Robocop (2014)

Formulaic and derivative actioner which lacks the bite of the original, and for which there was no need.

Where was the tongue in cheek jibe at modern day excesses? Where was the finger given to the MTV (I guess now YouTube) generation? Where was the commentary on the fact that huge corporations are inherently evil? Paul Verhoeven’s original had all this and more.

For one, it had a believable lead role, not even Michael Keaton or Gary Oldman could rescue this. Jackie Earle Haley’s character was fun, but Samuel L Jackson’s talk show spots didn’t really work as a prop to hang the plot on.

Not to mention that the way that Alex Murphy becomes Robocop has changed, the EDs are never explained – they’re just there, and Robocop never says “Serve the public trust, protect the innocent, uphold the law.”

I suppose comparisons with the original are unfair and shouldn’t really be made; but when a “reboot” is this poor it’s hard not to. A missed opportunity, and a waste of everyone’s time.

Waterworld (1995)

So, one of my New Year's Resolutions, well challenge really, is to watch a film relevant to specific dates. Eg, Halloween on Halloween, V for Vendetta on 5th November etc. I fear the hard part will be trying to track these films down.

Just watched Waterworld which I thought was appropriate to all the water in Aberdeenshire just now.

So, here is my list. Any other suggestions for my list would be appreciated.

http://letterboxd.com/filmsrruss/list/significant-dates-2016/

And now my thoughts on Waterworld.

Kevin Costner is Robin Cod, Prince of Waves in Mad Max on water: Beyond the Floodedzone.

Would you like to know more?

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

Klaatu, barada, nikto

Far from the CGI-heavy, plot-light 2008 version, this 1951 Sci Fi classic is a character-driven critique of cold war paranoia and burgeoning environmentalism.  Unfortunately due to its age it also slightly suffers from the shoot first ask questions later mentality that plagues movies of this era; though certainly not a deal-breaker in such a fine film.

Following Klaatu (Michael Rennie) as he learns about the human race, our insecurities, our aggression and our reckless treatment of our planet is really a window into 50s American society.  It’s quite striking how on the one hand the inhabitants of the B & B in which Klaatu stays accept him unquestioningly and let him look after the young lad, but at the same time everyone is mistrustful of strangers who might be a “Red”.  To be fair, the film doesn’t shy away from these issues; the Secretary of State admits to Klaatu that the “world is full of tensions and suspicions”; and indeed like all good Sci-Fi, the movie highlights our politics and society.

Tomorrowland: A world Beyond (2015)

From the director of Ghost Protocol and The Incredibles comes a film which celebrates the fact that the future will depend on dreamers, inventors, artists; generally creative types.  And I think that this should be applauded.  However, for a film about the future and its endless possibilities, Tomorrowland shows a distinct lack of imagination.  OK, so the future looks kinda cool, at least for the dozen people that seem to live there, but the execution of the film was just boring.

Resident Evil (2002)

Resident Evil isn’t the first film based on a computer game, and in 2002 is wouldn’t be the last; not least because of the various sequels of this particular franchise.  Tomb Raider (2001) had its merits, though the sequel Cradle of Life (2003) didn’t.  I seem to remember the only good thing about Doom (2005) was the first person shooter moment that Karl Urban has, which is really what Doom was all about anyway.  In this illustrious company Resident Evil doesn’t exactly stand out, but it also doesn’t fall into the mire of awful adaptations (I’m looking at you Streetfighter).

The setup to the film works really well.  Umbrella is a huge corporation that owns so many products that 90% of homes contain something made by them; additionally they have huge lobbying clout.  So, Unilever or Nestle then.  Of course the real work of Umbrella is military hardware, illegal and morally questionable genetic research.  So, Dow, Monsanto or any Western government then.  Sorry, I’ll stop being so political.  Essentially, the idea of an ethically suspect multinational is just as relevant today as it was in 2002.

Science in the Movies

As scientists we get a pretty hard time of it.  If we’re not struggling for publishable results, or being misquoted in the press about our research; then we’re being portrayed as über-geeks in The Big Bang Theory or with cinema-screen foreheads and clipboards in adverts (I’m looking at you Tefal).  Some of my non-science friends still call me boffin. If that isn’t enough, our subject matter, our interest, nae, our passion can be treated with such cavalier contempt in films.

As I see it, there are several issues to address here.  There is a fair amount (as you might expect) of bad science in movies; however there is also some good science (or at least the director has made an attempt to grasp some basics).  Quite often the scientist is the voice of reason (though the incidence of anyone paying them any attention is rather less); more often than not however, the mad scientist is the preferred flavour.  Finally I shall give some thought to the stereotypes that are perpetuated in the movies and whether there is any likelihood that it may change.

Interstellar (2014)

Does it say something about my taste in movies that the two movies I really wanted to see this year were purely because of the director?  The first was Godzilla.  I was so impressed by Gareth Edwards’ debut Monsters (2010) that I was really excited with what he’d do with Japan’s most famousest monster.  The only other film on my definite hit list was Interstellar.  I’ve been a fan of Christopher Nolan ever since I first saw Memento (2000) and was desperate to see a film of his out in space; especially since Gravity (2013) blew me away last year.  I wasn’t disappointed.

I should point out that there are a couple of spoilers in this review.  I generally try not to spoil anything in my writing, but if you’re anything like me, you won’t read anything to do with a film that you want to see and form your own opinion on.  So, to infinity and beyond!

Quatermass and the Pit (1967)

Making my way through my Hammer boxed set, I’ve discovered some real gems (Plague of the Zombies, The Nanny), but also some fairly forgettable productions (The Reptile, She).  Oops, I’ve said this before!  I really shouldn’t repeat myself.  Oops, I’ve said this before!  I really shouldn’t repeat myself.  Quatermass and the Pit definitely falls into the second of these categories.  Other than the novelty of seeing a very young Grand Maester Pycelle, there is nothing that really stands out.

The eponymous Professor Quatermass (Andrew Kier) has been tasked to help Colonel Breen (Julian Glover) with the development a new rocket programme.  Their first collaboration is interrupted when they call by to check on an incident in Hobb’s End underground station.  They soon unearth an alien spacecraft; a craft that has been there a very long time.

Director Roy Ward Baker (A Night to Remember, 1958), is a steady pair of hands which are never-the-less tied by a forgettable story and wandering plot.  There is the interesting idea that the human race is a result of experiments carried out on our ancestors by the insectoid Martians 5 million years ago (a theme also explored the following year in 2001: A Space Odyssey), but the concept of the race memory is a step too far.

Sure, I like the way that the opinion of the scientists are trusted, and the fact that we see some lab research (spurious science notwithstanding).  But nothing memorable happens, apart from a very rushed ending involving a floaty psychic alien (ghost?) thing which is destroyed by crashing a crane into it!  Perhaps not exactly a Deus ex machina, the resolution only occurs to Quatermass in the final few minutes of the film.

I realise that in terms of special effects, a Hammer production can’t really compete with those of Planet of the Apes or 2001: A Space Odyssey (both of which were released the following year), but I feel those in Frankenstein Created Woman (1967) or even The Plague of Zombies from the the previous year are better than the cardboard insects on offer here.

Generic thriller sci-fi with little to recommend it, or indeed little to remember.  Competently directed with a good cast and some nice ideas in the story, let down by some more ridiculous ideas and some spectacularly bad special effects.  In fact the most interesting thing could be this line from the parents guide in IMDB: “The giant locusts could be frightening to some viewers even though they are dead”.  Locusts or viewers?  Says it all.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Forbidden Planet (1956)

The central premise of Forbidden Planet, that there is a darkness in all of us, lends itself perfectly to Sci-Fi; but for all the excellent sets and realised alien landscapes, I thought that I would have been more whelmed!

It was not the ravages of time that got to me (though it was particularly un-dynamic the way everyone shot at the Disney-rendered monster), rather that I just didn't buy the key relationship.  Of course Robbie the Robot is the real star of the show, his whirring and blooping is completely brilliant and the real stuff of Sci-Fi legend.  Walter Pidgeon is good as the stand-offish Dr Morbius and Anne Francis is suitably naive and uninhibited as Altaira.  An unrecognisable Leslie Nielsen is uncharismatic as Commander Adams, and it is the relationship between him and Altaira that just wasn't believable.  And that's rather crucial in terms of plot resolution.

This, and a rather ponderous tour of some excellent Krell technology means that Forbidden Planet fell short in my expectations of this cult classic.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

War of the Worlds (1953)

I'm sure that War of the Worlds is a story familiar to most, whether from H G Wells' novel, the various radio broadcasts, this interpretation or Spielberg's updated version (2005).  What's great about this version, directed by Byron Haskin, is the sense of helplessness of the humans.  No matter which approach is tried: reasoning, scientific or military; it all comes undone, either by the Martians or ourselves.  Additionally, the sounds created are iconic, in particular the weird pulsing noise that the 'eye' makes, just before it disintegrates someone.

There is always an undercurrent of religiosity, as I think was deemed necessary by movie studios in 50s Sci-Fi.  Most obvious is that love interest Sylvia’s uncle is Pastor Matthew Collins (though the poor guy’s attempt to to “come in peace” while carrying his Bible high is meet with disintegration).  There is also the comment that the aliens could take over the world in 6 days (from this arbitrary point after several days of destruction already) which leads Sylvia to comment that this is as many days as it took to create it!  The climax of the film sees Dr Forrester running from church to church to try and find Sylvia, and in the final narrator’s voice over tells us that the “Martians were destroyed and humanity was saved by the littlest things, which God, in His wisdom, had put upon this Earth.”

Great to see that the main character is a scientist who everyone respects (he was even on the cover of Time magazine), and the military doesn’t automatically shut him out.  And the scientist gets the girl!  Of course even though the scientists are integral to the fight against the Martians, they fall foul of the the public as they panic and commandeer their vehicle, destroying lots of important equipment as they do it.

Not as spectacular as Spielberg's 2005 version, but far more character-driven and no less threatening with a great atmosphere, helped by an introduction making us feel rather insignificant in the Solar System, and some brilliant sound effects.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Ghostbusters (1984)

30 years on there's not much I can say about Ghostbusters that hasn't already been said, so I'm going to say it with tweets instead.

Listen! Do you smell something? #Ghostbusters
— FlimsrRuss (@FilmsrRuss) June 14, 2014

It's been a long time since I saw Ghostbusters (though I'm sure I've seen it since I first saw it in the Wrexham Hippodrome in 1984), and I don't think I'd appreciated before how funny the throwaway comments were.  There's the obvious "If someone asks you if you're a God, you say YES!", but it's the little (mostly Bill Murray) quips that embellish the already great film.

Back off. I'm a scientist! #Ghostbusters
— FlimsrRuss (@FilmsrRuss) June 14, 2014

Though there are four Ghostbusters, and despite being written by Akroyd and Ramis, this is really Bill Murray's film.  His performance is superbly dead-pan and he clearly had so much fun with Peter Venkman.  The role was initially written for John Belushi, but it's hard to see how anyone could brought the film alive as much as Murray.

Aim for the flattop! #Ghostbusters
— FlimsrRuss (@FilmsrRuss) June 14, 2014

From flattops and large glasses to Rick Moranis' yuppy stereotypes and Ray Parker Jr.'s theme tune, Ghostbusters really embraces it's 80s style.

I feel like the floor of a taxicab! #Ghostbusters
— FlimsrRuss (@FilmsrRuss) June 14, 2014

We don't. We feel exhilarated, alive and thoroughly entertained.  The fun of the film is infectious, and I can remember coming out of the theatre feeling like I could take on the world.

 

I love this town! #Ghostbusters
— FlimsrRuss (@FilmsrRuss) June 14, 2014

Winston's final exclamation is the perfect release for the dramatic finale and sums up what an exiting and fun adventure it has been.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Reanimator (1985)

If Frankenstein was the modern Prometheus then Reanimator is the modern Frankenstein.  Except that the hard work has been done and all Dr West has to do is inject some luminous yellow liquid into the brains of dead people to bring them back to life.

Based on H P Lovecraft's story Herbert West: Reanimator, the film is very much in the 80s splatter movie style of Scanners (1981), The Evil Dead (1981) or Bad Taste (1987).  Full of Dark humour and quite outrageous scenes, Reanimator is great fun despite being essentially daft and looking rather dated.  The special effects, however, don't look dated.  In the great tradition of practical horror (American Werewolf in London (1981), The Thing (1982), Evil Dead or Evil Dead 2 (1987) and even Aliens (1986)) the effects are all tremendously gooey and as far as I can tell all done in camera, which all adds to the fun.

Perhaps not so horrific by today's standards, Reanimator is more of a Sci-fi romp than anything else, more frenetic than atmospheric; but this doesn't detract from it at all.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Godzilla (2014)

To be honest it wasn't the fact that Godzilla was being remade that I was bothered about, it was that Monsters (2010) director Gareth Edwards was making it.  Monsters is easily one of the more interesting, atmospheric and thought-provoking sci-fi films of recent years (along with the superb District 9, 2009), and the guerilla seat of the pants production made it all the more impressive.

One of the key themes of Monsters is that nature should be allowed to take its course, and none of the creatures are naturally aggressive; it is only when humans attack them that they retaliate.  In one of the final scenes, two monsters are engaged in a display of courtship, and the two main characters (the only two characters!) appreciate how beautiful these beasts actually are.  This idea of nature being left alone is revisited in Godzilla, eloquently put by Ken Watanabe's character: "The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in their control, and not the other way around".

And herein lies a flaw in the film.  Laudable as it is to let nature get on with it, this translates into Godzilla and his antagonists having an almighty smack down in the middle of San Francisco, destroying half the city (a contractual obligation in these sorts of movies nowadays it seems) and all the human characters are completely inconsequential.  The military have plans involving nukes, but are frustrated at every turn; and though a human element is introduced as (having just watched his father die) soldier Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) is trying to get home to his wife (Elizabeth Olson) and son; but it's all fairly banal.

This isn’t to say that I didn’t enjoy it, because I really did.  Gareth Edwards is a creative director and there were several stylish moments that had no particular reason to be, they just serve to enhance the film.  He also manages to create a sense of tension on several occasions, even though we essentially know how things are going to pan out.  Consider the scene where Ford Brody and the other marines are HALO jumping; we see the character’s claustrophobic eye view through the mask, seeing only snippets of the monster and the devastation below, all the time hearing only his breathing.  Simple, yet effectively done.  Rather than do his own cinematography, this time Edwards managed to secure the services of Seamus McGarvey (Atonement, 2007; Avengers, 2012), and consequently the film looks suitably atmospheric; nicely contrasting the dusty orange glows of a city being destroyed with the bright clear lines of the military installations.  Adding to the atmosphere is a pretty great score from Alexandre Desplat, which is suitably big and thumping.

I also really liked the traditional design of Godzilla, reminiscent of the 50s and 60s Japanese movies and indeed the cartoon I remember watching when I was a kid.  I also like the design of the two MUTOs, I thought they were very much like the Klendathu “Bugs” from Starship Troopers.  There is therefore much to enjoy and celebrate in Godzilla, not least that Gareth Edwards demonstrates that Britain continues to produce some excellent directors; and the fact that the human element is rather inconsequential (other than a mechanism for us to witness the events) isn’t enough to reduce the impact of this Gojira.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

In all honesty, The Winter Soldier wasn't one of the two films I was looking forward to seeing this year.  But since its enforced hiatus, Agents of SHIELD has been really good, so I was really wanting to know how the latest movie fit in.

I've not been aware of anything else that the Russo brothers have done, and, apart from the sequence on the ship at the start of the film which gave me a headache because the camera was all over the place, the direction was fine.  Nothing particularly fancy or inventive, but not ham fisted either.  Just fine.  However, the direction was probably helped by a great story.

I'm certainly not a Marvel fanboy, though I have recently been sucked into this Universe.  I guess that may make me slightly biased, but I've probably only been sucked in due to the, generally, great quality of the films.  With that in mind; I thought the plot couldn't really be much better.  It hit all the right points, tied in nicely with Agents of SHIELD, answered the questions I had, raised new ones, subtly referenced the other Avengers films and even Pulp Fiction!  Sure there were a few plot fail moments, but they can be easily forgiven.

For their part, the cast all hit the right notes too.  Chris Evans has the right chiselled jaw to be the all American hero and the chops for all the action too.  He may be becoming typecast as a superhero, but while he’s doing it, he’s doing a grand job.  Scarlett Johansson reprises her Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow role and is just as kick-ass as she is in The Avengers; very good.  Joining these two is Anthony Mackie (took me ages to figure out why I recognized him: The Hurt Locker, 2008; The Adjustment Bureau, 2011) who becomes a significant ally as The Falcon.  He’s fine, but doesn’t seem as natural in a full on sci-fi actioner such as this.  Surrounding the main three is an impressive array of talent including Toby Jones, Cobie Smulders, Robert Redford, and of course Samuel L. Jackson.  Also good to see Alan Dale pop up again, clearly it’s been a while since he was onscreen as a high-ranking pulling-the-strings character.

Naturally, a film such as this is heavy on the special effects, and they are top-notch, as would be expected from ILM.  I can imagine there are sequences that were done digitally which could have been done in camera, though you don’t notice at all.  The only obvious moment was the youngification of Captain Rogers, but I thought it looked superb; perhaps not the Winkelvii from The Social Network, but better than Jeff Bridges in Tron: Legacy.

I think the only Henry Jackman score I’ve heard would be X-Men; First Class, but I can’t remember that at all.  I felt that this score was equally subtle to the point of absence; I’m sure it worked perfectly within the movie, but I didn’t notice it at all.

I thought Captain America: The Winter Soldier was a great adventure and terrific fun.  A great cast which work well together, interesting story and great production all round, continuing the Marvel Cinematic Universe trend.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

In-Flight Movies (2014)

I was very fortunate to be able to go to New Orleans for a conference last month.  It took three flights to get there, but as one of them was transatlantic, I got the rare opportunity to watch several films.  Now, back in 2011 I had been very impressed with the choice of in-flight movies that KLM had to offer.  We flew KLM on our return journey, and though the choice was good, I was staggered (really staggered, it was incredible) by the choice that Delta had on the way out to the US.  I could have watched Gravity, or Desolation of Smaug, or Walter Mitty, or Thor: The Dark World!  I think there were literally hundreds.  But I decided on some of the lesser yet still incredible films.  But if this flight was anything to go by, I always want to fly Delta to the States.

Chronicle (2012)

Chronicle is not like other superhero movies; actually I don't think the characters are superheroes at all, rather they have superpowers.  After the discovery of some weird alien crystals, 3 friends soon find, after blacking out, that they have mysterious powers (think Force pull/push).  Naturally the first thought is not to use these powers to benefit mankind, but to do what any teenage boy would in this situation: abuse it for their own entertainment!  This is where the film is strongest, and certainly the most entertaining; perhaps it's because I'm a bloke but I could completely relate (I think empathise is too strong) to the sense of awe and excitement that the 3 main characters feel.  By the climax of the film this sense of wonder has been replaced by a requirement for the film to actually go somewhere, which (like Angry Birds, is hilariously fun initially but becomes a bore as you try to get maximum points) isn't so interesting.  But I can understand why.  The main 3 lads are fine, as I say, as I was able to relate to them; anyone else was really incidental.  The special effects are all great, very understated in a Monsters kind of way, used to bring the story to life and concentrate on the characters rather than overwhelm it with CG.  Chronicle doesn't do anything spectacular, but it's very cool, great fun and entertaining nonetheless.

Oblivion (2013)

Oblivion is one of the many films I wanted to see last year, but I just didn’t get the chance.  I’d heard mixed responses to the film so I was keen to take a gander myself.  Tom is usually good to watch, and Oblivion is no different.  Morgan Freeman is the other big name, but I felt he was mostly wasted, rather like in Wanted.  Andrea Riseborough is good as Victoria, the soulless robotic woman who is Tom’s partner, and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Jamie Lannister) is fine as Morgan Freeman’s head of security without really being able to excel as he does in GOT.  The design was terrific and the effects were top notch, though overall I thought the film was missing something.  All the best Sci-Fi has something to say about human nature, and I'm just not sure what this was saying.  Maybe it's because it borrowed from some of the best Sci-Fi: there were definite strains of Planet of the Apes, Moon, Logan's Run and perhaps even Silent Running; the result is quite a mish mash of themes.  A very enjoyable film (with an excellent soundtrack), just lacking that little bit extra to make it a really good film.

The World's End (2013)

Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are two fabulous movies from the minds of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, the so-called blood and ice-cream movies.  Now along comes The World’s End to complete the Cornetto Trilogy.  With possibly the most star-studded cast of the trilogy (featuring Martin Freeman, Rosamund Pike, David Bradley, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan and Pierce Brosnan among others) the movie remains true to Wright’s roots and is quintessentially British.  Simon Pegg’s character is the driving force of the movie but the interaction between the whole group of friends is excellent, though this estimable ensemble results in the usually brilliant relationship between Pegg and Nick Frost being diluted a little bit.  The truth about the residents of Newton Haven doesn’t sit quite as naturally as a plague of zombies or an extreme neighbourhood watch; but once, introduced the idea works well, and certainly won’t get in the way of Pegg’s character finishing that pub crawl.  Perhaps not as incessantly clever, inventive and relentlessly funny as it’s predecessors, The World’s End is still tremendous fun and of course features ice-cream, falling over fences and a pub brawl.

12 Years a Slave (2013)

Perhaps not fully appreciated on a small screen set in the back of the chair in front, but it was still possible to appreciate the horror that plantation slaves had to endure daily.  This abhorrent episode in human history is captured not only in some horrible scenes of trading the human cargo but also by a couple of stand-out gruesome torture scenes.  Steve McQueen lets the camera linger on one of these moments, prolonging the agony while the audience is desperate for it to stop.  The opposite is true for the other awful scene as the camera is whipped around between victims and perpetrators, echoing both Chiwetel Ejiofor’s state of mind as well as the torture itself.  Surrounding the excellent Ejiofor is tremendous support including Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, Benedict Cumberbatch and Lupita Nyong’o (Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress).  A lot happens for a film just over two hours long, but it never feels rushed, which is a testament to both the screenplay and the direction.  An excellent and important film which I must revisit on a screen worthy of its power.


But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

The Running Man (1987)

The Running Man is a brilliantly 80s take on America's addiction to TV, so it's somewhat appropriate that it's directed by a TV star: Dave Starsky from Starsky and Hutch.  Paul Michael Glaser has made quite a daft film, with a definite Paul Verhoeven vibe, but is none the less great fun.  Preceding the likes of Battle Royale (2000) and The Hunger Games (2012), The Running Man is a gameshow (the world’s most popular TV programme) rather like Gladiators, except with more fatalities.

Originally penned by Stephen King, and adapted for the screen by Steven E. de Souza (Commando and Die Hard), the movie actually has more going on than you might expect; though I’m not sure how faithful the film is to King’s source material.  In a world of increased crime & violence, the government sees no option but to fight fire with fire, cracking down on criminality with belligerent and enthusiastic ruthlessness.  Of course they don’t care how many innocents are shot as long as they get their man; collateral damage eh?  As well as the more obvious sideswipe at The United States of Television, the totalitarian state also does a mean job in re-writing history a la 1984.  Naturally the media is crucial in enforcing this pseudo-reality so that the general public swallow everything.

Arnie is Arnie; a great action hero with some typically cringeworthy kiss off lines and lots of running.  Yaphet Koto is rather wasted as Arnie's friend who predictably gets thrown into the arena and suffers.  Maria Conchita Alonso is functional enough as the victim turn heroine/love interest, but the most interesting character is the TV presenter Damon Killian.  As presenter of the TV show The Running Man, he is smarmy, arrogant and convinced he is in the right, giving the people what they want.  Personified perfectly by Richard Dawson he really is what the film is worth watching for.  That and some cameos by Jesse Ventura, and bizarrely Mick Fleetwood and Dweezel Zappa!

By no means a fantastic film, but enough going on under the surface to prevent it from being completely brainless.  Apart from KIllian, the characters are all predictable and could be copy/pasted from any number of 80s actioners, but then that’s the joy of 80s Arnie, isn’t it?  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Priest (2011)

Historically Scott Stewart is more involved with visual effects as a cofounder of The Orphanage (credits include Sin City (2005); Pirates of the Caribbean (2006 & 2007) and Iron Man (2008)), but increasingly he is spending time in the director’s chair.  Priest is his third feature film and is very loosely based on the graphic novels written by Hyung Min-Woo.  Not the first film to be based on a graphic novel by any stretch, and I'm sure it won't be the last.  However, it is one of the few movies that I can think of that actually features a cartoon; Hellboy 2 being another obvious example.

The exposition cartoon at the beginning is very stylish, very cool and gave me hope that the rest of the film would be similarly stylised, and perhaps to an extent it was; but for all the great ideas, the movie is disappointingly flat.  It essentially boils down to a revenge movie of sorts, but it could have been so much more.  What saves it from being dreadful are the technical achievements.  I really liked the harsh, high contrast of the badlands which were reminiscent of Pitch Black (2000) and generally the cinematography by frequent Robert Zemeckis collaborator Don Burgess is great (also responsible for lensing the harsh look of The Book of Eli (2010)).  I also liked the idea that the vampires were a race themselves and didn't just suck blood of of their prey, they tore them apart!

Paul Bettany was fine, as was Cam Gigandet.  Christopher Plummer and Alan Dale both phone in their cameo performances.  As did Karl Urban, but his character just reminded me of Rattlesnake Jake from Rango!  Some great ideas (the premise is more interesting than the source material sounds!), I just think that the film falls short of what it aimed to be.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

If only...

Gravity (2013)

Sci fi is always most effective when it says something about the human condition.  Whether it’s fear of new powerful technology (2001: A Space Odyssey; 1968, and Westworld; 1973), environmental concerns (Silent Running; 1972), or the fear of male rape (Alien; 1979).  In the case of Gravity, the themes explored are of human fortitude in extreme isolation, and how terrible circumstances can be overcome.  These are by no means unheard of situations as told in the true stories of Aron Ralston trapped alone in a Utah canyon in 127 hours (2010); Joe Simpson left for dead on a mountain in Patagonia (Touching the Void; 2003) or the Antarctic expedition of Ernest Shackleton as portrayed by Kenneth Branagh in the TV movie Shackleton (2002).  The fact that we can relate to Dr Ryan's predicament (less mainstream than hiking in the desert or climbing a mountain) I think is a testament to writer/director Alfonso Cuarón.

Of course the most striking aspect of the film are the visuals, and they are simply stunning.  The first shot, the one that lasts 20 minutes, is simply phenomenal.  There are some tremendous continuous scenes in Children of Men (2007), and also some clever camera work in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004), but in Gravity, Cuarón’s vision is out of this world.  These extremely long takes I think really help the story.  In that first shot, Alfonso gives us the backdrop, introduces the principle characters, gives us the background to a potential problem, and then bang!  It happens, and we are spinning off into space.  The fact that it's all one shot, apart from being amazing, makes us feel like the director is holding our hand and guiding us slowly through an environment with which we are not completely familiar.  I think this makes the film far more accessible and coherent than it would if there were lots of fast edits; Gravity is far more elegant.

Needless to say Clooney is great, his suave persona is perfect for Matt Kowalski, the astronaut who stays calm and initially takes control of the situation.  Arguably one of the best achievements of Gravity is the discovery that Sandra Bullock can carry a film almost by herself.  Dr Ryan Stone is almost the opposite of Kowalski, nervous, initially unsure of anything outside her comfort zone and sometimes has trouble keeping her food down on a spacewalk.  We can all relate to this, and Bullock epitomises this unease brilliantly.  She slowly realises that she is capable of taking control of her situation, and while she isn’t ballsy like Ellen Ripley, she is determined enough to do what she has to.  I don’t claim to know all of Bullock’s roles, but I don’t think that she often gets to do anything this intense; except for perhaps Crash (2004), so I was very impressed with her here.

Gravity is proper edge of the seat stuff, there are few films that engross the viewer as much as this.  Certainly part of this success is due to the sound design and score.  Having helped edit music alongside Hans Zimmer for Batman Begins and Howard Shore for The Two Towers and Return of the King, we can assume that composer Steven Price knows a thing or two about film scores.  For Gravity, Price has demonstrated restraint, in the knowledge that less is more.  In the quiet moments in space, his music has an almost ethereal quality, full of wonder, reminiscent of James Horner’s score for Avatar.  As the action builds up so does the music, almost as a distorted heartbeat echoing that of Ryan, until rather than reaching a crescendo, the music drifts off into space again.

Ultimately, this story of human resolve and fortitude has a happy ending, as perhaps the more memorable stories often do.  Ryan has been through a terrible ordeal and comes out the other side with a new outlook on life.  Sandra Bullock is very good at conveying all these emotions; coupled with an amazing vision from Alfonso Cuarón and incredible, flawless special effects; Gravity is one of those films whose impact remains long after leaving the movie theatre. But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

2012 (2009)

Ridiculous nonsense.  Quite entertaining, but very stupid.  People often talk about films for which you need to leave your brain at the door; well if you did that and had never seen a movie before, I think that you’d still shout at the screen during 2012!  There is some spurious science involving solar flares and mutating neutrinos melting the Earth’s core (isn’t it already molten?), which all gives licence for some destruction on a global scale.  The latest creation on Roland Emmerich’s CV of disaster movies, 2012 seems to be the culmination of destruction that began 13 years ago with Independence Day, continued with some monster destruction in 1998’s Godzilla, and still further in 2004 with The Day After Tomorrow.  This time he obviously thought “Ah fuck it, let’s destroy the entire planet!”

John Cusack is the average Dad who is separated from his wife, doesn’t see his kids too often, and is way out of his depth.  He acts like he is way out of his depth.  It’s not his fault, I can’t think of anyone who would be able to play this role any better; the character is just cursed.  Of course he needs to be an average Joe, but at the same time we don’t for a second think that he might not survive; the bloated 158 min length simply means that Cusack’s Jackson Curtis spends an awful long time engaged in some “knees bent running around”.  Unfortunately this is true of all the heroes.  For any worthwhile performances, we have to look to the Government representatives; Chiwetel Ejiofor’s geologist, Oliver Platt’s Chief of Staff and to a lesser extent Danny Glover as The President.  These are the people who hold the film together, and help give some semblance of a reason for all of the heroes shenanigans.  The verbal sparring between Ejiofor and Platt was probably the highlight of the film.

No doubt 2012 was spectacular on the big screen, I’m sure some of the impact was lost on TV punctuated with adverts; but there’s no escaping that it’s a dumb film.  Spectacular, but dumb.  Because every time there is a spectacular scene, which should be terrifying in an end-of-the-world kind of way, there is some dumb driving/running/flying through the carnage nonsense.  I thought that it was entertaining escapism, ridiculous nonsense, but nevertheless somehow enjoyable-ish.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.

Pacific Rim (2013)

Having already been a little disappointed with the only other blockbuster I’ll probably see this year despite having respectable names attached to it, I was wary about getting too excited about Guillermo del Toro’s latest offering.  The Hellboy films and Blade 2 both demonstrated that del Toro was able to create intelligent mainstream films with a mostly believable yet fantastical plot and at the same time fill them with plenty of inventive and (crucially) understandable action.  So it was my hope that Pacific Rim would up the ante in terms of spectacle yet still retain the attention to detail and storytelling that typifies some of del Toro’s previous work.

I wasn’t disappointed.  The design of the film was tremendous, the level of detail in the Jaegers (Hunters; huge robots) and Kaiju (huge monsters) is incredible.  There was also plenty of design to create the world inhabited by these two creations; downtown Hong Kong was as detailed and as full of character as the Troll Market in Hellboy 2 and I really loved the fact that there was a healthy black market in Kaiju body parts.  I was surprised that two guys had to physically be in the Jaegers to control them, I thought it would have been far more sensible to control them by remote.  On the plus side for the movie, there is far more danger and threat given that the drivers are literally in the heart of the action.  This gives the film a far more human element, especially as the two drivers have to mentality "drift" together (some sort of shared thought/memory thingy to be able to control both "hemispheres" of their Jaeger), an idea without which the film wouldn't have the same impact .

The cast were fine, and did well in bringing this human element to life, where otherwise we may not have cared.  Idris Elba was certainly the standout performance, perfectly cast as Stacker, the military general running the Jaeger project who provided an immovable point in whom everyone else could depend.  The "hero" duo of Charlie Hunnam and Rinko Kikuchi were OK but were fairly prefabricated and copy/pasted from any other action/adventure film.  Of course del Toro favourite Ron Perlman is in the mix, but his is a rather light-hearted role as Kingpin of the black market.  Charlie Day and Burn Gorman are the fairly irritating and cringeworthy stereotypical science nerds, but at least they’re fairly integral to the plot.

As well as introducing a very human story to the film, del Toro managed to create a lot of spectacular fight scenes that was still perfectly understandable.  The movie steered well clear of any Michael Bay-ish tendencies for fast over-editing and generally “fucking the frame”, so that we haven’t a clue what’s going on.  Though the whole premise of the film is rather over the top, the action never is; for example, even when a Jaeger takes out 2 Kaiju in Hong Kong, relatively little of the city gets destroyed, which seems to be a prerequisite for action movies these days (Superman destroyed far more of Metropolis killing far more bystanders in Man of Steel).  Throughout the action the CG was generally flawless, these massive beasts given a real presence, and the wind and the rain really lashes off the robots.

All in all I really enjoyed Pacific Rim.  Sure there were daft bits (Ron Perlman’s cameo), clunky bits (Idris Elba saying he’d die if he stepped into another Jaeger - simply for the payoff in the next scene), and cheesy bits (Today we are cancelling the apocalypse!); but the smart story, characters to relate to and care about, some tremendous action set pieces as well as del Toro’s eye for detail all combine to make a worthwhile robot/creature feature.  But, well, you know, that’s just, like, er, my opinion, man.