Ascension

Before I start blogging properly again... Jesu's new album 'Ascension' should be out on May 10! I'm excited! I'm doing a Jesu update, 'cos I miss doing them. I still want VidnaObmana's 'Chasing The Odyssee' 8LP box set, but it's like £50 and I have no money at the moment. It'll probably sell out by the time I try to get it, it's limited to 400 copies. But it looks very pretty, and I quite like VidnaObmana, plus it has Jesu and Final remixes (why do you think I really want it?). Honestly, I would probably never listen to it (mostly because I don't have a working turntable), but I kind of need to own it. Otherwise the Triads said they'd break my knees! Also out that I need is Iroha's debut album, the imaginatively titled 'Iroha'. Iroha are fantastic, and are Jesu-y enough to stop me from getting withdrawal symptoms. Except I don't have the album, and me writing pointless, beneficial-to-no-one blogs about Jesu is most likely a withdrawal symptom as it is. Still, on Tuesday, Pale Sketcher's 'Seventh Heaven' EP is out! And I probably won't have the money for it after Valentines Day, but it sounds SOOOO good. The title track, for example, sounds like Jesu mixed with The Prodigy. Somehow it works. I'm a bit too excitable.

I'm ill and feeling a bit lazy lately so haven't really been blogging. Plus, writing reviews is hard work. I want to try and sound a bit academic when I do it, so it takes me a long time to process my thoughts into something that would make for good reading. I feel like I should write a review of 'Piranha 3D' and go in the complete opposite direction though. "It's an okay movie. Quite funny, 3 out of 5. OH COOL, BOOBS! LOTS OF THEM! MORE BOOBS! GORE! MAYHEM! BOOBS, GORE AND MAYHEM IN THE SAME FRAME! IT'S THE BEST MOVIE EVER! 5 OUT OF 5!" I honestly don't know how else a review of that masterpiece could be written, the fact that I gave you one completely unprovoked speaks volumes about the power of boobs and gore on celluloid. Which is why I'm excited for 'Drive Angry' at the moment. If all that I've read is to be believed then the film will contain boobs, gore, and mayhem. AND Nicolas Cage. Goddamn. If I don't happen to have written the least academic review ever written before that film (which I'm pretty sure I just did with 'Piranha 3D'), then I'm pretty sure my review for 'Drive Angry' will not only kill every brain cell in both of our brains, but also kill the need to see any other film ever again!!! Fingers crossed.

Film review: 'Gulliver's Travels' (2010)

I'll get to the crux of this review immediately - this recent re-imagining of Jonathan Swift's classic satire doesn't have a lot going for it. You've probably guessed that from the trailer. You've probably guessed that from the great bastardisations it makes to the source material. But, oddly, the worst thing about 'Gulliver's Travels' is that it's not awful. If it was dreadful, there would be a lot to say about it. The worst thing a movie can be, for a reviewer at least, is to be utterly mundane.

At least with something like 'The Next Three Days', there is a great dichotomy between the quality of the first two acts, and it's decline from that point. It's easy to review, because it was a factor that niggled me so much that I kept thinking about it. It's not even that it was terrible, just that it contrasted badly with the rest of the film. And at least with something terrible there's also a lot to say. In fact, it's probably easier to go on about what's wrong with a film over what's right, which all sounds very cynical of me. All this stuff right here about how reviewing an inane film is difficult - well, that's pretty much all the food for thought that 'Gulliver's Travels' gave me.

Casting Jack Black as Lemuel Gulliver is probably the first problem. Nothing against the man, I like him, he's funny and genuinely a good actor. The issue is that he plays the character Jack Black plays in every film where the screenwriters are too lazy to make him anything more than a rock-loving, dim-witted slob who will eventually learn something of a lesson about self-worth, etc etc. Jack Black does a fine job with what he's got, but he really needs to stop playing this archetype. Jason Segel really impresses as one of Lilliput's townspeople, Horatio, delivering a thoroughly convincing English accent, and thusly stepping away from any stereotypes that he would be unfortunate to be lumped with too. Emily Blunt plays her role knowingly over-the-top yet sweet as Princess Mary, and Chris O'Dowd as General Edward doesn't get much to do beyond being a dick for the most part, but proves to be the film's funniest character because of it. Near everyone else is relegated to very few lines or unmemorable performances. I also wonder why Billy Connolly, Catherine Tate and James Corden even signed up, with how utterly tiny, pointless, and humourless their roles are.

The film fails to ever really be funny. There was about one bit in the film that made me laugh, where Gulliver starts using the lyrics to Prince's 'Kiss' as a pick-up line for Horatio to say to Princess Mary. Even then, he has to go the whole hog and start quoting all of the song's lyrics, then the actual song starts playing, then he starts dancing, which Horatio also copies. It could have been a quaint, funny reference, but it just pushes it to the point where it's embarrassing. Which also relates to the song-and-dance number at the end of the film, a trait in family movies that has to stop. At least when there are jokes the film has a purpose of sorts, though. For the most part you wonder what's supposed to be funny (even the kids in the cinema weren't laughing). The plot rambles around aimlessly, usually for no real reason other than to get to a special effects set piece (which, while cartoonish, do the job). The plot holes are ridiculous (somehow the Lilliputians manage to advance their technology tenfold just by Gulliver's mere appearance). And whilst there's nothing wrong with taking liberties with the source material, adding robots into the mix is just a bit too far on the gimmicky side. Just like the 3D, which is absolutely non-existent. Honestly, without the slightest bit of exaggeration, I could honestly not see anything remotely three-dimensional in the film.

But, regardless of the fact that I have nothing but complaints, it's never TERRIBLE terrible (song-and-dance number excluded). If it had have been, this film would have been a hell of a lot easier to write about, probably a whole lot more interesting to read about, and could have at least made the film funny on that level. But no, it's just a film that exists, there to take lots of money and probably never be mentioned again by anyone ever. Which would render this all an utter waste of time. Just like the movie.

2/5

Film review: 'The Next Three Days'

Writing a review without spoilers is incredibly hard, depending on the film. Obviously, it's not hard to abbreviate your thoughts on a film and keep it condensed to face value opinions only. But for some films, the most interesting, or, adversely, least interesting, aspects of the film can lie in important plot details. 'The Next Three Days' is one of those films. The first hour and a half is superb. The final half hour or so, where the plot starts concluding in an unsatisfactory manner, is hugely disappointing. So, to explain this all without spoilers is going to be hard. But I like a challenge, so...

Written and directed by Oscar-winning auteur Paul Haggis ('Crash', 'Million Dollar Baby', two films I've never seen), 'The Next Three Days' appears to be a fairly simple thriller. A man, John Brennan's (Russell Crowe), wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) is imprisoned for a murder she may or may not have committed, so he plans to spring her from prison and stay in hiding. Nothing new there, except for perhaps the fact that it's a woman who's been accused of the crime, but obviously, she's a weak, powerless female, so she can't escape from prison herself like Harrison Ford would, she has to get her man to do it. I'm attempting satire by the way, not revelling in misogyny. Anyway, plot-wise this is all very conventional, but what delights about the first two acts of this film is the emphasis on characters, the emotional impact of the wife's incarceration, and just how the hell our protagonist is going to get her out of prison. We get some nice character building, as we see Lara's deteriorating state in prison, and the lengths that John is prepared to go to in order to break her out. The focus on the technicalities of a prison break also impress, with Liam Neeson popping up in a brilliant cameo as an ex-con who managed to escape from prison multiple times. He delivers a beautiful monologue, detailing the dangers of attempting an escape and ultimately concluding that the chances of getting away with it are slim to none.

So far, so good. And it really is all very impressive, endlessly engaging and a little deeper than the rest of its ilk. So we get to the main star of the show; the prison break. It starts off all very good, with the actual breakout very tense and kinetically edited. But after that point, the film just seems to stop. Our central couple are still on the run. But the film switches to an uncomfortably lumbering pace, which suited the early stages of the movie, but at this point can only jar the audience. Every character seems to make irrational decisions, coincidence and luck all seem to fit conveniently into the final plot stretches, and a use of poor CGI is both distracting and unnecessary. No, I wasn't disappointed because there was a lack of car crashes and explosions and fights. This isn't that kind of movie, and would have been just as bad, tonally (albeit probably more entertaining). I was disappointed because the film goes in the opposite direction, when it shouldn't really have to go in either direction. Instead of being over-the-top silly, it's just serious silly, and feels poorly judged, especially considering how the first three quarters of the film are gritty and, whilst mildly overblown in places, feel mostly grounded in reality. The very last shot of the film hints at something darker and provides an appropriate coda after what's just happened. But, I also feel that the plot shouldn't have gotten to the stage where it was the only fitting way to end it.

So, yeah, I've probably spoiled the film accidentally if you read between all the lines. And my sincerest apologies if I have. But it shouldn't matter anyway, because the first two acts of the film are the most vital part, not the finale. It's a shame that it has to end on a low note, and it's never BAD, just disappointing after what has preceded it. On the upside, I like to think that the film has started a trend of idiots trying and failing to open locked car doors using hollowed-out tennis balls. I can but dream...

3/5

Film Review: 'Pulp Fiction'

There is probably little point in reading about 'Pulp Fiction', because you've probably seen it. There is probably little point in me writing a positive review, because you probably like it and have probably seen a dozen positive reviews. But then again, there is, on the surface of it, little point in 'Pulp Fiction'. Well, there is a point in it's existence - to entertain, upon which it delivers more than many filmmakers could dream of. And that's another point - a showcase of Quentin Tarantino's skills as a director, a writer (co-written by Roger Avary), and an actor (that last point is debatable). But really, the point of 'Pulp Fiction' is that there is little point. Things just happen. There is a plot, but it takes up a very small running time. Why waste time on a plot when you've cooked up some of cinema's finest characters, most quotable dialogue, and iconic scenes that will be instantly recognisable to even those who haven't seen the film?

So yes, most of the two and a half hour running time is taken up by characters simply talking. Not always about anything essential to the plot (although it could be argued that the banter is the plot). Talking about the ethics of giving foot massages, how the metric system affects the names of popular burgers, religious philosophies, awkward silences. Near enough the random bullshit that good friends chat about. A damn sight wittier, sure, but it's the inanity of the conversations that gives this film a unique, free-wheeling charm, which many filmmakers have attempted to emulate, but mostly failed. Hell, even Tarantino has failed at times (see 'Death Proof'). The redundant conversation isn't just there to amuse though - it also builds tension at vital points. Take the classic 'Big Kahuna Burger' scene, for example. We are constantly laughing at Samuel L. Jackson's frenzied musings, but we also know something terrible is happening, and that something worse is going to happen. Not that this is a hugely disturbing film, even at it's most violent the movie has such a rich vein in jet-black humour that the extremist absurdity of it all will keep you laughing, even though you know you shouldn't be. 'Pulp Fiction' is, essentially, a comedy first and a crime thriller second.

Characters come and go, most of them hugely memorable, events happen because people are at the wrong place at the wrong time, decisions are made that are so irrational that an element of truth emerges. Kind of like real life. The film works on a level of hyperreality, the rambling narrative moves along at it's own 'two people shooting the shit' pace, yet the events are amped up to a considerably bizarre degree. Regardless, while this works brilliantly for what it is, the lack of a real meaty plot puts this below some of Tarantino's other films, in my opinion, namely 'Jackie Brown' and 'Inglourious Basterds'. However, that doesn't make this not Quentin Tarantino's "masterpiece". 'Pulp Fiction' gave the comedy genre, the crime thriller genre, and even cinema as a medium to an extent, a huge shot in the arm. There was nothing like it at the time (apparently, I was only six), and to this day it retains it's status as an utterly unique, completely compelling, and ferociously funny classic.

5/5

P.S. There was ABSOLUTELY no point in that use of alliteration. But there's very little point to most things in life. Which is oddly comforting. Might as well live life as well as we can while we're here. This has nothing to do with the film, just a completely disconnected stream-of-consciousness. But, maybe it does have something to do with the film. Perhaps the point of 'Pulp Fiction's pointlessness is that real-life events are largely pointless too. Most pointless post-script ever.

Movie Reviews!

Here are some short reviews for near enough every film I've seen since the start of 2011. Why? Why not!

'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'

So, with the knowledge that 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' is a rom-com of sorts, you can probably guess where the film's gonna go from the off. And you'd be pretty much right, the film isn't exactly unpredictable in any way. But nor does it have to be when the film is full of strong characters and hilarious one-liners. Written, directed by, and starring Jason Segel, 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' focuses heavily on characterisation, making it so even the 'good' characters are flawed and the 'bad' characters are somewhat sympathetic - they're all human after all. The film doesn't break new ground in any way (except for it's attempt to make the on-screen penis acceptable in American cinema - may this mission continue and succeed!), but it contains great performances from everyone, including Russell Brand who is actually genuinely hilarious as man-whore rock star Aldous Snow. Funny, smart, sweet, and undeniably joyful, especially the beautiful 'Muppets' homage towards the end.

4/5

'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo'

It's kind of hard to know what to say about some films sometimes, because sometimes they are just good. Not just good, as in "that was just 'good', nothing more though", more as in that a film can be an entertaining slice of celluloid, for no real reason other than because it's entertaining. I guess it may be weird to say that about 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo' - it's bleak, it's disturbing, and it's a little more subversive than your typical thriller (just look at the main character). But, above all, it's just incredibly gripping, rarely letting the attention span slip, a detective procedural that looks like it might get tied up in it's complex plotting and back stories and family histories, but actually manages to come out more coherent than many other thrillers. Roll on, David Fincher's interpretation coming at the end of this year! Gonna be interesting to see this get the Hollywood treatment...

4/5

'Meet The Parents: Little Fockers'

'Meet The Parents', whilst hardly a masterpiece, was a solid comedy, consistently funny, memorable in places, and worth it to see Robert DeNiro take the piss out of himself. The sequel, 'Meet The Fockers', was alright, but hugely forgettable. Literally, the only thing I can remember about it is a foreskin landing in a fondue. This third entry doesn't decide to learn from the previous film's mistakes, instead only becoming more and more mundane. Firstly, the title is hugely misleading, the 'little Fockers' appear in very few scenes, don't really impact the plot in any way, and their scenes are mostly confined to witnessing horrible things children shouldn't witness. That's the main problem with 'Little Fockers' - how predictable every joke is. When you see Ben Stiller's child climbing up a wall in the background while Mr. Stiller (or Focker if you prefer) is talking about how great and responsible a parent he is in the foreground, it's pretty damn obvious what's coming next. And those are only the jokes that aren't repeated. De Niro is reduced to saying 'Godfocker' over and over again. There is nothing else to the joke. Just that phrase, which wasn't really very funny in the first place. Still, the film becomes slightly more entertaining and funny as it goes along, and viewers' patience is rewarded by Jessica Alba in her underwear. I'm a man first and a critic second, after all...

2/5

'Megamind'

Sometimes you go into a film certain that you probably won't like it. I know, I know, it's a terrible thing to do as a film fan, and I like to think I have an open mind. But something about 'Megamind' just made me think I was gonna waste £1.50 on 3D glasses, and one and a half hours in the cinema. Well, every 3D film is a waste of £1.50 (I honestly do not care for a blurry, saturated extra dimension to the visuals, it is nothing beyond a gimmick that filmmakers don't even the balls to make as gimmicky as possible so it'll be worth it), but I had a feeling that the film would be terrible, PG-rated slapstick ending with a cring-inducing song and dance number. I am pleased to say that 'Megamind' went above and beyond the call of duty in offering a family-friendly superhero satire that remains consistently funny, consistently well-observed, and looks great on top of that (even WITH the 3D). There was a dance sequence, but it was VERY brief, so all is forgiven. 'Megamind' gets along nicely with it's strong characters, making sure we care about nearly every character, and not care about the ones who lost our affection when they went TOO DAMN FAR! The ACTUAL bad guy, in other words. Seeing as this is a film where the bad guy is the good guy, the good guy becomes a very minor character, and a very minor character becomes the bad guy. But not the bad guy who is the good guy. It all, miraculously, makes sense, and is a brilliantly coherent and consistent romp, staying on just the right side of subversion, more daring than your average family animation, but not so much as to be potentially alienating. Great stuff, proving that, while certainly no Pixar, Dreamworks animation studio is delivering far more hits (this, 'How To Train Your Dragon', 'Kung-Fu Panda') than misses (Aliens Vs. Monsters - sorry AVM fans!).

4/5

Okay, so there's a lot of films for me to catch up on, so I'm gonna post this one for now, and maybe get around to doing some more soon. Hopefully. Definitely. Probably not. The mystery is half of the fun!