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