Zodiac (2007)

 "I think he's watching us."

"Well, we're very good looking."

This is an interesting film, to say the least. I suppose I was expecting something more sensational, more focused on the gory details, but instead far more of the run time is dedicated to the puzzle of who the Zodiac was, with all the many little clues, details and complicating factors, not least of which is which crimes, other than the main ones, were genuinely committed by the Zodiac himself.

The whole thing looks beautiful and the directorial style from David Fincher is exquisite. The California of the late '60s up to the early '80s is recreated in convincing and fascinating detail. Indeed, the actual social mores of this time- in which hippes and the like did not loom anything like as large as popular culture may make us imagine- are as fascinating as anything else, not least the detail that Arthur Leigh Allen seems to be let off appallingly lightly for his disgusting child molestation. And the cast is pretty much perfect, although Robert Downey Jr and Mark Ruffalo stand out in particular.

I'm not convinced that Allen was the Zodiac- indeed, I'm not sure any of the usually touted suspects were. But I don't think we can say, despite appearances, that the film does either. It leans into the ambiguity at times, especially with the extraordinary tense scenes where Robert begins to suspect that Bob Vaughn may be the Zodiac, and the two of them are alone in Vaughn's basement.

But the film, I think, is not about solving the mystery: it's about the dangers of obsession with endless if fascinatingrabbit holes such as this, which ruins Robert Graysmith's marriage, Paul Avery's health and career and David Toschi's reputation. Mysteries are fascinating, but they are not more important than our relationships, our children, our lives. And that's a very compelling point from a seriously impressive film.

Aliens vs Predator: Requiem (2007)

 "That's crazy. The government doesn't lie to people!"

This is a terrible film. It stinks. And let me be quite clear about this: this is not one of those B movies that aren't very good but we can have a good laugh about, enjoying the silliness. No; this is unwatchable.

It's actually fascinating how on Earth a film this bad can be made. The plot is confusing and, indeed, confused; the visual storytelling fails along with the script. We don't care about the characters. Actors like Sam Trammell, so good in True Blood, are perfectly decent in other stuff but pants here. The whole thing is incoherent. Even the lighting is rubbish; unclear, and contributing to the fundamental failure to tell the story here. We just aren't told, diegetically, what on Earth is going on. I needed to look at a synopsis to learn that the plot is based around a "Predalien", a Predator-Xenomorph hybrid, being hunted by a Predator with the humans as collateral damage.

The concept for the film is even pretty decent, with all this happening to one small Colorado town. This could, with competent direction and script, have been a decent film. Sadly, we get neither. This is shockingly bad. It's a film about an Alien-Predator hybrid on the loose... and it's boring.

Ghost Rider (2007)

"Mooooo!"

I hadn't seen this film until last night hit my expectations we’re not high. The film doesn’t seem to be well-regraded, Nicolas Cage is certainly a very Marmite actor, and Mark Steven Johnson was personally responsible for the crime against cinema that was Daredevil. Having seen it, though, I can’t see much wrong with it and enjoyed it a lot. It’s not up there with the very best but is a perfectly good film.

I suppose the DVD cover didn’t help matters- the quote used praised the film for its special effects, which usually indicates a well-polished turd. Yet the effects are indeed superb here- Ghost Rider looks amazing and the transformation scenes are extraordinary- but the stench of faecal matter is very much absent. There’s a solid script, for a start, making Johnny a sympathetic and well-rounded character and achieving that surprisingly rare trick of making an origin story entertaining. It’s broadly faithful to the comic books, although there’s no mention of Zarathos.

One place they can’t, and shouldn’t be faithful, of course, is with the character of Mephisto, a strange Marvel sort-of-the-Devil-but-not-quite character. For cinematic purposes he has to be treated as a more traditional devil type, and Peter Fonda is magnificent. It’s also a good idea to use Blackheart as the main villain, plot-wise at least. But perhaps stealing the limelight is the splendid Sam Elliott as Carter Oage, the Ghost Rider of the old West who gets one last ride.

This is a satisfying way to spend 100 minutes, a hugely entertaining film. I genuinely don’t understand the hate. Yes, Nic Cage is, er, Nic Cage, And his acting style is certainly unorthodox. But surely he’s perfectly appropriate here...? Received wisdom can be weird.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

“Where do all these guys come from?”

The critics didn’t like this film; I went in knowing that. So I’m left wondering what parts low expectations had in what I made of the film, but I liked it; perhaps more so than Spider-Man 2, and that certainly isn’t what you’re supposed to think.

We’re told this film is an overcrowded mess with too many villains. Well, it isn’t. Both Sandman and Venon are tied in well to Peter Parker’s character development and play important roles, as does Harry Osbourne.  Gwen  Stacy plays an important role too; the film packs a lot in but doesn’t feel rushed. Instead, it actually justifies its long running time.

The core of the film is, of course, the symbiote as a symbolic representation of Peter’s dark side- the arrogance, the selfishness, the temptations that lurk within us all. From a situation of seeming perfection at the start of the film- things are going well for Peter in his love life, studies, work and Spider-Man is insanely popular- we immediately know that the bubble is bound to burst and, importantly, Peter starts to show some neglect for MJ’s work problems before the symbiote even affects him, but as soon as he puts in the dark costume (it’s a shame they didn’t use the proper version of the costume, as Benom looks pretty similar, but heigh-ho...)

Yes, Venon gets relatively little screen time, but a version of Eddie Brock is well used, Harry (whine, conveniently, we already know) is well used and Flink Marco (Sandman) is given a tragic backstory and an important role into being (rather crudely) retconned into Ben Parker’s killer. He’s well portrayed by Thomas Gaden Church and, while both he and Venom have limited screen time, I liked the way both were used. This isn’t a Joel Schumacher Batman film; all the characters are properly developed, however minor, including May, Jonah and the rest of the supporting cast.

So ignore the criticisms; this is a fine film. It also has a top cameo by Bruce Campbell as a snooty French maitre d’, and the CGI with both Sandman and Venom deserves an awful lot of praise. It’s sad that this is the last of the Sam Raimi films; I wish they had more of a wisecracking Spidey, but the trilogy is excellent on the whole, and ends on a high.

Eastern Promises (2007)

"London is a city of whores and queers."

I confess that I need to see more early period avid Cronenberg for his trademark body horror, and I will. Yet up to now I've only seen some of his late period non-fantasy stuff- Crash and Cosmopolis, both excellent. So what will I make of Eastern Promises?

Well, the directing is excellent, of course, from the framing of the first shot onwards. This is Cronenberg's London film, a tribute to what remains very much an imperial capital long after its empire has gone, a melting pot, a metropolis and world city far out of proportion to the nation of which it is capital, and a city which now, alas, faces the catastrophe of Brexit.

And yet... despite the excellence of Naomi Watt and the superbly ambiguous Viggo Mortensen, this is a very good but hardly superlative gangster film with both a conscience and an aesthetic for violence (which is excellent throughout). The famous twist is... fairly predictable, and what we have is a film about the Russian mafia, albeit a perfectly good one, and fascinating about the context with the tattoos and that depressingly prevalent Russian homophobia, but this is less good than either of the other Cronenberg films I've seen so far.

What it does show, though, is how many in less fortunate parts of our continent still see London as being paved with gold, so they come, and are abused and disappointed, hopefully not to the extent of poor Tatiana. But what we have here is a good film that, while well-directed, feels more like television than film.,

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

"I should be on that list!"

Best Stan Lee cameo EVER.

After the travesty of the 2015 film it's so good to see a cinematic version of the FF which faithfully reproduces the characters, makes them engaging, is full of thrills and action, and generally continues in much the same vein as it's excellent 2005 predecessor. There's very much a '60s feel, adapting one of the classic Lee/Kirby tales and including Reed's and Sue's wedding to boot, and even turning Johnny into a kind of Super-Skrull for the climax after an inspired sub-plot where he swaps powers with other team members, which has particular resonance for Ben. Yes, we hardly see Galactus and that's disappointing, but there's precious little that's wrong with this film.

The film is well-scripted, the cast continue to be excellent and the characters are all true to themselves, with the continuing exception of Dr Doom. The Silver Surfer is done well too, although Laurence Fishburne is a little wasted in a voice only role. I had to laugh at the set piece in London, something which is happening a lot in films I'm watching at the moment, but it works well.

Yep. That's how it should be done, Fox. Let's be more like this and less like the recent film, hmmm?

Hannibal Rising (2007)

"What is left in you to love?"

Why does this film fail? Well, firstly, it isn't very good, being slow and boring with an uncharismatic lead actor. But I think it's partly the European setting; my British sensibilities rather like the exotic American settings we've come to expect from Hannibal films. Darkly lit Black Forest locations don't really cut it.

It's disappointing to see Hannibal given an origin in Second World War Lithuania; a banal, Middle American upbringing would have been much more interesting. Just because he's a serial killer doesn't mean he should get a tragic background. And I may detect a smidgeon of that tired old American trope that Europe, the continent I live in, is full of Godless moral deviants and it's best to get away from all that for a new start in America. The character of Lecter is lessened by his dramatic European origin as presented here.

Anyway, the tragic scenes from Hannibal's childhood play out; I assume, from his name, his Lithuanian origins and his family's posh living arrangements before the Soviets arrive that he's a Baltic German by origin. I suppose it's interesting that the castle used as an orphanage is in fact posh boy Hannibal's family home; that must stick in his craw as much as the constant bullying.

Eventually he travels to France and a strange Japanese lady friend of the family, travelling by map (a Muppets in-joke there...), from whom he learns martial arts. He feels affection for her, of sorts; his first murder (in broad daylight!) is inflicted on a man  who sexually harasses her.

There are elements here that will continue throughout his life; the murder was committed because of the victim's discourtesy, and Hannibal has the first of many long cat and mouse games with a suspicious detective, in this case Dominic West's French inspector.

Then it's back to Kaunas to avenge his family's deaths, but the film still hasn't really caught fire in any way. The deaths are boring, even with the added feature of Hannibal's first bit of cannibalism. 

His pursuit of his family's killers continues throughout the film, with Hannibal risking the guillotine as the inspector is on to him; they have a discussion about vigilantism vs. the law which is almost interesting.

The film is desperately, desperately slow, but mercifully it ultimately nears its vague and unsatisfactory climax as Hannibal rescues his Japanese surrogate mother and is rejected by her as she realises what he is. The end is not really satisfying, but it's so good to find that the film is finally over.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

"Dementors in Little Whingeing. What next?"

I really wish these Harry Potter films wouldn't keep getting darker and darker. I miss the fun of the first one. Still, this film is an improvement on the last one and an entertaining viewing, at least. 

We begin with the world of magic infiltrating the normal world of the "Muggles", a potent concept, and with temperature still being referred to in terms of Fahrenheit in spite of the fact that it's the twenty-first century. Harry is expelled, sort of, for portending his unpleasant step-brother from a Dementors but, as he's Very Important, the rules do not apply to him in the same way as they apply to us plebs. Professor Moody comes to his defence, and he's an impressive figure to have on one's side, being the only Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher to retain his post from film to film.

Harry is inducted into the Order of the Phoenix, which no doubt also contains many senior police officers. The word "Witangemot" gets bandied about, which is cool. Things are ominous, and the armies of good and evil are being raised against each other.

There follows a sequence of fun scenes, as Ron's dad discusses Muggles from an anthropological point of view and there's an exciting chase sequence with much CGI and many London landmarks. Harry is tried by a kangaroo court, set up by the increasingly sinister Ministry of Magic. He is lucky to be acquitted, but the mood remains uneasy as school starts and we are introduced to the eccentric and mysterious Luna Lovegood.

The school is gradually taken over by the Gradgrindian tyrant Dolores Umbridge, a tool of the Ministry of Magic played delightfully by Imelda Staunton. Her increasingly stifling rules and regulations slowly weaken the school, banning creativity and teaching to the test in a barbed comment on contemporary British education. When she forces Harry to do lines, in his own blood, on his own skin, we know full well that she's a baddie, and a good one. This is the best film in the series since the first one.

Umbridge is soon appointed "High Inquisitor" to address "seriously falling standards", and much damage is done. The delightfully eccentric Professor Trelawney is sacked on grounds that are pure Gradgrind. There's a mood of paranoia, and Harry one more needs to be reminded that even heroes need help from their friends, even after Dumbledore has been sacked and things look very bleak.

Harry gathers together a resistance movement and trains them in secret, in scenes which seem to have their allegorical roots on political tyranny rather than anything educational. Harry gets a kiss under the Mistletoe, but term ends on an uneasy note.

Snape, everyone's favourite red herring, tells Harry that Voldemort has a mental link with him, and attempts to teach him resistance. Harry, though, is worried about similarities between Voldemort and himself. It is Sirius who has the words of wisdom: "We all have light and dark inside of us. What matters is what we choose to act upon. That's who we really are."

The new term is no better; the sexy but nasty Belletrix Lestrange is one the use, and Harry's little gang is stitched up by snitches, as a result of which Dumbledore is sent to Azkaban. Things seem to have reached rock bottom. All this is rather effective.

Hogwarts by this point resembles Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. And Snape remains unfriendly to Harry- because, we learn, he was bullied by Harry's dad. Ouch. 

There is, yet again, a final battle, in which Harry, being all heroic and that, refuses the  temptation to kill Bellatrix. Everything is ok afterwards, arguably a little too quickly to be plausible, and all is as it was. We learn of a prophecy about Voldemort and Harry: one must kill the other...

That's more like it. I hope the next film maintains the quality.

Shrooms (2007)

“See Ireland. Do ‘shrooms.”

There are no stars in this obscure-ish thriller. It’s not the best film ever made or anything. But it should be more widely seen. I have a bit of an issue with the fact that this Irish film tries to feature as few Irish accents as possible for the benefit of the presumed-to-be-narrow-minded American audience, who are assumed not to be able to deal with Irish accents. Thus we have a largely American cast, with the sole main Irish character having spent some years in an English public school, with a hybrid accent to match.

It’s a good film, though. The drugginess of the central conceit is matched by a hazy, misty look to the film, which works wonderfully with the deeply evocative, if stereotypical, Irish locations. The dialogue is good, and the plot is beautifully structured. The characters may conform to those tired old American high school stereotypes, but this just means we can get the introductions over with and get on with a plot. Thrillers, after all, are fuelled by plot more than character development.

Oh, and we also have the line “Do you guys get dogging in America”? That alone makes the film worth seeing. And then there are all those comforting tropes- being deep into the woods, sinister locals, made-up “local” legends, mobile phones conveniently not working. But then we also get clever use of drugginess to make us question the narrative, not least by means of a talking cow. And, not to spoilerify, but this sort of thing leads us to a rather clever and satisfying ending in which everything we think we know is wrong. Also, there’s a character called Bluto, which rules. So don’t be put off by the fact that the only actors you vaguely recognise are minor Father Ted characters.

Hostel Part II (2007)

“No, Dad, we’re going to Prague. It’ll be fine. It’s not the Ukraine.”

Sequels, eh? They can (often) be rubbish, or they can be The Godfather Part II. This one is more of a Scream 2, riffing on the tropes and themes established by the original in its gloriously playful, postmodern way. I rather enjoyed it. As with many good sequels, though, I may have enjoyed this more than the original but a lot of the credit for that has to go to the original, which established things that the sequel doesn’t have to.

It’s the same hostel in Slovakia. It’s the same drill, no pun intended. The premise has already been established. What’s interesting is how the film uses the fact that it doesn’t need to do so much exposition to vary things a bit. There are two perspectives; a new set of three American victims- this time all female- and also two paying “customers” who have paid to do the torturing and killing. This latter perspective, in particular, keeps things fresh and deepens the concept; Stuart and Todd are contrasted in that one is nervous and one full of bravado, but things do not turn out as expected. It’s interesting, however, if I can return to my point from my review of the previous film about the depiction of Europeans, that both victims and villains are Americans. All the European characters are pretty much instrumental; it’s the Americans who have the agency. Interesting, too, that Beth is the sole survivor by virtue only of being stinking filthy rich.

The first to die, Lorna, is the virgin, a nice if predictable subversion of the horror film cliché. There’s also more satire of the ignorance of the travellers (“Slovakia? Wasn’t there some war there?”) and possibly a deliberate response to the criticism of producing “torture porn” in the scene in which Lorna is slowly and sensually tormented and bled to death by a naked woman with a sword. It’s a cleverer and more self-aware film than its predecessor. I liked it a lot.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

“Well, I see you’ve arrested the whole village.”

Obviously I love this film. That won’t surprise you; I’m exactly the sort of person who would. I’m a huge fan of Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright, I loved Spaced, and I’ve seen enough action films to get the metatextual nods. Plus, more generally, I’m a geek.

I’ve been in more than my share of sleepy English villages like the one in this film- pretty, genuinely nice, but also rather stultifyingly conservative (and, indeed, generally Conservative) and not good for one’s privacy what with all the gossip. Still, I may prefer cities these days (though I actually live in a village at the mo, albeit not one like this), but I remember the relaxed attitude to underage drinking back when I was a lad. Halcyon days. Still, I can’t really quibble with the film’s broad suggestion that there’s something potentially rather dark lying beneath the close-knit conformity of village life. And this is a perfect depiction of this sort of village, so much so that I can even forgive the use of The Kinks’ The Village Green Preservation Society.

The main thing is, though, that this is a brilliant comedy, and Simon Pegg puts in a typically superb performance as Nick Angel, the perfect cop who annoys everyone with his smartass ways but slowly and gradually lightens up a bit. It’s very noticeable that this isn’t the sort of part you’d usually associate with Pegg; he’s a much more versatile actor than one might assume.

Pegg aside, Nick Frost is also excellent, albeit in the sort of role he usually plays; Timothy Dalton twirls his moustache gleefully while also attempting a West Country accent, and there are roles for such British comedy luminaries as (deep breath) Steve Coogan, Bill Nighy, Bill Bailey (whose character is at one point seen reading Iain Banks’ excellently weird and suitably dark and rural The Wasp Factory!!!), Jim Broadbent, etc. For a geeky actor spotter like me this is Heaven indeed.

The conceit of this film is, of course, to take the tropes of the Hollywood buddy buddy cop movie and transplant them to a leafy little village in the West Country, which cannot fail to be funny. The climax to the film absolutely delivers on this score, and throws in a weird cowled cult into the bargain. We get a very, very funny angle on the cliché that is the montage (see the next blog post!!!) and scenes that look uncannily like Operation Wolf (late ‘80s shoot ‘em up game, for all you non-thirtysomethings out there).

See Hot Fuzz. It’s well good.

Saw IV (2007)

“You think it’s over, but the games have just begun…”

John Kramer is dead. Very dead. So dead, in fact, that the film begins with his autopsy. But that doesn’t mean that we’ve heard the last of Jigsaw. Things have been set in motion from beyond the grave, and an unsuspected individual is carrying on the nastiness.

This film covers some edgier themes than its predecessor, but in spite of some extreme gore it doesn’t feel as sadistic, perhaps because of these themes. There’s a slightly stronger focus (relatively speaking) on character, with even John himself being given some greater depth in flashback, not that his past remotely justifies his actions, of course. Nevertheless, Tobin Bell is excellent as ever.

As before, a supporting character in previous films (in this case Officer Rigg) is promoted to a starring role because of the disturbingly high death count amongst his colleagues. Intricate and sadistic situations happen. There is blood. There is suffering, much of vaguely ironic. You know the drill by now. The references to previous filmed are becoming increasingly intricate, as are the concluding revelations. The “everything you think you know is wrong” factor gets bigger and bigger with each entry in the series.

And yet… well made though this is, and less gory than its predecessor (that, of course, is a relative statement!), the very serious themes leave a bad taste in the mouth. Child abuse and miscarriage are used, without much in the way of subtext, to titillate, and this makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

Time for an extended break from the Saw films, methinks. I’ll eventually be back to do the rest.