1408 (2007) August 6, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Mikael Håfström
Endless Asian movie remakes, questionable 70’s ‘re-imaginings’, and franchise-spinning ‘torture porn’ flicks filling the Halloween schedules - these are but fads for a Hollywood horror industry stabilised by one consistent source of inspiration: Stephen King short stories. Ever more, they are the bread and butter of American horror output, with nearly forty credits since the turn of the century and a further seven in production. This is but one of those stories, albeit a high profile one, with a simple premise that is easily summed up by its tagline: “Don’t stay in 1408″.
It opens with supernatural cynic Mike Enslin, who writes books about ghostly phenomena in supposedly haunted locations. As a complete skeptic, he takes each job without fear, so when a request comes through for him to check out the notorious room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York, Mike takes no heed of the stories that plague the room’s history. Hotel manager Gerald Olin warns him that nobody has ever lived through a night in the room, but pushy Mike opts to stay anyway, uninterested in what he considers a publicity stunt. Of course, there’s more truth to the rumours than he can know, and it isn’t long before Mike is being pursued by spiritual forces, unexplainable events, and a radio obsessed with The Carpenters.
As it may well sound, the film quickly becomes a one-man show - not that I’m complaining however, as in this particular case that one man is John Cusack. He balances the methodical with the madness, even as his situation starts to deteriorate and the things that go bump in the night come out to play. Drawn in by his scathing scepticism, Mike Enslin is the kind of character who you want to see go through this experience, and Cusack is the kind of actor I want to see play him. On the other side of the equation is hotel manager Samuel L. Jackson, who gets his name on the poster and ten minutes in the film, playing adequately through the mythical build-up to Enslin’s nightmarish overnight stay.
What the film lacks in cast it attempts to make up for in visual flare, which Swedish director Mikael Håfström handles very well. His American film career takes a step up from the rather sluggish Derailed [review] with some wild angles and the freedom to play around while still keeping a consistent tone. You could argue that it sometimes gets a little too free, or that the levels of tension tend to be sporadic, but Håfström’s basic intentions are clear: creepy is better than outright horrific. There are also plenty of expertly crafted special effects that actually help the film enormously, bringing realism to absurd situations and an eerie quality to the film’s other central character: the room.
So it comes as a disappointment when, come the ending, a film that worked so hard to steadily build up the anticipation completely fumbles the ball. A location change in the third act brings relief from the confines of the room, yet also dampens the pressure after spending a good hour cranking it up. You would be forgiven for guessing where it goes from here, although if you’re watching the Director’s Cut DVD version, I predict that the actual final climax is not necessarily what you might expect. Those who saw it in theatres might be interested to catch the last 10 minutes of the DVD release, if only to compare the differences. But rest assured, neither conclusion satisfies in the way it should.
1408 is a well designed piece of intimate horror let down by that most unforgiving of elements: the ending. The influence of scriptwriters Matt Greenberg, Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski is unclear in the film’s final form - I still think a final act re-write would have benefited the movie as a whole. You can’t deny that it comes from a solid concept though, and that’s all down to maestro of the written frightener, Steven King - once again proving why Hollywood keeps itself attached to his pen ink like a patient on a drip.
The Dark Knight (2008) August 2, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Christopher Nolan
So it’s finally here – and don’t we know it. The latest instalment in Christopher Nolan’s rebooted Batman franchise exploded into US cinemas, breaking all manner of records and causing untold queuing at the mere mention of available tickets. It’s the kind of hype that money can’t buy: genuine audience excitement and anticipation. But as the saying goes: the higher you climb, the further you have to fall. Now, facing a film with expectation beyond the mere printed pictures on celluloid of its reality, a fall seems inevitable. Unless, of course, the movie can fly. And trust me, The Dark Knight soars.
Picking up some time after the events of Batman Begins, a ruthless and slightly theatrical criminal calling himself The Joker is committing violent acts all over Gotham. His latest, the robbing of a mob-owned bank, has caused Gotham’s gangsters to sit up and take notice of the Joker’s business proposal: to get rid of Batman. Meanwhile, newly appointed District Attorney Harvey Dent is starting to make positive waves in the city and, with the help of Batman, takes half of Gotham’s criminals to trail in one swoop. Seeing his city begin to regain hope, Bruce Wayne wonders whether he can hang up the cape, and finally let the unmasked political heroes take over responsibility – a plan The Joker is hell-bent on destroying.
What Christopher Nolan started with Batman Begins was a hero movie revolution – but as well respected as that piece was, it only laid the groundwork. This is the venture that proves you can make a film out of the genre. An honest-to-goodness film, with meaning and pain and social unrest and violence and madness and yes, darkness. The Dark Knight makes Begins look almost formulaic in its approach, taking the essence of what the first film stood for (batman as a symbol, superhero culture made real, and Gotham as a city on the brink of despair) and putting those things under the microscope. No stone goes unturned, adding layers to the story as well as minutes to the running length.
In two and a half hours, we cover the gambit of what Bruce Wayne and his shadowy alter ego can endure. There’s an element of grandeur in the opening, through to duplicitous moral decision-making and self doubt as the hard-working narrative stretches on. The film is symphonic in nature, playing its themes in haunting harmony, and it very much has the feel of an epic, without necessarily displaying any of the traits you would attribute to such a classification – fans of David Fincher’s Zodiac [review] may know the sensation. But for all the hard work of Christian Bale, this is not his movie; instead, it is the characters surrounding his central figurehead who are thrust to the foreground.
To not separate Heath Ledger would be strangely remiss. Outside of the attention he has received since his passing, there is no doubting the fact that he is exceptional in this role. 
His twelve-screws loose approach isn’t so much of constant mania than of unstable menace. But he proves a constant threat: unrelentingly focused, yet relaxed and playful. Whenever he’s on screen, the atmosphere in the room changes - an effect that’s due to the pitch perfect combination of actor, role, and writing.
But what of the others? I can’t help but feel that we may be sidelining the efforts of Aaron Eckhart, who is fantastic in a difficult role. The Joker might be a microcosm of evil, but he’s essentially a one-note character: consistently unhinged to the last. Making Harvey Dent work is not the simple task it might first appear, yet Eckhart always has him under control, right through to his character’s most demanding final turn. Add to this the upstanding excellence of Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon, and the always-dependable old-hands Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman reprising their respective roles, and you’ve got the kind of cast that inspires greatness before you even consider the script.
As with Batman Begins, this film comes from a story by Nolan himself, along with Blade writer David S Goyer. Nolan also penned the screenplay, a task he shared with his brother Jonathan, whom he previously worked with on The Prestige [review]. Their chosen path is much more intricate than last time, weaving the dialogue around the film’s central themes, while beautifully foreshadowing later events. It’s also a much darker outlook, with an increased quota of menace and violence. Make no mistake, this is a 15 rated movie masquerading as a 12A, but that’s a necessity of the story - one that delves deep into the broken social status of a city on the edge.
And it’s Gotham, as a city, that forms as much of a character in this film as any of the actual people are. It gains its sense of ‘being’ as the corruptible prize that both thwarts evil and plays right into its hands. Gotham is the reason The Dark Knight has such resonance – it is the city that often controls and drives events in the film. It is both Batman’s sense of responsibility and the Joker’s pawn. Though it may not be a place steeped in reality, there’s no denying how real it feels when shown through Nolan’s lens. Not least when he revels in the moments – setting some events to an ominous near-silence, while allowing Hans Zimmer & James Newton Howard’s remarkable score to punctuate others.
The Dark Knight is a masterstroke of achievement, brought on by the dedication and downright bravery of Nolan and his team to make the kind of Batman film that not only pays service to the fans, but also to the cinema-goer. It’s a brilliant and daring blockbuster that takes the time to deconstruct its social reality and then play on it as a source of narrative. And that’s important because for all the current attempts to subvert the norm, traditional comic book movies still adhere to a strict set of ‘rules’; consciously or subconsciously, they mostly stand by an out of date Hollywood archetype. Not here. “Introduce a little anarchy, you upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos“. Nolan is our agent of chaos. Welcome to a world without rules.
The Dark Knight is currently on general release.
Hancock (2008) July 29, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 2 commentsDirected by: Peter Berg
Will Smith stands strong in his desire to hold sway over the lucrative 4th July weekend with this, his fifth big budget opener to strike dominance on the holiday. With Independence Day, Men In Black, Men In Black II, and Wild Wild West all taking the #1 spot in previous years, Hancock stands not to prove that one of Hollywood’s most profitable screen actors has audience pulling power - we already know that he does. But rather, to see if we can still like him when he’s deeply dislikeable.
Which leads to the film’s plot, and basic concept: what if there was a superhero with all the powers, but none of the compassion? Meet John Hancock, a lazy, near-homeless alcoholic, blessed with super powers that he cannot remember obtaining. He takes his hero responsibilities only semi-seriously and causes untold amounts of damage while undertaking his unique brand of crime fighting. It’s not until he saves the life of a PR agent that Hancock is persuaded to change his image and become more public-friendly. Or, at least, that’s the plan.
It’s true that all superhero movies come with some form of ‘concept’ attached, but this one rather admirably manages to present a truly original and interesting idea. We’ve had darker anti-heroes before (see: The Punisher, Constantine) but the idea of someone so begrudging of his gift comes as a welcome change to the relentless self-sacrifice and chiseled smiles that outline the superhero archetype. In truth, it’s a concept with flaws, and it’s those flaws that ultimately let the film down. But let’s concentrate on the good first.
The script, by Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan, makes appropriate light of the contradiction inherent to the main character’s dilemma. There are plenty of humorous moments and, at least in the first half, the film stays firmly on the side of the comic - there’s even a running gag that mirrors the recurring “nobody calls me chicken” line from Back to the Future. Most of these whimsical asides go to Will Smith, who gets plenty of screen time and enjoys both positive and negative aspects of the character. Backing him up is Jason Bateman, once again playing into the sarcastic but downtrodden good-guy role he fulfilled in Arrested Development, while there’s also a rather strange part for Charlize Theron as his duplicitous wife.
The Kingdom director Peter Berg takes the reigns here, and seems to have great fun with an increased budget - almost too much fun, actually. His suitably overblown effects sequences provide spectacle, but come at the expense of holding onto a consistent plotline. Which brings us to Hancock’s greatest problem: the all too simple method of character resolution. Once Hancock decides to change his attitude and become a more traditional hero, the film is forced to do exactly the same. Gone are the things that make him different and so goes any interest in him as a cynical take on the superhero blueprint. Simultaneously, the film also realises it has no other plotlines or a proper villain of any sort, and proceeds to bumble to a disappointing conclusion by way of some empty action sequences and a very convoluted piece of back-story.
Rather like Smith’s last big billing in I Am Legend [review], Hancock is a game of two halves, with the second half severely letting down the first. Such inadequate filler material is aided by the likeability of Will Smith as a lead actor, but maybe that’s part of the problem. He always comes off as quite a nice guy, so even his short-lived stint as an angry drunk only stands to be as believable as the fact he can fly. You expect him to snap out of it at any minute, so it comes as little surprise when he does. It might be a film that shows the power of PR management, but Smith himself surely needs none - people will evidently see his movies whatever he plays, and, despite superstitious belief to the contrary, whatever time of year they are released.
Baby Mama (2008) July 25, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Michael McCullers
During the past twelve months we have witnessed the rise of a subject that is rife with comic intent, but has not historically been well handled by Hollywood. The conception comedy, as it is not yet known, gained much ground after being the subject of two extremely well received films: Judd Apatow’s box office storming Knocked Up [review], and Jason Reitman’s indie-spirited Juno [review]. Probably by complete coincidence, we’re now faced by yet another duet of pregnancy-themed stories; one, a rather dire looking Heather Graham vehicle called Miss Conception; the other, Baby Mama, a light-hearted take on the difficulties of expecting from a writer and select cast members of Saturday Night Live.
Its story is one of modern concerns. Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) has put so much effort into forwarding her career that she has ended up 37, single, and wanting a baby. Unfortunately, Kate isn’t biologically-inclined to do so, giving her a one-in-a-million shot of becoming pregnant herself. So she turns to a surrogacy service who set her up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), to be her rented womb. Of course, the two have little in common, and Angie’s wilder attributes along with her trashy workless boyfriend give Kate cause for concern. Their odd relationship is put to the test when Angie is forced to move in with Kate, where it transpires that one of them may not have been completely honest about their intentions.
As incidental as it might first appear, the fact that writer and director Michael McCullers, as well as the film’s female leads, all come from a Saturday Night Live background, actually has a bearing on how the film is perceived. In the past, sketch TV-graduate movies have been wildly inconsistent. There have been both massive successes and terrible failures, so each new movie now arrives with a deserved mix of both anticipation and scepticism. On this occasion though, the SNL mark is less evident, something that actually helps the film achieve a well pitched comic balance.
If you look back over the catalogue of such films, they have a tendency to rely on their most comfortable medium: that of short, sharp gags and sketch comedy. It’s not always a bad thing: just take a look at Mike Myers’ feature endeavours like Austin Powers [review] and Wayne’s World, or some of the early Will Ferrell stuff. One of the biggest triumphs of Baby Mama however, is that it doesn’t lean on sketch-like interludes to fill out the story. It exists, rather nicely, as an even-handed attempt to tell the story of its two lead characters, without turning to a forced high concept, or needless overacting.
The cast is, as you would imagine, very comically proficient, and work hard to get the most out of McCullers script. Headliners Tina Fey and Amy Poehler take their natural roles as upstanding business woman and trashy wild child, respectively. As both friends and enemies they evoke a natural rapport that adds significantly to the film’s overall feel. Backing them up are some well cast supporting parts including Romany Malco as the wisecracking doorman, Sigourney Weaver playing a surrogate councillor with an ageless womb, Steve Martin as the hippy boss of a health food corporation (and proving that he can still be great in small doses), and the always likeable Greg Kinnear as a love interest for Fey. Only Dax Shephard gets a bum deal, playing yet another witless loser and squeezing very little out of him.
Despite the good performances, if there’s an area where the film starts to fall down it’s through the rather stereotypical characterisation. Kate is uptight and difficult because she values her career, while Angie is wild and a little bit kooky (she makes her own clothes, that’s how you know). Kate finds a guy who is the seemingly insurmountable essence of a ‘nice guy’, 
while Angie’s boyfriend is a scheming meathead. The health food director at Kate’s work is a new-age enthusiast who speaks in spiritual terms and rewards people with “5 minutes of uninterrupted eye contact”. Even though the odd couple narrative might not be a new concept, all the formulaic side characters do is to remind you how unoriginal it all is.
Putting that aside, Baby Mama is a decent feel-good comedy, with more than enough witty one-liners to see it through. Sure, it could have done with a few more big laughs, and you’ll see the end coming a mile off, but maybe that’s not completely a bad thing, as it lets you sit back and enjoy the journey. Both Fey and Poehler establish themselves as effective comic leads, which will no doubt lead to future Hollywood work - a fact not hurt by this film’s week at the US box office number one spot. But let’s just hope that they, and everyone else in Hollywood, gives the conception comedy a bit of a rest now. Or else it’s only a matter of time before we end up with another Junior.
Baby Mama is on UK general release from today.
Donkey Punch (2008) July 21, 2008
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Oliver Blackburn
A recent Guardian article presented Donkey Punch as a film brought about by, and created for, the ‘Skins generation’ - a reference to the popular television programme that typifies a new wave of youth (sometimes phonetically truncated to ‘yoof’) programming. This set a number of expectations in my mind, not least a copious emphasis on sex and drugs as the prominent components of any teenage existence. It was little surprise then, to discover a story that based its teenage narrative dilemma around both sex and drugs, all while managing to squeeze in a side-order of bloody violence.
The plot centres on a group of three girls, who venture from their hometown of Leeds out to the rather more temperate climes of Spain, to enjoy a holiday filled with drinking, dancing and decapitation. Well, that last one isn’t strictly on the to-do list, but once the girls take the ill-advised decision to go aboard a luxury yacht with a group of similar fun-loving boys, it quickly becomes par for the course. After an evening of offshore drug taking, an impromptu sex romp turns nasty when one of the lads attempts the infamous titular technique (Urban Dictionary will elucidate the curious). With one dead girl on their hands, the group disseminates into a panicking mess, from which their murderous intentions appear.
Taking the unbelievable predictability of it all aside, there are still faults that undermine any intentions the film has as an original piece of horror fiction. For all intents and purposes, this is a slasher movie for a generation who has grown out of slasher movies, and are left wanting after something that reflects ‘real life’ for 21st century teens. Or at least the real life they wish they were living. The problem with all these youth culture infected endeavours (see also: Skins, Kidulthood and Adulthood) is that they are dramatisations of lives that don’t align with a majority of people. Not a big deal on paper, but it does serve to hinder any kind of attachment to characters whose reckless antics turn them into two-dimensional propaganda for an impressionable audience.
The range of actors taking those roles is hardly a draw either, mostly consisting of casual UK television performers alongside one surname you might recognise. Jamie Winstone is the daughter of British acting veteran Ray Winstone, yet of all the girls, it is Nichola Burley who takes lead and wears her ‘most compassionate’ character badge pretty well. Other obvious character labels present in the film include ‘party animal girl’ (Winstone), ‘reckless party slut’ (Sian Breckin), and ‘the lads’, who consist of a variety of standard personalities from innocent onlooker to bullish alpha-male.
The actors and actresses involved make a decent attempt at bringing life to the shouting and chasing around, but there’s probably not enough content here for anyone to particularly stand out. Maybe this is where writers David Bloom and Oliver Blackburn (who also directs) show their inexperience - neither yet holds an impressive credit list. 
Meanwhile, Blackburn’s direction favours the handheld style, which allows for plenty of camera movement and full-frame close-ups. When he’s not lingering on sun-soaked bodies in the first half hour, the cinematography does a good job of showing off the beautiful Mediterranean locales and confined intimacy of the yacht.
Where Donkey Punch does manage to provide entertainment is through its smart use of accentuated violence, which makes up the later half of the film. It is notably visceral and worthy of the squirm-inducing reaction it is likely to provoke. Unfortunately, this same violence-with-the-gloves-off attitude also pushes the film into an 18 certificate, which is going to limit availability to the youngest of its enthusiastic demographic.
It’s hard to recommend such a flimsy excuse to watch teenagers go wild and then knock each other off, but in the wake of a slew of similar movies, this one is probably no better or worse. In the middle of all the summer blockbusters it’s going to have limited appeal, but I can see it finding an audience on DVD in a few months time, and it will no doubt entertain those who choose to actively seek it out. If you’re not into the new youth media revolution though, stay well away - Donkey Punch offers little beyond its intentionally rebellious subject matter.
Donkey Punch is currently on UK general release.
