"I'm asking for safe passage through the Anus..."
Time for another Marvel film, methinks. I'm determined to get through them all.
This is an MCU film, so you won’t be surprised to read that I enjoyed it hugely. It’s not the very best effort from the increasingly indomitable fiefdom of Kevin Fiege, but it may well be the most fun. The whole thing is pitched as a comedy, and good comedy at that. It’s a departure for Thor, yes, but it works. And there’s something about Thor and his world that lends itself to this sort of thing. I hope Taika Waititi does more.
It’s good to see the post-Avengers Hulk too, with another excellent performance from Mark Ruffalo. The Hulk, rightly in my opinion, hasn’t been considered sufficiently popular as to warrant his own film since 2008, but remains a strong supporting character. It’s good as well as inevitable to see Loki, too, although the relationship between the brothers is so predictable by now that fourth wall-breaking humour is the only possible approach.
It’s brave, but absolutely right, to not only do Ragnarok and do it properly (while evacuating the population), to do it with humour rather than be bleakly depressing, and to mix it up with post-Guardians of the Galaxy cosmic hi-jinks. And Marvel, for once, give us a first class baddie with Cate Blanchett’s Hela, appearing just after Odin dies and revealing that his and Asgard's past has all been a lie; Odin was not always a wise and benevolent ruler. A less serious but highly entertaining baddie, though, is Jeff Goldblum playing superbly against his maverick scientist typecasting as Grandmaster. We even get an Doctor Strange cameo.
I realise not all Marvel films can be like this. But... can we have some more please?
Welcome to my blog! I do reviews of Doctor Who from 1963 to present, plus spin-offs. As well as this I do non-Doctor Who related reviews of The Prisoner, The Walking Dead, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Dollhouse, Blake's 7, The Crown, Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, Sherlock, Firefly, Batman and rather a lot more. There also be reviews of more than 600 films and counting...
Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Monday, 30 July 2018
Don’t Breathe (2016)
“You have to be made accountable...”
I know I’m on a mission to watch all the Marvel and DC related movies, plus all the big horror franchises, as well as all the classic movies I haven’t blogged yet, which is a rather large number of films. But I still need to intersperse that with modern-ish films that ain’t part of no franchise. Such as this one. It’s a thriller that’s been compared with Hitchcock (yes, I need to watch more of his stuff), is full of suspense and is helmed by the director of the new Evil Dead. Which I haven’t seen. So many films I haven’t seen but should have done, and this is the 489th film in this blog. It feels like being Sisyphus, except it’s a lot more fun. So, er, not like Sisyphus at all then. Anyway...
Let's briefly acknowledge that the film is bloody good and establish that I'll return to that theme very shortly, shall we? Because this film, like Saw and so many others, is a thriller, and an excellent one at that, but marketed as a horror film when it blatantly isn't. I wish they wouldn't do that.
With that little whinge out of the way, though, this is a proper tense little thriller about three burglars- two of whom are humanised and given reasons (if not excuses) for what they do and one (he dies first, of course) who is just a twat. There’s a real sense of place in this film, set in the extraordinary city of Detroit, the poster child for urban decline and public squalor. Here we have the house which is the target of the heist, the only inhabited premises in the neighbourhood with all the plot convenience that implies. This area is barely inhabited and so plausibly lawless. Hence we can have a thriller in which three amateur burglars attempt to rob an "old" man (yes, a Gulf War veteran described as "old", and that war was only in '91...) but he's more than a match for them. And has a big secret.
It's not about the plot, though. It's about the superb camerawork and the Hitchcockian suspense, and the nice little twists at the end. This film has no stars, it has a tiny budget, but it does exactly what a good film should: gets the basics very, very right.
You probably haven't seen this film. That's a shame- it's getting a lot of well-deserved word of mouth and is well worth seeing. Just think Hitchcock, not horror.
I know I’m on a mission to watch all the Marvel and DC related movies, plus all the big horror franchises, as well as all the classic movies I haven’t blogged yet, which is a rather large number of films. But I still need to intersperse that with modern-ish films that ain’t part of no franchise. Such as this one. It’s a thriller that’s been compared with Hitchcock (yes, I need to watch more of his stuff), is full of suspense and is helmed by the director of the new Evil Dead. Which I haven’t seen. So many films I haven’t seen but should have done, and this is the 489th film in this blog. It feels like being Sisyphus, except it’s a lot more fun. So, er, not like Sisyphus at all then. Anyway...
Let's briefly acknowledge that the film is bloody good and establish that I'll return to that theme very shortly, shall we? Because this film, like Saw and so many others, is a thriller, and an excellent one at that, but marketed as a horror film when it blatantly isn't. I wish they wouldn't do that.
With that little whinge out of the way, though, this is a proper tense little thriller about three burglars- two of whom are humanised and given reasons (if not excuses) for what they do and one (he dies first, of course) who is just a twat. There’s a real sense of place in this film, set in the extraordinary city of Detroit, the poster child for urban decline and public squalor. Here we have the house which is the target of the heist, the only inhabited premises in the neighbourhood with all the plot convenience that implies. This area is barely inhabited and so plausibly lawless. Hence we can have a thriller in which three amateur burglars attempt to rob an "old" man (yes, a Gulf War veteran described as "old", and that war was only in '91...) but he's more than a match for them. And has a big secret.
It's not about the plot, though. It's about the superb camerawork and the Hitchcockian suspense, and the nice little twists at the end. This film has no stars, it has a tiny budget, but it does exactly what a good film should: gets the basics very, very right.
You probably haven't seen this film. That's a shame- it's getting a lot of well-deserved word of mouth and is well worth seeing. Just think Hitchcock, not horror.
Sunday, 29 July 2018
Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994)
“The first was the best."
Phew. The franchise doesn't end with a whimper after all, but with a typically clever and well-directed instalment from the esteemed Mr Craven himself. This last film redeems the whole thing somewhat. Still, it's far from perfect in that it's somewhat slow and there's not enough Freddy screen time.
It’s clever, though; the franchise so far has just been a series of movies and Wes Craven, various actors and even producers appear as themselves. There’s lot of wry commentary on the tiresome idea of horror movies having a bad effect on society (yawn) and a lot of fourth wall-breaking fun- the ending, with Heather reading the script of the very film she’s in to her son, is perfect and, what’s more, believable. The concept is a good one- an Evil From The Dawn Of Time draws strength from monsters in scary stories and this time it’s taken on the form of Freddie from it’s new favourite horrror franchise. It’s a superb idea and very well realised, although the threat never quite feels like Freddy. In fact, much of the film evokes cinematic horror more widely- especially, in the excellent scenes with little Dylan, The Exorcist. And it’s clever to contrast the new “Freddy” make-up with Robert Englund wearing his old costume for the fans.
It’s very well done. It’s very witty. Stylistically, at times it feels very much like the precursor to Scream that it clearly is. But I can’t help feeling that it takes too long for things to start happening, Freddy doesn’t get enough screen time and, well, Freddy isn’t really Freddy, great though the effects are in the final showdown scene. This is an interesting case of a great concept, very well made, which perhaps suffers from not satisfying our expectations of the sort of film it’s supppsed to be.
And that, folks, is the end of Nightmare on Elm Street for a while. I have another franchise to devour before I get to Freddy vs. Jason, and I’ll be watching other stuff in-between. So many other horror franchises, too...
Phew. The franchise doesn't end with a whimper after all, but with a typically clever and well-directed instalment from the esteemed Mr Craven himself. This last film redeems the whole thing somewhat. Still, it's far from perfect in that it's somewhat slow and there's not enough Freddy screen time.
It’s clever, though; the franchise so far has just been a series of movies and Wes Craven, various actors and even producers appear as themselves. There’s lot of wry commentary on the tiresome idea of horror movies having a bad effect on society (yawn) and a lot of fourth wall-breaking fun- the ending, with Heather reading the script of the very film she’s in to her son, is perfect and, what’s more, believable. The concept is a good one- an Evil From The Dawn Of Time draws strength from monsters in scary stories and this time it’s taken on the form of Freddie from it’s new favourite horrror franchise. It’s a superb idea and very well realised, although the threat never quite feels like Freddy. In fact, much of the film evokes cinematic horror more widely- especially, in the excellent scenes with little Dylan, The Exorcist. And it’s clever to contrast the new “Freddy” make-up with Robert Englund wearing his old costume for the fans.
It’s very well done. It’s very witty. Stylistically, at times it feels very much like the precursor to Scream that it clearly is. But I can’t help feeling that it takes too long for things to start happening, Freddy doesn’t get enough screen time and, well, Freddy isn’t really Freddy, great though the effects are in the final showdown scene. This is an interesting case of a great concept, very well made, which perhaps suffers from not satisfying our expectations of the sort of film it’s supppsed to be.
And that, folks, is the end of Nightmare on Elm Street for a while. I have another franchise to devour before I get to Freddy vs. Jason, and I’ll be watching other stuff in-between. So many other horror franchises, too...
Saturday, 28 July 2018
Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)
“We’re in Twin Peaks here...”
Well, it had to happen at some point in a long-running franchise like this. This is bloody awful. Yes, it's a nice poster. But beyond that I'm struggling to think of anything positive.
What went wrong? After all, the film is directed (and scripted) by a young Rachel Talalay, a respected and successful Doctor Who director in recent years, and at this time a veteran of the franchise who was finally getting to helm an instalment. Yet, it must be said, she doesn’t do a good job and it’s hard to square this with her excellent later work.
Partly, I suppose, it’s the times. It’s 1991 and early CGI is beginning to rear its head, something which dates a film far more than the physical effects of earlier instalments. Perhaps it’s that the plot isn’t very coherent or clearly told. Perhaps it’s the amazement over the fact that an actor like Yaphet Kotto is lowering himself to such drivel. But, if this was truly intended as the final film in the franchise, it’s a shocking way to end. There are no scares. There’s no suspense. Freddy Krueger is reduced to a silly Daffy Duck-style figure with no remaining menace. What were they thinking? And the characterisation? Well, there’s Carlos, whose sole personality trait is “wears hearing aids”, and the others are even more generic. The whole thing is incoherent, and even the set pieces are just silly- the first one is a pastiche of The Wizard of Oz and they don’t get much better, although the hearing aid scene had a certain ghoulish fascination for me. It’s also quite nostalgic to be reminded of what they were like back then.
Meh. It doesn’t get more disappointing than this. It’s a crying shame after a surprisingly quality franchise up to now, but we are now leaping headlong over the proverbial predatory fish.
Well, it had to happen at some point in a long-running franchise like this. This is bloody awful. Yes, it's a nice poster. But beyond that I'm struggling to think of anything positive.
What went wrong? After all, the film is directed (and scripted) by a young Rachel Talalay, a respected and successful Doctor Who director in recent years, and at this time a veteran of the franchise who was finally getting to helm an instalment. Yet, it must be said, she doesn’t do a good job and it’s hard to square this with her excellent later work.
Partly, I suppose, it’s the times. It’s 1991 and early CGI is beginning to rear its head, something which dates a film far more than the physical effects of earlier instalments. Perhaps it’s that the plot isn’t very coherent or clearly told. Perhaps it’s the amazement over the fact that an actor like Yaphet Kotto is lowering himself to such drivel. But, if this was truly intended as the final film in the franchise, it’s a shocking way to end. There are no scares. There’s no suspense. Freddy Krueger is reduced to a silly Daffy Duck-style figure with no remaining menace. What were they thinking? And the characterisation? Well, there’s Carlos, whose sole personality trait is “wears hearing aids”, and the others are even more generic. The whole thing is incoherent, and even the set pieces are just silly- the first one is a pastiche of The Wizard of Oz and they don’t get much better, although the hearing aid scene had a certain ghoulish fascination for me. It’s also quite nostalgic to be reminded of what they were like back then.
Meh. It doesn’t get more disappointing than this. It’s a crying shame after a surprisingly quality franchise up to now, but we are now leaping headlong over the proverbial predatory fish.
Thursday, 26 July 2018
A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)
“Nine, ten, he’s back again...”
This is the fifth film in the series and, you know, it’s not at all bad. Oh, there are diminishing returns and there’s an awful lot more time spent on drama than on big set pieces, but the film is pretty good and even, in terms of the direction, design and effects, the best so far. Well, if you ignore one very obvious and very prominent matte painting.
This is the third consecutive film with continuing elements, with Alice as the hero, this time pregnant with a baby whose dreams allow Freddy to return- a nice thematic link to Freddy’s own birth and his mother Amanda. To an extent it’s a similar format to the previous film, with various teenagers (including boyfriend Dan) being girlie killed one by one, except this isn’t quite as dramatic as previous films with the focus on the pregnancy and Yvonne’s scepticism, and the set pieces not being quite as good. Still, I enjoyed Mark’s comic book death, and not only because I recognised a couple of those 1989 vintage Marvel comics littering his floor. The death may be lacking in blood but is gloriously creative and well done, even if I do suspect the influence of the video to A-Ha’s “Tale on Me”. On the other hand, the foetus scene may be an influence on the video to Massive Attack’s “Teardrop”...
Mrs Llamastrangler loves this and I found it visually brilliant- the M.C. Escher stuff at the climax was superb- but perhaps the script was a little more pedestrian than the realisation. Still, the franchise is still looking pretty healthy as the decade ends.
This is the fifth film in the series and, you know, it’s not at all bad. Oh, there are diminishing returns and there’s an awful lot more time spent on drama than on big set pieces, but the film is pretty good and even, in terms of the direction, design and effects, the best so far. Well, if you ignore one very obvious and very prominent matte painting.
This is the third consecutive film with continuing elements, with Alice as the hero, this time pregnant with a baby whose dreams allow Freddy to return- a nice thematic link to Freddy’s own birth and his mother Amanda. To an extent it’s a similar format to the previous film, with various teenagers (including boyfriend Dan) being girlie killed one by one, except this isn’t quite as dramatic as previous films with the focus on the pregnancy and Yvonne’s scepticism, and the set pieces not being quite as good. Still, I enjoyed Mark’s comic book death, and not only because I recognised a couple of those 1989 vintage Marvel comics littering his floor. The death may be lacking in blood but is gloriously creative and well done, even if I do suspect the influence of the video to A-Ha’s “Tale on Me”. On the other hand, the foetus scene may be an influence on the video to Massive Attack’s “Teardrop”...
Mrs Llamastrangler loves this and I found it visually brilliant- the M.C. Escher stuff at the climax was superb- but perhaps the script was a little more pedestrian than the realisation. Still, the franchise is still looking pretty healthy as the decade ends.
Wednesday, 25 July 2018
Angel: Habeas Corpses
”Zombies are slow moving, dim witted and crave human flesh.”
“Like you?”
“No!”
Plot-wise this is quite straightforward; Connor wants to know about his connections to the Beast, so he goes to Wolfram and Hart for some answers. Unfortunately he ends up trapped as the beast attacks and the staff (except Lilah but very much including the now-late Gavin) are all killed and turned into zombies, and needs to be rescued by the gang. Awkward.
As it happens this doesn’t work quite that well- much of the episode is dark and chaotic- but, as ever, it’s the character stuff that counts. After sleeping with Connor, Cordy makes it clear that, despite his “happy puppy look” there won’t be any repeat, which makes her look rather like one of those “lads” who gets a girl to have sex with him and then disappears, especially as he’s so young and naive. Angel certainly doesn’t approve, as he makes very clear at the end.
Wesley also finally dumps Lilah who, oddly, in spite of being evil is far more into him than vice versa, and seems to be subtly back with the gang again. It’s clear that the love triangle with Fred and Gunn is back on, hence bickering between him and Gunn that will no doubt come to an end in a couple of episodes as Wes redeems himself in Gunn’s eyes. Such is TV drama.
More immediately worrying, arc-wise, is that the Beast has reached the White Room and apparently killed the little girl who runs (or ran?) W&H. That one act proves Wes right when he emphasised just how powerful this creature is and how it seems to be above the pay grade of Angel Onvestigations to stop it. The episode itself is an odd beast; the concept doesn’t really come across well but the characterisation, dialogue and arc stuff largely carries it through.
“Like you?”
“No!”
Plot-wise this is quite straightforward; Connor wants to know about his connections to the Beast, so he goes to Wolfram and Hart for some answers. Unfortunately he ends up trapped as the beast attacks and the staff (except Lilah but very much including the now-late Gavin) are all killed and turned into zombies, and needs to be rescued by the gang. Awkward.
As it happens this doesn’t work quite that well- much of the episode is dark and chaotic- but, as ever, it’s the character stuff that counts. After sleeping with Connor, Cordy makes it clear that, despite his “happy puppy look” there won’t be any repeat, which makes her look rather like one of those “lads” who gets a girl to have sex with him and then disappears, especially as he’s so young and naive. Angel certainly doesn’t approve, as he makes very clear at the end.
Wesley also finally dumps Lilah who, oddly, in spite of being evil is far more into him than vice versa, and seems to be subtly back with the gang again. It’s clear that the love triangle with Fred and Gunn is back on, hence bickering between him and Gunn that will no doubt come to an end in a couple of episodes as Wes redeems himself in Gunn’s eyes. Such is TV drama.
More immediately worrying, arc-wise, is that the Beast has reached the White Room and apparently killed the little girl who runs (or ran?) W&H. That one act proves Wes right when he emphasised just how powerful this creature is and how it seems to be above the pay grade of Angel Onvestigations to stop it. The episode itself is an odd beast; the concept doesn’t really come across well but the characterisation, dialogue and arc stuff largely carries it through.
Sunday, 22 July 2018
The Wolverine (2013)
"A man who has nightmares every night of his life is in pain.”
I know my 1980s Marvel, more or less. But I admit I never read the Chris Claremont limited series (we true Marvel zombies never use that awful phrase “miniseries; that’s for the Disgruntled Competition) on which this film is based. It makes no difference to how unexpectedly bloody good this film is, though.
The plot is intricate, exciting, James Bond-like and am excuse for loads of great Japanese set pieces, the highlight being a fight atop a bullet train. The direction is superb, with flashbacks of Jean Grey constantly beckoning a weakened Logan towards easeful death. And no cool Japanese trope is left unused. We even get a convincing romance between Logan and Mariko, although no one is getting married on this occasion.
There are continuity questions, of course; how come Logan remembers Nagasaki in 1945 if his memory was wiped at the end of X-Men Origins: Wolverine? It’s also odd to see Viper as the villain in a Fox film where, of course, they can’t make any mention of HYDRA. And the use of Silver Samurai is certainly unexpected. But the film isn’t really about any of that. It’s a superb action film about family and mortality. With ninjas. And possibly the finest film in the X-Men franchise up to this point. This franchise may lack the central quality control and planning of the MCU, but its individual films can sometimes be just as good. And now, it seems, it has the post credits sequences too...
I know my 1980s Marvel, more or less. But I admit I never read the Chris Claremont limited series (we true Marvel zombies never use that awful phrase “miniseries; that’s for the Disgruntled Competition) on which this film is based. It makes no difference to how unexpectedly bloody good this film is, though.
The plot is intricate, exciting, James Bond-like and am excuse for loads of great Japanese set pieces, the highlight being a fight atop a bullet train. The direction is superb, with flashbacks of Jean Grey constantly beckoning a weakened Logan towards easeful death. And no cool Japanese trope is left unused. We even get a convincing romance between Logan and Mariko, although no one is getting married on this occasion.
There are continuity questions, of course; how come Logan remembers Nagasaki in 1945 if his memory was wiped at the end of X-Men Origins: Wolverine? It’s also odd to see Viper as the villain in a Fox film where, of course, they can’t make any mention of HYDRA. And the use of Silver Samurai is certainly unexpected. But the film isn’t really about any of that. It’s a superb action film about family and mortality. With ninjas. And possibly the finest film in the X-Men franchise up to this point. This franchise may lack the central quality control and planning of the MCU, but its individual films can sometimes be just as good. And now, it seems, it has the post credits sequences too...
Saturday, 21 July 2018
Yellow Submarine (1968)
“How was it, Ringo?"
"Arrowing?"
Wow. What to say about this after the experience of seeing it again after upwards of twenty years?
It's brilliant, obviously. It's gloriously, trippily weird and also both witty and weirdly erudite for good measure. The animation may be simple, the Beatles may only appear at the end and not even do their own voices- songs excepted, obviously- but, my God, this is good.
The songs are great, obviously, and its instructive to be reminded how many of them, including such classics as "Hey Bulldog" and "All Together Now", were new for the film. It's also instructive that John, Paul, George and Ringo are shown here in full-on late Sixties psychedelia mode, whereas Revolver was only the year before last.
The sheer surreality of not only the animation but also the plot- snapping Turks?- is at once druggy, psychedelic and the very essence of the period. Bizarre, then, that Dick Emery of all people plays such a large role. But the Fab Four always did have one foot in light entertainment.
It's short, it's bonkers, the music is great. This is probably the greatest rock 'n' roll film ever made because, well, come on. I can't help noticing there's not a single speaking role for a woman in the whole thing, mind!
"Arrowing?"
Wow. What to say about this after the experience of seeing it again after upwards of twenty years?
It's brilliant, obviously. It's gloriously, trippily weird and also both witty and weirdly erudite for good measure. The animation may be simple, the Beatles may only appear at the end and not even do their own voices- songs excepted, obviously- but, my God, this is good.
The songs are great, obviously, and its instructive to be reminded how many of them, including such classics as "Hey Bulldog" and "All Together Now", were new for the film. It's also instructive that John, Paul, George and Ringo are shown here in full-on late Sixties psychedelia mode, whereas Revolver was only the year before last.
The sheer surreality of not only the animation but also the plot- snapping Turks?- is at once druggy, psychedelic and the very essence of the period. Bizarre, then, that Dick Emery of all people plays such a large role. But the Fab Four always did have one foot in light entertainment.
It's short, it's bonkers, the music is great. This is probably the greatest rock 'n' roll film ever made because, well, come on. I can't help noticing there's not a single speaking role for a woman in the whole thing, mind!
Sunday, 15 July 2018
Blade (1998)
“You may wake up one day and find yourself extinct."
It's strange to think that this is such an early Marvel film. In fact, prior to this the only feature films had been the bizarrely underrated Howard the Duck, The Punisher and the low budget, no star straight-to-video '90s films Captain America and Fantastic Four, both rather obscure. And that was it. Until Blade came along, failed to wow the critics but was a huge success. Not long after came X-Men and Marvel films were everywhere, many of them sadly at Fox.
So how does it stand up, twenty years on? Pretty well, actually. Yes, wooden Wesley Snipes is phoning it in with a character that could have offered a lot of potential to a good actor, and has no charisma. Yet the script- by no less than David S. Goyer- is superb, and the film looks great, even if the cinematography has inevitably dated; from the perspective of 2018 there's more than a little of the late '90s music video vibe. It looks great, though, with impressive CGI.
We begin with a great set piece at a vampire rave that dates the film enormously, yes, but also shows us what Blade can do and his mission in a visually exciting way. N'Bushe Wright convinces as the doctor who is unwittingly drawn into this vampire fighting world, and Kris Kristofferson is superb as the grizzly and gnarled mentor figure.
This is not like the comics; Blade has been made into a kind of half-vampire for some reason, and the vampire mythos here is not quite the same, but it's nice to see Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan being credited.It's an entertaining two hours, though, and perhaps the real start of our current Marvel cinematic age.
It's strange to think that this is such an early Marvel film. In fact, prior to this the only feature films had been the bizarrely underrated Howard the Duck, The Punisher and the low budget, no star straight-to-video '90s films Captain America and Fantastic Four, both rather obscure. And that was it. Until Blade came along, failed to wow the critics but was a huge success. Not long after came X-Men and Marvel films were everywhere, many of them sadly at Fox.
So how does it stand up, twenty years on? Pretty well, actually. Yes, wooden Wesley Snipes is phoning it in with a character that could have offered a lot of potential to a good actor, and has no charisma. Yet the script- by no less than David S. Goyer- is superb, and the film looks great, even if the cinematography has inevitably dated; from the perspective of 2018 there's more than a little of the late '90s music video vibe. It looks great, though, with impressive CGI.
We begin with a great set piece at a vampire rave that dates the film enormously, yes, but also shows us what Blade can do and his mission in a visually exciting way. N'Bushe Wright convinces as the doctor who is unwittingly drawn into this vampire fighting world, and Kris Kristofferson is superb as the grizzly and gnarled mentor figure.
This is not like the comics; Blade has been made into a kind of half-vampire for some reason, and the vampire mythos here is not quite the same, but it's nice to see Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan being credited.It's an entertaining two hours, though, and perhaps the real start of our current Marvel cinematic age.
Saturday, 14 July 2018
Tales from the Crypt (1972)
"Who's next? Perhaps... you?"
At last I get to see a proper Amicus portmanteau film; I’ve been meaning to for ages. And this one certainly doesn’t disappoint. The format means the film never flags, and the top notch cast and direction make for a superbly unsettling experience.
I’ve never read any of the EC comics upon this was based (although I certainly do know that Dr Fredric Wertham smelled of poo, and was a quack to boot) but I get a distinct impression of the lurid style here, and highly entertaining here. The framing device is simple; a bunch of tourists get lost in a crypt and accosted by a sinister monk, who speaks with the actorly tones of none other than Ralph Richardson, who is having enormous fun here. We hear their sinister stories one by one until the conclusion gives us a delightful twist.
All of the stories are compelling, although some more than others, and there are standout performances from the likes of Peter Cushing in one of his best roles, but the segments are carried well by the likes of Joan Collins, Ian Hendry and an unrecognisable Richard Greene, too old for Sherwood Forest. There are powerful moments- the Balentine’s Card scene is heartbreaking- and the comeuppance of the mean major by the blind men he’s been mistreating is glorious. I’m not sure it’s an obvious leap from EC Comics to a film directed by Freddie Francis and crammed with British character actors, but it really works.
At last I get to see a proper Amicus portmanteau film; I’ve been meaning to for ages. And this one certainly doesn’t disappoint. The format means the film never flags, and the top notch cast and direction make for a superbly unsettling experience.
I’ve never read any of the EC comics upon this was based (although I certainly do know that Dr Fredric Wertham smelled of poo, and was a quack to boot) but I get a distinct impression of the lurid style here, and highly entertaining here. The framing device is simple; a bunch of tourists get lost in a crypt and accosted by a sinister monk, who speaks with the actorly tones of none other than Ralph Richardson, who is having enormous fun here. We hear their sinister stories one by one until the conclusion gives us a delightful twist.
All of the stories are compelling, although some more than others, and there are standout performances from the likes of Peter Cushing in one of his best roles, but the segments are carried well by the likes of Joan Collins, Ian Hendry and an unrecognisable Richard Greene, too old for Sherwood Forest. There are powerful moments- the Balentine’s Card scene is heartbreaking- and the comeuppance of the mean major by the blind men he’s been mistreating is glorious. I’m not sure it’s an obvious leap from EC Comics to a film directed by Freddie Francis and crammed with British character actors, but it really works.
Wednesday, 11 July 2018
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Sleeper
"Man, I hate playing vampire towns..."
Wow. The first misfire of the season, really. And just after Angel appears to have done the same.
So what's wrong with this episode which, after all, develops the season arc a fair bit? I think it's simply that the premise doesn't work dramatically. The whole episode revolves around the whole gang trying to ascertain whether the newly ensouled "Billy Idol" in their midst is killing again, yet we sort of know the answer from the start. Yes, it's all the fault of that nasty, psychologically cruel Big Bad who spent last episode being so mean but, again, we knew that. There isn't really any dramatic tension, yet the whole episode is structured around it anyway. It simply doesn't work and the episode succeeds only in the sense of getting the arc plot from A to B, with Buffy using a rather broken Spike as bait.
We also get scenes set in London- hence black taxi cabs and red phone boxes- where a hooded figure is killing people presumably linked to the Watchers' Council, as none other than Giles discovers, and stars in his own axe-related cliffhanger to boot. Otherwise the episode is fairly meh, unusually devoid of sparkle with the dialogue and not really developing much, character-wise. Was something rushed with the writing? Is this the first sign of Joss Whedon taking on too much with the addition of Firefly, or, well, the other thing that was going on? I'm hoping this is just one duff episode. Things have been great up until now.
Still, the arc is humming nicely and Giles is clearly back soon. Let's hope this is indeed a one-off.
Wow. The first misfire of the season, really. And just after Angel appears to have done the same.
So what's wrong with this episode which, after all, develops the season arc a fair bit? I think it's simply that the premise doesn't work dramatically. The whole episode revolves around the whole gang trying to ascertain whether the newly ensouled "Billy Idol" in their midst is killing again, yet we sort of know the answer from the start. Yes, it's all the fault of that nasty, psychologically cruel Big Bad who spent last episode being so mean but, again, we knew that. There isn't really any dramatic tension, yet the whole episode is structured around it anyway. It simply doesn't work and the episode succeeds only in the sense of getting the arc plot from A to B, with Buffy using a rather broken Spike as bait.
We also get scenes set in London- hence black taxi cabs and red phone boxes- where a hooded figure is killing people presumably linked to the Watchers' Council, as none other than Giles discovers, and stars in his own axe-related cliffhanger to boot. Otherwise the episode is fairly meh, unusually devoid of sparkle with the dialogue and not really developing much, character-wise. Was something rushed with the writing? Is this the first sign of Joss Whedon taking on too much with the addition of Firefly, or, well, the other thing that was going on? I'm hoping this is just one duff episode. Things have been great up until now.
Still, the arc is humming nicely and Giles is clearly back soon. Let's hope this is indeed a one-off.
Tuesday, 10 July 2018
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
“You shouldn't have buried me. I'm not dead!"
After the huge disappointment of the second film it's pleasant to find that I've rather enjoyed both subsequent sequels. This fourth film is, if anything, a more straightforward use of the basic premise than the third and is, as a result, probably the best instalment since the first. The franchise seems to be in rude health at this point.
Partly this is down to the solid central premise, but also the excellent script and superb use of the camera, as well as the first class pre-CGI effects; the early resurrection of Freddy's body looks so much more convincing than the parallel scene in the previous year's Hellraiser, and all those big effects shots mean so much more when you know it's not CGI.
But essentially it's all about Freddy's truly scary presence, the solid plot based simply around Freddy killing various kids one by one in entertaining ways, and the fact that all the prospective victims are likeable in their own way. We actually care about what happens to the characters and thus are invested in being scared, something many horror films forget.
But ultimately it's about the set pieces- death by waterbed, Debbie being turned into a cockroach in a way which is proper Cronenberg, a set piece for every character. And through it all the clothes, hair, cars and music are all gloriously '80s, as is Alice's montage at the end, where she Super-Skrulls all of her dead mates' attributes. We even get a character, Rick, whose main trait beyond "loving boyfriend" seems to be that he's seen The Karate Kid.
We get scares, we get likeable and nuanced characters, we get a genuinely good film and we even get nostalgia. What's not to like?
After the huge disappointment of the second film it's pleasant to find that I've rather enjoyed both subsequent sequels. This fourth film is, if anything, a more straightforward use of the basic premise than the third and is, as a result, probably the best instalment since the first. The franchise seems to be in rude health at this point.
Partly this is down to the solid central premise, but also the excellent script and superb use of the camera, as well as the first class pre-CGI effects; the early resurrection of Freddy's body looks so much more convincing than the parallel scene in the previous year's Hellraiser, and all those big effects shots mean so much more when you know it's not CGI.
But essentially it's all about Freddy's truly scary presence, the solid plot based simply around Freddy killing various kids one by one in entertaining ways, and the fact that all the prospective victims are likeable in their own way. We actually care about what happens to the characters and thus are invested in being scared, something many horror films forget.
But ultimately it's about the set pieces- death by waterbed, Debbie being turned into a cockroach in a way which is proper Cronenberg, a set piece for every character. And through it all the clothes, hair, cars and music are all gloriously '80s, as is Alice's montage at the end, where she Super-Skrulls all of her dead mates' attributes. We even get a character, Rick, whose main trait beyond "loving boyfriend" seems to be that he's seen The Karate Kid.
We get scares, we get likeable and nuanced characters, we get a genuinely good film and we even get nostalgia. What's not to like?
Angel: Apocalypse Nowish
"It's not like the world's gonna end right this second!"
Well, that was sudden. It's all looking very apocalyptic in the space of one episode, with a big red devil beast thingy, rain of fire and the phones ringing off the hook at Angel Investigations. Is it only Los Angeles, though? None of this is happening in Buffy, and Sunnydale is not even in a different state.
Before this started, of course, we get two thirds of the episode full of foreboding, with Cordy having some scarily accurate dreams and Wolfram & Hart being quite aware that things are not going as expected. But it all feels rather fast and, unusually for the Buffyverse, unearned.
The uneasy atmosphere leads to some interesting character stuff, of course. Fred and Gunn haven't touched each other since Gunn took it upon himself to send that nasty professor tomPylea and, worse, Fred seems unhappy with the possibility of settling down with him. From no sex, though, there's weird sex; Wesley finds Lilah waiting for him mockingly dressed as Fred, but turns the tables on her by insisting she stays that way during sex. Ouch!
More awkward, though, in more senses than one, is the virgin missionary sex between Cordy and Connor. Cordy has already told Angel that she still loves him but, as a Power That, er, Bees, she saw what he did as Angelus. She knew before, but now she knows. Also, things are perilous and they all might die. All the same, deflowering Connor like that feels out of character and is really jarring, which is not something you'll often find me saying about either of the Buffyverse shows.
Still, clever Angel runs rings around Lilah to ensure her cooperation, tying up Gavin to boot. And it seems Wesley won't be seeing much more of her as plot expediency has him shackled up with Angel's crw for the time being- a subtle forced reconciliation? The whole episode feels a bit forced and awkward. On the other hand I'm genuinely enjoying the no-status-quo, Chris Claremont X-Men vibe. We'll see where this goes.
Well, that was sudden. It's all looking very apocalyptic in the space of one episode, with a big red devil beast thingy, rain of fire and the phones ringing off the hook at Angel Investigations. Is it only Los Angeles, though? None of this is happening in Buffy, and Sunnydale is not even in a different state.
Before this started, of course, we get two thirds of the episode full of foreboding, with Cordy having some scarily accurate dreams and Wolfram & Hart being quite aware that things are not going as expected. But it all feels rather fast and, unusually for the Buffyverse, unearned.
The uneasy atmosphere leads to some interesting character stuff, of course. Fred and Gunn haven't touched each other since Gunn took it upon himself to send that nasty professor tomPylea and, worse, Fred seems unhappy with the possibility of settling down with him. From no sex, though, there's weird sex; Wesley finds Lilah waiting for him mockingly dressed as Fred, but turns the tables on her by insisting she stays that way during sex. Ouch!
More awkward, though, in more senses than one, is the virgin missionary sex between Cordy and Connor. Cordy has already told Angel that she still loves him but, as a Power That, er, Bees, she saw what he did as Angelus. She knew before, but now she knows. Also, things are perilous and they all might die. All the same, deflowering Connor like that feels out of character and is really jarring, which is not something you'll often find me saying about either of the Buffyverse shows.
Still, clever Angel runs rings around Lilah to ensure her cooperation, tying up Gavin to boot. And it seems Wesley won't be seeing much more of her as plot expediency has him shackled up with Angel's crw for the time being- a subtle forced reconciliation? The whole episode feels a bit forced and awkward. On the other hand I'm genuinely enjoying the no-status-quo, Chris Claremont X-Men vibe. We'll see where this goes.
Monday, 9 July 2018
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Conversations with Dead People
“I mean, I was afraid to talk to you in high school. And now we’re, like, mortal enemies.”
Here we have it, then; a proper arc episode, which develops the mysterious Big Bad. Oddly, there’s no Xander, one of the main trio of characters (behind the scenes issues?) or Anya. But the focus on Buffy, Dawn and Willow all individually, their paths crossing only thematically, makes them all the more emotionally vulnerable for being alone.
Dawn and Willow both get visitations from the dead which seem designed to undermine themabd the team for the upcoming hi-jinks. Fortunately Willow realises she isn’t talking to Tara when the suggestion to never do magic again is extended to a suggestion of suicide, puncturing the illusion. Dawn has no such epiphany, enduring an episode of poltergeisty weirdness only to be told by “Joyce” that Buffy will turn against her. Oh, and Andrew and Jonathan return to Sunnyvale, with Andrew being encouraged by “Adam” to kill an unsuspecting Jonathan, who dies serene.
Buffy’s story is cleverer, as a recently resurrected vampire turns out to be an old acquaintance and psych major, which leads to reminiscing and psychoanalysis; I love the scene where Buffy uses a tomb as a psychiatrist’s couch. These are great character scenes, establishing both Buffy’s inevitable superiority complex and the guilt she feels about it. And, just to add extra dramatic spice, Spike is killing and siring people again. Some monsters are unexpectedly people, but those we think of as people can also turn out to be monsters.
A change of direction, then, getting the arc back on track. And a bloody good episode.
Here we have it, then; a proper arc episode, which develops the mysterious Big Bad. Oddly, there’s no Xander, one of the main trio of characters (behind the scenes issues?) or Anya. But the focus on Buffy, Dawn and Willow all individually, their paths crossing only thematically, makes them all the more emotionally vulnerable for being alone.
Dawn and Willow both get visitations from the dead which seem designed to undermine themabd the team for the upcoming hi-jinks. Fortunately Willow realises she isn’t talking to Tara when the suggestion to never do magic again is extended to a suggestion of suicide, puncturing the illusion. Dawn has no such epiphany, enduring an episode of poltergeisty weirdness only to be told by “Joyce” that Buffy will turn against her. Oh, and Andrew and Jonathan return to Sunnyvale, with Andrew being encouraged by “Adam” to kill an unsuspecting Jonathan, who dies serene.
Buffy’s story is cleverer, as a recently resurrected vampire turns out to be an old acquaintance and psych major, which leads to reminiscing and psychoanalysis; I love the scene where Buffy uses a tomb as a psychiatrist’s couch. These are great character scenes, establishing both Buffy’s inevitable superiority complex and the guilt she feels about it. And, just to add extra dramatic spice, Spike is killing and siring people again. Some monsters are unexpectedly people, but those we think of as people can also turn out to be monsters.
A change of direction, then, getting the arc back on track. And a bloody good episode.
Sunday, 8 July 2018
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
"I'd rather been a good man than a great king."
I've pretty much decided that I need to get a move on with watching all Marvel films, especially MCU ones, and probably DC ones too. Without being anal about it I'm going to try and make half of the films I watch Marvel or Disgruntled Competition ones until I'm caught up. After all, I've certainly already blogged a fair proportion of them.
Anyway, let's talk about Thor: The Dark World. I liked it. A lot. It's not one of the most talked-about Marvel films over the five years since its release, but the MCU films never step below a certain level of quality. This being the second film, we already know both all the Asgardians and the whole gang of Jane, Eric and the wonderful Darcy, whom we fall in love with all over again. It's great to enjoy characters we already know rather than having them introduced to us. Highlights are the perfect reunion between Thor and Jane and the scene with Eric in the mental home, complete with Stan cameo. The film has wit, heart and excitement, and lots of each. You can tell it's Marvel. It also has, unexpectedly, Chris O'Dowd of all people in a moderately large part.
The baddie is Malekith, back from the Walt Simonson days, played by Christopher Eccleston who, despite the unpleasantly snooty things he's since said about the part, does a perfectly good job. We also get Kurse, although with a very different, Beyonder-free backstory. And CGI trolls. Lots of them. Tom Hiddleston playing Loki with an extraordinary range of emotion, Frigga dying, a touching father/son scene in which Thor refuses the throne from Odin on the grounds that the decisions of kingship would mean he can no longer be a good man. It's fun to see London, too, and amusing that the convergence of the Nine Worlds should happen at, of all places, Greenwich. And, as ever, the MCU version of Asgard is great; powerful alien beings with 5,000 year lifespans whose advanced tech is always described in gracefully magical language, the perfect expression of Arthur C. Clarke's adage about sufficiently advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic.
If that wasn't good enough, we get Thor coming back to Jane at the end, and an intriguing post-credits scene involving the Collector and more plot-heavy talk about Infinity Stones. A brilliant film, the perfect blockbuster- well, it's MCU.
I've pretty much decided that I need to get a move on with watching all Marvel films, especially MCU ones, and probably DC ones too. Without being anal about it I'm going to try and make half of the films I watch Marvel or Disgruntled Competition ones until I'm caught up. After all, I've certainly already blogged a fair proportion of them.
Anyway, let's talk about Thor: The Dark World. I liked it. A lot. It's not one of the most talked-about Marvel films over the five years since its release, but the MCU films never step below a certain level of quality. This being the second film, we already know both all the Asgardians and the whole gang of Jane, Eric and the wonderful Darcy, whom we fall in love with all over again. It's great to enjoy characters we already know rather than having them introduced to us. Highlights are the perfect reunion between Thor and Jane and the scene with Eric in the mental home, complete with Stan cameo. The film has wit, heart and excitement, and lots of each. You can tell it's Marvel. It also has, unexpectedly, Chris O'Dowd of all people in a moderately large part.
The baddie is Malekith, back from the Walt Simonson days, played by Christopher Eccleston who, despite the unpleasantly snooty things he's since said about the part, does a perfectly good job. We also get Kurse, although with a very different, Beyonder-free backstory. And CGI trolls. Lots of them. Tom Hiddleston playing Loki with an extraordinary range of emotion, Frigga dying, a touching father/son scene in which Thor refuses the throne from Odin on the grounds that the decisions of kingship would mean he can no longer be a good man. It's fun to see London, too, and amusing that the convergence of the Nine Worlds should happen at, of all places, Greenwich. And, as ever, the MCU version of Asgard is great; powerful alien beings with 5,000 year lifespans whose advanced tech is always described in gracefully magical language, the perfect expression of Arthur C. Clarke's adage about sufficiently advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic.
If that wasn't good enough, we get Thor coming back to Jane at the end, and an intriguing post-credits scene involving the Collector and more plot-heavy talk about Infinity Stones. A brilliant film, the perfect blockbuster- well, it's MCU.
Humans: Season 3, Episode 8
“I created life once before...”
Well, that was epic and eventful. This last episode had a lot to squeeze into its forty-odd minutes and just about explained any loose ends, although not without a massive cliffhanger pointing towards what looks like a fascinating next season.
There are two strands to what’s going on; the horrors of Operation Basswood being carried out and Niska’s quest, “a pilgrimage of faith, of belief” to the Synth Who Sleeps, which finally pays off and (hooray!) integrates with the rest of the plot.
This rather mystical subplot may seem out of sync with everything else, but something like this not only pays off the ongoing theme of faith but, more importantly, adds a modest and justified amount of deus ex machina which prevents the whole thing becoming overly dark, bleak and depressing. It provides balance.
Hence the object of Niska’s quest may look like Odi but is in fact V (remember V?) who took over the body of a suicidal Odi and has been pulling strings. Niska’s personal journey makes her the perfect person, apparently, to get purple eyes like V and intervene in order to nudge history in its proper direction, Hari Seldon-like.
Because things are otherwise very bleak indeed- Mia ensures that the synths at the Railyard survive the early parts of Basswood, but the mob still attacks and the horror escalated slowly, and then things happen which made Mrs Llamastrangler cry. Mia, who has been very Christlike all season, dies a pacifist, on camera, and incites spontaneous marches of support which seem to partly ruin the Government’s plans. But the Government enters proper dictatorship mode here, to Neha’s horror. And, for revealing the details of Basswood on telly, it seems that Laura is to be charged with treason for so embarrassing the powers that be, and we see the enormous effects of this on the family. But, to paraphrase Mattie, what matters is doing the right thing. Whatever injustice follows, you still did what was right.
As for Mattie, she points the way to next season which, given past practice, is likely not to be for a long time; having all but decided not to keep the baby, and with Leo out of the picture, it looks as though herbonly choice is whether to face prison and opprobrium on her own terms or not, but it’s here that Niska’s re-enters the main plot, sprinkles a little light deus ex machina and drops the big reveal: Mattie’s baby is a synth human hybrid, and the reproductive future of synths is linked with humanity. That’ll be another season then...
Masterfully constricted and emotionally devastating stuff. Top class telly. I’m just glad that not all telly is this intense..
Well, that was epic and eventful. This last episode had a lot to squeeze into its forty-odd minutes and just about explained any loose ends, although not without a massive cliffhanger pointing towards what looks like a fascinating next season.
There are two strands to what’s going on; the horrors of Operation Basswood being carried out and Niska’s quest, “a pilgrimage of faith, of belief” to the Synth Who Sleeps, which finally pays off and (hooray!) integrates with the rest of the plot.
This rather mystical subplot may seem out of sync with everything else, but something like this not only pays off the ongoing theme of faith but, more importantly, adds a modest and justified amount of deus ex machina which prevents the whole thing becoming overly dark, bleak and depressing. It provides balance.
Hence the object of Niska’s quest may look like Odi but is in fact V (remember V?) who took over the body of a suicidal Odi and has been pulling strings. Niska’s personal journey makes her the perfect person, apparently, to get purple eyes like V and intervene in order to nudge history in its proper direction, Hari Seldon-like.
Because things are otherwise very bleak indeed- Mia ensures that the synths at the Railyard survive the early parts of Basswood, but the mob still attacks and the horror escalated slowly, and then things happen which made Mrs Llamastrangler cry. Mia, who has been very Christlike all season, dies a pacifist, on camera, and incites spontaneous marches of support which seem to partly ruin the Government’s plans. But the Government enters proper dictatorship mode here, to Neha’s horror. And, for revealing the details of Basswood on telly, it seems that Laura is to be charged with treason for so embarrassing the powers that be, and we see the enormous effects of this on the family. But, to paraphrase Mattie, what matters is doing the right thing. Whatever injustice follows, you still did what was right.
As for Mattie, she points the way to next season which, given past practice, is likely not to be for a long time; having all but decided not to keep the baby, and with Leo out of the picture, it looks as though herbonly choice is whether to face prison and opprobrium on her own terms or not, but it’s here that Niska’s re-enters the main plot, sprinkles a little light deus ex machina and drops the big reveal: Mattie’s baby is a synth human hybrid, and the reproductive future of synths is linked with humanity. That’ll be another season then...
Masterfully constricted and emotionally devastating stuff. Top class telly. I’m just glad that not all telly is this intense..
Wednesday, 4 July 2018
Humans: Season 3, Episode 7
“It’s genocide!”
It’s the penultimate episode, full of foreboding for the finale, expertly constructed as ever, and the pieces are in place for what doesn’t look like a happy ending. On the other hand, though, there seems to be a theme of faith which may offer a little hope. Or not.
Leo, with daddy issues of his own, doesn’t react well to news of his impending fatherhood, and we also see him denouncing his own father to Anatole as far from a god. There are also serious questions s about what kind of future such a baby can have, as Mattie has a 24 hour ultimatum to be outed by that slimy journalist. At least this leads to a reconciliatory father/daughter hug between her and Joe, which makes me even more sure that Joe, who hasn’t generally handled himself well, is going to sacrifice himself for the greater good next episode. All the tropes point that way.
We get the surprisingly quick downfall of Anatole, at the hands of Max, his last words being that Max should have been open from the start. The threat from bad synths seems to be over before the finale; it’s human bigotry that always was the big bad. The most horrible moment is how Ne reveals to Laura the full horrific details of the oncoming synth genocide, a genocide that has already started.
Potential hope comes with Niska’s lonely and increasingly weird sub-plot, which is mystical and seems to present a more positive ideal of faith than that presented by Anatole, the religious terrorist fanatic who denies the facts in front of him. This sub-or is looking more and more like a potential source of a miracle, which I hope is handled carefully.
That ending, though- Odi? Apparently not quite. But things are set up for a very revelatory final episode. Humans is still the best thing on telly.
It’s the penultimate episode, full of foreboding for the finale, expertly constructed as ever, and the pieces are in place for what doesn’t look like a happy ending. On the other hand, though, there seems to be a theme of faith which may offer a little hope. Or not.
Leo, with daddy issues of his own, doesn’t react well to news of his impending fatherhood, and we also see him denouncing his own father to Anatole as far from a god. There are also serious questions s about what kind of future such a baby can have, as Mattie has a 24 hour ultimatum to be outed by that slimy journalist. At least this leads to a reconciliatory father/daughter hug between her and Joe, which makes me even more sure that Joe, who hasn’t generally handled himself well, is going to sacrifice himself for the greater good next episode. All the tropes point that way.
We get the surprisingly quick downfall of Anatole, at the hands of Max, his last words being that Max should have been open from the start. The threat from bad synths seems to be over before the finale; it’s human bigotry that always was the big bad. The most horrible moment is how Ne reveals to Laura the full horrific details of the oncoming synth genocide, a genocide that has already started.
Potential hope comes with Niska’s lonely and increasingly weird sub-plot, which is mystical and seems to present a more positive ideal of faith than that presented by Anatole, the religious terrorist fanatic who denies the facts in front of him. This sub-or is looking more and more like a potential source of a miracle, which I hope is handled carefully.
That ending, though- Odi? Apparently not quite. But things are set up for a very revelatory final episode. Humans is still the best thing on telly.
Tuesday, 3 July 2018
Angel: Spin the Bottle
"I know who's president. And that I sort of wish I didn't."
Oh, Cordy. Yes, I know. Back then we all thought George W. Bush was as bad as it could get, didn't we?
“We already know this episode is going to be both quirky and special when we see the words "written and directed by Joss Whedon" appear on the screen. And it doesn't disappoint on either score, being at once beautiful, witty, emotional and not entirely linear. It isn’t Whedon’s best, but it doesn’t have to be.
Oh, the episode has an obvious function to fulfil in returning Cordy’s memory and ambiguously wakening that demon thing that may or not have infected her, but it’s all about character. It’s about the pathos of Angel and Cordy’s last words to each other- “We’re we in love?” “We were.” It’s about the tension between Gunn and Wesley, leading Gunn to ask “What happened to you, man?” and Wesley to cuttingly reply “I had my throat cut and all my friends abandoned me.” And, yes, it’s about Angel being told “You don’t sound Irish”. Whedon really, really knows these people and makes their dialogue sing.
There are other nice touches- the framing device with Lorne, for one- but the important bits are about the conceit of reverting all the characters’ memories to their seventeen year old selves, so that Angel and Connor can bond over sanctimonious fathers and Fred can espouse conspiracy theories and keep asking for weed. Interestingly, we get scenes of Wesley being all badass before the spell reverts him to his older, klutzier, gentler self- is this a subtle precursor to a reconciliation?
All this and we get the scene where Fred tells Wesley all about being vulnerable and naked, and his stiff weapon extends, a lovely, subtle Whedon moment but if a slightly naughtier persuasion. Whedon doesn’t seem to have custody of his second child very much, but we certainly appreciate it when he does.
Oh, Cordy. Yes, I know. Back then we all thought George W. Bush was as bad as it could get, didn't we?
“We already know this episode is going to be both quirky and special when we see the words "written and directed by Joss Whedon" appear on the screen. And it doesn't disappoint on either score, being at once beautiful, witty, emotional and not entirely linear. It isn’t Whedon’s best, but it doesn’t have to be.
Oh, the episode has an obvious function to fulfil in returning Cordy’s memory and ambiguously wakening that demon thing that may or not have infected her, but it’s all about character. It’s about the pathos of Angel and Cordy’s last words to each other- “We’re we in love?” “We were.” It’s about the tension between Gunn and Wesley, leading Gunn to ask “What happened to you, man?” and Wesley to cuttingly reply “I had my throat cut and all my friends abandoned me.” And, yes, it’s about Angel being told “You don’t sound Irish”. Whedon really, really knows these people and makes their dialogue sing.
There are other nice touches- the framing device with Lorne, for one- but the important bits are about the conceit of reverting all the characters’ memories to their seventeen year old selves, so that Angel and Connor can bond over sanctimonious fathers and Fred can espouse conspiracy theories and keep asking for weed. Interestingly, we get scenes of Wesley being all badass before the spell reverts him to his older, klutzier, gentler self- is this a subtle precursor to a reconciliation?
All this and we get the scene where Fred tells Wesley all about being vulnerable and naked, and his stiff weapon extends, a lovely, subtle Whedon moment but if a slightly naughtier persuasion. Whedon doesn’t seem to have custody of his second child very much, but we certainly appreciate it when he does.
Sunday, 1 July 2018
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Him
"Bollocks to the whole thing..."
I've made allowances for the fact I'm not hugely into teen relationship drama, and this is a poor episode. Sorry. But this is where I do that thing I often do with poor episodes of Buffy in pointing out how the dialogue, characterisation, acting and wit are nevertheless top notch as ever. Even a superior show like Buffy, with 22 episodes per season, has its turds. But, my God, it polishes them well.
This episode is all about Dawn getting an enormous teenage crush on a boy at school with a magic sports jacket thingy, the type that badly dressed American "jocks" always wear and somehow get the girls in spite of the fact that it's a truly awful look. So, yeah, the metaphor is a bit blunt here, and the whole thing is a bit of a clumsy flashback to the high school metaphors of old, using the convenient fact that Dawn is a convenient peg on which to hang such things. Nothing arc-wise happens either, so it's an eminently skippable episode. At least it's a Dawn episode in which Michelle Trachtenberg gets to genuinely shine.
So, anything to notice here? Well, firstly,once again we get one of the things I most dislike about late period Buffy; acting as though Willow is just straightforwardly gay. I know sexual orientation on telly was in a more basic phase 15 years ago, but retconning her past like this just erases bisexuality and treats sexual orientation as a binary thing. Secondly, we get the Breeders- yes, THE BREEDERS, playing at the Bronze, and no one even worships at their feet or anything, which is deeply wrong, as Kim and Kelley are goddesses.
So, yeah, worth it for the Breeders. The other scenes? Not so much. But a bad episode like this doesn't take away from Buffy being a truly great show; it simply means that 22 episodes a season is too bleeding many.
I've made allowances for the fact I'm not hugely into teen relationship drama, and this is a poor episode. Sorry. But this is where I do that thing I often do with poor episodes of Buffy in pointing out how the dialogue, characterisation, acting and wit are nevertheless top notch as ever. Even a superior show like Buffy, with 22 episodes per season, has its turds. But, my God, it polishes them well.
This episode is all about Dawn getting an enormous teenage crush on a boy at school with a magic sports jacket thingy, the type that badly dressed American "jocks" always wear and somehow get the girls in spite of the fact that it's a truly awful look. So, yeah, the metaphor is a bit blunt here, and the whole thing is a bit of a clumsy flashback to the high school metaphors of old, using the convenient fact that Dawn is a convenient peg on which to hang such things. Nothing arc-wise happens either, so it's an eminently skippable episode. At least it's a Dawn episode in which Michelle Trachtenberg gets to genuinely shine.
So, anything to notice here? Well, firstly,once again we get one of the things I most dislike about late period Buffy; acting as though Willow is just straightforwardly gay. I know sexual orientation on telly was in a more basic phase 15 years ago, but retconning her past like this just erases bisexuality and treats sexual orientation as a binary thing. Secondly, we get the Breeders- yes, THE BREEDERS, playing at the Bronze, and no one even worships at their feet or anything, which is deeply wrong, as Kim and Kelley are goddesses.
So, yeah, worth it for the Breeders. The other scenes? Not so much. But a bad episode like this doesn't take away from Buffy being a truly great show; it simply means that 22 episodes a season is too bleeding many.
Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979)
"He wanks as high as any man in Wome!"
This is, surely, the greatest comedy film ever made. By miles. I suspect that’s an uncontroversial comment. It’s also not at all about religion. That one needs a bit more explaining.
Life of Brian is about how ideas, such as Jesus’ rather excellent views on how to live one’s life, are always taken over and twisted into something else by those who want to use them to gain power and status. Hence the central part of the film, where Brian is followed by professional disciples (“I should know- I’ve followed a few”) who argue amongst themselves and split into various denominations over a dropped shoe on day one, killing their first heretic for good measure. The main example of the film’s central message is in that context. But it isn’t only applied to religion- aren’t Reg’s People’s Front of Judea and all the other “splitters” am example of exactly the same thing? Yet again, principles are subordinated to power, status and meaningless bureaucracy, exactly the same as per every organised religion that has ever existed. That’s how humanity always twists religion but also, I’m afraid, politics. Principles don’t stand a chance. That’s the film’s message, beneath the inspired humour. It’s very bleak, very Adam Curtis, and every bit as dark as the gleefully dark humour.
It’s bloody funny, though. We all have our favourite lines; mine is when Brian convinced the crowd that “we’re all individuals” and “we’re all different”, and one bloke shouts “I’m not”. The performances are superb, the Pythons being geniuses, and the script is the best comedy script ever. The filming in Tunisia looks lush and expensive- thank you, George Harrison, for paying for such things as this and Shirley Bloody Bassey. If you haven’t seen this then just bloody watch it now.
This is, surely, the greatest comedy film ever made. By miles. I suspect that’s an uncontroversial comment. It’s also not at all about religion. That one needs a bit more explaining.
Life of Brian is about how ideas, such as Jesus’ rather excellent views on how to live one’s life, are always taken over and twisted into something else by those who want to use them to gain power and status. Hence the central part of the film, where Brian is followed by professional disciples (“I should know- I’ve followed a few”) who argue amongst themselves and split into various denominations over a dropped shoe on day one, killing their first heretic for good measure. The main example of the film’s central message is in that context. But it isn’t only applied to religion- aren’t Reg’s People’s Front of Judea and all the other “splitters” am example of exactly the same thing? Yet again, principles are subordinated to power, status and meaningless bureaucracy, exactly the same as per every organised religion that has ever existed. That’s how humanity always twists religion but also, I’m afraid, politics. Principles don’t stand a chance. That’s the film’s message, beneath the inspired humour. It’s very bleak, very Adam Curtis, and every bit as dark as the gleefully dark humour.
It’s bloody funny, though. We all have our favourite lines; mine is when Brian convinced the crowd that “we’re all individuals” and “we’re all different”, and one bloke shouts “I’m not”. The performances are superb, the Pythons being geniuses, and the script is the best comedy script ever. The filming in Tunisia looks lush and expensive- thank you, George Harrison, for paying for such things as this and Shirley Bloody Bassey. If you haven’t seen this then just bloody watch it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)