david-phillips-4 Reviews

In the Land of the Free... (2010)

Documentary detailing the incarceration and miscarriages of justice experienced by 3 inmates of the Angola penitentiary in Louisiana USA.

[5/10 · 4 July 2011]

This documentary struggles to make an impact until almost the last few seconds. It begins by tracing the circumstances that led the three main protagonists, Herman Wallace, Albert Woodfox and Robert King, to be incarcerated, not only in the Angola prison but to be held there is solitary confinement for so long. Each were petty criminals who seemingly had found themselves to be part of the Black Panther movement that was so prominent in the 1960's. The Black Panther movement was often likened to a militia and was the subject of much concern to the US government. Whilst their involvement with the Black Panther's seems minute, it appears as though this was their undoing and led to them being considered conspirators on a political scale rather than the petty criminals that they genuinely seemed to be. It is true that each was very outspoken about the prison conditions and the documentary hints that this too was a thorn in the side of the authorities and that the same authorities seized upon an opportunity to take them out of circulation when prison guard Brent Miller was stabbed to death. The story of their trial and subsequent conviction has to be seen to be believed. They were convicted of the murder of Brent Miller in 1972 – with Robert King being held under investigation of the conspiracy to murder considering he was not in the Angola prison at the time of the incident. All 3 have been held in solitary confinement, except for a brief respite during their appeals, ever since. Robert King was finally released in 2008 after some outside court bartering led to him admitting a lesser charge to ensure his freedom. Woodfox and Wallace remain in solitary confinement to this day. It either points to a conspiracy or incompetence at the highest level and I believe it was a combination of the two. Unless a conspiracy can outlive most of the original people involved, it almost seems as though the belief that these men were proved to have killed the guard is a self-perpetuating myth that has somehow become fact. The film concentrates on the facts and presents them well. The 3 men are not portrayed as angels and this helps show a balanced view of the crimes they did commit and those that they were accused of a plead innocence for. Phone calls with Woodfox and Wallace punctuate the talking head spots with relatives and former prison officers and interviews with King himself. However, in following such a well balanced narrative, the film came across to me as passionless; as though it was pointing out that this was a miscarriage of justice, but not that there was much that can be done about it. Nor did it raise the question that if this can happen once, perhaps miscarriages of justice on varying scales are rife throughout the American judicial system. The film was crying out for access to Woodfox and Wallace to look at them and empathise with their plight and to commend their spirit for not having been broken by the whole experience – alas, the fact that they remain in prison prevents that from happening. It is an interesting film, but it fails to connect on an emotional level aside from the end revelation that their appeals (which surely should have been a formality) were overturned and their convictions continue to stand. I think perhaps where is struggles is that the whole thing seems so outlandish that it almost does not seem real.

But it is real: visit the site: www.angola3.org for more information and to take action. These guys have been in solitary confinement for almost 40 years for a crime that I do not believe their trials proved the committed.

Burke and Hare (2010)

Go and see Burke and Hare? Over my dead body!

[1/10 · 28 October 2010]

John Landis helms a cinematic release for the first time in over a decade and he returns to his familiar and previously successful hunting ground of the macabre comedy. It's almost 30 years since Landis scared us and entertained us in equal measure in An American Werewolf in London and he returns once more to the UK with this period piece based upon the real-life murderers (perhaps the world's first serial killers) Burke and Hare. Simon Pegg (Burke) and Andy Serkis (Hare) are the eponymous duo stalking 19th century Edinburgh for cadavers to sell to the city's medical school. All they have to do to keep the money rolling in is to keep the bodies coming. With the team behind the two recent St. Trinians movies writing the screenplay, I couldn't help but wonder if this might be more farce than frights and that the film would not strike a fine balance between the two in the way that An American Werewolf in London did so brilliantly. And so it was; although to even elevate this dross to farce would be too much. Landis keeps well away from providing scares and instead directs a film that reminded me of the awful 1992 attempt to revive Carry On films: Carry on Columbus. Burke and Hare is littered with obvious jokes and they all miss rather than hit their marks. It also seems to rely heavily on having famous faces pop up for cameos: Christopher Lee, Ronnie Corbett, Stephan Merchant, Reece Shearsmith, Bill Bailey, Paul Whitehouse, Ray Harryhausen; the list goes on. Landis even has the gall to include Jenny Agutter and John Woodvine (of An American Werewolf in London) in a film that simply does not deserve to pay tribute to that previous collaboration. It's not so bad to have plenty of cameos (Landis had already done so with much success in The Blues Brothers), but only if the material they are involved in is worthy and this certainly is not. It almost seemed as though they hoped that the audience would pay more attention to cameo spotting than the weak script. Based upon these performances Andy Serkis should stick to wearing an all in one gimp suit and being filmed for a CGI character a la King Kong and Gollum. Simon Pegg comes out of this no better and he must surely be hopeful that his stock as the fanboys' fanboy will not be dented by such a dreadful turn. Tom Wilkinson and Tim Curry scrape by purely because their characters are neither interesting nor have much screen time. Isla Fisher and Jessica Hynes even overplay their parts as the love interests of Burke and Hare. It's easy to blame the script. It must have read like a bad pantomime and so was performed like one. There seems to have been no quality control present and any joke thought of was included. Otherwise, I would hate to see what did not make it into the final version. The only redeeming features I can think of is that the Edinburgh locations looked good and that it only last for 90 minutes. Landis' best work is over 20 years ago and any chance of a return to that form looks as dead as the cadavers Burke and Hare provided. Go and see Burke and Hare? Over my dead body! My Rating: 0/5

Gomorrah (2008)

Epic

[8/10 · 13 April 2010]

Set in the violent underworld of Naples, this movie focuses on different characters involvement in the crime scene. Although the choices of characters to follow is fairly obvious: old school mafia, new generation gangs, kids aspiring to be gangsters & rogue gangsters that don't pay attention to gang hierarchy and territory, the film weaves between the stories really well. In a similar vein to Crash, the intertwined stories are handled so well, the movie seems epic, rather than gimmicky. It is a brutal depiction of gangs and violence and could be readily compared to life in some areas of the UK. The characters are realistic and generally unsympathetic which adds to the voyeuristic tone of the film as we catch a glimpse of a world that seems a world away, despite actually being much closer than we think. www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Shutter Island (2010)

This will get you thinking!

[8/10 · 30 March 2010]

Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River), Shutter Island tells the story of 1950's US Marshall Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) as he and his new partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) as they head to Shutter Island, a mental institute for the criminally insane, to find an escaped in-mate.

All is not what it seems on the foreboding Shutter Island: the staff, led by a particularly creepy (SIR!) Ben Kingsley, seem almost reluctant to help the case progress and are seem almost conspiratorial with the inmates to cloud the investigation. On top of this, Daniels himself has another agenda for being involved involving his murdered wife.

All of which weaves a tangled web that really get the grey matter working, especially if, like me, you are inclined to enjoy the challenge of keeping pace with the detective in a detective story. The movie is very much in a similar vein to Scorsese's Cape Fear remake, complete with a seriously imposing score, sweeping camera moves and scene compositions that comfortably straddle Film Noir and thrillers from the 50's stylistics.

Whilst the cast are adequate in what they do, the movie really belongs to Scorsese. The look and sound of the movie is entrenched in Cape Fear territory, but the atmosphere of the movie is much more akin to Polanski's paranoia classics Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby. It is credit to Scorsese that this side to the movie is the most apparent and helps entwine the viewer in the tangled web that is Shutter Island. There seems to me to be a real focus on Scorsese's vision for the movie and the result is indelibly stamped as a Scorsese movie much more than it will ever be a DiCaprio movie.

DiCaprio does cope well with his role and one thing that DiCaprio does so well that many of his contemporaries cannot is show genuine vulnerability. Although, I personally find him to still look a little too young-looking and not grizzled enough to play characters such as Daniels, this reservation was lost once Shutter Island came into view.

The movie will have you revisiting themes and scenes long after the titles roll and it is certainly a movie to discuss afterwards rather than file away as 2 hours of escapism. The movie also invites a second viewing, although I think a DVD/blu-ray with a director's commentary would be my own viewing choice.

www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

3D that left me feeling flat

[4/10 · 22 March 2010]

Tim Burton's re-imagining of a well known and often told story in 3D left me feeling a little flat. The movie nips along at a decent pace and takes us from Alice's oppressive aristocratic life into wonderland, a place she had visited and all but forgotten about many years before. Her adventure this time is to take on the jabberwocky, as foretold in a scroll that contains everything that has happened and ever will. As long as 3D, in this quality at least, is a new fad, it is impossible not to compare the experience with other movies viewed in the same format. I have Avatar to compare it against and until I see more 3D movies of differing genres, Avatar will generally be the benchmark. And it is here that I find my main issue with the movie. It is perhaps unfair to compare the two, but my comparison is based upon the feelings I have while watching; how immersed in the movie do I get, does the depth perception add to how a 2D experience might be, etc. My problem with this is that Avatar, whilst also being a fantasy film, did have a lot of its content based upon reality. In particular I am thinking of the landscapes being based upon rainforests, which at least gave me some form of recognition. Whereas, Wonderland, rightly so, is much more abstract and outlandish. To me, that gave it a cartoon feel and so the depth given to the movie was not much of an enhancement. It reminded me a little of some of the Popeye cartoons that used model sets in the foreground to try to add a layer of depth. Which seems like a folly to me: it's a cartoon, who needs depth? Having said that, some of the 3D works well enough, but it does come across as though the movie was not intended to be 3D from its original conception, as the 3D is not utilised or played upon enough. The story is standard fare of Alice being thrust into a situation she does not deem herself capable of handling, but she learns that she is braver and more resilient than she gave herself credit for. The jokes for the adults that are so often a source of amusement in these types of kids' movies was not apparent – the Toy Story trailer delivered more "adult" humour in 30 seconds than this did in 1hr 50mins. The twisted and dark view that is so often associated with Tim Burton was also lacking. In fact, it was a straight story told in a straight way: no plot twists, no darker moments and nothing to grab your attention. I found myself quite happy to let the story unfold in front of me without having to engage the brain other than to try to guess who did the voices and spot the occasionally clever / occasionally clumsy references to Alice's "real" world. Mia Wasikowska is competent, but hardly stretched in the title role and she is ably supported by the voices of Stephen Fry, Matt Lucas and Timothy Spall to name a few, with Fry perhaps just stealing the show from the others. This brings us to two long-time collaborators of Tim Burton's: Helena Bonham Carter lazily rehashes Miranda Richardson's excellent portrayal of Queen Elizabeth I in Blackadder II. She often has the sharpest lines, but they fall flat when applied via such an obvious impression. Johnny Depp does bring an eccentricity to the Mad Hatter, Glaswegian accent included, but haven't we seen this sort of thing from him before? Johnny seems to be caught in a cycle of churning out eccentric characters with unique quirks (usually accents): Jack Sparrow, Willy Wonka and now the Mad Hatter. Whatever happened to the Johnny Depp we saw in Blow, Donnie Brasco, etc? Admittedly, I have not seen Public Enemies. One can almost imagine the scene of Depp, Bonham Carter and Burton sat around massaging each other's egos and conspiring to "bring something new" to their characters. Which may seem like a good idea until the finished article reaches the screens and the audience is left thinking it is one gimmick too far. The film is good clean fun, but I can't help thinking that this film could have been much more than that. And, to me, the 3D was wasted here, as it added little to the experience. www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Let the Right One In (2008)

p-u-s-s

[6/10 · 22 March 2010]

**This review contains spoilers** Having recently watched The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo I seemed to be having my own Swedish film festival when I received Let The Right One In from my rental list. Let The Right One In is a very different animal to the mainstream detective/thriller of TGWTDT. It has the look and feel of a quirky indie movie, but it does have the sophisticated special effects that a horror such as this deserves. The story is of Oskar, a 12 year old loner who, whilst being relentlessly bullied at school, dreams of exacting brutal revenge. One night, new neighbours move in next door. Seemingly, they are father and daughter. She is Eli and she too is 12…more or less. They meet at their building's municipal play area and cautiously hit it off. Whilst Oskar may seem to be a little eccentric, Eli is positively strange. She does not feel the cold, only comes out at night and smells funny; on top of that the old guy, Hakan, that lives with her (it is now apparent that he is not her father) is out and about town, slaughtering people and draining their blood. Eli is a vampire. Far from becoming a monster movie, this develops into a poignant romance between Oskar and Eli as they both have to come to terms with who they are and how they live. There is a true innocence to both of the characters that enables them to develop a touching relationship without it becoming contrived. There are killings and there are gory moments, but by and large this is a film about young love. So, when their relationship, and Eli's existence, is threatened, it is them that we root for; which is remarkable considering the horrific demise of Eli's victims. Vampirism is definitely shown here as a curse, but not one that cannot be worked around, as Eli is testament to. This is helped enormously by the unwavering devotion of Eli's guardian, Hakan, who somewhat bungles his way through a series of attempts to garner the blood that Eli needs to survive and pays the ultimate sacrifice. Oskar has his issues too. His involvement with Eli boosts his confidence and he does deal with the bullies, to a point; although this comes back to him tenfold in the final climactic scenes. Perhaps I read too much into a segment of the movie where Oskar is staying with his father and his father's friend comes over, but I detected an undercurrent theme of abuse at the hands of said friend, which took Oskar's life on to another level of sadness. The final scene which sees Oskar and Eli effectively riding off into the sunset led me to think that perhaps 50 years previous to this, Hakan was 12 years old and was devoted to Eli in the same way; in which case the cycle has begun again. This means that their love is ultimately futile, as Oskar will age and Eli will not. Although the movie has been critically acclaimed, I found the direction to be rather dawdling with far too many long cuts of skies, dripping taps, etc. While this might add to the indie feel of the movie, I saw no obvious reasons for the shots other than padding the running time. Let this not detract from what was a movie that will stay with me for some time. Apparently, a US remake is on the cards. I see no reason why that is necessary or how this would be adapted to suit an American setting, presuming that is their plan. Although with Gus Van Sant or Larry Clark at the helm, I could see the potential. www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Excellent detective yarn

[8/10 · 18 March 2010]

With Stieg Larsson's books flying off the shelves and director's such as David Fincher rumoured to be interested in directing the Hollywood version, the first film version, made and set in the book's locale of Sweden is an excellent movie. I have not read the book, so in this case I could only view the movie as just that, a movie. My instinctive was that the movie was formulaic. That is to say that it followed a very well worn and familiar path that detective stories follow (stories because this can also encompass detective literature). That's not to denigrate the movie at all; the film is an absorbing detective story that has enough about it to engross you for the full 2 and a half hours. Which is where, I think, we do start to notice differences between detective stories. Detective stories have a lot of exposition to get through as more often than not, the information gathered about all of the protagonists helps lead to the culprit. The key to that in film is to handle the exposition in such a way that the audience does not realise that they are purely being fed information. Varying the locations and the characters that provide the exposition helps enormously; particularly if you have a strange character in a strange location providing the details. In TGWTDT, the characters do have depth and the locations are generally good, but this gimmick is not relied on too heavily. Nor is the tried and tested "if you think the pace is flagging, have someone burst through the door with a gun" used at all. Instead, I felt that the film held my attention by appealing to the puzzle solver in me. The detectives, in this case a disgraced journalist and a professional hacker, are meticulous and methodical in their approach. They uncover clues and patterns throughout their investigation, all of which got me thinking along the same lines and, occasionally, coming to the same conclusions at the same time. So another key area for success with a detective story is to keep the audience engaged, but not to let them get further ahead with their own investigations until it is time to crank up the tension because we now know what is about to befall our heroes. TGWTDT provides all of these. It is low on action, but when action is called for it delivers with short sudden bursts that jolt the viewer. It also carries with it a level of brutality that provides shocks in place of action sequences. If you want something that doesn't jolt you out of your comfort zone (watching a detective unravel the mystery without engaging your own brain), then avoid this. If you want an engaging and involving detective story experience then go see this movie. I have intentionally avoided referencing the story, as I think this movie is probably best viewed with no preconceptions. Having said that, my girlfriend had read the book and felt that the film, although abbreviated the book, did include most of what was required and was still thoroughly enjoyable. www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

The Gambler (1974)

Writer Recommends

[10/10 · 24 February 2010]

We all have movies that we champion and we often feel like we champion them alone. They rarely get featured in critics' lists, box office lists and may even get featured in worst movie lists. I will be presenting reviews of what I consider "hidden gems" and I also invite you to contribute.

So, a new topic is born "Writer Recommends", in which I will be presenting reviews of some of the movies that I think are fantastic and that you should see. I'd like to think of them as hidden gems, but I'm realistic enough to know that many of the movies for which I feel I am the sole champion, will in fact be loved by many. As we all know, when it comes to one person's opinion of a movie, there is no right or wrong: even if we do still continue to debate that long into the night.

If you have a "Writer Recommends" suggestion or want to send me a review to post, let me know. I'm going to be totally autocratic, so I will make (hopefully well informed) judgements on whether to post.

Next Up: Writer Recommends #1: The Gambler see www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

District 9 (2009)

The Prawn Identity

[8/10 · 15 February 2010]

Neill Blomkamp gets his first shot as a major feature director, thanks to Peter Jackson, with a sci-fi movie based upon a short film he had previously made. Imagine aliens have landed on earth and they happen to hit Johannesburg. Only these aliens aren't here to invade or teach us the errors of our ways…they are essentially refugees. Interned in a camp (the eponymous District 9), the aliens become a huge welfare headache for the government. Seemingly unfit for any integration with the human race, the camp quickly becomes a shanty town for exploitation and crime. The aliens, dubbed "prawns" by humans, do have advanced technology, especially weapons, so private companies do have an interest in District 9. In particular, confiscating and attempting to use the weapons, as this holds massive potential revenue. One hitch to that plan is that the weapons only work when connected to an alien. Wikus Van De Merwe is your archetypal office guy. He's the boss's son-in-law and he finds himself suddenly promoted to a new initiative to evict all of the aliens in District 9 and move them to the new District 10. This involves much door to door calling, as each resident must sign their approval to the move. It is here where Wikus Van De Merwe's adventure begins… Blomkamp deals with what could be a complex set up by providing the back story to the aliens' arrival using various news reports from the time. This is then interspersed with interviews with people who know/knew Wikus. Not only does this serve to inform us of what has happened so far, it also sows the seeds for what is to come. The movie continues very much in the same vein, using a good mix of documentary, CCTV and faux news reports to help push the narrative along with regular movie footage, i.e. not presented as another medium. Initially, this gave me the impression of watching a particularly bizarre version of Touching the Void or a futuristic episode of 999. But, as the film progresses, the gimmicks become less obvious and the story takes over. Apparently, Blomkamp intended the movie to be an analogy on his own experiences during the reign of apartheid in South Africa. Because the movie is such a good sci-fi action movie, a lot of the inherent racism towards the aliens could get lost. But, the interviews and the interaction with the aliens does provide excellent illustrations of how a race that perceives themselves to be the top of the food chain could be so dismissive of another race: forming stereotypes, nicknames, exploiting and confining to particular areas for their own kind. And, let us remember, these times were not so long ago, and in some places still exist, were you to replace the aliens with another human race. The movie works well as a reflection upon a period of time and attitudes that we all hope are long behind us. And it also works well as an action movie. In a twist of fate, born of so many action/buddy movies, Wikus finds himself in need of the help of an alien and his son and they form an unlikely alliance to both help Wikus out of his predicament and of the aliens and there's. As Wikus, Sharlto Copley, is a revelation. He brings the right balance of humour, awkwardness and eventual determination so that, despite reservation about him to begin with, we root for him. This is Copley's first movie, aside from featuring in the original short, and he effortlessly provides us with a character that is real. A massive achievement when you consider he was acting with CGI much of the time. Time will tell if this is his one defining moment, see him soon as "Howling Mad" Murdoch in the upcoming A-Team movie. And of Blomkamp? he has proved with the support and budget offered by Peter Jackson, that he can not only write and direct a fine movie; he can create a vision in which to tell the story. As yet, there is no word on what Blomkamp's next step will be. But, like Copley, expectation will be high based upon this movie. www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Treats the viewer with respect and intelligence

[8/10 · 25 January 2010]

Tipped be the main challenger for Avatar during the awards season, The Hurt Locker is a very different kettle of fish. The movie follows the exploits of a three man bomb disposal squad in Iraq: In particular, the arrival and impact of a new Team Leader in the form of William James (played by Jeremy Renner – who looks like Eminem's evil twin). James replaces the previous leader, played in a blink and you'll miss it cameo from Guy Pearce, who was killed in action. Naturally, he is different to his predecessor and this will take some adjustment from the other men – particularly when one of James's main differences is an inclination to ignore protocol and get the unit into more and more dangerous situations. As would be expected, the characters must have some journey of self discovery to go on, but this is handled with a subtlety and realism that enables it to avoid cliché. The movie, excellently directed by Kathryn Bigelow, carries a documentary feel and the look, feel and sound of the locations provides a real insight into how things must be in Iraq. You can almost feel the stifling heat and the atmosphere of living on the edge, when any person on the street could be an insurgent.

see more at: www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Avatar (2009)

Cinematic history

[10/10 · 25 January 2010]

Fast becoming the highest grossing movie ever made, Avatar is taking the motion picture business by storm – and rightly so. The anticipation while queuing the length of the cinema foyer was akin to that when queuing for a ride in a theme park. Almost everyone within earshot was recounting 3D movies or theme park experiences they have had. This led to a particular, although orderly rush for prime seats. The trailers gave us a taste of the 3D experience. An excellent move as it does take time for your eyes to adjust to the depth of view. It also gives you a chance to get used to wearing the glasses. No flimsy cardboard for this, properly produced plastic glasses with decent lenses were handed out – and, yes, you do have to give them back. And so, on to the main event: see more at www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

The Day of the Triffids (2009)

Poison ivy

[4/10 · 21 January 2010]

The makers of this two-part sci-fi mini-series, whilst bagging an iconic premise that has yet to be remade to death, must have wished they'd set their stall out to make this so much sooner. Having seen Survivors make a return to our screens and the 28 Days/Weeks later movies already capitalise on the startling imagery of a post-apocalyptic UK, this mini-series seemed to be jumping on that same bandwagon. However, the source novel ensures the originality of the plot devices to get the world into a state where carnivorous plants roam free amongst a population mostly disabled by blindness. The story is given a slightly "topical" twist. Although the original novel does mention the spread of Triffids across the world is due to its oil. This story takes that one step further and has the Triffids universally harvested for their oil as a replacement for fossil fuel. The Triffids are known to be dangerous and are therefore kept under high security conditions. Of course, all this goes to pot once the solar light display, watched by most of the world, renders anyone who watched it blind. Unfortunately, from pretty good beginnings, the show spirals downhill dramatically - almost as quickly as London descends into chaos following the blinding lights. Seemingly within minutes, the whole city is panicking with sighted people, once revealed, chased for help even if forced at gunpoint. This seemed to be an attempt to inject some frights and thrills into a slow part of the show and seemed like a direct rip-off of 28 days later. Amongst the chaos we have sighted people bumping into each other with such regularity, you might think they were blind. Dougray Scott is Bill Mason, the scientist who despite working for the Triffid oil company, spends his time trying to understand how they communicate and live. This obsession is helped by unremarkable flashbacks to the death of his mother at the hands, or should that be leaves, of the Triffids. He was having an eye operation following an earlier Triffid attack (in case you were wondering why he missed the light show). Joely Richardson is quite possibly the most famous radio broadcaster the UK has ever seen, given everyone's ability to recognise her voice (she was in a tube station, although seemingly everyone else in there died). Eddie Izzard (yes, Eddie Izzard!) was asleep beneath an eye mask on a plane. He survives the plane crashing by inflating half a dozen lifejackets in the toilet. He then harbours a rather bizarre desire to rule the UK or possibly the world. Even more bizarre is that people actually bother to follow him as their leader. What should be notable, but are actually pedestrian, cameos are:

Ewen Bremner as an animal/plants rights campaigner who breaks into the secure Triffid facility. Jason Priestley as a US air force pilot who I can only think was cast in an effort to get some US network interest. Vanessa Redgrave – crazy nun. Brian Cox as Bill's estranged father – who happens to still be researching Triffids. Unfortunately, despite what on paper appears to be a good cast, the whole story evolves at a snails pace. There are no surprises or moments of tension at all. It's B-movie standard at best. It actually makes Survivors look good. I'd recommend the 80's mini-series or the original 1962 movie with Howard Keel for more thrills. see more at www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Terminator Salvation (2009)

Continues the downward spiral of the franchise

[4/10 · 21 January 2010]

Since The Terminator, I have anticipated the arrival of a sequel that will extend the thrills of that excellent first movie. Terminator 2 just about managed it, Terminator 3 was woeful and the Sarah Connor Chronicles just didn't do it for me. Then along comes Terminator: Salvation. Having seen the Bond franchise get reinvented and reinvigorated, I had high hopes for another Terminator instalment. Even when I saw that McG would be at the helm, I figured that perhaps he too was looking for reinvention. Perhaps Salvation code be the keyword for everyone involved. With Christian Bale onboard, it did seem as though this could be moving in the right direction. (I, personally, would have loved to have seen a similar dark and foreboding movie to the Dark Knight.) Alas, no. That was not be. If anything, McG confirmed himself as a name to avoid when seen on the credits. Bale seemed to get more air time for his infamous rant than actually as John Connor. And the reinvention just didn't happen. If anything, it carried on from where Terminator 3 left off. Except this time, it had delusions of grandeur as it appears that it tries to deal with the conflicts felt by a man half human and half machine. From the opening scenes, we are aware of what is going on and, unfortunately, where this is going. It then seems to be a case of waiting for the movie to catch up with the audience, as we are already miles ahead. Sam Worthington is the real star of the show and, it must be said, he does at least seem to be really trying. He throws himself into the role with gusto. Yet, even with all of his effort, if anything the film surrounding him lets him down. Bale seems so detached from the whole movie that you could be forgiven for thinking that he filmed all of his scenes separately to anyone else. It looks like he's not really feeling it, which also led me to believe that perhaps his rant was his frustration at being signed up on a sinking ship. A ship I believe he has signed up to for at least one more voyage. Then we have Anton Yelchin, of whom I have read that he studied Michael Biehn's performance in The Terminator to try and get his characterisation as accurate as possible. Unfortunately, this was a complete waste. As soon as he appeared and spoke on screen, I was left wondering how the Doogie Howser MD-a-like that was before me could ever develop into Biehn's Kyle Reese. They do deal with the appearance of the Schwarzenegger terminator quite well. It gets away with his recreated image looking a little odd, as he features as an off the production line terminator, so perhaps not quite as realistic as later on (in the earlier movies). There are also several obligatory nods to the earlier films, but these are more likely to cause eye rolling than delight. The film does not want for action sequences, but it does want for a reasonable way of threading them together and at least involving the viewer in what is going on. There seemed an ideal opportunity within this movie to use the "future shapes the past, shapes the future" mechanism to make the viewer question everything. Could the outcome of this movie effectively render the other movies obsolete? Those buttons were tentatively pushed, but nowhere near hard or often enough. Instead, I found myself watching the film through it's entirety to confirm what I thought it was going to be like after the first few minutes. Unfortunately, it confirmed that it was disappointing. McG is confirmed as the director of Terminator 5; perhaps this time it should be called Terminator: Last Chance. See more at www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1 (2008)

The second part to the epic story of France's most renowned gangster, Jacques Mesrine.

[6/10 · 22 September 2009]

Where the first film follows a reasonable story arch, but remains episodic, this film seems to abandon the narrative and instead jumps through the remaining years of Mesrine's career and life. It reminded me a little of reading a biography; which, of course, it probably should. However, it reminded me of reading a biography that I got bored of, i.e. I start reading it intently and then flick to the bits I'm really interested in from about half way onwards. The episodic film that worked so well in the first instalment became more similar to a sketch or clip show. I guess, at having established the character there was little more to show, other than a particularly lazy interview sequence. By lazy, I mean that having the lead character get asked a series of questions, it meant the film did not have to show anything more than that. In the first instalment, I felt that no such sequence was necessary, as the film showed a subtle enough touch to provide the audience with information without having it delivered straight to them. Cassel was as engaging as ever, although I did feel that there was little to stretch him in this film. Although Cassel did show himself to be equally at ease performing comedy, as he is at playing pure rage. He was ably supported by Mathieu Amalric, with their scenes together bordering on laugh out loud funny. Dispersed within the comedy sketches are absolutely edge of seat heist, escape and action sequences. These parts, for me, with their accompanying score made the film. Without these, it would have seemed a very disjointed effort. However, one sequence that was really overcooked was the sequence involving Mesrine and his girlfriend leaving their house only to have their car blocked by the police: the first film opened and ended with this sequence, albeit shown in different views and the second film did the same. The last of which was excruciatingly ponderous and added several minutes onto a film whose story had already been told. Overall, I felt that I would have been happier sitting in the cinema for 3-4hours watching the first film unfold into a more complete view, than to sit through 2 films of 2 hours that don't seem to sit quite right next to each other as a single vision. www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Mesrine: Killer Instinct (2008)

The first part of a two part true story French gangster flick about a gangster I had never heard of.

[8/10 · 22 September 2009]

What is it with gangsters? I like watching gangster films and I don't care what sort of gangsters they are. Something about the bravado and living the high life seems to appeal and there is always an element of charisma about them. That's not to say I wish to be a gangster or to break the law, but the self confidence and the refusal to take sh** from anyone attitude is attractive. But, were I to be placed in a room with a genuine gangster, I'm certain I would be terrified and would want to get out of there ASAP.

The film opens with Mesrine making a decision whilst in the French army and in Algiers whether to follow his superior's orders to shoot the wife of a terrorist suspect or to shoot the suspect. This moment, as well as establishing that Mesrine has the killer instinct of the title, shows us that he is not one for conforming to authority, as he ignores his superior and takes the shot.

From that point, the film is episodic as it follows Mesrine from petty crime to audacious criminal exploits. Each episode showcases another aspect to Mesrine's multi-layered character. Yet, because they are episodic, some of Mesrine's character fails to carry over from one to the next. This presents a fairly schizophrenic view of him which could well be in keeping with his real-life persona.

However, many of the episodes do provide insights into why this particular person's journey took this particular route. Having left the army, Mesrine turns to petty crime with his friend. This leads him to more serious crime, working for a Parisian crime lord, brilliantly underplayed by Gerard Depardieu. His personal life also keeps pace with his professional ascension. He has an ill-fated romance with a prostitute and a holiday romance that becomes a marriage following a sojourn to Spain. The film also takes the time to illustrate the strained relationship Mesrine had with his parents, in particular his father. Far from coming from a broken home, Mesrine is clearly from a loving, if conservative, family. Only Mesrine's own inner rage, reminiscent of James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause, at his father's seeming lack of courage rocks that world.

It is easy to see how Mesrine captured the imaginations of so many. His charisma, very ably aided by Vincent Cassel's own screen presence, shines from the screen whether talking his way out of house or defiantly standing up to his brutal treatment when he is finally caught and incarcerated.

He was imprisoned and brutally treated, following a one man / one woman crime wave across the world and, as part of his escape plan he assured those helping him that he would return to break them out. It is testament to his stature that they believed him and it is testament to his word that that is exactly what he attempted. Throughout his return to facilitate the breakout, the film enters the realms of an action movie.

The exploits of Mesrine left me wondering just how much the makers had embellished, or Mesrine has embellished for that matter – the film is based on his memoir, or did this guy really do these things?

There is one thing that I do know about Mesrine: I can't wait to see part two!

www.writeronthestorm.wordpress.com

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Tarantino's World War II movie - I don't get it.

[5/10 · 22 September 2009]

The opening to the film is exquisitely shot. It carries a fantastic level of suspense and emotion that made me think that we were in the realms of greatness. I was misled. If anything, the opening to the film is the film's peak and everything subsequently meanders down hill. The story of the film, as put out in the media is of a rag tag bunch of men led by Brad Pitt on a marauding crusade into enemy territory with the sole purpose of killing as many Nazis as gruesomely as possible. And the film is, in part, about that. But there is a much more interesting story of revenge that begins in that very first sequence that I didn't feel was adequately explored, as it somehow became second fiddle to the Basterds of the title. I guess Tarantino has his pick of people to work with and that, it seems, may be his downfall. There is no doubting that in Christoph Waltz, he has unearthed a gem, but that is far outweighed by the bizarre turn of Brad Pitt and needless cameos. For some reason Brad Pitt plays his character with a conscious under bite, by which I mean it only seems to appear when he thinks about it needing to be there. Where Pitt's good friend George Clooney can excel in the screwball characterisation as a wannabe Clark Gable, Pitt flows and crashes and burns badly. Mike Myers appears in a pointless cameo and the use of Eli Roth seems questionable at best. All of this lends the film a boy's club smugness in the same way that the Ocean films seem more like a gas for the stars than the audience. So, it comes across as a big laugh-in for the actors, all, except the European trio of Waltz, Bruhl and Laurent, mugging to camera in what seems like an effort to get laughs. The dark humour and snappy dialogue of Tarantino's early movies has gone. To be replaced by laboured dialogue in the style of Tarantino – something we saw enough of in the 90s with the numerous Tarantino-esquire efforts. It felt much like a film student in the late 90's, wishing to be the next Tarantino, has gone a bit too far for his student film in trying to include snappy dialogue unrelated to the screen imagery…except this is Tarantino and it no student movie. The film also produces too many nods to Tarantino nerds (if they even exist) with the shootout where you're not sure how everyone got shot to the use of Harvey Keitel and Samuel L Jackson as voice cameos and the endless "all the characters looking down to the camera" shots that would have once made it new and exciting. It now seems a little tired and is definitely too self-congratulatory. At times the film is beautiful to watch. The cinematography is immense and one thing Tarantino does still manage to do to a high standard is choose his music well. The film covers a range of music that is often used in other film first, but does not look out of place here. The audience, however, seemed to be tuned into the humour and the style much more than me. There were laughs and guffaws as Pitt stuck out his chin and I had the general feeling that everyone was really enjoying the show. So, perhaps it was me. Perhaps I was not in the mood for it or perhaps I just didn't get it. But from the opening sequence that, to me, showed so much promise and, more importantly, showed what Tarantino is capable of, the rest became a damp squib (many of which were used throughout, as you can imagine).

I've Loved You So Long (2008)

Writer on the Storm...

[7/10 · 16 November 2008]

...has a great review of this movie.

I don't know about you, but I think it's pretty rare to see a film that treats its audience as though they are intelligent people. Filmmakers who believe we are capable of working out plot nuances and subtle character traits without resorting to explicit explanation either by dialogue or action, therefore, must also be rare. Therefore, this is a rare film.

I wouldn't say it is exquisitely filmed, as I found the overall look of the film to be stark and grey. However, this did serve to subtly highlight a look, a twitch a roll of the eyes that added much weight to the characters involved. And that in itself was exquisite.

See the rest at: www.writertonthestorm.wordpress.com

Dirty (2005)

Oh dear

[1/10 · 21 May 2008]

Watch Training Day instead. After all, the writer/director/cast obviously did. The speeded up scratched images have fast become a gimmick of a weak film rather than the edgy style it once was (Seven, Fight Club).

Cuba Gooding Jnr?! He won an Oscar over 10 years ago, since then what has he done? Boat Trip, Michael Jordan Underwear adverts and this terrible rip off of Denzel Washington in Training Day. He is truly woeful.

Take some time to consider who he beat that year: William H. Macy, James Woods, Edward Norton and Armin Mueller Stahl.

In this movie, rather than Denzel, Cuba reminded me very much of Malcolm Jamal Warner...Theo Huxtable

It's a pity because the lead actor, Clifton Collins Jnr looked like he could have carried a film. I think a personal conflict of gang connections, the law and dirty cops would have been much better for him.