The After Movie Diner Video Review 1 - Avengers 2: Age of Ultron
These were my initial thoughts on seeing the film. I hope to cover it in more depth on a podcast soon.
I am looking to do more video reviews so please suggestions suggestions. That would be great!
Bad Words
Jason Bateman makes his directorial debut with this R Rated indie comedy that sees him attempting to drop his Mr.Put-Upon-Nice-Guy persona while starring in a film that doesn't exactly work without it.
Bateman plays Guy Trilby a foul mouthed, negative, man-child with a savant way with words who has, through a loop-hole and with the support of reporter Kathryn Hahn, entered the Golden Quill spelling bee much to the chagrin of it's organisers Allison Janney and Philip Baker Hall and the parents of the children, the other participants.
The film is a short, well acted and competently directed, verbal, indie comedy. The humour is, at times, very rude, crude but pleasingly inventive and Bateman, especially, seems to be relishing the role. Good thing too as he holds the whole thing together.
Which is more than can be said for the script. The tagline to the film is 'the end justifies the mean' and the fact of the matter is, it really doesn't. Whether you find spelling competitions important or not, nothing really justifies the cruelty Guy Trilby unleashes on, not only, the people directly involved in the competition but just general people in the world, funny though a lot of it is. His personal vendetta effects way more people than the actual, solitary focus of it and I guess it's just down to Bateman's like-ability as an actor, the genuinely funny dialogue and the fact that we are stuck following him for the whole movie that keeps us, the audience, dubiously 'on his side'.
There is a sub-plot about his befriending a child, a fellow contestant, and 'tearing up' the town with him in the evenings which, I suppose, is intended to endear him to us a little and play to the rebel in all of us but some of the things they do, including causing a stolen lobster to lacerate a man's genitals, seem a tad cruel for no reason, as well.
Now before you think I am taking this all too seriously, let me explain. The film IS funny. Taken on face value, if you find vicious, dark, crude humour for the sake of it funny, then you are going to love it and there was much about it I did enjoy. Films, however, whether people like it or not, have to have characters, plots and motivations that make relative sense within their presented frame work and while "it's just a comedy" may excuse a lot of illogical or unforgivably cruel behaviour, the fact that the film, ultimately, asks us to give a hoot about this selfish, arrogant arse hole of a man means that we have to, at least, buy into the story and care a little, when it doesn't give us a lot of satisfactory reasons to.
Had he participated in the contest without cheating and eliminating some of his opponents in humiliating ways or had he befriended the kid, torn round the town but not hurt a man's penis with a large clawed sea creature then his character might have been a little more redeemable, while being no less funny.
There are echoes of Wes Anderson in the characters and the plot, especially Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums without, of course, it being anywhere nearly as charmingly presented or stylish.
A worthy debut, though, for Bateman as a director and interesting to see the R Rated comedy given the mumble core indie treatment.
7 out of 10
Snickers Movie Prize Pack
You like Snickers, right? and you like movies? OF COURSE you do, you're one of the discerning readers, listeners and visitors of www.aftermoviediner.com
Well have WE got a giveaway for you!
Who hasn’t felt like a rampaging menace at least once in their lives? Because let’s face it, You’re Not You When You’re Hungry! Even Godzilla is a regular, cool guy who can hang with his friends, just watch out for that sudden spell of hunger!
Check it out in the new Snickers commercial!
Only SNICKERS – and its delicious blend of chocolate, peanuts, caramel and nougat – can provide #MONSTERSATISFACTION and tame the savage beast!
To celebrate the release of the new Snickers “You’re Not You When You’re Hungry” commercial, Enter the #MONSTERSATISFACTION giveaway below for your chance to win NOT 1 but 5 SNICKERS bars and a $15 Fandango Card
a Rafflecopter giveaway
Offer ONLY available in the United States of America.
Each household is only eligible to win One (1) Snickers Movie Prize Pack containing 5 Snickers Bars and 1 $15 Fandango Gift Card via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
This post is sponsored by Snickers Brand
Interview in the Wartooth Arena
Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for taking the time to join us as we spend another Thursday evening probing the mysteries of cult cinema with a megamind of exploitation knowledge, The Podcast from the After Movie Diner.
Why don't you start telling us about your show?
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
Well the Diner started life as a blog back in 2010 and then somewhere in 2011 we started a podcast. I have an eclectic and passionate interest in all film so while others might focus on one thing or another, we can always guarantee there's at least one show or a handful of shows we have done that everyone will like.
Our main podcast combines comedy, music and film discussion and then about a year and a half ago we started up the Dr. Action and The Kick Ass Kid Commentaries show which is my friend and I riffing on 80s and 90s action films but with affection and silly voices, it's sort of like Hollywood Babble-On meets MST3K.
Wartooth Arena
I know I'm jumping ahead, but do you have a favourite exploitation film?
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
I have a whole list of favourites from all genres. Hard to pick just one... I did get a list together of a selection of them... would you like to hear about that?
As I have just completed a month covering them, some of the best, boldest, bloodiest and most badass and brilliant Blaxploitation films I can recommend are:
Shaft (1971) – an obvious one maybe but it has a hard hitting, quick witted, one liner heavy script that reads like a Humphrey Bogart private eye noir from the 40s but plays out like a new form of urban, action cinema that would define the era.
Slaughter (1972) – ex-footballer Jim Brown plays a James Bond style lady slayin’ ass whooper that owes a debt to the spy movies of the 60s but has all the nudity and gun fights one expects from the decade.
Three The Hard Way (1974) – Fred “The Hammer” Williamson, Jim Brown and the late great Jim Kelly go up against white supremacists wearing all the damn fine threads they can find and warring with all the way out weaponry they can get their hands on.
Coffy (1973) – Pam Grier’s defining moment. Strong, sexy, sassy and vicious, Grier brings all the exploitation elements of her greatest women-in-prison-in-the-Philippines films but mixes it with the sort of hard-nosed revenge thrillers that would pepper the 70s and 80s. This is a whole year before Death Wish.
Some of my favourite, less obvious, exploitation movies of this era are:
Vanishing Point (1971) – For as much as it is an existential, bleak look at America in a post 60s funk it also contains drugs, nudity, awesome car chases, violence, surreal scenes, a kick ass soundtrack and an enigmatic lead performance, all of which are staples of exploitation and would inform films like Mad Max and The Blues Brothers
Race With The Devil (1975) – When devil worshippers and Winnebago’s collide! This is a great look at the middle class, white family’s paranoia of small town, rural America with some great horror, car chases, a snake and an awesome ending.
Profondo Rosso (1975) – Argento’s masterful giallo movie that not only would influence the thrillers of De Palma but the entire Slasher genre of the 80s.
Rabid (1977) – Cronenberg’s slice of vampiric, zombie body horror.
The Living Dead At The Manchester Morgue (1974) - A fantastic, underrated, gory, violent, weird and atmospheric zombie film that takes place in the beautiful countryside of the lake district in England. The opening scene, for no apparent reason, features a naked, large breasted lady on a town street. The film continues in its gloriously dubbed, grubby, Eurohorror way with plenty of suspense and synth soundtrack, ending with a third act full of pleasingly gory dead folk.
and lastly, whenever I am asked about exploitation or b-movies I always recommend these two, fairly obscure, films (despite their coverage in the great documentary Machete Maidens Unleashed), They Call Her Cleopatra Wong and The One Armed Executioner, which are two awesome Philippines kung fu classics, inventive, weird, wonderful, hilarious, kick ass and with soundtracks that slap you about the face and make you sit up and take notice.
There is even a sequence in Cleopatra Wong featuring a bunch of
bearded nuns with machine guns. Definitely worth tracking down. A great double dvd disc exists out there with them both in.
Wartooth Arena Thank you for the serious schooling. I see several I'm going to check out. Machete Maidens is on my list for soon to be watched.
Back in the day of drive-in theaters and grindhouse cinemas, a movie producer wanted to be able to make a film quick and easy in order to turn a fast buck. They used gimmicks like sex, violence, gore, racism, and religion to fill the seats. Looking back, we call those throwaway movies exploitation films, and filmmakers churned them out for about a decade. In order to keep the audience coming back, producers had to gradually ramp up the sensationalism. Going back through the history books, what are some of the forgotten movies that ramped up the gimmicks? The ones that brought the next big wave of knockoffs?
The end of the 60s through to the beginning of the 80s is an exciting, fertile and experimental time in American cinema, which is why I think it still fascinates today. You have the movie brats, like Coppola, Scorsese, De Palma etc. some who come out of the exploitation stable of Roger Corman to then create bleaker, slower, more thoughtful and European style, movies that still have one foot in the crime cinema of the 40s and 50s. It’s the perfect melting pot that is, all at once, informed by the past, the present and looks to the future.
However, what we think of now as exploitation, grindhouse or b-movies of the decade, like the Blaxploitation movement, for example, or Roger Corman’s Philippines era, are actually, very often, telling the populist, crowd pleasing, action heavy stories that would directly inform the blockbuster action boom of the 80s. While, of course, traditional and spaghetti westerns and war films of the 50s and 60s would also influence the Rambos and John McClanes of the 80s, they wouldn’t be who they are in tone and spectacle without the Death Wishes, Shafts, Slaughters and Coffys of the world.
In terms of which movies were the forgotten ones that ramped up the gimmicks, any of the ones I mentioned in my list could easily fit that. There were little sub genres springing up all the time that had their imitators or knock offs. The zombie genre that Romero started with Night of the Living Dead, the Cannibal genre with films like The Mountain of the Cannibal God, Cannibal Holocaust, Cannibal Ferox and then you'd have the rape/revenge films like I Spit on your Grave, Last House on the Left and others
You tended to get a classic or semi classic first film (like Night of the living dead) and then the genre would runaway with itself and become crazier, more graphic and have different off shoots.
Wartooth Arena
To fill the seats, exploitation films needed to flirt with our darker nature. Posters at drive-ins and downtown theatres were one of the main ways these films seduced us. How about a little background on the role the poster played in the exploitation genre?
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
Art surrounding movie advertising, in general, was SO MUCH better 20 years ago and prior. If I may have a slight rant, poster art for modern movies is unadulterated crap biscuits. Bland, badly photoshopped tediousness that needs a good kick up the brown eye with a jagged metal boot.
For as long as there was cinema, up until computers, the posters were these awesome works of art. Just like one of the joys of exploitation movies is that, due to low budgets, everything was done, dangerously for real or hilariously weirdly using cheap back projection, wonky miniatures or superimposing, one of the joys of the posters were they were hand painted, bold, lively, exciting affairs that when put up against regular A-list pictures were either completely comparable or much much better. The poster art, if done right, could level the playing field between A and B films.
Of course this brings up the whole problem with that and the reason why the art work was so important for getting bums on seats and that is ‘promising something you can’t deliver on’. For every one of the great, genuinely awesome and artistic, kick ass exploitation films, there are ten slow, boring, weird films that seemingly don’t match the hype depicted on the poster. Writing, word play and font graphics became really important and eye-catching too, much like voice overs on trailers. The whole marketing of these low budget wonders became a genius, clever and, even, admirable art form of its own.
Take the great line from the Coffy poster "She’s the GODMOTHER of them all… The baddest One-Chick Hit-Squad that ever hit town!" Absolute classic sleaze marketing. Love it
Wartooth Arena
On your facebook page, I saw a trailer for a blacksploitation movie called “Slaughter” with Jim Brown. I was shocked to hear the word nigger in the actual theatrical trailer. Are there any other trailers from the exploitation era that might surprise a contemporary audience? Like · 2 · about an hour ago
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
Compared to almost any of the awful, generic trailers we get today, most exploitation era trailers would shock the uninitiated. A lot of the trailers for the Italian and American revenge thrillers, cannibal films or zombie horrors, for example, tend to be very graphic and nothing like what we get today. Of course these were only intended to screen in the Grindhouses and it wouldn’t be as if you were sitting in a shiny “safe” multiplex like today but even so, a lot of them show so much in the trailers you wonder why you’d then go see the films at all.
I found the trailer online for that famous schlockfest Make Them Die Slowly AKA Cannibal Ferox which is 4mins long, features the word ‘bitch’, nudity, the beating of women and tons of bloodletting. There’s even a warning at the beginning! It’s horrendously graphic just for a trailer.
Marketing was king with these movies, if you ever get the time look at the marketing of the movie Snuff. The director, changed the name to Snuff, did a tagline "A film that could only be made in South America, where life is CHEAP!", tacked on a fake snuff ending and organised protests to picket the premiere of his own movie and a cheap crappy exploitation movie went on to make him very rich.
All these exploitation guys were doing what Hollywood does now (trying to get that big opening and con peoples money out of them before the movie gets seen by too broad an audience) years ago. You want to see true innovation in movie making and marketing, you look to the B Movie guys
Wartooth Arena
Gradually the exploitation era of the 1970s evolved into the Blockbuster era of the 1980s. What films that get classified in the exploitation genre foreshadowed the coming change? What was the public’s response?
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
What happened, really, is Steven Spielberg. With Duel and then Jaws he took what would normally be exploitation tropes and made them big business. What’s funny, particularly about Jaws is the fact that it had so many B Movie imitators when it itself WAS a B Movie imitator. The other film would be something like First Blood. Another film which could quite easily be an exploitation film but instead ushers in the most lucrative era of action films cinema has ever enjoyed.
As for how people reacted and why it happened I don’t know completely. Like I said, I think American A movies had become bleak, thoughtful and artistic and the exploitation/grindhouse films were the crowd pleasers - the action movies, the monster movies, crime thrillers etc. and I think Spielberg, Lucas, Stallone etc. tapped into the idea of “well why can’t we make some crowd pleasers?” and I am not sure a real audience cared back then about budgets or stars so much as they would just a few years later in the middle of the 80s.
Wartooth Arena
Before we get to the big question of the night, I have one on sub genres. I have seen a lot of 70s flicks where groups of disturbed children kill groups of adults. The other night I watched The Devil Times Five. Are there any of these where the adults kill some of the little bastards?
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
There is The Brood, the David Cronenburg movie... but, doing a search online brought up this movie: Beware Children At Play from 1989 which is a Troma movie (so expect very low budget sleaze) and apparently that ends with all the townsfolk killing demonic children left and right. of course, in the original cut of Romero's Dawn of the Dead, Peter guns down two zombie children...
Wartooth Arena
I can get behind that... and if anyone cares to see it, many Troma films are FREE!
We’re seeing remakes of Craven’s exploitation classics The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes as well as other exploitation favorites like I Spit on Your Grave. These are amped up versions, but in this age of media glorification of real life horrors, these movies don’t hold the shock they used to, so what do you think fuels this resurgence?
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
I am cynical and believe this whole remake craze is solely down to laziness, creative bankruptcy and money. I don’t think the producers of the remakes or the people at the studios have seen half of the original films their movies are based on and I think they are doing it in a vein attempt at name recognition and maybe a little shock value.
While the remakes of Friday 13th, Dawn of the Dead, Halloween etc. all make some sort of sense, for a studio, because they are all popcorn horror rooted in fantasy but it makes little to no sense to remake the violent, grimy, sleazy exploitation films of the 70s because you could never do them justice today and, like you say, they wouldn't have the shock value.
People need to remember that at the time the exploitation craze kicked off America was in turmoil, engaged in an unpopular war, lots of civil rights issues igniting riots and marches and a hippy movement in decline and depression as they felt 'it hadn't worked'
Films like Last House on the Left grew out of that scene organically... you can't just casually remake it like it was just another movie. B Movies and exploitation is very often an organic product of its time...
Wartooth Arena
Yep. Could not agree more.
Wartooth Arena 2: Revenge of the Fucking Bad Ass is a writing contest for stories inspired by exploitation movies. In order to help combatants create the best fiction possible, I’m speaking with experts like yourself to create THE 13 FUCKING COMMANDMENTS OF EXPLOITATION FICTION. I’m trying to isolate the characteristics that would make one mean motherfucker of a story. Other suggestions have been OUT CRAZY THE CRAZIEST, LIVE FOR REVENGE, and ALWAYS SHOCK. The combatants of Wartooth Arena would love to know what you think must be present for exploitation fiction to be as awesome as it can be?
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
well I was going to be crass and scream BRING OUT THE BOOBS! hahaha but actually, thinking about protagonists, anti-heroes, the classic leading character in these movies I have gone with SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG GUN
Wartooth Arena
You get two! They both rule!
Thanks so much for joining us. It has been a pleasure. I hope everyone goes over and likes this wonderful page.
The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
Thanks for having me, sorry I went on a bit hahaha
"The Randomers" Indie Irish film-making at its finest.
This film was shot in Ireland in Counties Galway & Mayo using local actors, musicians and scenery - the production didn’t even have a budget for catering but the cast and crew were eager to work on this challenging project nonetheless.
THE RANDOMERS tells the story of a girl on the West coast of Ireland played by Sarah Jane Murphy who places an advertisement seeking a guy for a relationship 'without speaking' and finds exactly what she’s looking for in Joseph Lydon.
“There’s something about him she doesn’t know,” says award-winning director Graham Jones. “But he’s not going to be chatty about it. I’ve always wondered why romantic movies are so dialogue-driven. After all, not even the most talkative relationships seem deeply rooted in words…”
Unlike his previous movies such as FUDGE 44 and HOW TO CHEAT IN THE LEAVING CERTIFICATE which were released through cinemas or DVD, this Graham Jones film is freely available online for anybody to watch - just go to THERANDOMERS.COM and the film will start playing!
check out THE RANDOMERS trailer.
Blu-ray #MovieMagic GIVEAWAY
YES! The After Movie Diner has an ALL NEW GIVEAWAY and it's a chance for you to grow your movie collection this CHRISTMAS!
This Holiday rediscover the #MovieMagic behind your favourite films. Blu-ray offers exclusive special features that put you in the filmmaker’s chair, with a behind-the-scenes access to all of the magic: Special effects, talent interviews, alternative endings, unreleased scenes, bloopers, and more!
With a Blu-ray combo pack, you can enjoy your favourite films in high-definition whenever and wherever you want. You can keep the Blu-ray disc in the living room, DVD in the car, and the digital copy on your phone for when you’re on the move!
Grab your favourite movie lover a Blu-ray this holiday!
We are giving away a copy of one of the following titles to one lucky reader!
Titles will be sent randomly from this list
- The Little Mermaid - Diamond Edition
- The Lone Ranger
- Monsters University
- Angels Rising
- Rise of The Guardians
- Despicable Me 2
- Turbo
- Grown Ups 2
- Wizard of Oz 3D
- The Wolverine
- Star Trek: Into Darkness
- White House Down
- Fast 6
- Pacific Rim
- After Earth
- Man of Steel
- Red 2
- World War Z
- 2 Guns
- Weeds: The Complete Collection
- Predator 3D
• Behind-the-Scenes #MovieMagic GIF Grid - Mouse over each of the GIF squares and click to view a behind-the-scenes clip exclusively from the film's Blu-ray special features.
• The Next Generation of Blu-ray - Don't get left behind with old tech! Check out what's next for Blu-ray in 2014 and beyond!
HOW TO ENTER!!!
a Rafflecopter giveaway The After Movie Diner Podcast
The Dr.Action and the Kick Ass Kid Commentaries Podcast
Each household is only eligible to win ONE #MovieMagic Title via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
a Rafflecopter giveaway The After Movie Diner Podcast
The Dr.Action and the Kick Ass Kid Commentaries Podcast
Each household is only eligible to win ONE #MovieMagic Title via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
Giveaway ONLY available in the U.S.
Titles will be sent randomly from the list
Titles will be sent randomly from the list
The Last Days on Mars
Next up on this year's list of films about us flesh and bone types kicking about the void is The Last Days on Mars which comes to us with the promise of a quite starry cast (pun intended) that includes Liev Schreiber, Elias Koteas and Olivia Williams.
What is surprising and worth mentioning about that is the fact this got made at all, let alone with those people involved. At the front of the film, as is usually the case with low budget films with ambitious amounts of effects, there is a never ending list of production companies. The amazing thing about this is how they all read the script and gave it the thumbs up. One production company full of short-attention span morons I can buy but all 10 (or however many there were) at the head of this film stumping up filthy moola to put it into production, I just don't understand. Then you factor in the writer, director and cast and you are left, when the film ends, scratching your head thinking "wait, have NONE of you seen another horror sci-fi film ever? Did you all have your brains wiped after a bus accident and think this was a valuable use of your time and resources?"
Now, let me explain. My confusion comes because the film, The Last Days on Mars, is, hands down, the most generic, obvious and mundane film I have ever seen. Earlier in the year my friend James and I took in Stranded, a Christian Slater starring, moon set, film that had clearly been made in a shed in Skegness for the cost of some Ginsters pasties and a packet of cheese and onion crisps and even that had more going on in it than this. True, you couldn't always tell what the hell was going on and the plot seemed to revolve a lot around doors opening and closing but still it was less generic than The Last Days on Mars.
In a nutshell this is the plot: A rag tag band of bored and annoyed astronauts are finishing up their scientific fact finding mission on Mars. There's a tetchy, by the bookish, type, a pure-as-the-driven-moon-rock type who hangs around keeping a level head when all about are shitting bricks, the out-of-depth captain who makes all the wrong decisions and a roguish, mumbling engineer who happens to be claustrophobic. Rounding out the group are a bunch of nondescript nobodies who look like they've just wandered in off the set of Coronation Street (a soap opera) filming in the studio next door. There's also a European chappy we never get to know who discovers living bacteria, breaks the rules to go out and examine further, the ground gives way, he falls in and becomes an alien infected Mars zombie. He then quickly infects someone else and the two undead space monsters shuffle back to the camp to pick off the panicky, inept and idiotic crew one by one in a quick and not interesting way.
That's it.
Seriously.
That's it.
Now normally I'd be all for that because a film that is, in essence, "Infected rage zombies from Mars" with Liev Schreiber should be awesome. Should be tremendous. Should be right up my street. The trouble is, imagine that film but made by really boring people with no sense of fun. Imagine that film made by a bunch of people that think they're are being innovative and different while being wholly derivative. Who read the short story this was apparently based on and thought "hmmm I haven't heard of this before, this will be a perfect movie?" It's Contamination, Leviathan, The Thing, Alien and a hundred others like them but with none of the style, wit, charm, creativity or talent.
Don't get me wrong, it's acted fine, looks good, the effects are impressive and there's even a little bit of decent blood letting but the script is inept, the idea redundant, the score non existent and the finished film, dull.
The title sequence, long slow vista shots and weird claustrophobic flashbacks all fool you into believing this could be another Moon type scenario. An art-house space picture with good acting, some psychological and emotional depth and maybe even a decent twist. Sadly that is not the case, you have no hint, really, of who any of these people are, beyond their generic cliches and even when the alien rage beasties attack nobody really does anything. Things are tried quickly and abandoned, mistakes are made left and right like these people were college co-eds in a mid 90s Roger Corman produced slasher film and the ending is as pointless as it is dull.
I really wanted to write some praise for this but, unfortunately, all I was left with was a sense of "this got made? how did THIS get made?" Also how do you have a film like this and NEVER use the line 'Is there life on Mars?' or ANY Bowie reference for that matter! Disappointed!
To Jennifer
James Cullen Bressack's To Jennifer claims it is the story of a guy, Joey, who is convinced his girlfriend is cheating on him and so plans to travel to her home and catch her in the act, all the while making a video about his journey and how much she's hurt him. On the surface the film appears to simply be about Joey, played by the excellent Chuck Pappas, being hampered continually in this attempt by his two inane and annoying, party friends Steven and Martin, played by the director himself, James Bressack and, Bressack regular, Jody Barton respectively. The whole thing is shot on an iPhone 5.
Now, even in the first few minutes we can tell that maybe Joey is not all he appears and his slowly building tense energy and the occasional freak out hints at brewing psycho tendencies, that and the fact that you hope the film is leading somewhere.
Your enjoyment of To Jennifer will depend on three things,
1) if you can put up with his two, selfish, vulgar, stoner, party friends
2) if you can put up with constant hand held shaking and moving of the camera
and
3) if you care enough to find out what's going on that you can put up with the first 2 points.
What I can say is that I usually loathe found footage/handheld camera films and characters like Steven and Martin would, normally, be enough to make me switch off but with To Jennifer the writing is good enough, the performances believable and the storyline compelling that I pressed on. I'm glad I did too but more on that later.
Just to clarify something, when I say the characters are annoying that is not a slight against the actors portraying them, quite the opposite, I presume that they are meant to be annoying and James and Jody do a grand job of portraying this. In fact Jody Barton even manages to give the pot smoking, hard drinking, bizarre prostitute hiring annoyance that is Martin a sort of pathetic tragedy which really sells the character perfectly. This film does everything to help make us side with Joey, despite the fact we suspect, deep down, the man's a little unhinged. His friends are so teeth gratingly, selfishly obstructive to Joey's goal that you don't blame him for losing his temper occasionally. This was not a Blair Witch Project situation where everyone is a selfish idiot to no end and with no reason, this is not only a strong attempt to present realistic characters but also ones that serve the overall story.
Although the writing is good, one thing that was unclear was why Joey and Steven took a flight somewhere and then when they got there still had to drive a long way to Jennifer's house. For the first half of the film that confused me maybe more than it should, as I never fully understood where they were or what they were meant to be doing.
I am not going to spoil a thing but, if it encourages you to watch the film all the way through and put up with the, sometimes, almost unbearably shaky camera work and a road strip story line that seems, frustratingly, to constantly be deviating from the plot, please know that this film, quite out of nowhere, manages to pull the same trick that The Sixth Sense did. That's not to say that Joey turns out to be a ghost but I mean to say, that when you're done with the film and you run it back through your mind, you see just how clever the script was to hide its ultimate reveal. It's a great trick and means you definitely look back on the film again in a new light.
It's not so much an enjoyable experience watching the film the first time but, once it ends you realise, it's a wonderful exercise in proving that, at the end of the day, what you need is confidence in your plot, a decent script and a director who knows how to scatter the clues seamlessly throughout the film without ringing any bells the first time round. Your film can be made on an iPhone and filled with characters you might not want to spend 5 minutes with in an elevator, let alone 85mins in a car/hotel/bedroom etc. but be clever, tell a good story and allow tension to build and it's a wholly worthwhile endeavour and gets my respect. The performances were not bad either.
Prolific indie scream queen Jessica Cameron plays the titular Jennifer and, although she doesn't have an abundance of screen time, she does a good job in an emotionally charged climax.
Check it out!
13/13/13
Basically it's all something to do with leap years violating the ancient Mayan calendar and all those extra days in February, over time have created an extra month and on the date of 13/13/13 everyone who wasn't born on a February 29th goes completely nuts.
It's a wonderful, end of the world scenario that allows for lots of death, destruction, mayhem and the symbolism of the "unlucky number" 13. More importantly, I hadn't really heard of much like that before and it's always nice to hear a fresh idea.
Yes, ok, so behind the idea is the whole Mayan calendar hoopla that went around last year claiming that, in 2012, the world was going to end and, I'm sure that, The Asylum liked it for that reason, as they're always making B-Movie versions of big budget disaster films (or Mockbusters as I believe the affectionate term is for them) but this has a decent spin on that and actually attempts something novel with it. The idea that leap years added up would form this weird 13 month is just the kind of bonkers, surreal hokum I am drawn to. There was a bit of George A Romero's The Crazies mixed in there as well but it's, at least, a different Romero source to draw from than the interminable bad zombie films we've had to wade through lately.
The things that I enjoyed in this film were the slow build up to people going crazy, some good and, on some occasions, even darkly comic deaths, a nice, atmospheric, gory and weird hospital sequence and attempts to establish different types of craziness for different groups of people. There was a really strong bedrock here for a pretty decent end-of-the-world horror film and what the filmmakers were able to do with, what was, obviously, a limited budget was, also, very impressive.
What was a slight disappointment with the movie, for me, was the fact that, I didn't feel, the concept went anywhere or was explored as much as I would've liked. For example, it needed a crazy old professor, or someone, who knew about the old world and spouted Donald Pleasance-like doom filled one-liners. The film, definitely, could've done with some sort of further explanation of the situation or some place to go. Maybe a glimmer of hope to reverse the situation using a mystical rock, Mayan gold amulet or something, or, maybe the rising of old beings to establish their order again on earth.
As it was, while it was atmospheric, gory as all hell and nicely shot, the hospital sequence went on entirely too long and once our two, Feb 29th born, protagonists finally escaped there was little time for anything but a muddled and, I felt, rushed finale back at the house.
The acting was a problem in the film. I watch a lot of amateur and low budget films so it doesn't bother me a lot but the acting was pretty stale, unfortunately, and not one character really shone in the film. A lot of that might have been the script too because, while the idea was there and the deaths, gore and action were all there, the dialogue was, in places, dreadful. I thought that more creative ways could've been used to convey the craziness other than just rage and repeated uses of "fuck" said unconvincingly by actors struggling to act. Don't get me wrong, there were some creative bits of craziness, especially Quentin (Jody Barton) believing himself, suddenly, to be a Korean war general but overall the swearing and the anger felt forced in some of the performances. I liked the laughter and the random acts of violence but thought the opportunity to make that truly creepy was missed.
Without a few strong, decent lines of dialogue and the odd interesting character, the film did, very slowly, become something of a slog but there was, genuinely, some nice potential here.
Trae Ireland and Erin Coker were solid enough, but neither of them had very interesting characters. Calico Cooper is Alice Cooper's daughter but sadly didn't get to do very much but what she did was fine though. Jody Barton got the showy role and was, at least, enthusiastic with it and, probably, the strongest performer of the lot. Bill Voorhees, with the name made for horror film acting, was sort of funny in the role of sidekick to Jody Barton despite it being an underwritten, obvious, slob-friend role.
My favourite scenes in the whole thing were an early scene where Quentin decides to humorously run some people down with his car, the slowly escalating crazy in the hospital and its gore drenched walls and the news room scene with the comedy news anchors attacking each other. They were all, a genuine joy.
While it, sadly, does go nowhere, there was lots to like in this B-Movie. One positive on the acting was that I didn't feel anybody was winking at me or playing any scenes in a lazy, half-arsed manner. I felt that everyone was trying their hardest and playing the scenes straight and true. This is important because it's become all too fashionable these days, even amongst high-profile stuff like Tarantino and Rodriguez's later work, to knowingly and lazily play every scene just for puerile, pathetic and ironic laughter and, for me, that just takes me right out of the film. While the acting isn't always strong or dynamic, I am glad to say 13/13/13 doesn't do this. The key to making a fun, enjoyable, weird, silly, wonderful, cult or B-Movie is to believe in what you're doing, no matter how ridiculous and, again, this film does succeed in that regard.
While not quite there completely I appreciated this film for it's attempt at a different, creative take on an apocalypse scenario. It was an enjoyable romp, some great scenes, some good enthusiasm and a decent idea at its core.
Broken Circle Breakdown
It's a phenomenal, brilliant, difficult, depressing, heart warming and joyously musical movie from Belgium by writer/director Felix Van Groeningen starring the supremely talented Johan Heldenbergh and Veerle Baetens.
Johan Heldenbergh was also a co-writer of and performer in the original stage play The Broken Circle Breakdown Featuring the Cover-Ups of Alabama and even learned to play guitar, mandolin and banjo to perform the lead role of Didier who is fascinated by America and bluegrass music.
The film tells the tragic story of Didier, the bearded bluegrass fanatic and passionate atheist, Elise/Alabama the head strong, mysterious, confused, emotional, sexy and lost tattoo shop owner and Maybelle their doomed daughter.
The film chronicles their lives together, through the good and the bad, in a nonlinear narrative. The emotions involved and the relevant life moments, though, flow in a perfectly understandable and pleasing way. It's not unlike someone, sat round a table, telling you their life story. It wouldn't go from start to finish, there would be moments where they'd have to go back and fill in the blanks for you, that's the nature of this film.
The director, Felix Van Groeningen, explains the inclusion of the music this way:
"Didier and Elise play in a bluegrass band and that is no accident. Bluegrass is integrated in a variety of ways into the story and forms the intrinsic link between all the main issues that appear in the film"
"We have tried to let the songs find their spot in the scenario in a more organised manner and by doing so, give them the greatest possible dramatic impact. Sometime a song is purely narrative and helps to tell the story... In other places, we select a given song because it underpins the emotions."
During the rendition of 'Will the Circle Be Unbroken' We see attraction, amazement and the first flickers of love in Elise's face from the audience.
During "Cowboy" Didier connects with Elise, shows off, struts, feels confident and she responds with excitement, awe and lust.
During "Boy Who Wouldn't Hoe Corn", shown in a fantastic montage that goes from Didier practicing in the caravan, passed a beautifully photographed, fireside hoedown and up to the point when Elise finally joins her man on stage, you see her blossom and Didier unable to believe his luck. You even see the band buoyed and pushed forward by the way everything is gelling.
Elise's solo performance of "Wayfaring Stranger" is so powerful and perfect that it doesn't really need the intercut images of poor Maybelle's fate, as everything is on Veerle Baetens' face and in the words of the song.
This continues throughout the film with everyone hitting the right facial expression, hand gesture, camera movement and edit so as to make the emotions utterly raw and believable in a way that only the combination of great direction, editing, performance, music and film can.
In what might be one of the most beautiful performances of the entire film, Elise joins Didier and the band on stage one last time to perform a duet version of "If I needed You". It is the point where everything shifts and the two lovers are moving apart, Didier reaching out and Elise retreating. It's so sad, awkward and stunningly simplistic that it tells you all you need to know about the character's hearts.
These musical interludes and their deep, clever, subtle storytelling are not, in any way, too obvious, mawkish, sentimental, over wrought or manipulative. They are woven so perfectly into the broken narrative that they enhance the journey you're on with the cast.
It helps, of course, that I am already a fan of this music and it helps too that the film is photographed, directed and edited in such a wonderful way as to make even the slightest nod of a head, or the move of a hand poetic and rich.
The colours, the grain, the lighting, the sound and the shots are so full of detail, texture, shadow as to both be seemingly realistic, you can feel the warm fire in a cold farm house, and utterly artistic, vibrant and clearly a movie.
Is it a tough watch, a tad depressing and definitely melodramatic? yes. It wasn't the love story I was expecting by a long shot but whereas other films I have seen are just relentlessly dreary, depressing, slow and devoid of ideas and emotions, Broken Circle Breakdown can be watched over and over again for the depth, detail, performances and ideology it has. Also it's not obvious, simplistic or manipulative of your emotions like a Hollywood film might be.
I took from the film that life is meant to be held on to and fought for, not given up on or run away from and while finding solace in the religious or spiritual is all very well, there is more than enough beauty, mystery, music and reason to keep living, as much as you can, day by day, on earth, no matter how hard it gets. You never know, one day you might be surrounded by awesomely talented, bearded Belgians singing bluegrass... we can all dream, right?
The Broken Circle Breakdown Theatrical Opening Dates:
New York: Sunshine Cinema – opens November 1
Los Angeles: Nuart – opens November 8
Boston: Kendall Square - opens November 15
Washington: E Street - opens November 15
Philadelphia: Ritz Bourse - opens November 15
Irvine: University 6 - opens November 15
San Francisco: Clay Theater – opens November 22
Berekely: Shattuck 10 – opens November 22
San Diego: Ken Cinema – opens November 22
Dallas: Magnolia 5 – opens November 22
Atlanta: Midtown Art – opens December 6
Denver: Chez Artiste – opens December 6
Austin: Arbor 8 – opens December 6
Phoenix: Camelview – opens December 6
Portland: Regal Fox Tower – opens December 6
San Jose: Camera 3 Cinema – opens December 6
Fort Wayne: Cinema Center - opens December 6
Santa Fe: Jean Cocteau - opens December 6
Monterey: Osio Cinemas – opens December 6
Santa Cruz: The Nickelodeon – Opens December 6
Ft Worth: Modern Art Museum – opens December 20
Columbus: Gateway Film Center – opens January 17
Trailer:
The soundtrack can be streamed on Spotify HERE
New York: Sunshine Cinema – opens November 1
Los Angeles: Nuart – opens November 8
Boston: Kendall Square - opens November 15
Washington: E Street - opens November 15
Philadelphia: Ritz Bourse - opens November 15
Irvine: University 6 - opens November 15
San Francisco: Clay Theater – opens November 22
Berekely: Shattuck 10 – opens November 22
San Diego: Ken Cinema – opens November 22
Dallas: Magnolia 5 – opens November 22
Atlanta: Midtown Art – opens December 6
Denver: Chez Artiste – opens December 6
Austin: Arbor 8 – opens December 6
Phoenix: Camelview – opens December 6
Portland: Regal Fox Tower – opens December 6
San Jose: Camera 3 Cinema – opens December 6
Fort Wayne: Cinema Center - opens December 6
Santa Fe: Jean Cocteau - opens December 6
Monterey: Osio Cinemas – opens December 6
Santa Cruz: The Nickelodeon – Opens December 6
Ft Worth: Modern Art Museum – opens December 20
Columbus: Gateway Film Center – opens January 17
Trailer:
The soundtrack can be streamed on Spotify HERE
All Is Lost: 2 FREE MOVIE TICKETS & Interactive Movie Poster
Plot Synopsis: Academy Award® winner Robert Redford stars in All Is Lost, an open-water thriller about one man’s battle for survival against the elements after his sailboat is destroyed at sea. But with the sun unrelenting, sharks circling and his meager supplies dwindling, the ever-resourceful sailor soon finds himself staring his mortality in the face.
Written and directed by Academy Award nominee J.C. Chandor (Margin Call) with a musical score by Alex Ebert (Edward Sharpe and the Magnetic Zeros), All Is Lost is a gripping, visceral and powerfully moving tribute to ingenuity and resilience.
All Is Lost opens in NY and LA October 18, nationwide October 25th.
Reviewers say:
“OFF THE SCALE BRILLIANT” - Emma Pritchard Jones. THE HUFFINGTON POST
"ROBERT REDFORD DELIVERS A TOUR DE FORCE PERFORMANCE” - Pete Hammond. DEADLINE
Watch the Trailer:
ENTERING THE GIVEAWAY:
In order to be eligible to win you must do 1 of the following
1. Share your personal ALL IS LOST survival story! Has there ever been a time where you thought... All Is Lost? Please post your stories in our comments section for a giveaway entry.
2. Share the All Is Lost poster or your favourite Gif from above on your blog, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr or Facebook and include a link to www.aftermoviediner.com, then post us a link to it in the comments below.
3. Share your favourite After Movie Diner or Dr.Action and the Kick Ass Kid article, podcast, review or piece of news on your blog, Twitter, Pinterest, Tumblr or Facebook and let us know about it.
it's that simple!
Competition ends October 27th, 2013 and is only available in the U.S. & Canada.
Each household is only eligible to win 2 Free Movie Tickets via blog reviews and giveaways. Only one entrant per mailing address per giveaway. If you have won the same prize on another blog, you will not be eligible to win it again. Winner is subject to eligibility verification.
Gravity
"How is this a movie?" I thought. "What happens? How can they just sustain that for 90 minutes?" Then I factored in the heavyweight star power in the film and really couldn't guess what was going to happen.
All I knew, was that I was going to see that film as soon as possible.
It was a refreshing inner monologue to have because after most film trailers, even for films I am interested in still seeing, I know, pretty much what is going to happen in the film by the end and what kind of film it is. Gravity was different though. I didn't have a clue.
I am a big fan of Alfonso Cuarón's dystopian action drama Children of Men and he's the only man to make a satisfactory Harry Potter film so I knew, with the director, I was in safe and interesting hands. I am also an unabashed George Clooney disciple, believing the man to have pretty impeccable taste in scripts and projects to work on (seriously, listen to my 'When Clooney met the Coens podcast' he's my man crush). Sandra Bullock is a great comedienne and can pretty much raise the standard of any generic rom-com or action-com she takes part in. I haven't seen a lot of her "serious, worthy" films and I don't want to but "an interesting choice" I thought and a good fit with Clooney.
So what was going to happen in this mysterious space film?
Well, I am not going to tell you here. If you're looking for spoilers or plot points then you've come to the wrong place because it's best to go into Gravity fresh and ready for anything. What I can tell you is that it is one of the most breath taking, nerve shredding, tension sustaining, technically advanced and most complex directed film, I think, I have ever seen. I would need to watch it again, not because of any twisty turny story developments but to try and wrap my brain around just the level of organisation and unfathomable skill that went into creating this heart pounding 90 minutes.
It is a sublime magic trick of a film because, unlike the cartoonish nonsense of, say, Avatar or Abrams' Star Trek you just, quite reasonably, assume that Clooney, Bullock and Cuarón filmed the whole thing in ACTUAL SPACE. Cuarón realises that to wow and amaze with CGI and modern special effects, you don't need to go hog wild and create insane worlds and multi-headed monsters, just make a seemingly realistic and simple film, set in space. He did the same thing to similar wonderful effect in Children of Men. It's not what you see, it's what you don't realise you've seen. You take everything for granted in a Cuarón film and buy the world completely, it's only later that you stop and think "Wait?! how on EARTH did they do that?!"
In an age where everyone knows "oh yeah, they just draw that stuff on a computer, right?" (you know, like ANYONE could do it effortlessly) it takes real skill to hush those tongues and drag the audience, spellbound and quiet as amazed church mice, into your film.
There is a similar trick that the story pulls and that is that, with so few cast members, you know somebody, logically and presumably, is making it to the end of this film alive but that never holds you back from being on the edge of your seat, biting your knuckles or gripping the hand of your loved one next to you, every time peril rears it's ugly head.
Peril's ugly head
The acting, too, is fantastic, with Sandra Bullock, especially, giving, to quote EVERY critic on the planet, the performance of her career. Hell! the performance of anyone's career! For the physical strain, it must have been to make this film, alone she deserves all the Oscars Billy Crystal can quickly polish and shove into the back of a Lexus. That's not to say Clooney's a slouch but it becomes pretty apparent why they cast him after just a few lines of dialogue, in a pleasing, welcome way.
Again, like Children of Men, the film is a mix of genres. It gave me more of a jolt and locked me rigid with tension more than any horror film of recent times, it has enough action in it to please any of John McClane's ardent admirers and it's also an achingly beautiful science fiction film, with critics throwing around 2001: A Space Odyssey comparisons like happy, pretentious puppies with a Kubrick designed squeeze toy. It may just be Clooney, the minimalist cast and an emotional theme of the film but referencing Solaris, in an attempt to seem smart and educated, might be slightly more apt actually.
It is in the emotional, character based thread of the film's narrative, though, that the first tiny, critical comment must be made because the slightly over-egged and obvious motivations of Bullock's character and the emotional journey she undertakes, is not as deep, fleshed out, or as relevant as the film thinks it is. I would argue it's the physical journey, and the mental struggle and dilemma that produces, that is a more satisfying and watchable than her emotional one. However, like all good sci-fi, there's lots of layers to the thing and you can enjoy what you want about it. I just didn't think the script or dialogue was particularly strong when dealing with a certain topic, that will remain unnamed here.
It's a film all about connections though, in more ways than one, and the ultimate connection we must make with our own lives. That being said, it's also, pleasingly, about hair raising stunts and explosions in space. Unusually, if I urge you to go see this film at all, it's for that, latter reason, the sheer, jaw dropping, spectacle of it all.
Bounty Killer DVD Giveaway
Bounty killers compete for body count, fame and a fat stack of cash. They're ending the plague of corporate greed and providing the survivors of the apocalypse with retribution.
Based on the graphic novel, Bounty Killer follows the exploits of Mary Death, the leading Bounty Killer on the scene.
It’s been 20 years since the corporations took over the world’s governments. Their thirst for power and profits led to the corporate wars, a fierce global battle that laid waste to society as we know it. Born from the ashes, the Council of Nine rose as a new law and order for this dark age. To avenge the corporations’ reckless destruction, the Council issues death warrants for all white collar criminals. Their hunters: the bounty killers!
Starring:
Kristanna Loken
Gary Busey
Eve
Beverly D'Angelo
and... Christian Pitre as Mary Death!
It’s Mad Max meets Grindhouse while getting slashed by
Kill Bill!
WANT YOUR CHANCE TO WIN A DVD COPY OF BOUNTY KILLER?
Then all you have to do is either:
1) Take the 'Could you be a bounty killer?' quiz below and post your results in the comments section below.
OR
2) Share your favourite BOUNTY KILLER Gifs (below) or the poster on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest or Tumblr (including a link back to your favourite review/podcast page of The After Movie Diner) and post the link below in the comments section.
OR
3) Tell us in 5 words why you want to see BOUNTY KILLER and in another 5 words the things you like about The After Movie Diner in the comments section below.
Only one copy up for grabs so make your post eye-catching!
OR
3) Tell us in 5 words why you want to see BOUNTY KILLER and in another 5 words the things you like about The After Movie Diner in the comments section below.
Only one copy up for grabs so make your post eye-catching!
Competition ends 09/26/2013
Bounty Killer is in theaters and VOD September 6. Go see it!
You're Next
Now I had the unabashed, joyful pleasure to interview Barbara Crampton last year about her work with Stuart Gordon in the 80s (some of my favourite of the genre) and the restarting of her career with Lords of Salem and You're Next.
You can HEAR that EXCLUSIVE interview HERE.
Sadly she was cut out of Lords of Salem but, thankfully, she remained very much in You're Next. So, of course, I was going to see it. It could've been a torture porn remake featuring a fast zombie falling love with a drippy teen made in the grindhouse style and I still would've been there with bells on. Barbara Crampton's return to our cinemas needed to be seen and supported. No question.
Well I couldn't be happier to report that, firstly, You're Next is none of the above and, secondly, it is a resounding success.
An entertaining, independently spirited, horror, comedy, action film that, although obviously has lots of familiar genre staple moments, is, thankfully, not knowing, winking, referencing or particularly derivative of any one thing.
The acting and direction are assured, the gore effects pleasingly devoid of CGI, the humour comes from a very real human place not a silly, contrived place and the tension is satisfyingly maintained throughout.
The best praise I can give this film is that it is just solid, decent, well made entertainment, the kind we so rarely get to see and, while none of it is exactly, what you could call, a huge surprise, to the initiated, I still had a tremendously good time with the film. I laughed out loud, I jumped, I felt nervous and was, on occasion, sufficiently creeped out.
I love that. So cool when a film can achieve that.
The cast, across the board, are great in their roles with stand out mentions going to Barbara Crampton, of course, Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen and a tour de force from Sharni Vinson as the kick ass heroine ready to fight back.
The score and soundtrack, especially in the second half, is a sheer delight and was evocative of Goblin or Carpenter in just the right way.
Apart from one scene of heightened panic the camera did not veer into amateurish shaky cam, thank goodness and, in fact, I loved the way the film was directed, shot and edited. It has definitely made me want to check out Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett's other work and keep a close eye on what they do in the future. There's not a lot of flourishes or showing off, just strong, simple, clear direction. Fantastic job.
I can't urge people enough to go and see this in the theatre.
A lot of talk is thrown around these days about how horror fans need to support new, independent horror and quit their complaining that there is nothing new and good out there.
Well, seemingly, what horror fans actually end up doing, sadly, is throwing hard earned cash at remakes and then attacking anyone who says they don't want to see them because we shouldn't "pre-judge".
Justify it how you like but you are throwing money at marketing companies who make a tenth rate, weak sauce, copy of a previous classic, with no care or understanding as to what made the original so charming and ingenious, slap the same name on it, throw it into cinemas and sit back to watch the coin come rolling in.
One of the trailers before You're Next was the Carrie remake and oh dear oh dear oh dear that looks to be one of the most insipid, uninspired, pathetic looking, unoriginal and beige remakes yet. I think Carrie and Evil Dead are vying for the top spot of most redundant and pointless remake of 2013. The kicker is that, in the Carrie trailer, they even show, in slow-mo no less, the pigs blood at the prom scene and it's 'we-want-a-lower-rating-please' black. Sludgy, boring black.
Imagine my absolute sheer, fan boy, delight then when You're Next starts and the blood is thick, gooey, vibrant RED! YES! Hallelujah! YES!
So, please, GO SEE THIS FILM. NOW. Go and enjoy. This is what entertainment looks like. This is what new, independent, horror worth supporting looks like. Go out there, watch it and spread the word. Please. If the Carrie remake makes more than You're Next and if you bypass You're Next in the theatre but go and see Carrie, I don't care your excuse, you are a very very bad person and you should be utterly ashamed.
8.5 out of 10
The Wolverine
For those of you who don't know I am something of a fan of the original X Men trilogy and I go into detail about it on the latest 2-part epic X-Men episode of the podcast from The After Movie Diner.
The 1st part deals with the main X-men Trilogy We ALSO talk Man of Steel and Pacific Rim a little too.
RIGHT CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD MP3 OF PART 1
The 2nd part deals with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine
RIGHT CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD MP3 OF PART 2
However, I feel that the two prequel films Origins: Wolverine and First Class add very little to the franchise (although First Class is vastly superior to Origins, of course). It was with a little bit of trepidation then that I went to see the new instalment of the franchise, The Wolverine.
It's basically a sequel to X3: The Last Stand while also giving you more back story, more character and more information about the nature and personality of Logan/Wolverine, it's also the age old comic-book story of 'Superhero loses powers and learns deep abiding truths and the value and responsibility of wielding that power' but it tells it the best way I have ever seen that story told AND it's also a 70s Yakuza film complete with operatic and Shakespearean family drama, some sword wielding and, yes, even ninjas. It has a lot to accomplish, including being an entertaining comic-book, action, blockbuster film and it manages it all with grace, skill, awesome performances, mature pacing and an adult, serious slant.
It's not filled to bursting with whizz crash bangery but when the action and fighting take place it's awesome, especially in the first couple of acts. I have to say that the ending climax seemed a little flat to me and while there were lots of cool moments, as a whole it felt underwhelming after the fights that had come before.
Although it's PG-13, the film is more adult in tone and in pacing. It's slower, it doesn't talk down to the audience and, in fact, even has quite a bit of swearing and some mild gore, certainly more than any of the previous films. Anyone remember those three tiny cut marks on Mystique after Wolverine was meant to have stabbed her back in X1? well them days are long gone, thankfully, although the film-makers don't spill half as much crimson as would actually be spraying everywhere if this was real.
I know there are some out there who wish Fox and Marvel would get off the whole Wolverine kick and give someone else a chance in the limelight but this is truly the film the character and the patient, loyal Jackman deserve and he is particularly excellent in this film. Hugh Jackman has kept this character on when many other actors might have fled and despite the questionable turn of events in X-Men Origins, ignoring that, there is a wonderful continuity throughout the other 5 films that is continued and developed here.
In fact, considering the desire of a studio to often make these films 'stand alone' there is a certain plot strand involving Jean Grey that you really have to have seen, at least, the original trilogy to appreciate.
I felt this instalment added more to Wolverine's character than ever before and finally all the pieces for me, as a non comic book reader and just a movie goer, fell into place. Jackman does a wonderful job of conveying Logan's journey like we haven't seen before.
I can't fault the direction or the performances much at all, Rila Fukushima especially is a great sidekick that I hope crops up again one day, and while the script, much like previous films in the franchise, does a great job of juggling all the plot, character development, back story and action, it has a harder time finding good, decent, crowd pleasing one liners for Jackman to growl on, chew up and spit out with glee. There are attempts but nothing truly satisfying and it's been this way since X-Men 1. Someone needs to do an anti-hero cheesy one-liner punch up on the script. Get Schwarzenegger's old writers on it or something!
Also, MORE NINJA FIGHTING!!
Apart from that I can't suggest you see The Wolverine too highly. It's a good time at the cinema but avoid the 3D it really does add absolutely nothing, sadly.
8 out of 10 adamantium wolf meat kabab skewers
Pacific Rim
RIGHT CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD MP3
In a nutshell, though, I thought Pacific Rim was a badly structured, badly paced, badly acted and badly written film that had a few, really good, robot fighting monster sequences that were, sadly, not serviced by the film around them.
You can throw all effects, lighting, dramatic music and wobbly camera you want at the screen, if the build up and the dramatic tension isn't there and if you don't give two rabid owl hoots for your protagonists then all your work will be in vain.
It's not like it's difficult to do either. Hell! even the odd Chuck Norris movie can elicit a fist clench and a manly cheer, from the right crowd, during the action climax and he wonders through his films like a lobotomised clothes rack of pale skin attached to a comical moustache.
Dammit, I really hate to say it but as woeful and ineptly made as it was, even Sharknado worked out the formula for how to be entertaining as all heck and structure a 'monsters-attack' movie in such a way that it's actually, in parts, exciting.
I know its supporters hate the comparison but Independence Day is the modern blueprint for these disaster/alien attack films, whether they like it or not, and one of the script writers on Pacific Rim certainly thought so as they borrow, wholesale, vast chunks of the plot, script and ideas from Roland Emmerich's fun action/disaster/alien invasion flick. Unfortunately they seem to have done so and then dropped all the pages of the script, shuffled them up and put them back together in such a way that they don't really work or they just shuffled them around in the hope that no one noticed the comparison. Like an amateurish Tarantino might.
(please notice in that previous paragraph I said 'modern blueprint', I AM aware all these movie formulas date back to H.G.Wells novel War of the Worlds)
The cast of 'plucked from TV' actors fall, sadly, into the bland, confused or, in the case of the anti-funny Charlie Day, just plain annoying and aggressively drown-able. Ron Perlman does his best to liven up proceedings but gets, really, very little to do.
It's shot ok, there are some sections that are very impressive to look at and then there are some that are edited poorly and render the whole thing just a series of confusing flashes of neon. On the whole though the action was pretty well done considering it was entirely built inside a computer.
I would argue, though, that if you're thinking, even for a moment, "wait? their robot has a sword?? and it can cut through monsters like they are cheap, knock off, vinyl handbags? Why haven't they been using this all along" or maybe "why do the plasma guns take such an annoyingly long time to load and then run out of ammo so easily? This is the future, it's make believe, why do they not have ever lasting plasma guns or, 15 plasma canons strapped to their robot faces??" then the film hasn't done its job of suspending disbelief and instead is dragging and appalling enough for you to notice these things and ask these questions.
I'll stop attacking it now and just basically end by saying, while I enjoyed the robot versus monster stuff a bit, it didn't justify the long running time or the pain of sitting through bland, confused or just plain bad actors massacring shitty dialogue.
3 out of 10 fried alien lizard burgers
Girl Most Likely
However, if you chose not to see the film or dismiss it out right because of that opinion, like some almighty snob, in favour for a ridiculously awful movie in which CGI things hit each other then not only are you thoroughly misguided but also you missed out on one of the funniest and most charming movies of the season.
Every so often one of these films is squeezed out into the summer schedule. Up until that annoyingly bad sitcom The New Girl, Zooey Deschanel was practically making a career out of starring in them. This one, however sits alongside Dan In Real Life, Stranger Than Fiction (or more recently, Everything Must Go), Admission or 50/50 and don't worry if you don't really like any of those films either, because while it's similar in terms of Hollywood output, casting, tone etc. it's also very different.
The plot would not look out of place in one of Woody Allen's lazier, later comedies. A playwright turned play blurb writer, living in, fairly high society, New York thinks she has her life together, loses everything, more or less, in one day and, through a plot contrivance, ends up living with her kooky mother played, predictably, by Annette Benning in Atlantic City, surrounded by a cast of wacky characters, only to, eventually, break her writer's block and turn her experience into an award winning, critically lauded play. In fact, I think, Woody Allen may have already made that film.
So, you may be thinking, how does a quirky, self indulgent, predictable and cliche riddled plot amount to one of the funniest and most charming movies of the season? Well it's simple. It's the thing that most films, usually, get staggeringly wrong. The cast and, more importantly even than that, the script are tremendous. Kristen Wiig does the sort of performance that Judd Apatow crushed and destroyed but some of us saw lurking, between the horrendously misjudged poo gags, in Bridesmaids and, actually, even betters it. Annette Benning is, for the first time in her career I think, not annoying and instead turns in a funny and nuanced performance as Wiig's obsessive mother. Matt Dillon is priceless as a sort of beardy and dishevelled Steven Seagal type character, who, hilariously, seems to be lying about being in the CIA and a whole bedtime storybook full of long-winded, tall tales about bizarre and adventurous experiences he says he has. Finally, I found Christopher Fitzgerald as the mollusc obsessed, slightly inward and agoraphobic brother, a delight to watch.
So, to the script and while every seemingly-negative point I said earlier might be true, the script is still fantastically written. The dialogue, scenarios and observations are laugh out loud funny and the jokes are actually ABOUT something or are just joyously odd, much in the way the best Woody Allen scripts used to be, which is a breath of fresh air in this world of easy and sad dick and fart jokes. The characters are wonderfully, and yes sometimes obviously, written with the clue to the script's greatness lurking in the little details. The gag involving the boardwalk crush that Ralph has, played by the always watchable Natasha Lyonne, and the glittery make up tears she gives Wiig or the quick shot of the fridge full of sandwiches towards the end, for example, add little rye laughs to an already hilarious script.
Don't be put off by your impression of what you think it is and don't be too cool for it or too cynical for it, just go and see it and support a film that isn't a sequel, a remake, made for the GDP of a small Eastern European nation and doesn't have enough CGI in it to drown James Cameron's ego.
Even if you don't like it like I did, you'd still be showing the ever increasingly mindless and redundant studio bosses that not everything needs to be a big spectacle, sometimes people want to laugh, cry and have their cockles warmed.
7.5 out of 10 cheese and ham sandwiches
Man Of Steel
Ok so at the start of this review I am going to lay all my cards out on the table. I have never been a fan of Zack Snyder (yes, even the Dawn of the Dead remake). I have watched Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and now Man of Steel so I have given him several chances. I could give you a long string of bullet points explaining exactly why, but that comes later. I could also just show you a picture of the man and if that doesn't make you want to garrotte him with piano wire then all hope maybe lost for you.
I just don't believe or much understand the hype to tell you the truth. When people say they like his films there is a part of me, the irrational, uncensored, badly mannered part of my brain that thinks, just a tiny negative thought along the lines of "What, you must be crazy. Actually bonkers crazy". I am also a natural born cynic and sceptic as a rule so buying into something simply because I am told it's good is not my style.
As for Christopher Nolan I am not a true believer there either. There are some things he has done that I rather liked and there are other things, that despite their, obviously impressive, technical superiority, I think are a load of old bollocks. To use a British expression.
Coming off the back of the woeful, yes you read that right, WOEFUL Dark Knight Rises it feels like he has either been supping from his own private vat of 'I'm wonderful' cool aid or was added as a producer to this film in an attempt, maybe, to silence the pretentious, wanky, stroky chin, roll neck and hipster scarf wearing set who blindly attack Zack Snyder without really being able to explain why. I am not one of those either, I can tell you at length WHY. I am also not someone who believes Nolan is somehow high brow genius and Snyder is some gutter dwelling cockroach. I just think when it comes to making films, while technically they obviously have some chops, Nolan more than Snyder, they both have problems when it comes to story, character, script, intention and other things that, I'm sorry, but I deem rather important when it comes to watching films.
Lastly I am not a superhero comic book fan/nerd/geek. Historically I have always preferred Superhero films and action/detective/horror comics. I can neither get into the scripting problems that everyone having superpowers inevitably lead to in the comics or the soap opera of these character's personal lives that I am meant to invest in. When it comes to Superhero films, however, I have always, more often than not, been able to enjoy the spectacle, the effects, the performances and the humour over any glaring pacing/story errors that Superhero films tend to have. I tend to zone out during the third act 'CGI things hit each other a lot' bit that ALL these films devolve predictably and depressingly in to, some worse than others.
I have to, of course, also quickly mention that I absolutely love the first 3 Christopher Reeve Superman films but I do recognise the structuring, scripting and story problems in them. However the inspirational, charming, epic and beautiful way those films are put together, performed and scored, not to mention a large dollop of nostalgia tends to put such thoughts to the back of my mind.
Ok so confessions over. Now why did I write all that and why are you reading it? your brain is no doubt screaming. Well I did it to put my review below in context.
By the way, I did NOT like Man of Steel. At ALL. So if that bothers you, offends you or annoys you in any way then I truly apologise, it is JUST an opinion and really doesn't matter at all but if it does then stop reading now.
To the film then.
Firstly some things I won't do. I am going to try and not complain about this film by comparing it to the Reeve films before it and saying it's, clearly, not as good. The influence of what Donner, Reeve, Hackman, Kidder and John Williams did back then will forever be felt and will always be relevant and important but they were then and this is now.
Of course I could easily argue that if they didn't want 30 somethings hating, arguing and ultimately comparing Man of Steel to Donner and Lester's films then why in the name of Beelzebub's cleft did the producers decide to REMAKE the origin story/Zod as villain storyline. Isn't that BEGGING comparison?
Still, to hell with logic, I won't be doing it.
I am also going to not complain about fanboy stuff like the costume or the mythology etc. because, firstly, I am not enough of a fanboy to justify it, it's all been said by far better men than me and secondly it's petty niggling and ultimately pointless.
SO, in all honesty, I would be lying if I said I didn't, initially at least, during the first few minutes, while trying to be open minded fall into the trap of feeling 'oh this just sucks! What are these CGI winged beasties?! This is needlessly showy-offy and wanky, it's not as good as the Donner one, which, of course dealt with Krypton simply and perfectly'
I then took a deep breath, relaxed and thought 'no Jon, you shall relax and enjoy this film and cast from your mind who directed it and the fact that it's not your childhood Superman... embrace it I told myself'
I did really really try.
I know that no matter what I say or how I explain it there will be folks who say 'well you went in hating it, you wanted to hate it, your opinion is not valid because you are naturally biased against Hack Snyder etc. etc.' and they are going to think that no matter what but I am telling you that this wasn't the case.
I gave myself a talking to, I said 'look at it for what it is and watch THIS film, don't wish you were watching something else' So I did. I watched this film and it stank. It stank like a mouldy jam jar filled with stale piss and with day old cigarette butts floating in it.
First problem was the camera work. You'd think somewhere in the bloated stupid budget for this waste of time film they'd find a hundred bucks for a fucking tripod, either that or a thousand for a dolly track, or a few thousand for a steady-cam rig or SOMETHING! We can put a go-cart on Mars and we can't find Hack Snyder something to rest his camera on? I tried desperately to ignore it but if it wasn't shaking up and down badly during dialogue scenes, or positively going epileptic during blurred close up fight scenes, then it was crash zooming and rack focussing all over the place. Jesus Christ on a four speed lawnmower it was irritating. It doesn't make things more exciting it makes things look shit.
There was one of the bazillion flash back scenes with Kevin Costner by his truck talking to a young Clark Kent some homespun, irrelevant, seemingly important but actual hokum nonsense and not only was some of it in poor focus but the camera was bobbing up and down like the camera person desperately needed a piss. There really is NO excuse.
Another example of the camera work RUINING this film. When Superman first flies in his outfit it is meant to be an awe inspiring, exhilarating, fist pumping and happy moment. In this case I would've just been happy to be able to see it! The camera is crash zooming, rack focussing, shaking, whizzing, bobbing, bouncing and flying about so much that I waned to walk out. That people accuse The Expendables of being badly directed because of the 'shaky cam' fights but they give a pass to Batman Begins and this which have some of the very worst filmed action sequences I have ever sat through is beyond me. I am sure my detractors will just say I am an old man or looking for things to complain about but the photography direction is one of the most important aspects of a film because the camera operator IS our eyes. Guess what, SUPERMAN does not need to be filmed with faux-documentary style realistic camerawork because... GUESS WHAT?! SUPERMAN IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY!!!
Second problem was the quality of the image. When the image was occasionally in focus it had been so enhanced with green, grey, gritty, high contrast, fake, post production grain that it managed to make Amy Adams and Diane Lane look like a tired, pockmarked Fat Bastard and The Crypt Keeper. A story is dark and edgy when it's actually dark and edgy, not when you just decide it is and give it a good old digital wash making it look like boiled shite.
Then there was the CGI. Considering the script had been written in such a way (i.e. barely, if at all) that the entire story relied on copious amounts of the stuff, you'd think they'd have some decent CGI. Not that I care most of the time as all CGI looks pretty crappy to me, lacking as it does anything approaching realism or a soul, but the CGI in Man of Steel was shockingly bad considering the budget, the studio and the film's reliance on it.
The action scenes were long, drawn out, loud, turgid affairs with little to no point, rhyme, or reason. Billions of dollars damage was done, thousands of people probably died and often with no satisfactory result or catharsis at the end of it. Also there wasn't a set piece in this film we haven't seen a couple of hundred bloody times. School bus, check, bully, check, saving people from a fire, check, planes fall out of the sky, check, New York being destroyed, check, CGI villains being thrown through buildings, check and so it went on...
There was one scene which I thought was a good idea, the tornado scene. That makes sense, I thought. Since the Donner film in '78 established Smallville squarely in Kansas a tornado scene of Supes vs nature is logical now when you think about it, right? Except this is a Nolan/Snyder film and so instead we get a possibly exciting tornado scene that's only really there to deliver one of the biggest insults of the entire film. The death of Jonathan Kent. What a load of arse.
So Supes can save a bus load of school kids from drowning but saving his human Dad and dog from a tornado would be one step too far?
It's always the same with these comic book films: 'you can't reveal your powers' 'I can't have a girlfriend because then you'll be in danger' and what happens? by the end of the film he's revealed his powers to everyone and their parrots and the girl has been kidnapped anyway!!
All their bullshit philosophising, hypothetical danger, worrying, moralising and speechifying is all for nought.
Plus you then have this Peter Parker crap of guilt over the death of his surrogate father rather than the somewhat more poetic message of Clark Kent having to learn from Pa Kent's death that, as powerful as he is, you can't fight time, nature and ultimately death. You see that would be a message we could all relate to and invest in but NO! this is a Snyder/Nolan joint and so it has to be cod-lofty-philosophical-stroky-chin nonsense about 'one day you'll reveal your powers, when the time is right and the world will stand with you' well, yeah, everyone will stand with you except the people in the world flattened to death by massive chunks of falling iron work and masonry as you throw Zod about the place with angry abandon amidst a clumsy and howling 9/11 metaphor.
None of this would matter though, the CGI, the action scenes and even, maybe the camera work if I gave two hearty and heavily pungent shits for any character in this film. There isn't a semi-decent performance, an interesting line of dialogue, an emotional moment or any chemistry, style, class, cool or humour. A po-faced, dreary, slow, heavy handed film featuring non-people who either mumble or shout, there is no in between.
As I couldn't invest in anything that was going on I was left focussing on things like the camera work, the massive amounts of injured and dead people Superman left in his wake, the massive, intrusive, laughable and sad store-names product placement during the downtown Smallville fight, the fact that Zod seems to have picked up a 1940s stereotype, creepy, bald, German, mad scientist as part of his Krypton crew and a series of questions like:
Why does Zod also want Lois Lane on the spaceship with Superman?
How does Zod, at that point, even know who Lois Lane is?
Why is young Supes in a flashback playing a caped hero with a red cloth from the laundry when he doesn't discover his cape until years later?
Superman goes and talks to a priest?? REALLY??!! His very existence dispels the myth of God, he is HIMSELF a metaphor/substitute for the story of Jesus Christ so why on earth is he taking advice from this creepy priest in an empty church on a summers day?
Oh and don't get me started on Superman's crucifix stance with his arms out after the (holy)ghost of his father tells him he can save Lois, he can save ALL the humans (and the fluffy bunnies too) but only when his real father, who's a ghost, says so. When his actual flesh and blood earth father NEEDS saving, nah he can't do that.
From the opening shot of us seeing Superman's mother give birth to the ending where Superman snaps Zods neck it wreaks of Snyder and Goyer sitting in a room patting each other's back or wanking each other off congratulating themselves on how clever and edgy they're being.
Superman's mother giving birth is precisely the Snyder version of edgy realism. He probably thinks he's daring. Actually it's just silly and a ridiculous and pointless way to start the film.
What does that add to it eh Snydes? What great statement are you making there?
Jor-El then says that Superman is the first natural birth Krypton has had in thousands of years about three more times in the film, I guess his mothers big old screaming sweaty face right at the very beginning didn't drive that edgy and dark idea home hard enough huh Snyder?!
And as for the ending, Goyer himself has described the death of Zod as them 'taking down sacred cows'. Yeah because Goyer lives life on the edge, Goyer is sticking it to the establishment and taking down sacred cows. What a steaming pile of myxomatosis filled rabbit droppings!
You didn't know how to end it so you got too big scary CGI machines to destroy a bunch of stuff, the defence mechanism of which seems to be computer game snapping metal tentacles made up of lots of cubes, then you had Supes and Zod duke it out making more things explode and endangering more lives because you'd seen Raimi's Spiderman 2 and then you had Supes snap Zod's neck because you couldn't think how to get out of the mundane hole you'd dug for yourselves. Taking down sacred cows indeed. You pretentious twat Goyer!
The rule breaking and sacred cow tipping didn't end there, once the movie dispelled with its Lord of the Rings/Phantom Menance like Krypton opening and got down on earth, the rest of the film was so desperate to dispense with the tried and tested Clark Kent story and so does everything it can to change it all because, you know, Snyder and Goyer are mavericks.
It has Lois know who he is and what aliens are from the start, he doesn't play Clark as bumbling... in fact he makes no distinction between Clark or Superman at all, thus sort of rendering the point of his entire character a bit moot, he doesn't go to Metropolis to work for the Planet, there's no fortress of solitude and no Kryptonite. Man aren't those cats Goyer and Snyder just so innovative and pleased with themselves.
However, after this 3hr sacred cow tipping tournament has taken place, the very end is his reveal as Clark on his first day at the planet, glasses and all... still no sign of any acting going on but whatever. Trouble is, as clever as Goyer and Snydes THINK they're being, this ending, like the rest of the film is waffly dribbly piss and makes no sense.
He tells his mother that he's going to get a job where no one will ask him a question when he goes somewhere dangerous and where he can keep his ear to the ground.
Well, firstly, after openly saving the world as Superman in front of journalists, the military and everybody, basically, are you telling me that people don't know who this guy is and what he looks like?
I know what Lindsey Lohan's vagina looks like, are you telling me in this day and age of cell phones, tablets, laptops etc. Nobody has this guys picture? Lois tracked him down in 5 minutes in the middle of the film for Pete's sake! Now he needs a disguise?? and the disguise is still a nerdy pair of specs. What run out of cows Goyer?
Also he spends most of the movie traveling around going where he pleases and doing what he wants, he unearths a spaceship and flies off in it without any questions being asked, he even says to the military that he'll save people, on his terms and Washington has to deal with it. So why on earth does he need a job where no one will ask questions?
Oh and that second point about keeping his ear to the ground, sounds good in theory but in the day and age of the internet is working at a bizarrely, still 1950s style newspaper office really going to be giving him the hot pertinent info he needs.
Oh and can't Supes, if he chooses, hear and see everything all at once. Couldn't he just use his mind-internet to locate trouble and focus in on it?
Oh and doesn't he live, basically, in New York City? There's trouble there every single minute of every day from purse snatching to murder to bankers to politicians... he'll have his work cut out for him without needing a newspaper to work at.
None of it makes any sense.
Oh and the 'he's kinda hot' joke at the end - embarrassing, squirm central. When you've had literally NO humour in your film for 3hrs you can't have an army woman say this horrible horrible cringe worthy line and expect chuckles and applause.
I could go on and on and on... there's the score, the editing, the script... I am sorry but this film defeated me. I wanted to be surprised, I wanted to enjoy it, I wanted to be proved wrong, I tried, i relaxed, I put my prejudices to one side and attempted to let this movie drag me in. Instead it beat me slowly to death one noisy, repetitive, CGI filled, out of focus mess of a fight scene at a time.
There were TWO things that I liked about the film! SHOCK HORROR!! one was the Zod, Supes, drowning in skulls dream scene which I felt was a great representation of a comic-book image and just a damn cool idea (I refuse to believe Goyer and Snyder had anything to do with it, PLEASE tell me it actually comes from a comic book) and two, I felt that at least the first two acts had a relatively tight structure that made some sort of sense. The endless flashbacks stopped momentum a lot of the time but, more or less, the driving force behind the story seemed sound even if the characters seemed hollow cyphers.
Last thing I would say is that I have now seen 4 of the bigger films this summer. Each one, from its trailer and promotional material, I would've normally passed on but I have been chastised SO MUCH for making my mind up based on trailers and promotional material and told time and time again to go against my gut, against my better judgement and actually pay and go and see these films. Well I did and the ones I thought were going to be average, were average, the one I knew was going to be self indulgent wank was self indulgent wank and Superman turned out to be everything and worse than what I feared from the director, the writer and the 57 trailers.
So this is me saying NO MORE. I will watch WHAT I WANT TO WATCH and I will have my opinion on the rest based on the stuff the studios marketing company gives me. The last 4 films I have seen in the cinema have been such colossal wastes of time as to be criminal and reviewing them has taken even more time. I am done. Call me what you like, cut me down however you want. I know what I like and that's what I am going to see. End of story.
World War Z
FAIRLY SPOILER FREE
When I say 'I like Zombie films' I realise, now, that I am talking about really only a handful of movies. George A Romero's original trilogy, Lucio Fulci's Zombie, The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue, Re-Animator, The Return of the Living Dead and that's more or less it. There are probably a few more I am not thinking of right now and probably a few from the genre's heyday that I haven't seen yet but I list these films merely to shed light on where and who this review is coming from.
Notice how I didn't include 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later. Both films I like very much but, to me, they are NOT zombie films. They are post-apocolyptic infection films but they are NOT zombie films. People get infected while living, the dead don't rise from their graves and the infected don't die before they come back with the 'rage' contamination.
I mention this because World War Z is NOT a zombie film (in my mind). NOT AT ALL
It is basically the story of a world wide violent rage/rabies infection seen through the eyes of one perpetually stoned, lank haired, hipster scarf wearing, former UN investigator played by Brad Pitt.
I am not sure I have ever seen a film with such massive, global set pieces that is so utterly bland and underwhelming. This is not to say it's an altogether BAD film because it's not but it's not anything special either. It lacks a sense of humour, a sense of style, a decent soundtrack, engaging characters or any cool at all.
Since zombie films and zombie film remakes became tediously the rage in the last 10 years the genre has distinctly lacked any cool. The zombie films of the seventies and eighties are still popular today because they had iconic soundtracks, great lines spoken by characters you liked, disliked or had a complex series of mixed emotions about, they had metaphor and meaning, style and substance and fantastic gore.
World War Z really doesn't have any of that. What it does have is a global scale, some nice tension at the beginning, a cameo from David Morse that could've gone on MUCH longer and some weak underlying message about how we should all just get along. It feels more like a bland alien invasion movie.
Brad Pitt is hideously miscast, misdressed and woefully haired. He was about as convincing a UN investigator as Denise Richards was a nuclear physicist (in The World Is Not Enough). He was also bland as a beige pair of slacks on a wax model of a local news anchor from Des Moines.
To improve this film you should've cast a ton of people and instead of just following 1 man, who seemingly doesn't eat or sleep for a week as he travels from South Korea to Wales and everywhere in between, you follow lots of people around the world all detailing the outbreak in their own way. That at least would allow for some characters. Say what you like about mindless tat like Independence Day or 2012 but at least they have a sense of humour and are fantastically entertaining.
The film attempts to seriously portray what it would be like if an infection took over the human race and turned us into canabalistic rage monkeys. It also attempts to have a story that wraps up in a predictable 'satisfying' way, some set pieces on a grand scale that you haven't seen before and some wishy-washy guff about how we should work together and, in that regard, it's a complete success.
The CGI is not terrible or annoying, it is shot and edited competently and at least the first act attempts some tension and the last act attempts to be a bit more exciting. It does have one scene though that proves that, even in the midst of apocalypses, mobile phones are fucking annoying.
It thinks it's way smarter and better than it is when really it's all just too serious and a bit dull. It's, also, weirdly, one of the most bloodless films of its kind in existence (obviously to capitalise on the recent zombie craze and pack em in at all ages!).
If you're still curious then it is worth one watch and maybe I am just jaded and burnt out but I was watching the film thinking, if this had anyone else in the lead and a Goblin soundtrack this would already be 10 times better.
5 out of 10 bloodless dry steaks in a beige sack
Butcher's Hill
We are big fans of independent film over here in the Diner and we are always on the look out for vibrant, interesting new productions.
In a career spanning over 40 years, Brian W. Cook has worked as a Producer and Assistant Director with some of cinema’s most respected talents, including five films with Michael Camino, three films with Stanley Kubrick and two with Sean Penn. His producing credits include ‘Colour Me Kubrick’, ‘The Pledge’ and ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.
Additionally, Award winning Special make-up effects studio Ill Willed Productions (The Amazing Spider Man, Piranhaconda) will provide effects for Butchers Hill. IWP Founder Tate Steinsiek quickly became a horror fan favorite on SYFY’s special effects competition, FACE OFF and has been featured in Fangoria, Rue Morgue, The New York Times, and Variety.
Award winning Composer Adam Balazs (The Butterfly Effect 3,The Secret of Moonacre) has also signed on to Butchers Hill.
“Butcher’s Hill is an homage to all the great Brothers Grimm tales of our child hood. We wanted to create an unflinching look into the world of dark tales in all its gruesome glory,” explains Kindersley. “And after the economic collapse we struggled like most indie filmmakers to find support but now we’re ready to go with new and exciting momentum to get Butcher’s Hill killing again.”
The production has launched the facebook fan page https://www.facebook.com/butchershillthemovie, which will track the development of the film with regular updates from Jason and Rory. It will feature videos of the films progress, including behind the scenes casting, production meetings, and interviews with key production staff.
Fans and supporters will also be able to connect to the Butcher’s Hill KickStarter campaign, (launching on July 1st 2013) which will enable them to to contribute towards crowd-funding in exchange for Butcher’s Hill themed gifts, such as credits and special edition DVD’s, and even participation in the films production.
Butcher’s Hill is scheduled to shoot in the fall of 2014. For more information on Butcher’s Hill visit https://www.facebook.com/butchershillthemovie.
Occasionally one such feature, short or web series falls into our inbox and intrigues us enough that not only do we, of course, take a look but then immediately after watching it we feel compelled to share it with everyone else and sing its praises.
In this case that short film is called Butcher's Hill and it's a wonderfully macabre and beautifully designed take on the Hansel and Gretel fairytale.
No annoying CGI monsters taken down by a crossbow wielding Hawkeye against a green screen here, oh no, just good old fashioned, atmospheric film making that is like a wonderful breath of fresh air.
Details:
Year made: 2008
DIRECTED BY: JASON NOTO & RORY KINDERSLEY
STARRING: TIMOTHY CHALAMET, JACKIE RHOADS and TATE STEINSIEK "You won’t believe where filmmakers Jason Noto and Rory Kindersley take you in this bloody twist on the Hansel and Gretel story that will leave you stunned. Left to fend for themselves, a brother and sister venture into a remote cabin where a bounty of treats costs more than expected"
The filmmakers are attempting to expand this to a full feature in 2014 and have a Kickstarter campaign starting July 2013, the press release and details of are below but we would urge anyone who watched the short and was inspired, surprised and excited by the talent and creativity on display to support the feature.
We here at The After Movie Diner wish them the best of luck.
PRESS RELEASE
APRIL 29 New York, New York (Monday April 29, 2013)
– From the Award winning writer and directors Jason Noto and Rory Kindersley, BUTCHER’S HILL, their short fantastical film, celebrates its online premiere today Monday April 29 2013 on FEAR.net. TV to over 40 million homes nationwide.
The infamous short film swept the genre festival circuit with its brutal decapitation scene in 2008 garnering wide acclaim from critics and bloggers internationally. Now for the first time ever it reaches its bloody hands across the nation in all its HD glory. And furthermore, the team has decided to re- launch their efforts to develop the short film into a heart pumping, blood curdling, feature film in 2014 with the support of London based content innovation studio, Fablemaze.
Fablemaze is a brand and content experience studio specializing in forward thinking interactive ideas and distribution platforms for today’s marketplace. Launched in 2007 and helmed by Toby Cook and Matt Cook, Fablemaze brings together the vision and excitement of filmmaking with the innovation of interactive design to make unique experiences for brands, agencies and entertainment. Also on board, esteemed producer Brian W. Cook has joined the team as Executive Producer. Details:
Year made: 2008
DIRECTED BY: JASON NOTO & RORY KINDERSLEY
STARRING: TIMOTHY CHALAMET, JACKIE RHOADS and TATE STEINSIEK "You won’t believe where filmmakers Jason Noto and Rory Kindersley take you in this bloody twist on the Hansel and Gretel story that will leave you stunned. Left to fend for themselves, a brother and sister venture into a remote cabin where a bounty of treats costs more than expected"
The most striking thing about the short is the detail and design. So rich, so creative, so tactile almost that from the smoke in the trees, to the crumbs of the cakes, to the rough wooden floor boards of the house, you are completely immersed in this familiar yet stunningly strange and foreboding world. There are welcome overshadows of Terry Gilliam here and the better of Tim Burton's films, a tough thing to pull off but done with a wonderfully restrained elegance to the filmmaking.
As the tension builds and the short moves into its final moments there is a delicious sense of dark humour that I reveled in.
Lastly the performances of the two children in the production is fantastically unselfconscious, just the right side of playful and never annoying.
We'd be interested to know what you think, so please, watch for yourself.
FEATURING an Exclusive Introduction by Filmmaker Jason Noto
VIDEO is available at Fear.net
FEATURING an Exclusive Introduction by Filmmaker Jason Noto
VIDEO is available at Fear.net
The filmmakers are attempting to expand this to a full feature in 2014 and have a Kickstarter campaign starting July 2013, the press release and details of are below but we would urge anyone who watched the short and was inspired, surprised and excited by the talent and creativity on display to support the feature.
We here at The After Movie Diner wish them the best of luck.
PRESS RELEASE
APRIL 29 New York, New York (Monday April 29, 2013)
– From the Award winning writer and directors Jason Noto and Rory Kindersley, BUTCHER’S HILL, their short fantastical film, celebrates its online premiere today Monday April 29 2013 on FEAR.net. TV to over 40 million homes nationwide.
The infamous short film swept the genre festival circuit with its brutal decapitation scene in 2008 garnering wide acclaim from critics and bloggers internationally. Now for the first time ever it reaches its bloody hands across the nation in all its HD glory. And furthermore, the team has decided to re- launch their efforts to develop the short film into a heart pumping, blood curdling, feature film in 2014 with the support of London based content innovation studio, Fablemaze.
In a career spanning over 40 years, Brian W. Cook has worked as a Producer and Assistant Director with some of cinema’s most respected talents, including five films with Michael Camino, three films with Stanley Kubrick and two with Sean Penn. His producing credits include ‘Colour Me Kubrick’, ‘The Pledge’ and ‘Eyes Wide Shut’.
Additionally, Award winning Special make-up effects studio Ill Willed Productions (The Amazing Spider Man, Piranhaconda) will provide effects for Butchers Hill. IWP Founder Tate Steinsiek quickly became a horror fan favorite on SYFY’s special effects competition, FACE OFF and has been featured in Fangoria, Rue Morgue, The New York Times, and Variety.
Award winning Composer Adam Balazs (The Butterfly Effect 3,The Secret of Moonacre) has also signed on to Butchers Hill.
“Butcher’s Hill is an homage to all the great Brothers Grimm tales of our child hood. We wanted to create an unflinching look into the world of dark tales in all its gruesome glory,” explains Kindersley. “And after the economic collapse we struggled like most indie filmmakers to find support but now we’re ready to go with new and exciting momentum to get Butcher’s Hill killing again.”
The production has launched the facebook fan page https://www.facebook.com/butchershillthemovie, which will track the development of the film with regular updates from Jason and Rory. It will feature videos of the films progress, including behind the scenes casting, production meetings, and interviews with key production staff.
Fans and supporters will also be able to connect to the Butcher’s Hill KickStarter campaign, (launching on July 1st 2013) which will enable them to to contribute towards crowd-funding in exchange for Butcher’s Hill themed gifts, such as credits and special edition DVD’s, and even participation in the films production.
Butcher’s Hill is scheduled to shoot in the fall of 2014. For more information on Butcher’s Hill visit https://www.facebook.com/butchershillthemovie.