(Dave Payne, 2005)
I'm going to tentatively recommend this. There are some negative aspects: it's not an entirely original plot, and the delivery of the "twist" at the end is annoyingly patronising, with a long montage of explanatory flashbacks obviously designed to guarantee that even the most thick-headed members of the audience can retrospectively comprehend what has happened. But on the plus side, the direction, dialogue, pacing and acting are all well above-par for a horror film of this type, and there are plenty of nice funny touches throughout. Also the SFX are basic but very effective.
21 August 2007
Saw III
(Darren Lynn Bousman, 2006)
I wasn't hoping for much, especially in the wake of the frankly irritating Saw II, but this is actually the best of the series so far. Of course, the story is a bunch of bollocks. But it's twist-laden gore-filled torture-horror, and if that's what you're looking for then that's what you'll get, so the fact that the story is a bunch of bollocks is really beside the point. I like the fact that there are still some bunch of bollocks horror franchises kicking around. I was a big fan of the Elm Street films when I was younger. That was a bunch of bollocks too. But I liked watching Freddie being witty while slicing people up, and I was always willing to sit through another installment. It's good to have a contemporary horror franchise such as Saw taking up the reigns and pumping out sequels. (Final Destination is another current franchise that does its job well - it's a bunch of bollocks plotwise, but it ticks the "gore" and "clever twist" boxes with a sufficient degree of competence to keep me watching).
I wasn't hoping for much, especially in the wake of the frankly irritating Saw II, but this is actually the best of the series so far. Of course, the story is a bunch of bollocks. But it's twist-laden gore-filled torture-horror, and if that's what you're looking for then that's what you'll get, so the fact that the story is a bunch of bollocks is really beside the point. I like the fact that there are still some bunch of bollocks horror franchises kicking around. I was a big fan of the Elm Street films when I was younger. That was a bunch of bollocks too. But I liked watching Freddie being witty while slicing people up, and I was always willing to sit through another installment. It's good to have a contemporary horror franchise such as Saw taking up the reigns and pumping out sequels. (Final Destination is another current franchise that does its job well - it's a bunch of bollocks plotwise, but it ticks the "gore" and "clever twist" boxes with a sufficient degree of competence to keep me watching).
20 August 2007
28 Weeks Later
(Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, 2007)
Jesus wept, this has to be one of the most uninspiredzombie films viral thrillers I've ever seen. If you're going to make a zombie film viral thriller in this day and age, you need to do something new with the genre. Or you need to do the same old shit, but throw in some fucking good gore. This does neither. Plus it's yet another film where the director has opted to shake the cameras around so that you can barely tell what's going on (as opposed to choreographing genuinely sophisticated action sequences that look effective from more stable camera shots).
I didn't realise until the end credits that this sequel was not directed by Danny Boyle. I don't know how that fact passed me by. I just assumed it would be Boyle. Whether he'd have done a better job than Fresnadillo, I do not know. Fresnadillo gave us Intacto, which was pretty good, so why he made such a fuck-up of this, I also do not know. (All in all, there are many things about directors I do not know. Why Raimi made Spiderman, for instance.)
Jesus wept, this has to be one of the most uninspired
I didn't realise until the end credits that this sequel was not directed by Danny Boyle. I don't know how that fact passed me by. I just assumed it would be Boyle. Whether he'd have done a better job than Fresnadillo, I do not know. Fresnadillo gave us Intacto, which was pretty good, so why he made such a fuck-up of this, I also do not know. (All in all, there are many things about directors I do not know. Why Raimi made Spiderman, for instance.)
Hard Candy
(David Slade, 2005)
A young girl meets an older man, initially through the internet, and subsequently in real life. She's gonna tie him up and have his nuts for ear-rings 'cause she's convinced he's a kiddy fiddler. But he says he isn't. So is he or isn't he? Oooh, the suspense! Actually, the initial stages of the film build up an incredible sense of foreboding, but when it all kicks off, it isn't really as gory and horrific as I'd hoped, and the twists and turns near the end utterly sapped my patience. Still, as a film that consists largely in one long dialogue between two characters, it was very well scripted and acted.
A young girl meets an older man, initially through the internet, and subsequently in real life. She's gonna tie him up and have his nuts for ear-rings 'cause she's convinced he's a kiddy fiddler. But he says he isn't. So is he or isn't he? Oooh, the suspense! Actually, the initial stages of the film build up an incredible sense of foreboding, but when it all kicks off, it isn't really as gory and horrific as I'd hoped, and the twists and turns near the end utterly sapped my patience. Still, as a film that consists largely in one long dialogue between two characters, it was very well scripted and acted.
CSA: The Confederate States of America
(Kevin Willmott, 2004)
Fake documentary based on the premise that the confederates won the civil war, the emancipation proclamation was overturned, and slavery continued to exist until the present day. The alternative history is quite cleverly done. The whole thing is presented as though you're watching a US TV channel (except of course it's not the USA, it's the CSA) airing the documentary, which was made in the UK and previously banned in the CSA. The only problem is that it's just not quite funny enough. If they couldn't think of any more decent gags, then they should have bitten the bullet and made it a completely dead serious, dark and disturbing satire, rather than aiming for more of a "lighthearted chuckles" satire. The most interesting things are the commerical breaks throughout the feature, which include adverts for all manner of products with racist / slavery-based brandnames and logos. Some text comes up at the end of the film explaining that all of these products really existed at some point in US history ("Coon Chicken", as featured in Ghost World, is one of them).
Fake documentary based on the premise that the confederates won the civil war, the emancipation proclamation was overturned, and slavery continued to exist until the present day. The alternative history is quite cleverly done. The whole thing is presented as though you're watching a US TV channel (except of course it's not the USA, it's the CSA) airing the documentary, which was made in the UK and previously banned in the CSA. The only problem is that it's just not quite funny enough. If they couldn't think of any more decent gags, then they should have bitten the bullet and made it a completely dead serious, dark and disturbing satire, rather than aiming for more of a "lighthearted chuckles" satire. The most interesting things are the commerical breaks throughout the feature, which include adverts for all manner of products with racist / slavery-based brandnames and logos. Some text comes up at the end of the film explaining that all of these products really existed at some point in US history ("Coon Chicken", as featured in Ghost World, is one of them).
La Science Des Rêves (aka The Science of Sleep)
(Michel Gondry, 2006)
As I watched this film, I felt convinced that it was supposed to be about a man (or possibly two aspects of the same man) struggling to recognise and resolve a metaphysical conundrum concerning perception, reality, and his own personal identity (or, perhaps, identities!). By the end, however, I realised that I must be wrong. The man turns out to be more or less unaware of the existence of the conundrum, which itself remains unexplored and unresolved by the film. What remains is a despressing and pointless story charting the social ineptitude and confusion of a man with some kind of mental illness. The effects of the illness are interestingly illustrated, but rather than being a source of insight (and drama), they are simply a means by which the viewer ends up sharing the man's confusion.
As I watched this film, I felt convinced that it was supposed to be about a man (or possibly two aspects of the same man) struggling to recognise and resolve a metaphysical conundrum concerning perception, reality, and his own personal identity (or, perhaps, identities!). By the end, however, I realised that I must be wrong. The man turns out to be more or less unaware of the existence of the conundrum, which itself remains unexplored and unresolved by the film. What remains is a despressing and pointless story charting the social ineptitude and confusion of a man with some kind of mental illness. The effects of the illness are interestingly illustrated, but rather than being a source of insight (and drama), they are simply a means by which the viewer ends up sharing the man's confusion.
A Scanner Darkly
(Richard Linklater, 2006)
My experience of watching this film was very true to my experience of reading Philip K Dick books (even though I haven't read this particular story): it's basically interesting, but slightly old-fashioned, it fails to cash out the potential of its own ideas, and it somehow feels lacking in pace and resolution. The animation helps to convey the phenomenology of drug-taking, and thankfully saves the viewer from what would otherwise have been a bunch of actors making lame efforts at pretending to be muntered (think: The Breakfast Club spliff scene). But Linklater already showed us this visual style (with a much better story, and to much greater effect) in Waking Life.
My experience of watching this film was very true to my experience of reading Philip K Dick books (even though I haven't read this particular story): it's basically interesting, but slightly old-fashioned, it fails to cash out the potential of its own ideas, and it somehow feels lacking in pace and resolution. The animation helps to convey the phenomenology of drug-taking, and thankfully saves the viewer from what would otherwise have been a bunch of actors making lame efforts at pretending to be muntered (think: The Breakfast Club spliff scene). But Linklater already showed us this visual style (with a much better story, and to much greater effect) in Waking Life.
Night at the Museum
(Shawn Levy, 2006)
This is an unusually old-fashioned kids' film. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe all kids' films are written like this, but I don't watch enough of them to be aware of it. Either way, it was clichéd and predictable. If you could instruct a computer to automatically generate a film according to a general blueprint, this hollow, empty and lifeless piece of work is probably what you'd get as the end product. To make matters considerably worse, the whole thing is accompanied by one of those full-on orchestral scores that make you want to grab the composer tightly by the balls and shout "STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK AND FEEL!"
This is an unusually old-fashioned kids' film. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe all kids' films are written like this, but I don't watch enough of them to be aware of it. Either way, it was clichéd and predictable. If you could instruct a computer to automatically generate a film according to a general blueprint, this hollow, empty and lifeless piece of work is probably what you'd get as the end product. To make matters considerably worse, the whole thing is accompanied by one of those full-on orchestral scores that make you want to grab the composer tightly by the balls and shout "STOP TELLING ME WHAT TO THINK AND FEEL!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)