I don't know if this film, imaginatively titled Friday the 13th, is meant to be a "reboot" of the franchise or what, but I can tell you this. It's the worst Friday the 13th film that I've seen. I'm gonna dispense with my no spoilers rule for once. This movie deserves to be spoiled, anything to stop people from watching it.
I was looking forward to it. I like Jared Padalecki and having seen his Supernatural other half, Jensen Ackles, in the vastly superior My Bloody Valentine recently, I had reasonable hopes for Jared's horror outing. I wouldn't call them high hopes though, I mean it was still a slasher flick after all.
Anyway, as usual I hadn't really read any reviews before heading to the film. I had skimmed one though - it said it was crap but since most reviewers say all slasher films are crap, this did not unduly disturb me. The one thing that did catch my eye was the mention of a wood chipper. Sounded promising. Nary did I suspect that this little detail would be the film's folly.
It started off with some particularly annoying kids looking for weed in the forest. They were quickly dispensed with, but not without the poor unsuspecting audience being subjected to a horrible pair of boobs. Nasty. I did not need to see that.
Soonly we meet the real cast of the film. A group of similarly annoying kids except that they're richer and have access to a beautiful lakeside house. Actually that's not fair, two of them were barely annoying at all, they may as well have not been there. On the other hand, the rich jock, Trent, whose father owns the house was annoying enough for the three of them so we'll call it even. This group meets our hero, Clay (Padalecki), who is searching for his sister, who went missing with the first group. As Clay is an attractive man and Trent is an immature paranoid sterotype of a character, friction erupts. Nothing interesting happens for a while but it culminates in Trent's girlfriend going off with Clay to help him search for his sister.
In the meantime Jason's abound. He's not really moving quick enough though because there's a lot of people still alive. Over the next while he pops up here and there killing people, nothing spectacular. Night falls. I forget exactly what happens but at one point they're all trapped in the house. Eventually Trent is killed, but not before he has a chance to cheat on his girlfriend for no apparent reason apart from the fact that she was out for the day. Actually there's a decent scene in the shed. That was a good killing... since I don't remember any of the others I have to assume they weren't particularly notable.
So in the end it's Jason, Clay, Trent's girlfriend and Clay's sister. What? She's still alive months later? Jason's slipping. Anyway it's showdown time. Where's that wood chipper? Oh, there it is! Clay and Jason fight and they get ever closer to the wood chipper... in a film that has only managed to keep its body count up due to the earlier scene with first group, this wood chipper could be a bright splattery highlight.... closer... closer... oh he's got Jason on the back foot... he's going in! Oh wait. No, he's not. Unbelievable.
What a complete waste of my time. Also it annoyed me that Jason just didn't seem as terrifying as he has in other films. That was always the thing about Jason, he was this great hulking unstoppable figure. With this... mercy... for Clay's sister, it just didn't work. Not only was this an awful, boring, tensionless film. It was an insult to Jason and to the whole Friday the 13th series. And it wasn't even 3D, all slasher films should be done in 3D by now.
We'd all be better off if we just imagined this film never happened. Jason X and particularly Freddy vs. Jason were right laughs, Friday the 13th part 13 better not disappoint.
Despite all that, I'm gonna give it a few points. I mean there was a story, there were characters, the lake looked good... It wasn't the worst film I've ever seen. I mean it wasn't Jeepers Creepers.
3/10
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Saturday, 7 March 2009
Watchmen (2009)
I've been disgracefully lax of late. I've actually seen quite a few new films in the weeks since I reviewed My Bloody Valentine 3D. Well, new to me anyway. In case you're interested they were... The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Confessions of a Shopaholic, The Notebook, The Devil Wears Prada, Bolt 3D, Anvil! The Story of Anvil and Friday the 13th (the latest one). I haven't written reviews for any of them yet. I do intend to write reviews of some of them at some point... I'm just not sure when. In case you are wondering... The Notebook was the best of them (what can I say, I am a sap!) and Friday the 13th was the worst.
Anyway, this isn't a review of any of those films... the film I saw last night was Watchmen. For those of you who may not have heard, Watchmen is based on the Alan Moore comic book series of the same name. That series has been much lauded by critics... and indeed by everyone I know who's read it. Apparently it is quite the seminal work in comic books.
Sounds great but I haven't read it. I've nothing against comic books, I just haven't read it. When I heard the film was coming out I thought about picking it up, not least because it was staring prettily at me in every book shop I've been to in the last few months. In the end I didn't; I've heard that phrase "It's not as good as the book" said far too many times about films to risk ruining a film that looked like I could really enjoy it.
It would seem that I was right to avoid the book first. Quite a few reviews I have skimmed through mentioned that it's so caught up in looking like the comic that it misses what the comic was actually saying. Phew! Glad I didn't have to experience that disappointment. I really liked this film. Thought it was great. I suppose by not reading the comic I can take the themes and the story at face value. This makes for an interesting film, particularly compared to some of the crap I've seen recently (see list above. they weren't all crap though).
So we've established that I'm in the pro-Watchmen-the-film camp. That's not to say that I thought it was a brilliant film. I thought it looked great, that it was interesting story and in parts it was stunning... but it's a long film and I'd be lying if I said that every one of the 163 minutes was used to its full. It's patchy in parts, especially around the middle. In fact not many films that long avoid patchiness and sagging. It's also not to say that I think it should have been shorter. One of the things I hate is adaptations that insist on updating and abridging their source material, artifically transplanting in some modern day setting to make it "relevent". What a load of bollocks. If a story is relevent you don't to change its setting. Your audience should be able to draw their own parallels. Bah, sick of films that try to spoon feed you. Sorry, I got off the point there. I admire that Watchmen stayed true to its source material, even if it was to its alleged detriment. I'd rather watch a long somewhat flawed adaptation than a half assed cutdown version that bears scant resemblance to the original it's trying to update. Though... I'm not saying all adaptations are bad... I'm just saying that if you're out there saying that you're telling a certain story, you should tell the story.
I got well off track there. Right. Patchy, yes. Watchmen starts out great, the opening montage was really excellent, we're quickly brought up to speed with how this alternate timeline has progressed so far. To be honest this really is the best bit of the film.
As the film goes on it gets a little muddled in places. It's as those the scenes don't entirely flow together. This is probably the problem that those who've read the comics are talking about. I didn't find it that troubling but it did serve to... I suppose hold up the story telling. It's not that I thought it was disjointed or hard to follow. That's not the case. It was just kind of like things were being left unsaid but you couldn't tell what they were. I guess in a comic or a book you tend to fill in the blanks with your own emotions and interpretations, you read at your own pace according to what you're reading. With a film you're in a more receptive state. A film tells you its story on its terms and you process it afterwards. The best films stay with you, thinking about what you've experienced. Or maybe I'm just talking a load of shite but it seems to explain the gaps in this film to me. Or maybe Gilliam was right and it really should have been a mini-series. Perhaps 163 mins wasn't long enough to engage us with the situations and characters in Watchmen and that's why it felt patchy, they didn't have enough time to make us invest in the full story. Actually I'm sure Gilliam was right but I don't think it means that this was a bad film. Just not a brilliant film.
I want to quickly highlight a couple of the more jarring things. That great montage I mentioned does ominously forbode one of the things that Snyder should have stayed away from. While I enjoyed the songs, they were very obvious. A director shouldn't really get the soundtrack to tell us what's going on... that's that screen is for. It was annoying. Also there was a few scenes that could have been dealt with better, less could have been more. I gather they were fairly faithful recreations of scenes in the comic however what probably works as a series of panels in a comic don't necessarily work when you actually film the whole scene with those reference points.
I haven't really dwelt on what I liked in particular about the film because I liked in general really. Oh, I particularly liked the nod to Dr. Strangelove, I always like it when people reference Dr. Strangelove. And how can you not when you're telling this kind of story? Aside from that... the characters, the look, the story, all good... and all from the comic. I guess I'll like the comic when I read it.
Anyway this was a particularly long ramble so I'll finish up by saying it's well worth a look if you haven't read the comic. If you have I can't really tell you if it is or not though I would lean to saying you should. If only so that you get to see some beautiful images on screen. Oh, also I heard the end was completely different from the comic so I went and looked it up. Personally I don't think this new ending is any better or worse than the comic. Just different. I think it worked in the context of the film and I have to say that it is eminently more acceptable to the average cinemagoer. I wouldn't have minded myself but I think that a lot of people who'll never read it would have had a problem with the comic book end.
All's left to say is, that I still would have loved to see Terry Gilliam's mini-series version. Here's hoping.
8/10
NB: Now that I've written my own review I'm reading a few of other reviews out there. I've noticed a lot of critics referring to The Dark Knight and how The Dark Knight is vastly superior. Then I went back and noticed that I never wrote a review of it myself. If I had I would have said that it was ok, not great. Actually it would have been a lot like my review of Quantum of Solace. Though I would have given it a 8/10. I really don't understand the raving about it, I mean it was an entertaining couple of hours and Heath Ledger was outstanding but it doesn't make you think for more than about 5 minutes after it. It was tiring, obsessively realistic and it languished in bleak, gritty darkness, much like Batman himself. Watchmen didn't flow as well The Dark Knight and the acting wasn't of the same caliber but I enjoyed just as much if not more!
Anyway, this isn't a review of any of those films... the film I saw last night was Watchmen. For those of you who may not have heard, Watchmen is based on the Alan Moore comic book series of the same name. That series has been much lauded by critics... and indeed by everyone I know who's read it. Apparently it is quite the seminal work in comic books.
Sounds great but I haven't read it. I've nothing against comic books, I just haven't read it. When I heard the film was coming out I thought about picking it up, not least because it was staring prettily at me in every book shop I've been to in the last few months. In the end I didn't; I've heard that phrase "It's not as good as the book" said far too many times about films to risk ruining a film that looked like I could really enjoy it.
It would seem that I was right to avoid the book first. Quite a few reviews I have skimmed through mentioned that it's so caught up in looking like the comic that it misses what the comic was actually saying. Phew! Glad I didn't have to experience that disappointment. I really liked this film. Thought it was great. I suppose by not reading the comic I can take the themes and the story at face value. This makes for an interesting film, particularly compared to some of the crap I've seen recently (see list above. they weren't all crap though).
So we've established that I'm in the pro-Watchmen-the-film camp. That's not to say that I thought it was a brilliant film. I thought it looked great, that it was interesting story and in parts it was stunning... but it's a long film and I'd be lying if I said that every one of the 163 minutes was used to its full. It's patchy in parts, especially around the middle. In fact not many films that long avoid patchiness and sagging. It's also not to say that I think it should have been shorter. One of the things I hate is adaptations that insist on updating and abridging their source material, artifically transplanting in some modern day setting to make it "relevent". What a load of bollocks. If a story is relevent you don't to change its setting. Your audience should be able to draw their own parallels. Bah, sick of films that try to spoon feed you. Sorry, I got off the point there. I admire that Watchmen stayed true to its source material, even if it was to its alleged detriment. I'd rather watch a long somewhat flawed adaptation than a half assed cutdown version that bears scant resemblance to the original it's trying to update. Though... I'm not saying all adaptations are bad... I'm just saying that if you're out there saying that you're telling a certain story, you should tell the story.
I got well off track there. Right. Patchy, yes. Watchmen starts out great, the opening montage was really excellent, we're quickly brought up to speed with how this alternate timeline has progressed so far. To be honest this really is the best bit of the film.
As the film goes on it gets a little muddled in places. It's as those the scenes don't entirely flow together. This is probably the problem that those who've read the comics are talking about. I didn't find it that troubling but it did serve to... I suppose hold up the story telling. It's not that I thought it was disjointed or hard to follow. That's not the case. It was just kind of like things were being left unsaid but you couldn't tell what they were. I guess in a comic or a book you tend to fill in the blanks with your own emotions and interpretations, you read at your own pace according to what you're reading. With a film you're in a more receptive state. A film tells you its story on its terms and you process it afterwards. The best films stay with you, thinking about what you've experienced. Or maybe I'm just talking a load of shite but it seems to explain the gaps in this film to me. Or maybe Gilliam was right and it really should have been a mini-series. Perhaps 163 mins wasn't long enough to engage us with the situations and characters in Watchmen and that's why it felt patchy, they didn't have enough time to make us invest in the full story. Actually I'm sure Gilliam was right but I don't think it means that this was a bad film. Just not a brilliant film.
I want to quickly highlight a couple of the more jarring things. That great montage I mentioned does ominously forbode one of the things that Snyder should have stayed away from. While I enjoyed the songs, they were very obvious. A director shouldn't really get the soundtrack to tell us what's going on... that's that screen is for. It was annoying. Also there was a few scenes that could have been dealt with better, less could have been more. I gather they were fairly faithful recreations of scenes in the comic however what probably works as a series of panels in a comic don't necessarily work when you actually film the whole scene with those reference points.
I haven't really dwelt on what I liked in particular about the film because I liked in general really. Oh, I particularly liked the nod to Dr. Strangelove, I always like it when people reference Dr. Strangelove. And how can you not when you're telling this kind of story? Aside from that... the characters, the look, the story, all good... and all from the comic. I guess I'll like the comic when I read it.
Anyway this was a particularly long ramble so I'll finish up by saying it's well worth a look if you haven't read the comic. If you have I can't really tell you if it is or not though I would lean to saying you should. If only so that you get to see some beautiful images on screen. Oh, also I heard the end was completely different from the comic so I went and looked it up. Personally I don't think this new ending is any better or worse than the comic. Just different. I think it worked in the context of the film and I have to say that it is eminently more acceptable to the average cinemagoer. I wouldn't have minded myself but I think that a lot of people who'll never read it would have had a problem with the comic book end.
All's left to say is, that I still would have loved to see Terry Gilliam's mini-series version. Here's hoping.
8/10
NB: Now that I've written my own review I'm reading a few of other reviews out there. I've noticed a lot of critics referring to The Dark Knight and how The Dark Knight is vastly superior. Then I went back and noticed that I never wrote a review of it myself. If I had I would have said that it was ok, not great. Actually it would have been a lot like my review of Quantum of Solace. Though I would have given it a 8/10. I really don't understand the raving about it, I mean it was an entertaining couple of hours and Heath Ledger was outstanding but it doesn't make you think for more than about 5 minutes after it. It was tiring, obsessively realistic and it languished in bleak, gritty darkness, much like Batman himself. Watchmen didn't flow as well The Dark Knight and the acting wasn't of the same caliber but I enjoyed just as much if not more!
Saturday, 24 January 2009
My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
Contrary to popular belief, not all slasher flicks are the same. Ok, the formula tends the same in all of them - take a group of youngsters, add one homicidal maniac and watch the blood fly all over the place - but that doesn't mean they're all the same. Ok, there's lots of bad ones... Jeepers Creepers, Scar... awful... Monster Man and Reeker... two of the worst films I've ever seen. But there are good ones too, Friday the 13th, Halloween, a recent one that comes to mind is Severance - well worth picking up if you see it in the video store. So where does My Bloody Valentine fall?
I wasn't expecting much after the crappiness of the last 3D film I saw (Scar). Let's face it, you always have to be wary with the slasher flick but actually... it was pretty decent! It helped that Jensen Ackles is in it... honestly, there are only two reasons Supernatural is still on TV... But that aside, it genuinely is good fun.
Aside from the fact that I had a good laugh at it there really isn't a massive amount to say about the film itself. I may as well summarise the plot for you... On St. Valentine's Day a load of people are massacred by an evil miner. 10 years later, a spate of similar murders occur, is the evil miner still alive? It is what it is really. Standard whodunit with buckets of blood thrown in.
What puts it ahead of some of the others in the genre is that it doesn't skimp on the blood and guts, they're all over the place. Too many times I've watched horror films and there's scarcely a dead body in sight. All over the place in this one, blood flying everywhere. Also the 3D is a welcome addition (unlike in crappy crappy Scar). While you wouldn't necessarily jump at the pickaxe swingin' at you, it does make the experience more fun. There's also a reasonable amount of guesswork involved in working out who the killer is - it's not too obvious but it's not too difficult either - you wouldn't want to be thinking too much though, it would interfere with the popcorn eating.
So anyway, to sum up - it was good laugh and an entertaining 2 hours.
7/10
I wasn't expecting much after the crappiness of the last 3D film I saw (Scar). Let's face it, you always have to be wary with the slasher flick but actually... it was pretty decent! It helped that Jensen Ackles is in it... honestly, there are only two reasons Supernatural is still on TV... But that aside, it genuinely is good fun.
Aside from the fact that I had a good laugh at it there really isn't a massive amount to say about the film itself. I may as well summarise the plot for you... On St. Valentine's Day a load of people are massacred by an evil miner. 10 years later, a spate of similar murders occur, is the evil miner still alive? It is what it is really. Standard whodunit with buckets of blood thrown in.
What puts it ahead of some of the others in the genre is that it doesn't skimp on the blood and guts, they're all over the place. Too many times I've watched horror films and there's scarcely a dead body in sight. All over the place in this one, blood flying everywhere. Also the 3D is a welcome addition (unlike in crappy crappy Scar). While you wouldn't necessarily jump at the pickaxe swingin' at you, it does make the experience more fun. There's also a reasonable amount of guesswork involved in working out who the killer is - it's not too obvious but it's not too difficult either - you wouldn't want to be thinking too much though, it would interfere with the popcorn eating.
So anyway, to sum up - it was good laugh and an entertaining 2 hours.
7/10
Saturday, 10 January 2009
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)
The standees in Movies@Dundrum describe Slumdog Millionaire as the "The feel-good film of the decade"... so from the get go I'm worried; I'm not usually into "feel-good" films. Add to that the buzz about this film from the US... There's nothing wrong with good buzz... but about a "feel-good" film with no associated buzz about the script or the acting... what are the critics buzzing about exactly? Is this just some great PR machine at work? On the other hand this is a Danny Boyle film and imho Danny Boyle is on of the most interesting directors out there at the moment. So I cast aside my trepidation and decided to bask in the buzz. One ticket for the opening night please.
For those who don't know, Slumdog Millionaire is based on a novel called Q and A by Vikas Swarup. It's about a boy from the slums of Mumbai, Jamal (played by Dev Patel), who goes on the Indian version of Who Want To Be A Millionaire but is suspected of cheating when he reaches the last question; nobody believes that a kid from the slums could possibly do so well without help.
Is it a good film though? For the most part, yes. It is a good film... but it's not really a great film... That said, I really enjoyed it, it's practically impossible not to get caught up in the drama of the story. There's a reason Who Wants To Be A Millionaire is the most internationally popular TV franchise of all time.. the lights, the music, suspense of it all just draws you in. Danny Boyle is very successful in bring that suspense into the film, you need to know what happened to Jamal, how did he get to this point?
It's also a great looking film. The cinematography is brilliant, the slight over-saturation really works and there's some wonderful framing - excellent set pieces in the land and cityscapes. There's a vibrancy to the film that really sets off the story... It really reminds me of City of God. I'm sure I'm not the first nor will I be the last to say that...
Mentioning City of God brings us to the most important question though... City of God was one of the greatest films I've ever seen and it didn't win an Oscar. So is Slumdog Millionaire worthy of the hype? I'm not sure... I'm loath to say that it isn't because I think it's great that a film like this is being brought to a mass audience. I also think it's great for Danny Boyle and his co-director Loveleen Tandan that they are getting recognition for a great film. Danny Boyle should have been nominated for an Oscar for Trainspotting and 28 Days Later...!. Personally I can't say if this film is worthy of the Oscar, I haven't seen the competition so I can't really comment... but I can say that it's not without flaws.
I think the most glaring of them is that, in all the excitment, it's easy to miss that we don't actually know that much about the characters. There are glimpses at what drives them... but we don't actually know them outside what is relevant to the story. We don't know who they are, we just know what they've done. I would have liked to have seen more characterisation. Another is that I felt toward the end that we got a bit mixed in what matters... there's two threads in the story and as they both climax it doesn't quite manage to keep the momentum for both stories but it doesn't quite manage to merge them either... It might just be me but there wasn't the satisfaction in the end that I expected.
The last thing that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire isn't really a flaw but I do think it stops it from being a really great film. I thought it was forgettable... and maybe that's the problem of the feel-good film. There was nothing there for me to think about afterwards. I like to walk out of a theatre thinking about what I've just experienced - I might be thinking "What would I have done?" or "How could that have happen?" or I might just be thinking "Wow, the effects in that film were incredible", it doesn't matter. What matters is that I'm thinking of it and in this case I wasn't.
So... how to rate it? I would have loved for this film to be a new classic... which is what the marketeers would have us believe... but I really don't think it is. I think it's a good story told well and that might be enough for it to win an Oscar but it's not enough for me.
8.5/10
For those who don't know, Slumdog Millionaire is based on a novel called Q and A by Vikas Swarup. It's about a boy from the slums of Mumbai, Jamal (played by Dev Patel), who goes on the Indian version of Who Want To Be A Millionaire but is suspected of cheating when he reaches the last question; nobody believes that a kid from the slums could possibly do so well without help.
Is it a good film though? For the most part, yes. It is a good film... but it's not really a great film... That said, I really enjoyed it, it's practically impossible not to get caught up in the drama of the story. There's a reason Who Wants To Be A Millionaire is the most internationally popular TV franchise of all time.. the lights, the music, suspense of it all just draws you in. Danny Boyle is very successful in bring that suspense into the film, you need to know what happened to Jamal, how did he get to this point?
It's also a great looking film. The cinematography is brilliant, the slight over-saturation really works and there's some wonderful framing - excellent set pieces in the land and cityscapes. There's a vibrancy to the film that really sets off the story... It really reminds me of City of God. I'm sure I'm not the first nor will I be the last to say that...
Mentioning City of God brings us to the most important question though... City of God was one of the greatest films I've ever seen and it didn't win an Oscar. So is Slumdog Millionaire worthy of the hype? I'm not sure... I'm loath to say that it isn't because I think it's great that a film like this is being brought to a mass audience. I also think it's great for Danny Boyle and his co-director Loveleen Tandan that they are getting recognition for a great film. Danny Boyle should have been nominated for an Oscar for Trainspotting and 28 Days Later...!. Personally I can't say if this film is worthy of the Oscar, I haven't seen the competition so I can't really comment... but I can say that it's not without flaws.
I think the most glaring of them is that, in all the excitment, it's easy to miss that we don't actually know that much about the characters. There are glimpses at what drives them... but we don't actually know them outside what is relevant to the story. We don't know who they are, we just know what they've done. I would have liked to have seen more characterisation. Another is that I felt toward the end that we got a bit mixed in what matters... there's two threads in the story and as they both climax it doesn't quite manage to keep the momentum for both stories but it doesn't quite manage to merge them either... It might just be me but there wasn't the satisfaction in the end that I expected.
The last thing that bothered me about Slumdog Millionaire isn't really a flaw but I do think it stops it from being a really great film. I thought it was forgettable... and maybe that's the problem of the feel-good film. There was nothing there for me to think about afterwards. I like to walk out of a theatre thinking about what I've just experienced - I might be thinking "What would I have done?" or "How could that have happen?" or I might just be thinking "Wow, the effects in that film were incredible", it doesn't matter. What matters is that I'm thinking of it and in this case I wasn't.
So... how to rate it? I would have loved for this film to be a new classic... which is what the marketeers would have us believe... but I really don't think it is. I think it's a good story told well and that might be enough for it to win an Oscar but it's not enough for me.
8.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Just click...
