Alien Autopsy (2006) November 28, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Jonny Campbell
Apparently UK television stars Ant McPartlin and Declan Donnelly were offered numberous movie roles prior to this, but turned them down. Interestingly, a story about the faked alien autopsy of 1995 that captured huge media and public interest, convinced them to test the water. The question everyone wanted to know was: could they pull it off?
First the plot. Dec plays Ray Santilli, a wheeler & dealer who is desperate to take a trip stateside so he can buy Elvis memorabilia to sell back in the UK. He drags his slightly more conservative friend Gary Shoefield (Ant) along too. During the trip Ray is shown a film that changes his outlook on life – a real alien autopsy, filmed just after the supposed Roswell landings in 1947. He borrows money to buy the film, but by the time the duo reaches UK shores it has disintegrated into almost nothing. Ray and Gary are now in a bad situation, and with a dangerous loan shark wanting to see the mysterious movie he gave up $30,000 for, the two friends do the only thing they can think of: start filming a fake autopsy in their living room.
Now it may sound like a crazy story, but it’s actually based on a true one. Or so the real Ray Santilli and Gary Shoefield would like us to think. How much of the America story actually happened we may never know, but these two did fake an alien autopsy in 1995, and subsequently sold it to a host of television networks around the world. Only recently have they ‘come clean’ on this fact, although Ray sticks to the story that he saw the real footage in Florida.
Aside from the mystery surrounding the story, the movie itself is surprisingly good. It’s by no means perfect, but I was certainly entertained throughout the 95-minute duration. The story is told nicely, as the boys recount their story to a documentary filmmaker (played by Bill Pullman). The direction and script are nothing special, the only real highlights being Ant and Dec’s chemistry, which after years of working together they have down to a tee.
And that brings us to the most discussed aspect of the film: are Ant and Dec any good? Well, for the most part, yes. It’s difficult to forget that they are the lovable TV duo we’re used to seeing on a Saturday night, but after what feels like a shaky start, they quickly get into their characters. Hollywood stardom might not be calling yet, but they certainly won’t be any worse off for having made this.
In the end, Alien Autopsy is a decent British comedy, and it’s nice to be able to say that once in a while. It does need to be funnier (it’s no Shaun of the Dead), but the strangeness inherent in the story helps make up for that. Just don’t do what I almost did, and discount it as nonsense because it’s a low budget British movie with those two guys from the telly. There’s much more to enjoy here than it would first appear.
Dark Water (2005) November 22, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Walter Salles
Like lots of the recent US horrors (The Grudge, The Ring), this is a remake of a Japanese film. Titled ‘Honogurai mizu no soko kara’ (From the Depths of Dark Water), it told the story of a woman looking for a new life after separating from her husband. Three years later, and we’ve got ‘Dark Water’, the same story, this time set in Manhattan.
Jennifer Connelly plays the woman in question, named Dahlia. She and he daughter (Ceci) move into a slightly run-down apartment building which, though cramped, fits their modest budget. Things don’t run smooth though, and along with the stress of a bitter custody battle, her daughter starting a new school and trying to find a job, Dahlia discovers a leak in her bedroom ceiling. As the leak gets worse, her mental state begins to deteriorate. She hears mysterious noises, and sees the ‘dark water’ referred to in the title. Meanwhile, her daughter has made a mysterious invisible friend called Natasha. Could she be a link in the puzzle surrounding the dark water?
I’ll let you discover the answer to that question, although if you’ve seen any movies from this genre in the past five years you can probably guess. I’m waiting for the ‘invisible friend’ plot device to get old and stop appearing, but it hasn’t happened. Regardless, this is one of the better psychological thrillers of recent times. And I say psychological thriller, because like when I reviewed The Ring [link], I don’t feel there are many horror elements to this movie.
Brazilian director Walter Salles works hard on the visuals and mood of each scene, while Jennifer Connelly does a fine job of keeping the tension up. Plus there is some great talent on display from the supporting actors: John C. Reilly, Tim Roth, Dougray Scott, and Pete Postlethwaite. The main problem is that the film sets up these interesting characters, but then fails to use any of them in a suitable way. Tim Roth especially seems almost superfluous. And the same can be said about some of the plot points, namely the punk kids who are supposed to be flooding the apartment upstairs.
It’s a shame really because as I’ve said, this is one of the better attempts at this kind of movie. The apartment building is suitably creepy, and you can really feel the pressure Dahlia is under. For most of the film the audience can really get involved in her life, and try to piece together where all the characters fit in to the mystery. Unfortunately it all falls apart in the last ten minutes with an ending that feels very unsatisfactory - things actually work out for the best, but whether you’ll feel that way is a different matter. Although there is one last nice moment to wait for between the big climax and the final credits.
Casino Royale (2006) November 18, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Martin Campbell
Bringing Bond back to the screen is always an event in British cinema, but never more so than on this occasion. A new actor, a new style, and a semi-reset for the franchise have all been issues for contention over the past year. But final judgement can only be reserved for the finished product, and as thousands of audiences sit down around the country to see it this weekend I offer only two words of advice: Brace yourselves.
The story is based on Ian Fleming’s first James Bond novel, and is an uncharacteristically simple tale. On being upgraded to ‘00’ status, Bond is forced to go it alone after a capture mission in Madagascar goes wrong. He tracks down members of the cell, and finds them linked to a terrorist banker, Le Chiffre, who is about to hold a high-stakes poker game in order to recoup some badly invested money. Knowing that Le Chiffre could be a valuable source of information, MI6 give Bond the opportunity to enter the game, beat Le Chiffre, and then force him to seek protection in return for information. Of course it’s never that easy, and as the stakes rise so do the dirty tactics, leaving Bond to risk his life on the turn of a card.
From the ultra-cool opening exchange, inter-cut with a gritty fight sequence and shot in noir-esque black and white, you know this is not going to be an average Bond outing. The movie then blasts its way into one of the most spectacular chase sequences I’ve seen on screen in recent years. Martin Campbell’s direction really shines through as we follow the duo from a market, to a building site, up scaffolding, and onto a couple of huge construction cranes. It’s stunt work supreme, and real seat pinning stuff.
‘Brutal’ is one word to describe this new direction, and in a way that Brosnan wouldn’t have been able to get away with. The actor swap-out has actually given a new lease of life to a character that was relying more and more on gadgets than his own abilities. Gadget buffs will be disappointed to learn that they hardly feature at all – and the film is better off for it. Writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis have taken licenses with the Bond staple elements (including the opening ‘barrel’ sequence, and drinks order), but done so in a way which really works, and doesn’t over-emphasise the point at all.
The big story of course is Daniel Craig as Bond. But if there’s one thing I took away from Casino Royale it’s that we make too much of who is playing that role. As long as he fits the bill, and is a good actor, it shouldn’t matter as long as the final movie is of high quality. ‘But he’s blonde!’ To be honest, I didn’t even notice. Craig is, incidentally, brilliant though, and proof that finding a strong actor is more important than what he looks like, or the colour of his hair.
The movie is not perfect by any means, there’s an element of predictability towards the end, and I take objection to some important plot-points being explained after-the-fact, in a way that doesn’t link with the main story. 
There’s also some unnecessary commentary from one character during the poker sequences that starts turning a very tense game into Late Night Poker on Channel 5. But I guess that’s nitpicking what is currently going down as the most successful action / adventure movie of the year.
We’re truly entering a new age for the Bond films, and for the first time since Goldeneye it’s exciting to see where it will go next. The strength of the character is shown in how differently he can be presented, and yet how familiar everything remains. Watching Casino Royale only serves to cement this fact. To all the xXx’s, Ethan Hunt’s, or even that kid in the Stormbreaker movies, I’m sorry guys, you missed the boat. Casino Royale proves that there will never, ever, be another franchise as strong as this. And with that we wait, albeit with restored excitement, as the credits tell us what we already know: ‘James Bond will return’.
The Lake House (2006) November 14, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Alejandro Agresti
It’s been 12 years since Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock worked together, and they’ve both had their career ups and downs during that time. But Speed 3 this is not, as the pair play separated lovers in a romantic fantasy based on the Korean movie Il Mare.
And if ‘separated lovers’ sounds like a slightly well-tread story premise, then you might be interested to learn that the separation is not one of distance, but of time. Two years in fact, as Alex (Reeves) is living at the titular lake house during 2004, while Kate (Bullock) is visiting in 2006. They discover that they can communicate by putting letters in the mailbox, and strike up an unlikely romantic connection. But being unable to meet face to face, combined with their personal problems (she’s a hospital doctor, he’s a struggling architect with an estranged father), means their relationship soon becomes strained.
It’s a risky premise, mainly because the plot involves some aspects of time travel, which can get very messy when it comes to consistency and believability. Some movies handle it well, and manage to explain away the potential complications of time travel plotting (the ‘alternate 1985’ explanation in Back To the Future Part II is a good example). This movie however, seems to decide early on to just throw caution to the wind, and goes all out to ignore the problems inherent with communicating through time. This naturally throws up all kinds of plot holes – and they just keep coming, right up to the credits.
There were some things I liked though. The letter ‘conversations’ are handled well, and once the audience has got the idea of how they communicate, we get more naturalistic voice-over conversations. This stops the whole movie being two people writing and delivering letters I suppose, although it does mean that they sometime talk in a manner that wouldn’t occur by letter – with one character stopping mid-story, and the other saying “please carry on”. Also, despite my earlier rant about the ignorance shown towards time-travel, there are a couple of nice plot turns. Even if they do seem slightly redundant when Kate never bothers to look Alex up in 2006.
I’m not entirely sure this movie achieves what it sets out to do. The performances are fine, and the direction is perfectly competent. Even the script, while slightly too cute at times, is acceptable for a romantic tale such as this. I guess in the end the film just isn’t that good, and the endless plot holes make it a very unsatisfying experience. They may have both grown up now, but I’d rather see Keanu and Sandra catch the bus any day.
Everything Is Illuminated (2005) November 9, 2006
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Liev Schreiber
Based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, and with a screenplay written & directed by actor Liev Schreiber, Everything Is Illuminated was certainly a departure from the norm when it hit cinemas towards the end of last year. With its cast of off-beat characters, and Ukrainian setting, this was never going to be a big-opener at the box office. But it’s really good just to know that movies like this are still being made.
The story follows Jonathan (Elijah Wood), who is a collector. He avidly keeps mementos sealed in plastic bags so he will ‘remember’. In trying to discover what happened to his grandfather during WWII, he flies to the Ukraine in search of a woman who had helped him flee Europe. Armed with only a picture and the name of the village, he joins up with Odessa Heritage Tours (Alex and his grandfather Safran) who agree to drive him to his destination. But the trip does not run smooth, and Jonathan’s journey becomes a journey for all three, as they learn about life, their heritage and themselves.
I think one of the biggest strengths of this movie is its ability to be weird, but never at the expense of alienating the audience. There are moments of beautiful cinematography and direction, and equally powerful plot developments especially as the gangs’ journey draws to a close. To say quite where the story takes you may be ruining it slightly, but it definitely keeps you engrossed right to the end.
The cast are fantastic, especially stars Elijah Wood and Eugene Hutz who play their simple characters to maximum effect. Elijah is a wonderful choice for the innocent ‘collector’, and from almost a blank slate of emotionless indifference, creates a character who we are happy to follow on his quest for family knowledge. Eugene Hutz as Alex on the other hand, turns the tables on the regular ‘funny sidekick’ role, and even though he does provide much of the humour during the movie, it’s the emotional connection to his Grandfather, and later Jonathan, that provides Hutz with an opportunity to really impress.
Pulling off the difficult job of being an indie-movie that could still appeal to a mass audience, Everything Is Illuminated is certainly a triumph of book-to-film adaptations (especially since the novel was already critically acclaimed on release). It’s both an engaging and different film, which looks at issues more emotionally intense than the premise would imply. Highly recommended, but be prepared for some surprises – this movie is much more involved than I thought it would be. Perhaps that’s part of its charm.
