Devil

“From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan”. What more reason would you need to see Devil? After all, his filmography includes writing and directing such “classics” as The Village, Lady In The Water and The Happening, and added to that Signs, Unbreakable and the Sixth Sense, which all for the latter have audiences divided. There’s a story doing the rounds that an audience at a screening of Inception burst into laughter when they saw his name advertised during the trailer for Devil. Promotional advertising at its finest.

Just to clear it up, the story itself was conceived by Shyamalan, and adapted to a screenplay by Brian Nelson (who did the same job on both 30 Days of Night and Hard Candy), so things sound a little better when you search for the truth. More so when you realise it is directed by John Erick Dowdle, whose previous feature film was the decent Quarantine. Although that didn’t reach the heights of the original, it shows that there is potential in his work.

Devil is build up from a simple premise. Essentially an old wives tale, we are about to witness the "devil's meeting", where a group of people each with an evil heart the devil comes to haunt and eventually kill people who have sinned in the past. The logistics of this are explained throughout by narrator Ramirez (Jacob Vargas), a devout religious type, recounting the tale as it had been passed on by his mother as a youngster.

From the off we can see that Dowdle is going to offer something unexpected. In a nausea-inducing series of inverted shots, we enter a typical American city where we witness a suicide, in dramatic fashion. We are told by Ramirez that a suicide would initiate the coming of the devil, and all of his evil ways. Clearly this opening sequence heralds this, showing us the change in reality within his presence, and it is a visually astounding sequence.

We are introduced to our characters very early on, and all very quickly one after another, from the Detective who will obviously attempt to sort the issue out (a charismatic Chris Messina) to the generic fivesome that end up in the elevator itself. The five trapped individuals are given very generic in the credits, a mechanic, a guard, a salesman, a young woman and an old lady.. This is surely to make us feel as if we’re familiar with these everyday characters from or own lives, and it works well as we know what to expect. That is of course, until their dark pasts slowly make themselves known through the course of the film.

One of the features of Devil is the use of snappy and clever editing, utilised to great effect in providing some shocks throughout, but also in displaying the devil’s supernatural powers and the confusion that it causes to those watching. Included in this is the audience itself, as the tension is built up slowly. As well as this, the story develops well throughout, and it keeps us guessing as to what will happen next.

As the first film in the Night Chronicles, Night intends for the series to continue and subsequent films to be produced by his company Blinding Edge Pictures. He has said that “Ideas I didn’t get to direct for whatever reason and I can get amazingly talented filmmakers to come in and interpret them”, and as long as he stays away from egotistical scripting and directorial duties then we can all look forward to his second offering.

The credit for Devil should go to the people who wrote and directed it, and certainly not the producer who took the idea and the major plot twist from an Agatha Christie novel (And Then There Were None). It is short in length, but it feels just right as the characters are developed enough within that time, everything is explained very well throughout. Overall this is an accomplished piece of filmmaking even though it’s not perfect- the outcome in particular is too predictable, but that’s forgivable as the build up is executed quite well. Overall a simple concept, providing a sort of minimalistic horror film, to an extent.


Rating:
4/5

Let the Right One Alone

Without a doubt Let the Right One In was one of the films of last year, and the remake (entitled Let Me In (Låt den rätte komma in) was inevitable. Unfortunately. Looking first at the director and screenplay writer, Matt Reeves directed Cloverfield, which I enjoyed and found well done, but from an original idea with nothing to really work from. The relationships were paper thin and really only there as a minor sub plot.

It is a completely different scenario for Let the Right One In, where relationships are central, delicate and humane, and obviously there is an entire film to work from and remould. From the trailer, it already seems as though the feel of the original has been lost. Moving from the ideal setting of an isolated Swedish town to a slightly busier New Mexico town makes it look as though the locations are busier, even down to the more varied and threatening landscape as opposed to the quaint plains of Sweden.

The casting of Let Me In is impressive, with two child stars who have potentially huge futures ahead of them playing the lead roles- Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road) and Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass). Hopefully they can at the very least replicate the brilliant performances of the two original actors, although there is a fear that over production for the viewing pleasure of a mainstream audience could detract from the simplistic manner in which the friendship was developed and maintained. Already from a two minute trailer Abby (Moretz) talks too much, and Moretz herself has a confident appearance on screen and this looks as though it will shine through. That would be fine if her character was not meant to be of the silent subdued type, but time will tell and show her versatility.

If Asian remakes are anything to go by, Let Me In could be awful, and miss the point of the original completely. And with a remake planned for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its sequels, the worry would be that Scandinavia’s finest works are potentially about to be butchered. More worryingly though is that it points to a complete lack of ingenuity in Hollywood, with the focus on making money as opposed to producing fresh ideas. Where is the creativity gone?

Resident Evil: Afterlife

For those not familiar with the series, Resident Evil began as a video game. Initially known as Biohazard upon its release in Japan, it was renames after it was made known that this title could not be trademarked in the United States, and it appeared on the screens of numerous Sony Playstations some time in 1996. The game was heralded as a triumph, bringing a new brand of “survival horror” to gaming systems. The original followed the story of a small special ops task force as they tried to solve the mystery of a series of bizarre murders on the outskirts of Raccoon City, and the horror that they encountered along the way.

Fast forward fourteen years and the franchise is well into double figures in terms of video game releases, and the fourth studio film, Resident Evil: Afterlife has just been released. Having written all four movies, Paul W.S Anderson returns to direct his second of the series, his first since the screen debut of the franchise. Considering this is the same director who has brought us Mortal Kombat, Alien Versus Predator and Death Race, its no surprise that this latest offering is less than impressive.

Anderson seems determined to under-utilise the materials at his disposal. The Resident Evil series has amazing potential, it could easily have been as dark, atmospheric and tense as Alien, while also being every bit as gory as any hack and slash film that you could imagine. Instead, none of these characteristics are utilised to their full potential, with the focus instead being placed on mindless gunfire and a plethora of zombie killings, without the spectacular geysers of blood.

The movie franchise basically picks existing characters and drops them around Alice (Milla Jovovich)on an alternate route through the same horror witnessed in the games. Essentially she is trying to sort out the Umbrella Corporation, who have manufactured a bio weapon called the T-virus, and caused the zombie virus upon its release, which has been the case for the previous three films as well. One of the noteworthy aspects of this sequel is the pretty decent summation offered in the second scene as to what has gone on before, which allows the casual viewer to turn up and watch it without any background info.

Unfortunately, for anyone who has seen The Matrix, some sequences will feel a little all too familiar, in particular one action scene, where Alice fends off a hoard of Umbrella security guards in a narrow corridor. This feels very reminiscent of the exploits of Keanu Reeves, not to mention the obvious similarities in showing off the technology available. Whereas The Matrix had “bullet time”, Resident Evil: Afterlife has full use of the James Cameron designed Fusion Camera System, which explains the overkill of slow motion shots. Although effective at times, the use of slow motion detracts from the whole film as an experience. It feels as though every time you become accustomed to what is going on, the atmosphere of the piece is murdered spectacularly.

The action scenes themselves are quite good, although at times the reliance on the ridiculous should be diluted, and more realistic scenarios portrayed, which would no doubt enhance the overall feel of the film. Having said that, a lot of thought clearly went in to the choreographing of the action sequences, with a very impressive one in particular seeing both Claire and Alice take on The Executioner, a giant hooded man (well, at one stage), who wields a giant cross breed between an axe and a hammer. A formidable opponent seen in Resident Evil 5, is only enhanced by the 3D technology and the floundering females.

Speaking of characters, it appears as if it’s not just the director who seems to enjoy abusing the potential of the franchise, as the acting is just as bad at times. For someone with vast experience of the genre, Milla Jovovich performs at a particularly low level. At times her displays of both "emotion" and "intensity" are nothing short of laughable. Considering the story is focused on her, it’s not too much to expect a performance of some decent level at least, although in her defence she manages a pretty good snarl every now and then. At least Ali Larter provides some more credible talent, reprising her role as Claire Redfield, providing a decent effort in the kind of femme fatale role that she is well used to by now. Her fictional brother Chris Redfield (Wentworth Miller) is cast very well, and does his best as another fearless type, even if his leadership qualities and characteristics in general seem a little watered down from what we should expect.

The casting was also kind to the character of Albert Wesker. Played by Shawn Roberts- dressed darkly, blending in with the shadowy backgrounds and plotting sinister plans behind his pitch black glasses- Wesker is looks exactly as he should. Unfortunately, a black cape and robotic movements again evoke Matrix-inspired nostalgia, and it’s hard to ignore the Agent Smith qualities on display, not to mention his seemingly indestructible physicality. Unfortunately many of the other characters are both irrelevant and utterly pointless with respect to the story. Too many of them are expendable, with no notable skills or abilities that could be utilised in forging a way to their goal.

There are still some cool moments, as expected. Anderson is not completely oblivious to the wants and needs of a watching audience, and this is reflected by drawing in money each time he revisits the franchise. The plot twist involving “Arcadia”, a disease free haven, and the events that unfold when this occurs is intriguing, and it feels as though so much more could have been done. And of course, there is the 3D, which is spectacular at times. Regrettably, this is another extremely flawed chapter in a great series. With similar flaws affecting it’s prequels, one cannot hold out much hope for the future under the current regime, especially given the ending, which sets us up for a direct sequel (confirmed by Jovovich on behalf of her husband Anderson). What the series really needs is a complete makeover, and a reboot with a different director, a different writer, and fresh ideas.

Rating:
2/5

Fish Tank

As the title suggests, Fish Tank is to be looked at. It is to be looked at because it’s the second film from Andrea Arnold, following her terrific debut feature length film Red Road in 2006. It is to be looked at because it depicts the laboured existence of so many teenagers in modern society, and because it depicts this in a manner that few others could achieve. It is to be looked at because it is harsh, grim, and real. In a nutshell, we follow 15 year old Mia (debutant Katie Jarvis) as she struggles with her life in a working class London suburb, and in particular the various emotions associated with being a young teenage girl. And she really puts on a show.

The story goes that Jarvis was spotted by a member of the crew while arguing with her boyfriend at Tilbury Town railway station, the one used in the film itself. She was also unemployed and had dropped out of school. Essentially, she’s not acting at all, this is as real as it gets. Perhaps because of this she is able to provide incredible displays of powerful emotion, the kind of performance that almost saw her land the part of Lisbeth Salander for the impending remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Of course, there’s always a reason for such heightened emotion, and Mai’s life is fraught with tension. Her mother Joanne (Kierston Wareing)is a middle aged slut, openly throwing boozy parties and unashamedly bringing men back to her dingy apartment whenever suits. Her younger sister Tyler (Rebecca Griffiths) treats her with typical sibling disdain, to which she gladly reciprocates. She appears to have no friends, and as a result she is left out of any ongoing activities with the other girls her age- a clear cut example of this occurs in the opening scene, where she innocently watches the other girls dancing. Her very presence causes friction, and as her volatile temper spills over she headbutts another girl, who we later discover has suffered a broken nose.

The arrival of Connor (Michael Fassbender) in her life, as she dances in her pyjamas to a music video on television early one morning, sparks a change in the young girl. The teenage crush is obvious, but given that he is more than twice her age, not to mention her mother’s new boyfriend, there’s a sense straight away that there will be trouble ahead. She is infatuated with him, and his free spirited ways, and does whatever she can to spend more time with him, whenever possible. In turn, he offers her everything that she has been lacking- a friend and a father figure all in one, even encouraging her to push for her dream of becoming a dancer, going as far as providing a video camera to record herself to answer a job application.

There is always a sense that this is hurtling towards the obvious, and hints as to Connor’s motives are not hidden by Arnold. Instead, she focuses on the emotional development of Mia, or lack thereof, for the most part. Although Connor brings out the best in Mia- showing her a happier and more fun-filled life, her destructive, spontaneous and thoughtless tendencies still shine through, including an on-off relationship with a genuinely interested young lad, and an awkward scene in which she extracts her own form of revenge on Connor.

Throughout the film however, Arnold ‘s greatest achievement is her depiction of the world in which Mia lives, and how relative it is to her. Personal relationships aside, there is a sense that there is a betrayal of the real world, a failure in what it can provide for Mia. Within the cramped confines of her estate she is comfortable, she knows her surroundings and what everything stands for, such as the ability to practice her dance routines within the quiet confines of an abandoned apartment and even down to her mother’s lifestyle choices there are no secrets here. Visually we are aware of this quite often also, with many of the estate shots feeling quite restricted spatially, particularly within the apartment itself.

Contrary to this, the real world outside of the poky suburban “Fish Tank” in which she lives, causes her much danger. From grazing her ankle while walking in a lake within an open plain, to the emotion pain that she receives having visited Connor’s very un-cramped semi-detached two story home later on in the film, the openness of the real world appears too much for Mia. It is this failure to understand the complexities of the world around her which enslaves Jarvis’ character, and leaves her lost. Ultimately, Fish Tank is to be looked at because this portrayal of the world in relation to a modern, troubled teenage girl is intriguing, realistic, and very, very accomplished.

Rating:
4/5

Antichrist

It is quite likely that if you have heard about Antichrist, you’re heard the word “controversial” flitting about also. This comes as no surprise, as any film directed by Lars Von Trier is going to encompass difficult subject matter- and from a career that has shown us the dark and depressing Dancer in the Dark, the minimalistic stage-like Dogville, and the ludicrous offerings of The Idiots, the movie going public would no doubt be disappointed if his latest instalment proved to be straightforward. Luckily then, instead of going for a safer option, Von Trier delivers a film that has been labelled as being so controversial, that it questions what exactly art is, and where the borderlines are. Apparently, this has overstepped the mark.

The film is worth watching for the opening prologue sequence alone, which is quite possibly one of the most beautifully crafted that is there to be seen- an amazing black and white, slow motion, juxtaposition between a passionate (and visual) sex scene between a married couple, and the innocence of a young inquisitive child, escaping from the confines of his cot and exploring the house and the freedom that it brings, culminating in a fall and death of the child during the couples climax. All of this is overlaid, fittingly, by a Tuve Semmingsen rendition of “Lascia Ch’io Pianga”, an aria from Handel’s opera Rinaldo. It’s fair to say that if this isn’t art, then real cinema is truly lost.

The film picks up from this point and tells the story of the unnamed characters, accredited as “He”(Willem Dafoe) and “She” (Charlotte Gainsbourg), as they struggle to deal with their own relationship and their feelings after the death of their son. Luckily, He is a therapist, and attempts to guide She through the five stages of grief, which are outlined explicitly herself. Having established that She has an underlying fear that needs to be overcome, they both set off to the forest of Eden, where the real treatment can begin. And along with it, the utter confusion that Von Trier produces.

Beyond this point, the story becomes convoluted, and not revealed explicitly. Questions remain throughout as to the source of the violence that ensues, and it could even be said that given a slight plot twist regarding the unsuitability of She as a parental figure, the death of the son could in fact have been as a result of a physical developmental issue as a result of her neglect. However, that is probably far too grounded in reality, as the touch of mysticism that lingers in the background rears its ugly head to completely demolish the harsh reality that Von Trier had built up in the first half of the film.

It is within this harsh reality that the director excels in his attempts at creating a horror scenario. The extensive forest is devoid of human activity, with an endless supply of dark trees looming large over the miniscule humans. Couple that with seemingly violent acorn showers at night and some powerful wildlife visuals (such as the failed birth of a young fawn), achieves a sense of helplessness. As this continues, the tension build and we expect horror to ensue. This also contributes to the shock value of the violence that we see. Not least because of genetalia mutilation, but also the lack of a build up from a low level of violence to the extreme, we are effectively thrown into the deep end unannounced when the inevitable occurs.

It would be wrong to write a review without mentioning both Dafoe and Gainsborough, who are exceptional. Both produce strong, emotional, believable performances, and this never slips throughout. Their unorthodox relationship truly carries the film, although it is a pity that for all the good work they put in, and Von Trier also, the flaws take too much away from the film. Shoddy editing breaks the involvement that the audience has in the film, taking you away from the experience. It also feels as though the premise for Antichrist is one that should have been grounded in the real world, and stayed there, as opposed to veering off towards witchcraft, satanic interventions and a talking fox. This does a lot of damage to the tension and authenticity of the world created by Lars Von Trier, not to mention the grim reality of a psychotic horror showing.

Without a doubt this could have been a classic and remembered for all the right reasons with tighter editing and a more believable series of events. Unfortunately Von Trier let himself down by delving too deep into a storyline that also wasn’t explained enough, which following the opening half of the film is very disappointing.

Rating:
3/5

The Expendables

Stallone, Statham, Jet Li, Lundgren, Rourke, Willis. The cast list says it all. The Expendables is yet another homage to years gone by Sylvestre Stallone, although this time without the reprisal of his own tried and tested heroic roles. While Rocky Balboa and John Rambo sit comfortable in retirement, Stallone gives a debut outing to the veteran Barney Ross (Stallone), surrounding himself with as much specialist battlefield experience humanly possible in the process. Their mission is the seemingly straightforward assassination of the dictator, General Garza (David Zayas), of Vilena- a fictional island in the Gulf of Mexico.

Stallone does his best to create a balance between star attractions and a decent plot, and although the action genre isn't renowned for its intuitive storylines and extensive range of character development, it's not too much to expect slightly more depth behind the advancing the story. For the most part it is merely a standard action film plot, which fits the bill perfectly. During an initial reconnaisance trip to Vilena, Ross and Toll Road (Statham) meet with their contact on the Island, Sandra (Gisele Itié) Ross discovers that Garza is in fact liaising with an ex-CIA agent, James Munroe (Eric Roberts) and his heavies, Paine (Steve Austin) and The Brit (Gary Daniels). Following this, Ross decides to abort the mission, leaving Sandra behind. However, the twist in the tale comes out of nowhere and degrades the whole experience a little. Following his return home, and a speech from Tool (Mickey Rourke), Ross decides to save Sandra in an effort to free himself from any regret. This is disappointing at best, given that there is no hint of soul searching beforehand. What follows is the usual run of the mill rescue sequence, combined with the tying up of the loose ends from the initial mission and proves to be as expected as it is satisfactory.

Much has been made of the cast of The Expendables, with most of the promotional work tying the star value of the cast to the title of the film itself. Whereas this will result in millions upon millions in the bank accounts of all involved, and surely a sequel or two for good measure, the fact is that at times it feels as though there's an opportunity missed, and the cast is not utilised to it's maximum potential. Even though Bruce Willis appears only in a cameo role as the enigmatic Mr. Church, and Jet Li (as Yin Yang) feels a bit left out of the loop at times, the biggest let down is Mickey Rourke, merely a shell of the man that we could have hoped for given his psychotic roles in both Iron Man 2 and Sin City. It would also have been good to see more of Lundgren, although given his menacing and firebrand character he still holds a menacing off screen presence.

Having said that, there's still plenty going on and the cast works quite well together. They bounce off one another, both during the dialogue which is littered with fun one liners, and during the action sequences which vary from the ridiculous to the sublime. And it's those action sequences which make the film what it is, suggesting that if there's one thing Sylvestre Stallone knows, it's how to kill people in style. His range of vision in this field is quite exceptional, whether it's the full on slaughter of an army of troops using his seaplane, a few gallons of fuel and a flare, or the quiet, silhouetted killing of an enemy soldier by a projectile knife. Added to this the overkill provided by an AA12 shotgun loaded with explosive rounds, and the inevitable climax, allows more than enough action to go around. Which is essential really, given the aforementioned lack of a decent plot.

Overall, this is what the film was all about- Top class action with the finest of action heroes. Stallone delivers on that front exceptionally, his action scenes are flawless and the culmination of this is seen in the final quarter of the film, with an amazing siege on the headquarters of General Garza.

Interestingly Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagal, the only notable absentees from an all star cast, turned down roles in The Expendables. According to Stallone "they just had different ideas on their careers". One feels that this will be to their detriment, as the golden age shines brightly once more.

Overall: 4/5