For A Few Movies More

Zombies, they seem to be everywhere these days. It seems like we can barely go a week without some sort of new movie/book/video game starring these flesh-hungry nuisances. But in some ways, this over-saturation of zombies in pop culture can actually be quite informative. I mean let’s face it, it’s only a matter of time before the dead do in fact start rising from their graves and start feeding on the living. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s a scientifically proven fact that this is exactly how the world is going to end in 2012 (warning: may or may not actually be scientifically proven). So in order to ready myself for this immense assault from the undead armies, I’ve decided to brush up on my who’s who of zombies, by revisiting the massive catalogue of films that exist primarily to educate budding zombie survivalists. In the process I’ll chart the different varieties of zombies that we can all expect to encounter, what film they originally appeared in, and how dangerous they are. So ready yourselves, my fellow zombie hunters, and learn your enemy well.

From the outset Thor looked to be something of a problematic picture that in my eyes at least, looked as though it was destined to fail. Here’s a film that not only needed to sell an entertaining story involving Norse gods and parallel realms to a wide mainstream audience, it also had the huge task of creating characters who could seamlessly slide in place alongside the cast of the upcoming Avengers film. But Thor appeared to be a huge immoveable boulder blocking this path to an otherwise crisis-free merging of superheroes. To put it bluntly, the film looked absolutely terrible if it were to be judged solely by its promotional material. And the questionable casting of young Chris Hemsworth as the titular character did little to change my opinion. My confidence walking into the film was low to say the least, but cut to 120 minutes later after the credits had rolled and you may have spotted the faintest ghost of a smile on my face. Thor managed to overcome these initial negative expectations to deliver an unexpected delight that will undoubtedly be gleefully devoured by the masses.

It was always going to be tricky creating an appropriate storyline for Thor in which his alternate home world of Asgard could come into play without disrupting the foundations set by previous Marvel films. The plot itself is relatively simple if not slightly difficult to explain to the uninitiated. Set upon the aforementioned ancient realm of Asgard, a place of wonder populated by warriors and Gods, the mighty warrior Thor reignites an age-old war as a result of his arrogance and vengeful nature. Furious with his actions, Thor’s father Odin strips Thor of his power and casts him out of Asgard to live on Earth as a mere mortal. There he meets scientist Jane Foster who reluctantly agrees to help Thor in his quest to retrieve his powerful hammer Mjolnir, the source of his mighty powers. Meanwhile back on Asgard, Thor’s evil brother Loki is busy setting a chain of events in motion that will see him crowned king of Asgard and ultimately grant him control of the tools needed to obliterate Thor, and anyone else he sees fit, from existence.

The Fast And Furious franchise has never been known for its subtlety. Instead the series is more recognisable for its abundance of fast cars, hot women and adrenalin fuelled action sequences over its intricate scripts and fine displays of acting. And if we turn back the clock ten years to the year 2001 when the original Fast And Furious film was released, it was the perfect form of brainless escapism for my then (still?) juvenile mind. I was happy to switch my brain off, sit back and watch the ensuing series of loud street races and destructive crashes linked together by a paper thin plot. But the second instalment released a couple of years later was so unspeakably bad that it was immediately banished to the deepest depths of movie Hell to burn for all of eternity. This was where I drew the line for the Fast & Furious films, deciding on the spot that I wouldn’t bother with any of the identical looking sequels. Until now that is… The trailers for Fast Five, the fifth instalment in the series looked crazy enough to satisfy my taste for some no-frills action fun that I’ve been yearning for lately. Along with this, the welcome addition of Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson to the cast made it appear as though the lifeless heroes of the film might actually have a worthwhile adversary to finally face off against. Plus it had been ten long years, so since then surely, surely the film had grown up and evolved a little to appease modern audiences.Apparently this was a little too much to wish for since long story short, in the last ten years, nothing about this franchise has changed one single bit.

That last sentence in the previous paragraph my come as a relief to long time fans of the series. For me, it fills me with disappointment with what could have easily have been one of the best attention-span crushing action films in recent years. I mean everybody loves intense car chases capped off with spectacular crashes. But you know what nobody loves? Annoying characters cracking wise amidst a muddled film that’s at least fifteen to twenty minutes overlong. And unfortunately that’s Fast Five in a nutshell. It’s a loud chaotic mess that makes a lot of noise but fails to ever gain any momentum or engage the audience beyond the obvious demand for huge action set pieces. It’s easy to dismiss any harsh criticism aimed at a film like this since its only goal is to entertain, however when there’s no likable characters to relate with in sight and a flimsy plot stretched to breaking point, then it’s difficult to engage with the empty action taking place on screen. The script itself introduces a basic premise that makes false promises early on of fun set pieces galore. Instead it provides two epic action scenes padded out with an insane amount of mind-numbing filler in-between. The plot in question follows former cop Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker) and ex con Domonic Toretto (Vin Diesel) as they continue to elude various law enforcements looking to lock them up for a vast array of vehicular related crimes. Chased to the slums of Rio De Janeiro, the pair begin to put together a team of elite races to help pull off one final job. But hot on their tail is unrelenting federal agent Luke Hobbs. The leader of the Elite Task Force team and general all round badass, Hobbs sets his remorseless sights on the pair with full intentions of escorting them out of the country in chains. There’s also another sub plot about a generic evil rich businessman looking for revenge, but I’m sure you get the picture.

Antoine Doinel contemplating his future in 'The 400 Blows'

J’adore le cinema français! I’m not sure when my love for French movies started – I think it must have been when I was about 13, watching foreign films on SBS because in the the paper the classification said MA(n,s,a), only to find out that meant maybe a few very mature sex scenes with some nudity. The thing was though, that once you started watching, you/I cared more about the movie than seeing boobies.

But not till recently (the last few years or so) have I gained a greater appreciation for European cinema, and especially those from France. There’s something so fresh and different to the way the French make movies – I suppose it all stemmed from the late 1950′s/1960′s when film-makers started to push the boundaries of classic cinema; they understood who their audience were (young people), and made films accordingly.

Directors such as François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard spearheaded what the critics called La Nouvelle Vague (or The New Wave), a type of film-making that broke away from the conventional shackles of formulaic scripts/editing/visual style and reflected the political and social change occurring in France at the time.

How many times have you walked out of a movie completely and utterly disappointed lately? That’s kind of a hypothetical question, but if I had to answer it I’d say waaay too many times. It’s as if the output for lacklustre films has been set to overdrive recently. Bad films are literally oozing out of cinemas left, right and centre. So that’s why it came as somewhat of a relief that the new Simon Pegg and Nick Frost comedy Paul hit all the right buttons for me. They may not be under the solid, focused direction of their long time collaborator Edgar Wright this time, however this apparently hasn’t affected their strong on screen chemistry or their ability to bounce quality punch lines off each other with relative ease. But just to get the obvious comparisons out of the way with early on, no, Paul is not as good as the pair’s previous films together, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Although when you take into consideration that each of these films are heralded as instant comedy classics that flawlessly cross genres to perfection, then it’s easy to realise that reaching the high standards set by those films was never going to be an easy task to pull off. Putting these admittedly predictable comparisons aside, Paul is a solid and legitimately funny picture that adapts a unique identity of its own to separate itself from its more attractive cousins. Standing head and shoulders above the majority of American comedies that we’ve been subjected to in recent times, Paul shows its weak, would-be competitors how it’s done.

Based on a script written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, Paul tells the story of two hapless English Sci-Fi geeks visiting famous UFO hotspots across America. Their uneventful trip gets an adrenalin boost of weird when by sheer coincidence, the pair run into a fugitive alien on the run. This alien in question is Paul, an obnoxious extraterrestrial who due to his extended stay on Earth, has taken on human characteristics that include a laundry list of vulgar sensibilities. Our two earthlings agree to help this intergalactic fugitive escape back to his own planet in what quickly becomes a chaotic chase to the finish, as a trio of bumbling yet dedicated federal agents give pursuit.

When we came up with the idea for a trailer trash category we were afraid that using clips from YouTube for the trailers would appear cheap, but I think in the case of Justin Bieber and his new movie, Never Say Never, it is quite fitting.

I would have liked to avoid this trailer for fear of what it would do to my suppressed negativity but it screened before Gnomeo and Juliet (don’t ask), and hence was forced upon me. Sure, I could have done the duck and cover (a spoiler avoider technique which involves shrinking into the seat and covering ones’ ears while a trailer explains an upcoming movie to you in full detail) but that would mean I gave Never Say Never the same treatment as There Will Be Blood, which wouldn’t seem right.

When the original Scream first burst into cinemas back in 1996, it took the movie- going public by storm. Here was a horror film that managed to balance a fine line between scares and comedy more efficiently than any film had ever managed before it. It was a bloody, pitch-black horror that benefitted from what I still consider one of the smartest and funniest scripts around. Penned by immensely talented Kevin Williamson, the script was filled with witty and clever dialogue that poked fun at the slasher genre while simultaneously reinventing it for an entirely new generation to enjoy. The film was a hit critically and commercially, and needless to say, countless rip-offs soon flooded the market. Along with these rip-offs also came two disappointing and chronologically worsening sequels (the third instalment in particular is a complete mess). The years went by and it felt that we had seen the last of the Scream franchise. Horror films have since moved on from the slasher craze and have turned towards the torture porn genre as the staple for modern horror. Well, it’s been eleven long years since its last instalment but the Scream saga has finally returned. Is it as good as the original you ask? Is it at least better than the sequels? Is the series still even relevant? Well to cut straight to the chase and answer all those questions, it doesn’t live up to the original, however Scream 4 is without a doubt the best Scream sequel by far. With Wes Craven back in the Director’s chair and Kevin Williamson once again the brains behind the script, the result is one of the most intelligent and hilarious horror films since the release of the original Scream. But since it’s a new decade, it’s time for a new set of rules to be set in place as well as a new batch of fresh victims.

In most cases, by the time the credits have rolled at the end of whatever film I may have just finished watching, I usually have a relatively strong opinion on how I feel about it. An extra day or two of reflection is sometimes necessary to allow its full effect to sink in, however it never takes long to decide which side of the fence my opinion will stand. So it took me by surprise that once the house lights came up at the end of my screening of Sucker Punch, I had absolutely no idea what to think of it. The film left me confused, befuddled and drawing a blank. I didn’t know what to think of this beautiful yet empty blend of everything pop culture. Was it a fun thrill ride that bamboozles the viewer with stunning visuals and epic action sequences in the hope audiences won’t pay too much attention to its other shortcomings such as the shallow plot and vapid characters? Or was it a horrible, pointless mess of a film that tries for a clever concept but fails miserably? Well in hindsight, Sucker Punch is both of these things. There are some genuinely fun aspects of the film that will leave fan boys hollering for more, but will ultimately leave most viewers shaking their heads in a confused and disappointed state.

No matter how flawed and convoluted Sucker Punch may be, I have to give big credit to Zack Snyder for experimenting with such a risky idea. Even if the execution failed the film in the long run, the film’s concept is far more original and fresh than most of the lifeless products flooding the market lately. But despite its originality, the plot for Sucker Punch is still a convoluted mess. After the death of her mother, a young girl only known as Baby Doll (Emily Browning) and her younger sister are left to live with their abusive stepfather. But after the accidental death of her sister, Baby Doll is locked away inside a mental asylum by her stepfather, who goes on to bribe an orderly to ensure Baby Doll is set to undergo a lobotomy in five days. Unable to accept this bleak reality she’s been confronted with, Baby Doll creates an alternate world in her mind in which she envisions the mental asylum as a high-class brothel instead. Within this fantasy, Baby Doll befriends a group of inmates who together begin to plot a risky plan to escape the confines of the asylum. Five specific items need to be collected if the girls are to have any chance of surviving and the retrieval of each item adds yet another layer of fantasy over the proceedings. While trying to obtain these items Baby Doll is swept away to various fantasy worlds that act as a thinly veiled metaphor for what is actually happening in the real world. It’s a confusing concept to explain that’s only made stranger when you acknowledge that it’s Baby Doll’s apparently amazing dancing (we never actually see this) that triggers these second layer fantasies. Yes, the film is as strange as it sounds…

There’s a reason why I don’t usually watch movie trailers – actually there’s two. The first is that if there’s a movie coming out that I’m really looking forward to with lots of hype around either the script, the director or with rave reviews, I generally try and stay clear of any promotional material so that I go in fresh. The second reason is that often movie trailers make the movie seem better than it actually is – this is what happened in Limitless.

The trailer made it out to be some awesome psychological thriller, and the cast seemed great (it did have Robert De Niro, even though he hasn’t really made a good movie since Meet The Parents); but it turned out to be a flat, predictable, mildy entertaining film.

Man, I love movies! I probably don’t love movies half as much as the people that read this, but I really do love movies! I probably only loved one out of the last ten movies I’ve seen, but I love movies! I probably only watch one movie a week, which makes that second probability even more exclamationable, but I love movies!! Why? I guess there is the escape; the entertainment; the freedom; the imagination; the discussion; the elitism, but most of all the connection. And I’m not talking about the connection one might have with a film – I’m talking about the connection we have with each other about movies. Because it’s not just me who loves movies – it’s everyone.

Don’t believe me? Who doesn’t like movies? Immediately I think of my grandparents. They never go to the cinema and like most old people they have a disdain towards today’s pop culture. But that doesn’t mean they don’t love movies. Just because my granddad scorned at The Lord of the Rings (yes, I do intend to mention LotR in every article I write) because it was  impossible to understand doesn’t mean he doesn’t like other movies. He’s got cable TV and I’m sure when the three 24 hour news channels get fuzzy and the Country Music Channel is playing back to back Miley Cyrus Marathons he flicks over to Movie Greats and finds himself engrossed in The Magnificent Seven.