Archive for February, 2010

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.