Archive for September, 2009

Up

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

up

One of the common criticisms of Pixar’s 2008 offering, Wall-E, was that it began wonderfully and originally, and then turned into slightly more conventional fare. Arguably, this is the case with Up, too; the opening twenty-or-so minutes are perfection, and it’s probably one of the best openings to an animated film I’ve seen. Unfortunately this level of quality isn’t exactly reached, and you could indeed say that the film goes downward.

That’s not to say Up is ever bad. But it ends up with an action-packed finale that feels at odds with what the film originally set out to do.

The story of Carl, an old man desperate for adventure after his wife’s death, is fantastical enough once he propels his house by balloons into the sky. Incredibly, this isn’t in the slightest the weirdest part of the film. As the film continues, we are introduced to an improbably large bird, and dogs intelligent enough to talk through voice devices in their collars. Pixar loves anthropomorphising animals – and they’re really quite good at it – but never before have we been introduced to normal humans first and then shown talking animals. The dogs are very, very funny – particularly the stereotypically villainous one, whose key gimmicky joke never outstays its welcome – but it somehow seems to undercut the human drama of the story.

This may be intentional. When Carl finally lets go of the house and his departed wife, he becomes an action man in a bizarre scene atop a zeppelin. This is symbolic of him throwing away his past and dreams and living in the present instead. But it still jars considerably. Even the villain is quite stock, which is a shame considering that his motivations make perfect sense. He even represents an anti-Carl, another old man desperate to live out his dreams. Yet still, he is conventional. He’s got nothing on Syndrome, the spurned kid who got too big for his shoes (literally and metaphorically).

It’s a shame, too, that Carl is put through so much physical exercise, because it again threatens to destroy the logic of the world Pixar has created, even though it’s animated and artificial. At the beginning of the film, Carl is barely able to walk across his front porch even with his cane. Later he drags an entire house with his body, and, as I already said, becomes an action hero. There’s perseverance, and then there’s impossibility. It’s lucky this is animated, because otherwise I wouldn’t have been able to suspend my disbelief at all.

The really good bits, though, are indeed really good. I’ve already mentioned the opening, but I want to dwell on this further. It’s an incredibly bittersweet montage that genuinely convinces you that these characters have lived out an entire life, rather than it feeling purely like a montage. As well as that, there’s death. Many children were first introduced to death via Disney’s own Bambi, but this is, despite being quieter about it, even more educational (I struggled to think of another word but couldn’t. I apologise). We not only see death as the end to a life not lived as perhaps it was supposed to have been lived, but we also see death as the end to a life that has barely begun. It’s an incredible depth for Pixar to reach, and so subtly too.

And, for all that he may become a prototype hero towards the end, Carl is genuinely an excellent main character. Apart from immediately disproving that stupid notion that children only like watching children on screen, the character of Carl allows Pixar to examine what old age would be like. And this is what Pixar says it’s like: you spend your days doing very little, save for hanging on desperately to everything you once had, be it your house, a dream you had, or a picture hanging on the wall. Your death doesn’t concern you so much as the thought of losing everything that meant something to you while you were alive. I can imagine a child sitting and watching this, and suddenly feeling what it means to be alive, how precious life truly is. Or, they could be laughing at the funny doggies.

Either way, it doesn’t matter. Despite being a bit uneven, the good by far outweighs the bad, and it is, simply, excellent to see Pixar still willing to push envelopes and do things their own way.

Rating: ★★★½☆

Dead Snow

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

dead-snow-nazis

Last year, a Swedish horror film blew us away and seemed to redefine the rules of vampire flicks. It examined what it was like to be a vampire, as well as telling a coming of age story. It was an undead breath of fresh air.

And now here comes a Norwegian horror film, similarly entrapped by snow, and with bucketloads of potential. Its gimmick? Nazi zombies. Or zombie Nazis. Whichever you prefer. Think about that idea. Think about the possible thematic relevance that has, how zombies could represent a purity of blood or an Aryan race, or how the film could become a discourse on the nature of evil. I’m not asking for something profound, mind, just something intelligent.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers involved obviously thought that “Nazi zombies” is enough. And it is. It’s enough for a deliberately-pitched-at-horror-geeks film that delivers the “scares” and the gore and maybe a laugh here or there.

But you really would have to be a hardcore zombie nut to greatly enjoy this. I hate to pick apart this film’s cliches, but seriously, there’s nothing more I can do. A group of teens in an isolated area are menaced by zombies. Why teens? Because that’s what convention dictates. Man, imagine if it had been a professor, or an archaeologist, or someone interesting, who wanted to observe these Nazi zombies. The main character of The Exorcist is a priest. A goddamned priest. Replace that with “a group of teens”, and weep. It’s just so awful a cliche, and it doesn’t thematically fit in the slightest. They’re also basically an equally divided group of boys and girls, just because, you know, that’s what always happens. This means they inevitably have sexy sex on their mind. Sexy, sexy sex.

(There is no sex in this movie, incidentally. Not even Hitler-esque coprophilia)

But when an old man turns up with terrifying stories of a Nazi mission – is this the fallout from an Indiana Jones film? – they begin to have other things on their mind. Like zombies, and Nazis. They’re zombies that are Nazis. Nazi zombies. I’m going to repeat that until you tire of reading it, and therefore won’t need to see this.

Are there character traits? Most certainly! Let me introduce you to the medical student (they’re all medical students, actually) who’s afraid of the sight of blood! What happens to him? Why, he becomes an arse-kicking zombie killing machine who doesn’t cause me to have fl-Ash-backs! And here’s the girl who suffers from claustrophobia, a fact pointed out when her boyfriend decides to prank her with autoerotic asphyxiation (?)! What happens to her? Why, she ends up trapped under the snow and has to dig her way out!

And what happens to the film nerd who watches horror films? Why, he dies whilst having sex on a toilet (hmm, maybe there is coprophilia in this)! Aren’t we a little old for giggle-giggle-the-characters-watch-what-we-watch by now? Scream came out in 1996, and there’s been numerous shit Scary Movies since. Why do horror film directors persist in believing that pointing out cliches somehow absolves them?

There are two good bits in the entire movie. I’m going to spoil them, so if for some reason that bothers you, do not continue reading. One: a character hangs precariously from a cliff by grabbing onto a zombie’s hanging intestine. Two: another character cuts off his arm because he was bitten, and then his penis is bitten. I also admit to enjoying the moment where the zombie leader (named Herzog, incredibly enough) looks through binoculars. It’s so utterly ridiculous. Oh, and the opening scene is set to Grieg’s In the Hall of the Mountain King. Maybe this was a clever reference to M and its subtle warnings against the Nazism forming at the time. Maybe it wasn’t.

So if they’re barely Nazis, are the zombies really zombies? I don’t know. Fast-moving-zombies are arguably not zombies at all, but this is nothing compared to zombies who use weapons, display obvious intelligence, and are not after flesh and brains, but money. No, I’m serious.

In conclusion: more like Dead NO.

Rating: ★★½☆☆

Note: I’m fully aware that the last thing I reviewed was Lesbian Vampire Killers. I really, really need to review something good next.

Dark City – a review I wrote for a magazine (that is better than Projectorheads)

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

(This review is based on the 2008 director’s cut of the film, which, among other things, doesn’t have a godamned stupid opening narration that ruins basically every twist. Way to go, New Line Cinema.)

Dark City is one of those rare movies that manages to fit two seemingly different genres together in a way that’s almost effortless; in this case, science fiction and film noir. It’s one of the more original movies in a genre that has infinite possibilities, and it’s disappointing that Proyas went from directing something with as much mood and tension as this to I, Robot, which is more like an advert for Converse and Audi that happens to have action and robo-racism and stuff.

The plot begins like a typical mystery; our protagonist, John Murdoch, awakes in a seedy hotel bathroom with no idea of who he is, or what’s up with the dead woman in the room. After being urged to flee by a mysterious phone call, he finds himself on the run from both the police and a group of men known only as The Strangers, as well as trying to figure out what the hell happens to the city every midnight.

Dark City is, for all intents and purposes, a Raymond Chandler story set in a sci-fi environment. It has all the typical archetypes of the noir style – the usual characters, from the detective to the nightclub singer, and vehicles and costumes that bring to mind The Big Sleep, among others. Yet at the same time, the shadowy style and noir elements blend seamlessly with the advanced look. The design of the city, while not particularly futuristic, still brings to mind classic science fiction films such as Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, and that was definitely a sci-fi. There was a robot. In fact, in many ways, Dark City is almost a modern cross between Metropolis and Fritz Lang’s noir classic M. The sci-fi elements are also evident with the design of The Strangers, and much of the plot leans this way too, particularly the emphasis on memory, which is a major part of science fiction films such as Solaris.

Science fiction, as with any other genre, is best when you give the characters room to breathe, rather than using them as a way to get through as many different situations as possible. The performances in Dark City are the sort where you don’t see them as particularly good at first, but it’s only because the actors become so immersed in the characters that it doesn’t even feel like they’re playing a part (Something I like to call Fargo syndrome). Rufus Sewell is great as Murdoch, not looking like a typical here and being all the more effective for it, and Jennifer Connelly puts in a fine performance as his wife Emma, but the man who steals the show is, perhaps surprisingly, Kiefer Sutherland. He has perhaps the most emotionally complex role as Dr Daniel Schreiber, who works for The Strangers but has wavering loyalties.

Despite having an incredibly short average shot length – every 1.8 seconds, one of the shortest of any modern film – Dark City manages not to feel too fast-paced, and is, in the simplest terms possible, a perfect blend of its genres. Everything feels honed to perfection, and in that way it is one of the best science fiction films, as well as one of the best noirs.

(Written for The Bridge, the Sci-Fi Society’s Magazine for the University of Lincoln)

The Forgotten Movies of Tom Bown – Part One

Saturday, September 5th, 2009

I own a ton of DVDs, and when you own a ton of DVDs, there’s always a chance that some will remain unwatched for a long while. I went digging through my collection the other day and found 10 that were all bought many months beforehand, but that I never found the time to sit down and watch. As a fun special Projectorheads thingy, I thought I’d make a couple of updates where I watch and write short reviews for all these films.

(Ok, up there is the original plan. I managed to watch 3 out of 5 films I had planned for this update, but then ended up watching two different films instead. Seeing how I’m going on holiday in 3 hours and was operating under a deadline I decided to do the mini-reviews for them and have part 2 of this update be 7 films or something. Enjoy!)

Here are the reviews (Some slight spoilers, for Persona especially, but I tried to keep it to a minimum):

Dancer In The Dark (Lars von Trier, 2000)

So I start off on a light note. The final part of a “Golden Heart” trilogy must be uplifting, right? Oh wait this is probably the most godamned depressing movie I’ve ever seen. Just straight-up thrown in the deep end with awful depressing shit and it never ever ever lets up and even the fun singing bits are like oh god because you know it’s all in her head and in real life shit is fucked. Björk’s performance as Selma is absolutely stellar, perfectly epitomising all sides of the character – the optimism, the stubborn nature, the pain – and the music she composed is wonderful, making Selma’s daydreaming nature as beautiful as possible. Von Trier filmed most of the movie using a handheld dogme style, and, as usual, manages to use it to great effect to make the film much more personal and emotive. Ebert has described Dancer as being a return to an old style of cinema plotting, and that may or may not be true. All I can really think of right now is how much the title makes sense – despite everything that happens to her, Selma keeps on going. I don’t think any movie has ever fucked me up this much before.

Rating: ★★★★½

The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973)

This movie makes me hate horror fans because they all just talk about how IT LOOKS REALLY FAKE AND ISN’T SCARY ANYMORE but who cares? Even if it isn’t shocking or whatever it’s still a great film. I admit, though, that it probably works more as a drama that happens to have demonic elements than a straight horror. Ellen Burstyn does a great job of portraying the distress of the mother, while Jason Miller manages to make Karras’ a mysterious, brooding figure. Linda Blair, though, is the thing. I can’t even imagine the level of dedication she must have put in, and especially at such a young age, to successfully portray Regan. The fact that such stresses eventually led to drug addictions tells us so much. Overall it’s a genuinely good movie and the reactions of all the Saw fans who are like YEAH IT’S BASICALLY A COMEDY are like aughhhhhh

Rating: ★★★★☆

Persona (Ingmar Bergman, 1966)

My first Bergman! And wow. I had a slight idea what to expect with Persona, but I wasn’t expecting it to be anywhere near this intense. Bergman calls this his most important film, and in some ways it’s easy to see why. The melding of Alma and Elisabeth (Both played to absolute perfection by Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullmann) can be seen – very overtly, at certain points – as running parallel to the idea of film blending with reality. The way Bergman fucks with our heads is strange – we start off thinking it’s about this ill actress and her nurse, then the nurse turns out to be the truly disturbed one, and then it brings in all the reality fuckery. The scene near the end where the camera swings and we see Bergman and the crew (Which I admit I didn’t notice at first, and had to go back and rewatch) is just brilliant. This movie quickly shot up my top films list, and may even have a space in my top 10. I can’t wait to watch more Bergman (Also Godard, the fucking bore, but that’s neither here nor there).

Rating: ★★★★★

The Piano Teacher (Michael Haneke, 2001)

My second Haneke, and judging from what I’ve heard about his filmography, the first one to be more of his usual style. This was another one where I had no idea what I was getting myself into, and I was both pleasantly surprised and repulsed. Haneke’s reputation for making movies that show us the sick, twisted characters in Western society is well-deserved, as we view Erika and see how her mother’s domineering attitude causes her to take out her frustrations in cruel, fetishistic ways. What I found quite interesting is that

<spoiler alert>

the mother isn’t really that much of the problem. While she’s clearly domineering, Erika could escape her clutches if she wanted to, but it’s more her masochistic tendancies that are keeping her from truly being her own person, as she likes to feel like someone’s dominating her. The only time she truly rebels against her mother is when she thinks she has Walter to play that role for her.

<end of spoilers>

The movie is twisted, yes, but the most disturbing thing about it is that it could very easily be real. Which is cool, y’know. Definitely need to check out more Haneke.

Rating: ★★★★½

(500) Days Of Summer (Marc Webb, 2009)

I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect when I went into the cinema to see this, but I ended up incredibly pleasantly surprised. It’s almost an anti-romcom – while they can be quite idealised, this is the most real depiction of a romance of its kind I’ve ever seen on screen. While much of the marketing makes it seem almost like Juno meets Elizabethtown or something – and it certainly starts off like that, with the sure-to-annoy-many Belle & Sebastian reference – it’s really not a date movie, although it certainly has its moments. Over the 500 days the movie flicks between at random, we see the relationship between boy and girl as one does remember something like that – the first time you notice them, the way you start getting closer, the great times that occur in the first few months, and everything after. If you want to class (500) Days Of Summer as a romantic comedy, then it’s most likely the best romantic comedy I’ve ever seen. However, I don’t think that’s how you can class it. It’s funny, and it’s sweet, but overall it’s just a little too real. Anyone coming out of the movie having ever looked back on a long-lasting relationship is gonna feel the sting of familiarity. Which, of course, just means the movie’s incredibly effective.

Rating: ★★★★½

Part two will be here in a few weeks.

“My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done” – Trailer

Friday, September 4th, 2009

The first trailer for the next Werner Herzog film is finally here. Written and directed by Herzog, My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done is also produced by David Lynch, and stars Willem Dafoe and Chloë Sevigny, as well as Michael Shannon, whose Oscar nomination last year for his supporting role in Revolutionary Road was very well-deserved. The trailer is surprisingly atypical of trailers for a Herzog/Lynch feature, but the movie still looks really great, and with such a stellar cast and crew I’m officially excited!