dan-421-105621 Reviews

The Thing (I) (2011)

Passable but not a classic

[5/10 · 10 March 2013]

I'm not going to deliver another plot synopsis. Instead I'm going to try and explain why I thought the prequel to the 1980's ultimate horror classic failed to cook at the same temperature.

I appreciate that the John Carpenter movie was in itself a remake. However, in the context of this movie - it is the original & it's a classic. It was ground breaking & unique, delivering huge amounts of paranoid fear, driven by the intelligent body horror that consumed the stranded residents at the Antarctic base.

The 2011 movie has all the same tools at its disposal and begins by showing some potential.

The discovery of the UFO was well done. You can imagine a hapless science team being lead by their curiosity in to that kind of trouble.

But the plot immediately becomes challenging because of the way that Dr Sander Halvorson was written. It is inconceivable that anyone of that professional standing could be so monumentally stupid & remain unchallenged by those around him. Immediately you're left thinking 'that just wouldn't happen' when they cut the alien from the ice / when they stick it inside the base camp / when they extract tissue samples / when they leave it unattended with the ice melting.

My criticism here is that they needed a more convincing device to necessitate the extraction of the alien. Perhaps the ice shelf should have been unstable, forcing them to extract it or lose it forever in to the abyss.

Regardless, when the alien becomes free for the first time, we get a few of the best moments in the film. The hunt for the alien, its subsequent discovery under the hut and the consumption of one of the members of the base makes for gruesome viewing. Yet it's here that we catch a first glimpse of another weakness that plagues the film. As the man (whose name escapes me) is harpooned and dragged to his death, the CGI tentacle just isn't convincing.

The subsequent autopsy of the creature redeems the prospect of quality effects for a while though. The inner workings of the alien and what it had started to do to its hapless victim were really well realised - and it should have been from here that the intense paranoia of the movie began. Yet somehow it failed to ignite.

The helicopter scene was nonsensical. Although the pilot decided to land and the creature failed to escape, I can't see how it would have benefited from bringing the helicopter down. This could have been realised in a more convincing manner for my liking.

Regardless of my view on all these elements, the film really unravelled during the transformation of Juliette after she's seemingly cornered Kate Lloyd. What we see in the 'creature reveal' is the beginning of a very stock approach to it's design & delivery. All too often you'll find that you're staring at a creature with a huge mouth where the stomach should be and a barrage of tentacles whipping about.

It only seems to deviate from this format on a couple of occasions. The double headed creature and how it becomes a double headed creature is powerful horror - but it really felt like a one off set piece. Whilst all this is going on, we have some abysmal 'hand centipedes' to deal with.

For every ounce of horror the two headed creature delivered, these things managed to take it away. Poor, Scooby Doo like CGI with a 'face hugger' characteristic that was completely unnecessary.

Eventually we have our final confrontation between Lloyd & the creature in the UFO. Here, the real horror is glut of CGI that makes up the Sanders monster. It simply fails to trick the eye in to believing that it's real. I could have been watching a game on the X-Box or PS3 as far as I was concerned.

CGI is cost effective but it's not convincing.

My final criticism is that the film really failed to capitalise on the claustrophobic environment and deliver the 'who's it' paranoia of the 80's movie. All the elements were there and the scenes written, yet there was just not enough tension to show that the characters realised the utter horror of their situation. This is huge failing of direction in a horror movie. It's a lazy assumption by the director that the viewer will realise it on their behalf because they can see the wider picture.

The film is worth a watch but there's very little that's special, clever or unique about it.

Mayday (2013)

Faith restoring British drama

[10/10 · 7 March 2013]

The disappearance of the May Queen in an idyllic English village shatters the veneer that's masked years of intrigue.

Like beetles crawling out from under freshly cracked bark - historic issues swarm to the surface, each one a motivation for a resident to want her out of the way for good. What happened to Hattie? Did she run away? Is she really dead as people assume?

This is a production that Kudos & BBC can be proud of. One where the casting worked and the characters were utterly believable. The script was solid and the story gripping without reaching for gimmicks. I enjoyed how it subtly touched on the old English mysteries without the need to drench them in exposition - and the misdirection kept me wondering who was responsible right up until the final moments. Yet it never felt laboured or contrived, delivering a steady flow of well crafted storytelling up to the last second.

Watching this was time well spent.

Skyfall (2012)

Franchise in a hype tornado

[3/10 · 2 March 2013]

Although it's been well reviewed, I thought I would add my weight to the argument. To give this some context, I watched it on DVD when I was ready to watch anything and it only needed to be passably entertaining to keep me happy.

The longer the movie went on, the harder it was to stay immersed. There were simply so many clunky issues with this movie that by the time we arrived at 'Skyfall', I'd all but dropped out.

A number of things really surprised me here & I'm going to bullet list them out of sheer laziness:

* The dialogue was really strained in several scenes. For a top budget movie I was left surprisingly uncomfortable at the exchanges between M & 007.

* I fail to understand how anyone who's taken a bullet to the chest can duke it out with an assassin on top of a train.

* Just where did Moneypenny hit 007 with that shot? How did he fall 200ft in to raging torrents of swirling water, slide down a huge waterfall & still survive. The incident was superfluous as far as the writers were concerned. He simply survives because he's 007 and we don't need to know the reasons.

* When 007 meets the antagonist's girlfriend at the Casino - did I miss some sexual tension? To my mind, she (and I never did pick up her name, which is a sign of a red shirt if ever I've seen it) was exuding fear and looking for help under duress. Yet up pops Bond on her yacht and slips in to her shower for a shag. This seemed demeaning to me and a poorly realised echo of yesterdays Bond. Sheer tokenism.

* You're working for the top government military intelligence establishment in the UK, yet you're stupid enough to join the super villain's laptop to the corporate network (which happens to be a flat structure with no boundaries). You're Co-co the Clown? No! Your designated title is Q and you're a prick. Surely after such a massive error of judgement, causing tens of deaths, we're not going to have to see his face in the follow up?

* Just why did Silva derail that tube train? Perhaps I missed something here but it seemed pointless. Worse still, the effects were dire and smacked of a Hornby closeup in a studio.

* I'm presuming that as Bond decided to whisk M up off in to the highlands rather than follow set protocols - combined with the fact that she died, means that he'll be relegated to desk jockey along with Moneypenny.

The only thing this movie does better than oozing stupidity is telegraphing the obvious.

We could never see

• The fact that an enemy would try and kill Bond with the gun that was locked to Bond's palm print.

• That Silva actually wanted to get inside the new MI6 HQ.

• That the laptop was primed to free him.

• The fact that M was going to be replaced - and hence, likely to die to add gravity to the story.

As I stood there, chained to the rock of movie injustice, eagle pecking at my liver, I thought things could get no worse. Then we get the 'My name's Eve Moneypenny' scene. Honestly - was this script sponsored by Edam or something? Above all, the movie appears to have nothing more at the heart of it than a simple 'over-cooked' revenge story that's hard to believe. Javier Bardem had real potential to be an outstanding super villain, demonstrating some real awkward tension when we first meet him. Yet, the abysmal realisation of Silva in the script gives him no room to redeem the movie.

3/10 - and two of those stars were for the fantastic title sequence.

Origin (I) (2010)

Short. Powerful. Haunting.

[9/10 · 15 February 2013]

Surprisingly, after watching Origin, I was left with the sound of Joni Mitchell singing Big Yellow Taxi in my head.

"Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone"

Imagine that, if you will, being played over a tritone - and you get the haunting theme to this short film.

As Freddy Holmes (Jack Blumenau) wanders in to the house, arm pouring with blood, you get the impression that it's going to take something more tragic than a bite to clear the emotional fog that's descended on his family. It's impenetrable.

Parents, Claire (Katy Carmichael) & Jimmy (Lee Ross) are utterly disengaged. Him, lost in the mundane routine of work, struggling to present any manners or grace in front of his long standing wife. Her, so eroded by the experience that she's seeking comfort elsewhere.

Yet the bite on their son's arm refuses to heal and the ensuing infection slowly takes Freddy away from them piece by piece. As he fades, the resulting void becomes a black hole that brings Claire & Jimmy together in the crashing realisation that they did in fact have 'something'.

It amazes me just how much information can be conveyed in circa 13 minutes. The briefness of the story left a fascination that was hard to shake. Yet, by the final credits, I came away feeling that I had invested in the family & completely engaged in their drama.

There were some great things in this award winning short. The casting was excellent. Every member delivered what was necessary at each moment of the story arc. I particularly liked the way that Carmichael & Ross began to rediscover their relationship in the hospital scenes. By the time the wheezing Blumenau finally gave up the ghost, I was utterly convinced by their winded, wordless, grief stricken stumbling. Moreso considering that all this had to be effective in under thirteen minutes.

I was also really pleased to find out that 'short' didn't mean 'cheap'. This film looked good throughout and even a touch beautiful in places. I never felt like I was fighting the direction as it flowed nicely - and the whole piece was bereft of clunky or awkward dialogue.

Ultimately, I felt haunted by the fate of Freddy. Further by the fact that it took an event of that magnitude to slap the parents out of their trance and bring them to appreciate the value of what they had as they stood in its wake.

I'm talking as if it's a news item rather than a drama. I've been reeled in. I defy others to achieve the same effect in such a short timescale.

The Man Inside (I) (2012)

Solid story telling with one or two production issues

[7/10 · 27 January 2013]

I think Dan Turner can hold his head up high for this film.

Clayton Murdoch attempts to build some kind of life for himself in the aftermath of an abusive childhood brought upon him by his unhinged criminal father. He finds a new kind of father figure in coach Gordon Sinclair who, aware of Clayton's troubled youth, tries to guide him back on to the straight & narrow path via the medium of boxing.

Before long, a web of petty grievances in local gangland brings trouble to the feet of Clayton's younger siblings. For Clayton, fighting their battles is one thing; yet mounting pressure and rising stakes bring their own problems as the dam of sanity cracks under the weight violent fatherly expectation.

The reviews haven't been as kind to this film as I expected. It's not a popcorn movie and it's certainly not an attempt at a UK 'Rocky'.

When you're touching on UK gangster culture, two things have to be illustrated in my book for it to be a success. Firstly, the players are locked in to an almost incredulous bubble of isolation, held together by it's own code of silence. Secondly, no matter how trivial and contrived the mini dramas in these bubbles are - the outcomes are of the highest magnitude and felt by the community at large.

I thought the story telling delivered these points extremely well.

When combined with the mental deterioration of Clayton Murdoch (who I thought was admirably played by Ashley Thomas) then you're sitting on a powder keg as he's goaded directly & indirectly by his murderous father towards perpetuating the cycle of hate.

Without spoiling the detail of the ending, the conclusion was satisfying and delivered at the right time with the right amount of weight.

And now for the bit's that were harder to deal with.

The love interest elements were partly out of place. Clayton was introverted before Alexia arrived on the scene. You would have had more chance blowing a drop of water across a desert with a straw than those two getting in to a deep relationship. Additionally, the dialogue in the second from last scene (funeral) was a touch awkward.

The main issues I had with the movie were production related. At times, the sound was poor. In the same scene, we get Jason Maza clear as a bell, yet Ashley Thomas is barely audible. And the lighting just didn't do the job in a number of the scenes - leaving you guessing what the hell was going on. A prime example of this the climactic confrontation between Clayton & Karl. One minute we're seeing credible photography of wind turbine strewn vistas and then we can barely make the pair out as they're brought together for the climax.

Is this the cinematography failing to deliver its part of the bargain here? This is a damn shame because the beating heart of this story is a good one. Had these fundamentals been addressed during the production of the movie, I would have given it 8 out of 10.

Stormhouse (2011)

Some fresh ideas in discovered the Stormhouse

[8/10 · 12 July 2012]

Fresh faced Hayley Sands arrives at the Stormhouse thinking she's got a ghost to deal with - but before long, it's the people that prove to be problem.

Military personnel, long exposed to the haunting influence of a trapped paranormal entity have become twitchy, paranoid about the security of their project and indifferent about hiding an amoral attitude towards human life.

These weaknesses manifest as glorious opportunities for the ghost to exploit, which it does to great effect.

If you're prepared to accept a production on a limited budget, then there are some great things in this film. We have the the horror of what people can do to one another - well set up by the curious hole in the cage. We have a conflict in morality over the Guantanamo style treatment of a terrorist. We have betrayal of trust & the dysmorphic sense of sense of self importance brought on by isolation. The story plays a great slight of hand with the audience when all hell breaks loose & neatly reveals how the entity was first captured on the way out.

As for the thing itself. I enjoyed its playful nature. It made for malevolence from a place of innocence.

Could it have been better? Budget aside (which isn't everything) I wanted a bit more cohesion in places. More lightweight banter from the resident to assist with character depth - although it's not bereft. I also felt that the general darkness of the Stormhouse made it harder for the locations to assist in taking you through the story. i.e. - we needed some visual separation to help frame the different scenes as we repaint the story in our memory.

So in the end, I appreciated the ideas here that are so lacking in many other horrors.