Surrogates

Surrogates – 2009, Jonathan Mostow

I’m sure I saw a trailer for this in a cinema at some point earlier in the year, which implies it had at least a limited release, but I’m not so sure it didn’t just go straight to DVD outside the US. Although it wouldn’t be the first Bruce Willis film to slip under the radar (anyone ever see Hart’s War, or Tears Of The Sun?). I think it’s overexposure that has caused Bruce to become less of a draw than he was; he’s been in at least two or three films a year since 1988. I’m sure he’d be the first to tell you he should have been more picky.

I think Surrogates is one of his better choices. If someone had told me after I’d watched it that it was based on a novel by Philip K Dick, or it was written by Andrew Niccol I’d have believed them. It was in fact based upon a short running comic book by a guy called Robert Venditti (short lived by design, not because it was discontinued as far as I can gather).

‘Surrogates’ refers to the remotely controlled robots that the people of the future use to life out their life. What started as a mobility aid for the disabled has become an eternal youth for the majority of the people of the world. The trailer explains what’s going on:



If the plot looks predictable, that’s because it is, but in this case, I don’t think it detracts from the film.

The reason Surrogates is so reminiscent of Phillip K Dick’s work is because it takes place in a future where most people don’t seen very happy, and some technological advance has occurred that changes or affects everyone’s lives. Phil’s books, like a lot of sci-fi, tend to revolve around one Big Idea which in itself is interesting and original, but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny when the central concept of the idea is questioned.

The best example of this is his 1968 novel ‘Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?’ which was adapted into the 1982 movie Blade Runner. The story is about androids, who are almost completely indistinguishable from humans, who have super human strength and intelligence and are created solely for the purpose of working in the harsh conditions of Martian colonies. These androids are almost completely human, but their big flaw is that they cannot develop or process emotions properly and completely lack empathy. So when they eventually go crazy and return to Earth from Mars and start killing people, android bounty hunters are called in to take care of them. This all makes for a riveting story, but it begs the question ‘Why would they make inherently psychopathic robots in the first place?’ I think that Blade Runner does a better job of brushing over this little problem than the novel, and it seems to be the case than a lot of the films based on the works of Phillip K Dick are better than the novels that inspired them.

Surrogates suffers from the same kind of problem; it presents the audience with a particular future world scenario, then requires the audience to accept that scenario without thinking too hard about how plausible it is. The film brushes over a lot of the implications the scenario might have on society and focuses on the ones that are important to the story being told.

Surrogates is one of those rare films that is greater than the sum of it’s parts. The premise is flawed and the plot is predictable but it’s incredibly watchable because of the events that take place with the Surrogates. There is a sub plot about Bruce’s deteriorating relationship with his wife which is more interesting than the main story. If this were an independent foreign language film about people living out their lives through idealised robot versions of themselves, it would be lauded as a ‘compelling study of human relationships, and society’s obsessions with youth and beauty’. But it’s not. It’s a Hollywood sci fi action film without much action, and yet...so much more.

Wim Wenders

After watching Wings Of Desire I read up on the films of Wim Wenders.

I’d heard of a couple of them; ‘Paris, Texas’ and ‘Buena Vista Social Club’, but it was the description of Until The End Of The World that really interested me.

Until The End Of The World – 1992
I’m glad I got round to watching it, if only to satisfy my curiosity, but I’d hesitate to recommend it, which is why I don’t hesitate to explain the plot:

Set in Space Year 1999, UTEOFW tells the (long) story of a Woman who has a couple of chance encounters with some French bank robbers and a mysterious American who is being pursued by an Australian bounty hunter and a German private eye. She leaves her novelist boyfriend (Sam Neill) to chase the strange American (William Hurt, wooden as ever) from France all the way across Asia to Japan, over to California, and ultimately to Australia. This takes up the first 90 minutes, and it isn’t particularly engaging. The last hour or so of the film takes place in a laboratory in a cave in the Australian desert where the really interesting bit happens.

You see, this American fellow has a device (stolen from his former employer) which he is using to record images that he will play back to his blind mother, letting her see again for the first time in years. But it turns out that this device can be used to record dreams and play them back, and watching one’s dreams is so addictive, a person will stop caring about anything else.

I thought the whole ‘dream watching addiction’ thing was very compelling, so it’s a shame it takes so long to get there and the all other stuff doesn’t really add to the second half of the film. The ‘international road movie’ that makes up the first half is actually quite poor, full of goofy moments and bad humour that doesn’t stand up to the quality of to Wim’s overall body of work. I only watched the 158 minute version of course, not the 280 minute Directors Cut, which is split into three parts, so perhaps it’s not fair to judge UTEOTW based on the incomplete version. Renowned critic David Thomson says this film is ‘as awful a film as a good director has made’ but I think that’s a bit harsh (Mr Thomson admits to walking out of Wings Of Desire).

It’s not all bad though. The film was set in the near future, and includes some nice futuristic touches; in-car satellite navigation is predicted quite accurately, and there are some well conceived ideas about the way software interface and presentation might evolve. Often it’s the technology that features in a film that dates it the most, but in this case it’s actually the soundtrack that has aged badly. Wim approached some of the biggest names in music of the day; U2, REM, Elvis Costello and Depeche Mode to name just a few, and asked them to compose the music we’d be listening to in 1999. The results sound (to my ear) like they belong very much in 1992.

Wim’s films have always been inspired by Ozu, so it’s no surprise they unfold so slowly.

Speaking of slow films;

Paris, Texas – 1984
Wim’s most critically acclaimed work is shorter than UTEOTW but it’s still two hours plus of not much happening. But a sign of a great director is that they can make a film where not a lot happens, yet it is still compelling, and most importantly, the effort of watching the whole thing is rewarding. It has a similar vibe to Wings of Desire, although not a fantasy and with a conventional plot.

Harry Dean Stanton’s Travis Henderson wanders around the Texas desert, then he wanders around LA, then he wanders around Houston. In between there’s a lot of driving (Wim is keen on road movies). The shots of the desert and the LA suburbs are equally lovely. Should it be any surprise that non-Americans often create the most striking images of America? Lots of films feature amazing shots of the Texan desert but Wim (or should that be his cinematographer) really captures the isolation and decay of the small settlements that are dotted around. I wonder how some of the classic Westerns would have looked if directors on the 50s and 60s had access to helicopters to facilitate epic shots of the desert.

The middle class suburbs in the hills above Los Angeles have probably never looked more appealing than in this film. It’s the bit of LA I’m not used to seeing, as opposed to the low lying ‘burbs that are been depicted in Boys ‘n’ The Hood and a hundred other Gangsta’ flicks.

Paris, Texas is more than just a pretty face; it’s the story of a man and a woman who drift away from each other, and then can’t stop drifting. The cast all provide performances of understated despair. It’s certainty the greatest Harry Dean Stanton performance, his casting was an excellent choice. He makes bigger names seem overrated, the Travis Henderson character is typical Dustin Hoffman territory, but Dustin would have given too much, whereas Harry leaves us wanting more.

Though the film is long and slow, the end justifies the means. It’s happy and sad in almost equal measure, probably leaning toward the sadder side, but the characters are compelling enough to prevent it becoming depressing. Half of the dialogue takes place in the last fifteen minutes of the film, which may sound uneven, but it produces a rewarding ending.

I’d recommend Paris, Texas over the other two Wim Wender’s films I’ve seen, although it’s not as good as the best ‘slow-burn’ film; Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring.

Ten Short Film Reviews 7 – Steven Seagal Special

Steven Seagal+

A few months ago, we got Sky+ hooked up. Now that I can record any old film and watch at my convenience, I watch all sorts of films that I know aren’t very good, but if I’m even slightly curious, I’ll Sky+ it anyway and get round to watching it when I’m in the mood. This has facilitated my recent viewing of so many Steven Seagal films. His popularity is strange, but not inexplicable; Seagal plays bad-ass characters with confidence and believability in a way his action movie peers do not. Van Damme is athletically superior, Schwarzenegger is bigger and tougher, Willis is grittier, Stallone is more likeable. But Seagal has a presence on screen that comes from the fact that in real life Seagal Fears Nothing. That he never bothered to become a muscled hulk proves this. He plays the same character over and over and. in a way, he has a fraction ( a tiny fraction) of what Eastwood has, and that’s a fraction more than anyone else.

Nico: Above The Law – 1988, Andrew Davis
The one that started it all. Legend has it that talent agent Michael Ovitz saw Steven Seagal performing an aikido demonstration and decided to make the tall, dark, slim martial arts master a star. Steven’s acting debut basically consists of a petulant Dirty Harry impersonation that he wouldn’t change for the rest of his career. But to Stevesies credit, his first performance is better then either Van Damm or Schwarzenegger’s debut as leading men. Steven was involved in the writing and all the preachy and unnecessary “the CIA shouldn’t be able to get away with the shit they pulled in Nicaragua” stuff was probably his input (Steve would go on to include political and environmental rants in later films).

Marked For Death – 1990, Dwight H. Little
The one with the Jamaicans. Probably the last Seagal film that the big man actually runs in, and for good reason. It didn’t take long to realise that Steve is at his best when standing still, but it’s fun to watch him in his younger days moving quickly. Lot’s of hilarious Jamaican stereotypes and a good supporting performance by the reliable Keith David.

Under Siege – 1992, Andrew Davis
The one worth watching. The only one that spawned a sequel (I think). The best Die Hard rip off of them all. So good in fact that it started the trend for ‘Die Hard on a something’ movies (Passenger 57 was released in the same year but with less impact). So what makes this one so good? The plot is simple but well crafted, and better than the usual Seagal flick. The supporting cast of Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Busey and Colm Meaney is the best Steve ever appeared with, but other Seagal films feature talented actors as well. The thing that makes Under Siege stand out is Steven’s performance. He’s playing the same character as always but he holds back all the ‘Seagalisms’ that usually go with it (or maybe director Davis, working with Seagal for the second time, should take the credit?) For the uninitiated, the worst aspects of a Seagal performance that sometimes crop up are:

adopting a strange southern states accent, even though he was born in Michigan and raised in California.

delivering his lines in a mocking, piss take manner because he’s so confident he can beat the crap out everyone else, removing any threat that the villain may potentially cause (often prefixing his line with a rhetorical question, perhaps ad-libbed).

Under Siege features none of these and is the most watchable Seagal film because of it. Casey Ryback returnes in...

Under Siege 2: Dark Territory – 1995, Geoff Murphy
The one on a train. Introduces Ryback’s sassy teenage niece, an idea used in Die Hard 4.0 with John McClane’s daughter (these films have become self perpetuating). Probably the second best Seagal film, it’s a lot lighter in tone that its predecessor and equally well paced and entertaining. The script actually deserves a better supporting cast as Eric Bogosian clearly wasn’t the first choice to follow in Tommy Lee Jones footsteps, although Everett McGill does a good job as the chief heavy. I always recognise him as the corrupt DEA agent from License To Kill “Sorry old buddy, but two mill is a hell of a chunk of dough.” Apparently Steve only agreed to make this if the studio financed his environmental mouthpiece On Deadly Ground. He clearly isn’t keen on sequels but I’d love to see a third. In fact I’d like to see a crossover with Die Hard. ‘Die Hard 5: Under Siege’ anyone?

Glimmer Man – 1996, John Gray
The one with Keenan Ivory Wayans. Just about the last film where Seagal still has his good looks, before he let himself go. Like ‘On Deadly Ground’ Seagal uses this film to push his personal beliefs, in this case it’s basically an advert for Buddhist spiritualism (the type of Buddhism where it’s OK to violently murder people so long as they try to hit you first). Brian Cox plays the evil agent-man holding Seagal’s badass killer past over his head. Given that it was a failure at the box office, it’s kind of surprising that Glimmer Man became the template for all the ‘Seagal and a Black Guy’ movies that followed.

Fire Down Below, 1997 – Félix Enríquez Alcalá
The one with Kris Kristofferson. Another Segal film with an environmental message, another box office flop. This one apparently lost more money that On Deadly Ground, which is a shame because it’s actually quite good. I’d even go so far as saying it’s the third best Seagal film I’ve seen. Set in rural Kentucky with an excellent country / bluegrass sound track, the story is actually quite compelling. Seagal is the Agent Man in the Deep South, seeking out a truth that the locals don’t want to face. It’s not exactly Mississippi Burning but it’s better than the usual plot that Steve has to work with (and better than anything he’s capable of writing himself). Although it gets a tad strange when they introduce an unnecessary sexual abuse twist. It seems quite long for a Seagal film though, mainly because the action scenes are so spaced out. The fighting and shooting and car chasing is exiting when it does occur, and the bits in between are helped by a good supporting cast including Harry Dean Stanton.

Exit Wounds – 2001, Andrzej Bartkowaik
The one with DMX. Seagal’s last film to make money at the box office, it kicked off a brief series of collaborations with rappers who want to be actors and don’t let a lack of ability stop them. As if to make up for X’s failings the cast includes Anthony ‘Antwon Mitchell’ Anderson, Michael Jai White, Bill Duke and even Eva Mendes, but all of them are underused. DMX does the soundtrack of course; including the worst ever sample of a Bill Withers song.

Half Past Dead – 2002, Don Michael Paul
The one with Ja Rule. The last Seagal film given a cinematic release. This one’s a prison drama (one more genre piece to tick off the list Steve, now how long until the film about battling cyborgs from the future?). Filmed almost entirely on a sound stage, in contrast to the straight to DVD films that followed; external locations in eastern Europe are cheaper. Morris Chestnut plays the villain in this one, you may not remember him as the comic relief black guy from Under Siege 2. The hilarity of Ja Rule getting the crap kicked out of him must have been intentional. When he’s not being bounced off the walls, he’s spouting generic gangsta bullshit that had grown very stale long before 2002, as had the Matrix style trench coats that the bad guys wear.

Renegade Justice – 2007, Don E. Fauntleroy
The one with...Eddie Griffin? The plot is typical of Segal’s modern straight to DVD fare, but what’s not typical is his clear commitment to the project. The plot is coherent, there’s no voiceover or abrupt ending which are the usual signs that Segal has fallen out with the director, demanded more money or refused to return for re-shoots. Steve rolls into LA to find out which gang killed his son; was it the Latin Gang or the Black Gang. The guy in charge of the Latin Gang is Danny Trejo, and he’s cool, so it wasn’t them. The guy in charge of the Black Gang is Eddie Griffin, whose stereotyped performance makes Marked for Death seem progressive.

Kill Switch – 2008, Jeff King
The one with Isaac Hayes. And that guy from Miami Vice (not Don Johnson, the other guy). I touched upon this one back in May this year, but only to mention how disappointing it was. It was penned by the great man himself, who has been more involved with the writing of his films from the early 2000s (about the time he started going straight to DVD). The plot revolves around some kind of Se7en-esque crazed killer picking off his victims methodically but it doesn’t take long to descend into incoherence. The fight scenes appear to have been edited in such a way to make them as funny as possible.

It’s a shame that Steve is no longer capable of more that throwing a punch or firing a gun, he’s clearly not bothered about staying in shape. A guy in a bad wig stands in for him in all the fight scenes nowadays. I’ve no idea of what his role in the upcoming Machete will be like, but I hope that someone someday casts Seagal in a role he deserves, in a film directed by someone who can keep him in check and make him stick to the script (which Steve hasn’t had a hand in writing). Until then, I suppose I’ll look in on Channel 5 or Bravo every now and then and see if they’re finally showing On Deadly Ground (the one with Michael Cane).

51st Post Guest Blog

Many thanks to Turner for letting me squat in his blog for a session as part of his 50 post celebration. Turner asked me to review a new release that I've been going on about for a good year or so now and finally saw on opening night. It turns out I'm quite poor at writing concise reviews so view if you will, my full thoughts on a Top 3 of 2010 contender:

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - Recommended

Last Wednesday Scott Pilgrim finally opened in the UK, a few weeks behind its poor opening in the US where the film disappointingly and unexpectedly bombed. Major shame, because this film deserved to be appreciated.

Let's cover the basic plot of the film. Based on the underground comic book series, Scott Pilgrim sees Michael Cera as the titular hero character coasting through his early 20s, slacking around with his band and dating a 17 year old high school girl named Knives Chau. He falls in love with a mystery new girl in town called Ramona Flowers and the movie follows them getting together. Problem is to be together Scott is required to beat her 7 evil exes in fights to the death.

Sound like a mix of a feasible but complicated indie flick, and a potentially gruesome dating movie! But the films style is a homage to 90s 8-bit computer games. You pick that up straight away when the Universal logo comes up. Awesome. When the fights happen they are cartoonish, OTT, and so impressive and continuously inventive it's amazing to watch. It's definitely a comic book movie, more so than any comic movie that's come before it. Words pop off the screen, the stylistic tics of the comic book remain intact, even including some original Bryan O'Malley art work and lettering in parts. But interestingly the comic was in itself a mix of odes to old school computer games, and the indie music scene in Toronto. These run deeply through the film as a result.

The film clearly shows its influences, for those who know what they're looking for. The computer games references range from the sublimely subtle (Great Fairy Fountain theme from Zelda playing in a daydream? Amazing) to the cringingly try hard ("What do you play?" "Zelda mostly"). There's so much more, not just in terms of throw away lines but in visual style during the fights, and amazing digital effects. If you want to investigate further see here.

What really makes this film work is the music though. Scott plays in a band, they play pretty often in the film and come up against other bands on their journey too. Films like this can live or die by the music it chooses because if that band don't sound like a real band, if it's too contrived, it just won't work (See 'Where's Fluffy?' in Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist snorearama. Don't worry, SP vs. TH is on another level). So in a master stroke in planning each separate band has an actual real life equivalent writing for it. Beck writes the Sex Bob-omb songs (lo-fi indie fuzz), Metric fill in for Clash at Demonhead (which from my own view of the comics fits them perfectly), and Broken Social Scene sort out the Crash and the Boys songs. What makes this extra clever is that once the songs are written, it's the cast performances which are used in the film meaning there's no jarring awkward voice syncing gonna happen.

More importantly than that Broken Social Scene and Metric both come from a Canadian music scene that was, at the time a couple of years ago, vibrant and exciting and it was during this time the comics were written in Canada. This helps add to the authenticity of the whole thing.

I totally loved the film. But I feel almost wrong in reviewing it. I'm not impartial. I am in every way their target audience: I've read the comics, I've grew up in the 8 and 16-bit era, I love pixel art, Zelda and chiptune, most my favourite bands come from Canada, and I like Michael Cera.

I think that last one is important in knowing if you're going to enjoy this flick. On the nets Cera gets a lot of flack about his samey act he's been doing for years now. I remember reading he'd be taking the role of Scott Pilgrim, and to be honest I was disappointed because I know what Cera does, and that's not how I pictured Scott in my head. But he doesn't just pull out his standard performance, he does step up and puts in a great showing. Scott acts thoughtless but in an innocent way, and there's growth (although it takes a while) where Scott learns a few things and how his decisions affect other people. It’s worth commending Cera on nailing the fight scenes too.

The film has a depth in its supporting cast that means in many cases the smaller characters are guilty of some scene stealing. Many reviews have mentioned the work of Kieran Culkin, who does indeed have some good lines. My personal favourite was Aubrey Plaza as Julie Powers, with a caustic dislike for Scott. The exes too are each pretty fleshed out and enjoyable, and one of the best scenes goes to Chris Evans and his turn as Pro Skater turned Action Star Lucas Lee. I'm not ashamed to say I've been following him for a while since I found he made the film "Not Another Teen Movie" not only bearable but also rewatchable. But in each sense the Exes have their own defined styles and indeed endlessly inventive and entertaining battles. Elsewhere Mark Webber is perfectly cast as Stephen Stills, the leader of Scott’s band, popular-at-the-moment Anna Kendrick turns up for a small part, and Ellen Wong makes such an adorable Knives it kinda pulls your loyalty away from the film’s intended couple.

So after all that, why would I recommend the film beyond “It’s full of games and music I like”? Well, for one it’s genuinely funny. There’s smart zippy dialogue as well as reoccurring visual gags (Scott’s haircut trauma for one). Secondly how often do things like 8 bit computer games act as stylish pointers for films? Never. Thirdly and most importantly it just needs to be seen! Edgar Wright has clearly put so much of his heart into making this a potential game changer in the way visual effects are seamlessly blended in, and how it takes the film to a higher level. You have genuinely never seen a movie that looks this way before, and given the Box Office results you probably never will.

The film isn't flawless by any means though. You leave the cinema unsure with whether you agree with Scott's choice, because out of anyone Ramona is the least fleshed out. In fact, after their first get together their relationship doesn't have too many opportunities to grow and breathe on screen beyond the battle scenes and I think this does the story some damage. The film may also drag a little towards the conclusion since the first batch of exes are all so good and the latter don't quite make it. The inclusion of Scott's ex Envy is much slimmer than her presence in the book, where we got more of the emotional damage but also some reconciliation which rounded out not only Envy more but also Scott‘s story. Finally it may be because the comic book was started 6/7 years ago but some of the styles, Ramona's in particular, just seem a little dated by today's standard. And Scott wears sweat bands still.

I’m getting the feeling there’s a lot of waffle up there, so here’s a summary:
See this movie. It’s original, inventive, playful, unique, heartfelt and funny and whenever those things are combined they should be commended and experienced at the cinema. Don’t miss it.

There’s still more I could write: Edgar Wright deserves an award, why did this film bomb in America? But they’re for another time perhaps.

In the meantime as a final tempter, if you find any of these videos amusing or at all interesting, go see this film.






Can't embed this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jMruFHTwrY&feature=related

Finally, I have a page of my own further waffles at http://lutherburger.blogspot.com/ come say hello.

Craig

50th Post Guest Blog

It’s Been A Long Time General has reached the half century! To mark the occasion I present the first of a few ‘guest blogs’ First up, the esteemed Tom Pattison.

So Pete generously has given me quite a lot of leeway for the format. I thought I would offer my thoughts on two films. One that is not considered a 'classic' that I adore and another which is considered a 'classic' that I abhor (see what I did there?). So I'll start with a film few would consider anything special that I dearly love:

Reasons I should hate this film: It is a shameless cash in on the TV popularity of the lead star; It is an arguably unnecessary retelling of a story already portrayed many times before; The director's CV includes such prestigious works as The Sweetest Thing, Just Friends and Furry Vengeance.
Guessed it yet?

Cruel Intentions (1999, directed by Roger Kumble)

I first saw this film on what turned out to be quite an unusual trip to a tiny cinema screen in Bowness. It was slightly odd thanks to the make up of the group; two friends and my sister. I made it my policy during my teenage years to keep my hormone ravaged friends at a safe distance from my blonde, older sister.
On this occasion an exception was made due to a mutual desire to drool - the object of my sister's affection was the admittedly handsome Ryan Phillipe and it will come as no surprise that for three impressionable adolescent boys in 1999 the chance to see Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a sex obsessed femme fatale was one we dare not miss. Our motives then were entirely indecent and the quality of the film was frankly a very minor side issue.

Imagine my shock then when the film turned out to be really quite good, actually scratch that, bloody fantastic. I knew my estimations had been offensively low within the first few minutes. The opening shots of Manhattan from the air, following the Jaguar whilst Bryan Molko declares 'sucker love is heaven sent, you pucker up our passions spent' is superb and really sets the tone for the film. It will come as no surprise to regular readers of my blog that soundtrack is a big deal to me (my two favourite films of the last decade Cidade de Deus and Juno are testament to the fact). This film has an absolutely belting soundtrack which is used effectively to enhance each key point of the film - Colorblind by Counting Crows perfectly encapsulates the melancholic regret of the guilt-ravaged Sebastian and Bitter Sweet Symphony is the perfect accompaniment to the unveiling of Kathryn's meticulously manufactured public fraud. This film is unfortunately remembered by many for the lesbian kiss between Gellar and Blair.

This is certainly a necessary scene but the frat-boy approach at the time of MTV amongst others really overshadowed the film as a whole. Unfairly so as the film features some terrific performances; Phillipe is magnificent in his portrayal of Sebastian's uncomfortable transition from heartless rich boy to caring lover and Gellar is comparably good in reflecting Kathryn's unwillingness to accept it. The supporting cast also deserve recognition; especially the always excellent Joshua Jackson as Sebastian's deliciously caustic gay accomplice. You will no doubt remember Jackson as Pacy Witter in Dawson's Creek but you might not know that he was amongst a small group of actors considered for the role in Batman Begins which of course went to Christian Bale. The screenplay is tight and almost has a Shakespearean influence as the characters interactions are often short, witty, one-liners. The exchanges between Gellar and Phillipe are delivered with such relish it was clearly a script the actors enjoyed delivering. Another interesting factor to the film is the off-screen relationship of Phillipe and Witherspoon who were married at the time and very much viewed as the up and coming golden couple in Tinseltown. I am loathe to reveal too much of the script but the intimate scenes featuring the two far from being tittilating are remarkably tender.

Anyway I'm beginning to babble which is incredibly rude given this is someone else's blog so I will move on. To summarise, if you've never considered watching Cruel Intentions then do - it's excellent. As for the straight to DVD sequels, avoid like the plague.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reasons I should like this film: It received overwhelmingly positive reviews from many critics and friends who's opinion I respect; It stars a lead actor who's performances I have truly enjoyed in the past; It focuses on a period of history and subject matter I have a keen interest in.

What film do I speak of that I fully expected to love but would rather attend Anfield than sit through again?

There Will Be Blood (2007, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson)
Daniel Day Lewis is a frustrating actor - he is undoubtedly brilliant and his performances in My Left Foot and Gangs of New York mean he is rightly regarded as one of the best in his business. Where my frustration lies is his limited output; I love the Walkens, Pescis and Buscemis of this world who believe variety is the spice of life and see no shame in appearing in Billy Madison or Home Alone after Goodfellas and Reservoir Dogs.

Day Lewis has cultivated a mystique of only appearing in special motion pictures. However this is not why I have no time for TWBB. The reason I loathe this film is it is utterly consumed by belief in its own brilliance. Hubris is perhaps a hyperbolic description but after the first hour, as the pace dragged along, as shots lingered far longer than would be necessary under any circumstances I couldn't escape the feeling that I was expected to feel privileged and savour each minute of footage that I have been lucky enough to sit through. The script was laboured, the direction was self-indulgent and the performances were outrageously hammy. The oft-quoted 'bring me my milkshake' deservedly being derided by some as the nadir of this laborious chore of a movie. I could well be wrong for two reasons; perhaps it was actually a wonderful piece of parody of 'worthy' Oscar vehicles, or maybe I'm simply too stupid and uncouth to 'get' TWBB. But get it I did not. Day Lewis is a wonderful actor and perhaps the best thing that could happen was the failure of the similarly dreadful Nine, I believe he is an incredibly gifted character actor and hope he returns with something of the quality of Last of the Mohicans.

Similarly Anderson is a capable film-maker who deservedly received acclaim for the daring Magnolia and Boogie Nights. I just hope they steer well clear of one another. To return to my earlier derision of the mystique of Day Lewis, I firmly believe this to be the driving reason behind the fawning critical reception There Will Be Blood enjoyed.

Thanks again to Pete for inviting me to blog and please visit my own blog at listenwithdanger.blogspot.com for music reviews.

Ten Short Film Reviews 6

The Punisher – 1989, Mark Goldblatt
Dolph Lungren was young, blond and completely miscast as Frank Castle. With his boot polish stubble and dyed black quiff he looks like a zombie Elvis. Lame B- Movie that it is, it’s probably the best of the three Punisher efforts so far. Slightly reminiscent of Schwarzenegger’s Raw Deal. I think Scott Hall aka Razer Ramon would make a good Punisher.

Dragnet – 1987, Tom Mankiewicz
I had this film recorded on video as a child and I must have watched it ten times. Then I watched it for the first time in what must have been at least 12 years. It’s OK, but Dan Aykroyd and Tom Hanks have each made better films. Like lots of eighties films it seems confused about its target audience. It’s a low brow film full of slapstick, but then suddenly there will be a very adult joke thrown in out of nowhere.

Battleship Potemkin – 1925, Sergei Eisenstein
It’s hard to appreciate now just how powerful the reaction to this film must have been in 1925. It’s very dramatic and the audiences at the time would have been shocked by the violence and won over by the message. Historically important as propaganda as well as experimental film making as the editing techniques were not common at the time.

The Incredible Hulk – 2008, Louis Leterrier
Ang Lee got a lot of stick for taking the Hulk too seriously. Five years later (with the benefit of a lot of other comic book films having gotten it right and wrong since) the guy who directed the first two Transporter films was never going to try anything other than making a fun comic book action film with great fight sequences. Leterrier played it safe and he was rewarded with Clash of The Titans, where he played it safe again. We might not hear from him again any time soon.

Body Of Lies – 2008, Ridley Scott
One of Russell Crowe’s best performances and one of Leonardo DiCaprio’s most typical. It’s a good film, very watchable. Ridley is going for the same vibe as Black Hawk Down, but it’s not as gung-ho or as exiting.

Steel Dawn – 1987, Lance Hool
‘He is the desert warrior, carving the future with his sword.’
This is how I’ll remember Patrick Swayze, as a lone warrior roaming a post apocalyptic scorched earth, helping those in need. Working the land, meditating, and beating up thugs, as I like to imagine he did in real life.
Low budget sci-fi romp with some surprisingly picturesque shots of the desert in which it was filmed (no idea which one). Reminded me of the animated series Fist of The North Star.

Paper Moon – 1973, Peter Bogdanovich
1973 was a good year for child actresses. Linda Blair was nominated for her performance as the possessed girl in The Exorcist, but she lost to ten year old Tatum O’ Neil who won the Oscar for best actress for her performance in Paper Moon. She plays a little girl tagging along with a con man (played by her actual father Ryan) as they make their way across dust bowl depression era Kansas selling Bibles to the recently bereaved. It’s an excellent film, a bit like O Brother, Where Art Thou? but without the singing.

The Mechanik – 2005, Dolph Lundgren
Former Soviet block countries have a lot to offer the straight-to –DVD action market. Dolph’s second attempt at directing an action film is a bit sterile, but it does well with the limited budget. He relies far too much on over saturated slow motion though.

Star Trek – 2009, JJ Abrams
JJ Abrams has a thing about getting to the heart of cinema. It’s admirable that he is keen to try different things and the fact that the movie studio moneymen have shown such faith in him is a reassuring sign in Hollywood’s commitment to trying something different. As good as JJ’s films are he is a bit of a one trick pony. Mission Impossible 3 features the most self aware plot devise ever used in a film; The Rabbit’s Foot. No prizes for identifying the Maguffin, but you can be forgiven at being slightly perturbed by the brazen and almost self referential use of it. Cloverfield has a similar technique of not worrying about explaining why the events are happening, just that they are entertaining. Both of these films get away with it, Star Trek...not so much.
When I first watched it at the cinema I was too busy being very self-satisfied and identifying all the references to the Star Trek universe to notice how little explanation was given to the villain of the piece. The audience learns just enough about Eric Bana’s bad guy to know what he’s doing and why, and that it’s very important that Kirk and the gang stop him. Overall it’s very good though.

The Lost Boys – 1987, Joel Schumacher
It took me a long time to get round to watching ‘The Original Comedy Horror’ but I’m glad I finally did. It’s actually worthy of the cult following it attained. Kiefer Sutherland should start rocking the bleach blond mullet again.

King of New York

King of New York - 1990, Abel Ferrara



Abel Ferrara films tend to spilt audiences into those who like them a lot and those who really dislike them. When Werner Herzog made Bad Lieutenant Port of Call: New Orleans, he was very clear to distance himself from Abel. Abe’s problem is that his films don’t age very well. The only other Abel Ferrara film I’ve seen is Bad Lieutenant, which along with KONY is very much of its time, but I don’t think that’s such a bad thing, although it means that no Ferrara film will ever be considered a classic.

KONY and BL feature leading actors putting in a lot of effort but ultimately producing unfortunate and misjudged performances, which suggests that Ferrara’s skill as a director is in choosing a story and shooting it in an atmospheric style, rather that getting the best from his cast. By way of compensation he does benefit from excellent casting if KONY is anything to go by; Chris Walken, Laurence (back when he was Larry) Fishbourn, Wesley Snipes and David Caruso.

KONY is one of those ‘gritty’ films where a lot of time is given to the action and the drama and only just enough attention is paid to characterisation. The result is characters whose objectives and goals are obvious, but whose motivation is never quite clear. It actually works well as a technique (assuming it’s intended) as it means the characters can do pretty much anything without behaving out of character.

Something that doesn’t work quite so well is the use of ambient noise. Scenes in restaurants and on the subway and anywhere that might be noisy have very loud background noise. It may be realistic, but it’s slightly annoying to watch, although it does provide stark contrast between these scenes and the quiet parts of the film.

Christopher Walken is down with the homies.
It’s very strange to watch at first, but it’s certainly more original that a film about Italian mobsters. I can’t think of another actor who could have pulled it off. Walken often plays sinister but fun loving characters, non better than his Angel Gabriel in The Prophecy trilogy.

I suppose I liked King of New York as much as Bad Lieutenant. Abel is a director who never really had great success, but the quality of his work allowed him to be quite prolific for a few years.