Directed by: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez
Written by: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez
Starring: Heather Donahue, Michael C. Williams, Joshua Leonard
I want to preface this by saying that a lot of this is discussion of found footage films before I get in to The Blair Witch Project.
I simply do not like found footage movies. While I can sit down and watch absolutely any movie, it takes a lot for me to actually consider watching this type of film; I find it easier to watch a terrible b-movie like Tammy and the T-Rex because the weaknesses and tropes of that genre of film are charmingly stupid to me, while aspects unique to found footage films I find mildly infuriating.
Most of the issues I have with found footage films is the fact that the camera has to be an actual component of the story, which requires the writers to actually insert reasons for the cameras to be there in every scene; the most egregious movie for this particular trope is Chronicle (2012). While the main character's reasons for using a camera (mostly) worked, Chronicle had a B-story that was ultimately superfluous to the overall plot, but didn't involve the main camera-toting character, so there had to be an additional reason for another unimportant character to also be constantly using a camera. Chronicle is overall a pretty good movie, but it seems the found footage style was holding the film back rather than helping.
Another fact attached to the existence of the camera is the fact that someone has to be holding it every scene, so when something important happens, filmmakers aren't sure what to do with the character holding the camera; helping usually means dropping or shutting off the camera, which obviously can't happen if the film is to keep going, and if the character doesn't help in a crisis then they just come of as stupid or evil, which isn't necessarily the filmmaker's intention. My least favourite examples are in Cloverfield: the character 'Hud' never puts down the camera or acts like an actual human being, including in one scene that involves the group of main characters getting attacked by monsters; Hud just films, he doesn't help fight the monsters off as every other character does. You could argue that Hud's inaction is due to fear causing his to freeze, but it's difficult not to think about the fact that it's actually just because the filmmakers need for the audience to see monsters.
An extension of these issues is the fact that the film style is very limited; either the camera has to be placed on a flat surface, giving us a static medium shot for the entire scene and not being at all interesting to look at, or the entire thing has to be handheld, which is difficult to look at because the camera ends up getting shaken all over the place. It makes the entire experience come off as very cheap, like the filmmakers didn't know any techniques so they just took a camera and put it in the hands of the actors, hoping for the best. This seems to have literally been the case for Project Almanac (2015), in which most of the filming was done with GoPros attached to the actors' bodies.
This leads in to another key issue I have with found footage film, especially found footage Horror, which is the fact that it has to toe a very thin line between effective storytelling and convincingly imitating realism. Part of what made found footage films a phenomenon is the fact that they were usually touted as true tales; Cannibal Holocaust and The Blair Witch Project drummed up controversy thanks to the efforts of the filmmakers outside of the making of the film itself; Ruggero Deodato (Director of Cannibal Holocaust) had the actors in the film, portraying a documentary crew that goes missing, disappear from the public eye for a time following the film's release, which hammered home the idea that what was happening in the film was real (though, to be fair, the acts of actual animal cruelty that happened on-screen probably helped with the 'realism'). Likewise, the makers of The Blair Witch Project created their own myth that they then filmed an actual documentary for, and released before the actual film's release, as a way of promoting the Blair Witch myth as a potential reality. While it's harder to do that sort of extracurricular activity for a found footage film in an era when found footage films are constant, it still shows that care and time was put in to making the film in a way that can't be expressed through the actual use of the camera. These factors make it easy for me to break my suspension of disbelief when watching a found footage film, because very little effort is put in to giving reasons for the films to be found footage, and so they end up just coming off as home movies people pay to see at the cinema.
Finally, I have a dislike for found footage films because they're incredibly played-out at this point. They're like the superhero movies of the Horror genre, easy to make money off of and pumped out as fast as possible for fear of that bubble bursting. People making these films don't seem to be trying to make a good movie first, they're just using the fact that found footage movies are cheap and running the subgenre in to the ground. If you need proof, look no further than the Paranormal Activity series.
With all this in mind, The Blair Witch Project is actually a very good film. It may not be the first found footage film, but it certainly threw a spotlight on the subgenre, and when trying to look through the lens of someone seeing this for the first time in 1999, it's easy to see why it was so effective. From the start, there is a reason for the characters to be using cameras, they are student filmmakers looking to film a documentary about the Blair Witch, a myth spread around the town of Burkittsville, Maryland, after a man committed a series of child murders and ended up blaming on the ghost of a woman who lived in the town of Blair (the site of which Burkittsville is built on) and was burned alive for the practicing of witchcraft.
The idea that people using the cameras are filmmakers here to film a documentary is the easiest, most believable reason to have them using the cameras at all times; I also thought the use of black and white at certain, seemingly random points in the film worked for this reason, because it's a slight stereotype that budding filmmakers use black and white to try and make their shots seem deeper or more poignant.
In addition to believably justifiable reasons for the style, the film has effective horror through a consistent use of 'less is more', attempting to play tricks on your mind by using black movement across a black nighttime shot and the seemingly genuine fear and distress of its characters. I have to give credit to the actors in this film, they're not anything amazing, but they're believable in the film's more tense moments and carry the film's cheaper ones.
There isn't much more to say about the film than that; it's got a simple but effective plot, with characters that don't really develop before they're thrown in to a harrowing situation, as most of the film's early stages are dedicated to building up the idea of the Blair Witch. The scares, once they arrive, are mostly gripping, built up slowly with light noises and a little disturbing imagery, similar to other found footage Horrors but with character tension in between so that the film doesn't become a boring game of me trying to guess when the next scare is going to happen. On a personally appealing note, the filmmakers don't try to stretch the film out too much, which is a good idea because there's only so many nights before characters being lost in the woods stops being thrilling and starts being boring before becoming plain silly. It's over in under an hour and a half, quick and easy, even for a type of film I dislike.
The Verdict: My personal bias against found footage films aside, The Blair Witch Project is a good film. It avoids a lot of the pitfalls that annoy me in other found footage films because it existed before those pitfalls did, and mostly just tries to be minimalist horror, using the found footage style in a time that it was new and exciting, not overdone and boring. The film starts slow and boring, but once the characters are in a place of actual potential danger, the film is effective at evoking fear without having to show much at all. It's worth a watch if you're interested in found footage films, certainly better than the other films I have mentioned in this review, and especially because it really got the ball rolling on the whole phenomenon, but if you're like me and don't enjoy found footage films, this isn't a must-see.
Rating: 7/10
Published December 22nd, 2016
Thursday, 22 December 2016
Sunday, 18 December 2016
Film 361: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)
Directed by: Gareth Edwards
Written by: Chris Weitz, Tony Gilroy
Starring: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Alan Tudyk
I loved 2014's Godzilla far more than most, and other than my sheer love for Godzilla as a concept, my biggest reason for this was the directorial efforts of Gareth Edwards. The man has a defined sense of scale and knows how to present it clearly on-screen; in Godzilla he knew how to make the titular monster seem massive and threatening, and this skill is clearly shown in Rogue One as he moves to reveal threats like the Death Star or Darth Vader. Edwards' skill here gives the massively CGI moments we view real weight and power; without giving anything away, Edwards knows how to show sheer CGI destruction in a way that feels credible.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Rogue One follows Jyn Erso (Jones), daughter of one of the creators of the Death Star Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen). Jyn is recruited by the Rebel Alliance to help find her estranged father, who has used an Imperial Pilot defector (Riz Ahmed) to get a message out about the Death Star and the weakness he secretly built in to it, the same weakness that Luke abuses in A New Hope. Along the way, Jyn ultimately groups together with a band of colourful misfits, each with various quirks or chips on their shoulders, including my personal favourite Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen), a blind priest of The Force who offers the usual amount of ass-kicking you can expect from Yen.
The plot is a little meandering at first, drawing a couple of threads and characters together before it really gets going. Once it does, however, the film takes off and works wonderfully. The constant threat of the Death Star is set early on and is positively palpable, and it spurns the characters ever-forward. It was nice to have a blockbuster this year that, for the most part, didn't have pacing issues and maintained focus on its end goal. The film also has excellent tone, consistently darker than other Star Wars entries, and with humour that is a little more dry than silly.
That said, what the film did right in terms of plot, it fell a little short in terms of character. Each of the group of misfits is very cool or interesting in their own way, but they're also underdeveloped, so none of their emotional peaks have as much weight as seem to want to have. This is most true for the two leads in Jyn and Cassian Andor (Luna), who have several moments that were very significant to their characters, but I found it difficult to really empathise with them in those moments because the plot has been moving this whole time, and the moments are gone before they can really leave a mark. It isn't completely damaging to the movie, but it makes the significant pressure of their mission impersonal.
The Verdict: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a satisfying entry in the series. It tells an interesting and engaging story with genuinely well-done tension and suspense despite the foregone conclusion, but the film is held back a little by lack of definition in its characters. This isn't enough to put a damper on the experience as a whole, however, and I highly recommend the film, as it can appeal to both long-time fans of Star Wars and to general moviegoers.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published December 18th, 2016
Written by: Chris Weitz, Tony Gilroy
Starring: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Alan Tudyk
I loved 2014's Godzilla far more than most, and other than my sheer love for Godzilla as a concept, my biggest reason for this was the directorial efforts of Gareth Edwards. The man has a defined sense of scale and knows how to present it clearly on-screen; in Godzilla he knew how to make the titular monster seem massive and threatening, and this skill is clearly shown in Rogue One as he moves to reveal threats like the Death Star or Darth Vader. Edwards' skill here gives the massively CGI moments we view real weight and power; without giving anything away, Edwards knows how to show sheer CGI destruction in a way that feels credible.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Rogue One follows Jyn Erso (Jones), daughter of one of the creators of the Death Star Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen). Jyn is recruited by the Rebel Alliance to help find her estranged father, who has used an Imperial Pilot defector (Riz Ahmed) to get a message out about the Death Star and the weakness he secretly built in to it, the same weakness that Luke abuses in A New Hope. Along the way, Jyn ultimately groups together with a band of colourful misfits, each with various quirks or chips on their shoulders, including my personal favourite Chirrut Imwe (Donnie Yen), a blind priest of The Force who offers the usual amount of ass-kicking you can expect from Yen.
The plot is a little meandering at first, drawing a couple of threads and characters together before it really gets going. Once it does, however, the film takes off and works wonderfully. The constant threat of the Death Star is set early on and is positively palpable, and it spurns the characters ever-forward. It was nice to have a blockbuster this year that, for the most part, didn't have pacing issues and maintained focus on its end goal. The film also has excellent tone, consistently darker than other Star Wars entries, and with humour that is a little more dry than silly.
That said, what the film did right in terms of plot, it fell a little short in terms of character. Each of the group of misfits is very cool or interesting in their own way, but they're also underdeveloped, so none of their emotional peaks have as much weight as seem to want to have. This is most true for the two leads in Jyn and Cassian Andor (Luna), who have several moments that were very significant to their characters, but I found it difficult to really empathise with them in those moments because the plot has been moving this whole time, and the moments are gone before they can really leave a mark. It isn't completely damaging to the movie, but it makes the significant pressure of their mission impersonal.
The Verdict: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is a satisfying entry in the series. It tells an interesting and engaging story with genuinely well-done tension and suspense despite the foregone conclusion, but the film is held back a little by lack of definition in its characters. This isn't enough to put a damper on the experience as a whole, however, and I highly recommend the film, as it can appeal to both long-time fans of Star Wars and to general moviegoers.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published December 18th, 2016
Friday, 16 December 2016
Film 86: Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Directed by: Zack Snyder
Written by: David S. Goyer, Chris Terrio
Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams
Batman vs. Superman is bizarre. It's such an ambitious film, trying so hard to be something complex and meaningful, something more than the sort of easy, candy-coloured superhero films people have become accustomed to receiving from Marvel. However, the film fails to effectively convey any of the themes and issues it attempts to explore, mired in a poorly paced plot and an incredible amount of unnecessary moments, and so everything that could have a potential impact ends up feeling like the film is trying too hard.
There's so much to talk about with this film, as evidenced by the sheer amount of discussion that has surrounded the film since its release. I've seen people claiming the film as some Shakespearean tragedy wrapped up in French New Wave film-making, I've seen people calling it one of the worst movies they have ever seen, and I've seen people say just about everything in between. With that in mind, it's hard to write anything about this film that will actually contribute anything new, so I apologise in advance if what I'm writing seems unoriginal.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
I suppose an important place to start with any Snyder film is the visuals, an aspect that perfectly exemplifies BvS' "trying too hard" atmosphere. Snyder manages to create some truly incredible shots in this film, lots of slow-motion montages attached with a swelling orchestral score and highly stylised shots, complex and overloaded with particles, plenty of light sources to get parallax in motion, and regular use of religious iconography to convey the "Man vs. God" angle the film tries to go for. Unfortunately, a lot of this ends up falling flat because so much of the film appears this way. When so many scenes in the film scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT HOW COMPLEX AND PRETTY I AM", they all start to blur together, leaving very few of them with any noticeable impact, like the visual equivalent of white noise. You can look at an individual frame in the film and say, "that's pretty amazing, a lot of work clearly went in to this", but in the context of the film it's just one more overdone frame among thousands. Again, it's clear that this film had passion poured in to it, at least visually speaking, but there's almost no restraint being used here.
I think another important aspect of this film is the weak and overly convoluted plot, and the cognitive dissonance between it and the film's themes. It's clear that the film has little bits and pieces of political agenda spattered throughout; the first fifteen minutes has a warlord speak on the idea that men with power are not beholden to policy or principle, and less than five minutes later we see conflict between CIA men on the ground and those with control of drones, as the ones on the ground argue to prevent the loss of civilian life while the men in control of the drones continue on without heed. This is all before Superman is even re-introduced as a character. 'Power corrupts' is a much-explored theme in storytelling, and it seems that the film wants to give Superman the opportunity to face that theme as a challenge, to be the incorruptible power, but the film also spends so little time on developing Superman as a character that I was left wondering why they even bothered to attempt to give him an arc. The themes and issues are clearly present and attached to Superman, however the film ends up looking at every character but Superman, leaving the themes and issues shallow.
This all seems to be largely to do with how the movie was made, which is my biggest problem with the film overall, as from it stems all of the film's other problems. BvS was originally supposed to simply be a sequel to Man of Steel (2013), before Warner Bros. stepped in and asked Snyder to make it a Batman vs Superman movie, and not too long after that they asked Snyder again to make it a Batman vs. Superman movie that also set up the Justice League. Somehow from there we also got Wonder Woman's inclusion and a finale with Doomsday, not to mention the sheer amount of product placement completely breaking my suspension of disbelief more than once. So much ends up being crammed in to this movie that the good ideas and hard work are lost among moments with no cinematic value that do nothing to serve the story.
A lot of people point to the infamous 'Martha' moment as the breaking point for them in the movie, but as stupidly executed as the moment is, at least it serves to move the story forward. For me personally, the absolute worst moment in the film is a scene with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) in her hotel room. She opens an e-mail from Batman and proceeds to look at clips of The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. This scene has absolutely no bearing on the plot and could be completely removed from the movie to no ill effect; it's simply used as an advertisement for the upcoming DC superhero movies. An advertisement for several movie almost two hours in to another movie, with literally no use aside from that. It's not even used as the scene that convinces Wonder Woman to join in on the fight because they instead save that moment for a scene that lets them advertise Turkish Airlines. This is absolute worst, most cynical type of film-making, crammed alongside the passionate work of a generally lacklustre film-maker.
That said, there are several aspects of the film that are considerably better than its worst. Affleck's Batman's introduction is mixed, as there's an obviously large amount of backstory that's left out because for some reason this Batman is twenty years on the job and yet was not given a movie to himself to flesh some of it out. Affleck manages to make the character work for the most part despite this, and his action scene fighting a gang of mercenaries hired by Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is easily the best scene in the film, with high-octane, brutal action and excellent camera work that exhibits the action clearly, instead of the usually cut-o-ramas that make up most action scenes from films in the past few years. The score also never falters, doing its best to accentuate the feelings that are supposed to be attached to what we're looking at.
I really could go on, there's so much more to talk about, both good and bad, but I don't want to end up rambling. If I started talking about the 'Martha' moment or the death of Superman, Lex Luthor's character or the truly awful third act, I could be here all day and all night.
The Verdict: Batman vs. Superman is a movie that tries to be great and ends up being mediocre. If you're interested in this film, you've probably already seen it. If you haven't, it's likely worth the watch, unless you're fatigued towards superhero movies at this point, a completely understandable attitude. Otherwise, it's interesting to watch just to consider all of the ways Snyder tries and fails leave his audience in awe while Warner Bros. rams their bloated attempt at a cinematic universe down their throats.
Rating: 4.5/10*
*Addendum: The 4.5/10 rating is for the original theatrical experience. I have since then taken the time to watch the 'Ultimate Edition', and while it doesn't remedy all of the film's weaknesses, the plot is considerably clearer (though it does raise further questions, namely "why was this cut from the theatrical release?") and Superman is actually a character in his own movie. With the changes in the Ultimate edition taken in to consideration, I would be more inclined to give the film a 5/10.
Published December 17th, 2016
Written by: David S. Goyer, Chris Terrio
Starring: Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams
Batman vs. Superman is bizarre. It's such an ambitious film, trying so hard to be something complex and meaningful, something more than the sort of easy, candy-coloured superhero films people have become accustomed to receiving from Marvel. However, the film fails to effectively convey any of the themes and issues it attempts to explore, mired in a poorly paced plot and an incredible amount of unnecessary moments, and so everything that could have a potential impact ends up feeling like the film is trying too hard.
There's so much to talk about with this film, as evidenced by the sheer amount of discussion that has surrounded the film since its release. I've seen people claiming the film as some Shakespearean tragedy wrapped up in French New Wave film-making, I've seen people calling it one of the worst movies they have ever seen, and I've seen people say just about everything in between. With that in mind, it's hard to write anything about this film that will actually contribute anything new, so I apologise in advance if what I'm writing seems unoriginal.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
I suppose an important place to start with any Snyder film is the visuals, an aspect that perfectly exemplifies BvS' "trying too hard" atmosphere. Snyder manages to create some truly incredible shots in this film, lots of slow-motion montages attached with a swelling orchestral score and highly stylised shots, complex and overloaded with particles, plenty of light sources to get parallax in motion, and regular use of religious iconography to convey the "Man vs. God" angle the film tries to go for. Unfortunately, a lot of this ends up falling flat because so much of the film appears this way. When so many scenes in the film scream "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT HOW COMPLEX AND PRETTY I AM", they all start to blur together, leaving very few of them with any noticeable impact, like the visual equivalent of white noise. You can look at an individual frame in the film and say, "that's pretty amazing, a lot of work clearly went in to this", but in the context of the film it's just one more overdone frame among thousands. Again, it's clear that this film had passion poured in to it, at least visually speaking, but there's almost no restraint being used here.
I think another important aspect of this film is the weak and overly convoluted plot, and the cognitive dissonance between it and the film's themes. It's clear that the film has little bits and pieces of political agenda spattered throughout; the first fifteen minutes has a warlord speak on the idea that men with power are not beholden to policy or principle, and less than five minutes later we see conflict between CIA men on the ground and those with control of drones, as the ones on the ground argue to prevent the loss of civilian life while the men in control of the drones continue on without heed. This is all before Superman is even re-introduced as a character. 'Power corrupts' is a much-explored theme in storytelling, and it seems that the film wants to give Superman the opportunity to face that theme as a challenge, to be the incorruptible power, but the film also spends so little time on developing Superman as a character that I was left wondering why they even bothered to attempt to give him an arc. The themes and issues are clearly present and attached to Superman, however the film ends up looking at every character but Superman, leaving the themes and issues shallow.
This all seems to be largely to do with how the movie was made, which is my biggest problem with the film overall, as from it stems all of the film's other problems. BvS was originally supposed to simply be a sequel to Man of Steel (2013), before Warner Bros. stepped in and asked Snyder to make it a Batman vs Superman movie, and not too long after that they asked Snyder again to make it a Batman vs. Superman movie that also set up the Justice League. Somehow from there we also got Wonder Woman's inclusion and a finale with Doomsday, not to mention the sheer amount of product placement completely breaking my suspension of disbelief more than once. So much ends up being crammed in to this movie that the good ideas and hard work are lost among moments with no cinematic value that do nothing to serve the story.
A lot of people point to the infamous 'Martha' moment as the breaking point for them in the movie, but as stupidly executed as the moment is, at least it serves to move the story forward. For me personally, the absolute worst moment in the film is a scene with Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) in her hotel room. She opens an e-mail from Batman and proceeds to look at clips of The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg. This scene has absolutely no bearing on the plot and could be completely removed from the movie to no ill effect; it's simply used as an advertisement for the upcoming DC superhero movies. An advertisement for several movie almost two hours in to another movie, with literally no use aside from that. It's not even used as the scene that convinces Wonder Woman to join in on the fight because they instead save that moment for a scene that lets them advertise Turkish Airlines. This is absolute worst, most cynical type of film-making, crammed alongside the passionate work of a generally lacklustre film-maker.
That said, there are several aspects of the film that are considerably better than its worst. Affleck's Batman's introduction is mixed, as there's an obviously large amount of backstory that's left out because for some reason this Batman is twenty years on the job and yet was not given a movie to himself to flesh some of it out. Affleck manages to make the character work for the most part despite this, and his action scene fighting a gang of mercenaries hired by Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) is easily the best scene in the film, with high-octane, brutal action and excellent camera work that exhibits the action clearly, instead of the usually cut-o-ramas that make up most action scenes from films in the past few years. The score also never falters, doing its best to accentuate the feelings that are supposed to be attached to what we're looking at.
I really could go on, there's so much more to talk about, both good and bad, but I don't want to end up rambling. If I started talking about the 'Martha' moment or the death of Superman, Lex Luthor's character or the truly awful third act, I could be here all day and all night.
The Verdict: Batman vs. Superman is a movie that tries to be great and ends up being mediocre. If you're interested in this film, you've probably already seen it. If you haven't, it's likely worth the watch, unless you're fatigued towards superhero movies at this point, a completely understandable attitude. Otherwise, it's interesting to watch just to consider all of the ways Snyder tries and fails leave his audience in awe while Warner Bros. rams their bloated attempt at a cinematic universe down their throats.
Rating: 4.5/10*
*Addendum: The 4.5/10 rating is for the original theatrical experience. I have since then taken the time to watch the 'Ultimate Edition', and while it doesn't remedy all of the film's weaknesses, the plot is considerably clearer (though it does raise further questions, namely "why was this cut from the theatrical release?") and Superman is actually a character in his own movie. With the changes in the Ultimate edition taken in to consideration, I would be more inclined to give the film a 5/10.
Published December 17th, 2016
Monday, 5 December 2016
Film 214: Godzilla (1954)
Directed by: Ishiro Honda
Written by: Ishiro Honda, Takeo Murata, Shigeru Kayama
Starring: Takashi Shimura, Akihiko Hirata, Akira Takarada
There are many factors that led me to make this the next film that I reviewed. Most importantly I think is the fact that the last film I wrote about was Seven Samurai, which got me thinking about other films I have watched this year that can be considered 'foreign' or 'old', trying to find a more precise rule for why I have difficulty engaging with certain films than just those two very rough criteria. It seems fitting to look at another Japanese film released in 1954, produced by Toho and even containing some of the same actors. I should also mention, however, that this was also somewhat inspired by kaptainkristian's video Godzilla - The Soul of Japan. Kristian thoroughly explores Godzilla's image as it has transformed, both over time and overseas.
In the same way that I have always been a film fan yet never gone out of my way to see many of the films people 'should' see, I have for as long as I can remember been a fan of Godzilla, yet it took me until this year and this goal to actually sit down and watch the film that spawned a legend.
The original Godzilla is so very different from every other Godzilla film that I have seen. It seems to be because of two equally important factors: Godzilla is the only monster on screen, and he's the villain.
In other films like 2001's Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (yes, that's its actual title, and yes, I did mention this film just so that I could point out the title), or 2002's Godzilla Against MechaGodzilla, the giant radioactive dinosaur is the villain, but his threat is a little diminished because there are other kaiju there to fight Godzilla, so there's little time or need to care about the human characters. In GMK they even make a gag out of several character deaths.
Likewise, in films like Legendary's take on Godzilla in 2014, or something like Godzilla: Final Wars, Godzilla is a straight-up saviour of the world, killing monsters in incredible ways and leaving humanity in awe. There's nothing that suggests that Godzilla is an actual threat to humanity, because any damage Godzilla causes is overridden by the good he does.
In this original Godzilla, however, the Big G is nothing but a monster that causes nothing but destruction, with no remorse or regard for human life, and there's no other monster here to bail humanity out, either; Godzilla stomps Japan in to the ground the people have only themselves to rely on. It turns Godzilla in to a truly horrifying creature to behold; even if the effects look dated, it's still very clear that a lot of effort went in to making Godzilla look massive and scary, with many shots taken from below, with dark shadows covering much of his body. 2014's Godzilla uses a lot of similar visual techniques to make Godzilla huge, but as a way of creating awe rather than terror.
What makes the techniques here doubly effective are the humans who experience Godzilla's path of destruction. While much of the film is the Japanese Government spending time trying to figure out what to do, or rather what they can possibly do, about Godzilla, which may get boring for some people, I implore the people who read this to find the movie and at least watch the scene of destruction in the film; unlike most Godzilla movies, which wreak havoc across the course of the film, the original contains most of its chaos in one long scene of pure horrifying mayhem. It is truly something to behold, especially when you consider the context of Godzilla's creation.
For those who don't know, Godzilla was originally created as an allegory for the effect of atomic warfare; it is even stated in the film that Godzilla was created by the radiation caused by atomic warfare. This allegory goes even in to Godzilla's original design; his skin isn't scaly, it's black and charred, in an effort to affect the look of someone burned by atomic fire.
Taking this in to consideration, I found it impossible not to be impressed by the destruction scene. It's tied intrinsically to the experiences of the filmmakers, who have seen what this sort of destruction does to people, and I could feel the intent in their work, an effort to express the pain and loss Japan was feeling. There isn't a lot of personal character development in this film that we can attach ourselves to, but the film does evoke some of our most basic attachments and the ability of people to survive in a time of tragedy. This is summarised best in a scene involving a mother, cowering in a house with her two children, as Godzilla burns and collapses the building they're in, as she comforts her children with a reminder that they'll be with their father soon. We have no idea who this mother or her children are, but it's easy to feel terrible for those people in that moment when you consider that this is a stand-in for genuine horror at a real situation that was so fresh in the minds of the people at the time.
The acting in this movie may be generally average at best, the effects ranging between cheesy and downright terrible, and the plot may have a nonsensical deus ex machina ending, but it's clear that a lot of effort went in to this film to make Godzilla a terrifying realisation of the effects of atomic warfare. There's also no denying the fact that Godzilla had a massive impact on Japan at the time and continues to do so; the 29th film by Toho, Shin Godizlla was released earlier this year, and we'll continue to see more from them as well as from Legendary Pictures, who will produce sequels to their 2014 work in an effort to build a Kaiju Cinematic Universe.
As for whether or not the 'old and foreign' rule applied here, it's a little bit split. While much of the film was relatively mediocre, only maintaining my interest because it's a Godzilla movie, I absolutely engaged with the scenes involving Godzilla's rampage through Japan and the humans dealing with the aftermath.
The Verdict: Godzilla is an imperfect film with an important place in film and Japanese history. It's heavily flawed on its own, but thankfully a film does not exist within vacuum. If you want to find out where cinema's biggest monster started, or learn a little more about Japanese film history, then absolutely give this film a watch.
Rating: 8/10
Published December 6th, 2016
Written by: Ishiro Honda, Takeo Murata, Shigeru Kayama
Starring: Takashi Shimura, Akihiko Hirata, Akira Takarada
There are many factors that led me to make this the next film that I reviewed. Most importantly I think is the fact that the last film I wrote about was Seven Samurai, which got me thinking about other films I have watched this year that can be considered 'foreign' or 'old', trying to find a more precise rule for why I have difficulty engaging with certain films than just those two very rough criteria. It seems fitting to look at another Japanese film released in 1954, produced by Toho and even containing some of the same actors. I should also mention, however, that this was also somewhat inspired by kaptainkristian's video Godzilla - The Soul of Japan. Kristian thoroughly explores Godzilla's image as it has transformed, both over time and overseas.
In the same way that I have always been a film fan yet never gone out of my way to see many of the films people 'should' see, I have for as long as I can remember been a fan of Godzilla, yet it took me until this year and this goal to actually sit down and watch the film that spawned a legend.
The original Godzilla is so very different from every other Godzilla film that I have seen. It seems to be because of two equally important factors: Godzilla is the only monster on screen, and he's the villain.
In other films like 2001's Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack (yes, that's its actual title, and yes, I did mention this film just so that I could point out the title), or 2002's Godzilla Against MechaGodzilla, the giant radioactive dinosaur is the villain, but his threat is a little diminished because there are other kaiju there to fight Godzilla, so there's little time or need to care about the human characters. In GMK they even make a gag out of several character deaths.
Likewise, in films like Legendary's take on Godzilla in 2014, or something like Godzilla: Final Wars, Godzilla is a straight-up saviour of the world, killing monsters in incredible ways and leaving humanity in awe. There's nothing that suggests that Godzilla is an actual threat to humanity, because any damage Godzilla causes is overridden by the good he does.
In this original Godzilla, however, the Big G is nothing but a monster that causes nothing but destruction, with no remorse or regard for human life, and there's no other monster here to bail humanity out, either; Godzilla stomps Japan in to the ground the people have only themselves to rely on. It turns Godzilla in to a truly horrifying creature to behold; even if the effects look dated, it's still very clear that a lot of effort went in to making Godzilla look massive and scary, with many shots taken from below, with dark shadows covering much of his body. 2014's Godzilla uses a lot of similar visual techniques to make Godzilla huge, but as a way of creating awe rather than terror.
What makes the techniques here doubly effective are the humans who experience Godzilla's path of destruction. While much of the film is the Japanese Government spending time trying to figure out what to do, or rather what they can possibly do, about Godzilla, which may get boring for some people, I implore the people who read this to find the movie and at least watch the scene of destruction in the film; unlike most Godzilla movies, which wreak havoc across the course of the film, the original contains most of its chaos in one long scene of pure horrifying mayhem. It is truly something to behold, especially when you consider the context of Godzilla's creation.
For those who don't know, Godzilla was originally created as an allegory for the effect of atomic warfare; it is even stated in the film that Godzilla was created by the radiation caused by atomic warfare. This allegory goes even in to Godzilla's original design; his skin isn't scaly, it's black and charred, in an effort to affect the look of someone burned by atomic fire.
Taking this in to consideration, I found it impossible not to be impressed by the destruction scene. It's tied intrinsically to the experiences of the filmmakers, who have seen what this sort of destruction does to people, and I could feel the intent in their work, an effort to express the pain and loss Japan was feeling. There isn't a lot of personal character development in this film that we can attach ourselves to, but the film does evoke some of our most basic attachments and the ability of people to survive in a time of tragedy. This is summarised best in a scene involving a mother, cowering in a house with her two children, as Godzilla burns and collapses the building they're in, as she comforts her children with a reminder that they'll be with their father soon. We have no idea who this mother or her children are, but it's easy to feel terrible for those people in that moment when you consider that this is a stand-in for genuine horror at a real situation that was so fresh in the minds of the people at the time.
The acting in this movie may be generally average at best, the effects ranging between cheesy and downright terrible, and the plot may have a nonsensical deus ex machina ending, but it's clear that a lot of effort went in to this film to make Godzilla a terrifying realisation of the effects of atomic warfare. There's also no denying the fact that Godzilla had a massive impact on Japan at the time and continues to do so; the 29th film by Toho, Shin Godizlla was released earlier this year, and we'll continue to see more from them as well as from Legendary Pictures, who will produce sequels to their 2014 work in an effort to build a Kaiju Cinematic Universe.
As for whether or not the 'old and foreign' rule applied here, it's a little bit split. While much of the film was relatively mediocre, only maintaining my interest because it's a Godzilla movie, I absolutely engaged with the scenes involving Godzilla's rampage through Japan and the humans dealing with the aftermath.
The Verdict: Godzilla is an imperfect film with an important place in film and Japanese history. It's heavily flawed on its own, but thankfully a film does not exist within vacuum. If you want to find out where cinema's biggest monster started, or learn a little more about Japanese film history, then absolutely give this film a watch.
Rating: 8/10
Published December 6th, 2016
Friday, 2 December 2016
Film 342: Seven Samurai (1954)
Directed by: Akira Kuroswa
Written by: Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto, Hideo Oguni
Starring: Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura, Keiko Tsushima
In watching so many new films this year, one thing that I've come to appreciate above all is efficiency. If a film can tell its story and be done within 90 minutes, I'm way more willing to watch it because I know my attention will be held for the duration and I can watch two, three, four, or even five back-to-back without missing a beat. If a movie is over 120 minutes, I start to feel a little less enthusiasm about sitting down to watch the film, especially since that also usually means a slower pace.
I've also found difficulty in engaging in certain types of films, namely films that are both old and foreign. I have no difficulty with old, english-spoken films; Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, Casablanca are all over 50 years old and I had no problem sitting through them and loving every minute. I also have little problem with modern foreign films; 2002's Hero is a personal favourite of my for this year. However, there is something about older foreign films that I can't quite put my finger on, perhaps a certain style or pacing, that makes it diffiult for me to engage with them, even if I can recognise their brilliance; the 1965 French film Alphaville by Jean-Luc Goddard, the 1972 Russian film Solaris by Andrei Tarkovsky, even another of Kurosawa's films Yojimbo (1961) were all films that I watched this year and thought were brilliant, but couldn't find a connection to on a personal level.
Maybe it's not the fact that they are films that are both old and foreign, and these two factors are merely a coincidence; I did get a lot of personal enjoyment out of both the 1931 German film M by Fritz Lang, and the 1972 German film Aguirre, Wrath of God by Werner Herzog, after all. Maybe the old and foreign rule holds true for me, and German films are merely an exception. maybe it's all in my head, and it's more tied to each individual director's style and I shouldn't be comparing films based on an arbitrary term like 'old'.
Either way, my preference for efficiency and my trepidation in looking into older films that are foreign in style both probably had a little to do with it taking this long for me to watch Seven Samurai, a 207-minute Japanese venture made in 1954. It also happens to be such a prolific film that at this point it simply is one of the greatest films of all time; its influence on film-making in both Japanese and Western cinema is undeniable, presenting Kurosawa's excellent use of movement of both the camera and the characters, telling a story that has been copied both directly and indirectly plenty of times.
This is where it gets a little unfortunate for me, and why I stress the importance in separating what you like from what you think is good. I certainly liked the film, but I wasn't constantly engaged, on the edge of my seat; I didn't feel much of anything when Heihachi (Minoru Chiaki) died needlessly, I didn't get a lot of satisfaction out of Kikuchiyo (Mifune) being totally awesome and taking out the bandit leader despite being shot. I recognised that theses things were happening and that they were very well done, I saw that it was all extremely well made and that there were definite reasons for this film to be considered one of the greatest of all time, but I didn't find a way for myself to connect with the film personally, like someone was telling me the story of their greatest life experience; I understood was they were saying and I appreciated that, but I wasn't there for it so I can't get the same satisfaction. It may have been because of where I was emotionally at the time, it may have been something transcendant, something about the film that I may never quite be able to put my finger on that simply prevents me from enjoying it as much as others.
So here, instead of talking about the film, I'd instead like to suggest some of my personal philosophy that I've developed while watching all of these films; firstly, watch a film more than once. If a film didn't engage you on its first run, but everyone else raves about it, try again, maybe you were just having a bad day. Likewise if you loved a film, but it otherwise seems universally reviled, try to see what others are talking about.
Secondly, don't automatically let others sway you. This ties in with the first principal; while it's important to understand human consensus, don't let that entirely forge your opinion. Compare your ideas about a film to others; you may end up agreeing with them on the topic but also still love the film, you may find your attitude swayed, but be sure that your ideas are in fact yours. To use an example, my personal favourite film of all time is Pacific Rim (2013), and no-one can change my mind on that, but I also recognise the issues that everyone had with the film and why they may not enjoy it.
Finally, and this is the most important, differentiate between liking something and thinking it is good. Liking a film is subjective; to use the example of Pacific Rim again, I love that film more than any other because of several extenuating points that matter to me alone. However, the quality of a film, how good a film is or indeed how great a film is, is more relative, a consensus developed by people over time as an overall attitude towards how this film has impacted film culture or indeed culture in general, the ways in which the film employs certain techniques, or utilises new technology for storytelling purposes and how people as a whole feel about it determines a film's quality of greatness. This makes it necessary to thoroughly examine your opinions, and discern whether you felt a movie was genuinely bad, or whether you simply had no personal attachment to it.
So, even though I wasn't the biggest fan of Seven Samurai, I can also say nothing bad about the film. Its direction and editing flow perfectly; the whole film has a smoothness to it that feels like the shot is always moving, even when its static. The acting contrasts the characters well, melodramatic Kikuchiyo playing well off of the much more subtle Kambei (Shimura). It would seem every aspect of this movie is fantastically crafted, and yet I found it really difficult to get through. Such it life, I guess.
The Verdict: I think I've said all I needed to say. Seven Samurai is important, and if you care about film history and culture then it's a must see, but if you share similar tastes with me you may find it difficult to sit through, so I don't recommend this to someone just looking to watch a film on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Rating: 9.5/10
Published December 3rd, 2016
Written by: Akira Kurosawa, Shinobu Hashimoto, Hideo Oguni
Starring: Toshiro Mifune, Takashi Shimura, Keiko Tsushima
In watching so many new films this year, one thing that I've come to appreciate above all is efficiency. If a film can tell its story and be done within 90 minutes, I'm way more willing to watch it because I know my attention will be held for the duration and I can watch two, three, four, or even five back-to-back without missing a beat. If a movie is over 120 minutes, I start to feel a little less enthusiasm about sitting down to watch the film, especially since that also usually means a slower pace.
I've also found difficulty in engaging in certain types of films, namely films that are both old and foreign. I have no difficulty with old, english-spoken films; Dr. Strangelove, Citizen Kane, Casablanca are all over 50 years old and I had no problem sitting through them and loving every minute. I also have little problem with modern foreign films; 2002's Hero is a personal favourite of my for this year. However, there is something about older foreign films that I can't quite put my finger on, perhaps a certain style or pacing, that makes it diffiult for me to engage with them, even if I can recognise their brilliance; the 1965 French film Alphaville by Jean-Luc Goddard, the 1972 Russian film Solaris by Andrei Tarkovsky, even another of Kurosawa's films Yojimbo (1961) were all films that I watched this year and thought were brilliant, but couldn't find a connection to on a personal level.
Maybe it's not the fact that they are films that are both old and foreign, and these two factors are merely a coincidence; I did get a lot of personal enjoyment out of both the 1931 German film M by Fritz Lang, and the 1972 German film Aguirre, Wrath of God by Werner Herzog, after all. Maybe the old and foreign rule holds true for me, and German films are merely an exception. maybe it's all in my head, and it's more tied to each individual director's style and I shouldn't be comparing films based on an arbitrary term like 'old'.
Either way, my preference for efficiency and my trepidation in looking into older films that are foreign in style both probably had a little to do with it taking this long for me to watch Seven Samurai, a 207-minute Japanese venture made in 1954. It also happens to be such a prolific film that at this point it simply is one of the greatest films of all time; its influence on film-making in both Japanese and Western cinema is undeniable, presenting Kurosawa's excellent use of movement of both the camera and the characters, telling a story that has been copied both directly and indirectly plenty of times.
This is where it gets a little unfortunate for me, and why I stress the importance in separating what you like from what you think is good. I certainly liked the film, but I wasn't constantly engaged, on the edge of my seat; I didn't feel much of anything when Heihachi (Minoru Chiaki) died needlessly, I didn't get a lot of satisfaction out of Kikuchiyo (Mifune) being totally awesome and taking out the bandit leader despite being shot. I recognised that theses things were happening and that they were very well done, I saw that it was all extremely well made and that there were definite reasons for this film to be considered one of the greatest of all time, but I didn't find a way for myself to connect with the film personally, like someone was telling me the story of their greatest life experience; I understood was they were saying and I appreciated that, but I wasn't there for it so I can't get the same satisfaction. It may have been because of where I was emotionally at the time, it may have been something transcendant, something about the film that I may never quite be able to put my finger on that simply prevents me from enjoying it as much as others.
So here, instead of talking about the film, I'd instead like to suggest some of my personal philosophy that I've developed while watching all of these films; firstly, watch a film more than once. If a film didn't engage you on its first run, but everyone else raves about it, try again, maybe you were just having a bad day. Likewise if you loved a film, but it otherwise seems universally reviled, try to see what others are talking about.
Secondly, don't automatically let others sway you. This ties in with the first principal; while it's important to understand human consensus, don't let that entirely forge your opinion. Compare your ideas about a film to others; you may end up agreeing with them on the topic but also still love the film, you may find your attitude swayed, but be sure that your ideas are in fact yours. To use an example, my personal favourite film of all time is Pacific Rim (2013), and no-one can change my mind on that, but I also recognise the issues that everyone had with the film and why they may not enjoy it.
Finally, and this is the most important, differentiate between liking something and thinking it is good. Liking a film is subjective; to use the example of Pacific Rim again, I love that film more than any other because of several extenuating points that matter to me alone. However, the quality of a film, how good a film is or indeed how great a film is, is more relative, a consensus developed by people over time as an overall attitude towards how this film has impacted film culture or indeed culture in general, the ways in which the film employs certain techniques, or utilises new technology for storytelling purposes and how people as a whole feel about it determines a film's quality of greatness. This makes it necessary to thoroughly examine your opinions, and discern whether you felt a movie was genuinely bad, or whether you simply had no personal attachment to it.
So, even though I wasn't the biggest fan of Seven Samurai, I can also say nothing bad about the film. Its direction and editing flow perfectly; the whole film has a smoothness to it that feels like the shot is always moving, even when its static. The acting contrasts the characters well, melodramatic Kikuchiyo playing well off of the much more subtle Kambei (Shimura). It would seem every aspect of this movie is fantastically crafted, and yet I found it really difficult to get through. Such it life, I guess.
The Verdict: I think I've said all I needed to say. Seven Samurai is important, and if you care about film history and culture then it's a must see, but if you share similar tastes with me you may find it difficult to sit through, so I don't recommend this to someone just looking to watch a film on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
Rating: 9.5/10
Published December 3rd, 2016
Monday, 7 November 2016
Film 48: Burn After Reading (2008)
Directed by: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Written by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Starring: Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, George Clooney
I absolutely love the Coen Brothers; even when they aren't at their best, they're usually a damn sight better than most other filmmakers in recent years.
Such is the case with Burn After Reading; it's not the Coens' most engaging work, but the film is a solid comedy that's elevated by dialogue with plenty of great moments ("You're a Mormon, to you everyone has a drinking problem"), and most importantly its cast of interesting characters.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
There are a handful of connected character arcs in the film, sparked by CIA Analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) quitting his job and deciding to start writing a memoir. His wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with Harry Pfarrer (Clooney), a married U.S. Marshall. Not content with just a wife and mistress, Harry dates just about every woman he finds attractive, including Linda (McDormand), a woman who works at Hardbodies gym, unsatisfied with her aging and looking to get plastic surgery, and spends time looking on dating sites for a man with her work mate Chad (Pitt, played hilariously here as a stupid, blonde, gum-chewing dudebro).
The plot is a series of actions, amusing and macabre, that all happen because of each other. It isn't the driving force of the film, but it still plays out tightly with each action begetting another action later in the film, similar to my of favourite of the Coens' work, O Brother, Where Art Thou? Harry mentions specifically early in the film that he's never fired his weapon, so of course he fires it later, that sort of thing. Chad finds a disc that he mistakenly believes contains sensitive information, connects it to Osbourne, and with the help of Linda seeks to find a way to make money off of it. Harry starts building a secret device in his basement for his wife over the guilt he feels in getting ready to serve her divorce papers. It's a series of absurd and linked events that mostly serve to allow the characters to talk, which is fine here because the dialogue is so funny, and the stars really shine.
Pitt as Chad is my personal favourite. He constantly talks like he knows what he's talking about, but if you consider for a moment anything he says, you recognise that he's a complete idiot, a literal man-child. That said, McDormand's Linda is also great playing opposite Chad, like a big sister; constantly having to deal with Chad's crap but also sharing a comical moment with him over her matches in online dating. Lastly, Malkovich gets a mention here as Osbourne, mean-spirited, hurling insults and yelling at anyone who gets in his way (He's the one who dropped the Mormon line I mentioned earlier).
The Verdict: Burn After Reading is a silly film with dark tones that relies much more on its characters than on its plot. The Coens present the film with excellent direction and the usual rhythm and style in their dialogue. All said, this is a good movie, if not particularly memorable, but also short and sweet; absolutely worth the watch if you're a fan of the Coens' work, but less universally appealing than works like No Country For Old Men.
Rating: 7/10
Published November 7th, 2016
Written by: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Starring: Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, George Clooney
I absolutely love the Coen Brothers; even when they aren't at their best, they're usually a damn sight better than most other filmmakers in recent years.
Such is the case with Burn After Reading; it's not the Coens' most engaging work, but the film is a solid comedy that's elevated by dialogue with plenty of great moments ("You're a Mormon, to you everyone has a drinking problem"), and most importantly its cast of interesting characters.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
There are a handful of connected character arcs in the film, sparked by CIA Analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) quitting his job and deciding to start writing a memoir. His wife, Katie (Tilda Swinton) is having an affair with Harry Pfarrer (Clooney), a married U.S. Marshall. Not content with just a wife and mistress, Harry dates just about every woman he finds attractive, including Linda (McDormand), a woman who works at Hardbodies gym, unsatisfied with her aging and looking to get plastic surgery, and spends time looking on dating sites for a man with her work mate Chad (Pitt, played hilariously here as a stupid, blonde, gum-chewing dudebro).
The plot is a series of actions, amusing and macabre, that all happen because of each other. It isn't the driving force of the film, but it still plays out tightly with each action begetting another action later in the film, similar to my of favourite of the Coens' work, O Brother, Where Art Thou? Harry mentions specifically early in the film that he's never fired his weapon, so of course he fires it later, that sort of thing. Chad finds a disc that he mistakenly believes contains sensitive information, connects it to Osbourne, and with the help of Linda seeks to find a way to make money off of it. Harry starts building a secret device in his basement for his wife over the guilt he feels in getting ready to serve her divorce papers. It's a series of absurd and linked events that mostly serve to allow the characters to talk, which is fine here because the dialogue is so funny, and the stars really shine.
Pitt as Chad is my personal favourite. He constantly talks like he knows what he's talking about, but if you consider for a moment anything he says, you recognise that he's a complete idiot, a literal man-child. That said, McDormand's Linda is also great playing opposite Chad, like a big sister; constantly having to deal with Chad's crap but also sharing a comical moment with him over her matches in online dating. Lastly, Malkovich gets a mention here as Osbourne, mean-spirited, hurling insults and yelling at anyone who gets in his way (He's the one who dropped the Mormon line I mentioned earlier).
The Verdict: Burn After Reading is a silly film with dark tones that relies much more on its characters than on its plot. The Coens present the film with excellent direction and the usual rhythm and style in their dialogue. All said, this is a good movie, if not particularly memorable, but also short and sweet; absolutely worth the watch if you're a fan of the Coens' work, but less universally appealing than works like No Country For Old Men.
Rating: 7/10
Published November 7th, 2016
Friday, 4 November 2016
Film 47: Johnny Dangerously (1984)
Directed by: Amy Heckerling
Written by: Harry Colomby, Jeff Harris, Bernie Kukoff, Norman Steinberg
Starring: Michael Keaton, Joe Piscopo, Marilu Henner
Alright, I'm back. Uni has occupied most of my time over the last few months, but now that it's over, I figured it was time to get back to this.
I'd known about Johnny Dangerously for years before seeing it; as a long-time fan of Weird Al Yankovic, I've loved This is the Life ever since I first heard it, a song by Al I knew to be written for the opening credits of this movie. Unfortunately, the film never really gets better than the song.
Johnny Dangerously is a spoof comedy in a similar vein to Airplane! (1980) or Hot Shots! (1991), filled with quick sight gags and simple subversion of expectations, though never quite as funny as either of the other films. Instead of parodying airplane disaster movies or Top Gun (1986), however, Dangerously pokes fun at 1920s and 1930s gangster films.
We're introduced to Johnny Kelly (Keaton), a pet shop owner in 1935, who catches a young boy trying to steal a puppy. This leads Johnny to regale the boy with a tale of his own history with crime. This first scene does well to set the tone of the film, with plenty of light visual gags (a pet throwing his food bowl out of his cage) dialogue jokes (Johnny talking to his pets as if he were a waiter serving them food) and upbeat music. There's also a meta acknowledgement of the format as the characters recognise the wavy lines that appear over the screen to tell us that moving in to the past.
From here we follow Johnny as his mother's constant ailments cause him to go to the local Dundee gang for money, which sets him off on a life of crime in the gang. We're introduced to a colourful cast of gangsters, including Danny Vermin (Joe Piscopo), a self-described "real scumbag" who carries an .88 Magnum ("it shoots through schools"); all of the gang members speak in a forced 1920's 'wise guy' gangster tone, seemingly for comedy's sake.
The cast is top notch, always enjoyable to watch even if not always hilarious. Keaton is always a treat for me to watch, but the real highlight is Piscopo, who manages to over-act in the best way, with exaggerated beady eyes and hilariously forced stiff movement. Piscopo is charismatic despite these aspects, really showing the difference between bad acting and a parody of bad acting.
The Verdict: Johnny Dangerously has strength in its cast more often than its comedy. While it tries to constantly offer quick and cheap laughs and maintain a generally humourous atmosphere with the use of put-on 'gangster accents', the film didn't make me laugh as consistently as other films made in a similar style. I never disliked the film, but I can't say I'd actively recommend it either. If you enjoy light spoof movies, there's no harm in seeing this, but it's even more esoteric than other films of its kind.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published November 4th, 2016
Written by: Harry Colomby, Jeff Harris, Bernie Kukoff, Norman Steinberg
Starring: Michael Keaton, Joe Piscopo, Marilu Henner
Alright, I'm back. Uni has occupied most of my time over the last few months, but now that it's over, I figured it was time to get back to this.
I'd known about Johnny Dangerously for years before seeing it; as a long-time fan of Weird Al Yankovic, I've loved This is the Life ever since I first heard it, a song by Al I knew to be written for the opening credits of this movie. Unfortunately, the film never really gets better than the song.
Johnny Dangerously is a spoof comedy in a similar vein to Airplane! (1980) or Hot Shots! (1991), filled with quick sight gags and simple subversion of expectations, though never quite as funny as either of the other films. Instead of parodying airplane disaster movies or Top Gun (1986), however, Dangerously pokes fun at 1920s and 1930s gangster films.
We're introduced to Johnny Kelly (Keaton), a pet shop owner in 1935, who catches a young boy trying to steal a puppy. This leads Johnny to regale the boy with a tale of his own history with crime. This first scene does well to set the tone of the film, with plenty of light visual gags (a pet throwing his food bowl out of his cage) dialogue jokes (Johnny talking to his pets as if he were a waiter serving them food) and upbeat music. There's also a meta acknowledgement of the format as the characters recognise the wavy lines that appear over the screen to tell us that moving in to the past.
From here we follow Johnny as his mother's constant ailments cause him to go to the local Dundee gang for money, which sets him off on a life of crime in the gang. We're introduced to a colourful cast of gangsters, including Danny Vermin (Joe Piscopo), a self-described "real scumbag" who carries an .88 Magnum ("it shoots through schools"); all of the gang members speak in a forced 1920's 'wise guy' gangster tone, seemingly for comedy's sake.
The cast is top notch, always enjoyable to watch even if not always hilarious. Keaton is always a treat for me to watch, but the real highlight is Piscopo, who manages to over-act in the best way, with exaggerated beady eyes and hilariously forced stiff movement. Piscopo is charismatic despite these aspects, really showing the difference between bad acting and a parody of bad acting.
The Verdict: Johnny Dangerously has strength in its cast more often than its comedy. While it tries to constantly offer quick and cheap laughs and maintain a generally humourous atmosphere with the use of put-on 'gangster accents', the film didn't make me laugh as consistently as other films made in a similar style. I never disliked the film, but I can't say I'd actively recommend it either. If you enjoy light spoof movies, there's no harm in seeing this, but it's even more esoteric than other films of its kind.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published November 4th, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)