Change Your Image
nigel-18854
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Star Trek: The Next Generation: The Survivors (1989)
The plot shtickens...
How many times have you sat down to an episode of a TV series and been presented with a series of deeply mysterious and inexplicable events, that intreague and intice you to keep watching? Well the answer to that one should be -- lots, because it's one of the two main narrative modes. Unfortunately creating mysterious and enigmatic plot elements is just about the easiest thing in the world, resolving them satisfactorily, well that's a different kettle entirely.
In this episode the Enterprise crew answer a distress call to find the colony at Rana IV utterly devastated, except for an eeny patch of land that remains remarkably untouched. Mysterious indeed and it gets more so, when the away team beam down to find the dwelling encompassed by this oasis, occupied by a couple of fogies, who seem a bit perturbed at the appearances of their would be rescuers.
Mystery upon mistery, what could the answer be I wonder, well it's Trek, it's the eighties, there's at least a 50% chance that it's all done by some alien with near omnipotent powers. I think in China or maybe it's North Korea, they shoot writers for coming out with such drivel.
The mystery i want to know the answer to is how does a script so simplistic, make it in to production?
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Waltz (1998)
Just in case you didn't get it fist time, Dukat is evil, evil so very evil, so very, very -- EVIL!
You know that term white witch, it's supposed to describe a person who practices magic just like an ordinary witch only a white witch is good. Oh right that's okay then, he/she being good, everything is hunky dory and we need not bother about plagues of toads and such only -- what exactly does good mean? Is this witch good all the time, some paragon of virtue, illuminating the world with their beneficence, because that would be quite unique seeing that most ordinary people don't even approach that level of consistent benevolence . We might be good some of the time, we might not but it's a practical certainty that aren't gonna be good all of the time, in fact it might be likely that we're bad quite a lot of the time.
In fairy tales we have the good fairy and evil step sister stereotypes, in reality though, it's a little different. Yeah we understand that Hitler was evil if he was evil wasn't the same true of Stalin, good ol' uncle Joe they used to call him when Russia was an ally in the war, it was convenient to label him a despot until Adolf had chomped on his cyanide pill. And what about Harry Truman, dropping the bomb, killing tens of thousands in an instant and condemning many more to a lingering death, what could possibly be more evil than that?
Real life just isn't like fairy tales, good vs evil isn't just a dichotomy trivially resolved for the convenience of the plot, it's something we confront every day. There's the casual deceit of politics and the media, the ever present hypocrisy of public life, and the petty conflicts and drama of our own personal lives, all can be viewed as conflicts between good and evil.
I could go on but you get the general idea, while the concepts of good and evil are intrinsic to a lot of drama they tend to get stylized and assigned to specific roles. It's a case of black hat/white hat or in the case of Deep Space 9 Cardassian/Bajoran. To be fair there was some attempt to explore the grey areas of morality with the Federation vs Marquis conflict portrayed in TNG, but they couldn't quite get it done right. The Marquis were optionally stereotyped as either idealistic dupes or irresponsible rebels for the convenience of a particular plot.
The stereotyping continued with DS9, the Bajorans had suffered a long occupation, ruthlessly imposed by the despicable Cardassians. The occupation was portrayed as something like the Belgian rule of the Congo crossed with German occupation of France in the second world war. Rapacious exploitation of resources and labour along with mindless repression and spontaneous acts of barbarism. A tale of woe and misery indeed but happily all this his behind them because now the Federation is here all is sweetness and light. Yeah because that happens all the time in the real world when a repressive regime is overturned don't it? All was proceeding as expected in DS9, with the writers and script editors working a rich vein in the stereotype mines and then along comes Mark Alaimo and his portrayal of the character Gul Dukat...
It's still difficult to try and understand what happened but somehow, no matter how hard the writers tried to write him as lame caricature, Alaimo managed to make the character of Dukat resonate. They'd make him pompous, arrogant, deluded, foolish, randy as a coot, licentious, vein, oafish, murderous and Alaimo would just stride through the role and make it work. So DS9 became the Mark Alaimo show whenever his character featured in an episode.
I imagine his was not a circumstance that was particularly well appreciated in Trek town as it's pretty evident that Watlz is an effort to hammer a nail through the heart of Dukat's fan appeal. Well they pretty much succeeded, turning him into a gibbering imbecile, ranting his malevolence in terms so literal he may as well be wearing a badge with the word 'evil' printed on it. Of course in doing so, they pretty much threw the show's credibility, which was pretty low already, into the deepest part or the ditch.
Star Trek: Voyager (1995)
The BIG lie
So you're you find yourself in dire straits in the midst of the delta quadrant being pursued by a deadly foe bearing down on you about to strike a deadly blow. If that doesn't seem bad enough, your find that as captain of the Voyager you're lumbered with a wholly unrealistic moral imperative to uphold the -values- of the federation, these being peace love and vegetable rights. All seems hopeless and you and your crew are about to come to sticky end when at the last desperate moment a thought occurs and your summon all your determination to issue the order, 'Target their weapons array'.
With that single command a flurry of activity ensues accompanied by special effects and reaction shots. Instantly your troubles evaporate in a spectacular plot convenience. Thanks to god (or maybe the script editor) that the principles that govern star ship engineering dictate that all weapons are located in a discrete area that is trivially targetable by your most effective weapons fire, while concurrently leaving all personal upon said star ships, unharmed, leaving your morals and your noble sensibilities immaculately intact.
And that's he problem with all the TNG trek related series, they foster the lie that force can be applied as a rational means to resolve conflict, without harm, hindrance or any other negative consequence for anyone. Oh yeah -- well go tell that to the families of the staff working at the Belgrade Radio and Television headquarters in 1999. Voyager is the most egregious offender in this regard of the TNG era series. By the time Voyager came along the conventions had been so engrained so rigorously that you can schedule the utterances of stereotyped lines. There'll be a 'Target their engines' at the end of the first act, a 'see if you can get a transporter lock...' in the second act, the list goes on...
Of course this kind of thinking got a severe kick in the teeth after 2001, unfortunately instead of a adopting a more realistic attitude towards conflict and war, the response has generally been towards an apologetic tone, seeking to justify and even obfuscate them.
Stargate SG-1: Beneath the Surface (2000)
They live...
We find our heroes displaced to what appears to be a brutally utilitarian industrial context. With no recollection of their prior existence they're condemned to a life of drudgery and servitude, sustained by the most meagre rations and living with the most basic comforts, does any of this sound familiar? Well it should do, it's a plot that's featured in Farscape and Star Trek Voyager for starters and if memory serves, wasn't there something like this way back in the seventies in the original BSG?
But the resonance goes beyond the familiarity of the plot for the thematic focus of this episode is a concept that has become one of the cornerstones of science fiction literature and drama, that is the concept of false consciousness. They Live, The Matrix, Dark World, City of Ember they all examples of plots focused on false consciousness, which is the notion that, your reality can be manipulated through deception, until it is so remote from actual reality, that you can be conditioned into virtual slavery. Generally when you explain it like that, people baulk at the idea and laugh it off while muttering 'conspiracy theory' under their breath.
Once the seed has been planted though, it doesn't take long before those first inquisitive leaves of inquiry attentively poke through the soil and they're back asking, 'what exactly do you mean false consciousness?' I tell 'em it's like the card game you thought was honest but turns out to have been fixed, you were labouring under the notion that you were unlucky instead you were being robbed. And so it is your daily lives an example being: the rapturous reception those living on a minimum wage give to the news that they're getting a pay rise. Only to find that in six months time not only are they're struggling just as hard to make ends meet and the little they have put aside is now virtually worthless because, surprise surprise, their wage rise coincided with a drop in interest rates.
That's why the idea of false consciousness finds such resonance for audiences, that's why authors and script writers find it such a compelling topic because it's REAL.
So if this is all so familiar and the script has been done before, why have I marked this episode up with eight stars? Well it's the good ol' SG1 magic, not only is the script so much better than the usual SFTV standard, lots of nuance and detail but it's the cast, they nail it just right. When I first encountered SG1, I thought McGyver, are you kidding? and to be sure it did take them a little while to work out the wrinkles but by season four it's as smooth as silk.
American Splendor (2003)
The man who didn't sell out...
You know how the world is divided into two sorts of people, there's yer notable people, yer film stars, TV celebs, racing car drivers, fashion models etcetera along with some not so narcissistic compatriots, but none the less fabulously wealthy individuals who comprise the people who actually matter. Then there's the other sort of person, which is everybody else, i.e. you and me, probably everyone in your family and everybody you know, the people who don't matter or at least that's the way it's presented in the media. Well Harvey Pekar was one of those in the second group but what made Mr. Pekar special, is that he didn't do what everyone else from the second group does when that celebrity obsessed media starts to take notice of them, he didn't sell out.
I don't know what it is that's so appalling about being ordinary, after all we do have the advantage of being able to express ourselves honestly and live our lives free from hypocrisy, even if many of us chose not to do so, but it seems that given the choice, pretty much all of us will give that up and hop on the groovy train with not a moment's hesitation. It happens every time, in politics or entertainment, every time a local boy/girl makes good, we think, at last someone to stand up for the ordinary guy and maybe for a little while that's the way it seems. Then the first signs of sell out appear, it starts with some ostensible virtue signalling, then it progresses to outright betrayal as the lately beatified berate and pour their disdain upon those who were so recently their compatriots in ordinariness. Well Harvey's the guy who didn't do that, even though it seems he had every opportunity and motivation to do so.
I came back to this film after seeing it soon after it was made but my recollection of it was more than a little floored, for some odd reason I thought it was bout Robert Crumb, even though he barely feature in the flic. So when I re watched it all my expectations were a bit jumbled, so watched it again, then I noticed it was even more entertaining the second time of watching. Ah what we have here is something deep I thought and for a while, about a week, watching this flic became a kind of habit. A habit in the same way an addiction is habit forming, the chief draw form me was Paul Giamatti, he's just so watchable throughout the film. He's expressive, sometime subtly, sometimes not, sometimes he looks so much like a caricature you think he's rendered himself in ink like the images of Harvey Pekar in the film. Of the other members of the cast, I found Judah Friedlander and Earl Billings to be the most compelling. Hope Davis on the other hand I think was miscast although, I think she got an award for her role.
Harvy Pekar himself is also something of a compelling character and I've been meaning to track down the comics this film is based on but there's a little bit of reluctance too. I enjoy this film so much, what happens if I hate the comics, will that revelation ruin it for me? Perhaps I should leave the comics till I get bored with re-watching this film.
Scrub Me Mama with a Boogie Beat (1941)
Cartoon short becomes hate crime
A lively score, matched to a saucy and humorous narrative, an unassuming yet charming cartoon short, what could possibly go wrong? Yep Scrub me Mama... is not just an above average cartoon of it's era, it's one of the best, it's for this reason it received a whole lot of attention. Unfortunately a lot of that attention was from a people, some of them quite earnest in their conviction, that this cartoon was a source of unmitigated evil.
Racism, the violence, the misery and destruction that flow from its propagation are not to be taken lightly so it's not unreasonable for people, reasonable people that is, to act with a certain caution when they're informed that something is racist. It's also prudent to be aware of apologists seeking to justify something that supports their own malice. So when faced with an entity like the continuum between Scrub me Mama and its reputation, and the dichotomy that, that represents, I find myself posing a number of questions.
Q. Is Scrub me Mama... intrinsically racist?
A. Probably not.
Q. Were those who made it racist?
A. Probably yes.
Q. Is it harmful?
A. Depends...
To expand on those answers, I don't believe anyone making the film set out to denigrate and humiliate anyone of any particular race. We might find the caricatures offensive or not, but such interpretation is culturally derived, if we're taught or conditioned to believe something is offensive it become offensive. And that reaction is real, yes there might be a certain degree of feigned injury from some but on the whole, those who take offense are genuine about their feelings. Likewise, the gleefulness from those who see a portrayal that they perceive to support their own prejudice, is also genuine.
I get fed up with arguing about my second answer, yes people who inhabit a racist context are racist, it's inescapable I'm afraid. No it's not a matter of choice but then again it doesn't mean you're irredeemable either, it just means that you largely reflect the attitudes and beliefs inherent to your social context. Then again though, there are remarkable individuals who swim against the tide. The bad news being, the overwhelming likelihood is that you're not one of them but you wouldn't want to be, those people generally don't have a good time.
So is it harmful? Well that -depends- don't it, in a mature enlightened context it's as innocent as a slice of jam sponge. In a divide society, riven with injustice and ignorance, it could be thoroughly toxic.
My feeling is that the controversy surrounding this short film is mostly counter productive and worse, it's self perpetuating. The greater the outrage expressed, the greater the abhorrence at its portrayals becomes. That's a problem for one particular reason, it puts caricatures of particular races beyond the pale, in other words, puts them beyond the bounds of social acceptance, and that's when they can become weapons. From there one of two consequences are likely to follow, either an aura of otherness is generated about those deemed untouchable through caricature or, all caricature become unacceptable. I don't think either of those are particularly happy outcomes because A: I'm rather fond of Dick Van Dyke's cockney sparrow and B: trust me, otherness is just not a good idea.
Play for Today: Comedians (1979)
Epitomises the reactionary view of Play for Today
Michael Gove described the Play for Today catalogue as '...exercises in viewer patronisation,' it seems he doesn't let his status as an ex minister for education hinder his propensity for inventive grammar. Although I would say he's probably on the money for about half of the scripts aired as a Play for Today, the rest can be divided half and half between middling and reasonably good. So about 1 in 5 scripts are reasonably watchable. Comedians though is firmly ensconced behind Gove's 'patronisation' barricade.
You're only gonna get anything out of Comedians for one of two reasons: 1 the script massages your own political prejudice. 2 your interested in examining an extreme example of political prejudice being indulged. Essentially the premise behind the rationale being promoted by this script is exactly the same one that's been foisted upon the masses since they started prancing around in masks in Athenian amphitheatres. That being, that all this story telling malarkey, entertainment for the common man and his misses etcetera, is dangerous and must be controlled. Except that with Comedians, we're left to infer a motive for control as we're fed a succession of exclamations of woe at the pitiful state of the comedic art.
Oh those poor working classes, if only they'd stop taking the piss out of each other.
Yep this is patronising all right, paternalistic too but you discover, it is curiously consistent in the way -the message- is conveyed. I then realised that it's consistent because it is inspired directly by Marxist ideology, which I can tell you has been mulled and hammered out, over many decades. In the Marxist church, personal expression must be controlled, in the same way that Marxism's predecessor controlled it through moral prescription. So in the old days, you were prevented by expressing your desire to shag the squire's daughter because it was immoral whereas today it's politically incorrect. Did you see that, not immoral, just incorrect. Who decides what's immoral, God? I dunno maybe, but I suspect it's more a question of norms derived through a social consensus. Who decides what's incorrect? Why professor Marx of course and his and his army of capriote adorned drones.
And so the script progresses and we come to the point where it has to say something positive, if having fun is evil what are we supposed to laugh at instead? Well the answer turns out to be nothing, instead you're supposed to be agonising over the fate of the proletariat and the injustice of it all. Right up to the point the revolution happens at which point instead of rejoicing, you commence bemoaning the legacy of past injustice.
It's not too much of a surprise when, as the drama comes to a close, it all ends up in Lower Silesia. Because somehow, the thought of an agonising death in the gas chamber for so many innocent people, is ironic. Yeah well -- the only thing I have to say about that is -- tenuous!
So whodathought that Michael Gove and I would agree on anything?
Taxi Driver (1976)
Final notable film of pre Star Wars, cinematic era
Right let's get some context going, there are two pieces of history you should be aware of to understand the social conditions in New York and the greater US when considering this film. The first is the New York fiscal crisis, that came to a head in 1975 and continued through the late seventies. The second is the impact of the Vietnam war and particularly the My Lai massacre on the collective American psyche.
Both of those topics are too weighty and complex to do justice in something as trivial as a film review, so you're gonna hafta do the footwork yourself. And no, they didn't teach 'all that' at school because what you learnt there was the tripe they feed you so you grow in to a compliant citizen.
-*-
This one of those films that's actually as deep and complex as it's often touted to be by those half wit film critics who're so easily bluffed by pseudy film makers. It's like this through a combination of circumstances, Scorsese delivers a narrative that is filtered through the audiences own imagination that is implicit rather than revealed through exposition. It works because of the rare commitment of De Niro and others, presenting a narrative open to interpretation.
That's not a particularly rare device in film making, Mike Leigh is does that a lot, the theory goes: you give the audience realistic but nebulously defined characters, if they're real enough we, the audience, can project on to those characters, by such means we're able to relate to them. But Scorsese's narrative is also stylised, he bookends the narrative, with the image of a mutilated hand conveyed by different characters who're the mirror image of each other, Tom and the Mafioso. Iris and Betsy they're the same but different, they're not victims but in places they don't want to be both seduced by someone unscrupulous, the pimp and the dissembling politician. We're forced to examine both ends of the social scale, the child abusing pimp and the indifference of the privileged ascendancy.
Travis is a character who it seems is persistently passing judgement on others, the junkies, the pimps etcetera but is that what's really happening? He buys his guns from Easy Andy and kills a thief without reflection He's a man in deep trouble, in need of help but he finds himself alone, isolated from any means of assistance. The weeks or months of insomnia are taking their toll, this sleeplessness is it something to do with Vietnam? And why have his workmates dubbed him Killer?
Hero or villain, it's all about perspective, kill a politician and you're a bad boy, do the same to a pimp and you're a hero. The fact that the politician probably did more to facilitate the evil inflicted by the pimp is lost in the narrative, now there's a social critique to ponder.
-*-
Finally for some reason I find confusion often expressed about the language used by the interviewer when Travis applies for the job as a driver, ie: 'If you're gonna break my chops, you can take it on the arches. Understand?'. Let me explain, having your chops broken, is something an underling might experience when being admonished by a superior, the interviewer is being slightly ironic here as he transposes the roles. 'Take it on the arches' is a reference for the administration of corporal punishment during the intuition of slavery. Slaves would have their feet beaten with heavy sticks, so that they would continue to suffer pain as they tried to walk on their feet. The interviewer is literally telling Travis to, beat his feet.
I, Robot (2004)
I have some nice shoes to show you
I Robot isn't that bad flick, it does some things pretty well but unfortunately along with the good bits the makers of this film decided to deliver a huge kick in the teeth to its audience. Yes I'm talking about he Converse product placement, it is so obtrusive it's almost like it's intended to satirise the Hollywood practice of sprinkling brand names throughout film productions. We get a big dollop of Audi too but that's handled a little more conventionally.
It's a Will Smith vehicle because he was a huge draw back when this flic was made and as a consequence there's no much room for anyone else in the picture except for -- wait for it, Shia LaBeouf. Yes unfortunately as well as the aggressive product placement, this film suffers from, -is there a part for Shia LaBeouf- syndrome. Thankfully Shia's involvement is brief but let's take a moment to congratulate his agent because that man/woman really does deserve the, Best Representation for a Marginal Actor Oscar.
Anyway back to the flick, Will does his thing showing off his pecks, abs etcetera, as well as giving the gays in the audience a scene of him showering naked early on. While I don't begrudge our fruitier brethren their eye candy, it's not really my thing and the sight of Wills huge hairy arse, even if it is tastefully silhouetted, is fairly disturbing. As the narrative progresses we see Will dominating every scene, he's always got some dazzling repartee, quip or eccentricity to exercise for the benefit of his fans and while this might work for those who adore him, it doesn't make for effective drama. We do see him on at a disadvantage in two scenes but they are literally solo efforts with no other characters present.
The cgi is pretty good, there's quite a nice swarm of robots slithering towards our heroes as they reach the climax that's quite effective and Alan Tudyk (that's really his name and shouldn't it be pluralised?) gives the robot a certain amount of character. As I mentioned It's not really a bad flick but to really appreciate it, you need to be a Smith fan.
One major point of contention I'd like to raise is the script's attempt at exploring the issues raised by synthetic brains and robotics, ie that of consciousness and freewill. This is attempted mostly through James Cromwell's character, who from beyond the grave delivers an oration that mentions 'random segments of code' and 'unexpected protocols'. Uh, where did they get that twaddle from, the scriptwriter crib it from Windows NT blue screen. Honestly it's so asinine it's beyond belief, yet they actually reiterate almost the entire speech later in the film, as if it was something to be proud of. Come on people, if you're gonna flirt with such questions at least think about it for five minutes so you don't come across as complete idiot.
King Arthur (2004)
Ah, the unmistakeable odor of rotting herring.
This film stinks so bad it would curl the toes of anyone passing within thirty yards of the cinema. Ugh -- where do I start, I mean the script is bad, it's not just that it's clunky, the actors seem to have trouble taking their lines seriously. Just take a look, this is the protagonist's set piece preamble to the climax:-
'I came to see your face so that I alone may find you on the battlefield. And you would do well to mark my face, Saxon, for the next time you see it, it will be the last thing you see on this earth.'
And Owen delivers it with all the sincerity and depth of barrow boy hawking rotten pears to a bunch of nuns.
Stellan Skarsgård on the other hand fairs much better, in fact he and his fellow Saxon role player, Til Schweiger are the best part of this film. They're kinda like a dark age Darth Vader and Luke, only Darth has his whelp firmly under his thumb in this iteration. They're such a relief from the ham and tedium of this film that I got to rooting for them, even though I knew they were doomed by the dreary predictability of the plot.
What else do we get, oh yeah warrior wimmin in dark age bikinis felling Saxons at a distance with their prodigious bow skills, yeah maybe if they were built like East German shot putters. Some new age hokey pokey with Merlin being portrayed as some kind of mystic shaman. I suppose we should be grateful that at least they got the woad right and it doesn't repeat Braveheart's Titanium white travesty.
So why four stars instead of two or one, Stellan Skarsgård's performance is pretty good and that needs to be recognised and if you're about twelve this might be a pretty cool flic with, swords, chics, fighting, death and peril aplenty.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
The Wrath of Coin
Okay so let's rewrite the Wrath of Khan into the new continuity, only now instead of Khan being a potent Asianesque type he's an effete, possibly gay, Englishman. Nothing about the plot makes sense, especially since the post Nero continuity is supposed to diverge from the old continuity at the destruction of the Kelvin, so how the philippin eck does Khan go from being brown to a snowflake?
Well the answer is that the folk who made the flick, don't actually care about continuity it's just a franchise, like the one at the front of the picture house selling hot dogs, popcorn and fizzy drinks with too much ice at inflated prices. It's just about the coin.
Revolver (2005)
Stylish but Insubstantial flick
In some ways Revolver is an impressive feat of cinema but it falls someway short a the flawed masterpiece and that is because of the totally -- and I really do mean totally, vacuous reasoning behind it. This vacuum is epitomised with a single quote form the film that is uttered by a none the less pretty cool character of Lord John, 'Beauty is a destructive angel', yeah wow deep man it's like -stop hitting me them negative waves Moriarity-. This offence is compounded by the senseless obscurity the script employs to -not explain- the meaning behind the plot. There are arcane reference to cabalistic ritual and ideology, portentous epigraphs rendered in a humanist letter form san-serif font, references to the board games chess and snakes and ladders, the number 32 recurs at intervals and to top it all a pseudy attempt to tie this all to quantum mechanics.
Now being cryptic is no bad thing in itself, it's a legitimate device often employed throughout fiction and drama to allow the reader or audience to make their own discovery, so they experience a sense of revelation or if you want to be a little pretentious - epiphany, when it all falls into place. It's also fun to exercise a little thought when a certain ambiguity allows the audience to project their own meaning, it helps the audience to relate their own experiences and engenders a sense of empathy. The thing is though, it's all about degree and when you have to wade through all the smoke, mirrors, lark's tongues and bloody hubble bubble toil and trouble Revolver throws at you, you better have some bloody worth while revelation at the end of it all and there isn't -- it's just some pantsy new age gobbley gook. It's exasperating when there's so much material about for a modern satirist to dig into, the hypocrisy and mysticism of modern western culture and all we get in Revolver is the equivalent of bloody joss sticks and fortune cookies.
Right now, that's the hate done with what's good about the film. Well despite the crap thrown at him by his critics, Ritchie is actually quite good at his job and you know despite my reservations about The Message, it is actually quite nice to see a film maker given a bit of slack on his tether and let's not forget, my reservations are just that -- mine, you'll find plenty or reviews here who have a more positive perception. There are some beautiful executed tableaux, the previously mentioned '...destructive angel' scene being one of 'em. Good performances from a bunch of actors who've never been pressed by a director before, Ray Liotta alone will knock the wax out of your ears.
In truth, I kinda hate and love this film, which I suppose is some kind of achievement, this is one you have to see for yourself to make your own judgement.
Edge of Darkness (1985)
Innovative tv drama that has stood the test of time
If you not used to the 1970's 80's television production standards Edge of Darkness might seem a little threadbare. Indeed it's a source of lament that the kind of rough and ready 16mm film stock shoots that they used to get away with back in the 80's is no longer deemed acceptable. Yeah I will admit that the camera shake evident when Craven is driving the Porsche in the final episode goes a little too far in terms of grittiness, on the whole though, the shooting style works to throw the actors performances into relief, it's a kind of content over style kind of deal.
The script is realistic, gritty, grounded in the politics and events of this drama's era but there's also a hint of mysticism in Troy Kennedy Martin's work. The protagonist is depicted engaged in conversation with his deceased daughter and we're not sure if he'd deluded or experiencing a supernatural event. If he's deluded then it's a neat trick to get the audience to experience his delusion with him. The plot takes a twist half way through the narrative with the script more or less pointing out in literal terms that the resolution you were expecting isn't going to happen. A bold move indeed but I can't help but suspect that this might've been an afterthought interleaved into the script to support the final edit. This omission is the only reason I've marked it down to 9 stars because for me it's a significant void in an almost perfect drama.
Things to look out for are Bob Peck of course and an excellent performance from Joe Don Baker that makes Darius Jedburgh a vivid and complex character that jumps out of the screen.
Firefly (2002)
Some bad, quite a lot of good
Firefly - it is pretty good, it's just that it's also quite annoying too. It's good because it has a decent premise, it doesn't get preoccupied with gobbledegook, it doesn't have 'hard science' pretentions, it has a space craft interior that looks like it could actually fit in the exterior, it has a cast of good actors and some of the scripting ain't too bad. It's annoying - well because it just falls short of so much of its potential, mostly because it takes the well trodden option whenever the plot hangs on a dichotomy. There's also a bit of problem with the cast, they're great as individuals it's just that, they're just all so bloody pretty I mean take the chicks Gina Torres, Jewel Staite, Summer Glau they're all top notch babes. Then we get to Morena Baccarin... are you kidding me, no one that gorgeous should appear on a television show without a public health warning. What about the guys then, a crown of ruff tuff desperados surely. Er no, what we get is a bunch of male model types, not a broken nose or cauliflower ear in sight.
My comment about the plots taking the easy option is also true of the character profiles. Take Inara for instance, she's a courtesan, that is a person who, er... entertains people, mostly men, for financial compensation. Ooh that's a bit risky you may think and while that is true, it's just that her story is steeped in stereotype. There's no attempt at insight into the life of such a character, instead she's envisioned as a high class hooker, see what I mean about unfulfilled potential? Jayne's another character who gets the stereotype treatment, he's the hard man of the outfit, so of course he's an uncouth idiot. Then there's the vicar struggling with his conviction, a troubled war survivor, the wacky oddball who flies the plane (seriously have you actually met any real pilots, they're dullest farts ever).
These gripes and a few others aside, I do still quite like firefly so it' a shame that it cancelled, the film Serenity - well it's kind of okay, it's just that the continuity with the series seems tenuous on occasion.
The Divide (2011)
The post apocalyse--again.
The big problem with this flic is that it raises expectations of an action orientated narrative in the first act but then it doesn't just leave this element unresolved, the plot reverts to a Raft of the Medusa scenario. What we're left with is Five Go Loopy in the Basement (yeah I know there are eight). You know the kind of thing: there's no or little food, a couple of the guys start to go knutz blah, blah, et cetera, et cetera.
Quite why people get the notion into their head that another, look at the monkeys as they degenerate into barbarism while struggling to survive isolated from civilization, plot is a scintillating prospect for an original script is baffling in the extreme but there you go, it happens and with depressing regularity. Having thoroughly stuck the boot in, I must say that the performances are pretty good in this flic which is something of a consolation at least.
The Outer Limits: Lithia (1998)
Never mind the bollocks...
Imagine submitting a script, the central theme of which were some ill conceived and self serving generalisations commonly held by ignorant men about women. This script wouldn't just be an example of stereotyping but a fully rounded rationalisation of prejudice, depicting woman as universally incapable of functioning independently, habitually stupid and selfish. What do you think the reception for that script would be, be honest, it's never going to fly is it?
Oddly but I admit none too surprisingly, the same isn't true if you simply transpose the gender roles. Yep you can get away with rendering bigotry on screen if you just take the time to select the -correct- subject matter. What's even odder though, is just how blithely this particular example negotiates this hypocrisy so un-self-consciously; there's not even a perfunctory attempt to qualify the crass reasoning it presents.
And this is where the paradox arises, the narrative presented is so crass and objectionable that it actually turns out to be quite an effective (probably unintentional) satire on feminism.
Apocalypto (2006)
Yeah, it's a pretty good flick.
You know how films centred around ancient or distant cultures always seem to be subject to a Hollywood projection? It's an attitude, a pervasive contrivance and adherence to trivial convention that kills any sense of credulity about the film. Well this film doesn't have that, in fact what it has instead is a whole lot of novel thinking about the way its narrative develops and how it is conveyed.
That's not so say the film doesn't have its touch stones, for instance the Tapir scene early in the film, acknowledges well trodden proverbial ground as does one of the major plot points of the film. Thing is though, these incidents are woven into the narrative as a means to connect with the audience not tagged on cos the writers ran out of ideas.
The other thing this film has is immersion, it's remains believable throughout, whatever is happening on screen. That's impressive because some of the action scenes would stretch credibility in a less well crafted context.
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
Tell that to the marines
A hagiographic fictionalisation of the hunt for Bin Laden and raid on his compound. A compound that this film neglects to point out was harboured, within a country that was supposed to be a close ally of the US in the war against terror. A country that received billions in military and fiscal assistance from the US while, pretty much openly, providing assistance, training and quarter to the very 'Agents of terror' it was supposed to be persecuting.
Any journalist, political pundit, barber, taxi driver and ... guy in the pub could've told you that Bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan but it took a whole decade for the US to start looking there for him and this after invading the wrong country twice. Seriously, to think, the US film industry chose to make this film, after all the incompetence, misery and bloody murder that has followed in wake of 9:11, is just astonishing.
Barb Wire (1996)
The best of Pamela
Rating this was a bit difficult because Barb Wire is quite a bad film in a lot of respects but overall the effect is quite pleasing. The Pamela Anderson phenomenon passed me by without me taking much notice. I couldn't see that much attractive about a chick with a pudgy face, too much badly applied makeup and those horrible eye brows... and then I watched Barb Wire.
Oh right now I get it, she's not what I'd call a beauty but she's got a pot of pneumatic that just never runs out. Yeah there are problems with the film, the tone is a too light, too comical; during one particular scene, early in the narrative which should be disturbing and dark, I find myself laughing quite hard because it's just played so wrong. There is a secondary character that steals the climax from Barb Wire which is quite annoying but mostly the film works well, it has good a visual feel without it being overworked.
Red Tails (2012)
The worst film ever made.
I'm not an American so the whole: The Black Experience thing, while not completely opaque, is tortuously arcane to my mind. Yeah I understand they feel bad about slavery and then they feel kind of warm and fuzzy about going to war to end it only to feel bad again about Georgia and then worse about the subsequent extermination of the indigenous American population but you know, the frequent bouts of indulgent guilt and ostensible virtue yanks are prone to over the topic, kinda makes me wanna puke. So it was with more than minor trepidation that I approached Red Tails, being certain that it were yet another touchy feely exploration of The Black Experience. Yet there were signs that things might be different, bad reviews in the dreary media hinting that it might've ruffled a few feathers.
Eh ehem, yes it ruffled a few feathers alright but alas, not through dint of any much needed puncturing of the bloated moralising and mawkish sentimentality that normally accompanies The Black Experience. Oh no, we get mawkish and moralistic aplenty, possibly packed more densely into each painful minute of screen time than I've ever seen. It get's worse, it's actually genuinely offensive, I was astounded. I couldn't believe it but the script slanders actual war time fighter pilots in the most egregious manner, portraying them as glory hounds, reckless and irresponsible towards their compatriots.
There's so much more though, hokey one liners from contrite white folk expressing their new found admiration for the darker compatriots, that are so vomit inducing I can't bring myself to quote them. A portrayal of the enemy personified through a character that goes beyond stereotype in a way that truly breaks new ground. The sloppy second unit work, where the director can't be bothered to move the camera or even the jeep, in two scenes that are supposed to be separated by weeks. Let's not even mention the aircraft to which the laws of physics and aerodynamics don't apply.
Such a shame, could've been a great film, there is one saving grace though, the CGI is pretty good.
Death Proof (2007)
Is this where it all started to go wrong?
I feel bad about this, bad mouthing Quentin because he's one of the few who's been on our side. No matter how much cloggy sentimentalised pap the US film industry threw at as, Quentin would be there giving us the stuff that would make a cold night in with just a stack of DVD's, some beer and maybe a few mates in from the pub bearable. Something went wrong with this flick though, it's still got its fair share of the Tarantino flair; those 2+ dialogues executed through his sense of Jo ha kyu that's served him so well. It' just that it all goes wrong in the third act and that kind of frizzles with the whole vibe of the flick.
What should happen is Mike gets away with the second murderous attack after a gruelling and bloody ordeal. And then the alternate ending is tagged on body snatchers style, to show him being dealt justice and our heroines making a miraculous return. Instead though, he continues with girly revenge theme but instead of the righteous vindication of Kill Bill it's all a bit miss timed and weak. Of course my ending is a teeny bit contrived, it's just supposed to illustrate the point that Quentin has maybe swallowed a bit too much of the stuff his critics have levelled at him. As a consequence, lately it seems as if he's been chasing -right-on- credits both with his later films and his public pronouncements.
True Grit (2010)
What is the problem here?
One annoying thing about the contemporary film scene, is that we find ourselves occupying a similar state as cinema goers did in the early 1930's. It's that creative expression in cinema and indeed television is subject to heavy scrutiny, from agencies looking to exploit opportunities to create capital from some controversy. An example of such would be the contrived controversy over the character Simple Jack in Tropic Thunder. The result is a kind of mealy mouthing within scripts to placate numerous sensibilities.
This is what I feel must've occurred with the 2010 version of True Grit, all the toothsome material from the book has been omitted, it's in effect, a bowdlerised adaptation. Worse though, is the pointless deviation from the source material which completely guts one scene in particular and seems motiveless.
After watching it, my overwhelming feeling was, why bother, why did they actually spend the time an money making this flic? The original version stands up much better as a piece of cinema and interpretation of the novel and has become a something of a classic, albeit a misunderstood one.
Jonah Hex (2010)
Jonah hexed
You know there's trouble ahead when you're barely into the first reel and find the narrative being conveyed through a series of voice overs accompanied by some crummy animation. It's a clear sign that they run out of money somewhere, that or one of the major cast members refused to deliver any more lines. The rumour concerning this film is that both those contingencies occurred during the re-shoot, a re-shoot by the way, prompted purely by the motive to destroy the film. It seems it's a another case of Howard the Duck, quite how people can get away with that kind of thing and stay out of gaol is a mystery of the magnitude that would stump Jonah himself but it's something that persists in the US film industry.
So what we're left with is barely a film at all, it's not much more than a series of roughly assembled tableaux accompanied by music. The plot is impenetrable, senseless even and as an adaption of a comic strip character it ranks almost as bad as Batman and Robin.
Conan the Barbarian (2011)
Conan goes metro...
In truth this flick is not a complete pile of something you'd rather not stepped in. It is a teensy bit crap in places, there's an iffy cgi monster, a few crummy props and stunts that look as though they belong in a 1980's TV sword and sorcery series but those are kind of forgivable. What really wrecks this flick, is that it's Conan played gay, forget Rose McGowan's recommendation for Jason Momoa's arse, that's not even the worse part, it's the fact that Momoa comes over about as hard as a sherry trifle, wobbling on tea trolley with three wheels. I mean it's like he's looking for the mirror all the time, he even gives the camera a hair toss on more than one occasion, what is this, a Cadbury's flake ad? When you consider the legacy of the 1980's Conan, a film that broke all the rules, that caused the blue rinses in the press to wet their knickers and that still stands today as a mold breaking epic, it's all such a terrible shame. This flick puts the state of the art back to things like: The Beastmaster and The Sword and the Sorcerer.
John Carter (2012)
Flawed but entertaining
This film is not much like Burroughs but I quite like Disney's effort at realising his Martian fantasy adventure stories on screen. Yeah I know that Carter's superhuman abilities are way too exaggerated, flip sake, he's in danger of going into Martian orbit with some of his feats but I suppose that's the influence of the recent superhero flicks. There's also some unnecessary fiddling with Carter's background, the Tars Tarkas/Sola relationship and of course the complete re-working of Deja Thoris. If you're a fan of Burroughs I suppose these divergences form the source can be a bit troublesome but they didn't bother me too much because the film remains pretty entertaining.
There are some shortcomings with this flic when compared to Burroughs, the realisation of the landscape and culture is a little too prosaic. And whereas Burroughs's story is one without a moustache twirling villain, the realisation of Sab Than in this film is disappointingly stereotypical. That's probably my main complaint about this flic, it's just a little unambitious, it doesn't quite manage the scope of Avatar, which let's be honest was another Burroughs-Mars inspired story, so the motivations behind the narrative are a little stylised.
It's a shame we can't get something like the Burroughs original on screen because it's not just fantasy adventure, it's a trippy almost dream like journey into the realm of Burroughs's imagination.