Film Review: Dark Shadows

I've never heard of a soap opera-to-film adaptation until I saw Tim Burton's Dark Shadows. I now see why they are not a regular occurrence!

The story begins with the back-story of Barnabus Collins (Johnny Depp), who is truly in love with Josette (Bella Heathcote). The only problem is that his previous lover Angelique (Eva Green) is incredibly jealous about this relationship. Inconviently for the lovebirds, Angelique just happens to be a witch and curses Collins' family, sends Josette off a cliff and turns Barnabas into a vampire. Not satisfied at that point, she rallies a mob that buries Barnabas in a coffin.

Fast-forward two centuries, Barnabas is released from his prison into an era totally alien to him - the 1970's. He returns to the family home to find his home inhabited by his descendant Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), her daughter Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz), her brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), Roger's son David (Gulliver McGrath) and his shrink Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter). A new addition to the household is David's new governess Victoria (Heathcote again), with whom Barnabus is instantly taken with due to her resemblance to his former lover Josette.

Upon learning that his family has been at war with Angelique (who has taken to running a fish canning factory), Barnabas decides to end the curse upon his family and challenge her. However it seems she is still (or more so) the spitefully spurned lover she was two hundred years ago and subsequently isn't willing to go without a fight!

Unaware of the existence of pornography in the 1970s, Barnabas uses alternative methods to get his kicks

With soap-operas there is often a pursuit of several storylines simultaneously that can develop fantastically, if well written, over a period of time. Being limited to a film Dark Shadows doesn't haven't this luxury and as a result there is a serious lack of depth to the story and the direction is very skewed. Whilst is starts quite promising at the first half, the core plotline seems lost for most of the latter half when Barnabus takes on his family's struggles and challenges Angelique. The ending seems rushed and, quite frankly, cheap.

Regarding the acting, only one person truly stood out for me and it wasn't Johnny Depp. Eva Green's portrayal of the manipulative villain is really the only thespian related treat - she's slick, seductive and downright sinister. Depp, in Burton related projects as of late, is becoming stale and unchallenged - otherwise he is a fantastic actor. But Burton has lately made Depp very one-dimensional and I don't enjoy watching their collaborative efforts as a result this.

Visually, it's typical of Burton. Dark and eerie, yet juxtaposed with colour, kitsch and vibrance. But his visual style just caves to the erratic and sometimes illogical nature of the film. Perhaps a TV series adaptation would've best suited Burton's true vision for this film. 

Film Review: Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Four days and seven hours ago, I took in a viewing of the film adaptation of Seth Grahame-Smith's novel, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. This is a decision I very much regretted.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter sets itself in an fictional retelling of one of America's greatest historical figures.  In this version however, the mother of Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) was murdered by the vampire Jack Barts (Marton Csokas) after they dared to defend black slaves (who apparently are vampires preferred choice for feasting because no-one cares about them). Set for revenge, Lincoln aims to eliminate the vampire who wronged him only to find he his grossly out-matched. He is saved by Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper with a god-awful bouffant), who trains him montage-stylee to be a vampire hunter.

Lincoln is then dispatched to Springfield, Ohio where he will prepare to face the vampire that killed his mother in due time. Here Lincoln meets his future wife, Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who is completely and utterly oblivious to his vampire hunting ways. It's during his time in Springfield that he becomes more politically active, believing that to be the true way is to abolish slavery - which no doubt upsets the father of all Vampires, Adam (Rufus Sewell).

It may be hard to believe but silver-tipped axes and top hats were indeed all the rage in 1827

The problem with the film is that it takes itself far too seriously. If it was somewhat light-hearted in it's approach to the plot, you might have been able to embrace it more. For example, when Lincoln's only child dies I felt absolutely nothing, yet this part is supposed to be a driving moment that causes Lincoln to return to his true axe-wielding, vampire hunting ways. But as I said, I felt jack shit about his little bambino biting the dust. In fact you care for no-one in this film, not even the titular character.

When I look back on it, there was also a fair bit of moralising. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but slavery provides a strong political undertone in this film. And had it been any good I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it. Yet it wasn't, and at that point it just becomes quite offensive and almost makes a complete and utter mockery of one of America's most poignant moments in history - The Emancipation Proclamation.

In fairness the acting was decent. Indeed, Walker makes for a very convincing Abraham Lincoln. However, characters with uninspiring dialogue and no depth are just not worth anyone's attention no matter how well they're portrayed.

Maybe this should have been adapted as a TV series that could rival the current crop of cheesy gorefest vampire dramas such as True Blood. A period piece pitted against the modern whiny lot. And perhaps if it didn't take itself too seriously it might have had a chance. Sadly it's just one of those films where it's so bad, it's just plain bad.

Film Review: The Cabin In The Woods

The Cabin in The Woods -You think you know the story.

I actually I don't. Well, I mean I didn't when went I went to Ultra Culture's advanced screening for The Cabin In The Woods a few weeks back.

It's hard to write a review for a film like this without massively spoiling it for any readers (yes, I know people read this blog...mainly Russians!).  So here's the basic jist:

Five college students - Dana (Kristen Connolly), Jules (Anna Hutchinson), Holden (Jesse Williams), Curt aka Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Shaggy..er, I mean Marty (Fran Kranz) - go of to a cabin (apparently it's in the woods!) for a nice retreat. All is well until they venture down the basement and start meddling with a hoard of artefacts that were conveniently arranged there. When Dana starts reading a diary of a girl that allegedly lived in the cabin decades ago, she inadvertently awakens the entire deceased family who set out to kill those damn meddling kids!

So the kids haul ass into the Mystery Machine and try to get the hell out of there. But the powers that be just won't make it that easy for the poor buggers. And it becomes evidently clear that, regarding the terror they face, there's more than meets the eye (cue Transformers intro).

Who needs Thor and his mighty hammer Mjolnir when you have Shaggy and his mighty coffee-flask/bong/bat?

I must say, I quite liked the casting of this film. Whenever I see a horror film there's usually someone I want to die - usually it's warranted by the fact that their screaming is too high-pitched or that they're utterly useless and therefore they would the world an ounce of good if they just ceased to exist. But this time round I wanted everyone (cue Gary Oldman in Leon) to escape!

It seems everyone is saying how The Cabin In The Woods is a game-changer and breaking all the conventions, or at least trying to. I honestly don't know who started this whole "horror-genre conventions" nonsense but it's really starting to piss me off. I want a list of the conventions, typed out in Arial 12pt with double line spacing, messaged to me so that I can study it and then perhaps take an ACCA/CIMA-esque exam on all the horror conventions so that I can become fully qualified to comment on it. Then I can tell all the nay-sayers to shut up.

The only thing that The Cabin In The Woods is trying to to be is different and I certainly found it entertaining (and so far one of the better films of the year). This game-changing nonsense (and comparisons to video games included) is getting wholly tiresome, as is the whole horror genre itself at the moment. Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon are just trying to give the genre a little adrenaline shot.

I do wish that the film had been released shortly after it was made in 2009. Horror films aren't as popular, nor as central to modern culture as their 90's counterparts were to their time. Scream broke the norms because horror films were the norm in the 90s. But in 2012 the horror genre is very mixed and not as repetitive. Sure, you have endless sequels now to Paranormal Activity and Saw but those two stand alone in their own right and are not even comparable. Had it been released in 2009 it would have probably gone head-to-head with Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell, and then would have probably earned more gravitas for being a "game-changer" so to speak. Maybe The Cabin In The Woods is to the horror genre as The Artist is to old Hollywood - a beautiful homage?

By all means I encourage you to see The Cabin In The Woods. Even if you loathe the horror genre I'm sure you'll find some aspects of the film highly entertaining. Plus, if you're reading my blog I doubt you have anything better to do.

Film Review: The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists

My plan to see The Hunger Games was scuppered two weeks back when a friend politely film-blocked me (i.e. she told me that she would prefer that I see the film with her, instead of without). Since I dare not refuse her request (she is not someone I would like to upset for fear of physical abuse that may come my way), I was left with really one option at that time - The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists.

The Aardman Animations adaption of the book series by Gideon Defoe is set around The Captain Pirate (voiced by Hugh Grant) and his motley crew of mismatched pirates. His ambition for many years has been to win the coveted Pirate of the Year Award - which is determined by the size of one's booty.  I'm refering to their treasure, not their tush. Sadly for the Pirate Captain, his pales in comparison to that of Peg-Leg Hastings (Lenny Henry), Cutlass Liz (Salma Hayek) and arch-rival Black Bellamy (Jeremy Piven).

Possibly the only time I've ever found Hugh Grant remotely attractive

His ego heavily bruised by their sucess causes his no.2, Pirate with a scarf (Martin Freeman), to motivate him to loot some ships so that he can claim what he desires so much. After a string of failures, the crew chance upon a science ship featuring Charles Darwin (David Tennant). Darwin notices that the ship's beloved parrot is indeed a Dodo, making it worthy discovery to present to the Royal Society, which would hopefully result in riches galore thus earning Pirate of the Year. Problem is the event takes place in London, home to Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) - who royally loathes pirates!

It's been 12 years since I last saw the first Aardman feature film, Chicken Run, in cinemas. To cater to the modern generation, and to probably makes things a bit easier for the animation studio, they have again used CGI (first use was in 2006's Flushed Away). Nonetheless, the stop-motion animation is what takes centre stage here. Recent children's films are now dominated with computer animation productions, save for Studio Ghibli productions and Disney's return to 2D with The Princess and the Frog in 2009. So it was really heart-warming for me to see that stop-motion animation can still hold its own in the market today.

The film is voiced by some of the most well know British actors. I must say I was a little thrown off to find Bellamy was voiced by Jeremy Piven - he's quite a world away from his usual Entourage. Hugh Grant isn't his usual plummy self in The Pirates! which I glad for but, in all honesty, none of the voice acting really stands out. If a sequel were to be made I'm sure they could easily replace the cast and no-one would really care or notice.

The Pirates! is definitely not a scratch on Aardman's greatest feat Wallace and Gromit: The Wrong Trousers but that's not to say that it's not enjoyable in it's own right. It totally plays to the current children film tatic of jokes for both the kids and adults. The grown-ups will dig the scientific references whilst the children will no doubt lap up the silly shenanigans of the crew. It may not be the sharpest cutlass in the galley but it's defintely got a lot of shine to it - and that's enough for me to admire it.

Film Review: 21 Jump Street

I've made it to late March and 21 Jump Street has to be first remake/adaptation of 2012 that I've watched. Shocking, isn't it? With the endless foreign film/comic/book adaptations that pollute Hollywood these days, you really have to count yourself lucky if you manage to catch something that's original and good, as opposed to re-makes - which tend to be regurgitated crap (and usually have nothing on the original). 21 Jump Street seems to have bypassed this rule.

The film centres around two cops, once polar opposites back in their school days but are now thick as thieves today. Problem is they have a hard time properly busting thieves along with all the other bad guys. As a result of their combined incompetence, they're sent to take part in the 21 Jump Street program - going undercover as school students to bust the supply system of a new drug that is blighting local schools.

A verbal gaffe in the principal's office results in them adopting the wrong undercover identities. Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill), the awkward outcast as a teen, is now supposed to be the cool kid. Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum), the former prom king, is now the unlikely science geek (much to his chemistry teacher's delight).

The reboot of the Police Academy franchise looks promising...

I don't imagine Hill being particularly popular at school (therefore embracing the cool kid life with arms wide open) nor do I imagine Tatum being anything but the school jock at his (hence his frustration at actually having to concentrate in class seems genuine) . It doesn't matter though because the chemistry between the two is what makes this film tick. I lamented in my review of This Means War that Chris Pine and Tom Hardy make and unlikely pair. In 21 Jump Street, Hill and Tatum are effortlessly the dynamic duo.

I do worry for Dave Franco however. Not only does he have older brother James to contend with for film roles, but it seems that already he's being typecast as the high school twat (played one in Fright Night). Maybe being a douche just comes easy to the Franco boys?

Toilet humour is abound in this film (one scene does indeed feature an actual toilet!). The film tag line itself is "The only thing getting blown tonight is their cover". Smooth. Yet the depraved humour that runs predominately throughout is the film is what makes it such a hit. I almost had tears coming out of my eyes when the undercover brothers take the drug in question, resulting in undeniably hilarious consequences.

I've not seen the original mostly because I'm currently on the right side of 30. So I can't compare. Even if I had though, I wouldn't. This is a film that represents the current generation living the social networking era, where trends last as long as Kim Kardashian's marriage. Whilst the trends of today might alieniate the majority of the population, this is a film that all of mankind can relate to - old and new.