Doomsday

Neil Marshall, 2008.
Where to begin? On the surface this is an enjoyable action-adventure romp using a fair amount of British culture as plot-props. This in itself is something rare and I have great respect for any British action film of this production standard getting made in the first place.

Evidently, my problems with this film don't lie in its production values. They lie in the fact that Doomsday is a hotchpotch. It's full of great ideas but it’s unfortunate that they seem to be lifted from other films. Let's start with the most obvious: the films of John Carpenter. Neil Marshall looks as though he wishes he was John Carpenter. That's the message coming out loud and clear. It's as though he’s bought a franchise from the great man to continue making his movies.

John Carpenter’s films always have the same typeface on the titles. Neil Marshall has used that same typeface here. John Carpenter created groundbreaking and haunting electronic scores for his films. Neil Marshall has (partially) done the same in Doomsday. John Carpenter made Escape From New York, a futuristic film set in a dystopian über prison Manhattan where anti-hero and eye-patch wearer Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) must glide in, save the crash-landed President and blast his way out to save his own skin. Neil Marshall has totally ripped off this classic film. Harsh words, but this is no light homage. Scotland is the new Manhattan. Snake is now the female Major Eden Sinclair. She's a sexy, one-eyed elite military killer who pops her CCTV glass eye out to look around corners. She's been sent in to deepest Glasgow see if anyone has survived a killer virus thirty years on. This is when the colours on the palette start to mix (eventually making a grey/brown mess).

The next films up for blood donation are any recent zombie flicks (28 Days Later and the awful Land of the Dead spring to mind), Aliens (crack unit gets destroyed almost immediately - even the APCs are in Doomsday!), then we have the entire Mad Max collection in there (car chases, stupid future punk haircuts, decaying industrial set design). Moving further on it gets all medieval. This seemed like an original idea at first, having the whole future/past in a technology conflict with bows and arrows versus machine guns but after about ten seconds of thought I realised this must've been influenced by either Westworld, or Army of Darkness (what the hell, maybe even both!). I reckon there's also a tiny bit of Robocop in there too (recording corrupt officials talking cock using cyborgy eyes). Also, the transition from one ‘world’ to the next made it feel like a big budget version of The Crystal Maze.

Doomsday is pretty derivative and has the nerve to take itself too seriously. At least Rodriguez’s Planet Terror knew it was a piss take when it referenced John Carpenter, and it was actually quite funny.

The Orphanage

Dir. Juan Antonio Bayona 2007.
Spoiler warning: don't read any further if you haven't seen the film (and want to).
Overall, this is an enjoyable film and I recommend it. However, from a more detailed perspective there were a few things in disparity that stopped it being a classic for me. The movie calls itself a horror film. Horror unsettles, upsets, and emotionally maims you aggressively (or it should). This films' secret is that it really isn't a horror film. It's more like a chiller. A twist-in-the-tail story that actually ends in a touching, moving, emotional place. It's like a feature length episode of Tales of the Unexpected, shot like a commercial and in Spanish. Looking at it from that angle makes much more sense to me and actually allows me to enjoy the film an awful lot more.

My other point of disparity is not only part of this film, it's also a part of modern filmmaking in general. It's about how films look that are made by commercials directors. Sure, there are always anomalies but I feel that films made by commercials directors seem to have something missing from their soul. It's hard to get them to linger on a shot and the look of the films are often so slick as to be unrelatable to reality. It is possible to make an image too polished. I'd like to see more films that look a bit rough around the edges. For me it's less about it looking like a car advert and more about communicating something through storytelling. Characters and story are everything. The rest of it is less important.
Oh and another thing, they always seem to get their actors to watch old films in preparation. It may cut production costs, giving actors a shorthand (who knows?!) but I think it inhibits anything new. Don't you think that the best place to take inspiration is from inside yourself and not to watch Close Encounters, for example, when you want a certain mood? Don't you think that is just lazy? I read that Bayona did just that. Not a major crime, is it? But I think it could stop actors trusting themselves and their instincts when confronted with a director who wants a mood from film X and a performance similar to the one in film Y and the look and feel of film Z.

Going back to the film, it had some great moments, some surprising and some shocking and I felt genuine emotion. I was in tears at the end.

Friday 13th Remake (Blu Ray Import)

Yes, its remake time! Horror remake to be precise.. so with 12 sequels (if you include Freddy Vs Jason) would this movie raise the bar and actually be a good remake (re visioning - cough)?

I picked up this Blu Ray from the USA(two months before its European release). Only £15 so not bad and I took a gamble it was region free. A gamble that paid off..I put it into the player and it worked!! Hoorah, but alas this was going to be the most exciting part of this movie experience!!

The movies full title "Killer Cut"(which makes gives you a few more tit shots per crank)is directed by Marcus Nispel, the same chap who remade "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" Which again was another pointless remake, but not a bad film in its own right. However if you compare it to the likes of Zack Synder`s superb "Dawn of the Dead" then there is quiet simply no comparison!

I`ll get to the point, this movie is drivel. Teenagers walking/running around in the dark only to be groped then butchered(i think its in that order) . The story, as in the originals revolves around Jason Voorhees who accidentally drowns in the drink when he was not being properly supervised by the teenagers of Camp Crystal Lake. In revenge, his mother goes on a rampage killing all the kids, in revenge for the death of her son... fast forward more killings and the audience is tricked into thinking that Jason(back from the grave) is causing the mischief... 90 mins later the twist is revealed and it is in fact Mrs Voorhees that has been slicing and dicing..

Looking back, this is a decent horror flick and ends with Jason coming out of the water to claim the final victim after his mother demise. A classic? perhaps. . ! In this remake Mrs Voorhees gets her head chopped off in the opening scenes, so its Jason minus the mask all the way... until he finds it under a box!mmmmmm. What they have done here is squeezed in the "Jason" characters visual evolution that took place over the original parts 1-3. You did not see Jason with his famous hockey mask till Part 3!Once he puts it on, there is more mind numbing killing.

The series was known for it death scenes. On the blu ray you can access all the best deaths. Alas they are uninspired and dull. There are some fine pairs of tits in this film, but I am not 13 anymore so who gives a monkies??

In short its a remake - nothing more and a whole lot less. Too dark in places, although the Blu Ray is clear and crisp. Speaking of crisps where did I put those Pringles. Avoid

a generous 4/10

Valkyrie

From the outset this film didn't look too good to me. Potentially another vanity project for the Cruiser, (but then again, every film he makes is one, isn't it?) my initial reaction was a groan followed by a few expletives about Hollywood. Tom Cruise rarely gets involved in projects that could tarnish his business prospects (but then again, who would?). However, what's good for business can often be at odds with what a discerning cineaste craves for.

I will say that Valkyrie is certainly better than what I was expecting. It's nowhere near as bad as something like Pearl Harbor but it's also not as good as Paul Verhoeven's efforts (Soldier of Orange and Black Book) though I think Bryan Singer would like it to be. There are at least two actors from Black Book (Carice van Houten and Waldermar Kobus, the latter playing another Nazi, but this time a more sympathetic one. Van Houten fleetingly plays von Stauffenberg's wife).

Valkyrie reminded me a lot of Vehoeven's films, but without the trademark sex, flesh and sleaze. It's actually quite hard to see Bryan Singer in all this. I have always viewed him as the guy who made The Usual Suspects (such a great film). Maybe he just wanted to get the ball back over the net after Superman? If so, he's done a decent job in the apparent circumstances but he seems to have had his edge blunted since his fantastic debut film.

In context, this is disposable, multiplex, action adventure cinema, much like X-Men in that respect. I enjoyed it. It's perfect viewing for a Sunday evening or over Christmas. As events unfold it does become tense at times. There is a fair amount of talking and minimal violence in the middle, which could be a criticism but I felt that it made the final act less fantastical (that's a good thing). The accents used in the film are all over the shop. The Germans have British, American (Eddie Izzard…?!) and, funnily enough, German accents. Forgiven is the wrong word - this is a product, not a work of art. I let it slide.

It's easy to slag off Tom Cruise but he's done ok in this. This is no classic performance, it's nuts and bolts stuff, but Cruise seems to be better at playing characters who initially challenge your neighbourly friendliness. His best roles are people who you would rather see next Tuesday. Unsympathetic arrogant bastards - he's perfect for them. Magnolia, Top Gun, Cocktail, Tropic Thunder. Von Stauffenberg is fighting for the Germans in 1944 but he wants to top Hitler and follow through on a coup for leadership. Obviously a commendable act, you say. Sure, it is. Not good for Cruise, though. What would have been good for him is a character with questionable morals, wrestling with them. Having Cruise so cut and dried is just plain boring! He's at his best when he's fighting himself, as well as all in the world around him.

Links:
Valkyrie at IMDB
Valkyrie at Wikipedia
Valkyrie at Rotten Tomatoes
Valkyrie Trailer