Grab the one at the side of the page, or there's a bigger one down the bottom and pop it in your email signature, myspace page or blog page. Haven't worked out how to do it on Bebo yet shamefully but basically you can put those fancy wee links anywhere that allows HTML. Huzzah!
Coming soon! Movie introductions to reviews, maybe. We'll see if ma phone's up to the job but thought I may as well since Blogger now allows you to embed your own vids!
Surf's Up is a computer animated film about talking penguins who surf. That line is enough for most people to stab themselves in the eye lest they have to actually sit through the thing thanks to the young kids in their lives forcing them to take them for 85 minutes of skull crushing torture that is unfunny fart gag after unfunny seagull shitting on someone's head gag (that was a long, clumsy sentence and I apologise profusely for it, just like the fact that i now apologise for prolonging said long sentence with this pointless insert about how long it is and apologising for its length). Of course Pixar are to blame for this sad state of affairs. They raised our expectations that kid's films could be genuinely brilliant. The fact that their films were computer animated was inconsequential. They simply were brilliant, leading to people going to see them in their millions. Inevitably the money men sensed a new fad. Before you could find Nemo traditional animation wings were shut and the swarm of run-of-the-mill fuzzy creature kid pish came forth, the only difference with these films were the 3-D graphics. For a while the public bought it, it's all shiny and new so it must be good. Or the George Lucas approach to filmaking. Quickly though came the realisation that it's all the same old guff just flashier. Soon animation will come full circle and the biggest craze will feature a couple of matchstick men staring at each other. No narrative, just staring. And the public will lap it up, because it looks so different.
Surf's Up will suffer thanks to this situation. And that is a great shame. It's a pretty excellent little film in all honesty. Its masterstroke lies in something that is no great innovation, unless you choose to do it in a computer animated film about surfing penguins - make it a mockumentary. As such there's a laid-backed feel to Surf's Up completely at odds with its seemingly manic set-up. The dialogue feels improvised as characters speak directly to camera.
This helps further with the almost stoner air at work and alot of that is down to the cast. The makers have taken the Pixar approach, casting really good actors who's voices may ring a bell so that the animated characters are just that, characters. You care about them thanks to the likes of Shia LeBouf, James Woods and The Dude himself Jeff Bridges. Honestly, did you give a flying rat's buttock about any of the characters in A Shark's Tale? No. Who cares if Will Smith's in it, he's pish in just about everything and just because he can carry I, Robot at the box office doesn't mean he's a good voice talent. And don't get me started on De Niro further destroying his reputation for a little bit of cash. When a Woods turns up it's because he actually has experience doing cartoon voice acting. Bridges is simply doing a kiddie reprise of the Big Lebowski, so in other words he's brilliant.
The mockumentary set-up also helps with much of Surf's Up's humour. Many a joke is derided from the realisation that cameras are present, or through documentary editing techniques such as the filmmakers obliging when Cody boasts that they will want to show his first ride again and again. Also the fate of Cody and Chicken Joe's fathers represented in photo form provide two of the most laugh out loud things I've seen in a long time, and I laugh like a bloody trumpet on a daily basis! as I said, the mockumentary framing is nothing new in itself but when applied in this context it becomes incredibly fresh, as does the computer animated film thanks to it. Shamefully we'll probably see quite a few like this now, of inferior quality.
Don't get me wrong, Surf's Up isn't in any way perfect. The plot is also nothing new, but unlike the framing this is not a good point. You'll see the twists coming a mile off, but then this is for kids so I wouldn't get all smug about that fact. Also it's probably the only major grumble with the film, and how often do you really find an original plot?
Surf's Up's strengths lie elsewhere. It's a computer animated kids film that isn't out to razzle-dazzle you with incredible visuals, although they are very nice, especially the use of hand-held camera in a computer-generated world. Instead it's a film willing to pull you into its world and let you become attached to its characters, all the while charming you with its humour. This is why it's sad that Surf's Up will be vastly overlooked by most as it stands above most films this year, computer animated kiddie fair or not. You could blame it on Pixar, or just the unoriginal toss that followed in their wake. Either way, Surf's Up deserves better.
After seeing the trailers before Transformers for the end of the summer mini-blockbusters a thought struck me. How great would it have been to be present at the meeting where a movie executive said this:
"Film-goers don't want to see a movie about giant robots kicking the crap out of each other. What they really want is to see John Travolta in a fat suit and a dress".
So I've just read that actor and master sauce lord Paul Newman has donated $5000 to a Michigan school so the kids can come here to Scotland on a trip. At first I thought, "what a good guy" but then I realised, Scotland. That cruel bastard! those poor weans!
And so Antonoinionionioni and Bergman have popped it. Film snobs everywhere must be greetin into their crab puffs. I haven't seen any broadsheet newspaper since, but I'm guessing that somewhere there will be a drawing of Bergman meeting death from The Seventh Seal. Not saying these things are predictable but, well I am. They'll both be missed, I mean who else is going to provide a 10 hour film wae the word "fanny" in the title now? I doubt the Scottish porn industry's up to it.
The summer of films that are way better than they ought to be continues with the eighties cartoon made (CGI) flesh by ultimate big blowy uppy thingy director Michael Bay.
What does Bay have against our senses? All of his films love to assault them, well two, sight and hearing. If a movie assaults touch, taste or smell then it's just plain wrong/brilliant depending on your point of view. Seriously though, walking out of one of his films leaves you feeling like someone's slashed at your eyeballs with rapid jumpcuts and stood next to you clattering a metal bin with a stick. And Transformers may well be his, if not cinema's, slashiest, bin clatteringist movie yet.
It's visually stunning, big robots shifting between being big robots and motors, big explosions, Megan Fox, crumbling buildings and John Tutorro in his underwear. It's enough to make your eyes melt. Storyline? Something about a pair of glasses, a cube and a geek trying to get off wae a hot bird. And there's some army guys. And some computer hackers. Did I mention the big robots?
Storyline and logic are of no importance in a movie like Transformers. Many may moan about that but let's be honest, it would have just got in the way of big robots fighting. What little there is almost does thanks to a bit too much human screentime. Thankfully the robot effects, especially the transformations, are pretty damn brilliant.
Many a person would call this sort of movie "dumb". They may have a point on some level, but that's ignoring how well crafted the overall thing is. it's actually very clever, because it gives you exactly what you want if you've paid to see Transformers - big robots kicking shit out of each other. Who gives a flying fuck if the story's mince or you don't learn anything from it? If I want to watch a film that teaches me something about the human condition then I'll watch an Ang Lee film. If I don't really feel like that then give me giant robots that double as cars wrecking a city just because it happened to be in the way of their little scuffle. If that makes me dumb then so be it. it doesn't make the movie dumb though.
Don't get me wrong, it has its faults. The aforementioned lack of robots for a good chunk of the opening half of the movie, apart from the comic relief baddie Frenzy and Bumblebee in car form, is a bit disappointing after the initial Blackout attack on an army base. It whets the appetite but it's a good while until the main course truly arrives with the rest of the Autobots. Also Megatron's barely in it. And when the metallic arse kicking starts it can often become confusing as to what's actually happening. The director's at fault there. And what is Bay's obsession with framing people in silhouette in front of a setting sun? Seriously, you'd swear that everyone in a single scene was, even if they're at opposite ends of a field facing each other.
Apart from those minor grumbles Transformers is typical (very) enjoyable summer fare. Don't expect too much from it and it'll deliver. The film's further proof that summer 2007 is actually a bit good compared to the last few. Also it becomes another Michael Bay film that it's acceptable to like, along with The Rock and the first Bad Boys.
When it comes to Asian filmmaker's original approaches to steadfast and supposedly sucked dry genres, especially horror, you have to ask what's in the water out there. Turns out it's a giant mutant tadpole thing.
The host is not going to be to everyone's taste. What has been marketed as a straight forward monster movie involving people wandering around a sewer seemingly being picked off one by one by a creature turns out to be a very much different film. In the same way as Jaws isn't really a horror but a buddy drama set against the hunting of a killer shark, The Host is a family drama/slapstick comedy/political thriller set against the hunting of a giant mutation that's appeared in the Han river.
The film centres on one Korean family as they battle the creature, the state and their own loser tendencies to find the youngest member of the family, taken by the creature in a wonderful opening set piece. That search may be what doesn't sit well with some viewers. This is mainly because the proper structure of this type of movie is thrown up in the air, and it seems that the film was then put together by how they landed. Anything you expect from a monster movie may actually happen, it's just that it probably won't be where you expect it, or it'll be in the middle of some bizarre scene involving people over-acting their sorrow and falling about everywhere.
The slapstick nature of the earlier scenes feels strained, like they were inserted just so the makers could claim another genre was a part of the mash-up, but the other elements add to an unpredictability that makes the film feel fresh, even though in reality it's really just yet another monster movie with some social comment thrown in. But what for some will be the strength of The Host will no doubt be the major stumbling block for others.
Right, let's get through this review without saying "yippee kay-ay motherfucker!". Fuck and bugger. Oh well, now that that's out of the way onward and upward.
John McClaine, he's like that tough bastard frae your local. You know the one, he sits in the corner with a face that looks like fizz and it's pretty clear that his head would break a baseball bat if you attacked him with one. If you tried to glass him he'd probably eat the glass. Well replace the glass with a fighter plane and you've got an idea how hard McClaine is. Just give him a huge truck and a bridge and he'll take it out nae bother.
Let's be honest, this could have been utter baws. Bruce returning to his one bankable franchise after twelve years and adding in a junior sidekick, a daughter in peril and a ton of 24-ish techno babble could have been a recipe for disaster, especially when you add in the fact that Bruce ain't young enough for Demi anymore. The fact that it isn't is maybe the greatest surprise of the summer. The fourth Die Hard's the fuckin' nuts!
Bruce is still the man, no matter what age he is. He could show most of today's action heroes a thing or two, although not Matt Damon as Bourne, he's just as much the man as Bruce as McClaine is. Thankfully everyone involved seems to have realised this and as such "get" what the Die Hard films are all about. John McClaine's your average workaday hero, thrust into situations he little understands but ultimately gets the better of because he has to. He has to be the hero. That's what made him different from all the other eighties action flick heroes. He was never the hero by choice. That and he wasn't some musclebound dolt able to take out the entire Soviet Union with only the gun turret from a passing helicopter he's just brought down with his teeth. Through the way Bruce played him he was emotional, cared about the plight of those he was trying to save and could be identified with by any normal person watching the Die Hard films. His enemies were always smarter, better organised and better fighters. Because of that McClaine would get the shit kicked out of him, and he'd bleed. He was up against it, but somehow proved to be invincible in the end, overcoming those smarmy bastards with sheer pluck.
It's those characteristics that remain in Die Hard 4.0 even with all the modern improvements. To move McClaine along with the times he has to deal with cyber terrorism this time round. He also has the young computer geek for a sidekick. The fact that neither of these is a bad thing is more down to McClaine than the thing themselves. The plotline certainly is one of those frightening "it could really happen 'cos of all the computers" types, but by adding in a cynical old bastard that doesn't understand any of it and sets out to simply batter the baddie makes it all pretty fun. As for the sidekick, what could have been a hackneyed replacement of Samuel L. Jackson's angry black racist turns into a great sparring partner for McClaine purely because they are polar opposites.
This attempt to update while playing up to McClaine's character also proves to be at the centre of 4.0's shortcomings. Obviously the set-pieces are more spectacular than ever to the point that the whole McClaine gets through thanks to instinct and an uncanny ability not to die no matter what is thrown at him becomes just a tad ridiculous. See the aforementioned fighter jet, heavy truck, collapsing bridge sequence for a perfect example. Also by having a cyber terrorism plot the baddies are all geeks, apart from the now stock shaggable bird that can kick McClaine's arse till he uses a 4x4 to take her out character. As good an actor as Timothy Olyphant is at the end of the day he's playing a techy geek, who might be smarter than McClaine but could never take him in a fist fight. Sure neither could Hans from the original film but he was as intriguing a character as McClaine, especially played with such hammy relish by Alan Rickman. Sadly Olyphant's Gabriel is more along the lines of Die Harder's villain, Col. Stuart, just not fun enough to get a kick out of. And Stuart could batter McClaine.
So the baddie's a bit forgettable and it's a tad over the top, plus there's no white vest, but apart from those slight missteps Die Hard 4.0's a worthy installment in what must be the finest series of action films ever. And Bruce still rocks the shit, as his young sidekick might say, but he most certainly wouldn't.
Like I need to tell you this is brilliant. You've been waiting for like fifteen years for it so you've either already seen it or you're going to no matter what anyone says so just go and laugh like a trumpet, okay?
Debate point: is it better than the South Park movie?
British film. It conjures up images of kitchen sinks, Albert Finney swearing and dour Northern towns shot from the top of a hill. It most certainly does not involve explosions, car chases and homo-erotic buddy relationships. But why shouldn't it? Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg think it should.
Hot Fuzz takes a similar approach to filmmaking as Shaun Of The Dead did. Take a very non-British style of film and apply it to a British setting, making no concessions to style in the process. Shaun brought Romero's zombie invasions to London, Fuzz invites Michael Bay, John Woo and Tony Scott to guest direct episodes of Midsomer Murders, with all the carnage and bloody violence in a rural setting you'd expect.
The overriding feel of Hot Fuzz is fun. Everyone involved is clearly having a bawl, goofing about or hamming it up when they're required to act and then blowing the shit out of an idyllic town in the west country for no other reason than it's a blast to do it.
Every action movie cliche is in there, from Woo's doves to the obligatory "suiting-up" with guns scene. A big part of the enjoyment of Hot Fuzz is spotting every reference, no matter how obvious or obscure.
Of course it has it's problems, the major one being that it's a bit too long, but then again it is a movie poking fun at over-blown action epics so the fact that some of the excess fat hasn't been trimmed does make sense.
Hot Fuzz raises a great point about the nature of British cinema, as did Shaun of the Dead, why does it all have to be so worthy and dour? Scottish film especially suffers from this, note the rejection of funding for that Glasgow ninja movie. But cinema's strengths lie in its variety. It can raise some pertinent issues and make you think or it can feature a British cop flykicking a farmer's Mum. Both are great in their own ways and there is no reason why Britain can't do both. Danny Boyle has demonstrated that for over a decade, even if he does get Hollywood funding because we're too tight. Wright and Pegg have shown that it can be done successfully, not just artistically but commercially as well. We have them to thank for making British cinema fun, and for making British action films that don't feature cockney gangster twats.
