RED RIDING HOOD- Review

I think the record will show I've haven't ever been overwhelmingly negative about Twilight in the past. Yeah, it's not very good, but there are certainly worse films out there, and I find it harder to dislike the films than to dislike the hype and fanaticism the stories inspire. In the hiatus before the next film, due in cinemas this November, we're seeing a number of films hoping to replicate that hype and fanaticism.

Red Riding Hood takes a fairytale and tries to apply it with the formula of the Twilight films, bringing the first film's director, Catherine Hardwicke, in to do it. The girl in the hood is Valerie, whose affections are torn between the blacksmith with whom she has an impending arranged marriage, and her childhood friend, a woodcutter. More pressingly though, her small township has been plagued by werewolf attacks for generations, and with the rise of a blood moon comes the puritanical and violent Father Solomon, who pledges to kill the big bad wolf.

At a 12A certificate, you probably have a decent idea of what to expect from Red Riding Hood- some romantic monster angst aimed at pre-teens and packaged without any naughty words, sex or violence. What sets this apart is that it actually kept in one out of three, and used it as a boon. It's unfortunate that the violence is still excised, making for largely bloodless onslaughts by this big ravenous beastie. No naughty words either, so what remains is sex, or at least some heavy sensuality, which immediately places it on a slightly more mature level than Twilight.

Amanda Seyfried plays Valerie- my my, what big eyes she has- as a sexually liberated young woman who's naturally ahead of her time so the teenage audience won't get confused. Valerie's not the biggest anachronism in the film, mind- that's the diegetic use of the pop-y soundtrack at a celebration that takes place in the 17th century at the latest. I didn't hate this film, but it's in moments like that that I realised its head isn't entirely screwed on right. But the way that her uncommon personality (for the time, anyway) plays into the plot is related to how anyone in her hometown could be the werewolf, and she comes under suspicion in a manner that can be related to the Salem witch hunts.

Valerie's promiscuity could be what gives her potential suitors wood, but I'd argue that Shiloh Fernandez and Max Irons are quite wooden enough in their acting without the comely Seyfried on hand. The pair have one major scene together, which is framed against a backdrop of a log cabin- there has never been so much woodenness on-screen in a single scene as each of them struggles over their angsty and supposed testosterone-laden dialogue. Fernandez and Irons are leading men even more teaky than Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner- an incredible feat, so this film has that going for it over Twilight as well.

To square off against the earnest performance by Seyfried then, we have Gary Oldman, and thank heavens for that. The brilliance of Oldman is that recent years have shown his great capabilities with understated performances like his Commissioner Gordon, but he's still able to carry off some spectacular overacting. His Father Solomon appears to have wandered in from another film, but in a way that actually reveals the film as a piece of high camp. What's good about that is it feels like only Oldman and we, the audience, have picked up on this.

However, there's only so far you can carry camp when you don't know you're making camp, and for the large part, Red Riding Hood doesn't hold together. The Salem witch hunt parallels are intriguing, but because it's a story based on Little Red Riding Hood, these parallels serve to distract from what the film is building towards, which is the mystery of the werewolf's identity. If you're keeping an eye on that while Valerie's integrity and virtue is being interrogated, you realise there's only about two feasible culprits, so the half-hearted attempts at red herrings come off as just that- half-hearted. As a result, the plot twist and ending are harried and, frankly, piss-poor.

Weirdly, the production design seems to have been done by somebody with a cactus fetish, as spiky little spines seem to protrude from every single surface in the film. The buildings, the trees, the bannisters; they all look like they'd do Gary Oldman an injury with all that scenery chewing he's doing. The perpetual snow does little to soften it, and nor do the swooping establishing shots, which I now associate more with Twilight, by their overuse, than with The Lord of the Rings.

There's not a tranny wolf in sight in Red Riding Hood, which takes a well-known tale and spills it into the Twilight mold. Comparable to the upcoming Beastly, it makes a decent approach even if the dreadful script prevents it from landing. So I can't say it's effective in the way the filmmakers would hope, but it did give me a fair bit of entertainment, via Gary Oldman's bravura histrionics, and it also has buckets of unintentional hilarity. It fizzles when it's supposed to smoulder. It's a wildly uneven, castrated teen romance and it's too-cool-for-the-room in a way that means I can't even recommend it for the inadvertent yuks.

Red Riding Hood is now playing in cinemas nationwide.
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Red Riding Hood, why not share your comments below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

(Meno)Pause for Thought

It's been a while since I've doubled up films like this in one post, but I've decided I'm going to go back to doing that on films about which I only have a certain amount to say. It helps that both Atom Egoyan's erotic pseudo-thriller Chloe and Catherine Corsini's arthouse drama Leaving deal with similar subject matter- married middle-age women and extra-marital affairs.

Leaving is another film I saw at the Tyneside Cinema a few weeks ago, and I've taken my time writing about it. But on the day this entry is posted, I'll be on my way there to see three more films with limited distribution, so I had to leave you something to read. The film finds one Suzanne Vidal in utter boredom with her upper class family life. Everything changes with the arrival of Ivan, a labourer who's fixing up her house- the two embark on an affair that leaves Mr. Vidal closing his wallet in a temper...

In most respects, I should probably like Leaving more than I actually did. To describe the plot in the barest terms makes it sound slightly like some Brazzers video involving a bored housewife, but it goes without saying that with Kristin Scott Thomas in the lead role, the film is considerably more thoughtful than it sounds. She gives a performance that is really, properly wonderful, and she's evenly matched by the versatile Sergi López, who most will remember as the sadistic officer from Pan's Labyrinth.

The romance between their characters is electric, but the fundamental flaw of the film, for me, was in how difficult it is to empathise with Suzanne. She's not unhappy in her marriage, nor is her husband neglectful- she's just bored. To a point, that's fine, but some of the stuff that happens as a result of her boredom is unforgivable. The last five minutes brings around a terrible twist that undermines any attachment you might have had to the opprobrious Suzanne.

Although Leaving is beautifully shot and very well acted, Catherine Corsini seems so intent on undermining the bourgeois class politics that Suzanne initially upholds that she also undermines everything human. Is it fair that Suzanne's cuckolded husband should cut her off financially just because she cheated on him? Well, yes! Yes, it is, no matter how many times she bemoans her circumstances. Despite some beautiful scenes scattered throughout, the film's ugly conscience ultimately left an unbearably sour taste in my mouth.

Leaving (Partir) is still playing in select cinemas in London, and will be released on DVD later in the year.

Elsewhere, Chloe is a prostitute hired by a genuinely unhappy wife and mother to honey-trap her husband. Catherine believes David is cheating on her after he repeatedly flirts with other women right in front of her, and crucially, deliberately misses his plane home when she's planned a birthday party for him. Chloe reports back as she dallies with David, but Catherine is ultimately drawn into something much deeper.

I'm not familiar with Atom Egoyan's work, but here he speaks softly and carries a big stick, to borrow a broad adage. The score is full of what the DVD subtitles call "soft" and "pensive" music, though this one's anything but soft. It's a psychodrama of an oddly seductive power. Not because its female stars bare all, but because of the palpable charge that the film accumulates throughout. The opening is fairly prosaic, but while it's never massively exciting, it's relentlessly interesting.

Amanda Seyfried is the closest thing to a weak link in the cast, but that's only because her co-stars are Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson. Seyfried is definitely watchable throughout, but every time those two shared the screen, it was fantastic. Their marriage, now deflated of romance, is utterly believable- Neeson's indignation is ambiguous enough that it actually feeds the uncertainty of the plot, and Moore beautifully portrays her character's frustration at how everyone loves a man as he reaches his autumn years while a woman is seen to be past her best.

Chloe makes for a sensual and beguiling drama, even if it goes just a little bit Fatal Attraction in the last act. That's a development I could have done without, but it has a lot to say about the gulf between genders in middle age and while many will appreciate Amanda Seyfried being naked, that's not there to titillate. It manages to be portentous without being pretentious- a mature and powerful film that leaves the viewer with a lot to muse upon afterwards.

Chloe is currently available on DVD and Blu-ray
 ------------------------------------------------------------------
If you've seen Leaving or Chloe, why not leave a comment on the films and/or my review? Be sure to let me know if you're perturbed by how much I'm talking about gender lately- my current trip to the Tyneside involves Black Dynamite, so discussion may be lighter from here onwards.

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.

Underrated, Overrated, Rambling Free...

I don't pretend that I go against the current in any way, shape or form. Once you start Media Studies at degree-level, you realise that for every blog slating a really rubbish mainstream film, there are about four journals or academic writings to say you're Michael Bay's bitch. The two big mainstream preoccupations of the year I can't pretend to understand the appeal behind though are probably Megan Fox and Michael Jackson. And Britain's Got Talent. And Twilight. And... alright two OF the preoccupations. And alright, I'm not saying MJ was anywhere near as talentless as Megan Fox, but I'd have to get back to you on who looks more plastic...

The point is eluding me in talking about it all like this- what we're here for is reviewing. Specifically, reviewing Jennifer's Body and Michael Jackson's This Is It. As something of a regular disclaimer, it's only my opinion on 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. With This Is It not following any conventional narrative structure, you could argue that the only spoiler there has been widely circulated in the news media for the last three months.


But first, to Jennifer's Body. The eponymous Jennifer is played by Megan Fox, and her sole characteristic at the start of the film is that she's the hottest and most desirable girl in her high-school. That's right, you have to believe that Megan Fox is young enough to be at school... again. Her best friend is Needy, played by Amanda Seyfried, a bespectacled, nerdy but sweet young lady who follows Jennifer's every whim. That's right, you have to believe that Amanda Seyfried isn't attractive and popular. But on with the story- an indie band has stumbled upon a satanic ritual whereby they'll become famous if they sacrifice a virgin, and they mistakenly believe that Jennifer still has her cherry. Bad juju and demonic transference ensues, and Jennifer is suddenly possessed of a demon that must consume boys to survive.

It's an interesting enough premise from Diablo Cody, the Oscar-winning screenwriter behind Juno. I enjoyed Juno very much, but I don't think that the cast and director behind Jennifer's Body is anywhere near as talented as those behind the earlier film. That aside, there's nothing particularly awful and horrible about the film, and in some ways that's a bad thing- it is meant to be a horror film after all, so there should at least be some scares. But as a film, the lack of awful, horrible shite makes this far and away the best thing that Megan Fox has ever been attached to. I still remain unconvinced that she can act, nor that she was cast here for anything other than needing a body worth naming the whole film after, but with a half-decent script, she's not as intolerable as I usually find her. That pout that makes her face look like a kazoo is still there though.


Far more endearing is Amanda Seyfried, though this is actually the first thing I've seen from the apparently much-lauded actress. Her character is burdened with a unnecessarily uncommon name that I suspect may become Diablo Cody's trademark, but Seyfried is never any less than watchable in her role. JK Simmons makes an always welcome appearance too, and Fox aside, I don't really have anything bad to say about the cast. Even though I said the cast and director elevated Juno to what it was, the script here shows that Cody isn't quite the writer I thought she was. The esoteric slang that only niggled slightly in her first feature positively irked me this time around, mostly because it's so inconsistent with the characters. Jennifer is meant to be a ditz, but can snappily come out with cracks about MoveOn.org- it seems Diablo Cody is writing her own dialogue rather than her characters' dialogue.

It's a slightly disappointing sophomore effort from Diablo Cody, but while Jennifer's Body won't be winning her any more awards for writing, it's still a cut above most of the horror films that came to cinemas this Halloween. It's not as original as people seem to think, as this type of premise has been around since Carrie, and the soundtrack is incredibly intrusive throughout, but in spite of its minor flaws, the film is actually a fairly enjoyable guilty pleasure. It's lacking in genuine scares and it's kind of forgettable, but it's still entertaining enough to make a decent dark comedy.


I'm actually fairly loath to reviewing Michael Jackson's This Is It, because it's not like anything else that's been reviewed on this blog before now. Covering two months of rehearsals, this is a look into the show Michael Jackson was planning to put on across 50 sold-out dates at London's O2 Arena, compiled by the show's director and the director of numerous Zac Efron aberrations, Kenny Ortega. The film includes interviews about Jackson with dancers and technicians, as well as the supplementary effects footage that would have played during the performances. It's a concert film essentially, and being the laziest music listener in the world, a review of a live music performance puts me out of my critical comfort zone a little.

It's tempting to go off on a cynical rant about how this is just being released to make money off of Michael Jackson's death. That's because it is, really- the man's own father proclaimed that his son was worth more dead than he had been when he was alive. And to some extent that's true as well, if you want to be blunt about it, given Jackson's chequered medical history and the staggering prospect of doing the show this film tries to represent not once or twice, but 50 times. I think to do that would be to get too wrapped up in context rather than looking at the film itself. What there remains to say about the contextual detritus is that the opening caption, "for the fans", just about sums up the selling point. I'm not particularly a big fan of Michael Jackson, and this didn't entirely change my mind- there may well be something someday that does that, but ironically, this isn't it.


The ethical issues I had with the film only became greater once I'd seen it. Although it didn't convert me into a fan of his music, it did persuade me that Jackson was a consummate perfectionist. He stops performances throughout the rehearsals to correct a dancer or a technician who've fouled up in seemingly inconsequential ways. He's every bit a performer, and it looks like this gig really would have been his masterpiece. The highlight of the whole thing for me was the video that would have accompanied Smooth Criminal, shot in black and white with Jackson digitally inserted into a chase sequence with Humphrey Bogart. It's visually stunning, whether you believe Jackson could give Bogart that much trouble or not- I mean, it's Humphrey chuffing Bogart! The other sequences never make as much of an impression as that one, particularly the cringe-inducingly tacky short for Earth Song, which is a cringe-inducingly tacky song to begin with.

Where the ethics come in is that I don't think Jackson ever intended this rehearsal footage to be seen by his fans, especially seeing how perfect he wanted things to be. Imagine if Terry Gilliam had simply made a film with Heath Ledger talking to people on the set of Doctor Parnassus, and you'll come pretty close to what Kenny Ortega's sort of done here. For him, This Is Not It- the actual concert would have been It. Nevertheless, I have to admit that This Is It won me over in the end. Money-grubbing or not, the fans who did really love Michael Jackson's music will really want to see this, especially those who had tickets booked for the concerts before his untimely death. And I can't begrudge anyone that- the man did create good music and greater performances, even if his body of work isn't constantly rattling around my iPod. Fans will love it, and if you can abandon your scepticism like I did, I'm sure you won't hate it either.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Next up will almost certainly be Harry Brown and 2012, though I may slip An Education in instead of Roland Emmerich's latest war on the world. Early reports say that film is so bad, it's good, but that guy must really hate the world. Greenpeace need to get onto him, I'm sure he's hurting the environment more in a pretend way than Land Rovers ever could in real life.

In the meantime, if you've seen Jennifer's Body or Michael Jackson's This Is It, why not share your comments on those films below?

I'm Mark the mad prophet, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.