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

New film review #12: Philomena

Warning: this review contains some spoilers, read on at your discretion

OK, I'll'll say it up front, I apologise if any of you have never heard of this flick.  I mean it is exclusively centred around the nature of British criticality and the simplicity of Irish Catholicism set against the backdrop of a real-life story that occurred between the 1950s and the early 2000s.  Now before you think "Oh come on Ted, a small-time British niche film based upon a real-life story?  That sounds boring as shit!".  Now before you put down your mince pie and cup of coffee let me just correct you there.  Real-life-based films can indeed be a right pile of steaming shit (see the likes of The Blind Side (2009)), some can turn into what I like to call unappreciated unsuccessful (E.g. Glory (1989), The Last Samurai (2003) and Valkyrie (2008)). And while I sadly feel that Philomena will fall under that category, I do still think it is a damn touching and well-done film that deserves success and respect for pointing out issues that some people are uncomfortable talking about and a story about determination, perseverance and sadness.

Basically the story of this film is as of such.  Based on the real story behind the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee (2009) written by former BBC television and radio presenter Martin Sixsmith (although since the mid-2000s he has had a fortunate resurgence in career), the film follows Martin (played adeptly by Steve Coogan) helping an elderly Irish lady named Philomena (again played adeptly this time by Judi Dench) find her long-lost son Anthony who was born out of wedlock while Philomena was working at a nunnery in the 1950s.  While Martin and Philomena go along their journey across Catholic Ireland and then the United States of America where her son was taken after he was separated from her by the nuns in a cruel money-making scheme where they sell Irish children to rich American travellers for large amounts of money, Martin helps Philomena see a bit more depth into her deep connection to Irish Catholicism and the events at the nunnery that seemingly scared her for much of her life until she was fortunately able to find out what happened to her son (who was renamed Michael when he arrived in the USA).  Sadly as the film progresses we find out that Michael died in 1995 from AIDS after a long an prosperous career as a lawyer to the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations and a happy relationship with his partner Pete Olsson.  This then prompts Philomena and Martin to go on a two-person crusade across a large part of the rest of the USA before finally returning to the nunnery in Ireland where this all started for a final clarification of the end of the story and potent criticism of the social injustices that can come about as a result of the misuse of religious authority and hegemony in a deeply religious society.

Now taking that into account, you have probably guessed that this film is not as action-packed as the last few films that I have reviewed on this blog, but really?  I think that works in Philomena's favour.  Not only is it a sad film with an important social message but its a stead-paced and largely peaceful film that while serving this social commentary up to you as bluntly as possible, also shows what a life of cynicism in the industry of journalism can do to a person's happiness and outlook on their own lives as well as the world indeed in general.  The film achieves this latter point mainly by expressing the changes in character and the emotional mixtures within the characters via the marvellous portrayal of the real-life characters in the film such as Sixsmith by Coogan and Philomena herself by Dench.  Probably the only other roles you might remember at all after this film is over is the surprisingly heart-warming and yet wordless portrayal of Michael/Anthony through a mixture of home-videos from decades ago juxtaposed against performances by Sean Mahon and the very young Harrison D'Ampney.  The role of nun Hildegarde who is given the role of focal point of the criticisms aimed at the social impact of Irish Catholicism and in turn religion in general in this film is brilliantly portrayed as a cold, heartless and callous old witch both as a young nun in the 1950s by Kate Fleetwood and then as the aforementioned bitter, old nun in the early 2000s by Barbara Jefford.

This last role in the film in particular is given particular depth simply through her screen presence, the direction of Stephen Fears and the portrayal, of course, of the evil nun by Fleetwood and Jefford in turn.  In all honesty, the scene showing the young Anthony being taken away to America, the eventual discovery that he died of AIDS and in turn the discovery about the administrative corruption of the nuns running the nunnery provides a solid background for the film's strong portrayal of the negative impacts of religion.  But really, this is all given the focal point and true face of mean old sister Hildegarde who I can without hesitation, say is one of the most hateful movie villains that I have ever seen.  Not that it isn't a pleasure to see such an interesting performance by both Fleetwood and Jefford in portraying the mean old lady and how cheer-worthily-entertaining it is to see the confrontation between the elderly nun and an incensed and sweary Martin at the end of the film over the injustices done against Philomena.  Now while this will most definitely cause some raised eyebrows amongst supporters of or believers in Christianity, I believe that some criticism of the social impact of religion in intimate films such as Philomena is just what the doctor ordered.

To give a personal edge and spin onto this issue (which lets face it, is something I don't really do much of anyway), I used to be religious myself when I was younger as I used to believe in Judaism.  However, some time after I had my Bar-Mitzvah when I was 13 I became disillusioned about believing in religion in general as I never felt as strong a connection to the religion as some of my more Jewish relatives might do so.  I still go round my Grandmother's house now and again to celebrate events like passover, Jewish new-year and Channucka (I might have spelt that wrong) but I do so purely out of respect for my roots and to spend some quality time with the relatives on my mother's side of the family.  So when I saw the extent to which Philomena followed Irish Catholicism to the extent that it actually emotionally distraught her for many years, I felt a strange and compelling emotional connection and kinship of sorts to the character both in terms of the real Philomena that the film was talking about and the character that Dench portrays through her excellent acting skills despite my current and stern belief in atheism.  Therefore, while there isn't much heart-pounding action in this film whatsoever, the emotional and well-done acting and direction, fabulous storytelling and great social commentary was enough to keep me hooked.

The other main factor that helped to keep me hooked on this film throughout its running time however had to be the comedy which features not a great deal of laughs but laughs that nonetheless show how likeable the person Dench portrays is and the humorous clashes that occur when cynical atheism clashes with simple and conservative, semi-religious values in not so much an angry but more so accidental and innocent manner in the dialogue between Sixsmith and Philomena.  Some of you who are not so familiar to British social comedy might want to brush up on the genre a little bit before watching the film so that you can truly appreciate these golden nuggets of laughter.  But thank the lord! Uh...I mean thank goodness.  Thank goodness that the comedy is there nonetheless as it adds even further depth to the film on top of the social commentary and the gloriously brilliant acting.  Particularly, these comedic moments happen during Martin and Philomena's spats over the validity of basing your ethics on a religion, when Philomena shows how old-fashioned she is in her attitudes and sensibilities and when the two discuss books and what happened to them in the past.  Now admittedly, that might initially seem a little bit boring in terms of the basis needed for good comedy but I assure you, in the same way that peanut butter and chocolate are a surprisingly good combination on toast, these comedic moments really shine out as being both funny and highlighting the emotional connection between Philomena and Martin as they make their, in turn, emotional journey to find truth.

In conclusion I would say that this film is a must-see if you like a good laugh while learning an important ethical and/or philosophical lesson (and don't contradict me, there is a difference between those two subjects).  The direction is simple but well-done, the acting too is simple in showing relatively plain characters in modern British society with a paintwork of excellent acting skills by Judi Dench and good old Steve Coogan.  As mentioned before, the social commentary about the social impact and power of religion might strike an uncomfortable chord with some viewers but I would still recommend the film as its message needs to be heard.  As of now the film has won 11 awards and was nominated for 6 others so I don't really think that does anything less than speak of how much you should give this film the chance if you ever have the chance to do so in turn.  Seriously, go watch this film.

Also before I give the rating I would like to give a shout-out to a fellow blogger I knew in college before I started my Gap year and she went off to study at Duhram university.  Her name is Eliza and she offers a humorous and honest perception of student life starting off at university and raises some interesting points (so far the best one has been about living with the opposite gender and smoking) so I'd strongly recommend that you check her blog out: http://howtodoolittle.blogspot.co.uk/

Camera-work: 7.5/10
Characters/Acting: 10/10
Storyline/Plot/action: 8.75/10
Direction:  7.5/10

OVERALL RATING: 33.75/40

Old film review #4: Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (2010)

Let me start off this review by saying one thing, I have no underwear o...oh wait that's the wrong script.  Hang on a moment...ah here we are, It's good to be back!  I know I haven't done a review for nearly a year now but I thought that now is as good a time as any to return to the world of critics, thus here I am!  And I thought it only appropriate that I return to this glorious position of magnificence by doing one of the earliest types of reviews that I ever did, a film review!

In particular, I've chosen a strange specimen of a film in the sense that I see it as both being old and yet relatively new, and at the same time under-appreciated but also somewhat pretty weak.  Now there are many films that fit this bill, but the one I have chosen is the 2010 adventure/action/comedy/mythology romp titled Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

Like many such films mostly centred around action and adventure, we follow the rise to glory of an aspiring hero as they are flung out of the ordinary world and into a world where magic reigns, mythical creates represent challenges to the hero's weaknesses and where obnoxious and slightly irritating comedy relief characters hold reign over much of the side-plots   In this case we follow the case of Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) who discovers through being attacked at a museum by a 'fury' from the legends of Greek myth that he is a demigod; a son of a mortal woman and the Greek sea god Poseidon.  When he is attacked Percy discovers not only is he a demigod but also that his aforementioned, obnoxious comedy relief/best friend character Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) is a goat/man hybrid called a 'satyr' and that he himself is destined to be trained at a camp governed by the centaur Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) where demigods like himself spar in order to prepare for possible conflicts between the gods.  Unfortunately for Percy, he is sent to this camp just as such a civil-war of the Greek gods is about to start over who has stolen mighty Zeus's (Sean Bean) master lighting bolt, the start of which sees the underworld god Hades (Steve Coogan) kidnap his mother and blackmail him into bringing the lightning bolt to the underworld in the suspicion that Percy is in possession of it.  Naturally Percy is all for charging in to save his mother and the day but his superiors advise against it, however, he naturally disobeys them and thus sets out on an adventurous quest for clues to who the lightning thief is and how to get to the underworld with Grover and the demigod Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) in tow.

And thus begins a supposedly epic adventure quest to save the damsel (or in this case, redundant mother character)  in distress and save the world before it is literally ripped to shreds.  Now this might seem like a somewhat familiar and run-of-the-mill premise for a story as it has been done before in films such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963) or Clash of the Titans (the 1981 original, not the 2010 crappy-ass remake), but what really makes this particular telling of such a tried and tested formula is the characters and the way that they interact with tenets of Greek mythology along the daring road of their quest.  Percy Jackson in particular is played amusingly well by Lerman as he is shown to be your archetypal white, working-class pseudo-moody American teenager (at least how that demographic is shown by Hollywood movies) and yet is not awed by the fact that he is a demigod like so many movie heroes before him but is instead scared witless by the prospect of fighting in a mythical civil-war.  This in turn is compounded by the comical way in which Percy points out the logical reasons and counter-arguments as to why it is so weird that his best friend is half goat and that he is the son of the sea god.  On top of this, while Grover is most certainly annoying, he does provide some good comedy relief here and there by generally being both heroically loyal to Percy and a lecherous rouge with an addiction to the daughters of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of love).  As for the references to Greek mythology, the main characters mainly go through these references by having to collect pearls in order to get out of the underworld which are in turn scattered throughout the lairs of Medusa (Uma Thurman), the mighty Hydra and the manipulative and mind-controlling lotus eaters.  Most entertaining of all the Greek gods and mythological legends however is the role of Hades played by Coogan who shows the god of the underworld not as the brooding and brimstone-like creature of darkness in traditional Greek mythology but as a heavy rock-loving, leather-wearing biker with the laziest attitude to his whole scheme of evil that you'd see from any villain of his calibre.

However, as amusing as the references to Greek mythology, Coogan's Hades and the Percy/Grover duo are, this film does have its weak points, and by the electrifying beard of Zeus are they jarring.  The foremost  of these barricades to the film's success is the fact that the story is so token and so run-of-the-mill that it is sometimes very hard for the story to be propped up alone by the dashing and comedic exploits of our heroes.  This perhaps would be a redundant problem were it not for the fact that Hades, Grover, Percy and the main and clunkily-revealed-at-the-last-minute main villain Luke (Jake Abel) are the only interesting and engaging characters who keep you drawn in to the story.  As it is, all the other pivotal characters, most notably Annabeth, Percy's mother, Poseidon and even Pierce Brosnan's Chiron, are either underplayed to the extent that they are notably uninteresting or are simply shown so little throughout the film that they become redundant themselves both in character and relevance to the story.  However, what is most personally grating to me is how badly the main villain,. Luke, is revealed to be the aforementioned lightning thief near to the end of the film in what has to be one of the most clunky, sudden and jarring character reveals  in recent movie history.  Just as Percy, Annabeth and Percy's mother escape from the underworld to deliver the master lightning bolt to Zeus, they are halted in their tracks atop the apex of the empire state building by Luke who has played the support character throughout the film by giving the main characters mythology-Intel and directions.  Being the son of Hermes (the flying/fleet-footed messenger of the Greek gods) Luke swoops in, swipes the lighting bolt and literally out of the blue, almost immediately says to Percy's face "I'm the lightning thief".  The fact that this is conveyed with so little build-up makes it one of the most underwhelming villain reveals I have seen in recent years and is further made worse by the fact that its done in the last (and uncomfortably-rushed) 15 minutes of the film.

Taking this all into account, it would be fair to say that Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a poor excuse for an adventure film.  However, it still holds up to no small extent as an action film with comedy elements such as Grover's lewdness and the riveting battles against the Hydra and the fight between Percy and Luke at the film's climax.  Yet the cons of this film such as Percy's under-played ability to manipulate water and the slew of un-engaging side characters meant that when this film came out, it was generally under-appreciated in the sense that it had a more colourful main character than most films of its type in modern cinema and that it had some star actors such as Thurman, Brosnan and Coogan which were mostly ignored.

Yet I personally think that Chris Columbus's directing of Rick Riordan's novel of the same name is an admirable attempt to meld modern film-based pop culture with ancient and eternal mythology from a culture that spawned democracy.  In conclusion: see this film but don't expect to be awed by its approach to ancient mythology.

I hope you enjoyed this review and as mentioned before...

I
HAVE
RETURNED!!!