2015 So far

As usual with films there's been good and there's been bad.

The strongest films of the year so far have been Mad Max Fury Road, John Wick and Inherent Vice. Fury Road and john Wick are action films so wonderfully done that it's a miracle they were released within a year of each other. That's unusual for two classics.  Both have stripped down narratives, use clear action progression, are carefully paced and have terrific lead characters who say very little but give exactly what is needed. Mad Max probably edges ahead for its truly insane action and for having two great characters (Max and Furiosa) but both are movies that will be watched years from now with awe. Following The Raid 2 and Ninja 2, we seem to be beyond shaky-cam and into a era of great action movies.

Now to the dreck for a moment. Worst film for me so far has been American Sniper. While there are many incompetent films this one had decent work done in it yet was dull, obvious, choppy in its story-telling and didn't do any justice to its potential, that of the effects on war on the psyche of a normal man who is a professional soldier. A film such as The Hurt Locker or the TV mini-series Generation Kill dealt with the situation with nuance. this was dial-a-cliche.

Back to the great. Inherent Vice is a great character comedy, with a wonderful oddball story and unique characters. Explaining much about it does a disservice, as the film is an experience above all. It has great moments of melancholy beneath the humour, and might be Paul Thomas Anderson's greatest achievement so far, as a strain for significance that cancels what is apparent in character work  that affected earlier films is nowhere to be seen.

Let's go to the very flawed.  Jurassic World and Terminator Genysis are deeply lazy films in their writing. Neither can be bothered truly re-inventing themselves. Terminator tries a little harder but its inability to do much with its base ideas in its second half squanders goodwill from first half changes to the series lore. It could have been an interesting sci-fi movie but ends up mediocre. But it's better than the last two films in the series and at least had some momentum and recognition of the underlying sadness of the original film. Jurassic World is a mechanical sequel that does nothing new and yet manages to be acceptable to the masses. Its fine if you turn your brain off but is deeply stupid if you dont. It's a depressing film as it suggests no-one cares what they are watching and how it's made, as the execution is barely competent yet the highest-grossing film of the year so far.

Back to the good. Predestination and Mission Impossible Rogue Nation are films that won't be seen as classics but are very good at what they do. Predestination is a sci-fi time travel film that shows up how limited Terminator Genysis is by taking on the twisted logic of time travel to its logical conclusion, that it will drive you mad and then to spiritual exhaustion. Hopefully it's a major cult film in the making but I don't want to write too much about it as it potentially spoilery. Mission Impossible Rogue Nation is, like numbers one and four in the series, a text-book example of how to make an excellent entertainment. It's only real purpose is to go from one terrific suspense/action scene to the next, and they're all very entertaining and twisted, but has lots of humour, plot turns, and lots of details lesser films would ignore. It also has a great motorbike chase and opera scene, doing what it needs with a clear knowledge of what people want from it.

There have been some other good entertainments that are worth a look. Ex Machina (good first two-thirds, duff ending), Avengers Age Of Ultron (messy plot but great character moments), Birdman (Not as deep as it thinks it is but entertaining), Fast & Furious 7 (Silly, too long but loads of fun, especially in the mountain heist) and Ant Man (Derivative, with no stand-out scene, but very enjoyable). These films all have very obvious flaws but work as good entertainments.

IS MORPHEUS BEING IGNORED?

These are notes for a video so please do not take them as being a fully written piece. They are thoughts.

As the development costs of Virtual Reality, in public terms Morpheus and Oculus, are being met by gaming professionals, most professionals talking in detail about the technology are gamer based. This leads to some important areas being brought up in detail while other areas are downplayed as it’s not of interest to the reporters, due to the gamer focus.

Subjects brought up a lot are technical specs and how the technology will play for games, basically the nuts and bolts of how it works for games. In the area of power, Oculus indisputably has an advantage. Computers can be upgraded to a technical level in graphics that far exceeds gaming consoles. Essentially consoles such as PS4 and Xbox One and getting to 60 FPS while consoles are focused upon 2K resolution. That means a great deal in terms in how the systems will play, in smoothness, in how much memory the system can have, how it can expand what can be done within games. This PC technical superiority means Oculus always has an advantage, unless Sony jump to the next console generation quicker than expected. Even then, PC with its ability to swap in new parts, always has a natural advantage. Oculus should always be looking better than Morpheus

That would make you assume that Morpheus is doomed. I don’t think it is.

Brand awareness and technical interest of the masses is something that is being glossed over. This is due to excitement about the technology, as well as due to the fact that it’s still early in VR development. What we have here is the worst it’s ever going to be.

Brand awareness is where Sony has a great advantage. It sells in many technological areas, develops its knowledge with new technology, always remains in front in this area, invests in product such as films and making games. Oculus seems to have recognised that by pairing with Microsoft recently but even with this partnership, there is a limitation in reach for the masses. Microsoft as a brand isnt known to the masses beyond PC software. Its game production are cult-level at best in the mainstream. Facebook’s involvement is that of a company expanding what it can do. It’s not a guarantee nor has a base in this area with the public. Sony has. If you are going to try a new, expensive product, you are likely going to go with a producer with a track record and experience with developing new products to market-place, with a history of customer support in the area.

In technical interest Sony also has the advantage. Both systems are said to be excellent. While Oculus has PC advantage in specs, to the average person it means spending a lot of money on a computer, which is likely confusing, potentially stressful, reading lots of information on what specs will allow you to do what. Sony links Morpheus to the PS4. That helps the system, is a simple plug-in, is something the average consumer may feel more comfortable with. PC might be viewed as cooler and more cutting edge but for mass sales Morpheus may have the advantage.

Where the product goes might be interesting. While its gamer developed, gaming technology might still be limited to do anything too complicated in the early stages. KindaFunny have discussed experiencing Morpheus and have suggested that it feels more like a video experience, and that so much of how it will be used hasn’t yet been worked out, and will only be solved by player feedback after launch. Putting the level of detail into a long-term satisfying game might take years to figure out, with the advanced memory and programming needed, especially if people want realism. Games today still mainly have an uncanny valley problem on TV’s. Studying this limited type of programming on VR may be alienating until more work is done on stabilising it.  (Keep it dark in tones probably will help.) Less realistic first person shooters, space games, are more likely the best first move, to keep money coming in while graphical development is worked on.

In the short-term, gaming might not be where VR sells most, which is where I think Sony has an advantage. Funhaus recently discussed the subject and suggested that sports and concerts might be a good way to pay for VR, so as to allow paying customers to see sports events and concerts that they were unable to attend, using VR to give an experience that people would pay for. While it would take time to sort the details, a Morpheus hooked up to a PS4 is a simple way to sell this service, if there is public interest. There would be simple set-up, a simple payment method, and a consumer could easily experience it.

I would go further and suggest narrative filming would be young audience members might have interest in. If the technology exists, the blockbuster movie could morph from theatres to VR, following from the logical expansion of KindaFunny experiences. A franchise like Star Wars, Avengers or Transformers could be expanded into VR, with players being in their action sequences, and other narrative moments played out with viewer as an observer near the action. Taking dramatic lessons learned over centuries from theatre presentation, lighting, long-form story and pacing, this would not throw people off and would be a good way to develop narrative into the future.

Such development would also help pay for the technological development and help with slowly developing a new visual language that could help develop VR gameplay development, as the technology and memory capacity is improved, and interesting game scenarios are developed in to the new form abilities and limitations, perhaps merging with some narrative forms, in how a purely first-person situation would develop in a game. Such development to the public would likely work better in Sony’s Morpheus system as it exists now, with its knowledge of the entertainment market, and public trust in its ability to develop, to move with the market, and its ease in linking into a PS4. The market, if it develops, might be drastically different in 5 years, as the market follows what is seen as the best delivery service. I would say Sony has the best ability at the moment to develop with the market, and however this develops, while Oculus seems exclusively focused on one market, which are games. That may not be for best long-term.

While Sony does have mobility advantage, it being stuck with PS4 as its technology is something that will be a problem, as we cannot see how the development of the technology and demands of VR as it ramps up. It will affect how PS4 would function, as the system could easily be left behind. This product limitation will give Oculus time to adjust to market developments. PS5, if VR succeeds, is likely to arrive fairly quickly if day to day usage specs for a competitive market are established.

So to conclude, both systems have strengths and weaknesses. Any development needs talented people working on the technology. Dull product in VR in any area of development would kill enthusiasm for VR. I would assume both will make large adjustments in the next few years as the products are launched and they get practical experience in a new market.

Best of 2014

Slow year for watching due to health. Will post in a few days in more detail to what I felt of the year film-wise.

Best films
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Under The Skin
Godzilla
Snowpiercer
Map To The Stars
Captain America: Winter Soldier
Gone Girl
Downloaded
The Raid 2
Noah

Terrific Entertainments

Edge of Tomorrow
The Interview
Guardians Of The Galaxy
X-men: Days Of Future Past
22 Jump Street
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Most Self-Indulgent

Hobbit 3

Best Directors cut

Nightbreed

Worst
Trancendence
The Amazing Spiderman 2

For TV I missed many of the most praised shows. So these are what I did or didn't enjoy.

TV shows

Community Season 5
Arrow Season 2/3 that played 2014
Doctor Who Series 8
The Flash Season 1 First half.

Overrated

True Detective

Fun

From Dusk til Dawn

True detective notes

This show was well put together but not quite as original or intelligent as it seemed. The acting and directing put the story over but the writing definitely had a lot of bumps that could ahve been solved in its development.

 I had problems with the following.

1.  Plot- The plot was not as complicated as it seemed, nor very well-written,  with the central characters were idiots or intelligent depending on plot needs. Some of the acting hid that on a moment to moment basis but stepping back at the end, there was a lot of problems in this area. Most of plot was solved halfway through save for the cliched scary guy in the woods as seen from many a schlocky horror movie. The reason to why this couldn't be investigated after the initial shoot-out were never made strong enough nor was the twist to get the characters back on track intriguing. There was not enough plot detailing to allow the characters to be legitmately lost within the story or to make genuine mistakes. There was a vagueness in all of the plot writing, as if the writer knew what was expected for the gene put couldn't do it properly. In the final section there was lots of supposed mysteries and conspiracies on why they couldn't get the final guy but these were never paid off and were indeed thrown away for a cliched horror ending. The plot kept repeating information from the first half of the story but never twisted it intriguingly.  Damningly, the show attempted a Texas chainsaw meets Minatour and the labyrinth sequence, shot prettily, but there was no psychological pay-off. The final episode was a dull  and cliched pay-off of many story threads. For a show named True Detective, there needed to be a mystery to live up to the title. There was not.

2. Derivative- Every show is influenced by something else, as any art form is. The influences should be transcended. These were not. The serial killer tropes have been worked for twenty years, and were very influenced by Thomas Harris. The TV show Hannibal, based on the Harris novels, had used many of the same images such as deer heads, backwoods murder pits,  as True Detective a year earlier and had worked themes such as identity in a mad and godless world, the emotional needs in killers, self-delusion of hunters and of intelligence, in a far more intriguing way. So the subject of the detection felt second-hand. The detectives themselves were stronger in the story, and were the glue that held many of the shows problems together yet I could not help but see a Homicide influence, from the mixing of the intellectual and existential detective with the down-to-earth cop, the themes of what murder and any kind of belief in rationality means to the police or victims. This was a good model (and the even had a cop kill crook bit). But I never felt that it added anything to what had come before, and was actually simplistic in its conclusions. Themes are taken to a certain point then stepped back from, such as limits of belief or consequences of weakness, left to be a repeating cycle used for thematic point that isnt always dramatised in a way that develops the point. Instead it sits lazily. The acting and directing hides this a lot.

3. Backtracking on show in final few minutes- The show had a good start, with a lead character  who talked about theories that for a TV show were unusual. He was blatantly an atheist in a religion-dominated area. This was one of the strongest parts of the show, in its look at how people are defined by and blinded by beliefs of any kind. Yet after all the horror the show back tracks from this theme, suggesting that this anti-religious character felt something supernatural in the final moments. It was meant to come across as a moment of epiphany but instead was a betrayal of an interesting theme, of how to live a moral life without supernatural belief. It betrayed the strongest parts of the character and made most of the previous story feel cheap.  Adding that element should have been made earlier, to at least explore it. Instead here it felt like, oh I was wrong. Ignore everything I said. That's terrible and immature writing.

To be fair the show was well written in the character scenes, and placed interesting emphasis on how time affects people. The show worked best when these elements were forefronted. This was where the interest was. But the cliches truly dragged it down from top-tier shows such as Breaking Bad or Deadwood. Despite its flaws I'm glad I watched it. I just wish its better elements weren't dragged down by conventional thinking and lack of ingenuity.

Best Of Year 2013

Best of year

to the wonder

upstream colour

before midnight

passion

cloud atlas

the world's end

gravity

pacific rim

zero dark thirty

alan partridge: alpha papa

day of reckoning

ninja 2

man of ti chi

Good fun

riddick

the last stand

iron man 3/thor 2

this is the end/ spring breakers/oz the great and powerful

the hobbit: desolation of smaug

Disappointing

django unchained

Horrible mess despite surface skills shown

man of steel

star trek into darkness

world war z

So so awful

red dawn

Dr Who Series 7

It’s a shame that series 7 was split in two, as it created an artificial diversion in the through-story, which is about a man jumping between people and adventures nervously, not quite able to connect as much as he’d like, while the world has moved on around him. He is a character in these stories not wanting to have people with him for too long, nor get into scrapes with him, to be put into danger long-term by him, meaning that they’re not quite as interested in him as he’d like. It’s a fun metaphor for the character as a whole, done with a cheeky wink. This constant flux at the centre leads to a great gag in the finale where the universe unwinds and falls to darkness due to his fidgety travelling nature and the contradictions of him existing and not existing, winding back for centuries, of worlds failing and stars collapsing because of his emerging death over hundreds of occasions causing paradoxes and rips in time.

Of course there’s a lot of fun stories throughout, many of which in this series have an element of the character’s past. Its peak were with the Steven Moffat stories Asylum of the Daleks, The Angels Take Manhattan, The Snowmen and The Name of the Doctor, which were all tales interested in the history of characters and how that defines them, winding time paradoxes that trap the villains and protagonists, and lost love. (Moffat’s wi-fi story The Belles of Saint John was a bit of a miss despite good moments, being a shallow comedy bit that lacked an interesting final act). All of these stories had atmosphere, a fast pace, good character beats (marriage of and then farewell to Ponds, introduction of Clara and series villain, a companion focusing on the many faces of the doctor) and managed to be uncluttered and confident. The weakest episodes in the series attempted to replicate this mix but suffered from a lack of clever plotting and dialogue. The stronger episodes outside Moffat tended to be their own thing.

Other highlights included the Mark Gatiss stories Cold War and The Crimson Horror, which were throwbacks to old Who, specifically to the Troughton and Tom Baker eras, the first story bringing back the terrific monster The Ice Warriors while Crimson Horror was a nod to the mid-70’s Robert Holmes stories, specifically The Talons of Weng Chiang. Also impressive were the under-rated fantasy orientated Neil Cross duo The Rings of Akhaten, which was a fairy story in sci-fi setting, and his ghost story Hide, which was Quatermass inspired but worked well as a story of a woman trapped in time, which echoed the series themes. Cross didn’t over-pack his tales and made them short-story-like in plot structure, avoiding silly over-plotting.

A Town Called Mercy, Journey to the Centre of the Tardis and Gaiman’s Nightmare in Silver, had good ideas and some terrific moments (Doctor versus an intellectual killer who mirrors his own character, Clara wondering through odd rooms and avoiding zombie flash-forwards to a grisly possible fate, the cybermen and their upgrades and the doctor going mad scientist evil dead 2 fight against himself)  but could have done with stronger, atmospheric direction, more defined support in the acting of certain parts, and final act rewrites (the final acts were a major flaw for series 7). These three tales never quite landed on consistent atmosphere but the ideas got them through. They were messy and minor but likable.

The clunkers were the Chibnall duo Dinosaurs on a Spaceship and Power of Three, which despite promising elements (Dinosaurs, Doctor in real life trying to work out a seemingly mundane puzzle) threw away the charm for mechanical and fairly dull plotting. The plots felt exhausted and wheezing yet dominated the stories at the expense of the wonder the tales had potential for. They were terribly paced and Dinosaurs had the worst villain of the year (a grumpy old man with dumb robots) while Power Of Three had a final act where the writer essentially gave up and created a gibberish monster with no menace nor tie to the central threat.

 

The series was as unique and as interesting as 5 or 6, yet was probably over-all the weakest of Moffat’s run in its no two-parter policy and playing down of its over-all arc left the series a little fragmented. Asylum of the Daleks, Cold War and Nightmare in Silver would have benefitted from longer running times. The idea of the Doctor dropping into lives, rarely staying with them between stories, played with the convention of the stories, was a funny and inventive idea, yet left the series feeling bitty at times.

 

On the other hand series 7 had some of the character’s finest moments. Moffat gave the solution to the Clara mystery in the Dalek episode that introduced Clara (that she’s a voice and presence helping him escape difficult times), repeated it in the Snowmen and giving her a face to him, and then let the Doctor catch up to what was going on, as it’s a character felt but not seen throughout his life. The Great Intelligence, while not as overt as some series-long villains, was threatening enough to keep the story moving without dominating artificially, and worked as a mirror to the Doctor (as a character who dominates the lives of his companions/friends, but to a more fascist direction, while the Doctor is careful to let his friend’s escape from his influence and move on). The two Moffat-written Pond stories were terrific and atmospheric, with great moments such as the Daleks forgetting all knowledge of their greatest enemy and the Ponds trapped happily in America, with a time paradox separating them from the Doctor (the first hint of the final story in the series would be around time paradoxes). The return of the Ice Warriors was terrific and pared down, and was an old school triumph. Finally there were the images of the old Doctor’s in the Name of the Doctor, the sight of Hartnell stealing the Tardis and interacting with Clara (who points him on his way to the right Tardis to use) and finally the mysterious John Hurt incarnation of the character, which is a great cliff-hanger for the series.

So despite flaws, this was a very worthwhile series of stories.

To The Wonder & Cloud Atlas

The mainstream has been fairly weak and specifically wretched on a basic scripting level. To the side of this, the more ambitious, art-house side of medium has delivered real achievements.

To The Wonder is a major achievement. Like Robert Bresson’s later films such as Un Femme Douce and Lancelot De Lac, it has been criticised by many, even its director’s admirers, as a self-parody of an established auteur style. This is unfortunate. It is in fact a major advance for Terrence Malick, is pared and focused, is stronger than either The New World or Tree Of Life.

It’s the story of a romance that floats in and out of commitment and emotional engagement by its lovers, who are a flighty, emotionally fragile French woman and a closed off American engineer. It takes in their initial romance, their early days of living together, their split and the man’s failed romance with another woman, the woman moving home and returning to the man, an affair by the woman, and finally confused commitment to one another by both parties.

The film works on the logic of a silent film. Much of the dialogue is kept to a minimum, nothing important said outside voice-over. The characters are trapped by their inability to express themselves, are inside their limited understanding of the world, possess desires that causes them pain whether embraced or denied. The characters move through space, happy or sad, together or apart, the film felt using essential, pared movements, accumulating through a variety of emotional states.

What is important to the approach is that the emotions are not written into glib dialogue, nor is the story progression shown in segments that suggest an growing artificial understanding of the other. Each of the lovers remains trapped by themselves, each story area informing the next yet they remain apart in soul, allowing the reactions and voice-overs to allow us to understand how the lovers misunderstand one another. The film is about being apart yet somehow in love, yet not understanding the realities and the subtler inflections of these emotions, nor what to do with them. The pace of the film is careful to be tied to the emotions, the pain of the situation, of what is desired but not very well understood. All that is left is confusion. Despite their marriage in the film, the lovers do not truly become a couple until the ending. Even then this is tenuous, has issues that affect a relationship.

The film is about the inexpressible pressures on a soul yet is not expressionistic. It has a relaxed, naturalistic style, which informs the viewer through a scenes pacing, the framing of shots and people in expansive or domestic landscapes, and through the acting, which is superb and pared to the emotional essence of a character. This is a masterpiece, inspired by Murnau and Bresson, but has its own voice and sense of obsession.

Cloud Atlas isn’t on the same scale on achievement. It is an anthology story that is inter-cut rather than played sequentially. Most of its flaws are results of keeping clarity within stories that are being inter-cut, so the film does not become obscure. Therefore its storytelling and themes hit slightly obvious areas at times, there are dialogue issues, and there are segments of the film that stretch beyond the interest point. Yet it’s still a worthy film.

The film jumps between six stories, is focused upon the development of a variety of souls, played by the same actor in each segment, as humanity rises and falls. It is focused upon the personal and societal cul-de-sacs that individuals and a culture possess and are dominated by. They are based in the financial, reputation, scientific dominance, family, sexual and evolution. Most stories deal with one or more of these areas.

The film’s joy is in how the stories inter-cut. These stories are intentionally short story slight in plot but use the other stories to suggest additional weight. They have the pleasures of short stories yet they keep find the layers of how disparate stories, of failed love or rebellion against slavery, have base elements which are integral to how people express themselves from age to age, questioning how much people evolve truly over time. In the film, like To The Wonder, characters are unable to see beyond their personal prisons. In Cloud Atlas, sometimes the characters survive, sometimes they don’t. Humanity moves on, learning or not from the past. The past is finally only stories. I’m unsure if that’s pessimistic or realistic. It is an interesting ambiguous element. Certain souls played by actors seem to develop in a positive fashion while others seem to not change or devolve.

The film was written and directed by The Wachowski’s and Tom Twyker. It’s a terrific achievement by both.

New films - There shall be spoilers

Iron Man 3

This is unashamed pulp from Shane Black. There is a joy in the outrageous elements, such as men and women glowing bright and burning people, a suit travelling halfway across the country in pieces to help the hero and then mostly turning up late, and having the villain turn out to be an ham actor. It throws away major developments in voice-over in the final few minutes. It doesn’t even bother to explain the villain’s motivations and plans in real detail and that’s fine.

Outside of Captain America, this is the Marvel film most confident in what it is. It switches what kind of film it is in every act while staying in the spy genre, beginning as a hero under internal pressure, moving to a buddy bonding with a kid movie with the hero on the run before becoming a Bond movie for the final act. Yet it all feels like one story, and knows when to move on before an element gets stale. Outside of Downey Jnr, who’s more interesting here than he’s been since the Iron Man, Guy Pearce is the stand-out, playing a 1930’s style villain. He knows what kind of film he’s in and goes for it, tongue always slightly in cheek but keeping the vengeful menace in view.

Star Trek Into Darkness

What a mess. There’s a lack of inspiration in this film that’s fairly pathetic.  

It begins with a story that’s not a story, that are instead a series of twists that are not reveals as there is nothing to develop, and have motivations that are taken back. It has a relentless pace that is worked mechanically, as things occur with no space to develop or create emotional attachment.  It introduces Khan as the villain halfway through the film, which is a cul-de-sac, as they can’t kill him because he’s needed for Wrath Of Khan.

Instead the film works variations of The Wrath Of Khan but without any guts. Is Khan betrayed, a betrayer, a villain, a misunderstood hero? Everything is attempted but the gimmicks are po-faced, laboured by creaking plot devices, and are only an actor’s workshop. There’s no through-line to character and situation, unlike in Iron Man 3.  Chris Pine as Kirk is stupid throughout, being the dumbest hero to disgrace a movie. Pine works hard, pulls off far more than the script should allow. Peter Weller turns up as the dumbest secondary villain, which is no way to treat a good actor. He’s obviously the villain from the first and makes idiot mistakes in every scene.

The film is monotone in its second and third acts. It needs to literally turn on some lights as there is scene after scene in darkness without variation, where a good film would adapt visually to allow elements to pop. It’s samey throughout in a wearying manner, that every scene is a drag, where every character as a similar run-down feel.

The stupidity and dumbest aspect is that the film kills Kirk yet brings him back in a method that is set-up twice and is absurd, by giving Kirk Khan’s super-blood, so you know it’s coming yet it makes so little sense that you’ve had time to hate it before the final supposedly emotional reveal, when the hero is saved. Nothing feels earned in this film. Everything is a cheat.

The frustrating aspect of this film is that there are genuinely good elements. The first thirty minutes are strong and sets everything up well. There’s a spacewalk scene that’s no original but is well done. The enterprise loses gravity as it falls towards earth, which is great but is so brief that it’s annoying.

This is a very unfortunate film.

Oblivion

This film is fun if none-too-bright. Unlike Star Trek Into Darkness it plays fair with its clichéd elements, has variation, takes its time, works hard to have emotional content. It’s too bad that it’s essentially a rip-off of every sci-fi movie you’ve ever seen, and never quite delivers on the emotion. It cheats a little at the end and has a late studio mandated but kinda dull action scene but sets both up carefully enough so that you know what it’s gonna do but doesn’t overplay it. For a dumb sci-fi blockbuster that’s fine. There’s nothing here that is sillier than elements from sci-fi movies from the sixties/seventies such as Planet Of The Apes, The Omega Man or Rollerball, who also had dubious plot or moral aspects, gaps in logic but are well-regarded.

The best areas are in the acting and design. It’s basically a three-hander with a Morgan Freeman cameo but that is handled well and is an interesting if limited claustrophobic play on two’s company three’s a crowd. The design is beautiful and unforced, and has an aspect that has been lost in modern sci-fi, machines and atmosphere that is pleasurable to view.

So this one is a low-grade winner.

Django Unchained

This is a sign of devolving talent.

There’s no coffin being dragged, no iconic lead, no inventive villains. Instead it’s a slog with a minor Django with an obvious story, fighting idiots who won’t just kill him due to being none-too-bright. He murders people to find his wife, who he has the chemistry of “let’s not even bother with a one-night-stand.”

Jamie Foxx has been good in other films but he’s such a boring Django. He’s like a moody teen who just wants to kill people. As soon as he loses his sidekick he loses his only bit of humanity. You’re meant to be reading complexity but he comes across as Sticky Fingaz playing Blade and wishing he was Wesley Snipes. You have to assume that he’s not killed because he bored the villains into forgetting about him.

Christopher Waltz and Leonardo DiCaprio are the best things in the film. They are theatrical, petulant, stupid, have many over-written scenes but are fun. Ironically their scenes are what drags the film down as they go on for way too long in their narrative purpose for suspense, as the viewer forgets to think about the situation, wondering are they still talking. How long’s it been? An hour?

Samuel L. Jackson turns up but it’s dull work. The character never clicks into being interesting. He’s just this vengeful guy who spots what’s obvious and then forgets to kill the hero, after the hero has killed half a plantation.

There is action but its brief and lacks impact, as its ultimately quoting better films without genuine inspiration.

After the oddball inventiveness of his the Nazi-film history exploitation-fest Inglorious Basterds and the woefully under-rated Stuntman hunting women Grindhouse segment, it’s a shame that Tarantino missed on what seemed to be an obvious fit, of a revenge-filled slave-based western.

Oz: The Great And Powerful

This film is from a talent that is not peaking but moving at a steady, unspectacular pace, repeating from past victories. It’s a minor film from Sam Raimi. There are plenty of problems, from an under-developed story, a running time that’s about twenty minutes too long, to scenes that are too leisurely.

The upside is that these don’t matter so much. The film has a lead character that is intentionally selfish and obnoxious. It’s basically Ash form Raimi’s Army Of Darkness put into Oz, still making dumb mistakes that causes catastrophe for all and then denying all blame, then running away until he is finally forced to take action. That could be a disastrous character but Raimi knows how to work it, keep it funny, keep the joke on the lead character. James Franco is game to look like a fool throughout, so the centre of the film works.

Also terrific are the minor characters, from the china girl to the monkey that Franco treats like a pathetic slave in a series of great gags, to the wicked and good witches. It’s very female focused in characters, which is useful, as it gives the film different challenges and focus from the usual blockbuster macho nonsense.

Oz is realised in a solid, spectacular but unoriginal way, Raimi playing on nostalgia for the iconic Wizard Of Oz. That works as a base, with Raimi finding areas to expand upon with chases through fog, magic bubbles and illusion tricks.

It’s a good film but not at the same level as his previous film, the riotous Drag Me To Hell.

Cobra

A brief note on Cobra, as that's all it deserves. Anyone who has seen Cobra knows that its an utterly ridiculous film. Its a film that a movie star or big-league director makes at the top, when no-one says no, that's a bad idea. (sort of like The Hobbit, or Costner with The Postman).

It's Stallone's most bizarre film that I've seen (haven't yet viewed Over The Top, but don't worry, eventually I will.) The film makes no sense on all sort of levels but its at its most ridiculous when Stallone sets up his character. Its literally an insane number of bizarre tics that are unintentionally hilariously funny. He's a man with a tooth-pick always in his mouth, who drives a 1950's car with a passion that is deeply suspect, who responds to the most basic question about following the law with contempt. (The film is astonishingly right-wing). He has dialogue with his partner that is half-written and is literally gibberish. This kind of thing goes on for 45 minutes of utter insane behaviour, that feels like a parody of the cop cliches but is deadly serious. Then there's 45 minutes of dumb scenes of shooting people, which are crass, unexciting but strangely enjoyable in their demented fury.

The most absurd element is Stallone's home. He has police files in his home, which can be broken into at any time. He has a newspaper, which he places in his barbacue for safe-keeping. He eats a small bit of pizza for breakfast (which he then cuts one part of to save the rest for later). Inside an egg box he has his gun cleaner. (He cleans his gun a lot he he he). This film is a wall to wall example of an actor being completely egotistical and not noticing his own blind spots. Luckily he had a few movie bombs and returned to playing the underdog, which is the position he works best in with movies. But Cobra is one to see for demented actors at work.

Superman 2 authorship

This will be a brief posting as its something that interests me a little after watching Superman 2 but I don't think I have knowledge to write on the subject beyond what I can see from the finished film and areas I carried out basic research on.

Essentially, making Superman 1 & 2 at the same time, Richard Donner fell out with the producers as the budget went out of control (some of which was to do with creating flying effects) and Richard Lester was brought in as a go-between and potential replacement. Donner finished the first film, leaving the second partially shot and was fired by the producers after a war of words in the press. It happens. Superman 1 was a very good comic book film, with a great first half and a good second (when it was on Superman). Plot flaws aside, it had a great sense of wonder and scope.

Richard Lester finished Superman 2, and reshot a lot of the footage Donner originally. There is still Donner footage in the film (anything with Gene Hackman, some shots on the moon, bits of the end). These scenes are awkwardly placed within the film to my eyes, having a different pace. Hackman's part could easily have been cut. His look and characterisation is very broad. If the original director had remained on-board and the in-fighting had been worked out after the success of the first film, I have to wonder how much of this material would have remained.  Its by far the worst part of the film.

Now Lester shot a new opening in Paris, most of the central romance, which had a wonderful absurd yet melancholy air that is typical of the director, the General Zod versus the small town, and the major battle sequence between Superman and the three villains.

Zod is one of the iconic comic book film villains. The character is the template for this type of super-hero villain. In the first film he's a humourless thug. With Lester in charge he has a wit that's a large part of his appeal.

The Superman-three villain fight in Metropolis is still the iconic template for a super-hero fight, is still seen as the one to beat. It was shot by Lester.

Now these are two examples of Lester making good use of the material at hand, building from Donner's template. I would further add that the doomed romance and the hero being tested in the first superhero sequel is a template of most part 2's in this genre, all taken from this film. From Batman Returns to The Dark Knight to Spiderman 2 to Iron Man 2, this air of melancholy romance and the hero under pressure is the base. These plot bases were created by the writers but Lester making it work so well solidified it as the template. (The saving Lois while not giving away his identity at the rapids is an action and character highlight within the action genre)

So while he replaced Richard Donner, Richard Lester's execution and shaping of the material defined part 2's within the genre for decades. Yet Donner seems to get the popular credit for both films. This is partially to do with rancid sentimentality by online geeks, who have one story to tell and cannot acccept the complexity of the situation. Lester's case is not helped by Superman 3, which was fun and interesting but not a good film overall. Yet no-one looks into overall careers. Donner has had a fairly bland career, of mediocre genres films and sequels, very little of which has lasted. Superman is his shining glory as a director. Lester, while having a few money projects, has a catalogue of great films, from Petulia to The Bed-Sitting Room, Robin & Marion, two great Beatles films, to The Three Musketeers and its sequel. He's a major director of entertainment and interesting art films. Superman films is a minor part of his career. The third film had weaknesses due to a lack of interest. Even though he probably wasn't passionate about them, his work on Superman 2 is a major contribution to a slightly self-serious and, at the moment, humorless genre.