Review: Ingorious Basterds

Cinema is at the heart of Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious Basterds’ (The misspelling is intentional). To be more specific it’s the power of Cinema, more than anything else, which is at the forefront of this remarkable film.

As the Poster and Trailers serve to remind us. The film is ostensibly about a team of Jewish-American Soldiers who lead an Apache resistance against the Nazi’s. Their goal is to be as cruel to the Nazi’s as they are to pretty much everyone else...oh and they do so by collecting their scalps. As it is though that comprises about 20% of the film, while the rest is dedicated to Cinema owner Shosanna, who we see escaping the massacre of her family at the film’s opening. She crosses paths with Frederick Zoller, a now famous Nazi who fended off 300 Allied soldiers all on his own and is the subject of the propaganda film ‘Nations Pride’. Given that he’s smitten with the young Cinema owner it only seems right that the premiere be held at her Cinema.

That’s really all I’m going to give away about the plot, except to say that cutting a swathe through all this is Colonel Landa, who goes by the moniker “The Jew Hunter” for reasons that should be obvious. All of these plots do come together, though not in the way people will expect (Unless you’re one of those who decided to read the leaked script first and spoil all the fun).

The film is a step up for Tarantino, a director who was already quite comfortably “Up there” to begin with. It no longer feels like he’s cribbing influences and just mixing them together (Not that there’s anything wrong with that, even despite all that Tarantino has held his own voice, albeit one that’s influenced by other film makers). However with this film Tarantino has created something that although seems influenced by other genre’s (Western, exploitation) is in fact a complete original work of art. Gone are the moments where well read Cinemagoers will exclaim “Well that’s just from a little known John Sturges film”. It’s heavily influenced by all movies and yet...it doesn’t feel like it is.

I appreciate that this has turned into more of a love letter than any kind of review, and I’m not going to apologise for that. I’m sorry I just won’t! The performances are universally great across the board, though if I do have a minor complaint is that outside of Brad Pitt as Aldo Raine and ‘Hostel’ director Eli Roth as Donny “The Bear Jew” Donowitz, the other ‘Basterds’ get the short shrift. As with every other review for the film I’m going to have to give credit to Christoph Waltz as Landa. Tarantino said that Waltz could go toe to toe with Samuel L Jackson in turning his words into poetry, and he’s right. The fact that Waltz does it while speaking 4 languages is quite a remarkable achievement. If he’s doesn’t win every major acting award there is then it just exposes awards ceremonies for the shams that most people already think they are.

I walked out of this with the same feeling I had walking out of ‘There Will Be Blood’, utterly convinced that we don’t have to look back in the annals of film to see masterpieces. They’re right in front of us.

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


As an addition I should say I’m working on another piece about this film, but I want to wait until the film has been on release for another few weeks and most people have had the chance to see it.

Review: GI JOE - The Rise of Cobra

Tone is a difficult thing to get right. In a lot of ways it's the crux of everything that's put to page or screen. For instance, you cannot make a slapstick comedy about the Holocaust (Lord knows I've tried) and at the same time you can't treat something like...oh I don't know 'Transformers' with po-faced seriousness.

GI JOE sets up a tone of its own. Almost everyone involved (With one glaring exception which we'll get to later) is in on the joke. It's so gloriously stupid that it's hard not to give it a good review just for trying. There's nothing in the film that suggests it has a grounding in the real world. Instead it seems to take place in a world that looks like our own, but it's a world where 'Team America: World Police' was a documentary and not a comedy.

Usually this is the point in a review where I would explain the plot, but I don't think it would do any good. It basically involves Christopher Eccleston's evil Scottish Weapons designer (Having a lot more fun here than he did in 'Gone in 60 seconds') stealing his own world destroying weapons and some other plot points that I won't mention. There to stop his nefarious deeds is the crack team of GI JOE, made up of the 'best of the best' as these things usually are. It also speaks to my ignorance of 80's Hasbro toys that I thought GI JOE was actually a person.

GI JOE is a world in which people's names actually appear to be Snake Eyes, Stormshadow and Ripcord rather than nicknames they've somehow obtained through some childhood hijinx. It's a film that begins in 1641 for no good reason, other than to watch a man have a red hot mask welded to his face. It's also a film in which characters suffer some sort of flashback syndrome, in some cases they flashback in the middle of a fight scene; often to another fight scene.

Stephen Sommers made his name with 'The Mummy' films (Though he was absent for part 3, perhaps wisely). But for me his magnum opus will always be 'Deep Rising', a sadly underseen treat that plays up to its B-Movie roots. GI JOE comes close to replicating the same thing. It's literally a Cartoon that's come to life, and the cast know it. They know you can't even begin to approach this type of material seriously, unlike the earlier 'Transformers 2'. The dialogue is often the on the nose nonsense you find in Saturday morning cartoons, and Dennis Quaid in particular seems to have fun delivering it.

The rest of the cast follow suit. That is except Channing Tatum, in the lead role, and sadly for us the actor is a complete charisma vacuum. He delivers every line as if he's trying to convince himself that he memorised the script, like a child and his timetables. Even the usually unbearable Marlon Wayans is a lot more enjoyable, and when that's the case you know you're in trouble as an actor. Things get worse when Brendan Fraser shows up in a very brief cameo and only reminds you how much better he is for this type of film. Sienna Miller proves herself to have a career in villainy (And as a brunette) and Rachel Nichols just outright looks gorgeous (Speaking to my long dormant secret love for redheads).

I'm tempted to see the film a second time. I need to see it again just to be sure that a characters name is actually "Dr Mindbender" and not something I mis heard. I need to see Joseph Gordon Levit laugh maniacally like any true Cartoon villain. And I want to see Paris getting partially destroyed, lord knows they deserve it.

Trailer round-up!

In lieu of anything actually resembling content I decided to throw up links to some trailers you may not have seen.

1. Command Performance

Dolph Lundgren is a Rock Drummer who fights terrorists at a Rock Concert. That's all I need to say.

Command Performance

2. Hot Tub Time Machine

Just watch it.

Hot Tub Time Machine

3. Ninja Assassin

Korean star, the inexplicably titled 'Rain' stars in James McTeigue's follow up to 'V for Vendetta'. Lots of action, though I don't think the 'Assassin' part of the title was needed, what else is he going to do? Sell Insurance?

Ninja Assassin

4. The Book of Eli

Finally the Hughes Brothers return to film making. 'Dead Presidents' is probably one of the best films of the 90's, and not nearly enough people have seen it.

The Book of Eli

5. Alice In Wonderland

I don't really know why I'm recommending this. If this was about 10 years ago I'd be all over it, instead all I see is Tim Burton being Tim Burton, and Johnny Depp being weird. Too many flashbacks to 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'.

Alice In Wonderland

The Room

"You're tearing me APART Lisa!" - Johnny (Tommy Wiseau) gives it all he's got.


It’s hard to make something that’s misguided in almost every aspect of production. Usually there’s something that just goes ‘right’, a little nugget of production that just works, despite everyone’s best efforts to make sure that it doesn’t. I’ve seen two films to date that achieve this rare feat. One is the forever-in-the-back-of-my-mind ‘Manos: The Hands of Fate’ and the other is now ‘The Room’.

I’m a little late to ‘The Room’ as I suspect most people who see the film will be. This little film, released in 2003 has since grown on with a ‘Shawshank Redemption’ like word of mouth campaign. Once you’ve seen it it’s easy to see why. The film is a remarkable achievement, a cornucopia of failure. Whether it’s the writing, directing or of course the Acting, nothing ‘works’. It’s a perfect storm of defeat.

As a quick example, I’ve seen the film 3 times now but am still perplexed as to what room the title is referring to. Sure the film takes place mostly in a Room, or a series of rooms, but the title leads us to believe that there’s something mysterious going on there, not unlike something from ‘The Twilight Zone’. For that matter it’s not really one ‘Room’ per se. We’re just in a room a lot of the time because Lisa doesn’t seem to do anything that bitch about Johnny and drink wine (We do learn that she’s in the ‘Computer Business’ though any more information than that is in danger of being character development, and is disregarded).

Writer/Director/Producer/Star Tommy Wiseau plays Johnny. Living in San Francisco he’s a banker of some vaguely European origin (I still don’t know where that accent is from – and Wiseau himself isn’t telling). He lives with Lisa, his soon to be Wife. It’s also mandatory that everyone in the film describes her as “Beautiful”. She isn’t. Now I’m not going to put down someone for their looks, that certainly isn’t fair. But it wouldn’t go mentioned if not for the fact that simply every character in the film has to comment on her, so much so that it makes you think they’re referring to some off screen character that just happens to share the same name. Lisa also happens to be having an affair with Johnny’s best friend Mark, an Owen Wilson looking fella with a rocking beard. Also of note is Johnny and Lisa’s neighbour Denny who has a creepy fascination with the couple, to the point of following them up to bed when they’ve made it very clear they’re about to have sex. Just one revelation about the character is that at one point Johnny was planning to adopt him (WHAT!) but instead he’s just paying his rent until he graduates from College. For the record it’s really not clear how old he is. He looks like he should be in College but acts like he’s still in High School. Oh and Denny deals drugs. Can’t forget that important plot development that comes out of nowhere.

If you think that I’m taking a while to get to the plot of ‘The Room’ then you can keep waiting. The film has a blatant disregard for things like Plot or Character and instead goes by its own rules. An act which serves to remind you just how important things like Plot and Character are. Still, it’s all done so earnestly; there’s no feeling that the cast are in on the joke. They just deliver the lines they’re given and they do their best with them. Though as you’ll see even that isn’t good enough.

One of the many many things wrong with ‘The Room’ is that Wiseau seemingly can’t see a character without greeting them with the salutation “Oh Hi...” At one point he even says it to a Dog (“Oh Hi Doggie”). People entering a room (THE ROOM!) almost serves as a constant surprise to Wiseau, as if he expects to go throughout his Day without ever seeing another person.

Still, at the end of all this all I can tell you is that ‘The Room’ cannot really be seen. It must be experienced. The plethora of Youtube clips don’t prepare you for the insanity on display. Whether it’s just the inexplicable decision to shoot the Roof scenes via Green Screen instead of you know...on a Roof or the weird bone that protrudes from Lisa’s neck for a while. I will say this; the film manages to draw you in. You think about it for days afterwards, I’ve started countless conversations with “Oh hi...”, complete with Wiseau accent and then laughed to myself with no one else knowing why. 'The Room' consumes you. I want to show it to all of my friends to make sure I’m not experiencing some kind of fever dream where I’m haunted by a man who looks like a cross between Jean Claude Van Damme, Victor Schiavelli and with hair by Michael Bolton.

Now that I’ve had ‘The Room’ in my life, I can’t imagine a time without it.

Bonus clip: Lisa's Beauty

The Daily Mail are idiots.

Nothing to add other than the title really. The Daily Mail, the paper read only by people who are worried that the end of the world will come from the hand of Immigrants.

It's this kind of shitty journalism that led to the Video Nasties debacle in the 80's. "I've not seen this film, and I'm not going to, but I'm going to offer my opinion on this FILTH anyway".

The sooner the Daily Mail is filed under 'fiction' the better.

Article here.

That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore

Here in Cardiff the wonderful Chapter Cinema hosted the ‘Bad Movie Club’. It’s an idea I wished I’d thought of, show renowned “Bad movies” and people will flock to enjoy them, ironically or otherwise. As a brief digression I think a Movie can be both bad and good at the same time. It’s certainly possible to enjoy a film despite recognizing precisely why other people find it so awful (The classic ‘Commando’ is proof of that – the film is really quite bad but somehow it just works). It’s the very definition of a “guilty pleasure”, a concept I really don’t agree with, if you enjoy a film then you enjoy it. There shouldn’t be anything to feel guilty about. Anyway, the club itself isn’t a bad idea. If you build up an audience you can share your experiences of ‘Bad Movies’ and track them down, a real community experience. Except with this club they have 2 ‘Commentators’ who insist on talking over the film and making “jokes” at its expense. You will notice the quotations over the word “Jokes” there (See! I did it again). And for good reason.

Now in the interest of full disclosure I will say I’m a fan of ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’. The cult show, now sadly ended, featured a man on a spaceship with two Robot Pals, who would appear as silhouette at the bottom of the screen while the film was playing and make jokes. However, that show was genuinely funny. It was also vastly ahead of its time. Thanks to the YouTube age, anyone can put a clip of something together while they talk over it (Or make farting noises – a worrying trend). However, there’s a reason they were on the TV and everyone else is on YouTube – they’re funny.

The MST3K crew (As us fans call them) would get tapes of films that were in the public domain, which often meant they were the worst of the worst (Manos: The Hands of Fate). The writers would then watch the film, and then watch it again, and again, and again until they were utterly sick of it. All the while they’d write jokes, then delete them or work on them. Then write some more. These days some Jackass with a copy of ‘Cobra’ on DVD and a Microphone suddenly thinks they’re a stand up comedian. Plus, if you’re going to ‘Comment’ on a film, pick one that’s more deserving of your Ire, I mean nothing you say will be funnier to witness than the sight of Vernon Wells as the most Gay villain in Cinematic History.



See? Look at him! Replete with Chainmail vest and Freddie Mercury ‘tache, the mere sight of Wells is enough to provoke laughter. Why ruin that? It’s like being down the Pub while your friend tells a joke and a considerably more annoying friend decides to expand on the Punch line, prompting everyone else to stare down into their drinks and wish ill feelings on the poor sod.

So why do it? I was planning on doing an interview of some kind with the Bad Movie Club but they’re now (Sadly) defunct. Maybe they grew up and realised they weren’t funny. Or maybe they just realised that people don’t reserve the same dislike for these films that they themselves do, and find enjoyment just from watching without the need to throw bad jokes at it. Either way, if I'm watching Commando, the only bad jokes I want to hear are my own.

What's in the Box?

On many a social occasion, whether it be a party or just a casual gathering, I’ve been called into question for my love of ‘Murder She Wrote’. Yes you read that right. I have a love for the adventures of Jessica Fletcher and I’m simply not ashamed of it. I recognise why people wouldn’t like it, and I’m not really going to try and defend the show. But after many an occasion of trying to distill my love for the show into a ready response for whenever the situation arises, I came to the conclusion that it’s as simple as this.

I love mysteries.

I like the feeling of being intrigued. I love the set up and I love the denouement. I’ll gladly sit there and watch shows like ‘Criminal Minds’, ‘CSI’ (Not Miami – God not Miami), ‘The Closer’ and ‘Lie To Me’ because I just love the mystery. I love trying to figure things out. It’s not always satisfying. Indeed one of the worst things is having a really interesting mystery end really badly. But I like the not knowing things and I like being kept in the dark. The worst that can happen is having everything spelled out to you in minute detail so that no stone is left unturned. It’s the moment the mystery vanishes, and though we’re always curious to see who did it and why, it’s never the same once you’re told. Everyone wants to know how the Magician does his trick, but no one really wants to know.

One of my favourite shows is ‘Lost’. And apart from the characters, it’s the fact that the show has things it still wants to reveal to me that keeps me coming back. It’s a hook, and I’ll take it gladly. Pun aside, the idea of being lost in a show is such a great experience. There’s no greater response than “I have no idea what’s going on”. I’m sure that Lost won’t be able to end in a completely satisfying way, it’s in danger of buckling under its own ideas, but I’m OK with that, and I made peace with that fact a long time ago.

Sometimes it’s the journey that counts, not the destination.

Now if you’ll excuse me, a painting has gone missing and someone’s just been murdered...admit it, you’re intrigued.

Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus

Director: Jack Perez (Though the film calls him 'Ace Hannah'. I don't know what happened there, but a sign of things to come).

Look at that poster right there. That my friends, is a poster that says "Look at me, do you KNOW how good a time you're going to have with me? I'm going to be the best time you've ever had". And like all advertising, it's a lie.

Now when it comes to films I like my crap. I unashamedly own 'Street Fighter: The Movie', and not just the regular old DVD no, I bought the Special Edition. I've seen and enjoyed 'Frankenfish', 'Snakes on a Train' and the now legendary 'Shark Attack 3: Megalodon' amongst other things. But you know that when I can't even enjoy a film like this you're not in for a good time.

The main issue with MSvGO as I'll call it from now on is that people just love to sit around and talk, occasionally they're mix some stuff in a beaker, wait for it to turn a certain colour and then look disheartened. Seeing as we don't know what they're supposed to be doing we can only take this visual cue as a bad sign. Eventually they do find the right colour, and it's high fives all around.

Now, we'll start at the beginning, because I know you're dying to find out how these creatures came to be. You're thinking 'Army Experiment' I'm sure. Well you're wrong. Basically our Heroine, Emma, played by Debbie Gibson (Yes THAT Debbie Gibson) is doing some kind of research around the Ice Caps. She's in one of those little submarines that only get to fit about 3 people at most in them. Emma and her assistant are observing Whales in the region, but there's trouble to be had in these here waters. A shady Helicopter pilot is in the area and he drops some kind of Sonar emitter into the Water. This is causing the Whales to go a little haywire and they start ramming themselves into the Ice Caps. The Ice slides away to reveal our titular heroes, frozen in mid fight. So far, so 'Demolition Man'.

Anyway they just...swim off, though not before Emma has spotted them. Also the Helicopter pilot inexplicably crashes and blows up for reasons that aren't really clear. He just...does. Then our tentacled friend suddenly attacks an oil rig in Japan, and we start to foolishly believe that we're in for a good time.

We're not.

From that point on, which in reality is about 10 minutes into the film, we get oooooh about 2 other scenes of Aquatic carnage. But luckily for us they're both pretty good (Though I concede that's a relative term).

Cut to a 747 flying through a storm, a man is restless, the Plane is struck by Turbulence. They have to go lower, the man remains restless. Then this exchange.

Stewardess: Please sit down sir, it's just an air pocket.
Passenger: We'regettingmarriedintwodays.
Stewardess: It'll be fine.

Now I like to think that actor flexed his chops by throwing that line in there without consulting anyone first. Undoubtedly this production needs characters like him, but his ad libbing, which makes no sense in context, is met with a fair response from the actress playing the stewardess who gamely remains in character and refuses to play along with the young method actors game. Quite wise (Consults IMDB) Dana Tomasko, quite wise.

Anyway the man manages to calm himself, before he looks out of the Window and sees the Mega Shark leaping out of the Sea, mouth agape. For the record we don't actually see it eating the plane, that would cost too much, and there's no way they can recycle that footage.

From there we have a lot of talking. A LOT of talking. A Japanese Scientist comes over the Seas to help Emma and her friendly Irish former Professor, who has an inkling to calling Emma "Lassie". There's also an ill advised romance between Emma and our new Japanese friend. After meeting each other for about 5 minutes they literally stare at each other for a further 5 minutes before having the most awkward kiss since Vin Diesel and Asia Argento in 'xXx'.

I could detail the rest of the film. But instead I'll sum it up in one word: Talking. People just talk, talk and...talk. At one point Lorenzo "Renegade" Lamas shows up as some sort of hip Government official who doesn't necessarily talk as much as just bark at people. His act gets old about 5 minutes after he appears.

After pouring more liquid into some beakers and awaiting the right results, sadly to no avail, our intrepid heroes come up with the decision to just let them fight to the Death. Actually Emma gets the idea during a nightmare, and bursts into a room all excited and shouts "Thrilla in Manila" (Based on the famous Boxing bout of the same name). The plan makes no sense. It's entirely plausible that if they get them both to fight that one would kill the other. Nothing wrong with that, but their grand plan hinges on the fact that they both manage to kill each other. I'm not even sure how that would happen. But that's our plan dammit, and we're sticking to it.

And, SPOILER ALERT! That's exactly what happens actually. It's the most unsatisfying climax I've ever seen since Peter North's 'North Pole 27', the renowned Peter North film where he failed to live up to his usual potential.

What we actually get is the same 3 special effects shot repeated over and over again, accept some are mirrored or slyly zoomed in. No expense made here, I'm sure you'll agree. So they both die somehow, and sink to the bottom of the Ocean. Everyone is happy, everyone kisses. The world is safe.

We even get a continuation of the daring, and of course totally convincing Interracial romance. There's also a hint to a sequel that I hope we never ever see. I'd rather see a 'Twilight' sequel than the continuing adventures of Debbie Gibson.

Drag Me To Hell

Well today I thought I'd stop everything and review this little movie. Mega shark can wait.


Well today I thought I'd stop everything and review this little movie. Mega shark can wait.

Director: Sam Raimi

There's a few film makers that I look forward to hearing from. They've earned my trust enough in the past that I'll make a note of catching whatever they put out. Sam Raimi is one of them. It's true, he did a fair amount of damage when he made 'Spider-Man 3', an utterly soulless film that came directly out of Sony's marketing department. But then I watched 'Evil Dead 2' again and I was ready to forgive him.

It's good to see a Director return to their roots, and that's exactly what Raimi did here. In some ways the film just feels like an experiment, a quick knock off to show that he can still do it. But if knock offs come as good as this then I don't mind at all.

The story, flimsy at best, is that loans clerk Christine Brown is REALLY desperate for the Assistant Manager position. The problem is that she's far too nice. Her slightly devious boss tells her that if she toughens up the job is all hers. Sadly the moment she decides to toughen up is the moment a Gypsy Woman asks for the third extension on her loan. Christine makes the hard choice and turns her down, knowing it will curry favour with her boss. The Gypsy responds by cursing her. Hey, it happens.

Thanks to a nifty prologue we know that Christine will be tormented for 3 days and then taken to Hell. And that's where the fun begins.

Raimi has always straddled the line between Horror/Comedy, and the balance is just right here. There are two schools of thought when it comes to the genre, one is that the horror and the comedy comes at different times. The ultimate example would be 'An American Werewolf In London'. The scary moments are scary, and the funny moments are funny. In Raimi's film the laugh comes from the scares. Every encounter is punctuated with a laugh, such as the early scene where Christine and the Gypsy fight in her Car. It starts off menacing enough, before featuring a moment where the Gypsy tries to bite Christine before realising that she doesn't have her false teeth in, thus gumming her repeatedly.

Though the script is a little too on the nose at times, the performances are still good to watch. Alison Lohman is very good in the lead, taking the place of Bruce Campbell as Raimi's victim. No one enjoys torturing his Actors as much as Raimi, but Lohman rises to the challenge, so much so that there were one or two moments where I was convinced she was channeling Ash from the Evil Dead films. Justin Long, an actor who's always sadly under-used has the unfortunate role of 'concerned boyfriend' but he makes it work. It's more a testament to Long than it is to the script.

Raimi directs things with his usual Kinetic style and cranks the soundtrack to 11. It's possibly the loudest film ever made, so do make sure you take some painkillers with you just in case. I'm sure more than a few headaches were started by that film. Also, if possible, view with a crowd. Usually I hate the sound of other people in the Cinema, but when a guy behind me called up his friend and said that "Shit is all messed up" I didn't mind so much (In truth I did, but luckily the film is so loud I didn't really hear him anyway). Plus there's nothing funnier than hearing a girlish scream and then seeing a guy's girlfriend laughing at him for it.

All in all it's refreshing to see a film that just wants to entertain. There's a tendency with horror now to be all about the 'suffering'. And indeed, that's true of this film, but the difference is that there's a playfulness to it. It's purely in the name of entertainment. The same way a Roller Coaster is designed purely just to jolt you and make you laugh. You won't sit there thinking about it for days afterwards, but who cares? The ride was so much fun.

If I could put a tail between my legs...

Ah...so here we are again. I keep doing you wrong and I keep coming back and apologising. This will be the last time I promise. I'm working up a few reviews at the moment (Including the momentous event we've all been waiting for - a viewing of 'Mega Shark Vs Giant Octopus') and of course dear reader, you'll be privvy to all my thoughts.

It's all coming very soon, it's going to be a weekend extravaganza!

Crank 2: High Voltage

Greetings! It's been a while (A month so I'm reliably informed). Once again I promise to be more prolific in my musings.

Anyway, onto today's subject, Crank 2.



Directed by Neveldine/Taylor

If you're a Daily Mail reader then you'll know of the furore that accompanied the 'Grand Theft Auto' series of games. They were labeled as homophobic, racist, sexist, gratuitously violent and a sign of civilization's descent into Caligula-like decadence. As it turns out, the games are not really like that at all. But Crank 2 is. That's not to say that the film is a sign of the end of Civilization, however I'm sure the continued success of 'Twilight' is foretold as one of the signs of the Apocalypse. Think about it, four horsemen, four Twilight books. Stephanie Myer must be stopped before we see the second coming of Viggo Mortenstern.

But I digress.

'Crank 2' begins where the first film ends. Literally. With our hero being scraped up off the floor after falling many feet from a Helicopter. He's kept alive by the Triad so they can harvest his Organs, given that he's proven himself some kind of Superman. Chev Chelios isn't having any of that though, and after he's given a temporary electric heart, goes on a rampage to find his real one.

I'm not going to spoil any of the suprises in 'Crank 2' as it deserves to just be...experienced. The film is relentless, it barely stops moving and any digression it does take is over and done with so quickly that it never really ruins the pacing (Take the scene where we flashback to Chev's childhood, it probably goes on a little longer than it needs to, and I don't think the joke is quite as well executed as Neveldine/Taylor thought it would be) but such scenes are in scant supply anyway.

It's hard to really imagine anyone other than Jason Statham in these films. That's not to say he's an amazing actor, outside of the ill advised 'Revolver' I don't really think he's had a chance to do much as an actor. But he plays everything just right. In the first film Chelios seems like someone who's been done wrong. We know he was a hitman but there was still one or two moments where they humanize him. In the sequel however he's a swearing, fucking, racist violent machine and gets increasingly deranged throughout, seemingly enjoying the mayhem he's going through.

If there is one complaint though, it's that David Carradine and the always excellent Clifton Collins Jr don't get enough to do. They're both supporting players but you could probably write their lines down on one sheet of paper, such is the brevity of their roles. Special mention should also go to Amy Smart, who plays dumb really well, and even endearingly at times. Despite being fucked again in Public and being left behind by Chev twice. Chelios doesn't have time for love.

I don't know if there will be a 'Crank 3'. I really do hope so. If the 'Fast and Furious' franchise can keep going then there's no reason we can't see the continuing adventures of one Mr Chev Chelios.




Small note. While writing this I've been listening to Lord Sitar. Yes it's exactly as it sounds. Let me tell you that you've not heard The Who's 'I Can See For Miles' until you've heard it from a man literally rocking out on a Sitar. It seemed oddly appropriate for this review.

Late to the Party: Dead Space

I love horror. It might not always be high-brow (And in fact it rarely is) but it's constantly entertaining. Even in its worst incarnations, there's occasionally something to enjoy. Whether it be laughable acting (Troll 2), dubious special effects (Troll 2) or just insane stories (You know where I'm going with this). But horror remains dear to me because on the whole it's just out to entertain. Like a good Theme Park ride it's main concern is to get your heart racing, your pulse pounding and to just tap into that part of your brain that switches off and thinks "Holy shit!".

Don't get me wrong, horror doesn't ALWAYS have to be like that. It's often been used to comment on other facets of society, whether it be Consumerism (Dawn of the Dead), Alienation in a digital age (Kairo) or the constant threat of James Earl Jones (Exorcist 2: The Heretic). Often those films are the most rewarding, and bare repeated viewings. Mainly because like a Ghost Train you've been on one too many times, you know where all the thrills are hidden. But for 90 minutes you can rely on some of the more Brainless films for purely visceral scares.

'Dead Space' falls right into the latter. Though they do attempt a little of the former as well. Yes it's a videogame, but it's more encompassing than any film can be, obviously just by its nature. The story, such as it is, is that you play Isaac Clarke, a engineer who along with a handful of other personnel, are sent to the USG Ishimura as it's been unresponsive of late. You board the Ishimura and find it largely deserted...apart from 'necromorphs', or "Space Zombies" as my one friend described them.

The game falls firmly into the "Survival Horror" genre, one which was made famous by 'Resident Evil' and 'Silent Hill' respectfully. You're only in radio contact with the two remaining shipmates and you have to make your way through the ship, collecting various things to help you get off the ship and to find your girlfriend, Nicole, a Doctor onboard the Ship.

So far, so derivative. And it completely is, but it's all part of the fun. In a competition when the Game was released you could win the 100 DVD's the developers used as research in the Game. From 'The Thing' to 'The Omega Man', most mainstays of the genre are represented here. But 'Dead Space' takes all of these influences and combines them into what can best be described as the best Ghost Train ever.

The game oozes atmosphere. Lights flicker on and off (And in some cases shut off completely, leaving you almost in complete darkness), you can hear things crawling in the vents around you and on more than one occasion you hear a woman's voice sing the creepiest rendition of 'Twinkle Twinkle Little Star' ever. As it so happens, that song was used in this trailer here, and a wonderful trailer it is too. Apart from the atmosphere the game mainly relies on jump scares to keep you on edge, and obviously how you feel about those effects the way you play the game. I hate them, and by hate them I mean they almost always work on me. So in the initial stages I cautiously poked my head around each corner, gun aimed, waiting for the next aberration to jump out and try to take my head off.

Like 'Bioshock' and 'System Shock 2' before it, 'Dead Space' tells the majority of its story through audio, text and video logs that are left lying around by now dead and gone crew members. Some are integral to the story, others are just plain disturbing (Like the crew member who learns that if he's dismembered when he's dead, he can't come back and kill anyone. So he dismembers himself. You don't see it but you hear it, and that's disturbing enough).

Oh and it's gory. It's incredibly gory. The only way you can kill the enemies is by dismembering them. That's how gory we're talking. This definitely isn't a game for children.

Sadly it's not all perfect. The game does run into problems later on, but mainly from a storytelling point of view. Despite the back story provided by the logs, the game is basically the 3rd part of an ongoing tale that starts in the form of motion comics and then onto a prequel movie, the latter of which leads straight into this Game. The story told in the two prequels is pretty simple stuff about Science and Religion but the Game ties it up in an incredibly convoluted way in an effort to provide 'twists'. It's just poorly thought out, and while it does work on a superficial level, it crumbles under closer scrutiny.

It also misses the chance to go for an emotional, poignant ending in favour of a cheap jump scare out of every cheap horror film.

Still, I look forward to the sequel, here's hoping they can lock down a story that's good enough for the Game that surrounds it.

To adapt or not to adapt.

I'm going to spoil 'Watchmen' here, both the film and comic. So be warned.


Adaptation. It's a tricky thing. Like almost every writer I've tried my hand at adaptation, mainly more as an exercise in writing than anything I was seriously pursuing. It serves as a good way to get back into the groove of writing as most of the work is laid out for you. Just work on adapting some pages until you're back into the swing of things and it leaves you ready for whatever next big project you're working on.

The biggest problem though is just how to adapt? Do you stay slavishly devoted to the text or do you make it palatable for the screen (Or Stage)? More often that not the biggest problem comes from the fact that what works in one medium simply doesn't work in another. A book offers a much richer insight into any given character as we're given a glimpse behind their thoughts and feelings. Film doesn't offer the same comfort unless you're planning on overlaying every single scene with voiceover.

Moreover, there's just simply no way to replicate what's on the page. It's a problem that often faces anyone who's tried adapting Stephen King. Not to spoil it but the ending of 'IT' in book form involves a psychological battle through time and space...sort of. In the film it's against a giant spider. Two different mediums, two very different results. It's no surprise that the biggest success when it comes to King is in his more Human stories. Take 'The Shawshank Redemption' or 'The Green Mile' (Both from Frank Darabont). The former is a straight up drama, but the latter is more fantastical. But both work on the screen. 'The Shining' works because Stanley Kubrick tossed out everything in Kings book apart from the basic story. As an adaptation its terrible, but as a film it works great. Even King himself failed when he adapted a faithful version of 'The Shining' for TV. There's just something not scary about killer hedge cuttings.

So how do you adapt the unadaptable? Well don't. But if you're the persistent sort who has to then theme is always the key. If you have the same destination but take a different road to get there well then there's no harm there at all.

Let's take 'Watchmen' for instance. Spoilers obviously...

The end of the Graphic Novel features a Giant Squid that lands in the centre of New York city, dying on impact. As it does it sends a Psychic shockwave throughout the city, killing everyone unfortunate enough to be close by. It's all a plan on the part of the bad guy (I won't say who) to scare the World off from the brink of Nuclear War. The threat is no longer each other, the threat comes from outside.

The film tackles it differently. In the film the only true "Superhero" Dr Manhattan is tricked into having his energy harvested and placed in bombs throughout all the major cities in the world, all being set off simultaneously. It sets Manhattan up as the villain, that he launched an unprovoked attack on the World. Same destination, different roads.

There was a lot of fan uproar over the change (As fans are want to do), particulary as the rest of the film is so close in content to the Graphic Novel, but the ending works, and dare I say it might be better. For 2 reasons...

1) The original ending never worked that well for me. It often felt like the most poorly thought out part of the whole thing. It helps that it lays the groundwork for it throughout the Novel and admittedly there's a genuine shock when you first realise what's happening. However, there's always the thought "Really? A giant squid?" in the back of your mind.

2) 9/11 happened. America WAS attacked, and most of the world (Even the enemies) rallied behind them. But only for a time. Not to get into American foreign policy but the calm was only short lived before things went back to normal (And then got worse). In this version though the world lives under constant threat that Dr Manhattan is always going to be watching them, like an Old Testament God.

If you are working on an adaptation then consider what works and what doesn't. Also don't be afraid to change things ('LA Confidential' veers wildly away from the Book and works great as a film, 'The Black Dahlia' stays faithful and well...doesn't). If you keep the essence of the story and don't betray it then it's hard to go wrong.

Same destination, different roads.

Film review: Zoo

Director: Robinson Devor




"When someone dies there's nothing trivial about it – there's people that loved that individual and they'll never see them again, and that's a tragedy."

I love animals. Aside from an incident with a Dog named 'Shaky' when I was younger, I've almost always got on with them. Sure I occasionally distrust the odd Dog, and used to cross the road when I saw one on the street, but on the whole me and the Animal kingdom are A-OK. But I know that I don't quite like animals the same way the characters of the film 'Zoo' do.

'Mr Hands' was the title of an internet clip that did the rounds of a man being loudly penetrated by a Horse. I did think of ways to ease you into this little article but I figured I'd just throw you in the deep end like that.

If you're still reading then good on you.

Anyway, due to what I'm sure is a common occupational hazard, 'Mr Hands' later died of his injuries. All of this, and more, is documented in the film, which takes a look at the Man's family, and the other members of his 'Community'.

In reality Mr hands was a Boeing executive, he was a good looking man who, although divorced, was still friendly with his ex Wife and their Son (He was also setting up a new home for them to live in so they could all be closer together). Most oddly of all, there was no law against Sex with animals in Washington state, so the people responsible for filming it were never prosecuted.

There's no easy way to deal with such a tricky subject as this one. We have actors playing the parts in reenactments (Though not of the act, I hasten to add) while the original people involved provide their story in the form of audio interviews. They paint a picture of a community that bonded over their love of animals. With the money donated by Mr Hands they set up a ranch which bread stallions and would regulary meet there. They would hang out and share stories, watch War films and play guitar. I know that reading this it also makes it seem like some sort of cult, but the film presents them as Men who could only really be themselves around other like minded men.

There's obviously an opposing force, coming from a lady named Jenny Edwards who rescues Horses and is one of the few participants in the film willing to appear on Camera. After the 'Incident' the horse in question was handed over to her, and she promptly had it castrated. More on that later.

Watching the film I wondered if Edwards has seen it. There's a striking similarity in the way both she, and the men involved, talk about their love for animals. One of the men mentions that he loves his animals the way a man would love his Wife and children. Later, Edwards talks about how she spent all night just sat with her Horse when she learned she had Cancer as the horse gave her emotional stability and goes on to describe a connection with the animal that's all too similar to the emotional connection described by the Men in the film. What her Husband thought about that we don't really know. It's not to say the film is trying to paint her as a hypocrite, but it does show there seems to be a fine line in the definition of 'Animal lover'. Edwards represents the 'Moral voice' that I'm sure makes up the majority of the film's audience, and yet the castration scene leaves a bad taste, least not for it's implications. Edwards feels she's justified in what she's doing as its "Best for the Horse" while at the same time admonishing the men for their acts, and yet both are said to be done out of love for the animal. And so, can a Man (Or Woman) feel genuine love for something which isn't Human? Both parties seem to think so, but then where should that love end? Or is it all a fallacy because the Animal can't reciprocate? At least not in an emotional sense.

And suddenly a Black and White issue becomes a little grey. I'm obviously not supporting what Mr Hands et al have done as it could be rightly condoned as Animal cruelty but the film shows that the people who are into this type of behavior are not necessarily sexual deviants who have preyed on defenseless animals the same way a Pedophile preys on Children. In the end 'Zoo' didn't have me sympathising with Mr Hands, but then it didn't have me convinced that these are Men who should be locked up either.

It's a testament to Devor that the film looks as great as it does. There are endless dream-like scenes of sunsets and vistas that add an off kilter feel to the film. In fact it reminded me of 'The Bridge', a similarly gorgeous looking film that I'll be taking another look at soon. Devor shows all too perfect scenes of Suburbia that immediately conjour up images of David Lynch's 'Blue Velvet' and shows that just like Mr Hands himself, outward appearances, no matter how perfect they might seem, can often be hiding something much much darker.

I don't like you in that way.

Would you spend 2 hours in the company of someone you didn't like?

It's not an unreasonable question. There's been times when you've HAD to spend time in the company of someone you'd rather not be around. Whether it's that really loud obnoxious "Friend of a friend" that tagged along with you on that night out, or just a potential in-law. But would you be willing to voluntarily spend time with someone who had little to no redeeming features?

The answer is usually "No".

So then why are unlikeable protagonists usually so...likable?

I've been watching HBO's 'Eastbound and Down' recently and so far it's pulled off the quite remarkable feat of making Kenny Powers thoroughly loathsome at times. And yet he's the central character. For those not familiar, Kenny Powers was a star Baseball player with a gifted right arm. His motto was "Your fucking out!" which he loved to deliver every chance he got. But for Kenny fame was short lived. He crashed and burned as so many do and by the end Kenny was a shadow of his former self. Some years later he's taken to living with his brother while teaching at a local school (PE naturally) but still harbors dreams of getting back to the big leagues, even though it's clear to all those around him that he's never going to come close.

So not only is he pretty much an asshole, he's a deluded one too. Oh and it's a comedy. A very funny, dark, vicious comedy.

By contrast look at something like 'House'. A brilliant man (Molded on Sherlock Holmes) who's pretty rude and abrasive to everyone he meets, including his long suffering best (And only friend) Wilson (Watson - see?). But the show does 2 things. Number 1 is that it gives House an excuse for his behavior. He's lives in constant pain, and his endless supply of Vicoden seems to do little to ease that. And number 2 is that it more often than not justify's House's actions because the people he usually talks to are idiots. That's not to say everyone, his colleagues just put up with it because he's a brilliant man.

With Kenny Powers there's no such crutch. It's entirely possible that he was that big an ass when he was younger too. It's just the way he is. And being famous made him all the worse for it.

There's a moment at the end of episode 1 where Kenny's brother delivers a speech that in a lesser show would turn the character around, make him see the error of his ways. But they don't take that route here, instead Kenny suddenly feels more justified than ever in his actions. And insists that he has to remember that he "IS better than everyone else".

Yet I keep coming back to Kenny. Why? I think its because he simply refuses to change course. He's exactly how he is, and there's something to be admired from a character that won't bend. Too many shows or films have to lead the character along a path of redemption, so that by the end they aren't the same person they are at the start. It's a classic journey throughout art. But more often than not it just doesn't work. It's an artificial device so that by the end everyone feels better about themselves. There's a feeling that Kenny does consider other people's feelings, they just aren't as important as his. He is the celebrity after all. It's also a neat touch that the show has probably said more about the nature of celebrity in 3 episodes than 'Entourage' has in 4 Seasons.

I've no doubt that by the end of the show Kenny may experience some moment of clarity, that it'll provide him with the tiniest slither of hope; but unlike so many other characters I think Kenny has earned it. People change, and sometimes it just takes the smallest thing to make us do it. 'Eastbound and Down' has so far only allowed Kenny the tiniest bit of humanity. There's a scene where he's selling off all his old merchandise including some horrible looking Kenny Powers masks, and as an old flame tries it on he remarks she looks like a "retarded Michael Myers". It's a genuinely funny line, but it's done without him being vindictive and for the briefest of moments we can see why people liked Kenny. This, by the way, comes in the same episode where Kenny convinces his (Probably mentally challenged and/or Gay) assistant to beat up a High School baseball player because they're now in "Direct competition".

So it all balances out.

First, an apology....

Contrary to my belief that no one actually reads this thing I had an email from a user asking when I was going to do an update. Not an unreasonable request given that I did say I'd be regularly updating this thing.

Well my friend you're going to get 2 updates today, take that!

First off take a look at the "Little blog of inspiration" It's a fun little blog from a charming little writer.

Secondly I'm working on an post to come very soon (Later today - I promise) about making a protagonist likable, and if it's actually necessary.

Til then my friends.

Mahalo

Ok so not quite everyday...

Due to one thing or another this wasn't quite the prolific blog I was expecting, but I'm sure business will pick up soon enough. Which leads me to today's subject.

Getting started.

How hard is it to start something? It shouldn't be. If you know what you're going to do then there's not any reason why you can't just do it. If you're going on a diet then what sense does it make to wait until Monday to begin? If you're that serious then do it right now! Throw out that Pizza and grill up a chicken breast. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a motivational speech. It's just that when it comes down to it we're inherently lazy creatures. Few are lazier than you common writer, like oh I dunno, me.

I know I'm not alone in this but it's little consolidation to think that there are thousands of others just like me. If there's anything worse than leaving a page blank it's leaving a page blank because more than anything, you just couldn't be bothered. Or, even worse, you decided to leave it to a more suitable time.

"Oh yeah that novel I'm going to write? Well I might as well start it Monday now seeing as it's Wednesday today"

Great reasoning there friend!

Though I am actually writing a book (2 to be exact) I have decided to put it off, and this is a genuine excuse, to hone my craft. I have a dozen half finished short stories saved on here so (While also working on my business) I'm going to get those finished first. At the end of the day if I can't finish a short story then I might as well banish those Novels to the trash bin as they're never going to get done.

And I need to update my blog.

I'll get right on that tomorrow, it's no good starting on a Wednesday.

What a long web adress that is.

I wanted to go for something catchy, something that pops, something short. But of course all those have already been taken so we have this. It's not concise, but it is accurate. So that's something.

This is my second blogging attempt, the first was a little experiment last year where in honour of Halloween I watched a Horror film a day throughout October and wrote about it. It's actually harder than it sounds. I mean what can you say about "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" that hasn't been said a thousand times before?

Anyway this is about the trials and tribulations of someone who's trying to make it in the world of writing, ANY kind of writing if I'm honest. I've started a copywriting service (www.hintcopy.com) but I'm still trying to write books, short stories, plays and screenplays on the side so expect lots of moaning and a little digression as well.

I'm aiming for one update a day with this thing, but given that I like the diversion than actively doing work it'll probably be more.

Thanks for reading!