Film Flare

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/13

Morning everyone (probably good evening actually by the time this goes out).

 

A simple, honest FFFD today and tomorrow/wednesday there will be a shiny, glowing review of a small film I'm sure no one has heard of called IRON MAN  (caps!). Short answer: it's really good. Longer answer will be out later this week.

 

But I digress.

 

Die Hard (1988)

 

Oh hell yes! The seminal action film! The action nirvana!

In short. This film is great. Not just great for it's age or style or anything like that. It is just a great film that for many reasons is still as thrilling and watchable now as it ever was. And that's a rare thing to say among the history of action films.

So why is that?

 

It's not over the top. It doesn't have a hugely muscled demi-god murdering everyone in sight with a gun with unlimited ammo (I'm looking at you, Commando!). Instead, Bruce's seminal John McClane is just a cop, he bleeds, makes the wrong choices, has ammo issues and looks bad-ass in a white wifebeater. Bruce Willis is action hero enough to make the myriad scenes seem incredible, but human enough to make you feel genuine risk for him. It's a story about survival as John crawls and climbs his way over the building, doing his level best survive whilst doing what he can about the group of terrorists.

Alan Rickman is also just perfect as the intelligent, sharp and brutal Hans Gruber. As the film moves on and the motives behind his actions become clear, it falls into place just how cunning he is. His accent makes Snape sound like rubbish, it's silk in your ears. 

The only weakness in the cast is the police chief, who almost by himself undermines so much of the film by being the 'aggressive but useless character'. It's a relief when he gets partially removed by the removal of the FBI agents who are simultaneously funnier, more believable and influence the story more.

 

The body count isn't huge either. There are frequent action scenes and there are deaths, of course, but it lacks the sadistic glee or overwhelming frequency that many other action films are guilty of. What this means is that every terrorist John gets is a small victory (often at some physical cost), there is also a horrid desperation towards the end of the film. It's also a film that fluctuates between tension and violence to humour. There are quite a few funny touches and moments in the film and several of the film's lines have become legend. Synonymous with the film series itself.

 

The effects are spectacular but the film never tries to overstretch itself. Having all the action contained within a building means that each floor and area become recognisable and as things start to explode and burn, it acts as a subconscious foregrounding effect. As the film's events start to escalate and the explosions become more grand and John McClane becomes more topless and bloodied, it's still kept real by just involving John himself, who seems self-aware of the lunacy of what he's doing and what's going on. The scenes where John is just talking to himself work so well.

 

The direction, by John McTiernan, is practical, not flashy and works really well. The action scenes are spectacular, both the fist fights, which are gritty and nasty, and the spectacular gunfights are all directed really well. This is one of the main reasons why the film is so well known as an action film is that, when the action starts, it is shot and edited perfectly. 

 

So what you get with this film is a tightly paced, neatly plotted subliminal action film that lures you in with good characters and good dialogue, throws those characters through hell and makes you fear for their safety. It's one of the best action films ever and every time I've watched it (and that's a lot), I've loved it.

But chances are most of you have seen it already. And if you haven't? HMV got bought up so go get a copy, watch it and tell me you didn't have damn good fun.

 

Trailer:

  

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/12

Evening one and all.

 

A pretty short entry this week as I only watched one film. (I did watch 10 seconds of another film but fell asleep)

So here it be, in my opinion, one of my favourite films.

 

Fargo (1996)

Using the old Texas Chainsaw 'based on a true story' false claim, this film instantly draws you in with a brutally honest shot of a car driving down a snowy road towards the camera as the cast names appear on the screen. After nearly a minute, the music has taken a hold of you and the titles come up and I'm sold.

The cast is a recognisable bunch of non-A list actors and actresses. Steve Buscemi is always watchable and here, he is the source of much of the comedy of the film with the best lines and scenes. Frances McDormand is someone who I've never really seen in too much else but she is perfect as the pregnant, strong, intelligent and dedicated law enforcer. Harve Presnell is great as the father in law, Wade Gustafson. Peter Stormare is just creepy. He has a creepy face. William H. Macy is just pathetic, his character is the worst kind of weasel. A fantastic piece of casting with his honest, neighbour-like, Ned Flanders look. 

 

The reason the film works for me is because it's so small. The story takes places over a few days, mostly within a small town, there are small amounts of money at play. It's not a story where anything is at stake, it's just a small crime story in a small town. A fact reinforced beautifully as small subject matters are continual, mostly Marge's husband and his paintings of ducks. It's charming without being cloying. The scale of the film is one of its many joys.

However, the plot has a comic edge to it. A man who needs money decides to have his own wife kidnapped so his father in law will pay the ransom. It's simple, absurd and in this kind of film, it doesn't go according to plan. In fact, by the end, so much hasn't gone according to plan that it's a wonder that anyone is standing at the end at all. 

 

The film has so many quaint touches that rise it above so many other films of a similar style. It's the distinctive accents that the characters have, the fact that police cars need jump starting and two men dressed in their super thick coats, standing in a snowy driveway discuss how it'll be cold tomorrow. There is an element of the absurd but the film never feels anything other than the real.

It's a timeless film. I can watch it now, I can watch it in ten years time and I imagine I'll enjoy it exactly the same. There are very few films I can say that about. This is honestly one of the best films I have seen, certainly up there in my favourite films. Also, by far the Coen brothers best work, utterly no doubt about that.

 

Trailer:

  

General Zod

Finally, Warner Brothers have realised that they have in their possession one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year inthe shape of Man of Steel.

After a teasing, softly softly approach of countdowns to website launches and so on, there were a smattering of trailers but now the marketing campaign has been turned up.

 

Firstly, there is a midly underwhelming viral video of General Zod, played by Michael Shannon. The video's primary purpose so we can hear the General speak (because you can't really see him). The main happy surprise, according to the responces, is that at least he doesn't sound like The Joker.

 

 

 

So far, so blurry. However, there is also a new trailer out (trailer no. 3 if I'm not mistaken) which gives loads of new footage and a better idea of the general tone and feel of the film, building on top of the previous trailers.

 

 

 

Well this trailer is pretty damn hot. And once again, like in a previous trailer, it seems like Kevin Costner as Johnathan Kent seems to steal the show. His non-Russell Crowe father figure to Clark seems to be a genuinly honest, but realistic character. He is far removed from the faintly smug Russell Crowe (who also has a larger appearance in the trailer here).

 

So yeah, UK release date is currently set as being 14th  June. Perfect time for a summer blockbuster.

 

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/11 (Part 2)

....and hello again. Part 2 here!

Well, actually, the author here, Part 2 can't speak but if it could, it'd be saying '....and hello again. Part 2 here!' I'm rambling again. Sorry.

 

We go in!

 

30 Days of Night (2007)

 

This is a vampire film. That creature in the above film poster is a vampire. This ain't no sparkly, emotional, baroque looking super sulkers. Hell no. These are toothy, violent, monsters. Think the messyness of the vampires from Blade but without the nightclubs.

Pretty early on, you can tell it's based on a graphic novel. There is a really strong composition and series of colours on the screen which are gorgeous. The copious amounts of blood marry the crisp white snow a little too easily and the look of the film quickly becomes the main draw of the film.

The cast are variable, Josh Hartnett (Eben) and Melissa George (Stella) are both good, real, honest and likeable. The rest of the citizens of Barrow are sparse and aren't really fleshed out much at all, leaving them simply in the role of 'fodder' to the vampires. And speaking of the vampires, the lead Vampire is himself (itself?) a surprisingly well characterised individual, played by Danny Huston. Again, given much more to do than the others who are simply horrible monsters, the leader manages to convey a genuine intelligence which goes against the blindly aggressive nature of the vampires. 

The other highlight in the cast is the always watchable Ben Foster as The Stranger. Not in more than a few scenes, he is a genuinly creepy character acted with fierce intensity. A particular highlight.

 

The plot of the film is a pretty simple story where a town is beseiged by vampires whilst the sun is down for 30 days. It's a slog for survival. The film really plays in episodes during several days of the 30, rather than equal focus on each days as it comes. The plot of the film starts to wear thin towards the final act but the film is always a tense piece.

There is violence too, the vampires have a sadistic and malicious streak which makes several scenes pretty grim to watch. There is not much in the way of 'scares' once the vampires have hit but the gore is ramped up. The main turning point between the creepyness of the first act and the action of the rest of the film is bookmarked by a stunning overhead shot of the town during the vampire attack. The harrowing nature of the shot is almost overcome by how stunning it is.

 

However, the film is pretty good but the style and tone of the film are better than the characters and the plot. Worth a watch though.

 

Trailer:

  

 

 

The Evil Dead (1981)

Oh yes. The cult, low budget horror film! 

This is a film that if anything benefits from it's lo-fi style and effects. The film carries with it just a black sense of humour and self awareness that the film is much more than just cheap effects and bad acting.

 

Maybe that is one of the reasons that this film has risen to the top of the video nasty pack and is now a genuine cult phenomenon. Launching the career of Sam Raimi, the direction of the film is a major reason for the film's success. The style of creepy, many of the shots defy the low budget and are just stunning. The film's direction is inventive, effective and looks much better than the budget would have you believe. 

This helps to ratchet up the tension despite the wooden nature of the actors and the naff script. Those two factors actually add to the slightly subversive feel of the film. Certainly, there is a streak of humour which is pretty funny. It almost feels slapstick in nature in many ways. Raimi himself did credit The Three Stooges as a partial influence and you can see it at certain moments in the film.

 

However, the film has an idea which would usually be beyond the budget of the film and so in bringing this vision to life, the film begins to look cheap in some of the makeup effects (which still remain effective) and camera quality (complete with unnatural angles and wobbling 'dolly' shots).

However, this makes the film supremely watchable whilst also remaining pretty damn scary and nasty. Genuinly deserves its cult status.

 

Trailer:

  

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/11 (Part 1)

Part 1?

I can practically hear you through my monitor (and through time too, I do have pretty big ears!).  Yes yes! Part 1, the first of two parts for FFFD this week.

It's so simple, this entry refers to the two comedic films I watched this week whilst Part 2 (out tomorrow) will focus on the horror films I watched this week. 

 

I suppose if you really can't believe it, you can wait until tomorrow and then paste both entries into one word document. Then you can sit back and really enjoy your evenings. But it's up to you. Either way, Part 1 starts now:

 

Coffee and Cigarettes (2003)

 

Well this is an unusual film. 

It is less of a continuing narrative but is instead a collection of eleven 'chapters' which are just people sat down and talking. That's it. There's no action, very little to connect the stories apart from a few similar strands of dialogue topics. The main connection between all the stories is the appearance of coffee and cigarettes. I assume that's why the film is called coffee and cigarettes. 

However, whilst this information by itself would be enough to put me off the film, I must say now that the film is really very cool. It is a funny film without really trying to be. The conversations are often so absurd and odd that they end up being quite funny. It is a saving grace of the film that the film doesn't try to be quirky for the sake of being quirky, instead, each chapter has a sizzling script and perfect acting. The humour and style comes from that.

The film also has a stunning cast, honestly, it's amazing. Some of the chapters are better than others but the really good ones are brilliant and the weaker ones are still entertaining. The better chapters involve actors and actresses like Cate Blanchett, Tom Waits, Iggy Pop, Bill Murray, RZA, GZA, Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan. I mean, that is a hell of a cast list. And Jim Jarmusch gets them together to just talk. And it works. 

 

It's just an easy going, cool, funny film. There are more than enough moments of awkwardness to make you wriggle but that's because the script is just good and the cast are great, quite often playing themselves, or exaggerated versions of themselves. Being a film in segments, it's quite easy to judge the best and worst of the chapters as they go on but overall, the film itself is really good fun. And I wouldn't have said that from its description alone. But I've learned and grown up (a bit!).

 

Trailer:

  

 

 

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut (1999)

Oh South Park! South Park South Park South Park.

This film is gloriously infantile and coarse. It's a joy to watch. Featuring a entire metric tonne of bad language, Satan being the good guy (in the end) and Saddam Hussain as a violent (and gay) lunatic, the film isn't exactly high art and is almost certain to offend those who are easily offended.

However, the film is funny. The script is pretty good (despite the non-stop swearing, which you get used to over time) and the overall story is a not-so-subtle dig at the MPAA itself (who Trey Parker and Matt Stone were fighting the whole production of the film) as well as the USA in general.  

 

However, the film does contain musical numbers. Quite a lot of musical numbers which are actually of reasonable quality. Some are great stand ups of musicals like Le Miserables whilst others are just excuses for base-quality humour, which if you are watching the film, chances are you'll find funny.

The film is quite short so it never really gets a chance to get old. However, the third act of the film is simultaneously the least funny but also the least satirical (one or two moments notwithstanding). There is also a pretty fine array of cameos here, George Clooney appears in a nice spin on his E.R character, Brent Spiner and ex-Python, Eric Ide also appear here and there. 

 

All in all, if you're in the mood (maybe drunk), it'll be hilarious.

 

Trailer:

  

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/10

Hello and welcome.

Being Monday, it is obviously time for another stirling edition of FFFD. The blog was voted by Time magazine as the most likely source of literature available in the world today to cause Kim Jong Un to step down his fierce rhetoric, a level of praise which literally causes me to burst with pride.

The viewing numbers for my blog have swelled today to 30, so thank you Time magazine.

 

Moving on...

A sharp focus today on sequels.

 

Taxi 2 (2000)

 

The logically named Taxi 2 is the sequel to French fun-fest Taxi (durr!), and this entry is AS good as the first film. The cast remains the same; Samy Naceri is Daniel, a french taxi driver/speed freak who ends up assisting the French police. Frederic Diefenthal is Emilien, hapless French police officer and all round buffoon. Mercifully (merci-fully, get it?), Bernard Farcy is once again on hand as the police chief who still has the single best moments of the film and most of the funny lines/situations.

 

The villains of the film have subtly shifted from the Germans in their Mercedes to the Japanese in their imported Lancer Evos. Instead of bank robbers, the criminals in this film work for the yakuza and their schemes to kidnap the Japanese minister of defense. The general plot of the film though, as with the first film, is merely to provide scenes for the great characters to fill with comedy and action, it's not the film's strong point.

 

Certainly the car driving scenes are just as they were in the first film, that is kinetic, fast, believable and exciting. The final chase embraces national pride by taking place in Paris (as opposed to Marseille in the first film) and there is a scene which is ripped straight from the Blues Brother's film but it works great here too. There are also fists fight and foot chases which involve ninjas (because the villains are Japanese, durr!) which are great fun too.

The comedy is more general here too, the script isn't quite as sharp as the first film but since the budget is larger, the film is larger in scale and there are more visual/sight gags than in the first film.

 

If you enjoyed the first film, there is a 100% chance you'll enjoy this one. No doubt.

 

Trailer: 

  

 

 

Transformer: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Now it is a fair assumption to make that I do not know the Devil. Which is true, I do not know him, I don't even believe in him. However, it is said that the Devil is ruler of a place of eternal suffering called hell.

I went there friends. I went to hell.

My copy of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen loops back and starts itself again when the film finishes. If I was tied to a chair with my eyelids taped open and this film was playing on endless repeat, I would believe that the Devil was real and that I, personally, had intercourse with his mother. That would be the only reason for such punishment.

 

I don't think that there has ever been this much money wasted ($200 million) on such a bloated, long and uninteresting film. And it has robots fighting! I should love this film on that fact alone. I almost feel bad for jumping on the bandwagon that other critics created but there really is no other course.

Michael Bay has mined the depths of 'stupid action', super fast editing of CGI robots fighting where not much is clear. The plot makes about as much sense as a deckchair made from smoke. Without the plot and characters, the action is reduced to nothing you care about. And what characters here, they are not under written, there is nothing for them to express themselves as real people and can't even reach the dizzying peak of 'dumb action hero' because the script plays them as real, vulnerable people. It's a gamble that doesn't pay off here as it does in the first Transformers film.

Also, credit where credit is due. It takes a brave director to subvert the genre by casting an actress who is more lifeless than 100% CGI-ed robots. That's the brave and bold move and credit must be given to Megan Fox who must be some kind of subvertive super-actress, intentionally undermining the idea of acting. 

 

Apart from that, and the film's INSANE running time (149 minutes), the main problem with the film is that it is noisy. And not in a good way. The machines, the voices (robot and human), the music and the script just clatter along without any direction. It's just aimless noise. It's like a$200 million white noise generator. Imagine if you gave typewriters the ability to communicate through basic typewriter-like sounds, and then gave them the ability to feel pain, and then threw them all in to an empty grain silo and set fire to it. That horrible choir of mechanical screaming IS the primary noise where a Transformer is on the screen, and it's sad.

It's sad because I was in no way expecting high culture. I like many points about the first film and I actually quite like the third film too. But this one? They lost it big time. They thought of what made the first film successful and tried to imitate it but it went wrong. And it is a bad film. A truly, bad film.

There are occasional high points for a young twenty something male like me though. There is a lot of military hardware on display. Michael Bay has a talent for 'porn', that is, the fetishisation of military equipment that almost matches his fetishisation of woman, sorry, hot women, Sam's mum doesn't get the same treatment as Megan Fox and Isabel Lucas.

Oh, and it has some utterly reprehensible stereotypes in the film. Seriously, watch it and then try to explain how they got away with the voices of Mudflap and Skids. In all honestly I have no idea who thought it was a good idea.

 

Not good folks. At least the 3rd film doens't suck too hard.

Trailer:

 

  

 

Trance review (no spoilers)

Olympic opening ceremony director and balding national sweetheart Danny Boyle has had an illustrious twenty year career that has successfully spanned several genres. From his crime debut, Shallow Grave, he has made films involving zombies (28 Days Later), sci-fi (Sunshine), depressing drugs sagas (Trainspotting), biographies (127 Hours) and drama (Slumdog Millionaire). Now he turns his talents towards dream related thrillers with his latest effort, Trance. 

 

Starring the ever watchable James McAvoy, Rosario Dawson (Boyle's girlfriend) and the fantastic Vincent Cassel, Trance is (as you would expect) and twisty, turny, nothing-is-what-it seems-y type film with hugely rich visuals. However, being this kind of film, it is super hard trying to reveal just what makes it good without giving anything away.

So with start elsewhere.

 

The film drips with colour, bright, vivid colours. Many of the angles and shots used are just beautiful. Boyle has a real talent for making the everyday seem otherworldly. There is a dreamlike feel to the whole proceedings which suits the content of the film. Whilst films about dream-like states would draw comparisons with Nolan's Inception, there are many differences at work which operate to Trance's advantage. Firstly, Boyle's film is much smaller in scale, not operating within dreams means that there are no super-natural goings on, rather, the trance-like states operate as character fulfilling fantasies, themselves giving fascinating insight into the characters on the screen.

Secondly, this film is also pretty gritty, easily earning its 15 rating in the UK (R in the States). Some scenes had the audience wriggling in their seats. Again, it's hard to go into any more detail without possibly spoiling plot points, which I'm trying not to do.

 

So, the characters are very ably portrayed by their various actors and actresses. Each one fleshes out a complex character with vivid backstories and motives. However, one criticism of the film is there aren't any likeable characters, Boyle (along with screenwriters Joe Ahearne and John Hodge) have written unpleasant characters with moments of goodness rather than a genuine 'good' person.  

However, with a script of this nature, you are expecting twists and turns a-plenty. However, the progression of the film is still a genuine surprise. It is also a strong sign of the film's strength when you start to suspect everyone on the screen, by turns you suspect one character, then the next, as information is steadily drip-fed to you throughout. There are very few quiet moment in the film. Every scene has its value among the greater tapestry, there is very little wasted time.

 

All in all, a surprisingly good film which shows a director utterly in control of the screen and seeps the film with colour and imagery. The cast are all top notch and the film works really well as a twisty thriller.

 

Trailer:

 

Film Flare's Film Diary 2013/9

A fine evening to you all,

If you are anything like me then the combination of clock change and bank holiday means you have no earthly idea what day it is. It is Tuesday. 

And FFFD is one day late.

 

Sorry.

 

Taxi (1998)

 

The first entry in the hyper-successful 'Taxi' series (and not to be confused with the terrible US remake of the same name in 2004), this film is a super cool, super witty action/comedy film, in French. 

Featuring one of the better 'buddy comedy' partnerships I've seen, Samy Naceri is the speed happy super taxi driver roped into helping hapless cop, played by Frederic Diefenthal. Their relationship is touchingly sweet as well as very funny at times.

Another source of the film's humour stems from its relationship with national pride and other nations. The film has an odd sense of pride in its location (Marseilles) and it's cars (Peugeot in this case) and one of the characters, played by Bernard Farcy (my second favourite french actor after Vincent Cassel) has a grudge against the film's villains, Germans. It's played too far into comedy to be offensive and since a lot of the humour stems from how useless many things in France are, they don't end up picking on them.

Beyond the main characters, the taxi driver and policeman, the peripheral characters of some of the other police get fleshed out as do the girlfriend, played by a young Marion Cotillard, however, the villains are not given any real chance to expand beyond their role as simple (but audacious) bank robbers. The odd evil cackle and crazed look is about it. The plot doesn't exactly pop along either. They join forces and use their respective strengths to catch the bad guys. It's not complex, it's not challenging either, but it does give rise to some stunning driver sequences.

 

Such sequences are handled very well, the camera often being in the traffic whilst the Taxi (and others) are zipping past. There are a few gunfights which end up being pretty funny too.

The film isn't a challenging piece of cinema, but it is stylish, funny and such good fun. The amount of fun is infectious. The script crackles with some stunning lines and the performances are good all around. There is also not a lot that seems lost in translation because the simplistic nature of the film means that there aren't broad social points you miss. 

Well worth a watch.

 

Trailer:

 

 

 

 

Next week, sequels. The imaginatively named Taxi 2 and the slightly more imaginatively named Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

 

Oooooh. I can't wait either.