Christine – Don’t call the Automobile Association 

A new book by horror writer Stephen King is normally met with ‘Oohs’ of anticipation.  A new film based on one of his books is met with much ‘eye-rolling.’ For some reason the translations of his work from text to screen have been very hit and miss (and when I say ‘hit and miss’ I mean more ‘miss’ than ‘hit.’ However, back in 1983 when Stephen King films were a rarity and John Carpenter was still a highly-thought of director, it was a combination that couldn’t fail (despite the slightly shaky premise!).  ‘Christine’ is about a ‘killer car’ of the same name.  How does a car kill people without a driver?  Well, it’s sentient for a start.  How did it become sentient?  Well, it just did, okay?  Deal with it and enjoy the daft ride.

A slightly geeky youngster acquires Christine as his pride and joy and maybe gets a little too close to it for comfort.  In other words, he soon becomes besotted with it and dare I say the attraction is reciprocated, even to the point where Christine gets quite jealous of the boy’s new (human!) love.  What follows is a tale of…well, like I’ve already said – a sentient killer car.  That’s it in a nutshell and, if you’re able to suspend your disbelief long enough to buy that, you’ll have a lot of fun.

It’s not particularly gory for a horror film, but what it lacks in the red stuff flying everywhere, it more than makes up for in mood and ambience.  I haven’t read the book, so can’t really comment on the source material is based on, but I’m guessing it’s a lot better than the film’s actual script (which is pretty clunky and generic at the best of times).  The actors can hardly be judged on their performances as they probably do the best they can with what they’re given, but it’s fair to say that you won’t be recognising many faces you see here.  What truly elevates this film from being a completely forgettable and laughable attempt at horror is John Carpenter’s direction.  If you’ve seen any of his other seventies/eighties classics (i.e. ‘Halloween, The Thing’ and a few more) then you’ll know all about the slow camera shots and droning one-note musical scores which accompany the film and build up a nice sense of dread an anticipation.

I’d like to say that ‘Christine’ stands up today like it did when it was released and, to a certain audience that’s true.  Apart from those of us who saw the film at the time and watch it with a heavy dose of nostalgia, I can see those who can appreciate how horror films were made nearly forty years ago will enjoy looking back at the gem from the past.  However, for those who are just craving masses of blood and decapitations this will seem like a long-drawn out and dull affair.

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

The Interview – So wrong, yet so right

‘The Interview’ was never destined to be a mainstream success.  This happens to some films because they’re released before their time, have the wrong star, or try and be too clever for their own good.  However, in the minority of these cases, the reason the film doesn’t succeed is because of pressure from an entire country that doesn’t like the way it’s being portrayed on screen.  At the time of release, the company that made ‘The Interview’ was under cyber hacking attack by North Korea, forcing them to seriously rethink whether or not to release this film in the cinema.  In fact… will I get in trouble from people on the other side of the world just for writing that I enjoyed it?!

It’s about a mainstream TV chat-show host (James Franco) who finds out that his US low-brow entertainment show is – believe it or not – actually quite liked by the leader of communist state North Korea.  He’s then offered the once-in-a-lifetime chance to fly to North Korea and do what no journalist has done before, interview its ‘glorious’ leader, Kim Jong-un.  This, he readily accepts because he thinks that once he’s interviewed President Kim it will cement his name in journalistic history.  However, when the CIA hear of this, they decide that it would be far more beneficial for the rest of the world if James Franco (and his producer, played by Seth Rogen) simply assassinate the ‘madman’ instead.

Now, if you’re not too familiar with the Franco/Rogen combo then you might not know that they’ve starred in numerous films together and are generally pretty good buds in real life.  Therefore, once again, they allow their natural chemistry to carry out the dialogue of this movie.  However, said ‘dialogue’ is pretty ‘adult’ in nature, so expect much of their interactions to be s3x-based or peppered with drug references.  The two of them may be good (if you’re generally into their particular brand of humour), but I thought that it was Randall Park who stole every scene he was in.  For he had the unenviable task of portraying the Leader himself and, in my opinion, did a great job (I’m not saying that Kim Jong-un would act like this in real life, but, for the purposes of a comedy film, I think it’s fair to say that this was a good way of showing the man who – currently – could be the biggest threat to the West on the planet).

As I said, the humour is adult and quite ‘bawdy’ at times, but if you can forgive that (and are generally a fan of the two leads and their recent collaborations) then you should enjoy this.  They even put in a couple of quite fun action set-pieces in the final act and, although the CGI is a little ropey here and there, I think for a comedy that isn’t really an ‘action blockbuster’ you can forgive this.  I definitely think that ‘The Interview’ could well be the funniest film that uses North Korea as the bad-guys (oh, apart from ‘Team America’ – in which case ‘The Interview’ is the funniest ‘live action’ film about North Korea – and it has a cute puppy.  What more could you want?).

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Spawn – Is it that bad?  Yeah, sort of

Nowadays you can’t move at the cinema for someone dressing up in a cape and silly costume and fighting the forces of darkness while flying around a major US city.  However, back in 1997 superhero films weren’t – believe it or not – guaranteed Box Office gold like they are today.  I’d never read any of the ‘Spawn’ comics, so I went into the movie kind of blind.  And I enjoyed it.  It was only a few years later during the birth of the internet did I realise how much everyone seemed to hate this film.  I’ve watched it again (a few times, believe it or not) and I can see where the masses are coming from.  It’s hardly ‘high art’ (but I enjoyed it anyway!).

It’s about a Government hitman who gets double-crossed by his shady employer (when will these hitmen ever learn?) and ends up getting killed.  If that wasn’t bad enough he wakes up after his ‘death’ to find he’s spent the last five years in hell and the devil has asked him (or rather blackmailed him) into leading his dark army on a siege of Earth.  Luckily, our hitman decides that’s probably not a great career option and with the help of a ‘knight’ (or rather modern day homeless mentor Obi-wan Kenobi figure who once was a knight) chooses to fight the forces of darkness instead.

When I first watched it I guess I hadn’t seen that many superhero films (Tim Burton’s Batman duo excluded), so I enjoyed the dark tone, the cool suit our anti-hero wore and the action in general.  Michael Jai White gives a good performance as the grizzled ‘Spawn’ and the real stand-out performance is the (totally unrecognisable, thanks to excellent make-up) John Leguizamo as the most memorable bad-guy ‘The Violator.’

However, I guess nowadays it’s fair to say that it hasn’t aged well.  Any criticism you may hear regarding how the special effects look like they’ve been rendered for a Playstation 2 are pretty on the nose (and even at the time I wondered why the beast-like Devil’s lips never moved when he spoke), but, looking at it afresh, I can’t help but notice how bad Martin Sheen’s dialogue is.  He’s supposed to be the main villain and yet he’s even more cliché than any Bond super-villain you’ve ever seen. 

The whole film basically ‘tell’ not ‘show.’ Every piece of dialogue is some sort of 'set-up' to give the viewer information and let them know what's happening, solely designed to move the plot forward and avoid confusion.  ‘Spawn’ is never really going to be remembered as much more than a missed opportunity.  It’s certainly not up to the coherent standards of today’s superhero movies.  I still watch it, because – for some reason – I feel quite a twang of nostalgia for it (despite its numerous flaws!).  But even people who saw it back in the late nineties don’t hold it in the same – reasonably – high regard as me.  I hear there’s a ‘reboot’ on the way, so maybe that will bring Spawn to the audience he probably deserves to be show to.  But John Leguizamo is definitely awesome in this – if you hate absolutely everything else about this film, you should appreciate his performance as sheer evil foulness.

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

Hellboy – They don’t make ‘em like they used to

If ever there was a film that probably shouldn't work, it was one about a reformed demon, born during World War II and designed to help the Nazis take over the world, but now spends his time slaying monsters and saving the world instead.  'Hellboy' was a film made in 2004 and came just before the massive resurgence in comic book adaptations which, to this day, still dominates the Box Office with superhero movies.  It’s a strange kind of film that, although popular enough to generate (and equally good, in my opinion) sequel, it never got the third part to send off the character and give him the trilogy of films that us die-hard fans felt that he deserved.  The reason I say it’s ‘strange’ is because (like many, I guess) I never knew much about the film before watching it at the cinema.  I didn’t know it was based on a comic and merely saw the posters advertising the movie prior to its release.  I knew that (the ever brilliant) Ron Perlman was in it and that was enough for me.  The fact that much marketing material centred on a giant demon silhouette sporting a huge firearm was merely a bonus for an action/horror fan like myself. 

I watched it, really enjoyed it, and didn’t think that much more of it.  However, now I can see in these days of ‘mega-franchises’ why it didn’t quite set the Box Office alight like it should.  By its initial marketing, it looks like an outright horror film.  However, it’s actually a superhero film that borrows horror tropes, plus it was made before the superhero/MCU really took off.  Nowadays, we’re well used to rooting for our heroes after they’ve been granted some sort of special power enabling them to fight the forces of darkness, but most of them look like Chris Evans or Chris Hemsworth, rather than a giant, ugly, red, semi-horned monster.  I guess what I’m saying is that ‘Hellboy’ was destined to have a real ‘niche audience.’

However, if what I’ve already said intrigues you, I do recommend giving it a watch.  First of all, it stars Ron Perlman as the titular anti-hero.  Now, he’s normally good in whatever he’s in, but it’s fair to say that he carries this film completely on his broad (red) shoulders.  The other cast members, including John Hurt and Selma Blair, are good too, but it’s Ron’s show (although I should probably give a nod to Jeffrey Tambor as the long-suffering head of Hellboy’s secret Government unit).

There's not an awful lot to say about the plot.  If you've seen one superhero movie (regardless of when it was released) then you can probably predict what will happen - evil megalomaniac wants to take over the world, hero has to put the brakes on that one.  However, Hellboy does it slightly differently simply because of its general 'horror' look and feel.  But - don't worry - it's not all Gothic darkness - there's plenty of top-notch action scenes, cheeky one-liners from our cigar-chomping, cat-petting red hero and special effects that look more on the 'practical' side, rather than an excessive use of CGI.  It’s worth mentioning the effects because Hellboy’s make-up is particularly simple, yet flawless in bringing the character to life.  He’s pretty scary at the best of times and the only things more ugly are the beasties he’s sent to despatch before they destroy the world (that clockwork assassin-Nazi still gives me the creeps!).

Even though I stand by my belief that ‘Hellboy’ stands up today as it did when it was released, I know there’s a reboot in the pipeline.  I’ll watch that too, simply because I like the way the film is done.  However, I have my doubts that anyone can fill Ron’s big red boots and whatever we’ll get next (instead of the much desired third part in this franchise) will be nothing more than a studio trying to cash in on the superhero craze and going for an easy cash-grab.

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Mute – There’s a good film here (somewhere)

Alas, poor Duncan Jones, I knew him well.  I didn’t.  But I did really enjoy his first two sci-fi films ‘Moon’ and ‘Source Code.’ These were followed by the – sadly forgettable – big-budget ‘Warcraft’ movie and hopes were high when he returned to his (more low budget/high concept?) sci-fi roots.  However, it’s fair to say that this ‘straight-to-Netflix’ release has been met with ‘divisive’ responses – and by ‘divisive’ I mainly mean negative.  I really wanted to like this, so I did my best to force the nay-sayers from my mind and enjoy the film.  I wish I did enjoy the film.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s not ‘bad-bad,’ it’s just not that good either.

It’s set in the near future where technology is, er, slightly better than it is now.  Actually, for its futuristic setting technology isn’t really a big part of the story.  An Amish man who doesn’t speak due to a childhood accident travels from America to Berlin to meet up with his girlfriend, only for her to go missing in mysterious circumstances, setting him on a quest to find out what’s happened to her.

First of all the film does look great.  I reckon it’s pretty difficult to talk about this film without mentioning ‘Bladerunner’ as Ridley Scott’s epic really did set the benchmark when it came to portraying dystopian, tech-driven cities of the future and ‘Mute’ seems to pay homage to this look and feel.  I’m not sure of other people’s complaints when it came to this movie, but my main issue was the fact that our hero never spoke.  Yes, he’s a good actor who does his best to express as many emotions as he can through his body language and facial expressions and for that he should definitely be applauded.  I could have lived with that, if it wasn’t for Paul Rudd’s character.  He plays a particularly sleazy villain who no one would ever really root for, if it wasn’t for the face that he played his part so well and the hero never said a word.  Therefore, having watched the film, I find myself finding the bad-guy far more memorable than the hero we were supposed to identify with and support.

I guess there’s a reason why ‘Mute’ was released ‘straight-to-DVD’ (or ‘Netflix’ in this day and age).  The studio was obviously worried that it wouldn’t make anywhere near the money back it needed to if given a theatrical release at the Box Office and I can understand why.  It’s hard to see ‘Mute’ getting enough attention in the cinema to make it a financial success.  It’s not a bad film and I guess you get what you pay for.  I reckon the reviews would be even more harsh if the viewers had to pay ‘full price’ at the cinema in order to watch this.  If you feel like investing two hours into a slow moving sci-fi film where the hero doesn’t speak, leaving him wide open to being eclipsed by the man we’re supposed to hate, then you’re probably a minority.  I didn’t hate it, I’m just certain that Duncan Jones can do much better.

6/10 Should probably keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Tomb Raider (2018) – A computer game movie that works? (almost)

I couldn’t get past the second level of ‘Tomb Raider’ on the Playstaion (1) back in the mid-nineties, so I found the whole ‘Lara Croft thing’ a little frustrating.  I know I watch the two Angelina Jolie movies that were based on the computer game and have long since forgotten everything about them (apart from Chris Barrie from ‘Red Dwarf’ being underused in my opinion!) so my hopes weren’t exactly sky-high for this ‘reboot.’ However, having watched it I was actually pleasantly surprised.

Let’s get this out the way, ‘Tomb Raider’ was nothing absolutely out of the ordinary and so original that it will change cinema forever.  But then were you really expecting that?  I was hoping for an enjoyable little action romp to entertain me for a couple of hours.  And I got just that.  Being part of the *ahem* ‘older generation’ who has spent a lifetime watching films, I can totally say that there is nothing in ‘Tomb Raider’ that hasn’t been done before – sometimes better, sometimes worse.  I can’t think of a single negative thing to say about it (with the possibility of a few strained British accents being attempted here and there).  However, just because I can’t think of anything bad to say, doesn’t mean it’s perfect.  It simply just is what it is – an action film.

In case you don’t know, a young British aristocrat (Lara Croft) finds clues to show that her father isn’t dead and actually went on a secret expedition to, er, save the world I suppose.  Therefore, she follows in his footsteps.  And, luckily enough, she has spent her entire lifetime conveniently honing skills that will aid her in her quest.  Alicia Vikander plays possibly a younger, less ‘cartoony’ version of Lara, as opposed to Angelina Jolie’s more ‘comic book’ interpretation.  The Tomb Raider games have – apparently – evolved from that same cartoony look and feel to a more gritty, darker take and I guess the film has followed closely in its footsteps.  It’s certainly more ‘realistic’ and less reliant on amazing stunts that would make James Bond blush.  I preferred this approach as Lara handles herself more with her wits and only relies on her brawn when she absolutely has to, plus it would be totally unbelievable to see her beat up hordes of burly henchmen!

I’m not sure which part of the film I preferred more – the first two thirds are pretty good, slowly building up to a climactic third act.  However, when said climax arrives, it felt like the ending to another popular on-screen archaeologist’s third outing (‘Last Crusade’ anyone?).  I don’t know whether this was a deliberate homage, but it did make me wonder why they’d gone with such (what I considered to be) a blatant rip-off.

Anyway, I get the feeling I’m not this film’s ‘target audience.’ I enjoyed it enough for being what it was – an enjoyable little action film that offered nothing I hadn’t seen already and was designed to reboot the franchise and take it in a new direction.  However, my thirteen year old daughter absolutely loved it and will be buying it on Blu-ray the moment it comes out!

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

Annihilation – Interesting, high-concept sci-fi

‘Annihilation’ is certainly an interesting film.  Not just because it’s a sci-fi flick that does more than just pit humans against monsters (or some other tired and unoriginal premise), but because it also takes a snapshot of the film industry today.  Apparently, the film was released in America and didn’t do too well at the Box Office.  Therefore, it’s now been released on Netflix and suddenly it’s a hit.  This is great news for Netflix (and I guess the film company who made it?) that their film is gathering such unexpected momentum, but it does ask the question whether many companies will bother releasing films to the cinema when they do so well on the (new) small screen?

Anyway, another reason why the Netflix audience got so excited at ‘Annihilation’s arrival on their platform was that it stars Hollywood heavyweights Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaacs (and, no offense to Will Smith, but I’m guessing you could say that they’re the – current – ‘biggest’ names to ever go (almost) straight to that platform).  So why did the film end up there?

As I said, it’s science-fiction, so that already makes it a ‘niche’ genre which doesn’t always guarantee that the film will be bankable (‘Star Wars’ franchise excluded!) and it’s not all out action.  A large bubble of weirdness (known in the film as ‘the shimmer’) appears in America, swallowing up the land mass it’s landed on.  No one knows what it is, where it’s come from and every attempt to send a team in has produced no returns.  Therefore, when biologist Natalie Portman’s soldier husband (Oscar Isaacs) becomes the first and only man to return from this place, only as a shadow of his former self, she decides to become part of an all-woman team to find out what happened in there.

Now, don’t get me wrong, just because this has a few more ‘higher sci-fi concepts’ than your average action flick, doesn’t mean there aren’t the odd shoot-out or monster, so don’t worry, it’s not constant talking all the way through.  The five ladies have to use their machine guns as well as their minds in order to navigate what waits for them inside the shimmer.  That’s all I’ll say about the plot, as there are plenty of interesting moments that you may not see coming.  I’ve seen some criticism online about how it’s ‘too hard to understand.’ It’s not.  It’s actually pretty straightforward, however the ending is a little ‘interpretational’ and I couldn’t help but think of ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ when looking for a comparison.

It’s written by Alex garland, who’s most famous for his other ‘thinking’ sci-fi film ‘Ex Machina.’ I think if you enjoyed that you should appreciate this (even if they’re not much alike!).  The special effects are reasonable.  Obviously with sci-fi if you’re looking to create a world truly unlike our own, you’re going to have to employ the use of CGI.  Mostly it worked, some times it looked a little too ‘Phantom Menace’ if you know what I mean.  If you’ve seen either Natalie Portman or Oscar Isaacs in anything latterly, you’ll know their acting is top notch, so it’s always worth watching for them.  Don’t expect an action epic, but, if you’re a fan of slightly slower, more deeper science fiction then you should definitely give this one a watch – especially as now you don’t even have to queue at the multiplex to see it!

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one