I have a new video up at youtube, on 3TFM community radio.
The links are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhqr_Fl6WdY
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KobhPElQjFU
Monday, 22 November 2010
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Recent Remakes Watched
This is me trying to get back into the discipline of blogging so this will be a slightly useless one to get started with.
Remakes. I've seen three remakes recently, one from 2003, one from a few years ago, one from this year. I'm not actually too bothered about remakes. You used to fads, such as TV show adapations, (which have fallen away recently), Die Hard rip-offs, rogue cop movies, comic book movies (still being popular for now). There's always a fad.
So there was The Italian Job, The Day The Earth Stood Still, and The Clash Of the Titans. The more recent the film, more more obvious a decline in quality.
The Italian Job was the most fun. The original is a bit better but its a fun heist movie, has the edge on the Oceon's 11 remake of a few years before by having surprises and events going wrong, as well as better jokes. Its a film that there's nothing much to write about as its depth is in presentation, in the fun of the play. Buts its a good example of a remake in that they took a few solid ideas from the first and made a film that's like the first but is not dependent on the first.
The other two remakes fail on that. The Day The Earth Stood Still remake is by far the better, even though its first ten minutes are genuinely awful. Its not until Keanu Reeves shows up as the alien that it gets watchable. It pretty much works as an alien among us film, the alien being a bit of a dick at times, which keeps it interesting. Reevies is by far the most interesting thing about it. But it truly needed a lot of script work, and a better director to succeed. (Shots seem to be very samey, which kills tension or interest.) But its simply a slightly failed remake of an over-rated original.
Clash Of The Titans, on the other hand, is a pretty incompetant remake of a very flawed original. Its one of those films where everything is effects so nothing is surprising. The film has no real characters, just cliches that wander in for a few minutes, in a series of vaguely motivated actions scenes, that are then killed. Sam Worthington makes a dull hero. Liam Neeson's Zeus makes no sense, and the film just sits there, with great mythic potential being squandered, most of the monsters being bland representations of myth. Only the River Styx and Hades has any real interest and Ralph Fiennes isn't given much to do as the latter. A truly bad example of a remake, and a pretty weak film from a director who was once promising in the action sphere, but who gets worse the more money he gets (Frenchman Louis Letterier).
Influences. I've been watching Mad Men (terrific, much better than expected) and there's a real Patricia Highsmith influence. Not just in the idea of a central character who is fake in a sixties backdrop but in the various types of unease, pretense, and developing but stunted emotion. As a Highsmith fan its good to see worked on in a TV show. I've only seen season one so far of course.
Direct to DVD. I've recently seen Universal Soldier: Regeneration. Its a fun movie. The downside is in the writing, which is clunky at times, which plot movement that's not always interesting. On the plus side, Van Damme is trying hard and is effective as a damaged soldier (I generally dislike Van Damme), and Dolph Lungren is back from the dead, and steals the movie in a glorified cameo. He also has a funny ending (Admission, I've always kinda liked Dolph, although he's better and has more to do in The Expandables). There's not much dialogue, which means its more of a stripped down b-movie, which is always fun. The best thing in it is actually its direction, from John Hyams. Despite budget limitations, the film is always on point to story, has some very good and clear action that always has punch, has good use of atmosphere. The best bits are an opening kidnapping and a section where Van Damme takes out a group of mercenaries, which is just brutal. Its got a good early Walter Hill vibe, despite the fact that its a Universal Soldier sequel (its far supierior to the original). So this is a director to watch, who should be getting a bigger budget. Its also much better directed than the above remakes. (another good Direct to DVD title is Undisputed 2)
Remakes. I've seen three remakes recently, one from 2003, one from a few years ago, one from this year. I'm not actually too bothered about remakes. You used to fads, such as TV show adapations, (which have fallen away recently), Die Hard rip-offs, rogue cop movies, comic book movies (still being popular for now). There's always a fad.
So there was The Italian Job, The Day The Earth Stood Still, and The Clash Of the Titans. The more recent the film, more more obvious a decline in quality.
The Italian Job was the most fun. The original is a bit better but its a fun heist movie, has the edge on the Oceon's 11 remake of a few years before by having surprises and events going wrong, as well as better jokes. Its a film that there's nothing much to write about as its depth is in presentation, in the fun of the play. Buts its a good example of a remake in that they took a few solid ideas from the first and made a film that's like the first but is not dependent on the first.
The other two remakes fail on that. The Day The Earth Stood Still remake is by far the better, even though its first ten minutes are genuinely awful. Its not until Keanu Reeves shows up as the alien that it gets watchable. It pretty much works as an alien among us film, the alien being a bit of a dick at times, which keeps it interesting. Reevies is by far the most interesting thing about it. But it truly needed a lot of script work, and a better director to succeed. (Shots seem to be very samey, which kills tension or interest.) But its simply a slightly failed remake of an over-rated original.
Clash Of The Titans, on the other hand, is a pretty incompetant remake of a very flawed original. Its one of those films where everything is effects so nothing is surprising. The film has no real characters, just cliches that wander in for a few minutes, in a series of vaguely motivated actions scenes, that are then killed. Sam Worthington makes a dull hero. Liam Neeson's Zeus makes no sense, and the film just sits there, with great mythic potential being squandered, most of the monsters being bland representations of myth. Only the River Styx and Hades has any real interest and Ralph Fiennes isn't given much to do as the latter. A truly bad example of a remake, and a pretty weak film from a director who was once promising in the action sphere, but who gets worse the more money he gets (Frenchman Louis Letterier).
Influences. I've been watching Mad Men (terrific, much better than expected) and there's a real Patricia Highsmith influence. Not just in the idea of a central character who is fake in a sixties backdrop but in the various types of unease, pretense, and developing but stunted emotion. As a Highsmith fan its good to see worked on in a TV show. I've only seen season one so far of course.
Direct to DVD. I've recently seen Universal Soldier: Regeneration. Its a fun movie. The downside is in the writing, which is clunky at times, which plot movement that's not always interesting. On the plus side, Van Damme is trying hard and is effective as a damaged soldier (I generally dislike Van Damme), and Dolph Lungren is back from the dead, and steals the movie in a glorified cameo. He also has a funny ending (Admission, I've always kinda liked Dolph, although he's better and has more to do in The Expandables). There's not much dialogue, which means its more of a stripped down b-movie, which is always fun. The best thing in it is actually its direction, from John Hyams. Despite budget limitations, the film is always on point to story, has some very good and clear action that always has punch, has good use of atmosphere. The best bits are an opening kidnapping and a section where Van Damme takes out a group of mercenaries, which is just brutal. Its got a good early Walter Hill vibe, despite the fact that its a Universal Soldier sequel (its far supierior to the original). So this is a director to watch, who should be getting a bigger budget. Its also much better directed than the above remakes. (another good Direct to DVD title is Undisputed 2)
Saturday, 23 October 2010
Am still here.
I haven't been posting for a while due to being busy but will start up again pretty soon. So am still around.
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Dr Who: The Big Bang
Well the first Matt Smith/Steven Moffat Dr Who series comes to an end with a terrific, twisted romantic episode, where the Doctor jumps between different time zones with a fez and a mop, fights a stone dalek (not very well, he gets shot) dances horribly but somehow saves the universe.
Its a terrifically enjoyable story, the early parts a riot of time zones and fairy tale logic, with some lovely moments of a man protecting his lover for 2000 years, the idea of a man saving himself by turning himself into a fairy story idea given to his companion when she was young, the idea that the cracks seen were the Doctor watching his past as his life ran out, of the universe being rebooted by one person's memory, of a box collapsing into a burning sun to save the universe. The tone was wonderful throughout, was full of ideas that were given with a light touch.
While all the actors were good, Matt Smith dominated as the Doctor, giving lots of energy, anger, absurdity, the fez making him look absurd and oddly grinch-like menacing.
This has been a real high-quality level season for Dr Who. What's great is that not everything is answered, leaving mysteries for the future, such as who is River Song (the doctor's future wife?) and what is the silence, both of whom have fairy tale logic and feeling, which suggests a complicated resolution to come.
Its a terrifically enjoyable story, the early parts a riot of time zones and fairy tale logic, with some lovely moments of a man protecting his lover for 2000 years, the idea of a man saving himself by turning himself into a fairy story idea given to his companion when she was young, the idea that the cracks seen were the Doctor watching his past as his life ran out, of the universe being rebooted by one person's memory, of a box collapsing into a burning sun to save the universe. The tone was wonderful throughout, was full of ideas that were given with a light touch.
While all the actors were good, Matt Smith dominated as the Doctor, giving lots of energy, anger, absurdity, the fez making him look absurd and oddly grinch-like menacing.
This has been a real high-quality level season for Dr Who. What's great is that not everything is answered, leaving mysteries for the future, such as who is River Song (the doctor's future wife?) and what is the silence, both of whom have fairy tale logic and feeling, which suggests a complicated resolution to come.
Saturday, 19 June 2010
New Dr Who episode
Will go into detail more next week but "The Pandorica Opens" was a wonderful, twisted episode, with cybermen reassembling to kill, the companion getting killed by a clone of her dead love, the Tardis blowing up, and the Doctor always one step behind, ending up trapped by the box he was investigating (but was actually studying him).
What was terrific about the episode was the way that set things up. After a very fast intro, the story settled down, like many Moffat scripts do, to a base few locations and people talking and interacting over a tricky problem (be it Coupling or The Empty Child). Slowly the problem builds, with some nice horror bits in this story, leading to a gleeful monster barrage that would do Godzilla proud, played off against more intimate moments of horror for all characters (all leading to some sort of death), as the universe begins to explode around them. Great stuff. Can't wait for next week.
What was terrific about the episode was the way that set things up. After a very fast intro, the story settled down, like many Moffat scripts do, to a base few locations and people talking and interacting over a tricky problem (be it Coupling or The Empty Child). Slowly the problem builds, with some nice horror bits in this story, leading to a gleeful monster barrage that would do Godzilla proud, played off against more intimate moments of horror for all characters (all leading to some sort of death), as the universe begins to explode around them. Great stuff. Can't wait for next week.
Sunday, 6 June 2010
Vincent And The Doctor
This was an excellent comeback for the series after the quality dip of last week. It had a good monster, who was't what it seemed. It gave Matt Smith's Doctor weird gadgets for him to have fun with while running away from a monster, and some nice moments of Doctor boredom as he studies the painting of a masterpiece with palpable impatience. Best of all it had Van Gogh, a tortured genius who can see an invisible monster.
Tony Curran was terrific as Van Gogh, depressed but not over-doing it, still human and focused enough to be a credible painter. He played well off the leads and never begged for sympathy. The episode, like an earlier story The Unquiet Dead (with a dying Charles Dickens) gave enough monster moments for a Dr Who story but was primarily focused on character beats, a dying genius meeting an eccentric immortal time lord and his companion, then developing be the story of famous man who is losing his way. Now this can go wrong. The Tennant era, for all its good points, never got the famous character type of story right, only Moffat's The Girl In The Fireplace ever truly working, and that one wasn't quite as good as The Unquiet Dead or this one. When underplayed it can be a moving story. The people involved got the tone here perfectly.
Of course it was the Richard Curtis script. Famous from Blackadder and comic relief, his script was a lot more dramatic than expected. What was good about it is that it played fair with the audience, keeping the story simple, on the people, had plot points that were developed properly and made sense, and had a wonderfully slight, short story feel.
Tony Curran was terrific as Van Gogh, depressed but not over-doing it, still human and focused enough to be a credible painter. He played well off the leads and never begged for sympathy. The episode, like an earlier story The Unquiet Dead (with a dying Charles Dickens) gave enough monster moments for a Dr Who story but was primarily focused on character beats, a dying genius meeting an eccentric immortal time lord and his companion, then developing be the story of famous man who is losing his way. Now this can go wrong. The Tennant era, for all its good points, never got the famous character type of story right, only Moffat's The Girl In The Fireplace ever truly working, and that one wasn't quite as good as The Unquiet Dead or this one. When underplayed it can be a moving story. The people involved got the tone here perfectly.
Of course it was the Richard Curtis script. Famous from Blackadder and comic relief, his script was a lot more dramatic than expected. What was good about it is that it played fair with the audience, keeping the story simple, on the people, had plot points that were developed properly and made sense, and had a wonderfully slight, short story feel.
Saturday, 29 May 2010
Dr Who - first dull episode of the series
It started at a good pace. The first episode, The Hungry Earth was fun, had a good set-up and many nice character moments. It delivered efficiently, was not the best Dr Who but was enjoyable.
And then Cold Blood, well, people were captured, escaped, captured, escape, sit and talk for a while, are captured and escape. It just felt like a lot of running around for no real purpose. There is twenty minutes of running around at the start of the episode, everyone is where they would be if they hadn't done anything. Then there are lots of dull talky scenes where the direction of every conversation was obvious and telegraphed by the situation, without any real character work. Ultimately, there was not enough story here for two parts. The writer and producers never found a way for the narrative to kick up a gear for the second half. Victory of The Daleks needed that kind of space as it had too much story for one part. For capture and escape you need dread, surprise, ingenuity to get out of peril. Here people got out of trouble because the other side wasn't very good, or backed away, for no solid reason. Repeatedly. As this is something that hasn't happened this year under Steven Moffat's command then it felt like a cheat, as the show has been intelligent in the get-out-of-peril situation. So putting all the lazy escapes into one episode is angering.
Worse was the dialogue, which felt in style like the Russell T Dvaies era, as if the story was written for Tennant. But not done very well. It felt like first draft, we'll write vague cover dialogue and then work out the real talk later. But then the filler was shot. As the first episode was good yet the second so dull, the reason for the extreme quality drop is confusing.
The direction in this second story was pedestrian. The script never gave the director much room but all the camera moves and set-ups seemed samey, and the actors never were directed towards sharpness of intent. Everyone seemed to wander through the episode.
So this was the duff one. There was some interesting moment about the over-all arc at the end and a companion died but the death should have had impact but didn't (odd, as the character was good). Next week looks moody and odd, so hopefully this is a one episode blip.
And then Cold Blood, well, people were captured, escaped, captured, escape, sit and talk for a while, are captured and escape. It just felt like a lot of running around for no real purpose. There is twenty minutes of running around at the start of the episode, everyone is where they would be if they hadn't done anything. Then there are lots of dull talky scenes where the direction of every conversation was obvious and telegraphed by the situation, without any real character work. Ultimately, there was not enough story here for two parts. The writer and producers never found a way for the narrative to kick up a gear for the second half. Victory of The Daleks needed that kind of space as it had too much story for one part. For capture and escape you need dread, surprise, ingenuity to get out of peril. Here people got out of trouble because the other side wasn't very good, or backed away, for no solid reason. Repeatedly. As this is something that hasn't happened this year under Steven Moffat's command then it felt like a cheat, as the show has been intelligent in the get-out-of-peril situation. So putting all the lazy escapes into one episode is angering.
Worse was the dialogue, which felt in style like the Russell T Dvaies era, as if the story was written for Tennant. But not done very well. It felt like first draft, we'll write vague cover dialogue and then work out the real talk later. But then the filler was shot. As the first episode was good yet the second so dull, the reason for the extreme quality drop is confusing.
The direction in this second story was pedestrian. The script never gave the director much room but all the camera moves and set-ups seemed samey, and the actors never were directed towards sharpness of intent. Everyone seemed to wander through the episode.
So this was the duff one. There was some interesting moment about the over-all arc at the end and a companion died but the death should have had impact but didn't (odd, as the character was good). Next week looks moody and odd, so hopefully this is a one episode blip.
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Changing your opinion on a film.
Its a funny thing with the Coen brothers. A year or so ago a friend of mine rewatched Intolerable Cruelty, having hated it before. On rewatch he found it to be a lot better, funnier, not the disaster he initally felt in first viewing. Yesterday I rewatched Burn After Reading. I remember seeing it with friends and being in a rage for some reason about it. Don't know why. I found the story dull, the dialogue pedestrian, the acting obvious and one-note. Basically not in the same league as Old Country For Old Men, one of the Coen's best films. Not even at the same level of Intolerable Cruelty or The Ladykillers, two of the least-loved Coen films (which I have a soft spot for). On the rewatch it improved quite a bit. It is still not among the Coen's best (its dialogue still lacks the weirdness and precision of their best), and slight compared to No Country For Old Men, but a lot better than I thought it would be. The aimlessness I hated in the first viewing seemed more interesting, as these idiots squabble and fight, ego run amuck as everyone is terrified of being found to be old and useless, now seemed interesting and true to life. Funny that.
Also watched that great old Chris Walken b-movie The Prophecy, about an attempt to stop a second war in heaven, placed against the backdrop of the American west. Watching Walken as the angel Gabriel rant about killing thousands and turning towns into salt does wonders for your mood. Eric Stoltz, always an under-rated actor (see him recently keep the annoyingly bitty but fascinating Caprica moving forward) is terrific as a lone angel trying to stop armaggeddon, getting killed half-way through. (the film is vicious in this way) Best of all was Viggo Mortenston as Satan. He out-evil's Walken, which is an achievement in itself, and is one of the better devils in recent years, just subtle and malicious, only needing words and gestures to get his point across.(But is also very good at eating angel's hearts, eating petals and placing his hands on people's shoulders in very creepy ways)
I have essentially gone through the Blackadders in the past few weeks. Wonderful comedies.
To end, Steven Moffat's take on Dr Who is still going strong by the series mid-point. The last two episodes were high-level entertainment. Vampires In Venice was more of a romp while Amy's Choice was more psychological horror with fun monsters. Of the two I preferred Amy's Choice, although Vampires In Venice had a lot of entertainment value, with the Doctor's reactions to meeting vampires "Oh this is like Christmas!" to his showdown with the sympathetic villlainess, as well as being told that he looks like a nine-year old. And of course his library card with the picture of William Hartnell on it.
Amy's Choice had fun villains, whether it be crazy old folk to an ice sun that the tardis is floating towards slowly (used two top-class villain ideas in one episode) but also had a bit more dramatic meat. Two realities, which one is real (turns out neither are), one representing the fears of the Doctor (his tardis slowly dies and gets cold, trapping him and his friends on board to perish) of that or Amy's boyfriend Rory (that his ideal village life goes insane, with all that he helps trying to kill him). Its good stuff, especially as we find that the antangonist is the Doctor's subconsious, so he's the villain.
So the series is gearing up to be the best of the relaunch for me. Hope it keeps going this way.
Also watched that great old Chris Walken b-movie The Prophecy, about an attempt to stop a second war in heaven, placed against the backdrop of the American west. Watching Walken as the angel Gabriel rant about killing thousands and turning towns into salt does wonders for your mood. Eric Stoltz, always an under-rated actor (see him recently keep the annoyingly bitty but fascinating Caprica moving forward) is terrific as a lone angel trying to stop armaggeddon, getting killed half-way through. (the film is vicious in this way) Best of all was Viggo Mortenston as Satan. He out-evil's Walken, which is an achievement in itself, and is one of the better devils in recent years, just subtle and malicious, only needing words and gestures to get his point across.(But is also very good at eating angel's hearts, eating petals and placing his hands on people's shoulders in very creepy ways)
I have essentially gone through the Blackadders in the past few weeks. Wonderful comedies.
To end, Steven Moffat's take on Dr Who is still going strong by the series mid-point. The last two episodes were high-level entertainment. Vampires In Venice was more of a romp while Amy's Choice was more psychological horror with fun monsters. Of the two I preferred Amy's Choice, although Vampires In Venice had a lot of entertainment value, with the Doctor's reactions to meeting vampires "Oh this is like Christmas!" to his showdown with the sympathetic villlainess, as well as being told that he looks like a nine-year old. And of course his library card with the picture of William Hartnell on it.
Amy's Choice had fun villains, whether it be crazy old folk to an ice sun that the tardis is floating towards slowly (used two top-class villain ideas in one episode) but also had a bit more dramatic meat. Two realities, which one is real (turns out neither are), one representing the fears of the Doctor (his tardis slowly dies and gets cold, trapping him and his friends on board to perish) of that or Amy's boyfriend Rory (that his ideal village life goes insane, with all that he helps trying to kill him). Its good stuff, especially as we find that the antangonist is the Doctor's subconsious, so he's the villain.
So the series is gearing up to be the best of the relaunch for me. Hope it keeps going this way.
Sunday, 2 May 2010
Director's Cuts
I'm doing another blog on this as I've seen two in the past week that make we wonder why studios butcher their own films so badly.
I've seen Kingdom Of Heaven and Dark City Directors Cuts and wondered why in hell they were not released in these versions initially. In both films the films are longer but feel shorter to watch, as they are paced properly, so you don't look at your watch, wonder why the stories feel like they have bits missing from them.
Dark City suffered from a terrible introduction in its original theatrical form, that took all the mystery out of a mystery noir film, meaning that you were always watching, impressed by the atmosphere but knowing where it was going. So it was marking time and then whatever they threw at you as an image made an impact but made the film seem disjointed and unsure of itself. This new cut allows the film to be a mystery, seems to have had a few more additions but importantly allows you to enter the world as it was originally intended, meaning that the film feels myserious and interesting, engaging you to follow the images. I hadn't seen it for so long that I'd forgotten some of it. It felt likea proper story for the first time, and its strange ending worked, in a way that was clunky and odd before.
Kingdom Of Heaven, meanwhile, lost about fifty minutes of story. Not sub-plots, not just character bits but mostly actual story and character elements that make sense of what is going on. Its original cut felt like an epic ruined. It aspired to be epic but had a TV-movie feel to its story-telling. No-one had weight. Now adding the rest of the story, all the characters have interesting motivations that cannot avoid causing disaster in response to others, the fights now mean something, the actual story means something. Its one casting flaw, Orlando Bloom, in the lead, remains. He feels too young and there are times when you know there's more in the set-up than what we see. But its director's cut is still a real epic and one of Ridley Scott's best films. (I've recently seen Body Of Lies, one of Ridley Scott's worst, most boring films, which had so many problems, including beign too long)
I still don't get why studios butcher their own films. People watch films for stories. They may like the story of not but why butcher the chance of people seeing the actual story, instead making it alieanating by strange tactics. All it does is make you lose money. Both of these films were financial failures. I can't help but think they would have done better if they were released the way they were meant to be shown.
I've seen Kingdom Of Heaven and Dark City Directors Cuts and wondered why in hell they were not released in these versions initially. In both films the films are longer but feel shorter to watch, as they are paced properly, so you don't look at your watch, wonder why the stories feel like they have bits missing from them.
Dark City suffered from a terrible introduction in its original theatrical form, that took all the mystery out of a mystery noir film, meaning that you were always watching, impressed by the atmosphere but knowing where it was going. So it was marking time and then whatever they threw at you as an image made an impact but made the film seem disjointed and unsure of itself. This new cut allows the film to be a mystery, seems to have had a few more additions but importantly allows you to enter the world as it was originally intended, meaning that the film feels myserious and interesting, engaging you to follow the images. I hadn't seen it for so long that I'd forgotten some of it. It felt likea proper story for the first time, and its strange ending worked, in a way that was clunky and odd before.
Kingdom Of Heaven, meanwhile, lost about fifty minutes of story. Not sub-plots, not just character bits but mostly actual story and character elements that make sense of what is going on. Its original cut felt like an epic ruined. It aspired to be epic but had a TV-movie feel to its story-telling. No-one had weight. Now adding the rest of the story, all the characters have interesting motivations that cannot avoid causing disaster in response to others, the fights now mean something, the actual story means something. Its one casting flaw, Orlando Bloom, in the lead, remains. He feels too young and there are times when you know there's more in the set-up than what we see. But its director's cut is still a real epic and one of Ridley Scott's best films. (I've recently seen Body Of Lies, one of Ridley Scott's worst, most boring films, which had so many problems, including beign too long)
I still don't get why studios butcher their own films. People watch films for stories. They may like the story of not but why butcher the chance of people seeing the actual story, instead making it alieanating by strange tactics. All it does is make you lose money. Both of these films were financial failures. I can't help but think they would have done better if they were released the way they were meant to be shown.
The Election Polls
After checking in with the Election Polls and all the back and forth with debates, it turns out that they haven't changed at all. I think its now just best to wait until Thursday and ignore them. No-one has a clue the exact make-up. It seems to still be hung parliament, which seems to be the best thing as not one party seems to have enough of an idea how to get out of this mess to deserve a true win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)