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.
Profile of a Killer
While it still has some of the welcomed cliches of the serial killer and police procedural drama genres, it also does its best to dispense of them and try something different. The main one being that we, the audience, discover the identity of the killer fairly early on and from that moment the film jumps between FBI agent Rachel Cade (Emily Fradenburgh) trying to track him down and the killer, David (Joey Pollari) instigating a battle of wits with his kidnapped profiler (Gabriele Angieri).
It was apparently intended as a studio project but when financing fell through Tredwell-Owen relocated to Minnesota, got a fantastic, local cast together and a fairly extensive crew, for an indie production, and they all took the project on themselves.
The gamble appears to have paid off as a solid script, some excellent performances, beautifully real cinematography and strong production values has propelled this taught drama onto the big screen across America and onto DVD using a word of mouth, grass roots campaign that continues today with humble blogs like mine receiving screeners and doing reviews.
I am happy to report that this film was well worth the watch. I was impressed by its visual flair. The snowy farm land and freeways of Minnesota, while, of course, conjuring up some favourable comparisons to the Coen Brother's Fargo, also remained feeling very fresh, different and unique to this film. The set dressing and art direction of the farm house, where the majority of the action takes place, is pleasingly run down and filled with texture. It's also lit and shot in an evocative and vibrant way, creating depth and shadow, as well as a sense of unease. You can feel the bone chilling cold and the rough harsh surfaces of this unforgiving building.
The other half of the film is focussed on the FBI and local police's attempts to track them both down, lead by Emily Fradenburgh's dedicated and dead pan agent Cade. She is the determined centre of this story and it can be a thankless task because while Fradenburgh's performance is pleasingly assured, serious and earnest, she can, sometimes, lack an emotional core. There are a couple of scenes in the film, a throwaway plot strand about her father and the death of someone close, that maybe could've used some beefing up, so that she could show the wearing affect of her steadfast dedication to the job but those are small complaints overall.
The cast of characters she is surrounded by or interviews are also resoundingly great and you're never thrown from the film because of some unfortunate dialogue delivery that can, sadly, derail even the most well intentioned low budget film.
The writing is strong and the dialogue authentic. The procedural elements of the police work felt real and without the usual over-the-top flashes that TV so often employs. The same can be said for the back and forth dialogue in the farm house. The questions, the actions and the reactions were different from what you'd expect as, usually, they would be ramped up and accompanied by an overly dramatic score but here they play out naturally. This makes these scenes disconcerting as you can't second guess what will happen next, which adds to the tension. The script is definitely clever and never overly stylised.
The film makes excellent use of the budget and it feels like every penny is on screen in the right place. There are authentic police cars, a helicopter, a delivery van and a variety of locations. There are also some nice, gruesome effects and while it's not exactly excessively gory or exploitative, the deaths are uniquely twisted and macabre.
I have to admit that the overly serious tone, pacing and length of the film are not usually my cup of tea. I also found some of the dialogue and drama during the mid section of the film to be a little confusing as I'm not sure I bought strongly into the mental cat and mouse as much as I would've liked. The ending was good though and the ultimate irony well thought out and haunting.
This is definitely a film to track down on-demand or for rent as it really has a lot to offer and projects like this need to be supported.
Purchase on DVD or RENT online
A Single Shot
When it comes to plot and stylistic originality you won't find it here.
What you will find is an engaging and expertly, if sometimes a little too authentically, played character study disguised as a generic, backwoods, crime thriller.
So, my first piece of advice to you is to throw out the plot.
Put it out of your mind. It doesn't matter.
Don't engage, as you normally would, through what the characters are doing but more with who the characters are.
He's a simple, proud man of few words just trying to put his life back together.
While out hunting on this land one morning, trying to catch a deer, he accidentally shoots a woman who, he later finds out, is carrying a ton of cash with her. Despite being definitely distraught at his accidental actions, he knows that to report them would mean jail time for poaching on the land and a possible manslaughter charge. Instead he hides the body, takes the money and is determined to get his life, meaning his wife and child, back. However, the money, of course, is linked to a web of unsavoury characters who, one by one, try and get their hands on it.
Tobacco is chewed, lines are mumbled in thick, heavy accented drawls and bodies pile up. Will John Moon come out on top or is his demise inevitable?
It's too slow moving, too drenched in melancholy strings and blue, grey, damp photography. The characters aren't menacing or threatening enough and, more often than not, the tension is lost as you are straining to understand what the hell is going on as some terrific actors grumble, twitch and spit through thick beards and thicker accents.
I like to believe, though, that the film is more than that. More than a generic cat and mouse thriller about a bag of money and some grubby but pleasingly quirky hillbillies. It might just be his acting and his endless watchability, but I think the film is most successful as an in-depth and tragic character study of Sam Rockwell's John Moon. Studying and delving in to, as it does, ideas of lost opportunity, loss of love, pride coming before a fall, having the strength to survive, betrayal, fear, not being able to see the wood for the trees (which is indicated in several nice visual clues) and making your bed and damn well having to lie in it.
On this level the film succeeds handsomely and Rockwell, also serving as producer on the film, gives a, at first, gruff and almost monosyllabic and unsympathetic performance that grows, over the running time, into a tragic, sometimes heart wrenchingly unlucky and down trodden character that you root for to, some how, find a way out of his predicament, even though your brain can't find one and you probably know that an easy resolution will not be forthcoming.
He has surrounded himself well with the cream of character actors, the sort of 2nd tier players who are a sheer delight to just recline and watch act.
He is weasley, sinister, pathetic, dangerous, unnerving and humourous all rolled into one and the film could've used a lot more of him.
The film also features great but, sadly, tiny performances from Ted Levine, Jason Isaacs and Melissa Leo who, I doubt, get much more screen time, combined, than you'd be easily able to count on two hands. The only other stand out actor worth a mention being, the always worth the price of admission, Jeffrey Wright.
His performance, as a wild, reckless, drunkard friend of John Moon is fantastic and combines almost every tick, twitch and technique an actor can deploy to best portray an alcoholic red neck. Seeing him and Rockwell going at it you would believe neither of them had gone near a bath in 15 years. The only downside to this is, as the film enters its third act, Wright shows up to deliver some important plot information but it gets buried under piles of grime, dribble, tobacco, alcoholic slurring, an indecipherable accent and a crap flecked thicket of facial hair. As superb and as delightful as the mud smeared technique is, it's this scene that almost derails the film, that is if you are still trying to figure out what is going on but, I've already told you, the plot is not important. Simply enjoy the atmosphere, the sounds, the photography and the smelly, saliva drenched performance.
Much like the plot, though, the downfall in the direction is that the film feels all too familiar. From the colour palette to the score (which features the, too often used, discordant pizzicato strings) nothing here feels different from something you've seen a hundred times before and while the techniques on display are exemplary, the lack of anything new can make parts of the, already slow, film drag.
All that being said it does feel authentic and atmospheric. The set dressing, the costumes, the location and the lighting also do their part to help you feel the cold, the damp, the dirt and the drink.
If you're a fan of film-making for film-making's sake, if you're a fan of fine acting and fun dialogue and if you enjoy the slower work of The Coen Brothers then this is a definite recommend. I even intend to go back a second time as it wasn't till discussing the film after the screening, that I really started to appreciate all that was in there and what the film was trying to say.
You can hear our discussion, recorded directly after the press screening, over on The Podcast from the After Movie Diner
You can watch A Single Shot NOW on Video On Demand and the theatrical release is set for September 20th.
Christmas Cinema Viewing - Pulpy Thrillers and Pointless Bum Nummers
The wife and I like to, over the Christmas period, visit the movie theatre and check out all the new films pushing and fighting their way into the multi-screen havens of stale popcorn, rancid piss smells and cough created germs at the hope of the almighty seasonal dollar.
This year was no exception.
Saturday December 22nd we strolled in and watched new Tom Cruise vehicle, Jack Reacher.
Now, firstly, a couple of things: I have never read a Jack Reacher book and I was only excited to see this film, initially for 2 reasons
1) Action Cruise tends to be good Cruise and
2) Werner herzog as a Bond style villain with a comically milky eye.
Apart from those things I had fairly low expectations and they were further lowered when I was set upon on Twitter and told that it was a load of old rubbish and I should avoid it.
Well I'll tell you the problem with Jack Reacher the movie and no, Lee Child purists, it has nothing to do with Tom Cruise's height you bunch of negative whiny bitches. The problem with Jack Reacher the movie was the marketing. As always marketing companies (who should really change their name to mismarketing companies or talentless hacks, they can take their pick) have fouled this up and advertised it as a relatively dumb action film. This is to do the film a disservice as it has a clever witty script, it trundles along at a decent pace, the performances are excellent and it's a good old fashioned pulpy, unpretentious, wise-crakin', ass-whuppin' good time of a conspiracy thriller.
It has a twisty-turny-yet-fairly-obvious-if-you-know-how-these-things-go type story to tell and it gets in and out with no fuss. The action is good, clear, tight and to the point too with a great finale that manages to amuse, thrill and surprise in a satisfying way.
In the shadow of the events recently in Connecticut it's a little tricky in parts because it does fall squarely on the side of the right wing where guns are concerned but, to be fair, that is hardwired into its western style, dime novel sensibility.
Lastly the casting of Werner Herzog is a stroke of sheer genius, every word he utters (and that's not a lot as he doesn't have nearly enough scenes) is the sort of nonsensical yet deep sounding babble that drips from the Bavarian's lips as easy as if he were reading a shopping list. It's an absolute wonder to behold and, actually, a little went a long way where he was concerned, any more and it would've veered into really questionable and confusing Bond style villain antics and that would've derailed the simplicity and succinctness with which Christopher McQuarrie told the story.
The wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this, sorry if you didn't that is a real shame because this movie is fun, aware of its cliches but written well enough to not over play them.
8 out of 10
Next up was This is 40 on Dec 24th
which really needed to be renamed 'Man these attractive white folk who are their own worst enemy really do whine ALOT!'
Ok, let's get started. I have a love hate relationship with Judd Apatow. I love that he has made possible some really great comedy films and that without him comedy in the last 10 years might have been just whatever Tyler Perry finds funny this week but I hate Judd Apatow because of his clear belief that, in his own directed films at least, that he is some Woody Allen like exposer of deep truths and a witty commentator on the silly little flaws of human nature. I also hate him because he seems to think showing naked bits of people that are usually, thankfully covered up is somehow hilarious and daring... oh and he produces that shitfest of incessantly pointless whiny drivel and mind numbingly shallow pile of arse 'Girls'... oh and he puts his famous musician friends in movies... oh and he needs someone to tell him to fucking stop once in a while.
Lets make something clear, hardly any film needs to be over 2hrs long and certainly not a comedy. OK. There are only a handful of stories in the world and the art form of film used to have a 90min standard because it worked. If you can't tell your story in a three act structure over the course of 90 minutes then you really shouldn't be working in film. You want to ramble? write a book, do a podcast anything but make a movie, let alone a comedy movie that is LITERALLY ABOUT NOTHING.
Are there exceptions to the 90min rule? sure - plenty.
Is there wiggle room where a movie at 105mins or even 120mins can be good or better? of course
Can you name a time you laughed for longer than 90mins? Probably not very frequently and certainly not at this Crate & Barrel catalogue looking mound of beige whining arse.
In fact John Cleese, the far too psychologically minded member of Monty Python, once said that, on average, people can laugh happily for around 40 minutes and after that there better be some plot, action or emotion going on to maintain momentum into the third act. The easiest example of this is Four Weddings and a Funeral because you laugh at the first three weddings, then there's the quiet bit where you are a little sad at the funeral, then end strong with a big, funny ending that ties all the story-lines together.
The trouble with 'This Is 40' is actually not that it isn't funny, it's actually, in places, very funny and when it comes to actual funny lines it is funnier than Apatow's previous effort 'Funny People' but the problem is it's not about anything.
The movie starts and two very annoying, idiotic, pretty people who live in a wonderful home, spend money like it's going out of style and with two daughters who are far cleverer and less annoying than them, have two Dads both of whom fucked up their first marriage and are now living with second families with varying degrees of success. When the movie ends this is all still true, except that Leslie Mann's Dad, played by John Lithgow, is a little more sympathetic and that's it. Nothing is learnt, nothing has changed and no one has said to these two whiny, whingey, stupid people "Shut the fuck up and sort yourselves out!"
The performances are fine too, although Leslie Mann, because of her high pitched nasaly voice, gets to points in this film where I could've quite easily beaten her to death with a shovel but all round there's nothing really bad about the way it's acted or shot.
It's just we're talking about a film where two people, because of their woeful communication, utter inability to manage their money and staggering lack of personal awareness and insight decide that selling their beautiful home is the solution to their problems rather than, I don't know, not spending $12,000 on flying a band no one has ever heard of ever to play in a tiny bar, not spending $10,000 on a catered Birthday party and suing the pilled-up, drippy girl who just robbed them of another $10,000.
I don't care about any of the people in this film and if the ending was that they were all mowed down by a hail of machine gun bullets from the arseholes of 8ft robot destroyers it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest and, at least, it would've been an ending.
4 out of 10
Lastly, Django Unchained on Dec 25th
I don't even know where to begin with this. Well, firstly, unlike this film, I'll just give you a quick bit of back story. I used to like Tarantino. My patience wained with him, however, somewhere around the middle of Kill Bill 2 and after the howling and irritating mistakes of Death Proof and the masturbatory Inglorious Basterds I was about ready to give up.
Then came Django Unchained. I have seen the original, Franco Nero starring, film which is an ambiguous, rambling, strange, pulp, cult spaghetti western and like it, for what it is.
So, there, a few sentences and you understand where I am coming from and can probably see I didn't enter the screening tonight with anything more than a glimmer of hope.
Well after what felt like 5hrs but was really, a still ludicrous, 2hrs 45mins later I left the cinema utterly frustrated because while half of me wants to scream, shout, break things and write Tarantino off completely as a tired, old, unoriginal, repetitive, long winded, self congratulatory, masturbatory hack, the other half of me found a lot to enjoy in this saga of a film.
Whichever way you slice it though, it's TOO DAMN LONG. It's not one film, it's about eight and like all of Tarantino's stuff it's ever so pleased with itself and the way it sounds. For the first 3 films Christoph Waltz wanders around with a case of, sometimes amusing but mostly incessant, verbal diarrhea and in the second 5 films he is joined in his eloquent verbiage by Leonardo DiCaprio. They both swan about spewing out endless dialogue for ages and ages and ages.
Then, after all the talk, there's lots of shooting and blood letting, just like there was at the end of the previous 7 films that make up Django Unchained and also at the end of Inglorious Basterds because, in the absence of plot or momentum, violence will do.
I felt like I was actually living the year that this film takes place in, every single day of it, every moment.
I firmly believe that Tarantino is so surrounded by sycophantic dribbling nerds in his infamous screening room in LA that no one has the balls to read one of his scripts and say to him "MAKE IT SHORTER" and no the answer, in this case, just like it wasn't for Kill Bill and isn't for the Hobbit, is not to make this two films, three films, eight films, whatever. It's to have an editor or a script doctor go over his work and tear vast useless chunks out of it and then say "there... go make that movie"
So enthralled is he with his own repetitive, obvious and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is dialogue that he believes every word must be left in, clearly! because, if not, explain to me how a fairly run of the mill rescue and revenge film takes almost 3hrs to finish.
Ok, so enough about the bloated running time, what about the whole 'making Django African American' thing, well considering the time period this film is set in (2 years before the civil war) it's an absolutely brilliant idea if he hadn't already done the same thing with the far superior Jackie Brown. Also, before everyone goes and gets confused, thinking that Django somehow has some big important statement to make about racism, slavery, hatred etc. it doesn't.
Honestly, it really doesn't.
I don't know about you but I didn't need 2hrs 45mins of N words and racist violence from Quentin Tarantino to know that slavery was wrong and despicable. Ok?
This is how the conversation went at Tarantino towers:
"The original Django is set just after the civil war and this is going to be a prequel. Well, you know how I like black people and am best friends with Samuel L Jackson? how about Django is black and we set it before the civil war... am I a genius or what"
That's it people, seriously.
If the film was more serious then I would completely take your point but, and I hate to sound like Spike Lee because he's an over reactionary idiot who needs to get over himself, sitting watching the film is a bit like watching a white guy relish getting away with a ton of harsh racist slurs and referencing things like Mandingo fighting while patting himself on that back for being oh-so-clever.
And on that subject, Tarantino, just because you know one German opera does not make you a cultural scholar, ok?! especially when you have so little faith in your own audiences intelligence that you spell out EXACTLY your incredibly obvious plot references.
Lastly, and then I'll get on to some good stuff about the film, Tarantino needs to pick: either you're making an exploitation film or you are making an epic western with a serious message. Never before have a mix of genres and styles from someone who is supposedly a master at it, been so all over the place.
Man it was a frustrating vast chunk of my time I will never get back.
On the good side the acting is showboaty but entertaining, the script has some genuinely funny and exciting moments and the direction, when he can be bothered, is decent. His use of titling and soundtrack however, is, by now, completely tedious and irritating.
The exploitation elements are fantastic, the gore is excessive, the gun play enjoyable and the odd comic asides, like a scene where early Klan members dispute their poorly made eyeholes in their hoods, are genuinely surprising and funny but would be perfect if included in an exploitation film length film.
Despite the length there was enough going on to keep me watching but it felt like plowing through a miniseries on a Sunday afternoon rather than watching a film. The cinematography was pleasing and there was some interesting use of the camera but if I am honest, I am struggling to come up with lots of really positive things about it.
We all know that Tarantino rips off other films but when he starts ripping himself off (the exploitation violence and Tarantino cameo of Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the African American switch from Jackie Brown, the epic length and revenge plot from Kill Bill, the shoot everything ending from Inglorious Basterds - shall I go on) it's maybe time someone call him on his bullshit.
All I can say is, despite how this review sounds, I didn't hate it and the things that are wrong with it come completely from Tarantino (and others) believing that his shit doesn't stink. There is a GREAT film in there screaming, kicking, clawing and endlessly nattering trying to get out but until he either gets an editor or someone cuts him down a peg or two, he's not going to make one again it seems.
As to whether I will ever watch another QT film in the cinema (I have seen every single one since Pulp Fiction) well when the next one comes out, if it's below 2hrs long then I'll think about it.
5 out of 10
This year was no exception.
Saturday December 22nd we strolled in and watched new Tom Cruise vehicle, Jack Reacher.
1) Action Cruise tends to be good Cruise and
2) Werner herzog as a Bond style villain with a comically milky eye.
Apart from those things I had fairly low expectations and they were further lowered when I was set upon on Twitter and told that it was a load of old rubbish and I should avoid it.
Well I'll tell you the problem with Jack Reacher the movie and no, Lee Child purists, it has nothing to do with Tom Cruise's height you bunch of negative whiny bitches. The problem with Jack Reacher the movie was the marketing. As always marketing companies (who should really change their name to mismarketing companies or talentless hacks, they can take their pick) have fouled this up and advertised it as a relatively dumb action film. This is to do the film a disservice as it has a clever witty script, it trundles along at a decent pace, the performances are excellent and it's a good old fashioned pulpy, unpretentious, wise-crakin', ass-whuppin' good time of a conspiracy thriller.
It has a twisty-turny-yet-fairly-obvious-if-you-know-how-these-things-go type story to tell and it gets in and out with no fuss. The action is good, clear, tight and to the point too with a great finale that manages to amuse, thrill and surprise in a satisfying way.
In the shadow of the events recently in Connecticut it's a little tricky in parts because it does fall squarely on the side of the right wing where guns are concerned but, to be fair, that is hardwired into its western style, dime novel sensibility.
Lastly the casting of Werner Herzog is a stroke of sheer genius, every word he utters (and that's not a lot as he doesn't have nearly enough scenes) is the sort of nonsensical yet deep sounding babble that drips from the Bavarian's lips as easy as if he were reading a shopping list. It's an absolute wonder to behold and, actually, a little went a long way where he was concerned, any more and it would've veered into really questionable and confusing Bond style villain antics and that would've derailed the simplicity and succinctness with which Christopher McQuarrie told the story.
The wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this, sorry if you didn't that is a real shame because this movie is fun, aware of its cliches but written well enough to not over play them.
8 out of 10
Next up was This is 40 on Dec 24th
Ok, let's get started. I have a love hate relationship with Judd Apatow. I love that he has made possible some really great comedy films and that without him comedy in the last 10 years might have been just whatever Tyler Perry finds funny this week but I hate Judd Apatow because of his clear belief that, in his own directed films at least, that he is some Woody Allen like exposer of deep truths and a witty commentator on the silly little flaws of human nature. I also hate him because he seems to think showing naked bits of people that are usually, thankfully covered up is somehow hilarious and daring... oh and he produces that shitfest of incessantly pointless whiny drivel and mind numbingly shallow pile of arse 'Girls'... oh and he puts his famous musician friends in movies... oh and he needs someone to tell him to fucking stop once in a while.
Lets make something clear, hardly any film needs to be over 2hrs long and certainly not a comedy. OK. There are only a handful of stories in the world and the art form of film used to have a 90min standard because it worked. If you can't tell your story in a three act structure over the course of 90 minutes then you really shouldn't be working in film. You want to ramble? write a book, do a podcast anything but make a movie, let alone a comedy movie that is LITERALLY ABOUT NOTHING.
Are there exceptions to the 90min rule? sure - plenty.
Is there wiggle room where a movie at 105mins or even 120mins can be good or better? of course
Can you name a time you laughed for longer than 90mins? Probably not very frequently and certainly not at this Crate & Barrel catalogue looking mound of beige whining arse.
In fact John Cleese, the far too psychologically minded member of Monty Python, once said that, on average, people can laugh happily for around 40 minutes and after that there better be some plot, action or emotion going on to maintain momentum into the third act. The easiest example of this is Four Weddings and a Funeral because you laugh at the first three weddings, then there's the quiet bit where you are a little sad at the funeral, then end strong with a big, funny ending that ties all the story-lines together.
The trouble with 'This Is 40' is actually not that it isn't funny, it's actually, in places, very funny and when it comes to actual funny lines it is funnier than Apatow's previous effort 'Funny People' but the problem is it's not about anything.
The movie starts and two very annoying, idiotic, pretty people who live in a wonderful home, spend money like it's going out of style and with two daughters who are far cleverer and less annoying than them, have two Dads both of whom fucked up their first marriage and are now living with second families with varying degrees of success. When the movie ends this is all still true, except that Leslie Mann's Dad, played by John Lithgow, is a little more sympathetic and that's it. Nothing is learnt, nothing has changed and no one has said to these two whiny, whingey, stupid people "Shut the fuck up and sort yourselves out!"
The performances are fine too, although Leslie Mann, because of her high pitched nasaly voice, gets to points in this film where I could've quite easily beaten her to death with a shovel but all round there's nothing really bad about the way it's acted or shot.
It's just we're talking about a film where two people, because of their woeful communication, utter inability to manage their money and staggering lack of personal awareness and insight decide that selling their beautiful home is the solution to their problems rather than, I don't know, not spending $12,000 on flying a band no one has ever heard of ever to play in a tiny bar, not spending $10,000 on a catered Birthday party and suing the pilled-up, drippy girl who just robbed them of another $10,000.
I don't care about any of the people in this film and if the ending was that they were all mowed down by a hail of machine gun bullets from the arseholes of 8ft robot destroyers it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest and, at least, it would've been an ending.
4 out of 10
Lastly, Django Unchained on Dec 25th
Then came Django Unchained. I have seen the original, Franco Nero starring, film which is an ambiguous, rambling, strange, pulp, cult spaghetti western and like it, for what it is.
So, there, a few sentences and you understand where I am coming from and can probably see I didn't enter the screening tonight with anything more than a glimmer of hope.
Well after what felt like 5hrs but was really, a still ludicrous, 2hrs 45mins later I left the cinema utterly frustrated because while half of me wants to scream, shout, break things and write Tarantino off completely as a tired, old, unoriginal, repetitive, long winded, self congratulatory, masturbatory hack, the other half of me found a lot to enjoy in this saga of a film.
Whichever way you slice it though, it's TOO DAMN LONG. It's not one film, it's about eight and like all of Tarantino's stuff it's ever so pleased with itself and the way it sounds. For the first 3 films Christoph Waltz wanders around with a case of, sometimes amusing but mostly incessant, verbal diarrhea and in the second 5 films he is joined in his eloquent verbiage by Leonardo DiCaprio. They both swan about spewing out endless dialogue for ages and ages and ages.
Then, after all the talk, there's lots of shooting and blood letting, just like there was at the end of the previous 7 films that make up Django Unchained and also at the end of Inglorious Basterds because, in the absence of plot or momentum, violence will do.
I felt like I was actually living the year that this film takes place in, every single day of it, every moment.
I firmly believe that Tarantino is so surrounded by sycophantic dribbling nerds in his infamous screening room in LA that no one has the balls to read one of his scripts and say to him "MAKE IT SHORTER" and no the answer, in this case, just like it wasn't for Kill Bill and isn't for the Hobbit, is not to make this two films, three films, eight films, whatever. It's to have an editor or a script doctor go over his work and tear vast useless chunks out of it and then say "there... go make that movie"
So enthralled is he with his own repetitive, obvious and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is dialogue that he believes every word must be left in, clearly! because, if not, explain to me how a fairly run of the mill rescue and revenge film takes almost 3hrs to finish.
Ok, so enough about the bloated running time, what about the whole 'making Django African American' thing, well considering the time period this film is set in (2 years before the civil war) it's an absolutely brilliant idea if he hadn't already done the same thing with the far superior Jackie Brown. Also, before everyone goes and gets confused, thinking that Django somehow has some big important statement to make about racism, slavery, hatred etc. it doesn't.
Honestly, it really doesn't.
I don't know about you but I didn't need 2hrs 45mins of N words and racist violence from Quentin Tarantino to know that slavery was wrong and despicable. Ok?
This is how the conversation went at Tarantino towers:
"The original Django is set just after the civil war and this is going to be a prequel. Well, you know how I like black people and am best friends with Samuel L Jackson? how about Django is black and we set it before the civil war... am I a genius or what"
That's it people, seriously.
If the film was more serious then I would completely take your point but, and I hate to sound like Spike Lee because he's an over reactionary idiot who needs to get over himself, sitting watching the film is a bit like watching a white guy relish getting away with a ton of harsh racist slurs and referencing things like Mandingo fighting while patting himself on that back for being oh-so-clever.
And on that subject, Tarantino, just because you know one German opera does not make you a cultural scholar, ok?! especially when you have so little faith in your own audiences intelligence that you spell out EXACTLY your incredibly obvious plot references.
Lastly, and then I'll get on to some good stuff about the film, Tarantino needs to pick: either you're making an exploitation film or you are making an epic western with a serious message. Never before have a mix of genres and styles from someone who is supposedly a master at it, been so all over the place.
Man it was a frustrating vast chunk of my time I will never get back.
On the good side the acting is showboaty but entertaining, the script has some genuinely funny and exciting moments and the direction, when he can be bothered, is decent. His use of titling and soundtrack however, is, by now, completely tedious and irritating.
The exploitation elements are fantastic, the gore is excessive, the gun play enjoyable and the odd comic asides, like a scene where early Klan members dispute their poorly made eyeholes in their hoods, are genuinely surprising and funny but would be perfect if included in an exploitation film length film.
Despite the length there was enough going on to keep me watching but it felt like plowing through a miniseries on a Sunday afternoon rather than watching a film. The cinematography was pleasing and there was some interesting use of the camera but if I am honest, I am struggling to come up with lots of really positive things about it.
We all know that Tarantino rips off other films but when he starts ripping himself off (the exploitation violence and Tarantino cameo of Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the African American switch from Jackie Brown, the epic length and revenge plot from Kill Bill, the shoot everything ending from Inglorious Basterds - shall I go on) it's maybe time someone call him on his bullshit.
All I can say is, despite how this review sounds, I didn't hate it and the things that are wrong with it come completely from Tarantino (and others) believing that his shit doesn't stink. There is a GREAT film in there screaming, kicking, clawing and endlessly nattering trying to get out but until he either gets an editor or someone cuts him down a peg or two, he's not going to make one again it seems.
As to whether I will ever watch another QT film in the cinema (I have seen every single one since Pulp Fiction) well when the next one comes out, if it's below 2hrs long then I'll think about it.
5 out of 10
David Fincher's Girl With A Dragon Tattoo - 20th December 2011
What are they doing there I hear you cry?
Well they are there to bring you this generation's Silence of the Lambs and what I mean by that is an outrageous pulpy lot of old implausible and predictable nonsense tarted up with a good director and some amazing performances to convince you with its moody poster and bleak landscapes it's really a classic work of art.
Except that it isn't. It's Midsomer Murders with a graphic and disturbing rape scene. It's a 3hr nordic Inspector Morse. It's Poirot with tits.
That this received an R rating where the sight of Michael Fassbender's old chap in Shame has garnered an NC-17 is, quite frankly bewildering. While I have no intention with this piece on spoiling anything about the plot, I would say this is not a film for the sensitive.
I came out of the film an hour ago and as the credits rolled I loved it. I thought it to be perfectly made, very well acted, beautifully shot and a good story, simply told but with Fincher's usual subtle attention to detail. All the richness you required just tantalisingly out of reach. The trouble is, on the walk home I talked myself into seeing all of its flaws.
The subject matter, basically a hunt for a killer, is a well trodden path for Fincher and this does have some repetition from, what I consider to be his masterpiece, Zodiac, except with Daniel Craig leaning and posing in a straight-from-a-magazine-photo-shoot stylishly sparse Swedish cottage wearing the latest Banana Republic 'cosy thinking man's range'. It was, however, infinitely more watchable than that tedious fleck of arse beard picking that was the Social Network.
Although I haven't read the book, I get the feeling that most of the problems I have with the film stem from the book and if there's any criticism to throw at Fincher and the screenwriter it's that they followed the whole thing too slavishly and meticulously. So no surprise there then.
There were certain scenes in it that were staggeringly graphic and disturbing but actually, with hindsight, did little to inform you about the character in question (the titular girl with the named mythical creature doodle) beyond 'she's cleverer, more resourceful and disturbed than you thought isn't she and don't worry she'll be fine for money for the rest of the film' and I am sure there is a better way to inform me of all of that than what you did show me which was excessive and perverse seemingly just for the sake of it.
In fact the entire vague back story of our Girl with the Dragon Tattoo can be summoned up by the title of the film. We know what we know about her because of the simplistic yet attempting to be mysterious things we are told and shown.
She has a dragon tattoo, relevent no? dark and edgy? not in the slightest most 12 year olds probably have a tattoo at this point, sounds mysterious and possibly Asian for the cover of your novel? BINGO! Instant hit.
From all my experience of pierced, ever changing goth haired, bi-curious, blank eyed, pale skinned, mopey girls who wear t-shirts with the words fuck on them while carrying around $1500 Apple laptops in their army-surplus black rough-weave back packs is that they are excessively dull and uninteresting people who listen to dreary music and have predictable Daddy issues. I thought we'd all moved on but no, here comes this story and despite it being acted the hell out of in a very brave and gripping way by relative newcomer Rooney Mara, as a character she is a strutting cliche of what middle class white guys THINK is edgy and interesting but really she probably smells like a rusty tap water soaked bath once used for making meth and drowning rats.
It's just all a bit obvious as is the 'internet solves and knows everything' and 'computers are capable of everything in the blink of an eye' writing that passes for detective work. It's all pointless anyway anyone who knows anything will have spotted the villain in the first 10 minutes of meeting them.
The whole film is covert misdirection on Fincher's part to convince you that what you are watching is deep, twisty and turny, dark and edgy, adult and loaded with meaning when really it is a simple murder mystery in a stately home with a family full of secrets that you'll see every week you tune into Lewis (or pick your mopey detective of choice). Thinking back on it now and the overly graphic scenes really did exploit me and left me feeling cheated because they actually didn't inform the overall story at all. There were little to no consequences (for her) during the rest of the film at all.
It was fine, it was good, it never felt slow to me and the 3hrs passed ok.
There are slight pacing issues as it has the multiple ending syndrome that plagues over-reaching nonsense like this and a montage at the very end feels rushed and inartistically put together compared with the rest of the film but that was small potatoes when viewing it as a whole. When Fincher puts his mind to a set piece he can accomplish interesting things with editing, juxtaposition and tension like no other, he needs to move away from these shitty scripts and do something that matches his intelligent, diligent and detailed approach.
Also why are some people doing accents and others aren't? is this all explained in the second book?
It's got to be better than Bryan Singer taking on a big budget film of Jack and the fucking Beanstalk, right??
7 out of 10 predictable yet beautifully tossed salads
Drive - 17th September 2011
So for almost a year this blog has been updated in the order that I saw the films but from now on, it will be updated when I have something to say.
So this brings me to Drive, which I have just seen and has inspired me big time to put my thoughts down now. For those who either haven't seen it or haven't read up on it, Ryan Gosling plays a quiet, enigmatic stunt driver who works movies by day and by night, literally, moonlights as a getaway driver.
We never find out why, nor does the movie ever fully explain it because that would have forced the writer to actually pen some dialogue. When we do get even the remotest bit of back story about any of the characters it is presented by one character wandering up to another and in a neat, concise monologue telling the person and us, the audience, basically just enough so we get the picture. It's a slightly obvious, ham fisted way of doing things.
Gosling becomes enamoured with Carey Mulligan and her son who live next door by way of a montage and some electronika musak. When her husband is released from jail and some of his old cronies come calling, Gosling takes it upon himself to help, the plan fails, everything goes from bad to worse and it's up to him and only him to ensure Mulligan and the kid's safety.
Sounds exciting, right? well it is and it isn't. Here is what I wrote the moment I got home:
"While I certainly didn't hate the movie and would still recommend everyone to go and see it I am just not sure I wasn't having the wool pulled over my eyes.
It was either a phenomenal piece of stylistic and understated brilliance with subtlety taking the place of script while also featuring some extreme and intentionally over the top and almost manga/cartoonish ultra violence; sort of like David Lynch meets The Coen's (actually Barton Fink came to mind) via Scorsese (part of the plot and character was pure Taxi Driver without the voice over and Albert Brooks' presence sort of confirmed it for me).
OR
It was the longest, most pretentious, stylistic mess (veering oddly from moments of quiet, oblique, impenetrable confusing silence to loud slow mo John Woo via Tarantino violence) that I have ever had the misfortune to sit through.
It certainly had me swinging from one opinion to the other all the way home and part of me was deeply angered by the film but then again it also left me feeling still, happy and weirdly relaxed.
Oscar contender by the new Lynch/Coen/Scorsese/Tarantino hybrid we've been waiting for in the sea of mundane and banal cinematic offerings of late or does the emperor have a new car?
YOU decide - go watch it, any film that makes me think this much and feel conflicted HAS to be worth the price of admission."
What I will say is this, the supporting cast are brilliant. Albert Brooks, Bryan Cranston and Ron Perlman all play their parts with as much relish as the non-existent script will allow.
Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan, however, fall into the same category as the film, are their incredibly understated, blank, mumbly performances work of amazing, burgeoning young talents? or are they both expressionless, bland, doe eyed frauds?I honestly just don't know and couldn't tell you.
It might have all been a dream.
It was an utterly frustrating experience writing this review but I really had to put it down on paper (so to speak).
Either 2 out of 10 or 8 out of 10 - I can't decide.
UPDATE: Ok, so it's a few days later - Tues 20th Sept to be precise and the whole internet it seems is clamouring to, pardon my expression, suck this films dick. Everyone is going crazy over the praise they give it.
Well that's fine, it's great people saw something in the cinema that for them was exciting and engaging. I would never criticise them personally for thinking what they want but the more people go on about it the more I have thought back over the film to see if there was something I missed because a lot of these people are my friends and I trust and respect their opinion.
Well sadly no, in fact the more I think about it the worse the film gets.
I am just going to say it because before I sort of held back because I was trying to give the film its due but it needs to be said: The script was weak and lazy. The exposition was heavy handed and there wasn't enough of it and the long, drawn out and repetitive silences to replace character exposition got really annoying and had me shifting in my seat wanting to scream at the screen "for fucks sake say something you droopy faced bastard!"
The performances of Gosling and Mulligan don't convince me either, yes they did develop chemistry, of sorts, through their long protracted doe eyed silences but beyond that, it was unrealistic. Real relationships, the sort we are meant to believe they have because the whole film's plot basically hinges on it, require a conversation. Just one or two. A word here or there would surfice but no, nothing, just a whole lot of gazing and a nondescript child is enough to make any lone man risk his life and the life of his only friend, we are meant to believe and I think Mulligan and Gosling do just enough so that people can't accuse them of not acting and for some to think their performances are understated genius but, to be honest, anyone can mumble through a role and the few sparks of energy he did have were few and far between.
Ok, though, let's move away from those two points, let's accept all that as fine, let's say it was more like a grindhouse film, many people have used the word retro (why? I don't know but let's go with it), let's say that the flimsy obvious exposition was on purpose, it certainly fits with the excessive and cartoonishly rendered blood letting and underworld crime theme.
Great, as a grindhouse film it's too long, too slow and with overt artistic pretensions and you can't have a film called Drive, go on and on about what a great driver this guy is and then in the one scene where it really counts (the getaway) have another car there that is as good and almost gets the better of them when it's only meant to be driven by some generic hoods.
So is it an art film with grindhouse pretensions or a grindhouse film with artistic pretensions? I mean at least when Tarantino tried to do retro with Dogs and Pulp especially he put in enough interesting dialogue and jokes to cover up what were huge obvious homages to other things and in fact when he makes a purposeful grindhouse film years later and even Inglorious Basterds after that (which is based on a 70s grindhouse action flick) they are the worse two films of his career.
I still don't mean to be too down on the film, it really was ok but it's a reaction to people going on about how brilliant it was. I am sorry but it really wasn't brilliant. It was ok. Maybe it really just is that people either haven't watched a film like this in a while or that all the other films they have seen recently have been so bad that this one sticks out amongst the shit. I don't know but I also don't believe in falling for hype or praising things unduly. Praise where praise is due: Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman and Bryan Cranston.
The cinematography wasn't bad either but it was uneven in places and the editing, again, wasn't too shabby except where they disjointedly slipped in long shots of silent night driving over and over again to try and infuse Ryan's bland performance with some sort of tortured depth. I get it! the guy feels more comfortable behind the wheel of a car where he is in control than in his own skin where he is not! I get it! I got it an hour ago! stop dragging the film out!
Sorry I am ranting again but this film is forcing me to. I don't know why but when I don't understand why people think it's a masterpiece I have to offer my counter argument. Sorry
Breakdown - 29th May 2011
Still back to playing catch up and reviewing the movies I have mostly had the pleasure to watch over the last month and a half.
We return with Breakdown which is a little remembered, predominantly road based, action thriller with the superb Kurt Russell going up against thieving murderous truckers headed up by the man who always relishes the chance to play evil, the late and most certainly great J.T. Walsh.
It has a simple set up, a hero you can root for a bad guy you love to hate, the action comes on thick and fast and it's a pretty fantastic viewing experience all round to be honest. The acting is top notch and the direction and production valuesare great and perfectly suited to the subject, which is odd because everything else Jonathan Mostow has done has been completely bilge.
Kurt blows the bland bad actor Chuck Norris, the Sluggish and lumbering Seagal and the incomprehensible and silly Van Damme out of the water in the action stakes. This film is very much in the same ball park as their outputs only better. Much better. It's the film all their films want to be.
Russell is not a kick boxer, he's not a martial artist, he's just an East Coast yuppie on his way out West pushed to extremes by some rednecks.
If you have ever been attacked (and I hope that you haven't) but after a couple of days of nursing bruises you start to picture what you would've done if only you had the guts or the opportunity, it's a very common scenario or if you have ever watched a horror or action movie and said 'now this is what I would do...' well this film lives out that wish fulfillment for you. That's its entire premise.
Forget these wannabe exploitation/retro/B-Movie action films of recent years that try so hard but 9 times out of 10 fail, Breakdown is the real thing, a simple action thriller that doesn't have to make everyone aware of it's 70s influences to be good, it just IS good. Now-a-days the only way to make a film like this again and for it to be any good is not to get Tarantino to do it but it would be to hire Jason Statham.
I would say this was the last great movie Russell has done, it happily stands alongside classics like Tombstone and Escape from New York for me, just obviously not as iconic but either way, well worth a watch.
9 out of 10 dusty road side cantina burgers
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
Source Code - 30th April 2011
Well, as I have said before, I am not sure Inception was quite as intelligent as everyone gave it credit for but in the first half of the year we have already had The Adjustment Bureau and now Source Code, both of which seem to come hot on Inception's tale dealing as they do with questions about what is real or not and alternate realities.
That is by no means to say that Source Code is an Inception clone or rip off, merely to imply that it is part of the first wave of more intelligent yet no less entertaining sci-fi thrillers to grace the silver screen since Inception's success.
Source Code's plot initially reads and actually plays like a really good Quantum Leap episode via Groundhog Day, but if Sam Beckett was played by someone with actual charisma or if Bill Murray had to stop lots of people from dying instead of convince Andie McDowell to love him.
It's about a soldier, Jake Gyllenhaal, who is part of some new technology which, just like Quantum Leap (complete with reflections in the mirror different to that of Gyllenhaal), allows him to be repeatedly dropped into the body of another man, for a small and set period of time, who is on a train, bound for Chicago, with a bomb on it. Gyllenhaal's task and he seems to have no choice in the matter whether he accepts it or not, is to, in this limited time period, find out where the bomb is and who planted it. The film then basically takes you through all the logical scenarios one might go through if actually in that situation and does so in such a way that, despite the repeated setting and conversations, it never gets tired.
It is also half way through the film when you suddenly realise the catch and the fact that the real mystery is where is Gyllenhaal's soldier really and what is actually going on.
The first thing I would say is how good Jake Gyllenhaal is in this movie. The last thing I saw him in was Love and Other Smugs and that was so bowel shatteringly awful I am not sure, with hindsight, how I made it through to the end without being sick but in Source Code he gives a believable, if occasionally overly earnest portrayal of exactly what you'd expect someone to go through if such a situation ever presented itself: disbelief, fear and, refreshingly, some humour.
Even the slightly unnecessary emotional journey that he goes on through the course of the film, to do with his father, is handled in a slightly more subtle way than usual and the whole film, pleasingly, has less heroics and more actual thought and detection in it. Which is odd because the marketing made it look like a stupid action film the likes of which Nic Cage would be better suited to, when in reality it is a proper, almost old fashioned slice of well realised science fiction.
So it was well written and very competently directed by Bowie Jnr, Duncan Jones, with nothing particularly flashy about any of it, just successfully performing the very difficult task of taking several strands of storyline, which take place over two very different and separate places in time, in what could of been a confusing and complex structure and making it all seem coherent, realistic, plausible and understandable. No mean feet, all things considered.
There were two aspects of the film that took a little bit of a Hollywood liberty and that had to do with the female leads in both sections of his story.
In the present world, Gyllenhaal is talked through his mission by a female military officer played by Vera Farmiga and, without giving too much away (MINOR SPOILER ALERT), it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination, that in the short time she has been working with him, he would be able to win over a trained soldier like her to put her job on the line for him like she does.
The same can be said for the Michelle Monaghan character in the past world, in the sense that, seeing as she only really gets to spend eight minutes total with the Gyllenhaal possessed version of her friend, that they end up where they do is a bit of a leap even if she was always leaning in that direction with her actual friend in the first place.
However, both the women perform their, little bit thankless, roles very well and sell, to the best of their abilities, the slightly tall order of the story.
A special mention goes to Jeffrey Wright who plays Dr.Rutledge, he is the head of and inventor of the project that is currently using Gyllenhaal, and he plays the part of a slightly fastidious, nerdy old man with a limp and slightly dubious morals with such relish that it is an absolute pleasure to watch.
It's rare these days that actors are asked or given the free reign to play parts a little slightly over the top, with maybe a funny voice or a quirky tic and when the best of them do, I could watch it all day.
It's difficult to discuss the film further without giving too much away, things like this really are better watched knowing as little as possible and I do urge you to go see it as I thought it was an engaging and enjoyable sci-fi romp with a little bit of naval gazing existentialism thrown in for good measure.
Out of the three so-called intelligent sci-fi thrillers that I spoke about at the beginning of the review, personally, I liked this one the best and would definitely watch it again.
8 out of 10
B-Movie Double Bill: It's Alive and Blazing Magnum - 4th March 2011
He stared out a writer and series runner for run of the mill TV Shows such as 'Branded' but when he did branch out into directing features it was with 'Black Caesar' one of the famous Blaxploitation films of the early 70s. It wasn't long after this and 'Hell Up In Harlem' that he penned and directed the demon baby classic that spawned not one but two sequels, 'It's Alive'.
Basically the film revolves around a family who own possibly the most ludicrously decorated 70s house ever, the mother tarts herself up to go into labour and the husband wonders around the hospital waiting room with other would-be Dads, smoking heavily and lending morons money for the vending machine. His wife then gives birth to a deformed, crazy baby that kills all the attending staff and escapes through the roof. Just another normal Friday night in a Larry Cohen film.
All this mutant baby hullabaloo leads the mother to be branded as crazier than bucket of miniature Piers Morgans, which, let's be fair, she is and she spends most of the rest of the film wondering around her home in an orange paisley nightie strobing with the olive green paisley wall paper while her husband, who is inexplicably fired from his job for having a ugly, violent offspring (surely that would result in 80% of the human race being unemployed but anyhew...), believes himself to be in a serious melodrama and, with the police, goes on the hunt for the demented sprog, over-acting his weirdly odd little face off.
The beginning and end of the film are rather exciting, dealing, as they do, with the birth of the malevolent little quisling and then of course the inevitable capture of the mutated, toothy brat. In the middle, however, not much happens. This is most likely due to budgetary restraints, as we hardly ever see more than just bits of the deformed, veiny headed, midget oik and it doesn't so much run amok as it does occasionally leap out of hedges and kill milkmen.
The film is played more as a family melodrama than an out and out horror and in order to drag the thing out to the requisite 90 minutes the police have to do ineptly stupid things like wonder into a school where they know it is for certain without turning any lights on, also it doesn't quite have the intelligence, beyond an obvious 'child-birth is hell' subtext, that it appears to be reaching for.
Still, that said, when watched with a rowdy group at a B-Movie night it's a bit of good fun and while it isn't exactly The Brood or Rosemary's Baby, it has it's own sort of demented charm and John P. Ryan, the lead actor is a pleasure to watch as he mugs and grimaces throughout the proceedings.
6.5 out of 10 very hammy sandwiches
Points from The Wife 6 out of 10
At first glance this is a B-Movie Dirty Harry rip off written and directed by some nutty Italians and filmed, no doubt for monetary reasons, in Montreal and it's interesting to note that everywhere but America sold it under names that hinted as such: Blazing Magnum, Tough Tony Siatta, The 44 Specialist and Big Magnum 77 (Which, in Britain, sounds like a new addition to the ice cream brand and everywhere else sounds like a ridiculously large sex aid). In America, however they sold it more as a horror/thriller, calling it 'Strange Shadows in an Empty Room' which I mention because, while there are certainly elements of Dirty Harry, Bullet and French Connection in there, the plot is also typical of Giallo, which is an Italian form of cinema, dabbled in most frequently by Dario Argento and his ilk, that deals with twisty turny murder and crime thriller stories, usually featuring nudity and gore, which Blazing Magnum has too, just not in abundance.
The truth of the matter is that it's a bit of both, part 70s, ruthless cop caper, part bizarre crime drama. It is curious and certainly interesting to note, however, that America and not Italy sold the film with a much more authentic Giallo sounding title and with a poster that depicts a blind woman and the feet of an obviously hanging corpse.
The plot, as far as I could figure it and not that it is relevant, had to do with a hardbitten detective, Stuart Whitman, whose wayward younger sister is killed at a party where she is being implausibly sleazed all over by Martin Landau's lips and, with John Saxon in tow, he must find out who killed her and why. Along the way they meet a blind girl, do battle with transvestites, lock up a doctor without any evidence, have one of the most ridiculous foot chases in the history of cinema, abuse possible suspects only to find they know absolutely nothing, turn up some information about some expensive and mysterious Oriental black pearls that may or may not be important, trash apartments, damage several cars during a chase sequence that is completely and utterly legendary, putting many modern big budget films to shame and, eventually, shoot down a helicopter over a city full of people with a hand gun.
In the end, the detective learns the deep, dark truth about his not so perfect sibling, they save blind Mia Farrow's sister and Martin Landau's lips are free to continue practicing medicine and dribbling all over healthy young co-eds. The city, I presume, foots the bill for all of Whitman's ridiculous and destructive crime solving methods.
So what we are talking about here is a film that has some of my favourite elements of all time: crime, mystery, horror, action, car chases, ridiculous one liners, stern men in brown 70s suits not taking shit from anyone all wrapped up in a crowd pleasing B-Movie bow. They honestly don't make them like this anymore, they would try but it would be hapless, self-referential, obvious, soulless pap and there'd be no slow motion shots of tits either.
Stuart Whitman's performance is a suitably snarling, gruff, heavy handed affair and as he is the only one with anything to do really, he makes the most of it. He seems to be literally one step away from actually chewing some scenery. John Saxon and Martin Landau, however, while it's always a bizarre pleasure to see them in a mad movie like this, don't have a whole lot to do at all and the less said about the somewhat drip-tasticly bland and weak performance of Tisa Farrow the better.
It is just a fantasticly ludicrous film, with absolutely no real morality (except it's wrong to kill Whitman's sister), a good dollop of over the top, brilliantly done action and a phenomenal 70s soundtrack complete with a funky full orchestra, perfect to watch in a group as a seriously amusing evening's entertainment but I suspect also a bit of fun as a Sunday afternoon action caper to watch by yourself.
The real shame is that it only seems to exist in a bad video to DVD transfer on the "Grindhouse Experience, Vol.2 Box Set" someone needs to do a special edition of this, possibly as a double bill with Gone With The Pope. It has completely whetted my appetite to just hunt down and watch more and more of these brilliant, old, curious B-Movies.
I will arrange another night like this one soon I think!
9 out of 10 gravelly voice creating shots of hard liquor
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10
Unknown - 21st February 2011
Gun in hand, check.
European city, check.
Women in peril, check.
The poster even has the word take on it for cocks sake!
Do you think the people who marketed this movie had seen Taken's box office results?
Proving once and for all that marketing people are completely worthless shit-heels with no grasp on reality, here comes an ad campaign and a poster purely designed to get bums on seats that opening weekend by convincing us all that, essentially, Taken 2 is out, after which, once word of mouth spreads about what a disappointing, sub-par Bourne rip off, Euro-thriller snoozefest this whole mess of a film is, I will imagine there will be considerably less bums on seats come next weekend.
Without giving too much away, Neeson comes to Berlin with January Jones and leaves his suitcase at the airport. On his way back to get the suitcase the cab he is in crashes, plunges into the river, he goes into a coma, wakes up 4 days later and nobody will acknowledge who he really is. It is now up to Neeson to find out who he really is and to stop the bad guys. Only he doesn't really do that, he sort of wonders about not doing very much, screaming at the police to have total strangers arrested.
It's an absolutely ludicrous set up but instead of being played with an action, b-movie, shits and giggles sensibility it is instead played like a ponderous, straight faced, tedious re-telling of the Bourne Identity, in fact in Germany it is actually called "Unknown Identity"!.
In the beginning I personally didn't mind it all so much, Neeson's always fun to watch and the appearance of Bruno Ganz is always a welcome adition because not only is he a terrific actor, his face is also pleasingly ridiculous but to have him as an ex-stazi gumshoe was pretty inspired, the movie should've been called "Bruno Ganz knows who you are and if he doesn't right away, he will!"
Sadly this promising premise gave way to Neeson's most goggle-eyed, hammy acting since Darkman as he followed a bloated looking Aidan Quinn, of all people, round Berlin shouting at him. Apparently when Hollywood can't get Neeson or they want someone to play 'the other Neeson' they flick through the rolodex and say in a loud American voice 'Get me Aidan Quinn!!'
I did go with it all, as best I could, during this first viewing but by the time the fairly obvious yet whoringly implausible twist rears it's bedraggled head and I realised what I was actually watching, it did loose me. Big time.
It's one of those films that very VERY quickly after it's done you can pull it a part in a manner of seconds. The plot unravels quicker than a cheap woolen jumper and it suddenly dawns on you that nothing makes any sense and it's all hung by the very flimsiest of threads. To go into why here would necessitate not only revealing vast chunks of plot but also writing a ton of wasted paragraphs explaining why a not very good thriller is just that, a not very good thriller. Then when you throw in the fact that from Total Recall to the Bourne films via any number of straight-to-TV movie of the week offerings, you have pretty much seen this all before, it begins to leave a very bad taste and be a rather disappointing experience in general.
You see, I don't mind a hokey, silly thriller full of unbelievable nonsense if it's played like that, if everyone is obviously there for the fun hokeyness of it. As it is everyone in this flick thinks they're making an incredibly tense and serious art film or something as it contains more crinkled brows and quizzical looks than a meeting of 75 year old nuns being shown an episode of Footballer's Wives, the only person who escapes with a modicum of dignity is Herr Ganz.
A disappointing 5 out of 10 bland and soggy bratwursts
Points from The Wife 5 out of 10