s a subtly different beast to the first two films, humanising Jigsaw and exploring human nature with Angry Stubble Man’s journey, both physical and emotional, through the challenges before him.

Now, if the franchise had finished here I would have had no complaints, and with the death of Jigsaw it seems a natural end point. That said, I currently have no complaints about the remaining four films – from my viewing of Saw 5 it looks like they’ve expanded the story and plugged some gaps as they’ve gone along. Again based on having seen Saw 1-3 and Saw 5, all the films end with a mini-montage where all of Jigsaw’s plans are revealed and innocuous snippets of dialogue make everything clear. I get the impression that the first things scripted are the traps and the ending, with the rest of the story filled in from there. I’m not going to complain about that, however, as it’s a writing style that I use myself on occasion.

It’s funny that horror franchises are the ones that get endless sequels – Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday The 13th, Halloween to name but three. In that respect the Saw franchise is in good company. For the record I enjoyed all of the Elm Street movies (oh, except for the remake…), so perhaps I should have given Saw a better chance at the time.

Favourite scene: The freezer room. Inventive.

Quote: “Death is a surprise party.”

Silly Moment: The whole concept. One film was enough.

Score: 2.5/5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21c3R2ovuwA

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

Simon Prior

2013-06-25

The best thing about this movie. Simples.

Twitter Plot Summary: Years after her Dad is killed in a freak boating accident, Angela goes to summer camp, gets bullied, then people suddenly start dying…

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Director: Robert Hiltzik

Key Cast: Felissa Rose, Jonathan Tiersten, Desiree Gould

Five Point Summary:

1. Aunt Martha – ye gods, that’s BAD acting.
2. Sorry, HOW old is that guy running the place?
3. And why has he insisted on hiring a paedophile as the chef?
4. Who could the killer be?!
5. Brace yourself for the ending.

The 80s are well known for giving us a vast number of cheesy films across multiple genres. Fantasy and horror are the two genres that stand out as far as Edam levels are concerned. Sleepaway Camp is the first in what became a series of films based around a killer at a summer camp.

We start off with a family outing to the beach, but this is no ordinary family – the two kids, Angela and Peter, have two Dad’s! An accident involving a jet ski happens and we then move forward a few years where Angela and her cousin Ricky are being sent off to summer camp by Aunt Martha. Aunt Martha is in my top 10 favourite characters in cinema history, certainly my favourite character in this film. That’s despite having less than five minutes screen time. No offence to Desiree Gould who plays her, but it’s a masterclass in bad acting. It comes as no surprise that she only has 6 acting credits on IMDB, the most notable of which is Under Surveillance where she reunites with Sleepaway Camp alumnus Felissa Rose. Aunt Martha is deliciously terrible and is one of the many reasons people should see this film.

Anyway, back to the plot. Angela is understandably a bit shy and awkward after seeing one of her two Dad’s killed. She’s bullied by pretty much everybody else, but is protected by her cousin and a boy named Paul who takes a shine to her. Yet more bad acting ensues, and everybody who badmouths Angela is bumped off in grisly fashion. By grisly I mean it mostly happens offscreen. There’s an inventive use of hair straighteners, you’ll know the scene when you get there.

Sleepaway Camp is also notable for more than just the bad acting and the death scenes. The script and casting choices also come under scrutiny. The script because the camp chef (that is, the chef who works at the camp, not a camp chef) slobbers over the young girls and even attempts to rape Angela before he gets his comeuppance. I can see why they put a character like that into the story, but even so it’s a tad disturbing.

Such a strange, weird old man... — Such a strange, weird old man…

Fashion. This being the 80s, everybody has mullets or big hair, and some of the outfits worn by the apparently straight men are either indicative of the era or they’re secretly in the cupboard. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. We do see Angela’s parents in bed together during a flashback, but there’s nothing to see except two straight actors awkwardly stroking each other’s arms.

And finally – in what world does a 60 year old man get a date with an 18-20 year old girl? Note that he isn’t rich, he isn’t a very nice guy, and he isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. I think the script called for a younger man running the camp yet the director/casting director went for this guy instead. Another incredulity on top of everything else.

You would never call this film a classic, but the shock ending did enough to guarantee a cult following. You’ll probably guess who the culprit is after the first death, but stick with it. I won’t spoil the ending as that’s not what I’m here for, all I can say is watch the film, enjoy how bad it actually is, and then brace yourself for the final five minutes. It gave me the willies.

Favourite scene: THAT ending.

Quote:

“Artie: Look at all that young fresh chicken. Where I come from, we call ’em baldies. Makes your mouth water, don’t it?
Ben: Artie, they’re too young to even understand what’s on your mind.
Artie: There ain’t no such thing as being too young. You’re just too old.”

Silly Moment: Aunt Martha sending the kids off to camp. A perfect example of bad, bad, bad acting.

Score: 3/5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaAcitYY4OU

The Purge (2013)

Simon Prior

2013-06-24

Twitter Plot Summary: Crime is down to 1% thanks to a 12 hour period every year where all crime is legal. Ethan Hawke and family try to make it through the night.

Genre: Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller

Director: James DeMonaco

Key Cast: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder, Adelaid Kane, Edwin Hodge.

Five Point Summary:

1. Sorry, but the conceit that crime is down because it’s legal for 12 hours a year is silly. People just don’t work that way.
2. Remote controlled baby robot – invented by a strange child.
3. How big is their house?!
4. Those rich kids outside are creepy.
5. Why has it suddenly become a Rambo film?

Set in the near future of 2022, The Purge is a slightly “out there” concept. Apparently, by giving everybody one night every 12 months to do whatever they like – to kill, to maim, to achieve catharsis – the aforementioned “Purge”, is enough to reduce crime to 1% and to see in a new period of economic wealth and stability. I doubt very much that crime would be reduced to such a low level even if people were given carte blanche to kill whomever they wanted to on a weekly basis, let alone a mere 12 hours every 12 months. Subsequently I think the best way to enjoy the film is to gloss over this little conundrum and disengage your brain. Unfortunately I did question many aspects of both the story and the world in which it exists.

For example – there’s one point when the daughter says “Tell Dad I’m sorry” before disappearing for a bit. Sorry, what? How big is this house, exactly? The parents spend ages scuttling through the house looking for her, all the while trying to find both her and the homeless guy that the son foolishly allowed inside. There’s a number of plot incredulities like this, but there are also a few small twists to the established formula that justify a viewing.

Both kids seem to be suffering from classic signs over over-privileged existence – daughter Zoey wants to be with a boy whom her father disapproves of (and who is probably a little too old for her based on her schoolgirl attire). Naturally she rebels by sneaking him into her room. Charlie, the youngest, messes about with technology and has a creepy little remote controlled car that has a camera built into a baby doll, which he drives around the house. He also sets the story off by letting the homeless guy into the house in the first place. Again, rebelling against his parents but this time with regard to their laissez-faire attitude to The Purge.

There are themes bubbling under the surface – inhumanity to others, our natural predisposition for violence etc, but they’re not given opportunity to breathe. Okay, so Lena Headey’s character is forced to brandish a gun and finds herself woefully incapable of using it properly, but you get the impression the scriptwriter was trying to make a point, probably in the first draft, and that’s slowly been eroded following numerous re-drafts.

I’m actually more interested in the wider world itself – why did the USA resort to electing the New Founding Fathers? What weapons are considered to be above “Class 4”? Is Justin Bieber still alive in this possible 2022? And if he is, why hasn’t somebody done something about it?

Can you believe this storyline? It's ludicrous! — Can you believe this storyline? It’s ludicrous!

Another area I’d be interested to see more of is the political backdrop. There’s plenty of background news throughout the film (and, indeed, the end credits) that go some way to answering this question, but it’s almost deliberately vague, just enough to get you thinking but not so much you know exactly how this future works. There’s several mentions of how the Purge is surreptitiously designed to kill off the poor, who aren’t going to be in a position to defend themselves come Purge night. There’s a couple of comments from Ethan Hawke that, before the Purge, he and his wife were living on the breadline. Who’s to say things could have turned out much differently for them? The same goes to the homeless guy they rescue – he has dog tags so he’s clearly former military yet is living on the streets. What does that say about this new, nirvana-esque United States?

Now, whilst much of the above might come across as a little negative, please be aware that I did actually quite enjoy the film, it’s just a bit confused as to what kind of film it wants to be. Is it a near future sci-fi parable, commenting on today’s society? Or is it a spooky horror as evidenced by the creepy masks worn by the kids outside and the quiet walk around the house in near darkness? Or is it even a violent action flick, which is demonstrated in the final act? It’s actually all three, but the fact it doesn’t stick to a particular style does it no favours. First, more clarity regarding the world in which the film exists, first of all. Second, more build-up, tension and purpose to allowing the homeless guy inside. And third… well, most of the final act could stay as it was.

Also remember that old adage of script writing. If you introduce something in the script, be it a person, object or concept, make sure it has a purpose. This holds true throughout The Purge, so bear this in mind when you reach the finale.

Favourite scene: Ethan Hawke gets to go all Rambo.

Quote: “Our target for this year’s purge is hiding in your home. You have one hour to find him and give him to us or we will kill all of you. We will be coming in.”

Silly Moment: Splitting up to search the house for the homeless guy. Seriously, is the house that big?

Score: 3/5

Jonah Hex (2010)

Simon Prior

2013-06-24

Twitter Plot Summary: Jonah Hex wants revenge against the man who killed his family. This man just so happens to be plotting to take over the country. So it goes.

Genre: Action/Drama/Fantasy

Director: Jimmy Hayward

Key Cast: Josh Brolin, John Malkovich, Megan Fox, Michael Fassbender, Will Arnett, Michael Shannon, Wes Bentley.

Five Point Summary:

1. I bet Hex has a terrible problem with excess spittle.
2. Why is Megan Fox in this again? Oh yeah, right.
3. Look, famous people! 
4. It’s a bit supernatural, but that whole sub-plot is a missed opportunity.
5. The comics did it better.

Unlike almost everyone who will see this film, I am a regular reader of the Jonah Hex comic, although admittedly I’ve only followed it for the last four or five years since it was rebooted by Jimmy Palmiotti and Justin Gray. I’d heard very bad things about the movie before release: script re-writes, reshoots and changes. There was an early rumour which implied Jonah Hex, the main character, was barely in the film, instead appearing occasionally throughout the run time and essentially being a guest character, much like Blade in the short-lived TV series. And we all know how that turned out.

Megan Fox always seemed to be shot in soft focus. She also apparently has the ability to kiss a man and instantly make it switch from night to day. In all honesty, does Megan Fox really need to be shot in soft focus? Every time they did a close-up on her face my first thought was that my eyes had gone funky, shortly followed by thinking I was watching an episode of the original series of Star Trek. Her sole purpose is as eye candy and to give the script a tough female character, because any film that doesn’t have some form of “strong” female character is obviously sexist. She’s almost entirely superfluous to the plot (except to conform to stereotype and play the role of the kidnapped “heroine” at the film’s climax), and it seems entirely likely that she shot all of her scenes in a) the same room and b) probably in one day. Everybody, let’s take a look at The Thing – no female characters (except for the voice of the computer chess game, obviously), and the film is fantastic. If there are characters not essential to the plot then don’t write them in. And if you must write characters like Lilah into the script, at least do the decent thing and give them a reason for being there. With almost no exception, every character is a cipher, a generic archetype to push the drab revenge plot along.

Josh Brolin is typically solid in the title role. True, this isn’t a “No Country For Old Men” quality performance, but he seems to enjoy what he’s doing and, to be completely fair, that seems to apply to (almost) everybody involved in front of camera. This helps immensely. I can’t imagine how absolutely awful the movie would be if it was played 100% straight. As it stands it’s a guilty pleasure. John Malkovich in particular seems to relish the evil villain role, for a change not played by an English actor. That guy who played the weird kid in American Beauty (the one who has a strange obsession with carrier bags floating in the wind) shows up for a couple of minutes. Nothing outstanding, but solid enough. Jeffrey Dean Morgan pops up for a brief uncredited cameo, which adds a good piece of gravitas to proceedings, if only for a few brief minutes. Michael Fassbender, again, pops up as an Irish knave, and he looks to have fun with the material given to him, but quite frankly this entire film could have been cast with unknowns and it would have turned out almost exactly the same but markedly less entertaining to watch.

Thankfully the locations are very nice to look at and clearly a fair bit of thought has been put into them. Similarly, the Jonah Hex make-up (he’s horribly scarred, the vaguely rubbish origins of which you’ll discover in the movie) works well, but isn’t as hideous as it could be. I think it’s important that the burn was a prosthetic, I can only imagine how bad it would be if they had CGI’d his face for the entire movie run. Then again I’m sure that would have been rather expensive and I don’t think the budget would have stretched that far.

Do what you like, but I'm not watching Jonah Hex all the way through! — Do what you like, but I’m not watching Jonah Hex all the way through!

One other thing taking a vague cue from the comics is the supernatural, fantasy element. The current run of Jonah Hex comics doesn’t play up on this aspect of the character too much, it’s there but not rammed down your throat. Sadly that’s exactly what they do here. It’s a bit silly and doesn’t really need to happen, or could have easily been worked into the story without being as daft as it actually is. Hex brings dead soldiers back for a chat by touching their arm, and Malkovich’s Quentin Turnbull steals a bunch of chemical orbs that have their fair share of “Wild Wild West” about them, so he can go and blow up the White House or some other such nonsense. Bad omens indeed.

The script is surprisingly zingy in places, and if you’re one of these modern day ADD sufferers then you’ll love the quick cuts, the explosions and the ludicrous set pieces. For anyone after another top-notch serious Western movie (of which there are many), then you’ll be sorely disappointed. The short runtime (a measly 81 minutes, including credits) says everything. You’re in and out of the story in record time. If you want bang for your buck, then you’re not really going to find it here. Well, maybe a bit of a bang as things blow up with dynamite pistols (yeah you read that right), but otherwise… no. I’m not even going to blame the director Jimmy Hayward. He doesn’t do a bad job at all for a first timer, and both the production values and the acting is pretty solid, it just doesn’t gel. The script is to blame, plain and simple.

Overall thoughts? A nice, disposable movie but nothing more. It’s very much a wasted opportunity given how brilliant the character is in comic book form. I would have preferred a script that tied more into the style of the comic, and maybe featured a bit of actual bounty hunting other than the brief exposure we’re given at the start of the movie, but you can’t have it all. And ultimately, I still have the original comic to fall back on, so it could be a lot worse. Unless you’re a real glutton for punishment, give this a miss and go watch any one of Clint Eastwood’s Westerns instead. You’ll feel a lot better for it.

Favourite scene: Josh Brolin. Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Cemetery. Supernatural gubbins.

Quote: “You killed me, Jonah!” “You drew on me, Jeb.” “Yeah, that was a mistake.” “Well, obviously.”

Silly Moment: Dynamite pistols. Very silly.

Score: 2.5/5

Hobo With A Shotgun (2011)

Simon Prior

2013-06-24

"This is what I wear to church." — “This is what I wear to church.”

Twitter Plot Summary: The titular Hobo wants to buy a lawnmower, but he’s trapped by a crime boss and becomes a figure for justice using his trusty shotgun. Srsly.

Genre: Action/Comedy/Thriller

Director: Jason Eisener

Key Cast: Rutger Hauer, Brian Downey, Gregory Smith, Molly Dunsworth.

Five Point Summary:

1. There’s violence, then there’s VIOLENCE.
2. Despite the violence, it’s terribly tongue in cheek.
3. Burning children in a bus? Bad show.
4. Splintered bone shank to the neck!
5. Brian Downey is great, but the film needs a bigger name for a villain.

This review first appeared on www.randomstoat.com on 04 February 2012.

Coming from the same stock as Machete, what was once a spoof Grindhouse trailer has been given the full length treatment, and with cult icon Rutger Hauer in the lead role no less. Hobo With A Shotgun is as Ronseal a title you can think of, as Hauer’s eponymous Hobo cleans up the crime-addled streets of Hope Town.

For me the film had additional appeal as Brian Downey, Stanley H Tweedle in the cult sci-fi series Lexx, appeared as the villain known only as The Drake. I’m sure his name is actually Thomas Drake or something and assumed “The” would make him sound cooler. And it does. Downey was always entertaining in Lexx, another cheap Canadian production (well, German-Canadian – don’t ask me how that came about), but in this he gets to play the villain with gusto and a wicked centre parting.

Hauer is suitably mental as the Hobo, who only wants to buy a lawnmower so he can start up a business. Yeah, bit daft – did he not think about just moving to another town or something? He’d have saved himself a lot of hassle, but then we wouldn’t have a film, so… I digress. Instead he befriends a girl, lots of violence ensues and, in true Grindhouse fashion, lots of silly violence follows, such as stabbing one of the villains with the shredded remains of the bones in their forearm. It appears that most of the budget was spent first on Rutger Hauer (although I’m sure he’d probably do it for a cheese sandwich and his face on the poster) and the buckets of blood that are lovingly splattered across the screen.

Listen, what you get up to in the privacy of your own home, that's no business of mine. — Listen, what you get up to in the privacy of your own home, that’s no business of mine.

As modern exploitation movies ago, even with tongue firmly planted in cheek there are some quite graphic moments that are clearly intended to shock – the very first scene, after the sedate train journey opening, sees a with his head stuck in the middle of a manhole cover, being chased by The Drake and his goons. After being dumped down a manhole, his head sticking above the manhole cover and his body dangling below, he is then viciously beheaded with a barbed wire chain and a funky car.

A later scene sees Slick, twisted son of The Drake, board a school bus full of children and burn them to death, all to the tune of Disco Inferno by The Trammps. Understandably they don’t emphasise the burning too much, but there is a briefly a young child pressed against the glass screaming and covered in burns. Rest assured that Slick gets his comeuppance in the end, you could say almost poetically.

I think one of the main problems facing the Grindhouse spin-offs is that it could end up being an example of diminishing returns. Planet Terror and Deathproof both had top-notch directors at the helm with a cast and production value to match. Machete had Danny Trejo and Jeff Fahey and maintained the tongue in cheek attitude. Hobo is variable by comparison, and its relatively low budget is obvious. I would have liked to have seen more of the Hobo using the shotgun as it has a reasonably long build-up until he starts dishing out justice, but the wait is worth it.
If you enjoyed the previous full-length Grindhouse movies then you’ll probably enjoy this. For everyone else, you might want to steer clear.

Favourite scene: Rutger Hauer lamenting the state of Hope Town to a delivery room full of newly born babies. Cheesy but Hauer is spot on.

Quote: “You can’t solve all the world’s problems with a shotgun.” “It’s all I know.”

Silly Moment: Girl loses hand in lawnmower, shanks bad guy with exposed bone in forearm.

Score: 3/5

1...878889 90 Page 88 of 90

SIMONPRIOR.COM