Arfpint Reviews

Anti Matter (2016)

The Nature of Man, written by people in Monkey Masks

[6/10 · 27 July 2017]

Pop quiz hotshot, you wake up one morning and go see your friends. They are suddenly acting very evasive and hostile towards you. Do you a) ask them what is the matter and wait for an answer, or b) just ignore it and carry on as though nothing is wrong. What do you do. What do you do?

If your answer is a, welcome to the real world. If your answer is b, you will love this film. An interesting premise ruined by people deciding not to act as any normal person would do. Indeed, if they did act normally, this film would be around 30 minutes long and actually be a really good short film. Such as it is, we have to sit through an hour and a half of a mish mash of genres, to an ending that basically could've been tied up long before you get through your first handful of popcorn.

Anti Matter, or Worm, follows the story of 3 scientists who invent a wormhole, basically. I couldn't tell you any more because the first part of the film is so filled with scientific terminology that they could've been making anything, really. It then turns into scifi, a bit of horror, a random chase movie thriller, and a romantic drama. It's all well done all the whole, the acting is decent, directing is solid and the script is serviceable. So far, so 7 or 8 out of 10.

The problem is that the story, in order to fill a decent run time, becomes so convoluted that it begins to detract from the film's central ideas. The chase scene is so bizarre, it seems to have been taken from another film. The various red herrings are unnecessary and increasingly ridiculous, culminating in a comical playground chant that I genuinely couldn't work out was meant to be serious or not. There's even a gratuitous sex scene, which possibly ranks as the most shoe-horned excuse for nudity that I've ever seen.

It's so frustrating that a movie with an interesting idea and decent cast and crew would feel the need to keep adding more and more nonsense, and culminate in an ending which is nonsensical to the point of just kind of shrugging and going, "well, yeah, there you go". There's even a touch of ambiguity about it, which would've had me walking out if I wasn't comatose already.

How you like this film will depend entirely on my opening question. If you don't mind the fact that everything that happens could have been easily explained straight away, and not slowly dragged out, than give it a shot. I don't like it, but I respect it.

The Appearing (2014)

Is Acting Really That Hard?

[4/10 · 27 October 2014]

There's something to be said about how bad a film is, when the first ten minutes pass and you're wondering more about how it got made than the plot itself.

The acting is bizarre. It reminds me of drama classes in high school, where a prompt to "look happy" means smiling maniacally whilst staring at a single point in the distance like a crazy person. Or the instruction to be the "stoner chick" ends up like the only knowledge the actress has of drugs is a "Just Say No!" education commercial.

An early scene sets the tone. A curious girl and some guy (...boyfriend? I honestly have no idea) wander into an abandoned, haunted house. The script has the girl stating at least 5 times how weird the place is, even though it actually doesn't resemble anything other than an old house with cobwebs. Seriously, it's not even dark in there.

Then we're introduced to a couple who have moved to the area following a "tragic event". Fair enough, but when we see the wife in the bathroom looking upset, music suddenly roars into life, completely obliterating the mood. Is it background music? Is it a CD the wife put on? Where the hell did it come from? And WHY IS IT SO LOUD?!

Still, I'm only fourteen minutes in.

The next scene shows the wife making breakfast and the husband doing his best not to act in any kind of realistic way, by stating that he can't share breakfast as he's late for work, but then weirdly taking absolutely ages to drink a glass of OJ and take two bites of toast. Sad wife (I think, she's got that weird look in her eyes again - and not because of her acting) looks at a photo of her daughter (ah, so that's the tragic event) and then runs out of the house, and then just appears in the middle of a country road with photo in hand. But this isn't lost time, or a fugue state. She's just...walking there.

I've got another hour and a quarter of this. Can't wait.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

BOOM! BANG! ... ... shhh

[8/10 · 17 May 2007]

It's always slightly surprising when all the best moments of a film come at the start, and risky at best when what follows is not quite as good, but that is certainly what happens here. Indeed, if you missed the first part, you'd probably wonder what all the fuss was about. But fuss about it you should, as the destruction of the northern hemisphere is gleefully slammed through the screen. Scientific theories aside (well, do you really know if it's possible or not?), the effects of humanity's wasteful neglect of Planet Earth comes back to haunt us with a vengeance as America is taken by storm (ha!). The effects are certainly dazzling - the odd slip gets through but for the main part it's truly an amazing sight - Watch! LA destroyed by tornadoes! Gasp! As NY becomes part of the Atlantic. Cheer! As Scotland becomes a giant ice rink. Although the above sights are truly breathtaking at times, the small matter of the acting is a little less successful. Quaid does well enough as the Scientist Who Knew Too Much, but Gyllenhaal fares worse, as most of the time it's not quite evident whether he's trying to be sullen or is simply bored. As is usual with Emmerich, the supporting cast are largely forgettable and the best character turns out to be The Dog. It's difficult to be truly emotional in the film, as much of the time is spent simply staring slightly open mouthed at NY's icy facade. The impending doom that approaches mankind is almost an irritating distraction from the destruction that follows, and the second half of the film - in which Quaid tries to find his son - is more concerned with killing off minor characters than actually looking at the motivation behind the near-suicidal trek. Even the humble tanker, which gently floats into the centre of the city, suddenly becomes a rather tenuously-linked plot device to add a few more minutes to the running time. But to complain about the acting in this film is to miss the point. The point is, quite simply, the effects. If you can out up with the slightly daft rescue, cornball politics and the occasional dodgy comment (Mexico as a third world country? Ooh...), then just sit back, turn your brain to 'life support systems only', and enjoy. I did (dribble).

Man on Fire (2004)

Tour de Force from Denzel Washington

[9/10 · 2 June 2005]

This film suffered from a lack of coverage on it's original release, and seemed to be headed for DTV hell. This is totally unjustified, as the direction, performances and even, amazingly, the plot, are superbly done.

The story itself is quite basic; drunken ex-marine gets the job to redeem himself, and ends up feeling alive again, only to have his dreams snatched away, and exacts a bloody revenge.

Note the word 'bloody' there, because the film certainly is that - in spades. Various shots of torture, death and pain are inflicted both on the protagonists and the viewers throughout the film, although Scott never allows the gore to get in the way of an immensely impressive performance from Denzel Washington, who surely is showing the way for truly mesmerising performances. His character, Creasy, is perfectly captured with Washington's moody persona, yet the glances and eventual grasp of redemption is captured superbly by the actor. A film like this will never get to the Oscars but certainly it could not be far off. Credit also has to go to the amazing Dakota Fanning, the only child actor I've ever seen who didn't make me want to throw the TV out of the window. Indeed, her skills actually rivalled those of Washington's, and her heartfelt "you love me too" almost brought a tear to this (reviewer) old git's eye.