28 Weeks Later
May 12th, 2007 at 01:16

I went to see 28 Weeks Later this evening – y’know, the sequel to the excellent 28 Days Later. Its a zombie film full of blood and death and calm scenes being interrupted by awful zombies.

Yeah, I know that they’re “infected” and not “zombies”, but these two things are practically identical. So I’m going to refer to them as zombies throughout, just to be needlessly irritating.
It is set some time after the first film – 168 days after in fact. Britain’s entire population has been wiped out by the rage virus, so the Americans are leading efforts to reconstruct the country. FAIRLY OBVIOUS POLITICAL ALLEGORY ALERT.

The Americans try their best, setting up a ‘green zone’ on the Isle of Dogs, but fail to control a determined local population of zombies leading to chaos, and the indescriminate shooting of civilians.

The film follows essentially the narrative of the first film after the setup: “Phew, we’re somewhere calm and secure, there is absolutely no-way the zombies can get us now“, followed by “Oh no! The Zombies have found us! We should run to somewhere else!“. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

There’s an excellent scene when a helicopter is trying to rescue an uninfected soldier, when hundreds of zombies appear – so it flies at them and chops them up with the blades. There’s also a horrible scene when a newly infected bloke kills his wife by pushing his thumbs into her eyes.

The only notable bad point about the film I can think of is that because the two main characters are kids, you know they’re going to make it through the film* alive, as kids, much like pets, are indestructible when projected on to a cinema screen.

But overall, it was good. Yeah, that’s my review: “good”. Put that on your DVD cover.
(*If you ignore the vague epilogue, perhaps)

Comments(0)

Spider-man 3
May 5th, 2007 at 01:18

Spider-man 3 is out today, so to celebrate I went to see it with my dad. Like the previous two films, it was really good. Here are some disorganised thoughts:

• If they made an animated version of War and Peace, would they call it Tol Stoyry?
• Is St Michael the patron Saint of middle-class food?
• Do Pigeon fanciers actually fancy pigeons?

Now here are some disorganised thoughts about the film I’ve just been to see:

(If I were a kind writer, I’d perhaps give you a spoiler warning here, but as I’m a bit of a bastard, I assure that there is absolutely no spoilers whatsoever below.)

Over all its a good film, and despite having three villains, it manages to fit them all in without looking too contrived, and their stories intermingle nicely, as you’d expect. The balance between action, humour and womeny bits is about right – the special effects are incredible, although they are so good that I spent half of the film thinking “I wonder how they did that?”. The opening fight scene is incredible – and the Sandman is, er, realistic.

There’s an excellent sketch with a French waiter at a fancy restaurant, and seeing Peter Parker corrupted by Venom and subsequently turn into a swaggering wanker is hilarious. And there’s always been a lot of mileage in the J Jonah Jamerson scenes.

I thought that the Venom-infected Spider-man was funny – it turned his suit black, and Peter altered his hair style to make it swish over his eyes like some sort of emo-kid. I was actually laughing during the moderately serious scenes when emo-Spider-man was walking about looking upset and angry with the world.

One of the strengths of the film, as well as perhaps a weakness was that every character was so morally ambiguous it was hard to sympathise or want Spidy to win against a lot of them. The Sandman has a sob-story about his daughter, and even Spiderman does some bad shit.

The police chief was played by Jack Bauer’s evil dad in 24. Whilst it’s my own fault, I kept suspecting that he was going to turn out to be evil, which was a bit distracting.

I think one of the most confusing things about Spider-man 3 is not in the film itself. It’s the use of Spider-man to promote Bernard Matthews and NPower. There’s not even a tenuous link between electricity generation or dead bird flu turkeys and a spider-based superhero who lives in New York. Surely this chap would be more appropriate for NPower (Bernard Matthews not so much).

The worst part of the whole cinema experience were the trailers at the start. Specifically, a trailer for this film. It’s about surfing penguins. About half way through the trailer a familiar song started playing. It was Green Day’s Welcome to Paradise. I felt like shouting “SELL OUTS” at the top of my voice, but I’d look demented. I think signing to a major label is fine if you can retain your creative integrity. But how can your band maintain any credibility when you’re on the soundtrack for a kids film about surfing penguins that looks about as enjoyable as childbirth?

But yeah, Spider-man was really good. So go and see it.

Comments(0)

300
April 2nd, 2007 at 00:42

I went to see the film ‘300‘ this evening. Y’know, the one about the Spartans fighting off an invasion by the Persians. It’s ‘done’ by Frank Miller, the chap who did Sin City.

My official quotable verdict (feel free to use quote this on the DVD cover, Warner Bros): “Yeah, it was alright really”.

It was visually spectacular all right – there was slow motion sword fighting and scenes that looked like they were framed for comic book pages. Basically like if Sin City were made in colour. And set in ancient Greece.

One thing that got to me was that I found it hard to empathise with the plight of the Spartans, who are portrayed as the goodies. It’s just difficult to want a militaristic society who are historically known for being ‘harsh’ to win.

The main problem with the film though was that it was the most blatant political allegory in the history of cinema. And I’ve seen Farenheit 9/11.

Don’t get me wrong- I like films with a political subtext, but only when I agree with the underlying political motives. In 300, the Spartans are portrayed as great defenders of freedom and liberty against the barbarian invaders who threaten our way of life, and they happen to live in the Persian Gulf. It beats the drum of war much louder than it strums the lute of peace. I’m not sure though if it was either suggesting the current quagmire is a good idea or if it’s gearing us up for the next war.

There’s one scene in particular. when the King’s wife gives a speech in the Senate which is almost verbatim to some of the things the Bush administration have been saying to try and justify the war crimes occurring in the real world. The chap who was anti-war turned out to be an evil traitorous bastard too.

This might seem more coincidental and innocent if I didn’t know that Frank Miller was currently working on a comic called ‘Holy Terror Batman!‘, and was based on Batman fighting Al Qaeda. Seriously. Miller has even called it a “piece of propaganda”.

This warmongering agenda would be more bearable if the film had an overall coherent message. I’m not sure what to take away from it, as it seemed to place glory in getting hopelessly massacred rather than working towards a diplomatic solution. The end seemed to imply that dying for your country is noble and brilliant – even if this were the case, I’d prefer to live an be known as the twat who let the Persians in without a fight than be “heroically” stabbed up.

And yeah, I’m aware I’m trying to apply 21st century values to a vaguely historical film, but that’s exactly what they were doing in the film.

Overall: Eight on ten. It wins bonus points for the spectacular battle scenes.

Comments(1)

Evolution and Animation
December 7th, 2006 at 02:30

Scientists reckon that the human eye evolved by first being simply a light sensitive patch of skin, before getting more complex as natural selection went on. This is all well and good, but it has me worried.

If the eye has been evolving to allow it to process more complex things: presumably at first figuring out what was light and dark (like when you close your eyes and look directly at the sun, the dark void in front of you goes a bit red?), before being able to deduce shapes of objects and so on, then doesn’t this mean that the natural evolution of the human eye is eventually going to mess up cinema for people of the future?

Erm, bear with me here.

In the 20th century we invented cinema, and devices that constantly bombard our eyes with light, refreshing that image 24 times a second. The only reason it works is because our eyes aren’t fast enough to deduce that the image in front of us is being scrolled upwards by a motor.

Presumably as the eye evolves further, because of our lifetimes watching screens refresh thousands of times a second, our future ancestors will have eyes that can react much faster than ours can. Does this mean that in hundreds of thousands of years time, if the future people decide to watch an ancient copy of 1992 hit-dog based film Beethoven, rather than see a moving dog, they’ll see 24 slightly similar photos scrolling upwards much like how we see the ending credits in films these days?

I realise that it is unlikely that in hundreds of thousands of years they’ll still have old cine-projectors and copies of 90s kids films, but if this does happen, this could be an issue mankind of the future will face.

We ought to start thinking about it now.

Comments(1)

Jackass 2
December 3rd, 2006 at 01:44

I went to see Jackass Number Two tonight. Y’know, the one with the nutters doing insane stunts and hurting themselves. It was this: hilarious.

Now I realise its not the most cerebral of films, but to make up for this I intend to spend tomorrow “voluntarily” writing an essay about theories of International Relations.

It was good though. At risk of being controversial: better than Borat. It had more laughs per minute (lpm). In fact, on this scale, it would rank somewhere between The Funeral of Pope John Paul II (~4 lpm), and a conversation with James O’Malley (~60 lpm). (I’m implying that I’m hilarious).

The pace of the film was incredibly good- sketches didn’t go on for too long, and they were consistently funny. My only complaint was that the aspect ratio felt wrong because I was at the cinema and watching something in 16:9. I imagine most of it was filmed on handheld cameras, which is, erm, a fairly good excuse, I guess.

Some of the most memorable sketches included a bungee jump with a big fat guy acting as an anchor, and a man eating horse shit. Another good bit was ‘Bad Grandpa’, where Johnny Knoxville, dressed up like an old man took a kid to a burger bar on a beach, and gave the kid alcohol and cigarettes, to the horror of onlookers, before nearly getting into a fight with a passer-by.

Quite a few sketches in the film involved animals: snakes and bulls were used excessively and in painful ways.

I don’t know if it would stand up to a second viewing- once you know how things turn out I guess it spoils it a bit, as a large part of the humour is in the reactions. So I won’t spoil it too much.

My face hurts quite a bit from grimacing through a lot of it. There was a lot of being sick, and that.

But yeah, it was really good. I’d recommend it to a friend. But not my mum, as she doesn’t like watching people being sick after wearing a astronaut-style helmet that has someone farting into its air supply.

Comments(2)

Casino Royale
November 20th, 2006 at 02:29

I went to see Casino Royale this evening with JD and Gina. Things didn’t start out too well when it wasn’t until I was half way to Leicester that I realised that we were in fact going to see the film in Kettering. Whoops.

I haven’t seen many Bond films- I’ve only seen the Pierce Brosnan ones. And I’ve played Goldeneye on the N64 an awful lot too, if that counts. So I guess this review isn’t going to be yet another tedious debate on who is the best Bond.

The film got off to a good start, and I liked the clever introduction sequence with the playing cards theme. It seemed quite cleverly done, and almost made up for Chris Cornell, who was busy selling out, whilst singing the theme song.

Did I mention that I’ll probably have a few spoilers in this post? No? Tough.

There were some good action sequences, with a chase involving a crane which were particularly spectacular. The acting parts were good too- there was some plot about financing terrorists and causing a media spectacle, and so on.

Unfortunately, the plot was where it got a bit confusing. As far as I can tell, everyone in the film seemed to be a double-agent of sorts, apart from James Bond and Judi Dench. The film seemed to have approximately thirty ending sequences, and I found myself getting up from my seat, ready to leave. Just when there had been a nice pleasant ending bit, crash! Smash! Whoosh! And there was another action scene that was triggered by someone else being a baddie after all.

The gist of the plot revolved around a big poker game arranged by this bloke who finances terrorists (who I’m sure I’ve seen in something before). It probably didn’t help that I don’t understand how to play poker. From what I can tell it mostly involves taking breaks from playing to go and kill some terrorists in a stairwell, before returning to the table and coming out with a witticism that acts as a dig towards the terrorist banker.

It was also nice to see a character who works for the treasury- she was practically doing my job, so I assume its only a matter of time before I get training with firearms, and how to do undercover work gambling with terrorists.

There was a good bit (and here’s a major spoiler) when he does a complete U-turn in an opinion when it turned out that the woman had been leading him on and had stabbed him in the back. “The bitch is dead now”. It made him sound like a right nasty piece of work.
It was a good film though- I’ll certainly go and see the sequel when they make one. Better than the Brosnan bonds? I’m too apathetic to decide (ie: probably).

Comments(0)

Borat PR Stunt?
November 12th, 2006 at 18:17

After seeing Borat last week, I was confused as to which of the “non-scripted” bits were actually scripted. I think the confusion may extend to the marketing of the film too.

Since seeing the film, I’ve spotted stories all over the media about the people that Borat ‘exploited’ during the film, and how awful it is. For example, this is written by one of the feminists who appear in the film, and this Daily Mail article talks about the people from the village that was supposed to be Borat’s hometown. (It was actually filmed in Romania).

Both articles are kicking up a fuss about being exploited, and claiming they didn’t know that Borat was taking the piss out of them, and so on. “Oh no!”, you’d think, “this is awful!”. However- I reckon this could just be some excellent marketing on the part of 20th Century Fox.

The latest TV adverts for Borat show clips of audience reaction to the film: nightvision sequences of people laughing. Borat is clearly a ’slow burning’ film publicity-wise, as it only had a limited release in America, yet has done spectacularly well because of word of mouth and people talking about it. If people keep talking about it – and not just people news and blogs too, then more people will go and see it to see what all of the fuss is about.

What I’m trying to say is that I wouldn’t be surprised if all of these stories were planted, and designed to be something nice and relatively throwaway that the sensationalist media can pick up on and cause a fuss about.

Don’t be surprised if the man from the Rodeo turns up in the news talking about how he was duped and exploited anytime soon.

Comments(0)

Borat
November 5th, 2006 at 02:26

Like every other young person this weekend, I went to see the new Borat film, with JD and Gina. I mean, I went with JD and Gina, I doubt every other young person did too.

Excellently, Gina has just had some major surgery which meant that she has to wear a sort of exo-skeleton. So I did the appropiate thing and made jokes at her expense all evening. “Do you walk sideways like a crab because of your exoskeleton?”, and so on. As JD and Gina will confirm, I was on the A-material all evening- and it has given me new faith in my ability to take the piss out of people recovering from traumatic operations.

The film was good though- although I dare say not as excellent as the critics/students would make out. It didn’t really know what it wanted to be. The scripted bits were funny in places, and during the so-called “non-scripted” bits where Borat meets real life Americans, rather than laughing at the absurdity, I found myself constantly thinking “this must be scripted”.

I think the give-away was the fact that during the “crazy” events that happend in the real world, a camera was following Borat around… destroying any illusion that the people wouldn’t know what was going on. There’s one seen where Borat and his producer run naked through a hotel into a conference full of business people… the fact that cameras are following them around spoils the illusion that the general public don’t know what’s going on… it’d be blindingly obvious that a film or TV series is being made.

I think the best bits were during the rodeo segment. Borat talks to a rodeo manager, who goes on to make massively racist and homophobic remarks… entirely seriously. Borat then goes and speaks to the audience, getting the Americans to cheer when he says that he believes in “America’s War of Terror”.

There were other bits that were clearly not-scripted which were good too. He tries to buy a gun and asks the clerk behind the counter what he’d need to kill a jew, and the clerk proceeds to actually recommend some weapons.

I was surprised that there actually was a general narrative running throughout the film- but I won’t spoil this.

Overall, it was good. There’s plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, so it’s probably worth going to see.

Comments(0)

Children of Men
October 15th, 2006 at 02:02

This evening, I went to see Children of Men with JD. It was excellent.

Long story short, no kids have been born for 18 years, and the human race is dying out. Because of this, everyone seems to have lost the will to live. I can’t really see what the problem is- I can’t think of anything better than a world without kids.

The world’s governments have collapsed although Britain has remained relatively stable- although it has become a massive fascist dictatorship that rounds up immigrants (“fugees”). Then there’s this woman who finally becomes pregnant, who the main characters then have to protect and get to some scientists in the Azores who will look after her and try to revive the human race.

The best bit about the film is the incredible cinematography. Each shot is really, really long- and there are few cuts between things. This means that there are scenes that go on continuously for minutes which follow Clive Owen (the main character) walking through war-torn streets and buildings, with explosions going off around him constantly, and so on. It’s incredible to watch. It feels so much more real when the camera keeps going, and is a lot more absorbing. I’m sure seeing it in the cinema enhanced it too.

I’d just hate to be an actor and have to remember everything that happens so I don’t go blown up by some pyrotechnics or whatever.

There’s actually relatively little dialogue in the film- a lot of it is just watching the mayhem unfold. And this is what makes it excellent.

As it is set in the future, there is obviously some wacky future technology. Thankfully, they havn’t gone all flying cars and lazers, and all of the future tech seems realistic- video displays on the side of buses, and even flatter monitors, and so on.

Its all a bit 28 Days Later- only it has one-hundred-and-sixty times the budget. Like 28 Days Later, it’s also very British- by which I mean the set has had a few red phone boxes put in, and there’s a British fire-hydrant sign, which was nice.

My only complaint with this film is that unlike the last film that I went to see, the title doesn’t really explain what is going to happen. I mean, I’d have preferred it to be called something like “Infertility in a Distopia” or “No kids have been born but now one has and they need to get it to some scientists to save the human race“.

Highly recommended. Go and see it.

Comments(0)

Snakes on a Plane… again!
August 27th, 2006 at 01:09

I can’t figure out if I’ve turned into the person who takes a running joke just too far, or whether I genuinely enjoyed the film or not. When the I Love Horses catchphrase was the hilarious in-joke a couple of years ago, I exhusted it to the point where I’d interrupt my friends before they could finish their sentence and say something like “because you love horses”. I was clearly the king of comedy. I even went horse riding.

As you might well know, (especially if you’re my cousin David, who rather scarily, it turns out is a regular reader), I went to see SNAKES ON A PLANE, just over a week ago, and gave it a rave review. The other day I went to see it again, with Matt and Beth, and I’m pleased to say that it is just as good second time around!

Knowing what was going to happen, it allowed me to take the time to appreciate the finer points of the film, as I didn’t have to concentrate on the multilayered and complex plot. Like the sporks line.

The audience reaction was much the same as the first time- Matt and Beth both gasped, laughed and cried “Oooh”, in the right places. Matt claims that Beth leaped out of her seat at one point. Wimp.
One thing that I did notice was that during the (SPOILER ALERT!) closing few minutes when Samuel L Jackson had shot open two windows and all of the motherfucking snakes were flying out… why wern’t the corpses of the dead passengers? They weren’t tied down or anything.

But on the whole, it was just as excellent second time around. I’d go again if anyone is organising a SOAP trip in the near future. Any offers? Anyone? Go on.

Comments(0)