Piranha (2010)

Alexandra Aja has made quite an impact on the horror scene since emerging to the mainstream with Haute Tension (also known as Switchblade Romance) back in 2003. Followed up by his effective and harrowing remake of the Hills Have Eyes and it became clear that he was a major new voice. He helped lead the way to the latest generation of horror directors pushing the envelope and creating intense and disturbing experiences. After the apparent misfire of Mirrors, his next film (one I have not seen) he returns now to the remake pool but with a very different sensibility. Rather than take Joe Dante's schlocky 1978 movie about prehistoric piranhas wreaking havoc on spring break, and re-working it into a modern day serious horror film he instead has done the complete opposite. Piranha takes everything that was goofy and silly about the original and amplifies it. Right from the opening scene with it's knowing nod to Jaws this is never a film in danger of taking itself at all seriously, and to its credit it sticks with this throughout. 

Those craving a film with any sort of depth or character development are likely to be disappointed, likewise those after any kind of real shocks and scares. However if you are in the mood and willing to hand yourself over for the films brief 80 minute runtime then there's a lot to enjoy here.

Elizabeth Shue has the occasionally thankless task of playing the straight sheriff role in the film, and the majority of the film concerns itself with her and her family and the fallout from the earthquake which releases the killer piranhas into the lake of a small town, currently overpopulated with bikini-laden teenagers enjoying spring break. It's a great set-up for a film and Aja builds slow and whilst the film is rather garish and exploitative in tone this is very deliberate, and sets up the back end of the film nicely. Steven R. McQueen (the R is for the sake of avoiding confusion I would wager) plays Jake, the son of the sheriff who somehow manages to find himself working on a boat offshore for an adult film director (Jerry O'Connell clearly enjoying playing the slimiest character possible) when the proverbial hits the fan.

And really that's what the film is all about. The tone is light and enjoyable enough that it is never boring, but there is a definite switch is gear as the second half of the film kicks in and the piranhas are let loose. What follows is a wonderfully ridiculous and over the top string of set pieces and scenes that milk every possible angle from the premise. There are missing limbs, more blood than your average hospital and an inspired use of a speedboat engine. Aja actually manages to put together some tense and well paced scenes at the top end of the film and it ends fairly strongly. He is a good enough director to know where to tow the line on the gore and silliness and manages to keep your interest in the few main characters to the end.

Overall this is a pure teflon film, nothing from it is likely to stick with you, and in terms of artistic value and merit it scores pretty low. But for those times when you feel like kicking back and watching something entertaining and downright deranged you could do a lot worse.

The Lives of Others (2006)

Winner of the Oscar for best foreign film in 2006 The Lives of Others tells the story of the last years of the political divide in Germany. Despite dealing with what could be a dour and overly serious subject matter, this is actually a smaller, human film with great performances, whilst still looking at the wider issues of freedom of speech and government control. The film focuses on Gerd Wiesler, a Stazi officer whose job is to spy on suspected citizens of East Germany, then use the collected evidence to detain them. He is assigned to the case of a popular playwright who has suspected ties with anti-government contacts within the art world. From this initial setup the film manages to deftly deviate from the expected narrative, something I was very surprised by and pleased at. Rather than a simple cat and mouse game between factions, the film instead focuses on the duality of these two men and the way that Georg’s lifestyle and attitudes start to affect Wiesler. 

Beautifully crafted and told this is a subtle and heartbreaking film. Never over-explaining but always trusting of the viewer it takes its time but builds up real affinity with its cast. Each of the actors inhabits their roles expertly, but Ulrich Mühe is the obvious stand out. His Wiesler is not showy, or dramatic, he is careful, considered and repressed. His evolution over the course of the film is brilliantly handled and it’s a testament to the performance that he is able to sell what could have been trite or convenient so believably.

Like many foreign films the film is less concerned with traditional 3 act structures, and could be seen as rather long winded or boring by some but I never felt it. Instead it does a great job of immersing you in a time and place and involving you with these characters. Again as the film ends it defied my expectations, but where it went, and how it tied the final strands of the story together was understated and brilliant, a phrase which could encapsulate the entire experience. I don’t have much else to say really other than I would urge you check this film out, I had held off in the past thinking it would be overly serious and tough going, but instead found a very human, and very engrossing thriller. I hope you do too.

Before Sunset (2004)

 

Another film to discuss that I had already seen, and unlike Scott Pilgrim my opinion on the film hasn't drastically changed, so I have no justifiable reason for talking about it, other than to share my love of this little-seen film and hopefully bring it to more people’s attention. There are a couple of notable things to discuss about the film right off the bat, the first is that it is a sequel (to the 1995 film Before Sunrise), and it is solely a film focused on a real time conversation between two characters. The original film did this too, though played around with the timeline a bit more, giving the initial meetings and courting of Ethan Hawke's Jesse and Julie Delpy's Celine a whole day and night in Vienna. After their initial meeting, with plans of returning in six months and no information exchanged, Before Sunset picks up the story a whole nine years later. One of the things that is so impressive about the film is that it manages to be an example of a sequel that could have felt unnecessary, and makes it absolutely vital and key, at once adding to the story of the original and improving it. I could write just as much about the original film and highly recommend you check that out before watching this film. Typically explaining away ambiguity in sequels is the kiss of death, but in the case of Before Sunset the film-makers were smart enough to use the long time gap between films to their advantage. By having the two primary actors reprise their roles, nine years on and with all the encumbered experience of that time on their shoulders, they help bring these characters to life in a way that films rarely do. It is significant that, as opposed to the original, both Delpy and Hawke share a writing credit on Sunset, indicating the level of themselves they brought to the characters this time round.

It's hard to put into words what is so captivating and enthralling about these films, on paper it sounds pretty trite and boring. Two characters meet and catch up, all the whilst walking around Paris. That is it. There are no more than two characters, no conflict in the traditional sense, no set pieces. But it is the riveting nature of the conversation, and the humanity of the characters that draws you in. The years have not all been kind to these characters and it is fascinating to see how they have changed over time, how their idealistic youth has made way for a more compromised and damaged adulthood. There are some very deep themes dealt with in the film, but with such a lightness of touch and with such vulnerability that it never seems preachy or self-righteous. The dance that the characters make throughout the film is fascinating, as they suss each other out and seek to determine how that one night in Vienna has subsequently affected their lives, and what they could have been. The key element of any film, but especially one as focused on character and conversation as this one is the chemistry of the actors. Thankfully everything that worked in the original is again amplified here, Delpy's Celine is just as adorable, if with a newer more cynical edge. Hearing her speak you completely understand Jesse's misty eyed devotion, yet she is far from a idealised love interest. Equally Hawke's performance is just as worthy of praise, he plays a complicated situation well, hiding aspects of his feelings and constantly assessing the situation in a very real way.

Director Richard Linklater could have been said to have an easy task with this film, but to sustain an audiences interest in conversation for 80 minutes is no easy task, he has a wonderfully naturalistic style here letting the individual scenes breathe and extend out. Paris has rarely looked as inviting as well and is almost the third character in the film, imbuing the film with a subtle air of romanticism. Returning to the film all of these elements and their construction, and the scripts immense subtlety and grace, really stuck out to me, more so than on my first viewing. It is a film that benefits from repetition and has a surprising depth. It is one of the most romantic and honest 'relationship' films I think I've seen, and one I will continue to enjoy in the years to come. If this doesn't sound like your typical film I would urge you to give it, and its predecessor a shot. Much of what passes for romance in cinema now is horribly shallow and contrived, as such Before Sunset still feels like a breath of fresh air, and something of a quiet miracle.

Ex-Drummer (2007)

Marking as far a step away from the big budget, mass market gloss of Tron comes this rather obscure Flemish film about a group of 'handicapped' musicians who seek out a well known music journalist to become their drummer. To their surprise he agrees, and what follows is one of the most brutal, disturbing and bizarre films I've seen in a long time. Straight up the first thing to say is that this is a dark angry snarl of a film. Like the untempered music that the band put out this is a dizzying vision of the broken and impoverished side of Belgian society that is unafraid to insult and offend as many people as possible. From the lead singer, whose world view is so twisted the he is physically seen pacing around his ceiling at home, ranting and raving inbetween his random and brutal attacks on local women, to the drug addict guitar player whose junkie wife neglects his young daughter, there is barely a likeable character in the piece and the filmmakers are not afraid in the slightest to show the absolute worst of these people. What is interesting is the way the well off and more centered journalist that joins the band, winds up being arguable the worst of them. His descent into the darkness comes at the expense of the others, his distaste at their behaviour and lives manifests in some horrific ways towards the back end of the film.

Stylistically this is an impressively put together and confident film. From the subject matter to some of the events in the film it seems clear that first time director Koen Mortier has absorbed influences from Gaspar Noe to Danny Boyle's Trainspotting and yet managed to make the film feel unique and consistent. It wallows in the depravity of the characters, and yet never totally demonises them, they are hard to like but never feel inhuman or without motivation. There are some neat visual tricks to the film as well, but despite all that and a great soundtrack it is difficult to recommend the film. It is a tough watch, as extreme in places as any film I've seen and while there are plenty of elements in the film that could be marked as being darkly, blackly comic it takes a certain kind of person to appreciate that.

The acting throughout is top notch though, each actor fully inhabiting their role in the film, and the pacing and editing and great as well, it is a film with a very specific pace and rhythm that compliments the story. Overall it's hard to deny this is an impressive film on many levels, but it's utter lack of humanity and uncompromising characters will test most viewers. As an experience it is one that has stuck with me since I watched it and has to be commended as such, but I still wouldn't say that I especially enjoyed the film. For those looking for something very different and challenging then there are few films out there as effective as Ex-Drummer.

Tron Legacy (2010)

Even for all its technical prowess and Disney’s huge marketing push, Tron always seemed an odd choice for being designated holiday blockbuster status. The, nearly three decade late, sequel to a cult classic box office failure, it always felt like the story and world of Tron was never going to capture the attentions of the masses. I have little history with Tron, I recently watched the original for the first time but must confess that aside from the striking visuals and some ideas I found it a hard to engage with. It is fitting perhaps that some of these feelings transferred over to my thoughts on Legacy. In fact thinking back I still have some mixed emotions, I enjoyed the film and found it unique and fascinating on an aesthetic level, but never quite connected with the characters or story as I might. Set in the present the film follows Sam, the son of Kevin Flynn (Bridges, reprising his character from the original) who we learn early on disappeared a few years after the original film was set, never to return. Embittered against his father and his company Encom, Sam rebels in his own immature way and shirks the responsibility he was set to inherit. 

More than the rest of the film, the opening pre-grid sequences feel rather forced and over simplified. The archetypes of the morally bankrupt cigar twirling villains who run Flynn’s company, versus the loveable rogue in need of direction are laid on thick with little room for subtlety. Unfortunately what this does is fail to adequately set up or inspire connection with Sam’s journey once he reaches the grid and finds his father. However once the action reaches the grid things improve, and in a nice riff on the original Sam finds himself passing through updated versions of the games that Flynn himself faced back in 1982. From the film’s first moments in the grid it is clear that here is where first time director Joseph Kosinski is most comfortable. Re-imagining the world in a way that feels modern and high tech, but also reverential to the first film, the production on the film is nothing short of breathtaking especially if you are fortunate enough to watch it in IMAX 3D. Not only is the look of the film remarkable but the way the Daft Punk score (fantastic in its own right) managed to pulse and flow through the film, the beating heart of the grid. It is a perfect blend of music and visuals and helps genuinely sell the film as a sensory experience. 

Thankfully there is some interesting stuff to back up the design, once Sam meets up with his father, and Quorra, a program who he once rescued the film sets up a final goal of escaping the grid ahead of Clu, a duplicate of Kevin Flynn created to help bring order to the grid but who has since spent his time imposing totalitarian control over the world. Clu is an interesting choice for the villain of the piece, firstly and most obviously Clu is an entirely GGI version of Jeff Bridges circa 1989, an effect that, unfortunately, never quite works in the film. Within the grid it is slightly more forgivable, after all he is supposed to be a corrupted version of Flynn, but the truth is that as sophisticated as the tech is now, it fails to cross the uncanny valley, leaving each of Clu’s scenes feeling slightly off. The same tech is also used briefly for seeing Bridges’ character in the real world in the 1980’s, which feels like another misstep. It is a shame as a similar technique was used in Benjamin Button to completed convincing effect, but when a lot of your film revolves around this character it never failed to pull me slightly out of the film.

There has been a lot of criticism flying about regarding Garrett Hedlund as Sam, and whilst I don’t think he is the greatest or most charismatic actor around he is fine in the lead role. He is ably supported by Bridges who turns in solid work as usual, using his age and experience to good effect. The stand out character-wise has to be Olivia Wilde’s Quorra however, her mix of curiosity, loyalty and naiveté plays well and she injects a fair amount of life into the film from the moment she is introduced.

Overall the film plays out as you might expect, the action scenes are well staged and inventive, the story hampered by some coincidences late on and a frustrating lack of explanation for exactly how things in the grid work. Possibly this is because too much close scrutiny to the core ideas of Tron would make them fall apart, the notion of programs as people inside a computer was a lot more plausible I would imagine back in the early 80’s when knowledge of computers was still very low. Now they are so ubiquitous and technology so much better understood that the whole idea has a quaint retro feel to it regardless of the state of the art effects. This may bother some, but I didn’t mind, it felt like it was all in honour of the original film and its ideals.

So my feelings on Tron are somewhat mixed, not because I didn’t enjoy it per-se but because it felt like there was the potential for more, be it a more compelling story or characters or a further expansion of the ideas from the first film rather than a simple updating of many of them. Still as an experience it’s hard to not recommend a viewing of Tron if it in any way appeals to you, especially on the big screen, however I struggle to see it being a film that over time captures the minds of many, even in cult circles, the way the original did.

Metropolis (2010)

Hopefully these first two reviews of the year will set a pattern for what I hope will be a varied and eclectic mix of films I will look at this year. One of the advantages of the technology available at the moment is that it is easier than ever to consume films that, up until a few years ago, would have been out of reach or purely unavailable. Similarly as my tastes have grown I feel more desire to mix up my viewing habits with a solid knowledge of film history, as well as the current crop of releases. 

All of which is a long-winded introduction to today’s entry, the 2010 re-mastered and extended version of Metropolis, a 1927 classic silent film. Whether or not you are acquainted with the film, it’s highly likely you will at least recognise its signature design and aesthetic choices that, arguably, are still the foundation of the science-fiction genre in film as we know it. German director Fritz Lang’s most enduring film is essentially a parable, something that is also common in the genre to this day, of class division and the need for co-operation between the ruling classes and the workers. As such the film plays out as Joh Fredersen (Alfred Ablel) the son of the leader of Metropolis leaves his life of luxury behind in order to find a woman he once glimpsed, which naturally takes him right to the other end of the social spectrum and to a true understanding of the nature of the city. 

Now watching any film from so long ago, let alone one with no dialogue, can be a challenge. Differences in culture, society and experience conspire against any kind of true reflection of what this film would have meant at the time, and the provision of suitable context in which to assess it. 84 years of cinematic development render many of the groundbreaking techniques less impressive now, but even coming to the film from my current perspective it is still an obviously impressive achievement. The sleek, futuristic design of the city of Metropolis is so engrained within modern notions of futurism that it seems obvious, rather than daring or new. Even with the limited technical abilities of the time it is rendered wonderfully, the art-deco design of the various locations, not to mention the robot character are truly amazing for the time, and must be applauded as such.

The lack of dialogue was not as much of an issue as it might have been, the title cards are sparse enough and the actors’ theatrical leanings emotive enough that I was never lost as to what was happening. Now this is also in part due to the difference the new footage makes to the film. I had not seen it previously, but due to the poor condition of the newly found and inserted footage it is obvious where the new scenes sit. Some are simply extensions of existing sequences (the flood escape at the end is a much more exciting and involving scene because of this). However some of it exorcises whole storylines and ideas, which help add flavour to the film and explain aspects of the story. Without these elements it becomes clear how elements of the story were previously never fully explained and so would have seemed random, or nonsensical. So whilst the film is now longer (even by today’s standards, nearly 150 minutes) it feels like a more coherent and complete version than would have previously been seen.

 

As to the film itself, well I enjoyed it. The ideas raised were interesting and I liked how the central themes wound themselves into the plot towards the end. I will not deny that the sheer distance of time and culture impacted my enjoyment, it was tough to really get into at times and slow in parts, but on the whole it was more remarkable how much I was able to engage with and follow. Overall it was easy to see why this film has such a reputation and high standing within the pantheon of film history, its look and style have informed an entire genre and the use of dream sequences, visions and metaphors seems remarkable even now. If you have any interest in film history then I would wholly recommend Metropolis, especially now it’s available in this extended form which brings it back to Fritz Lang’s original, and remarkable, vision.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

So the first film I review in 2011 is one I’ve already seen last year, but there is a reason why I want this to be here. My first viewing of the film was enjoyable and I liked it quite a bit. My second? Loved it. A lot. Now I’m sure there are myriad reasons for this, expectations, the visceral shock that the film can have on first viewing, or my acceptance and understanding of how the film works. For as well as being an ode to geek culture, and an impressively deep (for what it is) exploration of relationships and growing up, the film is also a full on comic-book action film and it’s juggling of these elements is key to both what makes it stand out so strongly as a film, and my slightly tempered attitude to it first time round. You see I like the fights in the film, each one is clever and unique, and helps push the story forward. They are also excellently put together and frequently a lot of fun.

But here’s the thing; they are my least favourite aspect of the film. The mix of genre’s is unusual and as such I cannot deny that a part of me would have enjoyed the film just as much, if not slightly more, if there was less action and more of everything else. The main reason for this being, just how damn good the rest of the film is, I am a sucker for stories about young people growing up and finding themselves and Scott Pilgrim is fantastic at this. The cast is uniformly wonderful, and I think the reason I was slightly down on the fights was that they took up time that, on some level, I wanted to spend with the rest of the cast and storylines. Not that the Scott / Ramona storyline didn’t interest me, I just think it interested me more when they were talking rather than fighting.

However if my main gripe at a film is that I wanted more of it, and that I would have swapped some of the, still very enjoyably, action scenes for more dialogue, then I think it’s safe to say I liked the film a lot. In fact it is perfectly possible that as I revisit the film in the future (I can already see it becoming a staple) that these criticisms recede further, the film is so packed with detail, care and  attention that I think it already lends itself to multiple viewings.

I could talk a lot more about the film, about Edgar Wright’s brilliant direction, about Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s steady march to the top of my crush list and about how great Michael Cera is in a role that, when you look at it, is quite a departure for him and how he anchors the film brilliantly, but these things are all elements of a film whose main strength is how well it pulls disparate elements together into a coherent and enjoyable whole. Along with Kick-Ass this was the most hands-down enjoyable film of last year and one that I think stands slightly higher in the long term, make no mistake this is a light hearted and enjoyably silly film at times, but it also has a lot on its mind and a depth that you may not expect.

I realise much of this review, as it were, has been about my reaction to the film, but this is how I want this new blog system to work, I have little interest in recounting the plot or working down a checklist of elements to grade. As it is Scott Pilgrim is a fantastic film (in case you didn’t get that), a film of such passion and confidence that is fully deserved to succeed to much higher level at the box office than it did. My hope is that over time its stature will grow and that more and more people discover and share the film and grow to love it as I do.

The 2011 Project

Hello? Hello...? Is this thing on?

OK so true to form, I took a little break there. Promises were made and broken, time passed. Governments changed and wars raged. Life didn't so much as get in the way as completely envelop my half-hearted aims for the blog. To speak honestly (as I suppose one is supposed to on such an occasion) I had set myself a wide range of topics to discuss on the blog, and then failed to really keep up with any of it. Too wide a net? Possibly, though not to lift any of the personal blame from my own lethargic shoulders. So, in customary New Year style, I find myself back here again, resolutions clutched firmly in hand, knocking resolutely on the door of 'let's try this again'.

But let's do things differently this time. The title of this post is important, I need to see this as a project and to get some focus, as my previous 'if and when I feel like it' attitude to posting clearly failed its field test. My focus this year will be to catalogue all the films that I watch, along with my thoughts on them. Partly, I confess, as a way of putting my voice out there, adding to the critical mass of conversation that defines the internet, but also as a personal record of what I watch and when, and my reactions at the time. I will record entries for all films new to me that I watch this year, but also, where appropriate, offer up some thoughts on films I am revisiting (an example of this will be found in my first review of the year as a matter of fact).

I will admit my inspiration for this is not completely my own, I have a friend undergoing a similar task to thank as well, but I hope that this will be a concept narrow enough for me to be able to keep up with, and, in time, a foundation to build on as well as a good way to get me back in the habit of writing on a regular basis.

So I will be back later with my first review of the year, if you are reading this then I thank you, and hope you will stick around to join the conversation throughout the year.

Oh and happy new year.