MA Films

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387564/

Dir. James Wan

I’m not much for the ‘torture porn’ genre of films, they’re there mostly just appease gore hounds and usually have no point. Still, in the interest of furthering my understanding of films I’m watching Saw right now. As such my paragraphs will be somewhat disconnected as points occur to me.

I’m around 50 minutes in and what is hitting me the most is that there is a total lack of atmosphere. Things are happening and while they’re competently directed the editing and music choices are ruining any atmosphere the piece could have, especially the awful fast-motion with nu-metal sequences, they’re more comical than scary. There is the germ of a good idea in here, unfortunately it’s underdeveloped and as such feels like the first draft of a student film which thinks it’s cleverer than it is.

I cannot believe a bloody minute of this film. The idea that jigsaw has been doing these ludicrous rube-goldberg traps for years on end without being caught is completely stupid, there would be a critical mass of forensic evidence given how much preparation is required. I know it’s a film and you’re meant to be more forgiving, but this is just idiotic. The cops are so stupid it hurt; after successfully finding Jigsaw they just act moronic, forget all their training and let him get away. In this scene there are many times they could have easily disabled, caught or killed him but they don’t.

The performances in this are exceedingly hammy. I’d imagine if the scenery weren’t so covered in shit and rust they’d be chewed thoroughly. The most convincing has been Danny Glover and it’s a role he’s very prepared to play, the angry ex-cop. These hammy performances have meant that the build-up to the moment the title is referencing hasn’t worked at all, it’s not got the power they wanted.

The ‘moral challenge’ idea is awful  because it’s naive and childish, it would have needed much more time being developed with a lot more thought put into the idea. It could have been a proper moral challenge with a real motive instead of just a dying whiner who wants other people to ‘appreciate life’. It just feels like pathetic setup.

The ending montage was terrible, fast cuts of obvious reveals with loose ends flying everywhere. No resolution, no point and no satisfaction in watching it.

The film was not what I expected, its reputation as a torture-porn gore film is undeserved. It’s got torture as a theme but it is far from graphic, especially when you look at other films like Final Destination 3. It feels like James Wan and Leigh Whannel watched Seven, missed out on what made it great, and tried to copy it.

http://www.saintsrow.com/

Developer – Volition

This blog is mostly about films, but I’d like to examine some of the elements of other mediums as well where it is appropriate to my studying. So along that vein I’d like to look at some parts of the PC version of Saints Row 2.

Saints Row 2 is an openworld game where you’re playing an unnamed gang boss who has been unconscious for several years and when they wake up the whole city they took over in the first game has been taken over by rival gangs. The aim of the game is take back the city of Stillwater.

The gameplay itself is a lot of fun, there’s a large variety of missions and distractions which are, for the most part, enjoyable and well rewarded. It’s a game that knows you want to have as much fun as possible and so throws as much at you as it can, it’s not all successful but enough of it works that you can have a good time regardless of the bad parts.

The game engine is buggy as hell and the conversion to PC is ham-fisted at best. Thankfully the majority of bugs, for my time playing, were cosmetic rather than game-altering. The only consistent and aggravating bug was that the game kept forgetting I was holding down accelerate and my car or character would just stop moving forwards. This was manageable though and it seemed to occur in odd situations rather than in common situations.

Those are the basics of play but what I’m interested in examining most is the games attempts at storytelling. The GTA series, which is SR2’s main influence, has tried to advance the quality of its stories in each game and have become highly praised for their cinematic presentation. SR2 tries, in vain, to do the same by having cutscenes before and after missions, unfortunately there is nothing more to the story than “I want to get rid of this other gang! Rargh!” There are some attempts at making a larger story with the death of a character and another getting stabbed but you just don’t care, there is literally nothing to make you involved. The cutscenes attempt to evoke gangster or action films and are generally unsuccessful due to poor direction; it’s a shame because in some of them there is the hint of a good idea that is never realised.

The protagonist is completely customisable: gender, physical appearance, clothes and even the voice can be selected by the player and altered at in-game locations whenever you wish. It is interesting because while the characters actions will never change, the voice style will instantly lend them a different quality. Each person will take different accents and inflections in different ways, leading the player to select part of the story’s atmosphere themselves. I myself made a woman with a comical male cockney accent who would appear, especially in cutscenes, as an entirely different kind of character to a suit-wearing straight laced Mafioso type. It has an impact on the storytelling in way that cannot be accommodated by the developers, which is a story problem, yet the choice for a player is fantastic.

The game highlights one of the issues with storytelling in an interactive medium. The videogames industry is as large as cinema or television these days and has broken through into the mainstream, but it is still very young. It’s evolving at a rate that the creators are having trouble keeping up with and due to the distribution and investment model there has not been a lot of chance to study and answers the questions required for great storytelling. Do you give the player choice and possibly relinquish control of the story or do you take choice away and force them down a single path? How do you tell a story in a first person shooter as opposed to a platformer? How can you handle pacing when the player is in control? Do players want cutscenes or seamless storytelling?

There are no definite answers for these questions, they rely on making a solid judgement on a game-to-game basis, but they do need to be examined and considered. The games industry needs to build a greater bank of knowledge and look towards creators in other arenas that could help them understand the elements they wish to evoke. The medium has great storytelling potential, without losing the crucial interaction, but it is currently mired in financial, distribution and management issues that take away the time for mainstream studios to examine it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1136608/

Dir. Neill Blomkamp

The trailers for District 9 drew me in. The striking visuals and the idea of a film that combined sci-fi and an examination of apartheid attitudes and injustices were irresistible to me. I was curious but unsure of how it would form a two-hour story as the trailers, rather nicely, did not allude to the character tale. What I found upon watching was an absolute masterpiece and the most accomplished piece of sci-fi cinema for years.

The opening sequence of the film does a fantastic job of explaining the backstory of the aliens arrival and gradually introducing Wikus. His status as the main character of the piece is brought in quietly, turning the film from its documentary style into a traditional narrative piece without making the transition awkward or unwanted. The world is built very carefully and convincingly with the appropriate visuals of South African slums (and was filmed in a real slum) and the creation of derogatory language and attitudes. It takes established racist ideals and applies them to the aliens, allowing for a very harsh and realistic portrayal which connects with the audience deeply. This allegorical setup allows for a chance, albeit a slim one, for some actual bigoted people to re-examine their own attitudes as they will be less affected by their established prejudices, though this is really just some idealistic thinking on my part.

The main character of Wikus is portrayed in an astonishing performance by Sharlto Copely who had never acted before. He starts off as a despicable, but believable, bigot. He is a horrible character, seeing himself as much more important than the ‘prawns’ that he is charged with forcing out their homes to what is, essentially, an internment camp. What makes his performance, and the writing and direction of the piece, so brilliant is his evolution. It’s common in a film that has societal tensions at its heart to have a character who learns the error of their ways, but usually it is done in a single act, a shining Hollywood moment where they redeem themselves without ever showing that even an iota of thought has gone into this transformation. In District 9 Wikus does evolve but it is slow and honest; he keeps some of his bigoted and selfish nature for the majority of the film, even after seeing what the company he was working for has been doing to the aliens, even after they try to kill him simply because he can operate an alien weapon. He has to think, to make mistakes and to truly understand the plight of the aliens before he changes and it is done with absolute perfection in performance and direction.

The rest of the cast, and the digital performances of the aliens, are uniformly excellent. You feel connected to the aliens in exactly the same way you would a human, which is the true test of a CGI character when surrounded by real people, and one that I think has only been done this well once before, in The Lord of the Rings with Gollum. Blomkamp has said in that he felt a little disappointed that he had to have a humanoid alien because it is the only way to create real empathy with the audience, but while it does not fit to his original vision, it does not take from the story and emotion he wants to tell.

The production of the film is among the very best there is. The direction is fabulous, the cinematography both beautiful and appropriate in the right situations, the effects are convincing and the score is expertly integrated. It is a stunning first feature and I cannot wait to see where Blomkamp will go, he is already an accomplished director and it seems from this he could become a modern great.

I have heard from people who didn’t like the film, or called it boring, but I honestly cannot see where they are coming from. Often you can understand another perspective on a film but this is one of the few films where I literally cannot fathom how someone couldn’t enjoy it. Possibly my favourite film of 2009.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0199849/

Dir. Godfrey Ho

Godfrey Ho is an infamous cinematic criminal; a director who butchered the medium of film mercilessly throughout the 70’s, 80’s and into the mid-90’s. If you’ve ever watched an incomprehensible martial arts film with white guys in ludicrous ninja outfits (and sometimes sporting massive moustaches) that seems to be constructed from two or more unrelated films, you’ve watched a Godfrey Ho picture.

Ninja Terminator is one of his many, many films that are vaguely related to ninjas. It has a plot of some form, muddled in among some waffling about ninja statues, about a detective who is investigating… something. The film is, as are all that Godfrey Ho directed, a total mess thanks to their production. They were produced by acquiring old Hong Kong action films, spending two weeks filming entirely different footage, and then slicing and dubbing them into a new film. The result is always insane and always hilarious in how terrible it is.

The most fantastic things can appear in a Godfrey Ho feature such as a wonderful outfit for a villain, a deadly messenger robot, a high-class phone or even an innovative way to deal with loose crabs. It’s these insane things, these unintentional hilarities that keep people watching these films. I myself have seen three Godfrey Ho films, each had its own bizarre, ham-fisted production and each was nearly impossible to stop laughing at from start to finish.

It would take much too long to list all the faults in Ninja Terminator, it’s an absolute cavalcade of failure; from the shots that mistakenly have no-one in frame to continuity errors so large the dead keep coming back to life. Suffice to say it’s not a film you watch to enjoy on a normal level it’s firmly for the ‘so bad it’s good’ crowd (of which I am a member) and when viewed that way, it’s a masterpiece of trash.

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.