Like Marmite or World music, you either love or hate Quentin Tarantino movies. Especially recently, when his films reek of self-indulgence due to his singular vision and overwhelming confidence as a film-maker. But if you give into Tarantino’s vision, you’ll find yourself lost in a fascinating and entertaining world of references and downright coolness. Kill Bill merged kung fu with spaghettis westerns and revenge flicks to make a thoroughly thrilling film that was accessible even to those unfamiliar to the genres. And now Tarantino has taken a stab at the almost forgotten action war genre with his strangely misspelt Inglourious Basterds.
The Basterds are a group of mainly Jewish tough-guys led by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), whose mission is to murder and scalp as many Nazis as possible. But the Basterds mettle is tested when they become involved in a plot to destroy a French cinema that will host the premiere of an SS film, attended by the likes of Goebbels and Hitler himself. And while the cinema’s owner, Shosanna, a Jewish girl in disguise, is hatching her own plot to destroy the heads of the Nazi party, she must avoid the steely smarts of Colonel Hans Landa, a man who earned the nickname The Jew Hunter and who is most likely to uncover the plots of both her and the Basterds.
Lately Tarantino has been seemingly attempting to revive long lost sub genres of cinema, such as the poorly made gore of Grindhouse cinema, or blaxploitation movies (Jackie Brown). WWII action seemed like a genre that isn’t worth reviving, an insultingly “entertaining” view of the most horrid period of the last century. Even its best examples, such as The Dirty Dozen, are forgettable at best. Yet the downright dour tone of all recent WWII films are not only too heavy but predictably so, and none of them coming close to the brilliance of Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. But how does Tarantino manage to make an enjoyable without appearing irresponsible to the families of concentration camp survivors? He does this by being Tarantino. Inglourious Basterds constructs a world, not of the real 1940’s in Europe, but rather an imagined TarantinoWorld, where everyone knows their cinema, where Mexican standoffs are a dime a dozen, and where our history is rewritten so drastically that it seems preposterous to be offended by its attempt to entertain. Read the rest of this entry »
With the summer usually filled with entertaining blockbusters that focus more on fun than anything deeper, it comes as a surprise to see this month see the release of Public Enemies, the story of infamous gangster John Dillinger. But is the film a real insight into a criminal whose reputation lasted far beyond America’s 1930’s, or just another forgettable gangster flick?
The film sees two of Hollywood’s biggest names face off against each other. Johnny Depp plays Dillinger, as we follow him for a year or so of his violent life. He is being pursued by Agent Melvin Purvis (played by Chrsitian Bale), recently assigned head of the FBI, under pressure to catch the criminal due to the FBI’s need to prove itself to gain further funding. Dillinger hooks up with moll Billi Frechette (Marion Coutillard) but finds himself in a changing world, in which his speciality of bank robberies is no longer the priority of the gangster underworld, while the Feds close in.
Directed by Michael Mann, the film feels like either an overlong and restrained action film, or a dramatic thriller that lacks depth. As the former, the film only succeeds in part. Mann has a habit of obsessing over the minutiae of shoot outs while avoiding huge explosions or slow-motion (see Heat). One scene in particular works, in which Dillinger and his cohorts try to flee from the Feds through a forest at night. But most of the time they drag on, the clacking of tommy-guns soon wearing our patience thin. And as a drama the film completely fails, for it is unable to provide any sense of life beneath any of its characters. Read the rest of this entry »
I remember back in high-school, when my friends and I “discovered” cinema after watching Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. We were so besotted by Tarantino’s pop-culture sensibilities that we grasped onto his world by attempting to write sequels to Reservoir Dogs. Surprisingly, none were optioned by Hollywood studios. And since the internet reigned supreme since then, the concept of fanfiction has found and a home and even some acceptance. Every major film and book has spurred writing from people who want to keep that world alive, but of course generate status-quo-maintaining slop. Yet you can’t criticise it for its lack of innovation, as it doesn’t aspire to be anything beyond someone’s fantasy. You can however, criticise it when it’s given 150 million dollars and continues one of cinema’s most potent franchises, which is exactly what Terminator Salvation is.
The most defining aspect of fan-fiction is that it usually tries to generate new stories but without having to alter the characters or environment so much as to disrupt the feel of the source material. And this is done by having a new scenario but recreating the defining moments of the original. So on to McG’s vision of Terminator Salvation, the first Terminator film to be set in the future, during the war between men and machines. The film attempts to scare with a batch of new and unseen machines, from the skeletal robots we all know, to giant harvester robots and tiny water-based snake-like bots, and even motorbike robots (more on that later). But what strikes you about the film is how deeply unambitious it is, especially the third act. As our hero John Connor finds himself deep in Skynet territory, escaping a terminator factory, he finds himself being chased around. The scene almost completely recreates the climax of The Terminator, with Kyle Reese being chased around a robotics factory. The metal foot ascending the grated steps, the metal bar as a weapon, it all feels like we’ve seen it before. And there’s also a molten lava scene as well, just like in T2’s climax. There’s even a few references to Aliens in the set design and characters (spot the new Newt). Read the rest of this entry »
It has been five years since Lost started, and can’t you remember the delight in slowly unravelling the complex mysteries that turned a tale of a crashed plane on a desert island to something much greater? No? Well, that’s because the show has barely let go of its secrets after five years. After two exciting series that slowly expanded our understanding, the third series became ridiculous with some terrible Mcguffins and a step too far into the supernatural, only to revive itself in Season Four. Next year will be the final year of the show, but the big question is whether the past Season, its fifth, will make it worth waiting for.
The season ended in another (and thankfully final) cliff-hanger, with Juliet hitting the nuke. But the mystery of John Locke is what most fans will be debating. Found dead in his coffin, who is the Locke that challenged Jacob, the seeming authority of the island? It’s pretty obvious that the walking and talking Locke is someone in disguise, the mysterious man who pledged to find a “loophole” that can kill the seemingly immortal Jacob at the start of the final episode. Jacob, before dying, refers to the loophole, suggesting that he took over the form of Locke in some way. Let’s hope that we’ll get some sense of who these people are before the final credits roll.
The big disappointment of the finale was, as usual, in the writing. While tense, it got to the stage where characters were being manipulated just to cause that tension. Juliet and Sawyer were convinced Kate to return to the island to stop Jack, only to take 5 minutes to completely change their minds. Various reasons were given, but none really stick. In fact, Sawyer’s character has become more malleable than putty this season, ranging from rogue to Mr. Responsible at any moment. Bad writing has been evident throughout Season 5, with the first few episodes being very repetitive for a show that usually tries to shock us with twists and turns. Entire episodes (Miles’s past and relationship with his father) felt like padding.
Possibly the greatest reason for feeling as if the show’s been running around in circles is the way it treats the new characters. Read the rest of this entry »
I just saw the new Disney movie Earth that features lots of animals, as Time Magazine put it “none of them cartoons.” The film follows a year in the life of the planet, beginning in the dead of winter, January, at the Arctic and ending a year later in the Antarctica at the end of a short summer. We meet a mother polar bear and two cubs as their snouts peek out from their winter den. The movie follows several other animals but bonding with three animals to tell the story of Earth: the polar bears, African elephants and humpback whales.
Disney put in place a new film unit called Disneynature. Earth is the company’s inaugural grand reboot to the big-screen nature documentary genre mirrored after Disney’s 1950s True Life Adventures wildlife series.
Being Earth Day, I thought, I’d take my daughter and her friends to view a fresh copy of Earth. It was spectacular, to say the least, an epic film giving due attention this vulnerable planet deserves. After the documentary, I reflected on the need to change our living habits to keep Earth intact for many generations to come.
According to Time Magazine, Earth will be opening in more than 1,800 screens around the country today, and Disney has high hopes for it because most likely it’s the biggest release of a nature film in history.
With this summer looking crammed with blockbusters, it will be interesting to see who will sink or swim. One film I have my doubts about is Star Trek, a prequel to the original TV series. Even with JJ Abrams, creator of Lost and Cloverfield, directing the project, the brand of Star Trek just feels too stale to really make a comeback. The lack of success of the last series, Enterprise, was a testament to the lack of interest in the franchise.
However, UK film mag Empire managed to nab an early viewing and have posted a review on their website. And the reaction is very positive. On the pros it seems that JJ Abrams has completely revitalised the Star Trek world. Rather than stick to the old pace of debate and contemplation, with the occasional battle or deadline, Abrams has created an assault on the eyeball, full of action, thrills, and even laughs.
On the negative, however, in losing this contemplative nature the film may indeed alienate all of the fans of the original series. According to the review, the breakneck speed of the film leaves little for character (a strange choice, considering the plot follows the origins of the original characters), and apparently the actor playing Kirk (Karl Urban Chris Pine!) isn’t particularly strong.
The world will find out how the film fares next month, but right now it seems to be a question of whether new fans of a franchise they know little of will outnumber the hard-core trekkies who will see this film as sacrilege.
Hype can be a dangerous thing. While the right kind of hype distributed across enough time can spell big bucks in Hollywood, hype can also lead to disappointment. Just look at the reaction of most to the fourth and unnecessary Indiana Jones film. Watchmen, the latest adaptation of a work by graphic novelist Alan Moore, has had a shady history, spanning decades. With Terry Gilliam initially excited about making a version, like most Gilliam dreams it dissipated. Next (after tantalising news that Darren Aronofsky was attached to direct) came Paul Greengrass’s inevitably gritty version that screeched to a halt due to financial difficulties and a change in studio upper management. Even this release had its fair share of difficulty, when Fox and Warner Bros went to court over who had rights to the story.
But the real difficulty lay in adapting such a wide-reaching meta-narrative. Set in an alternative 1985, in which the USA won Vietnam, Nixon is still the president, and the world holds its breath as nuclear warfare looms closer, the tale starts with the death of a superhero known as The Comedian. By the 80’s superheroes have a bitter association, but the mysterious yet psychopathic and misanthropic masked detective known as Rorschach has a gut feeling that the murder leads to something big. His investigation brings us to his associates, the Watchmen, including the aging Daniel Dreiberg, a bookish man who longs to return to his superhero identity as NightOwl, Ozymandias, the smartest man on the plant who is attempting to prevent WWIII by creating an alternative energy source, Dr. Manhattan, the only real superhero, a man made of energy who can control time and space and the sole reason for the USA winning the Vietnam war, and Laurie Jupiter, his girlfriend who feels Manhattan is losing his touch with humanity.
The comic book adopts multiple stories and narratives, all building not just on a series of characters relating to a single plot, but building a fully realised alternative world, all contributing to a sense of dread at the impending doom. But what’s most important is that the comic takes time to delve into the heros’ lives and feelings, to elevate them beyond merely figures of action. To be able to recreate this in 160 minutes is no easy task, and it’s a shame that director Zack Snyder was allowed to take the reins on this. Snyder impressed with a tense remake of Dawn of the Dead, and then made the unintentionally hilarious 300, a vacuous film that would have been half the running time if the slow-motion sequences were played at normal speed. Neither of these films displayed the director’s understanding of character, and sadly this weakness is what lets Watchmen down. Read the rest of this entry »
If I had a nickle for every bad movie I have watched until the final credits then I’d end up with a few hundred dollars in my pocket. I usually don’t bother with any movie that doesn’t pass the interest test. If after 30 minutes into the movie I am still not interested in how it will end then I will probably walk out of the theater, or change the channel, or return the DVD.
The Tale of Despereaux seems to be a promising movie. It was launched right before Christmas and it should have made an impact. Had it been written better that is! The story is not consistent with the book and I haven’t read the book.
Why did I watch it to the end then? Well I’ll give you a few names like: Matthew Broderick, Sigurney Weaver, Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Kline, Robbie Coltrain, Christopher Lloyd, Stanley Tucci, William H. Macy. And the list can go on. With so many stars giving life to the characters you’re probably expecting a heck of a movie.
Don’t get me wrong here! One can see the efforts of the cast and everyone else who worked on The Tale. The animation is pretty well done and up to a certain point you’re curios to see what happens. Unfortunately for the kids, as they will suffer most after watching it, there’s hardly a story to be followed. We like the mouse and the rats and then we hate them and then we like them again. And what’s the deal with the soup spirit if he can’t actually help any of the characters.
I popped the movie Stuck into my player and watched it as I did my Christmas cards. Stuck comes from a genre that I don’t care for; but thought I’d give it a try.
Director Stuart Gordon delivers a simple story that brings light to the dregs of society and the grades of survival potential in individuals. Stephen Rea aptly plays a laid off warehouse manager named Tom, who is a survivor. His potential is tested when a nurse, played by Mena Suvari, hits Tom, now a homeless man, and drives him home while embedded in her car’s windshield.
For the next 24 hours, the homeless man clings to his life while he is incapacitated in the nurse’s garage, and yet must overcome her selfishness of hiding her crime in hopes of landing a promotion at her job and avoid being arrested.
Stuck won the Silver Raven at the 2008 Brussels International Festival of Fantasy Film and the Staff Prize at the 2008 San Francisco Indiefest is on the shelves for $27.98 SRP and Blu-rayTM for $35.98 SRP.
I don’t want to offer in spoilers, but some of the parts of the film would suffice as mild horror.
There is a Latino boy brought into the film who knows of the homeless man’s plight. The boy and his mother want to help him, but his father says otherwise, basing his decision on the possibility of being deported from the United States.
I think playing off the boy a little bit more at the end would have brought the whole film together nicely.
If there is one thing war has produced that is in any way commendable it’s cinema. Indeed, it’s a testament to the poignancy of setting (and lack of imagination of Academy members), that films concern WWII and concentration camps feature heavily in yearly Oscar nominations. For Ireland, it was our own war that has constituted the staple of our recognised national identity. Last year saw The Wind that Shakes the Barley win the Palm D’Or in Cannes, Michael Collins was the country’s largest production, and everything in between has made references to “the Troubles” at some stage. The latest is Hunger, another film that has been receiving plenty of film festival awards. But, like all films set during wars, the question must be asked: is it the context that is affecting, or the film itself?
Hunger tells the tale of the “dirty protests” and hunger strikes that occurred in Northern Ireland’s Maze prison during the 70’s and 80’s. Members of the IRA who were arrested for crimes were protesting for political status, as opposed to being treated as mere criminals, and the British Government were refusing to recognise them. Plot-wise, Hunger is misleading. The film starts with one of the prison’s wardens, attending to his bruised knuckles before starting another day at work in the violent conditions of his prison. But the film turns to a new prisoner, Davey, who shares his cell with another non-conformist, as they smuggles messages to their fellow IRA members and assault the wardens with protests using bodily fluids. But then the film turns to its protagonist, Bobby Sands, the man who died in a hunger strike for his rights.
Directed by Steve (not THE) McQueen, this directorial debut has all the hallmarks of an artist’s installation and all the problems of a visual artist unable to handle cinematic narrative. Read the rest of this entry »
Like Marmite or World music, you either love or hate Quentin Tarantino movies. Especially recently, when his films reek of self-indulgence due to his singular vision and overwhelming confidence as a film-maker. But if you give into Tarantino’s vision, you’ll find yourself lost in a fascinating and entertaining world of references and downright coolness. Kill Bill merged kung fu with spaghettis westerns and revenge flicks to make a thoroughly thrilling film that was accessible even to those unfamiliar to the genres. And now Tarantino has taken a stab at the almost forgotten action war genre with his strangely misspelt Inglourious Basterds.
With the summer usually filled with entertaining blockbusters that focus more on fun than anything deeper, it comes as a surprise to see this month see the release of 
It has been five years since 
The film follows a year in the life of the planet, beginning in the dead of winter, January, at the Arctic and ending a year later in the Antarctica at the end of a short summer. We meet a mother polar bear and two cubs as their snouts peek out from their winter den. The movie follows several other animals but bonding with three animals to tell the story of Earth: the polar bears, African elephants and humpback whales.
With this summer looking crammed with blockbusters, it will be interesting to see who will sink or swim. One film I have my doubts about is 
If there is one thing war has produced that is in any way commendable it’s cinema. Indeed, it’s a testament to the poignancy of setting (and lack of imagination of Academy members), that films concern WWII and concentration camps feature heavily in yearly Oscar nominations. For Ireland, it was our own war that has constituted the staple of our recognised national identity. Last year saw