Action

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

dir: Guy Ritchie
Tally-ho what, we love each other and we're not going to hide it anymoreTally-ho what, we love each other and we're not going to hide it anymore
Mr Ritchie, is there something you’re trying to tell us? Your last three films have had, shall we say, a curious subtext considering the material (all violent action-y crime capers), and yet now, in the sequel to your inexplicably successful Sherlock Holmes flick, that subtext has now just become text. Congratulations? Are you making progress? Are you getting somewhere with your, um, feelings towards other men?

Long have people joked or slyly nudged nudged and winked winked over the potential for the fictional sleuthing characters of Holmes and Watson to have been, shall we say, better than the best of friends and companions. The last flick with Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law as the principles humorously alluded to it in a plethora of ways. In this one, it’s flat out right up there on the screen. Holmes is jealously needling Watson over whether he’d rather be spending time with him or his wife on their honeymoon, he’s dressing up in drag whenever he can, compelling Watson to lay down with him. And, just before the film’s climax, at some diplomatic ball at Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland, they even dance a loving waltz together. And no-one bats an eyelid. Which is progress, of a sort.

At the conclusion of their dance, Holmes jealously says to Watson, “Who taught you to dance like that?”

You know what’s coming, don’t you? Watson whispers lovingly to him, “You did.”

Love, oh careless love.

Holmes pursues, through this shadowy game of a story, his greatest nemesis, his only worthy adversary, Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), who seems to be operating from the middle of a very complicated web. From there, or from Oxford, at least, he pulls the threads connecting countless people, with waves of his malign influence expanding across a Europe which he is priming for war. The year is 1891, so I guess he just can’t wait for 1914 to start his hoarding, profiteering and the selling of weapons to both sides of the conflict.

Holmes, as played by Downey Jnr, is just as nervy, just as dishevelled as in the previous flick, though he’s possibly even more Aspergers-like in this instalment. This characterisation rankles with a fair few people, and I’m not going to defend it. It’s a take on the character that fans, devotees of the many renditions of the character or of Arthur Conan Doyle find harder to stomach than the general public, methinks. The thing is, though, whether it is or isn't a worthy characterisation, the question for us should be whether we’re entertained by it or not.

It’s a hard question for me to answer. It’s impossible for me to see the character beyond Downey Jnr’s array of tics and affectations, in that this character feels more artificial than his suit of super armour in the Iron Man flicks.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

dir: Brad Bird
Look at poor Simon Pegg, way way back in the distance. He looks lonelyLook at poor Simon Pegg, way way back in the distance. He looks lonely
Sweet Zombie Jesus, if you’re going to make more of these monstrous Mission Impossible flicks, then continue getting Brad Bird to direct, because this one’s pretty amazing. From a pure action point of view, this is probably the best action flick I’ve seen in a long while, and I watch a lot of violent action flicks. Sure, a lot of them involve Chipmunks or are on the Nickelodeon channel, but my point still stands.

These lapdog American retreads of the James Bond espionage action genre have peaked right here, and it would probably be best if they just put it aside and backed away from the franchise. But they won’t, like we all know. Success breeds laziness, so Tom Cruise will probably be making these when he’s in his 80s and still puttering around looking like a 40-year-old thanks to foetal grindings and other secret Scientological super serums. I still find Cruise somewhat scary at the best and worst of times, but I can’t fault him for his work here. This flick exemplifies its own formula, excelling with the stuff that it’s known for, which is a bunch of incredibly orchestrated heists / break-ins, high-tech trickery, complicated impersonations, and saving the world at the very last second after travelling around it first.

The travelogue this time around requires visits to Russia, Dubai and finally Mumbai for their globe-trotting fix, before returning to that wretched den of scum and villainy, known as San Francisco. This isn’t some Eat Pray Love-type journey of self-discovery where they see the world, eat rich food for the first time in their lives and sleep with gorgeous Spanish men with bedroom eyes and washboard abs. They’re out to save the world from nuclear destruction, you sighing, overly romantic ninnies!

Brad Bird is probably best known for directing one of the best of a good bunch of films; they being Pixar films, and it being The Incredibles. This is his first non-animated flick, and he handles it very well. It’s pretty emotionally spare, it just flies along and doesn’t get bogged down by anything. It waits for no man or woman to catch up, and just keeps powering ahead whether you want it to or not. It’s not going to be mistaken for one of the Bourne flicks, but nor would you want it to be.

The team in question, being the team of agents? Operatives? Supergeniuses? I dunno, but they have to break someone out of a Russian prison. That’s our starting point. Although, when you start watching a flick that you know has Tom Cruise in it, and you don’t see him within the first five minutes, you start to get nervous. Where is he, when will he appear, is he okay, that sort of thing. And you also know that it would have to be him that they’re trying to rescue. Or else our minds will be blown.

There’s high tech guy Benji (Simon Pegg), and attractive agent Carter (Paula Patton), and that’s it. Sure, some guy died in Budapest, but I’m sure that had nothing to do with the rest of the story we’ll be watching unfold in Mother Russia.

Why would they do something so unkind to Ethan Hunt (Cruise)? I mean, that’s where the guy wants to be, in a Russian prison, having Russian things done to him. As some kind of punishment, I guess, they end up getting him out, and some other Russian guy as well. Two for the price of one.

The 3 D Musketeers

dir: Paul W. S. Anderson
But there are four of them! I'm so confusedBut there are four of them! I'm so confused
You might ask yourself: why would you voluntarily see a movie that you know can’t be good? You might specifically ask me: Why would you, a person of moderate intelligence who thinks every movie made by Paul W.S Anderson is shite of the highest order, see another flick made by him, especially one that seems like the dumbest thing since someone passed a law allowing children to legally own guns?

It would be a good question. It’s not one I have a satisfactory answer for. I’ve hated this shmuck’s flicks for decades, and his flicks are definitely not improving.

But an opportunity presented itself, and so I watched it.

Historians and philosophers, centuries from now, if there are people still around then, and let’s hope they’re not, will wonder if this is the dumbest version of the Three Musketeers story, or if it’s the awesomest. Rivalries will angry up the blood. Factions will form. Lines will be crossed. Feelings will be hurt.

It’s a prelude to the war to come, you see. The two sides will eventually meet in a war to expunge the earth of those they perceive as their blood enemies, without all realising the deepest, most saddening and salient fact: it doesn’t matter, because both sides are right and both sides are wrong, simultaneously.

The Three Musketeers might be an old story written by Alexandre Dumas centuries ago, but surely he, rolling around in his musty grave, was hanging for the moment whereby the story could be rendered in eye-popping 3D? Surely all he wanted was that a film version be made that demanded the 3D surcharge for those ill-fitting glasses that work about as well as a granite condom, and that finally has the technology to add CGI airships to his ye olde story of swordplay and derring-do?

Attack the Block

dir: Joe Cornish
If children are our future, we're doomedIf children are our future, we're doomed
Did you ever wonder what all those British youthful scumbags were doing before they started rioting through the streets of London?

Apparently, they were saving us from the alien scum of the universe.

Someone had the idea recently of ‘what if aliens invaded the Wild, Wild West?’ That movie was made, and was known as Cowboys and Aliens. Someone else had the idea ‘what if aliens invaded people’s arses?’ And that masterpiece was made. It was called Dreamcatcher. And now some dickhead thought to himself or herself ‘what if aliens invaded a British public housing estate?’

And lo and behold, Attack the Block was made.

It’s impossible to set a flick in or around a council estate, or housing commission flats, or the projects, or the Parisian banlieu or any form of public housing, without much of the underlying story being about the social commentary opportunities the location throws up. Having said that, this flick uses it as an opportunity to comment more on the actions of the protagonists, who live in these places, rather than the supposed ethics of the people or the system that places them there.

What this really means for us, the viewers, is that our protagonists, unless we share extended sympathies with them out of experience or through, what’s that term again, oh yeah, liberal guilt, is that our protagonists are fucking brats we ourselves wish we could punch in the face, let along watch an alien rip their throat out. The film has to, you’d think, if it matters to you, manage and manage well the transition from hating them to actually caring if they survive or not.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

dir: Rupert Wyatt
Join the revolution, or end up as one of their petsJoin the revolution, or end up as one of their pets
Never has humanity’s downfall been so enjoyable or well-deserved.

Really, could it be a spoiler? Does anyone whose interest perks up at the elaboration on the title not know that, at some point, there’s this Planet, and it’s going to be Of The Apes? That there was a book about it, and a film about it with Charlton “My Hands Are Cold and Dead Now” Heston, and a bunch of other films to lesser success, and then Mark Wahlberg appeared on the scene to fuck things up?

And he wasn’t even playing an ape? How inexplicable is that?

Otherwise, the title wouldn’t resonate, and presumably, the multitudes wouldn’t care. Nah, what we craved, without knowing it, is an explanation; a grounded, believable explanation as to how the Apes came to ‘own’ our Planet, and what ‘we’, being arrogant, hubristic humans, did to allow them to take over.

Lest it sound like I’m being sarcastic as a prelude to ripping the utter shit out of this flick, let me stave off any confusion by bluntly stating the following: this is one of the best big budget flicks of the year. It works on an action level, it works (I can’t believe I’m typing this) emotionally, and it works conceptually as well. I’m not saying it’s a masterpiece, because it’s fairly familiar in plenty of ways. The brilliant aspect is the parts of the flick devoted to Caesar’s rise to power amongst his ape brethren as they get ready to become the dominant primates on the planet.

Yep, the monkeys don’t get shit in this equation. Once the humans are dealt with, anything with a tail will probably be reduced to the status of Lithuanians.

Captain America: The First Avenger

dir: Joe Johnston
Carved from granite, and acts like it tooCarved from granite, and acts like it too
This makes up for enduring Green Lantern, but not by too much.

Captain America, despite being Captain America, was enjoyable enough. The film, especially the back end, doesn’t entirely satisfy, but it was so much more enjoyable an experience, and not as actively irritating as the aforementioned shitheap masquerading as just another franchise, that it could not help but look better.

I am aware that Captain America is a relatively ancient comic book property, dating back to the World War II era, famous for a cover that showed Cap punching out Hitler. The fact that this was drawn and published during the war makes it all the more important that, thankfully, Cap’s origin story (which most of the flick is) occurs during that vital time.

So, for me, the film is of two halves; halves not of duration, but of what ‘works’ and what doesn’t. The half that looks after the evolution of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) from scrawny Brooklyn kid so feeble he couldn’t even peel potatoes for the Navy, to super soldier, works. The bit that governs the detailing of a supervillain’s plans for world domination, that villain being Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), doesn’t work as well, for me. For my money the flick made something of a mistake by shielding us from some very obvious aspects required when you set something like this during the war. I’m ignoring the stuff they do to keep the rating down (making people disappear in puffs of smoke due to convenient made-up technology is more about getting a PG-13 rating than it is about looking ‘cool’, which it doesn’t).

I know that the Red Skull is the primary villain for Cap. I just think it was a bad idea for this flick, to give this particular villain such complete prominence. The main reason is this: um, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there already a set of potential bad guys running around the world wrecking up the place and exterminating peoples willy-nilly?

13 Assassins

(Jusannin no Shikaku)
dir: Takashi Miike
You wonderful manYou wonderful man
Whenever I hear that Takashi Miike has a new film out, I wonder out loud to myself, especially when I’m on public transport, “Well, what new piece of fucked-upedness has he come up with now?” I mean, after all, this is the demented Japanese director responsible for, in a criminal sense, films like Audition, Ichi the Killer, the yakuza Dead or Alive trilogy, Visitor Q and a whole host of other flicks so vicious I don’t even want to quote scenes from them, because it’s too traumatic to remember.

Suffice to say, there’s never, apparently, been a moment where he’s thought of depicting something on screen that is vile, horrifying, obscene or demented and thought, “Nah, that’s too fucked up, even for me.”

Whatever depravity he’s previously been responsible for, he still remains a completely flexible director with the ability to make any kind of Japanese flick in any kind of Japanese genre, which, to use an overused phrase, ranges from the sublime to the truly, hideously ridiculous.

Instead of spending time talking about the truly horrifying and nightmare-inducing stuff I’ve seen in all his other films, which is tempting in the extreme, I’ll just talk about this film, which is surprisingly solid.

I say ‘surprisingly’, because it surprises me how straight Miike plays it. It’s the kind of straight-ahead samurai flick that I’d expect more from directors like Yoji Yamada and Hiroshi Inagaki instead.

Yes, household names, I’m sure, but at the very least they’re old-school guys who made old-school (though, in Yamada’s case, certainly revisionist) samurai flicks.

If you have any familiarity with Japan, and with samurai flicks, and with Japanese samurai flicks, you know one thing clearly above all others: it’s all about Death. Death permeates and suffuses every single goddamn word of dialogue, moment and scene of almost every single goddamn samurai flick. Yes, I know that someone dies in almost every flick, especially action flick, you care to think of.

But death is inextricably linked to these flicks even more than the usual war flick. The entire social order depended up shame and death, for which the overwhelming two rules of this particular cultural Fight Club being “die at the soonest opportunity for your clan” and “die at the slightest provocation for your clan”.

And yes, as I’ve said in the past, it’s almost absurdly comical to see the lengths samurai go to in order to hold up their or someone else’s honour by killing themselves at the slightest faux pas or stubbed toe or sneeze out of order.

The difference in this story is, well, sure a bunch of samurai want to die, and they want to take a bunch of people out with them, but they want to do it for a good goddamn reason. And if they don’t die, well, that’d be sweet too.

Super

dir: James Gunn
Look out, crime, he's got access to a colour printerLook out, crime, he's got access to a colour printer
It’s almost time enough to get sick of all these goddamn superhero flicks. One’s coming out every week or so. I’m also starting to tire of the slightly sarcastic flicks that comment on those flicks by having some doofus with no powers, skills or abilities, decide to mimic the best and worst of Marvel and DC et al, by donning a costume and fighting crime on their own terms.

I didn’t like Kick-Ass that much. I also don’t think much of Super is that brilliant, which similarly has some mentally ill subhuman dress up and ‘fight’ crime. It’s probably a better flick than Kick-Ass, mostly because it wasn’t such a shallow wish-fulfilment pandering piece of shit. Of course Super’s biggest problem is that it doesn’t have an unhinged Nic Cage performance in it.

In his place is Ellen Page, bringing the crazy in an entirely different way. She’s not the main character, though. She’s just the demented sidekick.

Our main character is Frank (Rainn Wilson), who has both the air of the sadsack and the schizophrenic about him. Through circumstances too fantastical to contemplate, he got married to a woman that looks like and is played by Liv Tyler. To partially explain how such a circumstance could arise, her character, called Sarah, is an addict in recovery, who latches on to Frank because her judgement is severely impaired, and because Frank is the first guy in a while who treats her kindly.

Such a fairy tale can’t last forever, and there comes a time when Sarah leaves him for the local crime boss, inexplicably played by Kevin Bacon, who looks inexplicably sleazy as well. Sarah ends up back on the needle and presumably on the pole as well, and this fills Frank with an inchoate rage.

Green Lantern

dir: Martin Campbell
So painfully greenSo painfully green
Well, this was a bad idea.

I know the people at DC Comics must be deeply envious of all the tainted money Marvel is earning through the morass of movies it’s been putting out lately (Iron Men, Thor, Captain America, et bloody cetera), but that’s no reason to try and convert every hero on its roster into a Hollywood product. This was, just… fuck… bad all the way through.

Imagine peering off a ledge into an abyss, and feeling the fear it naturally engenders. Step back, but then realise that it’s not an abyss, because it’s filled with shit, shit all the way down.

That’s kind of how I felt watching most of this flick. In a year which has already seen the release of a terrible flick with Green Something as the title, this terrible property wasn’t going to get an easy run. It doesn’t help that it’s such a dumb premise.

I will admit that I’ve never read word one of a Lantern comic, nor am I ever likely to. I don’t doubt that there’s possibly abundant wonderfulness to be found therein, but I’ve just got no goddamn interest. You could rightly wonder why, in that case, I would go out of my way to watch a film about a character and a storyline I have no interest in. Also, considering the poor reviews, I should have known that there wasn’t going to be much of worth to latch onto.

Well, good point. I can’t argue against it. I went in expecting something substandard, and found it was even worse than I could possibly have imagined.

The reasons why aren’t really due to the silliness of the premise (bunch of people with magic rings) or the Big Bad (an angry cloud), it’s just the array and the sequence of bad decisions made along the way that deliver this abortion as an end result.

It doesn’t help that Ryan Reynolds is terrible as the lead character, either. I have, no shit, seen him deliver a good performance as an actor. I’m sure he’s capable of great acting, since, after all, he did convince Scarlett Johansson to marry him, and that’s pretty good work, for a Canadian. Mostly, though, his performances and his voice make me feel like someone is yanking a nerve out of my neck with some pliers.

Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon

dir: Michael Bay
Big Robot, Nice RobotBig Robot, Nice Robot
Michael Bay returns to fuck the proverbial metallic donkey again for fun and profit…

The last time I reviewed a Michael Bay – Transformers film, I made the point that Michael Bay is a donkeyfucker of long standing, who delivers exactly what he promises: 2 and a half hours of shiny, shiny donkeyfucking. As such, considering the vitriol his directorial abominations garner, I was simply stating the obvious that, whatever Bay’s actual intentions, pretentions and beliefs regarding the quality of the donkeyfucking he delivers on demand, he delivers exactly what he promises to the great unwashed texting, tweeting masses.

No-one expects either the Spanish Inquisition or decent acting performances from anyone in these flicks. No-one especially expects Shia La Fucking Beouf to act any better than he’s ever managed to in the past, because he’s always been terrible, and will always be terrible, unless they somehow mutate him in a lab or a meteorite crashes into his hideous head.

So what do people expect from a Transformers / Michael Bay donkeyfuckfest (I promise this will be the second-last time I use that phrase)? They expect a stupid plot that a child would feel insulted by, they expect an unnecessarily-elongated running time, and they expect big shiny robots transforming into other stuff, and then transforming back into robots in order to fuck shit up. And explosions, lots of explosions.

And he delivers exactly that level of prophesised crap. Nuns shouldn’t go to brothels in order to be shocked, SHOCKED at what happens there. You don’t voluntarily go to a sex show in Tijuana and turn around apoplectic with incredulity at the ripe piece of donkeyfucking you’ve just seen unfold before your disbelieving but slightly aroused eyes.

All you can do is complain about technique, style and duration, not about your abject surprise as to the content.

In this third unbelievable instalment in this mega-successful franchise that’s earned billions and billions of dollars, Michael Bay has his way with our precious human eyes and history the way the recent X-Men flick had its way with our 20th Century history. Instead of implying that the Cuban Missile Crisis was caused by and solved by good and evil mutants, this flick implies that the reason the moon landing even occurred was because of something that happened as part of the war on Cybertron, the planet where Giant Robots come from. So, sixty years ago or so, a robot spaceship crashed on the dark of the moon. Not the Dark Side of the Moon, but, as the title indicates, the Dark of the Moon.

Is that the only instance of profound leotardedness this movie is going to offer? Heavens to Betsy, No!

X-Men: First Class

dir: Matthew Vaughn
More like X-Men: It Doesn't Suck As Much This Time, Promise!!!More like X-Men: It Doesn't Suck As Much This Time, Promise!!!
Saying this is one of the best X-Men flicks is sort of like claiming some guy is the richest corpse in the graveyard, or that a particular stripper is the biggest drug addict at her strip club. A better competition that First Class wins is being one of the better, if not the best, of the flicks based on comic book properties that have come out this year thus far.

To be honest, it’s been pretty slim pickings, so it doesn’t mean the flick is that great. Just that it’s okay.

American summers result in the biggest blockbusteriest shitpiles being shat out upon the world, which is why most of the ‘best’ bets, like comic book flicks, come out at this time. Are audiences at their most pliable, most docile, most leotarded? Whatever it is, here we are, and here it is, a gift to those of us who usually have to grit out teeth and endure these types of ‘events’.

It also serves as something of a history lesson for the less well informed. As an example, you thought that the Cuban Missile Crisis (if you thought of it at all, which is unlikely, considering how long ago it was) arose from the US and the USSR waving their dicks at each other, casting long shadows over the happy totalitarian nation of Cuba, and leading the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe. What you didn’t realise is that it happened because of a bunch of goddamn mutants.

Yeah. Mutants. Especially an evil Nazi mutant called Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). His diabolical plan is to kill all the normal people in the world with radiation or the preceding explosions triggered by a contretemps between the superpowers, allowing the new mutant race to triumph over the boring, tired species known as Homo sapiens.

Oh, Shaw is thoroughly evil, clearly. We know he’s evil because even though he didn’t agree with the Nazi’s Solution Finale (it sounds slightly classier in French), he had no problem, obviously, with torturing and killing Jews for the purposes of Mutant Science.

When he views a young Polish Jew warp the metal concentration camp gates separating him from his beloved parents using some kind of power, he sees in this chap the chance for glory. It’s what every psychopathic mutant longs for. He takes - what would be for other people extreme steps - to motivate this young Erik Lehnsherr into using his power at will.

The problem is, it doesn’t work at will. It only works when he’s really, really upset, or enraged. So what the fuck does Shaw do? He kills Erik’s mother, right in front of him, to compel him to move a goddamn Nazi coin.

Is that all? That’s pretty small beer, isn’t it, Sebastian? And what is it about guys named Sebastian always being depraved, louche individuals, whether it’s Evelyn Waugh novels or X-Men comics? What's with this hatred of guys called Sebastian?

Surprisingly, none of this leaves Erik with any deep admiration for Shaw or for the Nazis. Their epic failure in relation to the war doesn’t cause Erik’s hatred for them to abate, so as an adult, so awesomely played by Michael Fassbender, he turns into a very motivated and very violent Simon Wiesenthal-like Nazihunter.

Thor

dir: Kenneth Branagh
You think you're Thor, I can hardly walk!You think you're Thor, I can hardly walk!
More comic book movies. More Marvel comic book movies! See, the waddling Comic Book Guys of the world don’t have enough to entertain themselves with and bitch about across the vast expanse of the tubes of the internets already.

There weren’t enough goddamn Spider-Men, Supermen, X-Men, Iron Men, Batmen, Hulk Men, Man Men flicks out there stinking up the joint as it was?

Of course it’s never going to end because the golden age continues. They make billions of dollars, and they convince grown adults to buy merchandise for themselves to put on their desks at work, without the least amount of shame or reluctance. That’s a fucking money spinner, that is. Comic book franchises make money rain from the skies, so it makes sense that the Microsoft of the comics world, being Marvel, invested a shitload of money setting up their own studio to make these delightful and delicious flicks themselves with greater regularity and with more direct profits to themselves.

And thus, Marvel Studios brings us The Mighty Thor!

As tempted as I am to keep ripping the shit out of them and this flick just for the mere fact of their lazy existence, I’m not going to. Mostly, I’m not going to because I actually enjoyed Thor, ridiculous as that seems. Embarrassing as it might be.

Fast and Furious 5

dir: Justin Lin
Let's rub our bursting-with-steroids muscles against each other, why not? Hey, where are you going?Let's rub our bursting-with-steroids muscles against each other, why not? Hey, where are you going?
Wow, five movies in, this series must have some serious foundations to it. It must have deep and complex dramatic character trajectories, resonant symbolism and references extending back over the collective 10 hours or so of Fast and the Furious mythology that audiences have come to crave and demand. People don’t just want Fast Furious flicks, they’re threatening to overthrow the Empire if they don’t get their Fast Furious fix every few years.

Or maybe, just like any bad thing that keeps coming back like a brain craving zombie, they just keep coming back because they are tremendously, inexplicably liked by audiences and they want to eat our delicious brains.

I can’t really say whether this is a good Fast Furious flick, better than the others, or worse. I’ve seen them all but can recall very little about any of their plots or what the point of any of it was apart from having people race cars very fast and yell at each other loudly in moments where men in love with each other can’t express their emotions in positive ways, so they bump each other’s chests and threaten each other.

What I can say is that this is as thoroughly goofy as the other flicks (though perhaps not as completely retarded as the third one set in Tokyo for no discernible reason), does not use earth logic or earth physics, and really is so flat out unbelievable that it’s the very essence of a summer flick (America’s summer season, which has just started, hence all the big budget brain dead releases).

And yes, I should have been able to get on board and enjoy it for what it is, but it’s just too fucking stupid for words a lot of the time, and I don’t work like that. For me to accept something as silly as this it has to be fun as well, and there’s precious little fun in something that chugs along so mechanically.

Hobo With a Shotgun

dir: Jason Eisener
No, it's not from thirty years ago. It's fresh and rottenNo, it's not from thirty years ago. It's fresh and rotten
We see a lot of films that were filmed in Canada. It’s cheaper for nearly every single goddamn American tv series and movie to be filmed there. We don’t see that many Canadian films, though. They’re rare. Rare as teeth in Saskatoon.

What are even rarer are Canadian films from Halifax, Nova Scotia. When was the last time you heard of a flick filmed in Halifax or Dartmouth?

Never, that’s when. And from the looks of this film, there’s a very good reason for it.

At first I thought the setting of the flick was some post-apocalyptic wasteland. Then I realised that that’s what Halifax must look like all the time.

In the flick it’s called Hope Town, but, in a stunning example of irony, there’s barely any hope at all for the good citizens of Hope Town. Ruled as they are by a strange man who calls himself The Drake who seems not to do much apart from kill people randomly in the streets, their town has degenerated into an ugly cesspool. Or, alternatively, it is raising itself up to the status of an ugly cesspool.

He has two annoying sons called Slick and Ivan, actors so bad I refuse to look their names up, who yell every line of dialogue they have, and who also kill random people in the street. The police, for reasons never really explained, not only turn a blind eye to the excesses of these morons, they actively help them in their endeavours, because, I guess, they’re deranged morons as well.

One of the sons kills a busload of children with a flamethrower, which, somehow, is used as a pretext to inspire the citizens of Hope Town to rise up and kill the homeless in their fair city.

Does it sound far-fetched to you? It’s supposed to, since it’s called Hobo with a Shotgun, and stars Rutger Hauer as the Hobo with said shotgun.

He stumbles into town, bleary eyed on hobo wine, not wanting anything more than a lawnmower. It’s not a lot to ask, is it, even in Halifax? I mean, sure, there doesn’t seem to be a single blade of grass in the entire blasted landscape, but we’re meant to understand the Hobo’s yearning for a 1950s picket fence and normalcy, something he clearly has never had. Or had, and then lost when he hit the road.

Drive Angry

dir: Patrick Lussier
He looks more Perplexed than Angry. Drive Perplexed should be the sequelHe looks more Perplexed than Angry. Drive Perplexed should be the sequel
Drive Angry. Drive Angry 3D, no less. A film that, in any just universe, would have been the last 3D flick ever made, because it finally displayed in a definitive form just how wretched and pointless the format is.

This isn’t a just universe we live in, though, as you should well know by now. According to this flick, however, there is some kind of eternal balance sheet at work, with debits and credits just itching to be calculated.

If you want to know whether it’s possible for you to enjoy this flick, this is the litmus test for you: the premise of the flick is that a bad, bad man called John Milton (Nicolas Cage) breaks out of Hell in order to save his granddaughter from some loathsome cultists. They never explain how, but they just explained why.

If you’re the kind of person who then sits there in the cinema muttering under your breath “Well, how the fuck did he get out?”, perpetually dissatisfied and disgruntled because of that lack of crucial explanation, then nothing that comes after will seem at all tolerable. No manner of shootings or blood spattered breasts will satisfy that niggling voice in your head with such a mindset.

If you are, on the other left, Satanic hand, the kind of person who accepts that very trashy action flicks don’t exist because of a rigorous adherence to Earth logic and sensible thinking, then you might possibly glean that it doesn’t fucking matter as long as Nicolas Cage shoots a lot of motherfuckers and a lot of shit blows up real good.

Me, little old me, well, I’m a blend of the two positions. I can truly appreciate trashy-as-fuck flicks that deliberately set out to be 70s exploitation flicks, but I’m also the kind of nerdy shmuck who sits there stewing over details other saner people couldn’t give a fat rat’s fuckhole about.

How did Nicolas Cage burst forth from the gates of Hell? Well, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that he did. And he’s out for revenge. Sorry, REVENGE!

The Mechanic

dir: Simon West
If Jason Statham wants to do ballet in the middle of an action flick who is going to argue with him?If Jason Statham wants to do ballet in the middle of an action flick who is going to argue with him?
There are remakes and then there are remakes. In theory, and it’s a very Hollywood-based theory, anything remade that puts Jason Statham in the lead role is going to be inherently better than the original, and will make lots of dollars because everyone loves Jason Statham.

Surely, he’s a household name? Your mum even knows who he is, clucking her tongue at his violent onscreen antics, but finding him a charming man all the same. Although she probably doesn’t remember his name.

As strange as it sounds to assert, Jason Statham would have to be the biggest action star in Hollywood currently. Who else has been in as many arse-kicking, explosions and tits movie recently? He’s the king, and he’s uncontested, for now.

Though I can’t really figure out why.

Sure, he looks like he’s carved from granite, and acts like it, and can glower with the best of them, but surely someone needs something more than that to climb to the lofty heights of action moviedom?

Apparently not. This is a remake of a Charles Bronson flick from 1972, which I remember mostly for the long stretches forgoing dialogue, and the relatively slow pace for a flick of its kind. Also, Chuck Bronson is a god, and was always the best thing about any of the great or crap flicks he was in. It posited the idea of a contract killer meticulous and patient in his actions and planning, who, at his best, killed people without it even being known that they’d been assassinated.

Now, of course, the idea is commonplace in these kinds of hitman-for-hire flicks, because it makes it look like these characters are geniuses. You know, admirable intellects and cultural aesthetes and total badasses.

They’re not geniuses. They’re usually morons. A cursory glance at the legacy of the Melbourne Underworld murders immortalised in the Underbelly series is that none of these thugs-for-hire who murdered for money or kicks could have finished a Sudoku puzzle without help, let alone planned something to kill their targets and avoid detection completely.

The Green Hornet

dir: Michel Gondry
Please just go away, no, don't talk, just goPlease just go away, no, don't talk, just go
Terrible, utterly terrible. A crime against humanity and basic decency. An abomination unto future generations and an affront to God.

Well., that’s enough about my weekend in thrall to the demon drink. Jeez, was that messy. What… what was I thinking?

No, instead I’m here to warn you, and to warn future generations not to bother with this flick. The Green Hornet is a superhero crimefighter action flick so badly thought out in its premise and so poorly executed (and poorly cast), that I’m amazed it was ever released. Really, this is something that shouldn’t even be illegally downloaded.

Honestly, I can’t act for shit, and I’m nowhere near as funny as Seth Rogen might be, but I would have made a better lead in this flick.

And I’m definitely not Hollywood material. I’m not even Cleveland material.

Hell, I’m not even Mt Isa, Dubbo or even Newcastle material.

It’s very hard for me to entirely encapsulate just how terrible Seth Rogen is here. It’s even harder for me to figure out how it could be so bad, since he’s delivering dialogue that he and screenwriting partner Evan Goldberg wrote. If you write the screenplay, and you deliver awful dialogue in a sphincter-clenching way, who else could you possibly blame? The Jews? Aliens? A global conspiracy of Communists and Freemasons?

Red

dir: Robert Schwentke
RED - Really Extreme DubiousnessRED - Really Extreme Dubiousness
Old people. What to do with them. This movie’s entire purpose seems to be just to remind the rest of us not to turn our backs on these wrinkly potential badasses.

Because, you know, just ‘cause they’re old, doesn’t mean they can’t kill you three ways from Wednesday.

I’m not entirely sure how Bruce Willis gets to swan around with decent older actors and pretend they’re contemporaries, but then, if that’s the least plausible part of this flick, it would be a doddle to accept. As it is, this is a total fucking cartoon that makes James Bond flicks look like documentaries.

This flick is such a cartoon that it makes computer generated owl and toy films look like actual reality instead of animation. In this flick called Red, or RED, or R.E.D, a bunch of people mostly in their late 50s and beyond, all the way up to Morgan Freeman’s tender 70s, show the young ‘uns that they can still kick arse like it’s 1989.

The title is an acronym standing for Retired – Extremely Dangerous, or, to put it differently, there ain’t no school like the old school. It is a premise so tired and so tiring that just typing it out makes me feel a tad sleepy. None of these main actors: Willis, Freeman, Malkovich Malkovich Malkovich, Helen Mirren or Richard Dreyfuss are exactly wanting for work. They aren’t sitting forlorn by the phone on Saturday nights desperate for some casting agent to call. So the premise, mockingly linked with Clint Eastwood’s Space Cowboys as an example of this superannuated genre, doesn’t really bleed into the real world. Though it’s likely that the dubious audience hook was meant to be some kind of older audience-goer bait, to make them think, “Get off my lawn, and, I really would like to see some old people besting some young people in gunplay and fisticuffs”, it seems pretty obvious that the quirk of having old people ‘act’ all young and stuff was meant to be universally appealing.

You know, just like when we appreciate it when grannies rap or oldies ride skateboards and play guitars while drinking the latest iteration of Spazzie Cola.

Maybe it’s an American take on the old people problem. Longer life spans, better health care thanks to a certain president, all this means is that older people will be lingering longer and stinking the joint up for the rest of us. So instead of shuffling off this mortal coil with dignity and making room for the rest of us to spend their inheritances on jet skis and bigger TVs, now they want to be gainfully employed into and past their dotage. The nerve of the fuckers…

Machete

dir: Robert Rodriguez & Ethan Maniquis
He can jump your mum's border anytimeHe can jump your mum's border anytime
Like Oscar the Grouch, I, occasionally, love trash. Love it to death. Robert Rodriguez makes some exceptionally trashy flicks. Some I hate, some I love, and the more enjoyable ones are pure, much adulterated trash.

Sin City, Planet Terror and this latest visual and aural amoral atrocity are flicks of his that I’ve greatly, greatly enjoyed. Why? Why these ones and not his parade of other flicks that either bored or actively irritated me? I mean, in all honesty, is there really much of a difference between this and Once Upon a Time in Mexico, which I loathed? Gratuitous violence? Too many characters? Gore on tap?

Yes, yes and yes. And add to that the immensely transparent agenda of arguing against the exploitation and demonisation of so-called illegal immigrants who stream across the border from Mexico desperate for a better life, and you have a live action ‘contemporary issues’ cartoon with a protagonist who is the meanest looking Mexican ever to star in a motion picture made in this part of the galaxy.

Danny Trejo, I’m certain, is probably a nice guy. He’s could probably be a devoted father, loving husband, hugger of puppies, feeder of kittens, helper of little old ladies across the street. The thing is, though, looking the way he does, he looks like he would do unspeakable things to your corpse even if you didn’t look at him funny. As such, he’s played a bad motherfucker in thousands of flicks to date. Not only that, he is a bad motherfucker who spent much of his life in prison way before prison movies made being in prison look cool. Asking him to play a murderous badass, when he is a murderous badass, is cheating, in a way.

Scott Pilgrim vs The World

dir: Edgar Wright
Do you think Michael Cera ever gets sick of being Michael Cera?Do you think Michael Cera ever gets sick of being Michael Cera?
Oh, Michael Cera. If you didn’t already exist, they would have had to construct you from the corpses of several painfully thin hipster douchebags, held together with wet papier mache from indie street newspapers, deliberately ironic hipster unwashed t-shirts and neurotic tics so pervasive even Woody Allen would give you a wide berth.

And they would have constructed you too, so that you could play Scott Pilgrim. There probably isn’t a person on the planet better suited to playing this supremely annoying character. You were handpicked by fate, by the universe, by all the random possibilities that lead to an almost supernaturally predetermined result.

For that I congratulate you. And, also, for becoming this generation’s white Urkell.

The weird thing is I actually like Michael Cera. He only ever plays one kind of character, and, as Scott Pilgrim, he’s the weakest and whiniest version of that Michael Cera character (except when he’s fighting). I like him even when I find him annoying, which is a remarkable trait to possess. As Scott Pilgrim, it’s ultimately irrelevant how he plays it, because it’s almost like Bryan Lee O’Malley wrote the comic book with him in mind, which he clearly could not have, having never met him.

It’s not as if the flick is pretending to be any more significant that it seems. It’s its very nature to be a hodgepodge of comic, game and music references, brimming over with pop cultural in-jokes to an almost painful degree. Painful even for those of us, like myself, who are pretty much entrenched in this world, this sad, beautiful and neurotic world.

Centurion

dir: Neil Marshall
Let's kill us some noble savages together, hungry eyesLet's kill us some noble savages together, hungry eyes
What a sweet relief! Thanks for making a decent film again, Neil Marshall.

His last flick Doomsday was hilariously bad, but with Centurion he’s regained his stature (in my eyes at least) as someone who can make decent action flicks. Dog Soldiers was a long time ago. The Descent is his masterpiece thus far (and is not tainted by the cheapie sequel he didn’t direct). Doomsday made me think he was going to turn into a hack on the level of a Paul W.S. Anderson, Kurt Wimmer, Len Wiseman or David S. Goyer: purest of total hacks to a man, which is why I keep going on about it.

But no, he’s still got some class. This flick was seen by next to no-one, and will never recoup even a quarter of its budget. But financial details are never why I talk about a flick. This is a straight-forward, excessively bloody action film which I thoroughly enjoyed, usually despite and sometimes because of its shortcomings. It has a fairly simple premise: bunch of guys trapped behind enemy lines try to get to safety as an implacable enemy chases them down. So there’s lots of running, but that running is interspersed with hundreds of decapitations, brutal executions and more CGI blood than a Japanese horror flick. Seriously, this day and age has a level of technology that has thrown off any possible restrictions that might have existed in the amount of blood you could show onscreen at any given point. Nowdays, the slightest paper cut results in an ejaculation of hundreds of litres of CGI blood all over a grateful screen.

Machine Girl (Kataude Mashin Garu)

(Kataude mashin garu)
Fear girls with prostheticsFear girls with prosthetics
dir: Noboru Iguchi

I’m starting to get the knack of this current crop of Japanese violence-fests. It’s not a complicated equation: Ham acting, cheap effects, both physical and computer-generated, and thousands and thousands of litres of fake blood.

I’ve watched a bunch of these flicks lately, and they really look like what they are: cheap movies made by special effects guys who know more about how to put together a prosthetic body they’re planning on cutting into multiple pieces with blood spraying out of it every which way, rather than coming up with a script that makes any sense.

Not that it matters.

I’m getting to the stage where I’m starting to be able to enjoy them. I’m not sure if I’ve figured out whether they’re action flicks, comedies or horror flicks, or a curiously Japanese blend of the three. Whatever the actual genre is, is irrelevant, I guess. All that matters is whether I’m entertained or not.

And I was entertained by this flick, significantly so, compared to the last Fever Dream production that I saw, being Tokyo Gore Police. Or maybe what’s happening is that I’m becoming desensitised to the level of gore, the sheer crazy magnitude of gore on display.

I don’t think so, though. When these flicks are done right (no matter how cheaply or shoddily), they get the tone right, which makes it at least tolerable, at best enjoyable. Some people are not going to be able to accept a flick where two high school kids are bullied to death, but if you can’t laugh at the mother of one of the bullies attacking our heroine Ami (Minase Yashiro) and trying to turn her arm into tempura with a maniacal glint in her eye, then I can’t help you much.

Predators

dir: Nimrod Antal
Scary scaryScary scary
You may ask yourself whether the world needs more Predator movies. It’s a legitimate question. Reasonable and fair.

That’s like asking if trees needs more sunshine, or if a man needs more blowjobs.

The world didn’t necessarily become a better place upon the release of the first flick way back in 1987, but it certainly improved the lives of millions of teenage boys who now had something to tape off television onto VHS in order to watch endlessly. Well, something that wasn’t taped because of the prospect of boobs, BOOBS…

It was the truest, bluest action flick of its time, and it unashamedly traded on the steroidic charms of Arnold as well as a cast of lunkheads like Jesse ‘The Body’ Ventura and Carl Weathers, all of whom peaked with this flick where their only purpose is to kill time before they’re killed, so that Arnie could take care of business at the end, unencumbered by girly men or girly girls.

I’ve watched every inch of that flick so many times that watching it again is almost superfluous: If I was deranged enough, or poor enough, I could practically sit in a darkened room, close my eyes and play through the flick in my head, frame by frame, for its entire duration.

None of this is meant to assert that it’s actually a truly great and awesome film. Sure I’ve seen it more than I’ve seen Solaris, or 2001, or Weekend at Bernie’s, but it certainly is of its time. Arnie couldn’t have been more wooden or stilted in his delivery of dialogue if they’d constructed him from the remnants of sweaty and broken gym equipment, and danced him across the stage like a be-stringed marionette. Almost each and every piece of dialogue that drops out of his mouth more than two words in length sounds like speaking in any language, English or German for that matter, is unnatural and painful to him.

But no-one cares, because an invisible alien is killing his compatriots left right and centre, until Arnie strips down, muds up, and takes the ugly motherfucker out old-school.

Green Zone

dir: Paul Greengrass
My mouth being open means this is intense, don't you know?My mouth being open means this is intense, don't you know?
Mocking things is easy. Real easy.

Fun, too.

It’s also lazy. The easiest and laziest goddamn thing any reviewer had to say about this flick was that, given the participation of the director, shaky-cam cinematographer and lead actor, it’s essentially a Bourne flick without the Jason Bourne character.

These reviews just write themselves, don’t they?

It’s not an insult that carried a lot of weight, because this was in truth more of a fictionalised rendering of actual events, being the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the lies, damned lies and statistics used as the casus belli, or justification for the war itself.

The problem is that a) what they’re referring to, with such seriousness, no-one really gives a fuck about any more, and b) it’s attached to a plot so implausible and uninteresting that I’m not sure if it really justifies its existence independent of the premise.

Iron Man 2

dir: Jon Favreau
Irony devoid manIrony devoid man
Finally, a sequel to a superhero flick! The world is crying out for Part 2s. Part 2s are generally speaking, always better than Part 1s. Part 1s have all the horrible heavy lifting to do in terms of establishing an iconic character’s origins and motivations, which generally makes anything else that happens superfluous.

Part Deuxes only have to refer to those origins in the opening credits, and then it’s all away-we-go. And is thus better because, after all, who wants all that baggage?

Baggage-handlers, that’s who. They live for baggage. Also, customs people, drug smugglers and the thieves that work in airports, they all love baggage.

The rest of us, though, just want to skip the entre and get to the main course.

Iron Man 2 is the rare Marvel Part 2 that extends but doesn’t exceed its initial instalment: of that I mean the current crop of superhero flicks that have been coming out recently which have generally done pretty well with the follow-up instalment. Most people, I think, would agree that Spider-Man 2 was significantly better than either 1 or 3, and X-Men 2 is still the best of four admittedly mediocre movies.

It’s definitely not a better flick than its predecessor, but the important thing is that it’s not substantially worse. That’s the most important criterion, for me. And the fact that it’s still very enjoyable and a lot of fun is icing on the cake. I suspect it’s not going to review as well, but will probably make plenty more money, but I could care less about any of that.

Syndicate content