Blog

  • Blast from the Past: reviewing David Cronenberg’s Spider

    I’ve enjoyed writing film reviews for quite some time now, though only in the last couple of years or so have I tried to do this in any sort of organised way. Whilst trawling through Harry Knowles’ marvellously insane Ain’t It Cool News site recently, I rediscovered one of the first reviews I ever had published on a popular website.

    The movie in question was David Cronenberg’s rather fine Spider, starring Ralph Fiennes. The reason I chose to review this film was simple: it received its UK premiere at the Cambridge Film Festival in July 2002, long before its nationwide release and indeed its arrival Stateside. A perfect opportunity to review a film ahead of the pack for once. (I’m quite pleased to note that this means I have been a visitor to the Festival for at least ten years now.)

    As both my brother and I went to the screening and were regular readers of Ain’t It Cool, we both submitted reviews (I forget who decided to review it first; I have an inkling it wasn’t me). And happily, both got published. You can read the original article here, but for posterity I have reprinted it below. Not that I’m particularly proud of it, you understand, but occasionally it’s nice to see how far you’ve come. And yes, we both got to shake Richard Harris’ hand at the festival that year – not long before he passed away. Cheers, bro.

    So here you are; I went under the codename of Deep Red, and my brother Thin Red. Cool, huh?

    ***

    Thin Red & Deep Red attend the UK Premiere of Cronenberg’s SPIDERS!!!
    Published at: Jul 22, 2002 10:30:10 AM CDT

    Hey folks, Harry here…. The word that came from Cannes was a bit mixed on Cronenberg’s latest, but then word is usually mixed on David’s films and that doesn’t stop me from admiring and enjoying each and every new film he makes. They succeed at different levels and consistencies, but they are never like anybody else’s films… They are always David Cronenberg movies, and that should be enough for any film geek to chance it. Here’s a pair of brothers in the Argento vein…. Deep Red and lil bro Thin Red….

     

    Hey Harry,

    Deep Red here in Cambridge, U.K. with a review of David Cronenberg’s latest
    film, Spider. I believe my younger sibling (Thin Red _______) has already
    sent you a quite ecstatic review of it. Here are my thoughts:

    After some sombre opening credits we meet Clegg (Ralph Fiennes), stepping
    off a train in London, on his way to a house that offers accomodation for
    ‘mentally unbalanced’ people who are either making a recovery or seemingly
    less dangerous than their more unhinged breathren. We’ve all seen people
    like Clegg at stations or cities around the world: shabby, smelly,
    unsightly, not quite with it. Fiennes delivers an amazing performance: he
    smokes endlessly, scrawls unintelligible words in a notebook, and mutters
    words to himself as he remembers his childhood.

    At this house (located opposite an enormous gasworks, the significance of
    which becomes apparent later), he begins to remember his childhood from the
    1950s, and the events that led to his current situation. Fienne’s Clegg
    watches on as he sees his younger self (Bradley Hall) in these times.
    Apparently friendless, he stays at home after school with his loving mother
    (Miranda Richardson). His father (Gabriel Byrne) is becoming bored with his
    family, preferring to go down the pub with his wife. When he starts having
    an affair with a local slut (also played by Miranda Richardson), tragedy
    lurks around the corner for mother, father and child…

    It’s a simple tale, but told in an intelligent, thought-provoking, low-key
    way that one does not expect from Cronenberg. A dark, absorbing drama with
    absolutely no showiness at all. Although actors playing different roles
    invites natural wariness on the part of many movie-goers (particularly those
    who barely survived David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive), this film employs the
    tactic for all the right reasons: the viewer is not required to make some
    ridiculous leap of logic in order to “get it”. The performances are great –
    Fiennes and Richardson do great work, ably supported by Bynre and Lynn
    Redgrave as the woman running the house. But where next for Cronenberg? Here
    is a director who is maturing as a filmmaker, looking for a new direction
    for his career. If he continues down this road, I can’t wait to see what’s
    next.

    So all in all, a very, very good film – well worth anyone’s time.

    Deep Red

     

    Here’s the little brother of doom…

     

    Morning, Knowles. Thin Red here…

    My brother (Deep Red) and I went to the UK premiere of Cronenberg’s latest

    SPIDER, last night – at the Cambridge Film Festival; and it was rather
    spiffing, I must say. I doubt this’ll get on to your site, I’m sure a few
    early reviews got in after Cannes. Anyway – i keep my fingers crossed and
    anything else i’ve got going, crossed, to hope i manage to climb to the
    dizzy heights of a review on your jolly website.

    My (brief, because i’m at work) review of SPIDER.

    I havent had too many encounters with Cronenberg, but with the few I have
    had, i was suitably intrigued and impressed. Videodrome was creepy and
    brilliant, while eXistenZ was scary and poignant. I could see a theme
    running in his work: identity, and the loss or discovery of it (having read
    through reviews of his other movies too). I wanted more of his work, and
    just havent got round to it, until i found that his new movie was being
    premiered right on my back doorstep 4months before its even going to be
    released across the UK. Bargain!! I asked my brother to buy tickets as soon
    as possible (2weeks before it was shown) and satisfied my cravings by
    watching other premieres such as “Amadeus: Directors Cut” (3hrs long). and
    Richard Harris(Gladiator, Harry Potter)’s latest “My Kingdom” (modern
    adaptation of King Lear in Liverpool – dont let it put you off, its good!),
    at which he attended! i shook his hand!

    Anyway – when Spider came along on sunday night, i sat on my seat (front
    row… on the left side, grrr), and 1h 40mins later, got on my feet and
    walked away. I wasn’t sure how i felt. I knew i’d liked the film, but…
    where was my reaction? I realised i was in a slight shock. I’d given my
    brother a thumbs up, as i passed him and his g/f, but i still wasnt sure.
    Then it hit me, the reaction i yearn for after a film i look forward to.
    “Wow”. If i get a “wow”. i know i’m voting 10/10 on IMDB. And this wow was
    involuntary.

    Cronenberg’s direction and his cinematographer have created a mood piece
    more than anything. His lead character, Ralph Fiennes’ “Clegg” barely talks:
    he rambles and mutters under his breath. So if the lead performer is not
    too vocal Cronenberg must compensate and compliment him. He does this
    marvellously.

    I won’t go too detailed into the story, because i hate it when people give
    spoilers. But suffice to say, Clegg is a loner and somewhat unstable man,
    who arrives at a house in London, where a few similarly unwell people go to
    be catered for, and looked after. Here he starts having flashbacks of his
    youth as a 10yr old, looked after by his loving mother (Miranda Richardson)
    and not-so-loving father (Gabriel Byrne). and thats all you’re getting –
    lets just say, his flashbacks dont help him get over his instability, but
    make it worse.

    Cronenberg compensates for the lack of insight into Fiennes character, by
    investing into his history, and having him as an onlooker into his past, and
    his parents, tremendously performed, especially by Miranda Richardson, who
    will more than likely be up for several awards come March. Her
    multi-charcter yet same-character performances are wonderous… so
    different, i thought it was another actress, until half way through. Byrne
    does a fine job, as does Lynn Redgrave. However, for this movie to be
    successful, Clegg needed to be a sympathetic, mysterious man, with a suspect
    past. Fiennes manages this very well. It takes a while to get used to his
    mannerisms, but when you do, you get to see how this man works, and by the
    end, why he is the way he is. Fiennes gives a cracking, understated
    performance.

    I hope you come out with the reaction i did about 3mins after you’ve walked
    out the cinema…

    ………………………………………………………………….
    ……………………………………”wow”

    Chin-chin

    ***Thin Red

  • Digital Fix review – Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

    My review of the fairly enjoyable Ewan McGregor/Emily Blunt romantic comedy drama currently in cinemas is now up at The Digital Fix:

    Salmon Fishing in the Yemen @ The Digital Fix

  • Waiting for Prometheus

    Prometheus poster
    TOO. MUCH. INFORMATION.

    So, Prometheus then. I know I’m not the only person eagerly anticipating Sir Ridley Scott’s latest project. As we all know by now, it’s set within the Alien universe before the events of his classic sci-fi horror, though to what extent it serves as a direct prequel remains to be seen. It’s in 3D (which saddens me a little). It stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Idris Elba and Guy Pearce. Fassbender’s character is an android. And it has something to do with the origins of the mysterious ‘Space Jockey’ corpse briefly seen in the first film.

    That’s about as much as I know, and I’m desperately trying to keep it that way. Occasionally a film comes along that you really, REALLY don’t want spoiled for you. That you want to unfold afresh before your eyes, letting the story take you to its conclusion with no knowledge of the journey to come. To allow the surprises to catch you unawares. In short: to really, truly, honestly experience it.

    It’s a tricky thing in the age of the internet though. Scripts are reviewed online before they are even greenlit. Spoilers abound everywhere. Images are sneaked and spread through social media. Trailers are available across hundreds, if not thousands of websites. Even the trailers themselves now have trailers.

    To ignore all of this about a film you are desperate to see requires a significant amount of willpower. In fact, it requires you to embark on some sort of hermit mission by inhabiting a kind of digital cave, only occasionally venturing out to see what’s new in the weird and wonderful land of civilization. Needless to say, I haven’t been completely successful. New images from the film crop up on sites like Facebook unbidden and I am forced to click hastily away, mentally renewing my sworn oath of spoiler chastity.

    Mercifully, the release date for Prometheus is slowly ticking round and within a matter of weeks I will be privy at last to its mythical contents. Until then, please don’t tell me anything about the film, otherwise I might be forced to kill you, and then eat you. Just in case, you understand.

  • Take One: The Devil’s Business – interview with Sean Hogan

    Here’s an interview I did with director Sean Hogan for Take One, about his impressive new low-budget British horror film The Devil’s Business:

    The Devil’s Business – Interview with Sean Hogan

  • Review: The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

    The Cabin in the Woods posterOn the surface, the latest genre flick from writer-producer Joss Whedon (a busy man this month, what with this and superhero blockbuster The Avengers almost upon us) and writer-director Drew Goddard (Cloverfield) sounds like your common or garden horror set in some remote American woodlands  – a blatant Evil Dead rip-off. Five students head off to a remote holiday cabin for a break, not realising the supernatural horrors that await them… yawn.

    But The Cabin in the Woods is so much more. Without wanting to demean it, it is clearly the new Scream.

    If you recall, in the mid-1990s the whole slasher movie genre typified by endless sequels to Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th had not only played itself out, it had dug its own grave and carved the headstone. Then suddenly Scream arrived: a post-modern horror that mocked the films it seemingly imitated while reinventing and rejuvenating the genre for a new generation. Director Wes Craven happily subverted the very films he had founded his career on.

    Cabin pulls very much the same trick, but on a much grander scale. It’s a deconstruction, satire and celebration of just about every horror cliché in the book. Just like Scream, it’s funny, it’s scary, it’s quite bloody, and it completely messes with your expectations. It’s a real treat, especially if you know your horror films.

    To say any more would spoil the surprises in store – this is a film where you really should avoid seeing the trailer in advance. Suffice it to say the script is sharp and the performances spot on. If I could level one complaint, it would be that there aren’t quite enough genuine scares to justify labelling it an instant horror classic – Goddard just doesn’t have the expertise that Craven did in his prime – but there’s still enough tension to keep things interesting.

    Just don’t expect a sequel.

    [xrr rating =4/5]

  • Friday Favourites: 10 sequels we should all pretend don’t exist

    A few weeks back I suggested ten films that deserved a sequel but sadly never received one. The flip side of this would be a list of sequels that were made, but shouldn’t have been. This is a much harder task, given the sheer volume of sequels that disappointed or just didn’t measure up to the original; but here for your reading pleasure are a few of my choices of follow-ups that not only disappointed but utterly stained the film from whence they sprung.

     

    Batman & Robin poster

    1. Batman & Robin (1997)

    Easy one, this. A genuine contender for Worst Sequel of All Time: a pun-drenched, painfully poor script from Akiva Goldsman; headache-inducing camerawork; the camp, dayglo production design; and a cast that couldn’t be more ill-suited to their characters. Result: franchise crash and burn (until Christopher Nolan’s 2005 reboot, anyway).

     

    2. Aliens vs Predator: Requiem (2007)

    Regular readers will know of my love of the Alien franchise, so this really was a heartbreaking moment for me. Regardless of whether you count it as a sequel to the original tetralogy or its immediate predecessor, AvP, this is a follow-up so genuinely unpleasant (tedious characters, tedious plot, nasty action) it just shouldn’t be watched. Even the studio realised this, hence the film’s cinematography being so dark it’s practically unwatchable anyway.

     

    3. Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)

    How the mighty have fallen. That Richard Donner’s original comic-book masterpiece should have given birth to this load of cheap old tat is unthinkable. Christopher Reeve is reliably excellent as usual, but he’s the sole reason for watching this poor excuse for milking a cash cow dry. Two words – Nuclear Man. I mean, what? Incidentally, what is it about part fours that consistently make them so much worse than any other sequels?

     

    Jaws: The Revenge poster4. Jaws: The Revenge (1987)

    Speaking of which, here comes another part four from 1987 that shits all over its classic 1970s forefather. Witness the inept direction and nonsensical plot: the way it tries to replay key moments from Spielberg’s film but completely fails to make them work. This is the film about which Michael Caine famously commented he hadn’t seen, but he had seen the house that it built – surely the only positive thing to emerge from this travesty.

     

    5. Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

    I don’t even remember what Exorcist II was about. All I can remember was a) it was a bizarre mess; b) there were quite a lot of locusts;  and c) Richard Burton popped up. Probably best just to leave it there, to be honest.

     

    6. Omen IV: The Awakening (1991)

    Oh hello, another eye-gougingly awful part four. Seriously, if you’re a filmmaker asked to take on a third sequel to a great original – just leave well alone. This film was in fact a TV movie, an attempt to resurrect the Damien franchise that should have been left dead and buried after part three. Miraculously, it reached some cinemas in Europe. I pity the fools that paid money to watch its miserable attempts to stir up terror.

     

    7. The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior (2008)

    In which a warrior rises, apparently. Yes, I did watch this. No, I shouldn’t have. I quite enjoyed the first film – a bright and breezy sword-and-sandals actioner which tipped its hat to the slightly camp fantasy adventures of the 80s typified by Conan the Barbarian/Destroyer and the like. This direct-to-dvd follow-up looks like an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess, but on a lower budget. It does however win points for its hysterically funny giant invisible scorpion at the end, which looks like it might have been created on an Amiga 500.  But what’s with all the pointless Greek mythology references?

     

    Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End poster8. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End (2007)

    If I’ve learnt one thing from this article, it’s to fear sequels that are released in a year ending in 7. They are certain doom. Still, at least it wasn’t a part four (On Stranger Tides – which, in point of fact, was slightly better than part three). At World’s End was a near three-hour long barrage of noise, gloom, CGI action and general melancholic tedium. Despite the high volume levels, it’s the closest I’ve ever come to nodding off at the cinema (not counting the Alien Trilogy all-nighter, which saw me briefly flag at around 6am in the middle of Alien 3).

     

    9. Ocean’s Twelve (2004)

    Steven Soderbergh’s sequel to his highly enjoyable 2001 caper remake is a textbook lesson in How To Destroy Everything People Liked About The First Film. Here, the plot isn’t clever, it’s stupid; worse, it cheats by going back on itself and changing the rules. The plot point about Julia Roberts’ character looking quite like Julia Roberts is also gobsmackingly irritating, to the extent that you want to punch the film repeatedly in the face. ARRRRGH! *punches film in face*

     

    10. Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)

    Let’s finish with another part four, shall we? Going down the prequel route, this unwanted drivel purports to show us how Norman Bates became the man we all loved to be scared of. In doing so, the film completely misses the point of Hitchcock’s classic original: that horror can be found lurking in the most ordinary and benign situations – even behind the eyes of a seemingly nice young man like Norman. Just awful.

  • Review: Battleship (2012)

    Battleship posterSome films are so astoundingly silly that, against your better judgement, you can’t help but have fun. Such is the case with Battleship, the latest movie to be based on a Hasbro franchise (there are no toys or games any more, just brands and franchises). Given the enormous financial success of the Transformers franchise, it’s only slightly surprising that a two-hour plus movie based on a simple, wet-summer-holidays strategy game has emerged as a special effects-crammed, self-appointed blockbuster.

    In tone and look, Battleship does feel like a spin-off from one of Michael Bay’s ultra-loud slices of robotic mayhem; it’s certainly in love with the military hardware and mass destruction on display, and is unabashedly patriotic. This is a film that would blow the word ‘subtle’ out of the water if it dared to sail within firing range. Explosions pile on top of more explosions as an outnumbered and outgunned American naval crew try to outwit a technologically superior alien invasion force who have decided to invade our planet (best not to ask why they have chosen to do so, or how the crew find out why). Naturally they pick Hawaii as a starting point. Well, wouldn’t you?

    On the surface it’s a simple jingoistic exercise in machismo and CGI: clean shaven Americans blow up evil aliens, the end. All well and good of course (assuming it’s done well), though the suggestion that those wacky scientists are to blame for bringing this threat to us by attempting to send a signal to a nearby exo-planet grates somewhat. Never mind the highly questionable science – what annoys is the oh-so-tired suggestion that science will bring about Earth’s doom, and the military will naturally have to step in to save the world. Er, is it the 1950s again?

    Even more laughable than the back-of-a-fag-packet plot is its barking mad cast. Taylor Kitsch and Rihanna decked out in military uniforms couldn’t look more out of place if they were running for parliament. Kitsch once again looks all at sea (I-thank-you) in a big budget sci-fi spectacle, after last month’s otherwise OK John Carter.  His singular lack of charisma and expression recalls that other one-dimensional Hollywood star, Paul Walker; line them up side by side and you could start building a fence. Rihanna’s anaemic performance suggests she should probably stick to the singing. Brooklyn Decker as Kitsch’s girlfriend was clearly only cast for two reasons, though to be fair they both offer strong competition to the beautiful mountainous scenery she finds herself stranded in. Thank God then for Liam Neeson, who injects some much-needed presence to his role as Admiral Shane, though the plot relegates him to the sidelines in little more than a cameo (or maybe that’s what attracted him to the largely Hawaiian-set production – who knows?). Occasionally he looks as if he can’t quite believe he actually signed up for this nonsense. Audiences will probably be thinking the same.

    Almost single-handedly stopping the whole thing from sinking under the weight of its own preposterousness is director Peter Berg’s occasional hints of tongue-in-cheek. I particularly enjoyed the bit where Kitsch and his Japanese buddy ran up the deck of a sinking ship just to jump off the stern, rather than leap off the side like everyone else. Clearly that route just wasn’t quite spectacular enough. It’s moments like these when the ridiculousness of it all shines through that you can’t help but smile, and I have to admit I smiled quite a few times. The mid-film sequence where the crew play Battleship for real with the aliens (after radar has been rendered useless) is also quite amusing, though you do end up wishing you could just go home and play the game instead. But I guess that was Hasbro’s mission all along; there’s certainly no doubt which of the two will have a longer shelf life.

    [xrr rating=2/5]

  • Review: Le Havre (2011)

    Le Havre is one of those quintessentially continental slices of whimsy that drops in to your local arthouse cinema every couple of months or so. Imagine if Nick Park decided to switch from stop-motion to live-action films, and remade Casablanca in a rundown port city in the present day. All that’s missing is a talking penguin.

    André Wilms stars as elderly shoe shiner Marcel Marx, who takes young illegal immigrant Idrissa (Blondin Miguel) in to his home after the boy evades capture by the port authorities. How Marcel goes about trying to reunite him with his mother in London is a strangely sweet story, neither sentimental nor political. The townsfolk who assist Marcel – a baker, a greengrocer, even a washed-up rock star – are as uncomplicated as Marcel himself. Only Jean-Pierre Darroussin as the inspector on the child’s trail has anything like a character arc. This is not a film that deals in shades of grey – what you see is what you get. And in its old-fashioned way, it’s rather charming.

    Director Aki Kaurismäki (whose other films I have yet to see) has a clear talent for deadpan humour, and isn’t afraid to let scenes run to within touching distance of the absurd; witness the inspector buying a pineapple, or rock star Little Bob’s fundraising gig. He also captures the rundown feel of the port town very well, the camera finding beauty in several unlikely places.  It won’t be for everyone, but Le Havre is definitely worth your time.

    [xrr rating=4/5]

  • Digital Fix review – Wrath of the Titans

    My review of Wrath of the Titans – it’s better than the first one:

    Wrath of the Titans @ The Digital Fix