Showing posts with label John Hurt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Hurt. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

"Snowpiercer" Is On Demand Right Now, So You Should Just Go Ahead and Watch It and Read This Review Later

Snowpiercer

South Korean filmmakers have been producing some great, memorable films for a long time now but only recently has Hollywood invited them to create English-language debuts.  Unfortunately, the track record of the first releases has been disappointing.  Kim Jee-woon (I Saw the Devil) made The Last Stand, a goofy (in a good way), but underwhelming Schwarzenegger comeback film.  Park Chan-wook (Oldboy) made Stoker, which was certainly a unique and interesting film, but it was pretty much abandoned by the studio.  Now, and this is the most unfortunate of the three, Bong Joon-ho (The Host) has made Snowpiercer, an ambitious post-apocalyptic film that is equal parts entertaining and thought-provoking.  What’s unfortunate about this is that it spent months in limbo as The Weinstein Company considered editing it so Americans could “understand” it (thankfully, the final release is the director’s version) and, despite the film making over $80 million overseas, the widest release the film had in America was around 350 theaters a few weeks ago.  In other words, this film wasn’t given a chance to become traditionally successful in America because it was assumed mass audiences wouldn’t get it, like it, etc.  Here’s where the good news comes in, however.  Rather than expand to theaters nationwide, the film was released on demand (for roughly the same price as a theater ticket).  While I would much rather have seen this on the big screen, I was still very appreciative to get a chance to watch it at all.  More importantly, for those of you who don’t venture to the theater very often, you have a chance to check out a unique sci-fi film in your living room.  Now for the actual review of Snowpiercer.

Post-apocalyptic movies are almost too common these days, so a film in the genre needs to set itself apart.  Snowpiercer easily does that as it’s about the last of humanity on a frozen Earth surviving on a train (the titular Snowpiercer) that never stops.  Because of this premise (based on a French graphic novel), some people might be turned away.  Obviously some suspension of disbelief is required (as it is for nearly all movies, I might add).  The logistics of how it all works could easily distract the viewer from the film, but I was impressed with the world Bong Joon-ho created.  But, if the message boards at IMDb.com are any indicator, some people can’t get past nitpicking the premise.  My advice is to just go with it.

The reason that the film takes place on a train is to allow for an easy metaphor for humanity.  Even with the world essentially dead, there are still social classes on the train: poor in the back, rich in the front.  But the film is more than just a “rich people are evil” metaphor.  We’ve seen that scenario played out in film and reality enough anyway.  Snowpiercer made me think more about humanity in general.  It made me think about how some of us go about our daily grind and try not to think about the less fortunate.  Or decide that people are simply meant to inhabit certain stations of the social ladder.  What stuck out to me more than anything is how the film demonstrates on a small scale how humanity works things out (usually through awful actions) by being only slightly nudged into action.  The conspiracy theorist in me sometimes likes to imagine that there is a small, powerful group of people out there controlling the world and causing wars and atrocity behind the scenes.  That part of me got into this film as it showed that happening on the smaller scale of a train.

The action of Snowpiercer is that of a revolution spearheaded by Curtis (Chris Evans) who has spent equal parts of life on Earth and the train (seventeen years each).  The film opens on the back section at its worst.  People are crammed into the back cars, fed gelatinous “protein bars,” and subjugated by the front section.  Their children are sometimes taken away never to be seen again without explanation.  Severe punishments are doled out for any rebellious action (there is a disturbing limb removal early on).  Life is awful for everyone, and they’ve reached their breaking point.  Not to spoil anything, but a revolution does occur fairly early in the film, and Snowpiercer becomes equals parts action film and social commentary.

 The action and overall look of the film affected me the most.  The world Bong Joon-ho created for this train is amazing.  The cobbled together living quarters of the back of the train contrast greatly with the front cars, which is probably the easiest feat of the film (just look at The Hunger Games, Elysium, etc. for more examples of extreme class differences).  More impressively, this world feels real and lived in.  There is a history of failed revolutions and trying times that is only referenced but feels present in each character.  Since the film takes place on a train, it allows for some great framing in scenes featuring the powerful speaking to the downtrodden.  You get to see all of the miserable faces while someone in power, like Tilda Swinton’s Mason, speaks to them about accepting their place in life…and the train.  All of this is and the excellent, brutal action is set to diverse music by Marco Beltrami.  It all just comes together in a unique way for this film, and all involved deserve credit, like the creators of the source material and co-screenwriter Kelly Masterson. 

Snowpiercer is my favorite film of the year (so far) for three reasons beyond the aforementioned praise I’ve heaped upon it: the absurdity factor, its similarity to the Silo series by author Hugh Howey and the Bioshock video game series, and the unpredictability of it all.  First, the absurd.  As I mentioned before, many people who take issue with this film immediately attack the premise which they find too implausible.  Defenders of the film usually state that you should accept the “problems” so the metaphor of society through train can work, but I defend the absurdity of the premise on the grounds that the film acknowledges it.  There are many moments that could leave you scratching your head (the use of a fish before a fight, a ridiculous shootout across train cars, impromptu holiday celebrations in otherwise serious fights, Tilda Swinton’s strange mannerisms and dialogue, etc.).  These moments gave the film some much needed levity at times, made the film unique, and showed just how messed up the human race could get if forced to survive on a train for years.  That, perhaps, is most important to me: showing that this world is not the old one.  A new, weird, terrible, absurd world has been created.  It’s enough to make you wonder if you want anybody to survive which is certainly a credit to the ideas of the film.  Secondly, the Silo and Bioshock series are near and dear to me, and since there is no film version of either (yet), Snowpiercer appealed to me because I found it to be a spiritual sibling of those stories of failed utopias, world-building gone wrong, and revolution.  Finally, this was a film that I didn’t have figured out early on.  Not that there aren’t movies that completely confuse me (hello, Holy Motors), but when it comes to movies about social injustices or sci-fi struggles, I can usually guess where it’s going to end up and who’s going to end up there.  With Snowpiercer, the majority of my expectations were upended by the end of the film.  I enjoy unpredictability in a movie more than anything because after watching so many, it’s easy to end up on autopilot as you watch, especially if you’re watching at home.  But the surprises of this film kept me glued to it as if I were in the theater.  So I suppose they knew what they were doing when they released it on demand.

My focus on the weirdness and style of the film should not be seen as a slight against the actors.  Chris Evans is still in action mode here, but he gets plenty of strong character moments which he handles very well.  Plus, he pulls off the revolutionary look very convincingly.  John Hurt is perfectly cast in a mentor role.  Tilda Swinton is likewise a great choice for the quirky Mason.  Kang-ho Song and Ah-sung Ko are fantastic as a father-daughter duo.  I could go on and on; the point is that there is not a weak point in the diverse cast.


That’s about all there is to say about this film (as if I haven’t gone on long enough).  I typically don’t like to write this much about a film (I like to keep it about half this length), but when I see a movie that works on so many levels for me it gets me excited about writing reviews in general again, especially since many people might not even be aware of this movie.  So if you’re into sci-fi, social struggle metaphors, cool action, or just weird movies in general, check Snowpiercer out.  You don’t even need to move from your couch to do it, either, so stop reading me gush about it, and watch it for yourself.  

Snowpiercer receives a:


Tuesday, July 29, 2014

"Hercules" Is No "Conan," but Hey, What Is?

Hercules
"Rahhh! I challenge you to take this even remotely seriously!"
Hercules brings Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s career full circle in a way.  Johnson’s first starring role was in The Scorpion King, another film about an ancient warrior.  The Scorpion King was less than impressive, and Johnson’s film career didn’t really take off until he started piggy-backing onto existing franchises (G.I. Joe, Fast Five) in recent years.  Now he’s back to headlining a story about a mythic hero, and the results are…well, all right.

Hercules has been receiving a surprising pass from most of the nation’s critics (as of this writing, it was at 61% on Rotten Tomatoes) mainly because a lot of people collectively decided to lower their expectations, which usually doesn’t happen with critics.  Perhaps it’s easy to lighten up on this film because it makes fun of the idea of a myth, allowing it to be much more fun than that other crappy Hercules movie that was deadly serious.  Also, Dwayne Johnson simply looks out of place.  He looks silly with the long hair, beard, and warrior getup.  He is utterly unbelievable when he’s removed from a modern setting.  Finally, Brett Ratner directed it, and everyone has accepted that he makes mindless, kind-of fun movies.

I’m with the critics who gave this a pass.  I enjoy Dwayne Johnson’s persona, and it was refreshing to see them mess with the myth rather than try to replicate it.  The characters stop short of winking at the audience, but everyone appears to be having fun and/or picking up an easy paycheck (I’m looking at you, John Hurt and Ian McShane).  It’s easy to laugh along with the cast at the lighter moments.  More importantly, it allows you to laugh at some of the ridiculous physical moments as well (The Rock throwing a horse comes to mind).  Overall, it made the film worth a watch. 

Although I am giving this film a pass, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have some major issues with it.  As I was watching, it occurred to me that this was Dwayne Johnson’s attempt to make a Conan the Barbarian film a la Schwarzenegger.  Hercules in this film is simply a mercenary, much like Conan, who has to help a king.  Along the way he learns about being a hero and blah, blah, blah.  Hercules isn’t truly worthy of comparison to that film because of a few key mistakes.  It’s not dark enough.  If the film decides to abandon the myth, then they should plant the film firmly in reality.  Instead, Hercules seems to be all powerful through sheer luck.  He never gets in battle formation and simply hangs out in front of the army, clubbing whoever walks near him.  Even though he teaches warfare in the film, he showcases no knowledge aside from “Smash bad guys!”  All of this would be fine if the action was brutal, but it’s all bloodlessly cartoonish and a bit boring.  Director Ratner could have easily fixed this by showcasing how strong Hercules is, mythic or not.  Don’t show a quick shot of him swinging a club followed by a faceless goon collapsing.  Add some oomph to it!  When Hercules hits someone with that club, it should be impressive, but he appears to be no better than any of the other warriors onscreen. 

I’m breaking my own rule of critique by focusing so much of my negativity on a comparison to a similar film, but it’s hard not to when there was true potential here.  That other Hercules movie (the one with a guy named Lutz in it) had no promise and thankfully disappeared quickly.  (In fact, I think this film made a joke about the title of the film at one point, though I’m not sure if that was coincidental or intentional.)  I’m still waiting for The Rock to fulfill his Schwarzenegger destiny, and this was the latest chance for him to do so.  I guess I just need to accept that the age of Schwarzenegger & co. has passed, and it is never coming back (perhaps this is best evidenced in the increasingly silly interactions of those stars in The Expendables franchise).  It’s probably more likely that The Rock will simply join that franchise than headline his own great action film.  Oh well, I can always go back and re-watch those vastly superior films from the ‘80s and '90s.


Of course, all of this might just be me showing my age.  Perhaps a younger audience will watch this and respond to it the same way I responded to Conan the Barbarian the first time I saw it.  I sure hope not, though.  Regardless, Hercules isn’t an awful movie or anything.  It’s forgettable, light fun with a cast much more impressive than it deserves.  You won’t want your money back when it’s over, but you will forget you saw it by the end of the year. 

Hercules receives a:


Sunday, April 25, 2010

"44 Inch Chest"

44 Inch Chest - Directed by Malcolm Venville, written by Louis Mellis and David Scinto, starring Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Ian McShane, Stephen Dillane, and Tom Wilkinson - Rated R (Available on Blu-ray and DVD)

This movie had some real potential, but it ended up forgettable.



When I first read about this film I was nearly salivating: the cast was unbelievable and it was written by the writers behind Sexy Beast. Did it live up to my expectations? Not really. This is not to say that 44 Inch Chest is a terrible movie, it's just not what I was expecting.

The film is about Colin Diamond, a recently cuckolded man who, with four of his friends, has to decide whether or not to kill his wife's new lover. I suppose I should have known this wasn't going to be Sexy Beast part two from this setup alone. This film is much more pyschological (though Sexy Beast does have some psychological elements). This may be considered a SPOILER, but it turns out that this is one of those films where you're not sure what it real and what isn't. Personally, I always go with the straightforward explanation. If something happens on screen, then it really did happen...unless there is a strong suggestion that reality is a bit off. There are scenes that are definitely in Colin's head in this one, but I think it's up to the viewer if the rest of the film is.

The reason it's possible to interpret the film in different ways is because Colin is an absolute mess. The film introduces this very well. The opening scene slowly shows the aftermath of a fight in Colin's living room. The camera works its way through the destruction as "Without You" by Harry Nilsson plays. The camera comes to a stop on Ray Winstone laying on the ground, a blank stare on his face. Then Colin is collected by his friends, who then kidnap his wife's lover, and place him inside an armoir (or chest, if you will) in what looks like some kind of safe house. The set up is very Hitchcockian and has a play-like quality to it as well. That may be why I can see the more psychological side.

In or outside of Colin's head, whichever you prefer, there are other characters and they play off of each other quite well. Tom Wilkinson seems to be the voice of reason in the group. Stephen Dillane plays a slightly untrustworthy friend (the weakest character of the group in my opinion). Ian McShane is the calm, charismatic, and lucky member of the group. And John Hurt is the cranky elder who expects bold action from Colin.

John Hurt is definitely the best part of the film. I could listen to his outbursts for an entire film. His back and forth with every character is hilarious. McShane is right there with him, though. He plays cool as good as anyone. His story of winning a sizable amount at a casino is my favorite scene in the film. Wilkinson does a fine job, but as the voice of reason, he doesn't get anything interesting to say or do, which is very unfortunate. I would go so far to say that he is wasted in this film.

Winstone is very convincing in this. He plays an emotionally destroyed man to perfection. It's not just outbursts and fake sobbing. It's in the facial expressions. You can see the anguish in his eyes in every scene. The film hinges on his performance and he carries it well.

The problem here is that the story is a bit boring. I guess the writers thought of this as well because the film is filled with anecdotes. It seems every character gets their own little side story to tell. That's fine, and the stories are interesting, but the problem is that the character developing side stories were far more entertaining than the main plot. I wish this film was just about the day to day workings of this group. I don't call them a gang because I'm not sure if they are a gang. It is obvious they have a history together, but a history of what? And Colin, aside from being a distraught husband, has no discernible characteristics. He's a very boring character.

As strange as it may sound, I wish this film had been more like a typical, unoriginal gangster movie. Make it about a heist or something. It can still be a character driven film without the adultery plot. Maybe that takes away the possibility of a theory or two about the movie but so be it. I don't think that this movie earns a dissection.

So the film tries to be deep. Some viewers may buy into it, but I didn't. With this cast the film really should have had a lighter tone or a sharper focus on a more interesting character. Instead, it's a passable effort with a very good moment or two. I'll be recommending Sexy Beast to people for the rest of my life, I'll probably forget what 44 Inch Chest was about by the end of the year.