Author: Ben Browne

Wall-E

Christmas is a time for eating and drinking too much, arguing with your family and watching films, most probably done by Disney. It’s tradition. This leads me on messily to “Wall-E”, the latest collaboration between Disney and Pixar.

Wall-E (2008)

Y’know, I still get a few weird looks when I say I like Disney films. I don’t like all of them, but there are a few exceptional ones that go beyond the genre of “children’s film” and cross over into the “good film” club. I think films like “Aladdin”, “The Lion King” and all the Pixar flicks (with the possible exception of “Cars”) are brilliant films. “Wall-E” can safely join that list. It’s brilliant and one of my top films of 2008. Why? I’ll tell you after the inevitable plot summary/general overview paragraph…

“Too much garbage in your face? There’s plenty of space out in space! BnL Starliners leaving each day. We’ll clean up the mess while you’re away.”

The story follows Wall-E, a small waste collecting unit and the last active robot on Earth. After compacting waste for 700 years he suddenly finds that he’s not alone as newer, flashier robot EVE arrives. Wall-E inadvertently finds himself on a journey through space, with the future of mankind in his metallic hands. It’s a great story. I can’t believe that the filmmakers managed to not only put a credible love story between two robots up on screen, but that they made us care about the characters too. I found myself actually emotionally invested in the characters, which is a great achievement for any film, let alone a computer-generated children’s one.

I think the main reason “Wall-E” works is Wall-E himself. He’s a fantastic comedic creation with some endearing quirks and who can say more with one tilt of his eyes or one nervous clutching of his hands than most animated characters ever could. Who would have thought that a robot who collects things and is obsessed with the musical “Hello, Dolly!” would be so loveable? I mean, I’m a 22 year old man with the emotional availability of the Terminator and I still wanted to reach into the screen and give the little guy a hug. I think Ben Burtt’s involvement (the man who invented all the iconic sounds in “Star Wars”) cannot be ignored. As the “voice” of both Wall-E and EVE, he manages to convey the most complex of ideas with the simplest of sounds. Outstanding.

Wall-E generates some brilliant moments too. The scenes where he interacts with things like a fire extinguisher and a bra are a joy to watch. I loved the little bit where Wall-E frets over whether to place his newly found spork with his spoon or fork collection. It’s tiny touches like this that really add to the character. As with most Disney films, “Wall-E” has an underlying message throughout. This one is about caring for the environment. It’s a bit preachy in places, but it’s delivered with enough charm to be acceptable.

“Foreign contaminant!”

There is so much to like about “Wall-E”- it’s visually stunning, funny and endearing. Simply put, if you don’t like “Wall-E” you have no soul.

Bedazzled

During the Christmas holidays, my viewing habits skyrocket and I end up watching all sorts of films that I wouldn’t normally. Case in point, “Bedazzled”

Bedazzled (2000)

I’ve just realised that this is the second Brendan Fraser film review in a row. But don’t worry- “Bedazzled” is better than “The Mummy: Vomiting Yaks Ahoy!”. Onto the review…

“Oh shit, I’m a Columbian drug lord!”

“Bedazzled” is a remake of the 1967 Peter Cook/Dudley Moore film of the same name. Having never seen the original, I can’t really comment on how faithful this retread is. However, if I had to guess, my answer would be “not at all”. The plot follows Elliot Richards (Brendan Fraser), a doormat tech support geek with no apparent social skill. He admires his co-worker Alison (Frances O’Connor) from afar and would do anything to be with her. His wish is answered by The Devil (Elizabeth Hurley) who will grant him seven wishes in exchange for his soul. The story itself isn’t bad. There are some great ideas on display here. I love all the different versions of Elliot in the wishes- very well done. Brendan Fraser proves that he has a natural knack for comedy and I don’t know why he isn’t in more as he is a great comedy character actor and has good comic timing. Liz Hurley is pretty one-dimensional as The Devil, but when she’s as sexy as this- who the Hell cares? Good God, if the Devil looked like that I’d sell my soul faster than you could say “schoolgirl outfit”.

I couldn’t help but enjoy “Bedazzled”. Yes, it was predictable and as deep as a papercut from a Post-It note, but still- it had some nice gags and didn’t suffer from any pacing issues. I suppose if anything it’s like a mix between “Groundhog Day”(which makes sense as both films are directed by Harold “Egon from Ghostbusters” Ramis) and the schoolyard “Corrupted Wish game” (i.e. You wish for a lifetime’s supply of cheese, but you are lactose intolerant). I actually giggled quite a bit when Elliot wishes he was more sensitive and ends up as an insufferable wimp, weeping at sunset and breaking out into improvised sonnets about Alison’s hair.

The ending is a bit of a cop out, to be honest. I was all ready to applaud the film for having Elliot not hook up with Alison at the end, as it seemed like a brave thing to do. However, Elliot goes home to find that his new neighbour looks exactly like Alison and is into all the nerdy stuff he is. Oh dear. Plus, we see a new side to Elliot when he stands up to his co-workers. This doesn’t really make sense however, because Elliot didn’t really learn a lesson from all the wishing. It made sense when Bill Murray’s character in “Groundhog Day” changed due to the fact that we saw why, whereas Elliot’s new found chutzpah seems to come from nowhere.

“I’m telling you, the Devil gypped me for a HAMBURGER!”

Still, “Bedazzled” is enjoyable enough and is much sharper than you may first give it credit for.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

The judgemental bastards among you may think I’ve been slacking off lately, but I haven’t. Computer trouble has struck again and I can’t use my beloved desktop. Long story short, it’s new review time.

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

I’ve always quite liked “The Mummy” films. To me, they were a sort of “Indiana Jones” replacement franchise showing the type of mythical adventures Dr. Jones used to get up to. Whilst they didn’t have the quality the Indy trilogy did, they matched it in both theme and scope. Funnily enough, both the Indy and Mummy films got a new installment for summer 2008. With “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” being a crushing disappointment, could the pretender to the fantasy action crown finally boot the aged Indy from his throne made of my broken dreams? (That sounded a lot less Emo in my head) Well, as it transpires, no- not really.

“I hate mummies. They never play fair!”

The basic plot is that the O’Connells, Rick (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn (Maria Bello, replacing Rachel Weisz) have retired from the mummy fighting business and are trying to live a quiet life at home. Their son Alex (Luke Ford) has grown up and is following in his parents’ footsteps by digging up ancient evil and being surprised when it bites him in the arse. Now the O’Connells have to stop the evil Dragon Emperor (Jet Li) from enslaving the world. I didn’t really buy the whole Chinese mummy thing. I know they existed, but when I hear the word “mummy” I expect something to do with Egypt. Having said that, I quite liked the idea of the Terracotta army coming to life. My main problem with the plot is the fact that it’s purely there to stitch the action sequences together. In “The Mummy” we had a strong sense of story, whereas here it’s pretty weak. I liked Brendan Fraser and Maria Bello as the O’Connells. There has been quite harsh criticism thrown Bello’s way, saying that Weisz was much better in the role. To be honest, I think it’s down to slapdash writing rather than poor acting on Bello’s part. She’s perfectly fine as Evey-just not given much to do beyond saying things in a plummy British accent and being a doting mother and wife. I think that if Weisz had reprised her role, this would have been more apparent.

As it went on, I found that “Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” was raising a few question in my mind. Why is Alex now American when he was British in “The Mummy Returns”? Why isn’t the Emperor scary at all? I mean, Imhotep was something to be feared in the first film. In this one, the Emperor is about as scary as runny cheese- even shapeshifting into a creature resembling something from popular children’s book “Where The Wild Things Are”. Talking of creatures, why are there Yeti in this film? In fact, why do we have a scene where the Yeti kick a soldier over an archway American football field goal style- and celebrate by punching the air and such? Why is there a vomiting yak in this film? And so on…

The ending is odd too. We have Jonathan (John Hannah) jetting off to Peru saying that at least there are no mummies to be found there. As the taxi drives away we are presented with on screen text saying that soon after mummies were found in Peru. The letters W, T and F do not cover it. To be honest, it just feels lazy rather than funny. Couldn’t they be arsed to film someone reading a paper with a Peruvian mummy headline? I’d have much rather had some effort put in here than field goal celebrating Yeti.

“Die you mummy bastards! Die!”

There are some nice ideas and some decent action sequences to enjoy-even if the chase through the streets of Shanghai screams “Temple of Doom” so loudly it eclipses the biggest of explosions. But maybe I’m being too harsh- it’s a fun enough ride while it lasts. It’s no “Indiana Jones” film, but at least it can appeal to a similar family audience. Mind you, “Raiders of the Lost Ark” didn’t have to resort to a motion-sick yak for its laughs-just a Nazi saluting monkey.

Cloverfield

I decided that I’ve been seeing too many films lately which keep the camera still and I can tell what’s going on. Allow me to rectify this with a review of “Cloverfield”- the shaky monster movie.

Cloverfield (2008)

“Cloverfield” is what I like to call a “gimmick film”. It’s the same as any film with the 3D suffix or anything with Adam Sandler. I usually hate films where the camera moves so much you can’t see what’s going on. Michael Bay and Paul Greengrass are the prime offenders of this. I mean, what’s the point of choreographing an elaborate fight sequence if it’s just going to end up a disorientating blur on screen? I remember watching a behind the scenes thing on “The Bourne Ultimatum” and saw them filming a fight scene. The feckin’ cameraman was shaking the thing from side to side as if a massive poisonous spider was on the lens. It was ridiculous! Anyway, “Cloverfield”.

“Okay, just to be clear here, our options are: die here, die in the tunnels, or die in the streets. That pretty much it?”

“Cloverfield” is told through the viewpoints of a small group of New Yorkers. We have the character of Hud (T.J. Miller) acting as the cameraman and therefore our eyes, as he follows Rob (Michael Stahl-David), Beth (Odette Yustman), Marlena (Lizzy Caplan), Jason (Mike Vogel) and Lilly (Jessica Lucas) on a fear-frought journey through a panicking New York City. We start off with a video of Rob filming long time friend Beth as they wake up from the night before (nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more…). I’m pretty sure if I had just slept with someone I had admired from afar for a long time, I wouldn’t stick a camera in their face just as they woke up and realised what a horrible mistake they’d made. Maybe that’s why I’m still single- I don’t film women that much. Anyway- we cut to a leaving do for Rob as he’s going to Japan to live and work. Hud gets saddled with the camera and we get the normal dramatic crap before shit starts going off. We see a huge explosion from far away and suddenly fireballs start raining down. Rob is now determined to see if Beth is OK and so embarks on a dumb mission to go across town and save her.

Once the gang start moving through the city, “Cloverfield” really kicks off. We get teasing glimpses of the monster and the destruction it has wrought. I still get a kick of seeing the headless Statue of Liberty- it’s a great image and a worthy successor to The White House getting blown up in “Independence Day”. It’s hard to miss the allusions to terrorism and 9/11 this film makes. The scene where they are engulfed in a huge cloud of dust and take refuge in the local deli is a direct rip from real life when one of 9/11 survivor’s video showed the same thing. I normally dislike political agendas in films- especially American politics because it doesn’t concern me as much as our politics. However, I can make an exception in the case of “Cloverfield”, because it’s a monster movie at heart. Let’s not forget that possibly the greatest monster movie ever- the original “Godzilla” was a way for the Japanese to express their fears and tension over nuclear action.

It’s hard to review “Cloverfield” as it doesn’t really count as a film in my book. It’s more of an experience. I’ve heard people say how scary the film is. Let me just say this- there is a difference between “jumpy” and “scary”. Jumpy is when you’re in a world of your own and someone taps you on the shoulder. Scary is having a gun shoved in your face. It’s ridiculously easy to make people jump when watching a film anyway. You just have the music build and build then stop, have a false relief moment and then hit ’em with an unpleasant occurance and a stab of music. Scary stuff is much harder to do and I respect it when it’s done well. “Cloverfield” does actually build up some genuine fear when we can’t see what’s going on and the constant threat of the monster is there. However, all this is lost when we see the monster’s face, in close-up no less, staring directly at the camera. Goddamn it- when will filmmakers learn that less is more? Christ, I’m sick of films building up tension and then abandoning all subtlety and finesse for the sake of spelling it out for the ‘tards out there who get angry when they are forced to use their minds.

“Do you guys remember a couple of years ago when that guy was lighting homeless people on fire in the subways?”

All in all, “Cloverfield” is a good film. What I like about it is the fact it feels like a filmic experiment, almost like an interactive ride. It’s definitely something you should check out on the biggest screen/sound system possible, because it all adds to the experience.


Wanted

God help me, I love action films. I know that in many peoples’ eyes this doesn’t make me a good critic. It doesn’t really matter what I say back because they can’t hear the reply due to their heads being firmly stuck up their own arses. So- “Wanted”, then.

Wanted (2008)

After the success of the “X-Men” films, the “Spider-Man” films and the like in the early 2000s, Hollywood has been clawing at any potentially profitable comic book franchises. Thing is, with all the famous and semi-famous characters, such as the Hulk and Daredevil respectively, being snapped up already, the filmmakers are going to increasingly obscure titles in an effort to bring them to the silver screen. “Wanted” is one of those films.

“Do you make sweaters… or do you kill people?”

The plot of “Wanted” is loosely based on the comic book series of the same name. The main character is Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy), a self confessed loser who works in a dead-end office job for his bitch of a boss. His girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend and he is on anti-anxiety medication for his frequent panic attacks. Things change when he meets Fox (Angelina Jolie)- a member of an organisation of assassins called “The Fraternity”, headed by Sloan (Morgan Freeman). James McAvoy really surprised me in this film. I always thought that he was just floppy-haired period drama fodder- purely there to be eye candy for mums and daughters as they sit around munching chocolate. He proved he was a good actor in “Atonement” and in “Wanted” he shows that he’s a great fish out of water action hero- the sort of hero Nic Cage used to play before he started believing he was the next Arnie and wearing silly rugs on his head. Angelina Jolie is great as the suitably named Fox, even if a little too thin and pulling an angry cat face at least half of the runtime. Morgan Freeman is well…Morgan Freeman, which isn’t a bad thing and we at least get to hear him curse, which I would argue is worth watching the film for alone.

In broad terms,”Wanted” is a mixture of “The Matrix” and “Fight Club” and to a lesser extent “Minority Report” and “Shoot ‘Em Up”. You may think that with a long list of similar films like that “Wanted” may play out as just another rip-off type flick, incorporating good elements from better films into it. This is true to a certain extent, but even films like the “Indiana Jones” saga borrow from things like American Saturday morning serials. Whilst I’m not comparing “Wanted” to the “Indiana Jones” films, it’s worth keeping in mind.

I should hate “Wanted”. It’s a brainless film with more emphasis on style than substance. However, it is ridiculously entertaining. Watching it, I could pinpoint where the pretentious critics and audiences made up their minds about this film. The scene in question being the bit where Fox is driving a car with her feet, sprawled out on the bonnet, shooting at a pursuing car. To be honest though, I loved it. Sure, I knew after that point it wasn’t as smart as “Fight Club” but who the hell cares? I think it’s very easy to forget that films are there to basically entertain. All this stuff about the human condition and political agendas is secondary as far as I’m concerned. Plus, the film has a great sense of humour about itself, which is a sure-fire way to get into ol’ Benjamin J’s good books.

“…But as it stands, the way you behave – I feel I can speak for the entire office when I tell you… go fuck yourself.”

I don’t understand the singling out of the “Loom of Fate” revelation. Sure, it’s not exactly believable but I thought we’d left our cynical hats on the floor when we were told that bullets could be curved? Anyway, there is a lot to like about “Wanted”. The action alone is inventive enough to warrant a look. I’m not lying when I say that the derailed train sequence is one of the freshest and most original action scenes in a film in recent history. I love the opening few scenes too with Wesley’s scumbag best friend making him buy the condoms he’s going to use with Wesley’s girlfriend. The retribution scene where Wesley finally has enough of his boss is brilliantly done too- with this shot where Barry finally gets what he deserves at the mercy of an ergonomic keyboard, possibly being one of my favourite shots ever.

Yes, “Wanted” isn’t exactly the smartest film ever made. However, when stupidity as as entertaining as this, I couldn’t care less.

Die Hard 4.0

As an impoverished student, my film choices and thus my film reviews are rather limited in scope. I could review everything in my collection but I tend to only buy good films and so the reviews aren’t exactly entertaining to read. I could borrow films from friends, but this has one inherent problem- say I sharpen my critical claws on Average Film IV: The Boredening’s face, the lender of the film sees the review on this site and takes it as an e-kick to the balls- it’s just not good to piss off the people who inexplicably like you. Anyway, all this has pushed me to review the one last black sheep in my collection, “Die Hard 4.0”

Die Hard 4.0 (2007)

Before the actual review, let me just refresh your memory on why the American PG-13 rating is the bane of my fucking existence. The PG-13 certificate is pretty much the equivalent of a 12A rating here (which I also hate with a tooth-grinding passion) and is basically the jackpot certificate for the greedy movie-making bastards out there. Pre- 2007 if you were to tell me that they would make a “Die Hard” film with most of the violence and swearing cut out I would have lamped you one and run off crying to my room to watch the the original “Die Hard” on a loop for a couple of days. Honestly.

“You just killed a helicopter with a car!”

The story follows veteran cop John McClane (Bruce Willis) as he gets involved in a cyber-terrorist plot to fuck up something-or-other, masterminded by expert hacker Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant). McClane ends up unofficially recruiting hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long) to help him stop this new threat to American freedom. Oh yes, it’s one of those “My Country ‘Tis of Thee”, Stars and Stripes waving, apple pie munching films where the hero’s actions enable the rest of the country to get on with their everyday lives. I’m honestly sick of all the so-called American patriotism on the screen these days. I’m not anti-American by any means, but is patriotism really all about shouting your love for the country as loud as you can and rolling out the ol’ Star-Spangled Banner in between blowing shit up and breathing? I mean, I’d say I’m a British patriot, but I don’t feel the need to have the Union Jack waving outside my house or watch films where the British hero saves the World just in time for tea and crumpets.

“Die Hard 4.0” (as it was called over here, rather than the retch-worthy “Live Free or Die Hard”) is a brilliant example of studio pressure. If anything, it’s more Die Hard 0.5 than 4.0. It seems pretty watered down. It’s a damn shame as the preceding trilogy is unapologetically sweary and bloody. So, before I decend into more bashing- is there anything to like about this film?

The answer is “Yeah, sure.” John McClane is simply a fantastic character. He’s just the average “wrong place, wrong time” guy whose appearance in 1988 spawned a plethora of rip-offs. Even though he’s been muted a bit in this film we still get flashes of the old McClane, which is always nice to see. I actually quite liked Justin Long’s character of Matt Farrell as he has a few good lines and generally comes across as a nervy, likable guy. Bonus points for having Kevin Smith appear- I love that man. The action is pretty inventive too. The blacked out tunnel and lift shaft scenes being the stand-outs. However, as good as those scenes are- you get the feeling that if they were slightly more adult and violent they would have been improved infinitely.

“Damn hamster!”

Thing is, I know swearing and violence does not a good movie make. However, they are integral to the “Die Hard” series. I mean, John McClane’s catchphrase is “Yippie-Kay-Yay, Motherfucker!” for example. In fact, talking about that- our hero doesn’t even get to say the line properly because of studio restraints. What he ends up saying has the offending word covered over by a gunshot. It’s just another kick in the balls for fans of the series. However, there is an unrated version of the film available on DVD which has all the swearing re-instated as well as a few more violent bits. It actually feels more like a “Die Hard” film rather than just another action film. So, if you simply have to see it/own it get that version.

“Die Hard 4.0” is an O.K. film. I mean, it has some good points (John McClane doing stuff) and bad points (that jet sequence was utterly retarded) in equal measures. If they’d released the Unrated cut theatrically I’d be giving it a much better score, but instead “Die Hard 4.0” gets an average 3 (.0)



The Dark Knight

Right, it’s time for me to review the feel-bad hit of the Summer. How does the Caped Crusader’s latest adventure stack up? Let’s find out…

The Dark Knight (2008)

“Batman Begins” was the re-start the Batman franchise needed. However, I always wondered where they would go from there. OK, they fixed the mistakes made in 1989’s “Batman” and they’ve made it grittier and more realistic, but now what? Where was this new direction going? Was it just a matter of time before the Batsuits with nipples made an appearance again? Well, in “The Dark Knight” I have my answers- and they’re feckin’ fantastic ones at that.

“Wanna know how I got these scars?”

It’s a year on from the events of “Batman Begins” and Gotham’s criminal underworld is running scared from the shadow of Batman (Christian Bale) . The city also has a new district attorney-Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) who vows to clean up the streets, aided by Bruce Wayne’s old flame, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes). However, the arrival of a mysterious and sadistic criminal simply called “The Joker” (Heath Ledger) starts a wave of terror and choas which Batman must put an end to. It’s a great story and far more intelligent than you’d expect from a superhero movie.
It’s no secret that the stand-out performance in this film is Heath Ledger’s Joker. I never really liked Jack Nicholson’s take on the character in the original. He was just playing himself with some wacky cartoony quirks. To be honest, this is what you get when you cast someone purely on the grounds that they’re famous and have a memorable smile. Hence why I surprised when the news of Heath Ledger’s casting broke. Sure, the guy’s a great actor- but would he have a faithful spin on the character? As it turns out, yes. The Joker is a joy to watch. He’s psychotic, funny and scary all at the same time. The scene that outlines how successful “The Dark Knight” is at somehow making the ridiculous seem totally plausible is the interrogation scene between the Joker and Batman. In any lesser film, it would have been an unintentionally funny scene involving a guy in a rubber bat suit talking tough to a clown. In this film, it’s a superbly written, disturbing scene where the Joker just laughs as Batman mercilessly beats him to the ground. The thing I love about the Joker is that he’s a self-confessed agent of chaos, who arrives, turns everything on its head and leaves. He’s not in it for the money, he “just wants to watch the World burn” as Alfred (Michael Caine) eloquently puts it. Throughout the film, the Joker is likened to a dog and I think this is very apt. Dogs are impulsive. They don’t really think- they just do. Let’s not forget also that dogs can be vicious.

Whilst the Joker is causing chaos, the character of Harvey Dent – “Gotham’s White Knight” is being dragged down. He has a slow tragic fall and becomes the character of Two-Face, a man who relies on a coin flip to determine decisions- in his book, the only fair way to tell right from wrong. Whilst I love the Joker, I think Two Face is a brilliant villain too. You understand his motivation and you empathise with him. He’s not out for World domination, he’s out for revenge against fate and chance, which makes for a much more interesting and believable character. I hope the “Spider-Man 4” people are taking notes because this is how you do a multiple villain scenario.

The action is genuinely jaw-dropping, with the tunnel sequence culminating in an 18-wheeler truck getting flipped being my favourite. I also love the following scene where the Joker is walking down the street, muttering and machine-gunning random civilian cars-insanity at its most entertaining. Plus, if it was not illegal or frowned upon I would make the Batpod (i.e. this thing) my wife. It’s the perfect Batman vehicle, my only gripe being that the Tumbler (i.e. this thing) had to be sacrificed for it. Ah well.

The supporting cast of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman are all great and still eclipse Bale’s Wayne/Batman performance, although by not nearly the same amount as Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger do.

As for the nit-picks, there are a few problems I have with “The Dark Knight”. When I heard the news that Katie Holmes was to be replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, I was pleased. Gyllenhaal’s a much better actress and arguably more attractive than the former “Dawson’s Creek” star. Thing is, she’s pretty much wasted in the film and not given enough to work with. She’s meant to be the emotional core of the film, giving Bruce something to work for, but she ends up as just another character rather than a meaningful one. Let’s just get this out of the way, I quite liked Bale’s Batman voice in “Batman Begins” as it made sense to disguise his voice into a much scarier, gruffer tone. However, in “The Dark Knight” it goes a bit too far and I found myself wishing he could just take a break and suck on a Strepsil.

“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

So that’s “The Dark Knight”-a fantastic film with some amazing performances. However, don’t consider all this as a recommendation to see it, consider it a condemnation of the fact you haven’t seen it yet. I can’t give this film anything less than a Bat-tastic:


Back to the Future

You’ll never believe this. I was standing on the toilet, hanging a clock when I slipped and hit my head on the sink. When I came to I realised I hadn’t reviewed any of the “Back to the Future” films. Great Scott!

Back to the Future (1985)


It’s really hard reviewing the films you love. It’s very tempting to just say “It’s all good” and move on. However, I like to think I’m better than that (although I’m open to the fact that I may be wrong) and so I’ll try to explain why I think “Back to the Future” is so damn good.

“Wait a minute, Doc. Ah… Are you telling me that you built a time machine… out of a DeLorean?”

The plot follows time-travelling teenager Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) who accidently goes back to 1955 in a time machine which his friend Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd) invented. Things start to go wrong as Marty inadvertently screws up his parents’ first meeting and so his very existence is threatened. To me, it’s a pitch-perfect escapist story chock-full of comedy, romance, peril, action and everything in between. “Back to the Future” shows that if your story is strong enough, it can outlast anything, even the fashion disasters of the ’80s. Michael J. Fox is fantastic as Marty- he is effortlessly cool (well, for an ’80s kid). Lloyd is brilliant too, not only putting in the best performance of his career, but also giving us one of the greatest movie scientists ever. Every time I watch this film, I’m always reminded of how strong the supporting cast is with Crispin Glover, Lea Thompson and especially Thomas F. Wilson giving us some really memorable characters. Biff Tannen has got to be one of the all-time biggest twatbags ever, but somehow he’s likeable too.

The friendship between Doc and Marty, although we never get the back story, feels very real. On paper it seems odd and possibly very creepy, but somehow as the film goes on, I bought the fact that they are great friends totally without the word “grooming” crossing my modern, cynical mind. As you probably know by now, I appreciate films not treating me like a drooling retard and actually allowing some imagination and thought- this film does this and more, giving the deceptively simple plot enough twists and turns to keep us entertained. “Back to the Future” is one of those rare films that doesn’t lull or lose focus of the story. It’s pacy enough so the audience doesn’t get bored, but spends enough time on the characters for them to feel well-rounded and to make us genuinely care about them. The time travel element is used to its full potential too, with clever nods to both fifties and eighties culture.

As for favourite scenes, there are too many to choose from. The scene where Marty wakes up in 1955 to his doting teenage mother is brilliantly written and funny. I get the feeling that if in different hands, the scene wouldn’t have played out as nearly as well and possibly have had a horrible Oedipal situation on its hands. The skateboard sequence with Biff and his cronies is genius too, with the bit where Marty evades the car and Biff and co. crash into the manure truck never failing to raise a smile from me. The “Johnny B. Goode” sequence is also excellent, with Marty practically inventing Rock ‘n’ Roll before its time at the Enchantment Under The Sea dance. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. The score is worth mentioning also as Alan Silvestri out-Williamses John Williams with a very memorable and epic main theme.

“If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour… you’re gonna see some serious shit.”

To be honest, I could fan-wank about this film for days. To me, it’s about as close to perfection as a film can get. This is why I’ve cooked up a new rating for it and other classics of it’s ilk. Basically, the five gold star rating is given to films which are exceptional and are just that bit better than other excellent films. So, I award “Back to the Future” the first five gold rating in the history of this site purely because I don’t think I could ever get tired of it.

Juno

I’m not all guns and explosions, y’know. Sometimes I just feel like chilling out, lounging on a chair and affecting a pipe for some reason. Strange then that the titular character from “Juno” likes to do the same thing…

Juno (2007)

I was close to giving up on “Juno”, I really was. The first ten/fifteen minutes did nothing to endear themselves to me. It was screaming “For the love of God, like me!” so loud it was insufferable. It was like a drunken party girl feverishly snogging your face off, just so she’ll forget she has daddy issues for a brief moment. OK, maybe that’s a bit too obscure- but what I’m trying to say is that the film was trying so hard to get me to empathise with the characters it actually got a bit distracting. Hang on, I’ll tell you more after the obligatory plot summary and general actor comments…

“Yeah, I’m a legend. You know, they call me the cautionary whale.”

The story is about Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page), a 16 year old girl who suddenly faces an unplanned pregnancy due to a “bored” night with her not-boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). After realising she can’t go through with an abortion, she decides to give the baby to a childless couple (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner). The story actually surprised me, which says a lot considering I’m hardly ever surprised by films anymore. Ellen Page is really good as Juno. She handles the possible problems with the character (i.e. treating the whole teenage pregnancy thing too lightly) with tremendous skill and surprising heart. I thought Michael Cera was great too, even though he was playing an only slightly deeper version of his character from “Superbad”.

Back to that opening quarter of an hour or so. The thing I didn’t like about it was the fact that everything from the overuse of hipper-than-thou indie tracks to the obnoxious dialogue was unbelievably annoying. I get the feeling the film was expecting me to think “Like OMG! Juno is such a free spirit with her sarcasm, hamburger phone and pipe smoking! She is fo’ shizz zany- she’s sooo like me!” To be honest, I was hit with the “Look! She’s so kooky!” hammer so many times I started to feel a little punch-drunk. However, I started to warm to it after that. After the credits rolled I realised that maybe the film wanted me to feel that way and that it was in on the joke with me, which cheered me up no end.

The film played two nice tricks on me. One of them being the one above and the second was to be found in Jason Bateman’s character. Throughout the film we are made to side with him- after all, he’s a cool guy, he likes horror films and it seems like he’s a bit downtrodden by his control-freak wife. Later in the film- we are betrayed, as Juno is, by the revelation that he doesn’t believe he’s ready for fatherhood. It’s rare to see a film do this sort of thing and it’s really refreshing to see.

There were some really moving scenes too. The scene where Juno tells her parents (J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney) is very well written and brilliantly acted. It’s very warm and gives us an actual insight into the three characters’ relationships. I was slightly disappointed when J.K. Simmons didn’t instantly sprout a flat-top haircut and moustache and start demanding pictures of Spider-Man, however. The most moving scene though is when Juno is comforted by Paulie in the hospital after giving birth. Gone was the snappy dialogue and gone were the increasingly strange quirks that every character just had to have (Orange Tic-Tacs?) and in their place was left something much more believable and endearing.

“I’m dealing with things way beyond my maturity level.”

On paper, I should hate “Juno”. It’s so indie it hurts, for one. For two, all that post awards buzz and the Oscar win has almost completely overshadowed the film itself. For three, well- it doesn’t have any guns and explosions. However, once I waded through all the faux sharp lines and supposedly cool soundtrack I found something I could connect with- a great coming-of-age story with some actual humanity to it.


Batman Begins

In preparation for watching and thusly reviewing “The Dark Knight”, I decided to watch 2005’s “Batman Begins” and refresh my memory on how the restarted franchise began.

Batman Begins (2005)

I’ll go out on a limb and say that comic books are probably the hardest thing to adapt to film due to the fact that they are very visually driven. The second hardest thing to adapt is an origin story due to the fact that if you get it wrong, you will be thrown to the fanboys with no mercy whatsoever. The third hardest adaptable thing to film is probably the story of a likable and happy-go-lucky paedophile. I digress. As I was saying, comic book films have it tough. When you look at Batman purely objectively it’s absolutely crackers. It’s basically the story of a billionaire who fights crime in a rubber bat suit. It’s crazy.

“It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me.”

The film follows Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) who is angst-ridden and traumatised after his parents were gunned down in front of him at a young age. After a few flashbacks, we join adult fake-bearded Bruce as he takes a spiritual jouney to “seek the means to fight injustice, to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful” under the instruction of a man named Ducard (Liam Neeson) and the League of Shadows. It’s nice to see a non-cocked up version of Batman’s origin for a change (Tim Burton has a lot to answer for…) Anyway, after Bruce refuses to execute a man as his final test of commitment to justice, he returns to Gotham and starts waging his one-man war against crime.

It’s taken me a while to realise this, but I don’t particularly like Christian Bale as Batman/Bruce Wayne. It’s not that he’s a bad actor or anything, he just doesn’t seem to do much with it. At least Keaton had a slightly odd edge to him, making the fantastical notion of a man dressing up like a nocturnal mammal and fighting crime that tiny bit more believable. Mind you, at least Bale’s better than Val Kilmer and George Clooney.Plus, he’s British (Welsh to be precise) so hoorah for that.

I think one of the reasons that Bale doesn’t particularly shine is the fact that he’s surrounded by an all-star cast in this film. Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson and Gary Oldman all pull out solid perfomances for this flick. Katie Holmes is surprisingly good too, but I suppose this is because Tom Cruise hadn’t sucked out her soul and offered it to Xenu by this point.
There is some fantastic action too. The Tumbler chase is one of the most unique car chases I’ve seen for a long time and we finally see Batman kicking some arse further than a stiff kick or punch as in previous installments. The camera does seem to have a Bourne-style epileptic fit on occasion, but this can be forgiven due to the fact it mostly behaves itself.

“Now, take this guy: armed robbery, double homicide. Got a taste for theatrical, like you. Leaves a calling card…”

The one thing that lets “Batman Begins” down in my opinion is the lack of a great villain. Before all you Cillian Murphy/Liam Neeson fanpeople start firebombing my room, let me explain. Murphy is intense and very creepy as Dr.Crane, however all his carefully controlled malevolence goes out the window as soon as he puts the Scarecrow mask on and starts chucking poisonous gas into people’s faces. He also abandons all his talk about the mind and inexplicably starts making bad puns (“You need to lighten up”- before setting ol’ Batsy on fire) We don’t really get a conclusion to his story either, he just gets tasered in the face and rides off into the night screaming. I know he’s in “The Dark Knight”, albeit very briefly, but personally I’d have a liked a bit of closure. As for Neeson, well- he’s okay I guess, but apart from the whole “mentor gone bad” thing he doesn’t do much.

So, “Batman Begins” is a really enjoyable film. Fantastic cast, brilliant action sequences and some genuinely interesting characters. It succeeds in explaining Batman’s story correctly and is damn entertaining to boot.