The Mist (2007) July 4, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Frank Darabont
It shouldn’t be a crime to acknowledge that you do one thing well - especially when you do it as well as Frank Darabont, who has built his directorial career around adapting Stephen King’s stories into arguably the best iterations of the author’s work. If you don’t know his name, you’ll probably know his films: The Green Mile is a popular choice, but nothing holds a candle to the modern classic charm of The Shawshank Redemption - a movie that actually lives up to its overbearing reputation. After stepping away from King to make The Majestic, Darabont returns to the well for his most traditional horror to date, finally getting a delayed release in the UK this July.
The plot involves a small town that becomes enraptured by a thick, unexplained mist the morning after a ferocious storm. For the trapped patrons of a local grocery store, including David Drayton and his son Billy, the mild inconvenience turns to threat when a man rushes into the store with stories of “something in the mist!”. While a supernatural presence appears unlikely at first, it isn’t long before they must confront the fact that there are bigger forces at work. For the opinionated Mrs Carmody, a devout Christian, it can only be God who is behind the mystery. As tensions mount within the store, David and his son fight to survive against both the fantastical creatures, as well as their panic-stricken fellow humans.
Despite making one of the most popular and well-loved films of the last two decades, it’s a shocking indictment of the Hollywood system that Darabont still can’t command a major budget for his films. Or maybe he prefers working small. Either way, after The Majestic lost money on its $72 million budget, this time Darabont is left stranded with a paltry $18 million to spend. Luckily, he’s the kind of director who can make a little stretch a long way, and even on a small budget he manages to squeeze out a palpable atmosphere.
There’s only one area where the lack of budget really shows and that’s in the CG effects which sometimes feel a little unblended with their surroundings. It’s a typical complaint and, in my opinion, one that actually loses all weight when you consider the money they had to spend against the effectiveness of a majority of what appears on screen. I actually thought that aside from a few select sequences, the effects did their job perfectly well - impressively well even, given the constraints.
Anyway, like many of the best horror fantasies, it’s not about what you do see, but more about what you don’t see, and this is where The Mist really shines. It’s not just the traditional scenes of creeping around in the dark where the incredible tension rears its head; the indoors confrontations also manage to evoke a strong air of anxiety as the occupants turn increasingly hostile. 
A fantastic sequence of events that leads up to the final confrontation inside the store is marred only slightly by having been pre-empted in conversation back at the beginning. It’s a shame that the natural evolution of things wasn’t allowed to play out in its own time, but fortunately this doesn’t ruin the final effect one iota.
Performances are excellent from a rather unlikely cast. Thomas Jane takes hold of the lead role effectively and is surrounded by equally interesting character actors like William Sadler, Andre Braugher and Laurie Holden. A sharp-shooting role for Tobey Jones makes for one of the film’s best creations and he gives a strong performance, but at the end of it all there’s only one person you’ll come away remembering: Marcia Gay Harden playing the God-fearing Mrs. Carmody. She begins innocently enough but you’ll end up wanting to tear through the screen to shut her up - evidence of the strength behind her acting ability.
As a typical genre flick it’s so far, so good - and then there’s the ending. A decent conclusion is easily the hardest thing to pull off in the supernatural horror / thriller world, since they naturally build up such impossible, incomprehensible situations that there’s almost 
no way to satisfy the audience in an even half-credible manner. Here, Darabont has gone for a brave denouncement, and it will no doubt split audiences on its appropriateness. Personally, I admired its non-conformity, although some will find the depths of human despair just slightly too comical. A jet black joke on an otherwise sombre tale.
For straight-up scares, this is not the film that will keep you awake at nights - it’s actually much better than that. Darabont displays an acute understanding of how to bring tense human conflict into a story with debatable fantasy origins, and with it delivers a film that had me gripped, sometimes literally at the chair arms, for its full 126 minutes. There’s no doubting his ability to adapt and direct King’s work, and even, in the case of the ending, to inject new controversy. The film’s bottom-line concept holds much truth: There’s something in The Mist - pure talent.
The Mist is on UK general release from today.
Evan Almighty (2007) June 30, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Tom Shadyac
Universal studios, for all their sins, really got lucky with this one. Or at least so they thought until a tumultuous production budget and unpredictable lack of audience interest brought this wide-eyed comedy juggernaut to its knees. Evan Almighty is a cautionary tale in filmmaking - the proof that even when your stars seem to be aligning, there’s always the chance of a storm just around the corner.
As a direct sequel to the smash-hit Bruce Almighty, this film follows Bruce’s rival newsreader from the first film, Evan (played by Steve Carell). He has just quit the news business after a successful run for senator lands him a place in office - his pledge, to “change the world”. One night, after encouragement from his wife, he prays for assistance in this aim and gets more than he bargained for as a reply. God (Morgan Freeman) charges Evan with building an ark and warns him that a flood is imminent. Evan is left to try and juggle his regular family and work life, along with his construction commitments, against ever more pressing obstacles.
A sequel to Bruce Almighty was probably seen as inevitable by some after its immense success in 2003. And immense is the right word - this thing was unstoppable, taking in $250 million at the US box office and almost half a billion worldwide. In comedy terms, that’s huge. But when both Jim Carrey and Jennifer Aniston refused to come back for a second, the project looked to be on the rocks. Luckily, in the intervening time there had been a small explosion in the film and TV world: an explosion of talent. That talent was Steve Carell, who shot to fame after fronting the US version of The Office and starring in Judd Apatow’s defining hit The 40 Year Old Virgin. Best of all, he had appeared in some of Bruce Almighty’s most famous scenes, which put him in prime position for continuing the franchise.
And so it goes. ‘Bruce: The Second Coming’ became ‘Evan Almighty’ and everything was back on for another round of box office demolition, or so hoped Universal. The film benefits from Carell as the lead, his upbeat humour sitting well in a story that has clearly been geared to a family audience. The problem is everything around him, from the story by Steve Oedekerk, Joel Cohen and Alec Sokolow, to the effects laden but still ultimately disappointing finale, nothing ever really sits right. And that’s a shame because we know that Bruce Almighty and Ace Ventura director Tom Shadyac can do this kind of entertaining comedy fare when under less restraint.
Speaking of which, there’s a scene where Morgan Freeman tries to PG-up the story of Noah’s ark by saying that it’s not about God’s wrath but about belief and love. This well-meaning statement is a tough sell though, because any tale that deals in the death of thousands in order to cleanse the land is undeniably brutal whichever way you swing it. Evan Almighty almost needs to go there just to rid itself of the colourful positivity that plagues the film throughout but, of course, it never does, copping out on the flood big time. With such a family-friendly disaster and an Ark that achieves little more than a small-scale evacuation, there’s the feeling that story has been sacrificed for an excuse to create some spectacular effects.
And I suppose that the effects sequences are quite good fun, but the knowledge that they took the film way over budget and made it the most expensive comedy movie of all time seems to undermine any slight successes. Even when Carell is at his best, the other characters around him are sorely wasted - Wanda Sykes’ role appears to be just a series of one-liner cutaways, for example. Unfortunately, any good that the film does is ultimately overshadowed by a story that, for want of a better explanation, simply fails to achieve anything. I mean, all the elements are there and the structure is clear, but what was the point of it all? You feel like God is teasing Evan, dangling his immense power over him just because he can. Long story short, God’s an ass.
After all this derision you might be amazed to hear that I didn’t hate Evan Almighty, despite its many flaws. I think I just find the story behind the movie much more interesting than the movie itself - as a postscript, the film barely broke $100 million in the US and scraped towards (but never equalled) its $175 million budget worldwide. It is a film that offers light-hearted laughs and an easy-going sensibility mainly brought on by its lead. If you don’t like Carell then drop a star and move on. Otherwise, you could do much worse for child-quietening, morally clean family fare than this. The overarching lesson that ‘whatever God does, he does because he loves us’ is well-intentioned. I can only wonder if Universal executives would still agree.
The Incredible Hulk (2008) June 26, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 4 commentsDirected by: Louis Leterrier
If the idea of dime-a-dozen comic book movies depresses you, then the knowledge that we’re already remaking them might just tip you over the edge. That an entire franchise reboot has been developed not five years since the release of 2003’s Hulk [review] shows Marvel’s desire to shake off Ang Lee’s film as the definitive screen translation. Brushed under the carpet by this new release, it now officially ‘never happened’ - a state that Marvel and Universal would hope proliferates through the cinema-going masses. But is second time the charm for our big green friend, or will it be a case of once bitten, twice shy?
This time we meet an already isolated Bruce Banner (Edward Norton), hiding out in Brazil while trying to find a cure for his unique disease. US military forces are on to him though, and circumstances leave Banner no choice but to return home and try to locate vital data about his ‘accident’. Despite his best efforts to avoid her, Bruce crosses paths with his old flame Elisabeth Ross (Liv Tyler) and the two become close again. Meanwhile, the military has drafted a respected soldier by the name of Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to aide their mission, and he’s willing to do everything it takes – including a new form of bio-engineered drug that turns him into some kind of monstrous abomination.
It’s worth noting the slight air of negativity surrounding the release of this film over its box-office storming cousin, Iron Man [review]. Of course, audiences have been let down before by the Hulk, so they return here with a deserved scepticism that doesn’t feature in first-time features. This is a reboot though, and consequently the movie now boasts a new cast, slightly altered origin story, updated CGI, and the firm decision that, this time, it’s an action movie, not a psychological investigation. The assurance of that last decision is over the final product.
If there’s one area where the nuts have clearly been tightened it’s in the pacing department. Whereas it took Lee forty minutes to give us a glimpse of the Hulk-y goodness, and a full hour before he began fighting anything (even then it was only some rabid dogs), Leterrier’s Hulk by contrast appears in full smashing glory within the first twenty minutes, and gleefully rages through a number of scenes at regular intervals. In fact, there are extra points here for the admirable implementation of ‘getting the hell on with it’ – a choice that sees the rebooted origin story flashed in front of you before the director’s credit makes its appearance.
The drive behind the story is also more fully developed. Where it was difficult to feel a sense of urgency about Banner’s actions previously, the clear-cut reasoning behind the military wanting to get their hands on some Hulk DNA, along with Banner’s resolute intention to cure himself, means the cat and mouse game they play has much more consequence. Disappointingly, just like in 2003, when we reach the conclusion the film still presents a typical monster vs. monster showdown, but maybe there isn’t another way to really go with a character built solely to brawl.
I wasn’t sure about the casting of Edward Norton, but now I feel like I just underestimated how likeable he is as an actor. This may not be his finest performance of all time, but he makes for a more than adequate Bruce Banner, dropping some of the Clark Kent-like awkwardness from Eric Bana’s portrayal. Liv Tyler wasn’t quite doing it for me in the same way, but as love interests go, Elizabeth Ross isn’t the most fascinating anyway. Meanwhile there’s Tim Roth playing the Russian-born, Englishman who’s also an American soldier. In the greedy, power-hungry villain stakes, I’ve seen far worse, although he does have to share that title in part with William Hurt, who plays the uncharismatic Colonel Ross with a convincingly cold demeanour.
Louis Leterrier’s direction excels during the action sequences – particularly the chases which are distractingly entertaining, if not always entirely original. With a patchy resume to his name (Danny The Dog [review] had plenty of things going for it, Transporter 2 [review] had… Jason Statham?), it’s a surprise that he got himself attached to such a high profile Marvel release; although that seems to have been their tactic of late – who would have guessed Jon Favreau for the Iron Man job? Zak Penn’s script, on the other hand, is a little inconsistent. The dialogue does exactly what it says on the tin and nothing more.
In an interesting twist, the high expectation surrounding Iron Man may well have dampened my viewing of it, whereas my low expectations for this have significantly helped the overall experience. In the end, they come out close to even, although I’d still given the edge to Iron Man for setting up the more significant franchise. I only mention them together because they are, in fact, 
all cogs in a larger machine called The Avengers, due out in 2011. There’s a nice little drawstring being threaded through the relevant films right now, all in anticipation of what is it come. For the first time, Marvel are handling their crossover potential with care and I really hope it’s going to pay off.
As for what is to become of the Hulk, it’s hard to say. Sequels are a difficult concept for a character whose main elements were all covered by this film, and even if Bruce Banner’s internal conflict makes for the most interesting future direction, at the end of the day that’s not what the fans want on the big screen. Just ask Ang Lee. The knowledge that this movie merely exists to wipe the slate and redraw a character so he can be carried through to another film doesn’t sound like the most worthy of cinematic endeavours. But if you can stomach some fairly mindless popcorn-munching entertainment, don’t let your previous impressions keep you away from this. It’s officially safe to go back in the water.
Hulk (2003) June 22, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 3 commentsDirected by: Ang Lee
He came, he smashed, he pondered. Ang Lee’s meditative Hulk film was only in our cinemas five short years ago, and although it drew derision from both critics and the fan boy masses as a naval-gazing failure, it at least had a unique sensibility that countless similarly sourced released have let slip into what we now know as ‘the comic book movie’: a formulaic all-action spectacular, emotional depth sold separately.
There are exceptions (Sam Raimi’s Spider-man films had a decent grasp of their human emotive overtones, as did Christopher Nolan’s Batman reboot), but just think about the others: Catwoman, Fantastic Four, Alien vs Predator, The Punisher, Daredevil, Elektra, (shudder) Ghost Rider. All examples of movies pushed out to audiences who supposedly couldn’t get enough of this stuff – and, incidentally, failed to realise that ‘this stuff’ meant quality adaptations, like Bryan Singer’s X-Men, not shoddy misinterpretations surrounded by CGI. It’s here that we find Hulk, a character so easily suited to the crash-bang action movie that the film practically makes a point of rebelling against it.
The opening scenes set the tone for the rest of the film: Bruce Banner, a great scientist from similarly gifted parents, is quietly working on a cell repair project using gamma radiation. When an accident occurs, he is left exposed to the radioactive materials but mysteriously does not die. What he does gain is something far worse – a giant green beast that grows from within him whenever Bruce gets angry. Now the government, and namely lab partner Betty Ross’ father, want to get their hands on the monster, while Bruce tries to figure out why it happened and how it links to his mysterious past.
From homosexual cowboys to oriental erotic intrigue, director Ang Lee doesn’t seem like the type to work in such a restrictive genre, so maybe the decision to have him helm a mainstream blockbuster was never the right one. His style is more introspective, and so the film takes on this weird mix of would-be action spectacular tethered by self-analysing, talky lab scenes and the kind of character delving that big budget comic book movies usually denounce outright. As a result, there is lots of chatter about dreams, as well as eerie disjointed flashbacks and visualised memories throughout. It’s far from art-house, but still probably the most meditative of the Marvel comic flicks.
This isn’t the problem, however. The dilemma here is that none of it really works. Bruce Banner’s unwanted rage is maybe due a bit of couch time, and a thoughtfully plotted dissection of his internal conflict should ideally be at the heart of any Hulk film. Here however, we get a downbeat overview of the uncontrollable anger buried inside Banner, with too much dialogue offering too little insight. The father-son dynamic is totally underplayed, while Bruce himself seems to gain almost no understanding of the power he possesses. When he’s not going through the motions of smashing things (an infrequent occurrence in retrospect), he’s quietly pondering his past or being pushed around by military forces.
One moment alone shows Banner’s most interesting depth, an admission that at the point where he loses control, he enjoys the experience. Part of this is the devilish delivery of Eric Bana, who does a good job embodying the pent-up scientist but never quite convinces that he could have Hulk-like qualities trapped within. Jennifer Connelly plays fellow scientist and love interest with charm although her appearances never stretch what she is capable of, while Nick Nolte remains his usual bedraggled self as the film’s weakest element - a villain so inadequately set up that he appears merely to give the film an explosive showdown rather than have any baring on the story.
Despite the reservations, what Ang Lee brings to the movie is an assured visual sensibility and maybe the most direct comic-strip-to-screen interpretation we’ve ever seen. It’s not Sin City with its frame-for-panel recreations, but more of an overall look that includes split screen techniques to create layered panes and a variety of transitions which move between shots in way that maintains a constant flow. He doesn’t always get it right, though. The conclusion is completely ruined by an under water setting that makes it near impossible to tell what’s going on - or why. Plus, his inability to deliver a short movie (his films regularly sprawl way past the two-hour mark), make this a patience testing exercise at 138 minutes.
What Hulk does recognize is the idea that time spent understanding the character is as important as the time you spend seeing that character in action. The problem here is that it errs so heavily in the favour of its characters, it loses track of the fact that audiences expect at least some spectacular moments of destruction. After all, “Hulk smash” – that’s just what he does. Even the distinct visual style can’t hold together a weakly structured story and inconclusive narrative arc that poses questions without coming up with any answers. It doesn’t pander to the genre, but neither does it break the mould - an activity that Hulk himself would no doubt jump at the chance to do.
Next (2007) June 18, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Lee Tamahori
From a high profile Bond movie, to a sub-standard xXx sequel, to this: a convoluted future-gazing thriller that fails to live up to its premise. It seems that director Lee Tamahori is caught in a tailspin of slightly mindless, action-oriented, potential money-spinners - not that Next was a box office success fir him either. Despite a set-up that’s interesting if you can go along with it, you won’t need Cris Johnson’s time bending ability to keep up with a story that is never as smart as it thinks it is.
As is common with sci-fi thrillers, the plot has high concept origins. Here, working magician and part time gambler Chis Johnson (Nicholas Cage) is making an easy living in Las Vegas. The secret to his success: that he can see two minutes into the future. Unfortunately for Johnson, the FBI is on to him with tenacious team leader Callie Ferris (Julianne Moore) heading the operation to bring him in. But all is not as it seems. The FBI don’t want to just capture their man, they want to use him to help find a terrorist group who have planted a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles. After meeting the girl of his dreams (a term I use literally in this case) Johnson goes on the run – always one step, and two minutes, ahead.
As a film that’s trying incredibly hard to be stylish and modern, it unwisely chooses to lean on those elements rather than take the time to explain its rather spurious central premise which, if you’re going to get enjoyment out of it at all, you’ll need to accept as given. What you are subjected to is a constant over-explanation of the limitations of Cris’ ability. On numerous occasions we hear him explain the two-minute limit and how he can only see events he is personally involved in. If the filmmakers were afraid that the ’stupid’ audience wouldn’t understand these rules, they could have found a better way to make you understand than just having various characters repeat them verbatim.
When he’s not looking like a Da Vinci Code reject, Nicholas Cage is at half-mast playing the troubled clairvoyant of the piece. He looks rather disinterested, although, sandwiched between the woeful Ghost Rider [review] and the rather tepid National Treasure: Book of Secrets [review], this is yet another project which offers little in the way of substance for an actor who desperately needs a credibility boost. Standing alongside him is Jessica Biel, doing very little besides just being there, while Julianne Moore struggles with a standard FBI agent role that’s too cold and lacks any character development - a quality shared by everyone in the film.
The script, by more writers than it deserves, has its origins in a Philip K Dick novel (‘The Golden Man’), and follows the author’s usual penchant for imaginative sci-fi and manhunt-style chases (see also: Paycheck and Minority Report). Lee Tamahori gives the film a clean visual style, but it can’t make up for the lack of substance. The best use of the various special effects on show give us a look at how Cris can test out all variations of the future before deciding which to take. But they are mistakenly saved for the climax, when it would have been more interesting to see that process working right from the start, maybe during the well-choreographed escape from a Las Vegas casino.
And this is not the only problem inherent with the conclusion, which is at the very top end of misjudged intellectualism. Thinking that an oh-so clever open ending would be enough closure, the film robs you of any storyline and ultimately offers no resolution at all. Its central character’s sentiment that “whenever you look at the future, it changes - because you looked at it” actually goes some way to explaining why the film is so unsatisfying. Next has some interesting ideas but they are never sustained, while the chase itself lacks a proper reason for occurring (some filler about becoming a scientific guinea pig is used, but never committed to). Both Tamahori and Cage need a hit right now - admittedly, this isn’t it, but who knows what the future holds?
