This had been advertised as 'The best British horror comedy since Shaun of the Dead'. I spent all the trailers thinking how many British horror comedies there had been since Simon Pegg's masterpiece...
I think I had issues reconciling the horror and comedy parts of this film. Most of it I found genuinely quite scary (I admit I did spent most of the film hiding behind my jacket) and the majority of the violence and gore were presented as straight horror, which made the jump to the supposedly amusing bits even more jarring. Every so often there would be a moment of almost surreal comedy (for example the little dance when Maggie is trying to choose a stone with which to bash in her attacker's head) which, sandwiched between the brutal and frenetic attack and then the eventual head-squishing, seemed completely out of place. Okay, bear traps and decapitation may have been quite funny but Jill being set on fire was just disturbing.
There were quite a few nice bits - the office-based characters, although complete stereotypes, were funny because they were recognisable (I could probably tick off all the characters from the office where I last worked). It was also just nice to see British people, warts and all, at the cinema; after a while my brain has become filled with the ubiquitous homogenous, ridiculously attractive, Hollywood types. Captain Darling was brilliant as the ineffective manager and his untimely and ironic death was actually surprisingly touching.
Other bits I quite liked were the amusing arms-dealing bits – particularly the rocket launcher – although more could have been done with this. Also the first scene was good, the meaning of which became clear later. As for the rest of it, the horror aspect was almost too knowing, the suspense was being endlessly built up before the viewer was ‘fooled’ when nothing happened. And once the enemy has become apparent the whole chasing/fighting bit at the end became a bit repetitive.
Also: despite the imaginatively illustrated stories, which may have been one of the best parts of the film, it was never explained what was behind all the murderous nutters. Maybe that was for the best: 4.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Volver - 29th August 2006
I am a big fan of Almodovar and his latest offering didn't disappoint. Volver was above all a story about the trials and tribulations of Women.
All the action in the film took place within spheres of activity which traditionally belong to women: the family home, the kitchen, the hair salon, even a daytime TV show. And although the film dealt with some varied things: death and murder and ghosts, we saw everything from a woman's perspective. Paula has just murdered her father and, although we hear the story, we do not see the murder itself. More attention is spent on the cleaning up of the crime scene: Penelope Cruz wiping up the blood, mopping the floor and washing the knife. When she is momentarily interrupted by a knock at the door she explains away the blood on her neck as "women's troubles."
The action mostly centres around the Penelope Cruz's (female) family and the extended family-like village community whom she can call upon to help her out with running the restaurant or disposing of her husband's body. Men, on the other hand, are conspicuous by their absence. Most notably in the opening scene, where all the village's women set about cleaning their husbands' graves. Where they do appear men are presented as perverts and lechers. Penelope's husband is a prime example and the shadow of her dead father is constantly present - given that his actions could be taken as a catalyst for all the events in the film.
The style is very much that of melodrama which reinforces the use of women's talk and gossip as the principal plot devices; this is also backed up by the Hitchcockian suspense music used. Penelope Cruz was fantastic as she always is in her Spanish language films. The film was never boring and actually quite funny in some parts.
Overall: 7.5
All the action in the film took place within spheres of activity which traditionally belong to women: the family home, the kitchen, the hair salon, even a daytime TV show. And although the film dealt with some varied things: death and murder and ghosts, we saw everything from a woman's perspective. Paula has just murdered her father and, although we hear the story, we do not see the murder itself. More attention is spent on the cleaning up of the crime scene: Penelope Cruz wiping up the blood, mopping the floor and washing the knife. When she is momentarily interrupted by a knock at the door she explains away the blood on her neck as "women's troubles."
The action mostly centres around the Penelope Cruz's (female) family and the extended family-like village community whom she can call upon to help her out with running the restaurant or disposing of her husband's body. Men, on the other hand, are conspicuous by their absence. Most notably in the opening scene, where all the village's women set about cleaning their husbands' graves. Where they do appear men are presented as perverts and lechers. Penelope's husband is a prime example and the shadow of her dead father is constantly present - given that his actions could be taken as a catalyst for all the events in the film.
The style is very much that of melodrama which reinforces the use of women's talk and gossip as the principal plot devices; this is also backed up by the Hitchcockian suspense music used. Penelope Cruz was fantastic as she always is in her Spanish language films. The film was never boring and actually quite funny in some parts.
Overall: 7.5
Snakes on a Plane - 27th August 2006
As the latest hot Internet craze, Snakes... could have been a victim of its own cult status. I have to admit my expectations were pretty high. However, it amazingly seemed to be 'so bad its good' without being that bad at all. It worked well as a perfectly serviceable disaster movie while having an extra layer of post-modern self-knowing thanks to the online buzz.
Okay, the concept (the snakes being on the plane part) was a little implausible but perhaps required less willing suspension of disbelief than several of this summer's blockbusters (M:I:3 I'm looking in your direction). And Snakes also managed to recognise and practically celebrate its own implausibility - at one point an FBI guy mentions the idea of someone putting snakes on a plane is completely ludicrous.
So, "plot" out of the way we can get on to enjoying the film. It was all extremely well-timed, a new threat appeared just after the passengers seemed to have conquered the last one and it was genuinely quite suspenseful. There were some good comedy deaths (boob-biting amongst others) and some rather horribly gory ones - the stiletto in the ear springs to mind. Some of the earlier scenes when the snakes first attack were really rather disturbing; but in a good way. The cast of characters was the eclectic bunch you'd expect from a disaster film; it was quite fun guessing which ones would die and the ones who survived had all learned a lesson by the end. Which was nice.
And of course there were the occasional nods to the Internet-based fans; most noticeably the "motherlovin' snakes"part and the pilot's warning the plane would "go down quicker than a Thai hooker." It was all good fun. And then at the end, they all went surfing!
Fantastic: 4 stars out of 5.
Okay, the concept (the snakes being on the plane part) was a little implausible but perhaps required less willing suspension of disbelief than several of this summer's blockbusters (M:I:3 I'm looking in your direction). And Snakes also managed to recognise and practically celebrate its own implausibility - at one point an FBI guy mentions the idea of someone putting snakes on a plane is completely ludicrous.
So, "plot" out of the way we can get on to enjoying the film. It was all extremely well-timed, a new threat appeared just after the passengers seemed to have conquered the last one and it was genuinely quite suspenseful. There were some good comedy deaths (boob-biting amongst others) and some rather horribly gory ones - the stiletto in the ear springs to mind. Some of the earlier scenes when the snakes first attack were really rather disturbing; but in a good way. The cast of characters was the eclectic bunch you'd expect from a disaster film; it was quite fun guessing which ones would die and the ones who survived had all learned a lesson by the end. Which was nice.
And of course there were the occasional nods to the Internet-based fans; most noticeably the "motherlovin' snakes"part and the pilot's warning the plane would "go down quicker than a Thai hooker." It was all good fun. And then at the end, they all went surfing!
Fantastic: 4 stars out of 5.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
A Scanner Darkly - 23rd August 2006
This handily tied in with Fear and Loathing..., which we saw a few days ago, forming some kind of hard drugs mini-season. Like the aforementioned film, A Scanner Darkly gave a twisted view of a downwardly-spiralling hard drugs nightmare. And in place of the Gilliam direction Scanner... offers us an eerily ever-changing picture courtesy of Rotoscope animation.
The story was quite pleasingly random. At first it seemed to just concentrate on the actions of this small group of addicts, which was actually fairly amusing, but before the viewer could get bored the terrifying nature of Keanu Reeves's nightmare became all the more apparent. He was ordered to spy on himself while he became more and more dependent on the illegal "D". The final revelations, which were actually dealt with rather quickly, were quite shocking and helped to give some sort of meaning to everything that had gone before.
The Rotoscope itself was the perfect medium for charting Keanu's descent into terror. If ever the plot was moving a little too slowly just watching the animation was constantly fascinating. The ever-changing lines and colours were a bit creepy but the rotoscope allowed the natural inclusion of fantasy sequences and, as a piece de resistance, the security suits, the outward appearance of which changed constantly.
Again, it felt a bit as if I'd swallowed lots of illegal drugs: 7.75
The story was quite pleasingly random. At first it seemed to just concentrate on the actions of this small group of addicts, which was actually fairly amusing, but before the viewer could get bored the terrifying nature of Keanu Reeves's nightmare became all the more apparent. He was ordered to spy on himself while he became more and more dependent on the illegal "D". The final revelations, which were actually dealt with rather quickly, were quite shocking and helped to give some sort of meaning to everything that had gone before.
The Rotoscope itself was the perfect medium for charting Keanu's descent into terror. If ever the plot was moving a little too slowly just watching the animation was constantly fascinating. The ever-changing lines and colours were a bit creepy but the rotoscope allowed the natural inclusion of fantasy sequences and, as a piece de resistance, the security suits, the outward appearance of which changed constantly.
Again, it felt a bit as if I'd swallowed lots of illegal drugs: 7.75
Friday, August 25, 2006
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - 20th August 2006
We went to see this on a Sunday morning, which made it all the more bizarre.
I'm guessing the Cornerhouse put this on to tie in with the Terry Gilliam visit a few weeks ago. As such comparisons between this and his latest film Tideland are inevitable. In fact, everything I found lacking in Tideland was present in Fear and Loathing. It was classic Gilliam through and through.
Hunter S. Thompson's drugged-up road trip provided a perfect partner to Gilliam's directorial style. The constantly moving and swaying camera (which was a main feature of Tideland) reinforced the sickening and confusing nature of the trip and the regular drug-induced hallucinations gave Gilliam a fantastic excuse to go into the surreal fantasy world he loves so well; the lizard scene in the bar was a perfect example of this.
Even though there was not much in the way of plot, I was transfixed by every single frame. This was partly due to Gilliam's aforementioned fantastic style, partly due to the increasingly hilariously bizarre nature of Duke and co's antics and partly due to Johnny Depp.
For the first few moments of the film it seemed Depp was portraying Big Brother winner Pete but from then on Depp was a perfect guide to the depraved world of Thompson. His constant commentary was occasionally difficult to follow but this didn't matter, the stream-of-consciousness ramblings just reinforced the sickeningly unstable plot, characters and camera work.
I left the cinema on Sunday feeling as if I'd just been on a two-hour drugs binge. Which can only be a good thing. 8.
I'm guessing the Cornerhouse put this on to tie in with the Terry Gilliam visit a few weeks ago. As such comparisons between this and his latest film Tideland are inevitable. In fact, everything I found lacking in Tideland was present in Fear and Loathing. It was classic Gilliam through and through.
Hunter S. Thompson's drugged-up road trip provided a perfect partner to Gilliam's directorial style. The constantly moving and swaying camera (which was a main feature of Tideland) reinforced the sickening and confusing nature of the trip and the regular drug-induced hallucinations gave Gilliam a fantastic excuse to go into the surreal fantasy world he loves so well; the lizard scene in the bar was a perfect example of this.
Even though there was not much in the way of plot, I was transfixed by every single frame. This was partly due to Gilliam's aforementioned fantastic style, partly due to the increasingly hilariously bizarre nature of Duke and co's antics and partly due to Johnny Depp.
For the first few moments of the film it seemed Depp was portraying Big Brother winner Pete but from then on Depp was a perfect guide to the depraved world of Thompson. His constant commentary was occasionally difficult to follow but this didn't matter, the stream-of-consciousness ramblings just reinforced the sickeningly unstable plot, characters and camera work.
I left the cinema on Sunday feeling as if I'd just been on a two-hour drugs binge. Which can only be a good thing. 8.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Angel-A - 9th August 2006
I enjoyed this film but I am not entirely sure why. I think I would lap up anything if it was black and white and in French and would be prepared to forgive a lot of things as long as it looked pretty.
Which this film certainly was. It even made Paris (a city I can't stand) look beautiful (maybe this was due to the lack of French people which normally marrs any vista - bizarrely the whole city was deserted.) I especially enjoyed the scene in the posh restaurant which looked amazing, even though the two leads were talking complete and utter bollocks.
To be honest the story was fairly incomprehensible and the whole guardian angel thing was a bit glib and not explained too well. There was a lot of pretentious crap spoken about loving oneself but of course you have to expect this in such a film.
There were bits that were really quite funny and moments of excitement but mostly it was just nice to look at and drink in, like a coffee from a cafe on the rive gauche, that nevertheless tastes a bit funny (probably because some Frenchman has spat in it.)
Anyway, it gets 5
Which this film certainly was. It even made Paris (a city I can't stand) look beautiful (maybe this was due to the lack of French people which normally marrs any vista - bizarrely the whole city was deserted.) I especially enjoyed the scene in the posh restaurant which looked amazing, even though the two leads were talking complete and utter bollocks.
To be honest the story was fairly incomprehensible and the whole guardian angel thing was a bit glib and not explained too well. There was a lot of pretentious crap spoken about loving oneself but of course you have to expect this in such a film.
There were bits that were really quite funny and moments of excitement but mostly it was just nice to look at and drink in, like a coffee from a cafe on the rive gauche, that nevertheless tastes a bit funny (probably because some Frenchman has spat in it.)
Anyway, it gets 5
Tideland - 8th August 2006
I was lucky enough to see a preview screening of Tideland with introduction by Terry Gilliam and a Q&A session with the director himself afterwards. The whole evening was extremely enjoyable and most enlightening.
Since the man himself was actually present I tried my hardest to like this film. I'm a big Terry Gilliam fan and rank some of his films among my all-time favourites; so I suppose this is why I felt a bit... disappointed. I think I was expecting so much more.
There was a lot of signature Gilliam stuff in this film: for the entire two hours it teetered on the edge of surreality; flirting with it, but never slipping over the edge. One most noticeable thing was that most shots were taken at some sort of angle, we hardly ever saw a straight shot, which was slightly disorientating but then it was meant to be so. We also see-sawed between fantasy (often the imaginings of Jelizah Rose) and reality, although quite often it was difficult to tell the two apart.
There was much that was provocative and controversial. Having read quite a lot about the film (diatribes that only a sick and perverted mind could have imagined it) I was expecting much worse, but these "controversial" moments were presented as viewed through the eyes of an innocent and not meant to shock. It was during these moments that the film really came alive and the classic Gilliam absurdity shone through.
For example, the scene where Jelizah-Rose comes downstairs to find her crazy neighbour embalming the body of her dead father is more amusing than disgusting. Indeed, Gilliam's presentation of this world through the eyes of a child is so pervasive that the scene in which Jelizah-Rose finds comfort with her father's preserved corpse is more touching that anything else; and the train crash, despite causing several people's deaths, is seen as a victory for Dickens and Jelizah-Rose.
Jodelle Ferland was terrifyingly brilliant as Jelizah-Rose and the rest of the cast was similarly magnificent, especially Jeff Bridges as Jelizah's junkie father (whose unending professionalism in playing a corpse was recounted to us by Gilliam.) There was also a lot of humour in the film which was a nice offset to some of the more grisly moments.
Despite all this there was something lacking about the film. In my opinion anything which invokes the spirit of Alice In Wonderland (which Tideland did heavily: making explicit and implicit reference to it: Jelizah at one point falls down a rabbit hole and Del recites some of the Queen of Hearts's dialogue) cannot be all bad, but unlike Alice there was no real motivation for Jelizah to do anything. Whereas Alice was on a quest to find her way home Jelizah's adventures are just a collection of random events. I was at no point bored but, without any kind of overall purpose I sometimes felt I was just waiting for the next thing to happen.
I also think if this film hadn't been Gilliam's I would have been more appreciative, it was maybe just I was expecting more of the great man. Tideland gets 6.
Since the man himself was actually present I tried my hardest to like this film. I'm a big Terry Gilliam fan and rank some of his films among my all-time favourites; so I suppose this is why I felt a bit... disappointed. I think I was expecting so much more.
There was a lot of signature Gilliam stuff in this film: for the entire two hours it teetered on the edge of surreality; flirting with it, but never slipping over the edge. One most noticeable thing was that most shots were taken at some sort of angle, we hardly ever saw a straight shot, which was slightly disorientating but then it was meant to be so. We also see-sawed between fantasy (often the imaginings of Jelizah Rose) and reality, although quite often it was difficult to tell the two apart.
There was much that was provocative and controversial. Having read quite a lot about the film (diatribes that only a sick and perverted mind could have imagined it) I was expecting much worse, but these "controversial" moments were presented as viewed through the eyes of an innocent and not meant to shock. It was during these moments that the film really came alive and the classic Gilliam absurdity shone through.
For example, the scene where Jelizah-Rose comes downstairs to find her crazy neighbour embalming the body of her dead father is more amusing than disgusting. Indeed, Gilliam's presentation of this world through the eyes of a child is so pervasive that the scene in which Jelizah-Rose finds comfort with her father's preserved corpse is more touching that anything else; and the train crash, despite causing several people's deaths, is seen as a victory for Dickens and Jelizah-Rose.
Jodelle Ferland was terrifyingly brilliant as Jelizah-Rose and the rest of the cast was similarly magnificent, especially Jeff Bridges as Jelizah's junkie father (whose unending professionalism in playing a corpse was recounted to us by Gilliam.) There was also a lot of humour in the film which was a nice offset to some of the more grisly moments.
Despite all this there was something lacking about the film. In my opinion anything which invokes the spirit of Alice In Wonderland (which Tideland did heavily: making explicit and implicit reference to it: Jelizah at one point falls down a rabbit hole and Del recites some of the Queen of Hearts's dialogue) cannot be all bad, but unlike Alice there was no real motivation for Jelizah to do anything. Whereas Alice was on a quest to find her way home Jelizah's adventures are just a collection of random events. I was at no point bored but, without any kind of overall purpose I sometimes felt I was just waiting for the next thing to happen.
I also think if this film hadn't been Gilliam's I would have been more appreciative, it was maybe just I was expecting more of the great man. Tideland gets 6.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)