Evil Dead

The Feel good film of the year!

                                                 Have you had an accident at work?

DIRECTOR: Fede Alvarez

CAST: Just a bunch of young actors playing stupid kids, I've literally got nothing...

PLOT: More gory fun from the Evil Dead franchise, as a reboot shows a bunch of kids who go to a cabin in the woods to help their friend with a drug addiction. The nerdy one reads from a book covered in human skin, causing all sorts of shit to hit the fan!


Like every fan of the wacky delight of the original gore-fest 'Evil Dead' films of the 1980s, when I heard that a reboot, remake, re-imagining or whatever the hell you want to call it was in the pipeline, I had the sudden urge to lock myself in a basement until it had been and gone so that I could wait for it to pass away to the shitty horror revamp afterlife, joining the likes of 'Jason Voorhees', 'The Thing' and 'Freddie Krueger'. But before I could hastily reach a basement (they're not too common in the UK), I thankfully heard that Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert were all on board to produce. Ok, I thought I'd at least attempt to keep an open mind then. Soon after I encountered the trailer and my mind was fully open to the possibilities to a good horror remake, instead being able to join the likes of Zack Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' and Breck Eisner's 'The Crazies' (some may argue against that one). 'Evil Dead' was suddenly my most anticipated horror film of the year.

Despite the makers choosing to give the young victims a reason to be in the woods - said reason being that 'Mia' is a drug addict and trying to go cold-turkey (even though putting purple bags underneath a hot woman's eyes does not make them look like they're addicted to heroin) - the characters are all still pretty stupid and poorly performed. That's until all hell breaks loose and we can begin to have some crazy fun with the most extreme gore that you are likely to see in a cinema for quite some time, involving knives, chainsaws and that infamous tree. Say what you like about the acting talent of young attractive people in horror films - they sure know how to run around screaming and get killed.

And what's not fun about watching that? Some may have criticised this version for lacking the zany comedy of previous 'Evil Dead' instalments. It sure isn't as funny and it takes itself very seriously, but there are still some moments that will make you laugh a whole of a lot more than any comedy film that has been released so far this year (which isn't really hard when you think about it). I dare anyone not to crack up during the best rendition of the line "SHE JUST CUT OFF HER FUCKING ARM!" in cinematic history.

It is also a breath of classic fresh air to see much of the effects for the gore being practical. Too many 21st century horror filmmakers rely on CGI blood and decapitations that look faker than using red food dye and horse piss, it just makes you wonder whether filmmakers have become lazy. However, with the amount of practical blood and limbs used in this, especially during the insane finale in which it literally comes from everywhere, there is no hint of laziness, not a sign of cutting corners. They said that this would push all boundaries for what censors would allow in the cinemas and they have fully backed it up with crimson, 'Evil Dead' certainly isn't for the faint hearted.

Not only that, but it is actually a well crafted film. Suspense and tension is built up at an impressive pace until breaking point, which then invokes chaos that will leave you exhausted. You barely have enough time to catch your breath and prepare yourself for the next batch of mayhem. You never really feel for the characters, but put yourself in their positions and you'll soon start to feel a little uncomfortable, and maybe even scared - the thing that modern horror films struggle the most with.

                                            She really did not want to see 'Scary Movie 5'

'Evil Dead' does something that I'm sure none of us thought possible, and that is simply the fact that it does the originals justice. They stick to the same fun, forcing you to writhe around in your seat and cringe at all of the gore and wild happenings and proving to be likable and full of character. Whether it has the same duration of life as the previous incarnations is yet to be seen, but you'd have to be a brave person to rule it out as young horror fans leave the screening around you, beaming either satisfaction or disgust.

With plans for more sequels and another 'Amy of Darkness' now in the works, I am both excited and positive, knowing that not all horror remakes are heartless attempts at building the same thing - an empty shell with no filling. This manages to keep in the same vain as the originals and also manages to offer us something fresh.

Surrounded by tonnes of horror films that are either supernatural and spiritual possessions, haunted houses or humourless torture porn, this will stab you like a blast from the past. An unashamedly fun and disgusting thrill-ride, easily the most fun that I have had in the cinema during a horror film for a long, long time.

P.S. Those of you who are familiar with the originals - stick around until the end credits have rolled. Those of you who aren't, it will be wasted on you.

* * * *                            

Oblivion (IMAX)

Science-fiction Cruise control

                            He didn't realise that he signed a contract for TWO 'Rock of Ages' films...

DIRECTOR: Joseph Kosinski

CAST: Ethan Hunt, Nelson Mandela, the Bond girl that didn't get laid, Jamie Lannister, Mark Wahlberg's and Christian Bale's mum and The Devil's Whore...

PLOT: A memory wiped 'JACK!' (Tom Cruise) is a tech stationed on Earth who fixes broken somewhat more violent 'R2-D2's' a few decades after the planet was invaded and by 'Scavs', meaning that humanity had to evacuate and live on some big spaceship thing. Him and his crazy, commando-braving lover (Andrea Riseborough) are extracting water for the survivors of Earth's invasion who are waiting to inhabit a new home. But not all is what it seems...

Jack. JACK! JAAAAAAACK!!!!! J-Jack! Jaaaa-aaaaack. Jack! JACK!!!! Jake!... erm, I mean, Jack!

Ohhhhh, Jack.

Such is the borrowing that goes on in Joseph Kosinski's second feature-length that he even gives his protagonist one of the most common male names in the western world. Not only that, but he also takes ideas from substantially better science-fiction films, such as '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Planet of the Apes' and 'Moon', just to name a few. It plays like a remix of a remake of some of the best science-fiction films ever made. But in saying that, it's still damn entertaining.

'Jack!', whose name is said in the dialogue so many times that you'll forget that there's any other name in existence, is a man who believes that Earth is his home, for some weird reason, not looking forward to the day too soon when he has to leave to join the rest of humanity due to the Moon being destroyed by 'Scavs' and the use of nuclear weapons making much of Earth radiated. It looks like a more beautiful version of the 'Fallout' games, which isn't too surprising as Kosinski, famous for bringing us the stunningly visual, albeit style over substance, that is 'Tron: Legacy'.

And that is Kosinski's big problem. The story would be a cracking one if it wasn't a mixture of so many other sci-fi's. His use of SFX is wonderful, the bland colours still make the doomsday landscapes look gorgeous and the action sequences are shot impressively. When it comes to filmmaking, Kosinski is a treat. But when it comes to giving us fresh insight to a genre that has recently become cool thanks to perhaps J.J. Abrams' 'Star Trek' reboot and 'The Big Bang Theory', those of us who stood by science fiction before everyone else became interested still crave more. Style is important, but as Kubrick, Schaffner, and more recently Jones and Blomkamp have taught us, substance is valued higher by sic-fi nerds.

The performances are good for the most part. You know what you're getting with Tom Cruise - his charismatic mannerisms, confident voice and handsome demeanour have made it as if he's become a parody of himself, but fans of his won't be disappointed. As always, where he really excels is when it comes to the action scenes, completely throwing himself into it head first. Say what you want about Tom Cruise, nobody can doubt his optimism and enthusiasm.

Morgan Freeman is annoyingly under-used considering that he features on the poster and is fronted second-behind Tom Cruise in the marketing campaign. Still, it's not as much a kick in the teeth as Gary Oldman's lack of featuring in 'Lawless'. At least he still has something to do. 

Andrea Riseborough is probably the most pleasantly surprising of the impressive cast. She's annoying, overly defensive and lacks ambition and adventure for someone living so far above ground as 'Victoria'. She's wholly unlikable and certainly not the sort of person who you would want to be stranded on Earth with. I don't know if that's just the way Riseborough comes across, as an annoying bitch, but she does it well.

Olga Kurylenko is similar to much of the rest of the film - she's simply ok, simply adequate. The fact that she was probably cast for being extremely gorgeous, once again, much like the rest of the film, can't be overlooked. But at least we're treated to Jamie Lanniser jumping around shooting spherical floating hunks of metal with a bow and arrow.

  

                       "You have to do ANOTHER 'Rock of Ages'?! Kurylenko couldn't quite believe it either

One thing that definitely let the film down was the trailers. Anyone who watched any of the advertisements and paid the very least bit of attention will find the film painfully predictable. All of the drama and emotion laid into the revelations seems wasted as we sit on the cinema seats in smugness thinking 'yeah, I knew that'. Trailers seem to have become even more of an art form in itself lately, but when they begin to give away twists of the plot in a film that relies on 'who? what? where? and why?' then you know you have a big problem. 

There are plot holes galore, especially when it comes to the 'Scavs' and the way that they fucking dress which will probably make you want to tear your hair out. The writers of the film seem convinced that they have given you an elaborate and logical reason as to why things are the way they are, but after a minute of half-concentrated though you'll out-smart the characters on show. 

But where this review has come across as being exceedingly negative, it still remains as a very juicy piece of entertainment. The action sequences are superb and you'll struggle to find a more aesthetically pleasing film so far this year. You'll laugh at how serious it takes itself, trying to throw all of its intelligence and creativity at you despite the fact that said intelligence and creativity has been stolen. It comes across as being very camp popcorn fodder. And considering Kosinski has stated that this is a homage to science fiction films of the 70s, I suppose he got that part right.

* * *

Spring Breakers

Don't worry, this isn't another 'Project X'

                                           Walt would be turning in his cryogenic freezer 

DIRECTOR: Harmony Korine

CAST: New Goblin, Disney slut # 1, Disney slut # 2 and some other sluts...

PLOT: Some sluts (see above) rob some cash so that they can go to "Spring Break ya'll!" Cue antics such as sex, drugs and... Skrillex? Well, that's until they get arrested and then bailed out of jail by James  "look at my shit" Franco...

Seeing 'Spring Breakers' at the cinema last night was certainly interesting to say the least. The film has an awful lot to say about the themes that are on display, and it also says a lot about the majority of who pay to see it.

Judging by the sorts of people who were in the same screening as myself (I'm stereotyping here, but fuck it), most of the people, if not all, were there hoping for a sort of 'Project X' type film. Every time a pair of breasts were on the screen (which happened to be quite often) the hordes of young men would often nudge one another, I'd audibly hear them (pricks) proclaim how hot a girl is. They would laugh at James Franco constantly for his funny accent and mannerisms, for which I can't blame them. However, there never seemed to be a hint of nervous laughter from fellow audience members, which I found quite worrying.

Needless to say, most people who have made this small indie film a box office hit haven't paid to see a slightly experimental film that explores how the American Dream has evolved from people wanting a nice home, a nuclear family and stable, well-paying job into the lust for constant pre-marital sex, drugs and lots and lots of illegally earned cash or, how pop culture has made everyone of the iPod generation desperate to live a life similarly to how they perceive celebrities do.

In short, I'm guessing that most people who have contributed to 'Spring Breakers' $15 million gross (so far) is so that they could see boobs.

And I'm not going to jump on my high horse here; I will admit that the film was at times very, very sexy. Any red-blooded male of any sexual orientation would have probably found the film sexy. Any woman would have probably found the film sexy, they just won't admit it. And there were many a time in the first half of the film that I wish I could transport myself to the sunny shores of Florida state to engage in such activities, because lets face it - it looked like a whole lot of fun. But if you don't feel slightly ashamed of yourself afterwards, then you are the sort of person who this film is attacking. I doubt you even care...

But it is all fun and games until you begin to find yourself involved with someone like James Franco's 'Alien', an egotistical white 'G' who claims to be from another planet, with grills on his teeth, cornrows and bad rapping. He is living the new American Dream, as we watch him show off 'his shit' and boast about having 'Scarface' on repeat. The girls want a taste of that life, but at what cost? 

Shallowness, negative morals and no direction in life - exactly what they think they're doing away from Florida at college, which is only highlighted by Korine's wonderful craftwork, constantly repeating images and voiceover dialogue which drives home the point that no matter what life you choose, it will get bloody repetitive.

                                                  Aron Ralston before he cut off his arm

Away from all of the stinging social commentary and satire of 'Spring Breakers' - when it is provoking your morality and your seemingly not-so guilty pleasures; 'Spring Breakers' is an animal of a film, an assault on the senses.

The performances from the girls are good for the most part, all they really need to do is look sexy though. The only one of them who gets a good chunk of character development is Selena Gomez, as a church-going girl who is often cautious about the antics. She's annoying as fuck and she's meant to be, so hats off to her.

But the performance that steals it comes from James Franco, surely soon to be a cult favourite actor. He is hilarious, in a laugh at the way he speaks "your not black!" kind of way (which highlights the identity crises of almost every character in the film - the pigmentation confusion, if you will) but he's also funny in a nervous tone, almost darkly comic. You're never truly sure what his intentions are (if there are any) and you're just waiting for that big event that seems to take forever to come thanks to Korine's decision to burn the narrative along slowly. And when he begins having a gang war with 'Archie' (played by Gucci Mane, a rapper away from the films who is infamous for breaking the law and generally being a bit of a horrible bastard, who must have unknowingly been criticising his own lifestyle by acting in this film) that seems to be when the story progresses and moves away from character development and aesthetics for a little while.

'Spring Breakers' will rightly cause debate and split a lot of people down the middle. It will stick with you for days to come, whether you enjoyed it or not, and you will be ominously whispering "Spring breeeeaaaak" to yourself for days. Everyone who chooses to watch it will probably be doing so for a different reason than whoever is sat next to them in the cinema. Whatever you say about it, it is definitely no less than an experience, which will provoke you with cultural representations, aesthetic mind-fucks and the strangest mainstream surreality (just wait for Franco singing a Britney Spears song on a grand piano) imaginable.

Either that, or it will just give you a hard on...

* * * *

Trance

Down time for Danny Boyle seems to consist of making awesome films...

                                                 McAvoy was going to scare the shit out of the postman

DIRECTOR: Danny Boyle

CAST: Young Professor X, that French guy who's in everything just so that he can scream at people in French when he's angry, and one of the many whores of Sin City...

PLOT: Off the back of shouldering the pride and cynicism of the entire nation, Danny Boyle remembers that he makes films - this one's about an auctioneer (McAvoy) who screws over some art thieves (Cassel, et al.), but he takes a bang to the noggin and can't remember a thing. Enter an American chick who happens to be a hypnotherapist (Dawson), who attempts to help the hapless auctioneer remember where he put the expensive bit of painting.

'Trance' strikes me as one of those rarest of things - a British film that isn't just for the British. That's probably helped by the fact that two of the main characters are American and French, but it always makes a welcome change to see a film which has been made in England which isn't about Cockney gangsters or kitchen-sink dramatics. Those sorts of films are at times all fine and good, but one does sometimes wish for more from UK talent, something like, oh I don't know, a hedonistic head fucker of a film that will assault your senses and morality. Yep, something we can all enjoy.

The plot is a puzzle as much as the film is itself. It's both simple, but add a hypnotherapist to the mix and it quickly becomes complicated at the same time. It's a wonder that nobody had ever done it. All of the characters from the talented cast are rubik's cubes who surely won't be cracked, as their likability, motivations and moral compasses are all over the place. If all of this confusion is too much for you, simply watch it for one man, the star of the show - Danny Boyle.

Where the film may be unbalanced when it comes to themes and the characters are mostly unlikable throughout, making it difficult to connect, not once can you fault Danny Boyle's ability to craft an entertaining and stylistically addictive film. The look is brilliant, completely catching the essence and the steeliness of London; it also makes sense to set such a crazy narrative in the city, as it's near enough impossible not to get lost in the English capital at one point or another. The editing is masterful, hitting all of the right beats when combining with a booming score that will surely get the blood pumping. Boyle manipulates your excitement seemingly as easy as it is to turn a dial.

                        Early fame for One Direction led to some bad decisions at the cosmetic surgeons

Two scenes where his impeccable talent shines, one at the beginning, one at the end. The first is the opening - the heist voiced over by McAvoy's charismatic, smarmy auctioneer as he talks us through the instructions on what to do if involved in an art heist: "No piece of art is worth a human life." The cinematography is to die for, the editing and music will keep you on the edge of your seat, it will hit you like a shotgun to the temple and you won't want the heist to ever end. You'd be forgiven for arguing that the highlight of the show comes too early, that the film can never match up to it.

The other scene that could compete for being the stand-out of the film comes at the end during the dramatic climax (don't worry, you're safe from spoilers here). But much like the previous description, it is once again down to the fact that the shots are engaging, the music increases in tension to breaking point, and the cuts are timed perfectly. If you're not a fan of the story here, at least watch it for the way the film has been made.

As Danny Boyle seems to have gone all-out to have some fun and show off a bit, you can't blame him after all of the stress he must have had for the Olympics. The feeling has it that this is a project that he's wanted to get done for quite some time but perhaps hasn't been allowed to by producers. But Boyle can pretty much do whatever the fuck he likes now so if he wants to show a man get shot in the meat and two veg then who's going to argue?

But despite the mixed reactions to the story, I would argue that it is still engaging when followed closely with all of your attention. It's interesting to try and guess the characters motives throughout, and it constantly begs the question - who's story really is this? as the film rages on a clear protagonist is lost and everyone generally becomes a bit of a dick. This isn't out of place for a Boyle film, he even often managed to make one of the most recent American heroes look like a bit of a dick in '127 Hours'. The point is, nobody is perfect, and not everyone is certainly what they seem. 

'Trance' may well serve as a very important film for the British film industry, proving that if you want a thriller with guns and explosions, you don't have to rely on the US to give you your fill. The only difference is, Boyle gives you guns and explosions with added intelligence.

* * * *