Films

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0014429/

Dir. Fred C. Newmeyer & Sam Taylor

An iconic Harold Lloyd silent comedy, famous primarily for the sequence where he dangles precariously from the hands of a clock 15-storeys off the ground.

I went into this screening curious, I had read about Harold Lloyd years earlier when researching Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, yet I had never seen his work. Sometimes when watching a silent movie they can feel like a lot of work, you have to keep in mind the era in which they were produced, but this was far from the case for Safety Last! It was a fantastic comedy, its age apparent in its production, but not in it’s humour or character; I think that laughed and cringed just as much as the audiences did on it’s original release.

It’s a classic farcical tale, Lloyd has gone to the big city to earn his fortune, only he is failing miserably and resorts to lying to his fiancé back home about his successes, when she comes to visit he tries to cover his real status up. It’s packed with old gags but they are perfectly performed, even if you can predict many of them you still laugh thanks to the impeccable timing of Harold Lloyd. I was honestly amazed at how much I laughed throughout the film, genuine belly-laughs, not just a polite “I’m a film student so I must appreciate this” weak laugh. It is one of the funniest films I’ve watched all year and it’s 86 years old, that’s a hell of an achievement.

I was astonished by how convincing the production was. The pivotal sequence of the movie involves Lloyd climbing up the side of massive building. When watching this you are absolutely convinced he is making the perilous ascent, you can see the buildings and the movement of the traffic down on the ground behind him, and every wobble and slip makes you feel that gripping internal gasp. It was achieved by building a fake building side on top of several other buildings and while safer, it was still a risky stunt. It’s telling that the reality of the sequence and the knowledge that it predates the trick photography to create it makes it that much more tense.

It’s a real gem of a film, a treat that everyone who enjoys a good comedy should watch, regardless of its age.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450405/

Dir. Paul Weitz

I ended up seeing this entirely at random and it was a waste of my time.

The film is a total and utter mess. It’s the story of Darren Shan (who is definitely not a self-insert for the author Darren O’Shaughnessy) a boy who is obsessed with spiders and his friend, Steve, who is obsessed with vampires. One night they go to a super-secret freakshow, which consists mostly of talented actors embarrassing themselves, and see a vampire, Mr Crepsley, perform with a deadly CGI spider. Once the show is over Steve insists that Mr Crepsley should turn him into a vampire, Crepes refuses because Steve’s blood “tastes evil” and Steve gets in a huff and storms off. Darren, meanwhile, nicks the CGI spider and goes home.

Darren, cleverly, takes the insanely deadly spider to school where it gets pissed off with being a waste of rendering time and bites Steve. In order to save his friend’s life Darren goes to Crepes and asks if he’ll give Steve the antidote. Crepes agrees, providing Darren becomes his half-vampire assistant, which he does.

Then there’s a whole bunch of crap about a fat guy who wants to bring about a war, Vampires and Vampaneze (the latter kill, the former don’t), and Steve getting really whiny about Darren “taking his place” as a vampire and becoming a Vampaneze and then fighting Darren.

The story is just trite, a mash of uninspired concepts and bland fantasy. The characters have nothing about them and it’s completely bizarre to see stars like Selma Hyack and Willem Defoe lend their time to them. The film has no idea whether it wants to be a comedy or a fantasy drama. Jokes will be followed seconds later by serious events but there’s no transition or subtlety which means neither element works. The performance of Darren is ham-fisted and flat, there’s nothing about him; bland and boring he’s essentially a fart in the wind.

It’s a film obviously made to cash in on the popularity of vampires, which has been roused by the teenage obsession for the godawful Twilight series, and feels like a rushed project. It’s not horrifically bad, but it’s not good either, it’s mediocre and forgettable on every level.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/

Dir. Brad Bird

As with most Pixar films The Incredibles set a new standard for CGI animation on its release. They are masters of character and, in my opinion, the single most successful studio in existence as they have yet to make a bad film.

Every Pixar movie has phenomenal production quality and The Incredibles is no exception. The characters are amazingly performed by the voice actors and animators, the visuals are crisp and beautifully designed and the fact that is made with cutting edge computer technology rightfully takes a back seat to the story that is being told.

On watching it for a fourth time this is not what struck me the most. What was the most impressive thing to me is the use of newly created superheroes, ones without a background in popular culture, in a way that can draw anyone into the story. While it does examine the clichés and the comedy potential of the established conventions of Superhero comics, it does so without alienating those who aren’t already fans of the medium. It is, at heart, a story about family and the desire to live up to your potential, which is something people can identify with. It doesn’t require prior knowledge of the world of superheroes, everything the audience needs to know is present in the film without being obtrusive.

Every time I watch a Pixar film I learn more about storytelling, they teach me to strip things down to their essential components and to identify what each part of the film is telling the audience. I think that studying them is something that will help me as a director.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120382/

Dir. Peter Weir

I’ll preface my thoughts by saying that this has been one of my favourite films since I first saw it back on its release in cinemas.

The Truman Show is the film that proved Jim Carrey could act. It combines a bizarre, outlandish idea with satire and a heartfelt character exploration superbly. It’s a film that I find impossible to resist once I start watching it and unlike many other great movies it doesn’t lose much by repeated viewings, the core concept of a man coming to terms with his reality being something quite different to his assumptions speaks to everyone, it’s an experience most people go through at some point in life. Our expectations are dashed, we are awash in confusion about who we are, what we’re doing and ask the excruciatingly philosophical question of ‘why?’ In The Truman Show we’re voyeurs to this experience, we can identify with Truman, and at the same time we feel the disdain at the idea of such an intrusive television presence.

A very early comment on the rise of reality television it still rings true today. TV has grown as intrusive and voyeuristic as is legally allowed today; we’re barraged with images of people best and worst moments, from simple game show rubbish to grotesque images that fill the news, reality is distorted and presented in a way that is deemed palatable.

The Truman Show always raises these questions for me and to this day they haven’t been answered. The advent of ubiquitous internet access has only complicated the matter further as more and more of people’s lives and opinions become exposed for the world to see (oh the brutal irony of highlighting this in a blog).

It could go without saying that the production, direction and performances in the film are excellent. If they weren’t then I would be focused more on those elements instead of the wider societal questions that the film presents. It is a film that shows the potential for the medium to examine and entertain without making compromises to either element.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065421/

Dir. Wolfgang Reitherman

A classic Disney movie that would be unfair to analyse too much simply because my nostalgia from childhood will either cloud or enhance the feelings I had when watching it this time.

It’s not one of the finest Disney films as the plot is short and unadventurous but it is filled with charm and character that makes the old Disney movies so lovable. Disney, at this time especially, were unrivalled in the quality of their character animation, nobody else could inject such life into their subjects (one of the reasons the seminal text on Disney animation is called “Illusion of Life”).

The Aristocats is no exception to the quality that defines a Disney work, the animation is fluid, expressive and joyful, the voice acting is lively and convincing and the general atmosphere is one of cheerful enjoyment. It is far from the best of the Disney movies but it is proof that even a weaker Disney film is better than most other animated works, especially in the 70’s.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0359013/

Dir. David S. Goyer

What is good:

1)      Ryan Reynolds and his jokes

What isn’t:

1)      The script

2)      The story

3)      The direction

4)      The acting by everyone who isn’t Ryan Reynolds or Parker Posey

5)      The make-up artist who must have fought long and hard to make Parker Posey look bad

6)      Dracula being a character

7)      Wesley Snipes, who was an enormous arsehole on set according an article I read a long while back.

8)      The lighting

9)      The effects

10)  The soundtrack

11)   The use of the wrestler “Triple-H” as a vampire character

12)   “Blood Warehouses”

13)   Pretty much everything.

A terrible film that butchered an enjoyably cheesy action series.  It’s just horrible.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465430/

Dir. Paul Andrew Williams

This is a British horror/comedy starring Andy Serkis, Reece Sheersmith and Jennifer Ellison. It’s essentially a two-part movie like From Dusk Till Dawn, complete with the abrupt switch in tone. The first section is a bungling crime caper and the second section is a slasher film and while both sections are enjoyable in their own right they don’t quite blend together as a whole.

I discovered, when watching it with the director’s commentary, that a lot of decisions about the structure (notably separating the crime and horror sections of the film) were made during editing; there was even an entire character cut out of the narrative because it wasn’t working. While some of these changes are for the better, which you can see watching the deleted scenes, the harsh separation of the two elements of the film does not feel like it was the best choice. The trailers for the movie, the posters and the DVD case all advertise it as a horror/comedy; keeping the horror out of the film for a long period of time creates an odd impatient for the film to arrive at what appears to be it’s main plotline.

In terms of horror the film is occasionally successful. There is little tension to the piece as a whole because the comedy is mixed so readily with the horror, unlike Shaun of the Dead where comedy occasionally takes a back seat to let the horror and drama work, but there are some moments of unexpected gore and actions that work to disgust the audience. The visual production is fantastic and it’s this that builds the majority of the horrific atmosphere; it complements the sick idea of the farmer who steals faces (even though this idea isn’t communicated as well as it could have been) and is one of the films strengths.

What really shines through the piece are the performances from Andy Serkis, Reece Sheersmith and Jennifer Ellison (Steven O’Donnell deserves a mention for being funny, even though it’s essentially the same role he always plays). It’s what keeps the film together and the performances and comedy are why it’s worth watching.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/

Dir. Zack Snyder

Instead of a normal write up I present a liveblog of my thoughts that I kept while watching this, this is entirely unedited from its original presentation:

-         Right now. I’ve read the comic, didn’t have the money or inclination to see the film in theatres and am catching up now on a borrowed DVD.

I’ll be keeping you updated with my thoughts as I go through it.

15 Minutes in: The opening credits were an interesting way to introduce the history but too long given that some of it wasn’t that informative.

Initial impression is that the film is suffering from the same thing all Zack Snyder’s have so far, too much time on the visuals and too little spent on the acting. Lines already feel flat and oddly placed at times.

-         28:50 – Rorschach is good, the voice isn’t what I personally imagined but it’s working in its own way and doesn’t dilute the character for me. Dan, seems passable right now, the others I’ll leave for a bit.

The music is pretty awfully integrated. I had to stop to write this one because I’ve just heard ‘99 Red Balloons’ horribly forced into a scene that didn’t need it. I understand the choices in music but they’re just overpowering and in most cases so far have been detrimental to the scene.

-         29:45 – “I’m glad I ordered the four-legged chicken”

-         37:42 – I assume that Snyder is trying to make the audience laugh with Ride of the Valkyries. If not DAMN.

Directing actors is not something Snyder does well at all. Silk Spectre (who is apparently 67, I ain’t buying it) just blanded out a whole sequence and The Comedian just jumped emotional states in stupid ways that felt quite hammy.

-         54:51 – Pacing is way off. It’s too slow and too ponderous when combined with the flat direction, it’s not particularly engaging whereas the comic was by this point.

The dialogue suffers from being taken from the comic so closely (well, a lot of the film does) because, as with many comics, the dialogue works better when written and imagined than when performed. In one odd way it’s similar to the Mallrats dialogue which, if you watch the film again, is a lot funnier in theory than in practice, in that film ONLY Jason Lee hits the mark.

-         What this highlights is what many other adaptations do as well, that each form media is it’s own world and that must be taken into consideration. What works in a comic may not work in a film (take the x-men costume changes) what works in a film may not work in a book. It’s a case of understanding the inherent strengths and weaknesses in each form.

That said 1:10:16 – One of my favourite chapters of the comic, John’s multi-time narrative, has some good parts and some bad parts. The worse bit being the parts concerning his reformation, the cuts are way too quick and lack the weight they did on reading them. The music is still a major problem.

Overall the visuals have been nice, great attention to detail in the production-design and a good overall aesthetic. In motion I feel Snyder is too slow-mo happy, kinda like John Woo.

Also I’m picking up a lot of Blade Runner influence, oddly. It’s certainly made an impression on Snyder at some point.

-         1:28:24 – Rorschach’s interview and the death of Walter Kovacs scene was good. Probably the best part of the film so far. It was uncomfortable, grim and gave you a proper sense of why Rorschach became who he is.

It also contained one of the only pieces of genuine acting I’ve seen so far in the film in Rorschach’s “God didn’t butcher that little girl” speech. Well done, kudos to Jackie Earle Haley and it’s the best piece of drama that Snyder has managed in his career!

-         1:40:26 – The minor fall, the major lift, the utter failure of music. (at this moment in the film Dan and Laurie were having sex to the song ‘Hallelujah’)

-         1:46:02 – LET’S ROCK OUT FOR SOME POOR EDITED FIGHTING WOOP WOOP.

Also I loved the directors note that must have said “Malin, when you role please hold that stupid pose while we sweep up to look at the craft, it doesn’t matter how it looks, it’s in the comic.”

-         Snyder has proven, over multiple films, that his strengths are as follows:
1)Action
2)In-camera speed changes
3)Following a comic book
4)Directing angry scenes

His weaknesses are:
1)Direction of scenes requiring emotions that aren’t anger.
2)Conversational direction
3)Overuse of Slow-motion and in-camera speed changes

The acting in the film is occasionally good, often just adequate and sometimes terrible. The film is, as of 1:52:03, a mess. It’s not awful but it’s not great and, unless a lot changes, is basically going to resolve as forgettable.

-         2:01:43 – Comedian father revelation utterly fails in light of the lack of it having any basis in the viewers mind before that moment.

Same problem occured bubastis appears.

AND AS I TYPE THIS JOHN AND LAURIE’S SPEECH ON MARS HAS ALL EMOTIONAL DEPTH STOLEN BY THE SUDDEN MUSICAL INTERRUPTION

-         Now while I know losing the giant space vagina octopus was really an improvement for the movie, a part of me misses it. It was just so strange that I couldn’t help but love it.

Couple of issues with the ending. John’s “You’ve not succeeded” line really needed to be in there, delivered to Adrian. I’m not sure if I’m convinced that having Dr Manhattan be the force the world unites against works as much a totally unknown threat but I wouldn’t EVER say the space octopus needed to be in it.

Overall the film was kinda dull compared to comic. It was poorly paced and too much time was spent getting it to look authentic than to actually tell the story. The direction was mediocre and didn’t work with the actors in the way the film needed, it was just flat and meant many of the performances had no life.

The real killer of the movie, honestly it’s worse element, was the fucking horrible music mixing. So many times it completely trashed the scenes that were happening and was a complete and total failure on every single level, it’s astonishingly bad from a filmmaking point of view.

I will say that ONE thing was better than the comic, Rorschach “DO IT” shout worked better by having the chance to be performed more completely than in the few panels it had originally.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129428/

Dir. Steven Sheil

Since the start of this year I have been reading much of Stephen King’s library of novels, he has always been one of my favourite authors but there were many books I had overlooked. In going back to his work I reawakened my love of horror, of the supernatural or just plain disturbing. To his end I was drawn back to an old love of mine, horror films, and this happened to be the first one I have watched in a while.

Mum & Dad is a microbudget horror which tells the story of a young polish woman, Lena, who is kidnapped and ‘adopted’ into a horrific Texas-chainsaw style family with a penchant for torture and murder.

It’s a claustrophobic horror that rarely leaves the house in which Lena has been confined. This works well, both for the story and the £100,000 budget that the film was produced on, as it keeps you trapped inside the experience that Lena is going through. It’s disturbing and uncomfortable without ever using cheap “jump scares” or resorting to the Saw “torture-porn” style of staring at gore, it creates it’s horror in atmosphere, in confusion and in the mounting insanity of the situation Lena is experiencing. It is the kind of horror that never uses fantastical elements and keeps the sense that the events are possible, that there are people in this world who are that sick (Fred and Rosemary West being the prime example for this film) and that plays upon your mind when watching it.

It’s an exceptionally strong film given its low budget and mostly unknown actors, who all perform exceedingly well, and I never once felt that it suffered from a lack of funds. The direction was solid and confident, and I’m not just saying that because I’m getting taught by the director at the moment, it really does work well. The actors inhabit their characters perfectly, especially Perry Benson as Dad, and it has well thought out, impressive visuals throughout the whole movie.

The one element that I felt did not work was the visuals of the planes. They were supposed to evoke the setting of Heathrow Airport but they felt oddly unimportant as the film went on and acted more like screen wipes than settings.

This film, combined with my earlier horror reading, has planted the seed of what I want to do with my MA. I want to examine horror; I want to see how it works and what new kinds of presentation can be explored in a genre that has, in a very short time, acquired a very strict set of rules and clichés.