Would it have been the same if it wasn't a musical and Bowie didn't sing his songs? He got a lot of crap from music critics and his older fans for writing the songs for Labyrinth. They thought the songs were terrible.
Also, it didn't have to be a musical, if they'd wanted to they could've still had Bowie without the songs and just have a straight fantasy movie. Would it have worked?
The music definitly helps a lot, i mean the whole purpose of the project was primarly based around music anyway- that was Jim Henson's initial idea. I like the story concept anyway, but i think the music definitly adds to the movie to set it apart from other fantasy films, it becomes unique for that purpose alone. Also the music, in particular the dialogue, really adds an extra dimension as well as more depth to the characters. For example the song "As The World Falls Down" is Jareth showing his romantic side and exposing his true inner feelings to Sarah which is probably more effective in music form then it would be in spoken dialogue (and indeed it becomes more magical when sung), and "Within You" perfectly shows the tragic angst that Jareth is going through which again is more effective as a song then it would be if he said it directly to Sarah. Of course he would never say any of these things to Sarah directly anyway so the songs are a way for us to understand Jareth as a deeper, more complex character- and it certianly breaks the initial preconception of him being a typical "villian", which of course he's not; and it's only through the songs that we really understand this. It's a fantasy "girl coming of age" Alice in Wonderland/Wizard of Oz journey film first and foremost but i think personally with the music it turns into a sort of pseudo-romance, especially with Bowie singing the latter songs in the film, more Phantom of the Opera ish. Jareth is definitly that type of character similar to Erik- more a tragic and misunderstood soul than a true-blue villian.
To be honest I don't even know if Sarah actually hears what Jareth is saying through his songs, maybe it's for the audience alone as she doesn't seem to be reacting to his words, but still it's great to have them in there as it shows us more to the characters that we wouldn't have got to see without the songs. Coincidently it wasn't the fantasy that attracted me to the film at first, nor the monsters or the goblins or the action (which, as a little boy, would have been the first thing to grab my attention and get me to watch it) but it was in fact the music itself that struck me. As soon as "Underground" played at the start it was hard for me not to look away as the music is wonderful and the lyrics really interesting. I didn't know Bowie got slated for his music here as i think it's a great soundtrack. The style is different from what wer'e used to hearing from him but still i think it's brilliant- with "As The World Falls Down" single-handedly being one of the best romantic ballads i've ever heard.
Of course the whole movie with music adds to that 80s MTV pop music charm as well, which is another reason why it's so popular with people. It's definitly a film of the era and the contemporary pop music (instead of full blown songs typical of most musicals) added a spin on the traditional fantasy film at the time. It's an old skool fantasy blended with modern day humour, dialogue, wit and music. I thought it was a Disney type movie at first- clean cut and traditional with nothing offensive- and then i hear the goblins talking modern day slang, saying words like "crap" (which back then for me was quite something as i was bought up watching very restricted material and hearing them swear like that was like, woah) and seeing Hoggle pissing in a pond and killing fairies and all of a sudden it's in a league of it's own- its traditional and modren, and takes the piss out of it's own genre at the same time. It's a fusion of old and new and i love it.
What about Bowie's acting? He has been slated for it in the past and when this came out, not many people thought he'd done particularly well. I for one think he is a good actor, not excellent, but he can act. And what more could one want? It's still a children's film, albeit with adult undertones.
I thought his acting was great to be honest, even as a child i was able to pick up the subtle details of his performance- his dry wit, his tounge-in-cheek humour, his over-possesive controlling side, his over-bearing seductive side, a tragic romantic, a strutting "rock star rebel" (especially with his cane that looks suspiciosly like a microphone) and as a frankly bored young man just putting on the villian act to pass the time (like he was only living up to his role as the bad guy as that was his duty, perfectly explained by Bowie in the making-of documentary where he says that he assumed Jareth reluctantly took on the job as Goblin King, and he would rather be in Soho or something having a drink and a laugh). And it's true that he rarely shows any expression for his emotions but this is what i think is truly classy about his performance- especially in the ballroom sequence where he instinctly wants to move closer to Sarah despite the whispered warnings by other jealous women there that forbid him to go- yet he looks at them and then looks at Sarah even more longinlgy and then goes and takes her by the hand, to the disaproval of everyone. I managed to catch this only becuase i used to watch the film so much everyday, it's a very deep performance but it's done very subtley and you have to focus on it to pick it up. If you've ever read artist Brian Froud's "Goblins of Labyrinth" artbook he goes into some detail about how he designed Jareth as a character and describes him as a sort of scarlett pimpernel Wuthering Heights-type "Lord of the Manor". I'd be happy to write the excerpt out for you if you haven't got the book.
And regarding his songs for the film, i completly agree with you. Each song perfectly encapsulates either the characters (the Fireys with Chilly Down), the scenario or both (as i explained in another thread, As The World Falls Down and Within You were a way to let Jareth let out his angst and inner feelings towards Sarah in a way he wouldn't be able to do in normal dialogue). "Magic Dance" is just a playful, fun-filled catchy tune which encompasses the relativly "simple" point of the entire film as a way to market it easily- a family friendly film for everyone to get up, dance to and enjoy. "Underground" however is a song which harbours the deeper meaning of the film, explaining what it's really all about for those who want to study it and learn from it's many morals and understand what Henson and Bowie really wanted to say- and that's all about Sarah (as well as us), learning and growing through metaphors and interpretations of journeys, revelations, sacrifices and redemptions regarding life itself.
So all in all every song has something relavent to say about the film, it's characters and to us in general regarding Henson's philosophy- and i find that not only intriguing but also fascinating in it's detail. I too hope that Bowie and Connelley aren't embarrased by the film though it has been well documented that Jennifer doesn't like talking about it, i remember she was on Tonight with Johnathaon Ross a few years ago and Ross bought the film up (as he would as he's a fan of it, showing a massive image of Jareth and Sarah on the screen) and Jennifer blushed, smiled and looked away in embarassment and asked if they move away from the subject as quickly as possible.
I'll leave you with some choice quotes from Jim Henson himself which i believe are completly relavant to what he was trying to say with Labyrinth, and with life in general:
"I believe that life is basically a process of growth - that we go through many lives, choosing situations and problems that we will learn through. I think there are lots of ways of leading very good lives and growing spiritually, and this process of growth goes on whether we believe in it or not."
"Life's like a movie, write your own ending. Keep believing, keep pretending."
"As children, we all live in a world of imagination and fantasy. And for some of us, that world of make-believe contiunes into adulthood"
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
top 10s....(Action, Horror)
I was bored, so here for you guys at home are two lists of my top 10 action films and top 10 horror movies; and to make it even more indecisive on my part they are in no real order of preference either, so hah!
My Top 10 favourite Action films:
#1 Aliens (1986, dir. James Cameron)
What can i say other than this film is the epitome of the word "masterpiece". Put simply: Perfect. 10/10
#2 The Terminator (1984, dir. James Cameron)
I actually love this movie more than it's sequel. It's darker, grittier and more violent in tone than it's sequel, and i actually love the cheaper budget and SFX more (I'm an old-skool effects guy at heart!).
#3 Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991. dir. James Cameron)
Bigger and badder than it's predecessor and in short the greatest action movie of the 90s. The only other film which comes even close to taking it's crown was The Matrix, though i feel that T2 is still the king of that generation, bar none. A masterpiece, though I prefer the first one more as stated above.
#4 Commando (1985, dir. Mark L Lester)
An 80s classic make no mistake- fun non-stop action from the start. This film I feel encompasses everything about the genre and the decade. The simple plot, the outrageous violence, the hilarious one-liners- everything in this film screams classic- it's impossible not to be entertained. Inspired so much, including the video game Contra. The film is entertaining now and a classic as they just don't make action films as light-hearted and fun as this anymore. Much imitated but never bettered!
#5 Predator (1987, dir. John McTiernan)
I see this movie more of a sci-fi horror film more than an action film, however the action in the film is spectacular and has to be mentioned- it's a B-movie executed with AAA class.
#7 Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985, dir. George P. Cosmatos)
Another 80s classic which epitomises the era beautifully. Again this film has been imitated countless times but never beaten- Stallone's Rambo was the ultimate hero of the 80s alongside Arnie. Much imitated again but never bettered. The film again inspired Contra as well as the Metal Gear Solid series. (Solid Snake was hugely inspired by both Rambo and Snake Plisskin). The film helped paved the way for 80s action cinema, if not being one of the first to do so.
#8 Robocop (1987, dir. Paul Verhoeven)
A perfect combination of styles. 80s hardcore action and sci-fi comic book and satire mixed together in one hugely entertaining and darkly comedic movie.
#10 Die Hard (1988, dir. John McTiernan)
One of the best action movies on the 80s if not THE best. It was previously my number #1 favourite film of all time, and though it isn't anymore it still features at the top of many all-time best of lists.
My top 10 favourite Horror films:
#1 Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
An all round perfect movie apart from one major flaw- Keanu Reeve's acting and accent is laughably bad.... but i can take it, it makes it into even more of a classic! Fantastic visuals, effects and costume design, brilliantly directed, amazing acting (especially from Gary Oldman who churns out in my opinion his greatest performance ever) a superb score and an awesome re-telling of the novel (which is my favourite book ever). I love this film and always will; the epitome of high Gothic horror romance.
#2 Evil Dead 2 (1987, dir. Sam Raimi)
A classic. Brilliant fun. Creative and imaginatively inventive old-skool special effects, plenty of OTT gore and some fantastic design, directing as well as being visually superb- the film is so experimental in the techniques it uses you can't help but take notice (stop motion animation, hand-drawn animation, stop motion with real people amongst a few). Very good movie and one of the best horrors of the decade, as well as I feel being Sam Raimi's best film ever.
#3 Ringu (1998, dir. Hideo Nakata)
The original Japanese version of The Ring is the one that started it all and of course it is the best version of the story as well as being vastly superior to both the American and Korean remakes. I was absolutely terrified when i first saw this in the cinema in 1998, unaware at what it was about as back then it was only released in a few small cinemas with no hype. I have never been that scared by a film since, so the movie is a pinnacle in horror for me as i don't get scared by anything yet Ringu managed to single-handedly frighten me to near death. Both movies are different executions of the source material and I enjoyed them both. I love the original more than the remake and always will because it's more quaint, quieter and definitely a lot more scarier (imo), it's also very Japanese.
Whilst not beyond nonrecognition, I felt there are some good things about the American remake which elevates it as the best remake of an Asian horror film to date (as much as I hate remakes it's not that bad). Gore Verbinski's version was obviously done to western standards which are very different to Asia, and whilst I'm not a big fan of this kind it was still a good remake, and Verbinski managed to have a long, brooding sense of constant dread throughout the picture which I admired. The only thing I didn't like was Samara's exit out of the TV which just looked too contrived, cliche, over-glossed and generic in that Hollywood way, where I felt the original was far better in it's "less is more" premise. I also felt the tape was better in the original movie than the remake where it looked like a Nine Inch Nails music video. But the other effects were really well done (the corpses) and the scares where awesome, and not cheap like what it usually done in American horror films. I also love Japanese mythology and folklore and for them to weave it into the original was brilliant because it's a different culture so it was creepy in that sense as it wasn't anything I was familiar with; I didn't get a sense of that in the American version as it was just a normal village town, something I am familiar with and nothing foreign about it.
I think the remake is a solid and really well done adaptation though but I will always prefer the original as the definitive version as it's the better movie imo and it scared the hell out of me more than the American one.
#4 Candyman (1992, dir. Bernard Rose)
Brilliantly directed and an all round well crafted film. From the imagination of Clive Barker (based on his short story "The Forbidden") the film still holds up today as a great example of a fine psychological/horror film.
#5 Hellraiser (1987, dir. Clive Barker)
A true classic of 80s horror cinema. Clive Barker once again shows us that his imagination knows no limits as he adapts and directs his short story "The Hellbound Heart" into one of the most surprisingly effective horror films of the 80s decade. The film is a pure Gothic tale which harks back to the classic age of Edgar Allan Poe- and this is where the film stands out as it is not a typical teen slasher movies full of psychotic killers which the 80s was full of but rather a tale of obsession, intrigue, madness and desire. To be honest I hated the film when I first saw it years ago; I thought it was one of the worst directed, acted and boring horror films I had ever had to endure. But after viewing it again, and consequently again and again I realised this was a different kind of horror and understood what Barker was trying to do with it. Once you get it and understand it, it really and truly is a revolutionary and highly original piece of fantasy horror fiction.
#6 The Cell (2000, dir. Tarsem Singh)
I personally think this film is very underrated, and in my eyes it's a near masterpiece of art and design. Jennifer Lopez gives a great performance but ultimately it's the directing, visuals and design which shine brilliantly. Every single frame of the mind sequences is a work of stunning art in my view- the film works as a surreal journey into the dark reaches of the imagination as well as a highly proficient psychological horror film.
#8 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974, dir. Tobe Hooper)
A classic. The first is the best movie of the series and i still think it's as powerful as it ever was. The exploits of the Hewitt family's first outing is still memorable and frightening and easily exceeds any contemporary horror movie, the recent remake and prequel included. A tour de force in low-budget high impact cinema.
#9 Saw (2004, dir. James Wan)
A fantastic horror/thriller expertly crafted by young and talented director James Wan, co-written by himself and Leigh Wannel who stars. Simple and highly effective with a fantastic twist making it one of the best horror films of the past 10 years as well as the most successful horror franchises of recent years. They should definitely end the saga now as i feel it's reached it's peak but it still never fails to pleasantly surprise me. The king of the genre which is now referred to as "torture porn".
#10 Silent Hill (2006, dir. Chrisophe Gans)
As a huge fan of the video games i thought this movie nailed it completely. It's slick, well directed and the visuals are sublime- every frame a work of art. It works well as a game adaptation but i also feel it works great as a stand alone movie. Paul Anderson, take note. THIS is how to successfully adapt a video game.
Honourable Mentions:
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984, dir. Wes Craven)
I love this film but I really can't get it to fit into this top 10! It deserves it's place somewhere higher, and maybe I will come back to the list and re-evaluate it so it can accomapny this classic. We Craven gives us a classic tale of child molsetor Freddy Kruger who has come to haunt the dreams of Elm Street's teenagers as he exacts revenge for the parents who murdered him as well as having some fun in his own sick and depraved way. The first is obviously the best in the series though a few of the sequels are also very good. Rober Englund gives the performance of his entire career as the iconic Freddy and Heather Lagenkamp cements herself as princess of 80s horror scream teens. An original and respected work of 80s horror brilliance- it may be cheesy in parts now but it's still a great watch!
Alien (1979. dir. Ridley Scott)
Another classic horror film which needs to be put higher in the list but again I can't seem to figure out where or even if this is the right genre for it, even though it is, it's both horror and sci-fi and does both genres really well. A fantastic film which hasn't aged in it's scared at all- I watched it recently and still found parts of it to be genuinly creepy, especially with the claustrohphiba and expert directing (lighting, choreography, design and intense acting all make it a suspensful journey into ou deepest fears of space and extra-terrestrial life). It's still one of the best out there and it's got it.
My Top 10 favourite Action films:
#1 Aliens (1986, dir. James Cameron)
What can i say other than this film is the epitome of the word "masterpiece". Put simply: Perfect. 10/10#2 The Terminator (1984, dir. James Cameron)
I actually love this movie more than it's sequel. It's darker, grittier and more violent in tone than it's sequel, and i actually love the cheaper budget and SFX more (I'm an old-skool effects guy at heart!).#3 Terminator 2: Judgement Day (1991. dir. James Cameron)
Bigger and badder than it's predecessor and in short the greatest action movie of the 90s. The only other film which comes even close to taking it's crown was The Matrix, though i feel that T2 is still the king of that generation, bar none. A masterpiece, though I prefer the first one more as stated above.
#4 Commando (1985, dir. Mark L Lester)
An 80s classic make no mistake- fun non-stop action from the start. This film I feel encompasses everything about the genre and the decade. The simple plot, the outrageous violence, the hilarious one-liners- everything in this film screams classic- it's impossible not to be entertained. Inspired so much, including the video game Contra. The film is entertaining now and a classic as they just don't make action films as light-hearted and fun as this anymore. Much imitated but never bettered!#5 Predator (1987, dir. John McTiernan)
I see this movie more of a sci-fi horror film more than an action film, however the action in the film is spectacular and has to be mentioned- it's a B-movie executed with AAA class.#7 Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985, dir. George P. Cosmatos)
Another 80s classic which epitomises the era beautifully. Again this film has been imitated countless times but never beaten- Stallone's Rambo was the ultimate hero of the 80s alongside Arnie. Much imitated again but never bettered. The film again inspired Contra as well as the Metal Gear Solid series. (Solid Snake was hugely inspired by both Rambo and Snake Plisskin). The film helped paved the way for 80s action cinema, if not being one of the first to do so.
#8 Robocop (1987, dir. Paul Verhoeven)
A perfect combination of styles. 80s hardcore action and sci-fi comic book and satire mixed together in one hugely entertaining and darkly comedic movie.#10 Die Hard (1988, dir. John McTiernan)
One of the best action movies on the 80s if not THE best. It was previously my number #1 favourite film of all time, and though it isn't anymore it still features at the top of many all-time best of lists.My top 10 favourite Horror films:
#1 Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992, dir. Francis Ford Coppola)
An all round perfect movie apart from one major flaw- Keanu Reeve's acting and accent is laughably bad.... but i can take it, it makes it into even more of a classic! Fantastic visuals, effects and costume design, brilliantly directed, amazing acting (especially from Gary Oldman who churns out in my opinion his greatest performance ever) a superb score and an awesome re-telling of the novel (which is my favourite book ever). I love this film and always will; the epitome of high Gothic horror romance.#2 Evil Dead 2 (1987, dir. Sam Raimi)
A classic. Brilliant fun. Creative and imaginatively inventive old-skool special effects, plenty of OTT gore and some fantastic design, directing as well as being visually superb- the film is so experimental in the techniques it uses you can't help but take notice (stop motion animation, hand-drawn animation, stop motion with real people amongst a few). Very good movie and one of the best horrors of the decade, as well as I feel being Sam Raimi's best film ever.
#3 Ringu (1998, dir. Hideo Nakata)
The original Japanese version of The Ring is the one that started it all and of course it is the best version of the story as well as being vastly superior to both the American and Korean remakes. I was absolutely terrified when i first saw this in the cinema in 1998, unaware at what it was about as back then it was only released in a few small cinemas with no hype. I have never been that scared by a film since, so the movie is a pinnacle in horror for me as i don't get scared by anything yet Ringu managed to single-handedly frighten me to near death. Both movies are different executions of the source material and I enjoyed them both. I love the original more than the remake and always will because it's more quaint, quieter and definitely a lot more scarier (imo), it's also very Japanese.Whilst not beyond nonrecognition, I felt there are some good things about the American remake which elevates it as the best remake of an Asian horror film to date (as much as I hate remakes it's not that bad). Gore Verbinski's version was obviously done to western standards which are very different to Asia, and whilst I'm not a big fan of this kind it was still a good remake, and Verbinski managed to have a long, brooding sense of constant dread throughout the picture which I admired. The only thing I didn't like was Samara's exit out of the TV which just looked too contrived, cliche, over-glossed and generic in that Hollywood way, where I felt the original was far better in it's "less is more" premise. I also felt the tape was better in the original movie than the remake where it looked like a Nine Inch Nails music video. But the other effects were really well done (the corpses) and the scares where awesome, and not cheap like what it usually done in American horror films. I also love Japanese mythology and folklore and for them to weave it into the original was brilliant because it's a different culture so it was creepy in that sense as it wasn't anything I was familiar with; I didn't get a sense of that in the American version as it was just a normal village town, something I am familiar with and nothing foreign about it.
I think the remake is a solid and really well done adaptation though but I will always prefer the original as the definitive version as it's the better movie imo and it scared the hell out of me more than the American one.
#4 Candyman (1992, dir. Bernard Rose)
Brilliantly directed and an all round well crafted film. From the imagination of Clive Barker (based on his short story "The Forbidden") the film still holds up today as a great example of a fine psychological/horror film.#5 Hellraiser (1987, dir. Clive Barker)
A true classic of 80s horror cinema. Clive Barker once again shows us that his imagination knows no limits as he adapts and directs his short story "The Hellbound Heart" into one of the most surprisingly effective horror films of the 80s decade. The film is a pure Gothic tale which harks back to the classic age of Edgar Allan Poe- and this is where the film stands out as it is not a typical teen slasher movies full of psychotic killers which the 80s was full of but rather a tale of obsession, intrigue, madness and desire. To be honest I hated the film when I first saw it years ago; I thought it was one of the worst directed, acted and boring horror films I had ever had to endure. But after viewing it again, and consequently again and again I realised this was a different kind of horror and understood what Barker was trying to do with it. Once you get it and understand it, it really and truly is a revolutionary and highly original piece of fantasy horror fiction.#6 The Cell (2000, dir. Tarsem Singh)
I personally think this film is very underrated, and in my eyes it's a near masterpiece of art and design. Jennifer Lopez gives a great performance but ultimately it's the directing, visuals and design which shine brilliantly. Every single frame of the mind sequences is a work of stunning art in my view- the film works as a surreal journey into the dark reaches of the imagination as well as a highly proficient psychological horror film.
#8 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974, dir. Tobe Hooper)
A classic. The first is the best movie of the series and i still think it's as powerful as it ever was. The exploits of the Hewitt family's first outing is still memorable and frightening and easily exceeds any contemporary horror movie, the recent remake and prequel included. A tour de force in low-budget high impact cinema.#9 Saw (2004, dir. James Wan)
A fantastic horror/thriller expertly crafted by young and talented director James Wan, co-written by himself and Leigh Wannel who stars. Simple and highly effective with a fantastic twist making it one of the best horror films of the past 10 years as well as the most successful horror franchises of recent years. They should definitely end the saga now as i feel it's reached it's peak but it still never fails to pleasantly surprise me. The king of the genre which is now referred to as "torture porn".
#10 Silent Hill (2006, dir. Chrisophe Gans)
As a huge fan of the video games i thought this movie nailed it completely. It's slick, well directed and the visuals are sublime- every frame a work of art. It works well as a game adaptation but i also feel it works great as a stand alone movie. Paul Anderson, take note. THIS is how to successfully adapt a video game.
Honourable Mentions:
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984, dir. Wes Craven)
I love this film but I really can't get it to fit into this top 10! It deserves it's place somewhere higher, and maybe I will come back to the list and re-evaluate it so it can accomapny this classic. We Craven gives us a classic tale of child molsetor Freddy Kruger who has come to haunt the dreams of Elm Street's teenagers as he exacts revenge for the parents who murdered him as well as having some fun in his own sick and depraved way. The first is obviously the best in the series though a few of the sequels are also very good. Rober Englund gives the performance of his entire career as the iconic Freddy and Heather Lagenkamp cements herself as princess of 80s horror scream teens. An original and respected work of 80s horror brilliance- it may be cheesy in parts now but it's still a great watch!
Alien (1979. dir. Ridley Scott)
Another classic horror film which needs to be put higher in the list but again I can't seem to figure out where or even if this is the right genre for it, even though it is, it's both horror and sci-fi and does both genres really well. A fantastic film which hasn't aged in it's scared at all- I watched it recently and still found parts of it to be genuinly creepy, especially with the claustrohphiba and expert directing (lighting, choreography, design and intense acting all make it a suspensful journey into ou deepest fears of space and extra-terrestrial life). It's still one of the best out there and it's got it.
Saturday, 1 November 2008
The Happening: What the FUCK did I just watch?
Seriously, what the hell?!
Iv'e liked all of Night's films so far (i absolutely LOVED Lady in the Water) but i can't get my head round Happening- is he taking the piss, or what?
The story was interesting but was executed in the most silliest, over-dramatic and cliched way i've ever seen! The acting was beyond awful, i mean what the hell was Mark Wahlberg doing, really? Everyone over-acted, even Zooey Deschanel who i really admire! The movie ranged from decent sequences to just plain pathetic - case in point the lion death- how stupid and ridiculously silly and fake did that look? Whats with the dialogue too? It didn't know what it was- a parody, a comedy- something else? The characters- what was Night thinking? The completely sporadic crazy old lady that is pretty much unexplainable, Zooey's randomly annoying skitso that spouts nonsense, Mark's OTT nerdy character- an over-acted geek teacher which he really can't pull off, i mean seriously, what the HELL?
It's so bad I'm not even going to bother to review it properly, in fact consider this my one and only review of this..."thing"!
Ugh. I just can't begin to comprehend what i just sat through, I really don't know. It feels like I've been slimed. I feel so odd.
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Event Horizon: a retrospective
Okay, i just saw the film again after the last time when it first came out i actually thought it wasn't too bad at all. For a 90s horror movie in space i thought it fit the era perfectly, good acting from a stellar cast, nice visuals, and an interesting storyline as well. Whilst not perfect by any means i did like the amount of effort put in by Mr Anderson himself to give us something different- wait, did i really say that? Yep, i have to admit, doing some research on the movie just now i realised that ol' Paulie isn't as useless as i thought. Like Mortal Kombat, Anderson also added some cool ideas into Event Horizon too, making it original and unique in some aspects. I was pleasantly surprised at how effective this film was and how much Anderson can bring to it once he sets his mind to it. Whilst i didn't think it was particularly great when i first saw it 10 years ago, watching it now was a different story entirely and i really got to admire it as a sort of classic of the era, and in the late 90s was something quite original. I'm glad i got to came back to the movie after so long and appreiciate it for what it is and what it tried to be, it's happened a lot where i re-watch movies after ages and understand what the director was trying to do- i kind of felt EH was blasted and dissmissed as just another loud horror movie when it came out but looking back it's quite a gem.
First there's the great cast (which in my view would be perfect for an Alien movie; Jason Isaacs, Sean Pertwee, Laurence Fishburne, Sam Neil and Joely Richardson would have been perfect had an Alien film happened in the 1990s instead of AR) along with the epic visuals which reminded me of Alien even more, especially the gravity dome chamber thingy. When i saw that i thought that maybe Anderson could have done a better job of AvP had the film been made in the 10 years ago with this kind of cast. The directing was fast-paced which made it entertaining for a movie like this which would typically be slow, making it a different kind of sci-fi space horror movie- one for the Sony PlayStation-cool mid-90s.
Then there's the music, i love techno music and Orbital is one of my favourite bands, and it was Anderson's idea to have them on the soundtrack but Paramount was against this so he was forced to use composer Micheal Kamen instead combined with Orbital, who only got a few tunes to mix. Whilst this is interesting i feel Orbital would have been better if they had the majority of the music here. The movie starts off some kick-ass music and ends with The Prodigy's excellent "Funky Sh!t", and the vibe that produces with the film works brilliantly it's a shame it wasn't like that all the way through. So i admire Anderson for having the idea of initially putting techno music in the movie as it would have produced a unique effect with he film.
-According to IMDB: The original script by Philip Eisner depicted the Event Horizon as more of a science lab for an unknown alien race, part of the reason why it disappeared for seven years. Anderson immediately discarded that idea, going for a "Haunted House in Outer Space" plot line.
Now i think that Anderson's haunted house plot line is way more effective than an unknown alien race, it makes EH seem more like Hellraiser in space which i love the idea of and it worked great (even more so than Hellraiser 4: Bloodline which actually IS Hellraiser in space!) so again i must admire Anderson for taking EH into the horror direction as it works well.
-According to IMDB the movie had to have 20 minutes of violent scenes cut, including a longer and more graphic "Visions of Hell" sequence as well as the film having more blood. This makes me a little pissed off as this is primarily a horror movie so it should have the scenes in there of the gore- and what i saw of it in the movie it looks awesome. Again Anderson made it really horrific but was forced to have it cut out, which makes me wonder how interesting his AVP would have been if he was allowed to do what he wanted. MK was considerable violent for a 15 movie and EH did as much as it could for an 18, AVP really should have been an 18 as well and then i would have been happy for Anderson to give us something along those lines considering he did well on EH.
Anyway i had to bring this to light that although i'm one of the first to bash Anderson because of how much i hated AVP (and i honestly HATED it), though from what i saw of EH (as well as MK which i love) shows me that the man is capable of doing things right as long as he has the freedom to do it- he didn't write EH but he directed it well, which again proves that it's his directing and input of ideas which can help make a better movie. He's not a lost cause after all.
As much as i hate Anderson i'm not going to refute a movie which has merit in it, and MK and EH both show me that he is capable of giving us some truly entertaining films if he doesn't get bitchslapped around by ignorant and arrogant studios. But's he doesn't stand up to them. It's odd- AVP and RE should have been great after MK and EH, but i just don't know what happened to him. He's got some talent that's for sure- it seems the studios are to blame here for hampering his vision and ingenuity, of which we have clearly seen that he does have.
So i gave Event Horizon 6.5/10, but it would have been more had the film been Anderson's full uncut vision.
First there's the great cast (which in my view would be perfect for an Alien movie; Jason Isaacs, Sean Pertwee, Laurence Fishburne, Sam Neil and Joely Richardson would have been perfect had an Alien film happened in the 1990s instead of AR) along with the epic visuals which reminded me of Alien even more, especially the gravity dome chamber thingy. When i saw that i thought that maybe Anderson could have done a better job of AvP had the film been made in the 10 years ago with this kind of cast. The directing was fast-paced which made it entertaining for a movie like this which would typically be slow, making it a different kind of sci-fi space horror movie- one for the Sony PlayStation-cool mid-90s.
Then there's the music, i love techno music and Orbital is one of my favourite bands, and it was Anderson's idea to have them on the soundtrack but Paramount was against this so he was forced to use composer Micheal Kamen instead combined with Orbital, who only got a few tunes to mix. Whilst this is interesting i feel Orbital would have been better if they had the majority of the music here. The movie starts off some kick-ass music and ends with The Prodigy's excellent "Funky Sh!t", and the vibe that produces with the film works brilliantly it's a shame it wasn't like that all the way through. So i admire Anderson for having the idea of initially putting techno music in the movie as it would have produced a unique effect with he film.
-According to IMDB: The original script by Philip Eisner depicted the Event Horizon as more of a science lab for an unknown alien race, part of the reason why it disappeared for seven years. Anderson immediately discarded that idea, going for a "Haunted House in Outer Space" plot line.
Now i think that Anderson's haunted house plot line is way more effective than an unknown alien race, it makes EH seem more like Hellraiser in space which i love the idea of and it worked great (even more so than Hellraiser 4: Bloodline which actually IS Hellraiser in space!) so again i must admire Anderson for taking EH into the horror direction as it works well.
-According to IMDB the movie had to have 20 minutes of violent scenes cut, including a longer and more graphic "Visions of Hell" sequence as well as the film having more blood. This makes me a little pissed off as this is primarily a horror movie so it should have the scenes in there of the gore- and what i saw of it in the movie it looks awesome. Again Anderson made it really horrific but was forced to have it cut out, which makes me wonder how interesting his AVP would have been if he was allowed to do what he wanted. MK was considerable violent for a 15 movie and EH did as much as it could for an 18, AVP really should have been an 18 as well and then i would have been happy for Anderson to give us something along those lines considering he did well on EH.
Anyway i had to bring this to light that although i'm one of the first to bash Anderson because of how much i hated AVP (and i honestly HATED it), though from what i saw of EH (as well as MK which i love) shows me that the man is capable of doing things right as long as he has the freedom to do it- he didn't write EH but he directed it well, which again proves that it's his directing and input of ideas which can help make a better movie. He's not a lost cause after all.
As much as i hate Anderson i'm not going to refute a movie which has merit in it, and MK and EH both show me that he is capable of giving us some truly entertaining films if he doesn't get bitchslapped around by ignorant and arrogant studios. But's he doesn't stand up to them. It's odd- AVP and RE should have been great after MK and EH, but i just don't know what happened to him. He's got some talent that's for sure- it seems the studios are to blame here for hampering his vision and ingenuity, of which we have clearly seen that he does have.
So i gave Event Horizon 6.5/10, but it would have been more had the film been Anderson's full uncut vision.
Monday, 20 October 2008
Hollywood sticks the knife in agian- a possibility of remaking 80s classic "Predator"
That's it, i've had it with Hollywood! The incompetant idiot chairman of 20th Century Fox says that if Arnie doesn't return for Predator 3 then Fox may plan to remake Predator:
If Arnold doesn't return to reprise his role as Dutch then we are in fear of that dreaded rumoured Predator remake finally coming true, supposedly starring John Cena! I'm literally outraged at the absoloute pointless absurdity of this notion.
Remaking Predator is the worst idea in the history of bad movie ideas. The film simply does not need to be remade, it's barely 20 years old and still stands up as a perfect example of an action classic. It's not like it's an old film where this new younger generation has no clue about it, Predator is still as fresh and fun as it always was and i know loads of kids who have seen it and love it, in fact when i went to see it in the cinema last month the theatre was packed with fans both young and old, male and female ranging from ages 16 to 60!
There is absoluotly no reason to re-make the movie for a younger audience when the film is popular enough already and is still as strong as ever in media consiousness. The original is not a "forgotten" movie in any way whatsoever and still holds up today- if they want to make a new movie with a Predator in it then Predator 3 or AVP3 are the most logical choices, why they need to reboot the series is beyond me. Does that also mean they will contemplate remaking Alien becuase it's even older and they think it might not be hip enough for this generation to see? Pathetic!
Fox really need to get a hold of themselves becuase the amount of stupidity that is spraying forth from their idiot studio is staggering and i'm finding it hard to keep it cool when utterly preposterous and insultingly pointless ideas threaten to spit on flawless and classic peices of cinematic history in order for them to potentially kill as well as at the same time make a quick buck out of their now fleeting franchises, which is something that is entirely their fault anyway.
It doesn't even need a franchise "reboot". The Predator movies are a stand-alone series of films anyway which only lightly connect to each other if at all. They can easily make Predator 3 as their brand-new version without having to remake the original in any way. Both Predator 1 and 2 are set years apart so there is no need to remake the original in order to reboot the series. Predator 3 will in effect be rebooting the franchise naturally by itself anyway, so a remake is not needed when the movie is still in the hearts of fans as is the Predator character itself due to it's now largly successful comeback via the Alien vs Predator movies (however unsuccessful they were, they still managed to bring back awareness and kick-start both creature's careers agian).
Iv'e seen utter stupidity and incompetence before but never on a scale like this. I don't seem to understand, 80s classic franchises like Rambo, Die Hard and Rocky have all had contemporary sequels, why do they feel the need to remake Predator when it was a blockbuster in it's own right with the world's most famous actor in it in the first place anyway? Everyone knows Arnie and becuase of that everyone knows Predator, it's not like it was just another generic monster movie from the 80s that has aged so badly it needs to be redone. Predator is still the epitome of 80s action nostalgia. What next? Remaking The Godfather becuase it's old and it's time for a new version? How stupid are these people?
God, some people really do get me angry. Fox well and truly stink of rancid shit.
Davis told Collider.com that he’d decided to let the “Aliens Vs. Predator” franchise rest for a while and was instead developing a third “Predator” remake – one that may bring back Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character ‘Dutch’.- http://www.moviehole.net/200816099-predator-3-news-to-me-says-rothman
Rothman suggests that if Schwarzenegger doesn’t return as Dutch they could remake the original 1987 film.
If Arnold doesn't return to reprise his role as Dutch then we are in fear of that dreaded rumoured Predator remake finally coming true, supposedly starring John Cena! I'm literally outraged at the absoloute pointless absurdity of this notion.
Remaking Predator is the worst idea in the history of bad movie ideas. The film simply does not need to be remade, it's barely 20 years old and still stands up as a perfect example of an action classic. It's not like it's an old film where this new younger generation has no clue about it, Predator is still as fresh and fun as it always was and i know loads of kids who have seen it and love it, in fact when i went to see it in the cinema last month the theatre was packed with fans both young and old, male and female ranging from ages 16 to 60!
There is absoluotly no reason to re-make the movie for a younger audience when the film is popular enough already and is still as strong as ever in media consiousness. The original is not a "forgotten" movie in any way whatsoever and still holds up today- if they want to make a new movie with a Predator in it then Predator 3 or AVP3 are the most logical choices, why they need to reboot the series is beyond me. Does that also mean they will contemplate remaking Alien becuase it's even older and they think it might not be hip enough for this generation to see? Pathetic!
Fox really need to get a hold of themselves becuase the amount of stupidity that is spraying forth from their idiot studio is staggering and i'm finding it hard to keep it cool when utterly preposterous and insultingly pointless ideas threaten to spit on flawless and classic peices of cinematic history in order for them to potentially kill as well as at the same time make a quick buck out of their now fleeting franchises, which is something that is entirely their fault anyway.
It doesn't even need a franchise "reboot". The Predator movies are a stand-alone series of films anyway which only lightly connect to each other if at all. They can easily make Predator 3 as their brand-new version without having to remake the original in any way. Both Predator 1 and 2 are set years apart so there is no need to remake the original in order to reboot the series. Predator 3 will in effect be rebooting the franchise naturally by itself anyway, so a remake is not needed when the movie is still in the hearts of fans as is the Predator character itself due to it's now largly successful comeback via the Alien vs Predator movies (however unsuccessful they were, they still managed to bring back awareness and kick-start both creature's careers agian).
Iv'e seen utter stupidity and incompetence before but never on a scale like this. I don't seem to understand, 80s classic franchises like Rambo, Die Hard and Rocky have all had contemporary sequels, why do they feel the need to remake Predator when it was a blockbuster in it's own right with the world's most famous actor in it in the first place anyway? Everyone knows Arnie and becuase of that everyone knows Predator, it's not like it was just another generic monster movie from the 80s that has aged so badly it needs to be redone. Predator is still the epitome of 80s action nostalgia. What next? Remaking The Godfather becuase it's old and it's time for a new version? How stupid are these people?
God, some people really do get me angry. Fox well and truly stink of rancid shit.
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
Review: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Rob Cohen, 2008)
Mummy 3: Unoriginal, uninspiring and completely pointlessI was pretty adamant to see this after hearing that it got almost universally slated but i'm afraid the reviews are true- the film is pretty goddamn awful.
Now, I love the first two films of the trilogy, and enjoy them for what they are: pure nonsense/ no brainer adventure movies with great dialogue, lovable characters, fun action scenes and inventive set pieces. However, this film is unabashedly focussing on those selling points, resulting in an empty product.
The plot is the epitome of cliché, the characters are all stereotypes and the dialogue and comedy it tries to do is dire and cringe worthy. Not that the previous Mummy films were any different, it's the same old thing here except this time it's half assed and rushed, so much so that this film comes off as a sort of Mummy "best of" clip show as everything the film does we have all seen before, albeit done a hell of a lot better. In fact this film is nigh on identical to The Mummy Returns, just replace The Rock with Jet Li, shorten the running time and get rid of everything that made the originals fun and cool and there you have it. Rob Cohen takes over the director's chair over Stephen Sommers and though i think Sommers is a hack, i wish he came back to do this one to finish his films off as a trilogy as there's a definite charm in his over-excessiveness and uber-CGI prostitution use that's missing. Not to say that there is none of that in here as there is, it just felt rather empty, that's all.
Brendan Fraser is back but it seems he's only there for the paycheck, he puts no effort into his character whatsoever and just runs with it. Mario Bello now takes over from the sublime Rachel Wiez and although i have nothing against her, her acting just plain sucked in this film- forced and pointless. Her English accent was at times terrible but it was the dialogue she was given that worked totally against her. Though everyone's dialogue was pretty damn pathetic to be honest. Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh was of course the only good things about the movie, Li is wicked as the evil Mummy emperor (though he is a CGI effect for the majority of the film) and Yeoh, whilst cliché to the max, still holds amazing screen presence to the point that i don't care what she does or she says- as long as she's on screen i'm happy to bask in her awesomeness. Newcomer Isabella Leong is sweet in her ultimately clichéd role but she does hold some talent. John Hannah reprises his role but he's there for nothing but "comic" relief (did i mention this film has none?) and one only has to see his face to understand that even he doesn't know why he is in the film. Rachel Wiez turned the role down after seeing the script and one can instantly see why just 10 minutes into the film. There is no character progression, no reason for anything and really no point to it all.
Action sequences are okay but again we have seen it all before in the previous movies- a chase through bustling streets, encounters with creatures of some sort and a massive undead army battling another massive undead Mummy army. CGI ranged from pretty decent to terrible, and creature designs were amateur at best. The music was awful and completely uninspired- no Alan Silvestri or Jerry Goldsmith returning to reprise the original theme; instead Randy Edeleman takes the lead and churns out an instantly forgettable score.
All in all a short rehash of The Mummy Returns minus everything that made it so much fun, the film is entertaining at times (some of the set pieces are nice) but mostly we have seen it all before. The only saving graces are Jet Li, Michelle Yeoh and a couple of cool action scenes, otherwise nothing in here to run home about. A generally disappointing film which is unoriginal, uninspired and a monotonous chore to sit through and then, once finished, instantly forgettable. Shame really, the first two were great fun whilst this seems like a cheap homage of best of clips.
Not the worst film of the year by any means or one of the worst i have ever seen, it's just tired rubbish that really is rather pointless. I recommend a rental.
4/10
Review: The Wrong Door (2008)
wow, how original! /sarcasmHmm, a new BBC3 comedy show in the vein of the "black" and "surreal". It called my name, i had to check it out- this was right up my alley. So i watch it..and carry on watching...and force myself to carry on watching.... the verdict? A disgrace! Terrible. Honestly, who comes up with this rubbish?
Unoriginal, unwatchable, unfunny, badly written sketches with pathetic badly designed "trying to be cool and funky" CGI animation thats neither smart or clever to try and lure the viewer in thinking it might be some mad surreal comedy- which it clearly isn't. What it is, however, is crap.
The people who came up with this show (the worst kind of pretentiously bland art/film/animation student graduates, i expect) need to be booted from the media industry altogether and never allowed to step foot near it again, as if there isn't enough rubbish on TV to deal with already. The lack of talent showcased in this programme astounds me to the point of sheer annoyance- just random ideas floating around trying too hard to be funny, yet blissfully unaware of it's utter failure and just being a waste of time to everyone that unfortunately bears witness to it.
Fortunatly I've seen funnier sketches on YouTube- with no flashy animation, zero budget and in less than 1/4 of the time. Honestly BBC3, what happened to you? As if Phoo Action wasn't bad enough, you manage to get even worse with this trash?
Do yourselves a favour and avoid, and hopefully it will disappear and we'll forget it ever happened. There are much better sketch shows out there to enjoy, which actually deliver on the premise of the creative, imaginative and surreal. Oh, and they are funny, too.
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Review: Black Sheep (Jonathan King, 2006)
Taking it's cue from early Peter Jackson movies such as Bad Taste and Braindead, Black Sheep takes a similar turn in it's low-budget "splatter-fest" horror premise. Genetically modified sheep terrorise a small New Zealand farm, and only a rag-tag crew (made up of a gun-toting farmboy, a city lad and an eco-warrior) can save the town and uncover the terrible secret behind the blood-thirsty sheep intent on causing havoc as they bite victims which in turn transform into monstrous and even more bloodthirsty human/sheep hybrids.
What should be a ridiculous and entertaining premise is completely marred as the film fails to deliver on pretty much all accounts. The comedy here is pretty bad and predictable. The acting is even worse off and the pace so confused that it becomes just plain boring to watch. Granted this is a movie which relishes in it's crapness but i've seen far better features which make a point to be "crap" but still entertaining and inventive. Whilst Black Sheep probably tried to be different i felt that the end result showed none of this. The plot is silly yet (ludicrously) original in it's idea of killer zombie-sheep but again there's not enough of it in there to warrant a watch. Granted the gore effects are good and the animatronic/prosthetic effects of the sheep/were-sheep are well done (courtesy by the talented Weta Workshop) but in the context of the film i think it just came across as wasted, some good sequences could have been made with the models but everything is shot in the dark so you really can't see much of it when we would have liked to.
Everything here is set up to be entertaining in it's absurdness but it just didn't work out in the end- the film is a mess and what it was trying to convey (not much) didn't turn out well. I guess, in time, the film might hold enough charm to become a "cult classic" much like Jackson's Braindead and Bad Taste, but right now i can't seem to see anything in here that i haven't already seen before, done better.
If you want a low-budget and entertaining comedy horror from New Zealand then i'd recommend you stay away from Black Sheep and just watch any of Jackson's films prior Hollywood, as even the idea of killer sheep seems trifle here when there's not really that much on offer. It promises hilarity and fun but sadly fails. If you want a truly great New Zealand comedy horror that sets out and delivers on all accounts then watch any early Peter Jackson film or Shaun of the Dead, and avoid Black Sheep at all costs.
Verdict: A pointless "horror comedy" that's neither remotely funny or scary. 3/10
Review: Interview (Steve Buscemi, 2007)
An interesting drama based around the dysfunctional relationship between two seemingly opposite people, played expertly by Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller. Buscemi plays a journalist who normally deals with war and politics, but tonight he has been asked (much to his dismay) to interview New York's most infamous B-list celebrity, played by Sienna Miller. What follows is an entertaining and unpredictable dialogue-driven 2 piece play focusing on both character's opposite, but, as we learn later, striking similarities revealed to us as they, during the course of the night, tell each other their most intimate secrets regarding each other's pasts.
Buscemi, who also directs the film, keeps the film focused, tight yet surprisingly free and un-claustrophobic considering the majority of the film is shot with close-ups and inside a dimly-lit apartment at night. Acting is terrific and Sienna is on top form, possibly her best performance yet (even though her portrayal of Edie Sedgwick in Factory Girl was terrific, she goes one step further here and is completely believable, she could almost be playing herself as her character shares many similarities). Buscemi as always is a pleasure to watch and his trademark neurotic style is more than welcomed. Some of the acting is also ad-libbed here to give it more authenticity as well as show off both actor's expert talents, which works really well.
Overall an entertaining character study with a fair few surprising twists and turns along the way and boasting some fine, convincing performances from both actors. Small and simple but highly fascinating.
Verdict: A Simple but fascinating character study. 7/10
Dracula (1931) - a contemptible cult classic?
I finally saw this movie yesterday for the first time ever and i can honestly say that i was really disappointed in it! I'm a huge fan of the novel and have seen countless other versions of the film but never this one which many people define as the ultimate "classic". But honestly, i don't see any of it's merits.
For starters the film is so far removed from the original novel it is unrecognisable. Shouldn't be too much of a problem then, as long as the film is entertaining- but i found it to be one of the most boring, laborious and monotonous films i've ever had to sit through. There is no artistry involved whatsoever. The editing is a mess- scenes go on far too long with nothing happening and if it's not that then they are inter cut sloppily with hasty edits of close-ups. Gather the fact that the DVD i had was one with no music recorded and i really couldn't stay awake for it- it's just all over the place. I changed the audio to a new soundtrack by Phillip Glass which made it slightly more watchable but still, the film is just a grand mess of murder mystery and lame if not no attempts at horror and zero suspense. When something interesting starts to happen, the scene fades quickly away to another- it's as if nobody had a clue on how to make a movie at all!
Next, Bela Lugosi- the only other reason to be watching this movie as i wanted to see what all the fuss was about. So he "defined" cinema's Dracula? Apart from the accent, i think his performance was terrible. Unnecessary close-ups of eyes don't do anything, and when he's getting ready to do something his expression is that of a little kid just having tasted something he didn't like- as well as being akin to sitting on the toilet. It just looks really bad. And this is supposed to be the best version of Dracula there is? I just didn't see it. The world famous image of Drac in tuxedo and cape is legendary, but i still think that was a pretty awful decision to make considering there is nothing Transylvanian or marginally scary about him other than the accent. He just looks like a cliche magician minus wand, top hat, and white bunny.
I know it was the 1930s and times were different then, people had never seen anything like it, right? But i still can't see where all the popularity comes from when it is just a man in a suit- nothing horrific about that at all when you compare it to Nosferatu, a truly horrific creature. Considering we also had King Kong just a few years later- an absolute masterpiece of cinema, effects and horror, this movie is, i feel, unworthy compared to the lashings of praise people give it. I just didn't see anything good about it whatsoever.
I know this movie was based on the popular stage production at the time (which was in vein of murder/mystery, which is why Universal went with the same thing for the movie version)but it could have been a lot better, and i just can't help but feel that it is getting just too much praise than it deserves. Nosferatu is far better as the true definite original Dracula film than this mess.
Saying that, i also managed to catch a glimpse of the Spanish version of this production- and i can say that it looked 10 times better than Universal's- more stylish, more horror and actually directed well, rather than just putting a camera there and leaving it on.
Being a huge fan of Dracula and the novel i had very high expectations of this, as i rightly should have. But i was really gutted watching it, it fell flat on it's face and i could not believe how bad it was- i did not want to believe that this "classic" was not as great as people said it was but i thought it was truly awful. I really wanted to appreciate this film as a legendary classic but this movie isn't. I don't know what people see in it to give it that high status- i don't think Bela Lugosi can make the film all it is. Sure the image is classic, but everything else fails. If i had to recommend a good classic Dracula movie i would say Nosferatu, if not the Spanish version of this film.
All in all, i was very disappointed with this film, i had expected great things and i was gutted that i didn't see it as this legendary classic everyone else sees it as.
Review: Penelope (Mark Palansky, 2006)
Nice little movie this is. Another modern day take on a traditional fairy tale given that extra coolness from brilliant performances, good humour and a wonderful script. Christina Ricci plays Penelope, cursed with a pig's nose for eternity unless she finds someone of her own kind who loves her for what she is. Forced to stay only within her home as she is deemed too "ugly" to be seen outside, she must find her true love through carefully arranged visits from suitable suitors of a similar heritage. Cue some hilarious mishaps and incidents which the rebellious Penelope has to deal with in order to be free and live her life normally as she is, regardless what the world thinks of her.
Performances here are nice from a whole host of British and American actors (like Stardust, this film as loads of cameos from well known British celebrities, try to spot them all!). Catherine O' Hara is wonderfully manic (as per usual!) as Penelope's mother as is Richard E Grant, playing her father. Reese Witherspoon, who produced the movie, is also good as an outspoken biker chick who befriends Penelope in the outside world, as is James Mcavoy who plays the eventual Prince Charnimg in this story. Mcavoy, like Grant and many of the other British actors, sports an American accent here to give it a pseudo Brit-US "fusion" feel.( the movie, it seems, was shot in what looks like London's Notting Hill "jazzed up" to make look Americany-Englishy to give it a very interesting and magical look).
A nice little warm movie with a simple moral and good intentions at it's heart. I thought it was pretty good.
Verdict: Sweet warm fun. 7/10
Performances here are nice from a whole host of British and American actors (like Stardust, this film as loads of cameos from well known British celebrities, try to spot them all!). Catherine O' Hara is wonderfully manic (as per usual!) as Penelope's mother as is Richard E Grant, playing her father. Reese Witherspoon, who produced the movie, is also good as an outspoken biker chick who befriends Penelope in the outside world, as is James Mcavoy who plays the eventual Prince Charnimg in this story. Mcavoy, like Grant and many of the other British actors, sports an American accent here to give it a pseudo Brit-US "fusion" feel.( the movie, it seems, was shot in what looks like London's Notting Hill "jazzed up" to make look Americany-Englishy to give it a very interesting and magical look).
A nice little warm movie with a simple moral and good intentions at it's heart. I thought it was pretty good.
Verdict: Sweet warm fun. 7/10
Review: Bee Movie (Steve Hickner, Simon J. Smith, 2007)
Another CGI movie, this time by Dreamworks SKG, makers of Shrek and Madagascar. Yes there are lots of them and they do seem quite repetitive, this one however is actually pretty good, and plays of more like one long joke than anything else, and deservedly so as it is conceived and penned by the comedic genius that is Jerry Seinfeld.
Seinfeld plays Barry B Benson, a Bee in a hard working Bee society (which is typically unoriginal, yet again being American working life/suburbia in animal form, in this case Bees) who breaks free from his own world and ventures into the human world, only to discover his species' hard work at making honey is being exploited at the hands of greedy corporations. Befriending a kooky florist called Vanessa (voiced by René Zellwegger) they join forces to try and overcome the total disregard against nature and sue the corporations of their infringement which Barry calls "stealing", as well as to teach the world more about bees and get rid of common misconceptions (bees are friendly insects and will not hurt anyone, it's the wasps that are the evil ones that give them a bad name)! Part satire, part social commentary on the legal system as well as just being plain silly, zany and always consistently funny, this is essentially Seinfeld playing himself in his own show in animated form.
Visuals and animation here are grand (Dreamworks explains in the making-of documentary that there are more things going on here than all the Shrek films), dialogue is funny for the most part as is the voice acting as Zellwegger and Seinfeld are essentially playing themselves, as is Mathew Broderick who plays Barry's law-abiding Bee buddy. The stand out voice talent here, for me at least, is Patrick Warburton who plays Vanessa's almost psychotic friend- everything he said (or rather yelled, as that's all he does) just made me laugh out loud. An extra special mention must go to Chris Rock who is a brief but worthy addition and has some choice hilarious lines. Other honourable voice talents in this movie worthy of a mention are Sting, Kathy Bates, Megan Mullaly and Ray Liotta in an almost insane role playing himself- but still really funny.
A simple yet very entertaining story where young kids can also learn a whole lot from- there's stuff in here for literally everybody. Whilst not as polished or exquisite as a Disney Pixar movie, this is still good clean honest fun for the whole family. I may have rated Ratatouille low too but that movie is actually better than this, I just found this one to be less heavy on the deep morals and just straight to the point fun light entertainment. It's not original in any way but it is good at what it does. Funny, silly, even intelligent and informative- it's Seinfeld the animated movie and that's not a bad thing whatsoever.
Verdict: Good, zany, satirical fun. 6/10
Come Forth the Fourth
When I first heard about Jurassic Park 4, I absolutely hated the thought of it and rebuked the idea, completely. "Why another one?", "They are milking the franchise!", "It's going to be rubbish.", "They've done all they can!" and so on. I got into a lot of arguments in forums becuase I was set against the production of another 'Jurassic' film and felt the JP movies should stop because it's time was over as it was now all about people running away from dinosaurs - the same old thing over and over agian.
But over the years I have learnt that this is not just any old sequel. That this will be something special- they are taking the time and effort to put passion into it, or they would have made it already and we would have forgotten about it. If they wanted to, they would have already made JP4 , and it would have been sub-standard quality. The fact that Spielberg and Universal keep postponing it and asking for script re-writes is a clear indication that they want JP4 to be original, new, fresh and a great comeback for the series, and I am hoping they will deliver. The longer we have to wait, the better it should be becuase as they are producing it for quality and content rather than financial returns (though I am sure that features, considerably, in their mindsets).
The world's fascination with dinosaurs will never end, and Jurassic Park is the only contemporay movie franchise which brings us what we love about the creatures. No other movie series has captured the public's ever-increasing interest with dinosaurs and the prehistoric age, and JP continues to uphold and improve our knowledge of these beasts, both entertaining immensly and educating us at the same time like no other film. It revoloutioned the concepts and ideas of paleontological and scientific discovery and bought something new to the table, as well as revoloutionising cinema, artistry, design and CGI technology.
The JP franchise isn't forever ruined after some not-so-good sequels either, never will be. You can say what you want about the TLW/ JP3 but they still made a ton of money and were very successful. Merchandise, DVD sales, the Universal Studios attraction etc has also been largly succesful and at the end of the day the films bring awareness about dinosaurs, paleontology and scientific education which children and adults alike never tire of. Gather that the films also have loveable characters and interesting storylines (however bad) still make the JP films the forefront of dinosaur entertainment, and nothing else can touch that. Just as when one thinks of space adventure they instantly think of Star Wars, here it's think dinosaurs, think Jurassic Park. It's as simple as that.
Jurassic Park is not relegated to only 1990s cinema either as dinosaurs are creatures that no-one will ever tire of, and whilst the premise may be a bit old-fahioned it still entertains immensly. Dinosaur adventure movies have been around since the dawn of cinema and have continued to be in our presense for decades! Until they can really be cloned and are live and breathing for us to see dinosaurs will still always capture the hearts and minds of childrean and adults, and Jurassic Park will always be our awe-inspiring cinematic escapist route to the world of these fascinating animals which no-one else can do. When the world's fascination with dinosaurs ends, then the JP movies will die. And that won't be happening for a very long time, if ever becuase everyone loves dinosaurs.
So the years have gone by and still no news, and i understand now that they wanted to nail it perfectly, so i am starting to appreciate them becuase of that. And slowly i've become the biggest supporter of JP4, because i know this is going to be a special movie for the fans, and in know they don't want to dissapoint us. We fans have grown as a community and Spielberg knows this- so i had to give him that credit for aknowledging us. He knows that JP is still the pinnacle in dinosaur action adventure and a lot more can be done with it, and they want to get it right this time. We have expectations and they don't want to dissapoint us, and Spielberg has already said specifically that this will be a film worth waiting for. If it was just another movie in a tired series then it would be, but all the facts so far have pointed that it wants to be something fresh and original; ideas have flown around everywhere and keep getting dissmissed as they are just not good enough, and frankly this attitude is needed as only the best will do. So we now that know JP4 will be a comeback for the series after the so-called "lag" after JP3 and so i have completly changed my view of it and will compeltly support the movie becuase i know deep down this isn't just a cheap and pointless sequel but the greatest comeback of the king of the dinosaur movies; and i can't wait. But i will wait becuase i know this film will be kick-ass!
This is why i will be forever supporting JP4. I say it bring becuase dinosaurs are fucking awesome, and JP always delivers the best.
But over the years I have learnt that this is not just any old sequel. That this will be something special- they are taking the time and effort to put passion into it, or they would have made it already and we would have forgotten about it. If they wanted to, they would have already made JP4 , and it would have been sub-standard quality. The fact that Spielberg and Universal keep postponing it and asking for script re-writes is a clear indication that they want JP4 to be original, new, fresh and a great comeback for the series, and I am hoping they will deliver. The longer we have to wait, the better it should be becuase as they are producing it for quality and content rather than financial returns (though I am sure that features, considerably, in their mindsets).
The world's fascination with dinosaurs will never end, and Jurassic Park is the only contemporay movie franchise which brings us what we love about the creatures. No other movie series has captured the public's ever-increasing interest with dinosaurs and the prehistoric age, and JP continues to uphold and improve our knowledge of these beasts, both entertaining immensly and educating us at the same time like no other film. It revoloutioned the concepts and ideas of paleontological and scientific discovery and bought something new to the table, as well as revoloutionising cinema, artistry, design and CGI technology.
The JP franchise isn't forever ruined after some not-so-good sequels either, never will be. You can say what you want about the TLW/ JP3 but they still made a ton of money and were very successful. Merchandise, DVD sales, the Universal Studios attraction etc has also been largly succesful and at the end of the day the films bring awareness about dinosaurs, paleontology and scientific education which children and adults alike never tire of. Gather that the films also have loveable characters and interesting storylines (however bad) still make the JP films the forefront of dinosaur entertainment, and nothing else can touch that. Just as when one thinks of space adventure they instantly think of Star Wars, here it's think dinosaurs, think Jurassic Park. It's as simple as that.
Jurassic Park is not relegated to only 1990s cinema either as dinosaurs are creatures that no-one will ever tire of, and whilst the premise may be a bit old-fahioned it still entertains immensly. Dinosaur adventure movies have been around since the dawn of cinema and have continued to be in our presense for decades! Until they can really be cloned and are live and breathing for us to see dinosaurs will still always capture the hearts and minds of childrean and adults, and Jurassic Park will always be our awe-inspiring cinematic escapist route to the world of these fascinating animals which no-one else can do. When the world's fascination with dinosaurs ends, then the JP movies will die. And that won't be happening for a very long time, if ever becuase everyone loves dinosaurs.
So the years have gone by and still no news, and i understand now that they wanted to nail it perfectly, so i am starting to appreciate them becuase of that. And slowly i've become the biggest supporter of JP4, because i know this is going to be a special movie for the fans, and in know they don't want to dissapoint us. We fans have grown as a community and Spielberg knows this- so i had to give him that credit for aknowledging us. He knows that JP is still the pinnacle in dinosaur action adventure and a lot more can be done with it, and they want to get it right this time. We have expectations and they don't want to dissapoint us, and Spielberg has already said specifically that this will be a film worth waiting for. If it was just another movie in a tired series then it would be, but all the facts so far have pointed that it wants to be something fresh and original; ideas have flown around everywhere and keep getting dissmissed as they are just not good enough, and frankly this attitude is needed as only the best will do. So we now that know JP4 will be a comeback for the series after the so-called "lag" after JP3 and so i have completly changed my view of it and will compeltly support the movie becuase i know deep down this isn't just a cheap and pointless sequel but the greatest comeback of the king of the dinosaur movies; and i can't wait. But i will wait becuase i know this film will be kick-ass!
This is why i will be forever supporting JP4. I say it bring becuase dinosaurs are fucking awesome, and JP always delivers the best.
Friday, 3 October 2008
Review: Blade Trinity (David S. Goyer, 2004)
After 2 excellent films, Blade 3 completely and utterly falls short. I didn't like it at all because quite frankly, it doesn't feel like a Blade movie, it doesnt sound like a Blade movie and it doesn't fit like a Blade movie. Instead of the fast paced, stylish action we have in the first 2, Trinity is just s-l-o-w, in everything, with no sense of pace or direction. The director, bless him, just can't direct. He's a great writer who served well for the first 2 films, but as we can see here he lacks vision and basic directing skills.
Dracula- nothing about him worked. I don't have a problem with him being in the movie as the first Blade comic had Dracula in it anyway so he has every right to be in the film, it's just his character in it. Terrible design, not enough motivation or character, he was just like every other vampire we have seen, there was nothing about him whatsoever to make him all powerful uber-nasty. Wrong choice of actor to play him too- i think Dominic Purcell is great, but he's not suited to play the Prince of Darkness whatsoever. It's just a forgettable portrayal, and by the end it just looks like a B-movie monster suit.
The crappy humour lets the movie down- there is just no need for it at all, yet we are plagued by it all the time. Renold's character spouting crap, Triple H spouting his crap, hell even the cops do it. The dialogue between Danica and Renolds is just cringe worthy and completely screws with the whole credibility of the film- we just don't take it seriously.
Editing- there's a severe lack of it. Everything just moves too slowly, even the fight sequences aren't fast and frantic, it's like all they do is film someone throw a few punches and slap some faux-pas "techno" music over it to make it look cool, when it doesn't work like that at all. There was a complete lack of proper martial arts choreography in this movie, and when compared to the ultra-stylised kinetic ass-kicking of the first two films, you can see why Trinity completely falls short. It's just not exciting. The talking sequences are even longer- Goyer keeps the camera too long on people, there's no sense of pacing, it's like he want us to show everything going on but dwell on each little thing a bit longer just in case we miss it. It gets long and monotonous to sit there, it's like we are waiting and waiting, there really needed to be a stopwatch in place when editing because everything is just too slow for a Blade movie.
The music is another factor. I think the hip-hop beats provided by the RZA was horrendous. It's not that i hate hip-hop music (which i do) its the fact that here it just wasn't good enough; the lyrics were dire and mostly ridiculous (i remember one song where he just repeats the word "blood" all the time) but the music itself had no power to it, no style; just generic "beats" and poor attempts at techno in the fight scenes. There was no style to any of the music, and again compare the music to the first 2 films (Danny Sabre and Marco Beltrami) it's all orchestral fused with stylised techno, different and original; in Trinity it's nothing like that- more simple and amateur, lacking any motifs that would make it stand out.
Jessica Biel, Renolds- the whole Nightstalkers thing: not needed. It was fresh and new once, but by Blade 3, tech-heavy team vampire slayers just gets old, tired, dated and severely cliché. The geek with all the technobabble, the cool young scientist who knows everything about DNA and gene-splicing, the martial-arts girl...i'm sorry, it's just too boring, we've all seen it a hundred times before. Blade works alone and we assume he's the only guy with the gadgets to take vampires down- he has no need for other people to help him, or sidekicks for that matter, no other people should be introduced to rival him.
Danica Talos and all her cronies- really really bad. Instead of being evil villains, they turned out to be annoying, irritating and by the end a complete joke; merely there for the other characters to make fun out of (which they all did). Parker Posey and Triple H just didn't add anything new to the table. She's the wise-ass bitch, Triple H is the meathead grunt. Again, it's boring, dated and cliché, nothing threatening about them either considering they always get their asses kicked.
There's a lot of other stuff too which i can't remember right now, but yeah- the film is just a long, slooow mess of things. Goyer can write well, he just can't direct, and this is where most of the problems are. They should have got someone else, and i'm sure it would have been a lot better. Even if Snipes gave it a go, he would have done a better job.
At is stands, it's the worst of the trilogy and a complete waste of a premise- it was simply not needed at all, and it tarnishes the quality of the series- Blade would have been an excellent trilogy had it not been for Trinity. Oh well.
Verdict: A slow and monotonous chore. 2/10
Review: Hoodwinked! (Cory Edwards, Todd Edwards,Tony Leech, 2005)
Taking it's cue from "Little Red Riding Hood", Hoodwinked! turns the story upside down as it applies real-world ethics, archetypes and rules to the scenario; Red Riding Hood calls for a lawyer against the Wolf for possible harassment over her and her Grandma, The Big Bad Wolf claims he was framed and is merely a simple journalist disguised as Grandma to get information on a possible saboteur of the town, Grandma insists she's not supposed to even be at her home at that time and the Woodcutter is confused over just about everything including his presence at the scene and in the movie. All this confusion then leads to a crime-solving mystery as the inhabitants learn there's something else far more sinister at work here than meets the eye, and it will take all of them to work together to discover the real culprit of the infamous tale. Intrigued? I hope so, because i certainly wasn't. Whilst it sounds fantastic on paper, the end result is largely unfulfilled.
Animation and character designs here are awful but that's not what the film's aim was. The goal was instead to create an original and satirical comedy using simplistic character design that epitomise their literature counterparts to lead the viewer into thinking it's a simple kid's movie/retelling of the traditional story when in actual fact the style, the character's attitudes, personality and motives turn out to be radical and unexpected to throw us intentionally. "What you think you are watching your'e not" is the film's main motto, "Forget what you've seen, and what you think you know" best describes the pitch of the film .Unfortunately, in my honest opinion, it just couldn't manage it. Not by a long shot.
An interesting and what should be a fun and satirical concept which the Shrek films touch upon lightly, and whilst Hoodwinked! is a full-fledged CG animated feature based on this idea i felt the Shrek movies do it justice a whole lot better. I was immensely bored whilst watching this film, more so than i ever have been in a while. The film was so bad in its executions that there was literally nothing in it to keep me up except to try and find something to like in the dialogue and voice acting. Typically in an animated movie these days there's your usual roster of Hollywood celebrities providing the voices and here we have Anne Hathaway, Glen Close and James Belushi all in instantly forgettable roles. None of them did anything memorable and it seemed they were only half interested too.
The only voices worth mentioning here are Patrick Warburton as The Wolf (though nowhere near as good a performance as his from Bee Movie) and Andy Dick who's basically playing himself as Boingo the Bunny; annoying and camp which i always find funny. Original songs sung by the cast (and there's a fair few of them) are also horrendous and horrible, they try to be random, funny and silly but are irritating with no comedic value whatsoever. There's nothing in this film that is original, despite the concept. It tried too hard to be funny when it wasn't, it tried too hard to be original and it wasn't, it tried too hard to be wacky, zany and crazy in its lunacy that it just became embarrassing to watch. There is no sense of comic timing here either, jokes are thrown at you demanding you laugh at them, and it got to the point that i just wanted to turn the film off. It gets to the point where a simple knock-knock joke would be hard for them to tell as they would over-do it with a song and dance number thus taking it out of context, just to make it more entertaining; more excruciating more like. Simple fact is the people who made this film just didn't know how to tell jokes.
I don't care about badly designed and animated visuals, as long as everything else works, but nothing else did here. If the animation is terrible then it's the ideas, comedy and dialogue which have to be the strong aspects. Whilst Hoodwinked's aim was this, it just couldn't pull it off. Looking at the documentary, i learned that the creators didn't want to have the best animation in the world, they just wanted to showcase their "original and funny" ideas. Well, it helps if you have talent first. And be funny.
Sad to say, this is one of the worst animated films i've seen in recent years. I guess iv'e just seen too many comedies/animation to see anything good in this. I recommend South Park if you want something similar yet better. It's badly animated sure, but at least it's consistently competent in its ideas and humour.
Kudos for the creators for trying to do something different, funny and original, it's just that they needed to be different, funny and original in the first place; and silly voices and stupid songs aren't. Instantly forgettable and a waste of time
Animation and character designs here are awful but that's not what the film's aim was. The goal was instead to create an original and satirical comedy using simplistic character design that epitomise their literature counterparts to lead the viewer into thinking it's a simple kid's movie/retelling of the traditional story when in actual fact the style, the character's attitudes, personality and motives turn out to be radical and unexpected to throw us intentionally. "What you think you are watching your'e not" is the film's main motto, "Forget what you've seen, and what you think you know" best describes the pitch of the film .Unfortunately, in my honest opinion, it just couldn't manage it. Not by a long shot.
An interesting and what should be a fun and satirical concept which the Shrek films touch upon lightly, and whilst Hoodwinked! is a full-fledged CG animated feature based on this idea i felt the Shrek movies do it justice a whole lot better. I was immensely bored whilst watching this film, more so than i ever have been in a while. The film was so bad in its executions that there was literally nothing in it to keep me up except to try and find something to like in the dialogue and voice acting. Typically in an animated movie these days there's your usual roster of Hollywood celebrities providing the voices and here we have Anne Hathaway, Glen Close and James Belushi all in instantly forgettable roles. None of them did anything memorable and it seemed they were only half interested too.
The only voices worth mentioning here are Patrick Warburton as The Wolf (though nowhere near as good a performance as his from Bee Movie) and Andy Dick who's basically playing himself as Boingo the Bunny; annoying and camp which i always find funny. Original songs sung by the cast (and there's a fair few of them) are also horrendous and horrible, they try to be random, funny and silly but are irritating with no comedic value whatsoever. There's nothing in this film that is original, despite the concept. It tried too hard to be funny when it wasn't, it tried too hard to be original and it wasn't, it tried too hard to be wacky, zany and crazy in its lunacy that it just became embarrassing to watch. There is no sense of comic timing here either, jokes are thrown at you demanding you laugh at them, and it got to the point that i just wanted to turn the film off. It gets to the point where a simple knock-knock joke would be hard for them to tell as they would over-do it with a song and dance number thus taking it out of context, just to make it more entertaining; more excruciating more like. Simple fact is the people who made this film just didn't know how to tell jokes.
I don't care about badly designed and animated visuals, as long as everything else works, but nothing else did here. If the animation is terrible then it's the ideas, comedy and dialogue which have to be the strong aspects. Whilst Hoodwinked's aim was this, it just couldn't pull it off. Looking at the documentary, i learned that the creators didn't want to have the best animation in the world, they just wanted to showcase their "original and funny" ideas. Well, it helps if you have talent first. And be funny.
Sad to say, this is one of the worst animated films i've seen in recent years. I guess iv'e just seen too many comedies/animation to see anything good in this. I recommend South Park if you want something similar yet better. It's badly animated sure, but at least it's consistently competent in its ideas and humour.
Kudos for the creators for trying to do something different, funny and original, it's just that they needed to be different, funny and original in the first place; and silly voices and stupid songs aren't. Instantly forgettable and a waste of time
Verdict: Original in its concept, disastrous in it's execution. 4/10
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Similarities
Anyone else notice the resemblances between Jim Henson's Labyrinth (1986) and Hellbound (1988)? I love both movies but haven't seen any threads relating both movies before- and i don't think the connections are far-fetched either.
1) Both films of course feature a Labyrinth central to the role of the movie, and both are referred to as "Labyrinths" in the film rather than "mazes" or any other name.
2)Kirsty goes into the Labyrinth to save her father from eternal damnation at the whim of the Cenobites. Sarah goes in to save her brother from becoming a goblin at the whim of Jareth.
3) Both films feature female protaganists. (Kirsty and Tiffany in Hellbound, Sarah in Labyrinth). Although Kirsty is older than Sarah, Tiffany is about the same age as her.
4) Something bad (we don't know what) has happened to Tiffany's mother in Hellbound, resulting in her to never see her agian, causing her much distress. In Labyrinth, Sarah and her mother have departed ways too, and has caused her distress at some point.
5)Kirsty's stepmother is Julia, who refers to herself as not the "wicked stepmother" but the "evil queen" instead, and calls Kirsty "Snow White". In Labyrinth, Sarah's father is also re-married to another woman, and she thinks that Sarah treats her as a "wicked stepmother in a fairy tale".
6)Both Labyrinths in the movies are based upon the imagery of M.C Escher, which are especially most apparant in the long shots of them. Coincidently, Escher's artwork can be seen on walls in both films; "Relativity" can be seen on Sarah's bedroom wall whilst another peice by Escher (i forget the name) can be seen on the wall in Dr. Channard's room as well as the hospital/asylum in Hellbound.
7) Both Labyrinths in the films exist in another dimension, but encompass imagery based around the individual that experiences them. Sarah's is made up of her sub-consious mind in terms of creatures and scenarios (if one analyses the movie in that sense) as is Tiffany's. The Labyrinth in Hellbound: Hellraiser II however is formed around both the nightmares and dreams of the individual person- Tiffany's features clowns and carnivals which she is fond of fused with macabre and surpressed memories.
8) Regarding the above statement, Sarah experiences a vision of her bedroom inside the Labyrinth which proceeds to break apart afterwards as she realises it's a trick. In Hellbound, Kirsty also experiences the same, her house as it used to be reformed as a trick to lure her in, which then also breaks around her (although in a more gruesome way).
9) The Cenobites in the Hellraiser movies are only called to people if they solve the Lament Configuration puzzle box, and then proceed to take that certain individual away into Hell (The Labyrinth). In Labyrinth, when a certain individual wishes upon The Goblin King, he will come to do their bidding or come to take them away into his Labyrinth.
10)Just as they have to be called to appear, so must they be sent back to dissapear. A special line of dialogue had to be said to Jareth to make him go, and the puzzle must be solved again to send the Cenobites back where they came from.
11) In the Hellraiser films, the Keeper of the Lament Configuration puzzle box is the only bieng from the Labyrinth who is allowed travel to Earth at his own free will, and he takes the form of both a human and a huge winged creature of some sort. In Labyrinth, Jareth (as far as i know) can travel to Earth from his realm too, and he can also take the shape of either himself as a human or another winged creature, in this case a barn owl.
12) In Hellbound after Dr. Channard has transformed into a Cenobite, his palms rip open and long, tentacle-like things with eyeballs attached to the end appear. In Labyrinth, there is a plant of some sort which is protruding from a wall which is tentacle-like and has eyeballs on the ends of them (when Sarah first enters the Labyrinth and can't find an opening, just before she meets the worm).
13) Every time it cuts to a shot of the central Castle in Labyrinth, we hear a distinct 4-note horn melody sound. In Hellbound, everytime we see Leviathan (which is also at the centre of it's labyrinth) we hear a deep horn sound, except there are slightly more notes.
14) Just as the Cenobites and the puzzle box promise dreams of fulfilment to the individual, as does Jareth and his crystal balls. All of them of course give you these wishes- but at a price previously unknown to the individual.
15) Just as Labyrinth can be analysed in it's very multi-layered themes and intrepretations of Freudian psychology that range from many topics including erotiscm, so can the same be said for Hellbound, which demands to be read in that sense though it is a lot more visceral.
16) Both Kirsty and Tiffany unwillingly and accidently solve the puzzle box which bring forth the Cenobites. In Labyrinth, Sarah also unwillingly calls Jareth.
17)Both the Cenobites and Jareth love to toy with their unwilling victims, and are quite well versed in almost poetic dialogue (most notably Pinhead in his lines and Jareth in his music).
18) Jareth is portrayed by David Bowie who is of course a glam rock star. In Hellbound, the Female Cenobite is played by Barbie Wilde, who herself is a trained dancer/mime artist who has toured with many bands including Depche Mode, Adam and the Ants, Ultravox and Classix Nouveaux, who's image in the 80s was also very similar to Bowie's glam rock/punk style, especially with heavy use of colouful eye make-up and even having the same hairstyle which Bowie sports in Labyrinth.
19)Jareth has a very pop/rock image (of course, being portrayed by David Bowie) which can also be atrributed to goth. Pinhead and the Cenobites have a neo-punk look who sport long garbs of leather- also common gothic fashion attire. Both sets of characters encompass popular 80s music fashion trends in their images.
20)Jareth and the Cenobites, once they are called, can all appear and dissapear wherever they want (teleport).
21)Both Labyrinths feature huge animatronic creatures- Ludo, goblins, Humongous etc in Labyrinth and The Engineer creature in the maze corridor in Hellraiser. All performed by actors in creature suits.
22)Labyrinth and the first 2 Hellraiser movies were shot in England.
23) In Labyrinth and both the first Hellraiser movies, the credits are shown at the start of the film before the first scene plays.
24) Both sets of films are coming of age stories for their protaganists; for Tiffany, Kirsty and Sarah.
25) Hellraiser is more closely regarded as a fantasy movie rather than a horror, and though Labyrinth is mainly a fantasy it also has minor horror elements (the goblins at the start of the film for example).
26) Symbolism in the form of babies in some sort of peril feature a lot in the Hellraiser movies. In Hellraiser and Hellbound we hear the sound of babies crying either in dream/nightmare sequences, scenes of re-birth/reformation as well as when Tiffany sees a vision in the Labyrinth of a baby with it's mouth sewn shut. In Labyrinth of course the central story is based around the rescue of baby Toby who is in danger.
I'm sure there are more i can't think of at the moment, but yah.
1) Both films of course feature a Labyrinth central to the role of the movie, and both are referred to as "Labyrinths" in the film rather than "mazes" or any other name.
2)Kirsty goes into the Labyrinth to save her father from eternal damnation at the whim of the Cenobites. Sarah goes in to save her brother from becoming a goblin at the whim of Jareth.
3) Both films feature female protaganists. (Kirsty and Tiffany in Hellbound, Sarah in Labyrinth). Although Kirsty is older than Sarah, Tiffany is about the same age as her.
4) Something bad (we don't know what) has happened to Tiffany's mother in Hellbound, resulting in her to never see her agian, causing her much distress. In Labyrinth, Sarah and her mother have departed ways too, and has caused her distress at some point.
5)Kirsty's stepmother is Julia, who refers to herself as not the "wicked stepmother" but the "evil queen" instead, and calls Kirsty "Snow White". In Labyrinth, Sarah's father is also re-married to another woman, and she thinks that Sarah treats her as a "wicked stepmother in a fairy tale".
6)Both Labyrinths in the movies are based upon the imagery of M.C Escher, which are especially most apparant in the long shots of them. Coincidently, Escher's artwork can be seen on walls in both films; "Relativity" can be seen on Sarah's bedroom wall whilst another peice by Escher (i forget the name) can be seen on the wall in Dr. Channard's room as well as the hospital/asylum in Hellbound.
7) Both Labyrinths in the films exist in another dimension, but encompass imagery based around the individual that experiences them. Sarah's is made up of her sub-consious mind in terms of creatures and scenarios (if one analyses the movie in that sense) as is Tiffany's. The Labyrinth in Hellbound: Hellraiser II however is formed around both the nightmares and dreams of the individual person- Tiffany's features clowns and carnivals which she is fond of fused with macabre and surpressed memories.
8) Regarding the above statement, Sarah experiences a vision of her bedroom inside the Labyrinth which proceeds to break apart afterwards as she realises it's a trick. In Hellbound, Kirsty also experiences the same, her house as it used to be reformed as a trick to lure her in, which then also breaks around her (although in a more gruesome way).
9) The Cenobites in the Hellraiser movies are only called to people if they solve the Lament Configuration puzzle box, and then proceed to take that certain individual away into Hell (The Labyrinth). In Labyrinth, when a certain individual wishes upon The Goblin King, he will come to do their bidding or come to take them away into his Labyrinth.
10)Just as they have to be called to appear, so must they be sent back to dissapear. A special line of dialogue had to be said to Jareth to make him go, and the puzzle must be solved again to send the Cenobites back where they came from.
11) In the Hellraiser films, the Keeper of the Lament Configuration puzzle box is the only bieng from the Labyrinth who is allowed travel to Earth at his own free will, and he takes the form of both a human and a huge winged creature of some sort. In Labyrinth, Jareth (as far as i know) can travel to Earth from his realm too, and he can also take the shape of either himself as a human or another winged creature, in this case a barn owl.
12) In Hellbound after Dr. Channard has transformed into a Cenobite, his palms rip open and long, tentacle-like things with eyeballs attached to the end appear. In Labyrinth, there is a plant of some sort which is protruding from a wall which is tentacle-like and has eyeballs on the ends of them (when Sarah first enters the Labyrinth and can't find an opening, just before she meets the worm).
13) Every time it cuts to a shot of the central Castle in Labyrinth, we hear a distinct 4-note horn melody sound. In Hellbound, everytime we see Leviathan (which is also at the centre of it's labyrinth) we hear a deep horn sound, except there are slightly more notes.
14) Just as the Cenobites and the puzzle box promise dreams of fulfilment to the individual, as does Jareth and his crystal balls. All of them of course give you these wishes- but at a price previously unknown to the individual.
15) Just as Labyrinth can be analysed in it's very multi-layered themes and intrepretations of Freudian psychology that range from many topics including erotiscm, so can the same be said for Hellbound, which demands to be read in that sense though it is a lot more visceral.
16) Both Kirsty and Tiffany unwillingly and accidently solve the puzzle box which bring forth the Cenobites. In Labyrinth, Sarah also unwillingly calls Jareth.
17)Both the Cenobites and Jareth love to toy with their unwilling victims, and are quite well versed in almost poetic dialogue (most notably Pinhead in his lines and Jareth in his music).
18) Jareth is portrayed by David Bowie who is of course a glam rock star. In Hellbound, the Female Cenobite is played by Barbie Wilde, who herself is a trained dancer/mime artist who has toured with many bands including Depche Mode, Adam and the Ants, Ultravox and Classix Nouveaux, who's image in the 80s was also very similar to Bowie's glam rock/punk style, especially with heavy use of colouful eye make-up and even having the same hairstyle which Bowie sports in Labyrinth.
19)Jareth has a very pop/rock image (of course, being portrayed by David Bowie) which can also be atrributed to goth. Pinhead and the Cenobites have a neo-punk look who sport long garbs of leather- also common gothic fashion attire. Both sets of characters encompass popular 80s music fashion trends in their images.
20)Jareth and the Cenobites, once they are called, can all appear and dissapear wherever they want (teleport).
21)Both Labyrinths feature huge animatronic creatures- Ludo, goblins, Humongous etc in Labyrinth and The Engineer creature in the maze corridor in Hellraiser. All performed by actors in creature suits.
22)Labyrinth and the first 2 Hellraiser movies were shot in England.
23) In Labyrinth and both the first Hellraiser movies, the credits are shown at the start of the film before the first scene plays.
24) Both sets of films are coming of age stories for their protaganists; for Tiffany, Kirsty and Sarah.
25) Hellraiser is more closely regarded as a fantasy movie rather than a horror, and though Labyrinth is mainly a fantasy it also has minor horror elements (the goblins at the start of the film for example).
26) Symbolism in the form of babies in some sort of peril feature a lot in the Hellraiser movies. In Hellraiser and Hellbound we hear the sound of babies crying either in dream/nightmare sequences, scenes of re-birth/reformation as well as when Tiffany sees a vision in the Labyrinth of a baby with it's mouth sewn shut. In Labyrinth of course the central story is based around the rescue of baby Toby who is in danger.
I'm sure there are more i can't think of at the moment, but yah.
Sunday, 21 September 2008
Review: Eagle vs Shark ( Taika Waititi, 2007)
Jared and Lily= fantastic movieWords can't express how much i loved this film. I absolutely adored it!
Set in New Zealand It follows two misunderstood and socially awkward "nerdy" characters (Jarrod and Lily) as they each search for redemption, acceptance, friendship and ultimately love through a wayward journey of hilarious sorts. Seeming completely opposite when we first see them together at Jarrod's animal fancy dress party (where he dresses up as an Eagle and Lily a Shark hence the title of the film), in due course we find out that they do in fact share a lot of similarities, and through issues which vary from up and downs we learn that that they, like everyone, have unresolvable differences which make us what we are, and its the decisions and choices we make that decide who we really are and where we belong in this mad world.
Although never mentioned, the two main characters here, like those in similar movie Napaleon Dynamite, show the autistic symptoms of Asperger's Syndrome yet this is not why we care or sympathise with any of them. It's their motivations and their personalities, their heart and soul that we grow to love. I loved the characters the more we i get to know them, Jarrod came across as arrogant and easily unlikeable at the start but during the course of the film, as we understand him better, is much more than that. Lily, who we first thought as simple is again wonderfully multi layered and unpredictably lovable. Ultimately this film is a completely unapologetic and almost satirical study of socially outcast outsiders as they live day to day life with their own problems and troubles, but in the end, as we find out, living it well, and actually better than any of us would have first thought; Loving life despite it's flaws, living it and getting on with it- and i found this to be very inspirational. It also boasts a great script, some truly great comedic moments, superb acting by both main actors as well as some fantastic music.
Eagle vs Shark is in a similar vein to Napolean Dynamite, Garden State and Little Miss Sunshine (which i all loved) so if you enjoyed those then i can't recommend this movie highly enough! Not only is it one of the best indie films i have ever seen but it has also become one of my favourite films ever. Sweet, funky, and charming to say the least- this is one of those rare movies that come out of nowhere and end up staying with you forever.
Verdict: Weird, wonderful, charming and funny- i loved this film. 9/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)