Movie Review: Annabelle (2014)

Annabelle

Released: 2014

Directed by: John R. Leonetti

Starring: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton, Tony Amendola, Alfre Woodard

Synopsis: A couple begin to experience terrifying supernatural occurrences involving a vintage doll shortly after their home is invaded by satanic cultists.

*Spoilers ahead. Only read if you don't mind having major plot points revealed*



_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but I'm a bit of a fan of the horror genre.

I'm a fan of everything from the truly terrifying psychological horror to the Z-grade shlock or the ultra-generic slasher. Whether it's actually scary or a laugh out loud play on the genre I happily head along to every horror movie I can. In saying all of this, I do get disappointed when a horror film doesn't live up to its predecessor or the frights-a-second suggested in the trailer. Which was unfortunately the case with Annabelle, the spin-off/sequel of last year's breakaway hit The Conjuring. 

Annabelle, for those of you who haven't seen the trailers and posters, is a film about a possessed doll. It had a small cameo in The Conjuring to set up the backstory of Ed and Lorraine Warren as paranormal investigators. Like the Warrens, the story of Annabelle is based on events that happened in real life. Well... real in the sense that there is a doll named Annabelle locked behind a glass door at the Warren's home which supposedly has haunted multiple families.

The real life "evil" Annabelle (photo credit)

The "real" story of Annabelle is actually quite creepy. It's the kind of story that I love to read late at night when I'm surfing the web - dolls that seem to be shifting position, leaving threatening notes and strangling people in their sleep. It's also the story that the original segment in The Conjuring told - which leaves this movie with the complicated issue of trying to work out exactly how to tell a story that's already been told.

Their answer to this puzzle was an origin story. Rather than simply build on the mystery of an innocent figure turned nasty, they decided to take all of the magic out of it and give us a very by the book explanation. So by the book in fact, that I'm fairly sure it's the origin given to Chucky. In Annabelle we meet the Gordons, a young married couple who are expecting their first child. The movie takes place at the tail end of the 1960s, at the end of the age of innocence. As the Gordon's come home from a morning in church and watch the news they're blasted with information about cult groups, particularly Charles Manson and that vein of Satanist. Mia Gordon reminds her husband that he needs to start locking the front door because "it's a different world now". That night Mia stirs in her sleep and we see their neighbours bedroom light turn on. The husband/neighbour picks up a gun (or was it a bat?) and goes to investigate, while the wife jumps onto the phone. As Mia turns over in bed we see the husband back into the bedroom before BLAM he's killed, and as the killer moves to the wife the light switches off. This wakes Mia up properly and waking her husband John they go to investigate, Mia left on the front porch while John runs into the neighbours house and comes out soon after covered in blood. The tension picks up as Mia runs back into their house to call the cops and we see shadows moving in the babies room behind her. She hears a noise, investigates, and is stabbed in her womb. Her and her husband and their baby survive, but the two murderers are killed in their house, the woman dying with the doll Annabelle in her arms. Cue creepy doll antics.

So here is where I get into major spoiler territory (The above details all happen within the first 10 minutes of the film and are also in much of the trailer). There is a fascinating premise that could have guided this movie. In fact, there are so many hints of it in the script that I'm almost convinced it was the original narrative but was shot down by the studio. So I thought I'd write about the film that we get and the film that could have been because Tom and I literally spent 45 minutes discussing this and feeling completely let down.

Insidious and The Conjuring (two of James Wan's other films), take a lot of visual and narrative cues from seminal horror films from the 1960/70s. While this isn't technically a Wan film (however, he is signed on as a producer) this is absolutely the case for Annabelle as well. This time it is The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby that seem to have the heaviest influence, although more in terms of visuals than thematic cues - which is where my problems lie. Both The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby deal with shifts in social conscious. The world was changing. It wasn't a given that a woman would stay home with the children, they wanted careers and lives outside of the household. Religion was becoming less of a devout necessity and more something done out of routine. Scientific invention and medical discoveries were completely changing the way people thought and behaved and considered things. Not to mention cults and violence were happening in places that were previously believed to be safe and "out of bounds". In The Exorcist a great deal of the book (although less of the film) is the mother's conflict between psychological or medical explanations and a gut feeling that what was happening to her daughter wasn't right. The priest suffers the same struggle. Is it a demon possessing this 13 year old, or is that just a centuries old explanation for things we don't understand and can't control?

This movie sets up a very similar situation. There is a clear conflict in Annabelle between science and religion, the safety of the old world and the violence of the new. When John and Mia are in church they're playing thumb wars, rather than listening to the priest. John is a med student on the cusp of becoming a doctor and is presented early on as a voice of reason, injected rationalism and science into their conversations. Mia on the other hand is afraid. She worries about the cults she hears of on the news, she frets about their door being left unlocked, she worries that her child is being brought into a world of darkness and fear and violence. When the event with the cultists occurs her fear is dialled up to 11. Which is absolutely understandable as both she and her child were nearly killed. When they return home after a short stay in hospital Mia is relegated to her bed. She tries to sew and watch TV but she's antsy and there are these odd noises in the nursery that keep bothering her. She becomes obsessed with finding out details of the case, asking the detectives to help her understand why the cultists did what they did.

The biggest issue with Annabelle is a lack of conflict. This isn't a situation like Poltergeist where an entire family is against the external force, this is like Rosemary's Baby in that Mia is essentially alone in her fears and attempts to protect her family. Her husband is not an antagonist like in R.B but he also isn't really part of the story. He's in his first year of residency and as such can mostly be found at the hospital. Mia is essentially alone against Annabelle. However, in this sort of story you usually have external conflict. The doctor that prescribes medication instead of exorcism, the husband that thinks the wife or daughter is imagining things. In this film Mia keeps her fears to herself for most of the film, but when she reveals her fears first to her neighbour (who also happens to be a bookshop owner well versed in the paranormal) and then to her husband they don't contest her beliefs. They don't patronise her or agree with her to comfort her fears, they just straight out believe that when she says a demon is after their baby, that a demon is after their baby.

The things is, conflict would have been so easy. We've already set up that the husband is a rationalist and a man of science. We've shown that the wife was already nervous and then experienced a traumatic event that basically proved these fears right. When the wife starts to hear noises and constantly checks the front door is locked the husband could rationalise that she's still afraid from the experience. When a fire  nearly kills her, it could have been the combined trauma from the attack and her baby hormones that made her forget that she left the burners on. We, as an audience, know that she's being haunted. We see the door close by itself and see the burners turn themselves on and her ankle grabbed by something invisible which pulls her towards the fire. But to everyone in the film, it's completely explainable. Even at the end of the film when Mia is hounded by Annabelle and the demon, the final scene would have likely looked to the police like the scene of someone who had finally snapped after months of paranoia and fear.

A quick debriefing of the conclusion. After things escalate further throughout the movie and a priest is brought in (who simply attempts to remove the doll from the house) Mia is once again alone in the house with her child and the doll/demon. The baby vanishes and Mia runs around the apartment in terror, hearing her daughter crying but being unable to find her. In the nursery the walls and ceilings the words "Her soul" and "I want her soul" are scribbled with red crayon and the porcelain dolls that sat on shelves are now strewn across the room with their eyes gouged out. Mia grabs the Annabelle doll and starts to smash it against the crib and then throws it across the room. Suddenly the crying stops and we look to the Annabelle doll and see a baby lying still against a shelf instead. There is a gut-wrenching scene where Mia thinks that she killed her daughter and it was the most upsetting and terrifying moment of the entire film. She soon discovers it was another trick and that the only way to save her daughter is to sacrifice herself, by throwing herself out of the nursery window. She doesn't, her husband saves her and their daughter, but imagine for a second that she had. After a movie where the husband believes his wife is circling the drain mentally, haunted and incapacitated by the events that transpired 6 months earlier, he comes home to ambulances and police cars and the bodies of his dead wife and daughter. It looks like she snapped, maybe she truly believed she was acting against a demon and then killed her daughter in a psychosis. The movie could then end with the husband sitting at the dining table, his world utterly destroyed. And then we hear the creak of the rocking chair, the noise that haunted Mia for all those months, before going to black.

Or maybe there was no demon. Maybe the horror movie turns into a gripping psychological thriller about the damage of post-natal depression and psychosis at a time when we still didn't completely understand psychology and medicine but thought we did. This isn't a revelatory story, I'm definitely not reinventing the wheel. But if you are going to take massive visual hints from films that famously deal with issues of mental health, feminism, motherhood and science vs religion you should follow that through with your narrative. To have these markers throughout your film, to depict intense emotional and physical violence against a new mother with no thematic point - it's lazy and frustrating.

I may be happy watching any horror movie that hits the cinema but that doesn't mean I don't have a preference for meticulously plotted horror. Jump scares for the sake of jump scares may be fun in the cinema but when Mia tripped and fell onto her stomach while still pregnant I blanched. When Mia held the lifeless body of her daughter I held my breath. These moments were visceral and they were real. In this film they feel manipulative because they only have a tenuous link to the thematic motivations of the film, but if they were placed in a film that was actually about motherhood in this era? Damn it could be powerful. So that is why this film failed for me. Because it felt like the were on the precipice of something provoking and potentially great and they chose the easier route. And when you consider that both Insidious and The Conjuring were well-rounded horror it's even more disappointing that this one missed the mark.

The one positive that came out of seeing Annabelle is that I now have an intense desire to write a horror movie that checks all the boxes that this type of film avoids. So keep your eyes peeled, maybe you'll see my name on the big screen one of these days.

Movie Review: These Final Hours (2014)

These Final Hours

Released: 2014

Directed by: Zak Hilditch

Starring: Nathan Philips, Jessica De Gouw, Angourie Rice

Synopsis:  It's the last day on earth, twelve hours before a cataclysmic event will end life as we know it. James makes his way across a lawless and chaotic city to the party to end all parties. Along the way, he somewhat reluctantly saves the life of a little girl named Rose who is desperately searching for her father. Stuck with the unexpected burden of responsibility, James is forced to come to terms with what really matters in life as the final hours tick away. (Via Roadshow and IMDB)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

About a month ago Tom and I were watching TV and saw a trailer for a seemingly big-budget Australian end-of-the-world film. If you're American I'm sure you're used to seeing trailers for your films on TV all the time, but Australian films rarely have much screen presence, unless they're a co-production with America (Daybreakers for example). A lot of other countries (especially around Asia) are very nationalistic when it comes to their home cinema but if you ask most Australians they'd say Australian cinema sucks, but that's because we so rarely see it unless we hunt it down. Instead it silently slips into cinemas and only makes a splash when it then makes waves at overseas film festivals. Which is ridiculous because we have some of the best funding schemes for filmmakers in the world, and have some of the best production and VFX companies in the world and yet your average Australian probably could only name The Castle if they were asked to name an Australian film*. But enough of a rant about film consumption and production in Australia, none of you care about that and it has zero to do with this review. Basically, Tom and I were shocked to 1) see a trailer for an Australian film on TV, 2) see that it looked like a big budget blockbuster (rather than the art house or broad comedy that usually gets made here) and 3) that we had heard absolutely nothing about it. While a lot of Australians may not know much about the films made here, we pride ourselves on getting out and seeing a lot of them. So to have never heard of this one was a little mind-boggling.

These Final Hours is basically an end-of-the-world film quite unlike most end-of-the-world films. Where most usually involve scientists or politicians or some honest hard-working American who just wants to keep driving his truck and listening to good ol' country and western music trying to thwart the coming disaster (volcano, meteor, global warming, sharknado), this movie has accepted the fact that we are fucked. We can't send some crack team of astronauts to blow up the meteor or force it to change course, we can't survive the impact and we can't even rest easy knowing that Australia is a million miles from everywhere else on the planet. Instead, because of our relative isolation we end up watching the world die. A radio announcer visits us in voice over at certain parts of the film to let us know that Canada is gone, all of South East Asia, South America. It adds a level of hopelessness that's rarely seen except in post-apocalyptic films (The Road is a perfect example) - what the hell do you do for you final 12 hours when most of the world is already dead? How do you do anything when you know that your death is looming heavily above you and that you can't do anything to change it?

For James (Nathan Philips - Wolf Creek, The Bridge), the answer is to go to one final party and get so hammered that you don't even see or feel the end coming. Others turn to suicide, to looting, to God, to living out the deviant acts that they repressed (or perhaps always did, but did under the cover of night) before they knew the world was over. The first 10 minutes of the film shows James driving through Perth to get to his party and passing over-turned cars, dead people lying on the road, people clutching each other in prayer circles and desperate attempts to survive the impending doom (wrapping the house in aluminium foil - to stop the heat?). James ignores the people calling for help as he drives to his destination, until an altercation with a mad man with a machete forces him to ditch his car and run to find a new one. This is where he finds Rose, a young girl who has been abducted by two of the grossest men you'll ever see. These are the guys who have chosen to live their final hours by ruining the final moments of others. James may be apathetic to the situation at large, but even he can't ignore the cries of a small girl about to be viciously attacked. The rest of the film is part road film, part drama, part thriller and a lot more nuanced than I expected. It's a film of choices. James has to choose between his original plan for oblivion or to help Rose find her father so she can face the end with him. Does he leave her at her dad's car and hope he returns, or does he take her with him? Does he leave her with his sister, or does he take her to her aunt's? How exactly does he want to end his life and does it even matter? All the while the end of the world is creeping closer.

This movie, especially the opening 10-20 minutes made me think of the film The Purge. The Purge is incredibly lopsided and while the basic conceit is interesting (one night where crime is legal a year) it is handled really poorly. You just cannot make me believe that people who are so happy to go out and murder and rape would be willing to hold off for 364 days of the year. Nor can you make me believe that the effects of this free for all, vandalism and looting and the destruction of homes and businesses doesn't cripple local economies. Unlike The Purge, These Final Hours places that basic concept into a more believable setting. Are people necessarily going on murder sprees? No, but when you know the world is ending and you life has a very clear expiration date your emotions would be boiling over. Would you maybe go to far when you fight with someone over a petrol pump? Maybe someone throws a bottle at you and you react instinctively, releasing all of your frustration and fears as you punch the person over and over. Rather than have people just randomly moving past the moral taboo of murder without a second thought, you show the very likely events that transpire when people are being ruled by fear and fuelled by alcohol or drugs or whatever they choose to use to cope with the world crumbling around them. It's raw and ugly and depressing as hell, but it made for a compelling film.

From the trailer (placed at the end of the review for anyone interested) I hadn't expected this film to be as Australian as it was. But despite the bells and whistles it's still as depressing as all Australian drama. I mean, if you find The Road depressing, welcome to Australian cinema. We defined the concept of bleak and our landscape helps reinforce that. It's desolate and sparse and if you expect anyone to be alive at the end of an Australian drama... ha ha you're cute. But they always manage to raise some intriguing ideas and questions, usually unique to Australia. Isolation is a common theme in Australian films because we are a very isolated country. We're cut of from the rest of the world by oceans and we're cut off from each other by distance. People aren't lying when they joke about their nearest neighbour being 5 kilometres away. If you aren't in a Capital city, you're surrounding by a whole lot of space and not a lot else. So the fact that this film takes that inherent truth of our national identity, that we're alone, and magnifies it so we literally become the last people left on the planet hits incredibly hard. Can you think of anything that would make you shut down faster than knowing every other country, every island, every person on the planet is gone?

These Final Hours is written and directed by a relative newcomer and is remarkably tight considering that. There are a few hiccups with pacing and some of the dialogue but for the most part the film is a remarkably sombre and thought-provoking thriller** with some absolutely gorgeous cinematography. I have no idea if or when this film will be released overseas, but if you get the chance I'd highly recommend giving it a watch.





If you want to know a little more, the interactive website is really well made and definitely worth a visit. It adds a little context to the film's setting as well, which isn't crucial to viewing the film but definitely adds some extra dimension.

*So if an Australian tells you there aren't any good Aussie films slap them in the face and tell them to do their homework. I could give them a list of 50 films off the top of my head that are made in Australia and shit all over anything else made worldwide. 

**Is it a thriller? That's how it's classified on IMDB but I think it actually falls closer to drama.

Film Review: Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Thor: The Dark World

Released: 2013

Directed by: Alan Taylor

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman

Synopsis: Faced with an enemy that even Odin and Asgard cannot withstand, Thor must embark on his most perilous and personal journey yet, one that will reunite him with Jane Foster and force him to sacrifice everything to save us all.



_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I was really lucky to be invited to an extra-early preview screening of Thor a week before it premiered here in Australia (which was a week or two before America). When Tom and I arrived at the cinema there was a group of cosplay girls dressed up as Loki - and a lone guy wearing an Iron Man glove - a hammer/strength game and a crowd of bubbling, excited fans.

Unlike the excited crowd, I was mostly motivated by the exclusivity of the screening and the promise of free chocolate and popcorn. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the first Thor. In fact, given my preference for theatrics I think I was one of few people who really appreciated the campy humour Kenneth Brannagh brought to the film. And even more than that I really, really loved Loki and Tom Hiddleston's brilliant portrayal of that character. Plus, do I need to remind you of how handsome this dude is?

I'm gonna do it anyway because, *drool*

So I don't really know why I wasn't excited for the sequel. Maybe it's superhero fatigue. There are just so many of them and there are no signs of them waning what with Netflix's recent announcement for 4 new Marvel series. Maybe it's because it's Marvel and I tend to find Marvel a little...sterile? Maybe it was Natalie Portman. I mean she's fine, but she was the weakest link in the original film and *yawn* I find her really boring. Maybe it was all three of these things and a bunch of other smaller issues. I don't know, all I knew was that I didn't have high hopes for this film.

But I ended up really, really loving it. It's a well-balanced film that manages to weigh the LOLs with the KAPOWs to great success. Since Batman well and truly won the dark and gritty superhero awards, Marvel - in particular with the Avengers - has really pushed for the comical superheros. While I don't always enjoy this approach (I find it works infinitely better in the actual comics) in Thor it works so well, perhaps because they fully embrace how ridiculous the concept actually is. Thor gets to be the alien-god out of water again, winning laughs when he hangs Mjolnir up on the coat rack in Jane's apartment and then proving himself to be Avengers-worthy when he takes on a monster 4 times his size with a wink and a smile. It's campy and silly but it reigns it in just enough to make it work. The humour also manages to mask some of the larger plot holes or inconsistencies, while also balancing out the family drama occurring between Thor, Loki and their parents.

I guess I should tell you what it's all about right kids? Basically there are a bunch of dark elves helmed by an unrecognisable Chris Eccleston (Doctor Who) as Malekith. For reasons I didn't fully understand, he wanted to eliminate all reality and plunge the universe back into darkness. Would that mean the end of the dark elves too? I don't know, and hopefully one of you can help me make sense of that in the comments. In order to achieve this dastardly plan Malekith needs the Aether - a  shiny red goo looking sentient (maybe) substance - but before he can use it his plans are dashed by Odin's father and the warriors from Asgard. The elves got away leaving the Aether, however since the Aether can't be destroyed the Asgardians decide to hide it away and it's basically forgotten about for centuries. Cue current day. Jane Foster (Portman) is now in London doing her physics stuff and trips across a wormhole and ends up coming face to face with the Aether which melds with her. She returns to Earth, Thor finds her, realises something is wrong and takes her to his home to meet the folks and have some Asgardian medics take a look-see. But when Jane joined with the Aether Malekith and his dark elves were revived from their hibernation, and they come looking for the Aether so they can finally succeed in their plans to return everything to darkness.

The majority of the film takes place in Asgard and the 9 realms, which was a great choice. To see something as beautiful and as unique as Asgard being attacked by dark elves is a completely different experience to the prototypical New York/NY stand-in invasion and fight. Not only is it something you haven't seen 15 times in the past 5 years, but it manages to eliminate the "Superman killed everyone in Metropolis" issue everyone had with the recent Superman film. And while the final climactic fight takes place in London, it also doesn't, which sounds confusing but I can't explain it further without spoiling something. Let's just say that the new and often-changing setting made up for the less-than-phenomenal fight sequences.

Have I talked about enough that I can get to Loki now? While everyone acted well in this film (Rene Russo doing an exceptionally good job) Tom Hiddleston, once again, took the crown. His scenes in the prison cell were so wrought with emotion that they elevated the film to an entirely different level. His portrayal of Loki is so nuanced, so complicated that it will forever change the way Loki appears in the comics and is viewed by audiences. In this film Loki is finally having to deal with the ramification of his actions in the previous Thor and Avengers films and it takes its toll. There are a few brief glimpses behind his mask, but he's so fortified that it's hard to know if we ever actually get to see some genuine remorse or anger from him, or if everything is part of some grand scheme. I've loved Hiddleston in plenty of things, but damn if Loki isn't one of his greatest achievements.

All superhero films look best on the big screen and should be enjoyed in this way, preferably with a bucket of popcorn, and Thor: The Dark World is no exception. There are absolutely problems in this film in terms of plotting and dialogue, but the overall production is one that I can't imagine not enjoying. And of course be sure to stay during and after the credits for the stings. Keep your eyes peeled for a glimpse of the Guardians of the Galaxy film, which is probably the next Marvel film I'm actually excited for.

Also, if someone doesn't re-cut the trailer and/or film to fit this Chinese Thor promotion then I will riot.

Read the whole delightful story here

Film Review: The Great Gatsby (2013)

The Great Gatsby

Released: 2013

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Starring: Leo DiCaprio, Tobey McGuire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton.

Synopsis: An adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's Long Island-set novel, where Midwesterner Nick Carraway is lured into the lavish world of his neighbor, Jay Gatsby. Soon enough, however, Carraway will see through the cracks of Gatsby's nouveau riche existence, where obsession, madness, and tragedy await. (from IMDB)

_______________________________________________________________________________________

After an exhausting morning of running the Colour Run and an afternoon of Dungeons and Dragons, Tom and I decided to spend the rare work-free evening seeing a movie. Being exhausted we were hoping for a silly popcorn flick, but sadly Fast and Furious 6 isn't out until next week. And then I spotted The Great Gatsby. Hardly a popcorn film, but really, how could I turn down the controversial adaptation of one of my favourite books and films?

Baz Luhrmann's Great Gatsby has a lot of things going for it and a couple of fairly big things going against it. Overall though, I was pretty happy with the film and think that a lot of people's complaints are a result of that much loved "hating Luhrmann" hobby so many people seem to enjoy. It isn't perfect, and it definitely isn't my favourite incarnation of that story (the book will always win that prize) but I am also super happy with how it turned out and some of the additions and changes Luhrmann made.

First off, it's a beautiful film. I mean of course it is, Luhrmann has always made visual spectaculars and this is definitely no exception. The set pieces are big, glittering and captivating, the costumes are amazing, and the grounds around Gatsby and Nick's houses are too die for. If I could live in Nick's little cottage for the rest of my life I would die a very, very happy woman. But aside from that, the visual choice to depict the flashbacks as tinted film was inspired - it added a romance and nostalgia to those memories as well as being visually arresting. I also liked the occasional addition of actual text on the screen as Nick narrated the story - it didn't always fit and probably could have been cut down, but I liked it as a nod to Fitzgerald's writing and some of it was really creatively incorporated.

As beautiful as the film was, this was also where it slipped up. Luhrmann's captivation with beauty and making things theatrical and grandiose works perfectly in some scenes but also overshadows the real heart and soul of the story. Amidst the hedonism and ridiculous Gatsby parties, the actual story is very small and contained, a lot of it is told through stolen glances and brief meetings heavy with meaning . Framing it with huge crane shots of New York and of Gatsby's butter yellow car as it races through Long Island makes it really hard to pay attention to what the story is really trying to say. The two greatest scenes in the film (and luckily these are also two of the most important), the confrontation scene during the heatwave and the pool scene at the climax, are also the smallest scenes in the film. The confrontation between Gatsby, Daisy and Tom takes place in a tiny hotel room and the scene is electric with emotion. it's claustrophobic and hot and there is no escape for any of the characters. It's beautifully shot and the scene is decorated perfectly, but it never takes away from the actual story that the scene is unpacking. Similarly, the final scene in the pool is rare in how quiet it is, and how at peace Gatsby appears. The colours of the pool, the shining sun, the events that had just unfolded and are about to unfold...it's heavy with foreboding and consequence, but it's superb in its simplicity. Luhrmann has what it takes to tell perfectly contained and vibrant stories as well as theatrical show pieces, I just wish he knew how to balance the two better.

And now for a potentially controversial opinion. I loved Tobey McGuire as Nick and I really liked the addition of the sanatorium as a means to narrate the story. The thing is, when reading The Great Gatsby, it doesn't matter where Nick is or why or to whom he's telling his story. But in cinema to tack on narration without a purpose is shoddy film-making. People disagree about what Gatsby is all about, but one of the reasons the book resonates with me is Nick's story. To me the story is as much about Nick as it is about Gatsby and Daisy. He crosses such an intense arc in so short a period of time, from anticipation to heartbreak, from naiveté to realism. It makes sense that such shocking and world-crashing events would not leave him unscathed, simply narrating this story to his grand-kids at bedtime. He is in a sanatorium for alcoholism, depression and anxiety and retelling the story of his summer, of Gatsby, is his catharsis. it gives a purpose for the narration but it also gives us a look at how the events shook Nick to his very core. And I like this, very much. As for Tobey McGuire, people seem to have this weird hatred for him that I just don't get it. I think by and large he was doomed to be criticised regardless of how he portrayed Nick. Me however, I thought he handled the retelling of Nick perfectly, managing to convey the "within and without" aspect of Nick with a subtlety that I felt was lacking from some of the other performances. He brought life to the narration and narrated with such care and deliberation that I truly believed he could have written the words. By the end of the film I had unabashedly fallen in love with him.

As for the rest of the cast, I thought DiCaprio did really well, although personally I liked the quietness of Robert Redford's interpretation over DiCaprio's more emotional version. There were a couple of close-up shots of Leo which could have been taken from Romeo and Juliet, he looked so young and vulnerable and in those moments he broke my heart. Carey Mulligan was good as Daisy, and while Mia Farrow will always be my Daisy I do think Daisy as a character was better realised in this film. She isn't simply a shallow and materialistic woman, there's a depth of vulnerability and self-awareness which the acting choices of Carey Mulligan combined with the narration present to the audience. And the mostly Australian supporting cast, Joel Edgerton (Tom), Isla Fisher (Myrtle), Jason Clarke (George Wilson) et al, were incandescent in their roles. Amidst all the successes and the failures, the championing of Australian actors is Baz Luhrmann's greatest achievement, and our film industry owes him a great deal.

Finally, I just wanted to touch on the soundtrack. Aside from one song playing during a party sequence I thought the music choices perfectly fit with the film. Jack White during the final car scene home from New York gave me shivers, Lana Del Ray was perfect for Daisy and Gatsby's reunion, the Jay-Z track, infused with a trumpeter on a New York fire escape worked really well. They reflected the mood of the scene, you didn't notice that they were anachronistic (not that it matters since it's all non-diegetic sound) because it connected you to the characters and the story before you. Also, the XX song playing over the credits was the most perfect credits song in all movie history ever. EVER. It perfectly encapsulated the quiet and insular story in a way that Luhrmann wasn't always capable of presenting, but quite clearly understood.

Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby isn't perfect and it loses focus every once in awhile, but amidst the flaws the pulse of the original Gatsby beats away. I might have complained about the crane shots distracting from the true story, but they are still spectacular and the larger than life story of Jay Gatsby, Daisy Buchanan and Nick Carraway, a story of transformation, love and deceit set within the New York backyards of the Old Money and Nouveau Riche is both one for the ages and for the big screen.

Film Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Released: 2012

Directed by: Stephen Chbosky

Starring: Logan Lerman,
Emma Watson
Ezra Miller

Synopsis: see book review.








________________________________________________________________________

To me, the film version of The Perks of Being a Wallflower was everything the book failed to be. It took the same coming of age story and stream-lined it, aged the protagonist Charlie, and set it all to the perfect soundtrack . By the final half an hour I was so invested in the characters that I was constantly wiping my eyes and trying hard not to sob out loud. I wasn't the only one either, the two girls behind me were openly bawling their eyes out, and a girl in front of me summed up the film during the credits by saying, "Jesus that was sad, good though!"

Fans of the book, don't stress. The film follows the same basic plot as the book. Charlie (played fantastically by Logan Lerman) is still a quiet, awkward boy embarking on his first year of high school. The first friends he makes (outside of his awesome English teacher played by Paul Rudd) are still Patrick (Ezra Miller) and Sam (Emma Watson), and the ending is just as emotional, if not more so, than it was in the book.

What changes is that Charlie no longer seems so much younger than the others. Yes, he's clearly more awkward, naive and innocent than his new friends, but it felt natural for the friendship to grow beyond the older sibling protective dynamic. More importantly, it made it much less weird and awkward that the love interests that blossom, blossom.

 With Sam and Patrick, as well as the rest of the gang, Charlie gets to experience all of the wonders that awaits the odd and eccentric kids at school. We get to see them perform as Rocky Horror plays on the movie screen behind them, we watch Charlie get his first taste of weed, we become infinite with the three of them as they drive through the tunnel. Everything you loved in the book is made visceral and real in the film - it breathes life into a story that, for me, was always slightly lacking that special something.

We also get to see the slow disintegration of Charlie, something which is far darker and more intense in the film than it was in the book. Because the film isn't the same epistolary style (although there is narration in the form of letters from time to time) we see Charlie outside of how Charlie sees himself. We see him struggle to make friends, and then struggle to keep them. We get to experience the absolute lows, and we see the flash of a brief memory that's slowly working its way to the front of Charlie's mind. It becomes far more visceral, and the stakes seem so much greater than they ever did in the book. There's one particular scene towards the end that is so intense that if the movie up until that point had been rubbish it would have been completely redeemed. It's all due to Logan Lerman's phenomenal performance, not only in that scene, but throughout the movie to that point. I'm really looking forward to seeing where that kid goes next.

Because the director of the film is also the book's author, there is very little excluded from the book or added to the film that doesn't make complete sense. Chbosky has had enough time to percolate over that gem of a book and tease out the bits that didn't work, or refine the areas that did. It also means that the vision of the film is so clear. He understands the book and Charlie because he created them, so he knows the exact right song or costume or house- because he was instilling the book with all of these elements long, long ago. And the film does have that perfect little time-capsule feel - a snapshot of a year that Charlie will never forget, or the perfect seasonal mix-tape with The Smith's Sleep on it at least twice.

So regardless of whether you've read the book or not, or even if you liked the book or not, make sure you see this film at the cinema and be sure to take A LOT of tissues with you, because otherwise you'll walk out with tears and snot messing your face up big time.

Film Review: Dark Shadows (2012)

Dark Shadows

Directed by: Tim Burton

Starring: Johnny Depp
Eva Green
Michelle Pheiffer
Chloe Mortez

Synopsis: An imprisoned vampire, Barnabas Collins, is set free and returns to his ancestral home, where his dysfunctional descendants are in need of his protection. (Via IMDB)

____________________________________________________

I'm really excited about some of the movies due to be released within the next two months. Despite the bad reviews, I'm still pretty excited about Prometheus (I freaking LOVE Alien), and I KNOW Batman will blow my mind. It's got me keen to watch movies at the cinema, but since these aren't out yet, I decided (along with the boyfriend and a couple of friends) to go see Dark Shadows.

Yeah, I know, I know. I definitely didn't go in expecting anything fantastic, but I've loved so many Johnny Depp and Tim Burton films that I'm not sure I'd ever be able to completely ignore a collaboration between them (although seriously, someone needs to force these two to spend some time apart). And you know what? I didn't hate it, I didn't even mind it. The ending is a train wreck, and there are some HUGE plot issues, but for the most part it was a fun, kinda silly movie that was visually quite impressive. So, should I start with the good or the bad? Actually, I might just switch between the two for as long as I can.

1. (Good) The 1970s styling was a great accompaniment to Burton's dark visuals. I'm a firm believer that when Burton mixes his dark/gothic stylings with hyper-real colours he produces his best films. Think Edward Scissorhands, Beatle Juice or Pleasantville (not a Burton film I know).

2. (Bad) Ugh, Johnny Depp is doing his vaguely English "I'm really quite odd" character again. What happened to the amazing character actor who played Edward Scissorhands? I feel like every character he plays lately is just a slightly different version of the previous one. It's not quirky or weird or outrageous, it's boring.

3. (Good) There were some real laugh out loud moments. The scene with the hippies in the woods was one of the best scenes of the film, and if the rest had been more like it, then I think we'd all be praising the campy awesomeness of this film rather than sighing and yawning.

4.(Bad) The story, in case you haven't been following this film, begins in the 1700s when Barnabas (Depp) spurns the maid he was banging (Eva Green) to marry a young delicate flower. Turns out Eva Green is a witch, and she kills his parents, his fiance and turns Depp into a vampire who is then buried alive in a coffin. With Depp gone, the Collins family line should be over, however when he finds a way out 200 years later there are 4 Collins' living in Barnabas' family mansion. Where did they come from? When the American line of Collins' died, did some cousins from England move over and claim the house? You need to explain this people!

5. (Good) Alice Cooper has a cameo...as himself. This is hilarious and truly bizarre. They don't even try to make him look 40 years younger, he's old and wrinkly and freaking kick ass. But I love Alice Cooper so maybe I'm just biassed.

6. (Bad) Chloe Mortez, what the hell! She's such a fantastic young actress, but in this movie she's terrible! She's meant to be the moody teenager but she comes across as a caricature of this. She does this stupid lip snarl like she thinks she's Iggy Pop, and she's weirdly sexualised (I honestly thought something was going to happen between her and her uncle) which I found incredibly uncomfortable. She was not on form in this film, hopefully this isn't a sign of what's to come.

7. (Good) Michelle Pheiffer and Eva Green. These two women are both great throughout the film on their own (although Green doesn't seem to know if she's supposed to have a French or American accent), but it is their scenes together which truly shone.

8. (Bad) The plot. It...isn't great. It was written by Seth Grahame-Smith (who wrote Pride and Prejudice and Zombies) and I wonder if part of his talent is adapting, rather than writing original content. I know this was based on a TV show, but from the reviews I've read it isn't particularly close to the show at all, so it seems he was mostly on his own. Without a plot framework to work on, the pacing was off, threads of stories were introduced but never expanded upon or concluded, and the ending was like a 15 year old writing fan fiction - so many weird things are dropped in without warning. Maybe I'm being unfair on Seth, but until I see a book or film that is amazing that was truly an independent work, I stand by this.

Ok, to be honest I can't really think of any more good points, but a fair few bad ones. So I guess I'll leave it here! It isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but I think both Tim Burton and Johnny Depp need to push out of this quirky comfort zone they've created, because while it can be amazing when done right, the last few they've done together have been stale and unpolished and only so-so. If they had spent more time ( a lot more time) on the script and swapped out Chloe Mortez for someone else, I think it could have been a really successful film. Instead it seems rushed, and the plot holes over shadow the good acting, interesting visuals and geniunely funny comedic moments.

Film Review: Take Shelter (2011)

Take Shelter

Directed by: Jeff Nichols

Starring: Michael Shannon
Jessica Chastain
Shae Whigham

Synopsis: Plagued by a series of apocalyptic visions, a young husband and father questions whether to shelter his family from a coming storm, or from himself.

I follow a film Tumblr called Old Films Flicker who I rely on for decent movie recommendations both old and new. A little while ago she went crazy with screen shots and odes to Take Shelter, starring the enigmatic and unbelievably talented Michael Shannon. It's a fairly small film, and while it seemed to open to positive reviews in the US it never opened in cinemas here in Australia, so I added it to my film queue to watch on DVD.

Other than the screen shots and quotes Old Films Flicker posted, I had no real idea what this film was about. I knew that Michael Shannon's character (Curtis) was seeing visions of the apocalypse and a huge storm, but I wasn't aware of the genre so I had no idea if it was going to be a drama, and action-drama or a thriller. This probably could have been disastrous if I hadn't been in the right mood going into it, the film is very slow and at its heart is a family drama of monumental proportions.

Curtis is a small town husband and father who works on a drilling crew by day, and spends time at home with his wife, Samantha, (Chastain) and daughter, Hannah, at night. When Curtis begins to suffer from frequent dreams and hallucinations of a humungous storm with apocalyptic after-effects, their simple life is rocked in its foundations. Fearing mental illness Curtis secretly visits a counsellor and seeks medication, but as the dreams worsen and he develops and obsession with renovating their storm shelter, his family and friends begin to fear (for) him. What follows is a slow descent into madness, paranoia, obsession and fear as Curtis' visions become more frequent, while the question "what if..." is always present, lingering just off to the side, partly out of view.

Is he crazy? Are his visions real? Is he going to snap and murder everyone in their town? Until the end credits roll you will never be 100% sure which way this film is going to go. While it is primarily a family drama about a husband who is suffering from these visions, it never lets go of the possibility for a supernatural inclusion, or for a dark devastating turn that'll mess up your sleep for a week. This fervent questioning plays an important role when you consider how slow the film moves. The film revels in forcing you to just sit and watch as this family is pulled apart by mental illness. There are minimal edits and instead you watch an entire conversation, in all its awkwardness or sadness or distress. The characters progress through the entire gamut of emotion that would occur in a normal fight or moment, there are no easy resolutions, no simple answers. And while this results in a slower pacing that I typically enjoy, I respect the hell out of it.

Going hand in hand with the pacing is the visuals in this film. It's hard to find a film these days that isn't visually beautiful (especially films of the indie persuasion) but the beauty of this films wideshot small town aesthetics is emphasised because it is juxtaposed against the claustrophobic storm shelter and Curtis's dark descent into madness and swirling storm clouds. The effect this produces is astounding and one of the biggest draws in this film. My favourite is most definitely the shots with the birds swirling around the sky in apocalyptic formation (see promo image above), especially towards the closing of the film. It's just so good!

And the acting, man oh man! Michael Shannon is a phenomenal and completely under-rated actor who is superb in this role. Known best for his roles in Boardwalk Empire and Revolutionary Road, Michael Shannon really embraced the character's quiet and unassuming nature and it is both terrifying and heart-breaking to watch him circle the drain and give in to his paranoia and fear. Jessica Chastain gives a beautifully nuanced performance as his worried wife, Samantha. By the way, where did Jessica Chastain come from?! She has delivered some of the best performances in the best films of 2011, and I had never heard of her before! Hopefully she keeps it up because she won my heart in this role. She's so fragile, yet so strong. She's taken on the task of learning sign language so she can communicate with her deaf daughter, and she sells handicrafts on the weekend so that the family can spend one week a year at the beach. She's the glue that holds the family together, but as Curtis falls apart and recedes further into himself, she doesn't have enough fingers to plug the holes that are threatening to burst.

So all in all a terrific film! It manages to balance between a couple of genres yet never lose sight of the characters and their own problems, rather than focussing purely on these apocalyptic visions Curtis sees. I do have to warn you all how slow the pacing is, but if you can handle it then definitely find a copy of this film to watch.

Film Review: The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games 

Directed by: Gary Ross

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence
Josh Hutcherson
Elizabeth Banks
Stanley Tucci

Synopsis: Check out my review of the book for a comprehensive synopsis!

Warning!! This review will discuss the book in detail, so if you haven't read it (or don't want to read it but want to watch the film) and don't want to read any spoilers then back away from the review. You've been warned!!


Now that I've had almost a week to decompress and step back from the "HSDFHS@!! HUNGER GAMES!!!" cloud of excitement, I thought I'd take a chance to review it. As my warning suggests, I'll be discussing the film in relation to the book and all the spoiler-y goodness that happens. So I guess this is less a review, and more a discussion post...but whatever.

First off, I really liked it. I had that moment just as the last ad played when I gripped the seat and thought "crap, what if it sucks?! Maybe I should get out now..." but for the most part I was really happy with the way they adapted the book to the screen. In fact, perhaps it was the film's faithfulness that lead to the few problems I had with it. But I'll get onto that in a minute, first, the goodness!

How amazing was Jennifer Lawrence?! She was so perfect as Katniss. She was moody and cranky and closed off to people she didn't know, but completely open and on the verge of falling apart when she was dealing with someone she loved/respected. The scene with Rue (again, SPOILERS) had me paralysed with emotion, I freaking bawled like a baby. I really liked Elizabeth Banks (how hard was it to pick it as her?!) as Effie, Stanley Tucci was a great Caesar, and Wes Bentley was superb as a more fleshed out Seneca. I thought Lenny Kravitz was a weird pick for Cinna considering how crazy his clothes usually are, but amazingly he managed to pull of the calm, downplayed vibe of Cinna. Overall I guess I could say that I was really impressed with the cast. I was at a slight advantage because I read the books after all of the massive publicity for these films, so I always imagined the characters looking a lot like the actors cast in it, but I still think they worked well to create a cohesive cast that I believed. The only exception would be the guys playing Gale and Peeta. The opening scene between Katniss and Gale was perhaps the most forced conversation in the entire film, and while I think Josh Hutcherson was a decent enough actor (he needs to stop expressing his emotions through an open mouth though) I'm not convinced of him as Peeta...yet. I'll wait until the sequel before I make a final decision about that.

The art direction and costuming was amazing. They truly brought to life the world created by Suzanne Collins, and it was a pleasure to see all the elements I'd read presented so beautifully and accurately. However, while I thought the Capitol costumes were gorgeous, and true to the book, I found them a little too much. This was what I was hinting at above, according to the details in the book the choices in the film were understandable, but in a book you're able to prescribe exactly how crazy it'll be. To me they had all the sugary superficiality of the costumes in the film, but with a much darker undertone. So in my mind, while there was a clear separation between the Capitol and the outer districts, there was a connecting slither of something that made it work. In the film I just felt like the two worlds were too disjointed, and too disconnected. Which lead to the Capitol costumes appearing almost cartoonish, and not in a great way.

While I'm complaining, I'll bring up my other complaint. Though the film was incredibly close to the book, some of the areas they trimmed, especially the pre-games story, meant that the film was lacking the substance that the books had in spades. For instance, the Mockingjay pin has none of the rebellion connotations, so that scene with President Snow at the end just seems weird. And why did Cinna hide in on her jacket? It's just a pin from her sister. Similarly, the emotional tug-a-war with Peeta lost its complexity without Haymitch sending her little hints that she should be pushing the relationship angle. Also, what with her not nearly dying of dehydration? They kept in the line about how 20% of them would die from exposure and hunger/thirst yet never explored that path, leaving the thread open and messy. There were a few other little things like this that, while not a huge deal, may come back to bite them in the ass in the next two (or three if they split the last book) movies because they won't have the foundation they needed. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but I've heard from a few people who haven't read the book that they really missed the crux of the story because of these missing elements, and things like the district 11 rebellion scene just seemed out of place because of it.

But my complaints really are minor. It's just like I always came out of the Harry Potter films complaining but inevitably came to love and adore the films in their own right. In all honesty, the film really managed to hit high in every area, acting, costumes, sets, CGI (except those damn dogs), scripting, and I enjoyed the few additions they made, such as the crossbacks to Caesar during the games and the inside look in the game-maker's room (although I could have done without the Seneca and Snow scenes).

It was great to see a YA book handled with some respect, and not melodrama-ed and cartooned up (with my exceptions above). It seems that Suzanne Collins had a real hand in the production of her story, and with her television background I'm fairly positive that the areas I've complained about have been handled by her and she knows what she's doing. At least that's my hope. I'm interested in seeing how they actualise the next two books, and with the success of this first cast I can't wait to see who they choose to play all the additional characters coming in Catching Fire! 

Film Review: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Released: 2003

Starring: Sean Connery
Stuart Townsend
Richard Roxburgh

Synopsis: In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, SF and adventure characters team up on a secret mission





OK guys, this is going to be a short review because I have been staring at a blank screen for three weeks now, absolutely unable to write anything about this film! I watched this film for the 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' 2012 challenge and I really did enjoy it, I just (weirdly) have nothing to say!

The film differs greatly from the graphic novel. it's more of an 'inspired by' film than an adaptation, which is actually probably better in the long run. This way they had more creative freedom and didn't need to worry about fans getting cranky that they changed small aspects here and there. Is it better than the graphic novel? Probably not, but I still enjoyed the film and the direction they decided to take.

There are a heap of new characters added to the movie, branching off from the original team made up of Mina Harker, Alan Quartermain, Jekyll/Hyde, Captain Nemo and the Invisible man, Rodney Skinner (known as Hawley Griffen in the graphic novel). Joining the ranks are Tom Sawyer, a brash American working for a government agency (I can't remember which), and Dorian Gray (played by the handsome Stuart Townsend), while the Phantom now accompanies Moriarty as a bad guy. I actually really liked the addition of these extra characters, it isn't always the case, but in this instance a larger cast worked well for the tension and story build-up.  Unlike the graphic novel, everyone in the film is much more civil with one another and there doesn't seem to be as much distrust or animosity swirling around them...at least at first.  As kind as everyone is in the beginning, none of them really want to be there; they were coerced, in their own ways, into participating in this hodge podge of a group and the greater number swells the animosity and highlights their differences.

The team are united under the watchful eye of 'M' who informs them that the dastardly Phantom wants to sink Venice, and that it is their job to foil his plan. There are obvious complications along the way, both involving the Phantom's group of lackeys and within the group itself, but the pacing is fairly quick and the action scenes are exciting and well done. The story is a little silly, but I felt like the real interest in the film was of seeing the literary characters placed into situations that were removed from their traditional settings. Perhaps that has something to do with me being a reader, but I could forgive the film-makers deciding the story needed to be more 'Hollywood' than the original graphic novel because I felt like the characters were fleshed out enough. Although,it kind of sucked that they removed the love interest between Mina and Quartermain and replaced it with the younger, hotter couple of Mina and Gray, but I understand why they did that (I just hate it!).

Visually the film was fantastic. This was one of the earliest  mainstream films to utilise the Steampunk aesthetic, and it was really gorgeous. This was probably the film's real strength, the locations, props and costumes were all done to perfection. Similarly, the actors were all top-notch, it's just a pity the story was so unnecessarily extravagant in parts. Fun fact, did you know this was the film that made Sean Connery decide to retire? Apparently life on set was a nightmare, although it seems more to do with the director (Stephen Norrington) and less about anything else.

So a pretty decent film all in all. It wasn't the greatest ever, but it flowed well and it definitely wasn't hard to watch. I think most literary fans can find something in this film to enjoy.

Film Reviews: Crestfallen, Contact and Drool.

Short films, like short stories, are infinitely more difficult to create than full length features. When done well,  they result in stories that have had every inch of fat and extraneous detail removed, culminating in films that not only make a firm impact on me, but tend to stand the test of time. Drool, Contact and Crestfallen are three short films directed by Jeremiah Kipp. Because of their lengths, and subject matter, I've decided to review each of them in short reviews only. All three films are visually sensational and rich in symbolism and metaphor, and as such, I don't want to spend too much time on my interpretation, because I'd hate for it to cloud your judgement when/if you decide to view them for yourself. So without further ado....

Drool is a four minute highly experimental film. If you decide to view it, please don't make the same mistake as I and attempt to eat your lunch while you watch it! Featuring two actors, the combination of experimental film techniques with the movements of the actors reminded me greatly of a contemporary dance piece. It's a little gross (take the title literally) but beautifully shot, edited and put together.

Contact depicts the highs and lows of drug experimentation. At eleven minutes this film managed to fit in far more substance than I think some "blockbuster" full-length films have managed. The female lead embarks upon a drug adventure with her boyfriend, and what starts off well soon descends into a violent and turbulent hallucinogenic nightmare. The acting is high quality, and the editing and sound phenomenal, but what makes this film stand out is the unbelievable makeup and special effects. Without destroying the effect for anyone, the mouth tunnel and subsequent tear, (see inserted screenshot) were realistic and horrific and had my heart pounding. An outstanding short film.

At six minutes Crestfallen is perhaps my favourite of the three. The cinematography is beautiful, heart-melting eye-achingly so, and the subject matter, acting and composition complement the visuals perfectly. Taking on the tough subject of suicide, the film focuses on the event itself, while showcasing the protagonist's (played by Deneen Melody) life up to that point, and the cause of her suicide attempt. The film takes on a very voyeuristic appearance, as though we're witnessing her life flash before her eyes in the moments before death. The music swells with the growing emotion of the film, and there is a very religious feel to it. Not in a Christian way, but the lighting of the woman in the bath as she takes her life, reminds me of the lighting used in the renaissance paintings that bathed religious figures in light from the heavens. A stunning film, one that will haunt me for some time.

film review: I Am Legend

I Am Legend 
Directed by:  Francis Lawrence

Released: 2007

Starring: Will Smith, Alice Brega

For synopsis please see my book review.

Ok, this isn't going to be a pleasant review, but like the book review, I can't really delve into why it fails so abysmally because that'd destroy the book for potential readers. If I sum it up though, the film missed the point. Completely. Like many Hollywood adaptations of classic (or modern classic) books or films, they were too focused in how awesome Will Smith would look walking down an empty New York street, and not enough in the crux of this story, the inner turmoil that haunts the last man alive and his constant battle to hold onto his sanity, his humanity and his self.

The book isn't an epic tale of a man taking on the disease single-handedly. It's a personal account and it's god damn harrowing. The film focuses too much on making Robert a hero and a good guy and MISSES THE GOD DAMN POINT. Essentially, the film is the glossy Hollywood attempt to sell tickets, and really I don't blame anyone except the writer and the executives who green lit the film. That said, the pacing of the film is actually pretty decent. The first 15 minutes or so do a pretty good job of setting up Robert as the final man alive, and showing New York as a crumbling ghost town that's been overtaken by nature. However it misses that mechanical approach in the book, it's almost gimmicky at times, and Will Smith is far too sane and emotional to truly be a man who has spent three years alone in the world. It also eliminates the humanity of the "dark seekers" as they're known in the film. They're more like zombies now and there isn't the persistent terrorising of Robert that exists in the book. In the book his neighbour Ben and other vampires are the single thing most likely to tear Robert's sanity to shreds, because he can't help think of them as the people they once were and of the humanity they now so sorely lack.

It's those smaller details that really niggle at me as I watch this film. They might be small details but they're important to the complete picture, and if you mess with one, ultimately you mess with all of them. Worst of all though, is the end. I can forgive, to an extent, making Robert a scientist who was involved in the original deadly cure or giving him a dog for a pet, or ramping up the action as he hunts the dark seekers. If you're going to make a blockbuster, you have to please the majority, and I'm fairly sure most people who saw this film had no idea it was based on a book. What I can't forgive though, is the ending. They basically took a big steaming pile of crap and smeared it all over Matheson's memory. It appeals to the lowest common denominator and completely disrespects not only the original, but the story that they had (rather haphazardly) been building to that point. It destroyed the elegance and complexity and humanity of the story and treated the audience like idiots. The rest of the movie is hardly a must-see, but that final half hour is enough to warrant me to advise you all to stay far, far away from this "movie".

In the end I have to ask why the hell they thought this needed to be remade. The book could easily adapt to a moody and complex dystopian tale, but so far Hollywood has forced the story to bend their way in all three adaptations. Why do authors keep accepting the project if they can't keep true to the book? Surely they've read the original book and understand that their project has completely missed the mark. And if it's because Hollywood interferes, then don't make it. It's like the film adaptation of The Golden Compass, if people are pressuring you into removing the heart and soul of the story, then don't make it. Simple.

So, don't watch this. Read the book and if you must watch a film adaptation watch Night of the Living Dead  because though it doesn't follow the plot in the slightest, the heart of the story is well and truly present in this classic zombie film, and it's the only film that Matheson himself thought captured his amazing novella successfully.

Film Review: The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby 

Released: 1974

Directed by: Jack Clayton

Starring: Robert Redford
Mia Farrow
Sam Waterston

For the synopsis please read my book review.


I've long been one of those people who look back on the past and grow a little obsessed with bygone eras. In my early teens I was addicted to the 1960s, it was the decade that gave us The Beatles after all. After I began reading the works of the beat authors I added the 1940s and 1950s to my growing  "when I have a time-machine I'm definitely visiting" list. But right now, as 24 year old me, I would do anything to visit the 1920s. It was a visually stunning era, the architecture and design is bold and gorgeous, the hairstyles are to die for (and way to difficult to replicate...I've tried) and their fashion is unbelievably stylish, lady-like and luxurious. Add to that the smashing parties, dazzling music and inspiring authors and you have a decade I'd give my left foot to visit!

The Great Gatsby definitely manages to capture the visual gorgeousness of the time. The cast are all unbelievably attractive and look as though they've been transported mid-glamorous 1920s party. The women are all tall and slight, with cheekbones and jaw-lines that perfectly set off the finger curls in their hair and the haunts perched precariously on their perfectly coiffed hair. They radiate wealth and health and are completely at ease with several kilos worth of beads weighing them down on each outfit. The men look strong and stable, in their immaculate 3 piece suits, carefully gelled and curled hair, and jaunty stance with one hand in a pocket. The houses are grand and large and perfectly demonstrate their wealth and social standing, and make the perfect backdrop to the extravagant parties thrown with their champagne fountains and Charleston dancing. I came to the film (the first time) as an 18 year old longing for a time with some integrity and glamour, and even though the film is technically 50 years too late to the party, it captured the visuals as well as the spirit of the age to me.

Visually spectacular as it is, the film follows in the book's footsteps and creates a story not about the glamour of the age, but of the rampant hedonistic lifestyle and the isolation that author Fitzgerald recognised going on around him. Life appears so wonderful, there are parties, shiny dresses, abundant wealth (at least with this crowd) and twinkly lights aplenty, but none of the characters seem truly happy. Though some are obvious, such as Gatsby's heavy love for his old flame Daisy, most of them seem unable to truly verbalise what's missing from their life. Perhaps it's their preoccupation with wealth and decadent behaviours at the expense of true and lasting relationships, perhaps it's that their life hasn't panned out how they expected, or maybe they simply have expectations so high they could never come close to meeting them. Regardless of the cause, their distance from one another and from true happiness is clear in their expressions even as they dance wildly or talk a mile a minute. This is one of those films where, if you were to turn off the sound completely, you'd see a completely different story. By which I mean the subliminal would be markedly clear without their disingenuous words muddying the expressions on their faces.

This is the result of fantastic acting. The entire cast perform magnificently in their respective parts. They are so perfect for their roles, in fact, that I'm struggling to imagine the new cast (in the film to be released next year) looking anything other than clunky and fake. Mia Farrow is an absolute doll and a favourite actress of mine, and she manages to portray the shallow and slightly frail Daisy to perfection. It's not hard to imagine her being completely dominated by the men in her life, or cracking under the pressure and snapping like a twig (whoops, mixing my metaphors!). Opposite her, Robert Redford portrays the mysterious Gatsby wonderfully. He's strong and devilishly handsome, but there is this genuine calmness and quiet to him that makes it hard not to fall in love with him. He perfectly depicts the poor boy who worked his ass off (whether legally or no) to become the man his true love could marry. He's so sweet as he panics over Daisy's visit to Nick (her cousin, played by Sam Waterston) and then proudly shows off his house and possessions like a kid with his toys. The chemistry between these two is palpable, but there is a sadness through their entire reunion. Though Gatsby is the man (financially and socially) that Daisy could marry, he's too late. And even though they wax lyrical about their future together, you can see that both know that Daisy will never leave her (cheating) husband, and that their reunion has an expiry date.

The remaining cast that surrounds them perform beautifully and embody the characters Fitzgerald created with  nuanced and elegant performances. Nothing feels like anyone isn't giving it 100% and no-one feels miscast. There are so many different characters that grace the screen during this film, most for a very short period of time, but they all impact it in their own way. The short glimpses at the socialites, professional conmen, businessmen, lower class men and women and party-goers adds a depth and sparkle to this film that makes it shine past other films set during the same period.

I think it's fairly clear that I absolutely adore this film. It moves me to tears every single time and I never grow bored. It's fairly consistent in representing the book, making only the slightest alterations, and never where it demeans or changes the text's original intent. This is a fantastic film for almost all audiences. There's a love story, a plethora of parties, a leading man with a mysterious past, adultery, and a damning critique on consumerism, wealth and decadent lifestyles. And if none of that sounds good to you, watch it for the yummy actors and actresses and beautiful costumes!

My rating: 5/5

Film Review: Pet Sematary

Pet Sematary 

Released: 1989

Directed by: Mary Lambert
Starring: Dale Midkiff,
Fred Gwynne
Denise Crosby
Miko Hughes

For the synopsis please read my book review.

OK, so I'm perhaps not the best person to go to for an unbiased account of Stephen King films. I hate to say it, but I'm a sucker for each and every one of them. Some of them truly are stand out films (Shawshank Redemption is in my top 5 films) but even the dodgiest adaptation has this weird Z-grade charm that I find hard to pass up. Because of my love for all of them, it's a little hard to distinguish with some of these older ones whether it's the quirk I enjoy, or the actual film. Especially in the ones filmed during the 1980s, where even the best are known to garner a little eye-rolling from modern audiences. So I guess this was a fairly roundabout way of saying that this film will get a high rating, but you probably should trust it.

 As I mentioned in my book review of the film, this was my very first bona fide horror film. I loved it, I remember relishing the foreshadowing, the haunting, Hermain Munster without the Hermain Munster gear (Fred Gwynne as the neighbour Jud) and all the other creepy things you expect in a horror film. It must have been weeks before I got sick of saying "First I played with Jud, then I played with mummy, now I want to play with you daddy" in a sing-song children's voice. It never really scared me (not like The Exorcist did a year or two later) but it introduced me to how fun horror can be, and how laughs can mingle with fear and general excitement. If I were to categorise this film it'd be as fun, one of those films where you know what's going to happen and you just can't wait.

Like with many Stephen King adaptations, the film does away with a great deal of the "real" horror, in this case the soul destroying loss of a child. It's still there, obviously, but rather than travel with Louis through his stages of grief, and witness the very upsetting reactions his wife and daughter also have, it fast forwards straight from Gage's death to his "rebirth". As a result there is much less time put into constructing any sort of normal life for the Creeds, or setting up any real characterisation for anyone other than Louis. There is also far more emphasis on the supernatural aspects of the story, and while the book was quite prevalent in this regard also, it was far more backgrounded until the climax. In the film however, there is much more ominous foreshadowing (both obvious through the recently dead student Victor Pascow, and more obscure), haunting music, and neighbourhood nice guy Jud is shown through a much more sinister light.

While the book focused on the turmoil that eventually lead to Louis bringing his son back to life, the film focussed more on the murder spree the young lad went on after reawakening in the Indian burial ground. I personally felt like the fear in these scenes were creepier and more nuanced in the book, but hearing teeny child footsteps, sinister words come out of a sweet 3 year old's mouth, and a rather sharp knife clasped in his chubby hand is enough to make the extended version thrilling in it's own way. Gage (played by Miko Hughes) was phenomenal, he was actually 3 years old in this film, I wonder if he had any idea what kind of film he was starring in!

Not only does the film branch off from the book in this regard, but it meanders from the book's plot quite a bit. In that regard it's quite like most Stephen King film adaptations, the bones of the story are there, but the flesh is almost entirely different. I much prefer the story of the book, it's more intense and upsetting, as well as upsetting, but I think the film did what it had to do to make it a horror film and not a drama that concludes as a horror film.

It's not as compelling as the book it was adapted from, and perhaps it's because of the fond history I have with this film, but I really can't fault it. It's the perfect mix of creepy kids, cheesy acting, 80s horror clichés and has a theme song by The Ramones. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone looking for a serious scare, and again, I'm probably just a tad biassed, but I think it's a film everyone should watch at some point, even if only to poke fun at the hokey effects!

My rating: 4/5

Film Review: Blade Runner

Blade Runner

Released: 1982

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Harrison Ford
Sean Young
Rutger Hauer

For the synopsis please read my book review.


Blade Runner is the epitome of science fiction, dystopia and cyberpunk cinema. It is considered to be the very best of it's kind, even though the director has re-released the film in three different incarnations! For this challenge I chose to watch the Director's Cut which was released in 1992, and eliminated the voice-over and other cost-cutting methods used to release the original film. I've also seen the Final Cut but I've never actually watched the original cut. I really should, bad though some people say it is, there must have been something about it that attracted such a cult following right?

The film diverges quite extensively from the book, and while I think it waters down much of the humanist and existential discussions that the book created, it does still adhere to the general feel of the book. In fact, Philip K. Dick saw only the first 20 minutes of the film and was quoted as saying, "it was my own interior world. They caught it perfectly." So for those of you who tend to run in horror when you hear a film is based on a book (especially a book as well loved and well regarded as Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) don't fear, though it may cause moments of irritation, it is a fantastic film that is independent enough that it really should be judged on it's own merits.

Like the novel it's based on, Blade Runner takes place in the future (2019 to be exact) and follows protagonist Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) in his search to locate a group of "replicants" (androids) who jumped ship and are hiding back on Earth. The city in which Rick lives owes a great deal to the early film Metropolis, it's a mish-mash of tall skyscrapers, blimps with large video screens, a giant pyramid structure and lots of small streets crammed with people, rubbish, stalls and steaming sewer grates. Though there are flying cars and bright neon lights, this isn't the future we always imagine, it's dark and dirty and abandoned by everyone except those without the money or health to leave the planet. Down in the streets the world has merged to create a truly multicultural society. Though English is still used, there is also "city-speak," which is a language made up of half a dozen languages from across the globe. And though many people still dress as we dress today, there are the typical future clothing styles that 80s films loved to create, mainly involving lots of see-through plastic, big shoulder pads out of weird acrylic-y stuff and big, BIG hair and make-up.

Visually the film is spectacular. Cyberpunk or "future noir" utilises some of the greatest film devices ever created. In this case there is a heavy prevalence of backlit scenes without a fill light, lots and lots of cigarette smoke (or smoke from other sources), and dramatic shadowing. Though it's a colour film, it has the intensity and substance of an old black and white noir, and the storyline relies heavily on the intensity of it's visual effects to emphasise the anxiety, hopelessness and dystopian nature of the story. Even without the stellar acting and storyline and pacing, I'd happily watch this film (on mute I guess, if it didn't have all the other aspects!) over and over just to immerse myself in the world that's created.

There are hundreds of websites dedicated to discussing the intricacies of the film, and the complexity of the human/android dichotomy that is set up. I won't go into much detail because there are other people making far better statements than I could possibly attempt, and I did tackle a portion of it in the book review I did. This area is the one place where it really diversified from the original text. In the original text PKD was making a statement about sociopathic behaviour, and about the lack of humanity within the "Andys," basically emphasising that even though they were undistinguishable from humans in the visual sense, they lacked the greatest qualities in humanity, and there was no way for them to absorb or learn how to empathise, emote or understand. They were lacking, and humans, even with all their flaws, were fundamentally better. However in Blade Runner, the situation is reversed. Instead it is that the replicants are an oppressed underclass (of sorts) and because of their limited life expectancy (they have a lifespan of 4 years) they lived every minute of their life to the fullest and were forced to rebel if they wanted to experience life for longer. In Blade Runner the humans take their lives for granted, and are far more closed-off and apathetic than their repressed android friends.

So the film does really take a different path than the book, but even though it ends up with an almost polarised view it keeps to the book's central idea of humanity and the struggle against man and machine. It's a stunning film that has really stood the test of time, and proved a marker for many dystopian films that have since been released. If you haven't seen this film yet, well shame on you, but don't worry, if you see it asap I won't hold it against you!

My rating: 4.5/5