Year-old film reviews #1: Arrival

Ok so I figured that doing a new film review or an old one wouldn't really be suitable for a film that had only just been released a year before.  So, for the types of films and movies that were release around a year or so before I saw them, I've decided to set up this little side-series on this blog to accommodate for such a niche issue.

Anyway, without any further ado, lets get into arguably the most boring sci-fi film of this decade so far!  And yes, I think that Arrival is worse and definitely more boring than Interstellar.

Once again, thanks to the good people at the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for providing me with the opportunity to see this film.

Image source: https://truereviewsnow.wordpress.com/2017/01/19/arrival-sci-fi-redefined/

As an initial warning, I should mention that the article I sampled the above picture from described this grey mush of a film as redefining sci-fi as a genre.  Considering how that seems to be a phrase surrounding any somewhat artsy sci-fi epic these days I am not entirely convinced or enticed to believe such a statement about Arrival.  At least with Interstellar, while it was mostly boring, there were some aspects and parts of that film that I felt were interesting to study in how bad they were.  There isn't even anything close to that in Arrival sadly.

The concept of the story is great but its tragically let down by dull execution.  With such a potentially juicy concept as humanity trying to peacefully establish communication with extra-terrestrials after their first contact, you'd at least expect the narrative to be interesting.  But alas, not even the story, even with such a promising basis, is anything noteworthy.  Well...unless you count endless shades of boring grey as promising but I would respectfully disagree with you in that case.

Image source: http://mymoviewallpapers.com/arrival-2016-movie-wallpaper-03.html

I'd expect from the concept of the narrative and the talent cast at hand that we'd at least be watching a film with engaging dialogue scenes one at a time.  But in all honesty, it seems more like each scene develops the same point over and over again, bit by bit until the point comes for the story's point to burst out like a depressingly grey phoenix of mediocrity.  Considering that these scenes are mostly the same as the next, by the time that the point of the film was revealed right at the end I was bored rigid.  It might sound harsh to summarise the plot of this film in such a short paragraph, but, considering how much time I spent reading twitter or the label of my empty Lucozade bottle I think that this was a fair description.

In all fairness to the plot, its downfall isn't helped by uninspired direction and dreadfully droll acting from what is an otherwise talented cast.  Director Denis Villeneuve has definitely got some solid creative chops but I feel that creativity is something he may have overemphasised in the visual direction of most scenes.  Where some moments in the film should really grab me visually, they instead feel empty because so much effort has gone into making certain set-piece moments and shots look impressive that the meat and bone of the film, by that I mean the narrative and writing, is glaringly ignored.  This translates significantly into a cast of well-regarded and seasoned actors who provide some of the most forgettable performances of their careers.  When I can say that this is Forest Whitaker's most boring appearance in a film, that should be pretty telling.  Granted, that may just be me, but when I also see other talented actors such as Jeremy Renner and Amy Adams just stroll through their lines without much emotion, I'd think its not just a single actor's issue but something that affects the majority of the film.

Image source: https://www.cinemaclock.com/bri/vancouver/movies/arrival-2016/photos

At this point in the review, I would usually mention something about the more technical aspects of the film such as camerawork, sound design, the soundtrack or different sets.  But these aspects are just so grey and uninspired that I'd basically be repeating my points about the direction, acting, writing and plot albeit in a different context.  This brings up a good point actually.  If I have not talked in full about the appropriate aspects of a film for an interview, does that make the interview incomplete?  You'd reasonably argue 'yes' in most cases.  However, considering that I'd just be repeating points that I'd already made about other aspects of Arrival, I feel that this has to be the exception to the rule.  Sorry if that seems like a cop-out but I would genuinely be more entertained reading a phone book than watching this film again.

In conclusion, do not watch this film unless you like untoasted, ASDA basics white, dry bread for breakfast and if you think white chocolate is too bitter. I might repeat certain phrases sometimes, but even I'm not as bad as Arrival.

Camerawork/cinematography: 5/10

Directing: 5/10

Acting: 5/10

Writing/plot: 5/10

Personal enjoyment: 5/10

Overall rating: 25/50

TV first impressions #1: Hannibal (2013-2015)

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-tv-series/images/34599546/title/hannibal-lecter-wallpaper

As with the last few reviews of films on this blog, many thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for giving me the opportunity to see this TV show for the first time.

I just wish I could give the same level of thanks to the makers of the 2013 horror/thriller TV series Hannibal for the quality of their project's final form.  This isn't to say that Hannibal is a bad TV show but I feel that it is pretty dull a lot of the time and has a lot of unfulfilled potential.  Now there are a few good points about this show from the first few episodes, so I'll try as best as I can to give them due credit.

First off, I have to give massive credit to Mads Mikkelsen for this inexplicably Danish but nonetheless highly impressive performance as a young Dr Hannibal Lecter.  While his performance as the iconic horror character is somewhat more restrained than that of Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Mikkelsen's performance still resonates buckets of charisma and heavy atmosphere.  When he slowly and smoothly walks into the scene, you can feel that something drastic or haunting is about to occur.  Even when your boy Hannibal is just making someone breakfast in this show he reeks of subtle and deeply psychological threat.  Mikkelsen combines this with a greater emphasis on having a hauntingly stony-faced persona than how Hopkins relied on portraying a highly-intelligent but nearly-at-the-breaking-point persona in the 1991 movie.  If it wasn't for Hopkins performances in both Silence of the Lambs and the 2001 movie Hannibal then Mikkelsen's performance as the eponymous Dr Hannibal Lecter would be the very best in the series.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/hannibal-lecter-tv-show-quotes/

The other main aspects I have to give credit to is the sound design and soundtrack.  The soundtrack does not have a great many memorable tunes but it does its job of amplifying the mood of a certain scene admirably.  Where the series might have a scene that is lacking to, for example, have an atmosphere of tension, the soundtrack for the most part helps amplify this purpose and elevate otherwise lacklustre scenes to being genuinely entertaining.  This is in no small part also helped along by the equally solid sound design.  Admittedly, I feel this is an aspect of the show that may go over people's heads as it did certainly mine before I had some time to think about the first few episodes.  However, it is undeniable that the atmosphere of a horror show or film rests heavily on good sound design.  Granted, this is to different extents depending on what kind of horror we are looking at but the aim and purpose of sound design in horror or thriller films and shows is all the same.  And, fortunately for Hannibal, the show has top-notch sound design that really brings out the best in the most intense and harrowing scenes which really helps with some of the more visually and vocally dull moments.

This dullness unfortunately is something that seems to pop up during the first few episodes a fair bit.  I feel this is in large part down to three major issues I have with the first few episodes; the directing is uninspired for the most part, most of the actors are dull as dishwater and the dialogue is mostly grey and pretty boring.  

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-television-series/images/36351719/title/hannibal-tv-series-wallpaper

I do feel, at the very least, the less-egregious aspect of these three is the poor-quality direction which does a bad job of grabbing attention in the first few episodes of the show.  The direction might improve later on into the series but the interest of an audience in a TV show heavily relies on it making a deep and lasting initial impact on the viewer.  And despite the best efforts of the director of the first few episodes, I just did not get such a feeling from this show at all.  Even with poor acting talent at hand and a lacklustre script, I firmly believe that a competent director can at least squeeze something entertaining out of such a conundrum.  However, the directing in the first few episodes has little such direction and thus fails to make itself entertaining be that in a genuine sense or being something that is 'so bad its good'.  In all honesty, I would take good-bad over what we got here but to be fair, the show is still generally competently made so I can't be too harsh on the directing.

What I feel that I definitely CAN be mean and nasty to though is some of the mostly horrendous acting which for me, has to be the worst aspect of the initial episodes of the show.  Despite the best efforts of Mikkelsen and Hugh Dancy to provide decent performances in their scenes, which I feel that both men definitely do, they are not above having some bad lines and this goes quadruple for the rest of the cast.  The rest of the cast in the initial run of the show are guilty being either uncharismatic as unbuttered Sainsbury's basic white loaf or skin gratingly annoying.  Most performances like Lawrence Fishburne, Brian Zeller or Hettienne Park are just simply good actors not performing at their best or at least not being given enough opportunity to do so.  But, the worst performance for me has to go to Lara Jean Chorostecki as thoroughly unpleasant reporter Freddie Lounds.  Now I'm not saying that a slimy, loose-on-morals undercover reporter character is out of place in a show like this and I think that Lounds could have been one of my favourite characters if Chorostecki did not play her as unlikeable as possible.  Plus, in fairness to her, this is not entirely down to her as she and the rest of the cast are given a bad script with uninspired direction.  But, I can't shake such a feeling about such an unappealing character as the performance itself really isn't good.

Image source: http://rockmyvegansocks.com/hannibal-the-vegan/

But perhaps the saddest aspect of this show to compare to previous entries into the Hannibal Lecter franchise is the lacklustre script and writing in general.  Even the poor-quality previous entries into this franchise have had some memorable lines but when you compare the 2013-2015 series to entries such as The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal (2001), you begin to realise that the dialogue in this entry is just not memorable enough to make any significant impact in the beginning.  This all adds up with the acting and directing to make a first few episodes that could grab the viewer by the nose and wrench them in but it falls so short of that supposedly easy task.

In conclusion, I wish I liked this TV show a lot more and its not like it doesn't have good things going for it.  In a way, I wish the series was given more effort into its first 2 to 5 episodes than into the style of the whole show or its advertising.  As a result, the show relies heavily on nostalgia, name recognition and a generally talented cast without focussing on the spine of what makes a good show; a good script, direction, acting and an immediately grabbing initial run.  Either these aspects are missing or are not prominent enough in Hannibal which isn't too much of a surprise that it only lasted a few dozen episodes over just under 3 years.  I kind of wish this wasn't the case but the show really is as sleep-inducing as Mads Mikkelsen's recent Carlsberg adverts.

Camerawork/cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 4.5/10

Acting: 4/10

Writing: 4.25/10

Soundtrack and sound design: 8.25/10

Overall rating: 27.5/50

New film review #25: Get out (Released 17th March in UK)

 

Image source: http://mikesslowroad.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/scary-movies.html

While I haven't seen a new film in a fair old while I feel now is as good a time as any to review this cinematic escapade directed and written by Jordan Peele that was released earlier this year.  I saw the beginning of this film at the most recent meeting of the Sussex sci-fi and horror society at which point I remembered that I had seen the film a couple of times recently.  Those couple of times sadly not being enough to leave enough of an impact on  me to remember the film all that much.

One of those times was on a flight back from holiday in the US and the other was recently when I was drunk and watching a bunch of films on streaming services with a bag of McDonalds cheese bites in hand.   Probably not the best scenarios to watch such an inventive film as this.  However, upon further reflection after viewing the first third of the film with the people at Sussex Uni I came to the sad conclusion that I just don't like this film a great deal.  Again, I need to reiterate, this may be because of what the circumstances were in which I saw the film but I can't help how I feel about it.

And this is unfortunate considering what a talented and attractive cast we have on hand here.  Daniel Kaluuya's turn as main protagonist Chris is one of the most endearing turns as a main character to come out of a new release this year or in 2016.  Other standout performances include Bradley Whitford as a mysterious and somewhat unsuspecting father figure, Betty Gabriel as a strangely repressed individual who looks like she's about to crack in every shot or Allison Williams playing Chris' girlfriend Rose.  However, an inventive setting for a horror/thriller film and a talented cast cannot save a film if it is not well executed or delivered.

And while Peele clearly cares about his craft and puts his all into the writing and directing of this film it just comes off as a bit clunky.  Now this isn't to say that I do not think he can write or direct well but this isn't the best example of his talents in this area.  I do personally prefer his comedic talents when he's acting off of his buddy Keele on the TV.  But in all fairness, I do think there is still plenty of time and space for improvement in his cinematic writing and directing.  Actually, one of the stranger examples of the writing and directing not always being on point in Get Out is Lil Rel Howery as the comedic best friend sidekick to Chris named Rod.   Rod isn't the most positive impact of a character in the film because his light-hearted comedy does not gel well with the dark tones of the horror scenes.  Now this isn't to say that a comedic character contrasting against dark tones and imagery can't be done well or at all but the mark was missed by some distance here.  When we get the comedic scenes as compared to the horror counterparts throughout the film, it feels like Peele is making horror film and a comedy short at the same time but mashing them together without any proper unity.  The horror is good and the comedy, while not great, is still decent but they are just not well put together both individually or in combination.

If there is anything to say about the plot its that it may be the best thought-out part of the film, at least in concept.  If anything, I would recommend seeing this film for its creative narrative.  While the majority of the individual aspects constituting this film are not all that well combined together, the narrative is the one main constant that keeps the spine of the movie glued together.  I'll leave most of it to you lot to find out for yourself for when you come to watch the film (if you choose to of course) but I would recommend reading one or two synopsis about Get Out to at least get a good sense of what you're in for going into this experience.  To put it briefly though, Chris is going with his girlfriend out into the countryside to meet her family and parents in particular but out intrepid young hero starts noticing strange behaviour among the helpers and housekeepers of the local estate.  With his mind wandering to suspicious horizons, Chris must figure out if he is under threat and if he is, how much time does he have to realise to what extent he is in danger?  A great setup to be sure, and one that is, at the very least, interesting to study.

To conclude, Get Out has one of the most creative narratives of any film released this year but its let down by a great deal of unrealised potential and unbalanced execution.  There is a lot of talent on show here, especially in regards to the lighting, acting and sound design but most of the individual aspects, as good as they are, aren't cohesive enough.  The film isn't flat out bad though and like I said above, the acting in many cases is genuinely really good.  Add to this the aforementioned cool concept of a story, atmospheric lighting and sound design and you have a decently tense thriller.  At least the film succeeds in that regard.


Camerawork/cinematography: 7.5/10
Directing: 4.75/10
Writing: 4.5/10
Acting: 8/10
Concept/narrative: 8.5/10

Overall rating: 33.25/50

Old film review #10: John Carpenter's The Thing (Released 1982)

Image source: https://vicsmovieden.com/2014/10/09/john-carpenters-the-thing-1982-lobby-cards/

Hey ladies and gentlemen!  Sorry about the lateness of this most recent film review but now is as good a time as any to release it considering its a bit late eh?  Kind of what happened between each version of this legendary film (The original The Thing being released in 1951, this one in 1982 and the 2nd remake coming in 2011).

Once again, as with the last film review on this blog, thanks a great deal to the University of Sussex sci-fi and horror society for giving me the chance to see this cinematic cult classic for the first time.

As with the 1951 original and the 2011 remake, John Carpenter's The Thing has a nicely simplistic plot that is delivered with gusto and skill, supplemented by a witty script and superb acting.  I mean...less so in the case of the 2011 remake because that one was about as disappointing as getting a book you've already got for Christmas.  But thankfully, the tone, story and narrative of this 1982 version is much more similar, in a good way, to that of the 1951 black and white classic. 

And speaking of that plot;  An observation team from the USA are holed up in their secluded but strangely cosy arctic observation post out in the arctic tundra when their duties and quiet are savagely and terrifyingly interrupted by an acid-spitting and shape shifting alien that picks off the crew one by one while disguising itself in order to spread chaos and allow itself to continue killing our heroes.   A simple plot to be sure and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, in order to make the plot not be an overly-simplistic dud, a story this simplistic would require at least a few aspects to be delivered to such a high level of quality and creativity that over-simplicity is either overshadowed or not a problem in the narrative.  Fortunately, that is something which is present in the final product of this movie in spades.  It is clear that legendary director John Carpenter knew what he was doing with this remake of the 1951 original The Thing From Another World and took some steps to learn from the pros and cons of that film.  Because of this, while Carpenter's 1982 version may lack the same level of regal class and iconic influence as the original, it supplements this vacancy with a witter script, generally less wooden directing and dialogue.  And not to forget, an ending that arguably trumps that of Christian Nyby's and Howard Hawks' original.  An ending that, I believe, is possibly among the very cream of the crop when it comes to tense and ambiguous endings to either horror or thriller movies.

Image source: https://www.tumblr.com/search/richard%20a.%20dysart

And that ending isn't just a random gem in the film, its given a good foundation to base itself upon thanks to the sense of horror and tension throughout the film that is in no small part helped by the legendary practical effects of this movie.  If you are going to look into or study the history and art of practical effects in movies, this film must come up at some point because its ability to make you feel fear with expansive and gruesome models and practical gore is sublime.  The models and make up used to portray the gore are rightfully regarded as some of the best of the 20th century, especially the 1980s, and even more so considering the film's very minimal use of special effects.  The effectiveness of the models and make up is given even more effective muscle to work with because of how the colours of blood, gore and deformed corpses stands out against the white background of Antartica.  Add to this some scenes where the reveal of plot twists and horribly deformed corpses is hidden by mist, steam or smoke and you have a scenario where the practical effects are given as much of a chance to enhance Carpenter's theme of isolation, mystery, tension and gut-wrenching surprises.

Image source: http://www.theaceblackblog.com/2012/05/movie-review-thing-1982.html

Perhaps the other aspect of the film that could rival the direction, script and practical effects in terms of enhancing the themes of the film is the talented cast on show.  A cast that easily has its jewel in the crown being a top-of-his-game Kurt Russell.  With a cast brimming with talent like Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David and Donald Moffat among several other big names, it'd be suprising if such a talented cast was not able to at least produce a competent collective performance.  Granted this can happen sometimes with certain films depending on circumstance, timing and poor directing or scripts. Thankfully, and once again in part thanks to Carpenter's top-class directing, we have a highly talented cast that are directed to the best of their capabilities and all supplemented by a script that fantastically slips from darkly witty to nail-bitingly tense.  Kurt Russell really is the star of the show though.  This isn't too surprising considering how talented the man is.  But, considering that he's just one man in a case of highly-respected and talented actors, some of whom, at the time, had far more experience, is a testament to how impressive his performance in this cinematic classic is.  His mixture of empathetic and ruggedly tough is a real trademark of Russell's acting, especially during the 1980s, but there is possibly no other greater example of this, at least outside of the Snake Plissken films, than John Carpenter's The Thing.

Image source: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1091-the-thing/images/backdrops

To conclude, this is one of the greatest films of the 1980s and was able to make itself a cult classic very quickly despite being released in a year that was stacked with fantastic films being released.  There are a few weaknesses like how one or two instances of practical effects show their age and how not all of the dialogue really works but the pros far outweigh the cons in this case.  Furthermore, if you do not like horror or thriller films, I still recommend looking into how this film was made as that in of itself is an interesting tale of skill and creativity.  On top of this, I would still recommend seeing the film just for its star-studded cast and high-quality acting performances by everyone on board for the vast majority of the film's running time.  And hey, if you want any other reason to see this film I can think of a real golden one.  A BEARDED KURT RUSSELL FIGHTING A SHAPE-SHIFTING ALIEN WITH A FLAME THROWER.  Now THAT, is just one very big reason why I love action and thriller films from the 1980s.

Camerawork/Cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 8/10

Writing/script: 7/10

Acting: 8.15/10

Practical and special effects: 9/10

Overall rating: 38.65/50

Old film review #9: The Silence of the Lambs (Released 1991)

Image source: http://www.goldposter.com/9168/

Before we get into proceedings I would once again like to do as I did with the last film review on this here blog.  Many thanks to the University of Sussex Horror and Sci-fi society for giving me the opportunity to see this film because I had never seen The Silence of the Lambs before this past Monday. 

Through some source of media or another, many of you by this point may have been exposed to pop-culture references to this 1991 cinematic thriller/horror/psychological classic.  Especially considering that as of this review,  the film has now been out for 26 years.  When you think about it, the movie has had plenty of time to expose its wide reach to the masses.  Something that the main character does in regards to their mental psyche and emotions.

Image source: https://thesouloftheplot.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-silence-of-the-lambs/

The main character I am referring to of course being Jodie Foster's career-making turn as trainee FBI investigator Clarice Starling.  Now it is true that Foster's truly big first break in film was with her teenage powerhouse performance in Taxi Driver (1976), but I personally feel that her wide range of acting talents is no better shown than in The Silence of the Lambs.  Simply put, this cinematic classic contains what is easily the best performance in Foster's career to date.  Well...at least that's my takeaway from it.  But really though, Foster really makes Clarice a convincing character in both a realistic as well as cinematic manner.  The dramatization of a trainee FBI investigator being thrust into a dangerous investigation and unwanted limelight from the media is portrayed superbly by Foster who shows Clarice to be a real go-getter but also prone to mistakes and the adversities of inexperience.  A cinematically enthralling but ultimately relatable and realistic character representation.  In turn, Foster also shows a more human side of Clarice's character by portraying her role as determined and fatalistic in one sense while also being considerate, kind and rational in the other.  I think most people want to see themselves as a good balance of reasonable and determined and combined with a cinematically dramatic setting.  Because of this, I felt genuinely concerned when Starling would do something that puts her life or job in jeopardy because it seemed all the more believable thanks toJodie Foster's performance.  A scenario that happens in agonisingly tense detail in the film's climactic showdown between Clarice and the maniacal serial killer 'Buffalo Bill'.

This performance is so resonant and good that I feel there is only one performance in the film that matches or surpasses it.

Image source: http://picphotos.net/silence-of-the-lambs/

That other standout performance being the great Anthony Hopkins' turn as iconic film villain Hannibal Lecter.  Its no secret from the previous entries into this franchise, both book and film, that Lecter is a sneaky, slimy and manipulative butcher who adores toying with the emotions of both his victims and even those who end up helping him.  His cannibalistic tendencies being the amalgamation of his more psychotic side. But what I feel is sometimes underappreciated, and something that neither Hopkins or the makers of this film miss thankfully, is Dr Lecter's intellectual streak which gives him his psychological supremacy over most if not all of his adversaries.  Hopkins has this aspect of Dr Lecter's character nailed down to a T as his performance in this film, much like Jodie Foster's, is easily the best of his career to this date.  In a long career which includes many marvellous performances, again like Foster, I have to applaud Hopkins in getting every scrap of tension and cinematic quality out of his direction and script as possible through his performance.

Now this isn't to say these are the only good performances or that there is a marked amount of bad ones.  Even the weaker actors are still given room to flex their acting chops a bit thanks to the already-mentioned high-quality directing on behalf of seasoned director Jonathan Demme who sadly passed away this April at the age of 73.  A good way to note Demme's legacy though would be to note his trademark use of steady-cam shots in close-ups particularly during scenes that are both quiet and dialogue-heavy.  There are scenes like this dotted throughout The Silence of the Lambs where they are used to magnificent effect for character building and exposition.  These are aspects of filmmaking which I've always implored that; if you do moments regarding these aspects of film, you have to do them well or else you risk losing the audience's attention.  Fortunately, in combination with the tense atmosphere throughout the film and a magnificent musical score, the camerawork really shows its quality through the steady-cam scenes as well as some more mobile scenes of intense action towards the end of the film.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/silence-of-the-lambs-quotes-fava-beans/

I suppose that I should talk about the plot a bit before wrapping things up and when thinking about it, I guess I should've done that after the introductory thank you line to the Horror & Sci-fi society.  However, as far as I can tell, the film's secrets and twists have been a tad spoiled by the immense mark of popularity that it left on pop-culture and cinema as a whole.  This is what I mean when I sometimes say that popularity is a double edged sword.  I really don't want to sound like a stuffy-minded hipster spoiling films for some ironic reason that amounts to me liking the sound of my own voice or saying that every film pre-1992 was better than anything post-2000 or so, instead I'm just saying that the more popular and mainstream something gets, the more unwieldy its influence and popularity gets.  Regardless of this waffle, I recommend you go into seeing this film with as little info as possible other than the briefest of summaries.  Clarice Starling is a trainee FBI agent who is tasked by her boss Jack Crawford (Played by Scott Glenn) with capturing the savage murderer 'Buffalo Bill' while bargaining with the caged criminal genius Dr Hannibal Lecter in order to get as much info on Bill in order to capture him before he kills again.  I could go into more detail and as lightweight as this sounds, I want you all to experience this film to the maximum for yourselves by going in blind.

Image source: http://www.pophorror.com/727-2/

In conclusion, The Silence of the Lambs is possibly the best film of 1991, easily amongst my top 10 favourite films of the 1990s and is definitely ranked up with my top 3 psychological and horror thrillers ever made.  If you want to see how to do a suspenseful thriller properly with efficient use of all aspects of the film at hand, look no further than this nail-biting super-classic.

Cinematography/camerawork: 10/10

Directing: 9/10

Writing: 8.75/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Theme of suspense: 10/10

Overall rating: 46.25/50

Old film review #8: The cabin in the woods (Released 2012)

Before we get into proceedings I'd like to thank the University of Sussex Horror and Sci-fi society for giving me the chance to see this film.

Image source: http://waytooindie.com/features/75-greatest-movie-cover-designs/

So I may have mentioned that the tone of the last two films that I reviewed were a bit skewed in places or perhaps just a bit inconsistent.  Those two films of course being Dead Alive/Braindead (1992) and Moon (2009).  However, I am happy to say that for the first time in about 3-4 movie reviews I have reviewed a film that has a consistent theme, tone and structure throughout the whole movie and only challenges this status quo within the film when the story needs it to!

I didn't think such an aspect of The cabin in the woods (Directed and written by Drew Goddard and co-written by Joss Whedon) could be such a refreshing note of point after my last two film reviews but I'll take it!

Unfortunately however, this film's main strength in the form of its excellent plot twists and comedic springs and surprises, has been somewhat ruined by the exposure it has received.  Combine this with the speed at which information travels on the internet in the information and social media era and by now, many people already know the plot twists and key moments that really make the film before they've seen it.  I was unlucky enough to have had this same experience but I was still pleasantly surprised by the twists that the film did take and I would also recommend you do your best to go into seeing this film blind.  Believe me, the movie will be all the more enjoyable for you if you do that.

Image source: https://genkinahito.wordpress.com/2012/04/22/the-cabin-in-the-woods/

Now, how to summarise the plot synopsis without giving too much away?  Well, to put it as succinct as possible, the premise of the film is that a group of horror and slasher film stereotypical characters all go to a suitably ominous cabin in the woods (nice title insert there for you all).  While enjoying their holiday in a dusty old shack that probably smells of damp and musk, the gang are attacked by creatures of evil while also being observed through secret cameras by a team of mysterious office workers.  That's all I can really go into without thoroughly spoiling the film as.  Just get the DVD, watch the film and you'll see what I mean.

However, this does not mean that we can't speak about the best aspects of the film which I feel are both the direction and writing as well as the aforementioned .  The tone of this being a horror/comedy/parody film throughout is kept nice and consistent and never strays away from this sub-genre unless the story requires it.  There are a couple of dramatic moments, but these are not too heavy-handed and mainly occur towards the end of the film.  Even here though, the theme of the film is still consistent.  Something that must go down as being credited to Goddard's direction.

This directing perhaps isn't as strong as the subversive directing style shown in Moon but it is consistent and not just in tone but also in quality throughout most of the film.  Even when some actors did not seem as talented as they could be or the film faced a dip in quality, Goddard's direction shines through by limiting the adverse aspects of these kinds of things happening.  For example, Chris Hemsworth's character is kept suitably idiotic to keep in line with the stereotype of meathead jocks in horror films but he isn't so stupid that his character defies normal film and human logic.  In the hands of a spoof director less skilled than Goddard, I feel that Hemsworth's performance for one would be marred less by magnifying stereotypes of a genre as a spoof film should do and instead overly rely on those same tropes and themes unironically.  Something that Goddard prevents reasonably well in other areas of the film including the other characters and the use of music and camera angles.

This is in turn helped greatly by a simple but well-written, well-delivered and funny script that allows the actors on all fronts to really express their acting and comedic chops.  Even the actors and actresses who don't put on as good a performance such as Kristen Connolly are still able to flourish reasonably well thanks to a stable, consistent and humorous script.  In an unexpected turn, the actors are able to also flourish in regards to their acting and comedic talent thanks to the gore and blood in the film not being overtly excessive.  Instead the gore is used sparingly for when it is appropriate so it is shocking when it appears.  This is of course excluding the last 25-30 minutes of the film wherein the story and gore goes absolutely mental.  Seriously, in the 3rd act the film goes from using gore and blood in a conservative manner to displaying as much mad carnage as an Arnold Schwarzenegger film on steroids.

Image source: http://cultspark.com/2012/04/15/review-the-cabin-in-the-woods/

The major complaint I have to pay to this film was raised by my good friend Phil when we saw this movie at the latest meeting of the University of Sussex Horror & Sci-fi society.  After we saw The cabin in the woods, Phil raised the point that the film would have been a more effective critique and spoof of horror and slasher films if the film had been less slick and highly-produced.  We both agreed that the film being well-made and produced was to its benefit but the extent to which this was the case worked against the idea of spoofing slasher pics itself.  The famous slasher films of the 1980s and 1990s where made famous primarily because of how cheesy and cheap they were made and what they did in order to offset the downsides of being made in this way.  Had the film done this at least in regards to the parts of the film where the heroes are stuck in the woods being attacked, I would think it would have been a much more effective spoof.  It might've helped if the scenes in the woods and the cabin were done like this while the scenes with the secret observation team were presented in a shiny and slick manner.  Perhaps this kind of contrast would have created a better basis for spoofing slasher flicks but alas we may never know.

This is really the main core criticism I have of the film and I have to thank Phil for raising it but I do have a couple more minor ones to point out before wrapping up this review.  As mentioned earlier, some of the acting isn't the best and while no single actor puts in a bad performance, the clearly high level of effort put into the writing, directing and camerawork feels a tad wasted at points because of this.  Another gripe I have happens towards the end of the film.  In this case, a character we have never seen or heard of before in any clear or significant manner shows up and explains the basis of the plot to the main hero.  Not only is this a god-awful exposition dump that is delivered with about as much grace as me eating a bag of popcorn but it also tells the audience something that has already been explained at least twice by this point in the film.  There are moments like this dotted throughout the film that keep it from being a irrefutable classic of spoof movies like how Dead Alive/Braindead managed to be.

Image source: https://grizzlybomb.com/2015/10/07/lionsgate-wants-a-sequel-to-the-cabin-in-the-woods-from-drew-goddard/

To bring this to a conclusion, I think that like Moon, The cabin in the woods has a good concept, is directed and written well and has a half-decent production but is either undone by some aspects being too overt, poorly-done exposition and key points in the film that bring the narrative to a grinding halt for no discernibly good reason.  This isn't to say that either of these films is bad however.  Like with Moon last week, I do really like The cabin in the woods and it really shows its quality in how much effort was put into it.  It really is good to see a spoof movie be an actual spoof rather than just pointing out contradictions in a genre and making stale pop-culture references.  If this film interests you then I recommend viewing as little information about it before getting a DVD and having yourself a humorous old jaunt through one of the best horror films or spoof films of the last 10 years.

Cinematography/camerawork:  6.5/10

Writing: 9/10

Directing: 8/10

Acting: 6.25/10

Effects: 6/10

Overall rating: 35.75/50

Old film review #7: Moon (Released 2009)

Ok so if you ladies and gentlemen want a tonal whiplash you've come to the right place!  Now I'm not saying this about the sci-fi mindbender of a film Moon.  Instead, I am saying this in regards to the comparison in tone of this week's old film review in the form of Moon and last weeks' feature, the 1992 zombie cult classic Braindead aka Dead Alive.  But enough dallying around, lets get into this shindig!

Thanks again to the Sussex Sci-Fi and Horror society as I saw this film during their most recent meeting.

Image source: https://superior-realities.com/2015/03/14/retro-reviews-in-time-and-moon/

So let me start off with what I believe is the best part of the movie.  The performance of Sam Rockwell as the film's main character Sam Bell.  Sam (the character not the actor obviously), is a maintenance and collection astronaut for an inter-global energy company called Lunar Industries.  When we start the film we see and hear him explain how Lunar Industries uses people such as himself to collect a newly-found fuel called Helium 3 from the moon and transport it in shuttles back to Earth to provide nearly three quarters of the Earth's renewable energy.  What makes Rockwell's performance so good here is that he portrays Sam as an everyday Joe who is waiting for his 3-year work contract on a moon base to end.  But while doing this, he  also displays concern and clear confusion when something unfamiliar happens to Sam at different points throughout the film.

What makes this particularly exceptional is not only that Rockwell performs this action well, but that he does it with minimal contact with other characters to work off of.  The only other major character in the film is a slightly unsettling but still friendly and likeable robot called GERTY (Voiced by Kevin Spacey).  Considering that GERTY is only able to portray emotion through different smiley face emoticons on its primary computer screen and that this is the only other major character that Sam interacts with, Rockwell's portrayal of clear and different emotions must be lauded.

However, in regards to the acting talent on display in this movie, I do feel that Kevin Spacey is somewhat underutilised.  Now this isn't to say he does a bad job as his performance as the robot GERTY is well-delivered.  This performance also helps to help give Rockwell deliver a suitably mysterious and at times both optimistic and cautious atmosphere through his acting and interaction with the environments around him.  And on top of this, Spacey has undeniably proven himself as a capable actor in numerous roles throughout his career in video games, movies and television.  But I still can't shake the feeling that his expressive and atmospheric voice is a tad underutilised or even wasted in portraying an emotionless robot who is a sporadic support character.  Still, two very solid performances from both Spacey and Rockwell.

Image source: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182767-robots-that-sweat-breathe-and-get-goosebumps-to-manipulate-your-emotions

The other main pro of the film that I want to point out is the direction of the film and the camerawork, particularly in mood-setting.  With the film being set in just a few rooms and locations on and around the moon base that Sam works on, there is not a great variety of environments to build different atmospheres and moods upon.  Therefore, this task falls upon the shoulders of the actors, camerawork and directing in the case of Moon.  And while I would not say that the directing or camerawork are as proportionally good as the acting they are both still very well executed and realised.  The camerawork consists of a number of still shots albeit from differing angles when a change of mood is about.  Some spaces and familiar rooms around the set have consistent camera angles so when a change of camera angle or composition happens in one of the set areas you get the feeling that something unusual is afoot.  This is done very well in Moon towards the aim of amplifying the mood and atmosphere that the film is going for at a given moment.  In turn, the direction helps this camerawork and the actors perform to a high-level with minimal environment variety and budget size.

However, that all being said, I cannot deny that the contemporarily small budget for this film really shows in negative ways, especially in regards to the special effects.  Now to be fair, the film does look very well for a film made in 2009 on a even-then-very-small sci-fi film budget of just $5,000,000 USD(Approximately).  But despite this, the special effects are easily the worst part of the film and while Duncan Jones (Director and co-writer) efforts to stretch the budget economically are lauded and admirable, the film's budgetary strains clearly show in the end product.  Without going too far into spoilers, there is one moment where a buggy crashes into a pylon on the moon and the resulting effect of the pylon falling over and the sparks that come out looks like a pirated 4th-rate console game from the original Xbox or PS2.  This fortunately does not spread to every aspect of the film such as set design, costumes or the aforementioned camerawork but it is clearly there and noticeable.

Another major criticism I have is that the directing, while good overall, is not flawless and some moments of character interaction and scene development feel forced especially towards the end of the film.  Again, without going too far into spoiler territory, Sam figures through a number of occurrences on the station where he works that something is afoot with Lunar Industries and his own posting on the moon.  He comes to figure out what this really is later on in the film but some of the moments where he realises and discovers secrets are either poorly-conveyed, stretched out way too long or are just reiterating pieces of information that the audience already know.  This isn't helped when a major plot reveal is told to us not through clever storytelling but by GERTY unloading a horrendous exposition dump that falls flat like West Ham United for a spot in the Europa League or Liverpool in the Premier League title race.

 

Image source: http://www.moviegno.me/review-moon-2009/

In conclusion, I think that Moon has a lot of issues in terms of how its third act is presented, its cheap look and its somewhat inconsistent character interaction and direction.  It seems a shame that the cheapness is a downside considering that last week's old film review subject Braindead/Dead Alive achieved a good look with a budget that was also small compared to its contemporaries of the time.  However, this is still a film worth giving a look if you're into introspective sci-fi films or movies with good plot twists and direction.  Even if these aren't necessarily high up on your priorities for enjoying a good movie, I would still recommend seeing it for the top-quality acting performances by Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey who really save this film along with the great camerawork.  Especially if this is on for cheap on a video service like Amazon or Netflix I would give Moon an admiring recommendation so enjoy and I'll see you lot next time!

Camerawork/cinematography: 10/10

Directing: 7/10

Acting: 9/10

Writing: 7/10

Effects: 3.5/10

Overall rating: 36.5/50

Uncle Ted's Recipes #9: Protein-packed vegan curry

Ok I know vegan recipes or even vegetarian ones aren't the most common sight on this blog but this is one cheap and reasonably healthy.  Its good for either keeping in the fridge for yourself for a few days or for a dinner party.

INGREDIENTS (serves 4-6)

6-10 Tablespoons rapeseed oil

4 small, 3 medium or 2 large brown onions

250g fresh leave spinach washed and rinsed

600-800g chickpeas soaked and drained

300-450g green lentils soaked and drained

650g baby potatoes

4-6 teaspoons of chilli flakes

2-4 teaspoons of chilli powder

1-3 teaspoons of cumin seeds

1-3 teaspoons of ground cumin

4 teaspoons of graham masala

5 teaspoons of ground smoked paprika

Thyme or sage leaves

3-5 cloves of garlic

2-4 cups boiled water

Salt

EQUIPMENT/UTENSILS

1 large cutting knife

1 herb knife

1 cutting board

1 or 2 colanders or sieves

1 large or very large cooking pot or stove

1 heat or melting proof mixing spoon

Teaspoons for measuring spices

Ladle for dishing up curry

METHOD/PREPARATION (Time to prepare approximately 15-30 minutes)

 

Step 1: Dice up the potatoes and place them into a strainer and rinse in cold water for a couple of minutes over the sink then let them drain while you do the other initial preparations.

Step 2: Dice up the onions while pouring the oil into the pot and turning the hob onto a low-mid heat.  After a few minutes, hover your hand over the pan and if there is a mild heat coming off of it, then place the herbs except for the salt and thyme or sage into the pan and stir until the spices are mixed together in one mush.

Step 3: Place the potatoes and onions into the pan with a small extra bit of oil and stir until mixed in well with the spices.  Afterwards, begin crushing and dicing up the garlic and then place into the pan and stir again.

Step 4: After rinsing and draining the spinach, place into the pan and let the spinach wilt. then drain and rinse the lentils, chickpeas and thyme or sage then place into the pan then stir moderately.

Step 5: Add in the boiling water and a couple of pinches of salt and then stir.  Also, make sure that the spinach is mostly submerged so that it can wilt some more and get mixed in with the rest of the ingredients.  Afterwards, do a brief taste test to see if the balance of spices and herbs is to your liking and add more of one of the spices if you would like to.  Afterwards, place the lid onto the pot and turn down to a low heat and let simmer for about 15 minutes while you do the washing up.

Step 6: Serve the curry on a bed of either pilau or basmati rice with a coriander naan and served alongside either an icy cold beer such as Cobra or a yoghurt drink and a glass of tap water.

Hope you find plenty of use out of this recipe if you decide to make it like this or use my recipe as a base template to adapt your own curry recipe from.  Please feel free to make suggestions in the comment section below and let me know how you all get on with this nice, cheap and healthy curry recipe!

Old film review #6: Braindead aka Dead Alive (Released 1992)

Hello ladies and gentlemen and welcome back to my very overdue film review series!  Not only have I not posted anything on this blog in several weeks which is bad enough in of itself, BUT, I haven't done a review of a film from many years past in almost 2 years here on Blogger. To rectify both of these heinous issues I though I might do a review of the film I saw when I went to attend the 2nd October 2017 meeting of the University of Sussex Horror & Sci-fi society.  This film in question is the cult classic legend of a zombie flick known to some as Braindead and others as Dead Alive.

Image source: http://horrorfreaknews.com/horrors-7-sinister-senior-citizens

Image source: http://www.horror-movies.ca/2011/07/dead-alive-bluray-release-date/

Despite its well earned status as a cult classic, one might think that Braindead/Dead Alive is some nasty schlock judging from its cheap-looking presentation in posters and trailers.  Something that is reinforced when looking at the film's small $3,000,000 budget, even small in a comparative sense for the early-1990s.  However, I would argue that the state of quality that the film turned out in despite these misgivings far outweighs most concerns some might have about the way the film was advertised and how it looks.  In fact, I would argue that the cheap look of the film ads to its darkly comedic nature and really highlights the top-notch quality of the practical effects which I would argue are the best parts about the film.

Although this is not to say that the practical effects are without some sort of downside.  While I do think these effects and make up throughout the film are fantastic, they are such good quality and in such surplus that when things get gruesome later into the film I can imagine some moviegoers getting a bit queasy.  However, if you're into plentiful butchery in your movies, this film will be an absolute treat.  I'd also say the same if you're not the type for these kind of films but are still interested in looking generally at filmmaking and practical effects as a whole as well as specifically in the horror & zombie genres.

Image source: http://theevileyeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/dead-alivebraindead-review.html

Easily the best example of these legendary practical effects is in the equally iconic lawnmower scene towards the end of the film.  What this features is Timothy Balme's initially timid Lionel mulching dozens of the undead in a row with a somewhat-not-very-sharp-looking lawnmower.  There was a point in time when this scene held the record for the most fake blood used in a single movie scene.  While this record was later broken you can really tell that it earned that record well and good.  Another good example of the film's glorious make up department and other effects is in the gradual collapse of Lionel's mother Vera (Played by Elizabeth Moody) after she is bitten and infected with the zombie virus of the Sumatran rat monkey.  This gruesome display of effects is not for the squeamish but it does have a kind of gruesome artistry to it that has to be desired for both the skill and creativity of it all.  Even more so considering the already mentioned small budget that the filmmakers had to work with.

Continuing on with the point about the nature of the characters, the acting and writing really helps the characters shine despite the directing and writing not being perfect.  Lionel has easily the best arc of any character in the film going from the timid doormat son to Vera to being a resourceful, brave and badass hero that steps up to the plate when the zombie outbreak gets out of hand.  What makes this arc truly great is how much of a clod Lionel is at the beginning of the film what with him not only being timid and not very bright but also making decisions that contribute to the zombie outbreak happening.  But when push comes to shove, he evolves from a weedy sod of a character into an admirable if still goofy hero.  Helped along by Balme's darkly comedic and likeable turn as the character, Lionel is easily my favourite character in the film.

Despite this, there are also several other well-written and acted characters such as the beautiful and equally resourceful Paquita (Played by Diana Penalver), the slimy and vile Uncle Les (Played by Ian Watkin) or the aforementioned Vera played superbly in an overbearing turn by Elizabeth Moody.  Linked together by a narrative that switches from slow-paced dark comedy to comedic butchery halfway through the film, these characters are all given plenty of time to develop and evolve.  All this helped along with a script that hits most of the notes in a deliciously dark comedic manner.

Image source: http://www.interrogatingideologywithachainsaw.com/2014/08/dead-alive-1992-lawn-mower-to-oedipus.html

However, if there are any aspects of the film that I could criticise about the film there are two that jump to mind.  The first of these is that the tonal shift halfway through the film is a bit jarring.  But, in all fairness, this is helped by the earlier-mentioned good acting, funny script and amazing action and practical effects.  I can imagine the slow pace being more of a problem in the first half of the film for some than it was for myself but there are worse issues for a film of such a small budget to have.

The other main issue I have with the film is more so to do with other reviews of this classic movie.  I've seen some people compare Lionel's relationship with his mother Vera to being a classic mirror of the Oedipus complex.  While this is possibly not entirely inaccurate I think this possibility is a bit overstated.  While there may be reason to argue this theory, I'd argue that the relationship between Lionel and Vera is more of an overbearing mother smothering her son well into maturity because of unfounded or overzealous fears.  This is something I believe that is reinforced by a plot twist regarding Vera that Lionel uncovers late into the film.  While the plot twist is not the best conveyed and kind of comes out of nowhere, it supports the idea that Vera is more single-minded, overbearing and moralising in her governance of Lionel's life than being romantic with him.

Regardless of either of these issues, the film is an undisputable classic.  As mentioned above, even if you do not enjoy the gore or the narrative, the writing and sheer skill of the practical effects is enough to at least appreciate the film and earn it a hearty cult classic status.  A cult classic status that it rightfully deserves on account of the film not having the best opening weekend in its three biggest countries in 1992 and 1993 in Spain, the UK and the USA.  So if you can grab a copy of this film or see a viewing of it at your local indie cinema then I definitely recommend it.  It isn't perfect but nothing is and besides, those practical effects are legendarily magnificent.

Camerawork/cinematography: 7/10

Directing: 8/10

Writing: 7.5/10

Acting:7.5/10

Special and practical effects: 10/10

Overall rating: 40/50

Lets show love to the people of Texas and Hong Kong

Its really no secret right now that the state of Texas in the USA is in a spot of bother right about now.  In the last week, the state of steakhouses was wracked by hurricane Harvey which swept through the state coming in from the gulf of Texas.  As of this post, much of the eastern half of Texas has been flooded in part and in regards to areas such as many streets in Houston and Interstate Highway 45 have been mostly if not entirely submerged under multiple meters of water.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4830364/Hurricane-Harvey-enhanced-climate-change.html

This kind of devastation, the likes of which has not been felt from a natural disaster in the USA for more than 10 years, has prompted much of the USA to band together and help their fellow men and women down south of the range.  What makes this remarkable is not only that police, army, navy and firefighter services and even just civilians have been helping their fellow countrymen in Texas to salvage their belongings and survive, but that many sympathetic people around the world have tried their best to replicate this kindness.

Donations to local services and amenities as well as charities have been flooding in to help out the people of Texas, Houston in particular, and thus far have allowed extensive outreach to not just those on the periphery of the disaster but those who are less able to move themselves.

Source: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2017/08/28/cincinnati-firefighters-assist-hurricane-harvey-rescues-texas/607880001/

Source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/846843/Hurricane-Harvey-path-2017-texas-dementia-patients-rescued-from-nursing-home

Unfortunately, Houston is not the only major city in a global economic superpower that has been hit by such a heavy storm.  The enigmatic city of Hong Kong has also recently been dealing with the aftermath of a similar storm wracking its streets and buildings.  Typhoon Hato, while less covered in the mainstream media has had a similar effect as Hurricane Harvey on the people of Southern China, Hong Kong and Macau.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-storm-hongkong-idUSKCN1B22JL

However, as is somewhat similar to what has occurred in the USA, the public services in Southern China have been working day and night to drain away the water and then clear the debris from their streets and fields while accounting for the injured, dead and safe.

Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/2108481/rescuers-hong-kong-save-11-sea-and-two-mountain

And while I have been less successful with finding links for donating to the recent tragedy in China, I would greatly welcome anyone coming forward with reliable and safe links and sources for donating to the victims and saviours of both events.

Fortunately, I saw this article from Forbes which recommends tips and directions for donating to the disaster in Texas and I urge you all to check it out: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/08/28/helping-out-after-hurricane-harvey-where-what-how-to-donate/#16b87e93c798

And as I said above, if anyone has any links or ideas for donating to the disaster in China any help would be greatly appreciated.

I didn't really have anything succinct or opinionated to add to this recent topic unlike the post I made yesterday.  I just thought it made sense to raise awareness of the situation that some are facing in the South of the USA and China at this time.  Hopefully these people, like this blog, can get back to happier and simpler topics and times in the near future.

Punching people for their haircuts and political beliefs is a terrible idea

Sorry about not posting on here for quite some time.  Furthermore, sorry for bringing an end to my hiatus on this platform with a spicy bit of political commentary at an emotionally and politically charged time in the west.  However, given the considerably depressing reactions of some people to apparently "racist" haircuts and fashion choices in recent times, I thought that I should weigh in.  Especially considering the actions of some in this debate could hurt political discussion and discourse.

On August 15th 2017, twitter "comedian" Jon Hendren called out world-renowned music and rap artist Macklemore for sporting an apparently racist haircut which Macklemore responded to by pointing out that he hadn't sported said haircut for quite some time.

Image source: http://www.vladtv.com/images/size_fs/video_image-467718.jpg

Ignoring the fact that Hendren's twitter @ accurately describes the quality of his humour on twitter, you'd reasonably think he could look at a recent picture of Macklmore and rectify his simple mistake.  This moment of laxity in looking up public info implies to me that both Hendren's question and the intention behind it aren't particularly well founded.  The question itself is clearly poorly-informed but on top of that, asking someone to renounce and change their haircut implies that anyone wearing that haircut is inherently racist.  Macklemore's now former haircut, commonly called the 'undercut', was originally fashioned by western men in Europe and the Americas during the 1930s and 1940s.  This included men who fought on both sides during the Second World War (1939-45).

Really, the hairstyle originated as a general western fashion choice rather than a political statement as these German soldiers during the 2nd world war show...

Image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-217-0465-32A%2C_Russland%2C_Soldaten_auf_dem_Marsch.jpg

...when paired up with this picture of a French resistance fighter during the latter stages of the 2nd world war in urban France sporting the same style of hairdo.

Image source: http://weeklyworker.co.uk/assets/_versions/images/archive/wwimages/ww942/sm-WWII-resistance2_art_full.jpg

Because of this, the idea that this one style of haircut, even down to its origins, is representative of racist political beliefs and fascism is not just overly-presumptuous but also historically inaccurate.  However, this hasn't stopped some overly-reactionary blowhards attacking people in recent weeks over having this particular haircut/hairstyle.  People in the currently tumultuous political climate of the USA have been wearing the haircut that some fascists both past and present have worn, this must mean that anyone who is sporting the undercut deigns to at some point take up the cause of fascism.  And certainly not that the hairstyle is a comfortable and easy-to-maintain fashion statement popular in both alternative and mainstream modern fashion scenes.

True, the undercut has been worn in recent times by undeniably fascistic political figures in the USA such as far-right political commentator, speaker and activist Richard Spencer.  But regardless of this point, this does not mean that one can just lump all members of a certain fashion group in with one socially unpalatable or maligned individual (depending on your political views).  This has not stopped people not only asking wearers of the undercut hairstyle to change their hairdo but also that members of far-left and progressive anti-fascist groups, particularly ANTIFA (Anti-fascist action) physically attacking people who wear the fashionable haircut.

The most notable case of this happening recently has of course been anarchistic anti-fascists recently mistaking some of their own group members for a neo-Nazi because they too wore undercuts.

Source: http://freebeacon.com/issues/boston-antifa-protester-attacked-fellow-activist-after-mistaken-neo-nazi/

Clearly, if this idea that the undercut being a statement of facism has become so insidious that it is affecting those on the right, left and centre of the political spectrum one must ask this: surely it is an issue of mistaken identity rather than promotion of a hateful ideology?

Subsequently, this prompted me to think about interjecting on the idea of attacking someone for their political beliefs and how irrational that seems to me.  I know I may be sounding like I am blowing my own political horn to the Nth degree but hear me out on this.  Attacking someone not in self-defence illegal in the USA and UK. And doing so on the basis of their political beliefs alone, especially in cases of mistaken identity, seems extremely harmful to not only people's physical safety but also the stability of reasonable political discussion and discourse in the free world.  

What I mean by this is that the way that we have traditionally discussed politics and rooted out bad ideas in politics in modern free-democracies is by giving an equal platform of opportunity to all to discuss their beliefs and manifestos.  Reason dictates that we should do this to people on both the left and right as well as the centre.  That includes groups I and others would find unlikable such as neo-Nazis and ANTIFA, again, depending on your political views.  In discussing political ideas, even offensive and unpalatable ones, on a level playing field, we are able to root out inflexible, offensive and irrational ideas by reasonably seeing the weaknesses of these ideas and beliefs for what they are. Punching someone, whether it be because you do or do not know their political ideology, is a terrible idea; because it not only promotes civil violence but invalidates the great boon that free speech and political discourse gives us.

By punching someone for their political beliefs not in self-defence, whether they be right or left-wing, only validates your political enemies cause and poisons the well of political discourse.

So I issue a plea to anyone, be they far-left or far-right; if you have an inkling that someone is a political opponent to you then talk it out like a human being and do not punch them.  Because if you resort to violence as the first response to someone's opinions, then you clearly don't really care about discussion, peace or your fellow man and woman.

Editor's note: This post has been amended and edited post-publishing because I was made aware of information  about the story of the alleged stabbing of Joshua Witt that compelled me to amend my article.

New film review #24: Gold (released 3rd Feb 2017)

Image source:  http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1800302/?ref_=nv_sr_3

I know, I know.   I haven't posted on here in like what?   7-8 months?  Good lord do I suck at being consistent with uploading.   Hell, it even happens on my 3 YouTube channels (CHECK THEM OUT PLEASE #SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION).  However, while I may have fallen back on uploading as frequently as I personally feel I should that doesn't mean I can never return!  I hope.  To be fair I do tend to be a bit lax so I should really take note to tackle that. 

In any case, with the disappointing return of a hopeful maverick must also come the review of something with a similar background and underlying ethos.  And in this case I am talking about the recent film release of Gold starring Matthew McConaughuey, directed by Stephen Gaghan and written by Patrick Massett and John Zinman.  I should mention beforehand prior to going into this review that I feel bad about slagging it off as it contains a lot of talent in the cast most notably McConaughuey who himself most of all has been in considerably better productions than this droll and slow-paced trek of a film. 

So then, how does the plot of the film add up?  Well it starts off in 1981 with McConaughuey's Kenny Wells accepting an offer of more prestigious and higher-earning work in his father's gold pioneering company.  Fast-forward 7 years and not only is Wells's father long dead, but his company is on its last ropes with something drastic needing to be done in order to save Wells junior and his friends jobs.  Then, as if by some magical prompting (or by the magic of an arbitrary script), young Wells receives a vision in his brandy-induced dreams that he must call up an old friend and search for gold in the jungles of Indonesia.  The rest of the film after this point then follows the misadventures of Wells himself and his swarthy Hispanic compatriot Michael Acosta (played by Edgar Ramirez) try their best to keep their gold company afloat amidst a sea of hungry wall-street vultures and some shady activities on their own hands.

On paper this sounds like the plot for a good if not very good film.  Furthermore, the potential for the story in terms of its quasi-historiographical and dark/seedy underlying theme is fuel enough for any talented filmmaker to make, at the very least, an engaging film about the greed and folly of man.  However, it seems as if the film focuses almost entirely on this underlying theme of seediness and as a result, Wells, Acosta and the other main protagonists and antiheroes we see emerge throughout the story come across as slimy and greedy rather than down on their luck hopefuls working towards their big break.  And like I said before, this feels a bit tragic because in combination with a deluge of talent working on the film, the interesting and unique story really should have ensured that this was going to be one of the films of the year or at least of early-2017.  Instead, we get an overly-slow-paced bore of a film with unlikeable characters, wall upon wall of exposition and all this encompassed in a terribly paced 1st act and a horrendously boring and overly-long 3rd act.

This 3rd act in particular for me was the most boring part of the film to sit through.  By this point I had just sat through about 90 minutes of droll storytelling and characters I didn't care about only to be met with a series of scenes that kept hinting at the film nearing its end but never delivering until after the point at which I was tired of sitting on my arse.  This went on for nearly 30 minutes at the end of the film with minor and even some major story points being introduced or continued from early on in the film with little to no eventual conclusion to many if not all of them.  Because of this drawn-out final act, I not only felt bored by the end of the film but also somewhat annoyed as the final few scenes bizarrely explained very little while featuring a truckload of exposition and talking.  This was at the same time as the conclusion of all the major character's personal stories meeting either unsatisfying or incomplete resolutions.  Even the ones where their character arcs were completed, (that being Acosta and Wells), the conclusions in these cases came to either contradict the theme and narrative of the film or not correlate realistically to the development that character had made throughout the film.

I suppose the most prominent thing that contributed to this being the case is probably the direction in part but that would be somewhat unfair.  I did actually like a fair few scenes at least in terms of how they were shot such as Wells vision scene early on in the film (as daft as it was in practical senses).  If it isn't the directing that is the main source of this film's issues then I would probably say it has to be the writing.  I genuinely can't remember any of the dialogue or notable lines from the film.  Although saying that there is notable lines when I can't remember any is a bit of dichotomy so I could just be talking out of my arse again.

So in conclusion, this film had a lot of promise but really failed to deliver and as a result ends up being either forgettable or just a bit unappealing and unpleasant.  I would recommend this film if you are a fan of the work of the people who made and starred in it but even then I would just recommend rummaging through their other works and projects. 

Camerawork/cinematography: 6.5/10
Directing: 5/10
Writing: 4/10
Acting: 6.75/10
Other: 5/10
OVERALL RATING: 27.25/50

My gaming YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHmq7KX4Qc46VGhYzWqQfOg

My 2nd YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxOkndBGSWNv4ckTLl7MCCA

My cooking YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/gitboogy

My Twitter: https://twitter.com/ted_lord