Remember those lightweight fantasy films from the 1980s that took the Star Wars blueprint and essentially copied it for a young audience in awe of space adventure and video games?
If not let me jog your memory with a few storylines - guess the film. No. 1 - a video game expert is transported into his own game to play against the evil baddie he created. No. 2 - three children dream of a galaxy far, far away, eventually building a spaceship out of a scrapped fairground ride. No. 3 - an ace video game player is recruited by aliens to play the game for real in outer space.
Do you have the answers? The first one is of couse "Tron", the second is "Explorers", and the third is the film Strange Conversation is pointing its nostalgia stick out today - "The Last Starfighter".
"The Last Starfighter" appeared in 1984, directed by Nick Castle. The film is noted, alongside "Tron" for being one of the first to use computer-generated imagery. The original "Star Wars" trilogy used stop-motion techniques. The film, strangely, was turned into a off-Broadway musical a few years ago. One of the film's co-stars Catherine Mary Stewart (who was also in some other great 80s films such as "Weekend at Bernies"), who plays Maggie in the film, recently talked to Natsukashi about her role, and why it became such a popular film in the 1980s. Check out the podcast here.
Sunday, 24 January 2010
Friday, 22 January 2010
Max Payne-ful
Mark Wahlberg has made the conscious acting decision to play Mark Wahlberg. He’s gone from Dirt Diggler in Paul W. Anderson’s Boogie Nights to Mark Wahlberg in Three Kings, Planet of the Apes, and The Perfect Storm. He was reserved, quiet Mark Walhberg in The Happening. He was tough Mark Walhberg in Four Brothers. Now he’s pissed-off Mark Walhberg in Max Payne.
And that’s only part of the problem with Max Payne.
The visuals are nice to look at. The contrasting light and graphic novel ambience give the film an authentic, grungy film noir look. It’s also quick-paced, edited with kinetic energy, and the action sequences are neatly choreographed. But, I’ve seen bullet-time before, I’ve seen guns (lots and lots of guns) before, I’ve even seen jumping in the air and firing said guns. Do we need to see it again? With Mark Wahlberg no less?
Based on the video game of the same name, Mark Walhberg is a disgruntled cop out to get the person or persons responsible for murdering his wife. It’s the classic revenge set-up but it’s handled in such a predictable way you’ll know exactly whodunit within the first twenty minutes. It’s also borrowed heavily from The Manchurian Candidate, bringing together it’s sub-plot of drugged, fearless soldiers with the murder-mystery haphazardly. You can never totally immerse yourself in the character of Max Payne because you know you’re watching Walhberg flex his muscles for a hefty paycheque. This isn’t Bruce Willis as John McClane. Max Payne just doesn’t have the charisma to draw you in, and neither, sadly, does Mark ‘Muscles for Hire’ Walhberg.
Strange Conversation says: 2/10
And that’s only part of the problem with Max Payne.
The visuals are nice to look at. The contrasting light and graphic novel ambience give the film an authentic, grungy film noir look. It’s also quick-paced, edited with kinetic energy, and the action sequences are neatly choreographed. But, I’ve seen bullet-time before, I’ve seen guns (lots and lots of guns) before, I’ve even seen jumping in the air and firing said guns. Do we need to see it again? With Mark Wahlberg no less?
Based on the video game of the same name, Mark Walhberg is a disgruntled cop out to get the person or persons responsible for murdering his wife. It’s the classic revenge set-up but it’s handled in such a predictable way you’ll know exactly whodunit within the first twenty minutes. It’s also borrowed heavily from The Manchurian Candidate, bringing together it’s sub-plot of drugged, fearless soldiers with the murder-mystery haphazardly. You can never totally immerse yourself in the character of Max Payne because you know you’re watching Walhberg flex his muscles for a hefty paycheque. This isn’t Bruce Willis as John McClane. Max Payne just doesn’t have the charisma to draw you in, and neither, sadly, does Mark ‘Muscles for Hire’ Walhberg.
Strange Conversation says: 2/10
Zack and Miri Make a (Bad) Porno
We all know Kevin Smith likes to look himself up on the internet. His geek-critics then come in for some stick in his movies. Here's a quote that Kevin should be able to understand: "Zack and Miri Make a Porno is f****** lowest denominator sh*te. It's predictable, poorly plotted, badly scripted, and features several painfully life-changing shots of Jason Mewes' ass, cock and balls. Please cut off my penis, boil my balls, and saute the whole thing before force-feeding it to me with a nice glass of jizz-shake and a handful of salty nuts rather than make me watch this complete waste of life minutes again."
Okay, that’s an over-exaggeration but it gives you an idea of where this film is coming from. It’s made for a very specific audience, and it’s certainly not in the same mould as the director’s more restrained effort “Jersey Girl”. Here Zack and Miri are two friends who live together in an apartment that has just had its power and water cut off because they failed to pay the bills. Meeting a couple of gay porn actors (as you do) at a just-so-convenient high school shindig (one of which is Justin Long in a brilliant cameo), the two happen upon the idea of shagging each other on camera to make money.
Ultimately, the film is about two close friends the audience know are made for each other but who have failed to cotton on to the idea themselves. It’s obvious from the get-go so the story relies on its characters and the comedy to keep you from twenty winks. And at times the film is funny – in a crude, nonsensical way. But you can’t really like these characters too much because they are so dumb. They are broke yet spend money on an overtly elaborate porn film with sets, costumes, and lighting. With perennial dick-stroker Zack (Seth Rogan), whose knowledge of current sex industry trends includes the purchase of the ‘Fleshlight’ for added self-gratification, you’d think they’d realise that expensive set-dressed cinematic sex is soooo-1970s. For two completely broke individuals wanting to make porn in the 21st century things couldn’t be easier or cheaper. In fact, they wouldn’t even need a camera. They could simply record a few minutes of reality-porn on a camera-phone! They even miss a trick with Miri’s granny-pants video receiving 200,000 hits less than an hour after going online. Stick some google ads on there and they’ll have no trouble paying next month’s rent bill.
“Zack and Miri Make a Porno” is crude, predictable, and made for a very distinct audience. Unlike Smith’s View Askew universe, these characters don’t have the vitality of his earlier work, and the film suffers for it.
Strange Conversation says: 3/10
Okay, that’s an over-exaggeration but it gives you an idea of where this film is coming from. It’s made for a very specific audience, and it’s certainly not in the same mould as the director’s more restrained effort “Jersey Girl”. Here Zack and Miri are two friends who live together in an apartment that has just had its power and water cut off because they failed to pay the bills. Meeting a couple of gay porn actors (as you do) at a just-so-convenient high school shindig (one of which is Justin Long in a brilliant cameo), the two happen upon the idea of shagging each other on camera to make money.
Ultimately, the film is about two close friends the audience know are made for each other but who have failed to cotton on to the idea themselves. It’s obvious from the get-go so the story relies on its characters and the comedy to keep you from twenty winks. And at times the film is funny – in a crude, nonsensical way. But you can’t really like these characters too much because they are so dumb. They are broke yet spend money on an overtly elaborate porn film with sets, costumes, and lighting. With perennial dick-stroker Zack (Seth Rogan), whose knowledge of current sex industry trends includes the purchase of the ‘Fleshlight’ for added self-gratification, you’d think they’d realise that expensive set-dressed cinematic sex is soooo-1970s. For two completely broke individuals wanting to make porn in the 21st century things couldn’t be easier or cheaper. In fact, they wouldn’t even need a camera. They could simply record a few minutes of reality-porn on a camera-phone! They even miss a trick with Miri’s granny-pants video receiving 200,000 hits less than an hour after going online. Stick some google ads on there and they’ll have no trouble paying next month’s rent bill.
“Zack and Miri Make a Porno” is crude, predictable, and made for a very distinct audience. Unlike Smith’s View Askew universe, these characters don’t have the vitality of his earlier work, and the film suffers for it.
Strange Conversation says: 3/10
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Top 10 Science-Fiction Horror Films
What are your favorite science-fiction horror movies? Do you love/hate the genre? Do you think David Cronenberg is the best sci-fi horror film director? Is Alien really the best sci-fi horror? Find out HERE - comment, discuss, create your own top 5, 10 or 20 and post it on www.top10films.co.uk
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Top10Films.co.uk
I'm currently working on my new website www.Top10Films.co.uk which can be accessed HERE. I am currently wokring on building the site but there's new stuff appearing everyday. Any suggestions would be welcome.
Monday, 2 March 2009
Cronenberg is like fine wine: he gets better with age
Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, UK/Canada, 2007)
Dir. David Cronenberg; starring Naomi Watts, Viggo Mortensen
David Cronenberg is like fine wine: he gets better with age. His early genius saw his anger and obsession portrayed in his body images and visual dysfunctions of human life. His films (which became known as the sub-genre Body Horror) had at their core sexual frustration and experimentation, a bleak but open look on the future of life as we know it, and the type of edgy, youthful angst and creative freedom only available to young, up-start directors untainted by the Hollywood machine.
Indeed, Cronenberg throughout his career, would steer clear of Hollywood intervention - both financially and geographically. His films have remained low-budget and financed by independent production companies. And he's shot many of them away from the allures of Los Angeles: predominantly staying in his homeland Canada or more recently shooting in England.
His early work was graphic and affecting. Many remember the exploding head in Scanners, the worm-like rape in the bath tub in Shivers, or James Woods pulling a gun out of his stomach in Videodrome. Cronenberg films were unique: they simultaneously examined our worst fears and our most rampant desires. He gave the horror film world depth largely unseen before, while developing a niche for his own whim to discover over the following years.
But, like most youthful endeavours, Cronenberg was still learning to hone his craft in films like Shivers, Rabid, and Scanners. Videodrome was littered with great moments, while The Brood showed the director had style to go with his ideas. It wasn't until 1986's The Fly, starring Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, that he hit the mainstream. The Fly, which married Cronenberg's inherent fascination with the disfigurement of the human body and a bigger budget and recognised actors, put the director firmly in the minds of not only horror aficionados but movie-lovers of all kinds.
Yet I've always felt, aside from the brilliant Dead Ringers (arguably his best film) in 1988, he hasn't always found a way for his characters to fully blossom amongst his more prevalent themes and symbolism. This was down to an inability to coax the best performances out of his actors, but this was more easily rectified when he began employing more experienced performers. It was a problem with his early films and has affected later films too. However, recently, with Spider, A History of Violence and Eastern... [READ FULL REVIEW HERE]
Dir. David Cronenberg; starring Naomi Watts, Viggo Mortensen
David Cronenberg is like fine wine: he gets better with age. His early genius saw his anger and obsession portrayed in his body images and visual dysfunctions of human life. His films (which became known as the sub-genre Body Horror) had at their core sexual frustration and experimentation, a bleak but open look on the future of life as we know it, and the type of edgy, youthful angst and creative freedom only available to young, up-start directors untainted by the Hollywood machine.
Indeed, Cronenberg throughout his career, would steer clear of Hollywood intervention - both financially and geographically. His films have remained low-budget and financed by independent production companies. And he's shot many of them away from the allures of Los Angeles: predominantly staying in his homeland Canada or more recently shooting in England.
His early work was graphic and affecting. Many remember the exploding head in Scanners, the worm-like rape in the bath tub in Shivers, or James Woods pulling a gun out of his stomach in Videodrome. Cronenberg films were unique: they simultaneously examined our worst fears and our most rampant desires. He gave the horror film world depth largely unseen before, while developing a niche for his own whim to discover over the following years.
But, like most youthful endeavours, Cronenberg was still learning to hone his craft in films like Shivers, Rabid, and Scanners. Videodrome was littered with great moments, while The Brood showed the director had style to go with his ideas. It wasn't until 1986's The Fly, starring Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, that he hit the mainstream. The Fly, which married Cronenberg's inherent fascination with the disfigurement of the human body and a bigger budget and recognised actors, put the director firmly in the minds of not only horror aficionados but movie-lovers of all kinds.
Yet I've always felt, aside from the brilliant Dead Ringers (arguably his best film) in 1988, he hasn't always found a way for his characters to fully blossom amongst his more prevalent themes and symbolism. This was down to an inability to coax the best performances out of his actors, but this was more easily rectified when he began employing more experienced performers. It was a problem with his early films and has affected later films too. However, recently, with Spider, A History of Violence and Eastern... [READ FULL REVIEW HERE]
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Halloween 1978 v Halloween 2007: No Contest!
Aside from the great gulf in quality between John Carpenter's classic 1978 slasher and Rob Zombie's post-Scream back story-cum-remake, the new film couldn't be more different from the original.
The original Halloween was a benchmark in horror. It set new standards that would become convention in movies that followed like Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street. Heavily influenced by Bob Clark's Black Christmas, Halloween became the trend-setter of slasher movie lore. Essentially, to remake Halloween - a classic film loved by so many - was an impossible task. It's like trying to remake Citizen Kane or The Godfather: you'd be fighting a losing battle.
Halloween circa 2007 is more a quick-fix marketing ploy, intended to hit a ready-made audience than an artistic cinematic endeavour. Employing the limited talents of Rob Zombie - the pin-up of MTV generation trash - to not only write but direct the new film, indicated the studio (read: the Weinsteins') weren't interested in remaking quality just inventing box office profit.
I suppose you can give the movie's producers credit for providing viewers with something new. Every remake, after all, has to add something to up the ante (that's why I've always ignored Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho). Halloween 07 adds back story to Michael Myers. Unfortunately, back story to one of the genre's most iconic and frightening monsters is the worst thing you could have done for the series. Would The Exorcist be more interesting, indeed more effective, if we knew the entire history of the demonic presence possessing Regan? Of course, not.
The new Halloween neglects to acknowledge what made the original so effective. This is, without doubt, the film's cardinal sin. What made Michael Myers such a frightening character was the lack of reason in his monstrous actions: the idea that terror can come from anywhere - indeed, from the secure, middle-class family home. Zombie's back story makes a mockery of the working class, depicting Myers as a product of a broken family home: his anger built on years of abuse and neglect from his father. But the frightening aspect of the original Michael Myers is the sense that his killing is based on uncontrollable evil that even he has no power over. The new Michael Myers is just a deeply trouble psychopath with a brutal distaste for the family that failed him.
The new film differs from the original completely in the first half. We see Michael Myers in a difficult...[Read full article HERE]
CLICK HERE to Read my full review of Rob Zombie's Halloween remake
The original Halloween was a benchmark in horror. It set new standards that would become convention in movies that followed like Friday The 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street. Heavily influenced by Bob Clark's Black Christmas, Halloween became the trend-setter of slasher movie lore. Essentially, to remake Halloween - a classic film loved by so many - was an impossible task. It's like trying to remake Citizen Kane or The Godfather: you'd be fighting a losing battle.
Halloween circa 2007 is more a quick-fix marketing ploy, intended to hit a ready-made audience than an artistic cinematic endeavour. Employing the limited talents of Rob Zombie - the pin-up of MTV generation trash - to not only write but direct the new film, indicated the studio (read: the Weinsteins') weren't interested in remaking quality just inventing box office profit.
I suppose you can give the movie's producers credit for providing viewers with something new. Every remake, after all, has to add something to up the ante (that's why I've always ignored Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho). Halloween 07 adds back story to Michael Myers. Unfortunately, back story to one of the genre's most iconic and frightening monsters is the worst thing you could have done for the series. Would The Exorcist be more interesting, indeed more effective, if we knew the entire history of the demonic presence possessing Regan? Of course, not.
The new Halloween neglects to acknowledge what made the original so effective. This is, without doubt, the film's cardinal sin. What made Michael Myers such a frightening character was the lack of reason in his monstrous actions: the idea that terror can come from anywhere - indeed, from the secure, middle-class family home. Zombie's back story makes a mockery of the working class, depicting Myers as a product of a broken family home: his anger built on years of abuse and neglect from his father. But the frightening aspect of the original Michael Myers is the sense that his killing is based on uncontrollable evil that even he has no power over. The new Michael Myers is just a deeply trouble psychopath with a brutal distaste for the family that failed him.
The new film differs from the original completely in the first half. We see Michael Myers in a difficult...[Read full article HERE]
CLICK HERE to Read my full review of Rob Zombie's Halloween remake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
