Tusk - A film of two halves

Ah, Kevin Smith – I knew him well (mainly in the nineties during his 'Clerks, Mallrats' and 'Chasing Amy' period).  I would always say that he’s one hell of a writer of dialogue, whether his work falls straight into the ‘comedy’ bracket, or he dabbles in other genres, i.e. romance, science-fiction fantasy or horror.  And, this time round, he’s playing with the ‘horror' genre.

‘Tusk’ tells the tale of a complete idiot (played delightfully by Justin Long).  He’s a typical product of the modern age – a podcaster with ideas way above his station.  Yes, he’s a little bit famous, but it appears that a this small amount of fame corrupts almost as much as absolute power.  He thinks he’s ‘it’ and lets everyone know it, whether it’s his co-presenter, his doting girlfriend, or generally anyone he meets along the way.

One article on his upcoming podcast is an interview with a Canadian ‘celebrity’ who’s also made his name on the internet.  Sadly, the ‘celebrity’ in question was so traumatised with his newfound fame that he kills himself (‘selfishly’ in our protagonist's opinion!) leaving our glorious podcaster with nothing to report on while in Canada.  That’s when he happens upon an interesting offer in a men’s restroom.  It leads him to a reclusive hermit, played brilliantly by Michael Parks, who offers to tell him his life’s story.

This is the fun part.  The interaction between the two is just about as perfect as dialogue can be.  The two exchange tales and takes on life in the setting of Park’s gothic mansion.  The tension is cranked right up to the max – you know something is going to happen (something bad, obviously), but you just don’t know what.  This atmosphere is just electrifying when combined with the snappy dialogue.  Everything is going great until...

...the film just kind of switches atmosphere and great dialogue for shocks and grotesque make-up.  Sadly, the shocks and make-up look more cheap (in a budget sense) rather than shocking.  The second half of the film is everything that the first half isn’t, i.e. cheesy.  Yeah, there are a few moments of brilliance thrown in there, but, when you realise what’s actually happening, you’ll probably just shout, ‘What... seriously?’

It feels like someone has tacked a second (different) film onto the first one.  If I was rating the first half I’d say it was awesome.  However, when the gross parts really start coming there isn't really enough material to pad out the film's run-time.  Therefore, there are a few sub-plots regarding other characters thrown in there to drag out the run-time.  Fans of Kevin Smith will like the dialogue (like I did), but a fair few might not really go for this on account of the sudden change in mood that doesn’t fit where the film was originally heading.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Watchmen - Not for everyone (but definitely for me)

`Watchmen' is based on one of the most popular DC graphic novels of the eighties and it's been kicking about in (film) production limbo practically ever since. Many people have even gone as far as to call it `unfilmable.' Therefore, many of its die-hard fans were sceptical when Zack Snyder took on the job of bringing it to the big screen.

The result: a faithful adaptation and - in my opinion - a good one. However, that doesn't mean that it hasn't attracted more than its fair share of criticism.

For a start, you have the fans of the graphic novel. They claim it's still not as faithful as it could have been. Yes, there are a few changes here and there which may leap out at the faithful. My counter argument is that - yes - the source material was so filled with sub-plots and excessive narrative structures, that all of it was never going to make it to the big screen. What we're given is a story that - while being complicated - is also accessible to the masses (and therefore commercially more lucrative - hopefully) and easier to follow.

Then you have the people who have never read the graphic novel. They may not like it because they may be expecting something else entirely. If you look at the promotional poster, you may think that you're going to watch an `X-Men' type film, filled with lots of superheroes fighting it out with various weird and wonderful superpowers. Warning: Watchmen is NOTHING like X-Men.

Watchmen is a multi-stranded narrative which is more of a conspiracy-thriller-who-dunnit than an action movie (there's only two real action sequences in the whole film). Yes, the film happens to be about superheroes, trying to decide whether there's an assassin killing off their numbers one by one, but only one of the superheroes actually has superpowers (the rest are just basically good fighters in masks).

So, if you're expecting either an exact replica of the graphic novel, a straight out action movie, or something like X-Men, you will probably be sorely disappointed. However, if you're wanting to watch a violent, visually-stunning thriller which twists and twines while it introduces various damaged ex-heroes, give this a go. It's dark, moody and certainly different enough to be appreciated for not adhering to every superhero cliché around right now. This is nothing like the `Marvel universe' which is currently so popular!

10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring – The start of something epic

The word ‘epic’ probable gets used too much these days to describe films.  However, in this case it’s definitely right.  For those two people out there who don’t know, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is (primarily, excluding various ‘spin-off’ books) a trilogy of long books set in a fiction world called ‘Middle Earth’ which is filled with everything from wizards to dragons (yes, think ‘Game of Thrones,’ but with less nudity.

It had long been considered that J. R. R. Tolkien’s books were ‘unfilmable’ due to no screen adaptation being able to bring his lavish world to life (properly).  There was an animated attempt (which wasn’t as bad as people made out), but due to budgetary reasons, it was left unfinished (a concept which left me particularly confused when I watched it as a child).  However, now the source material has finally been given the big screen treatment it deserved and ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ is the start of the trilogy’s life in mainstream cinema.

Despite the long backstory (shown in a brief montage/history lesson at the beginning of the film) all you need to know is that the spirit of a ‘dark lord’ wants his magic ring back in order to become whole again and generally take over the land.  However, by luck the piece of jewellery in question is in the hands of a gentle race of little creatures known as ‘hobbits.’ They, together with an assortment of men, wizards, dwarfs and elves, vow to prevent the dark lord Sauron from getting his property back and set off on a quest to destroy it in the fires of the volcano where it was once forged.

I suppose you could call the cast an ‘ensemble.’ With a story that requires so many characters, quite a few familiar faces will pop up.  Primarily you have Sir Ian McKellen as the iconic wizard, Gandalf the Grey, but he’s backed up by everyone from Cate Blanchett and Christopher Lee to Sean Bean and Viggo Mortensen.  In fact it’s more a case of the more ‘famous’ Hollywood actors are secondary to the two hobbits who are at the centre of the tale, Frodo and Sam, plays by Elijah Wood and Sean Aston respectively.  They’re possibly less well-known that the affore-mentioned actors and yet rise to the challenge and prove that they’re more than capable of having a major cinematic franchise rest on their (miniature!) shoulders.

The cast is perfectly surrounded by some of the best sets, scenery and special effects ever to be committed to the big screen at the time (yes, you can - sort of - see a bit of 'green screen' work these days, but they still hold up!).  Some say that the whole trilogy is one giant advert for the New Zealand tourist board, as it makes use of all the country's different landscapes to great effect.

Of course seeing as 'Fellowship' is the first in a trilogy, there a certain amount of 'set up' contained where some story threads are mentioned but never expanded on - yet.  However, this never really stops anyone from understanding what's going on and I'm sure once you watch this installment you'll want to know where it all goes!

I know that the real 'Tolkien purists' will argue about which bits from the book have either been left out, or slightly changed, like making an Elf maiden an outright warrior in the film.  I've read the books and, due to their length, it would probably be impossible to commit every last page to screen (unless you make every film about six hours!) and what they've done is taken all the most important points and used them to great effect to make the story as accessible to as many people as possible.

I think it was writer/director Kevin Smith who said in ‘Clerks II’ that the ‘Lord of the Rings’ trilogy was just basically ‘people walking.’ Okay, so funny as that may be (and – technically – true) there’s so much more to the film that just that.  The best part about 'Fellowship' (and indeed the whole trilogy) is that it can be enjoyed by most people, not just fans of the book or the genre, but also appreciated by (nearly) everyone with an eye for good cinema due to its achievements in world-building and sheer scale.

10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this

Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory - Shot doooooooooooown in a blaze of glory!

So sings Jon Bon Jovi who was hired to sing the sound track to the original 1988 ‘Young Guns’ film.  Perhaps ‘Blaze of Glory’ shouldn’t really have been mentioned in the title, as it does give more than a clue as to the cast’s fate.

Blaze of Glory is set a few years after the ‘young guns’’ first outing.  Since we last saw them, Billy the Kid has killed yet more people (but they probably deserve d it, so we still like him anyway) and stolen yet more cattle (I guess we have to assume that they deserved in, too).  So, naturally, he’s even more wanted by the law than the last time we saw him.  But it’s not all bad news for him – he’s got a new posse and, in the first third of the film, he’s got his two former pals, Doc Hollywood and Chavez back in tow.

However, just when our little Billy’s happily getting reacquainted with his mates, his former friend Pat Garrett only decides to accept a massive pay-off to bring in the band of outlaws.  So Billy finds himself on the run again (to the grinding guitar sound of Jon Bon Jovi – some might say that makes his situation even worse).

Basically, Young Guns II: Blaze of Glory, is more of the same.  Now, that could have been a bad thing if the first film had been pretty dull, yet, actually it’s no bad thing – assuming you liked the first instalment.  There’s nothing particularly new here.  The plot is almost identical, just with a few new baddies and a few new members of Billy’s gang.  There is a kind of sub-plot involving the (almost) modern day where a man claims he actually was Billy the Kid and a journalist is trying to deduce whether or not he’s telling the truth, but that probably could have been left on the cutting room floor if the producers had been pushed for time.

If you liked the original, you’ll probably like this, too.  It’s definitely more of the same and is a fun *modern* cowboy romp.  If you don’t like cowboy films in general, this one probably won’t win you over.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Not Another Teen Movie - Better than your average `spoof' movie

The `Not Another...' and `...Movie' franchises have just about been milked to death recently, as it has attempted to parody everything from Superhero films to Date movies. Both series follow the same pattern, lampooning more popular movies with a selection of gross-out gags and pratfalls. However, nowadays people may have forgotten that `Not Another Teen Movie' was one of those rarities which actually worked.

If you grew up in the nineties (like me), or just generally watch a lot of teenage `rom-coms' then you'll probably be able to tell which films `Not Another Teen Movie' is poking fun at. But, the best thing about it, is that the jokes are actually funny.

The film is loosely tied together with a story about a popular boy trying to make an unpopular girl popular, but you can almost consider it a sketch show. Therefore some scenes work and others don't, but more do than don't.

If you're as sick as the clichés used in teenage romance movies then you'll appreciate seeing them ridiculed here, or if you just fancy some daft, gross fun, then this could also be for you.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Thinner - Enjoyable horror yarn

The films made, based on Stephen King's books, have always been a hit and miss affair. In fact, more have tended to be 'miss' than 'hit.' However, `Thinner' is a real treat. It's nothing totally new - at least, not by today's standards - but, in some ways, it was a little ahead of its time.

Today (and ever since the US remake of `The Ring') there have been a type of horror movie where something bad/supernatural happens to the protagonist, they don't know what's going on, they research the phenomenon (normally involving the help of a convenient expert), before finally confronting the evilness in the final act. 'Thinner' is basically one of these, only made about 5-10 years before this sort of film became the norm.

It's about a fat man (Robert John Burke in brilliant prosthetics and make-up) who really goes against the old cliché that 'fat people are jolly.' He's not nice and manages to run over and kill a gypsy woman with his car and then do his best to get away with it.  However, what he can slide by in the law he falls foul of with the gypsy clan who promptly curse him, causing him some dramatic weight loss. Only he doesn't just become a bit trim.  He loses more.  And some more. Basically, if he doesn't stop the curse he'll end up looking like Posh Spice without any make-up on (and no one wants that!).

The film is generally nothing new, but it's major plus points are the special effects used for making out unwitting hero look thinner and thinner. Plus it's not for the faint-hearted. This is definitely an adult's horror film as it gets pretty dark in places.  It's not just the effects of him going from a blob to practically a skeleton that are good, but the moments of gore are certainly pretty well-done as well.

If you think you can handle a darkly disturbing King film at its best, give this one a go. I won't go too much more into the plot as there are some points that you definitely won't see coming.  I haven't read the book, so I can't say how faithful it is to that (only that the ending is apparently different if you believe all the comments on Internet message boards).

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Batman (1989) - Probably should have been called ‘Joker’ (but never mind)

Sometimes it’s hard to imagine the Batman franchise without Christopher Bale and co, let alone with someone other than Heath Ledger as ‘the Joker.’ However, many years before Bale donned the famous black cowl, Michael Keaton was the ‘Dark Knight.’ And, believe it or not, he didn’t do a bad job (at the time).

Although, despite Keaton being reasonably well-known, top billing – naturally – went to Jack Nicholson as the Joker.  And for a good reason – he steals every scene.  Until Ledger’s final performance as the psychotic clown, no one could really see anyone else as the Batman’s most infamous nemesis.  Perhaps the only downside was that Jack Nicholson was given so much screen time and so many of the best lines, it’s hard to see Batman as anything but a secondary character who just pops up every now and again to thwart whatever the Joker happened to be doing at the time.  Despite the fact that Batman – technically – has wings, his character doesn’t get much of an opportunity to fly.  Even the fact that Bruce Wayne had a ‘love interest’ in the form of Kim Basinger’s Vicki Vale didn’t give Batman too much extra time on screen.  Plus Basinger was little more than a ‘damsel in distress,’ screaming and gasping in bewilderment and fear almost as much as she spoke.

The 1989 vision of Batman was a smash hit, but not without its detractors.  A lot of comic book fans resented the choice of director (Tim Burton) and his casting of Keaton in the titular role.  Tim Burton confessed that he had never actually read a comic book (and some said it showed).  However, his vision of the Dark Knight may not have been completely in keeping with its comic book roots, but it was pretty impressive.  He certainly got the tone right, bringing Batman away from his ‘campy’ TV roots and portraying him as something much darker.  Most described the outing as a ‘twisted fairytale’ which, although didn’t reflect the source material, was a pretty accurate description.

It’s safe to say that now, after Nolan’s Batman trilogy, that most people consider his to be the ‘definitive’ Batman.  However, Burton’s outing/outings shouldn’t be written off as anything but good.  If you don’t mind the villain being given more screen time than the hero, it’s worth a watch alone for Nicholson’s performance.  Heath Ledger may be the Joker of today, but Nicholson will always be the Joker of my childhood, therefore, I give him the last laugh.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather