Generally speaking, audience opinion on the Twilight franchise is divided into two camps: those who think Robert Pattinson is “like, OMG, so the hottest thing ever!”, and those who think its tedious emo pap. OK, perhaps that’s a little reductive as I’ve met people that like it who aren’t in the hysterical former category, but I myself am firmly in the latter.
To be fair, the second film in the series, New Moon, is a slight improvement on the first, and neither instalment plunges Michael Bay type depths of awfulness, but both are bland, predictable and almost entirely bloodless. As far as I’m concerned, this is not a good thing if you’re making a film about vampires.
New Moon picks up where Twilight left off, with Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart, dull) and “good” vampire Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson, equally dull) continuing their relationship. However, after an incident at the Cullen family home where Bella is almost attacked by one of their “good” vampire brethren who just can’t restrain himself, Edward decides it’s best for Bella’s safety if he breaks up with her. This leads to an immensely tedious amount of emo sulking, moping and pouting, followed by an equally tedious and predictable love triangle wherein Bella befriends Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner, marginally less dull) on the rebound. Jacob also happens to be a werewolf, but that’s OK because he’s a good werewolf who doesn’t kill humans. Oh – and later on there’s something about the Volturi: a kind of vampire police who intervene if their rules are broken. Michael Sheen’s character injects some much needed fun into proceedings at that point, all too briefly.
At several points, New Moon actually becomes unintentionally hilarious, especially when it uses any excuse it can possibly contrive for the male cast to get their shirts off. There was a great deal of chortling at the screening I attended, so I suppose its at least occasionally entertaining on that level. The visual effects are not entirely convincing and whilst there are a few fights thrown in to liven things up, it’s really not enough to slap this irritating film out of its petulant, sulky stupor. The only other positive thing I can say is that Chris Weitz directs reasonably well, and occasionally even throws in the odd moment that one wishes was part of a better whole (such as a lovely overhead shot of a forest chase that has been slowed so the audience can see the rapid movement of the vampires whilst a crow flies in slow motion in the foreground).
Stephanie Meyer’s phenomenally successful series of books and their movie adaptations have inexplicably caught the imagination of millions of readers (primarily teenage girls), and have also inspired countless imitations. These days, both big and small screen seem to be teeming with vampires, and there have been a number of interesting articles written about what this might be reflecting in western culture (drinking blood apparently equals everything from soulless consumerism to what has caused so-called climate change).
I myself have another theory that will probably sound mad to some. In Genesis chapter 6, the fallen angels bred with human women and produced a hybrid race: the Nephilim. These beings (often referred to as giants) caused all kinds of mayhem in the Old Testament and the Israelites had to fight them on several occasions before they were wiped out. There are hints in the Bible (in Matthew 24 verse 37 and Revelation 9 for instance) that before the return of Jesus Christ the world will see a return of these beings. If so, they will require willing human hosts to impregnate. Satan being the subtle deceiver that he is could be using these stories to plant desires in young females that are paving the way for this mischief. If that sounds paranoid, have a look at the internet and check out how interest in real vampirism is becoming more widespread and how many women are saying they want a supernatural being as a lover! Incidentally, the Bible also links drinking blood with occultism and idolatry, not just in obvious places like Leviticus 17 verse 10 and 19 verse 26, but also in the New Testament (Acts 15 verse 20).
SPOILER WARNING:
In later Twilight instalments, Bella and Edward have a baby who is a hybrid creature – half vampire, half human. Is this a coincidence?
SPOILER ENDS
At this point, I acknowledge I will have lost some of you, but for a long time, I thought my objection to the Twilight franchise was purely because I wasn’t the target audience and therefore found “veggie” vampires dull (though to be fair there are also “bad” vampires in the story who kill humans). However, I now believe my objection is also a spiritual one. In stories like Dracula, Nosferatu, Martin and more recently Let the Right One In, there are no happy endings for vampires or those who aid them in their murderous rampages. Depicting vampires are unredeemed demonic creatures seems right and proper to me, hence why as far as I’m concerned films about them should be dark, scary and brutal. That’s not to say they can’t be fun either. The Hammer horror pictures remain a guilty pleasure, especially when Transylvanian locals speaking with dodgy West Country accents mutter immortal lines like “Don’t go up to the castle tonight master, there be evil there!” Simon Dillon, November 2009.
Roland Emmerich has destroyed the world many times in many films (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow etc) but in 2012 he really pulls out all the stops in an attempt to produce the ultimate disaster movie.
In one sense he succeeds. This tale of solar flares, polar shifts and assorted dodgy scientific theories resulting in catastrophic volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves etc plays a little like a disaster movie greatest hits – perhaps a better title might have been “Now that’s what I call a disaster movie”. However this is a Roland Emmerich film, which basically means mind boggling special effects populated by a bunch of bland and uninteresting characters in a story that’s deeply predictable and way too long. I am not a big fan of Emmerich, though to be fair his films aren’t at Michael Bay levels of awfulness and are at least watchable and faintly entertaining on a first viewing.
Since the best thing about the film is the special effects it’s worth reiterating that they are indeed spectacular, and those responsible in the visual effects department should be very pleased with themselves. If all you look for in a film is spectacle then 2012 has it in spades. But those old fashioned individuals who value plot, wit, character and perhaps even a modicum of social comment should steer clear. 2012 is a big, dumb unstoppable juggernaut that has been marketed to within an inch of its life to ensure massive box office.
The cast, which includes the likes of John Cusack, George Segal, Thandie Newton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover and Oliver Platt, are ludicrously overqualified for something as daft as this, but they try as best they can with the material they are given. Unfortunately, only Woody Harrelson’s enjoyably deranged doomsday Radio DJ makes any kind of impression.
The whole 2012 end of the world thing, apparently predicted in a Mayan calendar, is certainly an intriguing subject, but for me the film singularly failed to generate an iota of tension or pathos. As cities collapse any sense of human tragedy is lost in a cacophony of big explosions and “wow” moments. Plus, the (generally) mind numbingly optimistic view of the human nature prevalent in all Emmerich’s film simply doesn’t ring true. Compare for example the reaction to an alien invasion in Independence Day to that in Spielberg’s much underrated War of the Worlds. The latter is a bleaker, but far more believable depiction. Here, despite a few greedy and selfish individuals, the human race at large is shown stoically facing its doom without any of the looting, killing and goodness knows what else that would surely happen in the event of such catastrophe. Not that one should necessarily come to a film like this for realism, but suspension of disbelief would be nice.
Having said all that, there is one thing about 2012 that from a spiritual perspective is interesting. I have argued in the past that film is a visually prophetic medium in that it sometimes produces images that are prophetic (often divorced from their context). If you don’t believe me, just re-watch the end of Fight Club which anticipates 9/11 just two years before it actually happened. From a Christian perspective, I don’t necessarily believe 2012 will be any more or less significant than any other year (though of course, the rapture of the church could take place any year), but the end of the age, as described in Revelation chapter 6, certainly contains imagery that this film also reflects visually. Verse 14 of that chapter says “Every mountain and island were moved out of their places”. I personally believe this will literally happen one day. It could be in 2012, or afterwards, or even beforehand, but according to the Bible it will eventually happen. However, it will not herald the end of the world, but ultimately the return of Jesus Christ to Earth where he will rule and reign.
With that in mind, I cannot completely dismiss 2012 out of hand. Aside from that the only successful thing about this film is the special effects, which divorced from a compelling narrative make it an empty experience. Watch the much maligned but actually not bad Knowing instead, which does a similar thing in what feels like a fraction of the time. Alternatively dig out the cheesy but entertaining 1950’s sci-fi flick Where Worlds Collide. Both are better than this overlong, overblown and frankly rather dull slice of apocalyptic mayhem.
Simon Dillon, November 2009.
A Serious Man, the latest from the Coen Brothers, is another triumph to add to their extremely impressive back catalogue. Admittedly it makes no commercial concessions and is unlikely to win over those who remain unconverted to their uniquely dark and quirky sense of humour, but devotees will love it.
Essentially this is a pitch black comedy set in 1967 about Midwestern physics professor Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg). His wife is leaving him because his inept brother won’t move out of their house, which sets in motion a chain of Job-like disasters that occur in the run-up to his son Danny’s Bar Mitzvah. In despair he turns to a succession of three rabbis for answers as to why God is doing this to him.
It’s brilliantly directed and scripted, and the performances, from a largely unknown cast, are all excellent. Ethan and Joel Coen have said this film is partly autobiographical of their own experiences growing up in the Midwest, but this being the Coens its not really worth analysing the film on that level. Narrative wise this is a more cerebral less plot driven piece than their recent works, oddly reminiscent of Woody Allen in its questioning of God and why he allows bad things to happen to people (especially Hannah and Her Sisters). There are several images that allude to Old Testament stories – Larry seeing his neighbour sunbathing naked is like David looking at Bathsheba, the suffering he undergoes is a bit like that of Job, and so forth.
Despite these spiritual references, this is either a fundamentally existential piece of work with a similar message to No Country for Old Men, or a frustrated critique of God for posing questions without providing answers. The ending in particular seems to be a joke on the audience that suggests that latter interpretation is correct. It is also interesting how the Coens seem to have lost their faith over the years, especially if one looks at the comparatively positive messages of, say, The Hudsucker Proxy and Oh Brother Where Art thou in relation to their more recent movies.
Nevertheless, it is also a warm, humane film, albeit one about which I must make the obligatory warnings about some swearing, drug abuse and nudity. In short: if you like the Coens you’ll love this. If you don’t, this is probably best avoided.
Director Grant Heslov’s The Men Who Stare at Goats boldly declares at the beginning that more of what follows is true than we will believe. Whether this staggering assertion is bought by the audience depends on one’s level of cynicism, but I find much of it strangely plausible.
Based on a book by Jon Ronson, this tells of reporter in Iraq Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) who meets Lyn Cassady (George Clooney). Lyn claims to be a former member of the US military’s First Earth Battalion, a unit that employed paranormal powers in their missions. In flashbacks their training is revealed with soldier turned hippie Bill Django (Jeff Bridges) and Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey), who wants to employ these paranormal experiments for “dark side” purposes. The Star Wars reference is deliberate, because Lyn amusingly refers to himself as a “Jedi Warrior” throughout. Apparently Ronald Reagan loved the Star Wars films so allowed funding for this bizarre unit to continue for a long time.
The Men Who Stare at Goats wants to be a classic piece of war satire like MASH or Catch 22, but it fails on a number of counts. Although there are some big laughs the episodic narrative is less than compelling and it lacks a proper ending. Performances are all good, especially George Clooney and Jeff Bridges, but Kevin Spacey is underused and although Ewan McGregor tries as hard as he can with the material, the screenplay lets him down and his character arc remains unconvincing. Interestingly, there is also a very uncomfortable scene where a soldier who has undergone certain psychic experiments goes berserk and starts shooting at his colleagues in an army base. Watching this alarmingly prescient sequence in a US cinema after recent current events was interesting. The shock of the audience was palpable.
That said, The Men Who Stare at Goats is an interesting watch, but ultimately its lack of narrative drive makes it feel lightweight. Simon Dillon, November 2009.
For reasons I can’t fathom, Robert Zemeckis’ new version of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol has been greeted with decidedly lukewarm reviews. This is a great shame, as I found it really enjoyable and satisfying.
To be fair, I can’t get enough of A Christmas Carol. Dickens’ famous redemption story has been filmed many times, but I always get sucked into the story, regardless of how pedestrian the adaptation. From Alistair Sim’s classic 1951 take on the character (still the best version) to the Muppets variation, it’s a timeless tale that never seems to get boring. Ebenezer Scrooge’s journey from Christmas hating miser to benign benefactor via the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future is one that resonates deeply on every level, especially spiritually.
Zemeckis’ version is really Christmas Carol as rollercoaster ride, with motion capture technology utilised to tremendous effect. I appreciate that this “neither animation nor live action” technique is sneered at by some, but I think here it was a good choice. Like Zemeckis’ previous motion capture efforts The Polar Express and Beowulf, this will lose about a hundred times the impact if not seen in the cinema.
Jim Carrey is terrific as not only Scrooge but also the Christmas ghosts. There is also fine support from the likes of Gary Oldman (Marley) and Colin Firth (Fred). The adaptation is surprisingly faithful, with much of Dickens dialogue intact. There are a few non Dickens indulgences such as the ghost of Christmas present turning into a kind of rocket (the bit on the posters), but these are generally employed to good effect and to my mind do not detract from the human story, as has been claimed by many critics. Moreover, this is the most explicitly Christian version of this explicitly Christian story yet seen, with many additional elements making the message of redemption from damnation even more obvious. One such moment comes just after Marley’s ghost appears where Scrooge briefly sees the souls of the damned in all their misery.
Speaking of which, for all its family friendly Disney trappings, this is also the scariest version of A Christmas Carol yet produced. It is very pleasing indeed that this take returned to the gothic horror elements present in both the novel and in the Alistair Sim version. The ghosts – especially Marley and the ghost of Christmas future – are properly terrifying, so caution is recommended if you’re thinking about taking younger children to see it.
All in all, a very entertaining Christmas treat. As for the critics who didn’t like it I can only say: Bah humbug!
Simon Dillon, November 2009.
As animated features go 9 is certainly unusual. Whilst it will appeal to audiences who enjoy the weirdness of, say, Gilliam and Burton (who produces), generally speaking it’s too dark for children and will probably be avoided by most adults. This is a shame, as it’s a dark, flawed but fascinating piece of work.
The story is simple, and certainly could not be dragged out much longer than its trim 79 minute running time. In a post apocalypse future, where machines have wiped out mankind in a Terminator type scenario, a few numbered ragdoll-like creatures have somehow been endowed with life. Trying to unravel the mystery of their existence, 9 and the other puppets slowly discover the truth amid the ruins of a once great city, whilst trying to avoid the terrifying machines.
The vocal talents – including Elijah Wood, Jennifer Connelly, Martin Landau, Crispin Glover and Christopher Plummer – all do a good job. The animation is nothing less than staggering, equal to anything Pixar have created. Beautifully rendered images of incredible depth generate the required gloom and melancholy of the war ravaged city. The action is well directed and often scary, but the grim atmosphere also has a slightly surreal, fairy tale edge to it. This is appropriate, as spiritually the film explores weighty and interesting themes including death, redemption and the nature of the human soul. The idolatry of technology is condemned (something I always find easy to cheer) and bravery, sacrifice and the triumph of good over evil is extolled – particularly through the character of 1.
SPOILER AHEAD:
1 looks a bit like a bishop and is, at first, the least sympathetic character. He seems to symbolise organised religion in that he lives in an abandoned cathedral, dismisses science, wants to follow rules, and even betrays one of his own. But gradually these unpalatable elements are stripped away from him and he ultimately ends up making the greatest sacrifice of all. This is interesting, as it suggests beneath the religious trappings that are often the most visible elements of the Christian faith, there lies something beautiful on which a great future will be built.
On the evidence of this, writer/director Shane Acker will be a name to look out for in future, and this film is a fine calling card.
Simon Dillon, November 2009.
During the filming of The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus, the death of Heath Ledger precipitated a last minute rewrite of the screenplay – a rewrite which ironically strengthened the film. Indeed, for reasons I shan’t go into in this review, it’s difficult to imagine Terry Gilliam’s latest without the character of Tony being played by four different actors.
The plot involves a travelling theatre company whose drunken owner Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), formerly a (Buddhist?) monk who told stories to keep the Universe in harmony, makes a deal with Mr Nick, aka the devil (Tom Waits). Said deal involves giving people who enter through a magic mirror into their own imaginations a chance to choose whether their souls will belong to Mr Nick or not. The outcome of this contest will determine if Parnassus will be able to keep his beloved daughter Valentina (Lily Cole). Complicating matters is disgraced children’s charity owner Tony (Heath Ledger, Jude Law, Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp), who feigns amnesia in order to hide with the theatre company. His presence unsettles the other performers including Anton (Andrew Garfield), who is in love with Valentina, and Percy the midget (Verne Troyer).
As a film, The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus starts intriguingly, and gradually loses grip on its many ideas, ultimately degenerating into something of a mess. But it’s a fascinating, gloriously surreal, visually stunning mess. One thing it isn’t is dull, and as a director Gilliam’s vision is as bold and imaginative as ever. From a performance perspective this is a good ensemble effort. Heath Ledger’s death will mean his role is given more attention by some, but for me Lily Cole’s hugely likeable turn was particularly praiseworthy. Christopher Plummer is also very good, particularly in scenes where Mr Nick exploits his penchant for gambling.
On a spiritual note, this celebrates the power of storytelling, but from a vaguely New Age perspective where God is absent and even the devil doesn’t have much of a clue about what is going on in the cosmic scheme of things (in one scene he amusingly says he never could get the hang of black magic). It is also arguably a little blasphemous, as a previous bet between Mr Nick and Parnassus (“First to twelve disciples”) depicts Parnassus looking disturbingly similar to traditional images of Jesus. More positively, the film could also be interpreted as a fable about parents having to let go of their children when they become adults.
In final analysis, whilst this is perhaps a failure it’s a failure well worth watching. The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus has plenty of weirdness and plenty of heart, but it doesn’t have a great deal of coherence. For Gilliam fans, that won’t necessarily be a bad thing.
Simon Dillon, October 2009.
Director Wes Anderson’s films are something of an acquired taste. Whilst I enjoyed Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, I have serious problems with his take on Fantastic Mr Fox. A more appropriate title might have been Dysfunctional Mr Fox, since it’s frankly a lot less Roald Dahl and a lot more Wes Anderson. In places, it’s like watching an animated Royal Tenenbaums.
In the original novel, Mr Fox and his family’s desperate escape from vindictive farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean is funny, scary and thrilling. In this, their plight is the result of Fox’s own foolishness because he 1) deliberately moves into the farmers neighbourhood and 2) antagonises them for adrenaline thrills in Ocean’s 11-ish heists (George Clooney voices Mr Fox). In the early sections of the film, Mr Fox gives up his chicken stealing ways when Mrs Fox announces she is pregnant. But because he doesn’t find his job as a newspaper columnist interesting, he secretly indulges in the afore-mentioned heists. To complicate matters, Fox’s son is jealous of his athletic cousin and thinks his father doesn’t love him.
All of this additional material unnecessarily complicates what follows, and one of the best things about the novel, a debate on the morality of stealing for survival, is lost entirely. The big problem with this film is it really doesn’t know who it’s aimed at. To be fair, my five year old son enjoyed it but I had read him the book. Children coming to this with no prior knowledge will – I suspect – find it doesn’t hold their attention, despite some fun climactic action in the finale that isn’t in the book.
On a technical level the stop motion animation is well done, but the talky screenplay and self-consciously quirky, smug jokes about things like existentialism really start to grate. The star studded vocal talents – including George Clooney, Bill Murray, Meryl Streep, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe, Owen Wilson and a cameo by banjo playing Jarvis Cocker – all do reasonably well, but again, the screenplay lets them down.
In short: a disappointment. One can only wonder how excellent this might have been in the hands of stop motion animation genius Nick Park.
Simon Dillon, October 2009.
Although initially this looks like it could be a conventional “crew-of-shipwrecked-yacht-happen-upon-spooky-abandoned-cruise-liner-in-the-Bermuda-triangle” type tale, writer/director Christopher Smith’s film turns out to be something considerably superior to standard horror fare.
For a start, by it establishes its classy credentials by eschewing obvious “behind-you” or “jump-out-of-your-skin” moments. Instead, it builds a sense of existential dread and impending doom through magnificent use of the deeply scary cruise liner – a kind of Overlook Hotel on the sea (including the 1930s design). The Shining is an obvious touchstone for this film, since it too indulges in bit of space/time continuum jiggery pokery. Another obvious influence is the fractured narrative of Memento. There’s a very clever third act which harks back in circular fashion to material seen in the opening sequence and solves the various mysteries in such a way that the sound of pennies dropping can be heard across the cinema.
To say much more will spoil it, but it’s worth noting the lead performance from Melissa George is particularly good. As the guilt-ridden mother of an autistic son, her desperation to escape the ship’s malevolent grasp is credible and convincing. In part this is thanks to the clever screenplay which will cause your brain to ache if you think about it too hard. And as with all good horror films, Triangle also makes good use of music and sound effects.
Some will dismiss this as a slick, well-crafted but ultimately inconsequential slice of horror hokum, but beneath the surface are issues like schizophrenia and the self-imposed purgatories that sometimes emerge out of parental guilt. Additionally, the ambiguous tone allows for interpretation at a number of levels, including a kind of post modern update on a particular piece of Greek mythology I won’t mention for fear of spoiling it.
In short – with the usual warnings for bad language and some strong bloody violence – this is highly recommended to horror fans. Tight, scary and emotionally engaging, it’s a rare genre piece that rises above its Twlight Zone type origins to become more than the sum of its parts.
Simon Dillon, October 2009.
Zombies have taken over the world and a handful of human survivors fight to, er, survive. It’s hardly an original premise, but Zombieland yet again proves that the zombie sub-genre has legs beyond the confines of George A Romero’s endless takes on the idea. More specifically, Zombieland is a fine addition to the zombie comedy – a sub, sub-genre if you will.
Whilst this certainly doesn’t skimp on gore and violence, it isn’t particularly scary. Director Reuben Fleischer is more concerned with the amusing interplay between the four main characters. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is a nerdy, paranoid shut-in who seems to have survived the zombie holocaust on account of his obsessive compulsive tendencies. These now include a list of survival rules which are amusingly explained in voiceover and through amusing onscreen graphics.
Columbus joins up with Tallahasse (Woody Harrelson), a borderline psychotic who is determined to consume the world’s last twinkie bars before they go past their sell-by date. In between gruesome zombie killings they are twice duped by teenage girl con-artists Wichita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin respectively) with whom they also eventually join up. Together they head for California, where they meet up with a comedy legend whose identity and performance provide the most hysterically funny part of the story.
Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick’s spare, witty screenplay provides plenty of poignant moments amid the carnage and hilarity, particularly in one key revelation regarding Tallahasse. Oddly, as the characters learn to trust each other they become a kind of surrogate family to one another and as such this is a horror comedy with an unusual message. Zombie movies are usually political allegories, but this one seems to be about the alienation of the modern world and the toll it has taken on family life and friendships. During one scene where the characters play Monopoly, Columbus comments that one of the best things about a world overrun with zombies is that there are no more stupid Facebook status updates.
The most obvious film to compare this to is the excellent Shaun of the Dead, but whilst it shares that films dark sense of humour, this in places feels more like a western – a sub, sub, sub-genre perhaps, or am I getting too silly? Anyway, if zombie movies are your cup of tea (or bucket of blood) then you’re in for a treat, but I must also add a caution in addition to the obvious warning about gore for strong language.
That said, this is, all things considered, a fine addition to the ever expanding canon of zombie movies.
Simon Dillon, October 2009.
