The Threat Down

Vague observation of America's Fox News Channel has basically taught me that the American right wing has two major fears- being killed in their beds by the "stoned slacker" government, and God's apparently inevitable reprisal of the book of Revelation. It's slightly unfair to the people of Texas then that both are being catered to in two horror thrillers screening right now- The Crazies and Legion. Political and religious terror aside, let's take a look.

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In The Crazies, bad shit is happening in the idyllic small town of Ogden Marsh, to put things simply. After a very public incidence of what seems to be suicide-by-cop rocks the community, a number of other deaths and murders begin to cause trouble for guilt-ridden sheriff David Dutton. The febrile terror that sweeps Ogden Marsh seems to stem from a crashed plane in the river, contaminating the water supply, and soon David and his pregnant wife Judy are fighting for survival against everyone they know, but more imperatively, against the government itself.

Horror remakes usually do not pan out. The only other good one is arguably Zack Snyder's reworking of Dawn of the Dead, and so a trend may be emerging in that The Crazies is also adapted from a George A. Romero film. Yes, it's getting a rare thumbs-up for a horror remake. Timothy Olyphant and Radha Mitchell have played roles like theirs before, but manage to make the film about character rather than about the interspersed jump-scares and usually ineffective central conceit. I cared enough about what was going on that I actually forgot how the ending of this film is flagged up in one of the trailers. If the advertising has to spoil the film, it always helps if there's a little more to the finished product, and happily there is.

Although The Crazies surpassed my low expectations, I have to say it's not without its flaws. The aforementioned central conceit should here be that everyone the Duttons know have suddenly gone insane and started killing people. Instead, it's more about the government killing people, which is a much less frightening thread for a film like this- as with most of Romero's films, it worked at the time because of the social subtext. In the wake of Watergate, it was accepted that the US government wasn't always honest, and Romero capitalised upon that. In a modern context, it's only as scary as The Constant Gardener, and the film becomes a little more like an action thriller with some zombified jump-scares every now and then. Not that there's no dignity in jump-scares for the horror filmmaker, it's just that the film doesn't linger in the memory so much for having eschewed the horror value of your close friends coming out to eviscerate you, with no hope of escape or negotiation.

But you know what? The Crazies is a generally solid and diverting horror thriller. The best remakes embed in their audience an interest in the original source, and this one did get me interested in Romero's film. Olyphant and Mitchell gamely rotate between firefights, zombie struggles and interrogations and there are some fairly engaging stunts and plot developments throughout. There's also a skein of dark humour running through the film, best typified by the music that director Breck Eisner opted to play over the end credits. It's not the frenetic or dumb film that its title suggests, and should satiate horror fans and casual film-goers alike.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elsewhere, there's the apocalyptically dumb Legion. Adapted from what I think is probably the earliest instance of science-fiction (the Book of Revelation), the film sets the imminent apocalypse in a base-under-siege context inside a remote diner curiously called Paradise Falls. The hotch-potch of people inside include a quarrelling family, a grizzled atheist and a pregnant woman who might just be mankind's salvation. Dedicated to protecting them is the archangel Michael, an Uzi-wielding renegade who finds himself at odds with the Almighty for his faith in humanity.

If I were to say that this is a Christmas film, you'd probably think I was taking the piss. But no, despite the sun-scorched landscape, the date at the beginning of the film is December 23rd. And with a pregnant woman who doesn't know the father of her child and the second coming imminent- if you can't guess where this is going, you're the Holiday Armadillo. The thing is, Legion very often skims around explicitly saying such things outright. The diner being called Paradise Falls put me more in mind of the jungle vistas of Up than foreboding of the end of the world. The majority of the religious stuff seems to linger in the subtext a little, a subtext that is really out of place in a film this dumb.

Yes, you read right- angels carry Uzis in this film. No celestial empowerment going on here, it's just... Uzis. Paul Bettany is a real trooper with the material he's got, but Dennis Quaid and Kevin Durand come off less well by snarling and grumbling their way through. And in fairness, if you don't laugh at the shot of a tall and muscular Durand clad in an armour vest with big angel wings, leaping through the air and screaming as he swings a big CGI mace around, you have no soul. Unintentional hilarity peppers the whole film, particularly in an early bit where a fight with a possessed old lady recalls Spider-Man, but a choice of weapon recalls the slapstick of Reeves and Mortimer.

Elsewhere, Legion is let down by the most leisurely pace imaginable. This is not the kind of film where characters should have time to sit down, stop the plot and talk about their past. If that was going on against the plot, then perhaps, but no! They just stop the plot! In the middle of the apocalypse! A key example of Legion's surfeit of dialogue comes in a scene where Dennis Quaid messes about with the reception on the diner's TV and a channel's emergency placeholder comes up, emblazoned with the words THIS IS NOT A TEST. Chef: "What is it?" Quaid: "I think it's some kind of test." Mom: "I don't think that's a test." Three entirely worthless lines that are undercut by the very words THIS IS NOT A TEST. The audience can read!

For all of its problems, I have to say that when Legion is on form, it's terrifically entertaining. It's bad, but as discussed with All About Steve, that's not a reason to avoid seeing a film. If it's bad and boring, like Knowing or Premonition, two similarly pseudo-religious horrors, then certainly avoid it like the plague. Admittedly, when the plot stops every once in a while, it can get a bit dull. But there's certainly enough inadvertent funnies in Scott Stewart's script that it's still incredibly entertaining. It's distinctive for that, and certainly not for its plot. Its narrated bookends and protector plot line are reminiscent of The Terminator, the base-under-siege by possessed gribblies goes all the way back to Dawn of the Dead, and the whole thing plays like a straight version of Dogma.

No one's going to take its religious themes entirely seriously, and it's almost entirely brainless, but for the sheer audacity of its failings, Legion just scrapes a pass for me. I did mention All About Steve, which won a Razzie for Sandra Bullock this weekend, but if we're using the uncomfortable enjoyment of that review as a yard-stick, this is far more entertaining. It's funnier than it is scary and the action comes in too seldom to make it an action film, but in this mess of a film there's a lot of entertainment value and a brave stab at the whole endeavour from Paul Bettany in the central role. Awful, but not godawful, Legion is a pleasure that's as guilty as sin.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Of the two, Legion is definitely more fun, but The Crazies is better for thrills and chills, even if it is somewhat outdated. I would recommend either of them, albeit in very different ways, so if you do see them, why not share your thoughts on the films/reviews in the comments below?

Next up, I'll be taking a look at Crazy Heart and Ondine, by the somewhat tenuous link of Colin Farrell's involvement in both. There's a clusterfuck of films coming to cinemas on Friday though, including Shutter Island, Green Zone, The Bounty Hunter and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, so I can't really predict beyond that.

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

Creative Difference

Given how I believe a large portion of my readership on this blog are in higher education, the following sentence will probably be nothing you haven't already noticed. However, I can reliably report that the Daily Mail and its ilk aren't entirely accurate in telling us that the student population is made up of Gruffalos- I have no moss under my armpits and I still retain my vocabulary, and I've been at university for a whole week or two. On the other hand, it has put something of a crimp on the amount of blog posts I've been able to do lately.

For this, you can also blame the influx of classic films at my local multiplex and my general technical problems at home- it's factors like these that have prevented me from seeing enough new releases since my last post to rush off a quick review. Since the last post though, I've been to see Creation, The Invention of Lying and Surrogates, all of which should generally still be playing in cinemas wherever you are. As ever, mild spoilers may occur in the process of reviewing, but never so far as to spoil any major plot developments.

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


Slightly mis-named, Jon Amiel's Creation studies Charles Darwin's life at the time he was writing his seminal work, "On The Origin of Species". This premise alone has immediately attracted controversy with Christian activists in America, where there's something of a struggle to get the thing distributed. The long history of such baseless controversy in the form of films like The Last Temptation of Christ and Dogma assures me that this will only attract attention to the film, and well deserved it is too. The film is not so much about Darwin's book as it is about his grief following the death of his daughter, and the consequences that has for his marriage and family life. When Charles is cajoled and pressured to develop his revolutionary theories to bolster the scientific community, he takes ill and struggles to make peace with his own beliefs and those of his devoutly Christian wife, Emma.

Real-life couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly play the two lead roles, but as usual with actor-actress couples playing spouses on film, that's nothing to write home about, especially it's Bettany that really deserves top billing. His Darwin is tortured, world-weary and utterly compelling to watch, and he effectively carries the film by himself. Connelly isn't performing badly, and nor are co-stars Jeremy Northam and Benedict Cumberbatch, but the strength of Bettany's performance makes everything else seem unremarkable. This is crucial to make John Collee's script work, and it works beautifully. It's a film that isn't trying to score points for either side of the debate about our universe's origins- the smug variety of Richard Dawkins lover won't find much to quote without citation amongst friends, and the Christian groups who are up in arms in America won't be nearly as offended as they have presumed. Instead, it's an objective look at the most troubled time in Charles Darwin's life, and it's engaging and sympathetic from the off.

I did think that Amiel really should've been a little more restrained at times, as Darwin's coping mechanism of hallucinatory conversations with his deceased daughter brings the film dangerously close to melodrama sometimes. Besides which, it's slightly incongruous with Darwin's apparent atheism- how can there be ghosts if there is no afterlife? This dramatic device does give the film a slightly stagey feel, but as I've said before, that's not a deal-breaker. It does also deepen the personal connection the audience has to Darwin, and that definitely works in the film's favour. A well-written script and a powerhouse performance from Paul Bettany makes Creation one of the more enjoyable biopics of the last few years, and I hope it does eventually get past the Christians in America to reach a wider audience.


If you're after something a little lighter and funnier, Ricky Gervais has followed up last year's rather marvellous Ghost Town with another Hollywood comedy, The Invention of Lying. Gervais plays Mark Bellison, an underachieving screenwriter in a world where fiction doesn't exist in any iteration. No one has ever told a lie, and subsequently Mark's employers distribute blockbusters that consist of history lessons- "The Invention of the Automobile" being the highlight of the upcoming summer season. Mark is frequently the victim of brutal honesty and general snootiness until he happens upon a lie for the first time. Naturally, he exploits this for personal gain to achieve the fame and fortune he's always wanted. High concept? Yes, and a rather good one at that, but it's in the comedy stakes that the film loses out somewhat.

Without spoiling too much, there's a pivotal moment halfway through The Invention of Lying that marks a considerable shift in tone. The first half gets a lot of laughs from the perfunctory offensiveness that comes with a world where no one knows how to lie. There is no flattery, no modesty and no ability to sugar-coat things, and thus a retirement home is marketed to clients as "A Sad Place For Hopeless Old People". And it's here that the pivotal moment comes about. It's not a funny scene by any stretch of the imagination and would have a lot of emotional weight, except it seems like an opportunity for Gervais to do some Serious Acting. Because it's not the only way the subsequent narrative could develop, it feels somewhat shoe-horned in, and it affects the rest of the film- the stakes are lowered when the tone flips back to comedic and Gervais is put back in his element.

That's not to say it's not an enjoyable film- I did laugh a lot, but once we get past that midway point, the film hares off in a different direction that never quite matches the promise of the original concept. There's some stuff that's very reminiscent of The Life of Brian and an allusion to Jesus that any audience members who aren't really fans of Ricky Gervais will balk at, and the rest sort of settles into a generic romantic comedy. Gervais really doesn't share any romantic chemistry, no matter how much he'd probably like to. Besides which, her character is continually said to be sweet and very caring, as if she's only so hideously blunt because she doesn't know how to lie. If some of the stuff she's coming out with is her honest opinion, how does that excuse her? That aside, Garner copes well enough, and I don't have many complaints with the rest of the cast either.

However, let's have a look at the rest of the cast, which boasts cameos from Jason Bateman, Christopher Guest, Jeffrey Tambor, Jonah Hill, Tina Fey, Edward Norton and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. And this brings about the return of the Bit. You may remember the Bit from Night at the Museum 2, and it's always about the length of any given comedy star's cameo in a film that could otherwise be good without their appearance. That at least is how I measure a metric Bit, and this is full of them. A cameo-palooza is always distracting, and this film really didn't need it. Allow me to be honest though. The film's discrepancies in tone don't bring it down at all, and if you liked Ghost Town, you'll probably like this. Then again, it's more cynical than that film. Hey, you might be better off just watching Ghost Town again. Fans of Gervais won't be disappointed, but the film just falls short of the promise its central concept holds. Even though the tone of this review generally seems to be negative, The Invention of Lying is a sweet and highly original film.


Unfortunately it now falls to me to review a film as far removed from that originality and ingenuity as possible, and turn to Jonathan Mostow's Surrogates. Stop me if you've heard this one before- in a future where people live their lives via robotic surrogates, Bruce Willis plays Tom Greer, a detective with serious issues about robots, and is investigating the first homicide in years following the emergence of a weapon that can kill people while they are connected to their surrogates. Yes, I can hear you all screaming stop. This is a film so creatively bankrupt and pedestrian that it could well have been made by The Asylum. The most identifiable rip off in the film's synopsis would be I, Robot, so because it's five years since that film was released, it's actually sub-Asylum.

In many ways, I think Surrogates was some form of karmic retribution for my assertion that District 9's ostensible lack of originality didn't necessarily make it a bad film. While I stand by my opinion that Neill Blomkamp used homage and innovation in equal measure in that film, Jonathan Mostow has crafted a largely brainless blockbuster that plods along for 104 minutes with little to enjoy at all. As versatile an actor as Bruce Willis can be, Hollywood will eventually learn that his best cop character was John McClane. Thusly if he's playing a cop who isn't John McClane, even if it's some future cop who pilots a bewigged robot version of himself from his couch, it's not going to leave much of an impression. This is why casting him against type in The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable was such a good idea, and he clearly engages much better with scripts like that than with dross like this.

The script was written by serial offenders Michael Ferris and John D. Brancato, who also penned Terminator Salvation and Catwoman, so you know it's not going to be very good right off the bat. No matter how good the performers are, you can't elevate a bad script, and it really seems like the rest of the usually capable cast have the same lack of vigour that Willis contributes- Ving Rhames also dons a bad wig, Rosamund Pike is utterly unremarkable and even James Cromwell, one of my favourite actors, is looking bored. Admittedly, he's only in it briefly, and that's probably due to the fact he's playing the inventor of the robots, just like he did in I, Robot. Surrogates is a film that should really get Will Smith on the phone to his lawyer, along with most members of any paying audience who see it. Devoid of originality and entertainment value- worse than that, it's one of those films where the entire crux of the story is shown in the trailer. If you've seen the trailer, definitely give the film a miss. If you haven't seen the trailer... definitely give it a miss. Just utterly dull.

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

I can say with a fair amount of certainty that the next post will involve much gushing about Pixar, because if I don't talk about the thrill of seeing Toy Story on the big screen again soon, I may do a little bit of wee. More to the point, tomorrow sees the long-awaited UK release of Up, which I'm sure to give a look over the weekend. Thereafter, expect reviews of The Soloist and Zombieland. If you've seen Creation, The Invention of Lying or Surrogates, comment below and let me know what you thought of the film and of my review- I always like a bit of discussion and feedback.

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