I Am Legend (2007)
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/ial.jpg)
Bloody Hollywood.
I've always said that it doesn't matter if they change a story from a well-known book, as long as they keep the spirit. They were so close here, but bottled it. It just falls apart right in front of you! It's like watching a star runner collapse with an asthma attack a foot off the finish line!
First off, let me say, overall I enjoyed I Am Legend a great deal. It's a fast paced action/horror with a few genuinely unnerving moments. Plus the overall story is a corker: everyone is dead from a virus, apart from Robert Neville (Will Smith) who is immune and trying to find a cure. The story follows his daily routine with Sam, his dog (amazing performance!), and his friends (the mannequins) and his not-so-friends (the vampires).
Smith is fantastic as probably the last man alive showing us both an action man and a very vulnerable, grieving man. An empty, ruined New York is creepy. And the sequences with the infected were great. What really wins it is director Francis Lawrence's understanding of silence and using a handheld camera every now and again. Along with scenes willing to show a broken, fallible hero, It makes for an unusual blockbuster. He proves he's the man to bring the classic novel to the screen with the story intact. That is, up until the third act where all is abandoned to Hollywood convention. Particularly frustrating to those who know the book and could see the threads forming early on.
The DVD features an alternate version with the original ending on before it was hacked and reshot for the theatrical release. It was a brave attempt at the books more powerful coda. However for it to have worked properly, they needed better villains.
Some had complaints about the effects. I don't mind the CGI baddies as they work perfectly well for a dumb monster movie, but I think it needed actors in make-up (like 30 Days of Night) to pull off the alternative ending more effectively. So it wouldn't have worked anyway. How about that for a paradox!
Instead, they stick with convention. Ironically a convention the book created! It is a sci-fi milestone that inspired modern vampire/zombie myth, but none of it's pretenders have ever quite pulled off the same idea. This proved they could do it. It could have easily been more powerful than the average blockbuster and it's only real crime is playing safe, stuffing up the reason for the title, and handing us a fun movie rather than a horror classic. Maybe next time.
Bloody Hollywood.
EDIT: Dropped the rating after sleeping on it. The decision to use full CGI for the infected is fundamentally flawed and therefore stupid. It undermines all the other (very) good work. Though the film came close to making a fair, modern telling of the book, it was never going to convince. They look ridiculous and such a basic flaw cannot be ignored.
Mr. Brooks
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/brooks.jpg)
Kevin Costner plays Earl Brooks, a successful business man who's just won a Man of the Year award, has a beautiful house, a great wife and a gorgeous daughter. Everything is perfect. Except Mr. Brooks has an addiction to killing and he's constantly fighting temptation to give in. Two years have passed since his last kill and Marshall (who the hell is Marshall, you say!) thinks they deserve a treat.
I took a risk here. Being a serial killer film, there was half a chance I'd have to exclude it from this horror marathon, but Thriller was born from Horror and it doesn't take much to count (e.g.: Silence of the Lambs, Seven). Luckily Mr. Brooks has enough perversions to join them.
It's a great film that unashamedly revels in it's subject and is darkly funny. It should easily appeal to Dexter fans being from the killers point of view and making the bastard likeable! But there's no cosy way out here. Brooks will kill anyone he takes a fancy to. It's Costner's best role for years, easily, and he seems to have a lot of fun with it, letting his guard down to show Earl is, like any addict, prone to obsessive emotions. Marshall both tempts and calms him luckily. His double-act with William Hurt is a joy.
Hold on... I've gotten ahead of myself. A double-act? Two killers? No. This is Fight Club style, embodied conscience territory and it's very well written. Marshall pops up at all sorts of awkward moments and Earl talks to him, though this is only for the viewers benefit as other characters don't even suspect Earl may be barking. Repeat viewings should reveal all sorts about the character that is easy to miss first time around. It's not so much a split personality as a partnership. They make independent decisions and congratulate each other, or argue. Marshall even comforts Earl in one moment and has a mardy fit in another! Of course, it's all Earl which just makes the sick depths of his mind all the more fascinating.
His killings are meticulous and perfect down to the last detail. Well, they should be. He's a little out of practice and a voyeur captures his endeavours on camera and blackmails him. But actually he just wants to join in. Marshall isn't happy, but Earl has a plan. To further complicate matters, millionaire Det. Atwood (Demi Moore, actually quite good. I know, it's just vulgar. "Demi Moore" and "good" in the same sentence) is getting closer to catching the notorious Thumbprint Killer (Brooks) through the same voyeur. Meanwhile an escaped convict is after her, while she's dealing with a messy divorce.
Complicated? Not really, but the film does rather have a lot of plates to keep spinning. And I haven't even mentioned the daughter, dropping out of school because of a secret. Marshall thinks she's lying... just how far does the secret go?
Towards the end all the threads crash together and annoyingly cripple the film for a good period of time. Thankfully the last act takes the threads and ties them up beautifully with much relish, so much so, you may find yourself cheering him on. Before you feel guilty, you'll also be cheering for Atwood, who gives the film a good kick up the arse a couple of times, just as it becomes too much about Earl and Marshall. She has two major action sequences and they are very well staged, especially a gunfight neat the end.
I sat watching the entire thing with a huge grin. Highly recommended. It isn't going to set the world on fire, but it has enough ideas to carve it's own niche in a busy genre.
The R1 DVD has a DTS sound mix and for the most part, being a drama, there's nothing to test your speakers. Except for the gunfight I mentioned which has incredible punch.
I enjoyed this so much I found myself hoping for a sequel, which I don't usually do. With Costner involved, who never does sequels, I thought it was finished. But it seems they always wanted this to be a trilogy, which would work so well. They say it depends on box office and DVD. The former was a washout, but here's hoping it finds a second life.
Alien3
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/alien3.jpg)
Ripley crash lands on a prison planet, the only survivor of the Sulaco. Into this world of rejects she brings another Alien.
WARNING: This is not a review. More of a rant. Sorry. :-[
What a fascinating mess of a film! I can't hate this movie, I won't hate this movie. It's a noble effort and a decent sci-fi film in it's own right. It just had neglectful parents. It's crying out for a Criterion release because I bet they could get uncut features with Fincher ripping into Fox. I'd love to hear the true story of how Fox screwed their own franchise. The twats. In fact, from here on in, "the studio" or "Fox" will be referred to as "the twats". That the film is as good and as watchable as it is, is a bloody miracle.
I watched, for the first time, the "Assembly Cut" and it is a very different beast. Without the still bitter Fincher it is as flawed as the theatrical release, but in a different way and more commendable. There is a glimpse of what could have been.
It was doomed from the start. Despite Aliens being a massive success, the twats had removed Ripley's back story (restored in the SE) which pissed off Sigourney and so she favoured a script with a reduced role so she could walk away. The twats meddling continued and they managed to piss everyone else off: with the scripts (Alien 3 is a mash-up of several ideas and it shows), the creature design (they asked Giger to update it, he overdid it and the twats ignored him! Actually probably best. I don't think his lift goes to the top floor...) and David Fincher. Typical twatty move to hire the current wonder-boy then take every decision away from him.
You can't start a production like that and expect it to work. And those fundamental flaws formed the building blocks of the real villain of the franchise, Alien 4. It seems to me from the features on this film that some threads of the rejected scripts made it into the next film and possibly some of Giger's more ludicrous designs which make Resurrections Alien/Human hybrid baby look good. Although his work should be honoured, I do think the man is utterly bonkers and his raw creativity was tempered for the first two so us mere mortals could actually understand it. Have you seen his books? He doesn't think like the rest of us. His design for Alien 3 included lips and the creature would kill by "kissing"! Seriously. Get the man his tablets. Fincher said he wanted to get back to the erotic nature of Alien, so Giger swapped the jaws for big lips. Jesus.
Another one who needs medication is Vincent Ward. His version of the screenplay was set on a wooden planet. With fucking monks. A fucking wooden planet with fucking monks. Oh. My. God. Have they even seen Alien? This was almost the shooting script by all accounts. Fincher comes in at the last minute to deal with the new script. Poor bastard made a decent go of it really.
So lets deal with what's on the screen. The good stuff. Lets take a step back and think for a moment. How many good part threes are there? Not many, especially on the back of two genuine masterpieces. At least Alien 3 tries to go back to scary basics of one Alien, while extending the story to a new level. A natural level, because it's always been about a fight between species and how our human nature keeps crippling us. Here the humans make a stand by becoming less than human.
The first two films are about survival. This is about death. So starting by killing off Newt and Hicks was controversial, brave and for this story, the right thing to do. This is nihilism. You liked those characters? Tough. Their dead. Deal. It kind of puts the viewer in Ripley's position. We've gone to hell and back with her and this is the reward. More death. Time for a change in attitude. Only right really, because the shit only hit the fan last time because of her. Go back for Newt, she gave the Queen a ticket off the planet and didn't check the ship before hypersleep. That's silly. You always check the back doors locked before going to bed, don't you? It's about time she accepted some responsibility.
The idea of her being infected forces the issue. On this world, she's as alien as the creature. To ram the point home it's a prison planet. A female is the very last thing they need, especially as their exile is their own doing. They've made a conscious decision to separate and form their own society, where they simply function until death which they welcome in whatever form God chooses to deliver. Yes, they've found religion too. This efficient, unemotional and committed group is the first match for the Alien. There are no cats or little girls to worry about here. They're going to fight to win, even if they die.
Excellent idea. Brilliant extension to Alien themes. However, it's pretty bloody miserable. The first two films were just as deep, but remembered to wrap it all up in something recognisably entertaining. A haunted house and a rollercoaster. Here they give us depression. Cheers. Killing two fan favourite characters might have suited this story, but they alienate (snigger) most of the audience. The twats also pissed off Michael Biehn with that one, by the way. When he heard how his character was treated, he allegedly made them pay him more for his likeness than all his work on Aliens! Give that man a beer! Biehn 1, Twats 0!
The assembly cut really improves things with plenty of back story to the prisoners, which only serves to support the excellent performances by the three or four main characters played by Dutton (the funeral is beautifully done), Dance (Ripley wants a piece! Told you it was new attitude. She never got a sniff before), Glover and a deservedly extended role for McGann. They actually have personalities beyond Bald and Ugly now, which was a serious problem before, and they're funny. A whole subplot was cut where they successfully capture the Alien and lock it up, before the nut (McGann) who was going on about "the dragon" lets it out again. That reminded me of Renfield from Dracula, obeying his enigmatic master. I loved that angle, absolutely made the film for me and they make me recommend it for you. It deserves a second chance on this score.
I wasn't so keen on them changing the dog for an ox. I always liked the shot of the dog barking at the facehugger. Here the crash is completely different and you don't see how the facehugger meets Babe (the name of the ox... just go with it). But the prisoners reaction is funnier when one finds the dead facehugger. The Alien overall is simply not that scary in either version. The sleeker design is cool, but CGI just doesn't work. There's even more of it in the SE.
The the last thing that's different is right at the end... Ripley still dies, but the Queen doesn't burst. Shame, because I always enjoyed that shot.
Pacing and editing is an issue and is the biggest black mark against the movie compared with the first entries. No build up to pure adrenalin here and Lance's cameo is just... odd. Without Fincher on board the whole enterprise was irretrievable, but I really recommend seeing this version. It had some good ideas as I said, looks great and could have been a perfect end to the trilogy. And if this post is anything to go by, plenty of waffle potential. Sorry. :-[
Now I've watched the first three, I suppose you're expecting me to include Alien Resurrection!
You can bollocks.
Suspiria
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/sus.jpg)
An American girl arrives late at a German dance academy in time to see a girl running away, who is murdered soon after. Other strange events follow and she finds out about the mysterious history of the school and that it used to be a front for a coven of witches before being destroyed in a fire.
Here's me, finally dipping my big toe into the murky, bloody waters of Italian horror. I've wanted to see Suspiria for a very long time as it is spoken of with great reverance.
It didn't disappoint, though it did take a little getting used to. It is at once faithfully developing and adhering to old techniques of genre film-making, while also pushing it to its very limits in ways even the independent spirit of 70s films would find impossible to match. As such, it is genuinely shocking, even today, with one scene in particular making a complete mockery of the entire Saw franchise. It's too easy to be snobbish though, so to put it in context, it was released the same year Spielberg invented the blockbuster in Jaws, three years after The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and two before Alien.
Horror is the most visual of the original genres, developed from German Expressionism where Gothic architecture and ominous shadows became the essential building blocks of any scary movie. The school is a perfect setting for a classic horror then, with everything from huge halls, creepy attics and secret rooms.
But what's changed over the years in general is that those core elements have softened; either audiences have become desensitised to the OTT visual style of old-school horror, or studios prefer something more generic and so soften the edges.
Dario Argento doesn't follow that thinking at all. He takes his typical Gothic mansion and enthusiastically drenches it colour. Every set is dazzlingly different to the last, in both decor and lighting. Even the narrative alludes to it, with a teacher conducting lessons in either the "red room" or the "yellow room". There is a blue room as well and Argento uses those primary colours along with windows and reflections to emphasise a hidden world just behind what we can see.
This is perhaps demonstrated best in a memorable scene when all the students are forced to abandon their rooms and have to sleep in makeshift beds all together in a hall that the teachers have hastily prepared. Sheets are hung from the ceiling to form a barrier inside the hall. When the lights are turned off, instead of the expected darkness, we get a deep dark red with shadows moving along the sheets.
Brilliantly effective, Argento never takes the obvious route in this film and defies convention whenever possible. This assault on convention and the senses is also in the soundtrack from Goblin. I'd forgotten about their wonderful, brief theme in Dawn of the Dead and this is similarly bonkers. It sounds like they threw everything into it! There's even a voice screaming "witch!" in the mix. At times, I found it a bit much, but then I wasn't expecting such a visceral experience overall and repeat viewings will let me appreciate it properly. When the girl is departing the airport at the very start, the music is only heard when the doors at the front open. Nice gag and underlines the idea she's stepping into a new world.
So it's all very pretty in a foreboding way, but these Italian films are known for their blood soaked murders. Suspiria opens with one of the best movie murders I've ever seen and has one or two more that are very powerful indeed. Not so much for their aesthetics, but just because they get under your skin and again challenge what you may expect to be the norm. Continuing the notion of hidden worlds, a lot of windows get smashed during these scenes. The first victim is suffocated against the glass before it finally breaks.
The opening murder has a great 'two for one' twist, but I was really unsettled when the blind piano player was attacked by his own dog. That never happens! Never! The only thing in the world that man could rely on was his faithful companion and defender. Yet he rips his fucking throat out without any warning! That is the ultimate rug pulling from under any audience. Then we get the scene with the razor wire, which is the one I meant earlier when I mentioned Saw, a film that wouldn't know a metaphor if it was locked in a trap and its life depended on it. It's such a surprise after a long chase for freedom and she just gets deeper in the shit the more she struggles. Truly astonishing.
What really surprised me is the lack of gore though. It's used in the right place at the right times to best serve the story. I've come to think that Giallo is a term thrown around without much understanding and is actually a more subtle genre. In fact, remove the murders, lessen the tone and you have a typical fairytale. Harry Potter and the Bloody Nasty Witches, perhaps?
This is possibly the films masterstroke, because despite the very adult tone, it's set in a child’s world of simple black and white morality and therefore gets to the root of our fears. The teachers who are really witches/robots/aliens (delete as applicable) is a common story, that thrives on that idea of hidden worlds (the big scary adult world usually). The idea that all the students think the teachers go home every night, but one realises the footsteps go in the wrong direction is a very childish notion, and I mean that in a very, very good way.
The DVD I found a bit odd. It has a fantastic DTS soundtrack, but only in English. The original Italian -which I would normally prefer- doesn't have a subtitles option, so it's impossible to watch. However, it did look like dubbed Italian anyway, and the English was very well done. Was this and perhaps other Italian films recorded in the same way as many Hong Kong films, in that they're dubbed, even in their own language?
I'm very impressed overall. Thanks to Jimmy for the encouragement, and I can see the next time I plan to dip a toe, it will be more of a mushroom dive while yelling "Geronimo"! ;)