I've just been given a gig at the student paper writing reviews of films. So whenever I write one I'll post it up here too. After this 1st one it'll be a little while, though, till the next since its the end of term on Friday.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde
Paedophilia. It's a subject which has featured much in the media, and yet, due to the sickening nature of it, one which has been left out from a lot of dramatisation, with Stanley Kubrick's Lolita being the only notable film to feature it. This summer's Hard Candy is breaking from this comfort zone to bring us a hard hitting thriller. Unlike Kubrick's film which dealt more with the feelings of the paedophile, Hard Candy is more a portrayal of the public's opinion of paedophiles, as voiced by the character Hayley Stark (Ellen Page).
The plot follows the meeting of 32 year-old photographer Jeff Kohlver (Patrick Wilson) with 14 year old Hayley after a conversation on an internet chatroom. Hayley charms her way back to Jeff's house where the true reason for her interest in him is revealed. Believing Jeff to be a paedophile she drugs him and ties him up and thus begins his torture.
With much of the film being set in Jeff's house, the cast is minimal (with only five cast members being credited) and therefore a lot of the film rests on the shoulders of Page and Wilson. Fortunately they carry this burden deftly, with Pages portrayal of both the innocent teenager and the psychotic torturer being totally believable.
Thankfully the script has stayed away from many of the cliches that may have arisen. Jeff's character is not a creepy, slimy old man, as is often the image of the paedophile and is, in fact, very likeable, leading audiences to question whether Hayley is wrong in her belief of his bedroom activities. Page, as the cold-hearted torturer, shows moments of weakness and even panic, often bereft in a movies tormentor. All this makes the characters much more three dimensional and compels audiences to actually care what happens to them.
Beware though, this film is not comfortable viewing at all. The climax of Jeff's torture, involving some home surgery with the help of a medical dictionary, induced a collective groan of pain from every male member in the audience. Little of the surgery itself is seen on screen, again relying on the skill of the actors and some particularly nasty sound effects to convey the image, though this in itself seems worse than if they'd actually shown the surgery.
The direction from David Slade is notable also. In a film wherein much of the plot is carried by conversation between two characters, it would be easy to stick to the generic face shot, cut to face shot, cut to two-shot routine that is used in so many movies and this would in turn bore the viewer rigid come the end of the film. Slade's direction, however, is skilled with swoops and pans to take audiences from one character to another. By the end, you will have seen pretty much every corner of Jeff's house. Switching from this style to the direction during the chases and searches, Slade brings us frantic visuals which are almost tiring to view, so much so that the viewer is really drawn into the moment.
Whilst this film, with its scenes of torture and uncomfortable subject matter, may not be for everyone, it delivers all the excitement and tension one expects from a thriller with enough twists and turns to keep audiences intrigued until the end.
****
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde
The thing about making remakes is the tricky part of deciding how far to stray from the original. If one makes a lot of changes the crowds may complain (see Italian Job) but if you stick too close to the original the audience is left with a feeling of “what was the point?”. There are very few cases in the past of a remake surpassing or even equalling the original, such as John Carpenters The Thing or the recent Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake managed, sadly this film is not one of them. Refusing to stray too far from Richard Donner’s 1976 classic this film merely updates the original to a modern environment, slightly increasing the gore factor.
The story follows that of a US Ambassador, who’s son dies soon after being born and rather than upset his wife agrees to adopt a new born baby who’s mother died during childbirth, telling his wife its their son. As the story progresses and the tension mounts we discover that this child is the son of the devil, and so the senator embarks on a quest, along with a photo-journalist who fears his life is in danger, to find a way to stop him.
Unfortunately one of the most powerful parts of the original film, Jerry Goldsmith’s Oscar winning score has been replaced by a new far inferior score from composer Marco Beltrami. Without Goldsmith’s epic choral masterpiece much of the atmosphere is lost.
All in all the film adds nothing on the original and loses much of its atmosphere, Damian feels less evil and even a cast including some of the cream of British acting talent, including Pete Postlethwaite, Michael Gambon and David Thewlis, cannot save this from being a slightly disappointing affair. You’re better off renting the original.
***
Extras
The traditional Directors Commentary, an incredibly tedious behind the scenes documentary, a documentary about the music composition for the film with ironically bad sound editing, a cheesy American documentary about the number 666 and extended scenes which you would have to play next to the originals to find even the slightest change in make for very disappointing extras.
**
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde
We also do a love/hate feature where someone who loves an actor and someone who hates an actor argue their sides. Here's my side for why I hate Adam Sandler.
One of the things that bugs me most about an actor is when they cannot act, but instead play the same role over and over again. Now in some cases I am willing to overlook this; for example Sean Connery and Michael Caine are both so great that playing themselves is fine. This is not the case if you are Adam Sandler, the Coffee Crème in the chocolate box of comedians. He is a man who seems to have not grown out of the faze which all boys go through at about the age of 8, where silly words, snot and farts are funny. Now this is fair enough but I don’t understand why he feels he needs to inflict this brand of “Comedy” on the rest of the intelligent world.
If you have seen one Adam Sandler film you have seen them all. Sure there may be different character names and different situations, but the underlying part of a comedy film, the jokes, are guaranteed to be identical. His character is nearly always the same in every film too, the slacker with the heart of gold, it’s superficial and it grates. Were he to ever gain the slightest bit of my respect, he would need to play a much more diverse and real set of characters.
And the worst thing about him is the poor entourage of people he drags down with him. Steve Buscemi, for example, is a fantastic actor. You would have to be a very hard critic to find fault with his performances in Reservoir Dogs, the Coen Brothers films and even in the laughable film that is Con Air. And yet his talents are dragged through the mud time and time again playing poorly written roles in Adam Sandler’s appalling films.
With all the high quality comedy films that are being produced by the likes of the Frat Pack, the fact that anyone will consider watching an Adam Sandler film amazes me.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde
It used to be that when a band made a film, history was made. Pink Floyd’s The Wall, The Who’s Tommy were epic in their day, but as time has gone by the band movie has become something of a joke (*cough* Spice World). Which brings us to the latest band film to be released, Tenacious D: The Pick of Destiny.
When considering the musical duo of Jack Black and Kyle Gass it is important to look back to when these two first met. Jack Black met Kyle Gass when he joined Tim Robbins’ Actors Gang after graduating from UCLA. It was during this time in the troupe that KG taught JB to play the guitar and when they eventually decided to form the comedy rock group Tenacious D. JB and KG are therefore first and foremost actors. This is not the attempt of a group of musicians to cash in on their success but rather a combination of the two passions of the band into one.
So does this mean that after years of waiting we finally get a fantastic band movie? Sadly, no. With a paper thin plot and jokes that often miss the mark The Pick of Destiny is a rather disappointing affair. Whilst it does include the occasional moment of genius, inciting genuine belly laughs, there is far too much time in-between which just isn’t that good.
The story follows a fictional creation of the band, who are struggling to write good songs and so embark on a quest to steal The Pick of Destiny to enable them to write kick-ass rock songs. Along the way there is a stream of cameos including rock legends Meat Loaf and Dio, Ben Stiller, their old Actors Gang leader Tim Robbins and long time friend of the band Dave Grohl as Satan, which helps bring back some interest but cannot revive the floundering film.
In the end Tenacious D is a strictly fan only film, with has enough daft humour to keep the dedicated entertained, but everyone else may want to give it a miss.
***
Was told to keep that one short, around 350 words.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde
We also do classic movies review feature in the paper (I know there could be arguments over what constitutes classic) and so the other day I wrote a review of Superman: The Movie for it. Here it is:
Superman: The Movie
The film industry is currently oversaturated with men in spandex saving the world from the next maniac who’s taken it upon himself to kill thousands of innocent people for personal gain, to improve the welfare of his kind or just through pure insanity. But there was a time when superheroes were rare and the sight of a man faster than a speeding bullet was incredible. Enter superman.
In 1978 Richard Donner brought us the Man of Steel’s second outing to the big screen (he first made his way to the screen in 1951’s Superman and the Mole Men). Telling the story of the destruction of Kal-El’s home planet krypton, his adoption by the Kent family, education and eventual emergence as Superman, Superman: The Movie was a fantasy of epic proportions.
Looking back now it is hard to imagine superman being played by anyone other than Christopher Reeve, but Donner was taking a big risk in employing an unknown for this huge role. Of course he didn’t take the same risk with his supporting cast, with Supe’s father Jor-El being played by Marlon Brando and his arch nemeses Lex Luthor being played superbly by Gene Hackman.
Whilst some of the special effects may not hold up in the modern world of digital imagery (in particular a young Clark racing a locomotive), the incredible set pieces still amaze, not just in quality but also in quantity. No sooner has Superman plugged up a rift in the earth caused by an earthquake than he’s stopping a burst dam from destroying a town. This relentless pace of feats has not been seen by any superhero since and literally leaves the viewer breathless.
Though amazing the viewer with its visual splendour Superman: The Movie doesn’t forget to develop its characters. Clarks love for both his adoptive parents and his dead father (with whom he communicates through holograms created from his fathers memories) is both heart-warming and poignant. His two pronged relationship with Lois the awkwardness of Clark and dazzling her as Superman is well developed. It is this two character side of Superman that is his biggest attraction. It is often joked how Lois never notices that Superman and Clark are the same man when all he does is put on a pair of glasses, but it’s the character of Clark that is so fundamentally different from superman that stops her from the realization. Other superheroes hide behind disguises to protect their identities. Clark’s character is Superman’s disguise.
Despite the stunning visuals and three dimensional characters Superman: The Movie never forgets its comic book origins, with Gene Hackman seriously camping it up to give Luthor and his imbecilic cronies a real cartoon feel, allowing for a comic relief during all the action.
Even when one ignores the messiah subtext running though the film, Superman: The Movie has enough depth and action to keep its viewer entertained through to the end. With the quantity of sub-par superhero films we are being flooded with it is refreshing to look back and see how the granddaddy of all superheroes puts them all to shame.
*****
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde
"Hard Candy"
I can watch that movie over and over again, its' an amazing thriller, and it's almost impossible to not side with one character or the other, or at times side with one then switch to the other. Great job on the reviews, and you seem to have it all down now. Great job!!!!
Vamps Movie Reviews
