Change Your Image
daviesjon-1
Reviews
Iron Man (2008)
A Fine Slice of Comic Book Cinema
A great start to the summer blockbusters, Iron Man features an endearing performance by Robert Downey Jr as the ludicrously wealthy playboy genius, excellent SFX that manages to pull off the near-future sci-fi aesthetic with a convincing grounding in reality, solid characterisation of the two leads and a story as far from the by-the-numbers superhero origin schlock as one can reasonably expect. That is until the final twenty minutes of course, when the narrative enters predictable 'evil all along' territory and throws in a nemesis of face-palming obviousness. While I realise the logical antagonist for an robot suit is a slightly bigger, more advanced robot suit - and it may seem unrealistically critical to bemoan a Marvel film for being predictable - it simply felt like an insulting kick in the balls after the finely crafted first half.
Also the phrase, 'But you'll die!' nearly caused my eyes to roll completely from my head.
That aside, Iron Man is a fine return to form for the comic adaptation after the Spiderman franchise swallowed a large slice of jingoistic apple pie and shat itself inside out, and it's refreshing being drawn to a protagonist so utterly unlikable in principal. If anyone in our humdrum real world owns a plane with a private pole dancing lounge and numerous flight attendents hired for their large breasts and aversion to clothes, they can happily sod off back to their Bel Air mansion and die.
Pirates of Treasure Island (2006)
AKA "Pimp Ship"
It's hard not to like Pirates of Treasure Island.
You know you're onto a winner when the same location (in this case, the treasure island of the title) is described on separate occasions as being, 'hidden in the bowels of Satan' AND 'the devil's playground'. Not only does it create a kind of glib, cartoon element to the proceedings, but really makes you wonder what ol' Beelzelbub's getting up to these days.
Other verbal highlights include 'Beware the one egg' (or something), 'All the powder in the world' (NOT in reference to cocaine), and pretty much every deathbed speech of the last ten minutes, as if being shot is now some open licence to soliloquise.
The plot is the standard affair from the perspective of a bored, insipid landlord apparently keen to throw of the shackles of the easy-going beverage industry (complete with large-breasted obliging barmaid) to don a bandana and shout 'argh' at the rain, in a predominantly-ship-based 'adventure' that often serves as a mere backdrop for grown men to compete in a 'most audacious headwear' competition, talk in embarrassing accents and - again - shout 'argh' at the rain. Fortunately, the large-breasted obliging barmaid tags along to produce one of several dramatic 'You're a woman?!' revelations which, by the climax, sees our young hero leading a quartet of inappropriately attired floozies in a battle against the male oppressors - sorry, I mean Pirates - in what can at best be described as an abstract, watery pimp-off.
Allegiences in this film may initially seem hazy, but allow me to elucidate: if a character has tits, they side with the protagonist. If they have a wig, they get shot. If they have a muddy face, then they're evil and must be stabbed by the people with tits. Easy.
I'll close with some drinking game suggestions. 1 finger when you're unconvinced by a CGI insect, 2 fingers when someone inexplicably gets shot, and 3 when the camera deliberately repositions for the best angle of our leading lady's bosoms. If no-one yet knows she's a lady, down it.
Sex Lives of the Potato Men (2004)
Isn't it customary for a comedy to contain jokes?
I found myself watching Sex Lives Of The Potato men with a furrowed brow, puzzled why so many talented and witty comedians decided to be involved in a film so totally devoid of humour.
Poo and wanking jokes are funny when you're eleven. Eighteen plus and you begin to lose friends around the water cooler.
Maybe some enjoyment could be had from this movie if you're the kind of person who frequently plays practical jokes involving dog mess, brown bags and matches, or maybe partake in 'man' competitions on nights-out by imbibing companions' vomit/urine etc when you're not back at your parent's basement punching your teenage wife.
Even then "Sex Lives..." it's hard to recommend. Perhaps if you're really weirdly into masochistic cranial surgery and spend your evenings happy slapping the elderly or watching toilets flush, you might think a close-up of a bogie is worthy of cinematic distribution.
I'd discuss characterisation, narrative or performances had I not zoned completely out following the lengthy tuna-paste/vagina comparison.
Silent Hill (2006)
So close...
One day a video game adaptation will quietly roll onto our cinema screens with an engaging story and strong characters, with enough franchise references to keep the fans happy, and enough depth to satisfy the discerning movie-goer. This will, of course, be the day winged pigs descend from the heavens.
So until fiction-past-never o'clock, we have Silent Hill. Make no mistake, this IS the best mainstream video game adaptation so far... but that's like comparing X Factor winners at The Magic Flute.
Imagine, if you will, someone grabbing and shaking the Silent Hill franchise until the violence fell out. Throw in the Unseen Bean, an obtuse young girl and a narrative structured on the tedious "go to point A, collect object Y" busywork of the game itself and you have the makings of a film that looks nice but is fundamentally broken.
That's not to say there're no enjoyable moments - Pyramid head flaying some useless rambling bint is always good for a chuckle - but let down by a plot that is almost entirely nonsense (incidentally told via a ten-minute flashback sequence at the end) and the utterly inexplicable attempts to justify the aesthetics with incomprehensible backstory.
People make this mistake of comparing video game adaptations with other video game adaptations.
Quit it.
Because when you compare anything to Super Mario Bros it's bound to come up smelling of roses.
Watch Jacobs Ladder instead.
The Forgotten (2004)
Aptly titled
What begins as a vaguely interesting premise quickly descends into forgettable supernatural nonsense, unnecessary chase scenes, and people being whisked into the sky.
The latter form some good 'shock' moments (assuming you've never seen the trailer), and the whole package just might carry your interest long enough to reach the inevitable, cop-out finale... but allow me to save you the trouble: it was aliens, her child is returned, and neither you nor characters involved will recall what transpired for the last hour and a half.
Now you know this, you needn't watch The Forgotten and are free to spend the time on more worthwhile endeavours such as flicking cards into a hat, rubbing together pieces of fruit, or - heaven forfend - watching a memorable movie.
Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)
What DID happen to originality?
Resident Evil Apocalypse is many things. Pick a profanity, the choice is yours.
But from a more 'creative' perspective, Resident Evil Apocalypse is the sequel to a film based on a video game franchise based on a film series based on monsters based on humans.
But that's what we like to see - rehashes, only bigger and louder and faster, with bigger explosions, louder guns, and faster women.
I could rant all day about video-game-to-screen conversions, the most fundamental point being: in video game, the narrative is merely a backdrop for the gameplay - whereas in film, the narrative is paramount.
The story of Resident Evil was cack, but we didn't really take note at the time, busy as we were blatting our way through legions of the undead and solving stupid puzzles. On the silver screen however, the story is right out there in all it's nonsensical glory, only now the characters are sassy clichés, the zombies badly framed, and the once-terrifying Nemesis a rubbery, scary-as-kittens parody of his former self.
Still, you can't go wrong with a huge budget and an already-eager fanbase of teenage boys waiting to spend their cash to see zombies, tits and explosions.
But then, if there was no money in bastardising good ideas until every shred of intelligence and originality has been sucked away, we wouldn't have fast food.
Or Big Brother.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
I say, Mr. Irons, good sir... What are you doing?
This movie can be aptly summarised by a comment made by one of its makers during a DVD interview. I'm very much paraphrasing (it was a long time ago) but the sentiment was very much to the affect of, 'We wanted to create an experience like the real D&D where you can see a girl at a bar, then just decide to go up and talk to her.'
I'm not entirely sure what point he was trying to make. Perhaps that, in this magical fantasy land, you have characters that dare to interact with females? Notwithstanding this tragic and depressing notion, D&D is less than spectacular.
I enjoy bad films - making those little witty asides or ad libbing banter so the people sat around you (who probably haven't yet decided they dislike the film) can laugh indulgently - but this movie is heavily sullied by the fact people probably got paid handsomely to be part of it. If the poor dialogue and woefully predictable narrative flow was the result of underfunding then it might be acceptable. But, like so many franchises with an established fanbase of desperately sex-starved movie-goers, shove in an elf with tits and it'll at least make its money back.
Painful.
Transmorphers (2007)
An entertaining ham-filled vacuum
First off, I appreciate the issues with this film - the problems with the sound production, SFX promises that were not kept, and budget cuts that meant the robots of the title could not be shown until late in the movie - I've read the director's lengthy and fervent rebuttals.
And, like a slow-motion car crash or a child forgetting his lines during a nativity play, Transmorphers is damn entertaining to watch.
However, a few questions remain, largely why anyone thought it would be a good idea to set two thirds of the film in a grey bunker. I enjoy bad movies as much as the next Joe-thinks-he-can-do-it-better, but there really is nothing to actually look at in most of the film - besides the female ensemble, of course, who spend so long pouting and trying to out-sass each other their every involvement in this dystopic vision of the future becomes comparable to 2am outside Bar Med. I appreciate there won't be much riveting scenery post-apocalypse, but how about mixing things up with a ruined factory interior? A ruined mansion interior? A ruined hospital interior? Because simply including a table or a bed in a new scene does not a cunning locational development make.
Regarding the characters, quite why Transmorphers boasts such a lengthy cast list is a complete mystery considering the overall lack of anything that happens for the first 45 minutes, creating a simultaneous air of frustration by not constantly knowing who's who and precipitating the overall lack of interest in the increasingly tedious events. In short, the same story could have been told with one quarter of the cast. And - just to let you know - one quarter of the screen-time, too.
I'll close with a quick plot synopsis summarising Leigh Scott's approach to screen-writing and story structure:
1) Some characters stand around waxing lyrical in a boring place
2) More characters turn up, fight the first lot, then team up.
3) see step 1.
4) see step 2.
5) SHOCKING PLOT TWIST
6) Everyone pretends something is actually happening and that this has some baring to the blurb on the back of the DVD case
7) Vague romantic entanglement / footnote
8) The end.
Entertaining, granted, but I think even Mr. Scott knew Transmorphers was made to be laughed at rather than with. But as he so rightly pointed out - he's the one making the movies, and we're the ones watching them. So unless someone intends to prove they can do better, I'll continue to laugh and he'll continue to get paid. Everyone wins.
Except art. Art doesn't win.
Dragon (2006)
Role-play in a forest does not a movie maketh
It's very easy to bash low-budget films, and most do not realise the time, effort and passion that goes into their creation. People only seem to comment on the 'bad' acting, the 'bad' SFX, and the 'bad' dialogue, forgetting - and lets be honest here - that's the whole reason we watch them.
However, when a film comes along that spends it's entirety in an utterly featureless forest so that superfluous and forgettable characters can spout exposition of unseen events while trying to create a vague air of looming malevolence by waving swords at the ether, you really begin to wonder... "Dragon - why do you hate me?"
There's much to enjoy here - endlessly quotable dialogue for the bad movie fans, and Eliza Swenson always commands attention - but entirely let down by a screenplay chock-full of Leigh Scott's brand of plot-less meanderings and the less-than-seminal notion that trees are now suddenly fun to watch. Well they're not. They're trees.