Classic Movie Themes: I Hate You (From Star Trek IV The Voyage Home)
Leonard Rosenman's soundtrack for Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, is a subtly different beast to James Horner's or Jerry Goldsmith's scores. But it is not Mr. Rosenman's work that I wish to discuss in this post. Instead I’d like to focus on the unforgettable faux punk rock song "I Hate You", that was specifically written for the movie by actor and associate producer Kirk Thatcher. The scene with the punk on the bus has become a seminal part of both Star Trek lore and pop culture. It still raises a wry smile, over thirty-one years later Yet according to Kirk Thatcher, the song that was originally going to be used was quite different.
Leonard Rosenman's soundtrack for Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, is a subtly different beast to James Horner's or Jerry Goldsmith's scores. But it is not Mr. Rosenman's work that I wish to discuss in this post. Instead I’d like to focus on the unforgettable faux punk rock song "I Hate You", that was specifically written for the movie by actor and associate producer Kirk Thatcher. The scene with the punk on the bus has become a seminal part of both Star Trek lore and pop culture. It still raises a wry smile, over thirty-one years later Yet according to Kirk Thatcher, the song that was originally going to be used was quite different.
We shot the scene with no sound – there was no music playing. I was just miming to a beat. After we wrapped the movie, the music department was coming to us, and they were playing...like...Duran Duran, or whoever Paramount had some deal with. I said, "That isn't punk rock music. Punk rock is really raw and gritty and dirty." They said, "Well, we don't really deal with the Sex Pistols and stuff." I said to Leonard, "You know, let me write you a song. I can do a song."
Luckily common sense prevailed so Kirk Thatcher hastily formed a band, The Edge of Etiquette and "I Hate You" was recorded and used in the final edit of the movie. The song also featured a year later in the 1987 Frankie Avalons and Annette Funicello beach party comedy Back To The Beach. Allegedly Mr. Thatcher earned more from the rights than he did for his work on the Star Trek movie.
What makes "I Hate You" so enjoyable is that it manages to achieve a tongue in cheek approach to the punk genre without descending into total parody. It has an undercurrent of erudition with its articulate lyrics. "I hate you and I berate you" roll off the tongue. As does "I eschew you and I say screw you". Then again, good satire is always smart. The song was unavailable until recently, when it was included in the 2011 expanded release of the movie soundtrack album.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 (2017)
First off let us take a moment to reflect upon this movie’s very title. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 has a very episodic ring to it and gives the audience the impression that we are experiencing another tale from an epic series rather than a just another humdrum sequel. Semantics are at times a big deal and I think it’s relevant that Guardians of the Galaxy is marketed this way. It really seems to tie in with the franchises comic book roots.
First off let us take a moment to reflect upon this movie’s very title. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 has a very episodic ring to it and gives the audience the impression that we are experiencing another tale from an epic series rather than a just another humdrum sequel. Semantics are at times a big deal and I think it’s relevant that Guardians of the Galaxy is marketed this way. It really seems to tie in with the franchises comic book roots.
As for the movie itself, well once again we find that seventies and eighties popular music dominate not only the soundtrack but seem to actively shape the narrative. I’d even go so far as to say that the writers and director may have a deliberately picked the songs in question and then reversed engineered the narrative around them. Not that I’m complaining, as it all works incredibly well. There’s an opening battle with a space Cephalopod set against Mr Blue Sky by the Electric Light Orchestra which pretty much sets the tone. The soundtrack then goes on to feature Fleetwood Mac, Glen Campbell and even David Hasselhoff. Brandy by Looking Glass, is also used liberally in key scenes.
The plot is somewhat arbitrary because it’s merely a vehicle to develop the central characters. Marvel press releases have managed to distil it down to the following. The Guardians must fight to keep their newfound family together as they unravel the mysteries of Peter Quill's true parentage. Old foes become new allies and fan-favorite characters from the classic comics will come to our heroes' aid as the Marvel cinematic universe continues to expand. Let it suffice to say that the main plot device is the Starlord AKA Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) discovering that his father is none other than a Celestial being called Ego (Kurt Russell). Cue Mr Russel revisiting Snake Plissken’s greatest hits. They even use digital effect to de-age him for flashback sequences.
The movie then proceeds with what appears to be two distinct storylines One feature Quill, Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista) and another set around Baby Groot, Rocket Raccoon and Nebula (Karen Gillan) as they fall foul of space pirate Taserface (Chris Sullivan). The return of Yondu (Michael Rooker), Quill’s blue-skinned mentor from the first movie brings the various strands together. I was actually surprised by the genuinely nuanced and dare I say, moving story arc director James Gunn brings to the table. But then again it was the depth of character and the credibility of their friendship that made the first movie so good. It’s all here once again.
Jaems Gunn cut his teeth in the movie industry as a protégé of Lloyd Kaufman, at Troma Entertainment. Thus, he has a knack for low budget creativity. Yet none of these skills are lost when translated to a $200 million franchise driven blockbuster. Throwaways scenes, small character foibles and telling dialogue elevate Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 above the usual sterile and dry narratives of other entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Gun gives us not only the thrill and action we crave but does it in a far more colourful and playful universe. It is such a breath of fresh air to dispense with the flawed and brooding anti-hero and to have them replaced by the chipper and likeable Peter Quill.
It would be remiss of me if I didn’t take a moment to mention Dave Bautista and his incredibly strong performance as Drax. As a character with no sense of sarcasm, or understanding of verbal metaphor there is great scope for humour. Yet because Bautista seems to have an innate sense of comic timing many throwaways gags grow to become much more. I cannot remember the last time I last out loud so much in a cinema. Baby Groot is also a source of great amusement, despite his single line of dialogue. As with the first movie the balance between action, humour and pathos is skilfully handled.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is certainly a robust and entertaining second instalment and shows the flexibility of the MCU, when skilled film makers take the reins. The vivid production design, with its explosion of colour and the playful use of popular music, paints a vibrant universe, despite the peril and impending doom of the story. The movie at times looks like the artwork you’d find on a seventies progressive rock album. If there is a weakness in the production it would be in the film’s final act, where the surfeit of characters do seem to slow the proceeding a little.
Yet, at its heart Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is a further exploration of the complexity and importance of family and identity. It explores themes that are common to all viewers and does it so honestly and with a great deal of affection. As a result, I was thoroughly entertained and uplifted. It’s been a while since a movie has done that for me. So, I wholeheartedly hope that all concerned can maintain this emotional momentum for the next instalment of Guardians of the Galaxy.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
I had my doubts about Guardians of the Galaxy when I first saw it back in 2014, mainly because it's a franchise that I wasn’t familiar with. Also, because the movie is a throwback to a genre that has been conspicuously absent for several decades; namely the “space opera”. Readers over a certain age group may well have fond memories of movies such a Battle Beyond the Stars or The Last Starfighter. They may also have bad memories regarding Ice Pirates and Lorca and the Outlaws. The other thing that was a talking point about Guardians of the Galaxy upon its release, was the fact that it represented a somewhat of a gamble for Marvel Studios (Disney) and the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Taking a punt on a lesser known franchise at a cost of $170,000,000 is not something you do lightly.
I had my doubts about Guardians of the Galaxy when I first saw it back in 2014, mainly because it's a franchise that I wasn’t familiar with. Also, because the movie is a throwback to a genre that has been conspicuously absent for several decades; namely the “space opera”. Readers over a certain age group may well have fond memories of movies such a Battle Beyond the Stars or The Last Starfighter. They may also have bad memories regarding Ice Pirates and Lorca and the Outlaws. The other thing that was a talking point about Guardians of the Galaxy upon its release, was the fact that it represented a somewhat of a gamble for Marvel Studios (Disney) and the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Taking a punt on a lesser known franchise at a cost of $170,000,000 is not something you do lightly.
Director James Gunn is an interesting film maker who until this movie has not achieved the level of success he deserves. Slither, an enjoyable and quirky horror/sci-fi movie, was somewhat overlooked on its release. Mercifully, Guardians of the Galaxy rectifies this situation. Gunn along with co-writer Nicole Periman, find a great balance between action, drama and humour. The script is full of amusing banter, pop culture references and unabashed nerd bait. The characters are actually likeable and accessible, while the story has a strong positive message about the power of friendship. Deliberately avoiding big names in the lead roles works very well and the cast acquits themselves admirably. Chris Pratt and Zoë Saldana fulfil their roles but don't overwhelm them as some "A" list actors do.
Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel provide voice and motion capture for their CGI characters, while wrestler Dave Bautista is surprising good as Drax, a warrior who takes all comment literally. Then with a second tier of character actors such as John C. Reilly, Michael Rooker and Glenn Close, the movie is more than equipped to tackle its initially complex storyline. Establishing who's who takes a while but the pieces soon fall in to place. Furthermore, Guardians of the Galaxy has a great sense of pace and moves forward through the narrative with assured ease. The visual FXs are outstanding and the production design is inventive and different but it never relegates the story or dialogue to the passenger seat.
Perhaps directors Gunn's best trick is managing to entertain on multiple levels. It's something the animation industry has managed for decades but it’s more difficult to achieve in a live action movie. There is plenty of spectacle, hardware and explosions to appeal to the young, where older viewers will revel in the pop culture references of mix tapes, Footloose and dance offs. Gun also uses sentiment wisely and to good effect. Groot and Rocket have an especially good dynamic. The more mature members of the audience will know that they're getting their emotional buttons pushed with Pavlovian mastery but it's all part of the ride.
Overall, there's not a huge amount to complain about with Guardians of the Galaxy. It is a well-conceived, polished example of a summer blockbuster. Lee Pace fans may be a little disappointed as he spends his time on screen swathed in cowl and under a lot of heavy make-up. I would also point out that younger children may find this movie quite scary. A person’s face crumbling in a cloud of purple hued plasma is still quite a potent image, so parents be warned. The screenplay is also liberally laced with minor profanity, which although I found quite amusing, I was somewhat surprised by.
What I took away the most from Guardians of the Galaxy was the feeling of being thoroughly entertained. There is a good ethical foundation to the story as it wrestles themes such as loyalty, redemption and self-sacrifice, yet they are presented in an engaging fashion with humour and wit. I laughed a great deal which seldom happens when watching movies these days. If we must have a steady diet of big budget blockbusters can we not have more like this, created by people such as James Gunn? Who knows, we may even see a return of the space opera genre. Would that be such a bad thing? I think not, as long as Michael Bay isn't involved.
NB The post credit scene with The Collector (Benicio Del Toro) still raises some interesting possibilities (even after my second viewing). I hope it means what I think it means regarding a certain iconic character.
Grave Encounters 2 (2012)
Sometimes you have to admire persistence. I really didn't think that Grave Encounters merited a sequel but apparently, it's financial returns indicated otherwise. So today I found myself watching Grave Encounters 2 with a certain sense of déjà vu because like the first movie, it tries to do something different and only partially succeeds. Once again, the writers (The Vicious Brothers) manage to jump the shark at the midway point and the movie ceases to innovate and just ticks boxes. The only major difference this time round is we get a little more of everything, because it is a sequel. So, there's more jumps, more ghosts and more violence. Is there more entertainment? May be.
Sometimes you have to admire persistence. I really didn't think that Grave Encounters merited a sequel but apparently, it's financial returns indicated otherwise. So today I found myself watching Grave Encounters 2 with a certain sense of déjà vu because like the first movie, it tries to do something different and only partially succeeds. Once again, the writers (The Vicious Brothers) manage to jump the shark at the midway point and the movie ceases to innovate and just ticks boxes. The only major difference this time round is we get a little more of everything, because it is a sequel. So, there's more jumps, more ghosts and more violence. Is there more entertainment? May be.
The movie starts with a series of faux YouTube reviews of the original Grave Encounters. This is a fun way to start proceedings because not all the vloggers give favourable opinions. Then we meet indie horror film maker Alex (Richard Harmon) and his respective crew, who is convinced that the movie is in fact true. The more he digs for clues, the more his theory is validated. It is this first half of the story that works the best. Alex receives anonymous tip-offs via text and email from Deathawaits6. He also tracks down the producer of the first film and via a hidden camera, uncovers a chilling secret. As with the first movie, although the cast is mainly comprised of a bunch of unpleasant characters, they do all ring true.
It takes thirty-eight minutes before the action arrives at the asylum. Curiously enough as the spooky stuff starts my interest in the movie took a sharp dip. The gadgets, cameras and technological paraphernalia used by such reality shows are all present here and this does embellish the proceedings to a degree. A thermal imaging camera is used this time, introduced via a rather obvious and crass gag. There are also some further explorations of the building's ability to change shape and alter its layout. Whilst running in panic, one character turns a corner into a corridor but their friends take the same turn only to find a brick wall.
However there reaches a point in the story, not unlike the original, where the writers take too many liberties with the audience’s suspension of disbelief. Again, the first-person narrative give ways to material that feels much more like conventional third person cinema. The moment that happens the main selling point for the production is lost and mediocrity sets in. Grave Encounters 2 also ends with a rather more violent incident that seems a little out of place with what has previously transpired. It's rather gloating and mean spirited. The final resolution of the plot is somewhat obvious and worryingly paves the way for a third instalment.
I found myself reminded of Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 when watching Grave Encounters 2. Both sequels attempt to do something tangential to their predecessors, rather than rinse and repeat but both seem to get lost after initial bursts of creativity. Overall I would say that I enjoyed Grave Encounters 2, more than the first part, mainly because of its self-referential and self-deprecating first act. As I said at the beginning, persistence can be an endearing quality. Although I really am getting exasperated with the found footage sub-genre, one should acknowledge effort, even if it is misplaced. The Vicious Brothers have tried more so than other film makers to experiment and even managed to raise a wry smile. Their tongue must have been planted firmly in their cheek when one of the characters describes Hollywood as "the film Mecca of the world".
Grave Encounters (2011)
I had high hopes for Grave Encounters after I saw the Trailer on You Tube six years ago. It got quite a lot of attention online, due to it jumping on the found footage bandwagon and by cashing in on the popularity of supernatural reality TV. The movie poster takes great pains to reference that fact. Shows such as Ghost Hunters and Most Haunted still pull in big TV ratings. Even I've been guilty of watching them in the past. So the idea of a TV crew investigating the paranormal and genuinely encountering it sounded very promising. Alas, Grave Encounters fails to reach it's potential in my opinion, although my primary objection hinges on a very subjective preconception. One that other viewers may not share.
I had high hopes for Grave Encounters after I saw the Trailer on You Tube six years ago. It got quite a lot of attention online, due to it jumping on the found footage bandwagon and by cashing in on the popularity of supernatural reality TV. The movie poster takes great pains to reference that fact. Shows such as Ghost Hunters and Most Haunted still pull in big TV ratings. Even I've been guilty of watching them in the past. So the idea of a TV crew investigating the paranormal and genuinely encountering it sounded very promising. Alas, Grave Encounters fails to reach it's potential in my opinion, although my primary objection hinges on a very subjective preconception. One that other viewers may not share.
The first act sets the scene very well with the documentary crew arriving at the Collingwood Psychiatric Hospital where unexplained phenomena has been reported for years. Front man Lance Preston (Sean Rogerson) is a self-obsessed individual and more than happy to contrive material just to make a good show. He bribes the caretaker to make false anecdotes and colludes with medium Houston Gray (Mackenzie Gray) to get the right shots and dialogue. After setting up their equipment and getting locked in for the night a series of progressively more disturbing events begin to unfold. At first these are the standard sort of ambiguous happening that are common place on these reality shows. Doors are slammed, object are moved and footsteps are heard. The movie works very well up to this point.
After an incident with EVP and the female crew member having her hair pulled, the team are genuinely startled. It is obvious that up to this point they have never truly believed in their work. So they decide to leave the building and are forced to break through the locked front doors. It is at this point in the plot that a perfectly adequate concept is abandoned for something much more ambitious. Instead of the finding the drive and grounds on the other side of the entrance, the crew finds yet more hospital corridors. The subsequent search reveals that the building is in some sort of Möbius loop and that despite the passage of time, it remains dark outside.
It is this very bold and possibly over reaching idea that I found to be the main problem with Grave Encounters. If this had been made as a traditional horror movie, shot from a third person perspective, then such a plot shift may well have been acceptable. Because Grave Encounters is shot as a faux documentary, such a major jump in the scope of the plot simply strains one’s sense of disbelief too much. If the movie had confined itself to just a single night with some low key supernatural encounters, it may well have been a superior piece of work. As it is, it jumps the shark within the idiom of the genre, offering predictable and clearly telegraphed shocks, culminating in a rather obvious ending that steps into the realms of the occult.
People have criticised Grave Encounters for its two-dimensional characters, bad dialogue and cheap digital FXs. I think this is somewhat missing the point because these have always been the mainstay of the horror genre over the last six decades. For me the film fails because it over reaches itself and ends up falling between two stools. One critic labelled it the "bastard child of The Blair Witch Project and House on Haunted Hill" which certainly sum ups what the film makers where trying to achieve. My advice is to only watch this movie if you are prepared to be forgiving. Grave Encounters in spite of its poster tagline, is neither one of the scariest or memorable movies of the year. It is adequate but flawed.
Argo: Declassified Extended Edition (2012)
If you are looking for a factually accurate account of the "Canadian Caper" then it may be advisable to read a book on the matter. If you’re happy to suffice with an entertaining movie that explores the complexity of international relations, the phoney nature of the movie industry and the machinations of the intelligence community then Argo has is for you. It's well written with solid performances and achieves that unique cinematic goal of keeping the viewer in a genuine state of tension, despite knowing in advance the historical outcome. Very few movies have successfully done this.
If you are looking for a factually accurate account of the "Canadian Caper" then it may be advisable to read a book on the matter. If you’re happy to suffice with an entertaining movie that explores the complexity of international relations, the phoney nature of the movie industry and the machinations of the intelligence community then Argo has is for you. It's well written with solid performances and achieves that unique cinematic goal of keeping the viewer in a genuine state of tension, despite knowing in advance the historical outcome. Very few movies have successfully done this.
The plot revolves around an elaborate scheme to rescue six American Embassy staff who managed to escape the 1979 siege, who end up hiding out in the Canadian Ambassador’s residence. Central Intelligence Agency operative Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) devises an ingenious cover story in which the US diplomats take on the guise of a Canadian film production team who are scouting Iran for location for a Sci-Fi movie entitled "Argo". Despite the incredulity of his superior in the intelligence service and the State Department, Mendez seeks the aid of make-up artists John Chambers (John Goodman) and Hollywood producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin). Eventually circumstances and a lack of alternative options means the plan is put into effect but will it fool the Revolutionary Guard?
For me Argo is at its best when it explores the fake production for the movie that doesn't exist. The popularity of Sci-Fi on TV and in movies during the early eighties is cleverly referenced. A visit to Burbank Studios shows Cylons from Battlestar Galactica take a break and drinking coffee between scenes. The offices of Lester Siegel are adorned with genre movie posters and John Chambers trailer is filled with prosthetic memorabilia including a chimpanzee mask from Planet of the Apes. Alan Arkin and John Goodman excel in their respective roles and the banter between the two is priceless. When discussing a low budget movie he is working on, Chambers quips "The target audience will hate it". "Who's the target audience" Mendez asks. "People with eyes" retorts chambers.
The scenes in Tehran have an authentic feel to them and the production has gone to lengths to recreate a lot of the footage that was originally shown on network television at the time. The dynamics of the group of diplomats is very credible as they begin to panic over their fate. The final act as the group try and board a Swissair flight in the guise of a film production team is genuinely tense, especially when their credential are checked and an attempt is made to call the studio offices. The finale features a chase between troops in a truck and a Boeing 747. It is somewhat melodramatic but doesn't go so far as to jump the shark. After all this is a thriller and one expects a degree of tension.
The Declassified Extended Edition of Argo adds an additional ten minutes to the theatrical release. The material is mainly back story and character development, yet there are some crucial scenes that are expanded that shed a little more light into how Mendez came up with his idea for "Argo". These revolve around the CIA operative phoning his son and discussing what he's watching on television. This lead to an epiphany that Mendez has while channel surfing and catching a re-run of Battle for the Planet of the Apes. The extended edition does add a little more to the movie and makes for a more rounded cinematic experience.
Argo is an intriguing and dramatic story. It finds an even balance between nationalism and entertainment. The production values are high and the ensemble cast are outstanding. For anyone with a love of cinema who's over a certain age, then the early eighties setting will particularly resonate. It is interesting to revisit an era when movie hype was controlled by the industry trade press and that a full page promotional poster in Variety was sufficient to sell a production. It's also worth remembering that "Argo" was at one point, scheduled to be a genuine movie. The screenplay was based on Sci-Fi writer Roger Zelazny's novel Lords of Light and the storyboard and production art were created by legendary artist Jack Kirby. The production went into turnaround and the script ended up being procured by the CIA. Truth is often stranger than fiction.
The Grey (2012)
Contrary to its rather obvious marketing, The Grey is not just a black and white, testosterone fuelled, action movie. It has far greater philosophical aspirations. Beneath the survivalist storyline is a narrative that explores the nature of hope, human determination and the inevitability of death as well as its place in the natural order of things. This is surprisingly cerebral for a film of this genre. It is sombre and dour but totally justified in adopting such tones. Director Joe Carnahan initially sets out a traditional scenario of a rag tag group of oil workers, desperately trying to survive the Alaskan wilderness, after a plane crash. They look to Liam Neeson to assume the alpha-male role for their group. However, we soon discover that he is wrestling with his own personal demons.
Contrary to its rather obvious marketing, The Grey is not just a black and white, testosterone fuelled, action movie. It has far greater philosophical aspirations. Beneath the survivalist storyline is a narrative that explores the nature of hope, human determination and the inevitability of death as well as its place in the natural order of things. This is surprisingly cerebral for a film of this genre. It is sombre and dour but totally justified in adopting such tones. Director Joe Carnahan initially sets out a traditional scenario of a rag tag group of oil workers, desperately trying to survive the Alaskan wilderness, after a plane crash. They look to Liam Neeson to assume the alpha-male role for their group. However, we soon discover that he is wrestling with his own personal demons.
It is here that the film shows some interesting strengths and weaknesses, by exploring the back story of the various survivors and how each copes with the hopelessness of their situation. Neeson softly calms a dying man, explaining the nature of death and helping him accept his fate. It is a scene that works well. But some of the other survivors do seem to lack credibility and are somewhat arbitrary. They serve as red shirt wolf fodder and are primarily there to expedite the plot. The wolves themselves, although ferocious are treated more as an allegorical device, rather than a traditional foe. The attacks are rapidly edited and much of the violence depicted is of the aftermath of these encounters.
The Grey reminded me of several classic Hollywood films, not so much by direct comparison, but simply though similarity of themes and ideas. The Flight of the Phoenix, Sands of the Kalahari and even Zulu sprang to mind. But the films greatest asset, irrespective of these cinematic homages, is the central performance by Liam Neeson. His commanding on-screen presence is utterly convincing and binds the film together. There is genuine dignity in his character as he grapples with his obligations to those that look to him for leadership. A lesser actor would have rendered the film nothing more than a story of man versus the environment. Neeson elevates it to a different level; a thought provoking, existentialist parable.
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)
I thoroughly enjoyed the first Jack Reacher upon its release in 2012. It was a stylishly made, well written, character driven thriller with solid performances and great action sequences. I think a lot of the movies success came down to director Christopher McQuarrie who patently had a good grasp of the source material and how the genre works best. Therefore, when I noticed that he was conspicuously absent from the recent sequel Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, I was curious as to who would fill his shoes. Edward Zwick, an experienced film maker who has worked with Tom Cruise before, directs this time round. All the elements that were present in the first movie are here again. The cast is robust and the narrative concise. Reacher is still an engaging protagonist. Yet for some reason that I can’t exactly put my finger on, the pieces just don’t seem to fit together.
I thoroughly enjoyed the first Jack Reacher upon its release in 2012. It was a stylishly made, well written, character driven thriller with solid performances and great action sequences. I think a lot of the movies success came down to director Christopher McQuarrie who patently had a good grasp of the source material and how the genre works best. Therefore, when I noticed that he was conspicuously absent from the recent sequel Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, I was curious as to who would fill his shoes. Edward Zwick, an experienced film maker who has worked with Tom Cruise before, directs this time round. All the elements that were present in the first movie are here again. The cast is robust and the narrative concise. Reacher is still an engaging protagonist. Yet for some reason that I can’t exactly put my finger on, the pieces just don’t seem to fit together.
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back starts with a vignette which establishes the character’s credentials as an ex- Military Police Officer who now lives off the grid. Despite his drifter lifestyle Reacher still has links to the US Army and over time develops a bond with Major Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders). While making an impromptu visit to Washington, he discovers the Major has been relieved of command pending a court martial for murder and espionage. As Reacher investigates, he finds himself up against rogue military contractor Parasource and an assassin who is more than his match. Matters are further complicated when Reacher learns that he may have a daughter (Danika Yarosh) and that her life may be in danger from Parasource.
Neither the plot or performances seem to be the problem with Jack Reacher: Never Go Back. The overall production despite a budget of $60 million, seems a little underwhelming. Edward Zwick doesn’t stamp any particular tone or feeling on the proceedings. Washington and New Orleans are usually interesting and charismatic settings for a motion picture, yet precious little is done with them on this occasion. Director of photography Oliver Wood has shot several action movies over the years (Die Hard 2, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum) and can usually utilise locations well. In this instance, the character of the surrounding is conspicuously absent from many scenes. The cinematography is somewhat stark and the production spends too much time in warehouses and government buildings.
Another aspect of the film that seems off, is the editing. Billy Weber is an editor of note and has worked well with such directors as Terence Malick. He certainly has constructed some robust action scenes in previous movies such as The Warriors, 48 Hrs and Extreme Prejudice. Yet here the fights sequences seem poorly constructed often obscuring what is actually happening. Beyond these set pieces the whole movie has a somewhat stilted and awkward feel to it. At times the production has a distinct television feel to it and I wonder if there were time constraints when filming or whether much of the work was delegated to understudies and journeymen crew members.
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back lacks the polish of its predecessor. The ingredients are all present yet the end product is not of the quality one was expecting. The film also contains some unnecessary genre tropes that a director of Zwick’s standing shouldn’t need to use. “Red shirt” henchmen wear sunglasses for example. The main villain played by Patrick Heusinger sports black leather driving gloves to denote his evil status. Again, it smacks of someone else with less experienced, involvement. However, in all fairness the film is not a total disaster. Cruise manages to do most of the heavy lifting and still turns in a watchable performance. The plot is acceptable and the film works well as evening-in entertainment. However, if I had paid to see this at the cinema I would have been deeply disappointed.
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back made a profit at the box office but nowhere near as much as the first movie. The critics were also split on the films virtues. Therefore, the future of Jack Reacher’s cinematic adventures remains in question. However, if a third movie is commissioned I’m sure Tom Cruise could carry it off, being a good shape for a man in his mid-fifties. The alternative is that the franchise sits on the back burner, while the suits ponder which direction it should take. Then like Alex Cross, there could well be a reboot rather than a continuation. It’s a shame because Lee Child’s books lend themselves well to film, yet after a great start their cinematic adaptations seems to have stumbled somewhat. Perhaps a TV show on cable would be a more suitable medium.
Jack Reacher (2012)
There is often scope for controversy whenever a well-known literary figure is brought to the big screen. Physical descriptions previously established by the author are often ignored in favour of casting a known star. However, books and film are very different mediums so such changes can be done in the name of artistic license. Furthermore, if they are done with intelligence and integrity they can be beneficial. The casting of Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher is a bold step because of the obvious difference between the actor's and fictional character's stature. Yet it works extremely well. Tom Cruise simply excels in the role. It should also be noted that author Lee Child endorsed his casting, stating that “Reacher's size in the books is a metaphor for an unstoppable force, which Cruise portrays in his own way."
There is often scope for controversy whenever a well-known literary figure is brought to the big screen. Physical descriptions previously established by the author are often ignored in favour of casting a known star. However, books and film are very different mediums so such changes can be done in the name of artistic license. Furthermore, if they are done with intelligence and integrity they can be beneficial. The casting of Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher is a bold step because of the obvious difference between the actor's and fictional character's stature. Yet it works extremely well. Tom Cruise simply excels in the role. It should also be noted that author Lee Child endorsed his casting, stating that “Reacher's size in the books is a metaphor for an unstoppable force, which Cruise portrays in his own way."
So now that we have that matter out of the way, what exactly does Jack Reacher have to offer as a mainstream Hollywood thriller? Well for starters it has a tightly written, intelligent script filled with interesting, plausible characters and a story-line that doesn't strain ones sense of incredulity. Secondly, it is well paced, beautifully shot, showcases strong performances from all involved and keeps the audience emotionally invested and engaged. Finally, unlike many movies that cynically exploit the confines of the PG-13 rating, trying to peddle adult themes to a younger audience without dirtying their hands; Jack Reacher successfully depicts acts of violence with restraint and skill, portraying dark and quite shocking events in a dramatic yet unexploitative manner. Simple put this is very good cinema.
After an ex-military sniper appears to shoot five innocent people in cold blood, the Police and D.A. think they have an open and shut case. The only request that the suspects makes is "get Jack Reacher". Within a matter of hours, the said Mr. Reacher arrives but to the defence councils surprise, not to exonerate the accused but to "bury him". Surprised by the accused's request, Reacher then embarks upon his own investigation and it soon becomes apparent that all it not what it seems and someone powerful wants Reacher’s enquiries shutdown. However, Jack has no intention of being sidelined and uses his experience as a former Military Policeman to penetrate the ongoing mystery.
At the centre of the movie is Tom Cruise, who brings Jack Reacher to life in a very natural performance. Reacher is not a traditional hero, nor is he as binary as many other alpha male stereotypes. His appeal lies in his keen mind, which stems from his military training. His strong moral code and direct manner also make his character both credible and likeable. Writer/Director Christopher McQuarrie does not add any unnecessary Hollywood tropes to the screenplay. There is no superfluous romance between Reacher and defence lawyer Helen Rodin (Rosamund Pike). Rodin is also a credible female character and bereft of the usual stereotypical baggage. The dialogue is candid and direct, with Reacher especially speaking his mind. The hand to hand combat and the use of firearms are depicted realistically. The movie makes no concessions to lazy viewers and expects the audience to concentrate and think.
If this wasn't enough, we are also treated to an extended cameo by Robert Duvall, who as usual makes great acting look so easy and natural. Frankly I was surprised at how good this movie was and the impact it had. It reminded me of many the great thrillers produced during the seventies; films such as Three Days of the Condor and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Movies that were lean, streamlined and driven by strong scripts and performances. Jack Reacher most definitely has that vibe to it as well as the sumptuous visual sophistication that modern film making can have. The dialogue is littered with dry quips and asides which enhances the characters. They're relatively profanity free which is a rare thing these days, yet still very effective.
I have never read any of Lee Child's novels so I was able to watch this movie adaptation without any major pre-conceptions. From my perspective, Jack Reacher is a breath of fresh air and a welcome improvement on mainstream studio thrillers. For those who have a strong connection to the source text, I would urge them to temporarily put aside their preconceptions and give Jack Reacher an objective viewing, bearing in mind the key word “adaptation”. I think people may well be pleasantly surprised, especially in light of the authors own personal endorsement.
Poltergeist (2015)
Tobe Hopper's original Poltergeist was in many ways a socio-economic satire of the Reagan era. A bold statement about consumerism, the American Dream and the notion that the so-called "perfect life" was built upon a lie. However the central characters in the 1982 film and were benign and essentially likeable. Although they were social climbers they were tempered by some of the more compassionate aspects of seventies pop culture. The family at the heart of this remake are subtly different. The Bowen's are suffering both financially and emotionally due to the foibles of the economy. Where the original movie was about US notions of family aspiration, this remake is about the failure of retail therapy and taking comfort in "things".
Tobe Hopper's original Poltergeist was in many ways a socio-economic satire of the Reagan era. A bold statement about consumerism, the American Dream and the notion that the so-called "perfect life" was built upon a lie. However the central characters in the 1982 film and were benign and essentially likeable. Although they were social climbers they were tempered by some of the more compassionate aspects of seventies pop culture. The family at the heart of this remake are subtly different. The Bowen's are suffering both financially and emotionally due to the foibles of the economy. Where the original movie was about US notions of family aspiration, this remake is about the failure of retail therapy and taking comfort in "things".
Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt offer convincing performances as Eric and Amy Bowen. Their economic plight is something most people can relate to. Kennedi Clements is engaging as young Madison Bowen. Her character remains at the heart of the supernatural events and the centre of the story. Gone is the engaging eccentricity of Zelda Rubinstein and the enigmatic medium has now been replaced by Jared Harris. Carrigan Burke, a TV reality show paranormal investigator, is simply not such an enjoyable character and although Harris' performance is fine, he just isn't as interesting as his predecessor. Plus of course there's the issue of his hat.
Sadly the emotional underpinning that was present in the first movie due to Steven Spielberg’s presence, is not so prevalent this time round. Much of the updated, modern variations of the storyline and production seem just arbitrary. Beyond being just different they don't really bring that much new to the table. The original movie made sense set against the political background of the time. The fear that television is essentially a bad and pervasive influence upon society, has not been replaced with a suitably similar contemporary theme. TV sets are no longer a metaphorical conduit this time round, merely a convenient portal. If Poltergeist had swapped television for another problematic medium such as the internet, perhaps the movie would have worked better and had more substance.
For those looking for a functional PG-13 jump-fest (which remain very much in vogue at present) then Poltergeist provides an adequate fix. It is directed by Gil Kenan in a very contemporary fashion and boasts good production values for a genre movie of medium budget. It certainly does not do any harm to the franchise but sadly it doesn't do anything radically different either. More thought should have been spent on the updating of the story which focuses mainly upon the physical changes of the last thirty years. Poltergeist should have been rooted in current socio-political concerns of our time to give it more substance. As it stands the overall differences are perfunctory and the film lacks a thematic anchor.
Poltergeist is currently available on DVD and Blu-ray in both the theatrical version, rated PG-13 and as an extended edition. The theatrical release runs for 93 minutes, whereas the longer version is 101 minutes. The differences are mainly extended scenes or alternative takes and focus on the character development of the family. They offer no additional horror material and have no impact upon the rating whatsoever. For the purpose of this review I watched the extended edition, on the grounds it offered a fuller narrative and thus a potential superior viewing experience over the standard theatrical print.
The Devil Rides Out - Restored and Altered
The Devil Rides Out was restored by StudioCanal and released on Blu-ray in 2012. Based on Dennis Wheatley's famous novel, the film is considered to be one of Hammer studios the finest works, made at the height of their success. The story centres around a group of friends who meet for a reunion, only to discover that one of their circle has fallen into the clutches of a satanic cult. The Duc de Richleau (Christopher Lee) and Rex Van Ryn (Leone Greene) soon find themselves up against cult leader Mocata (Charles Grey), who is not disposed toward releasing his new acolyte Simon Aron (Patrick Mower). The Devil Rides Out features an intelligent screenplay by Richard Matheson and strong performances by Christopher Lee and Charles Gray. As ever with Hammer movies, the production designed is polished and looks more lavish than it is. Unfortunately, the films poor box office returns outside of the UK, meant that the studio declined to make any further adventures of the Duc de Richleau.
The Devil Rides Out was restored by StudioCanal and released on Blu-ray in 2012. Based on Dennis Wheatley's famous novel, the film is considered to be one of Hammer studios the finest works, made at the height of their success. The story centres around a group of friends who meet for a reunion, only to discover that one of their circle has fallen into the clutches of a satanic cult. The Duc de Richleau (Christopher Lee) and Rex Van Ryn (Leone Greene) soon find themselves up against cult leader Mocata (Charles Grey), who is not disposed toward releasing his new acolyte Simon Aron (Patrick Mower). The Devil Rides Out features an intelligent screenplay by Richard Matheson and strong performances by Christopher Lee and Charles Gray. As ever with Hammer movies, the production designed is polished and looks more lavish than it is. Unfortunately, the films poor box office returns outside of the UK, meant that the studio declined to make any further adventures of the Duc de Richleau.
What makes The Devil Rides Out so enjoyable is its brooding atmosphere, period charm and luxurious sets. It is a well-paced horror film with an emphasis upon plot and character. It encapsulates all the finest qualities of Hammer studios. It may not be particularly shocking or horrific by today's standards but it certainly has an unsettling ambience to it. This is a story from a time when the UK was still a predominantly Christian nation and the notion of one’s immortal soul being in peril, was not such an abstract concept as it is in these secular times. Unfortunately, due to budgetary restrictions and technical limitations, the movies visual effects do look somewhat dated.
Because of this very issue, during the restoration of the optical elements from The Devil Rides Out, it was decided to enhance certain sequences, to bring them in line with the original vision of Hammer and director Terence Fisher. Matte lines have been removed and colour regraded on composite shots. More controversially some footage has been added or replaced. The spider sequence now includes holy water being thrown and the lightning strike on the satanic alter has been more convincingly recreated. The most notable change is the additional lighting to the arrival of the Angel of Death. A back-light has been added to Death's entrance into the library and when he removes his mask, a flaming blue background has replaced the original black.
I have a great love for Hammer films and am very supportive of StudioCanal in their undertaking to restore so many of these classics. I therefore do not wish to be sidetracked by a debate of the rights or wrongs of these enhancements. However, I do feel that it was a mistake not to include an original print of the movie on this particular Blu-ray release as a bonus. The new effects work could easily have been included via seamless branching. Let us hope that StudioCanal listen to fans and reflect upon the debate that has arisen. Overall this is the finest presentation of The Devil Rides Out we are ever likely to see. It still has much to offer both old and new fans alike.
Salt: The Director's Cut (2010)
Director Phillip Noyce is no stranger to the thriller genre having made several competent examples such as Dead Calm, Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger. Therefore, I was expecting a professionally crafted action film, when I recently purchased Salt on Blu-ray. However, it soon became apparent that Salt had suffered the usual indignities of studio interference during the course of its production, as there are three versions of the movie on the disc. The PG-13 theatrical version suffers from the usual ratings issues, so I chose to ignore it. The Extended cut includes new and alternative scenes as well as the violence restored but I felt it appropriate that I watch The Director's Cut for the fullest version of the movie. Specific details regarding the differences between all versions can be found at movie-censorship.com
Director Phillip Noyce is no stranger to the thriller genre having made several competent examples such as Dead Calm, Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger. Therefore, I was expecting a professionally crafted action film, when I recently purchased Salt on Blu-ray. However, it soon became apparent that Salt had suffered the usual indignities of studio interference during the course of its production, as there are three versions of the movie on the disc. The PG-13 theatrical version suffers from the usual ratings issues, so I chose to ignore it. The Extended cut includes new and alternative scenes as well as the violence restored but I felt it appropriate that I watch The Director's Cut for the fullest version of the movie. Specific details regarding the differences between all versions can be found at movie-censorship.com
The Director's Cut of Salt is a stylish and gritty post Cold War thriller that benefits from a solid cast and imaginative writing. Initially written as a vehicle for Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie had the script re-tooled by writer Brian Helgeland to more suit her requirements. Yes, the plot is somewhat farfetched but I consider its grandiose storyline to be an asset rather than a fault. The theme of deep cover Soviet agents waiting for decades to cause havoc reminded me of Don Siegel's 1977 movie Telefon. Salt is certainly no more preposterous than the convoluted adventures of Jason Bourne. The editing is certainly superior to that franchise, for starters.
The movies greatest strength is the central performance by Angelina Jolie as Evelyn Salt. Is she a loyal CIA operative or really a double agent? The film keeps you guessing and more to the point, Jolie keeps the viewer caring. She also acquits herself extremely well during the action sequences which are not the customary CGI-fest you usually get these days. There are some very good physical effects sequences featured in the Director's Cut as well as some solid hand to hand combat. Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Eijofor provide robust support as investigating government agents without descending into caricature. Playing senior covert operatives can so often be subject to so much cliché.
Whenever Hollywood deviates from a standard formula and casts against established gender or racial stereotypes, such a decision can often overshadow a movie. Sometimes a need to justify this “difference” can even work its way into the screenplay. Salt avoids such stupidity and doesn't go to any length to crassly highlight the gender of its protagonist. It offers an entertaining one hundred minutes and includes all the standard tropes and memes one expects from this genre. The Director's Cut provides more narrative and plot development and is the most well rounded version of the movie. It certainly allows Angelina Jolie to do more than just perform her own stunt work and as such is the cut of the film I would recommend.
The Ninth Configuration (1980)
In a remote Gothic castle in the Northwest of America, the US military attempt to determine whether a group of apparently deranged servicemen and one astronaut, Billy Cutshaw (Scott Wilson), are faking their insanity. When experimental psychiatrist Hudson Kane (Stacey Keach) arrives to take charge, he is subtly persuaded by Cutshaw and fellow inmate Lt. Reno (who is adapting the works of Shakespeare for dogs) to indulge the men's delusions and engage in extravagant roleplay therapy. As Center 18 descends into insanity, it becomes clear to Sargent Groper (Neville Brand) of the hospital staff, that the new psychiatrist may be more deranged than the patients. Cutshaw challenges Kane to prove the existence of God by showing him one single act of genuine self-sacrifice. Kane accepts the challenge but his mental state is rapidly deteriorating. He reveals to medic Dr Fell (Ed Flanders) that he is haunted by murderous dreams belonging to his brother, the infamous marine 'Killer' Kane. Who or what is psychiatrist Hudson Kane? Will Cutshaw and the other patients be cured?
In a remote Gothic castle in the Northwest of America, the US military attempt to determine whether a group of apparently deranged servicemen and one astronaut, Billy Cutshaw (Scott Wilson), are faking their insanity. When experimental psychiatrist Hudson Kane (Stacey Keach) arrives to take charge, he is subtly persuaded by Cutshaw and fellow inmate Lt. Reno (who is adapting the works of Shakespeare for dogs) to indulge the men's delusions and engage in extravagant roleplay therapy. As Center 18 descends into insanity, it becomes clear to Sargent Groper (Neville Brand) of the hospital staff, that the new psychiatrist may be more deranged than the patients. Cutshaw challenges Kane to prove the existence of God by showing him one single act of genuine self-sacrifice. Kane accepts the challenge but his mental state is rapidly deteriorating. He reveals to medic Dr Fell (Ed Flanders) that he is haunted by murderous dreams belonging to his brother, the infamous marine 'Killer' Kane. Who or what is psychiatrist Hudson Kane? Will Cutshaw and the other patients be cured?
It is very difficult to know where to begin with any sort of analysis of The Ninth Configuration as it’s a movie that straddles multiple genres. Written and directed by William Peter Blatty its Golden Globe-winning script is a reworking of director’s 1966 novel “Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane”. The screenplay expands an quirky literary theological indulgence into a powerful and deeply philosophical melodrama. The film forms the second part of a 'trilogy of faith' which began with The Exorcist and concluded with Legion (filmed as The Exorcist III). This extraordinary theological thriller combines scathing satire with sanguine spirituality in one of the most genuinely bizarre offerings of modern US cinema. There are parallels to Hitchcock's Spellbound (1945) in terms of the narrative but its tone is closer to Samuel Fuller's Shock Corridor (1963) or David Lynch's Twin Peaks Fire Walk with Me. One can also draw parallels with Miloš Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Sadly, The Ninth Configuration still does not enjoy the status of that movie.
The Ninth Configuration alters in tone regularly throughout its narrative arc, exploring philosophy one moment, then dabbling is slapstick humour the next. The film at times comes dangerously close to pretentiousness, yet the story is intelligently brought back to earth with gallows humour and jolting bursts of violence. There are visions of a lunar crucifixion, the claustrophobic realism of a bar-room brawl, therapeutic Nazi roleplay and Moses Gunn dressed as Superman. Blatty directs like a man who has discarded the cinematic conventions rulebook and challenges the limits of mainstream film making. The result is a movie that is not easily quantifiable and thus not immediately accessible to mainstream audiences. Yet it’s a film packed with oddly erudite one liners; "You remind me of Vincent Van Gogh. Either that or a lark in a wheatfield”. The late William Petty Blatty had a flair for comic dialogue. Thus, the ensemble cast are allowed to explore their characters to the full. Stacy Keach playing catatonically straight to Scott Wilson's Marx Brothers madcap persona. Ed Flanders' remains deadpan, while George DiCenzo and Robert Loggia chew the scenery. Jason Miller and Joe Spinell indulge in Abbott and Costello style banter as they stage Shakespeare in increasingly bizarre ways.
Cinematographer Gerry Fisher prowls around the castle's corridors in suitably gothic fashion. The brooding environment is an interesting juxtaposition to the traditional sterile environment of a military hospital. Barry DeVorzon's provides an eerie score that manages to enhance the unfolding madness. His musical cues are few but expertly deployed. A key scene in the movie is a bar room fight, which shifts the direction of the narrative noticeably. It’s an incredibly authentic piece of fight choreography, using accurate techniques, created by veteran stunt arranger Booby. It’s one of the most credible fights involving someone with a military background, since John Frankenheimer's The Manchurian Candidate. Miraculously, despite the intentionally chaotic manner in which the story unfolds, as it lurches from comedy to tragedy to psychosis, director Blatty manages to produce a film that examines the most fundamental questions of life. Is there a God? Is there a point to it all? Why is there so much suffering in the world? His conclusion is poignant and thought provoking.
The Ninth Configuration has been distributed in numerous formats over the last 37 years, most of which were constructed by Blatty himself. Refined from an assembly print of over three hours, the film was originally issued in the US in two distinct versions. A longer cut first released by Warner in early 1980 and an abridged version retitled Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane from United film Distribution. There have also been additional regional variations that have been cut for content or violence. Unsatisfied with all versions, Blatty finally decided to definitively recut The Ninth Configuration for a New World rerelease in 1985, creating the 1 17-minute, 37-second cut which now stands as his approved runtime. This final cut includes much comic dialogue absent from other versions (Cutshaw and Reno discussing “Spellbound”, Reno and Spinell arguing about casting Hamlet) and adds a haunting pre-credits overture in which Barry DeVorzon's song “San Antone” plays over a montage of images of the castle in the rain. It is this edit that is currently available on DVD and Blu-ray.
The Ninth Configuration is a curious beast and is certainly not for all audiences. It has a measured pace that requires both patience and concentration from the viewer. I would urge anyone who enjoys theological debate, or films that address the human condition to view this enigmatic piece of cinema. Be prepared to indulge the film maker and expect the unexpected. Also be aware that this is an adult film with adult themes. Therefore, the film is rated “15” in the UK and "R" in the US and is not for the casual viewer. For those who approach it in the right fashion it should prove a rewarding and experience and a definite talking point. Hopefully in the years to come, The Ninth Configuration will move beyond its current cult film label and achieve the artist recognition it truly deserves.
Review Scores
Two stories caught my attention recently, regarding the merits of review scores and the current fetish for review aggregation services. The first was about film director and producer Brett Ratner’s dislike for review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. He contests that “it’s the destruction of our business” due to the way it condenses nuanced reviews into a simple number. Scores below a certain threshold keep “Middle America” away and thus harm business. The other article was about game critic and pundit, Jim Sterling, who gave The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild a review score of 7 out of 10. Once this was added to Metacritic’s number crunching formula, the game in question dropped from an overall score of 98 down to 97. Fans did not care for this “outrage” and a DDoS attack followed as well as the usual comment based flame war.
Two stories caught my attention recently, regarding the merits of review scores and the current fetish for review aggregation services. The first was about film director and producer Brett Ratner’s dislike for review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. He contests that “it’s the destruction of our business” due to the way it condenses nuanced reviews into a simple number. Scores below a certain threshold keep “Middle America” away and thus harm business. The other article was about game critic and pundit, Jim Sterling, who gave The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild a review score of 7 out of 10. Once this was added to Metacritic’s number crunching formula, the game in question dropped from an overall score of 98 down to 97. Fans did not care for this “outrage” and a DDoS attack followed as well as the usual comment based flame war.
Both these events got me thinking about difference between long form, detailed criticism and analysis versus the perceived convenience of simple review scores. For me I initially became aware of the difference during the eighties, when reading movie reviews. On one hand, you had old school critics such as Derek Malcolm writing lengthy critiques in the broadsheet newspapers and on the other tabloids that adopted the Siskel and Ebert approach of “two thumbs up”. The former approach to criticism allows for detailed analysis and eschews binary breakdowns. A movie (or a game) is more than just good or bad. The latter style of review, offers readers a simple and quick opinion and thus an opportunity to make a similar choice. Both methodologies have their merits but it would seem that contemporary culture is leaning more towards the review score. It fits the current “spirit”of our digital age.
Personally, I’ve always preferred an in-depth written post that clearly critiques a games merits and flaws. I favour the same approach to movie reviews, as I think that such artistic endeavours cannot adequately be distilled into a numerical breakdown. However, I fully recognise how the review score system has gained traction due to its accessibility and immediacy. Convenience is the buzz word of modern life. Reading an in-depth review takes time and thought. Both are finite commodities these days. Plus, the review score has become an important marketing tool and something that with regard to games, does have an impact upon sales. Sadly, it’s a system that can also be manipulated by the publishers themselves. It is this aspect that tarnishes the review score system and brings score aggregation services into disrepute.
There have been numerous cases in recent years of bogus reviews being used to skew opinion on sites such as Amazon, Trivago and Trip Advisor. You Tube has also become a battle ground of late, with game developers using bogus copyright infringement and other spurious claims to try and take down reviews and criticism that can potentially harm sales. The need to own and control all information regarding a product, has become a common place business aspiration in certain circles. Fans also contribute to this problem, seeing low reviews scores as personal attacks rather than measured criticism. But when you reduce something that is complex to the binary, there is bound to be fallout and dissent. Our societies move away from academia to the fallacy of “all opinions are of equal merit” is also a factor.
Review scores ultimately have an impact upon the way products are made. Movies and games are effectively being conceived and created to meet the criteria of the review score systems, rather than to innovate and push boundaries. Mainstream artistic endeavour has always been tempered with the practicalities of commercial interest but we now seem to be entering an age when new products are genuinely hampered by the need to meet ever increasing marketing requirements. Sooner or later there will be a backlash against the inflexibility of the review score system and potentially a crash within the gaming market. In the meantime, I would encourage all to offset the scores from Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes with lengthier reviews, be they written or video based. Although time is at a premium these days, the old maxim about knowledge being power, still holds true. Therefore it is always to the consumers advantage to know as much about a product as they can.
Robot & Frank (2012)
The dramatic success of Robot & Frank hinges the credibility of the two main protagonists. Frank Langella effortlessly plays a retired jewel thief Frank Weld who’s starting to have problems with his memory. His son Hunter (James Marsden) takes the only logical course of action and buys him a robot home help. The movie is set in the “near future” and so the idea of a deferring care of the elderly to machines seems worryingly credible. Plus, in this case, there is not a huge amount of love between father and son. Or so it first appears. There's more going on with this movie than first meets the eye. The plot is smarter than it first appears and makes some interesting social commentary.
The dramatic success of Robot & Frank hinges the credibility of the two main protagonists. Frank Langella effortlessly plays a retired jewel thief Frank Weld who’s starting to have problems with his memory. His son Hunter (James Marsden) takes the only logical course of action and buys him a robot home help. The movie is set in the “near future” and so the idea of a deferring care of the elderly to machines seems worryingly credible. Plus, in this case, there is not a huge amount of love between father and son. Or so it first appears. There's more going on with this movie than first meets the eye. The plot is smarter than it first appears and makes some interesting social commentary.
As for “Robot”, voiced by Peter Sarsgaard, the production designers succeed in making him convincing and credible. It would have been a fatal faux pas to employ an excess of CGI and produce a robot similar to Sonny in I, Robot. Less is clearly more in this case. Just think of Honda's Asimo and you’ll get why “Robot” works. Dancer Rachael Ma provides a wonderfully understated performance in the suit. Peter Sarsgaard soft spoken voice offers more than a nod and a wink to Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Remember that this is the technology of the near future so it needs to be plausible to a contemporary audience.
As Frank gradually comes to terms with his new house mate, he manages to convince the machine to assist him in his criminal endeavours. “Robot” is specifically programmed to help establish a routine and projects for the benefit of stabilising Frank's cognitive abilities, so he agree to assist, as it serves a greater good. It is at this point that Robot & Frank could have taken the route of a more mainstream comedy, yet it proceeds in a very different direction. The narrative focuses on how returning to crime and more importantly exploring his relationship with “Robot” helps Frank's condition. “Robot” is in some ways a surrogate son, affording Frank a second chance to regain the lost opportunities he missed with Hunter while he was in prison.
The movie also touches on several other social issues. It explores autumn romances with the introduction of Librarian Jennifer (Susan Sarandon) and how youth is often so enamored with itself and the cult of "finding" oneself, via his daughter Madison (Liv Tyler). Perhaps some of these aspects could have been explored further, yet it would be wrong to be too critical of Christopher D. Ford's screenplay because there is still so much to praise. What Robot & Frank doesn't do is fall into the cliché of the machine with a soul. Robot points out himself that he is not alive and that much of what people feel towards him is simply anthropomorphic. Something he is programmed to exploit.
First-time director Jake Schreier, working with a low budget and the usual constraints facing an independent picture, manages to pull most aspects of Robot & Frank off successfully. He certainly does not make the mistake of applying too much sentimentality, or pursuing a broad comic tone. I can fully understand how this movie was a crowd pleaser at the 2011 Sundance festival. Robot & Frank wears its indie movie pedigree on its sleeve with its character driven, slice of life. The soundtrack by Francis and the Lights is also of note and deserves a mention. It is reassuring to know that movies such as this can still be made and that for some directors and production companies, narrative is still king and the key to good film making.
Classic Movie Themes: Starcrash
Starcrash is a shameless Italian Star Wars knock off from 1979. The movie is regarded by some critics as a campy B film with cheap special effects that falls into the “so bad its good” category. Directed by exploitation cinema veteran Luigi Cozzi, Starcrash stars ex-Bond girl Caroline Munro (The Spy Who Loved Me) as Stella Star. She spends most of the film wearing very little as she cavorts around the galaxy with her trusty sidekick, Akton (Marjoe Gortner). The plot is derivative even by genre standards and boasts some staggering inane dialogue. For example, "You know, my son, I wouldn't be Emperor of the Galaxy if I didn't have a few powers at my disposal. Imperial Battleship, halt the flow of time!" and then there’s "Look, Amazon women on horseback. I hope they're friendly".
Starcrash is a shameless Italian Star Wars knock off from 1979. The movie is regarded by some critics as a campy B film with cheap special effects that falls into the “so bad its good” category. Directed by exploitation cinema veteran Luigi Cozzi, Starcrash stars ex-Bond girl Caroline Munro (The Spy Who Loved Me) as Stella Star. She spends most of the film wearing very little as she cavorts around the galaxy with her trusty sidekick, Akton (Marjoe Gortner). The plot is derivative even by genre standards and boasts some staggering inane dialogue. For example, "You know, my son, I wouldn't be Emperor of the Galaxy if I didn't have a few powers at my disposal. Imperial Battleship, halt the flow of time!" and then there’s "Look, Amazon women on horseback. I hope they're friendly".
However, despite poor miniature effects and cheap stop motion monsters, Starcrash has a curious cast of quality character actors. Christopher Plummer and Joe Spinell both allegedly accepted their respective roles simply to get a free holiday in Rome. Starcrash also features a top-notch soundtrack by the legendary John Barry. The score certainly has a Bond vibe, sharing more than a little in common with Moonraker which was composed shortly afterwards. The main theme is suitably grandiose and as it develops picks up a subtle disco beat reflecting the times. Overall, it’s a far better soundtrack than the film deserves and is its only truly redeeming quality. Michael Giacchino’s main theme for Rogue One has an interesting passing similarity to Barry’s work on Starcrash, although I consider this more to be a homage than plagiarism.
Bullitt (1968)
In a recent blog post I wrote about the difficulty that you can encounter sometimes when trying to watch movies that have been deemed “classic” by popular consensus. I listed 10 films of note that I intend to watch this year and to see if my views aligned with the various institutions and critics that praise them. The first on that list was the iconic sixties thriller Bullitt starring Steve McQueen. Having now watched the movie, I thought it would be prudent to collate my thoughts on it. Considering the immense amount of material that has already been written about it, I see no reason to present a review per se. Rather, here are my initial impressions for consideration. I’ve tried to highlight some specific aspects of the film that I think are of note or merit debate.
In a recent blog post I wrote about the difficulty that you can encounter sometimes when trying to watch movies that have been deemed “classic” by popular consensus. I listed 10 films of note that I intend to watch this year and to see if my views aligned with the various institutions and critics that praise them. The first on that list was the iconic sixties thriller Bullitt starring Steve McQueen. Having now watched the movie, I thought it would be prudent to collate my thoughts on it. Considering the immense amount of material that has already been written about it, I see no reason to present a review per se. Rather, here are my initial impressions for consideration. I’ve tried to highlight some specific aspects of the film that I think are of note or merit debate.
The cinematography in Bullitt is noticeably stylish and beyond the functional. William A. Fraker uses a lot of low camera angles, fluid camera movements and even embraces a Gonzo style for crowd scenes. The way bystanders congregate around crime scenes is depicted quite differently from other movies of the time. It is shown as rather unpleasant and insensitive act, often reflected in the snatches of dialogue that are heard. The famous car chase sequence is edited in similar fashion that places the viewer very much in the middle of the action. Rather than just rely on single shots from locked off cameras, the set piece is covered from multiple angles and frequently from the perspective of the vehicles themselves. It also conveys the fact that high speed pursuits are not just about performance vehicles but require skill from the drivers.
Then there is the matter of violence and the way in which it is depicted in the movie. Hollywood was shifting its stance on this weighty issue during the late sixties. As a result, there is a rather clinical shooting involving a shotgun. During the climatic shootout in the airport departure lounge there is an interesting concession to human collateral damage, when a security guard is gunned down in a very casual manner. We later see him getting the last rites from a passing priest, thus showing that death is seldom quick in such situations. Another interesting aspect is the depiction of two hired contract killers. They are not shown as sneering stereotypical gangsters but more as ageing business men. Furthermore, there is no snappy banter between them. Instead we are left with a measured silence and a few meaningful looks.
Something else that stands out about Bullitt is the accurate depiction of police investigation techniques of the time. There are no desktop computers and a lot of work is completed by copious note taking and attention to detail. We see evidence being meticulously being sorted through to see if it will yield any detail. The telephotography machine that prints suspects photos via the phone and a dot matrix printer is paradoxically archaic yet very contemporary. Then off course there’s the plot device of politics impinging upon police work. The sixties were a time when the default deference towards various public institutions was beginning to fade. Captains wanting an easy life and not wanting to rock the boat, as well as career driven Senators happy to tread on toes to get ahead, were new concepts back then.
Bullitt overall met and exceeded my expectations. The plot was interesting and its themes still relevant. Steve McQueen was effortlessly cool in the title role and the movie seemed to capture the changing mood of the period. The car chase was technically well executed and I can certainly see how the movies entire approach had a knock-on effect upon other thrillers and particularly cop movies. Sadly, Jacqueline Bisset’s character Cathy has precious little to do within the functional role of Frank Bullitt’s love interest. Sexual politics were obviously not on this film’s primary agenda. However, Lalo Schifrin’s superb jazz driven score is still a thing of beauty and reflects the idiom of the decade. Therefore, I appreciate why Bullitt enjoys the status that it currently does. It will be interesting to see if the next movie on my list also makes the grade.
Mirrors (2008)
Mirrors is a remake of Korean horror film Geoul Sokeuro. However, I am not familiar with the original movie, so I cannot compare the two. There is a popular consensus among horror fans that most US remakes of Asiatic genre movies are frequently inferior to the originals. Atmosphere, tension and the unique cultural ambience are substituted by violence and clumsy shocks. It would appear that upon its release the critics felt that Mirrors was no different. So I watched the film with very low expectations. Furthermore, director Alexandre Aja back catalogue is a somewhat mixed bag with remakes of such titles as The Hills Have Eyes and Piranha.
Mirrors is a remake of Korean horror film Geoul Sokeuro. However, I am not familiar with the original movie, so I cannot compare the two. There is a popular consensus among horror fans that most US remakes of Asiatic genre movies are frequently inferior to the originals. Atmosphere, tension and the unique cultural ambience are substituted by violence and clumsy shocks. It would appear that upon its release the critics felt that Mirrors was no different. So I watched the film with very low expectations. Furthermore, director Alexandre Aja back catalogue is a somewhat mixed bag with remakes of such titles as The Hills Have Eyes and Piranha.
Kiefer Sutherland plays an ex-cop coming to terms with an accidental shooting. He's a recovering alcoholic who's estranged from his wife and family. Taking a job as a night watchman in a derelict department store, he soon discovers that an evil force seems to reside in the mirrors that line the walls. It would appear that he is required to carry out a task for this malevolent entity and failure to do so will place his loved ones in jeopardy.
There is a very intriguing premise at the heart of this film, regarding the cultural fascination and fear of our own reflection. The idea of our own image acting independently to ourselves and even harming us is creepy. It is handled in the initial stages of this film quite well by French director Alexandre Aja. But once the plot explores the reasons behind these events, the explanation becomes a little more formulaic. Towards the end, the story does pick up with the introduction of the concept that all reflective surfaces could be potentially dangerous. This results in some quite creative set pieces.
The cast is adequate and the performances are satisfactory. Sutherland and Paula Patton are an sympathetic couple. Julian Glover makes a small appearance as the ubiquitous old man that expedites the plot. The production design is suitably moody and atmospheric. The CGI effects are not excessive and the prosthetics are exceptionally unpleasant. The film includes a death scene that is particularly grim, involving the victim’s breaking their own bottom jaw. There is also a rather graphic throat cutting at the beginning of the movie.
I was pleasantly surprised with Mirrors, finding it entertaining and somewhat scary. The film has a very European sense of style and pace, with is a "sting in the tail" which is unusual for a mainstream studio picture. It's certainly no master piece but is not exactly the dog’s dinner it's been labelled. The unrated edit of the movie (which is the version I watched) is certainly violent but the director seems to have a penchant for such things. It's a shame in a way because with a little more emphasis on suspense Mirrors could have been a better movie.
The Midnight Meat Train (2008)
Despite being nearly decade old The Midnight Meat Train remains an outstanding genre movie. It’s a horror film that doesn't make the usual mistakes of trying to be hip, excessively self-referential or ironically post-modern. It's shocking, nasty, bleak and brutal, as well as being literate and honest. This is quite paradoxical when you consider it’s made by Lionsgate pictures, a studio that got rich off the back of exploitative, clichéd horror franchises such as Saw and in more recent year’s teen orientated supernatural fodder. The movie also struggled for a while to gain international distribution and it took several years for it to find an audience. It’s a shame because The Midnight Meat Train deserved to have been released with a more fitting fanfare for a film of its calibre.
Despite being nearly decade old The Midnight Meat Train remains an outstanding genre movie. It’s a horror film that doesn't make the usual mistakes of trying to be hip, excessively self-referential or ironically post-modern. It's shocking, nasty, bleak and brutal, as well as being literate and honest. This is quite paradoxical when you consider it’s made by Lionsgate pictures, a studio that got rich off the back of exploitative, clichéd horror franchises such as Saw and in more recent year’s teen orientated supernatural fodder. The movie also struggled for a while to gain international distribution and it took several years for it to find an audience. It’s a shame because The Midnight Meat Train deserved to have been released with a more fitting fanfare for a film of its calibre.
Directed by Japanese auteur, Ryuhei Kitamura, The Midnight Meat Train is an adaptation of a Clive Barker short story from his infamous Books of Blood. The film follows a photographer who attempts to track down a serial killer dubbed the "Subway Butcher". He discovers more than he bargained for when his search takes him under the city streets. The movie intelligently explores the nature and consequences of obsession as well as the contemporary media’s inherent addiction to voyeurism. The Midnight Meat Train boasts a robust featuring Bradley Cooper, Leslie Bibb, Vinnie Jones and Brooke Shields. The script, adapted by Jeff Buhler, is surprisingly smart and thought provoking, avoiding a lot of usual genre clichés. Considering this was the directors first US based English dialogue film, it is a very strong movie.
The Midnight Meat Train has numerous points to commend. The production design and the lighting are first class. The modern subway network depicted in the film is ideal and reflects the cold, stark, metallic environment of the abattoir that the serial killer hails from. I've often had mixed feeling about Vinnie Jones, an "actor", yet he excels here as the neat, precise, suit wearing "Subway Butcher". Despite having only one line of dialogue he emotes very well and gives a convincing and substantial performance. The rest of the cast also fare well as their characters transcend the traditional two dimensional facsimiles that inhabit horror movies. Bradley Cooper and Leslie Bibb play flawed individuals who at times are unlikeable, yet they still invoke sympathy as they face their fate. The film’s final twenty minutes really does have the viewer hoping for a positive conclusion, however unrealistic that is.
With a film of this nature you can expect a degree of violence and moments of shock. The Midnight Meat Train certainly doesn’t pull its punches. Victims are dispatched via a meat tenderiser and then strung up and butchered. Yet these scenes, although brutal, are never gloating. They reflect the movies underlying themes of media sensationalism and voyeurism. However, the film does rely heavily on CGI FX work and some of it sadly does not work very well visually. Ted Raimi makes a cameo appearance and dies in a graphic but patently fake fashion. Overall this doesn't spoil the film as there is still some fine physical effects and the films climax manages to pack a heavy emotional punch.
Adapting the literary works or Clive Barker has always been challenging for film makers and the results have often been hit or miss. Candyman, Hellraiser and Lord of Illusion have been successful examples, although it should be noted that two of these were directed by Barker himself. Sadly, there are others that have been way off the mark, with Rawhead Rex being the nadir. The Midnight Meat Train manages to take the best elements from the source text and expands upon them. It’s a smart, atmospheric well-paced horror movie with few concessions to the casual viewer. It delivers all that you’d expect from a quality director, being both shocking and intriguing. Unfortunately, despite critical acclaim The Midnight Meat Train did not find the commercial success it could have and failed to start a renaissance in the genre. Thus, ten years on R rated horror remains a relatively rare beast.
Classic Movie Themes: Assault on Precinct 13
Assault on Precinct 13 was John Carpenter's second feature film. The movies score was composed and recorded by Carpenter himself on a synthesizer over a period of three days. It features a minimalist style comprising of just four distinct music cues, which are used sparingly throughout the movie. The pulsating beats and elongated eerie notes combine with a mournful main melody. This lean, pared back approach suits the narrative perfectly and reflects the tonal trend of cinema at the time. There are hints of Morricone (who Carpenter later worked with on The Thing) and Lalo Schifrin in the soundtrack.
Assault on Precinct 13 was John Carpenter's second feature film. The movies score was composed and recorded by Carpenter himself on a synthesizer over a period of three days. It features a minimalist style comprising of just four distinct music cues, which are used sparingly throughout the movie. The pulsating beats and elongated eerie notes combine with a mournful main melody. This lean, pared back approach suits the narrative perfectly and reflects the tonal trend of cinema at the time. There are hints of Morricone (who Carpenter later worked with on The Thing) and Lalo Schifrin in the soundtrack.
It's interesting that Carpenter's subtle and understated compositions were perhaps more influential on minimalist electronic music, rather than on contemporary movie scores. Certainly Carpenter's style became grander and musically more complex as he continued to score his later movies such as Prince of Darkness and later In the Mouth of Madness. Although he may well best known for the Halloween theme, the Assault on Precinct 13 soundtrack provided the original musical blueprint and is in many ways its equal. Film composers working today could learn valuable lessons from its simple eloquence.