Directed by: Roger Christian
Written by: Corey Mandell, J.D. Shapiro, based upon the book by L. Ron Hubbard (yes, the guy who came up with scientology)
Starring: John Travolta, Forest Whitaker, Barry Pepper
IMDb Link
Man, this is considerably worse then Highlander II. Battlefield Earth is undoubtedly one of the worst movies ever made, a literal headache to watch that I recommend to no-one, even ironically.
Normally I start these with a discussion of the film's plot, since so many of the worst films are completely incomprehensible from beginning to end. Battlefield Earth isn't an exception here, but there's one key aspects of the film that needs to be talked about first.
I talked a little about this already in my "10 Worst of the 366" list, pointing out the film's use of Dutch Angles, but I cannot emphasise this enough because it's so egregious that it actually gives me a headache if I look at the film for too long. Every single shot is tilted slightly to the left or the right, and it switches between the two seemingly at random. There's also the truly bizarre transition cuts, which start from the middle and wipe outwards at a random diagonal angle. If there was a rhyme or reason for these choices, it might be impressive, but there's seemingly no purpose for the director's choice to shoot this way. While we're on the subject of visual elements of the film, the awful experience is dampened further by the film's ugly colour scheme and and derivative sci-fi style. Everything is tinted in a boring blue and grey indoors, a gross yellow outdoors, or purple if they're on the alien planet Psychlo. It wouldn't be much of an issue if the film didn't look so hideous because of it; the colours are usually heavily tinted so heavily that it just adds to the uncomfortability of having to look at the film, and the few relieving moments of beautiful treelines and mountains don't make up for the rest of this film's aesthetic. The sci-fi look of the film is nothing new in its design, and so cheaply done that it looks like a complete Star Trek knock off.
Now for the actual plot of this movie, because it's a doozy. Earth has been under control of the alien species known as Psychlo for a thousand years. The creatures are apparently so advanced that humanity was completely subjugated, with only a few scattering to live in caveman-like societies. An ambitious Psychlo named Terl (Travolta) has been forcibly stationed at Earth because he pissed off the wrong people, so he uses a group of humans to mine gold in order to attempt to buy his way off the planet. Underestimating humanity's intelligence, Terl gives one human, Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (Pepper, and yes, that's the character's actual name), rapid education and makes him a foreman at the mine, but Jonnie uses his to start a revolution, defeat the Psychlos and save humanity. It's a heavily imitative story, with the first half playing out like a bad mixture of Planet of the Apes and one of the weaker episodes of Andromeda, and the second half looking like an awfully discount Star Wars, without any of the excitement or tension.
The most obvious thing wrong with this movie, however, is John Travolta's performance. It's so hammy I could make a sandwich with the movie's disc. In another movie it might actually be entertaining because of how unnecessarily over the top it is, but with so many other aspects of this movie ultimately causing me actual physical pain, Travolta is just a nuisance that manages to eek out a couple of unintentional laughs from me. His... "acting" speaks for itself. While there is so much this movie gets wrong, Travolta's performance stands out.
The Verdict: Battlefield Earth will drain the life from you. It's a slow, tinted, tilted mess of sci-fi trope soup that isn't even enjoyable in an ironic "so bad it's good" way. Avoid it at all costs unless you enjoy simulating the feeling of your brain exiting your head through your ears.
Rating: 1/10. I'd also like to mention that this is currently on my list of the ten worst films of all time.
Published February 24th, 2017
Thursday, 23 February 2017
2017 Film Review: Your Name (2016)
Directed by: Makoto Shinkai
Written by: Makoto Shinkai, Clark Cheng (English script)
Starring: Ryunosuke Kamiki, Mone Kamishiraishi, Ryo Narita
IMDb Link
I didn't know anything about this film going in to it, other than that it's currently extremely popular in Japan. I'm happy to say that I went in blind and came out smiling.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Your Name is a bit strange in its initial premise, but not unheard of; it focuses on two characters, Taki and Mitsuha, who begin to randomly switch bodies in their sleep. Taki is a boy living in Tokyo, Mitsuha a girl living in the mountainous countryside. The two are oblivious to this phenomenon at first, believing each other's lives to be nothing more than dreams, but they quickly become aware of each other through comments from their friends and notes they've left for the other to find. Through this strange link between the two, they forge a friendship by helping each other out with their respective social lives; Taki makes Mitsuha more popular, and Mitsuha helps Taki get with a girl at his workplace. The film does a great job of mixing comedy and romance, as Taki and Mitsuha constantly bicker through notes and try to fight being honest about their insecurities; it's a cool dynamic, as the two technically don't know each other but are quite intimately aware of their existences. The film explores the lives of both characters in detail, offering you the internal perspective of both to make them likable and easy to invest in. It helps as well that the voice acting is excellent, with the two leads sounding natural in their emotions to me despite the language barrier.
Like any romance, the film eventually exchanges the comedy for some drama, but Your Name does it in a way that's definitely unexpected; I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, but I appreciate what they ultimately do with it. After dating the girl that he works with, Taki realises that he has fallen for Mitsuha, but at the same time they stop body switching, so Taki decides to travel the countryside trying to find the small town in which she lives (why he never asked her, I'm not sure). It's during this exploration that Taki discovers that Mitsuha's town was destroyed by a comet three years ago, and that a third of the town's population was killed, including Mitsuha. Yeah, it's not enough that he's body switching, he's travelling through time too. From here the film's plot starts to get culturally specific, as Taki manages to cause a switch one more time by going to Mitsuha's family shrine and drinking fermented saki that she made herself. The whole time travel aspect is over-complicated and little bizarrely executed, but it sets up the finale so well that I can except it.
Seriously, the finale is the highlight of the movie, with very real stakes set creating a huge amount of tension. I'm not going to spoil anything from here, but the film goes all-in and comes out with more than a few somber emotional moments that'll probably hit you right in the gut. The film's slightly meandering steps during its character building stage are contrasted here with breakneck speed an intensity, and even if you aren't a fan of the concept this film offers a lot to the themes of love and what it can cause people to do.
Past the plot and characters, the film looks and sounds amazing. Every type of animation has been getting better and better, which Your Name acting as another example of how far we've come, while the soundtrack sets the mood of every scene perfectly.
This feels shallow, but I don't think I can say anything new without spoiling the finale, since it really hammers home what has been built up over the previous hour of the movie, so I'll just let my verdict summarise my thoughts
The Verdict: Your Name is a beautiful film, a character-focused long-distance romance with a few high-concept twists that enhance the urgency within the plot's finale. While it's not the most accessible film, being foreign, animated, and complex in nature, but I highly recommend this film to people who aren't turned away by those factors, because the film does an excellent job at maintaining investment in its characters, even when the plot takes an even stranger turn.
Rating: 8/10
Published February 23rd, 2017
Written by: Makoto Shinkai, Clark Cheng (English script)
Starring: Ryunosuke Kamiki, Mone Kamishiraishi, Ryo Narita
IMDb Link
I didn't know anything about this film going in to it, other than that it's currently extremely popular in Japan. I'm happy to say that I went in blind and came out smiling.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Your Name is a bit strange in its initial premise, but not unheard of; it focuses on two characters, Taki and Mitsuha, who begin to randomly switch bodies in their sleep. Taki is a boy living in Tokyo, Mitsuha a girl living in the mountainous countryside. The two are oblivious to this phenomenon at first, believing each other's lives to be nothing more than dreams, but they quickly become aware of each other through comments from their friends and notes they've left for the other to find. Through this strange link between the two, they forge a friendship by helping each other out with their respective social lives; Taki makes Mitsuha more popular, and Mitsuha helps Taki get with a girl at his workplace. The film does a great job of mixing comedy and romance, as Taki and Mitsuha constantly bicker through notes and try to fight being honest about their insecurities; it's a cool dynamic, as the two technically don't know each other but are quite intimately aware of their existences. The film explores the lives of both characters in detail, offering you the internal perspective of both to make them likable and easy to invest in. It helps as well that the voice acting is excellent, with the two leads sounding natural in their emotions to me despite the language barrier.
Like any romance, the film eventually exchanges the comedy for some drama, but Your Name does it in a way that's definitely unexpected; I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, but I appreciate what they ultimately do with it. After dating the girl that he works with, Taki realises that he has fallen for Mitsuha, but at the same time they stop body switching, so Taki decides to travel the countryside trying to find the small town in which she lives (why he never asked her, I'm not sure). It's during this exploration that Taki discovers that Mitsuha's town was destroyed by a comet three years ago, and that a third of the town's population was killed, including Mitsuha. Yeah, it's not enough that he's body switching, he's travelling through time too. From here the film's plot starts to get culturally specific, as Taki manages to cause a switch one more time by going to Mitsuha's family shrine and drinking fermented saki that she made herself. The whole time travel aspect is over-complicated and little bizarrely executed, but it sets up the finale so well that I can except it.
Seriously, the finale is the highlight of the movie, with very real stakes set creating a huge amount of tension. I'm not going to spoil anything from here, but the film goes all-in and comes out with more than a few somber emotional moments that'll probably hit you right in the gut. The film's slightly meandering steps during its character building stage are contrasted here with breakneck speed an intensity, and even if you aren't a fan of the concept this film offers a lot to the themes of love and what it can cause people to do.
Past the plot and characters, the film looks and sounds amazing. Every type of animation has been getting better and better, which Your Name acting as another example of how far we've come, while the soundtrack sets the mood of every scene perfectly.
This feels shallow, but I don't think I can say anything new without spoiling the finale, since it really hammers home what has been built up over the previous hour of the movie, so I'll just let my verdict summarise my thoughts
The Verdict: Your Name is a beautiful film, a character-focused long-distance romance with a few high-concept twists that enhance the urgency within the plot's finale. While it's not the most accessible film, being foreign, animated, and complex in nature, but I highly recommend this film to people who aren't turned away by those factors, because the film does an excellent job at maintaining investment in its characters, even when the plot takes an even stranger turn.
Rating: 8/10
Published February 23rd, 2017
2017 Film Review: Fifty Shades Darker (2017)
Directed by: James Foley
Written by: Niall Leonard, based upon the book by E.L. James
Starring: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Eric Johnson
Alright, I watched it, now I'm going to go burn to death in a fire fueled only by my pure self-hatred created by having to sit through it. As you may have guessed, I wasn't a fan of the film.
There are some things that Darker did better than Grey, a lot of things it did worse, and a few things were about the same. This film is high-priced trashy smut, soft-core porn with a $55 million price tag; it pretends to be more than it is by having a high production value, but this film offers nothing of value if you take it in any way seriously, so if you have to endure it, try not to take it as such.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead (not that it really matters with this movie)*
Oh boy, let's just start from the beginning with this one. After ten minutes of moping because they broke up at the end of the first one, Anastasia and Christian are back together again, and ten minutes later they're screwing again. I suppose this is a step up for some from the first film, which took about twice as long to get to any action. Christian has somehow managed to stop doing all of the things that Ana didn't like after their week(?) long break up, so despite the fact that he still stalks her and tries to control her actions, their relationship is completely stable for the rest of the movie because he can now get it up for vanilla sex. Anastasia even comments on Christian's stalker-ish behaviour multiple times as being not okay, but he ignores it and she seems to forget about it within five minutes. That's all this film really is: a conflict arises for Ana, Christian solves it, they bang, repeat ad nauseam. Sometimes the conflict later results in Ana lucking in to a promotion, sometimes the conflict is as simple as Christian opening up to her a little, but whatever happens, the problem is solved within five minutes so that the two can screw for the next five. It's quite literally soft-core porn mixed with soap opera at this point (though admittedly in its own way that's a lot better than the "abusive relationship masquerading as BDSM" from Grey). This is only made worse by how ridiculous the film gets as it blunders on. The peak of this film's stupidity involves a helicopter crash. Christian flies a helicopter, the helicopter crashes, Ana and Christian's family rush to Christian's apartment while the police search, the news reports that Christian has just been found and is now on his way home and Christian immediately steps in to the scene. He's a little dirty, but no worse for wear. This isn't the first time Christian pulls off an impossible feat, and it's led me to believe that Christian Grey is secretly a Terminator.
That description summarises Dornan's performance as Christian. He's stiff and expressionless; at one point he states "I don't do calm" which made me burst out laughing because he's showed almost zero emotion across both of these movies. Even in scenes with more tender or dramatic moments he's still flat as a board with an unwavering voice, much like a Terminator. Honestly, if the third movie reveals that Christian is a robot from the future, who only schemed to get close to Ana so that he could stop her from mothering the saviour of mankind, then I would be unsurprised and forgive these movies for all of their crap, especially Dornan's 'acting'. I have sympathy for the guy in real life, since he didn't want to do the sex scenes, but that doesn't justify his performance when a lot of people have told me that he has done much better (eg. The Fall).
Dakota Johnson doesn't fare much better as Anastasia. She's weak, both as an actress and as a character, never really doing anything of her own volition, with any attempt to do so only really happening because Christian can make it happen. She donates $24,000 to a charity because she doesn't want Christian's money, but she was able to do so only because he gave her the money in the first place. She lucks in to a big promotion after her boss gets fired for forcefully attempting to seduce her, but that only happens because Christian is the one who fired her boss. It doesn't paint women in a good light, but I'd hope that Anastasia isn't used as a model character for women to look up to, since she's either timid or bold with no in-between, with little reason for why other than the demanding of the plot, and she looks past Christian's awful behaviour because he tells her the truth sometimes and happens to be a good lay.
Speaking of the sex, this film is - there's no other word for it - really boring about it. For a series that was touted for its use of BDSM, the film is about 90% basic, with the use of handcuffs, etc, being done away with in the first 30 seconds of any given scene. I doubt it would have saved the movie, but the vanilla way they've done it here is indicative of this movie's transition to a more 'soap opera' style. Dakota Johnson's breasts and Jamie Dornan's abs may be titillating the first time, but they're shown so often that it's desensitising. It doesn't help that these two have basically no chemistry on-screen; Dornan is stiff (pun intended) throughout every proceeding, again never really changing his expression and screwing like he's trying to prevent John Connor from destroying Skynet, while Johnson does little but gasp and moan a few times. It's a real mess, with poor plot and poor sex going back-to-back while the constant reminder that this relationship is extremely unhealthy plagued the back of my mind. It doesn't help that after they get engaged it's revealed that this entire film's plot takes place over two weeks; real romance for the ages right there.
The Verdict: What a shock, it's worse than schlock. Anyone who's on the fence about seeing it, don't, as Darker essentially destroys what little value the first film had, offering total character 180s and a plot with more holes than E.L. James' mind, as well as stiff acting so devoid of chemistry that the only emotion I felt during the sex scenes was boredom. If you refuse to take it seriously in any way, you may be able to convince yourself that this is some sort of inept comedy in a similar vein to The Room (2003). For the people reading this who wanted me to see this film just so I'd have to review it, I hope this is what you wanted to read.
Rating: 3/10
Published February 23rd, 2017
Sunday, 19 February 2017
2017 Film Review: The Great Wall (2016)
Directed by: Zhang Yimou
Written by: Carlo Bernard, Doug Miro, Tony Gilroy, Max Brooks, Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz
Starring: Matt Damon, Jing Tian, Willem Dafoe
Given that this film was directed by the director of such amazing films as Hero (2002) and House of Flying Daggers (2004), you might be forgiven for thinking that film would be more than it appeared to be. As it is, The Great Wall is essentially what is purported itself to be; a well shot highly stylised CGI-fest with enough action set pieces and monsters to make it at least worth the price of the ticket, if you're in to this sort of film.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film is a legend about the Great Wall of China, suggesting that it was used to keep out monsters, with a few liberties taken in the walls design to add spinning blades, a variety of anti-siege weapons, and platforms that soldiers jump off of while held by ropes. The soldiers set to guard the wall all have their specific duties, and in Zhang's usual style their roles are given by the colour of their armour. The commanders of these groups feel like Power Rangers; they where different colours on their armour, each helmet's design is like that of an animal, and they even have a power coin (kinda). The monsters they fight are the Taotie, reptilian creatures that attack every sixty years as punishment to humanity for an ancient emperor's treatment of his kingdom.
In the middle of this are William and Tovar (Damon and Pedro Pascal) two mercenaries who came to China after hearing about the existence of a rare black powder (gunpowder, in case you hadn't guessed), who were captured by the soldiers on the wall. William is our mature hero who must learn to fight for something other than himself, Tovar is the whiny comic relief who offers us a laugh or two.
In this movie, there may be a few times where you find yourself asking questions. "Why are the generals putting themselves in the middle of the fight when they're supposed to be leading the army?" "Why do magnets cause the monsters to shut down?" "Why do the Taotie keep attacking when the emperor they were sent to punish is long dead?" Don't worry, these questions are never really answered, because the movie is too busy trying to look cool; fortunately, the movie manages to be exciting or at least stupidly hilarious for the most part.
In the simplest terms, the action looks good, but the CGI doesn't. While this movie does a much better job than most modern action movies at looking comprehensible, the Taotie thmselves are just the same monster copy-pasted a thousand times, with an interesting design but too cartoonish to really evoke any kind of fear or wonder, and other things like mountains look lower resolution than what you see in video games nowadays. That said, the wall defense scenes are the best in the film, with spinning blades built in to the wall and women diving in to the fray with spears while held by ropes showing a little more creativity. There's also the finale, which takes place in a stained glass tower just because there's a lot of colours and it looks really cool. This movie isn't anything of substance, but it'll likely hold the attention of some.
The Verdict: The Great Wall isn't anything like Zhang's best; there's some stylised action and a few campy laughs surrounded by iffy plot, acting, dialogue and effects. I enjoyed my experience, even if it isn't a good film, so I do recommend this if you're up for some over the top colour co-ordinated set pieces that'll either get your blood pumping or give you a good chuckle.
Rating: 5/10
Published February 19th, 2017
Friday, 17 February 2017
A Look at the Worst: Highlander II: The Quickening (1991)
Directed by: Russell Mulcahy
Written by: Peter Bellwood, Brian Clemens, William N. Panzer
Starring: Christopher Lambert, Sean Connery, Virginia Madsen
IMDb Link
The original Highlander is a film that isn't particularly amazing, but played its premise in a campy-yet-hammy enough manner that it has become a cult hit over time. The idea (immortals duking it out for undefined ultimate power) is just a good enough mixture of cool and silly for the film to have niche appeal. However, the story structure ultimately left no real room for a sequel; the plot ends with the last immortal killing his final foe, being given great power, and becoming mortal so that he can finally grow old and have children with someone. It's tied up in a neat little bow of catharsis for the main character, and there should be nothing else to tell afterwards. Somehow, people found a way.
Highlander II has almost the opposite problem to Troll 2; where the latter has absolutely nothing to do with its predecessor because it isn't actually a sequel, Highlander II relies too heavily on people having seen the first one to be understandable, while also destroying everything that made the original enjoyable in the first place, at least as far as plot/premise are concerned.
From the outset the entire first movie is retconned. While the first is about immortals who absorb each other's strength by killing each other, all fighting to become the only immortal left so that they may receive an unknown 'Prize', Highlander II essentially tells the audience to forget the first movie by having Ramirez (Connery, playing a Spaniard, but with his usual Scottish accent) who, by the way, died in the first film, tell our main character MacLeod to remember instead that they aren't immortals. According to this film, they are in fact aliens from the planet Zeist, rebels against the ruling of General Katana (Michael Ironside, God bless him), who were sent to Earth as punishment for their crimes, and the prize isn't mortality and great knowledge, but a choice between mortality and returning to their home planet. As if this weren't complicated enough, they are 'sent to the future' as part of their punishment, so there's a nonsensical time travel element that adds nothing to the story because nothing is ever really done with it. The film's plot relies heavily on knowing who MacLeod and Ramirez are, but completely negates their challenges and suffering from the first film. On top of this, there's a dystopian flavour added to the story; the year is 2024, the world's ozone has burnt out and been replaced with an artificial shield, which leaves the world in constant night. MacLeod's wife dies prior to the placement of the shield due to unfiltered sunlight, as did many others. It's all so incredibly convoluted an unnecessary. What's more, this is just the set-up; the film hasn't even properly gotten started and there's already a dozen plates to spin. Honestly, the writers must have just put a bunch of sci-fi tropes into a hat and went with the first two they pulled out, that's the only explanation I can think of for why the story is structured the way it is.
At some point in the production, I think the filmmakers realised how silly what they were making was, because there's a few scenes of sheer absurdity that don't mesh at all with the rest of the film's tone, but are so completely out of left field that each of them are way more entertaining than the rest of the film's annoyingly serious style. One of these involve Connery's Ramirez, another Ironside's Katana. Ramirez certainly makes an impression on his return; despite dying in the first film, he is revived somehow, and instead of going straight to MacLeod, he first stops by a tailor to get a new suit, for no apparent reason other than that he wants to. The whole thing is such an odd waste of time, but is also sped through for the sake of "comedy" I guess, so we're left with a scene that doesn't really do anything to move the story forward and is completely unnecessary, but only exists for a few minutes. It's so... strange, there's no other word for it. As for Katana, his first moments on Earth are explosive. He appears on a train, and quickly proceeds to run said train up to its maximum speed until it comes crashing off the rails, killing everyone but himself. It's probably the funniest scene in the movie, made perfectly, stupidly hilarious by Ironside's incredibly hammy, maniacal and over the top performance, as well as a some metal from the soundtrack that comes out of nowhere and doesn't match any of the music used previously or afterwards. These moments were enough to make the movie almost bearable; if you decide to sit down and watch the movie, you could blur your eyes and mute the tv until these scenes show up, and only actually pay attention to these few moments before going back to not paying attention, and maybe you could convince yourself that the movie was ok.
The Verdict: Highlander II is a sequel nobody wanted to a film almost no-one saw until it became a cult hit. and the film deviates so much from the source material that it's long been de-canonised and barely talked about because of how awful and silly it is. While later versions have tried to make the best of a bad lot, the film is still a pile of slightly more coherent garbage, with enough moments that leave you stunned (especially if you've seen the first) to almost make it worth watching just to see how awful it is.
Rating: This is a bit tricky, because the film is so silly that if you refuse to take it in any way seriously it's actually somewhat entertaining, but if you take any funny moment and interpret as the film trying to be cool, then it fails completely. I suppose a 1/10 is most appropriate, since this film ultimately offers nothing of value past a few unintentional chuckles, but part of me wants to give it a 1.5 just because the makers of this film apparently had the balls and none of the brains to try and make this work, the film really is the most nonsensical idea for a sequel to a film that shouldn't have had one. Overall, I'll stick with my original rating of 1/10.
Published February 17th, 2017
Written by: Peter Bellwood, Brian Clemens, William N. Panzer
Starring: Christopher Lambert, Sean Connery, Virginia Madsen
IMDb Link
The original Highlander is a film that isn't particularly amazing, but played its premise in a campy-yet-hammy enough manner that it has become a cult hit over time. The idea (immortals duking it out for undefined ultimate power) is just a good enough mixture of cool and silly for the film to have niche appeal. However, the story structure ultimately left no real room for a sequel; the plot ends with the last immortal killing his final foe, being given great power, and becoming mortal so that he can finally grow old and have children with someone. It's tied up in a neat little bow of catharsis for the main character, and there should be nothing else to tell afterwards. Somehow, people found a way.
Highlander II has almost the opposite problem to Troll 2; where the latter has absolutely nothing to do with its predecessor because it isn't actually a sequel, Highlander II relies too heavily on people having seen the first one to be understandable, while also destroying everything that made the original enjoyable in the first place, at least as far as plot/premise are concerned.
From the outset the entire first movie is retconned. While the first is about immortals who absorb each other's strength by killing each other, all fighting to become the only immortal left so that they may receive an unknown 'Prize', Highlander II essentially tells the audience to forget the first movie by having Ramirez (Connery, playing a Spaniard, but with his usual Scottish accent) who, by the way, died in the first film, tell our main character MacLeod to remember instead that they aren't immortals. According to this film, they are in fact aliens from the planet Zeist, rebels against the ruling of General Katana (Michael Ironside, God bless him), who were sent to Earth as punishment for their crimes, and the prize isn't mortality and great knowledge, but a choice between mortality and returning to their home planet. As if this weren't complicated enough, they are 'sent to the future' as part of their punishment, so there's a nonsensical time travel element that adds nothing to the story because nothing is ever really done with it. The film's plot relies heavily on knowing who MacLeod and Ramirez are, but completely negates their challenges and suffering from the first film. On top of this, there's a dystopian flavour added to the story; the year is 2024, the world's ozone has burnt out and been replaced with an artificial shield, which leaves the world in constant night. MacLeod's wife dies prior to the placement of the shield due to unfiltered sunlight, as did many others. It's all so incredibly convoluted an unnecessary. What's more, this is just the set-up; the film hasn't even properly gotten started and there's already a dozen plates to spin. Honestly, the writers must have just put a bunch of sci-fi tropes into a hat and went with the first two they pulled out, that's the only explanation I can think of for why the story is structured the way it is.
At some point in the production, I think the filmmakers realised how silly what they were making was, because there's a few scenes of sheer absurdity that don't mesh at all with the rest of the film's tone, but are so completely out of left field that each of them are way more entertaining than the rest of the film's annoyingly serious style. One of these involve Connery's Ramirez, another Ironside's Katana. Ramirez certainly makes an impression on his return; despite dying in the first film, he is revived somehow, and instead of going straight to MacLeod, he first stops by a tailor to get a new suit, for no apparent reason other than that he wants to. The whole thing is such an odd waste of time, but is also sped through for the sake of "comedy" I guess, so we're left with a scene that doesn't really do anything to move the story forward and is completely unnecessary, but only exists for a few minutes. It's so... strange, there's no other word for it. As for Katana, his first moments on Earth are explosive. He appears on a train, and quickly proceeds to run said train up to its maximum speed until it comes crashing off the rails, killing everyone but himself. It's probably the funniest scene in the movie, made perfectly, stupidly hilarious by Ironside's incredibly hammy, maniacal and over the top performance, as well as a some metal from the soundtrack that comes out of nowhere and doesn't match any of the music used previously or afterwards. These moments were enough to make the movie almost bearable; if you decide to sit down and watch the movie, you could blur your eyes and mute the tv until these scenes show up, and only actually pay attention to these few moments before going back to not paying attention, and maybe you could convince yourself that the movie was ok.
The Verdict: Highlander II is a sequel nobody wanted to a film almost no-one saw until it became a cult hit. and the film deviates so much from the source material that it's long been de-canonised and barely talked about because of how awful and silly it is. While later versions have tried to make the best of a bad lot, the film is still a pile of slightly more coherent garbage, with enough moments that leave you stunned (especially if you've seen the first) to almost make it worth watching just to see how awful it is.
Rating: This is a bit tricky, because the film is so silly that if you refuse to take it in any way seriously it's actually somewhat entertaining, but if you take any funny moment and interpret as the film trying to be cool, then it fails completely. I suppose a 1/10 is most appropriate, since this film ultimately offers nothing of value past a few unintentional chuckles, but part of me wants to give it a 1.5 just because the makers of this film apparently had the balls and none of the brains to try and make this work, the film really is the most nonsensical idea for a sequel to a film that shouldn't have had one. Overall, I'll stick with my original rating of 1/10.
Published February 17th, 2017
Thursday, 16 February 2017
2017 Film Review: Silence (2016)
Directed by: Martin Scorsese
Written by: Martin Scorsese, Jay Cocks, based upon the book by Shusaku Endo
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Liam Neeson
IMDb Link
I've seen every single Best Picture Nominee for last year now, but I was anticipating none of those films as much as Silence.
Christianity has always been an important part of my life, even more so than film because it has had such a hand in the formation of my worldview. Film is my favourite thing that humanity has ever created, a way in which we can express that which is fundamental to human nature: storytelling. These two factors inherently affect my perspective on films of a Christian nature, and it is a shame that so often Christian films fail to offer anything of value to neither film nor Christianity. Thankfully this is not the case with Silence, which moved me and angered me and challenged some of the ways I think about my faith.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film is set in Japan during the 1600s. Two Jesuit priests from Portugal (Garfield and Driver) go to Japan to find their mentor (Neeson) after hearing that he renounced his faith. Once in Japan, the two priests begin to experience life in a land where Christianity is outlawed, and day after day suffer and see others suffer for their faith.
What makes this work most effectively is that Scorsese does little to manipulate emotions here; no soft musical cues or touching platitudes to make the plight of these people seem any more terrible than it is, instead Scorsese tries to present things and let us as the audience draw meaning from what we see, sometimes removing sound altogether (yes, a movies called Silence is often silent) and simply letting an image hold our focus. This is important because the film asks hard questions about morality, and there's evidently discussion to be had about these questions and whether or not they have a true answer.
In the second half of the film, after being exposed to how Christians suffer for their faith in Japan, Rodrigues is captured by Japanese authorities and imprisoned so that he can witness still more people being tortured or murdered for their beliefs. This seems monstrous, but at the same time the film doesn't treat the Japanese government as savage, just brutally pragmatic. They see Christianity as a cancer within the country that offers nothing to their culture and only corrupts their belief in the Buddha. It's distinctly tribal and seems an appropriate view to present even in today's culture considering the way people can still treat others for having a differing religion. That said, even with the understanding of their perspective it's impossible to forget all of the horrible things that they do in the name of politics and religion. People should probably take note.
Outside of the violence inflicted upon the people, there's a sickening moral dilemma that is forced upon Rodrigues in order to attempt to get him to renounce; he never yields when they bring pain down upon him, so they abuse his compassion for others and attempt to tear people down, both figuratively and literally, with the intent to stop if Rodrigues relents in his faith. It's a crisis of faith and choice that boils the blood and chills the soul, one that is far more complicated than the simple question of "Would you die for your beliefs?", and Scorsese handles it very carefully, with a few heart-wrenching final moments that'll have any devout Christian saying a prayer or two. I'm still reeling from what I've witnessed, a presentation of cruelty, strength, compassion, compromise, and so much more, all presented in a way that's surprisingly broad in its perspective given Scorsese's Catholic background, and one that doesn't judge people for moments of weakness in their faith.
On the more technical side, the film looks absolutely gorgeous. This film has been nominated for Best Cinematography, and boy does it deserve the recognition, with incredibly beautiful locations filled with green that suggest a serenity despite the intensity of the situation, and Scorsese's usual focus on character and emotion with a slightly detached air, creating an odd feeling of knowing someone closely but being unable to truly connect with them. Just look at the trailer.
The Verdict: Silence puts you through hell (I know that this was too easy given the context, but it's true). The extreme suffering of Christians in Feudal Japan is reverently expressed, never holding back the insanity of what happens and never judging those that give in to it. While I recommend this film to anyone who admires Scorsese's work and can stand some moments of slow pacing and a little repetition, I especially recommend this film to Christians and to people who have an interest in it. This film is a powerful examination of how faith was challenged in a time and place where it was unacceptable to be Christian, a discussion of what faith means and what tests it, and I cannot recommend it enough to those who care about these things.
Rating: 9/10
Published February 16th, 2017
Written by: Martin Scorsese, Jay Cocks, based upon the book by Shusaku Endo
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Adam Driver, Liam Neeson
IMDb Link
I've seen every single Best Picture Nominee for last year now, but I was anticipating none of those films as much as Silence.
Christianity has always been an important part of my life, even more so than film because it has had such a hand in the formation of my worldview. Film is my favourite thing that humanity has ever created, a way in which we can express that which is fundamental to human nature: storytelling. These two factors inherently affect my perspective on films of a Christian nature, and it is a shame that so often Christian films fail to offer anything of value to neither film nor Christianity. Thankfully this is not the case with Silence, which moved me and angered me and challenged some of the ways I think about my faith.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film is set in Japan during the 1600s. Two Jesuit priests from Portugal (Garfield and Driver) go to Japan to find their mentor (Neeson) after hearing that he renounced his faith. Once in Japan, the two priests begin to experience life in a land where Christianity is outlawed, and day after day suffer and see others suffer for their faith.
What makes this work most effectively is that Scorsese does little to manipulate emotions here; no soft musical cues or touching platitudes to make the plight of these people seem any more terrible than it is, instead Scorsese tries to present things and let us as the audience draw meaning from what we see, sometimes removing sound altogether (yes, a movies called Silence is often silent) and simply letting an image hold our focus. This is important because the film asks hard questions about morality, and there's evidently discussion to be had about these questions and whether or not they have a true answer.
In the second half of the film, after being exposed to how Christians suffer for their faith in Japan, Rodrigues is captured by Japanese authorities and imprisoned so that he can witness still more people being tortured or murdered for their beliefs. This seems monstrous, but at the same time the film doesn't treat the Japanese government as savage, just brutally pragmatic. They see Christianity as a cancer within the country that offers nothing to their culture and only corrupts their belief in the Buddha. It's distinctly tribal and seems an appropriate view to present even in today's culture considering the way people can still treat others for having a differing religion. That said, even with the understanding of their perspective it's impossible to forget all of the horrible things that they do in the name of politics and religion. People should probably take note.
Outside of the violence inflicted upon the people, there's a sickening moral dilemma that is forced upon Rodrigues in order to attempt to get him to renounce; he never yields when they bring pain down upon him, so they abuse his compassion for others and attempt to tear people down, both figuratively and literally, with the intent to stop if Rodrigues relents in his faith. It's a crisis of faith and choice that boils the blood and chills the soul, one that is far more complicated than the simple question of "Would you die for your beliefs?", and Scorsese handles it very carefully, with a few heart-wrenching final moments that'll have any devout Christian saying a prayer or two. I'm still reeling from what I've witnessed, a presentation of cruelty, strength, compassion, compromise, and so much more, all presented in a way that's surprisingly broad in its perspective given Scorsese's Catholic background, and one that doesn't judge people for moments of weakness in their faith.
On the more technical side, the film looks absolutely gorgeous. This film has been nominated for Best Cinematography, and boy does it deserve the recognition, with incredibly beautiful locations filled with green that suggest a serenity despite the intensity of the situation, and Scorsese's usual focus on character and emotion with a slightly detached air, creating an odd feeling of knowing someone closely but being unable to truly connect with them. Just look at the trailer.
The Verdict: Silence puts you through hell (I know that this was too easy given the context, but it's true). The extreme suffering of Christians in Feudal Japan is reverently expressed, never holding back the insanity of what happens and never judging those that give in to it. While I recommend this film to anyone who admires Scorsese's work and can stand some moments of slow pacing and a little repetition, I especially recommend this film to Christians and to people who have an interest in it. This film is a powerful examination of how faith was challenged in a time and place where it was unacceptable to be Christian, a discussion of what faith means and what tests it, and I cannot recommend it enough to those who care about these things.
Rating: 9/10
Published February 16th, 2017
Sunday, 12 February 2017
2017 Film Review: Hidden Figures (2016)
Directed by: Theodore Melfi
Written by: Theodore Melfi, Allison Schroeder, based on the book by Margot Lee Shetterly
Starring: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae
IMDb Link
Hidden Figures is an absolute feel-good movie, the kind of tale that leaves you with a smile on your face and a spring in your step as you walk out the theatre. While this kind of story of human triumph isn't new, it's presented very well here, largely due to the three excellent leading ladies.
The film centres on three women: Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson (Henson, Spencer, and Monae respectively), who are all working for NASA in 1961 during the early years of the space program. Hidden Figures explores the trials that have to face as both women and people of colour in that time, and seeks to show the persistence and skills of these women.
The whole thing is what you'd expect from a movie designed to warm your heart; each girl has their own individual challenge to face in a time when society treated them injustly. The goals and roadblocks these three face are all handled very well, honing the significance of their successes by not pulling punches about the racism and sexism they have to deal with on a daily basis. Even if you've heard this sort of story of justice trumping injustice before, the film does it well enough that it still cause your heart to leap a little when each woman does succeed in their area. Part of this is also because the film makes sure to present how good they are at what they do. It's rewarding to see these women succeed not just because of the progress it means for fighting racism and sexism, but also because we as an audience know how much the women have done to deserve the successes they achieve.
Each actress plays their role very well, though I particularly enjoyed Monae as the mouthy Mary; it's hard not to like a character who isn't afraid to speak her mind despite how she might be treated, and Monae is believable as the character. That said, this shouldn't distract from how good Henson and Spencer are as well. Spencer's character seems the least looked at by film's end, but she still plays the more mature and stern role extremely well, and Henson is superb as the lead character among the three, carrying the majority of the film's scenes with strength despite timidity; Henson's character Johnson has to deal with arguably the toughest challenge, and Henson presents her slow-growing confidence very naturally.
While I have a lot of praise for this film, I also found the story's pacing to falter at points. The film has to juggle the arcs of all three main characters, which meant getting involved with not just their work lives but how their work affected their home lives too, as well as including a lot of the necessary information related to the urgency of the space race. It isn't an easy task to balance all those elements, and the film handles it well enough for the most part, but there were several scene changes that felt rushed as they tried to express every characters situation before moving on the how they would deal with their problems, and the finale involving having a man in orbit come back down out of orbit fell a little flat because of a lack of tension. A small issue before launch is corrected by Johnson, and then it's out of the main characters' hands. While that should be a tense moment if we don't know whether or not this mission was successful, the film has spent its time putting a hell of a lot of confidence in faith in Johnson's abilities, and a movie maintaining this level of happiness was unlikely to drop a bomb on us before its end. It doesn't ruin the film's ending, but some of the final moments are less predictable-but-very-charming and more just predictable.
The Verdict: Hidden Figures is, in a word, nice. It tackles real issues that women and black people had to face at the societal level, but it does so in a way that never doubts the indomitable human spirit, and recognises the achievements of the three women it focuses on with great enthusiasm. While the pacing of the plot was off at times trying to juggle the three individual stories and include information relevant to the space race, the three leads never falter in their strong performances and carry the film to its end.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published February 12th, 2017
Written by: Theodore Melfi, Allison Schroeder, based on the book by Margot Lee Shetterly
Starring: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae
IMDb Link
Hidden Figures is an absolute feel-good movie, the kind of tale that leaves you with a smile on your face and a spring in your step as you walk out the theatre. While this kind of story of human triumph isn't new, it's presented very well here, largely due to the three excellent leading ladies.
The film centres on three women: Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, and Mary Jackson (Henson, Spencer, and Monae respectively), who are all working for NASA in 1961 during the early years of the space program. Hidden Figures explores the trials that have to face as both women and people of colour in that time, and seeks to show the persistence and skills of these women.
The whole thing is what you'd expect from a movie designed to warm your heart; each girl has their own individual challenge to face in a time when society treated them injustly. The goals and roadblocks these three face are all handled very well, honing the significance of their successes by not pulling punches about the racism and sexism they have to deal with on a daily basis. Even if you've heard this sort of story of justice trumping injustice before, the film does it well enough that it still cause your heart to leap a little when each woman does succeed in their area. Part of this is also because the film makes sure to present how good they are at what they do. It's rewarding to see these women succeed not just because of the progress it means for fighting racism and sexism, but also because we as an audience know how much the women have done to deserve the successes they achieve.
Each actress plays their role very well, though I particularly enjoyed Monae as the mouthy Mary; it's hard not to like a character who isn't afraid to speak her mind despite how she might be treated, and Monae is believable as the character. That said, this shouldn't distract from how good Henson and Spencer are as well. Spencer's character seems the least looked at by film's end, but she still plays the more mature and stern role extremely well, and Henson is superb as the lead character among the three, carrying the majority of the film's scenes with strength despite timidity; Henson's character Johnson has to deal with arguably the toughest challenge, and Henson presents her slow-growing confidence very naturally.
While I have a lot of praise for this film, I also found the story's pacing to falter at points. The film has to juggle the arcs of all three main characters, which meant getting involved with not just their work lives but how their work affected their home lives too, as well as including a lot of the necessary information related to the urgency of the space race. It isn't an easy task to balance all those elements, and the film handles it well enough for the most part, but there were several scene changes that felt rushed as they tried to express every characters situation before moving on the how they would deal with their problems, and the finale involving having a man in orbit come back down out of orbit fell a little flat because of a lack of tension. A small issue before launch is corrected by Johnson, and then it's out of the main characters' hands. While that should be a tense moment if we don't know whether or not this mission was successful, the film has spent its time putting a hell of a lot of confidence in faith in Johnson's abilities, and a movie maintaining this level of happiness was unlikely to drop a bomb on us before its end. It doesn't ruin the film's ending, but some of the final moments are less predictable-but-very-charming and more just predictable.
The Verdict: Hidden Figures is, in a word, nice. It tackles real issues that women and black people had to face at the societal level, but it does so in a way that never doubts the indomitable human spirit, and recognises the achievements of the three women it focuses on with great enthusiasm. While the pacing of the plot was off at times trying to juggle the three individual stories and include information relevant to the space race, the three leads never falter in their strong performances and carry the film to its end.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published February 12th, 2017
Thursday, 9 February 2017
A Look at the Worst: Troll 2 (1990)
Directed by: Claudio Fragasso
Written by: Claudio Fragasso, Rosella Drudi
Starring: Michael Paul Stephenson, George Hardy, Margo Prey
IMDb Link
This film is another "famously bad" film like Birdemic, gaining it's status not just for how incredibly awful it is, but also for some of the trivia surrounding the making of the film.
For starters, let's talk about the title. This film is called Troll 2, but it's about Goblins. Trolls are never mentioned in any way, shape or form throughout the entirety of the film's runtime. This is because distributors felt that the film (originally just titled Goblins) would not be successful if marketed as its own IP, so they tried to sell it as a sequel to the 1986 film Troll, despite Troll 2 having nothing to do with the original in any way. Distributors would later do this with another film originally titled The Crawlers, changing it to Troll 3 despite that film having nothing to do with either of the first two. You can't make this stuff up.
Then there's the debacle that was the film's production; while all of the actors are English-spoken, the director/writers are Italian, wrote the film in broken English, and refused to let the actors say the lines in any way other than how they were written. It's probably why the film is filled with so many golden lines that are either way too literal or make no sense ("You can't piss on hospitality, I won't allow it!" is my personal favourite). Everything that was done to make this film seems to have failed; even the original poster for the film features a werewolf that is never in the film, and a child that is never in the film, with nothing actually relating to the film appearing on the poster. Before you've even seen the film, it's one of the most astoundingly bad things you've ever heard of.
As for the film itself, Troll 2 is completely strange from start to finish, from plot to dialogue to acting to music and direction, there's so many things with this film that aren't just poorly done, but done in a way that it doesn't seem possible that a human could have done it and thought that it was OK. The language barrier really must have been a defining factor here, because so many lines are delivered as if the actors don't know what they're actually saying, or rather that the director doesn't really know what they're saying. Every line is rushed or has an odd pause or is spoken half loudly and then quietly, delivered with either no enthusiasm or too much, the most popular example of this film's awfulness being the "Oh my Goooooood" line. No-one in this film talks as if they're talking to each other, an actor will just say their line and then shortly after another actor will say their reply, but as if their two lines have no relation to each other.
The plot is what baffles me the most, however. While the dialogue would have much more regular "...what?" moments the plot contains all of the biggest and unexplained ones. The film opens with a narrated tale of a man being pursued by goblins, which turns out to be a story a grandfather is reading to his grandson, to warn him about how goblins can only eat plants, but they're evil so they choose to turn people in to plants so that they can eat people instead. The grandfather is warning his grandson because the family is taking a holiday to a town called Nilbog (yes, 'Goblin' spelled backwards), and knows what the rest of the family doesn't (somehow), that the town is controlled by these evil Goblins. As bizarre as this set-up for conflict is, what absolutely blows it out of the water is when it turns out that the grandfather has been dead for months and that his grandson is actually talking to his ghost, that none of the other family members can see. The grandfather often comes along to save his grandson and the family or offer some helpful advice, including freezing the rest of the family so that his grandson can piss all over some goblin-infected food to prevent the family from eating it (yes, the "piss on hospitality" line was literal). Speaking of the food, it's another strange behaviour from everyone in this film that they just don't comment on the fact that all the goblin-infected food is covered in green goo, as if that sort of thing is totally normal. There's so many other moments or aspects of this film that I could point to as points where the plot makes absolutely no sense, but my personal favourite involves the witch ruler of the goblins having a strange sort-of sex scene with a man that involves them eating an ear of corn and then getting completely submerged in popcorn. That's all that happens in the scene, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for her to not eat the guy afterwards, but we never see the man again. It's an example of this film's strange tonal shifts, where at first it seems like a horror that's trying too hard and ends up being unintentionally funny, but then the film seems to switch to intentional comedy for thirty seconds every now and then. As bad as this film is and these moments are, however, I can't help but laugh at some of these intentionally funny moments, so there may be some genuine enjoyment to be gotten out of this film for some people.
One last thing I want to talk about is some the music, which I un-ironically love because of how 80s it is in style, with a lot of guitar rifs and synth that may actually work in another film, but here just come off as strange when the rest of the soundtrack is long-held single notes to try and emphasise horror in a moment that's supposed to be scary.
The Verdict: Troll 2 is considered by many to be one of the definitive "so bad it's good" films, and I find that to be at least true to have ironically enjoyed my time watching and re-watching it. It's so terrible that it must be seen to be believed, but I can only recommend it if you can stomach these kinds of terrible movies. There's a strange joy to be had watching this film, it's truly a bizarre experience, as if it were written by aliens trying to tell a story, without knowing what a story is.
Rating: What else? 1/10. This isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but it's easily in my bottom twenty, yet it holds a special place in my heart for actually trying despite failing so much.
Published February 10th, 2017
Written by: Claudio Fragasso, Rosella Drudi
Starring: Michael Paul Stephenson, George Hardy, Margo Prey
IMDb Link
This film is another "famously bad" film like Birdemic, gaining it's status not just for how incredibly awful it is, but also for some of the trivia surrounding the making of the film.
For starters, let's talk about the title. This film is called Troll 2, but it's about Goblins. Trolls are never mentioned in any way, shape or form throughout the entirety of the film's runtime. This is because distributors felt that the film (originally just titled Goblins) would not be successful if marketed as its own IP, so they tried to sell it as a sequel to the 1986 film Troll, despite Troll 2 having nothing to do with the original in any way. Distributors would later do this with another film originally titled The Crawlers, changing it to Troll 3 despite that film having nothing to do with either of the first two. You can't make this stuff up.
Then there's the debacle that was the film's production; while all of the actors are English-spoken, the director/writers are Italian, wrote the film in broken English, and refused to let the actors say the lines in any way other than how they were written. It's probably why the film is filled with so many golden lines that are either way too literal or make no sense ("You can't piss on hospitality, I won't allow it!" is my personal favourite). Everything that was done to make this film seems to have failed; even the original poster for the film features a werewolf that is never in the film, and a child that is never in the film, with nothing actually relating to the film appearing on the poster. Before you've even seen the film, it's one of the most astoundingly bad things you've ever heard of.
As for the film itself, Troll 2 is completely strange from start to finish, from plot to dialogue to acting to music and direction, there's so many things with this film that aren't just poorly done, but done in a way that it doesn't seem possible that a human could have done it and thought that it was OK. The language barrier really must have been a defining factor here, because so many lines are delivered as if the actors don't know what they're actually saying, or rather that the director doesn't really know what they're saying. Every line is rushed or has an odd pause or is spoken half loudly and then quietly, delivered with either no enthusiasm or too much, the most popular example of this film's awfulness being the "Oh my Goooooood" line. No-one in this film talks as if they're talking to each other, an actor will just say their line and then shortly after another actor will say their reply, but as if their two lines have no relation to each other.
The plot is what baffles me the most, however. While the dialogue would have much more regular "...what?" moments the plot contains all of the biggest and unexplained ones. The film opens with a narrated tale of a man being pursued by goblins, which turns out to be a story a grandfather is reading to his grandson, to warn him about how goblins can only eat plants, but they're evil so they choose to turn people in to plants so that they can eat people instead. The grandfather is warning his grandson because the family is taking a holiday to a town called Nilbog (yes, 'Goblin' spelled backwards), and knows what the rest of the family doesn't (somehow), that the town is controlled by these evil Goblins. As bizarre as this set-up for conflict is, what absolutely blows it out of the water is when it turns out that the grandfather has been dead for months and that his grandson is actually talking to his ghost, that none of the other family members can see. The grandfather often comes along to save his grandson and the family or offer some helpful advice, including freezing the rest of the family so that his grandson can piss all over some goblin-infected food to prevent the family from eating it (yes, the "piss on hospitality" line was literal). Speaking of the food, it's another strange behaviour from everyone in this film that they just don't comment on the fact that all the goblin-infected food is covered in green goo, as if that sort of thing is totally normal. There's so many other moments or aspects of this film that I could point to as points where the plot makes absolutely no sense, but my personal favourite involves the witch ruler of the goblins having a strange sort-of sex scene with a man that involves them eating an ear of corn and then getting completely submerged in popcorn. That's all that happens in the scene, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for her to not eat the guy afterwards, but we never see the man again. It's an example of this film's strange tonal shifts, where at first it seems like a horror that's trying too hard and ends up being unintentionally funny, but then the film seems to switch to intentional comedy for thirty seconds every now and then. As bad as this film is and these moments are, however, I can't help but laugh at some of these intentionally funny moments, so there may be some genuine enjoyment to be gotten out of this film for some people.
One last thing I want to talk about is some the music, which I un-ironically love because of how 80s it is in style, with a lot of guitar rifs and synth that may actually work in another film, but here just come off as strange when the rest of the soundtrack is long-held single notes to try and emphasise horror in a moment that's supposed to be scary.
The Verdict: Troll 2 is considered by many to be one of the definitive "so bad it's good" films, and I find that to be at least true to have ironically enjoyed my time watching and re-watching it. It's so terrible that it must be seen to be believed, but I can only recommend it if you can stomach these kinds of terrible movies. There's a strange joy to be had watching this film, it's truly a bizarre experience, as if it were written by aliens trying to tell a story, without knowing what a story is.
Rating: What else? 1/10. This isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but it's easily in my bottom twenty, yet it holds a special place in my heart for actually trying despite failing so much.
Published February 10th, 2017
2017 Film Review: Fences (2016)
Directed by: Denzel Washington
Written by: August Wilson (based on the play Fences, also by August Wilson)
Starring: Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Stephen Henderson
IMDb Link
It didn't surprise me after watching Fences to hear that it was based on a play. The film carries a lot of the telltale trademarks that I first noticed in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) when I watched that last year; everything about the plot is moved through dialogue and told to us directly, while being framed in a limited number of settings with a limited number of characters. Fences doesn't do much to suggest that it was improved by being a film, doing very little with the camera to show us anything more than what we can plainly see; all significance within the film comes from the plot structure, the dialogue, the acting, with nothing to suggest that I'm getting more from this adaptation because it's a film. That said, the structure, the dialogue and the acting are all fantastically handled.
The film centres around the family of Troy Maxson (Washington), with particular focus on Troy himself and the effect he has upon the lives of the people around him. Fences uses Troy's damaged and jaded perspective to consider many themes and issues surrounding family, influence, and to an extent race, which feels appropriate given the plot's 50s setting.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Troy is a complicated figure, espousing a generally hard-headed attitude while his actions suggest an odd love for his family combined with some selfishness, self-hatred, and an inability to move forward. He was once an excellent baseball player in the Negro League, but never made it in to the Majors. Rather than make it plainly about the colour of his skin, the film complicates the discussion with the fact that Troy has committed manslaughter and spent fifteen years in prison, and accused by his wife Rose (Davis) of being too old to play the Majors at that point. Despite this knowledge Troy insists on blaming it entirely on racism, and attempts to force this attitude upon his son Cory (Jovan Adepo), who is himself a football player with talent scouts looking at him to play college football. Troy fights hard against his son's opportunity to play, professing the idea that times hadn't changed and that Cory would never get a real opportunity to play, while Cory tries his best to show his dad that times had changed and that he could make something of himself. Troy shuts Cory's goals down adamantly, however, preventing from Cory from continuing to play football altogether. This is just one aspect of a multi-faceted story looking at this family, and it's such compelling work because it doesn't simplify any of the issues it presents. Troy isn't wrong about the racism he experiences, Cory isn't wrong about his own opportunity; social grey areas as well as moral ones are the film's focus, and despite the often unlikable actions of Troy there's a few sympathetic moments as well.
All of this is presented through the excellent acting of everyone involved. Denzel is amazing, reminding why he has two Oscars by carrying the film and guiding the plot through his movement and dialogue, offering a powerful performance that every other actor plays well off of, particularly Viola Davis, who plays wonderfully as a counter to Denzel, the moral to his immoral, the soft to his hard, the weak to his strong. Each actor is in some way worthwhile when they appear on screen, so while Denzel may not have made the most out of the camera, he certainly got the very best out of every actor he put on-screen.
The Verdict: Fences doesn't take advantage of the fact that it's a film, but it still offers fantastic dialogue to propel the story and express important themes; Denzel's performance also more than makes up for his few directorial shortcomings. With a strong examination of issues such as race, self-hatred, and the dysfunctional ways in which people can love, backed by great acting from everyone involved, Fences is well worth the watch
Rating: 7.5/10
Published February 9th, 2017
Written by: August Wilson (based on the play Fences, also by August Wilson)
Starring: Denzel Washington, Viola Davis, Stephen Henderson
IMDb Link
It didn't surprise me after watching Fences to hear that it was based on a play. The film carries a lot of the telltale trademarks that I first noticed in Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) when I watched that last year; everything about the plot is moved through dialogue and told to us directly, while being framed in a limited number of settings with a limited number of characters. Fences doesn't do much to suggest that it was improved by being a film, doing very little with the camera to show us anything more than what we can plainly see; all significance within the film comes from the plot structure, the dialogue, the acting, with nothing to suggest that I'm getting more from this adaptation because it's a film. That said, the structure, the dialogue and the acting are all fantastically handled.
The film centres around the family of Troy Maxson (Washington), with particular focus on Troy himself and the effect he has upon the lives of the people around him. Fences uses Troy's damaged and jaded perspective to consider many themes and issues surrounding family, influence, and to an extent race, which feels appropriate given the plot's 50s setting.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Troy is a complicated figure, espousing a generally hard-headed attitude while his actions suggest an odd love for his family combined with some selfishness, self-hatred, and an inability to move forward. He was once an excellent baseball player in the Negro League, but never made it in to the Majors. Rather than make it plainly about the colour of his skin, the film complicates the discussion with the fact that Troy has committed manslaughter and spent fifteen years in prison, and accused by his wife Rose (Davis) of being too old to play the Majors at that point. Despite this knowledge Troy insists on blaming it entirely on racism, and attempts to force this attitude upon his son Cory (Jovan Adepo), who is himself a football player with talent scouts looking at him to play college football. Troy fights hard against his son's opportunity to play, professing the idea that times hadn't changed and that Cory would never get a real opportunity to play, while Cory tries his best to show his dad that times had changed and that he could make something of himself. Troy shuts Cory's goals down adamantly, however, preventing from Cory from continuing to play football altogether. This is just one aspect of a multi-faceted story looking at this family, and it's such compelling work because it doesn't simplify any of the issues it presents. Troy isn't wrong about the racism he experiences, Cory isn't wrong about his own opportunity; social grey areas as well as moral ones are the film's focus, and despite the often unlikable actions of Troy there's a few sympathetic moments as well.
All of this is presented through the excellent acting of everyone involved. Denzel is amazing, reminding why he has two Oscars by carrying the film and guiding the plot through his movement and dialogue, offering a powerful performance that every other actor plays well off of, particularly Viola Davis, who plays wonderfully as a counter to Denzel, the moral to his immoral, the soft to his hard, the weak to his strong. Each actor is in some way worthwhile when they appear on screen, so while Denzel may not have made the most out of the camera, he certainly got the very best out of every actor he put on-screen.
The Verdict: Fences doesn't take advantage of the fact that it's a film, but it still offers fantastic dialogue to propel the story and express important themes; Denzel's performance also more than makes up for his few directorial shortcomings. With a strong examination of issues such as race, self-hatred, and the dysfunctional ways in which people can love, backed by great acting from everyone involved, Fences is well worth the watch
Rating: 7.5/10
Published February 9th, 2017
Saturday, 4 February 2017
2017 Film Review: Manchester by the Sea (2016)
Directed by: Kenneth Lonergan
Written by: Kenneth Lonergan
Starring: Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler
IMDb Link
Manchester by the Sea is fantastic; an emotional roller coaster from start to finish, with Casey Affleck's powerful yet subtle performance drawing focus every step of the way.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Manchester is about tragedy and family; we follow Lee Chandler (Affleck), a man who lives and works as a custodian in Boston, MA, and who genuinely does not want to talk to people, avoiding human contact as much as possible. Lee has to move to Manchester, MA to take care of his nephew Patrick (Lucas Hedges) after the death of Lee's brother Joe (played by the coincidentally named Kyle Chandler). We're also given flashbacks to the various tragedies that have struck the family previously, which help us come to understand how Lee has become the way he is, while also reflecting the struggles Lee must now go through in overcoming his outlook and raising Pat.
Affleck is front and centre for essentially the entire movie, which is absolutely fine because he is astonishingly and realistically human. It's not the sort of strong and commanding acting that I think most people consider when they look at examples of amazing acting; it's subtle, and restrained, with nuance and hidden feeling behind every movement, holding your attention through how much he's capable of portraying with so little said. Lee hardly talks to anyone outside of his family, but you can see and understand his emotional journey in every moment because Affleck can show us without having to say anything. I got really invested in Lee's story, and I found myself empathising with him to the point that I nearly cried at the exact moment that he looked as if he was about to break down, but was able to hold back tears because he did too. Affleck is truly affecting, this I cannot stress enough.
The emotions he goes through are reinforced by the excellent direction from Lonergan. In this movie, you'll find yourself laughing in one moment, crying in the next, and cringing shortly after, because as Affleck creates a mood with his performance, Lonergan holds the audience in that mood; several scenes of the film are made incredibly awkward by Lee's taciturn approach to everyone besides his family (especially any woman who takes a liking to him), and Lonergan keeps you feeling the pain caused by that awkwardness. The two make a fantastic combination in this film.
Everything else is excellently done as well. Every other performance, while not as good as Affleck's, is still strong and compelling, particularly Chandler as Lee's brother and Willaims as Lee's ex-wife. The story is soul-crushingly tragic, but not laid on so thick that it comes off as melodramatic (though my one criticism of the film is the music, which did offset the mood of the film a couple of times and make it seem as if the film was trying to be melodramatic in an otherwise serious scene). This film is extremely accomplished in its goals, and absolutely deserving of its various awards and nominations.
The Verdict: Casey Affleck offers completely compelling display that can hardly even be called a performance; it feels so very real, and is one of the main reasons that Manchester by the Sea is such a great film. I highly recommend this film to anyone; however, the appeal of the film is almost entirely through Affleck, so look to his other performances in films such as Jesse James and Gone Baby Gone to get a better idea of whether or not he appeals to you.
Rating: 9/10
Published January 5th, 2017
Written by: Kenneth Lonergan
Starring: Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler
IMDb Link
Manchester by the Sea is fantastic; an emotional roller coaster from start to finish, with Casey Affleck's powerful yet subtle performance drawing focus every step of the way.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Manchester is about tragedy and family; we follow Lee Chandler (Affleck), a man who lives and works as a custodian in Boston, MA, and who genuinely does not want to talk to people, avoiding human contact as much as possible. Lee has to move to Manchester, MA to take care of his nephew Patrick (Lucas Hedges) after the death of Lee's brother Joe (played by the coincidentally named Kyle Chandler). We're also given flashbacks to the various tragedies that have struck the family previously, which help us come to understand how Lee has become the way he is, while also reflecting the struggles Lee must now go through in overcoming his outlook and raising Pat.
Affleck is front and centre for essentially the entire movie, which is absolutely fine because he is astonishingly and realistically human. It's not the sort of strong and commanding acting that I think most people consider when they look at examples of amazing acting; it's subtle, and restrained, with nuance and hidden feeling behind every movement, holding your attention through how much he's capable of portraying with so little said. Lee hardly talks to anyone outside of his family, but you can see and understand his emotional journey in every moment because Affleck can show us without having to say anything. I got really invested in Lee's story, and I found myself empathising with him to the point that I nearly cried at the exact moment that he looked as if he was about to break down, but was able to hold back tears because he did too. Affleck is truly affecting, this I cannot stress enough.
The emotions he goes through are reinforced by the excellent direction from Lonergan. In this movie, you'll find yourself laughing in one moment, crying in the next, and cringing shortly after, because as Affleck creates a mood with his performance, Lonergan holds the audience in that mood; several scenes of the film are made incredibly awkward by Lee's taciturn approach to everyone besides his family (especially any woman who takes a liking to him), and Lonergan keeps you feeling the pain caused by that awkwardness. The two make a fantastic combination in this film.
Everything else is excellently done as well. Every other performance, while not as good as Affleck's, is still strong and compelling, particularly Chandler as Lee's brother and Willaims as Lee's ex-wife. The story is soul-crushingly tragic, but not laid on so thick that it comes off as melodramatic (though my one criticism of the film is the music, which did offset the mood of the film a couple of times and make it seem as if the film was trying to be melodramatic in an otherwise serious scene). This film is extremely accomplished in its goals, and absolutely deserving of its various awards and nominations.
The Verdict: Casey Affleck offers completely compelling display that can hardly even be called a performance; it feels so very real, and is one of the main reasons that Manchester by the Sea is such a great film. I highly recommend this film to anyone; however, the appeal of the film is almost entirely through Affleck, so look to his other performances in films such as Jesse James and Gone Baby Gone to get a better idea of whether or not he appeals to you.
Rating: 9/10
Published January 5th, 2017
Thursday, 2 February 2017
A Look at the Worst: Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2010)
Directed by: James Nguyen
Written by: James Nguyen
Starring: Alan Bagh, Whitney Moore, Tippi Hedren
Birdemic is a whole other kind of terrible film compared to The Last Airbender; not some inexplicably overpriced piece of garbage, Birdemic is close to the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of entirely terrible low-budget indie films. Made for less than $10,000. by bad filmmakers using poor equipment, Birdemic is literally phenomenally bad; the film has gained a cult following similar to The Room (2003).
Birdemic is so poorly made; there isn't a single scene that doesn't have something terribly wrong with it, from start to finish. The filmmakers failed to do basic sound editing, with no background noise removed; levels change between shots, so everything can be super noisy as one character speaks, and then dead quiet as another character speaks. With sound in mind, the music is dreadful too; the filmmakers seemingly only had about three different tracks to work with, and they just get repeated over and over, while being completely out of sync with the attempted tone of the film. The camera work is terrible, with random dutch angles and often awkward character placement on-screen, with movement that suggests the camera was run by a scared little child who never knew when to move the camera, so he just pushed it around at random times. The film editing is as bad as the sound editing; cuts happen seemingly with no purpose other than a character's line has finished, so we get a lot of strange moments where the camera will be looking at two characters talking, before the film cuts to a slightly closer shot of the same two characters, allowing for the other character to say their line. It really seems as if the director thought that he could only shoot one line of dialogue at a time. The acting is positively atrocious; I spoke last week about how Jackson Rathbone seemed stiff and unnatural, well compared to the actors here Rathbone looks like Marlon Brando. People just speak out loud here, they don't really talk to each other; this isn't helped by the fact that the dialgue is absolutely cringe-worthy. Just watch fifteen seconds of the film here, and you'll see everything I'm talking about.
As for the story, it's completely terrible too. If you read up on the film, you'll find out that the two films that inspired Birdemic were Hitchcock's The Birds (1963) and An Inconvenient Truth (2006), so what we get is a movie with a central conflict about global warming and fossil fuel usage causing birds to mutate and start attacking humans. If the idea weren't bad enough, the execution is worse. Not only does the film an hour of its roughly ninety-minute run time to actually get birds involved in some way, it happens for no reason, does nothing to change the characters in any way, and ends for no reason as well. Prior to the introduction of the Birdemic, the audience is forced to sit through a hilariously embarrassing romance between software developer Rod and and fashion model Nathalie (Bagh and Moore, respectively), as well as several ham-fisted global warming-related stories and several plugs for Yoko Ono's website ImaginePeace.com.
More on Rod though, because he's a self-insert of the director, James Nguyen, who was once a software developer like Rod. For no real reason other than seemingly that James Nguyen likes to fantasise about success he'll never achieve, much of the film's pre-Birdemic scenes are also devoted to making Rod rich. He sells a million dollars worth of... something, I'm not really sure, and soon after sells his own start-up company for ten million (the scene in which this happens contains a full minute of clapping between businessmen, by the way). Rod also gets Nathalie, a fashion model turned Victoria's Secret model, who seemingly doesn't mind Rod's complete lack of personality. This all just happens, too, none of it is earned. I suppose Nguyen may have been been going for some sort of 'build them up, break them down' style of character arc, but who am I kidding, this is Birdemic we're talking about.
Once the actual Birdemic happens, it's hilariously awful in a completely new way, as the birds themselves are some of the worst effects you'll ever see. It's incredible that once this film was made, Nguyen even bothered to promote it. After the first attack, Rod and Nathalie drive around for a while, find some kids, get attacked by birds again, drive around for a while, find Nathalie's dead friend, get attacked by birds again, find a mountain man by a creek and talk about environmental safety for a bit, leave because they hear a mountain lion, meet a scientist who preaches about man's wrongdoings to the environment such as fossil fuel usage and global warming, go to a beach and catch a fish, and finally watch as the birds suddenly appear before just as suddenly leaving and heading for the horizon. That's all that happens, with no rhyme or reason for it actually happening, other than the fact that James Nguyen wants to berate anyone who watches about global warming. The film's story never makes any effort to have even a hint of structure; the birds literally start attacking because of fossil fuels and leave because the movie needed to end. This film is an utter failure in every way, and the third-worst film I have ever seen in my life.
Don't just take my word for it, though; Birdemic is a famously bad film, and there are plenty of videos online showcasing how truly terrible the film is.
The Verdict: Birdemic is such a sad and feeble attempt at film that it's laughable. The film really toes the fine line between "so bad it's good" and "completely and irredeemably awful"; it's so unbelievably poorly made that it gets painful if you watch the film for too long, but at the same time the fact that the film seems geniune in its intent and not just a forcibly terrible exploitation flick makes it sort of pathetically funny. Go watch the film if you love bad film and hate yourself enough. Just watch it with friends; with friends, it's funny, on your own, it's sad and painful.
Rating: 1/10
Published February 3rd, 2017
Written by: James Nguyen
Starring: Alan Bagh, Whitney Moore, Tippi Hedren
Birdemic is a whole other kind of terrible film compared to The Last Airbender; not some inexplicably overpriced piece of garbage, Birdemic is close to the absolute bottom of the barrel in terms of entirely terrible low-budget indie films. Made for less than $10,000. by bad filmmakers using poor equipment, Birdemic is literally phenomenally bad; the film has gained a cult following similar to The Room (2003).
Birdemic is so poorly made; there isn't a single scene that doesn't have something terribly wrong with it, from start to finish. The filmmakers failed to do basic sound editing, with no background noise removed; levels change between shots, so everything can be super noisy as one character speaks, and then dead quiet as another character speaks. With sound in mind, the music is dreadful too; the filmmakers seemingly only had about three different tracks to work with, and they just get repeated over and over, while being completely out of sync with the attempted tone of the film. The camera work is terrible, with random dutch angles and often awkward character placement on-screen, with movement that suggests the camera was run by a scared little child who never knew when to move the camera, so he just pushed it around at random times. The film editing is as bad as the sound editing; cuts happen seemingly with no purpose other than a character's line has finished, so we get a lot of strange moments where the camera will be looking at two characters talking, before the film cuts to a slightly closer shot of the same two characters, allowing for the other character to say their line. It really seems as if the director thought that he could only shoot one line of dialogue at a time. The acting is positively atrocious; I spoke last week about how Jackson Rathbone seemed stiff and unnatural, well compared to the actors here Rathbone looks like Marlon Brando. People just speak out loud here, they don't really talk to each other; this isn't helped by the fact that the dialgue is absolutely cringe-worthy. Just watch fifteen seconds of the film here, and you'll see everything I'm talking about.
As for the story, it's completely terrible too. If you read up on the film, you'll find out that the two films that inspired Birdemic were Hitchcock's The Birds (1963) and An Inconvenient Truth (2006), so what we get is a movie with a central conflict about global warming and fossil fuel usage causing birds to mutate and start attacking humans. If the idea weren't bad enough, the execution is worse. Not only does the film an hour of its roughly ninety-minute run time to actually get birds involved in some way, it happens for no reason, does nothing to change the characters in any way, and ends for no reason as well. Prior to the introduction of the Birdemic, the audience is forced to sit through a hilariously embarrassing romance between software developer Rod and and fashion model Nathalie (Bagh and Moore, respectively), as well as several ham-fisted global warming-related stories and several plugs for Yoko Ono's website ImaginePeace.com.
More on Rod though, because he's a self-insert of the director, James Nguyen, who was once a software developer like Rod. For no real reason other than seemingly that James Nguyen likes to fantasise about success he'll never achieve, much of the film's pre-Birdemic scenes are also devoted to making Rod rich. He sells a million dollars worth of... something, I'm not really sure, and soon after sells his own start-up company for ten million (the scene in which this happens contains a full minute of clapping between businessmen, by the way). Rod also gets Nathalie, a fashion model turned Victoria's Secret model, who seemingly doesn't mind Rod's complete lack of personality. This all just happens, too, none of it is earned. I suppose Nguyen may have been been going for some sort of 'build them up, break them down' style of character arc, but who am I kidding, this is Birdemic we're talking about.
Once the actual Birdemic happens, it's hilariously awful in a completely new way, as the birds themselves are some of the worst effects you'll ever see. It's incredible that once this film was made, Nguyen even bothered to promote it. After the first attack, Rod and Nathalie drive around for a while, find some kids, get attacked by birds again, drive around for a while, find Nathalie's dead friend, get attacked by birds again, find a mountain man by a creek and talk about environmental safety for a bit, leave because they hear a mountain lion, meet a scientist who preaches about man's wrongdoings to the environment such as fossil fuel usage and global warming, go to a beach and catch a fish, and finally watch as the birds suddenly appear before just as suddenly leaving and heading for the horizon. That's all that happens, with no rhyme or reason for it actually happening, other than the fact that James Nguyen wants to berate anyone who watches about global warming. The film's story never makes any effort to have even a hint of structure; the birds literally start attacking because of fossil fuels and leave because the movie needed to end. This film is an utter failure in every way, and the third-worst film I have ever seen in my life.
Don't just take my word for it, though; Birdemic is a famously bad film, and there are plenty of videos online showcasing how truly terrible the film is.
The Verdict: Birdemic is such a sad and feeble attempt at film that it's laughable. The film really toes the fine line between "so bad it's good" and "completely and irredeemably awful"; it's so unbelievably poorly made that it gets painful if you watch the film for too long, but at the same time the fact that the film seems geniune in its intent and not just a forcibly terrible exploitation flick makes it sort of pathetically funny. Go watch the film if you love bad film and hate yourself enough. Just watch it with friends; with friends, it's funny, on your own, it's sad and painful.
Rating: 1/10
Published February 3rd, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)