Cinepub


31 Days of Horror 9: Curse of Chucky by Jamie

Ah, Chucky. He never quite achieved the heights of the slasher gods such as Michael, Freddy or Jason but he carved (hehehe. Get it? Because knives!) out his own little niche and has quite the cult following. And rightfully so. The Child’s Play films are just a fun series based on a very simple concept. Dolls are creepy so what if one was inhabited by the soul of a serial killer. It would be able to kill indiscriminately and get away with it because if domeone tells you that a doll is killing people, are you going to believe them? No of course your not. You’d have to be crazy to even suggest such a thing.

Anyway, since this is a brand new film I’ve decided not to go into the plot that much since there are a few things that could be considered spoilers. I mean, not much, It’s a goddamn Chucky film. Doll kills people. But there are a few little twists and a few things that tie in to the earlier films which cement this as a sequel rather than the reboot I had been told it was. And it really does feel like a reboot at times.

This is mainly due to the fact that there is a lot of build up in this thing. You go a good forty five minutes before you even hear Brad Douriff’s awesome voice. Still, all of this build up is kinda pointless because you see Chucky moving. You seem him setting things up so it’s not like they’re trying to build up any kind of mystery as to whether or not it is actually Chucky doing evil things. He clearly is alive and doing shit. And why would they try and build up any kind of intrigue. I highly doubt that this straight to DVD film is going to be anyone’s introduction to the series and even if this is the first Chucky film you watch, I’m sure you have heard about Chucky before and know what you’re in for.

So the early part of this film is a little slow going but once Chucky is in full Chucky mode, things definitely pick up and it’s nice to see that, for the most part, the effects are mostly animatronics. There is one truly shoddy CGI effect of the doll walking down some stairs but thankfully that seems to be it. So yeah, this film would definitely rate around a three out of five for a slow build, some excellent stuff near the end and some things that tie this to the first film in particular that I could take or leave. But, much like even the worst Nightmare on Elm Street films are saved by Robert Englund, this film is brought up a notch by Brad Douriff’s portrayal of Chucky (though there are some flashbacks with Douriff looking disturbingly like Tommy Wiseau). The man truly seems to enjoy playing the part and his enjoyment is truly what makes the Child’s Play series such a fun watch and this one is no exception once he’s finally set free to do what he does best. Four pints out of five. Laterz.

 



31 Days of Horror 8: V/H/S 2 (2013) by Jamie

Yesterday I poked a little fun at the format known as VHS, in particular it’s tendency to have a serious decline in quality with repeated viewings. Having watched today’s movie, however, I wish to take that criticism back. I was wrong and I can admit that. Ok, I wasn’t wrong. This was indeed a genuine problem that VHS suffered from but in the movie ‘V/H/S’, these artefacts that resulted from multiple viewings managed to add to the film’s charms somewhat, though I’ll admit that at times they did seem a little like the lens flare in Abrams ‘Star Trek’ films being perhaps a little overdone. Still, they leant something of an air of authenticity, grittiness and even nostalgia on my part. Sadly, those artefacts are all but gone in the sequel ‘V/H/S 2’ and that’s one of my problems with the film.

This sequel just feels polished compared to the original, every things seems neater, tighter and cleaner and strangely enough that can be a bad thing, especially for a horror film. It’s no coincidence that one of the best segments in this film is ‘Safe Haven’ about an Indonesian cult which seems to capture some of he grunginess of the first film.

This film also managed to capture my attention at lot less than it’s predecessor. I know I complained about V/H/S’s length a little yesterday and this film was about half an hour shorter. On reflection, perhaps that extra time was necessary for building the tension and general creepy feeling that managed to keep me so interested in the first film. Let’s just say I knew that this one was gonna be less interesting when Zombies showed up. Yes, I love Zombies but the first V/H/S seemed to have some pretty interesting and original ideas. Throwing Zombies in just seemed, well, a little too simple to be honest.

Still, it’s not a terrible film and there were moments that felt like watching the first one just not as many. Overall I’d say watch the first one and if you find yourself wanting more of the same kinda stuff then you could probably get something out of the sequel. 2.5 pints out of 5.



31 Days of Horror 7: V/H/S (2012) by Jamie

Ah, the horror anthology. It’s a tradition that dates back to a time immemorial when cavemen would sit around campfires telling tales of Neanderthal ghosts, trying to scare each other before all piling into their foot-powered cars and heading to the local fast-food eatery for some giant ribs I assume. That proud tradition returns once again with ‘V/H/S’.

Ok, first I feel as though a quick history lesson is in order. VHS cassettes were large, rectangular blocks of plastic filled with tape that allowed you to view your favourite films in ever decreasing quality. They had no way to skip between chapters meaning, if you were so inclined, you’d have to fast-forward to your favourite scene which essentially involved still having to watch everything that came before it but at a slightly higher speed. Oh, and you had to rewind it all the way to the beginning once you were done. Rental shops in particular got very angry if you didn’t… Ok, rental shops were basically Netflix but you had to go outside to get the movies on the ever-decreasing quality plastic blocks and then return them, rewound of course, after a set period of time. It was a dark and barbaric time.

The premise then of V/H/S is that some twenty-something ne’er-do-wells discover a cache of old VHS tapes and discover that each one contains an horrific story filled with terror! So yes, this is another found footage movie much like yesterday’s entry The Bay. Unlike The Bay, however, V/H/S is nowhere near as well shot. In fact it has some of the shakiest shaky-cam I have ever had the misfortune to see. Seriously, I contemplated turning it off during the first segment because it was borderline unwatchable. Still, I figured that then I’d have to figure out what movie to watch instead and changing my mind after coming to a decision is difficult because I find myself paralysed by near-infinite choice, so I decided to stick with it. And I am actually kind of glad I did.

V/H/S is by no means as satisfying a film as The Bay, not by a long shot but It certainly has moments of genuine creepiness that compelled me to keep watching. One of the problem with the film is that some of these segments, whilst building quite a decent amount of tension, end rather disappointingly. On the other hand some of them work too well, leaving you feeling as though they actually might work better as a stand alone feature, given a little time for the story to breath a little better. Still “a mixed bag” is often the best way to describe any horror anthology movie and so it I with V/H/S

Over all, I would definitely say this is worth a watch. The good segments are genuinely good and the even the mediocre ones have something to keep you hooked for a while. Perhaps it’s biggest fault is it’s running time. A movie like this didn’t really need to be nearly two hours long and I can think of at least one segment that the loss of which might have improved it slightly. Still, other than that a generally enjoyable experience. Three pints out of five. Laterz.



31 Days of Horror 5: Room 237 (2012) by Jamie

So I decided to take something of a different route for this entry into 31 Days of Horror. I honestly haven’t had that much to say about the films that I’ve watched so far. The ‘let’s randomly watch a film that I just stumble upon’ approach has been, let’s say, unrewarding for the most part. So I reckoned I’d take a look at a film that I’d heard a lot about. It’s not a horror film itself persay. Rather it’s a documentary about one of the greatest horror films of all time, a little film called ‘The Shining’ by Stanley Kubrick. It is not, however, a film about the making of The Shining. Instead it is a film about all the conspiracies and secret meanings that certain fans have read into it.

Now, I don’t think I’d be causing any waves if I said that Stanley Kubrick was undeniably a genius filmmaker. Many of his films are considered among the greatest of all time with The Shining in particular often topping horror film list and with good reason. He was also something of a perfectionist and a somewhat private person. This privacy garnered him the somewhat unfair reputation as a recluse. It is this famed attention to detail plus this supposed reclusiveness that has certainly helped some of the conspiracies and myths build up around him. There is also the fact that some of his films are, well, kinda batshit insane.

Still just because The Shining has something of an aura that is conducive to conspiracy does not mean that conspiracies actually exist as is true of any conspiracy theory. And this is one of the problems with ‘Room 237’. The film is literally just voice over of people explaining their particular conspiracy theories over often slow motion shots of the film. In terms of style, the film I could most compare this to is ‘Zoo’, a film which I was not exactly a fan of. So all you get is the someone talking largely nonsense about how The Shining is actually about the genocide of the Native Americans or the Holocaust or how Kubrick faked the moon landings or some other bull crap. I’ll admit, some of the conspiracies are somewhat interesting though still so loosely cobbled together as to be laughable, all the result of random coincidence and self-delusion. Seriously, if I watched it enough times I could probably come up with a theory about how ‘Freddy Got Fingered’ is actually a treatise on the Kennedy Assassination that reveals the identity of the true shooter.

The truth is that conspiracy theories aren’t nearly as interesting as the people who come up with them and that’s what could have made this film a whole lot better. Show me the people behind the conspiracies. Let me get to know about them and more about why they think this way. As it is, all I have is a collection of faceless voices giving me their secret meanings about a film. In essence, someone has made a documentary about an internet message board. Well done.

In summation this could have been a really interesting film if it had delved just a little deeper than the surface it offered. Still it has left me wondering just why the fuck Jack Torrance is reading an issue of Playgirl while he waits to meet the hotel manager? Two pints out of five. Laterz.

Room 237



31 Days of Horror 3: Carved (2007) by Jamie

Ah, Japan. Home to big titted zombies, executive koalas and battlefield baseball. Yes, the land of the rising sun is often a source of fascination for those in the West because sometimes their cultural output can seem a little… odd to our sensibilities. Awesome but still odd.

So hey, I thought, let’s go for a good ol’ fashioned Japanese horror film for this edition of 31 Days of Horror. Something different to excite the blood a touch. And was I disappointed? Well, yes and no. Carved (aka Kuchisake-onna or Slit-Mouthed Woman) is based on a modern Japanese urban legend about a woman with her mouth slit open from ear to ear, ala the Joker from ‘The Dark Knight’. I won’t recount the entire legend here so I shall point you to the wikipedia entry here. Needless to say, it is exactly the kind of thing that kids come up with, no different really than something like Bloody Mary or the like.

And the legend actually makes a fairly decent, if somewhat subdued, movie. It’s obviously something of a low budget film as the few times that you do see make-up effects, they are clearly a bit budget but they are used sparingly enough that it doesn’t really matter that much. Despite it’s low budget, the movie manages to serve up a few creepy and shocking moments, particularly moments involving children that I don’t think you’d ever see in an American horror movie.

Despite the fact that the film was enjoyable as a whole, I did feel as though it did start to drag towards the end and I found my mind wandering a little. There is also some kind of message about child abuse (the hitting kind not the catholic priest kind) that is a little lost on me. So if you hit kids you become a slit-mouthed crazy lady? But people who didn’t abuse their kids were also possessed by her and… No, I’m just not sure I’m getting it. As for the acting, well, I can’t really comment. When someone’s talking in a different language, they could be Japanese Tommy Wiseau and I’d be hard pressed to tell.

So overall not a terrible film but nothing spectacular either. I guess it’d fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum so 2.5 pints out of 5. Laterz.

 

Eeek!



31 Days of Horror 2: Walled In by Jamie

Part of what I was hoping to uncover during this 31 Days of Halloween adventure were some hidden gems, some little seen movies that were actually deserving ofway more attention. When I saw Walled In on Netflix, I hoped that it might be one such film. The premise seemed interesting. It was abut someone who trapped people inside walls and the image on Netflix showed a screaming woman buried up to her waist in wall. Awesome, I thought, already imaging a twisted psychopath surrounded by people wailing in horror as they were trapped halfway inside walls.

Unfortunately, this was not the film I got. It in fact takes place 15 years or so after a maniac trapped people inside the walls of a building and suffocated them by pouring concrete in with them. The film is, in actuality, an attempt to be every other film, lifting plot points, shots and even sounds from other films. Sometimes it’s Nightmare on Elm Street, sometimes it’s Psycho, sometimes it‘s The Shining. Sometimes it’s the tale of a woman haunted by the ghosts of those who had died in this building before her, sometimes it’s the tale of a psychologically damaged person torturing and tormenting another out of a twisted sense of vengeance. Walled In is many, many things but the one thing it isn’t is good.

It’s boring, the acting is about one degree above that in Birdemic, the plot is nonsensical at best and I fell asleep a couple of times, leading me to have to rewind the damn thing to try and see what I’d missed which served to only prolong my misery. I’ll admit that there were a couple of moments where I found myself a little engaged by the plot but these were few and far between. Overall a deeply disappointing experience. One pint out of five. Laterz.

Walled In



31 Days of Horror 1: In The Mouth of Madness (1994) by Jamie

It’s the most wonderful time of year, the time when killers stalk, monsters hunt and ghosts haunt. When the deep, dark fears that dwell within the collective mind of mankind are given form and allowed to roam free on our movie screens. Yes, once more ‘tis the season of Halloween. To celebrate this year, I’ve decided to engage in an activity that I’ve seen a number of people indulging in, namely watching a horror film a day for each day of the month of October or should I say Spooktober! No, my legal team have informed me that I should not, in fact, say Spooktober. Ever.

Anyway, my criteria for this 31 Days of Horror thing is rather simple. Pick a horror film I haven’t seen, watch it and then review it. Of course, this can garner a mixed bag of results. Some movies can be so painfully middle of the road that they just kind of aren’t worth reviewing. Still, I shall soldier on regardless safe in the knowledge that there’s at least a new ‘Child’s Play’ film in my future. Anyway let’s begin with John Carpenter’s Lovecraftian tale ‘In The Mouth of Madness’.

One of my biggest regrets, other than not attempting to have sex with Scarlett Johansson that one time I was in the same room as her, is the fact that I have never read any of HP Lovecraft’s works. Every now and then I’ll get it in my head to but then I look at his bibliography and the arguments about a suitable reading order online and I eventually give up. Still I have absorbed at least a passing knowledge of the Lovecraftian mythos from the general pop-culture milieu and one day I will finally settle on where to start and actually indulge. Until then, I figured that maybe ‘In The Mouth of Madness’ might be a good place to look to satisfy that longing for eldritch abominations that I seem to harbour. Sadly, it kind of wasn’t.

Not to say that I didn’t enjoy the film, I did for the most part. I just think that perhaps the pacing was a little off. Hmmm, let me begin at the beginning. The film basically follows the recollections of John Trent, insurance fraud investigator, as he tells the story of how he came to end up in an insane asylum after attempting to find out what happened to horror author/Lovecraft surrogate Sutter Cane who has vanished just before his new book ‘In The Mouth of Madness’ is due to be released causing his rabid fans to partake in a bit of rioting.

The trail of clues that Trent uncovers leads him and Cane’s editor to a town that fans of the author’s books may be familiar with. Will Trent find Cane and his new manuscript and is there any truth to the rumours that Cane’s work can turn people mad?

Now like I say, for the most part I did enjoy this film. Sam Neil plays Trent and he can play a man unsure of whether or not his sanity is slipping away with the very best whilst still managing to maintain an air of scepticism in his portrayal. The film also isn’t short on classic Carpenter style with the film bringing ‘The Thing’ to mind on more than one occasion and even reminding me of a less comedic ‘They Live’ at times.

My main problem with the film is the pacing. It just doesn’t give enough time for the tension to build properly. It feels as though there’s an attempt to make the film feel like it’s about the slow, creeping rise of insanity and the realisation that reality may not be as real as you thought but the film moves too fast for that feeling of tension to ever really build and in the end, you can’t help but feel slightly disappointed because of that. Still, this is definitely one for Carpenter fans who may have overlooked it. Three pints out of five. Sorry that this review is a bit truncated but the idea for this came late and now I must sleep to be refreshed and ready for another spooktacular review tomorrow!… What’s that? Never use the word spooktacular either. Fine. Laterz.

 

 

SPOOKTACULAR SPOOKTOBER! MWAHAHAHAHA!



Review: Pacific Rim by Jamie

So Pacific Rim hit theatres like Godzilla hitting Tokyo. It’s the film I’ve been looking forward to all summer, the film that I’d laid my hopes on when it came to saving what has been a dreary and disappointing blockbuster season. It made sense. I love Kaiju movies. I’m down with giant robots. This should be a no-brainer, right? This should be a film that was made for me. A modern, big-budget Kaiju vs. Mecha movie. This is what I want right?

Well, it turns out that it wasn’t or at least not this version of it. Honestly I hated this movie. This movie that had so much potential, this movie that I put so much faith into. Maybe it’s me. Maybe I have become overly critical lately. I look at Twitter and see all the people who love this movie and it makes me sad. I’m happy that they got something out of it that I didn’t and I wish I had gotten that out of it too. Still I’m not going to lie and say that I enjoyed it when I didn’t. Overly critical or not, my opinion is still my opinion and I can’t see it changing anytime soon.

So what was it about this movie that irked me so? Ugh, where to begin? It was just so… ugh. Ok, so the basic plot is giant alien monsters have been invading the Earth through a dimensional rift at the bottom of the ocean and mankind has responding by building giant robots to fight them. Will mankind prevail or be wiped out? That’s a question that I literally ended up not caring about by the end of this film. Why? Well I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I can’t care about the stakes if I don’t care about the characters and if there’s one thing that this movie is lacking, it’s characters. Every one is a cliché or a stereotype. Take our main character Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunman). He’s a Mecha pilot who quits after his brother is killed in action. He drifts from job to job, trying to forget the ghosts of his past. Suddenly his former commanding officer Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), a gruff military man who’s hard exterior masks a softer side, shows up in order to recruit him for one last mission. Becket finally agrees and at the base he meets two wacky scientists. One is tattooed and doesn’t mind leaving his lab in a messy state and the other is an uptight Englishman who likes a tidy working area. They’re the original odd couple! He also meets Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), a somewhat meek Japanese girl who, get this, turns out to be really good at martial arts! But wait, I hear you say. Is there a cocky pilot who is great at his job but also an abrasive asshole? You bet your ass there is (Robert Kazinsky)! And let me tell you, he and Raleigh just can’t seem to get along with each other at all. Will they come to respect each other? Who can say? Ok, let’s just say that by the time that the bleached-blonde, sour-faced, statuesque Russian pilots who literally might as well both be Ivan Drago showed up, I was done. Done, done, done.

Look, I get it. This is a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters. Should I really care so much about how fleshed out the characters are? And you know what, I agree. I wouldn’t have minded a few clichés but EVERY SINGLE FUCKING CHARACTER? No. Now I’m afraid you’ve asked too much of me. And then there’s the story. Oh the story. There are threads which are picked up and then resolved far too quickly to make sense. For example, Pentecost originally refuses Mori’s request to become a pilot only to change his mind moments later with no explanation as to why. The movie also bends and breaks it’s own rules, something which should be a fucking cardinal sin in a Sci-Fi movie. For example, it is explained in the beginning of the film that the robots, which I probably should have mentioned by now are called Jaegers, have to be operated by more than one person because a neural connection with one person outs too much strain on that persons brain. This is broken moments later when a guy pilots his Jaeger solo after a battle. There’s also a far more egregious example of rule-breaking at the end of the film but I can’t say it because it’s a spoiler. Damn.

Speaking of spoilers, the ending is literally lifted almost wholesale from another film. I won’t tell you which one because it would be spoileriffic but if you’ve seen any big blockbusters within the past 100 years, you should be able to tell.

Ok, I still get it. It’s a movie about giant robots punching giant monsters. Isn’t the story just a means to an end to bring us those awesome action scenes? One, think about that the next time you criticise a Transformers movie and two, fair enough and that’d be acceptable if the fights were great to watch. Don’t get me wrong, they were some of the best parts of the film but the fights feature too many close-ups, too many quick cuts, too much of what’s going on being obscured by sea spray, rain or just the fact that all the fights take place at night. When you can tell what’s going on, it is indeed very cool but half the time it’s all just too… too meh. Sometimes there’s something to be said for guys in rubber suits.

Can I think of something I enjoyed before I wrap this up? Uh… The Kaiju looked cool, I guess and Ron Perlman was pretty entertaining…

I really wanted to love this movie. I really did. I wanted it to save my summer. I wanted to be able to smile as I walked out of the cinema and say to myself “You know what self? 2013 wasn’t a complete waste of time.” But I didn’t. I just didn’t. I’m honestly not sure what to rate this. So I guess I just won’t. I mean, I seem to be in the pretty big minority on this one and you’re probably going to go and see it anyway. Enjoy it. I hope you get out of it what I could not. I dunno. Maybe this would’ve been better if all the Kaiju were in a tornado of some kind. Laterz…. Oh, and if your robot has a sword that can cut through Kaiju like butter, why are you not always using it?

Sigh



Review: Man of Steel by Jamie

Superman. There was a time that when someone said the word superhero, the big blue boy scout was the image that would pop into your head. That might not be so true nowadays what with the proliferation of superheroes as a whole in the pop culture milieu nowadays. Sure, there were some who’d think Batman but those people would be wrong. Batman isn’t a superhero, he’s just an awesome detective in a bat costume. Would you call Sherlock Holmes a superhero? Probably not, not even if you dressed him as a small flying mammal.

Anyway, my point is that Superman is THE Superhero. He was the one that kicked of an entire genre of comic books and set the standard on which later heroes would be based. The cape, the spandex, the secret identity? All a result of Superman. Still, Superman himself has had a rather spotty record when it comes to his cinematic outings. Sure, the first two Superman films starring Christopher Reeve were great if perhaps a little too campy when looked back upon now. Then came the third which inexplicably starred Richard Pryor as someone who’s good at computers for some reason. The less said about Superman IV the better.

Supes finally returned nineteen years later in well, Superman Returns. It was not considered a success. It’s been a while since I’ve watched it myself but I don’t think I hated it. It was just a thing that kind of happened and that was that. And it’s not surprising that it was a failure to be honest. The cinematic superhero genre had come a long way since the first series of film. This was film was released not long after the first two X-Men films and the first two Spider-Man films had come out and kind of redefined what a comic book movie was. People wanted deep characters with deep motivations. Superman was not these things.

Let’s be honest for a moment. Superman is a boring character. Yes, I’ll admit that he deserves a little respect for being the first but an indestructible, flying man with lasers for eyes who only has one weakness is just not interesting. Throw in the fact that his motivation never really developed much further beyond “Truth, Justice and the American Way”. That kinda shit just doesn’t fly anymore.

So DC recently relaunched their entire universe (sort of) in 2011 and I bought each of the new number ones. I liked the stuff that they did with Superman. He was no longer specifically on the idea of the law but rather a Superman of the people, doing what was right not necessarily what the government wanted. He was a Superman for the Occupy generation. Also his powers had been toned down somewhat since he was a younger character still developing his them. It was an interesting concept and one that I enjoyed even though I didn’t stick with buying any more of them.

So could Zack Snyder, David Goyer and Christopher Nolan bring the world’s first superhero into the 21st century on the big screen? Well…

Look, I didn’t hate this movie. I want to get that out of the way right up front. It’s just that I can’t say that I really liked it either. So let’s get into what I did like first. One of my biggest problems with Superman has always been that Lois Lane is supposed to be one of the bet journalists on the planet and yet she can’t tell that someone is the same person when they remove a pair of glasses. I’ll suspend disbelief that Supes is from an alien planet where evolution has resulted in a dominant species identical to ours and that being from said planet grants him abilities such as invulnerability, flight and laser eyes. Fine. But that Lois Lane thing is a step too far and this movie solves that problem brilliantly in a way that resonates with the character.

I also really enjoyed the opening scenes on Krypton though they were somewhat rushed and involved characters yelling exposition at each other but you know what? I can live with that. It’s a movie and, as important as Krypton is to the Superman mythos, it’s not the main focus of the character. Still it might have been nice to flesh out the character of Zod a little better during these scenes. Despite this, like I said, I enjoyed the sequence though it did feature one of the oddest design choices I have ever seen in a film. Zod and his followers are sealed in stasis pods. Here, I done a rough art of what these pods look like:

Kneel Before Zod’s Giant Bronze Space Penis!

I’m not kidding either. Zod and his followers are literally locked away in giant, bronze dongs. They even have the beginnings of little scrotal sacks at the bottom. I get it. You want something that will fit a human being standing to attention inside it. You have to account for the feel and the rest can be a long pole-looking structure. Fine, that would have resembled a somewhat cartoonish penis, I would have giggled and we all could have gotten on with the movie but to actually put a bulbous head at the top of the shaft… I mean, seriously? Did nobody notice this during production? They had to have, right? So does that mean that this was entirely done on purpose? It’s just… Wow.

Anyway, where was I? Oh right, giant bronze penises. I mean Man of Steel. Ok. Another thing I enjoyed was the action. You know what, it was big, it was loud and it was awesome. I’ll admit that by this point I’d completely lost interest in the story. The villains motivations were inexplicable which is kinda becoming a theme in blockbuster movies lately but the action scenes got me through it. It was the first time I got a sense of just how powerful the Kryptonians on Earth. Obviously this is a little unfair to the previous films since didn’t have the kind of effects that this film does but it really is cool to see Superman creating sonic booms as he flies or to see one the villains leaping and crashing into things. There’s weight behind it all, it feels physical and there is mass devastation as a result. It’s pretty sweet.

I’ve also gotta say that I can’t really single any actor out as being bad. Everyone was pretty much bringing their A game with Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner playing Jor-El and Jonathan Kent respectively. Also Christopher Meloni is in it and I always have respect for a man whose IMDB bio begins with “With his piercing, blue-eyed glint, brawny looks, cocky “tough guy” stance and effortless charisma, TV’s Christopher Meloni drew on his sexy Italian heritage to grab audiences attention, male and female alike, finding breakthrough stardom playing on both sides of the law.” Well played Meloni’s IMDB bio. Well played.

So what about the bad, though I’ll admit that there’s a fairly decent amount of bad listed in the stuff that I supposedly liked about the film. Well, the story is a major concern and it also has a lot to do with the way the film is put together. After we see Kal-El’s pod crash land on Earth there is a cut to Clark working on a fishing boat. It is one of the worst cuts I have ever seen in my life. It was so jarring and unnatural looking that I actually thought that there might have been a problem with the projector and the film had skipped ahead. The middle of the story then is mostly made up of flashbacks as Clark tries to find out exactly what his role in human society is. The young man is torn and conflicted due to his pa telling him that he must hide who he really is until the world is ready to accept him.

He’s a tortured soul you see, someone with amazing and incredible gifts who must hide who he is because revealing himself would terrify the people he wants to protect. He’s an X-Man, you see. Ok, that’s a little unfair. In actuality this is gritty Superman. This is tortured Superman. This is Batmanified Superman. And it doesn’t work. The problem is that I think it could work. I think that the basic core idea is a solid one. I just think they went about it in totally the wrong way. The flashbacks suck any sense of development out of the story. Showing me an adult Clark getting in a situation and then flashing back to a scene of young Clark explaining why he reacts to this situation in the way that he does is one hundred percent less effective than having the story and my understanding of the character develop naturally and organically.

Then there’s the “romance” between Superman and Lois. It just sort of happens because, you know , that’s what happens in superhero movies, right? The hero needs a damsel in distress to save and so they are forced together and are making out in a devastated city on top of what must be the corpses of literally thousands after only really meeting each other a couple of times. It’s another symptom of the fact that there just isn’t any real development going on in the characters or story taking place in the present. All of the character development is shown a having taken place in the past in flashbacks relevant to the current situation and, again, that’s a really shitty way of doing things.

Overall it’s really a shame. To have such great acting, such great action and little flashes of brilliance here and there just to have it fall down on the single most important aspect of a movie, in my mind at least, the story is the biggest disappointment of all. Still, I left the cinema feeling somewhat hopeful. This could provide the background for a really nice sequel. It almost feels as though that’s exactly what they were thinking too. Rush through this film to retell the one superhero origin story that literally every human being knows, because at this point he’s been around since before many of our grandparents were born, and we can really focus on making the next film a great one. It is Batmanified Superman after all so why not just completely follow the formula of Christopher Nolan’s Batman films? Batman Begins had the advantage of having a vastly more interesting central character than Man of Steel but it still has to be admitted that The Dark Knight is when people sat up and paid attention and so I can see it being the same way with this.

Will they be able to pull a truly epic sequel off? Only time will tell and I hope that I’m proven right. It’d be nice to see Superman reinvented properly for a new age. Of course The Dark Knight had the advantage of having the Joker as the villain. A Man of Steel sequel will have to settle for Lex Luthor and it will be Lex Luthor.

And that's terrible...

And that’s terrible…

So I come to the end of this review a little disappointed. If indeed it was their plan to get through an origin movie just to provide the backdrop for a better sequel, did they need to waste Zod on it? It’s a shame but as I said, despite this disappointment I do remain hopeful and I feel it’s right to feel that way. After all hope is what the on Superman’s chest stands for.

Oh one last thing. Zod has one line, Snyder, Nolan and Goyer. One line that he is famous for. I know you’re trying to be all gritty and serious but c’mon, you couldn’t have thrown it in?

Two pints out of five. Laterz! Giant bronze penises to you all!

(In case you’re worried, that “And it will be Lex Luthor” line isn’t a spoiler for some post credits scene. There isn’t a post credits scene. It just will be Lex Luthor in the sequel obviously.)



Review: Byzantium by Jamie

The vampire craze doesn’t seem quite as strong as it once did. Twilight is over, True Blood has essentially become a parody of itself and the Underworld movies… are they still making Underworld movies? I dunno. My point is that there is perhaps a waning in the interest in stories about Vampires whilst their undead brethren, the Zombies, continue to shamble on triumphant (though I honestly think that could change is World War Z is as bad as I think it is going to be). Still the effect of the popularity of these big budget Vampire efforts is that we’ve also seen some far more interesting, smaller films be released. Films like ‘Let The Right One In’ and it’s American remake ‘Let Me In’. It is with those films that Byzantium resides.

Let me start of by saying that this film is directed by Neil Jordan, director of 1994’s ‘Interview With The Vampire’ and it’s pretty clear why he was hired to direct. The main thrust of the plot of Byzantium, adapted from the play ‘A Vampire Story’ by Moira Buffini, is all about a 16-yeat old (well, technically 216 year old) girl, Eleanor Webb (Saoirse Ronan) who wants to tell the story of her creation and two hundred year existence as a vampire but being unable to because of the rules that she lives by in order to remain safe. She just wants to live and love and considers herself a monster. It’s, well, it’s a story that’s almost identical in that regard to ‘An Interview With A Vampire’. In tone, however, this film shares far more with Let The Right One In especially as the story focuses more on her developing relationship with a young boy named Frank (Caleb Landry Jones)

So yeah, it’s fair to say that in some ways this film feels like a mish-mash of two different vampire films but that’s certainly no bad thing when both of those films are great and you can’t help but give them a little leeway since the director of one of those films is also the director of this one. And despite this the film remains an original story. There are also a number of tweaks to vampire mythos which purists may find annoying. These vampires can go out in the sun and rather than fangs, they pierce their victims skin with a retractable claw-like thumbnail. However, they also seem to able to be killed in ways that would kill a normal human, though may be able to take a little more punishment before death would occur.

I don’t really have a problem with that in this film. The reason that the sun thing annoys me in Twilight is that it’s obviously done just to make the Vampires look pretty. It’s also not balanced with any weakness to anything else. It seems, pretty much, as though the only thing that can kill another Vampire in Twilight is another Vampire or a Werewolf. By all rights, we should be living in a vampire-dominated world in those films.

I think it’d be fair to say that this film will not be everybody’s cup of tea. It’s slow and ponderous as a meditation on immortality perhaps should be. There is also the problem that all Vampire films seem to have ever since Interview (though that film manages to avoid this problem itself) and that’s that there isn’t really a character who seems to enjoy immortality. It’s possible that Eleanor’s progenitor Clara (Gemma Arterton) does though it’s never really made one hundred percent clear. It seems as though all modern vampires are made in the mould of Louis. They’re all so mopey. Don’t any of you enjoy the fact that you’re going to live forever? So you lost your soul? You don’t need one if your never going to die.

Despite all this, I still really enjoyed this film and found myself hooked as more and more of Eleanor’s story was revealed. Like I said though, it’s not gonna be for everyone. It does have Gemma Arterton dressed like a hooker throughout most of it so, yeah, there is that as well. Four pints out of five. Laterz.

Byzantium.




%d bloggers like this: