Review - Melinda and Melinda (2004 - Dir. Woody Allen)

Radha Mitchell managed to get through the first round of the FA Cup of Actors despite a relatively poor showing: 3/10 for Surrogates and 4/10 for Thick as Thieves. Her second round opponent, Ellen Page, has had a good rest since her first entry but Mitchell is thrown straight back into the action with Melinda and Melinda. Will those tired legs let her down or will quality shine through?

Directed by Woody Allen, Melinda and Melinda looks at what happens when you tell essentially the same story as a tragedy or a comedy (it's not exactly the same story but we'll come back to that later). It's all a little bit Sliding Doors and it gives Radha Mitchell a chance to show off her acting chops. Her performance is probably the most impressive thing about this film. Although it's impressive on a technical rather than an engagement level. She plays the two Melinda's in different ways: one is a likeable friendly lady who has problems but is getting on with life, the other is an irritating smoking obsessed curly haired neurotic. Yet the writing didn't lead to me particularly care about either of them.

The story starts with Melinda crashing her friends' dinner party. She's had a bad time with her relationship and needs a place to stay. Her buddies try to set her up with a lucky fellow. But obviously things aren't that simple.

As you can see from above, the story is pretty slight. This is a consequence of the fact that it's told twice. My problem with Melinda and Melinda is that the tragedy isn't that tragic and the comedy, while the better of the two, isn't that funny. In my mind a tragedy should have a really bleak ending, worse than the majority of things that generally happen in real life. Yet here the ending is a tad too pleasant for my liking despite being the downer that tragedies require. It also cheats on the endings because the finale of the comedy is upbeat. I would have liked to have seen exactly the same story told in the two different ways.

The comedy is okay but only ever managed to squeeze a smile out of me (rather than the belly laughs that The Sleeper promotes). I never like the idea of watching Will Ferrell in films. I don't know why but I'm not that keen. Yet I've liked him in the only two films that I've ever seen him in: Elf and this. I never said I wasn't highly irrational. All the way through his performance I could picture Woody Allen: the writing and Ferrell's delivery add up to a quality Woody Allen impression. This was probably the role Allen would have played in the days when he feasibly could have wooed Radha Mitchell.

One upside of Melinda and Melinda is that it has dispelled the horrible visions of Mitchell dancing with Banderas in Thick as Thieves. Here she gets to dance again, with another slimy character, but it's not disturbing in the slightest. This shows that the blame lies squarely at the unmoving feet of Banderas.

To surmise, Melinda and Melinda fails to deliver as either a tragedy or a comedy. And as a drama it fails too due to a lack of empathy for the characters. It seems that playing too many games in a short space of time has led to some serious crampage for Radha Mitchell. It's likely now that the semi-final beckons for Ellen Page (unless Inception or X-Men: The Last Stand come up that is).
3/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
Sleeper, Vicky Cristina Barcelona.

Review - King of Thorn (2009 - Dir. Kazuyoshi Katayama)

I was expecting great things from this. King of Thorn: a tale of one man's fight to turn a struggling South Yorkshire market town into a thriving canal boat metropolis whilst wearing a shiny king hat. Wait, it says here that it's about a horrific virus that turns people to stone (the Medusa virus) and some nonsense about some people getting cryogenically frozen until they can find a cure, but when they wake things have gone a bit pear shaped. So nothing to do with reopening Woolworths then. Shame.

Actually it starts off really well. The virus is suitably chilling and the way that the story of Sleeping Beauty is weaved in to the characters being frozen, maybe for a hundred years, is all quite intriguing. When Kasumi, a young girl selected to be one of the survivors, wakes up things really kick off and I was thinking that this could well be an anime to buy and add to my collection. Many questions are raised during this first part: is it all a dream, what has it all got to do with a game that a little boy is playing, and has the shady corporation created the virus for its own evil ends? All questions that initially kept me engaged.

Then it all dissolves into a big mess. The story quickly becomes virtually unintelligible and I couldn't have really cared less about answering the questions. I could roughly follow the plot but it was hard work. All of the talk about dreams, games and Sleeping Beauty quickly becomes overdone and increasingly tiresome. It doesn't help that it's way too long at nearly two hours. Things are explained (kind of) at the end and it hints at something altogether better if the script had been a tad clearer. It's based on a manga by Yuji Iwahara, and it's entirely possible that a familiarity with this would help massively.

The traditional 2D animation is gorgeous and almost worth watching for that alone. There's something about watching a new anime on shiny blu-ray. Everything is so crisp and fluid. Then we get to the abomination that is the CGI animation. Now, I happen to think that CGI can work really well within anime; just look at Oblivion Island, Appleseed: Ex Machina or Vexille. But here it's terrible. It looks like it's running at a frame rate of 12 frames per second; it's all so jerky. This completely trashes the quality feel generated by the 2D work.

The best thing about King of Thorn has to be Marco Owen, a prisoner who is chosen for the project. He's massive and charges about punching and shooting stuff. And he says his name a lot. Things generally pick up when he gets into some action.

Apart from a promising start and Marco Owen things are pretty bleak. I normally save anime for times when I want to watch something that will at least get a 6/10 rating. This has left me feeling rather disappointed. 
3/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
Origin: Spirits of the Past, Princess Mononoke.

Review - Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961 - Dir. Irwin Allen)

When I decided to put Joan Fontaine into the FA Cup of Actors I was expecting to randomly generate a quality black and white offering along the lines of Rebecca or Letter From an Unknown Woman. But no, what turns up but a slice of action from the disputed master of disaster, Irwin Allen.

Admiral Nelson (Walter Pidgeon) takes his new nuclear sub for a test run when, surprise, surprise, the Van Allen radiation belt gets set on fire, causing the Earth to heat up in an alarming fashion. He comes up with a plan to solve this minor problem and in true American style it involves blowing stuff up with missiles. In his quest he is backed up by Captain Crane (Robert Sterling) and Dr. Susan Hiller (Joan Fontaine) who is a guest on the sub, investigating what happens to people's mental health under severe pressure.

Seeing as though I only watched this for Joan Fontaine, it's a bit disappointing where she's concerned. Despite being the film's leading lady she doesn't get a close up for the first half hour. Saying that, there's not much to get a close up of. She spends the whole film looking like a local dignitary opening a new museum of which they have zero knowledge or interest. To say that she is distant is an understatement. 

The film creates a suitably under water atmosphere due to the sets and the miniatures. It shows the magic of film when some dubious model work and shaking the camera around can create the sense of a crew working under the sea. Saying that there is a shocking scene where an octopus attacks a few members of the crew who are out in their diving gear. They basically roll themselves up in its tentacles and look a bit scared. The editing is partly to blame as it lingers for an age on a useless long shot. When it cuts quickly between close up shots of the action, things improve immeasurably and it actually looks fairly convincing.

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea plods along at an okay pace, throwing new challenges at the crew: a saboteur, other subs trying to scupper their plans, and the sight of Barbara Eden dancing in a slightly deranged fashion. But if you want to watch a film about a fiery end to the world give the superior The Day the Earth Caught Fire a go instead. A disappointing entry for Joan Fontaine, but will Barbara Crampton be able to capitalise on her defensive slip ups and power through to the next round. Find out soon...
3/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
The Day the Earth Caught Fire, The Towering Inferno, The Poseidon Adventure.

Review - Run Lola Run (1998 - Dir. Tom Tykwer)

(To increase your enjoyment by a factor of 2.35 when reading this review have a listen to a lovely bit of Kool & the Gang - evlkeith.)

This is a low key German offering with the faint aroma of Groundhog Day permeating its soul. Lola (Franka Potente) must run to save her dodgy boyfriend Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu) from certain death, after gormlessly leaving a gangster’s substantial wedge of drug money on the tube. Why she bothers to save him I have no idea, because she could seriously do better, but she tries anyway. Over three distinct episodes she tries, tries and tries again, each time making subtle differences to each separate reality.

It’s well made and relatively enjoyable, but it leaves you mysteriously unsatisfied. Obviously there’s lots of frantic running from Lola as she dashes about breaking the laws of time and space. This is fine, but her outfit is woefully inappropriate for the task and you really want her to get changed into some gym kit for her subsequent outings. Sadly this never enters her head and the horrible tattoo around her belly button doesn’t help matters. The sub-plot of her father’s mysterious relationship is a welcome and interesting embellishment, but it’s unfortunately only short respite from the breathless pounding of those streets.

It’s cleverly plotted to an extent, but there’s little of the time travelling wow factor of Timecrimes or even Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban. It’s a clinical but underwhelming experience, and this isn’t helped by the superficial main characters who are neither likeable or particularly nasty. In the end we are left ambivalent to their fate(s) as the film performs like a mid table Bundesliga team; efficient yet without the creativity to climb the table.

It’s not a terrible film, but it falls under the most damning of categories; somewhere between faint praise and mildly annoying. Yes it’s mediocre! It neither offends nor enlightens. Watch with limited expectations at best.

3/10 
Doccortex

If you like this you could also try:
Good Bye Lenin, The Lives of Others.

Review - Sharknado - (2013 - Dir. Anthony C. Ferrante)

I had relatively high hopes for Sharknado. A friend had recommended it, saying that it was completely stupid but fun. Sounds like my cup of tea.

I had visions of tornados. Tornados filled with sharks. Maybe the first one that sweeps past our characters could contain some small sharks - maybe a pale catshark or two? - causing some minor nipping. Nothing that Salvon couldn't cope with (is there anything that Savlon can't cope with?). As this tornado moved on, more would appear containing larger and more violent sharks. Hammerheads, bull sharks and tigersharks would all make an appearance. Finally in the largest tornado - one that would whip your pants off you from a mile away - the great white sharks would appear causing pointy toothed mayhem.

I was expecting it to be cheap, but I thought that this would be offset by some sparkling creativity and ingenuity. There surely must be some great shark/tornado related kills, I thought. Sharks whipping past people in the wind and whisking them away for some chompy chomp? Or taking a cheeky bite out of someone as they pass? The possibilities are huge and surely this is where the majority of the time writing the film should have been spent.

Sharknado is nothing like what I thought it would be. My hopes dropped rapidly when I saw that it was a Syfy presentation and that The Asylum were also involved. But even so I gave it a chance. Sadly, I needn't have bothered. A fair proportion of the running time is spent looking at the characters sat in a car that is obviously in a studio/the producer's garage, driving away from tornados. To be fair they do mix it up a bit to create some visual interest, they get in a helicopter. A fair few shots of a studio bound helicopter follow. It's pretty dull stuff.

There is some slight entertainment value at times. I raised an appreciative eyebrow when a huge Ferris wheel chased our heroes down a street. There are some minor moments of tension too, but they're few and far between.

Out of the kills, I can only remember two, both chainsaw related. They are completely preposterous but that's fine in this type of film. The problem is the completely uninventive way they chose to shoot them. I know it's a low budget production but they didn't even try to solve any problems creatively (for good examples of this try Manborg and the classic The Evil Dead). Way more ingenuity is shown by people inspired to make fancy dress costumes.

For once, this could have done with being a mega-budget blockbuster, like Twister with added sharks and death. The stupidity of the (admittedly brilliant) premise could have done with the excesses of 3D, CGI, an 18 certificate and ridiculously paid film stars. It could have been a gloriously stupid fun-filled shark/breeze fest. But no. The gore is tame and the closest it gets to film stars are Tara Reid (big deal, but watching her stare at a hedgecutter for ages has to be one of the funniest bits of the film by far) and John Heard, the dad from Home Alone. Heard is the only cast member with any personality and gravitas, so it's a shame when he leaves the film at such an early juncture.

You may have noticed that I've not even bothered giving a plot synopsis to whet your appetite. Let's face facts, it's obviously not worth my time writing it or your time reading it. It's a shame but the idea, and screenshots, are way better than the actual film. Sharknado is a real missed opportunity and possibly for the first time ever I'm looking forward to the remake. 
3/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
Throwing a kipper into a headwind. 

Review - Surrogates (2009 - Dir. Jonathan Mostow)

After David Warbeck's pretty feeble attempt at goal with The Ark of the Sun God, Radha Mitchell goes on the counter offensive with Surrogates. Now, I hadn't heard of this one when it came up on my Random-Film-Selector but it's got Radha Mitchell in it (obviously) and Bruce Willis who's normally good for entertainment value. So let's give it a whirl.

Willis stars as Greer, a hard-nosed FBI agent on the trail of, well, not much really. There's not that much crime going on. Pretty much everyone is living their life through a surrogate, a robot that is linked to them via a mind control device. So they get to lie in the comfort of their own homes, while their surrogate goes out into the world and does their job, cuts the lawn and irons their pants. This is all experienced by the user but in a safe environment. If the surrogate is destroyed in a hilarious meat grinder incident then a new one is purchased and Bob's your uncle. Crime is at an all time low until two surrogates are found with their eyes fried. Worryingly their users are dead too. Ooh la la. Greer, with his partner Peters (Radha Mitchell), gets on the case sharpish.

Recently I reviewed Loups=Garous and ranted about mobile phones a bit. I was rather happy that a film had come along that agreed with my moderately extreme views. Then along comes another. Surrogates is a thinly veiled attempt at having a dig at technology in general, mobiles, Facebook etc. Basically, it posits the view that a large proportion of people live their life vicariously through technology and rarely connect in real-life with other people. At one point Greer (as himself rather than his surrogate) suggests to his wife's surrogate that they should have a holiday. Without their surrogates. She disagrees and thinks he's an idiot. Substitute a mobile phone with internet access for surrogate and you get a situation that has probably been played out in quite a few homes. 

The point at which I deviate from the film is in a question that it poses: if you could destroy all surrogates, would you? The film has its own answer but I think that technology addiction is not the real problem, just a symptom, and by destroying them the underlying problem would still be present. Another symptom is the hell-hole Starbucks. Not just the hell-hole Starbucks, I'm using them as a representative of high-priced luxury items (Hollister goods, Minis and Marks and Spencer ready made mash would also fit into this category). As for what I consider to be the real problem, well in true mathematician style I've given you a couple of clues and now I'm going to let you try to work that out for yourself. Anyway, I digress.

So Surrogates hates mobiles and Facebook, but what else has it got going for it? Surprisingly, not much. Willis spends half of the film as an unemotional surrogate and when he finally emerges as his human self, he's still not at his charismatic best. Mitchell is treated even worse. She's a surrogate for the entire film apart from a tiny shot of her as a human. She's completely wasted. Not good for her FA Cup chances.

Just as the acting performances feel lifeless and plasticky, the visuals are equally as unnerving. If you imagine watching a film almost entirely set in the uncanny valley then Surrogates comes pretty close. I was creeped out for the most part by the surrogates with their airbrushed perfect skin. It's not a pleasant film to watch. When Willis finally gets his proper stubble and slightly craggy appearance out, it's a breath of fresh air. Also the action sequences where the surrogates leap about like superheroes look so fake that they're laughable.

Maybe the whole point of Surrogates is that this vision of the future is unnerving, yet entirely possible. It still doesn't make it a good film to watch. I though David Warbeck had fluffed it, only get a 3/10 rating for his effort in the FA Cup of Actors but he's still in the fight. In fact, he faces a replay with Radha Mitchell after the rest of the first round matches.
3/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
Loups=Garous, I, Robot.

Review - Night of Bloody Horror (1969 - Dir. Joy N. Houck Jr.)

This is the first instalment in an infrequent season that could well take a few years to complete, in fact it may never be finished depending on the availability of the films. So what's it all about? F. Paul Wilson wrote three books in the eighties that were seemingly unconnected: The Keep (made into a disappointing film by Michael Mann), The Tomb and The Touch. He then wrote a further three novels that brought everything together: Reborn, Reprisal and finally Nightworld. These six books form The Adversary Cycle and they're probably the books that I have read the most. 

What's all this got to do with films then? In Nightworld the local television stations run horror/science fiction marathons that fit with the theme of the book. These films are listed at various points throughout. Being a list pervert I just couldn't resist trying to watch all of them, and that's what I'm going to try and do. I've included the full list of 56 films on Letterboxd for your delectation.

And that brings us to the first film on the list: Night of Bloody Horror. For the late sixties this probably was a night of bloody horror but now it's more of an evening of slight grazing. Okay, it's not that tame but the violence won't have the same impact as when it was originally released. There is a quality comedy killing near the start when a lovely lady goes to confession only to be told that her "penance is death!" Eye trauma follows. An axe is used at one point too - always a treat - so this can be seen as a precursor to the slasher films.

When I was watching The Ark of the Sun God recently I was cynically wondering when Raiders of the Lost Ark was released, and yep, it was a couple of years earlier. Here I was thinking that night of Bloody Horror must have been filmed in 1961 or 1962, just after Psycho. Mais non! This was released in 1969. Way too late for a cheap homage. Suffice to say that if you've seen Hitchcock's classic then you'd see the unexpected twist in Night of Bloody Horror coming, even if it set off from the other side of the world. 

Despite some fairly amateurish acting it's enjoyable enough. Wesley (Gerald McRaney - Simon and Simon) plays a troubled young lad who has witnessed something rather disturbing in his childhood. Flashbacks occur in a similar fashion to the ones in Deep Red (1975) accompanied by a tinkly creepy childish tune. Wesley is regularly afflicted by some serious headaches. So serious they are visualised by some some swirly patterns that are overlaid on to his grimacing visage. The police start to suspect Wesley of some minor misdemeanours due to the fact that his girlfriends keep turning up dead. He doesn't help his case by generally being violent and having some slightly worrying dreams. In one he is met by an attractive reporter who hops into bed with him for some slap and tickle. As they caress and rummage, Wesley looks down and the attractive brunette has changed... to his mum. Not good. Oedipus and Freud would stroke their chins in ponderment.

Just as Psycho is an example of a western giallo, so too is this, even down to the leather murdering gloves. It has some style: freeze frames are used to good effect and the camera goes completely bonkers in a nightclub scene, flicking between negative and positive versions of the film. Added to that is the way the camera operator constantly zooms in and out in time to the music. It all made me feel a little bit on the murdery side. 

Ultimately, it's not a Dario Argento giallo or a quality Hitchcock thriller. But what you do get is a slice of sixties murder and mayhem all filmed in Violent Vision that may or may not have influenced Mr Argento. Best for people who've never seen Psycho though.
3/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
Psycho, Peeping Tom.