Review: Rock of Ages (dir. Adam Shankman)

Good grief. What to say about this near-traincrash?

I’ll just list a few things, for I really cannot bring myself to writing a coherent review about, well, this.

1)    Adam Shankman made an entertaining and smart musical. But that is called Hairspray (2007) and not Rock of Ages.

2)    The late 1980s are not a period you wane be reminded of. Ever.

3)    Seeing Catherina Zeta-Jones hump church benches in a “rock” song against rock and sex is a bit weird.

4)    Stop casting your leads from the Disney channel! These people are homogeneous bore-yawn-faces.

5)    The leads (Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta) are actually not cast from the Disney channel. But they could have been.

6)    Having been processed by the digital mainstreamenizer every single song in this film sounds the sugary-same.

7)    And, you know, it’s not like Don’t Stop Believin’, We Built This City and More Than Words were very rough, rock songs unsuitable for a conventional musical in the first place. It’s not Rage Against the Machines…

8)    For a good appropriation of songs in the context of a new film see Moulin Rouge (Baz Luhrmann, 2001).

9)    I do not dislike musicals.

10) But this one is shit.

11) It’s like a list of sometimes-slightly-connected things and songs just “happening”.

12) You’d think that Alec Baldwin as an aged rocker would be funnier.

13) You’d hope that Russell Brand as a slightly-less-aged rocker would be dirtier and nastier.

14) You’d fear that Catherina Zeta Jones as Sarah Palinesque Born Again Christian would be sexier.

15) Why is this film set in LA but shot in Miami? These cities do not even look the same.

16) Good God… Paul Giamatti’s hair.

17) Malin Akerman’s hair.

18) Everyone’s hair, for that matter.

19) Except that of the leads, who of course look perfectly 2010s.

20) Saving grace: Tom Cruise, giving it his best as a completely deranged over-the-hill rock legend. Awesome.

PS NOW I HAVE JOURNEY PLAYING ON REPEAT IN MY HEAD SINCE WEDNESDAY BECAUSE OF THIS NIGHTMARE

Review: Chernobyl Diaries (dir. Bradley Parker)

The year 1986 was the year of the greatest nuclear disaster in Human history: in Ukraine in the former Sowiet Union reactor 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear plant had a meltdown. 28 people died in the reactor, but the fall-out may have been the cause of over 4,000 cancer fatalities in the years following the disaster. A very different disaster occurred around the turn of the century in some American film schools. Young people with more ambition than money invented the genre of the fake footage, hand-held camera horror-flick.

We shouldn’t be too critical of The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sánchez, 1999) or The Last Broadcast (Stefan Avalos & Lance Weiller, 1998), because they are innovative and decent films. But they did spawn a whole avalanche of “horror” films, based on found footage, on which actually nothing could really be seen properly. Recently, this avalanche included films such as REC (Jamue Balagueró & Pablo Plaza, 2007), Apollo 18 (Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego, 2011) and Paranoral Activity (Oren Peli, 2007). The only proper exception is Troll Hunter (André Ovredal, 2010), in which we actually got to see the trolls.

What have these two things got to do with each other? Well, thanks to Chernobyl Diaries, not too much. Even though you would expect that a horror film about American tourists visiting Chernobyl, co-written by Paranormal Activity’s Oren Peli would be more-of-the-same. However, even of everything else in the film is quite middle-of-the-road and generic (in a good way) the film stays away from hand held camera footage, apart from two small throwaway moments, and has no pretensions of being ‘real’. It is just a movie. And that is wonderful.

It is ‘just’ a well-lit, well shot, properly edited horror movie. And there are too few of those around, thank you Blair Witch Project.

Chernobyl Diaries is at its best in its first forty minutes, when it sets up its premise, introduces its characters and has them wondering through and exploring the deserted town of Pripyat, near Chernobyl. Four American and two Norwegian tourists, played by unknown but pretty faces, employ a Ukranian extreme travel tour guide to show them around. However, when they want to return at dusk, their van is sabotaged and they are stuck. And, of course, not alone. And bad things happen and play out in the standard predictable fashion.

And that is all fine. The film does what it says on the package. Some of the set-pieces are quite  exciting and there are a number of genuine scares, but what appealed more to me was the uncanny setting, the sense of dread that Pripyat and Chernobyl produce, regardless of horror beasty-creatures. Chernobyl Diaries could have done without these, and it would be a really innovative film.

But perhaps it is a good thing that it is not innovative. The Blair Witch Project and The Last Broadcast were innovative, and look where that got us. And if films like Chernobyl Diaries would not play according to the rules, there’d be less enjoyment in watching The Cabin in the Woods (Drew Goddard, 2011).

Trailer Tuesday: Perfect Versailles Resident

Pitch Perfect

Dir. Jason Moore. Starring: Elizabeth Banks, Anna Kendrick, Christopher Mintz-Plasse & Rebel Wilson

Release date NL:  November 22, 2012

 

The Queen of Versailles

Dir. Lauren Greenfield. Starring: Jackie Siegel & David Siegel

Release date NL: TBA

 

Resident Evil: Retribution

Dir. Paul W.S. Anderson. Starring: Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez, Sienna Guillory & Kevin Durand

Release date NL: October 3, 2012

Little-known-movie-advice-Monday: Eastern Promises

“He Jasper, you know films, right? What do you think is the best film? Ever?” Wow. You know, that is not what I do. Anyone who “knows his films” would be able to tell you that. There is no way to argue that Jaws is better than Fargo, or Casablanca is superior to The Return of the King (well, that’s an argument I’m willing to get into). You can’t compare them. These films were made in different times, under different circumstances, with different means and intentions and different audiences. You can’t ask me which one is better.

And yet so many people do.

But lately someone asked me a much more sensible question. “Jasper, you know your films. Is there anything you could recommend? You know, like something I wouldn’t think of myself?”

Well yes there is! I mean, there are! So many! So, from now on Monday is ‘little-known-movie-advice-Monday’. And we start with:

Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, 2007)

When Guy Ritchie promoted the film Rocknrolla (2008), he said that this film showed “the new London.” Which is: the city taken over by Russian investors and mob members. This was not a new thing. The arrival of the mob in London, at the expense of the local criminals, was already shown in The Long Good Friday (John Mackenzie, 1980), starring Bob Hoskins. But in that film it was still American mobsters that came to Blighty.

The best film about Russian gangsters in London, though, is David Cronenberg’s Eastern Promises (2007). It is the tale of a London nurse (Naomi Watts) trying to solve the death of an Eastern European prostitute, and a Russian gangster (Viggo Mortensen) trying to take over the empire of his employer.

I bring it up here today because Cronenberg’s new film Cosmopolis is out. I haven’t seen it yet, and will struggle to see it in cinemas before it is going out of them (on the count of me being in Lisbon for the next week). But I am interested in it, much more than I was in A Dangerous Method.

But this is not a preview of Cosmopolis. It is an advice to go down to your local DVD store and pick up a copy of Eastern Promises. It is an excellent film. Mortensen, Watts and also Vincent Cassel are very good in it and its depiction of modern London is as unsettling as it feels realistic. It is brutal and horrific, and yet not a horror film. Which seems to be something Cronenberg is getting known for, considering abovementioned A Dangerous Method and the earlier A History of Violence (2005).

But far more important: it has roles one can invest in emotionally, and a central relationship between a man and a woman that is by no means romantic or sexual.

Eastern Promises is Cronenberg’s best film in the last ten years, and a perfect filler for an evening of forgetting about the European championships. Whether you’re Dutch or Russian…

Thursday Movie News Flash Update Blog-message

Things we’ve learned this week:

Goodfellas inspiration passed away

Woman in Black 2 plot already given away

Mindblowing: Video game adaptation of movie based on a non-existent video-game that is not out yet till November…

More Dirty Dancing coming up

Two Hannibal Lecter / Clarcie Starling television series coming up…. Two.

Review: Snow White and the Huntsman (dir. Rupert Sanders)

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hate to bring it up, but we have to discuss an issue of great cinematic importance. I am not talking about the alleged heresy of making a new film about Snow White, let alone two in one year. I am also not talking about having eight dwarves, rather than seven, in the film. Or the accent of Chris Hemsworth. No, Ladies and Gentlemen, the issue we need to thoroughly discuss is the size of Kristen Stewart’s front teeth.

Let’s face it. These beautiful shiny whiteys are too large. Conspiring with Ms. Stewart’s slight overbite they protrude over her under lip, giving her the look of a cute cuddly rabbit. If she would but smile a bit. Which she does not. Ever, apparently (proof: Twilight I-IV, On the Road). So Kristen Stewart, in these films and in Snow White and the Huntsman, continuously makes the impression of someone who is angry, pissed off and determined to get her justice. Not a nice person, in other words, to hang around with for two-and-half-hours.

So it is almost a blessing in disguise, then, that she is not the protagonist of the film. Not really. The question then is, who is? The film shifts from one character’s perspective to another’s several times. Who is this story really about? Stewart’s Snow White, Hemsworth’s nameless huntsman? Evil queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron)? Snow White’s youth crush William (Sam Claflin)? The film refuses to be about one or two heroes, but does not have enough weight and backstory for it to be an ensemble piece.

Like the narrative perspective, the tone of the film is also shifting continuously. It moves from epic battle to horror sequence and from candy-colored fairytale to gritty romance, adventure flick and social drama. It never settles. It does not know what it wants to be, or for whom it wants to be. What is the intended audience of this film? The answer can only be: everybody. Romance for the girls, battles for their boyfriends, dwarves joking about poo for the kids, a proper backstory and motivation for the evil witch for the grown-ups… If you want to make a film for everybody, make a film for everybody. Not a collection of bits, each of which will appeal to another part of the audience demographic.

Nothing good then? Of course not. The film looks great, courtesy of debuting director Rupert Sanders, who has a background in commercials. The trailer already promised us as much. Most of the acting is decent, even from the dentically challenged Stewart. It is nice to see some of the most excellent British actors having loads of fun as the dwarves. And Charlize Theron gives a stand out performance as Ravenna, the queen-witch who is by now all-out evil, but whose journey to become what she is actually sounds believable. Her role is a strange, out-of-place comment on the status of actresses in Hollywood – they are so soon beyond their expiry date. The fact that Theron plays the role is even more striking: she is the actress who had to ‘ugly up’ for Monster in order to stand a chance during the wards season.

What we expect from our leading ladies is that they remain beautiful forever. And as long as they are just that – beautiful – we don’t have to take them serious as actresses. Finally, when their good looks fade, we cast them aside, replacing them by younger specimens. We force them to sell their soul to surgeons and botox injections, to remain young by means of evil magic. Thinking of all that, Kristen Stewart should keep her teeth the way they are. The girl can act, and that is all we should care about.

Trailer Tuesday: Ralph’s Shadow Flight Unchained

Wreck-it Ralph

Dir. Rich More. Starring: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Jack McBrayer & Jane Lynch

Release date NL: December 6, 2012

Shadow Dancer

Dir. James Marsh. Starring: Clive Owen, Andrea Riseborough, Gillian Anderson & Aidan Gillen

Release date NL: September 20, 2012

Flight

Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Starring: Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, John Goodman & Melissa Leo

Dutch release date: January 17, 2013

Django Unchained

Dir. Quentin Tarantino. Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington & Samuel L. Jackson

Dutch release date: January 24, 2013

Review: Men in Black III (dir. Barry Sonnenfeld)

Let’s travel back in time to 1997. The year before had been the year of the huge success of Independence Day, a film in which aliens attack earth and Will Smith fights back. A year later Smith appeared in the unofficial sequel to Independence Day, Men in Black. A relatively small scale comedy in which aliens live on earth, and Smith and co-man-in-black Tommy Lee Jones police their presence. Men in Black was an unexpected success and spawned a sequel in 2002, which was received with less enthusiasm (let’s remain polite on the issue). And that was that. Until a third film was announced in 2009. Announced for release in 2011. Before there was so much as a script.

There not being a script, the film obviously had to be postponed. Gemma Arterton, Pierce Brosnan, Sharlto Copley and Alec Baldwin were approached for the film, but they all declined. Which is probably the reason that the main villain “Boris the Animal” (or “just Boris” as he puts it himself) is played by the relatively unknown Jermaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords). Which is probably for the better, because he is so unrecognizable under the prosthetics that hiring an actual star would have been a waste of money.

You see, if you start filming while the script is not yet finished, you are just asking for problems.

As a result, Men in Black III is a mess. An enjoyable mess, thanks to the enigmatic screen presence of Smith, Jones and newcomer Josh Brolin, but a mess nonetheless. If you are going to make a film about time-travelling, you had better make sure that you scored an A+ on you Back to the Future 101 class.You have got to understand the mechanics of screwing with the past.

Plotwise the film is concerned with the efforts of space-criminal Boris the Animal to kill Jones’ agent K before K blasts his arm off. In 1969, at the launch of the Apollo 11 missile. He succeeds, and K is wiped from future (past? Do you see how tricky this stuff can get) existence. Except, for unclear reasons, in the mind of his partner, Smith’s agent J, who subsequently travels back in time to save his partner from the attack of two Borises (the 1969 and the 2012 version).

As I said, it is a mess.

An enjoyable mess, surely, because of the screen presence of Smith and Jones and the pleasant surprise of seeing Josh Brolin do an imitation of a younger version of Tommy Lee Jones, but a mess nonetheless. There are a considerable number of half-to-whole decent jokes that produce chuckles and even a couple of real laughs. The period design is pretty cool, but not overtly in-your-face. I would have liked to see more jokes and plot turns about the race-issue that was so big in the 1960s. Now this huge theme only produces one decent laugh.

And I keep myself asking: What do you do if you want to travel back to a time in which the Empire State Building has not yet been build?

And what is the point of knowing all possible versions of reality if you’re not sure in which one you are yourself until the very last moment? Is it even possible not to know? Michael Stuhlbarg must have gone though his role as time-space bending alien Griffin with his brain shut down. Which is, by the way, also what his acting suggests.

And why did the filmmakers have to ruin Chinese cuisine for me for the rest of the year? That’s just mean.

Oh, and it is in 3D. Because… Wel… Oh, never mind.

Review: Prometheus (Ridley Scott)

For a film of which the director proclaims that it is not the prequel to Alien, Prometheus sure has a strange ending. And that is the only spoiler I am going to give you. However, the web has been teeming with Prometheus teasers, trailers and virals, which have given away so much of the plot already, that I can hardly be accused of spoiling anything.

Quick set-up: a good hundred years before the events of Alien (Ridley Scott’s breakthrough film of 1979) two scientists (Noomi Rapace and Logan Marshall-Green) find a star map that can lead mankind to its creators. They get industrial tycoon Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) to fund an expedition to planetLV 223. Having arrived with a team (including corporate honcho Charlize Theron and captain Idris Elba) on the planet surface, everything goes kinda different from what they expected.

All in all I think that Prometheus disappointed me. But perhaps that is only because I expected so much of it. I really, really did not want it to be ‘just an Alien prequel’. And in too many ways it was just that. Prometheus is a film with its own story, its own agenda and its own ideas. And although it exists in the same universe as Alien, it clearly has different themes. But Ridley Scott filled this film with direct visual and narrative similarities to Alien, without this being necessary.

On itself the film has more good than bad qualities. The casting is excellent for example. Noomi Rapace as Elizabeth Shaw is as convincing as a leading lady as Sigourney Weaver was as Ellen Ripley. Supporting roles are equally well-filled. A fantastic performance by Michael Fassbender as the android David stands out.

The film also does not back down with regard to the horror and violence. It is pretty gruesome and visceral, as a proper Alien film should be. I am happy that the studio has had the guts to stick with a 16 (R inAmerica) rating. They could have easily demanded a PG13 from Scott, considering the reported budget of 120 to 130 million dollars.

The film has its own ideas and stands by them. I do not know whether I agree with all of  them, and there are certainly still plot strands left open for possible sequels, but any film with ideas, that makes its viewers think and ponder and discuss the movie afterwards gets a plus in my book.

On the downside there is, obviously, the pointless 3D. I watched parts of the film without the 3D glasses and that was fine. And there is a strange thunderous/ethereal score by Marc Streitenfeld that reminded me of the music in Scott’s earlier films 1492 and Kingdom of Heaven (although these score were composed by different people). The music was not so much inappropriate as it was just too much and too omnipresent. Here the contrast with the minimalism of Alien is actually too big.

Prometheus is hardly flawless, and it does not live up to its hype. But apart from the hype, it is a perfectly acceptable, smart and sophisticated horror scif-fi flick.

 

Trailer Tuesday: Lay Miserables’ Premium Legacy

Lay the Favourite

Dir. Stephen Frears. Starring: Bruce Willis, Rebecca Hall, Catherine Zeta-Jones & Vince Vaughn

Release date NL: TBA

 

Les Miserables

Dir. Tom Hooper. Starring: Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen & Amanda Seyfried

Release date NL: January 10, 2013

 

Premium Rush

Dir. David Koepp. Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Michael Shannon, Aaron Tveit & Jamie Chung

Release date NL: November 22, 2012

 

The Bourne Legacy

Dir. Tony Gilroy. Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Joan Allen, Albert Finney, Donna Murphy & David Strathairn

Release date NL: August 30, 2012