As independent films go, Sparks is pretty good. It is billed as a super-hero movie but don't expect it to be an effects-filled extravaganza. Cleverly it is set in the 1940s, so the supers don't need much in the way of powers to battle bad guys armed mostly with their fists and the odd baseball bat. In fact, most of the supers don't have any powers at all... just a mask and the guts to mix it a bit.
It is a dark film. Definitely not one for the kids. The hero gets put through the ringer and the villain is an insane bible-bashing serial killer.
SPOILERS
During the opening credits we see a meteor hit America and learn that all but 13 people exposed to its radiation died. These few, the Rochester 13, all gain different radiation-induced special abilities. At this point I assumed that Sparks was one of them... but he isn't.
Most of the film is Sparks recounting his story to a journalist whilst on the run accused of nine murders. We learn early on that his real name is Ian Sparks and his parents were killed when he was a child. He blames criminals for his parents death and decides to fight crime. Clearly Ian isn't a bright spark, because he decides to use the name Sparks as his super identity. Not that clever when he lives with his grandmother, who is killed when bad guys that Sparks has "put down" come back for revenge.
In fact, things don't go very well for Sparks for a long time. He gets beaten up a lot, but bounces back and trains hard. In one throw away comment he mentions that he heals pretty good. Is that a clue that he has some sort of healing power? (like Wolverine)
Things pick up when he manages to attach himself to female crime-fighter Lady Heavenly. Not very modestly named, or dressed. She doesn't have any super powers either... unless you count the ability to only take on thugs stupid enough to fall for her telegraphed back-kick every time.
Ian and The Lady become a couple and everything looks rosy until they take on serial killer Matanza. The killer brutalises The Lady, but doesn't kill her because she is rescued by her ex-boyfriend Sledge who kills Matanza. Everyone ridicules Sparks because he appears to have blacked out, leaving The Lady to the mercy of Matanza. She leaves him and goes back to Sledge.
Until now things have been quite dark, but Ian sinks into a deep depression and hangs himself. Just as his landlord is helping himself to the rent from Ian's wallet, the dangling Ian comes back to life with a gasp. Aha, so he does have healing powers. But if he isn't one of the Rochester 13 then where did his power come from?
Ian meets an ex-cop called Archer who explains how Ian's parents died and introduces him to two people with real super powers - Cain and Dawn. Cain can throw fireballs and Dawn can take on the appearance of anyone she has touched. Ian asks why they hide their powers and Cain says it is so they can go "where the real action is".
The next scenes are very interesting. Ian still thinks he has no powers. He helps Archer, Cain and Dawn to get revenge on another of the Rochester 13 who Archer claims was responsible for Ian's parents death. But this turns out to be a lie. Archer himself was ultimately to blame for the accident, and the "revenge" is simply a robbery. Ian is shocked to find out that the "heroes" with powers are really just out for themselves to make money.
We keep getting updated versions of Ian's parents death. Eventually we find out that their car was rammed into a train carrying tankers of experimental red liquid. This liquid has given Ian (and later we find Archer too) his healing powers.
Alone again Ian discovers Matanza's old lair and finds film footage which shows that he was shot in the head, he didn't black out, and also that Sledge was in league with Matanza. Finally Ian believes that he has powers. He sends the film to The Lady and asks to meet her.
When the Lady meets Ian she greets him warmly but then stabs him... before morphing into Matanza who it turns out is one of the Rochester 13 and faked his death at the hands of Sledge. Hiding Ian's body he waits for The Lady and then shoots her, disguised as Ian.
Of course, Ian isn't dead and goes after Matanza. He gets shot and thrown off a building by Sledge, who turns out to be Matanza's son and is also a shape-shifter. But when Sledge finds out that Matanza has killed the Lady he attacks him... and is killed.
This gives Ian enough time to recover and when Matanza comes for him he blows them both up with dynamite.
We see a finger twitching and a pool of blood soaking back into it.
This would have been a great place to finish the film. Can Sparks possibly recover from being blown to pieces? A bit of uncertainty and mystery at the end would have been good.
Instead we get two pointless scenes extra. In one Ian tracks down Archer to India and doesn't help him escape the lizard man. Then at the end we discover that The Lady isn't dead... and she and Ian get back together... ahhhh.
So, a few flaws, a low budget, but a good story I thought and well executed. I enjoyed it.
Thursday 27 November 2014
Sunday 23 November 2014
Oyster Card Auto-top-up Nonsense
I don't travel on the London Underground much these days. When I did though, I had an Oyster Card which was very handy.
Last week I did happen to go into London and needed to use the Tube. I fished out my Oyster before I went and checked to see that it had some credit on it. It did, about £11. I also noticed that it still had Auto-Top-Up enabled...
Aha, I thought. If I use the Oyster then it will try and add on £20 from my (old) credit card when my balance goes under £10. Even though I knew they couldn't charge me, because the card expired over 2 years ago, out of politeness and not wanting any hassle, I cancelled the Auto-Top-Up before I left home.
Sorted, you might think.
Oh no. I used the Oyster and everything seemed to work fine. But the next day I got a rather threateningly worded email saying that my Auto-Top-Up payment had failed and I must pay the money or my card would be cancelled.
I checked my account online. There was the cancellation, at 2pm, and there was the attempt to top-up, at 10pm.
I phoned TfL to point out their mistake...
Sorted, you might think.
Oh no. Apparently it was my mistake. Even though I had cancelled the Auto-Top-Up, the barriers take 24 hours to be aware of this... so they were right to charge me a top-up.
OK. Fine. That sounds dumb, I said politely, so just cancel the top-up and we can get on with our lives. Sorry, says the operative, the money is on your card now... so you have to pay us the £20 before we can remove it.
Huh? I have to pay them £20 so they can give me it back?
Sometimes, on the phone, you find yourself so dumbfounded by someone quoting ridiculous policies that you just have to accept defeat and give up.
So what happens now? I don't need my Oyster any more, as there are cheaper alternatives, so they can cancel it. I would cancel the card myself but you can't do that online, you have to phone (which I can't bear to try again) or do it by post.
Let me check... this is the 21st century isn't it?
Last week I did happen to go into London and needed to use the Tube. I fished out my Oyster before I went and checked to see that it had some credit on it. It did, about £11. I also noticed that it still had Auto-Top-Up enabled...
Aha, I thought. If I use the Oyster then it will try and add on £20 from my (old) credit card when my balance goes under £10. Even though I knew they couldn't charge me, because the card expired over 2 years ago, out of politeness and not wanting any hassle, I cancelled the Auto-Top-Up before I left home.
Sorted, you might think.
Oh no. I used the Oyster and everything seemed to work fine. But the next day I got a rather threateningly worded email saying that my Auto-Top-Up payment had failed and I must pay the money or my card would be cancelled.
I checked my account online. There was the cancellation, at 2pm, and there was the attempt to top-up, at 10pm.
I phoned TfL to point out their mistake...
Sorted, you might think.
Oh no. Apparently it was my mistake. Even though I had cancelled the Auto-Top-Up, the barriers take 24 hours to be aware of this... so they were right to charge me a top-up.
OK. Fine. That sounds dumb, I said politely, so just cancel the top-up and we can get on with our lives. Sorry, says the operative, the money is on your card now... so you have to pay us the £20 before we can remove it.
Huh? I have to pay them £20 so they can give me it back?
Sometimes, on the phone, you find yourself so dumbfounded by someone quoting ridiculous policies that you just have to accept defeat and give up.
So what happens now? I don't need my Oyster any more, as there are cheaper alternatives, so they can cancel it. I would cancel the card myself but you can't do that online, you have to phone (which I can't bear to try again) or do it by post.
Let me check... this is the 21st century isn't it?
Play
My policy of not reading film reviews or watching trailers if possible let me down on this one. Play is a film about bullying. As someone who was bullied as a child that's not a subject I care to revisit.
Even worse, Play also seems to be about a gang of black kids bullying white kids. I say it seems to because I didn't watch the whole film. After about 30 minutes I'd seen enough.
So maybe this is a good film if you care to watch it all. Maybe it isn't racial stereotyping. It claims to be based on a true story. Maybe it is. Who knows. I don't.
Even worse, Play also seems to be about a gang of black kids bullying white kids. I say it seems to because I didn't watch the whole film. After about 30 minutes I'd seen enough.
So maybe this is a good film if you care to watch it all. Maybe it isn't racial stereotyping. It claims to be based on a true story. Maybe it is. Who knows. I don't.
Thursday 20 November 2014
After The Wedding
This is a stunningly emotional film which had me in tears several times... I don't usually cry at weddings. My old favourite Rolf Lassgård is for once matched for gravitas by the other stars Mads Mikkelsen, Sidse Babett Knudsen and Stine Fischer Christensen. At last a full complement of Danish actors to stretch the great man and produce a truly great film.
SPOILERS
We begin in India with Jacob (Mikkelsen) struggling to keep an orphanage running. You can tell that he's been there a long time and that he's committed to helping the children. A lifeline appears. A wealthy donor in Denmark wishes to fund the orphanage, on the condition that Jacob meets him in Denmark to complete the arrangements.
Jacob is reluctant to leave India. He tells the children that The West is full of rich idiots. But the head of the orphanage insists he goes, as this is the only way to save the orphanage. So he goes.
Clearly uncomfortable to be back in Denmark, Jacob meets with Jorgen (Lassgard) who explains that he hasn't quite made up his mind which projects to fund yet. This annoys Jacob, who thought the deal was already agreed. Jorgen is apologetic and explains that he can't think straight because his daughter Anna (Christensen) is getting married the next day. He invites Jacob to the wedding.
So far, so interesting. But when Jacob arrives at the church we see that Jorgen's wife Helene (Knudsen) recognises him. They clearly know each other but say nothing when they are formally introduced. Intriguing. Then comes the big shock. At the wedding reception Anna makes a speech thanking her parents... especially Jorgen even though he's not her genetic father!
This scene is terrific. At that point in the speech Helene casts a glance at Jacob. The look plus some quick maths tells Jacob that Anna is actually his daughter. He is shocked to say the least.
The following scenes are wonderfully done too. Jacob takes a moment, then confronts Helene, leaves and comes back the next day to get the truth. Everyone tries to be civilised. Anna learns the truth and tentatively meets with Jacob. The complexity and depth of emotion portrayed is exceptional.
It turns out that Jorgen and Helene have been looking for Jacob for years. Not finding him they had told Anna her father was dead. So there's a lot of sorting out to do. If that wasn't enough, Anna's husband turns out to be a gold-digger who is too dumb to not screw his secretary in his own house, so gets caught by Anna a few days after the wedding!
The only thing that seems a bit fishy here is that Jorgen seems a bit too happy to have found Jacob. That feeling gets stronger when he inserts a clause in the orphanage funding contract that says Jacob must live in Denmark. What is he playing at?
Dramatically Helene finds out that Jorgen has a terminal illness which he has been hiding from everyone. She confronts him and he confesses that he wants to force Jacob into taking care of her and their children. This part is Lassgard at his best, facing tragedy, and Knudsen matches him blow for blow.
By now I'm in bits. Everyone is breaking down. Especially poor Anna who has found her real dad, kicked out her cheating husband and now faces losing the man she knows as her father... all in a few days.
Jorgen dies. After the funeral we see Jacob visiting India where the orphanage is now vastly improved. One of the boys is like a son to him, as he raised him from a baby. Jacob asks him to come back to Denmark and live with him... but he refuses, partly because he likes his life in India (especially in the improved orphanage) but also because Jacob always said The West was full of rich idiots.
The film ends here, with Jacob realising that he has to leave behind his emotional ties in India if he wants to maintain the ones he has now found in Denmark.
Wow. What an emotional roller-coaster. This would have been a good film with any two of the four main performances. With all four we have wonderful scenes between Jacob and Anna, Jorgen and Helene... and all the other combinations! Truly absorbing from start to finish.
SPOILERS
We begin in India with Jacob (Mikkelsen) struggling to keep an orphanage running. You can tell that he's been there a long time and that he's committed to helping the children. A lifeline appears. A wealthy donor in Denmark wishes to fund the orphanage, on the condition that Jacob meets him in Denmark to complete the arrangements.
Jacob is reluctant to leave India. He tells the children that The West is full of rich idiots. But the head of the orphanage insists he goes, as this is the only way to save the orphanage. So he goes.
Clearly uncomfortable to be back in Denmark, Jacob meets with Jorgen (Lassgard) who explains that he hasn't quite made up his mind which projects to fund yet. This annoys Jacob, who thought the deal was already agreed. Jorgen is apologetic and explains that he can't think straight because his daughter Anna (Christensen) is getting married the next day. He invites Jacob to the wedding.
So far, so interesting. But when Jacob arrives at the church we see that Jorgen's wife Helene (Knudsen) recognises him. They clearly know each other but say nothing when they are formally introduced. Intriguing. Then comes the big shock. At the wedding reception Anna makes a speech thanking her parents... especially Jorgen even though he's not her genetic father!
This scene is terrific. At that point in the speech Helene casts a glance at Jacob. The look plus some quick maths tells Jacob that Anna is actually his daughter. He is shocked to say the least.
The following scenes are wonderfully done too. Jacob takes a moment, then confronts Helene, leaves and comes back the next day to get the truth. Everyone tries to be civilised. Anna learns the truth and tentatively meets with Jacob. The complexity and depth of emotion portrayed is exceptional.
It turns out that Jorgen and Helene have been looking for Jacob for years. Not finding him they had told Anna her father was dead. So there's a lot of sorting out to do. If that wasn't enough, Anna's husband turns out to be a gold-digger who is too dumb to not screw his secretary in his own house, so gets caught by Anna a few days after the wedding!
The only thing that seems a bit fishy here is that Jorgen seems a bit too happy to have found Jacob. That feeling gets stronger when he inserts a clause in the orphanage funding contract that says Jacob must live in Denmark. What is he playing at?
Dramatically Helene finds out that Jorgen has a terminal illness which he has been hiding from everyone. She confronts him and he confesses that he wants to force Jacob into taking care of her and their children. This part is Lassgard at his best, facing tragedy, and Knudsen matches him blow for blow.
By now I'm in bits. Everyone is breaking down. Especially poor Anna who has found her real dad, kicked out her cheating husband and now faces losing the man she knows as her father... all in a few days.
Jorgen dies. After the funeral we see Jacob visiting India where the orphanage is now vastly improved. One of the boys is like a son to him, as he raised him from a baby. Jacob asks him to come back to Denmark and live with him... but he refuses, partly because he likes his life in India (especially in the improved orphanage) but also because Jacob always said The West was full of rich idiots.
The film ends here, with Jacob realising that he has to leave behind his emotional ties in India if he wants to maintain the ones he has now found in Denmark.
Wow. What an emotional roller-coaster. This would have been a good film with any two of the four main performances. With all four we have wonderful scenes between Jacob and Anna, Jorgen and Helene... and all the other combinations! Truly absorbing from start to finish.
Wednesday 19 November 2014
The Imitation Game
Having read Andrew Hodges biography of Alan Turing and having visited Bletchley Park, I was slightly concerned that The Imitation Game might be yet another film playing fast and loose with British war-time history. Fear not. Even the Poles get some credit for capturing an Enigma machine and building the early bombes.
Of course there are liberties. A film just wouldn't work with the action spread across all the actual characters involved, so there has to be some conflation. If you want the actual history then read Hodges book: Alan Turing: The Enigma (it is excellent). Instead this film uses events to show us what Turing was like, what the people around him were like, and how he interacted with them.
It's not a linear time-line. The story cleverly switches between the main war-time thread, Turing's post-war troubles and his school days. The editing is excellent: the transitions don't jar, they provide just the right information at just the right time to keep building up the layers of our understanding of the man Alan Turing.
The cast are outstanding. Charles Dance and Mark Strong are great as the establishment brass. Keira Knightly and Matthew Goode are great as contrasting "other" codebreakers. Benedict Cumberbatch is so good as awkward geniuses (in Sherlock and Parade's End) that I almost took it for granted that he would be great as Alan Turing... and he's more than that, he is awesome in this film.
Cumberbatch's performance really shows the development of Turing's character from complete loner to team-leader, from academic to hero, from trusted servant to convicted "criminal". For me he really portrayed the Alan Turing I have imagined in all I've read about him.
And as expected as Cumberbatch's performance was, an equally good and important contribution comes from Alex Lawther as the schoolboy Alan Turing. In timely flashbacks we see how Alan was bullied, how he didn't understand people and how his friendship with Christopher Morcom coloured the rest of his life. All this is portrayed wonderfully by Lawther in some of the film's most moving scenes.
The film isn't perfect as a historical drama, but as a fact-based thriller and an examination of the genius Alan Turing it is brilliant. There's quite a bit of humour... too. I highly recommend it.
PS I am proud to have played a tiny part in the Turing story as a signatory to the petitions which eventually lead to the government apology and the royal pardon which overturned his conviction for gross indecency.
Of course there are liberties. A film just wouldn't work with the action spread across all the actual characters involved, so there has to be some conflation. If you want the actual history then read Hodges book: Alan Turing: The Enigma (it is excellent). Instead this film uses events to show us what Turing was like, what the people around him were like, and how he interacted with them.
It's not a linear time-line. The story cleverly switches between the main war-time thread, Turing's post-war troubles and his school days. The editing is excellent: the transitions don't jar, they provide just the right information at just the right time to keep building up the layers of our understanding of the man Alan Turing.
The cast are outstanding. Charles Dance and Mark Strong are great as the establishment brass. Keira Knightly and Matthew Goode are great as contrasting "other" codebreakers. Benedict Cumberbatch is so good as awkward geniuses (in Sherlock and Parade's End) that I almost took it for granted that he would be great as Alan Turing... and he's more than that, he is awesome in this film.
Cumberbatch's performance really shows the development of Turing's character from complete loner to team-leader, from academic to hero, from trusted servant to convicted "criminal". For me he really portrayed the Alan Turing I have imagined in all I've read about him.
And as expected as Cumberbatch's performance was, an equally good and important contribution comes from Alex Lawther as the schoolboy Alan Turing. In timely flashbacks we see how Alan was bullied, how he didn't understand people and how his friendship with Christopher Morcom coloured the rest of his life. All this is portrayed wonderfully by Lawther in some of the film's most moving scenes.
The film isn't perfect as a historical drama, but as a fact-based thriller and an examination of the genius Alan Turing it is brilliant. There's quite a bit of humour... too. I highly recommend it.
PS I am proud to have played a tiny part in the Turing story as a signatory to the petitions which eventually lead to the government apology and the royal pardon which overturned his conviction for gross indecency.
Sunday 16 November 2014
Deliver Us From Evil
This is about the 2009 Danish film, not the 2014 American horror of the same name.
It is a bit of a confusing film. Not in terms of plot, that is quite straightforward. But in terms of what it is trying to say. To me the message wasn't much more than "people living in small towns are violent bigots".
SPOILERS
We start with some narrative explaining that Lars is a bit of a shit. This isn't really required, since we can see that straight away... and nothing happens in the film to change our minds. At the end he does appear repentant but it is so unconvincing and I didn't buy it for a second. So the film clearly isn't about any sort of journey for Lars.
OK. So Lars drives a truck, drinks, phones, smokes, throws his lighter down in disgust at his girlfriend not answering the phone and then looks for it on the seat / floor. None of this would normally matter since he's on a main road that no-one else uses. Except today Anna is on her moped carrying hymn sheets to her friend's house. Yes, Lars hits Anna while he's not looking where he's going.
He gets out of the truck and when he sees who he's killed he drags the moped and body off the road. Then he wipes down the truck and drives off.
Next we learn that Anna's husband is Lars's boss. And worse, he is ex-army. And worse, he has a bodyguard who is bigger than the proverbial brick shit-house. Probably not surprising that Lars was scared then.
Lars then goes out of his way to set up a Bosnian refugee by getting him to drive the truck back to the depot along the same bit of road where he'd hit Anna. Just for good measure we also see Lars treating his pregnant girlfriend really badly. So now we know he hates immigrants and women. Oh, and also his brother who got out of town, made something of himself and then returned to the family home after their father's death.
All of this is reasonably well done. There are some interesting shots. The scenery and lighting are excellent. We get the message that Lars is nasty and his brother is nice.
But then Anna's body is discovered and everything falls apart. Her husband loses the plot and actively prevents anyone from calling the police. Instead he goes to get his gun(s) and stomps off to the local fair with his giant bodyguard to lynch Lars... so I guess there's only one vehicle in the whole area which could have been responsible.
Lars successfully deflects the blame at Alain (the Bosnian) who gets beaten up and is only saved by Lars brother Johannes. Johannes takes Alain back to his house, somehow escaping the angry mob who know where he lives so it's a short-lived escape.
The only other sane person in the village at this point, the doctor, shows up to help but gets shot by Anna's husband when he tries to call the police. The mob try to break into Johannes house, but he fends them off with a nail gun!
At this point I understand that the mob are mindless and Anna's husband has lost it. But the film keeps laying it on ever thicker in case I'm still unsure. The police (both of them) finally figure out that something is going on and trace the doctor's phone to Johannes's house. When they get there Anna's husband shoots them... fat lot of use they were. But this shocks most of the mob into running away, just leaving Anna's husband, his bodyguard, Lars and Lars's mates.
By now Johannes's wife is scared enough to suggest that maybe Johannes shouldn't sacrifice his whole family for one Bosnian guy that he doesn't even know that well. He disagrees. So she decides that the mob will probably let her and the kids go and leaves.
At this point we get stung with the twist. Alain confesses to Johannes that he had been on the road that morning and had seen Anna. She only wanted to comfort him but he hugged her a bit too hard, she fell down and died. OK. So Lars didn't kill her, she was already dead.
Back to Johannes's wife. Her plan to leave doesn't go so well and the mob attack her, but she gets away when Johannes appears at the door and they go after him again.
What are we learning here? Nothing, it is just mindless. At this point Lars thinks things have gone too far (he has a crush on his brother's wife and is also quite fond of his nephew and niece) so he finally confesses to Anna's husband that he was driving the truck. Oh, the irony now that we know Anna was already dead [NOT].
At least we are near the end. Anna's husband goes to shoot Lars but he's run out of bullets. He asks his bodyguard to get more but he refuses because Lars's girlfriend is pregnant and the child should have a father. Hmmm, at least the big guy has some standards.
Disappointed by the end of the lynching, Lars's friends decide that the only fun left is to run after Johannes's wife and rape her... so they do. Just so we know that they have no standards at all... what they think Johannes's wife has done to warrant this is unclear. All we need to know is that they are nasty and therefore deserve to die when Alain turns up and kills them.
Despite most of the town's tough guys now being dead, Johannes decides to leave the family home. So he packs up the family and they leave. Followed by Lars and his girlfriend on a motorbike.
The film ends with the narrator walking along the road telling us that this is the end of the story.
So what happened to Alain? What happened to Anna's husband? These are ultimately minor issues compared to wondering what the film was trying to say. Mobs are bad? Ex-army guys with guns and big bodyguards aren't to be messed with? Johannes should never have gone back to his home town?
I can't help thinking that it's the last one. If Johannes hadn't been there and tried to do the civilized thing then the crowd would have just lynched Alain and had done with it. Simple solution for simple folk. What kind of message is that?
It is a bit of a confusing film. Not in terms of plot, that is quite straightforward. But in terms of what it is trying to say. To me the message wasn't much more than "people living in small towns are violent bigots".
SPOILERS
We start with some narrative explaining that Lars is a bit of a shit. This isn't really required, since we can see that straight away... and nothing happens in the film to change our minds. At the end he does appear repentant but it is so unconvincing and I didn't buy it for a second. So the film clearly isn't about any sort of journey for Lars.
OK. So Lars drives a truck, drinks, phones, smokes, throws his lighter down in disgust at his girlfriend not answering the phone and then looks for it on the seat / floor. None of this would normally matter since he's on a main road that no-one else uses. Except today Anna is on her moped carrying hymn sheets to her friend's house. Yes, Lars hits Anna while he's not looking where he's going.
He gets out of the truck and when he sees who he's killed he drags the moped and body off the road. Then he wipes down the truck and drives off.
Next we learn that Anna's husband is Lars's boss. And worse, he is ex-army. And worse, he has a bodyguard who is bigger than the proverbial brick shit-house. Probably not surprising that Lars was scared then.
Lars then goes out of his way to set up a Bosnian refugee by getting him to drive the truck back to the depot along the same bit of road where he'd hit Anna. Just for good measure we also see Lars treating his pregnant girlfriend really badly. So now we know he hates immigrants and women. Oh, and also his brother who got out of town, made something of himself and then returned to the family home after their father's death.
All of this is reasonably well done. There are some interesting shots. The scenery and lighting are excellent. We get the message that Lars is nasty and his brother is nice.
But then Anna's body is discovered and everything falls apart. Her husband loses the plot and actively prevents anyone from calling the police. Instead he goes to get his gun(s) and stomps off to the local fair with his giant bodyguard to lynch Lars... so I guess there's only one vehicle in the whole area which could have been responsible.
Lars successfully deflects the blame at Alain (the Bosnian) who gets beaten up and is only saved by Lars brother Johannes. Johannes takes Alain back to his house, somehow escaping the angry mob who know where he lives so it's a short-lived escape.
The only other sane person in the village at this point, the doctor, shows up to help but gets shot by Anna's husband when he tries to call the police. The mob try to break into Johannes house, but he fends them off with a nail gun!
At this point I understand that the mob are mindless and Anna's husband has lost it. But the film keeps laying it on ever thicker in case I'm still unsure. The police (both of them) finally figure out that something is going on and trace the doctor's phone to Johannes's house. When they get there Anna's husband shoots them... fat lot of use they were. But this shocks most of the mob into running away, just leaving Anna's husband, his bodyguard, Lars and Lars's mates.
By now Johannes's wife is scared enough to suggest that maybe Johannes shouldn't sacrifice his whole family for one Bosnian guy that he doesn't even know that well. He disagrees. So she decides that the mob will probably let her and the kids go and leaves.
At this point we get stung with the twist. Alain confesses to Johannes that he had been on the road that morning and had seen Anna. She only wanted to comfort him but he hugged her a bit too hard, she fell down and died. OK. So Lars didn't kill her, she was already dead.
Back to Johannes's wife. Her plan to leave doesn't go so well and the mob attack her, but she gets away when Johannes appears at the door and they go after him again.
What are we learning here? Nothing, it is just mindless. At this point Lars thinks things have gone too far (he has a crush on his brother's wife and is also quite fond of his nephew and niece) so he finally confesses to Anna's husband that he was driving the truck. Oh, the irony now that we know Anna was already dead [NOT].
At least we are near the end. Anna's husband goes to shoot Lars but he's run out of bullets. He asks his bodyguard to get more but he refuses because Lars's girlfriend is pregnant and the child should have a father. Hmmm, at least the big guy has some standards.
Disappointed by the end of the lynching, Lars's friends decide that the only fun left is to run after Johannes's wife and rape her... so they do. Just so we know that they have no standards at all... what they think Johannes's wife has done to warrant this is unclear. All we need to know is that they are nasty and therefore deserve to die when Alain turns up and kills them.
Despite most of the town's tough guys now being dead, Johannes decides to leave the family home. So he packs up the family and they leave. Followed by Lars and his girlfriend on a motorbike.
The film ends with the narrator walking along the road telling us that this is the end of the story.
So what happened to Alain? What happened to Anna's husband? These are ultimately minor issues compared to wondering what the film was trying to say. Mobs are bad? Ex-army guys with guns and big bodyguards aren't to be messed with? Johannes should never have gone back to his home town?
I can't help thinking that it's the last one. If Johannes hadn't been there and tried to do the civilized thing then the crowd would have just lynched Alain and had done with it. Simple solution for simple folk. What kind of message is that?
Saturday 8 November 2014
The Raid 2
Following on from the original, The Raid 2 had a lot to live up to. The Raid was a breath of fresh air in the action movie genre, so how would a sequel go? More of the same or another leap of originality? Well, it is a bit of both. I think it keeps the best parts of the original and adds more substance to it.
SPOILERS
I found the opening a bit confusing. We see someone being executed beside a shallow grave in the fields outside a city. I thought the victim looked like Rama's brother from The Raid but I wasn't sure. Wasn't he a powerful gangster? How come he's being taken out in the first few minutes? Even more confusingly we then cut to Rama and Bowo in what looks like the immediate aftermath of the first film.
At this point I was worried that The Raid 2 might be a muddled disappointment.
Things do gradually get clearer. It was Rama's brother being killed and a secret task force want Rama to infiltrate the gangs responsible to destroy them and the corrupt police officials who are in league with them.
Rama initially refuses but later accepts when his family's safety is threatened. He was right to be suspicious though: beating up a minor villian to get a few months in jail to get close to Uco (son of one gang leader) actually turns into 2 years in jail!
During that jail time Rama saves Uco's life in an assassination attempt which explodes into a full blown riot. That's after Rama had already attracted Uco's attention by seeing off 15 of his supposed bodyguards.
The violence is just as explosive as in The Raid. Brilliant choreography and expertly executed by Iko Uwais and all his opponents. And because there is so much more "quiet time" between action scenes here than in the original, the action feels even more explosive when it comes around.
There is more variety in the action too. The original was restricted to what could be done in a tower block, but in the sequel we have the action in the prison, out in the open, in a car and in a train... as well as in various buildings.
The fight in the train is between Hammer Girl and several gangsters. At the same time we have Baseball Bat Boy fighting some other gangsters. Trust me. I know this sounds like something from Kill Bill or a bizarre Japanese manga comic, but it works.
At 150 minutes The Raid 2 is a lot longer than the first film. The story isn't that complex but the time is well spent developing all the characters. And I think the gaps between the action scenes are about right to maximise the impact. The final battle is pretty damned gratuitous and leaves you thinking "wow".
You can see the progression from part one to part two. Well done to Gareth Evans for achieving that rare thing, an action sequel which is as good or better than the original.
SPOILERS
I found the opening a bit confusing. We see someone being executed beside a shallow grave in the fields outside a city. I thought the victim looked like Rama's brother from The Raid but I wasn't sure. Wasn't he a powerful gangster? How come he's being taken out in the first few minutes? Even more confusingly we then cut to Rama and Bowo in what looks like the immediate aftermath of the first film.
At this point I was worried that The Raid 2 might be a muddled disappointment.
Things do gradually get clearer. It was Rama's brother being killed and a secret task force want Rama to infiltrate the gangs responsible to destroy them and the corrupt police officials who are in league with them.
Rama initially refuses but later accepts when his family's safety is threatened. He was right to be suspicious though: beating up a minor villian to get a few months in jail to get close to Uco (son of one gang leader) actually turns into 2 years in jail!
During that jail time Rama saves Uco's life in an assassination attempt which explodes into a full blown riot. That's after Rama had already attracted Uco's attention by seeing off 15 of his supposed bodyguards.
The violence is just as explosive as in The Raid. Brilliant choreography and expertly executed by Iko Uwais and all his opponents. And because there is so much more "quiet time" between action scenes here than in the original, the action feels even more explosive when it comes around.
There is more variety in the action too. The original was restricted to what could be done in a tower block, but in the sequel we have the action in the prison, out in the open, in a car and in a train... as well as in various buildings.
The fight in the train is between Hammer Girl and several gangsters. At the same time we have Baseball Bat Boy fighting some other gangsters. Trust me. I know this sounds like something from Kill Bill or a bizarre Japanese manga comic, but it works.
At 150 minutes The Raid 2 is a lot longer than the first film. The story isn't that complex but the time is well spent developing all the characters. And I think the gaps between the action scenes are about right to maximise the impact. The final battle is pretty damned gratuitous and leaves you thinking "wow".
You can see the progression from part one to part two. Well done to Gareth Evans for achieving that rare thing, an action sequel which is as good or better than the original.
Divergent
We might as well get the comparisons with the Hunger Games out of the way first. The lead in Divergent is a young woman called Beatrice Prior who is very like Katniss Everdeen. They are both physically weak but tactically astute, smart, brave and selfless. They are both a bit too perfect...
SPOILERS
Unlike the post-apocalyptic world of The Hunger Games, the post-apocalyptic world of Divergent is rather small. It's confined to the city of Chicago in fact. Plus a few fields just outside the big wall (or rather, the modest wall with a lot of very tall metal gantries on top). No-one seems to question the fact that there is no civilisation beyond the wall.
Actually, no-one seems to question much of anything, because humans seem to have evolved to have only a single character trait: either selflessness, peacefulness, honesty, bravery or intelligence. It is very rare to have more than one trait... OK.
This is where our heroine Beatrice gets into trouble. When tested at 16 to see which faction she should join (despite living in the selfless faction all this time) we find that she is also clever and brave. Yippee? No. This is bad. She is Divergent and that is bad because she can't be controlled... like everyone else who is just one thing.
Right. At this point I was thinking that the plot is pretty dumb. But the characters are quite likeable so I sort of just went along with it. Fortunately for B the tester had a brother who was killed for being divergent so she lies about the result and tells B to keep her mouth shut, or else. B has to choose a faction at the big public ceremony and goes for Dauntless (the brave ones). This seems a shock to her parents... which is odd since we later find out that her mum grew up in Dauntless. I guess there are no public records of this public event otherwise B could have known that too!
The next thing that is hard to swallow is that Dauntless are the police / army. Since they seem to run everywhere and enjoy jumping on and off moving trains (which somehow are missing the safety feature of locking the doors when the train is moving) this is odd. I wouldn't trust them with a sharp knife, let alone a loaded gun and my national safety... Reckless seems a better name.
Talking of names; B decides that Beatrice isn't a tough enough name for her any more and chooses Tris as her Dauntless name. There seems to be something of a history of this kind of thing in Dauntless, as the newbies discover their instructor is called 4...
Rather predictably Tris struggles in training and gets the crap beaten out of her several times during the stage 1 (physical) training. But 4 clearly likes her and helps her out with some secret tips. I don't know why he has to do it covertly, since he's supposed to be training the recruits so I would have thought giving them advice might be part of that job?
Shailene Woodley does a great job as Tris that keeps me watching through the nonsense. Also the character of 4 played by Theo James is quite intriguing and we don't know for a long time whether he is divergent too, or if he just fancies Tris.
The baddies are excellent too. Jai Courtney's Eric is either an overly tough sergeant-major type who really just pushes the recruits too hard for their own good because deep-down he cares about them and the job they have to do for Dauntless... or he's a sadist who likes to see people suffer. I don't think we ever quite resolve that in this film.
Which brings us to Jeanine, head of the clever people. Kate Winslet plays her very deadpan, which is wonderful. Is she onto Beatrice from the start? Does she want to take over the world (what's left of it). Every time she utters the mantra "faction before blood" it is quite chilling.
The story charges on. Tris gets kicked out of Dauntless for being not tough enough, but gatecrashes the next test anyway and helps 4 win the game which gets her just enough points to pass the physical round. Cool. So she makes it to stage 2 (mental) training. This is a breeze for her since she has a mind and the other recruits don't. Which becomes a problem for her because it's obvious that she must be divergent. Fortunately the tests are exclusively administered by 4 who covers up for her... yes, he is divergent too.
With 4's help Tris passes the final test and gets inducted into Dauntless. Just in time for the whole faction to be drugged by Eric and the Dauntless leader who doesn't seem to do anything except have secretive chats with Jeanine. Off march the zombie soldiers to enforce the new world order with only the divergent ones actually conscious.
There are a few stretches of the imagination required near the end, but things shape up pretty much as you'd expect. Tris and 4 save the city from Jeanine who it turns out wanted the smart people in charge and planned to do that by executing the entire selfless faction... hmmm, right.
But or heroes are now factionless... and the fact that they just saved the entire society from descent into tyranny doesn't seem to be worth anything so they have to run away and jump into a moving train. We know they'll be back for part 2 though... and maybe there is something outside the wall?
Overall I'd put this one down as "entertaining, but a bit silly".
SPOILERS
Unlike the post-apocalyptic world of The Hunger Games, the post-apocalyptic world of Divergent is rather small. It's confined to the city of Chicago in fact. Plus a few fields just outside the big wall (or rather, the modest wall with a lot of very tall metal gantries on top). No-one seems to question the fact that there is no civilisation beyond the wall.
Actually, no-one seems to question much of anything, because humans seem to have evolved to have only a single character trait: either selflessness, peacefulness, honesty, bravery or intelligence. It is very rare to have more than one trait... OK.
This is where our heroine Beatrice gets into trouble. When tested at 16 to see which faction she should join (despite living in the selfless faction all this time) we find that she is also clever and brave. Yippee? No. This is bad. She is Divergent and that is bad because she can't be controlled... like everyone else who is just one thing.
Right. At this point I was thinking that the plot is pretty dumb. But the characters are quite likeable so I sort of just went along with it. Fortunately for B the tester had a brother who was killed for being divergent so she lies about the result and tells B to keep her mouth shut, or else. B has to choose a faction at the big public ceremony and goes for Dauntless (the brave ones). This seems a shock to her parents... which is odd since we later find out that her mum grew up in Dauntless. I guess there are no public records of this public event otherwise B could have known that too!
The next thing that is hard to swallow is that Dauntless are the police / army. Since they seem to run everywhere and enjoy jumping on and off moving trains (which somehow are missing the safety feature of locking the doors when the train is moving) this is odd. I wouldn't trust them with a sharp knife, let alone a loaded gun and my national safety... Reckless seems a better name.
Talking of names; B decides that Beatrice isn't a tough enough name for her any more and chooses Tris as her Dauntless name. There seems to be something of a history of this kind of thing in Dauntless, as the newbies discover their instructor is called 4...
Rather predictably Tris struggles in training and gets the crap beaten out of her several times during the stage 1 (physical) training. But 4 clearly likes her and helps her out with some secret tips. I don't know why he has to do it covertly, since he's supposed to be training the recruits so I would have thought giving them advice might be part of that job?
Shailene Woodley does a great job as Tris that keeps me watching through the nonsense. Also the character of 4 played by Theo James is quite intriguing and we don't know for a long time whether he is divergent too, or if he just fancies Tris.
The baddies are excellent too. Jai Courtney's Eric is either an overly tough sergeant-major type who really just pushes the recruits too hard for their own good because deep-down he cares about them and the job they have to do for Dauntless... or he's a sadist who likes to see people suffer. I don't think we ever quite resolve that in this film.
Which brings us to Jeanine, head of the clever people. Kate Winslet plays her very deadpan, which is wonderful. Is she onto Beatrice from the start? Does she want to take over the world (what's left of it). Every time she utters the mantra "faction before blood" it is quite chilling.
The story charges on. Tris gets kicked out of Dauntless for being not tough enough, but gatecrashes the next test anyway and helps 4 win the game which gets her just enough points to pass the physical round. Cool. So she makes it to stage 2 (mental) training. This is a breeze for her since she has a mind and the other recruits don't. Which becomes a problem for her because it's obvious that she must be divergent. Fortunately the tests are exclusively administered by 4 who covers up for her... yes, he is divergent too.
With 4's help Tris passes the final test and gets inducted into Dauntless. Just in time for the whole faction to be drugged by Eric and the Dauntless leader who doesn't seem to do anything except have secretive chats with Jeanine. Off march the zombie soldiers to enforce the new world order with only the divergent ones actually conscious.
There are a few stretches of the imagination required near the end, but things shape up pretty much as you'd expect. Tris and 4 save the city from Jeanine who it turns out wanted the smart people in charge and planned to do that by executing the entire selfless faction... hmmm, right.
But or heroes are now factionless... and the fact that they just saved the entire society from descent into tyranny doesn't seem to be worth anything so they have to run away and jump into a moving train. We know they'll be back for part 2 though... and maybe there is something outside the wall?
Overall I'd put this one down as "entertaining, but a bit silly".
Tuesday 4 November 2014
I, Frankenstein
SPOILERS
It doesn't take more than a few minutes to realise that there isn't going to be much of a story to I, Frankenstein. That's because the film opens with a quick "here's all you need to know about Frankenstein" section that deals with the monster's creation, and his creators demise, in a flash.
OK. So we're not going to dwell on that then. What's next? Well, we get an intriguing early look at the demons and gargoyles. These look like cool creatures. Maybe we'll get a bit of story development now? Nope. Frankenstein's monster immediately gets taken to the gargoyle queen (really? a queen. they're not bees...) so he can be told the whole history of demons versus gargoyles. Sigh. Oh, and the queen tells the monster that she's going to call him Adam from now on... nice.
Off Adam goes and tries to hide from the demons for a couple of hundred years, killing the odd few who find him along the way. He gets a haircut and some decent clothes so that by the time he reaches the present day he can walk about in America without anyone seeming too upset by his appearance. Except it probably isn't America... since Frankenstein was European... and the gargoyles base is a Gothic cathedral that looks at least 400 years old... and the movie was filmed in Australia. But hey, who actually needs to know where a story is set when there really isn't much story.
Bill Nighy pops up as one of Lucifer's fellow fallen angels. Of course he has an English accent because he is the villain. There are some scientists too... actually only two scientists. One of which is female so that she can feel sympathy for Adam, which the male scientist doesn't... but he's only the assistant anyway so we don't need to care about him as he'll probably die anyway (I can't honestly remember if he does or not).
Bill has a plan for raising thousands of humans from the dead as hosts for the demons that have been bumped off by the gargoyles and Adam over the years. That should give him an edge in the war, since there only seem to be about a dozen gargoyles left at this point.
Don't worry though, because Adam might be a bit grumpy but he is the good guy and he's certainly going to win. Of course he nearly doesn't, but just trying is enough to earn him a soul, which then trumps Bill's (sorry, Naberius's) hand and it's happy days.
There's one last moment of peril when everyone falls into a giant hole in the ground, but unless we suddenly forgot that all the gargoyles are really good at flying, it's no surprise that all the good guys escape with minor scratches.
In one last major plot twist Adam decides that now he has a soul he's going to be called Frankenstein, after his formerly hated creator, from now on. I don't think he ever really liked the name Adam anyway... it didn't suit him.
Somehow, despite the clunky storytelling, this is a reasonably entertaining film. The effects and fight scenes are cool and Bill Nighy injects some well needed humour (intentionally or not). I don't think there will be any sequels though.
It doesn't take more than a few minutes to realise that there isn't going to be much of a story to I, Frankenstein. That's because the film opens with a quick "here's all you need to know about Frankenstein" section that deals with the monster's creation, and his creators demise, in a flash.
OK. So we're not going to dwell on that then. What's next? Well, we get an intriguing early look at the demons and gargoyles. These look like cool creatures. Maybe we'll get a bit of story development now? Nope. Frankenstein's monster immediately gets taken to the gargoyle queen (really? a queen. they're not bees...) so he can be told the whole history of demons versus gargoyles. Sigh. Oh, and the queen tells the monster that she's going to call him Adam from now on... nice.
Off Adam goes and tries to hide from the demons for a couple of hundred years, killing the odd few who find him along the way. He gets a haircut and some decent clothes so that by the time he reaches the present day he can walk about in America without anyone seeming too upset by his appearance. Except it probably isn't America... since Frankenstein was European... and the gargoyles base is a Gothic cathedral that looks at least 400 years old... and the movie was filmed in Australia. But hey, who actually needs to know where a story is set when there really isn't much story.
Bill Nighy pops up as one of Lucifer's fellow fallen angels. Of course he has an English accent because he is the villain. There are some scientists too... actually only two scientists. One of which is female so that she can feel sympathy for Adam, which the male scientist doesn't... but he's only the assistant anyway so we don't need to care about him as he'll probably die anyway (I can't honestly remember if he does or not).
Bill has a plan for raising thousands of humans from the dead as hosts for the demons that have been bumped off by the gargoyles and Adam over the years. That should give him an edge in the war, since there only seem to be about a dozen gargoyles left at this point.
Don't worry though, because Adam might be a bit grumpy but he is the good guy and he's certainly going to win. Of course he nearly doesn't, but just trying is enough to earn him a soul, which then trumps Bill's (sorry, Naberius's) hand and it's happy days.
There's one last moment of peril when everyone falls into a giant hole in the ground, but unless we suddenly forgot that all the gargoyles are really good at flying, it's no surprise that all the good guys escape with minor scratches.
In one last major plot twist Adam decides that now he has a soul he's going to be called Frankenstein, after his formerly hated creator, from now on. I don't think he ever really liked the name Adam anyway... it didn't suit him.
Somehow, despite the clunky storytelling, this is a reasonably entertaining film. The effects and fight scenes are cool and Bill Nighy injects some well needed humour (intentionally or not). I don't think there will be any sequels though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)