127 HOURS (2010) review, "Every second counts..."

Whilst previously admirable of Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire but ultimately failing to connect with it on the level that several audiences and critics alike did, 127 Hours comes as an honest and brutal surprise, chronicling the true story that most everyone knows in some capacity, of which is a thing that a person should never have to endure.

When I first heard of this film upon its initial release, I, probably like some others, dismissed it before seeing it in an appallingly closed-minded fashion. The story is fascinating to be told within a 5 minute window, but how could someone take it and stretch it into a feature length film? After dismissing it all that time ago, a friend recently urged me to watch it... and if I could eat my own hat, I would. There are so many things that this film got right, but in the end, the film hinged on the incredible performance from James Franco.

He genuinely is the glue that holds this film together, as without a naturalistic performance like his, a disconnect with the story on offer would be immense. You spend the whole film looking at his face, often within intimate distance, contemplating his thoughts as he does. The aspect of hallucination and imagination play quite heavily into the runtime, and they serve as some of my favourite parts of the film, giving that glimmer of hope for his character that the ideal can happen, but pulling all sense of comfort away from beneath your feet just as you come to realise that what is being seen could be farce.

Video logs from his character as occurred in the real life scenario really help to detail the struggles of the character directly to the audience, as if the story could be taught in retrospect, if only seen from the view of the camcorder which could have been a potentially interesting angle, albeit clichéd. However, whatever creative liberties are taken with the true tale, they are concurred with the actual subject of the story and the flow of it instead of just dramatic effect for the sake of it, a majority of the events are factual, but streamlined to fit into the brisk 90 minute run time.

A notable moment towards the end of the film relating to a certain amputation is exhilarating, the nerve endings being represented with static and the screen filling with red, helping you to comprehend the immense pain involved in doing such an act. It's a certain type of phantom pain that not many films can achieve myself as an audience member to react to. You imagine the pain to the point that you can almost feel it. It can only be described as exceptional film making in terms of conveying such a painful experience to an audience without being overly brutal or exaggerating it to an aforementioned dramatic effect.

127 Hours is certainly something special, giving a true to life account of one Aron Ralston whilst not straying too far from the picture when it comes to turning it into a largely entertaining story of why you should never be alone while being in the middle of a desert. Perhaps its worth to travel backwards in time to see Danny Boyle's past filmography...

201 DAYS OF THE X-FILES: chipping away at the behemoth...

Resuming after an unabashedly long period of silence...

I, myself for many years have wished to watch from the beginning to the end of the cultural phenomenon that is The X-Files, but to no avail...

So when a new mini-series was announced to continue where it left off a whole 13 years past its ending, with FOX launching a campaign to watch an episode every day until it's première, it couldn't be a better time to start, right?

The show's quality is unquestionably good overall, excelling to great at points, with some episodes becoming genuinely disturbing or unsettling. (Here's looking at you, The Host.) But, here I am in the midst of season 2, no longer being able to deny that episodes can potentially range from being bad to as aforementioned mind-bogglingly great. As for every episode like The Host or very early on in season 1, Squeeze, there's a Firewalker waiting for you, and while it never reaches the levels of unwatchable, they really do struggle to pull me in for their running time.

Quality aside, I complain about the show but I can't bare to pull myself away from it, a definitive first-world problem arises: 201 episodes is a lot to stomach. That is what previously put myself and other friends off of watching The X-Files. However, once you break into it and pass the first season, you're in flying colours and at least myself can't stop watching. An episode a day isn't enough, sometimes I can sit through 4 or 5 in one day. It's an insatiable demand with plenty of supply, only stopped by mortality... primarily sleep deprivation. Watching now is in all likeliness the best way to do it, as when it approaches January next year and it continues, the understanding of all of the show's past nuances and lore can only be rewarding. A time investment that pays off with even more of an investment of said time.

What more is there to say? If you love or even passively like television to some extent, which probably accounts for almost everyone, put the X-Files on your watch list, hell, start it right now. 201 episodes sounds like a lot and believe me it sure is, but believe me again, it sure is worth it.

WE GET THE WORLD WE DESERVE: season 2 of True Detective comes to a close...

For once, I adhere to the namesake of this blog... there will be spoilers!

With the 90-minute spectacle "Omega Station", the somewhat unsteady yet somehow riveting second season has ended. Did it redeem itself? The answer to that is merely a mix of yes and no.

Continuing on from the pilot that so many called disappointing, it received similar criticism for later episodes, but for me, the time investment really paid off when it hit the climax of episode 4: the extravagant shoot-out that only starts the slippery slope for our morally ambiguous heroes. However, up until that point, the episodes were still largely entertaining, but suffered from some surprisingly major detractors.

For example, the end of the second episode. Velcoro is seen to be shot twice in the stomach point blank by a shotgun upon finding Ben Caspere's illusive hard drive, for the week-wide cliffhanger to be clumsily resolved by the reveal of non-lethal riot shells, not buckshot. It did serve the purpose of the story and made sense within its context, but if that wasn't a horrific bait, I don't know what was. In terms of misplaced cliffhangers anyhow, it still doesn't reach The Desolation of Smaug's levels, not by a long shot.

The slow start is the main issue that most had with this fledgling second season and to a certain extent, I agree. When it starts to kick out its shockers, it never lets go. The aforementioned shoot-out in episode 4, the subsequent backlash and time jump in 5, the bizarre and nightmarish orgy sequence in 6, the death of Woodrugh in 7 and now here we are: the final nail in the coffin for a majority of our surviving leads.

One last attempt at cracking the case is made before our characters realise that the hydra is unstoppable, you cut one head off, another one grows in its place. They need to get out before they follow Woodrugh's fate as Velcoro is framed for his murder. Both Velcoro and Bezzerides are fugitives, on the run from the long arm of the law. However, what eventually culminates by the show's closing minutes is utterly heartbreaking. There is one last glimmer of hope as all of the loose ends are tied and they can all make their escape from the toxic noir that is Los Angeles, but emotion and human weakness shatters that illusion and it all comes tumbling down. 

Frank is ambushed by the side he least expected and is left for dead in the desert, stumbling through all of his visions of nay-sayers throughout his life, all of the people who said he could do no good, striding past them, leading up to his one reason to live - his wife. In a twist of fate, when Frank says to her that he has to keep moving, she struggles to retort: "you stopped moving way back there". Reminded of his wife only being a vision, Frank passed before he even got to her.

Velcoro is tracked down after letting down his guard to see his son one last time, throwing away his chance to escape. In his last chase and ditch attempt, he sends a voicemail to his son as a goodbye and to explain to him that it is nothing like it seemed. After an exchange in bullets, just when you think he may actually make it, reality kicks in and he is shot to pieces by his boss Lieutenant Burris, Woodrugh's killer and overall scum bag and his squad. His phone is last seen, with a message that reads: "Failed to Upload Recording to chadvelcoro@gmail.com", his son will never hear his heartbreaking last goodbye as his wife discovers that Chad really is his son, getting back the paternity test.

As after all, the second season of True Detective doesn't succumb to what the twists and turns of the case are, it's about the people behind it and your hope for their success. Cohle and Hart from the first season may have survived, but they never even scratched the surface of the conspiracy that they attempted to uncover. The higher-ups and those responsible will never be accounted for as they left it too long unsolved. The final message that this season poses wraps it up ever so perfectly as the current conspiracy becomes too much to handle and comes back and ruins our heroes chances of a new life, absorbing them. While Frank's wife and Ani get away with Velcoro's second child, they are left no more satisfied. Ani lays down all of the evidence they had, knowing that it will most likely never even make a dent on the unsolved conspiracy. 

Incredible performances from Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams, Taylor Kitsch and of course Vince Vaughn all hold this up past the sometimes questionable dialogue and slight holes in the plot to create an overall touching experience that is as good as the season that preceded it. The bad guys win, and we all do get the world that we deserve...

INSIDE OUT (2015) thoughts & review, "the best since UP!"...

It's time for a current release, current to the point that I haven't actually seen it yet! These words were kindly provided by one Adam James Young, currently running his own blog, right here.

I must admit, I wasn’t really expecting anything much from Disney/Pixar new movie. After all, the last films that Pixar had done weren’t exactly stellar: Monsters University was okay, but lacked humour of Monsters Inc. and before that Brave was a piss poor attempt to try and be “Brave” with the princess theme that Disney perfected a long while back and try and make it empowering to women and younger girls. However, that went horribly to say the least. Even when I saw the excellent reviews on Rotten Tomatoes at an amazingly high 98%, I felt something inside me saying that it was going to be another mediocre dud. Not bad, just plain average.

Boy was I shocked - not only was this good but it was certainly by far the best Pixar film since Up! No film since Up! has had a stronger message for kids than this. It’s excellent. The story is about Riley Anderson (Kaitlyn Dias), an 11 year old girl who has moved with her parents from Minnesota to San Francisco. Naturally moving from Minnesota to hippy central San Francisco both of which provide a mix of emotions to experience.

In comes Riley emotions: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling). The cast is for the most part. Amy Poehler voices her the exact same personality as she does in almost everything else she's been in. Optimistic, bubbly & just a little bit unrealistic. Really if you close your eyes and just listen to her talk, it sounds like clips from Parks & Recreation. But... I like Parks & Recreation so I'll allow it. The real standout though is Sadness voiced to perfection by Phyllis Smith. Her dry & slow performance make the most quotable lines in the film.

The story is interesting and always seems to be on the move. This is because of the need to swap perspectives in the film to flesh out both sides. Usually this is never helpful for a kids movie (Osmosis Jones anyone?) but because of it always being interesting to watch, whether it be in Riley's head or outside of it you'll probably not seem to mind.

The many messages of the film is by the far the best thing about this film. Every kid’s film should have some important message. The message in this kid’s film however, it even goes to rival many adult films. It’s damn well in philosophical terms.

The message is the importance of our mixture of emotions. It talks about the importance of suffering. To link in with religious philosophy, this film is saying the Veil of Soul Making. The idea that we suffer to make us better people. We need sadness as much as we need joy. Those events make us stronger. Another compelling idea that has been overlooked by other reviewers is the accepting that we let go of things. We lose friends in life. We have to face that facts that we just grow apart and move on. This may not be a nice concept but it is an honest one, the whole film had me genuinely questioning things about life. A rare feat for a supposed “child’s” movie...

Safe to say, Inside Out is one of the most mature films to come out of the Disney canon. No real and generic truly happy ending and no bad guy or villain. (Unless you consider loss of one's self a bad guy but who would?) All you need to make a great film is good characters, good story and concepts that get your head into motion.

Not forgetting Richard Kind's portrayal of Riley’s ex-imaginary friend Bing Bong, playing it to Jewish perfection...

THREE FLAVOURS CORNETTO: The World's End (2013), just one more...

THE WORLD'S END is what most people consider the weakest of the series - I'm here to disagree with that.

Why I believe this film is not the worst of the three but the best, reasons are aplenty. The complete role reversal between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost for one. In the past two entries, Pegg has been the upstanding citizen or at least the better of the two, with Frost being the self-deprecating and borderline dumbbell. This time, it's different. It's unusual seeing Pegg as the loony, and he fits into the archetype perfectly, the entirety of the film he is bursting with energy and is so pinned on his rose-tinted spectacle of the past it's heartbreaking. However, as they progress to titular pub, Frost reveals his true colours as a drunken beast of a man, albeit that isn't applicable to his initial character.

I feel also that this holds up more because it mixes the niche subject matter of Shaun of the Dead and the hilariously over-the-top, debris-filled action of Hot Fuzz to garner the best of both worlds. It learns from its predecessors and takes appropriately from them to become the most progressive film of the three. The same silky smooth camera work and direction trademarks have their place, only more refined. The cumulative experience of past work coming together at once.

As for audience reaction, upon its release, the reaction was certainly positive and a majority of critics seem to agree with me, but no one whom I know that has seen The World's End thinks it is anywhere near the best, but the worst. That I don't understand, with the only aspect of this film that I could nail down to that attribute perhaps being the plot, in its simplicity. However, that never dismayed audiences with either of the past films, as Shaun of the Dead in itself was no complex narrative.

If anything, the detail of The World's End should simply please any fan of the Wright/Pegg/Frost collaboration, an example being how each of the pubs that the cast has to crawl through to achieve The World's End not only foreshadow the plot, but the characters actions within said plot, The Old Familiar serving as quite a hearty and memorable punchline from a much more prominent, gladly, Martin Freeman. The supporting cast is arguably the strongest also, as usually a majority of the chemistry between Pegg and Frost's characters are solely with their characters, and The World's End opens that up to a whole crew, broadening the personalities on offer whilst also maintaining said tight chemistry, as if it were still between only the two.

The whole film ties up the loose trilogy very nicely, perhaps incredibly, as all of the past efforts and experience with one another culminate to create the most refined, being equally as entertaining as the past two if not more, as the loving care and homages are all still there, it just makes it so very difficult not to recommend for one who is looking for a comedy. As The World's End, Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead are all must-watches for anyone who is even remotely interested in film, regardless of their preferences. It is a guaranteed good time.

A montage/recap of the best of the trilogy, obvious major spoilers ahead...

THREE FLAVOURS CORNETTO: Hot Fuzz (2007), back for seconds...

The "extravaganza" continues...

HOT FUZZ is the second and what most people would argue is the best of this titular and loosely-related trilogy - and with good reason.

Blue is the colour of Hot Fuzz, as well as the colour of the trilogy's name check, and by all means far more action-oriented than the previous entry. That only benefits Hot Fuzz, as it allows for the spoofing and subsequent homage to not two but three separate and wholly clichéd genres: comedy foremost, but the buddy cop sub-genre housed within action. What is also housed within Hot Fuzz is a bigger budget and more star power, Timothy Dalton lending his hand to a rather villainous role that he was destined for.

I sung high praise for Simon Pegg and Nick Frost which needs not to be sung again, as honestly they've done just as well, if not better than prior. They follow their character's archetypes to a tee, Pegg being the attentive hard-worker with Frost countering with his slacker sensibilities. There is honestly nothing more to be said that hasn't been said already as regards to their performances, at least in the case of Hot Fuzz.

The reason I believe as to this film's wild success in comparison to Shaun of the Dead which was already a wildly successful film is that the punchy dialogue and more accessible action sequences lend themselves to a much more mainstream audience. The niches of Shaun and the latter sequel The World's End, from horror to science fiction have never been as popular as a straight forward action flick, which is all the more perplexing as Hot Fuzz certainly has some definite horror elements within it.

Besides the film's success other than it being deserved, this film is awe-inspiring in its creativity, watching, you can really point out the little nuances and details in almost every aspect of film making. It demonstrates how much fun they must have had during it's production and that transmits on the audience perfectly, judging by the matter of fact I have never spoken to anybody who has actually disliked this film.

Whilst I may have mentioned that the previous entry Shaun of the Dead was intended as a horror, Fuzz doesn't hold back in it's usage of blood and gore. Perhaps past Shaun, as it features a literal head explosion, the screen spattered with the colour red and other gleeful gore. The special effects are to be commended in that extreme case and in most others also.

Now, while this is not my favourite of the three Cornetto flavours, it certainly still is incredible, delivering wall to wall laughs and some pretty mind-boggling action interwoven to leave a long-lasting impact on you as a viewer. With that, there is only a lead onto the next and final film of the comedic combos - as Danny Butterman would say, they're simply off the fucking chain... another one for the Station's swear box.

THREE FLAVOURS CORNETTO: Shaun of the Dead (2004), the first of three...

Arbitrary personal deadlines aside, over the next three days, an "extravaganza" of posts celebrating Edgar Wright's Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy will arise from my own vocabulary utilising the English language...

SHAUN OF THE DEAD prides itself on being a mix of romantic comedy and the more visceral staple of horror: zombies, and so it should.

The film that launched the trio of Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost into the movie-making spotlight, it's sharp wit and wonderful homages to both genres on offer here is what keeps it relevant today, over a decade since it's release.

Pegg and Frost work and bounce dialogue off of each of so effortlessly with an endless stream of quirky jabs at each other and their surrounding environments that you could be forgiven for these characters being their actual respective persona. They serve as good company throughout the film's runtime, always welcoming what they have to say to the point where you'll be grinning hopelessly at the screen at everything, chuckling at the aforementioned punchy dialogue.

Leading onto the writing team of Wright and Pegg, the unconventional blending of comedy and horror not often seen up until that point in time is beyond refreshing. The often strict and fast pace that Shaun of the Dead handles creates this slap-happy and relentless combo that never lets up, with the surviving cast members holed up at the Winchester as quick as the outbreak starts. By no means bad, with the pace only reinforced by Wright's directorial trademarks lending to cinematography, several pans, snap zooms and dolly cams are peppered across this self-titled "rom-zom" film. 

As any self-respecting visceral zombie film, there is blood, and no shortage of it. The use of practical effects lends to the film's instinctive tone, but then with this, a man whom is attempting to gather focus in his life and revive his failing relationship. Liz first, zombies later, which comes as no surprise after learning that this film's inception came about due to Wright and Pegg, both finding that they had a mutual respect for zombies after an episode of Spaced handled a similar subject matter.

There is no words for how influential Shaun of the Dead was with it's release in the early 2000s, with the main proprietor of the zombie sub-genre George A. Romero asking Pegg and Frost to be apart of his then next film Land of the Dead... which ironically pales in comparison to this one. Whoops.

TERMINATOR: GENISYS (2015) review: "I've been waiting for you..."

Just pretend it's Friday.

If you haven't seen the trailer, consider yourself lucky...

TERMINATOR: GENISYS is the fifth film in the franchise that frankly should have ended after the second, but nevertheless here we are...

Horrific marketing campaigns aside, this film, I probably shouldn't defend it, but I honestly didn't find it anywhere near as bad or unenjoyable as other critics and audience members alike have been telling. It suffers from an unnecessarily convoluted and borderline silly plot, but only just barely saves itself with some bizarrely unexpected humour. There's a lot of it sprinkled throughout the film, and whilst humour has been no stranger to the Terminator franchise in the past, it's utilised far more in Genisys as an obvious tip of the hat for fan service, and it worked to an extent. That's as far as I can go - to an extent. 

As with everything that this does well, there's about a dozen other problems to counter-act it. For one, the lead characters with the exception of Schwarzenegger, lack charisma in almost every conceivable way. Acting is not the strong suit of this film, I'm not necessarily cutting Schwarzenegger slack for his acting ability, as he is safe to say, not the greatest. However, when he appeared on screen, all was well. Until he left and then it's back to the jarring and uninteresting plot that fiddles with the entirety of the Terminator timeline. Back to the same old and honestly incredibly repetitive premise of the two Connors and their quest to stop Judgement Day.

Yes. It's a Terminator film, but does it always have to revolve around these characters that have already been done to death? Why can't it refresh itself with a new slew of characters, perhaps a smaller division of the resistance and their struggles? There would at least be something to admire there, even if it flopped, you could say that they at least tried something new - but no, they bend and change everything that the previous films set so their plots can fit in between and it glaringly shows. This insignificant plot is squished in between all of the other Terminator timelines.

Flipping back onto the love-hate relationship with this film as the plot could be rambled over all day, with the action sequences falling flat and serving as bland for entire sequences, and some of it being unintentionally laugh out loud hilarious and mind-numbingly entertaining. The latter involving everyone's beloved Arnie, without a doubt. 

Special effects deserve a shout out also, with a majority of it looking top notch, all thanks going to the flashy budget that Genisys boasts, delivering some pretty believable set pieces and computer generated imagery, with the only thing stopping it being the uncanny valley that all humans stand upon. A sequence involving the T-800 circa 1984 is near perfect looking... until it moves. However, you could take individual frames and you could be mistaken.

"Smile..."

It is what it is, and after reading all of this you probably think that I hate Genisys, but the truth is, I don't. You could consider it the guiltiest of pleasures for Schwarzenegger alone, and that is it's saving grace, with the exception of very nice visual effects and dips and dabs of acceptable action thrown in here and there. I'm probably letting Terminator: Genisys slide off the hook too easily, probably far too easily, but after all, the Terminator franchise has seen much, much worse times. One word: Salvation.

MISGUIDED MOVIE TRAILERS: the marketing teams that show too much...

An insightful look into the wrong doings of movie trailers...

Most recently came the trailer of Terminator: Genisys, the newest and hopefully last (although probably not last) film in the Terminator franchise, notable for spoiling the film's most pivotal plot points, to the point where even the director Alan Taylor stepped in to say that the "marketing gave it all away".

The Terminator franchise is no stranger to spoilers in it's marketing: the previous entry, Salvation, also suffered a similar fate, detailing a twist pertaining towards the lead role.

These two examples and the many other examples out there stand as the reason as to why directors should be able to dictate what plot points should and should not be used for marketing. Guidelines as the video above suggests, per say.

When entire plots aren't being given away, there's the formulaic and repetitive structure that trailers seem to follow. Don LaFontaine during his lifetime cemented himself as the quintessential movie trailer voice-over, and you'll be hard pressed to find yourself a person who hasn't had the phrase "In a world..." burned into their brains. A film has had that phrase dedicated to its title. That pretty much explains it all.

Back on to the titular topic at hand, it is an issue that's occurred in trailers from their inception, with a very simple solution, yet it's never been addressed. For one - these films still do good business regardless of their marketing, not to use the recent Terminator films as a scapegoat but they both made and are currently making money hand over fist. That serves as an incentive for the marketing departments to continue as usual, as there are no negative effects to the process. There may be complaints, but the vast majority of viewers voting with their wallets are still opting to go see the movie anyway.

It's a fine balance that needs to be achieved, show enough for an audience to gain interest, but not too much so as to deter the audience, in theory. Then there's ridiculous practices such as one The Amazing Spider-Man 2 employed: watch the first 10 minutes of the film. It is the laziest and silliest marketing practice possible short of releasing the whole movie for free. So when you do go and see the film, you can just sit and let your mind go numb for the first 10 minutes whilst you wait for the boredom to pass and get on with the parts that you haven't seen. There's spoiling a scene, then there's spoiling an entire chapter.

After you've thought that I've lost focus, I pose a few points, some of which are in common with the video most nearest to the top. Restrict the length of trailers, don't give yourself the chance to give too much away. Provide a guideline that allows directors to choose which specific scenes or timecodes that cannot be altered and for the love of god, don't release the first 10 to 20 minutes of the film and call it an "extended preview" or even for that matter "good marketing".

Behold! How not to "market" your film!

SHUT UP AND PLAY THE HITS (2012) review: the very, very, very loud ending of LCD Soundsystem...

SHUT UP AND PLAY THE HITS is special, detailing the eventual build-up and great release of musician James Murphy's final show with his renowned band LCD Soundsystem, standing nothing short of touching.

Don't you want me to wake up?...

The first response from those whom have not heard of the film's subject matter is likely a groan and presumable skip. That would be a mistake. A big one, as even if you are not a fan of LCD Soundsystem, unlike myself, there's plenty to be found here. This spectacularly loud and up-beat event all on the record - and at the center of it, a surprisingly down-to-earth and easily likeable front man, attempting to cope with easing back into a normal lifestyle and waving one last goodbye to a project that's been with him for a decade. 

The interspersed narrative that starts at the end and goes back to explain itself is a touch of genius, creating that level of accessibility that allows new listeners to the band jump in and with the click of their fingers know what's going on. It's what allows the doc's often brisk pace to take shape and work fluently. 

That's only part of the beauty however, it is gorgeously shot, with some slow-motion shots thrown in there to accentuate the concert. When Dance Yrself Clean kicks in and you see Murphy sauntering on stage, you know you're in good hands. It makes it a great pleasure to look at and is worth watching alone to see some of the wonderful camera work on offer here, a trait of the documentarians behind Shut Up And Play The Hits, who have had prior experience in this sector before - and it shows. 

This serves as a fine introduction to the quirky dance-punk band that is LCD Soundsystem, hooking you on a band that no longer exists whilst simultaneously kicking yourself for not being able to witness their final hoorah at Madison Square Garden for your own eyes, as I did, similarly applying to those who were already fans, of which the effect is only heightened.

If the music struggles to please your ears, do not fret: the aforementioned focus of this doc is a brief glimpse into the end of an era for a musician, a vertical slice of what it is to get out while the goings good and perhaps regret it immediately, or maybe not. The confused and low-key nature of James Murphy's attitude is honestly charming, leading me to ask as to who could possibly hate this guy?

The end of the concert, which is coincidentally where the doc draws to a close is a tearjerker, pulling on your heart strings in every conceivable way as Murphy utters his last interminable pause as he loves New York whilst it also is bringing him down. Horrific and questionable puns aside, Shut Up And Play The Hits is a remarkable and superbly crafted doc that I would have no trouble in recommend to most, or at least those who are looking to shut up, sit down, and watch the hits.

You're still the one pool where I'd happily drown...

FROM INTERACTIVE TO PASSIVE: the all too often failure of video game movies...

A prime example of how NOT to do a video game adaptation...

Films based upon video games have seemed to have been a lost cause from the very beginning - why is that? What is it that makes it so difficult to faithfully adapt an entirely different medium and vice versa? The answer does not rest on the shoulders of Uwe Boll, that's for certain.

What is also for certain is that this article will not be added onto the pile of that is expressly written to disgrace Boll... I think every self-respecting person has had that point hammered home already.

...yeah. 

(If the title of the video doesn't give it away, watch out for some choice language in there.)

Moving swiftly on, my personal bugbear when it comes to video game adaptations is a simple one: the project is often handled by a director or crew that have either never heard of, change too much from what was expected of an adaptation or just don't care about what it is they're adapting. The adaptation of hard-boiled noir thriller Max Payne is at the forefront of this problem: whilst director John Moore expresses in several interviews about how he attempted to appeal to the fans of the game, very little of what made Max Payne what it was made it into the film. My mind swivelled through all kinds of mild insanity clauses wondering why the archetype Jim Bravura, a crooked and stubborn, most notably white detective was cast with rapper Ludacris sporting the role. Why is beyond me. It could be interpreted as attempting to mix up the formula so as to not alienate audiences or fans, but what it ends up doing is alienating both, as the dialogue is clearly written for that archetype, creating a jarring tone with the entire character.

But that was the least of Max Payne's worries...

In the basis of adaptation, books go through similar issues as video games do, albeit video games have the issue of transgressing an interactive medium to a passive medium. The same issue occurs vice versa, with video game tie-ins of films, which can come out good despite often being rushed to match the film's release.

This leads to the question teased ever so cunningly at the beginning - but how can a video game be faithfully adapted into a film? (Same applies for any other medium.) 

Respect for the source material! This goes the longest of ways for an adaptation, those who are behind it have to have respect for what they're adapting and savvy enough to know when to make compromise in order to fit it into the medium of film. What is key also is to not change what the original material provides in terms of its story or not to retcon any plot elements from said original material, but taking the material and taking it for a spin, create a new story within that universe instead of taking liberties with the material and doing a story that the original material has already done. After all, the point of adapting into a new medium is to tread new ground - not retread old ground that has frankly probably been done better before.

Sometimes however, there are just some things that should not be touched, as taking a game with barely any substance in terms of story and giving it a feature-length story is most likely going to go horrifically wrong. Here's looking at you, Street Fighter or the Super Mario Bros. movies. Those should have been left to their own wits, if you ask me.

If you're morbidly curious however, you can find the Super Mario Bros. movie in its entirety on YouTube. "Why the hell would you want to watch it, especially after what you just said?" I hear you ask, and I reply: Why the hell not? Instead of paying precious money to see it, you'll only be paying with your time, which is arguably not that precious if you watch this film with the intention of finding something more than just laughably passable.

Don't say I didn't warn you...

TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME (1992) review & retrospective, "The last seven days of Laura Palmer..."

...better late than never?

TWIN PEAKS: FIRE WALK WITH ME was the return to the titular town, where no one is innocent - the same goes for the critics and fans like who watched the film upon its release. No one liked it. Released in 1992, a year after the show had run its course and David Lynch at the helm once more...

What happened, and why is it celebrating critical reappraisal 20 years past its release?

The curious case with this film and the point that everyone has with Fire Walk With Me is a simple one: it has little to do with Twin Peaks, at least in style or tone. Instead it plays like standard Lynch fare - more akin to his features, with some quaint and odd echoes to his past films such as Blue Velvet, handling similar themes. It's non-linear structure and seemingly incoherent narrative lost fans, including myself on a first viewing, baffled by the images that had passed my retina. It takes a deeper look to fully appreciate what Fire Walk With Me is, which is not Twin Peaks, the goofy, loveable and ever so slightly uncomfortable look into a small town, but Twin Peaks, the horrifically dark and sinister place with the façade of an idyllic small town. The literal fourth wall breaking moment at the very beginning with the smashing of a TV screen should be enough evidence to suggest that this is to subvert expectations and play with it's own space, the big screen, not the small.

It touches upon all of the elements that would have been in Twin Peaks if it weren't on TV or more appropriately, a network looking to play it by the books, not taking any risks. Drug abuse, violence and psychological torment play key roles in this film, at the centre of it - a girl who is about to give into said torment and end her own life. It goes back to fill in the blanks, Lynch himself coining the story as not the obvious death (or at least it should be obvious) of the lead, but when. When is Laura going to die? It's this uncertainty which is what Fire Walk With Me hinges upon, it constantly unnerves you. It's that feeling that many horror films attempt to replicate - that sense of dread, you know something is going to happen, but when? When it does happen, it feels like a great release, like a burden has been lifted from your shoulders because you know that Laura is free from her torment, from the killer BOB, from her revolting nightmare.

As ultimately, when I think of this film, I have a horrible feeling inside: a feeling I have for no other film, this film disgusts me... but that's what I love about it. That's what keeps me coming back. It's taken several years for people to realise this - Fire Walk With Me exists as its own entity, detached from the TV show to show Twin Peaks from a different perspective: the disgusted and haunted perspective of Laura Palmer and how she sees it before her untimely demise. I feel as Laura does and I'm not alone in this feeling.

Looking forward now, onto the already covered subject of a revival, most fans will be clamouring for that same old goofy Twin Peaks, that is what shouldn't be expected of the return and I believe it's third season will be much more akin to this misunderstood prequel, a much, much darker approach. Either way, be it like the show or the film, or even perhaps a mix of both, I look back to Fire Walk With Me and can't help but love it, and look forward to the small screen eagerly for the return of the cult classic - but maybe in a darker light.

Under the sycamore tree...

I'm not alone in seeing past Fire Walk With Me's undeserved hatred: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11153925/Fire-Walk-With-Me-the-film-that-almost-killed-Twin-Peaks.html

TWIN PEAKS revival in 2016... scratch that... 2017: what made it so special to begin with?

I'll see you again in 25 years...

Twin Peaks was and still is a pretty perfect example of a cult phenomenon - still maintaining a large enough following over 25 years later, rife for a comeback, which is indeed happening after a brief scare involving David Lynch's departure and subsequent boycott. Crisis averted.

Enough baseless appraisal. What is it that made Twin Peaks so memorable? How is it that such a short-lived stint on America's then third place broadcast network could attract such a following?

One simple thing: character, for me at least. Everything within Twin Peaks reeks of character, even it's idyllic setting, but from the moment you're introduced to the FBI's Dale Cooper, you are succumbed to intrigue as he blabbers away diligently to his tape recorder also known as Diane. This quirk alone builds the charm that is ultimately Cooper, a charisma so great it becomes nigh impossible not to like him. This follows onto each of passing characters and their locale, crafting a sense of nostalgia, this coming from a viewer whom only stumbled upon this show in recent years.

It is simply Lynch's masterpiece, as together with partner Mark Frost, the two created a balance, notably restraining Lynch's abstract nature in his films, allowing the show to have a goofy quality that adds to its unique nature. On the note of restrictions, the restrictions of the show being on ABC and of course the show's downfall due to the network's incompetence more than anything is what hampered it's progress, in addition to the waning interests of both of the show's creators during the second season and horrific anti-climax during said season. This lead to that 25 year unsolved cliffhanger (that I thankfully wasn't even in existence to wait for), which will finally be resolved with the show's return, with the passage of time hopefully being manipulated to the show's benefit, seeing these bizarre and often juvenile characters pushing the envelope of grand or great grandparents.

Leading onto the cultural impact Twin Peaks brought, it's had countless references and parodies as well as influenced all forms of media, ranging from it's habitat of television, film and video games, with video games taking up a large percentage of the influence with such lovely titles as Alan Wake, Deadly Premonition or a ham-fisted reference in Gone Home that take liberties from the series whilst being their own unique property. It's not only what Twin Peaks brought to it's audiences from it's own face-level existence, but the aforementioned director behind it: David Lynch, but not his own individual talent, but the prospect of a big screen director coming to the small screen. Whilst now you have directors such as Martin Scorsese behind shows such as Boardwalk Empire and going so far as to praise television as the next great medium, it was a different story with this show's conception in 1990. Television was largely avoided by film makers up until that point, opting to stick with the one-time feature-length experience, missing out on the benefit of a lengthy continuous story that can grow over time, instead of being condensed into one sitting.

There is oh so much more that can be said about Twin Peaks, with it's return to be welcomed by the collectively open arms of it's fan base, with a final note to the fan base being: don't be surprised if the new series is more in the vein of Fire Walk With Me, which I myself would not be all too saddened by. Only more excited.

"Diane, 11:30 A.M. February, 24th. Entering the town of Twin Peaks..."

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002) review, "People are just crazy in this world..."

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE is a 2002 film starring Adam Sandler, Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman, written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. This follows the bizarre Barry Egan, a novelty toilet-plunger salesman who finds himself caught in love with his sister’s co-worker and that's only the surface.

----------

A heartily different and trend defying film, Punch-Drunk Love is often considered the best of Paul Thomas Anderson’s films. There’s only one problem with it, at least initially…

Adam Sandler stars as Barry Egan, as aforementioned. His performance can only be considered a remarkable flair, a once in Sandler’s lifetime performance as it will sadly never be seen again. He plays his role as a frustrated dead-end worker perfectly for what is intended in the film and it is astonishing. It shows purely that Adam Sandler can act, but chooses not to. The late Roger Ebert put it quite simply at the film’s release: “He can’t go on making those moronic comedies forever, can he?” The answer to that supposedly rhetorical question being yes.

Emily Watson and the also late Philip Seymour Hoffman co-star, as Barry’s love interest and antagonist respectively. Both in contrasting roles and therefore both exceptional for contrasting reasons. Watson is charming, unassuming and bizarrely understanding of Barry, proving the age old saying that opposites attract. She is understated in her role, and ultimately brings to her character that less is more. Hoffman however, is over the top in every conceivable manner in the best way possible. Sleazy, just as the business he runs and at one point in a shouting and very explicit verbal battle with Barry, seeing him on screen brings an uncomfortable feeling also.

Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, it is a delightfully quirky script with absurd dialogue passed around as if it is common place and uncharacteristic set pieces involving a crash and broken windows aplenty. It feels almost fairy tale, or if it set in its own fictional world where faces and broken language do the talking instead of the conventional niceties that we are accustomed to in the real world. It is difficult to explain, but easy to understand. An unnerving tone throughout the script and direction keeps you oddly on the edge of your seat and sometimes cringing away from the screen, traits not typically seen in a romantic comedy. It’s a P.T.A. film through and through. Adding onto the direction and that ever so distinct unnerving tone, characters move and act in a very specific way, as if his vision has come to fruition just as he wanted, the mark of a great director, you look at one frame of this film and you can tell what it is.

Score is by Jon Brion, once a regular with Anderson and later providing incredible scores on forthcoming films such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Synecdoche, New York. This may just be his best work, as when you think of this film in addition to the frame, you think of the score. Repetitive and at a constant unease with high-pitched world beat instruments, it creates a sound that is astoundingly unique and completes the silly world that is Punch-Drunk Love.

Overall, Punch-Drunk Love on the surface doesn't sound like a romantic comedy, or a good one at that. It isn't. It’s more than that, the showcase of a usually limited actor, a twist on a tired and balding genre, a wonderfully personal stamp on cinema. Punch-Drunk Love is that.

"You can go places in the world with pudding... that's funny."

TRUE DETECTIVE returns in it's second season blues: a plea against early judgement...

I can't say I'm alone in saying that the first True Detective was an unexpected delight, taking actors not known for their dramatic gravitas and putting them in just that - a fascinating character study between Rust Cohle and Martin Hart, Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson, the latter set of names eventually forgotten as you, or I at least, came to love their fictional counter parts in all their fatal flaws.

Past the acclaim of the first, in comes the second. Troubled from the beginning, the fledgling second season had big shoes to fill after the news of it becoming an anthology. A clean slate for another story to be told - daring to say the least. The hype was and still is insurmountable for the second after the first, which seems to be deeply disappointing fans and critics alike. With only the first episode aired as of this writing, the picture hasn't been fully painted yet; this is the pilot, our introduction into the world that is far too early to be properly judged, a point that some publications don't seem to understand.

You look through any articles relating to the return of True Detective and you will only find the words "bad" and "disappointing" scattered through each piece, and this to a certain degree is true, but as aforementioned, it is far too early to tell.

From my perspective, this second coming is promising. It struggles to find footing, each of the characters flailing for a plot point to grasp onto which was finally answered by the four star-studded and solidly acted vignettes intertwining by the episode's end. The mutual connection to one Ben Casper. The atmosphere and look is as thick and enriched as ever, from the second the entrancing riff of Leonard Cohen's "Nevermind" kicks in, you know you're in for a ride, regardless of it's prioritisation of style over substance. This is Nic Pizzolatto's show through and through, it's made clear that this is exactly what he wanted, even from this first vertical slice, and that is admirable to say the least.

Retreating back past my potential hypocrisy to my previous ham-fisted moral: reserve your full judgement until the story is told, yes, do have your opinions and thoughts on each of the episodes as they come, but don't treat them as if it is representative for the entire season until the entire season is here. TV critics prove to be frustrating, putting their foot down before the picture is present - colouring the minds of viewers before the viewers themselves get a chance to form their own opinion on the basis of a three episode head start.

The blame is not on the critics to be perfectly honest, as while aggregate review scores on sites such as Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes have their place, they are taken far too seriously by some.

After all, it's not about what others think including myself. It's about what you think. However, consider this: give the second a chance, and for the love of god, don't compare it to the first, as it's not trying to be what it was before, but what it is now.

"I was not caught, I crossed the line..."

Check back for more thoughts about the second True Detective past it's finale on August 9. Then a conclusive tale can be told...

ONLY GOD FORGIVES (2013) review, "Wanna fight?..."

ONLY GOD FORGIVES is a 2013 film starring Ryan Gosling, Kristin Scott Thomas and Vithaya Pansringarm, written and directed by Nicholas Winding Refn. The film follows Julian (Ryan Gosling), a drug trafficker in Bangkok whose thriving criminal life is interrupted after he is urged into revenge by his mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) after his brother's murder.

----------

The definition of style over substance, Only God Forgives is not for the squeamish - however those who can stomach it may be driven away by its potentially frustrating slow pace and reliance on surreal, often incoherent imagery.

Ryan Gosling, as aforementioned is the rather silent protagonist Julian, pressured and ultimately used by his mother as a means to revenge. Regarding a performance, there is honestly little to say: he utters few words and when words are spoken they are simplistic, leading to the bizarrely short and unintentionally chuckle-worthy quote embellished within the trailer and in the title of this very review. 

Instead, a majority of his performance is through body language, gestures and his facial expressions and to an extent, it works. It in an odd oxymoron develops his character as underdeveloped, with Julian often trapped in his thought seen in several seemingly nonsensical visions throughout the film that adhere only to dream logic - understandable considering who this film is dedicated to. 

In addition to Gosling is the supporting cast, with first-time actor Vithaya Pansringarm as Chang deserving an honourable mention as Refn intended this film to be a star vehicle for said actor - which of course has never came to fruition due to the scathingly divisive opinions leaning mostly on the negative. It's a shame really, as his minimal character development detracts from his performance which is honestly great. Whenever he is displayed on screen, an unquestionable and wonderfully menacing feeling begins to arise from his unpredictability, even seemingly disappearing into thin air at one point. It is that unpredictability that is the double-edged sword as his character, not to far from Julian in communication skills lacks character, with an example being his family introduced not to demonstrate a lighter side of his character but as bait to be killed off to siphon a cause for revenge other than his quest for counter-revenge against his initial hit placed by Crystal - Julian's mother.

A recurring issue with Only God Forgives is a lack of a character for an audience or viewer to latch onto as none are distinctly likeable, for reasons not left up to the actors in their performance. The character of Crystal is pivotal in this issue, foul-mouthed and all around sleazy, it makes it difficult to like her character and even places her in the same realm as the antagonist, putting the revenge into full swing and indirectly bringing the end to dozens of people's lives in an often brutal manner similar to Chang, however directly he horrifically mutilated others. Kristin Scott Thomas does her best with the material that she's given - with what she's given being reviled even after her fate is sealed.

You get the feeling that this is exactly what Nicholas Winding Refn wanted to make when he made this, with some superb direction peppered throughout the film, not far from his last sleeper hit: Drive. It contains the common marks of his films, simply gorgeous cinematography with each shot literally oozing neon colours in what is to be described as some of the most beautiful shots ever committed to film (including bewildering hand imagery relating to Gosling's character), hyper-violence to the nth degree and snail-like pacing. 

The latter two points in particular generated controversy aplenty for this film with the rather bemused audience at the Cannes Film Festival as an example booing the film in a rather childish manner. It takes a similar structure to Drive, the only point of comparison worth discussing as the two films are entirely different in content, and that is the slow-moving and sometimes surreal scenes are punctuated by excessive outbursts of violence before rinsing and repeating. Of course, it is much more complex than that, but that is as if the two films are broken down into their skeletal components.

Inherently, Only God Forgives is not a poorly acted or directed film, I personally believe it is the script and the story attached to that script is what brings it down. It lacks cohesion and suffers from an aforementioned lack of likeable characters, as memorable as they are, you are either indifferent or hate the characters presented to you. The dialogue, when there is any, is oddly clunky, but depending on how you see it that can add to or detract from the film like how David Lynch uses it to a great effect in his many of his films.

Final props go to the cinematographer and composer for this film, Larry Smith and Cliff Martinez respectively. They really do enhance the dream-like and surreal atmosphere created in the film and it is one of the most aesthetically pleasing films I have seen in a while, the track that plays from the ending onto the credits as a quality that will stick in my thoughts for days...

...and that is what Only God Forgives is. Love it or hate it, it will stick with you. The imagery, the sound, the gory and shamelessly excessive violence, it all comes together to create an ultimately memorable film that will sadly be remembered for what it did worst, instead of what it did best. Don't believe everything you read about this film, it is certainly flawed, but it is nowhere near as bad as most give it - an open mind is required.

"Time to meet the devil..."

SLOW WEST (2015) review, "He had his heart in the wrong place..."

SLOW WEST is a 2015 film starring Kodi Smit-McPhee, Michael Fassbender and Ben Mendelsohn, written and directed by first-timer John MacLean. The film follows the bare bones Western; a boy is on a journey west to find his love, accompanied by Silas, his mysterious "chaperone".

----------

It's hard to believe - amidst the summer blockbuster season comes a small and lovingly crafted film set within one of the most depreciated genres of cinema.

Slow West is just as the title suggests, it burns slowly and unapologetically so, taking its time to grasp onto its narrative just as the lead attempts to grasp onto his bounty-ridden love. However, when it does grasp, it goes with flying colours, delivering visceral and oddly surreal action sequences that clash playfully with the clean and heavily saturated landscapes and cinematography.

The cast populating those sequences are all commendable in their efforts, McPhee as the feeble but strong willed Jay, Fassbender as the jaded crook with a heart of gold Silas and Mendelsohn as the fur-coat wearing and sinister villain Payne. Fassbender especially steals the show, his character presented perfectly, chuckling on a cigar even in the most dire of consequences. Deferring to the lead's love interest, Caren Pistorius deserves an honourable mention as she dominates the screen during the film's finale, with her character left in a state that can only be described as bitter-sweet. 

Written and directed by aforementioned first-feature-length-timer John MacLean, it is certainly an impressive first effort. While it may be the definition of a simplistic story, never has it been taught so well and with such straight forward focus when it gets going. The film may suffer for some due to its meandering closer to the beginning, indulged in its own pretty visuals and minimalist style, this becomes a non-issue after the first plot-related bomb shell drops - leaving you wondering what made you feel even slightly bored in the first place. 

It brings the unquestionable moral that was the Wild West: brutal and often prone to life or death scenarios as everyone scrapes by, the scraping by being the bounties that are picked up by wanderers, each poster proclaiming "Wanted dead or alive", which is adequately put as "Wanted dead or dead". Dialogue between characters is often underplayed, the faces and the guns with those faces do the talking. The bonding process between Jay and Silas is a key example of this, the first moment in which they reluctantly work together leads to the deaths of multiple people, actions speaking louder than words. The last shots of the film hammer this home with each of the body count tallied up in a remorseless fashion, showing the count close and in grisly detail. While this may seem ham-fisted upon reading, it feels natural as you absorb what the film has to offer and succeeds in its job of making you think of the consequences of the actions made throughout.

The score by Jed Kurzel is a minimal aspect of this film, and to that it works to it's advantage, accentuating the slow build-up and outburst that takes place with plucky strings and violins soaked with dread respectively, taking an ambient back-seat instead of it being used entirely to demonstrate action - proving the age-old sign of intelligence as when to know when not to utilise the score in addition of when to utilise it. 

Cinematography as aforementioned demands to be discussed, as done by Robbie Ryan. This film is beyond gorgeous, the colours pop perfectly within the daytime scenes and evoke the quality of an old, classic Western, the cinematography alone makes this film worth a view and also shows a tip of the hat to all of the older influences that this film has.

Overall, Slow West is a wonder for fans of the genre and is also accessible to those who generally lack interest in Westerns, but if that is the case, it may not win you over, but it will certainly make your appreciation for films such as this deeper. It's only once in a while that you see a film like Slow West pop up without taking any of the well-deserved spotlight - and that's a damn shame. 

"There's more to life than surviving..."

BRAZIL (1985) review: "It's only a state of mind..."

BRAZIL is a 1985 film starring Jonathan Pryce, co-written and directed by Terry Gilliam. The film follows Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce) trying to find the literal woman in his dreams while working at his dead-end job at a bureaucracy in a less than ideal world.

----------

The bizarrely titled Brazil is the best that Gilliam has to offer, blending elements of dystopia and totalitarianism with goofy slapstick and dysfunctional characters to create the delightful and harrowing contradictory world that is unforgettable.

Jonathan Pryce stars as the aforementioned Sam Lowry, a lowly office worker who is content with his routine until he stumbles upon the woman of his dreams. This is the breakout role for Pryce and is perhaps the best of his career. Talk about getting it right first time, the character and charm given to the Everyman Sam Lowry by Pryce is unmatchable, a role you couldn't imagine seen in the hands of another actor after seeing how it is handled. At times, intelligent and with a sharp wit, other times barely comprehending how the world around him works and how to interact with it, often breaking into bouts of sarcasm to help make sense of it all.

A majority of the cast handle their performances with ease, with the most notable performances being with Robert De Niro, Ian Holm and Michael Palin. De Niro is quirky and as meticulous as he has always been within his performance with Ian Holm being largely similar with the addition of his nervous nature and constant stuttering creating some laughs. Palin as a character is downright disturbing in this film, introduced as the higher-up and more successful friend with an air of mystery, it only gets worse for Sam from then on out. When I say a majority handle their performances with ease, that exception is sadly Kim Greist as Jill, with her performance and character left with something to be desired. It still works for the film's overall plot and tone, but most of her delivery with lines fell flat, perhaps with one or two memorable lines throughout the entire runtime.

Co-written with Tom Stoppard and Charles McKeown whilst directed by Gilliam, Brazil is a well written and directed film. The writing is where the majority of the bizarre elements come into play, the aforementioned combination of slapstick and brooding totalitarian society creates a concoction of a story that is beyond memorable. The vast majority of the dialogue consists of witty interaction between one character and another, their interaction proving one of the film’s greatest strengths, how it bounces between the characters and creates a playful tone in an otherwise distraught world.

The motives of Kim Greist’s character and the factor of terrorism is handled in a flimsy manner however, Jill effectively has her life stripped from her by Lowry and yet she is still expected to fall in love with him by the film’s conclusion, making the writing feel slightly formulaic as it could just easily be attributed to the film’s whimsical nature with Lowry having consistent daydreams and she is more likely to love his character, which is similar to the acts of terrorism seen throughout the film also. On its initial conception, it adds to the bizarre effect, with these terror attacks happening on a regular basis to the point where they are no longer frightening to the upper-class and citizens working for the government not involved. A particular scene shows a high-class restaurant being attacked with bloody and mangled survivors clamouring for help, but they give it only slight notice and continue with their meal as if nothing substantial happened.

Direction is well done with one or two mishaps, Terry Gilliam definitely surpassed his own vision while creating Brazil, crafting an almost fully realised world with some pretty excessive detail, kudos to the production design and art team with some incredible sets and matte paintings, a nod to one particular scene including Robert De Niro and a zip line. Actors are guided through the Gilliam’s vision with ample precision, albeit Gilliam himself was reportedly unpleased with Kim Greist’s performance as Jill and as a result, cut more of her scenes out of the film than is what is already in the film, which is a fair bit still, not counting the infamous “Love Conquers All” studio cut.

The score by Michael Kamen is pivotal to the film’s overall success, from the iconic theme by Geoff Muldaur that serves as the leitmotif of the film, a string of notes that follows Sam Lowry as the passes through the story, particularly during an important moment related to Lowry. The theme that plays during the office segments of the film has had a life of its own also, being used in several different projects, mostly trailers however, including the trailer for Wall-E or Being John Malkovich. A final notable element of the score is the ending track which in itself is notable for its creativity and a majority of the score serving as altered versions of one another to serve the mood of the scene on-screen.

Overall, Brazil is an exceptional example of cult cinema in which everything comes together its own wonderfully dysfunctional way. It sticks to your brain and never let’s go due to its incredibly unique nature.

THEY LIVE (1988) review: "I'm here to chew bubblegum..."

THEY LIVE is a 1988 film starring Roddy Piper and Keith David, written and directed by John Carpenter. The film travels with Nada, a mononymous drifter who discovers that aliens have disguised themselves in society as the upper class attempting to manipulate the population into conformity and admiring the status quo, with Nada there to stop them.

----------

They Live is arguably not horror, leaning towards science fiction, but what it is – that’s a different story. A recurring theme within the horror category, satire is used to great effect within this John Carpenter classic, the dread being generated from the wonder of aliens controlling our society, disguised as humans. Silly yet extremely disturbing hilarity ensues.

The cast of They Live honestly isn't impeccable, casting a wrestler as your lead man John Nada doesn't call for a mind bending performance, what he does bring however is strangely an Everyman feel on the basis of his non-descript look but also bringing the physique to seriously do damage to the “aliens” that are out there. Now veteran actor Keith David makes a beloved appearance also as Nada’s sidekick, Frank. Watching him in this you just get the feeling that he’s hamming it up and to great effect, he stands perfectly besides Nada to challenge some of his motives but to follow him where ever he leads. Their meeting is one of the most exaggerated, lengthy yet incredible fight scenes of all time within film, they seriously have a fist fight that goes on for longer than 5 minutes. The rest of the cast honestly isn’t worth mentioning to a great extent, they do their jobs but don’t provide anything special.

Written by John Carpenter, the script delivers a generic structure but with the satirical twist on consumerism that is what makes it really memorable and also carrying his script with his own directorial flair, surely taking what was written in the script as one line describing the fight between Frank and Nada and extending that into this elaborately choreographed fight sequence that will forever stick in your mind as a defining moment of his later career. Without that tongue-in-cheek attitude to themes as simplistic as violence and consumerism, They Live might have sufficed as nothing more than forgettable. It’s that idea of being able to see into that otherworldly setting consisting of nothing more than “OBEY. CONSUME. THIS IS YOUR GOD,” that creates that unsettling tone that there is more to society than what we may think. The exaggerated fight scene albeit likely unintentional, could serve to parody the violence seen within American culture also being exaggerated within the time period and to this very day. The bite is what keeps it from fading into obscurity. Direction is competent as you’d expect from Carpenter who had already by this point crafted his name as one of the masters of horror with Halloween and The Thing as well as proving his muscle in other genres with films like Big Trouble in Little China and Escape from New York, the look that he crafted for the consumerist dystopia is chilling, the black and white style with the bold text on billboards and aliens aplenty. It is bold to say the least.

Score is always an interesting thing when it comes to Carpenter’s films as he does it himself, this time with frequent collaborator Alan Howarth. From the very beginning after that title screen fades into the film with that distinct bass line playing away, you know you’re in for a good time. It drills into the monotony that is drifting with our lead traversing train tracks, slums and abandoned areas. At key points within the film such as action sequences the score plays a big part, but it displays intelligence to know when not to utilise sound and music to further increase the impact of a scene, such as yet again that elongated fight scene to highlight the meeting between Frank and Nada. There is nothing but the soundscape of the city in the background, cars passing by and blasting their horns, the sounds of people commuting to really rub in the fact that they’re beating each other down in a grubby back street within the cityscape that is New York. It reinforces that with this scene they as characters are somewhat hitting the bottom of the barrel.

Overall, They Live is a mish-mash of genres, action, comedy, horror, sci-fi, it is how it combines all of these elements to satirise consumerism and American culture is what makes it that little bit more special. There are the one-liners that the lead spits to accentuate the comedy of a scene and to show his badassery such as the infamous “bubble gum” line, the next minute then mowing down what could actually be innocent people. Are they really aliens? It’s unsettling either way, knowing that Nada could be killing innocents or cleansing the world of aliens hidden in our society. It’s this conflicting emotion and themes is what rises They Live from trashy sci-fi horror comedy to classic satire of what was then present in culture and is still as relevant today. Relevance through time is a hallmark of a great film, but not to give it too much credit, it still has some of those trashy elements thrown in for good measure.