Grotesque.

This film has been in the news recently as it is a rare (non-pornographic) film that is denied a certificate by the BBFC, effectively banning for sale, rental, showing or broadcast in any form in the UK. Naturally, I tracked it down to see what all the fuss was about.
Some background on the film is that it was made this year (2009) in Japan. It is being marketed as inspired by films such as the Saw series that I am a huge fan of. As a fan of Asian cinema, especially horrors, I was looking forward to it, if a little apprehensive of what was in store to make the BBFC outright ban it. I can safely say that the hype surrounding it is completely unnecessary. The film is not as gory as you would imagine, it is the fact that there is no reason for it that the BBFC were unhappy. In Saw, every single "victim" has done something bad, making them almost deserve what is happening to them; it is a severe form of retribution. Here, the torturer has randomly picked this young, innocent couple off the street, and has no rationality at all for what he is doing to them. The plot consists of various horrible things being done to them, with the promise that if the torturer becomes aroused, he will set them free. Very little other than that outline happens. The torture scenes feature effects that are believable, but the filming and editing style is far too hectic. It seems to be trying to copy Saw's style of bursts of frantic jump-cuts to create a tense, discomforting atmosphere. It results in being distracting and disorientating. Another shameless rip-off is that of the music; Battle Royale (amongst other films) was very clever in it's use of well known classical music to accompany scenes of brutal violence. This tries the same, with the torturer putting on classical cassettes while attacking the people. Rather than appearing artistic, it feels very forced and seems to think it is far cleverer than it is.
Like I said before, plot is near non-existent, therefore so too is character development. This means that the three-piece cast are not really pushed. The two victims are not really given much to do other than scream in pain or humiliation, and the torturer is always shown as very stern and emotionless.
The film is a mix of pointless gore and sadism shown in such a way that much impact is lost, and with such little plot to make you care about what is happening, resulting in a rather boring movie. The climactic scene comes with a sudden burst of unintentional hilarity; truly a wtf moment that had me laughing my head off (bad pun alert).
I feel that the content itself is not much worse that films I have seen that were rated 18, but I agree that there is no context to the events. Banning it seems a little harsh, but I don't agree with films being banned unless they have truly illegal content, eg snuff movies or real-life staged aminal cruelty a la Cannibal Holocaust. I think that an unrated certificate should be allowed like in America, providing films don't break the law as outlined above.
Back to the main story though, this is a terrible film. 2/10 with one point added for the wtf moment at the end. 3/10.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

Having never seen the original, I cannot make comparisons. Therefore, I am reviewing this as a standalone movie.
This film seems to be attempting something very ambitious; making commentary on the entire human race while portraying a large-scale humans vs. aliens political story intertwined with a small-scale story of a "mother and son" assisting an alien. Unfortunately, I feel that the director had good intentions, but studio executives intervened, forcing Hollywood-esque, large scale scenes of destruction while in another breath trying to portray the aliens as peaceful. This indecisiveness continues throughout the entire movie, repeatedly switching from potentially brilliant scenes of dialogue commenting on somewhat controversial topics, to brainless scenes of impressive CGI with little plot value. This makes it impossible to view the movie as a fun, light popcorn flick, yet hard to take seriously.
Acting does the job, with Jennifer Connelly playing the worried mother/genius scientist well enough without being given anything particularly testing. Keanu Reeves plays an alien who, with no connection or remorse for the human race, shows no emotion. He is suited perfectly to this role. Jaden Smith is looking set to become a good actor, as surprisingly, he is given some of the more challenging scenes in terms of showing emotion. John Cleese's small yet pivotal role makes for an excellent scene; naturally there is an element of comedy in his performance which contrasts excellently with Keanu Reeves' deadpan character. One person who stood out in a negative way to me was Kathy Bates as the president's stand-in. I don't doubt that it was the script and direction that caused this, but her character was so stereotypical of a view on American government, and her script, delivery and development were on par with a Disney channel movie. There was a few scenes that came across as very cheesy and the result of lazy writing, unfortunately including the climax, which could not have been more "Hollywood" had it tried.
In conclusion, this is a dissapointing, but not by any means awful, attempt at a film that could have been very good. 6/10.

Moon.

I have decided to put reviews in their own posts now.

I have been hearing hype about Moon all Summer, so I had ridiculously high expectations of it entering the cinema. In a bizarre twist based on movie offerings so far this year, they were matched, if not exceeded. In itself it is a brilliant film, but it is even more impressive to know that it is the first film from director Duncan Jones. The plot is very intriguing. I'm not sure if certain revelations could be described as a twist, as they are slowly revealed throughout the whole film; to me a twist is a change of tone or plot which comes as a sudden punch in the face. This film certainly does not do that.
The acting is excellent; Sam Rockwell is pretty much the only main character; there is Kevin Spacey voicing a computer, meaning there is little/no emotion, and a small handful of supporting cast. Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell, nearing the end of his three year post on the moon harvesting Helium 3, used as a new energy source. Understandably, he has become not crazy, but a little odd, talking to his plants, and such. The relief of going home soon is acted very well, all emotions being conveyed through subtle, realistic expressions rather than over-blown, dramatic theatrics. When strange things start happening, it is assumed he has started to crack up. What happens from this point on would give away most of the film, so I'll stop here.
The general tone, along with the effects, give it the feel of the old sci-fi classics; I cannot recall a sci-fi from the past little while without a laser shootout or spacecrafts whizzing around. Effects on the Moon's surface are achieved through miniatures, as opposed to CGI, giving it a more real, imperfect appearance. Nonetheless, this does not make it feel out-dated nor does it drag like 2001; the storyline is far more up-to-date, taking in various topics of debate, and the plot is constantly being played through the relatively short 97 minutes, meaning I was never bored, checking my watch.
Lastly, this is a budget movie, being made on $5 million. For a sci-fi, that is very low. More money could have achieved better CGI in the handful of scenes where CGI is used, but very little could have been made better; the lack of spectacle has meant that Duncan Jones has focused on plot and most importantly character development. It is hard to comment on the character development beyond saying it is conveyed very well by the director and Sam Rockwell, as doing so will create huge spoilers.
To sum up, this film is a fresh take on the classic philosophical sci-fi movies; the sort of film that many would have expected to never have been made again. A fantastic debut from a director I can't wait to see more from. 10/10.

Time Traveller's Wife

Last night went to see the Time Traveller's Wife. Based on the trailers, I was dreading seeing this film, as it looked like a shallow dull romantic movie with a "clever" twist in the form of the time traveller. However, I was very pleased to find, within ten minutes of the film starting, that it was clear that I was wrong; it was a very complex movie, looking at various problems/blessings that the main character's condition meant. The first part of the film obviously introduced the titular character, his condition, and the love interest. This was done very cleverly, as she had known him for many years, but it was the first time he had met her. This is because it was an older version of him that travelled back to her childhood and earlier years. This broken timeline continues throughout the whole film, meaning that it could have easily been an incoherent muddle, but the director has controlled things carefully; sometimes following the traveller's timeline, so everyone around him changes age suddenly; sometimes following everyone else's timeline, so the traveller appears to suddenly age/become younger. The plot was kept on a low level; no one has to save the world in this film; it's just about a couple trying to live a normal life given the bizzare condition the husband has. The time travelling is played to various effects throughout the story; there are a few scenes of comedy, some extremely touching emotional scenes, and some genuine shocks. good few plot twists come as a surprise, at times drastically changing the tone of the movie, but never coming across as contrived. While there is little to no action to keep you entertained, the characters are certaintly interesting enough to keep you in this movie, with the entire cast playing their parts perfectly; most importantly, everyone acts realistically, no over-blown dramatic reactions. The people I saw this with have read the book, and some changed were made to the plot, but based on what I was told, the film's interpretation of the plot is far better; certain events omitted did not belong in the story in my opinion, and cutting them out made the lasting impression of the film far less depressing. 9/10.

Go Go Power Rangers!

Last night I watched Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie. It was like a 90 minute episode of Power Rangers, so incredibly awesome. However, I was shocked and appalled that the final battle featuring the zords and (gasp) the MEGAZORD was CGI as opposed to the greatness of the clunky suits. I have NEVER seen a CGI battle in power rangers, and it is not right. First 80 minutes was awesome, last 10 minutes was a dismal failure.

Everyone should listen to the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers theme Here.

So very angry. + Bedtime Stories

Today the exhibition was very busy. Unfortunately, it seemed to be the day of arrogance and idiocy. One camper van decided to storm off while I was still leaning inside talking to the driver, a woman informed me that they were "off to find somewhere nicer" upon me trying to park their car, countless people questioned my ability to find a space and point at it, and many many people completely ignored my exaggerated gestures, driving into a packed car park, before proceeding to blame me for not directing them.

What fun I had.

Last night I watched Bedtime Stories with Adam Sandler. It was the usual Adam Sandler affair; not a brilliant film, but very funny and certaintly entertaining. Adam Sandler was great as always, and I was surprised to see Russel Brand as his sidekick type character, playing an actual character very well. He was good in forgetting sarah marshall (so good they're making a spin-off for his character), but he really was playing a fictional version of himself in that. With this film being made by Disney and being PG rated that clearly isn't the case here, and he has proven himself to be quite good. 7/10.

Next.

G.I. Joe + Saw V + Shrooms

Due to my abundance of extra flesh I have joined Anthony Lane on his quest to lose a stone in a month - after 3 days I am on target, having lost about 2 lbs. Success.

Less successful was yesterdays trip to the cinema - due to Belladrum only me and Danny went, and we saw G.I. Joe. It sucked. Now in more detail;

I went to the cinema expecting a Michael Bay-esque barrage of explosions and special effects with a light plot connecting these. However these lowly expectations were bitterly crushed by this cinematic atrocity. Where to begin? Glaring errors are in the CGI, of which there is plenty - featuring planes and other block objects most of the time, it shouldn't have been too hard, but in almost every CGI scene lighting, focus, scale and such are completely different to the surrounding areas. Very near the beginning is a shot of Army Jeeps leaving the base; apache helicopters fly overhead. These helicopters are lit differently to the "real" parts, appear the same size as a jeep, fly very fast about one foot over the ground, and are not matched to the movement of the camera, so are jerking around. The effects rarely surpass this standard; jets' wings dissappear into the ground on take-off, one jet inexplicably shrink in front of your eyes. In one scene in particular; a chase scene in Paris; a driver of a Hummer presses a button making a large scoop/spike contraption anfold from the front bumper. This shot's CGI is, with no exaggeration, the quality of a previsualisation (a very low-quality cgi rendering of a scene to test camera angles etc). In many films, I am not bothered about poor FX, but this is a film relying heavily on action scenes, so good CGI is very much required. Now on to the plot - unfortunately it is not a light, wafer-thin plot of a michael bay film; I say unfortunately as that would be better than the ridiculous plot we are given, with a couple of shamefully melodramatic sideplots conveyed through disorientating flashbacks. The portralay of all characters who weren't white americans was stereotypical at best; to quote the scottish villian; "You got the caber out of the park this time!", of course spoken in an accent worse than any forced scottish accent I've heard; the token black guy was unfunny; the japanese characters had some of the best scenes, but were at times ridiculous too (a motorised shuriken?). Action scenes were okay, ignoring the CGI choreography was inconsistant, but at times quite good, but the major chase scene in Paris is devoid of any geographical accuracy (they jump from one side of Paris to another instantly), is at times completely incoherent, and the outcome is spoiled in the trailers, as the only scene with good CGI. Almost every aspect of the film was either a failure or unnessecary, except of course for the final act of the film... this part I had to save for last, as it was the last nail in the coffin for me. The final scenes are comprised of multiple fights happening simultaneously between main characters; the two which take the centre stage are completely ripped from Star Wars films! The main underwater battle is ripped from elements of both Death Star battles; I can assure you of this, as Danny was able to guess what would happen in each scene based on his knowledge of the Star Wars plot; even, at one pivotal scene, down to the camera angle. The second battle is that of the two Ninja-like characters; this is lifted from the final battle of Phantom Menace with Darth Maul - the location, similar choreography, lifted lines, and an IDENTICAL ending.
Overall, it is a film with so many flaws that it actually becomes quite funny. Interestingly, the moments at which we laughed least were the comedy scenes. Packed with flaws by the minute, it is apparently aimed for people who have recently had a full lobotomy. However, as I an a huge fan of "so-good-it's-bad" movies, I did find this a lot of fun, just not in the way it was intended. Nonetheless, enjoying it's badness does not give it a good rating, so I give it 1/10.

Also, I watched Saw V. It's no longer the puzzle-solving tension of the first one, but a battle of wits between various individuals with a lot of moral questions raised of all characters. Much much better than the other sequels, and I don't think anything will match the original. Bring on saw VI. 8/10.

Shrooms. It was not at all scary, I hated the characters, and I have no idea how I managed to watch the whole film. The talking cow seemed like it would be a turning point in the film, but it continued to be a dull, lifeless, scareless yarn. The film is made up of various back stories being formed, and the ending was sure to either be all of these stories converging to make a shocking, well-thought-out climax, or a boring, uninspired pity of a twist, making much of the film pointless. I'll leave it to you to guess which it is. 2/10.

A whole week?

No posts for a while, due to lack of events or films...

However, I have started a job at the exhibition centre, directing traffic. Not the most exciting of jobs, but it's some money until I find a proper job in town.

Interestingly, today there was a minor crash in the car park. Long story short, someone drove into an ininimate parked car, proceeding to blame me and who I was working with.

I'm deeply chuffed with myself, as it seems that in the past couple of months I have had Swine Flu.

Lovely Bones trailer and Alice in wonderland trailers both online; they both look amazing. 2010 will hopefully be less dissappointing than 2009 for films.

That was a breif summing up of my last week; regular postings shall resume.

Death Becomes Her +The Eye (original)

So then, I've been on the waiting list for a while now to get my nose fixed (I can't breathe properly, and it's all lumpy), and was set to be on it for a while longer, but the surgeon phoned me today, saying that there had been a cancellation, and I can have it done on Thursday! Absolutely terrified about having an operation unconscious and staying overnight at hospital, but it'll end up good.

Also, I'm starting a job on Sunday; not a major one, just directing traffic at the exhibition, but it's money until I can find somewhere in town...

Yesterday I saw Death Becomes Her; it was pretty good - The effects were, given the film was made in 1992, excellent. Only one scene really seems to have dated; the rest were still very convincing. Bruce Willis was cleverly cast as a boring, henpecked husband, completely against his Die Hard typecasting. Goldie Hawn was very good at the variety of scenes she had to play, but Meryl Streep tends to annoy me ever since I saw Mamma Mia... She did play her somewhat limited part well, but I can't help noticing the odd over-dramatic movement or emotion she makes, reminding me of her flapping her arms around in "The winner takes it all"... *shudders*. Back to the main film though, the story was very clever, even though I found it quite slow at times, but that's possibly because it was trying to combine two completely different types of film; a love-triangle romantic comedy and a slapstick horror. At the same time, combining these two genres and creating a coherent, enjoyable film must be unimaginably difficult, so the makers were very successful in that. None of the jokes really fell flat to me, and most of the film was entertaining. However, the ending was very very strange; leaning more towards the slapstick side than the rest of the film tended to. Overall, 7/10.

Tonight I saw the Eye (the original Chinese one). From the DVD case and a few other vague sources I was under the impression that it was a very scary and/or gory film (especially when you look at the cover). It was in fact very sparingly gory and the frights were more tension and suspense than jump-scares. I was pleasantly surpsied by this, as this gave way for a very interesting and intriguing plot. It came across to me as a low budget film, as all the suspense was created by very simple means such as camera angles, sound, focus, and slow reveals. To me this is often scarier than the american style of scaring you. I was constantly guessing throughout the film as to what would happen next, and certain changes in direction really surprised me, and the DVD case's promise of "a spectacular finale to rival any blockbuster" is not wrong in rivaling hollywood, but the ending is not what I would call spectacular; it fits in with the rest of the film by focusing largely on the characters and their feelings (albeit with one shot of rather poor cgi). All the cast played their parts really well, and the girl playing the main part was very good at playing someone who had just regained her sight; she conveyed the confusion, and emotion of the experience. 9/10.

In the Name of the King

Up until yesterday I had only heard legends of Uwe Boll's directing; some comparing him to Edward D Wood Jr, or Ed Wood - director of such "classics" as Plan 9 From Outer Space. He has won many Razzies, inlcuding "Worst Career Achievement". Yesterday I decided to watch one of his films; In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale. Unsuprprisingly it's based on the Dungeon Siege series of games, none of which I've played. I was expecting it to be either hilariously bad like Troll 2 and Ed Wood's films, or just terrible. It was actually quite good.
I say it was good; in actuality it was pretty terrible in terms of film making, but it was very good fun, and it kept me entertained for 2 hours. The lead role is played by Jason Stratham (Crank), who is adequate. His gravely London voice reminded me a lot of Beowulf, but he managed to play emotional scenes as well as fight scenes, so meh. The rest of the cast are pretty much the same; not particularly good, but not bad either. The special effects were pretty bad, with the very few CG models being SO obvious. The "magic" effects were good, but they can be done by 1000 people on youtube with a hacked copy of After Effects. The general look of the film was interesting; all the scenes looked like HDR photos, which is something I've not really seen done in this way in a film before. The downside of this technique though is the general downside of HDR photography; it can destroy the quality. All too frequently, the backgrounds are very grainy (especially noticeable on Blu-ray), and occasionally the skyline shows the "Halo" effect that is a sign of over-manipulation. Still, the appearance was interesting, and given better effects, it would have looked brilliant. The fight/battle scenes reminded me greatly of Power Rangers; with the over-the-top leaping around, with every move emphasised and shown from various angles. This was more true at the beginnig of the movie, and once it got to later battles, it was far better. Still, this added to the fun of the film for me. The WTF moment of this movie came in the form of the smallest regiment of the king's army; they were never referred to, but featured heavily in later battles... Ninjas. There's not much I can say; they're ninjas. The second they appear will prove a turning point for most people - either they've completely suspended disbelief, and are enjoying it for what it is, or will be shocked/confused/outraged and shall turn it off immediately. I understand either response, but I was the former, and actually enjoyed seeing Ninjas in a Medieval Lord of the Rings/Arthurian battle... now that I put it like that it seems even more strange.

Overall it was, as I said, terrible. But because I enjoyed it, it entertained me, and I am likely to buy it cheaply and watch it again, has it completely failed as a film? I feel that movies are taking themselves too seriously in recent years, and something like this takes us back to good, fun films of the 80's. Films aren't supposed to be hyper-realistic, with every action being pheasable in the real world; they're there to entertain people - a lot of people seem to be forgetting that, and are making films look too much like documentaries. For it's sheer entertainment value, I give this film 5/10.

I was going to end that review by sticking up for Uwe Boll, suggesting that he is harshly criticised, but in looking up about him to write the intro, I discovered that he is a tool.

In other news, Little Boots' new video, Remedy, is online. BBC.co.uk had the exclusive showing of it, but Perex Hilton managed to download it, and upload it onto his own website, BBC watermark intact. Perez Hilton once again fails. It would be hilarious to see Little Boots punch him in the face... Will.iam "boom-boom-powed" him, so what would little boots do? "Meddle" with his face?.. nah. Forget I said anything...

Musical Merriment of the day - Little Boots - Remedy - Not really a surprise... the video's more low-key than New in Town, but it fits the song and Little Boots in general more. And the song is perhaps my favourite of 2009 so far. *Bonus Round* Spot Little Boots' signature Unicorn figurine and you win a prize. Not really, but look for it anyway.