Last week, I likened the writers and director of The Tournament to action maestro Tony Scott. The comparison was meant as a compliment, given how they showed the same technical flair in their very first film, bolstered by hunger for the craft, that so often goes to waste now that Scott himself is at such an advanced stage of his directorial career. Right on time, Unstoppable rolls into the station to show once again how he's really just working on auto-pilot.
On his first day at work, conductor Will is paired with veteran engineer Frank and sent out onto the rails. Coincidentally, today is the day that an unmanned freight train carrying gallons upon gallons of molten phenol, (which might as well be labelled "Chemical X") pounds its way along at over 70mph into a population centre in Pennsylvania, where it will surely cause a terrible disaster. Frank has some ideas about how to stop this railed behemoth, and the two mismatched men must work together to avert railway-related catastrophe.
It's fair to say that Unstoppable is the film I wish Tony Scott had made last year instead of The Taking of Pelham 123, his deplorable remake of one of my favourite films of all time. That's not to say that this film's any good, it's just a hell of a lot more watchable than The Taking of Pelham 123. And I can't tell you what he has against trains, either. It's like watching 98 minutes of an advert for Brawndo, the Thirst Mutilator. It never builds or sustains the kind of tension it's angling for, but it remains an exhausting viewing experience, even for its relatively short length.
Evil! Evil! DIABLO!
The idea of the film is much like the train it centres around. It's essentially a low-grade action thriller that's gathered steam from its inception to its realisation. A monster movie wherein a train is partly personified becomes a much bigger deal when it hoovers up a director of Scott's standing, an Oscar-winning actor who likes to work with that director, a young actor freshly laden with plaudits from his big breakout role and of course, a presumably enormous budget.
And likewise, any given Tony Scott film always feel like an unmanned train in danger of exploding violently. He's directed enough action films- you would hope by now that he would have recognisable flourishes, or little visual cues that distinguished him from any number of much younger directors trying to break out of music videos or reality TV highlights reels. There's none of that, and there's no technical aptitude in the editing either- so much of the film takes place through the lens of Fox News (guess who produced this film?), and there's no verisimilitude in the dizzying arrangement of shots. The editing is just highly haphazard and hugely distracting.
Particularly annoying is the old trope of films like these, is to deploy on-screen sluglines whenever we cross an international border or enter a top-secret facility of some description. If all of these sluglines were removed from the film, all you'd need to know is this- Unstoppable takes place in Pennsylvania. If you're keeping track of thrilling locations within Pennsylvania, such as "Fuller Yard" and "Zinc Plant", then I suspect that you're missing the point of the film. That's perfectly excusable though, because so has Scott.
Oddly though, Scott always seems to get his cast to take it seriously. Not that you'd know it from the amount of times Denzel Washington and Chris Pine are reduced to laughing at nothing in a weak attempt to build camaraderie between them. Both actors are individually fine though, and I also give kudos to Rosario Dawson, who gets some really risible dialogue to chew on, like the much-parodied line about the length of the Chrysler Building.
Unstoppable almost works as a comedy purely because the cast are able to convince. It's a film where a train is a monster! People actually try shooting it in order to stop its inexorable momentum! The train is arguably a more comfortably established character than any of the actual people. It should be more bonkers than it actually is, but crucially, it ought to be more fun too. Instead, it's too condescending and headache-inducing for me ever to consider it as fun. Tony Scott once again proves himself to be the master of the adequate actioner.
Unstoppable is now showing in cinemas nationwide. ------------------------------------------------------------------ If you've seen Unstoppable, why not share your comments below? If anyone else wishes that true events were as goofy and bonkers as films that are "Inspired By True Events", join me by the railway tracks tonight, we'll see if we can shoot a train to death, like they do in the film.
I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.
The world has taken some beatings on the big screen, not least at the hands of global bullyboy Roland Emmerich. Every now and then, you get a film that takes place after the fact, and armageddon has been and gone. Of course sometimes, two films come along at once, and a very thematically rigid January at the cinema brings us The Road and The Book of Eli. As something of a regular disclaimer, it's only my opinion here- others are available. As ever, mild spoilers may occur in the process of reviewing, but never so far as to spoil any major plot developments.
The Road is set after an unspecified cataclysm that devastated the world, killed most of the population and has every day becoming colder than the last. In the midst of this chaos, a father and his son make their way across America to the coast, a destination that the father believes everything depends on. The Book of Eli looks, to all intents and purposes, like a video game-friendly alternative to this film if you go by the trailers and posters. It follows a Man With No Name type (except he's called Eli), as he carries a precious cargo across, again, the post-apocalyptic waste that used to be America. This cargo is the titular book, and with the promise that it could bring civilisation once again amongst the few surviving humans, it doesn't take a theologian to figure out what book it might be. When Eli chances upon a small Wild West town, he clashes with its ruler, Carnegie, who has long sought to control the book's power.
The Road came first though. These films are so similar in plot that I thought I might as well synopsize them together. They are of course wildly different in tone, and this is a dramatic two-hander between Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee as father and son. Yeah, so there are other survivors along the way and flashbacks to the now-absent mother of the family, but it's largely all about those two. Mortensen is really, properly good in this film, understating his role as a devoted father with real sadness and determination. You can believe this is a man who has watched the world go to hell, and that he'll do anything to keep his son from the dangers in the chaotic aftermath. McPhee is less convincing, and director John Hillcoat hardly sold the casting by telling everyone the kid was cast because he looked like his screen mum, Charlize Theron. McPhee is at his best when pondering the moral implications of the lifestyle he and his father lead, but beyond that, he just doesn't come across as a kid born into this world.
I haven't yet read the book that this is based on, but there's one major thing I didn't think was made clear in the film. What's so great about survival when the world is as bad as this? There is at least some purpose to their striving for the coast, but even that falls through once the purpose of the journey is revealed. Maybe it's made clearer in the book, but after they've traversed the country avoiding cannibals and freezing to death, what's the point in suffering. Perhaps I'm a little fatalistic, but that's the key problem with The Road in my estimation. It also covers similar ground to Hillcoat's previous film, The Proposition, as the bonds of family are set against a hostile and unforgiving landscape, and Hillcoat uses the same make-up techniques used on that one to visually put his performers through the wringer. This film still has its own identity despite those similarities, but it's too bleak to be enjoyed and not memorable enough to be really appreciated.
That's really not to say I think The Road is a bad film, and believe it or not, I got a laugh out of it at one point. Obviously not from the film, but from a guy sitting a few rows ahead of me in the cinema, who realised he hadn't picked the right date film about half an hour in when his girlfriend started crying her eyes out, and continued to do so for much of the rest of the film. It's obviously a film you're meant to admire rather than enjoy, and while having read the book might enhance the expereience for most viewers, you may be as ambivalent about the film as I was if you haven't read it. Viggo Mortensen is truly brilliant and Guy Pearce follows The Hurt Locker with another very memorable cameo role, but the crux of the thing is that while I thought the film was good, I don't think anyone will really like it.
I had very low expectations of The Book of Eli, but while the content isn't as thoughtful as in John Hillcoat's film, this one is admittedly a lot more fun. This is somewhat bizarre, as it's certainly bleak enough to stand up to others in the sub-genre, but it's also a well executed action thriller. More than that, it's unpredictable. Dyou know what? I actually really liked it! Beyond what I said about the particulars of the book being fairly obvious, there are some absolutely killer twists throughout the film that kept me engaged for the duration. More than that, it explores the power of ideas rather than force. As many explosions and gunshots as there are in the action sequences, they won't shake Denzel Washington's Eli as long as he has his mission to focus on.
And it is a rather terrific performance from Denzel Washington. You could scarcely call it a career best, but that's because he's a very good actor who's been in some very good films. What you can say is that he's having a whale of a time, even if his co-star Mila Kunis doesn't quite measure up- she's a capable actor, it's just that she doesn't fare well in action films, (see Max Payne... or rather don't see Max Payne) A number of Harry Potter alumni round out the supporting cast, dominated by Gary Oldman as a well rounded villain with actual motivation as opposed to plot necessitated evil-doing. Besides that, there's an utterly bizarre non-sequitur with Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour doing a bit of comic relief in the middle. Tom Waits also shows up, typically making a memorable turn with a limited amount of screen time. It's a high calibre cast, and it's clear that they knew a good script when they saw it. I'm much happier to see these actors in this film rather than in 2012, for instance.
The Book of Eli isn't going to set the world alight. Indeed, the action begins after the world has been set alight by the sun's rays getting through a big old hole in the o-zone layer. The point is, this is a lot more fun than you could really expect a film with this subject matter to be. It has some strong central ideas and great performances, and aside from one admittedly minor quibble that took me out of the film momentarily (I thought he locked that door?!), I enjoyed it a lot. Although its release date means it'll be upstaged by its colleague in the genre, it actually works well as counter-programming. If, like the unfortunate young man and his girlfriend, you find The Road to be too bleak, you can give The Book of Eli a look and find a decent action thriller that isn't too emotionally taxing and doesn't treat you like an idiot either. Amen!
One film for cinematic connoisseurs, and another for the crowd who just fancy a night out at the multiplex. I need more days like this. If you've taken in a double dose of doomsday recently, why not share your comments below?
I'm currently intrigued by a film called All About Steve, because it seems to be a romcom that actually plumbs the depths of how bad it is possible to be in a film. I'm actually drawn to it by its terribleness- probably penance for wimping out of Shit Chipmunk Film 2. Or It's Complicated. Or Did You Hear About The Morgans? Eesh, I'm letting you all down lately. On the positive side of things, I've also seen Up In The Air, so a review of that shall be coming shortly.
I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.
Yeah, this is about the size of that promised rebrand. Let me fill you in on why I've gone off in a different direction from the "Filmgoat" name I was planning and alluding to. Having gotten catastrophically drunk last week, I wandered outside the club I was in and met an old friend from secondary school. Well, I say a friend... point being he's apparently being reading these reviews and told me they were very funny. This, for me, is a score.
More than anything else, I've hoped I'm not brow-beating people with my opinions. If anything, I'm happier to be Howard Beale, the mad prophet of the airwaves from the film Network. His show in that film is set up by the TV network executives to open with him delivering elaborate and disillusioning rants that he's channeling to the world from some unknown celestial force. At the end of each rant, he'll collapse into a faint in the spotlight, whereupon the studio audience applauds raucously. They're entertained, but they haven't took on a word he's been saying. And when someone reminds me of that in their response to these reviews, I know I'm doing something right. No one likes a critic, so I'm on the backfoot if I'm not entertaining you.
Moving on then- I've seen four new films this week and this post shall cover two of them. One quite literally involves the Moon, and the other is a remake that drops trou and flashes its arse at the superior original. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.
Who's in it? Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey are at the forefront in what's largely a two-hander, I was surprised to see homegrown Channel 4 stars like Matt Berry and Kaya Scodelario (of The IT Crowd and Skins fame, respectively) popping up in the background.
What's it all about? Sam Bell (Rockwell) is an astronaut nearing the end of his three-year contract working on the Moon to extract and export an energy resource that has made the Earth clean and efficient. With only a computer (voiced by Spacey) for company, Sam has a quintessentially personal encounter right before he's due to go back to Earth.
Any good? Sci-fi is bandied around like a dirty word sometimes, unless it's followed by the word "blockbuster". Nine times out of ten, such films have more money than ideas, and so the genre in its undiluted form rarely sees wide release. Even the Sci-Fi Channel have rebranded themselves as the mind-killingly banal "Syfy". So a film like Moon is a breath of fresh air if you like intelligent films with ideas. And I'm eager to point out from the off that not all science fiction features Klingons or Daleks, so don't fall into that slightly populist trap of avoiding Moon cos you're expecting something boring and nerdy.
Director Duncan Jones lovingly harkens back to the age when sci-fi films had ideas- films like Silent Running in particular- but it's as a result of that that it's not particularly original. I couldn't pretend that Moon has new ideas, as I even spotted one major part of the plot that's been done in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film, but the execution of these ideas is what makes it a good film- it wasn't half as good with Schwarzenegger. This film is directed and performed with more subtlety than Michael Bay could muster if he spent ten years in the dark trying to make a silent film, and it's just beautiful. As mentioned, it's more or less a two-hander, providing a claustrophobic atmosphere in the moonbase, which Sam Rockwell amplfies brilliantly with his diverse and great performance. I can't sing Rockwell's praises enough in general, but here is one of those performances that should get nominated for an Oscar, and probably would if the nominations and voting procedure weren't so skewed against genre fare. When February rolls around, I doubt the recipient of the Best Actor award will have been half as good as Rockwell is here, in whatever beige "prestige" film he (or she, you never know these days) has starred in.
There's not much of a supporting cast to speak of, but Kevin Spacey lends the film some tension as well as Sam's helper robot, GERTY. As he trundles around with a "Kick Me" post-it stuck to his back, he does his best to keep Sam sane and happy, but his ulterior motives are brought to the fore by the fact that Spacey can't even ask if you'd like something to eat without sounding menacing. But then I'm not planning to eat round Kevin Spacey's house anytime soon, so that's just fine with me. So besides these two, the other stand-out aspect of the film is the effects work. Far from relying on CGI, some beautiful model shots are employed of the vehicles, the base and the surface of the Moon itself. Another aspect of the homage to Silent Running and its low-budget ilk? Perhaps, but Jones was absolutely right to look elsewhere instead of succumbing to CGI shots. I'm talking about anything other than the story because I'm avoiding talking about the crux of the plot in advance- I knew nothing about this aspect of the story when I saw it, and I think I enjoyed it more because of that. So while I'm lavishing more praise than usual on effects (the score is good too, by the way), be assured that the film has more than enough story to keep you thinking and guessing throughout.
Intelligent and thought-provoking, Moon is the best sci-fi film in ages. Possibly since The Matrix. It's not entirely original, but it takes the time to execute the ideas that support the plot with new techniques rather than patronsing the audience by lazily chucking CGI at us. As with most low-budget films, it's sadly not in wide release, but I strongly recommend you catch it when it's released on DVD/Blu-ray.
Who's in it? John Travolta and Denzel Washington sit in for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau, with James Gandolfini and John Turturro lending ample support.
What's it all about? Walter Garber (Washington) is a New York subway train dispatcher whose life is changed when Ryder (Travolta) hijacks a subway car and demands $10 million in return for the 19 hostages he has on board. The two men form an uneasy relationship over the radio system as the clock ticks towards Ryder's deadline- for every minute he doesn't have the money thereafter, he'll kill a hostage...
Any good? Let me tell you about the 1974 film, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. I saw it recently and found it to be one of the better films I've seen since... well, ever. Well-paced, great action sequences and beautifully acted by Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Shaw, he of Jaws fame, is ice-cold and completely dedicated to getting what he wants, while Matthau is an endearing everyman who could easily have gone into his own spin-off series. Hell, I'd have watched another film with Matthau's Garber. Most importantly, the film leads up to one of the best endings ever- played just right and ending in media res. As the credits roll, you'll be smiling. 35 years on, Tony Scott has also adapted the book from which the 1974 film was based, so this isn't a remake in the strictest sense. But that won't stop me tearing it a new one, folks.
First problem, I say, as I pop open the hood of the film to take a look at it, is that Scott has clearly cast the lead roles the wrong way round. Denzel Washington can clearly play baddies well, as his Oscar for Training Day will attest, so while he's as endearing as he is in other films where he's the good guy, he's just too cool to be in the role of Garber. Cool, that's what Robert Shaw was. John Travolta, not so much. He needs to stop playing baddies altogether. Just... stop. People have talked endlessly about his easy charm, the kind of thing that came through in Grease and Pulp Fiction. In this, he's easily the worst possible drop-trou to the 1974 version as he overacts his way through yet another villain role, seemingly only there to demonstrate every possible vocal iteration of the word "motherfucker". Oh, and in an unintentionally hilarious moment, the word "bumhole". On the positive side of things, James Gandolfini captures the ineptitude of the Mayor of New York perfectly, even in spite of the script making him more competent than his predecessor towards the end of the film, and he has some of the best lines in the film.
Second problem, I say, poking at the mechanics of the film with a spanner, is the "updating" of the film. I feel that Pelham One Two Three was a film very much of its time. In the mid-70s, you can have a subway car full of New Yorkers react with derisive laughter when a gunman tells them he's hijacking the train. They have a cynicism and hard edge that only evaporates once they start shooting. Of course, something quite big happened in New York within the last ten years that now has "terrorist" being said almost as often as Travolta spouts "motherfucker". Post-9/11 subtext was one of the many things the film didn't need, and because it's an unfortunate necessity of setting a film like this in New York, it raises the question of whether it was necessary to remake the film in the first place. Additionally, you know you're in trouble when your film has a social networking sub-plot and vague allusions to the financial corruption that's landed us in the current credit crunch.
But the major problem, I yell, as I start smacking the film with a pipe-wrench, is Tony Scott's direction. He sits somewhere just above McG in the pantheon of awful directors, and he's far too content to bring in shaky-cam, aerial shots and rock music wherever he possibly can. He is not one of those directors who does subtlety. One scene in the original has a police car crash into a fire hydrant- understated because the significance of the crash to the plot is more important than the spectacle of it. The equivalent scene in this update has the car fly spectacularly off a bridge and roll several times, causing various other explosions around it as it goes. Don't even get me started on the jump-cuts and the horrible raping of that brilliant 1974 ending I mentioned. But replacing the hood for a moment, I have to grudgingly admit that most people will be entertained by this. It's got a lot going for it with Washington and Gandolfini at the centre, even if the former is miscast, and Scott didn't change enough of the story to make this a bad film.
The Taking of Pelham 123 is due a drubbing from anyone who's seen the 1974 version, and I strongly advise you to see that film instead of this one. Newer isn't better, but I admit that you could do a lot worse in an evening at the cinema than see this. On the other hand, the DVD costs but £2.99 online at its cheapest, and £5 in HMV. The 2009 version is a good film done poorly.
------------------------------------------------
The next films to be reviewed will be G-Force and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and I obviously kept those back because I need help with witty subtitles and they have the G thing in common. Um, but also because they're both family films, obviously.
I'm the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch. Mark.
