MA Films

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489270/

Dir. Darren Lynn Bousman

A masterclass in narrative failure and pointless grossness.

Scenes appear, then vanish without a trace or point. The narrative skips around between what feels like two separate, tangentally connected films. Proving again that the Saw series is a single half-decent idea poorly explored and extended for monetary purposes.

I will say that the acting in this is a LOT better and consistant than in Saw II. The character of the doctor is… dull, her reasons for being chosen by Jigsaw are lame and her scenes trying to keep the dying Jigsaw alive can never be tense because we know, as an audience, that her death can only really occur at the end of the film, too soon would leave us solely with Amanda watching Jeff undergo his test. Still, she is performed decently.

Amanda is, as she was in the second film, the more vocal and whiny expression of Jigsaw’s angsty quest. There are multiple sequences that retcon her into the first movie as being part of original game, which are simply there to pad the movie out. I am unsure of whether the film is trying to evoke sympathy for her, but if so it’s failing horribly. She is mostly annoying and spending so much time chronicling  her rubbish story drags the film down. Even with the ending twist.

Jeff, played by Angus Macfadyen, is one of the better performances in the series. His motivations are clear and understandable, his emotions abley portrayed in each test, but he is strangely relegated to the background when he is the more interesting than Amanda. Coming in at the end he still feels strangely unrelated.

Tobin Bell is, as always, playing a shitty character well.

The traps are disgusting, the gore is much more of a focus in this one and it’s the first point in the series where I could say the “torture porn” reputation is completely accurate. The pig trap was foul and the “angel trap” (as the DVD feature is currently telling me) that pointlessly killed Kerry was gross AND fake looking. This is film entirely for gore fans, nothing more, and it has the same sort of “eternally teenage” mood that created Backyard Wrestling.

It has many of the same problems as the second film and compounds them with an increasing mess of continuity. There’s no point in going into it.

I apologise for the delays in any new articles arriving, I’ve been both ill and focusing on my upcoming PGC presentation which is immensely important for my MA. As such the site has been neglected.

I’m currently writing two articles on the Michael Haneke film “Hidden”, one is more of a review, the other is my thoughts on two very specific parts of the movie and how I feel they’ve influenced me immediately. I hope to have these up at the end of the week as I’ll be spending most of the week writing a script anyway, so I’ll slot these in during my downtime.

Thanks for reading, this isn’t dead!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448157/

Dir. Peter Berg

Welcome to what is essentially a fevered hallucination in which Will Smith repeatedly farts in the face of Superman, giggling like a child each time.

This is the story of an unpopular, drunken, amnesiac, hobo superhero who undergoes a public relations campaign to improve his image and, in turn, discovers his origins. It’s horrible. Every ounce of potential in the concept is neatly destroyed by a hamfisted script, poor casting and weak direction.

The greatest flaw of the film is the storyline. The story has a traditional three-act structure that follows the arc of Hancock’s improvement and rise in popularity as hero and the discovery of his origin. As an overview, it is fine, but in practice the details of each of these plotlines are awful. Hancock’s rise in popularity is swift, easy and basically just there for a series of mediocre gags which use none of the potential of the superhero concept. It could have been a proper character journey, with comedic elements, but it’s just a flat set of jokes with no development. It also completely negates the intention of one of the other main characters, Ray, who is trying to start a charity and works as Hancock’s PR manager. Ray’s first idea for improving Hancock’s popularity is to have him go to jail for his outstanding subpoenas, showing LA just how much they need him as the crime rate soars. Now I may be wrong, but a man who we’re supposed to sympathise with, who is trying to start a charity, would not suggest that for the sake of Hancock’s image that he let people be put into terrible danger, but that’s what happens. When Hancock is let out by the mayor to stop a bank robbery he successfully listens to Ray’s (oddly sleazy) PR advice and everyone loves him for it. This is basically the major plotline done and dusted, and it moves onto his origin and never references this major element of the film again.

His origin, the great mystery of the film, is revealed thanks to the completely obvious twist that Ray’s wife, Mary, is also a superhero! Hooray for convenience. This, in itself, is bad, but the actual origin is much worse; they are immortals who were built 3,000 years ago by… someone… and they’ve lived as superheroes/gods/angels since then. The Immortals were also built in pairs and he and Mary are (genetically??) husband and wife. The reason for his amnesia is that when two immortals are close together they start to lose their powers, Hancock had a head injury while stopping a crime 80 years ago and Mary flew off to let him heal. The actual origin of Hancock, or what he and Mary really are, is and vague and the film leaves you feeling like nothing was actually ever explained, aside from the amnesia, which feels like an poor excuse for a plot device anyway.

It’s a script that feels full of half-baked ideas and excuses, yet surprisingly this script was passed around Hollywood for 10 years before it was put into production. It had numerous rewrites and yet still only achieved the status of “mediocre”.

The other major issue with the film is in the casting, mostly of Hancock himself. Will Smith is a talented actor, he has shown that in his career, but he is completely unsuited for the part of Hancock. His anger and careless attitude feel like a pantomime and his status as a “destitute hero” at the start is just not conveyed in the performance. I wouldn’t be surprised if Smith himself just saw this as a paycheck, everything about it is half-hearted and I just wasn’t immersed at all.

In short, this is a bad film. One that isn’t even amusing in its incompetence, merely boring.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Dir. James Cameron

I’ve been debating what I’d like to say about Avatar. It’s a cinematic event that’s bringing criticism and praise in almost equal measure and I feel that stepping forward with my opinion puts me in an odd position of apparent naivety. I have nothing deep or meaningful to say about the story and I’ve no personally observed analysis of symbolic elements or thoughts on the implications raised by many critics.

This is partly a wilful position, borne from my original viewing of the film. I watched it expecting a predictable sci-fi action romp with cheesy dialogue and fantastic effects, which is what the film was. It’s got a wealth of narrative issues thanks to its simplistic story and broad characterisations but despite these obvious flaws I was drawn in and ended up thoroughly enjoying the film. This initial enjoyment and immersion puts me in a position of feeling unwilling to look deeper into the implications raised by many people. I didn’t feel or think of them while watching, never seeing a racist or malicious intent, but that doesn’t mean these views are invalid. It’s an issue I personally don’t feel qualified, for this film, to insightfully comment on. So for now I’m happier to enjoy it as a simple story and as a tantalising production. This may make me irresponsible as a viewer and a filmmaker, but without feeling and thinking on these points carefully anything I could say would be mired in ignorance.

Much has been made of its technological production elements, it’s well known that Cameron waited till he felt the film could be achieved, and in this regard the film is without peer. The motion capture systems, the digital production systems and the compositing of CGI and live action footage are the most advanced, and convincing, ever seen. The film is a grand spectacle and has quickly become a massive success that looks, as I write this, likely to overtake Cameron’s own Titanic in success. I can happily admit to being taken in by the story for the duration of the film, but I know that I had a deeper enjoyment thanks to its high level of production. It’s a fantastic visual feast, but what it represents is much greater, it’s an advancement of CGI effects and digital acting to an entirely new level. I can feel the weight of a world of ideas that will, as this technology becomes cheaper and more accessible, finally be realised. It’s an exciting prospect, even if we’re only in the early stages.

What didn’t work for the film is well documented, and for me personally it was mostly in the lacklustre story and cheesy dialogue. Yet I enjoyed it, I saw it twice, and I know that I will likely enjoy it all over again despite the objectively correct view that it is a mediocre film. Am I just a sucker for special effects? It’s probable. There is also likely some residual love left for Cameron that I have thanks to Terminator 2, my personal pick for the best action movie of all time. I like to think though that as an aspiring filmmaker, I’m allowed these indulgences of technology.

This is a quick apology for the grammar issues in a couple of my articles. Some of these are written on my home PC, where I tend to have more time to read over them before posting and others are written at university, where I’m having to move a lot faster so everyone can have decent access to the computers.

I’m trying to go back through and knock out the grammar problems as I see them but if I miss some, I apologise.

http://www.redfaction.com/

Developer. Volition

My second foray into storyline and narrative in video games takes place in another open-world game from developers Volition. Red Faction: Guerrilla is the third game in the Red Faction series, it was released in 2009 after a seven year gap from the second game. I was drawn to play this by the fun I’d had in Saints Row 2 and because I’ve developed somewhat of an addiction to openworld games since picking up Bully for the Wii. I have to thank my friend Jamster for getting me this as a gift during the Steam thanksgiving sale!

The original games were built around a piece of technology known as Geo-Mod which allowed for realtime deformation of the environment. It was an impressive piece of tech, allowing the player a degree of freedom in their path through the levels, but due to the constraints of both the hardware (Sony’s Playstation 2 console) and the needs of a linear storyline progression the areas you could destroy were often quite limited.

Red Faction: Guerrilla is, again, built around technology, Geo-Mod 2.0 in this case, but this new tech works entirely on the realistic destruction of buildings and structures, rather than the environment. It’s highly impressive to watch in action, with buildings collapsing under the correct kind of stresses and spreading large amounts of physics-enable debris (this basically means that it moves correctly and can damage everything around it). It’s a satisfying piece of technology and provides a level of interaction that allows for many entertaining emergent scenarios. It does present challenges though, with the storyline having to be structured around a world with a variety of destructive approaches.

In Red Faction: Guerrilla you play Alec Mason; a man drawn into a political rebellion by the oppressed miners of Mars. In the original games you play a similar role, revolting against the mining company in charge of Mars, but by the time the events in Guerrilla are occurring the original rebellious force (the EDF) has grown corrupt and become a mirror of what they originally hated. It’s a strong premise for a game that could have allowed for an interesting examination of the corruption of ideals and antagonistic forces in video games, unfortunately it ends up as little more than a piece of background fluff.

The story begins with Alec arriving on Mars to work as a miner with his brother Dan, only to discover that the EDF are a horrible dictatorship and Dan is a member of the resistance and needs Alec’s help. Alec is initially against joining the rebels, but changes his mind roughly three minutes later when his brother is shot by an EDF plane. It’s hard to convey just how fast these opening events occur. There are a few quick pre-rendered cutscenes, a moment of gameplay and then you’re suddenly thrust into the role of the saviour of Mars. It’s a shame because since the release of Half Life (with its seminal tram-ride opening) more developers have realised the importance of establishing their world and story. While not every game needs a lengthy introduction, RF:G feels underwhelming and needlessly short when it had a much larger potential to explore the oppressive world Alec has come to.

The brief introduction sets the tone for how the storyline unfolds throughout the entire game. What is already a trite tale of one man saving the planet single-handedly is made worse by being rushed and incompetently told. The motivation for Alec never evolves, he’s never seen to gain any empathy for the plight of the citizens of Mars or to actually care about their rebellion, and so he’s only ever really fighting to avenge the death of his brother. This alone wouldn’t be a major issue, except Alec is literally the only person in the rebellion doing any work! He takes on ludicrously dangerous assignments, is regularly sent on suicide missions and basically destroys the entire occupying force by himself.

I know it’s common in games for the player to be the main effective force upon the world, it makes your actions feel grand and satisfying, but there is a level at which this becomes unbelievable, especially when the story is being told has a deadly serious tone. It makes Alec some kind of godlike figure to a rebellion filled with people incapable of farting without a command.

Another major issue with the progression of the story is the way in which plot threads are started without ever evolving. There is a mission, about a quarter of the way into the game, in which Alec is tasked with recovering a nanoforge from some ruins. While searching these ruins a strange, inhuman voice speaks to Alec, referring to him as Parker (the hero of the original game) and alludes to past, and possible future, events. It’s a creepy, atmospheric moment and feels like the beginning of an interesting plot… except it isn’t, it’s never mentioned or referred to again throughout the entire game and so feels like a total waste of time. The same is true of the presence and possible implications of the marauders, a seemingly indigenous people, who are given mythical qualities but who are never really explored.

Finally one of the stranger issues with the story is that the force you’re fighting against, the EDF, never feel as desperately evil as your rebellion leader implies. You’re tasked with murdering hundreds of them, stomping through bases and cracking their skulls in with a sledgehammer at every possible opportunity, but I was never quite convinced I should have been. The Red Faction felt ill-managed and naïve which left me wondering if I would discover some greater evil at work within my own ranks. This would have been an interesting angle, given the corruption of power premise, but unfortunately came down to an error of presentation. I was supposed to be on their side the entire time.

What is difficult in the games industry is that the issues I’ve raised here do not significantly affect the mechanics of the gameplay. The destruction is satisfying, the combat adequate, the driving fun and the general tasks are decently entertaining even without a better context in which to play them. Story is a secondary concern in a game, yet all that was right with gameplay would have been enhanced with deeper, more involving story. It would lend a greater context, a greater meaning to the character and would keep people going through any issues that presented themselves in the gameplay (which do exist, primarily in the order and frequency that you receive items and abilities). What is a fun game could have been much more, and as a whole your immersion and actions are lessened.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432348/

Dir. Darren Lynn Bousman

It’s time for Saw II and another tour with Jigsaw the whiny dying murderer who is impossibly skilled at avoiding consequences for his convoluted deathtraps.

I’m roughly seven minutes in and the cops have already been stupid beyond words, going into Jigsaw’s lair without checking for traps. He’s been doing this for eight, nine years and they hurf-a-durf their way through the doors and into certain death. Brilliant.

Now I’ve been introduced to our staple of victims being watched on the monitors of blatant after effects filters. They’re uninteresting and unlikeable from the off and I already don’t care about any of them, which is a very poor start to the proceedings. My guess right now is that actual horror and fear is far from the aim of this, it’s acting more like a gore-hungry slasher where the victims are mere meat. I’m not against slasher movies themselves, I enjoy a good laugh through an Elm Street or Friday the 13^th sequel (and genuinely love the original Nightmare), but the few good slashers that exist are either clever and actually scary or very dark comedy. This is currently neither.

What isn’t working for me in terms of horror is that the situations are so completely ludicrous that I am not afraid. In the first film the main setup in the room is improbable, but it is just grounded enough to feel possible, unfortunately the other flashback stories are somewhat idiotic (especially code flambé) and quickly detract from the idea that could have worked much better.

The performances are pretty awful from a lot of the victims in this, especially captain rough and tumble Xavier, he’s so horribly overplayed and poorly written. Out of all of them the kid, Erik Knudson is by far the best but Shawnee Smith is ok. Donnie Whalberg and Dina Meyer are passable, the other cops are poor. Finally Tobin Bell is actually quite good as Jigsaw, he’s just a stupid character with idiotic motivations, but I can see why he’s being latched onto as a new horror icon character.

I’ve just hit the point where they’ve stumbled into the original bathroom from the first film which is a dumb link. It’s a very lucky property he found with the massive house, secret underground passages to a bizarre underground bathroom, and an apparent upstairs floor so deep you could dig a pit into it.

Now the film is over and had a mixture of a decent idea and utter stupidity for the finale. The video feed not being live was a great idea, an actual clever twist in a film that was otherwise idiotic. It set up an incredible amount of plotlines that went no-where, the “link” they all had was never explored, the game itself was never really looked into, they barely touched on Jigsaw’s point, the characters were just meat and the whole film was built around the bloody overblown traps.  The final twist with Amanda becoming the new Jigsaw is painfully stupid.

The film just doesn’t work, it’s not scary, it’s not tense and it’s not particularly enjoyable. The direction and editing was pretty dire, the enormous flashback sequence was almost as painful as Silent Hill’s “All the plot in the final 10 minutes” pacing. Despite all these problems I am, partly for the purpose of study, but partly out of a weird curiosity to see how the series develops, going to watch Saw III when I can get my hands on it for cheap.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0327850/trivia

Dir. Peter Berg

Part two of “The Rock” double bill is a silly romp through the jungle with Sean William Scott and Rosario Dawson. There’s not a lot I’d actually like to say about the film, it was a silly action movie with great stunts, really brutal looking stunts, and that’s about all that stuck with me.

The only major point that comes to mind is in the casting and performance of the villain. Christopher Walken has become quite a cult-favourite as far as actors go with his unusual looks, voice and comedy performances and he keeps that up throughout Welcome to the Jungle which lends his character a kind of fun charm, making the audience like him. The problem with this is that his character is doing despicable things, he’s meant to be a genuinely evil guy but unfortunately you like him too much to really go along with the other character’s hate. It’s a strange split that doesn’t work and is the major flaw I found in the film.

Other than that, an enjoyable action film, but nothing more.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0351977/

Dir. Kevin Bray

This is a remake of the 1973 Joe Don Baker film of the same name. The original film was a fictionalised take on Sheriff Buford Pusser’s efforts to clean up his home town and was, on its release, very popular. It was a simple tale of good vs. evil, with some harsh moments along the way, and thanks to that was something everyone could easily get into.

This remake fictionalises the story further, taking out most of the real elements, even Buford’s name, and making everything simpler and sillier. This is emphasised by the casting of The Rock (Dwayne Johnson) and Johnny Knoxville in the main roles, two people who aren’t known for their great acting talent, but they possess some enjoyable screen charm.

The story is basically The Rock smashing the crap out of bad guys who are working for his former friend, Neal McDonough. They get rather annoyed, target him and his family, and so he beats them up even more and they lose. The plot’s predictable, occasionally preposterous and likely fraught with holes but ultimately, it doesn’t matter. The film doesn’t aspire to any higher goal than simple time-filling entertainment, and on that level it works just fine. The production is adequate, the dialogue competent and that’s all I can say honestly.

I enjoyed it well enough as both a film to watch and one to make fun of. Far from the worst, and far from the best I’ve seen but a passable piece of simple entertainment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464141/

Dir. Juan Antonio Bayona

A problem I find when watching a lot of horror is that more focus is placed on jumps and gore than on atmosphere and psychology. Fear is a complex emotion, what scares one person may not scare another, and so more time is spent just making cheap jumps rather than putting the effort to create something effective and resonating. This isn’t a new problem, genre film is always filled with hack work, but there has been a recent boom with the popularity of ‘torture-porn’ movies like Hostel.

The Orphanage is entirely removed from these issues. It’s a slow-burning, well crafted ghost story that allows the horror to be formed through the atmosphere rather than with cheap jumps or graphic gore. It tells the story of a woman, Laura, who spent her childhood in an orphanage and has returned, as an adult, with her husband and son to reopen it as a home for handicapped children. Shortly before opening her son begins to act strangely, talking to his new imaginary friend, and things don’t seem quite right.

Often when visiting old genres or styles of horror a film can lack effectiveness or impact, the fear stolen away by cliché or predictability and while The Orphanage is a traditional ghost story it doesn’t fall into this trap thanks to its impeccable production. The visuals are crisp and beautifully designed with the Orphanage itself an imposing location both inside and out. It has great turn of the century architecture and keeps a sense of decay and age, even when the family have moved in and done some renovations. The lighting complements the production design using shadow and highlight to enhance the atmosphere of each scene, which ranges from the lighter, happier scenes, to the creeping horror that builds.

The two things that I found the most impressive and effective in creating a fearful atmosphere were the sound and the editing. The sound design is stunning, the Orphanage itself feels like it has a voice, one of escalating malevolence throughout the film; each creak, each footfall, each crack of metal feels portentous. This works so well because it plays on sounds we are used to in our own homes and lives. Everyone’s house has its own personality of noises, a blend of building stresses, boilers and appliances that you get used to over time, yet in a strange building these sounds become amplified in our minds and have a strong mysterious power to scare.

Editing is, without a doubt, one of the most important things in horror cinema. Timing is what creates horror (and comedy) and if it is out by even a split second, the fear is lost. The Orphanage has absolutely perfect timing; building the atmosphere and tension of its scenes without ever letting shots linger or lose their impact.

I was impressed with the performances throughout. Belen Rueda as Laura is absolutely perfect, the film is carried on her shoulders and she does it with incredible intensity. Roger Princep as the son, Simon, is surprisingly good, it’s not often a child of his age can act as well as he does, and from watching the special features on the DVD it’s clear a lot of this came from the careful and passionate direction. I think seeing how he worked with Princep from the rehearsals to the filming is something that all aspiring directors should watch.

Finally I’d like to talk about one of the events within the film. I won’t say what part of the film it is, but it will be clear to anybody who has seen it and will stay vague enough for those who still want to watch it. There is a moment, a reveal, which is stunningly harsh and emotional that it took me aback. I was absolutely amazed by it, it felt so raw and yet so appropriate but I had not expected it to be done in the film. It is these kind of elements that raise The Orphanage to lofty heights in modern horror cinema, and it’s probably the best Spanish-language film I’ve seen yet.

I’m saddened that there is an American remake on the way, solely because people are unwilling to read subtitles, because the film is an obvious labour of love. It needs no alteration, no “Hollywood touch” and I cannot imagine any way that the remake could come out anything other than as a bastardisation of the original.