Trailer: 'Looper'

Great concept, but not sure the execution seems spot-on. Has the potential to make some bold statements though........

Review: 'The Cabin in the Woods' (2012)

WARNING - I have a ridiculous blind-side when it comes to Joss Whedon, so this review might be a tad (but only a tad, mind!) biased. With that in mind.....

5/5

So you know the story - five young friends go to a cabin in the middle of nowhere for summer fun. Horror, madness and general violence promptly ensues. There's a scene immediately following said cabin arrival that features a mirror. Another scene sees a character drop a weapon in a.....erm....interesting way (really hard to avoid spoilers in with this thing!) Anyway, those scenes directly tell you everything this movie is trying to do. And it succeeds. On many levels.

The writing is classic Whedon. There's not quite so much of his usual wit and funny-talk, but that's probably a good thing since it's an acquired taste. But there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, particularly if you like horror movies. On that note, if you're a horror buff (I consider myself to be nearing that title) you will love it! It does for the standard Monster Horror what Scream (1996) did for Slashers.

The characters are deliberately stock. The jock, the slut (not my words!), the smart glasses-wearing guy, the joker/geek, and the innocent virgin heroine. Some time is spent at the beginning of the film to get to know these guys, but it's not really that necessary, since you've seen them all before. Like I said, that's deliberate. And enough twists are given to their personalities to make them fun players (to explain what I mean by that would give too much away).

The aforementioned heroine Dana (Kristen Connolly) would easily fit in any of Whedon's other works - she's one of those Strong Female Characters he loves so much. And I love her too - she's strong, powerful, funny, and capable of stabbing scary monsters repeatedly (a useful trait in any girl!)

Overall, the script is funny and tightly-written, the performances are right as they should be (perfect casting!), the horror is standard but deliberately so, and the twists and turns keep you hooked throughout. I often rate a film based on what time I look at my watch. That doesn't mean I get bored at that point, but I want to know how long there is to go. For example, Captain America had me checking an hour in, whereas Thor kept me hooked until nearly 2 hours. During The Cabin in the Woods, I didn't check the watch once. Yeah ok, I know it's not that long, but it must mean something!

It's a great film, no two ways about it. It's not just a horror/comedy. And it's not just a critique/love letter to the genre either. The film has something to say about the world as a whole, as all good films should. And fans of Whedon's other work (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse etc) will enjoy spotting various actors used before. It's not too spoilerific to say that a certain nerd who features heavily in Buffy season 7 pops up

Joss Whedon and director Drew Goddard worked together for years on Buffy, and it's clear they do so perfectly. So go see this film immediately!

What should good TV do?

I happened across a thought last night. I think good television should challenge what a 10-year-old knows. Either that, or is should have the power to shape what a 10-year-old believes. Anyone who knows me will be aware that Joss Whedon's work is pretty much my favourite thing ever (followed very closely by anything Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam do!).

I started watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer when I was about 9. I vividly remember my sister saying she was going to watch this thing with a really weird title. I figured it was some sort of geeky kids' cartoon. So I ignored it. But some time between episode one and two, my sister convinced me of its awesomeness. And after episode two, I was hooked.

I think because I watched it from such a young age, it shaped what I believe. I didn't see anything unusual about a young girl who killed vampires. But that was unusual in a male-dominated world. Looking back on Buffy now, I think it shaped the way I see a lot of things, mainly feminism and equality. It also defined what I consider to be heroism. That's going into battle despite a prophesy that tells you you're going to die. It's killing the man you love to save the world. It's doing whatever it takes to protect those around you. And it's sharing the power you have for the greater good.

I'll have started watching Angel when I was about 11 or 12. That taught me something very clear - no matter what you've done, however bad, there can always be redemption. And not any religious capital R redemption. Yes, Angel fights with the hope of a reward. But in the final episode, he makes a decision that guarantees no reward will be given (he literally signs on the dotted line!). And yet he fights on anyway. He keeps doing what's right.

I didn't watch Firefly until about 6 or 7 years ago, so most of my opinions were set. But it developed them. Back then, I'd have probably said I was an agnostic. Now I'm an atheist. Turns out that when a TV show puts a die-hard atheist on a spaceship with a religious preacher, both sides are brought out. Mal (our atheist captain) was also probably the most moral man on the ship. That taught me something.

In Serenity (2005), Mal talks with Book (our religious preacher) about faith. Book says "When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?" That taught me that you don't need to be religious in order to believe in something. You can - like Mal - believe in yourself and the people around you. Mal also says "I'm going to show you a world without sin." Which told me very clearly that challenging what you're told and what the masses believe is a good thing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that my three favourite TV shows have also shaped the way I think. So it's this humble blogger's opinion that good TV has the ability to challenge and shape what we think and believe.

Why X2 is better than X-Men: First Class

When X-Men: First Class came out, general conception seemed to be that it was the best X-Men movie ever (it gets 7.9 on IMDb vs. X2's 7.6). To which I say bollocks! And here's why.....

 vs

Let's take the protagonists. X2 has Wolverine, First Class has Erik Lehnsherr (Magneto). Both have compelling missions - Wolverine's is to find the truth about his past, and Erik's is to seek revenge on the man who murdered his mother. Wolverine's mission is carefully developed throughout the entire movie, going from investigation at Alkali Lake, to interrogation of Xavier back at the mansion, to full-circle return to Alkali.

This is interrupted by William Stryker's attack on the mansion. But the two key points here are that a) the interruption is caused by the man who holds the key to Wolverine's mission, and b) Wolverine is forced to take this trip away from his primary mission - "I'll be fine," he tells Rogue as they flee the mansion. "But we won't," comes the reply. Wolverine must leave his mission in order to save lives.

In First Class, Erik's mission is interrupted by Sebastian Shaw (ok, good - he holds the key to his primary mission). But in contrast, Erik doesn't have to further divert from his goal of revenge. We've already seen that he is more than capable of fighting his way to Shaw and coming within spitting distance of him. But presented with the possibility of creating a cool team of superheroes with a guy he's just met, he says yes. Why would he do this when he can just fight his way back to Shaw and have another crack at him? This is a man who has spent his entire life filled with anger and revenge, and he's suddenly willing to put that on hold to mentor a few spotty teenage mutants? Sorry, I don't buy it!

The other problem is that First Class does a rather poor job of juggling a few too many characters. Our focus is on Erik for the first act (and what a great first act it is!), with secondary thoughts on Charles and Raven. Then suddenly we're expected to care about a bunch of teenagers who we haven't seen before. That's where the problem lies - we put a lot of time and effort into following Erik's story, but then we're cheated when the film changes from a revenge thriller to a motivational teen movie. And why should we care about them? For example, why was Alex Summers in prison? Why should I care about him if you won't give me a reason?!

In contrast, X2 juggles a large number of characters near-perfectly. Nightcrawler demands a bit of our time, especially later on in the movie where his knowledge and skills become vital. But it's ok, because he is introduced in the opening act. The same goes for Rogue, Bobby and Pyro. But again, we see them early on, so their stories don't come out of the blue. And their backstories are explained enough for us to care.

The only issue I have with X2 (and all of the X-Men movies for that matter) is that Cyclops is criminally under-used. Once he's kidnapped, we don't see him again until the finale, where he does sod all. But perhaps that was wise, as trying to deal with too many main characters can be a disaster (as First Class demonstrates).

Don't get me wrong - I like First Class (it's miles better than The Last Stand, anyway!). I think the first act is excellent, but it's downhill from then on. But X2 beats it on every level. Especially in the final act. Characters ring true in X2 (Magneto betrays his new team members, tricking Xavier into attacking every human on the planet). Whereas First Class expects us to believe that Raven is going to abandon Charles (a man she has spent the best part of her life with) when he has just been shot and paralysed (and may be dying!) in favour of the guy who just caused said paralysis and is wearing the helmet of a Nazi-friendly murderer!

Nah, X2 will always be far superior to First Class.

Rant over.

Relaunching the blog

Since the last thing I posted on here was back in October, I've come to the conclusion that I should re-brand the blog. So from now on, I'm mainly going to be posting super-short film/TV reviews/musings. In the meantime, here's a picture of a cat.

Watch this space.....

Dexter - what's an extra 4 million....?

So there are rumours that Dexter (my favouritest show on air at the moment) is facing cancellation because of cuts:

Showtime is currently in a similar situation with its own hit series Dexter, since talks have broken down between the network and series star Michael C. Hall. The actor's contract is up after this current season, which premiered on Sunday night with a record 2.2 million viewers tuning in. That figure is up 24% from the Season 5 premiere. It is said that Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons. Negotiations are still ongoing, but it seems there is a big gap to overcome.
(via movieweb)

Read that again.

Showtime is offering Michael C. Hall $20 million for two more seasons of Dexter. The actor is asking for $24 million for two seasons.

Seriously? Four million?! What's four million to Michael C. Hall - the co-executive producer and star of Showtime's biggest show ever? Especially compared to 20 million?

Now, I'm all for people getting money for their work. It doesn't bother me that Tom Hanks has enough money to build seven Death Stars. Neither does it bother me that Michael C. Hall is (most likely) a wee bit richer than me.

But does it really matter whether he gets that four million? I'm in two minds really - part of me loves Dexter and wants to see it continue for as long as possible. But another part of me doesn't want to see the show fizzle out and get worse and worse until, finally, it's axed (Smallville anyone?).

On a side-note, Sunday's season 6 premiere seemed to present a real sense of finality about the show. As though serious shit is about to go down that will never be reversed. Dexter has to get caught eventually, right? I just hope we get to see it....

Ah, I don't know. Watch this space I suppose......

The Academy Awards "changes"

They're clamping down on the "cheating" involved in the Oscars. Take a look here.

A rundown of the new Academy restrictions:
- After Oscar nominations are announced on January 24 (until Feb. 21), no receptions may be held following screenings.
- During this period, Academy members (and nominees) may not attend non-screening events celebrating that year’s nominees.
- Filmmakers may only participate in two Q&A panels at screenings that Academy members have been invited to.
- Remember, no crap talking the other guys on Twitter or Facebook or other social media. Or else, suspension and then bye bye membership! Got it, Nicolas Chartier?
- Also, this will be the first year in which studios may send digital screeners to voting members for consideration.

But will it do any good? Will it make a difference?

There's always going to be a prestige issue with the Oscars, particularly Best Picture.

Why does a "Comedy" never win? Why does Animation get its own category - should every film not be measured on the same scale? Just two issues. There are many.

Looking at the Best Picture winners over the years:

The King's Speech (2010) - I thought Black Swan was vastly superior in terms of writing, acting, and scope. But The King's Speech was a film about a historical figure and was "important". So it won. It was always going to because of that alone.

The Hurt Locker (2009) - again, I thought District 9 was superior. But The Hurt Locker was "important" and based on fact. Whereas aliens have yet to invade (apparently).

Shakespeare in Love (1998) - I've never understood this one. How Saving Private Ryan didn't win is a mystery to me. But then.....Shakespeare in Love is about a historical figure.

Titanic (1997) - better than Good Will Hunting? Seriously?! Ah....but Titanic actually happened!

Yes, I know I'm generalising, but the point is that it's never a level playing field. Prestige is always there.

Maybe it's better that 10 films are nominated now (instead of five, since 2009). But does it mean the bottom of the barrel gets a little scraped?

Some Best Picture nominations from the last two years:

Inglourious Basterds - seriously?! Other than one very well-written scene early on, it's a bit of a train wreck, surely?

Avatar - yes, it's technologically wonderful. But what does it bring to the table? Not much.

Inception - I know a lot of people love it, but for me, the logic doesn't hold up half the time, it's not that visually interesting, the performances are sub-par, and it all seems like an inferior version of The Matrix.

Okay, rant over. You may now go back to your coffee/beer/whisky.