The spoof genre has kind of fell flat on it's arse... a long time ago. What started off strong with Scary Movie in 2000 - a beat-by-beat spoof of Scream - since then, spoof films have just become an excuse for jabs at popular culture mixed in with 'spoofs' (and I use that term very lightly) of random scenes from popular films.
From my opinion, it's very easy where to point the finger of blame. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have been responsible for some of the worst pieces of cinema in the past decade - Date Movie, Epic Movie and Disaster Movie to name but a few. It also doesn't really help that David Zucker has been riding on the coattails of Airplane and the Naked Gun films since to 1980s as proof that he is a good comedy director.
Onto Scary MoVie, and the film has somewhat of a plot stringed together. It follows Jody Sanders (Ashley Tisdale) and Dan (Simon Rex) who inherit Charlie Sheen's (playing himself) children after he dies. When they bring the children home, they start to experience strange paranormal activity happening around their home and so call in the help of Blaine Fulda (Katt Williams) to rid them of the spirit, known as Mama by their children. Along the way, Jody is aided by her ballet partner, Kendra (Erica Ash) in order to find the root of the curse and stop the haunting of Mama.
The biggest problem with Scary MoVie is that it feels strung together with dodgy editing, too much ADR (additional dialogue recording - when they redub someone's voice over the original footage that was filmed) and spoofs/scenes that have little point other than to poke fun at popular culture and films. It's not surprising to know that the film was going through major reshoots as late as January/February this year, to make the film 'more relevant'. It just felt like a film that was what the film studio wanted (with more 'up-to-date references such as Evil Dead - which consisted of one scene - and Mama which made up about 90% of the plot, including the ending) rather than what the filmmakers intended on making to begin with.
Along with the rushed and mixed up film, Scary MoVie had some of the worst acting and delivery of jokes that I have seen in a long time. I know this kind of film isn't out to win any Oscars or BAFTAs, but that doesn't mean that the actors can't at least try. Simon Rex just seemed like he was in it for the money - his goofy, stupid facial expressions can only get him so far before his character becomes annoying and boring. Erica Ash hardly even tries to be the next Brenda, because she knows that the bar was set so high by Regina Hall in the previous Scary Movies. Finally, while Ashley Tisdale does feel like the only person actually trying in her role, the jokes she is given as just painful and her delivery of the lines just fall rather flat. Basically, without the key players of Regina Hall as Brenda Meeks and Anna Faris as Cindy Campbell, Scary MoVie just feels like a cash-in attempt on a once great franchise.
Another problem with the Scary MoVie and Friedberg/Seltzer school of comedy is that quite a few of the jokes rarely translate well outside of the USA. Scary MoVie features jokes and jabs at popular culture such as Honey Boo Boo and the Housewives from Mob Wives, such as Big Ang. Lost? Well, I'd be surprised if you aren't, because this is an example of Scary MoVie taking the easy way out with it's comedy. A good joke well written can translate well across the globe, but the lazy writing and rush job filming of Scary MoVie means that the filmmakers have relied on audience knowledge of films/TV shows. Some of the visual comedy falls flat too. Take the Evil Dead parody for instance, a character cuts her tongue in two because well, that's what she does in the Evil Dead trailer. The Scary Movie franchise has now resorted to spoofing moments from trailers, considering that the film was released a week before Evil Dead - a film it is supposed to be parodying at that the audience are supposed to be aware of.
So, if you like your comedy Americanised, based on what you see on TV all the time and not very funny, then Scary MoVie will be right up your street. However, if you are hoping that Zucker is finally back on form (considering he ended up directing the majority of the film that we see on screen, despite Malcolm D. Lee still being credited as Director, then you will be sorely disappointed.
* / *****
(I've included the second trailer for Scary MoVie, because the first trailer has hardly any scenes that are actually in the film...)
Side Effects
A low key affair that's not quite as it seems. A solid effort from director Steven Soderbergh (Oceans 11, Contagion, Magic Mike) which sees Emily (Rooney Mara) put on new medication by her doctor, Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), only or her to then kill her boyfriend, Martin (Channing Tatum) in a trance like state. However, is Emily telling the truth? Why is her old doctor, Dr. Victoria Siebert (Catherine Zeta-Jones) so interested in Emily?
While Soderbergh does well with a story so full of twists and turns, his choice of actors does seem like his fan club, rather than some people who were correct for the part. Tatum was a bit non-descript as the boyfriend, not adding much to the story, and Law was playing his part a little bit too calm for someone who was being accused of assisting murder by putting his patient on untested drugs. However, stand-out performance definitely has to go to Catherine Zeta-Jones, who I thought stole the spotlight in every scene she was in. Her character was so well developed by writer Scott Z. Burns that she had a great basis to start from...
**** / *****
Oz: The Great and Powerful
I'll admit, when I heard about Oz, I was very excited. The fact that it was being directed by Sam Raimi (Spiderman, Spiderman 2 and Spiderman 3) and was starring James Franco (Spiderman, 127 Hours) just helped to boost my excitement ten fold. After probably one of the longest breaks between original film and sequel, Oz: The Great and Powerful follows on from the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz (although legal reasons between different film studios means it's not officially a direct sequel...) the film follows magician Oz (Franco) as he is whisked into the magical land of Oz and is being hailed by all as the wizard they have all been waiting for. However, the Emerald City is soon being held hostage by the Wicked Witch of the West, but is it Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz) or Glinda (Michelle Williams) who is the real Wicked Witch?
What surprised me about Oz was just how funny it was, and that the comedy was blended in so well between the tense moments (most notably any scene involving the flying monkeys) and the drama between the Wicked Witch and Oz. However, what I really enjoyed about Oz is just how well Raimi used the 3D to make the film a true experience and one that had to be had at the cinema. The water squirting out the screen from a river nymph and the flying monkey popping out from the fog were just a couple of stand-out moments. While they were a bit gimmicky, it's what 3D should be all about. Forget James Cameron and his 'immersion' 3D...
**** / *****
Jack the Giant Slayer
Following on from the tradition of taking old Grimm fairytales and giving them a modern twist, Jack the Giant Slayer tries to break the mould of recent affairs of giving them a dark edge, and Director Bryan Singer (X-Men, The Usual Suspects) makes it a family affair and crams the film full of toilet humour and corny jokes. The film starts off on familiar territory, as Jack (Nicholas Hoult) is given some magic beans, which then happen to grow into a gigantic beanstalk. However, Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) just happened to be in Jack's house as it's taken up into the sky by the beanstalk. With a side story about Isabelle being promised to the corrupt Roderick (Stanley Tucci), it's a race against time for Jack to save the girl from the Giants in the sky, keep her away from Roderick and then save the entire kingdom when the race of Giants manage to hitch a ride on the beanstalk back down to earth.
While I admire Singer for making a good old family pantomime film, rather than an edgy, cool dark tale of Jack and the Beanstalk, I did find myself wanting to awkwardly boo and hiss whenever Roderick was on-screen. It didn't help that Tucci's hammy acting was making him even more the pantomime villain. However, Jack the Giant Killer's main problem is that the whole film is a build up to a Helm's Deep style battle between the Giants and the kingdom. It's just a shame that the final battle itself is rather underwhelming, considering the CGI on the Giants is rather amateur and the violence is toned right down to fit with the family friendly 12A rating.
*** / *****
The Croods
Dreamworks are back with their new loveable prehistoric family, The Croods... in unneeded 3D. Eep (Emma Stone) is desperate to explore the world, but her controlling Father, Grug (Nicholas Cage) prevents her from doing so, fearing the end of the world. Soon Eep finds Guy (Ryan Reynolds), a young man who tells the family of the end of the world and the only safe place left being in the mountains. What follows is Grug, Eep and the rest of the family's first steps into an unknown world to save their lives.
The Croods is like Wreck It Ralph, in that it doesn't offer a lot new with it's story, but it's hard to criticise because it's an innocent flick for the young 'uns (I think I just find animation films hard to review!) Emma Stone continues her brilliant career in Hollywood, as she provides excellent voice work for Eep and Cloris Leachman channels her inner Betty White to deliver more brilliant voice work for Gran. While the young 'uns will love the cheesy visual humour (a Mammoth falling into oblivion as the land splits perfectly in two, is just one moment...) there is also some real heart behind the story as we realise that Grug's over protective nature was because he just loved his family so much. Awwww...
*** / *****
Stoker
The trailer for Stoker just grabbed me. It was moody, dark, chilling and very intriguing. Just who is Uncle Charles (Matthew Goode)? Why is he so obsessed with India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska)? Why is the Mother, Evelyn Stoker (Nicole Kidman) seemingly not bothered about the death of her husband? And what is she on about in the trailer, that we have children so we can learn from our mistakes?!
It did everything a trailer should do; raise questions and inspire me to see the film. However, it's unfortunate because the end product doesn't really answer a lot of the questions raised. Uncle Charles is obsessed with India because... well, he just is. Evelyn Stoker is not bothered about the death of her husband because... erm, is it because she's an alcoholic?!
However, it's not all bad because Stoker is an absolutely stunning film. Director Chan-wook Park (Oldboy, Lady Vengeance) obviously had a strong vision in mind and is an extremely talented Director in order to get the stunning shots that he did. It's just a shame that the script wasn't developed as well.
*** / *****
Identity Thief
It's a bit worrying when a film has to rely so heavily on the stars in order to sell itself to an audience. For me, it's also very worrying when a film has to rely on the makers of, the stars of, or the caterers of Bridesmaids, one of the most overrated comedies of the past decade. However, that's exactly what Identity Thief does. Starring one of the stars of Bridesmaids, Melissa McCarthy, the film follows Sandy Patterson (Jason Bateman) who finds out that Diana (McCarthy) has stolen his identity and is going on a spending spree on the other side of the country. For some reason, it's up to Sandy to get his own identity back, because there is some stupid reason why the Police can't sort it all out for him. What follows is a 'hilarious' trip across country getting Diana back to his hometown so the Police can actually do something about it.
The whole premise of Identity Thief is so weak that the comedy needed to be spot on for the film to work. Unfortunately, despite a couple of stand-out moments from McCarthy, the film is void of any laughs and dragged on for far... too... long. I'm not saying that all films should stick to one hour thirty minutes, but when you don't have a story to tell, don't stretch it out to nearly two hours.
Not much else to say really, because if you've seen the trailer for Identity Thief, you aren't missing out on much else.
** / *****
GI Joe: Retaliation
After a year's hiatus, when Retaliation should have been released last year but due to awful test screenings, the film was held back. It's not really a good start is it? But, when you are making a film to a stupidly over-the-top action film, how do you make it even more insane? Well, forget about all ideas of a plot, have seemingly random storylines (that eventually tie together) and a brilliant set piece that is ruined in all the trailers (I'm talking about the brilliant cliff side battle.)
GI Joe: Retaliation is a hard film for me to review, because in all honesty, I forgot about it quite quickly after I left the cinema. There was nothing really redeeming about it. I was so confused as to what was going on at some points that I almost lost interest and I don't know if it was a dodgy projectionist, but the 3D was a blurry mess. Just leave this one for the bargain bin when it's out on DVD/Blu-Ray. Even then, I might avoid it.
Comedies rarely travel well globally. It's just a matter of fact that, the majority of the time, what American audiences find funny is just completely different to what British audiences find funny. Stereotypically we like dry, sarcastic humour whereas our American counterparts enjoy slapstick, visual humour.
However, sometimes there is a film that tries to appeal to both, widen it's core demographic, and just falls flat on it's face.
The Guilt Trip is a film that follows Andrew Brewster (Seth Rogen) who is an unsuccessful salesman. He has a brand new natural cleaning product, but he is just too shy to sell it. In steps his overpowering Mother, Joyce Brewster (Barbara Streisand) a widow who has too much time on her hands and too much enthusiasm for life, compared to her son. When Joyce tells Andrew about her long lost love, who just so happens to be an executive at a prestigious advertising company, Andrew suddenly doesn't mind having his Mother around and brings her on his cross-country trip in the hope that his product will finally sell.
The thing is, The Guilt Trip is a film that is billed as a comedy, but just isn't very funny. Now, this wouldn't be a bad thing, because the film plays out more like a family drama, but the problem starts because the film is being advertised and marketed as a comedy. It's almost like it's an American idea of what dry British humour is, when it's really not. Most of the jokes fall flat, or there are large stretches of the film where jokes aren't even attempted. I just had a problem because I went in expecting to have a few laughs, but I came out feeling decidedly mute. Seth Rogen was surprisingly tame, after coming from previous comedic films such as Knocked Up, Superbad and Pineapple Express - all great American style comedies. And Barbara Streisand was... well, just as unfunny as she was in the Meet the Parents sequels.
However, The Guilt Trip is fairly good as a family drama - not great, but fairly good. There's a slight moment of drama when Joyce opens up to her son about her previous true love (before meeting his Father.) Of course, there's Andrew's constant struggle to sell his new product, when his attitude keeps getting in the way. And finally there is the general clash of personalities between Mother and Son when travelling in the car together, but it all just feels half baked. It felt like the script needed a bit more tweaking before filming began, because although these conflicts were all there, they just weren't developed enough to cause enough drama. Joyce's revelation about her true love is all but diminished in the final scene (which can be guessed what will happen right from the beginning of the film), Andrew just does not help himself at all when trying to sell his product (even though what he needs to do is so obvious to the audience) and Andrew and Joyce's personalities just aren't opposing enough to cause enough drama or comedic moments.
Direction from Anne Fletcher (Step Up, 27 Dresses and The Proposal) is quite uninspired, as The Guilt Trip ends up looking like every other big-budget glossy Hollywood production, which would have been fine if she was directing a straightforward comedy, but instead the film was a mishmash of wannabe gritty drama and fluffy light comedy, with a bog-standard direction from Fletcher that failed to give her film any sort of visual punch.
Whereas Rogen's previous dramatic efforts, such as 50/50, really were able to pull at heartstrings and grab the audience by the jugular, The Guilt Trip fails to hit the right spots for laughs or for tears. If you're a diehard fan of Rogen or Streisand, then this film may keep you entertained, but for the general film-going audience, this film is a bit of a drag.
The blending together of two different film genres can be difficult. Sure, some get it right (particularly the romantic comedies) but sometimes it just makes a muddled mess.
The Action-Horror genre hasn't always been full of successes. Van Helsing was a bit of a mistake, I haven't even had an urge to watch the Underworld films and Blade was good to begin with and then lost it with each sequel. However, Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters manages to get it right... on the whole.
The film starts off with an abbreviated version of the Grimm fairytale, where a young Hansel (Cedric Eich) and a young Gretel (Alea Sophia Boudodimos) are left by their Father in the middle of a the forest. They soon come across a house made of candy and gingerbread and are soon taken captive by a witch. However, they soon escape and grow up to become world renowned Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton), Witch Hunters. They arrive in the small town of Augsburg where they stop Sheriff Berringer (Peter Stormare) from executing a young woman, Mina (Pihla Viitala) who he has accused of witchcraft. The town is being terrorised by Muriel (Famke Janssen), a Head Witch, who is capturing children from the town as sacrifices so the witches can cure themselves of the ugliness curse that is put upon them. However, Hansel and Gretel aren't going to let that happen now, are they?
The thing that makes Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters succeed, in the dodgy Action-Horror genre, where most others have failed is that it knows it's a stupid film. Right from the start, where the language starts turning blue and the blood and gore start flowing, the film makes it clear to it's audience that the films knows it isn't out to win any awards and it's simply been created to entertain. It's in a similar vein to Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, which also takes an absurd premise, but fills it full of in-jokes and silly humour to lighten the mood. The result is that the film doesn't really have much Horror in it and firmly sits more on the side of an Action film, but it still manages to take the iconography of Horror and incorporate it well. Basically, don't go into this film expecting to be scared - instead go in expecting have a thrilling time and a few laughs along the way.
As a result, it seems that the Director, Tommy Wirkola (Dead Snow) and the actors knew exactly how to play the roles and play the film itself. Both Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton play their roles in a pretty badass way, but surprisingly still manage to keep the tension high as they prove that their characters are not invincible (basically, the Witches can give as good as they get.) Famke Janssen, while not amazing in her role as the Head Witch, still manages to play her role pretty well but it just felt like she should of had more fun with it. There were glimpses of her having fun with the role (like when she decides to tell a story and says, "It all starts in a sh*tty little town...!") but she could have played her role so over-the-top to match the tone of the film.
However, despite some lacklustre acting, where Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters really shines is in it's direction of it's action scenes. The film rarely lets up and takes pride in taking the audience through it's story at break-neck speed. There's rarely any downtime and when there is, it's punctuated with gloriously silly action scenes like when the troll, Edward (Derek Mears/Robin Atkin Downes) decides to squash and splat Sheriff Berringer and his henchmen into a bloody pulp under the sole of his foot. The only place where I can honestly say that Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters lets itself down with the action is during the film's finale - the witches attempt at sacrificing the children under the Blood Moon is over so quickly, that it barely has any time to build up any tension.
On a technical side, the film looked glorious, however the 3D really didn't add much to the experience. There was one or two stand out moments where the 3D was used for some sight gags (like it should be!) these were so few and far between that it hardly felt worth it. However, the CGI work on Edward and the witches and the blood and gore were surprisingly well used - I can't remember one point in the film where it took me out of the experience and I thought, "That looked fake!"
So, if you like your Action-Horror films to be slightly more on the action side, with a sprinkle of humour and not many scares, then Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters is definitely for you. However, if you like your Action-Horror films to take themselves more seriously and be more equally balanced between action scenes and scares, then you might be a little bit disappointed...
A lot of horror films have made use of the monstrous female character. A lot more than I care to list right now. I remember at University when I had a seminar and then had to write an essay all about how characters reject their mother figures in horror films.
The reason why I am bringing this up? I just wish that Mama had been released when I had to write that essay. It would have made it a whooooole lot easier!
Mama follows two young children, Victoria (Morgan McGarry) and Lilly (Maya & Sierra Dawe) as they are kidnapped from their home as their Father, Jeffrey (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) has, for unknown reasons, killed his boss and their Mother and is now on the run. When they find an abandoned cabin in the middle of the woods, Jeffery is killed by an unseen assailant (who Victoria describes as 'floating') who then looks after Victoria and Lilly in their new cabin home by feeding them cherries. A few years go by and Jeffrey's brother, Lucas (also played by Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) has never given up his search for his two nieces, despite his punk girlfriend, Annabel (Jessica Chastain) telling him otherwise. Against all odds, Victoria (Megan Charpentier) and Lilly (Isabelle Nélisse) have grown up to be feral children, devoid of all social skills. However, because Lucas cannot prove that he can provide a stable home for the girls, they are at risk to be taken home by their 'evil' Great Aunt, Jean (Jane Moffat). With the help from Dr Dreyfuss (Daniel Kash), Lucas and Annabel move in to a new home under constant surveillance by Dr Dreyfuss and his team. However, when the girls move in, it soon becomes obvious that they are not alone and that someone, or something, has followed them to the house, and it doesn't like when anyone else gets too close to finding out who they are or if anyone gets too close to the girls.
Mama is a horror film that has one of the most interesting setups I have seen in recent horror films. The idea of feral children creating an imaginary (or spiritual) mother figure is captivating and intriguing, as well as seeing how they develop their speech and movements before being allowed back into society. The lack of social interaction and their inability to communicate means they make great sympathetic yet mysterious villainous characters who we just don't know whether to trust or not. As an audience, we know that they are hiding a secret and the film does well in stringing along the characters into slowly finding out what we already suspect.
Another real positive to Mama is the characters themselves and the casting of actors that brought them to life. One of the real standouts are the children themselves and especially the two young actresses who take on the part of Victoria. While Lilly is the one who is more closely connected to their Mama, Victoria is the older sister who is able to communicate with other characters and ultimately show remorse for believing in the spirit of Mama. Young Megan Charpentier does a stand up job in showing the emotional turmoil that the young girl goes through when she starts to realise that Annabel is a much better Mother figure than their Mama will ever be. She almost steals every scene that she is in. However, Jessica Chastain also does a brilliant job in playing the troubled Annabel to life as she goes through the changes of being an immature young girl in a rock band to a mature young woman who has been left to look after two children. Sometimes, her immature rock band character at the beginning of the film was a little hard to swallow, because it was almost too much of a caricature of a rock chick, but thankfully her character doesn't stay that way for long and soon goes on her journey to maturity as she becomes the unlikely protagonist in the film.
In contrast to the strong beginning, Mama's biggest downfall is it's ending - it's just too over-the-top. Firstly, the build up and reveal as to who the Mama character is that the girls have been talking to throughout the film was too much of an anti-climax. Considering the girls had been imagining her and talking to Mama all through the film, the fact that she was just some random figure at the end, with a very small backstory, just felt disjointed and completely out of line with the strong build up at the beginning. Now, I don't want to give too much away, but Mama soon becomes just another cliched Hollywood horror villain who is just out for revenge. In fact, if you can't guess the backstory to the Mama figure when watching the film, then you haven't seen enough Hollywood horror films!
The other downfall with the ending is that the final battle scene is just too... over-the top, obvious and cliched. The Mama figure becomes a cartoon character as the audience see what she looks like in all her glory and it kills any kind of suspense or build up that the film had created before it. Not to mention the fact that the CGI used to create the character of Mama was pointless and just further served to sap out all of the creepiness of the character. Seeing a CGI elongated face in close-up just isn't scary. And I won't mention any more about what happens in the final battle, but lets just say that it left me scratching my head in wonderment about what actually was the point of the entire film and what actually was Mama's motivation. It also didn't provide a full conclusion for all of the characters, so there were a lot of unanswered questions.
So, after an extremely strong build-up at the beginning with a really interesting and original premise for a horror film, Mama manages to undo all of it's good work in a cliched Hollywood final battle scene at the end of the film. It's a shame, because I really was enjoying it right up until that moment...
Die Hard was a film that kept it simple. One man, his wife trapped in a building with terrorists that had taken it over. Die Hard 2 and Die Hard With A Vengeance tried to do the same thing but slightly bigger scale, whereas Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard to audiences in America) again made the concept even bigger and had the whole of America under threat by a cyber terrorist.
It seemed that with every Die Hard that tried to make the scenario and the problem bigger and bigger, the quality of the filmmaking got worse and worse. So what does A Good Day to Die Hard do? Well, it makes the big concept even bigger by relocating the danger to Russia. Bad move...
A Good Day to Die Hard (from now on, it will be called AGDTDH) follows John McClane (Bruce Willis) who finds out that his son, Jack McClane (Jai Courtney) is in trouble in Russia and is in danger of being sent to jail or even worse. After being egged on by his daughter, Lucy McClane (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) in the most redundant cameo ever, Bruce soon realises that his son is in much deeper trouble and has been leading a double life all along. When tap dancing, carrot-munching Alik (Rasha Bukvic) and Irina (Yuliya Snigir) take her father, Komarov (Sebastian Koch) hostage, its up to John and Jack to team up together to stop the biggest nuclear weapons heist in history taking place and a brand new war. And, that's about it...
The main problem with AGDTDH is that it feels like half a film, like someone has ripped out the heart that makes it a true Die Hard film and instead has left a soulless paint-by-numbers action flick in it's place that has a very simplistic and underdeveloped plot. There's literally nothing to it. With a couple of plot twists here and there, which could honestly be predicted, the film is mainly John and Jack arguing, shooting guns together and killing a few Russians before they stop the bad guys taking the nuclear weapons. What do they want to do with the nuclear weapons? Start a war of course. Why do they want to start a war? Well, I never really caught onto that really, it was just because, well... they wanted to. Do John and Jack at least provide some family conflict to keep the plot moving? Well, kind of, but they soon get on so well with each other that it soon becomes boring Father/Son banter (with a sickly sweet Father/Son moment thrown in the middle of the guns and fighting.)
Which leads onto the next problem with AGDTDH in the characters. Firstly, the stock Russian villains became so stereotypical that they are probably the most instantly forgettable villains in the entire Die Hard series. The only memorable one being Alik (with the previously mentioned tap dancing scene where he kicks the McClane's guns away with munching on a carrot - a surprisingly quirky character trait) but he barely has any screen time to make him a major player. I don't really want to blame the actors who played the parts for this lack of presence, but more to the editing and studio interference, because I will say it once again, but AGDTDH really felt like it was a film with the majority of it's scenes ripped apart (much like the edited down crappy version of Taken 2.) However, the real problems like with the entire McClane family. While it was nice that Lucy McClane linked this film back to Die Hard 4.0, her cameo was completely pointless, because she becomes a forgettable character who simply waves off her father to Russia and then welcomes him back with her brother. Jack McClane was a younger version of John McClane in name only - he had all the ass-kicking qualities of John McClane, but he just didn't have any of the comedic flair from the earlier Die Hard's.
Then there is the technical side of the filmmaking, which was the final nail in the coffin for AGDTDH. Director, John Moore (Behind Enemy Lines, The Omen 2006) really gives the film a bland and boring feel, which is the complete opposite of what an exciting and mesmerising action film should be. He filmed the film in a 1.85:1 format - something which might seem trivial, but it made the film feel less cinematic and more like a TV episode of Die Hard. And then there was the shaky camera work which made it hard to decipher what was actually happening in most of the fight scenes.
While I can appreciate what AGDTDH was trying to do, nodding back to the original Die Hard with such scenes and shooting out the glass ceiling and introducing insane villains (such as Alik) that were meant to bring this film back to the glory days of Die Hard. However, the lack of a decent plot made the film insanely boring and confusing (I don't care what anyone says, an action film needs explosions and gun fights, but it also needs a decent story behind it.) It got to the point where right at the end of the film, one of the villains decides that because they have ran out of bullets to fire at the McClanes, then they will simply ram the building with the helicopter that they are flying.
Yeah, because that really made any sense (much like the film lacking a plot then...) It's almost like the screenwriters (Skip Woods and Roderick Thorp) just needed a way for the villain to go out in some kind of style.
It's a shame, because I was really looking forward to AGDTDH. While Die Hard 4.0 wasn't a masterpiece, I thought it did a decent enough job of dragging John McClane into the 21st Century. However, AGDTDH simply feels like a filler film - another film that brings one of the McClane family back before they can convince Holly Gennaro McClane (Bonnie Bedelia) to make an appearance and complete the family once more!
So, if you like a simplistic (to almost non-existent) plot with a heavily edited adult film down to a more family friendly action flick, then AGDTDH will be spot on. However, if you actually want a gritty Die Hard, like the earlier entries, then AGDTDH will be a serious disappointment.
Everybody loves an underdog. It's film writing 101 and quite an easy character to write. It's also a staple to most Disney films, and Wreck-It Ralph is no exception to the rule.
Why should we like a character that has it all and has no struggles? Surely we like people who deserve their fame and good fortune?
Wreck-It Ralph follows the titular Ralph (John C. Reilly) who is disliked by the rest of the people in his game, including Fix-It Felix (Jack McBrayer), because he is the villain. However, Ralph is only a villain by name, because deep down he wants to be seen as the hero. When the arcade shuts down for the night, all the video game characters get to travel between games through Game Central Station (the multi-plug sockets), in a move which makes Wreck-It Ralph slightly similar to Toy Story (but the similarities end there really). When Ralph leaves his game to earn a medal and prove that he is a hero, he releases a dangerous bug from Calhoun's (Jane Lynch) shoot-em-up game and puts Candy Rush and Vanellope (Sarah Silverman) in serious danger. Can Ralph save the day and prove he is a hero? Of course he can...
The major strength of Wreck-It Ralph is that it follows previous successes (such as Toy Story) but still manages to be different enough so it feels like a fresh and new story. While the game characters take their positions in their respective games when the children are present, as soon as the doors to the arcade are locked, that's when they come to life. There is also the moral story behind the film, ready to inspire and educate the young 'uns - in this case, you shouldn't judge people by what they look like. And of course, the bright garish colours - expecially in Candy Rush - that should capture the really young 'un's imagination. For a kids film, it's pretty much all there and paint by the numbers. But, for some reason, it doesn't feel like a bad thing at all.
For the most part, it's all down to the sheer love and affection for video games that you can feel the filmmakers had when making Wreck-It Ralph. The simple game graphics of Wreck-It Ralph (considering it's one of the oldest games in the arcade) compared to the gloriously lavish world in the brand new first-person shooter game where Ralph encounters Sergeant Calhoun. Then there's the simplistic moves that the characters only can do in Ralph's game and then Ralph encountering Vanellope the 'glitch' in Candy Rush. It's all there for game lovers and it's a serious love letter to all arcade aficionados.
The only real major downfall for Wreck-It Ralph is that certain scenes seem to drag, especially when Ralph gets to Candy Rush. The film feels like it gets stuck to a certain extent focussing heavily on the budding relationship between Ralph and Vanellope and almost forgetting about Felix and Calhoun, the impending doom from the bug and the trouble that Ralph left the rest of his own game in (he leaves it with an 'Out of Order' sign and a threat that it will be removed from the arcade. The film almost drains all the tension it has built up and loses any urgency.
However, it's not drastically bad as the characters of Ralph and Vanellope are certainly engaging enough for us to have a fun time watching them and wanting them to succeed. I find Wreck-It Ralph one of the most difficult films that I have had to review so far, because it does well in being a children's film, but not a lot more. It doesn't do a lot for the adults who are going to be dragged along to see it, but it's not too schmaltzy and child-like either.
Let's just leave it at saying that it's a pretty solid effort by Disney...
As an audience, we need someone to root for, someone that we want to overcome all odds and face their demons/foes and succeed. It's the basics in storytelling, to get your protagonist the right side of sympathetic without becoming annoying or a wimp.
Flight decides to take this to the extreme and present us with a protagonist that is so flawed, sometimes it is hard to see when he is actually going to pull through and show us the light at the end of the very long tunnel.
Flight is a film of two halves. It starts off presenting us with a very flawed protagonist, Whip Whitikar (Denzel Washington) a flight captain who likes to smoke, drink and take drugs in excess. He is also having an affair with one of the flight crew, Katerina Marquez (Nadine Velaquez) right under the nose of his good friend, flight crew member Margaret Thomason (Tamara Tunie). On a routine flight, Whip is roughly awoken from his nap when the auto pilot controls on the plane fail. What follows is an extremely tense emergency landing where the quick thinking (while intoxicated) from Whip helps save the lives of the majority of people on board. However, the second half of the film follows Whip as he is accused of being intoxicated while flying and putting everyone on board the plane in danger, despite the fact that he saved many people's lives. He is joined by lawyer Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) and Harling Mays (John Goodman) who try and help prove that Whip was innocent against all odds. However, when Whip meets a fellow recovering addict, Nicole (Kelly Reilly) it makes him see some home truths and second guess himself - does he really want to get away with everything that he has done?
The advertising for Flight has really heavily relied on promoting the thrilling plane crash at the beginning of the film. While this is a brilliantly tense set piece in the film, it really is only half of the story. Unfortunately for the film, it's certainly the most exciting half of the film too. If you've seen the trailers, then you will have pretty much seen how Whip manages to crash land the plane. The fact that you know the plane is going to crash just makes the build up to it even more tense. However, Director Robert Zemeckis (Back to the Future, Polar Express) doesn't simply rely on this audience expectation as he continues to ramp up the tension in the flight itself. First, there's Whip addressing the cabin full of passengers while he sneakily pours himself a double vodka into his orange juice out of sight, then there's a good old storm which provides a tense take-off and when Whip falls asleep as the plane is on auto-pilot, it's just another nail in the coffin for our protagonist. How will he ever get through the court case scott free?!
The following court case after the crash landing is by no means boring, but it's a massive shift in narrative for the film, going from a traditional action film territory (think the old Airport films) to a drama piece. Writer, John Gatins, takes the focus away from the dramas of the court room and the victims of the plane crash (which could have been very interesting) and instead decides to focus completely on Whip battling his inner demons and trying to nurse a damaged Nicole back to glory at the same time (or, is it her that is trying to nurse him back to health?) It's makes for an interesting drama piece, but I can't help but think that an interweaving narrative between Whip and the courtroom dramas of the victims families could have made the second half of the film as thrilling as the first half.
The fact that Flight is essentially a drama piece means that the characters needed to be spot on. For the most part, it does get it right. Washington, who plays Whip was given a very difficult character to play, for Whip is a man who challenges the audience to keep rooting for him because he does nothing in the film to help himself. He's a needy character, someone who thinks he can look after himself and help others as well, but actually is completely dependent on all those around him. When he is pouring himself a double vodka on the plane it's kind of funny, then when he continues to drink later in the film it becomes annoying, then when he decides to get complete smashed before the integral court case which could prove him innocent or guilty, it's confusing and annoying - at that part in the film I was asking myself whether Whip was still the protagonist or the antagonist. I suppose it's what makes the film interesting, given that the protagonist blurs the lines so much between good and bad, but sometimes the film just pushes the boundaries a little too far. Also, sometimes Washington came across as a little cartoony in his portrayal of being addicted to alcohol - I'm not sure that he needed to drink from a massive bottle of vodka to prove to us that he was an alcoholic.
However, on the other side of the spectrum, Nicole was portrayed just right as the damaged drug addict who is desperate to get away from her old life. We see how desperate she is at the beginning (going to a friend in the porn industry for more drugs) but it's when she meets Whip when she takes a turn for the better and ends up leaving her old life behind her for good (is she the true protagonist in the film?!) The only thing that the film felt like it was missing was a true antagonist for the characters and the audience to fear. While it was hinted at that Ellen Block (Melissa Leo), the lead NTSB investigator was someone who wanted to pin all he blame on Whip, she only appears in the court room scenes right at the end of the film so her character is never properly fleshed out into a true villain. Again, I hate to keep banging on about it, but more scenes with the victims families and Ellen Block could have solved this problem.
So, while Flight isn't a complete plane crash of a film, it certainly could have done with a few improvements to help balance out the two halves of the film. After the first thrilling half of the film, it just felt like the second half dragged a little bit.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is back... or so he wants us to believe. Is he back on top? Back on form? Or maybe just back to what he does best?
But what does he do best? Blasting an oversized gun, spouting cheesy one-liners and throwing the bad guys around... of course.
The Last Stand sees Schwarzenegger as Ray Owens who was a once big time Sheriff, who now resides in a small Southern American town right on the Mexican border. There he has a small team of mexican Mike Figuerola (Luis Guzmán), tough but cute Sarah Torrence (Jaimie Alexander) and rookie policeman Jerry Bailey (Zach Gilford). They think they are in for a quiet weekend, as the whole of the town is off to watch a football game. However, what they don't realise is that further up North is LA, a notorious Mexican Drug Lord, Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega) makes an escape from his FBI prison transfer and Agent John Bannister (Forest Whitaker). As Cortez hot foots it down south towards the Mexican border, in a specially modified car at 200mph with FBI agent Agent Ellen Richards (Genesis Rodriguez) held hostage, it's up to Arnie and his band of misfits to try and stop him making it over the border.
OK, so this was supposed to be Arnie's big comeback, since his last major outing in 2003's Terminator 3 (not counting his cameo in The Expendables or The Expendables 2). It's what Arnie fans have been waiting for - a move back to his big gun toting cheesy one-liner self. Does The Last Stand deliver on this front? Well, yes it does. While the film does have a big long build up to the final battle, when it finally is delivered, it is a rip roaring good time. Guns blazing everywhere, limbs and body parts being apart (with a better use of CGI blood than The Expendables) and some well timed and much needed humour (look out for how Johnny Knoxville dispatches of a goon covered ammunition with only a flare gun). It's a glorious throwback to some of Arnie's earlier action cinema outings, where it would be relentless wall-to-wall blood, guts and guns... it's just a shame that it takes nearly the whole of the film's running time to get to this moment.
So what is the rest of the film filled with? Well, to be fair we are introduced to the cardboard cut-out Sheriff's department with equally simple backstories. Mike is simply the bumbling Mexican who is there for laughs, Sarah is torn between her love for the job and her ex-boyfriend that she has locked up in the jail cell and Jerry is the typical rookie who is looking towards the bright lights of LA for more action in his work. However, not all characters are treated to backstories. Strangely, I felt that Arnie's character was a little underdeveloped - it wasn't until I looked at IMDB, which said that his character left his LAPD post after a failed operation that injured his work partner, that I realised I must have blinked and missed this revelation. Also, the make antagonist, Gabriel is rather underdeveloped too. Sometimes a mysterious villain can work, but they need to be imposing and frightening enough to carry off the role. Unfortunately, Noriega isn't really given anything to work with or doesn't bring enough himself to make for a convincingly sinister villain.
I suppose the character flaws can be brought down to the writer credits, which The Last Stand has four. I've said it before, and I'll certainly say it again, the saying "Too many cooks spoils the broth" is definitely true when writing films. I don't think I've ever seen a brilliant film which has more than two people who have writing credits on the script, because any more and it seems to become a battle to include what's cool rather than what's good. Having said that, a weak script was partially covered up by the direction from Jee-woon Kim (I Saw The Devil, A Tale of Two Sisters) who brings a bland, but competent filming style to The Last Stand. We have sweeping shots of the southern American countryside and some cool crash zooms (reminiscent of old Western films - especially in the showdown at the end of the film) but we also have some awkwardly long shots of the super car travelling (supposedly) at 200mph down the highway, but the shot is so wide and awkward that it looks more like it's travelling at 60mph (with a helicopter managing to keep up behind it at the same speed).
I guess it looks like I'm bashing The Last Stand and I'm really not. It's a good time and definitely a film that will fill up some people's 'guilty pleasures' list, because it's a film that harks back to some of Arnie's earlier films (but this time with an ageing action hero at the helm). It's got guns, explosions and fast cars, so it's got the making of a good lads night in (when it hits DVD, obviously). The only thing that holds the film back from being better, is that it's just that... a film that is quite forgettable once you have laughed at all the jokes and funny moments and gawped at the gunfights and explosions. It follows all it's story beats precisely to the point where you can guess what's going to happen next and what will happen to the characters. It even ends on a friggin' freeze-frame - 80s nostalgia right there!!
So, if you're looking for a good time where you can firmly switch your brain off, then The Last Stand definitely is a good film to go and see. Just don't expect to see the next best Arnie actioner and you will be pleasantly surprised. Expect anything more than an average action flick, then you will be disappointed.
Not many Directors can claim to be auteurs. It takes time and a particular style that resonates with audiences in order to earn that title.
You can't argue against the fact that Quentin Tarantino has definitely reached the pinnacle of being a auteur. Not only does the poster for his new film brand it as Tarantino's Django Unchained (he's reached the Madonna stage of his career where he only needs one name) but only watching the opening act of Django Unchained it is unmistakably Tarantino's film.
The film follows the titular Django (Jamie Foxx) a captured slave living in 19th Century America. In the opening scene, he is freed (by force) by former Dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz - who makes a brilliant turn from antagonist in Inglorious Basterds to protagonist in this film). Django stays with Schultz to be trained up as a bounty hunter, with the promise that Schultz will help him free his enslaved wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) by going undercover as slave buyers. However, once they get to Candie Land, fellow black enslaved Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) is immediately suspicious of Django and sets out to uncover what Django and Schultz's real purpose is.
When I said that the opening scene is unmistakably Tarantino, it's because it reminded me so much ofthe brilliant opening scene from Inglorious Basterds. It's simply Schaltz approaching the two men that have Django enslaved and proposing to buy him - when the men disagree, Schaltz just shoots them and sets the rest of the slaves free. However, it's the slow burn of the scene and how dialogue heavy it is that makes you realise that this is Tarantino. While most Directors might have decided to go for an action-packed opening scene, Tarantino wisely decides to hold back. As the slave owner writhes and shouts out in pain in the background, Schaltz simply continues his conversation with Django. It's the kind of menacing presence that made Christoph Waltz so brilliant in Inglorious Basterds... but this time he is a hero?! And then, instead of simply explaining simply what Schaltz's job is as a bounty hunter, Tarantino decides to trick his audience with an overly complex shootout between Schaltz/Django and the Sheriff before they call in the Marshall. Again, it's the complexity of Schaltz's bounty hunting job and his ability to remain so calm in the face of a town full of guns pointing at him that make him instantly a hero in our eyes.
As for Django? Jamie Foxx plays the brooding moody type very well throughout the majority of the film. It wasn't until near the Third Act of the film when he actually sees his wife Broomhilda, that we see his charming side ("Hey there, troublemaker!") While his backstory is simple and he largely plays the part quite straight-forward, it's Django's inner troubles of dealing with other black slaves (and having to treat them badly) and then his pain when his wife in within touching distance but he must remain undercover is what makes his character appealing. Not as likeable as Schaltz, granted... but likeable nonetheless.
And finally for the characters, Leonardo DiCaprio continues to amaze me with his acting. Just to think, he was the floppy haired lover-boy in James Cameron's Titanic back in 1997, he has since definitely earned his acting chops. In Django Unchained, he plays a sinister and twisted slave owner, but not played in the most obvious, cackling villain way. He forces his slaves to fight to the death, and revel in it, and then happily invites Django to dinner with Schaltz near enough straight afterwards. It's the little characteristics that DiCaprio brings to the character and the excellent writing from Tarantino (like how he then massively relies on his black slave, Stephen for advice and support, before completely trashing black people's intelligence) that really brings the character to life and easily a contender for best villain of 2013 - even though we are only 22 days into the year.
As for Tarantino himself? He is on fine form. The direction is solid and exactly what you would expect from one of his films. Brilliantly slow brooding scenes, which all add together for a more explosive finale and that's exactly what happens in Django Unchained. If you found Inglorious Basterds or DeathProof boring and dull with not enough action, then Django Unchained will do nothing for you. However, if you are a fan ofthose previously mentioned film, then Django Unchained will be another solid outing for you.
My only criticism of Tarantino for this film is that the dialogue and writing didn't seem as spot on, nor did it have as much tension as some of his previous films. Sure, the basics of his style was there, but I didn't find myself completely gripped during the dinner scene towards the end (unlike the unbearably tense dinner scene/pub scene in Inglorious Basterds) nor did I find myself as entertained by his character's dialogue (unlike the banter between the girls in DeathProof). It's not terrible, but it just wasn't as good as his previous films - that being said, it's still a damn sight better than most other films being released at the moment. The one thing I did like about this film was Tarantino's shots of humour throughout - especially the exceptionally long mask argument scene and the "Say goodnight to Miss Candie, Cora" before the character is blasted into the next room. It was some welcome relief from a fairly serious story dealing with black slavery in America (despite the rescue mission itself being quite over-the-top!)
However, Tarantino's direction is spot on once again, with beautiful sweeping shots of the American countryside apposed against his more intimate dialogue scenes. He also uses his cool looking text titles once again, so there is definitely no mistaking that it's his film! He couldn't resist the opportunity to have a cameo in his own film, where he shows some fairly awful acting skills, but this can be overlooked because it really was such a small part.
So, if you are a fan of Tarantino, then Django Unchained is another solid effort. While not as great as his previously released films, it's definitely nowhere near being labelled "terrible".
Musicals. You either love 'em or hate 'em. You either embrace the sung choruses of love and laughter (or in this case, pain and anguish) or you laugh off the stupidity that people will sit there and sing to each other rather than talk.
Frankly, if you cannot embrace the structure of musicals and their reliance on music numbers to drive the narrative forward, then I don't have a lot of time for you. I don't mean to make this personal, but I have no chance in changing your opinion. So, if you don't like musicals, stop reading... now...
Les Misérables is a complex story full of interweaving story lines. It primarily deals with Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) who has been imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread. When Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) sets him free on parole, Jean Valjean decides to skip parole and build a new life for himself. He soon establishes himself as a respectable factory owner, where one of his employees Fantine (Anne Hathaway) is fired by the foreman for having an illegitimate child, Cosette (Isabelle Allen) that she has left with two shady characters, Thénardier (Sasha Baron Cohen) and Madame Thénardier (Helena Bonham Carter). Jean Valjean promises to keep Cosette safe (a now grown up Amanda Seyfried), whilst also on the run from Inspector Javert. However, Paris, France is in the grip of a revolution - as Marius (Eddie Redmayne) and Enjolras (Aaron Tveit) lead a group of students to the barricades, Eponine (Samantha Barks) has fallen for Marius, but he soon falls head over heals in love with Cosette. In the midst of the battle between the student revolutionists and Inspector Javert and the French elite, decisions will be made that will change their lives forever.
I hope I've made that sound dramatic enough, because if it's one thing that Les Misérables can't be criticised on is having a simple storyline. The film does really well to pack in all the stage show's twists and turns into a 157 minute running time (that feels surprisingly quick). The fact that Director, Tom Hooper (The King's Speech, The Damned United) didn't try to skimp on any of the plot points and paid full respect to the stage show was a wise choice. If he had chosen to overlook certain plot points, I'm sure there would have been angry fans everywhere.
However, one of the main points of Les Misérables was always going to be the cast - should they cast good singers or good actors? It was always going to be a tough choice, considering The Phantom of the Opera (2004) was criticised for hiring actors, instead of singers. The fact is, Tom Hooper and casting director, Nina Gold decided to go for actors that could sing. But then the decision was made that the actors would sing live on set and that there wouldn't be any dubbing and lip synching. It all seemed very suspicious. However, I can clear it up now that the performance of the songs in Les Misérables was pretty spot on. While it seemed a little bit questionable at the start - some of Jackman's singing as Jean Valjean felt a little flat - it soon seemed to get into the swing of things. Now, you won't exactly be rushing out to buy the soundtrack, as you will probably be sticking to your Original West End/Broadway Cast Recording CD, but for the purpose of film, the actors did a fine job in breathing life into the songs. Special mention has to go to Anne Hathaway and the meaning that she injected into I Dreamed a Dream and Come to Me - it was heartbreaking.
The troubles with the casting of Les Misérables were few and far between, and any hiccups could be largely overlooked. I had some slight issues with Sasha Baron Cohen as Thénardier, because he didn't feel like a strong enough presence (I'd have stuck with Matt Lucas from the 25th Anniversary Concert if they needed a famous face.) However, my biggest issue was the casting of Russell Crowe as Inspector Javert - my main issue was that he just wasn't imposing enough to be the Inspector that was hunting Jean Valjean throughout the whole film. His singing was... passable, but his acting wasn't up to scratch. His only ounce of emotion seemed to come through when he sang Stars, but his suicide song fell flat on it's arse.
The emotional impact of Les Misérables has to be it's strongest point as a musical and as a piece of entertainment - it's a gut wrenching story that will wring you dry in terms of how much you can see the characters endure. Almost every single one of them goes through some kind of pain and the complexity of the story just helps you have some kind of empathy for them. For some reason, the film fails, in some respects, to grab you emotionally like the stage version can. While the film is undoubtedly a depressingly emotional piece, it wasn't until when Eponine was singing A Little Fall of Rain that I started to feel any kind of emotion. Hathaway's portrayal of Fantine was brilliant, but she falls victim to the fact that her character is barely in the story long enough for you to truly care for her (not the film's fault, purely a plot point of the musical as well).
Having said all of that, the negatives that I am pointing out are merely nitpicking, because Les Misérables is a beautiful and haunting piece of cinema that is a great adaptation of the stage musical. The directorial style of Tom Hooper is inspired for this film in particular - the awkward angles, extreme close-ups and gritty hand-held style lend amazingly well to the poor and decaying 19th Century France which the story in set in. While the choice to record the songs live on set was a great choice in adding an emotional depth to the songs, from an acting point of view, the extreme close-ups on the character allowed us to be even more involved in their emotional troubles.
So, if you are a fan of musicals, then Les Misérables is the perfect silver screen adaption of your favourite musical. If you are not a musical fan, then you will probably find it too long, too slow and too boring, but no one really cares...
Horror films are an easy target. They have nothing substantial about them, right? They are just some stupid teenage characters, who don't listen to any of the warnings around them, who then get chopped up by some psychopath with an oversized weapon (compensating for something?!)
So, what does Texas Chainsaw 3D try to do to challenge this perception of modern horror? Well, nothing really. It's pretty much a 'paint-by-numbers' horror film with a much forced twist at the end.
Texas Chainsaw 3D is claiming to be the 'true' sequel to the 1974 horror classic, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. TC3D picks up exactly where the 1974 film left off and sees Sheriff Hooper (Thom Barry) responding to the Sawyer household where Sally Hardesty (Marilyn Burns) has just escaped. After a botched up attempt at the Sawyers handing over Leatherface (Dan Yeager), the Sawyer household is burnt down with all the family inside... except a single surviving baby. That baby grows up to be Heather Miller (Alexandra Daddario) who is unaware of her family's dark past. When she is informed that her Grandmother has died and left her house with all it's possessions to her, Heather takes a road trip with her jock boyfriend, Ryan (Trey Songz), her slutty best friend, Nikki (Tania Raymonde) and her new Chef boyfriend, Kenny (Keram Malicki-Sánchez). On the way to Texas, in true Texas Chainsaw tradition, they pick up a wandering hitchhiker, Darryl (Shaun Sipos) who is not all that he seems. After managing to annoy the town Mayor, Burt Hartman (Paul Rae) and attract the attention of the young attractive Policeman, Carl (Scott Eastwood), Heather and her friends decide to bed down for the night in her new house, because it looks so cool. What they don't realise is that Leatherface also survived the fire back in 1974 and is living in the basement of the house.
I'm not sure where to start with my review of Texas Chainsaw 3D to be honest. It's not because I found it to be completely terrible, but more that its a horror film, that knows it's a horror film, and doesn't do anything to try and attempt a fresh spin on the genre. The opening of the film, which sees the 1974 film converted into 3D, is actually pretty special (especially for horror fans) and then the continuation of what happens after the end of the 1974 film is also quite interesting. While the Director, John Lussenhop and writers, Adam Marcus, Debra Sullivan and Kirsten Elms (it's always a bad sign when there are three writers!) could have plumped for a bit more tension between the Sawyer family and the rest of the town, when they were demanding for Leatherface to be handed over, it was still a pretty sweet scene.
However, as you can probably guess, Texas Chainsaw 3D is not all a bed of roses and suffers from many common flaws that modern day horror films fall for. The first off is the characters themselves... they are all pretty flat and two-dimensional (see what I did there?!) The only real stand-out is Heather (which is good, considering she is the main protagonist) and is given her chance to stand-out properly from the rest of the crowd in the film's third act. But the rest of them are as paper cut-out characters 101 as you can get. The jock boyfriend, Ryan is simply there to pull in the female crowd (he spends a lot of his screen time topless) and to try and be the strong one for Heather to rely on. However, we find out that he has cheated on Heather with her slutty best friend, Nikki - a plot line that could have been interesting, but instead the writers decide to completely by-pass with two fleeting scenes which show how much of a cheating scum-bag he really is. But what's the biggest annoyance about the whole cheating sub-plot is that Heather has no reaction to it, not a single ounce of her is bothered by the fact that her boyfriend and best friend and sleeping together. Then, there's Kenny, who likes to cook. That's about it for him, we don't find out anything else considering he is the least developed character and therefore the first one to die.
It's not just the characters that are the only flaw in the film. The plot points that lead up to the main twist in the story, at the end of the film, all seem rather brushed over in favour of ramming more gore down the audience's throat. Now, I'm all for a big chase scene followed by an equally good payoff, but when the film's entire third act twist relies on the struggles that Heather has faced in order to corrupt her, points like her cheating boyfriend, her allegiance to the Sawyer Family and her torture by the Mayor and the towns people really needed to be given time to be properly developed. Instead, we don't see one single reaction from Heather or an act vicious enough from the Mayor or the townspeople that warrants for Heather's corruption. It all just seems rather forced, and when Sheriff Hooper decides to let Leatherface go free at the end of the film, it just raises all sorts of questions that the film fails to answer.
I hope I haven't given too much away about the 'twist' (as easy as it is to guess while watching the film), because it's the best thing that Texas Chainsaw 3D has going for it. The one thing that attempts to break Texas Chainsaw 3D from being a generic, Direct-to-DVD horror film. While the fact that the film relies heavily on horror conventions isn't completely detrimental - I still had a blast watching it - I just couldn't help but feel like this film could have been so much more.
As for the 3D? For a film that had a fairly modest budget of $20million, it was used pretty well. Most of the time, it was used as an immersive tool, giving the film great depth and really bringing you into the world of Texas. However, I really enjoyed the 'money shot' moments, like when Heather stupidly decides to hide in the only open coffin to hide from Leatherface and his chainsaw comes through the lid AT THE AUDIENCE or when Leatherface throws his chainsaw AT THE AUDIENCE. Sure, it's a bit of a drag that as an audience you don't have the choice to view this film in 3D, but I must admit that it was used well and at no point did the film look flat (it's just a shame that the characters and plot were so flat - see what I did there?!)
So, if you are a horror fan - or more importantly, a Texas Chain Saw Massacre fan - then Texas Chainsaw 3D is a pretty good time. Don't expect anything as gritty as the original 1974 film, but do expect just as shallow characters doing just as stupid things.
Is horror dead? There's still a little bit of life in this old chainsaw yet.
All eyes are on Peter Jackson. After his mind-blowing and epic Lord of the Rings Trilogy, many were wondering if he was biting off more than her could chew by filming the trilogy's prequel, The Hobbit.
It didn't help when it was revealed that Jackson has decided to try and see if lightning strikes twice, by splitting the fairly slim book into three separate, 3 hour long films.
The first of the new Hobbit Trilogy has been named, in part, after the books first chapter and spans approximately the first third of the book (with some added stuff courtesy of Peter Jackson, but more about that later.) After a short prologue involving Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) and Frodo (Elijah Wood), tying The Hobbit to Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the story flashes back to when a young Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is approached by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to accompany some dwarves on a mission to reclaim their homeland from an evil dragon. Of course, Bilbo is initially reluctant, due in part to being a hobbit who likes nothing more than to stay at home away from adventure, but he soon agrees to join Gandalf and the ragtag group on their journey. After stopping off at the Elf Kingdom and failing to get the blessing for their mission from the council, including Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) and Saruman (Christopher Lee), Bilbo and the dwarves are forced to continue on with their journey without anyone to help (except good old trusty Gandalf.) What follows is the setting up of a new mission and new dangers (while also feeling quite familiar at the same time) without the group actually making it to the dwarves homeland.
The reason why I say that it's all too familiar, is because The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey does largely feel like that little unknown film, Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring. The two films are alike in the sense that their soul purpose is to set up the mission that the protagonists are facing and (re)introduce us to the world and the dangers that they now face. While it's not all boring exposition (even though the start is a little bit slow), you can't help but feel after watching the film that the best is still yet to come.
Sure, An Unexpected Journey does provide us with some the added thrills (courtesy of Jackson, that wasn't in the original book) of the Orcs returning to be the main antagonist. The Orcs are lead by Azog (Manu Bennett), a large and impending Orc who has a personal vendetta against Bilbo and the elves. To be honest, he was a welcome addition made by Jackson to include more predominantly in the film, otherwise Bilbo and the dwarves would have been simply chased by wild wolves (Wargs), like in the book, which might have felt a bit flat and unthreatening on film. While Azog's CGI left much to be desired, unlike the rest of the visual effects in the film, and his dialogue was sometimes a bit cheesy and "on the nose" (especially when he kept calling them "Dwarf Scum"), I still found him to be an effect antagonist.
Having said that, not all of Jackson's additions seem to fit in as well. His choice to include more light-hearted humour fell a bit flat sometimes - noticeable moments where this happens include when a Dwarf asks for some chips (do they have chips in Middle Earth?!) and when Bilbo is attempting to free the dwarf's horses from a group of Trolls and Jackson decides to include some snot gags. It just made the film, as a whole, feel more like a light hearted family fantasy epic, rather than the dark and mysterious Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Another example of this includes Jackson's decision to feature the Brown Wizard, Radagast (Sylvester McCoy) more predominantly (considering he only has a fleeting mention in the book.) While Radagast's scenes weren't all bad, his attempt to bring a dead hedgehog back to life felt like it was lifted from a Disney film and his bunny rabbit sledge chase, when he was trying to lure the Orcs away, felt a little flat and boring compared to what it should have been.
However, An Unexpected Journey is not all bad. In fact, it's a pretty solid opening to a new Middle Earth trilogy with Jackson back at the helm. The casting was pretty spot on (although we didn't really need to have Elijah Wood and Ian Holm come back for about a minute of screen time, did we?!) and even though the dwarves were a little hard to tell apart (something that was always going to be a problem with such a large ensemble piece) the actors did a god job of keeping the group into a tightly knit community that we cared for - although Gandalf did fall into being a bit of a babysitter at time, because those dwarves are just so useless.
The film (and books) highlight has to be the inclusion of Gollum (Andy Serkis) who is just as obsessed with the ring as he was in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The CGI used to bring him to life is still as breath-taking, and the riddles scene that he takes part in with Bilbo is a welcome break from the dwarves encounter with and escape from the Goblins and their King. I just hope that Jackson finds a way to try and bring him back into the other two Hobbit films (although I'm not sure how?)
So, overall An Unexpected Journey is a pretty solid effort into kick-starting the new Middle Earth Trilogy. While Jackson's decision to split the small book into a three part epic film series was a questionable one, his ability to intertwine new ideas with those already existing with J. R. R. Tolkien's is pretty seamless. So sit back and enjoy the wonder of Middle Earth... again.
