Cinema Sweet

Found an interesting little competition where you have to write a haiku about a film. Here goes...

The Rocky Horror Picture Show
When you get a flat
Put on your stockings and heels
Before going for help

This is an entry for the <a href="http://bestforfilm.com" title="Best For Film Reviews, Movie News and Top 10 Films">Best For Film</a> Hollywood Haikus blogging competition. <a href="http://bestforfilm.com/film-blog/competition-hollywood-haikus/">Enter</a> now.

Starring: Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Isla Fisher, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry
Director: John Landis
Released: October 29, 2010

I read a lot of highly mixed reviews before buying this film on DVD, and as such I started watching it from a neutral standpoint, despite my love of Simon Pegg films. And as I was watching, I couldn't help but feel that something was wrong with it. It wasn't until a second viewing that I realised what it was: it's just not funny enough.

Which is a shame, really, because apart from that it's a rather enjoyable film.

The film is a comedic take on the infamous murders committed by Irish immigrants Burke and Hare in 1820's Edinburgh, who sold their murder victims to Dr Robert Knox for him to dissect. I shan't worry too much about spoiling the plot in this review since the story is well known already, although this retelling is not exactly historically accurate.

Pegg plays Burke and Sirkis plays Hare as they discover the market for fresh corpses, with Wilkinson as Knox and Curry as his rival, Dr Munroe, and Ronnie Corbitt as tiny militia captain McLintock intent on bringing down the villanous duo. Ironically, Burke and Hare are far more likable than many of the films other characters, despite their murderous tendencies. Pegg and Sirkis play the roles with a relaxed cheer which appears very natural, and which is especially amusing in contrast with their sinister deeds. Their cheerful chatter whilst committing a murder is worth a chuckle or two.

Unfortunately, a lot of the 'comedy' in the film appears forced and is highly predictable. Gags like an out-of-control barrel containing a body rolling down a hill have been done to death (sorry) and are obvious long before they take place. A member of the militia fainting constantly at the sight of body parts and murder got a few laughs from me at first but quickly lost its charm.

However, the thing which really killed (sorry) this comedy in my books was Isla Fisher's character, Ginny, an aspiring actress whom Burke falls for. Bless her, she tried her best with what she had, even managing to maintain a believable Scots accent for the majority of the film, but I simply could not force myself to care about her idea for an all-female production of Macbeth which smitten Burke funds with his murder-gained profit. Her part feels tacked on to give the rather mild-mannered Burke a reason for his crimes, and their little romance, when put alongside Burke's other activities in the film, feels clumsy and unnatural. Burke's failing to get her into bed until demanding a conjugal visit before his execution is funny, but neither brilliant nor original.

Worst of all, as Burke stood on the gallows with a noose around his neck, his final words were gag-worthy, to the point where I was actually glad when he dropped out of sight, something I never thought I'd say regarding Simon Pegg. Announcing that he 'did it for love' with an affectionate gooey smile at Ginny before being executed seems too corny for words, and entirely spoiled any sinister mood conjured up by the film. Which is a problem, since the story is rather sinister.

I have not said anything too positive so far, and I would like to point out that I did enjoy the movie as a whole, but it is certainly not Pegg's best. The fact that I believe more screen time was devoted to the romance than to the murders is a major problem. And, while it works just fine not being entirely historically accurate, there were times when I felt it should have been. In the true story, Hare testified against Burke in order to save his own skin. In this tale, Burke confesses to save the rest. I was highly unsatisfied (I found Pegg's Burke likeable, but his selfless act was too slushy), at least in part because I think it might have been amusing to see Sirkis's Hare selling his mate down the river. His selfishness was evident in the quick thank you he offered God when Burke confessed, but this selfishness could have generated more comedy if used effectively.

The film's impressive supporting cast including Christopher Lee, Paul Whitehouse, Reece Shearsmith and Bill Bailey (as the amusingly hypocritical hangman who called Burke's murder-for-money idea 'evil' before accepting his wage for the execution) add a well-needed breath of comedy, with Ronnie Corbitt really stealing the show. Pegg's talent, I felt, was not put to its best use, and I blame this on the useless romance which dragged down the comedy.

Burke and Hare was John Landis's first feature film in quite some time, and while it's certainly not up to his 'An American Werewolf in London' standards, it's enjoyable and funny, if not hillarious. With the actual skeleton of the real William Burke credited at the end of the film, and the sobering tale of what he and Hare did still fresh in my memory, I could appreciate how difficult it must have been to try and make a successful comedy film out of such a horrible story of mass murder. And although it's not brilliant, I do believe they did their best. Not Pegg's greatest by far, but certainly very watchable.

Cinema Sweet Rating - 6/10

With their new movie, Paul, next on my list of reasons to go to the cinema, it seemed appropriate to review the very best of the hilarious duo that is Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. And it does not get much better than...

Shaun of the Dead
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Kate Ashfield, Lucy Davis, Dylan Moran, Bill Nighy
Director: Edgar Wright
Released: April 9, 2004

This is the movie which redefined a genre. Shaun of the Dead ushered in a new era of zombie comedies (zom coms) like 2006's Fido, and 2009's Zombieland. But I maintain that it is one of the best - and that extends further than this genre alone.

Self-dubbed as a romantic comedy with zombies (yes, a RomZomCom), the film sees Shaun (Simon Pegg) try to get his life together, win back his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield), and deal with his mother and stepfather (Bill Nighy). Matters are complicated significantly by a zombie apocalypse.

Shaun lives with disgruntled roommate Pete and the crude, lazy Ed (Nick Frost). As a zombie apocalypse breaks out, Shaun is amusingly unaware for some time that the dead are now walking the earth, too wrapped up in his problems (and a hangover) to notice the many signs - such as bloody hand prints on the freezer door of the local corner shop, a woman chewing on a man's throat outside the local pub, and indeed the moaning, lumbering zombies on the streets. When he eventually realises what's going on after watching the news, there is already a zombie in the house, two in garden, and his roommate Pete was infected the night before. After neutralising the current zombie problem, Shaun and Ed decide the best course of action would be to barricade themselves in the pub, picking up Liz and Shaun's mum on the way, and killing the stepfather Phillip whom he hates and who has also been infected. But this is not as easy as it sounds, what with the growing population of the undead wandering the streets with a hunger for entrails, as well as a lot of bickering and the fact that they are forced to take Liz's roommates (who Shaun dislikes) and the infected Phillip along with them.

I wouldn't have thought it was possible to make a film that is funny, gory, and romantic at the same time, but Shaun of the Dead happily proved me wrong. It is a hilarious film - even the clever title makes me titter. The laid-back attitude of Ed, who sits eating a cornetto after bashing in the brains of a zombie; Shaun and Ed flipping through their record collection deciding which are too valuable to throw whilst bloodied hungry zombies approach; and even the ridiculously gory disembowelment and beheading of Liz's roommate David (Dylan Moran) are just a few of the little gems which make this film so side-splittingly funny. But somehow, miraculously, it manages to hold its own as a zombie film as well, in spite of the comedic and romantic elements which pepper the plot line. I'll admit that there are moments in the film which make me jump, and when you strip away the quick, clever comedy, it does contain some genuine chills. A body bag is seen hanging out of an ambulance with someone thrashing inside it. Shaun is forced to shoot his mother in the head after she dies and becomes one of the undead. Shaun of the Dead manages simultaneously to be a hilarious, romantic tragedy - something which no other film I can think of successfully pulls off.

Fast, funny and gloriously gory, Shaun of the Dead will have you itching to see more of the duo that is Simon Pegg and Nick Frost - and might leave you lying awake that night pondering the threat of a zombie apocalypse. I did. Nonetheless, Shaun of the Dead still makes it onto my list of all-time favourite movies, one I'll keep watching untill the apocalypse I don't doubt.

Cinema Sweet Rating - 10/10

I would be remiss in my duties as a movie reviewer if I did not review the latest in the Potter series, so here it is...

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman
Director: David Yates
Released: November 19, 2010
As a writer myself, I cannot help but loathe J K Rowling for the sudden and unbelievable success of her Harry Potter novels. That said, I'm a big Potter fan and the release of every new film fills me with great excitement. The seventh instalment in the series was no exception, and I was not disappointed.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows marks the beginning of the end for the Potter franchise. As someone who grew up with Potter, whose earliest memories of the cinema are of the magic and wonder of the first film in the series, and who used to read the books religiously, I sat down with my popcorn this time round with a feeling of both anticipation and dread. The final book in the series is long, complicated and (at times) a little slow, and the decision to split the movie into two parts worried me. However, the Deathly Hallows managed what it intended to do and then some. Not only does it set the scene for what is sure to be the biggest and possibly best finale in film history, but it also stands alone as a fantastic film full of action and suspense, and with a cliff hanger which will leave you desperate for its conclusion.

The seventh film is undoubtedly the darkest yet, as the Minister of Magic (Bill Nighy) admits in the very first line: "These are dark times, there's no denying". Lord Voldemort continues to grow in power and his plans to murder Potter take shape, leaving Harry and friends fleeing for their lives as they search for the Horcruxes which must be destroyed in order for Voldemort to be killed. That said, the film is not scary as much as it is poignant and dramatic.

The real dark elements of the film, for me, come from the political parallels which struck me whilst watching it. The corruption of the wizarding government, the Ministry of Magic, by the Death Eaters who wish to purify the wizarding community by the extermination of 'Mudbloods' (witches and wizards born of muggle parents), is not unlike the reign of the Nazis during World War II. In fact, Voldemort's lust for power and political beliefs practically mirror Hitler himself. In that way, the film which is essentially aimed at children is hauntingly dark and is sure to get darker still in the second installment. The tough decisions made by Harry and co. add another dimension to the film - particularly an early scene featuring Hermione wiping all traces of herself from her parents memory to protect them from the dark days ahead.

As the first film which doesn't revolve around Harry's school year at Hogwart's, the Deathly Hallows is strikingly different from the others, and the action is stepped up accordingly. From a heart-pounding broomstick chase at the start of the film, which features an impressive sequence of  Hagrid and Harry riding Hagrid's flying motorbike through the Dartford Tunnel chased by a Death Eater, to a breathless scene of a Horcrux attempting to drown Harry in a beautifully constructed set of a frozen lake, the Deathly Hallows succeeds at keeping the adrenaline pumping even through the inevitable slow section at the heart of the film.

I've read a lot of reviews accusing the film of being a bore because of its slow-paced camping scenes as Harry, Ron and Hermione run from Voldemort and search for the remaining Horcruxes. And to an extent, I agree with them - the film does sag in the middle. But it is also my belief that it could not be helped, what with the camping and the hiding being such a crucial part of the book, and considering this, I think they made a damn fine job of it. Although the tent scenes do succumb to the problems of some of the earlier films (heavy on exposition; low on action) they also show make the development of the lead characters more profound. Harry, Ron and Hermione are not the kids they were when they first jumped on board the Hogwart's Express - swotty Hermione has transformed into a brave and beautiful young woman, and her closeness with Harry leads to effectively conveyed sexual tension between the two, and jealousy from the underdog Ron. The development of the characters and friendships is conveyed best in a beautiful scene of Harry and Hermione, already melancholy after Ron storms out on them, spontaneously and awkwardly dancing together to a song on the radio, silently reflecting on what has passed between them and what can never be. If nothing else, the slow-pace of the camping scenes only makes the later action more exciting.

There are other, smaller things which make this film stand out from the rest in my mind. One is the small but dazzling moments of comedy - particularly a hilarious scene when several individuals take a potion to transform them into Potter doubles in order to confuse the Death Eaters, including Bill Weasley's fiance Fleur Delacour, resulting in Radcliffe daintily undressing and removing a bra. Then there is the artful touch such as the Tim Burton-esque animation demonstrating the story behind the title, the Deathly Hallows. This in particular was unlike any other installment so far.

The Potter franchise has become so commercialised that the films will inevitably gross nearly a billion a piece, quality aside. Although the films are cherished by millions, not one can really be considered a cinematic triumph. Does that mean the Deathly Hallows is a bad film? Not at all. I loved it. When the ending came (after a heartbreaking death I might add - you must have a heart of stone if you don't cry) I was clamouring for the second half, but I guess I'll just have to wait. Is the splitting of the film into two parts just a means of getting more money? I guess it probably is, but I also think it works and I'll happily pay to see the next part.

Cinema Sweet Rating - 7/10

The second film in our series of Horrifyingly Good Hallowe'en Movies is...

The Shining
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, Scatman Crothers
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Released: May 23, 1980

"Here's Johnny!"


These immortal words have been repeated and parodied so many times that you might think they'll never be scary again. You'd be wrong.

Based on the book of the same name by the master of horror, Stephen King, 'The Shining' is a skin-crawlingly claustrophobic psychology horror film which sees the Torrance family move into the isolated Overlook Hotel where the father, Jack (Jack Nicholson), a recovering alcoholic, will work as the caretaker throughout the winter months while the hotel is closed and completely cut off from the outside world by the snow. Jack is undeterred by the hotel manager's warning about cabin fever, planning to use the solitude to work on his writing, even after he is told that a former caretaker, Grady, went insane and murdered his wife and daughters with an axe before shooting himself.
Jack's son, Danny (Danny Lloyd), is not as enthusiastic about the hotel after he begins to have terrifying premonitions about it, told to him by his 'imaginary friend', Tony. The cook, an old African-American man called Dick Hollorann (Crothers), tells Danny that these premonitions are actually a 'Shining' - something which he possesses too. But the hotel also has a 'shine' to it, and some bad memories staining it to boot.
Things begin to go badly wrong a month after the Torrance's move in. In the empty hotel, Danny repeatedly encounters two young girls, who he also 'sees' lying butchered in a corridor beside a bloody axe. And then there is the woman in 237 who attempts to strangle him - the woman whom Jack also encounters but tells his wife Wendy (Duvall) that he saw nothing in the room. Jack's slow descent into madness becomes increasingly more terrifying as he imagines a ghostly bartender serving him drinks in a completely empty and unstocked bar, and then a full blown costume party where he encounters a waiter he believes to be the former caretaker, Grady, who tells him he must "correct" his wife and child. As Danny is haunted by the word 'redrum', Hollorann races to save them, and Wendy discovers the chilling 'writing' which Jack has been doing since they arrived, Jack begins to stalk the halls of the possessed hotel with an axe... And you know what they say. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Forever. And ever. And ever.

The film deviates from the book in several crucial ways. For example, where Tony is an actual figure in the book (a representation of the future Danny Anthony Torrance), he is reprisented in the film by Danny putting on a gruff voice and talking to his finger, and I think it loses something in this, and perhaps even gains a hint of the ridiculous. The creepy hedge animals in the book are replaced by a hedge maze in the film, losing another whiff of the supernatural. The roque mallet which Jack terrifies his family with in the book is instead an axe in the movie. The fate of Hallorann is significantly different, and a little disapointing I found. The ending, too, is very different, although the eventual outcome is virtually the same.

It is undoubtedly a good film, a classic, and it deserves to be watched. The claustrophobia is reasonably well portrayed, and some parts are genuinely chilling, but the problem is that others just aren't. The film would have been far better if it had tried to follow the book, but in many ways it doesn't. The supernatural element which makes King's novels so very unsettling appears to be downright ignored - the inhuman evil of the hotel itself is overlooked by the madness of Nicholson's character. That's another huge problem with it. What should be a slow descent into madness is altogether too fast and unrealistic, ruining what was in King's novel a tragedy about a man succumbing to both the supernatural and the very real powers of alcohol and rage. Jack Torrance's character comes across as evil, when in fact he is a loving family man who is led terrifyingly astray - this is obvious in the novel, for example, by Jack regaining one last shred of his personality before his death to tell his son to run and that he loves him. I can fully understand King's hatred of the film. Kubrick took his character and tore it to shreds.

All that said, you should still watch this film. It will genuinely chill you at least once, I gaurantee, and it is a classic. My only advice is that you watch the film before reading the book, because otherwise the film will be a massive dissapointment. But do read the book, and please feel free to leave your own opinions here about which is best - as an avid reader and a Stephen King fan, I may be a little biased.

Cinema Sweet Rating - 7/10 (9/10 for the novel!)