28 Weeks Later...And I Finally Update The Blog.

I still haven't seen Skyfall so i'm reviewing this five year old sequel instead.
28 Days Later is praised as having resurrected horror and zombie movies with its groundbreaking blend of a decent story and re-imagining of monsters. Without getting into that whole debate but summing it up with the phrase "running zombies omgwtflolsrsly?", Danny Boyle's independent little gem was doomed to receive a big-budget sequel.

If i need to explain when this film is set, please call your nurse and tell them to better restrict lobotomy patients from internet access. We now follow the tale of Don (Robert Carlyle) who abandons his wife and acquaintances in a cottage full of insane rage-infected zombies, in what is undoubtedly the strongest part of the film and one of the best openings to a horror film i've seen. Unfortunately it's all downhill from there. Having established an interesting and morally questionable protagonist, the film then proceeds to kill him off as quickly as possible, or rather "infect" him which is a whole other issue whining further down the page. Now I'm far from against killing off characters, especially in a horror film where it's pretty much compulsory, even a protagonist is fine, i certainly didn't expect Don to kick the bucket as early as he did. The problem with this twist is that there are no other interesting characters in this film...at all. What's worse is that the writer and director seem to notice this mid-production and never fully settle on a new protagonist.

At first it seems that Scarlet the female military doctor will take precedence with an interesting plot point involving "carriers" of the virus, in other words, people infected with Rage and contagious but not a slavering, mindless, cannibal themselves. Then we get a brief glimpse at some bored snipers and soldiers, the most important of which being Doyle (Jeremy Renner) who will presumably serve some purpose when the inevitable outbreak occurs in the peaceful quarantined section of England where Don and his refugee children are reunited. His son is next in the spotlight and arguably remains fairly central from then on, but apart from a fleeting tender moment with his sister, about missing his mother, he has less character development than the bloody zombies.

They also make a big deal of his heterochromia, probably as it's his only memorable characteristic.

So Don, Tammy (the sister) and Andy (our hero!) are reunited and after explaining that their mother was killed whilst sidestepping details of his own escape and abandoning her, Don takes a backseat to the irritating moronic children, who decide the best thing to do in this situation is ignore the extensive rules about the quarantine and go visit their old house. A brief spark of intrigue rekindles the film as the dopey son discovers his batshit crazy mother hiding in the attic. She introduces the "carrier" subplot as Scarlet examines her and a stereotypical military prick decides the best course of action is killing their only chance of a cure, despite the threat being strapped onto a desk in a locked room inside a military compound.

Meanwhile after Don's children expose his dickish ways to him, he strolls into the facility and makes out with his unhealthy looking wife. Now since the virus can be spread by blood or saliva Don becomes infected and has a brilliantly disturbing fit as he mutates from loving father and remorseful husband to blood belching psycho zombie and if memory serves that's the last high point of the film.

ZombieDon then kills his wife with eye-gouging in a pointless callback to 28 Days and rushes out of the complex, somehow overpowering and infecting multiple armed soldiers along the way. The eye-gouging thing really pissed me off actually, because in the original 28 Days Later it meant something. It was a horribly brutal way to kill someone and it almost convinces a main character witnessing it that the protagonist inflicting it is infected. This brings up some interesting moral questions, heightens the film's tension in its final act and gives the audience some satisfaction in seeing a rapist get his eyes squashed. In 28 Weeks, it's completely meaningless since it actually is a zombie doing it and they've been proven to be quite violent in the past, hence the whole fucking premise of both films. 

28 seconds later and everything's gone tits up, the zombies are running loose, Tammy, Andy and Scarlet are trying to escape "District 1" and the military is ordered to "shoot everything" on the ground because they can't tell who's a zombie and who isn't. The film seems to be trying to recreate the rational but morally questionable military officers of the first film but it doesn't really work since this is a large network of soldiers who should be prepared for such an event whereas the group in 28 Days were few, isolated and starting to lose their minds. And the filmmakers really want you to feel these guys are organised, there is endless military jargon being thrown around as these efficient American peacekeepers stand in formation and march down corridors and loads of other pointless shit that means my 28 seconds joke doesn't actually make sense since it takes a beard-formingly long time for anything to actually happen in this film.

They're called "establishing shots" not "burn into the recesses of your subconscious shots"

 Anyhow, all the military propaganda in the world can't disguise the fact that the "civilian containment area" was placed right next to where the outbreak happened, and the geniuses still utilised it to bursting point until  inevitably the place is overrun with infected. Skip forward and Doyle, Scarlet, the kids and some expendable survivors are attempting to get rescued from Flynn; Doyle's helicopter pilot friend, who is possibly the most unlikeable and badly written character in this entire thing. For some reason he refuses to rescue any of the civilians despite an impending zombie horde and even replies "fuck you pussy" to an uninfected man falling to his death after trying to escape the zombies on the bars below the helicopter.

So Flynn leaves them to die and the group eventually escape the zombies by hiding in a car whilst a random gas cloud floats past. The car doesn't start moving however until Doyle gets out and pushes it, whereupon he's incinerated by a blind military clean up crew. This untimely outbreak of the stupids spreads to the nearby helicopter pilots who despite having absolutely no evidence that zombies can drive cars start shooting at the group of clearly uninfected people driving away from the deadly gas. This is followed by some downright infuriating Blair Witch style footage as Scarlet uses the night vision on a gun to see the two kids scream repeatedly before falling down an escalator. Fucking Chilling.

Oh and even though there's American military everywhere, the audience doesn't need to be reminded every five seconds that the characters are in England. There are frequent, patronising shots of London landmarks and of course the protagonist (whoever the fuck that is) takes the scenic route from Regent's Park to Wembley Stadium then past the good ol' White Cliffs Of Dover and every by jove English thing in between.

It's also worth mentioning that throughout the film, Don keeps reappearing in some apparent hunt for his children, adding a new element of higher intelligence to the zombies, not previously seen. Of course this is never explained nor reaches any meaningful level so we just have Don as a zombie who can hunt specific targets and bludgeon people with the butt of guns for no reason.

I'd talk about the climax of this film but there frankly isn't one. Andy gets bitten but is fine because he's a carrier like his mum, Scarlet gets got by Don and Don gets shot by Tammy. Tammy and Andy meet dickhead Flynn and get carried to supposed safety before we're threatened with the risk of a third film when zombies somehow reach Paris. I think a major factor in this film's quality was both Danny Boyle being replaced by some unknown new director and the writer Alex Garland having a bunch of unnecessary colleagues to help fuck things up. There is so much unnecessary crap in this film and yet the few good ideas it has are completely overlooked and forgotten in favour of gimmicks, empty dialogue and RUNNING ZOMBIES! OMGWTFLMAOASLFFSGTFO...

Lawless - Cinema Review

Lawless makes me increasingly worried about film marketing, as the only reasons i went to see it in the first place were so i could stop seeing the bloody trailer for it everywhere i looked. That said, i don't think the trailer represents it particularly well. I didn't enter the film with low expectations, the promise of Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce's fantastic performances definitely sparked some intrigue. I wish i could say director John Hillcoat also drew me in, as the director of one of my favourite films The Road, but i only noticed his contribution in the closing credits.
Some film critic i am.

Thankfully i can say that Lawless is a very good film and if you like any of the actors involved or simply, a good historical crime-drama well told, then i can highly recommend it. I can't measure the setting's and costume's accuracy since i simply don't know history that well, but it works sufficiently to engage you in what feels like a real, developing world. You really notice when the characters leave the dusty, quiet town and enter the significantly larger and modernised inner cities, and similarly whenever characters from either setting enter the other, they blatantly stand out and the film uses this to full effect.

When the youngest Bondurant brother (played by Shia Labeouf...better than you might think) and his friend (Dane Dehaan) enter Chicago attempting to make sales and impress their superiors in the liquor bootlegging business, the aforementioned settings, costumes and cinematography drill in the idea that these guys are way out of their depth and cranks up the tension effectively. On the flipside when Floyd Banner (Gary Oldman) swaggers into Franklin County, where the brothers live, you feel like the devil himself has arrived, and whilst Oldman isn't in the film as much as the persistent trailer suggests, he is masterful in every second that he is.

While it's safe to say Gary Oldman keeps the fear factor tightly by his side, in terms of sheer animosity and seething hatred for a character, Guy Pearce plays the downright slimey Agent Rakes brutally well. A corrupt government officer who brings tyranny to the small town and systematically wades deeper and deeper into dealing with his own dirty work. His hypocritical, uptight, aristocratic mannerisms make him easily detestable but all the more unnerving when he lets free his sinister side, and as the film progresses, his arc, or rather his descent is particularly intense.

Tom Hardy on the other hand is becoming a joy to watch in almost any film, though i wonder if he's trying to create a signature of only playing characters with a humourous verbal tick. It's tempting to say he steals the show but amongst an array of great actors i can only conclude that he is a highlight. Portraying a dangerous and violent thug one minute and a weary but protective father-figure the next, he's a thoroughly engrossing character and will keep you entertained if Labeouf rubs you up the wrong way.

Speaking of whom, i have to say performs well here, and has a clear, meaningful arc throughout the story. Yes he is playing an oafish young guy, awkwardly chasing a girl but it all supports his growth as a character and by the end of the film you have a significantly changed man as he grapples with the harsh realities of his family trade...and if you still don't like the guy, there's a scene where he gets beaten half to death ok?

I would like to say Lawless is flawless but unfortunately it just isn't. It's a tried and tested formula, executed very well but it doesn't bring a great deal new to the table. I suppose being an adaptation from a book based on real events you aren't going to have many bold experimentations happening, but despite this, i feel there are an awful lot of films of a similar nature standing not too far behind. A pitfall it does avoid however is predictability and i can scarcely say more than that without spoiling some of the finer moments.

There are some somewhat dry spells in terms of atmosphere when i feel the film is doing the equivalent of flicking through pages to find a good bit. I was personally disappointed to see a montage towards the later parts of the film, even if i can't imagine a better way to display those events concisely. There is also a rather clichéd expositional voiceover from Labeouf's character at the end of the film which feels more than a little patronising and unnecessary, not to mention out of place when i'm fairly certain the film didn't begin with any narration.

These points don't spoil the film and certainly on a first viewing they can be entirely overlooked, i do wonder however if there isn't a great deal of this film's success riding on the star power (for want of a phrase with reduced cheese) and the fact it features two characters from The Dark Knight Rises and a younger audience favourite for those strange fans of the Transformers movies. Perhaps that's just cynicism talking, i'm not going to let cynicism talk today.

A brief disclaimer here. My film reviews thus far have been dubbed "Cinema" reviews because i understand the cinema experience can alter perceptions of a film and a good cinema film may be different to a good film in general or on dvd say. With that in mind, i apologise for any mistakes i make regarding plot points and character development. I have a pathetically bad memory and don't have the luxury of seeing a film multiple times, but i hope to give you a reasonable idea as to whether a film is worth seeing at a cinema, and i will of course review some films in general/on dvd (at some point).

The Amazing Spiderman - Cinema Review

So whilst Andrew Garfield and Rhys Ifans duked it out in the sewers and above the rooftops, there was a much longer battle waging from the moment the decision was made to reboot the Spiderman film franchise until this new (presumed) trilogy reaches its end. That battle is between the writers and the infamous Barrelman! who traps his foes in a grave-like pit they dug themselves, where their only hope of survival is to scrape through the bottom. Now for fear of this metaphor becoming as unbearable as Spiderman 3 i will say in clearer terms that The Amazing Spiderman is a good, enjoyable film. I have serious concerns however for future films in this series due to a famine of decent characters.

Thanks to Spiderman 3's clusterfuck of Venom, Sandman and Green Goblin, most of the best Spiderman villains have been used up, and whilst it's not impossible for this reboot to simply do them again, i feel without an amazing re imagining to rival The Joker in The Dark Knight, the films will still struggle to grab an audience or show us something new. The other option is digging deeper into the archives but that presents it's own problems in making characters like Mysterio (a green and purple, caped illusionist with a fishbowl on his head) The Vulture (an elderly man in a skin-tight green bird suit) or Tatterdemalion ("an insane, homeless person") intimidating and believable. Future problems aside, The Amazing Spiderman thankfully chose one of the few remaining decent villains; The Lizard...more on him later.

A new cast, crew and creative direction means a different and slightly more realistic style takes precedence as opposed to the strong comic influences of the previous trilogy, and personally i feel it works much better.

A comic book style is a difficult thing to successfully implement in a film without descending into swamps of cheesy dialogue and total loss of connection through unrealistic scenarios. Now why am i talking about realism in a superhero film? Because even though it's not the part everyone remembers, realism is crucial in any superhero story. Batman would not be as admirable if we couldn't relate to a life without our parents, whether you're an orphan or just had a terrifying few childhood minutes lost in the supermarket. We need this real world to be established so it feels satisfying when the hero breaks out of it into fantasy or science fiction.

The Amazing Spiderman keeps a handle on this set-up pretty well and gives enough time to the beginnings of Peter's life with his desires, fears, strengths and weaknesses whilst retaining enough engaging action for a superhero blockbuster. The pacing is one of the real highlights of the film and is enhanced by solid acting from most of the cast. The relationship between Gwen and Peter was awkward without being awkward to watch. Peter Parker is and has always been a geeky, socially inept clown and Andrew Garfield captures this character very well for someone cursed with his good looks. The difference here however is that Garfield is amusing to watch whereas Maguire was much more cringeworthy, i'm not sure whether that is solely down to the acting or whether these scenes are written with the humour primarily in mind, either way there's a lot less cheese and pointless expositional dialogue. Whilst these scenes are funny and overall the humourous side of Spiderman is portrayed brilliantly in this film, on reflection whether Garfield is capturing the true essence of Peter Parker is arguable. 

He must be an outcast, he's the only student in the school with a skateboard...

The plot itself, is different enough without completely disregarding the original origins. The scenes and relationships between Uncle Ben, Aunt May and Peter are heartwarming, moving, amusing and real. I may even go as far as to say that the death in this film affected me more than the 2002 version, it's certainly handled much more naturally and is consequently more brutal and tragic. I felt the brains behind Spiderman were also effectively explored. It wasn't just a case of, "can he punch this guy hard enough" it was more "what can he do to outsmart this guy" which is exactly what Spiderman should be. Outwitting enemies with speed and intelligence, which speaking of enemies was a slightly disappointing début for the character of Curt Connors. 

Rhys Ifans plays the tortured scientist excellently with his passion, friendliness, underlying temper and regrets all displayed subtly and believably. The Lizard unfortunately is something of an eyesore and not in the way he should be. I had heard going into the film that they weren't recreating the long snouted appearance seen in the comics and cartoons, which needn't have been an issue if Ifan's voice acting was up to the task. There are a few moments when the toady, watermelon face comes across as creepy in a Hannibal Lecter kind of way but for the rest and majority of the time it just looks weird and kind of stupid. This is emphasised to the point of comedy with strained but unthreatening dialogue from Ifans, which is a shame because the animal savagery of The Lizard is generally intact within the cgi of the action scenes.

"Poor Peter Parker Picked A Pickled Pepper!"

The action in the film overall, was never a concern of mine, as you'd expect there's destruction, acrobatics and fighting a plenty and whilst some of the scenes from this film played alongside the old trilogy might look very familiar, it didn't stop my enjoyment of it. The cinematography was agile, but precise, which faithfully replicates the movements of Spiderman himself and suits the film perfectly. I'm sure under closer scrutiny the film has it's fair share of flaws and perhaps it balances itself with too many cliches (I am very tired of films starting with childhood recollections), but for the time i was in the cinema i was engaged, laughing and tense (not simultaneously) so whilst this new Spiderman might not be amazing, it is certainly entertaining and that makes it worth a look at least once.