Event Horizon

Posted on by
Reply

Event Horizon is a film by Paul W S Anderson before he adopted the W S. It stars Sam Neill (remember him?) and Laurence Fishburne (remember when he was thin?) as crew mates on a search and rescue mission in outer space. There are some very definite echoes of Alien here, from the basic premise and setting to the aesthetic and decaying and industrial look of the space ships involved. It’s also one of those films that goes out of its way to show science fiction tends to work best in films when it is actually co opting another genre. In this case we’re firmly in horror territory.

The film starts with the creator of a new form of engine joining the crew of a salvage ship, looking to find out what exactly happened to a ship called the Event Horizon. The ship was powered by the experimental engine and had disappeared during its test flight. As the crew come aboard to find out exactly what happened they discover worrying in flight recordings and evidence that the absent crew met with a sinister fate.

The tension ramps up effectively throughout the film, combining the claustrophobia and darkness of the immediate settings with the isolation of space and a growing sense that something decidedly supernatural happened. The ship itself almost seems to have a character of its own, with malevolence permeating the scenes as inexplicable things start to happen and the stress affects different crew members in different ways.

Pretty soon we’re in survival horror territory, with the ship seeming to be the sole enemy of those aboard it, but the dawning realisation that various crew members are becoming unpredictable and liabilities with all that is happening around them. And the design of the engine itself is inspired: it looks evil and is deeply unsettling. Although the film was probably cheap to make it is very well crafted and everything feels of a piece. There is a definite unsettling atmosphere and the film is not just scary but also discomforting. The horror isn’t so much restricted to cheap shocks and gore (although there are both to be had) as the sense there are powers that humanity doesn’t understand and shouldn’t meddle with and a great sense of menace and evil. It’s one of the more effective horror films that I have seen and one that stands up to rewatching.

When I first saw Event Horizon it genuinely scared me and I found it hard to make it all the way through. Revisiting it I am surprised by how well it holds up and the level of skill and craft in the film. It’s very effective for what it is and succeeds in everything it sets out to do

 

Castle

Posted on by
Reply

Castle is an ABC show that stars Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic. It’s as hackneyed a concept as you can imagine: a mystery writer is drafted in by the NYC police to help with a case that seems to be based on one of his books. While working on the case he develops a crush on the detective that is handling the case and insinuates himself into the department through his contacts.

Ostensibly a romantic comedy with some police procedural thrown in, Castle sometimes suffers from tonal clash and seeming uneven. It also tends towards formula, with it being entirely possible to work out whether a suspect is guilty or not purely based on how far through the episode the police investigate him.

Every crime is neatly solved and I find it hard to believe the reasoning and “evidence” would actually stand up in a court of law. This is, of course, purely incidental: Castle is a showcase for Nathan Fillion and a romantic comedy, everything else is more or less window dressing.

Fillion plays a man child with problem exes who nonetheless surrounds himself with women: his failed actress mother and precocious daughter. He chases after a smart and independent woman while occasionally being distracted by women who serve as little more than blocking characters and plotting devices. It isn’t really trying to be high art or even a particularly good example of its genre. That’s ok, sometimes I feel like slumming it.

The show has enough of interest in the window dressing elements (even if I do find some characters, especially the mother, annoying) and some neat conceits for some of the cases to make it watchable. And it has Nathan Fillion. It’s a guilty pleasure.

Stana Katic is just about believable. She has a long running sub plot about the death of her mother which isn’t particularly plausible and the series normally has one of its tonal problems whenever it revisits it. As the seasons have progressed it has played a larger and larger part and got more and more convoluted and unlikely. Which is a shame. The show works best when it is being light-hearted and focused on its gimmicky crime of the week. When it tries to do anything more it finds itself struggling under a dramatic weight it can’t sustain and that it is particularly unsuited to.

The other characters are pretty much either there to serve the plot or provide comic relief. Or both. Although there is a large cast, there is precious little for most of them to do and even less in the way of rounded characters on display. So, really, it all comes down to your tolerance of the stars and your stomach for gimmickry.

The Almighty Johnsons – Series 2

Posted on by
Reply

The Almighty Johnsons, the show from New Zealand about Norse gods trapped in the bodies of human beings, is back for a second series. And it shows no signs of settling into a status quo and merely treading water. As soon as a dynamic is established it is thrown out, characters form alliances and betray each other, characters come and go and events have real and often unexpected ramifications. It’s got some strong soap opera elements, but they’re done well and with consequence.

I watched and found myself surprisingly engaged with the first series. The premise could have been hackneyed and the story familiar, but it seemed edgy, enjoyable and full of real characters that I actively cared about and a lot of stories that seemed to flow organically as well as encompassing unpredictability. I actually looked forward to the second series and had high expectations for it.

Featuring a smaller cast than the original series, and focusing more on the shifting dynamics within the Johnson family, but it is not scared to relegate some of them to the background, turn their worlds upside down or dispatch them completely. The only real certainty with the series is that everything can change quickly and that no one is going to remain the same. It makes for great watching and keeps the show interesting. It also means that you have to pay attention and can’t really miss and episode without getting completely lost.

As with many series, the show has an overreaching arc that it incrementally drives forward in every program, but the logical conclusion of the underlying story means that the show would end. In a lot of programs this means lots of digressions from the main story and padding it out as much as possible. Not with The Almighty Johnsons: it seemingly accelerates through what you would think is the status quo and gets to what you think would be the climax of the show before cancellation about two thirds of the way through the second series. It then proceeds to take it in an unexpected and satisfying direction.

It’s the strength of the writing, particularly of the characters and their interaction with one another, that makes the brave decision to burn through the main plot and arrive somewhere new and unpredictable so enjoyable. In lesser hands, or handled differently, it could lose the audience and feel like a cop out. Here it feels brilliant and fresh. I’m still watching because I am enjoying the series and because the writers don’t so much write themselves out of corners by throwing ridiculous developments on screen as find new and worse corners to write themselves into, upping the ante with each turn and seeing where it leaves the characters and the underpinning dynamic of the show.

 

 

Dark Shadows

Posted on by
Reply

Dark Shadows is, apparently, based on a TV series of the same name that aired for 5 years between 1967 and 1971. As far as I know the program never really dented the pop culture subconscious as I never knew it existed and, having seen the film, didn’t pick up on any of the references. To me it was essentially a new concept, albeit one that seemed massively reliant on the Munsters and the Addams Family.

Jonny Depp plays Barnabas Colins, a vampire from the 18th century who reawakens in 1970s America and finds his descendants have fallen on hard times. He sets about trying to reintegrate himself into his (dysfunctional) family and to set about restoring the family fortune. As well as finding himself matched against a familiar face from his past.

Those hoping to harken back to films like Edward Scissorhands, or the Addams Family will find themselves disappointed. I did spend time watching the film wondering if it was Tim Burton’s weakest work: it feels like a rehash of some of his earlier films coupled with a set up that is stronger in other works. I was underwhelmed, there was no real sense of the movie being off-kilter and the visuals were lacking. There were things I don’t remember in other Burton films, like actual sex jokes and some of the humour in general, but overall what was lost far outweighed what was gained and it was marred by a lack of originality, some poor storytelling and a noticeable problem with continuity.

The main humour in the film comes from Colin’s archaic speech patterns and confusion at the seventies. The decision to keep the film in the same era at the TV show seems a little odd, it doesn’t particularly gain anything by being set then and seems an exercise in nostalgia for something that common sense would seem to suggest isn’t particularly fondly thought of. At no point does the seventies setting seem to have been played for laughs or have any particular bearing on the story.

Speaking of lack of bearing on the story, there is a sub plot of particular characters being sensitive to the presence of spirits. However, this is never explored in one case and comes entirely nowhere as moment of importance in the case of another. It’s as if a subplot was dropped somewhere. It just seems a little cack-handed.

The continuity is also shown to be lacking when one character disappears with no explanation part way through the film and their absence is not really investigated or acted on by any of the other characters. It should be creating tension and it doesn’t. And it is thematically important to the plot.

Depp is good, as usual, but seems uninspired most of the time. Bonham Carter has her amusing moments. No one else really shines, although it is always good to see Pfeiffer in a film. It’s a film I wanted to like and feel disappointed in, moreover I can’t understand what the film set out to do and who wouldn’t be disappointed in it.

Serial Killing 4 Dummys

Posted on by
Reply

Serial Killing 4 Dummys is a low budget independent film about a boy in high school with no real aspirations and a black sense of humour who listens to music like Marilyn Manson who pretends he wants to be a serial killer to impress a girl. It’s also a black comedy that is genuinely funny (even if one of the best jokes is better in Hot Fuzz) and doesn’t actually look overly cheap or poorly acted.

The biggest surprise, rather than the film being genuinely funny, well acted or decently scripted, is the presence of Lisa Loeb in the cast. Lisa Loeb, for those of you without a memory of one hit wonders from the mid nineties who didn’t even make number one, is a woman who released one song that charted in the UK and looks exactly the same some twenty years later. A quick glance at IMDB confirms that, despite being born in 1968, she has been playing a teenager for the couple of decades. She’s like the Alanis Morrisette of Krankie imitators.

The two main problems with the film are the fact that the protagonist confuses whether he wants to impress a girl with whether he wants to follow a course of action. It starts with him clearly pretending to want to be a serial killer just to impress a girl to him actually trying to follow the course of action of his own volition. This isn’t a massive jump of logic, as we’re all prone to be irrational when we have a crush, especially as teens. The other problem is that the police are portrayed stereotypically in a manner reminiscent of bad tv shows dating back to the 70s. Honestly, I think that this is probably intentional and a deliberate joke. It’s isn’t a particularly funny one though, or isn’t made to be funny through this iteration of it.

There are some very good jokes though: the careers advisor is perfectly observed, alternating between being squirm inducing and hilarious (unintentionally to the character, brilliantly done by the writers), the therapist is more than just a plot device and the coach is really well crafted and acted. Like I said, the film is a genuinely pleasant surprise.

From the casting and writing, to the coach’s one liners and the main character’s flawed logic and ridiculous ideas of what being a serial killer actually involves and entails, it’s a twisted little teen movie that is actually enjoyable. It’s well worth a watch even if it has dated slightly.

Respect

Posted on by
Reply

Apparently the Respect Party is fielding candidates in every Bradford ward in the coming local elections. I am unsure as to how accurate this is, as I can’t really imagine them getting any traction at all in Ilkley (where their conservatism is so ingrained they still use the party logo selected by Mrs Thatcher) and I am sure there are other areas where they would lose their deposit.

Nonetheless, I should imagine there will be Respect councillors on Friday. In my local area there are lots of posters for Respect around. Apparently the candidate is well spoken and lucid, unfortunately his poster reminds me why I won’t be voting for him: he’s stood next to a photo shopped on George Galloway on it.

It’s an odd piece of image doctoring. George Galloway is either some form of dwarf fresh from filming the Hobbit, or my candidate is a giant, or both. Galloway’s shoulder is at the front, meaning he is at the front of the plane, yet he appears to be a foot shorter. Worse, he looks like an ailing grandfather: “grandad, look towards the camera, I know you have cataracts but turn to the sound of my voice, no grandad, my name isn’t Billy . . .”

I really don’t know how I feel about Respect. I can see them being good councillors, but I think their platform doesn’t really stand up to reality and they have no track record of actually being in power to compare against. I am generally in favour of their aspirations, I think they lack specifics, sometimes I think they are plain wrong but at least the majority of them seem to genuinely believe.

On the other hand, they could give power on Bradford council back to the Liberal/Tory axis. Admittedly, the Liberals aren’t always unprincipled little shits who will sell their souls for a chauffeur (on a local level) and conservatism can lead to very efficient councils, but their previous tenure running Bradford was largely disastrous.

Respect meshes closely with traditional Labour values, so I would see some sort of coalition there as realistic. Of course, it’s all moot if they don’t actually win any seats or Labour manages to pull some off the Liberals (as an aside, I find it fascinating how the Conservative vote appears to be holding steady whereas the Liberal one is dropping off a cliff nationally) and can effectively form a majority. The fact that Respect is even a factor is indicative of how poor a job Miliband is doing and also how disorganised their machine appears to be locally.

Gone

Posted on by
Reply

Gone, starring Amanda Seyfried, is a thriller about a girl who has previously been kidnapped by a serial killer (only to escape) whose sister goes missing one night. The film focuses around her attempts to locate her sister the following day as she works under the assumption that the serial killer who previously took her has now kidnapped her sister.

Discussing Gone without revealing parts of the plot is incredibly difficult, made harder still by the lack of ambiguity in much of the film. I am unsure if the film was always intended to be one note and quite so linear, or if it has become so because of poor direction and a feverish application of scissors in the editing suite.

The film shows the protagonist’s point of view almost exclusively and every other character is show in terms of interacting with her or reacting to her. As such, and because of the linearity of the film, there is never any real suggestion that she may be wrong in her assumption as to what has happened to her sister. When other characters voice their doubts the tone of the film is to make them appear to be time wasters rather than having grounded or rational doubts. This is a shame, because it robs the film of texture and also makes the tension disappear. Thrillers work best when the hero could be wrong and also when they are at risk. The decision to make the protagonist infallible in her beliefs cuts a lot of the tension.

On the subject of infallibility, every single character that the protagonist asks about her sister has information that is both useful and turns out to be correct. It’s like a poorly constructed point and click adventure that requires no thought and no analysis of potential bias: go to point A, talk to character B, head to location C and talk to character D . . .

The twist, such as there is, doesn’t work because the character has been shown as correct all this time. If there had been doubt cast on her beliefs and certainty in any meaningful way throughout the film, or even if the tone had been different, it could have worked better. The red herring character is no better, acting irrationally and lit to make him look sinister, but so obvious he can immediately be discounted: his entire character exists to throw suspicion on him and his every scene is an attempt to misdirect. The real villain is  underdeveloped and not particularly interesting, much like the rest of the film. It’s a shame, because Seyfried is eminently watchable and a capable actress. But the film is anaemic and has nothing to say and trouble saying even that.

Adventures in Television

Posted on by
Reply

When I went to Jorvik as a child I was struck by a epiphany: most of the archaeology was done from the waste and by products of the subjects’ day to day existence. We know more about how people live from what they throw away rather than what they keep. I have a similar opinion about culture: the debris and disposable products are more telling than that which has any permanence. I think adverts and music videos reveal more than drama or films.

I’ve just been flicking on the TV for about an hour. I learnt it is now a year since Jennifer Lopez was number one with the very manufactured sounding “Get on the Floor” featuring Pitbull. Apparently she is releasing another song with him treading much the same ground, probably in a cynical attempt to achieve the same. She’s a guilty pleasure of mine, but I hate Pitbull. He had a habit of name-dropping Kodak in his “raps” (presumably as paid product placement) and they have since gone bust. Dated.

The new Jennifer Lopez song (does she still call herself JLo?) features Pitbull desecrating the memory of ODB by appropriating one of his raps and delivering it in a way that makes it sound much worse. The only thing I really know about music is that the original was almost invariably better and each successive crop of artists plumbs depths I didn’t dare imagine even as I shuddered at their predecessors. Everyone believes music was better when they were younger, which is often true, but the ideas were almost certainly better when first expressed.

Niki Minaj song featuring huge amounts of auto tune. She has a weird nose. Usually can’t stand her but this actually isn’t bad. Nearly made it all the way through. Bugger, they turned the auto tune off and she is back doing her stuttering.

Blue by Eiffel 65. I’m not sure how badly this has dated. It was always awful and the video was always ridiculous. It’s not something that was previously considered good, which I think has to be one of the standards applied to the concept of time not being kind.

Jeremy Kyle in the USA. It’s really just Jerry Springer, isn’t it? Keep meaning to watch Jerry Springer: The Musical. I will some day.

The Big Bang Theory. I am informed it is one of the most popular shows on TV. I idly comfort myself with the notion that it is popular in the same way the art instruction manuals I look at on Amazon are ranked in the mid hundred thousands in terms of popularity in the category “books.” I’m deluding myself. People actually watch this rubbish.

MTV have Unplugged and Beavis and Butthead adverts on heavy rotation. Feels like 1992 again. In fairness, Unplugged isn’t a bad concept. ITV has adverts for Keith Lemon and Britain’s Got Talent, followed by Family Fortunes. Thank god I have got the desire to watch TV out of my system now.

Jessie J song. Although it’s really “Titanium” sung by Sia. The girl’s way too thin. Her shoulders look two head widths wide. Like a marionette twitching asexually on its way to an eating disorder intervention.

Repeat of Keith Floyd. That comb-over’s ridiculous. He’s talking about cocktail parties. Do people still have those now?

There we go: everything new seems dispiritingly retro. Everything genuinely old seems vaguely unrecognisable. There’s nothing new, but what I have forgotten feels vaguely alien.

Mayoral Referendum

Posted on by
Reply

On the date of the local elections Bradford also gets to vote on a referendum to have a directly elected Mayor. Now, theoretically, I am in favour of greater democracy, particularly at a local level. However, I am deeply suspicious of the idea. And it is not just the glutinous spectre of Eric Pickles that makes me wary.

With a council, you get to make adjustments to the make up of the council repeatedly during an electoral cycle. In Bradford we get to vote for candidates 3 times in four years. This means we can make changes to the make up of the council and policy can change and be censured by the electorate.

With a directly elected mayor we’d get the chance to change the policy maker once every four years. That’s a heck of a difference. And, if we look to London, we can see how poor the choice presented to the electorate can actually be: do you vote for the guy who is currently failing your city or the guy who failed it four years ago?

Bradford, of course, is not London. We’re pretty much guaranteed to attract a lesser class of politician and no one at the pinnacle of their powers will actually want to be our mayor. Rather than the likes of Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson we’re more likely to get Eric Pickles and George Galloway. A very human chill runs through my veins as I contemplate such a scenario.

It’s not just that I don’t trust the Bradford electorate (bluntly, I really don’t, that some of these people have the right to vote angers me), it’s not just that the stature of Bradford will mean we’re stuck with lesser lights (that I still see Ralph Berry’s name in association with local politics is saddening and scary), it’s also that our elected mayoral process in this country has a rather poor precedent. Let’s not exacerbate everything by voting yes to less accountability, the choice of a lesser of two evils or incompetencies every four years and to allow personality to dominate local policy.

Tintin

Posted on by
Reply

I have to admit, I never really liked Tintin over much as a child. I love Asterix. I can quote huge swathes of it and retain a fondness undiminished by age. Tintin, on the other hand, I think I may have read one or two books of and, while I appreciate Herge’s artistic strengths, I find a little dated as a concept.

The film is directed by Steven Spielberg and is CGI animated. Spielberg, for me, hasn’t been great for a number of years. Upon settling down to watch, however, I noticed that the screenplay was by Joe Cornish (Adam and Joe, Attack the Block), Edgar Wright (Spaced, Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) and Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Sherlock). That is a hell of a trifecta.

The animation of the film is really well thought out and well done: everything is consistent with itself and, although it’s definitely not realistic, it is engaging and conveys depth, weight and a sense of place and setting. It’s a rich and textured world in much the same way that Herge’s art accomplishes, and something that feels real on its own terms.

The writing is largely good, although the set up is a little hackneyed and there is a distinct feeling of boys own adventure to the events and circumstances. I am sure this is a carry over from the source material. For the most part the events are crisp and the dialogue reveals character and is entertaining in and of itself. The only real problems I have with the plot and characters are the Captain’s seeming dependency on alcohol and the two detectives acting solely as comic relief.

Beyond the technical consistency, the crispness of the dialogue and solidity of the story is one of Spielberg’s best films of the past 20 years. I know exactly how long it has been since I enjoyed a film of his this much, and also it eschews his normal rumination on family, parents and reconciliation. This is a straight-forward adventure that moves at a fair pace and takes in many exotic locales and situations.

That isn’t the best of the film though: it has a truly incredible chase in it. Impossible to film in live action, it’s a single shot that takes Tintin and adversary through a long chase with the camera cycling impossibly and the action taking place in the air, on water and road with the balance of advantage shifting repeatedly and the whole sequence being exciting and satisfying. I watch it and I am a child watching “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” again. It’s that good. And worth watching the film for. That the rest of the film is actually quite good is a pleasant surprise.