destroy-apathy Reviews

The Mechanic (2011)

A Crass American equivalent to Corbijn's European The American (ooh the irony)

[7/10 · 30 January 2011]

Creators: Directed by Simon West, director of the legendary Con Air (didn't know this before viewing; no wonder I was so pleasantly surprised) Story and Screenplay by Lewis John Carlino, writer of the 1972 version (Ignorantly, I had previously no idea of this original's existence). Richard Wenk (16 Blocks) also contributing to the screenplay

What Happened: Plain and simple action/hit-man genre film. Jason Statham's Arthur Bishop takes under his wing Steve McKenna (Ben Foster), the son of his old friend/mentor Harry McKenna (Donald Sutherland) - who also happens to be his last hit. Bishop tries to bring him up to his regimented standard, but the youthful, unruly McKenna has his own eccentric style. Plenty of over-masculine shenanigans and brutal deaths ensue.

Theme/Message: As a non-ironic display of machismo it is important to concede that most of the point of this film existing is for the spectacle of things blowing up, brains blowing out and screwdrivers rammed through faces. Reading past this a little, I thought that there was a thinly veiled idea that both ends of a spectrum are not healthy. There seemed to be an effort to promote the balance between the overly formulaic control freak (Bishop) and the chaotic, out of control degenerate (McKenna), but this theory didn't hold up toward the end. I don't know if having one of the most physically intimidating and brutish displays of might come from a gay hit-man was some way of counteracting its unapologetic masculinity or not, but it was something to note.

What it did particularly well: The brutality really was entertaining. I was expecting Transporter levels of action, but that wasn't what the film was about. It was a little slower paced than that, but with the violence in the action sequences really ramped up and very graphic. The two leads were really crassly entertaining; never did the uber-machismo bother me, as it sometimes tends to (I'm looking at you Expendables). It was like a really unsophisticated version Corbijn's The American (complete with ridiculously attractive prostitute). In fact, considering The American was a very European film - itself an ironic concept - this was like an American version of The American - Irony overdrive. The film was paced really well too; both the action and the character development (yes it did have a little) were nicely spread throughout so that there were no lulls.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential: Certain plot holes that were a little unforgivable, e.g. when they explained that McKenna was able to make a connection with their next mark because this is his first job. Really, the son of one of the biggest names in hit-man organisation wouldn't ring any alarms to a professional doing some background checks?

Performance of the film: Ben Foster was really something. Still has that slightly psychotic look in his eyes that he had back in Six Feet Under, but he really impresses as a competent and charismatic action star, with his own unique edge. (He was also my best performance of 30 Days of Night)

Scene of the film: Steve McKenna blasting his way out of a pretty dire situation and thus convincing me of both the character's elite status in this film and of the young actor's potential to be a great action star (he can actually even act)

Most outstanding or memorable feature: Brutality of the action.

More film musings and the like at destroy-apathy.blogspot.com or on twitter: @destroyapathy

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

Didn't disappoint quite as much as I thought it would

[5/10 · 28 January 2011]

What Happened: Johnny Depp's Benjamin Barker returns to London under the alias of Sweeney Todd after a life in exile. He intends to exact revenge on the crooked judge Turpin who raped his wife and was the reason that He was sent away. Teaming up with Helena Bonham Carter's Mrs Lovett, he supplies the fresh meat that she needs to liven up her pie shop.

Themes/Message: Although it was mostly spectacle, it did have some thematic points. Mrs Lovett and Todd represent the skilled working classes: a baker and a hairdresser; both representing entrepreneurial sensibilities and have to work for a living. In the period in which the film is set, anybody well-off enough to pay for their shave must be part of the middle classes, most clearly embodied by Todd's original inspiration for this killing spree, judge Turpin. Therefore Todd has no qualms with dispatching these individuals to the meat grinder, whilst biding his time for the judge himself. The song when they hatched the plan was inspired by seeing these social types (Lawyers, Vicars, Bankers, etc) outside on the streets, walking around as if greater than the common man.

What it did particularly well: Once it got going, the spectacle of some of the scenes was entertaining. Bonham-Carter's character, I actually really like, which quite surprised me.

Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential: Couldn't help going in biased against the Depp-Carter-Burton triangle after severely disliking Alice and Willy Wonka. This prejudice was not helped by the sterile opening and Depp's first song, which was the most uncinematic of a pretty uncinematic bunch of musical numbers. Although there were a couple of good numbers, most were too static and seemed forced. Considering I had just seen Princess and the Frog where these things were so fluid, I was pretty disappointed on the whole.

Performance of the film: Sacha Baron Cohen as the fraudulently uber-Italian rival barber

Scene of the film: The introduction of Sacha Baron Cohen as the rival barber was the point that injected life into the film, which it managed to maintain up until the final act where it unravels a little.

Most outstanding or memorable feature: The couple of songs that it got right were great (they were just few)

More musings and discussion at Twitter - @destroyapathy

The Princess and the Frog (2009)

Flipping the Myth, while keeping the charm

[7/10 · 28 January 2011]

What Happened: Set in New Orleans, this is an inversion of both the Princess and the Frog tale along with he Disney Princess mythos (see below). The frog-based inversion comes as the Princess is turned into a frog after her reptilian kiss rather than revealing the frog as her prince. They then commence their journey to try and regain their human forms, foil the villain's plot to acquire power and wealth, all whilst finding a great deal about themselves, each other, the world, etc, etc. So nothing structurally outside the box, but it doesn't need to be; it does what it needs to do strcturally and creates all the interest thematically.

What I read as its theme/message: As eluded to above, it was primarily about admitting to some of the wrongs that Disney may have been guilty of in the past – reinforcing dominant ideologies, marginalising difference and the likes (Note that these features of Disney have in no way affected my enjoyment of some of the greats). Therefore not only was the lead the cultural other, the friend of the – to be expected – Disney Princess archetype, the black working class daughter of a maid, but she at no point showed the 'need' for her prince, her knight in shining armour, to save her. She embodied what would be expected of the empowered, yet still proudly feminine figure. The balance was struck by making her not 'need' these things but still to 'want' them, ultimately making the 'right' choice after believing she didn't have her prince. This balance ensured that the film charmed in a way that Disney manages to do, was full of passion and whimsy, but the emphasis on want rather than need took her away from being a 'passive' female, yet not too far to be wooden and preachy; she was a well rounded individual.

What it did particularly well: It was as charming and as fun as a Disney romp should be, whilst making the blatant concessions to Disney's past that I mention above. The songs were mesmerising and the deep south setting was really brought to life.

Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential: It never reached more than just very good. The songs were all enjoyable, but made no lasting impression. Similarly with the supporting characters (except the villain who was great); I liked the crocodile but he was no Timone and Pumba.

Performance of the film: The villain voiced by Keith David, really over the top sinister

Most outstanding or memorable feature: The setting: as a post Katrina film, this does a lot to justly glamorise the deep south vibe through the animation, the music, the characters, the food and the emphasis on passion.

More film musings and discussion via twitter: destroyapathy

Four Lions (2010)

both hilarious comedy and contemporary social commentary

[9/10 · 25 March 2010]

The film can be approached from two angles; as a comedy and as an important contemporary cultural text. As a comedy it succeeded beyond expectations. Part of the pleasure surely came from the spectacle of the event; a sold out screening with cast and crew present along with regional cultural references that resonated infectiously with many in the audience, but this can take nothing away from the many levels of comedy at work within this film. There were elements of overacted screwball comedy; there were underplayed facial expressions and reactions that added a wealth of character and personality to the comedy; further still, there were elaborately constructed situational set pieces. All these elements along with explosively dynamic dialogue that was well delivered combined to send the audience into tears of laughter.

In a separate issue to the comedy there was the cultural commentary, which is always going to draw attention when it is such a taboo subject as Jihad: a word that is often avoided at all costs. The film unapologetically offers a plethora of questions around motivation, meaning and justification which it never falls into the trap of giving patronizing, melodramatic answers to nor does it preach any solutions.

The many characters were all utilised to give different points of views and different perspectives; the main protagonist Omar (Riz Ahmed) was fully fleshed out, with the other characters used to offer differing ideas and obviously the above mentioned comic relief. Omar's brother for instance had such a minor part but raises questions around what he considers a true following of Islam, which he promotes as peaceful, but is then exposed as intrinsically sexist due to the way he practically locks his wife in a cupboard. That being said, Islam itself was to a large extent sidelined and the film much more overtly dealt with identification and senses of belonging for a demographic that has partial but not complete grips on the many angles of where its identity is created; this includes Barry (Nigel Lindsay), the Caucasian convert amongst the group.

Four Lions is easily funny enough to reach a very wide audience, where viewers will be left without answers and therefore forced to discuss these issues, which are too often brushed under the proverbial rug.

twitter - @destroyapathy

A Prophet (2009)

Best gangster film I have seen and one of the most culturally relevant films to a post credit crunch world

[10/10 · 12 February 2010]

I know it's not the first film I have seen in 2010 but Un prophète really does set the precedence for the year. I very much doubt there will be a better film than this released any time soon. The film straddled the genre line perfectly and included enough elements for it to be unmistakably part of the relatively niche prison film genre or the much more commonly recognised gangster film genre, yet at the same time it flaunted certain elements in order to really make a point. This is the whole point of genre being formed and the reason that genre in cinema is so important. Not so that lazy writers and directors can churn out 'sure fire' predictable hits but so that geniuses and directorial wizards like Jaques Aidiard can subvert certain mythologies in a recognisable and engaging format. It was from Steve Neale that I learned the importance of this repetition and variation. This film could well have been used to prove his point as to why the variation from certain expectations can be so impactful and carry so much weight and significance.

see www.destroy-apathy.blogspot.com for a full and in depth analysis

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

Works for all the family

[8/10 · 27 January 2010]

Context: Saw this at a kids showing on a Saturday morning (quid each), with the whole family hoping that Mr Fox crosses the demographics correctly, entertaining my three year old son and four year old nephew as well as me, an established fan of Wes Anderson's work and my wife who neither loves nor loathes his other films.

The kids: Well by the end of the film the kids were still sat there and hadn't become bored or restless. My son particularly liked Mr Fox's whistle clicky thing and attempted to replicate it at every instance. The animation was easily entertaining enough to hold their attention and have them laughing along, commenting and shouting out what was happening on nunerous occasions.

As for me, I was more than happy with the pacing of the film, the characters within and the overall message. Controversial as this may be, I didn't think too much to Life Aquatic and I still haven't seen Darjeeling, so after hearing bad things about this one from most commentators at the time of its release, I was apprehensive. The dialogue between characters had Anderson's stamp all over it and gave all the characters the depth that they required.

I liked the overall theme of the film; the animal characters seemingly representing independent retailers: mere mortals up against the conglomerates realised in this film through the form of the big farmers. All evil in their own right but led by one particular cold blooded, cider brewing machine-farmer. This all sounds very cliché at the minute, which is all fine but things that follow the structure too definitively often bore me a little too much and end up too average. I think this film really drifted from this when approaching its conclusion. Mr Fox wanted out of the life he was in and wanted bigger things; the usual message here would be for this to fail and him to go "oh yeah, everything was fine before and I should go back to that with my tail between my legs". Well this film does neither this nor have his new vision a success, instead a new outcome is reached. The animals live in a new environment: a sewer that can easily be seen to represent a modern urban setting. What this means to me is that individuals/society can rise from a traditional and more recognisably natural level, whilst not succumbing to 'the man'. They can live in a new setting, not growing the way that people envisage they should just because that's how people did in previous generations, being defined by class and the family skill set that you are born into; you can decide who you want to be and create your own little narrative. This does not mean that you have to sell your soul, benefiting only yourself and thus lose your humanity. Nor does it mean that you reject the idea of skilled individuals in a society being masters of their class and contributing together for the benefit of society as a whole, hence the fact that all these tradesmen: the lawyer, the tailor, etc all live in this sewer environment. The part that tops this off, the icing on the cake if you will, is that it does not look down upon the establishment of the farmer (conglomerate) owned supermarket, rather it shows that free individuals can exploit these resources rather than being dictated to by them.

This overall message celebrates the state of contemporary western society rather than being hopelessly and nostalgically conservative. It shows that there are flaws but that this is how we are, we have got to this point by following our hearts, rather than doing what others consider to be the right thing. Just as Mrs Fox condones Mr Fox's irrational actions that jeopardize the lives of his friends and family; she condones this because she understands that to suppress one's real life is far worse even if it is the safer option.

www.destroy-apathy.blogspot.com

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

relentless depression

[7/10 · 10 January 2010]

This was one of the most depressing films I have seen... well in a long time and in terms of being uncompromisingly grim, possibly the most depressing ever. Even film's like Lars Von Trier's Dancer in the Dark (2000) had a glimmer of hope that things would be OK.

I loved how much an animated feature could make me feel so strongly about something and I understand that the point of this film was how relentless war is, but watching this was just like watching depression-session-misery-torture.

There was no way of it ending up with any form of hope, joy or optimism, not that I wanted it to, but I wanted to think that it could. I do not mind something not having a happy-ever-after ending, in fact I'd usually complain when things are too happy-happy but I think that the best tear-jerker moments and the ones that have the most impact are those where either unfortunate events, to a certain extent come by surprise, or more specifically that you know there could be something horrible about to happen but you are still not sure and there is still the chance of everything being alright. The shattering of this built up hope leaves you feeling more vulnerable and therefore increases the effectiveness of the narrative.

By showing you at this film's opening that the main character dies and joins his little sister in the afterlife, once his mother dies in the opening act you know there really is no way out for the doomed little boy. This does succeed at showing the uncompromising relentless nature of war but it really was tortuous and difficult to watch. In a way I admire the film's approach but at the same time I didn't really enjoy it.

Twitter: @destroyapathy www.destroy-apathy.blogspot.com

Appleseed (2004)

Beautiful, exciting and good use of genre.

[7/10 · 6 January 2010]

all posts may contain spoilers Animation / Action / spectacle The combination of 3D CGI and 2D hand drawn features was absolutely beautiful. The ability of 3D CGI animation is far superior - in my opinion - than 2D animation at creating epic and immersive worlds for the viewer to be mesmerised by. One of the negatives of CGI is that faces are often nowhere near realistic enough, destroying the illusion as characters become almost impossible to relate to and identify with. This is remedied in Appleseed by using 2D illustrations and animation to cell shade over the characters. They then have a full 3D presence but all the expression that can be generated from hand drawn features, which is seen most prominently in the eyes of the characters. This 2D element also gives the animation more weight; CGI can often look floaty and lose a lot of the impact that a film like this requires. These animation techniques combined brilliantly with the art direction, pacing, editing and all other aesthetic elements. These work together to create a beautifully realised world along with breath taking action set pieces. Just a quick side-note about spectacle and action: Many consider that you can either have narrative or spectacle but I think that that's a big load of rubbish. There are many films that have proved (in my humble opinion of course) that spectacle, contrary to diminishing narrative, adds to a film's ability to immerse the viewer, bringing them into the world. I really don't think that the Matrix would have been as impressive or would it be held held in such high esteem if it hadn't have had its fair share of visual spectacle.

Strong Females My childhood film watching was always a mix of hong Kong kung fu films (including Cynthia Rothrock), anime and the usual Hollywood suspects, so I didn't really notice how absolutely useless women are, according to mainstream Hollywood cinema that is. As I got older and watched less anime and Hong Kong kung fu (on accounts of the videovan-man not coming on our street no more - sad days) I began to understand why feminists were always so infuriated with the silver screen. Why do we so rarely see the type of female characters that are presented in this film in any western production. I'm sure there are many exceptions - Ripley from Alien for instance – but on the whole we don't get to see these women. Smart and tough, not without beauty and sex appeal but that not being their absolute defining feature. Not unable to fall in love but also not acting in the sole interest of the (apparently) much more important male lead. In this film it is not only the lead character (Deunan) but I was myself surprised to find the Dr Gilliam character - who was built up as being the greatest mind to have ever existed - to be a woman. I should be ashamed of myself automatically assuming that it would be a man but I guess that is the Hollywood brainwashing that my generation (and many prior) have suffered at the hands of.

Cyberpunk This may be disputable but I think the Japanese do cyberpunk themes better than any other national cinema on earth. There is possibly a link there with this interconnectedness of man and machine along with the origins of modern videogames being strongly rooted there. In Appleseed, the cyborg/artificially created humans had slight deviations from the usual "oh but if they can think then don't they deserve life, just like us, blah, blah blah". The use of reproduction as a narrative tool literally uses castration theory as the major threat or centre of importance as the final threat was that mankind would be made completely infertile, subjecting it to a slow extinction. The film breaks down the essence of humanity and life to the ability to reproduce and that the other (irrational) elements of humanity – love, hate, revenge, etc derive from this reproductive urge. The balance between dystopic and utopian visions of the future often straddled by the cyberpunk genre edged on the side of utopian.

Plot holes or loose storytelling There is obviously always the chance - which I am not ruling out for a second - that I am a little slow, but there were a few points where I wasn't entirely sure what was happening or more to the point why it was happening, as if some parts of the plot had been squeezed through in too lean a fashion. For instance, why do the gigantic moving fortresses that rise up? Did the elders order this or did Gaia? or did the Army? Or were they simply acting on their own/bioroid behalf? I suspect that problems like this arise in the process of adaptation. In the original comic they may have been fully explained and realised but in the process of cutting corners when translating to screen and coming in at a reasonable time (which this film mostly did really well). In this process, the film not only chopped off the fat of the plot set up, but the muscle along with it.

Summary Action, spectacle and visual ability get a massive tick. Characters were pretty basic but fully engaging, respectable and as I said above the lead going to a female character is something I would die to see more of in Western films. The pacing was brilliant coming in under two hours and having a pretty exciting almost climax before more reveals then an even more exciting final set piece. It played the genre game perfectly with enough familiarity to make it easy to engage with and allow yourself to be immersed at the same time as shedding new light on ideas with variation from the norm.

Twitter: @destroyapathy and Destroy-apathy blogspot

The White Ribbon (2009)

Terrifying repressed kids, but why are they and what does this mean?

[8/10 · 27 November 2009]

The following is taken from my blog, thought it would be more economical to copy and paste this rather than write it out again If you want to leave comments, go to destroy-apathy.blogspot.com

Here are a few paragraphs on my immediate impressions of the film. By no means do I incorporate everything that can be said as it has great depth and substance. I simply want to highlight the overarching themes that I felt were important. My views are pointless in isolation, I openly welcome anyone who has seen the film to complete the dialogue: fill in any gaps, strengthen some of my flimsily thrown out ideas or to tear it to pieces, completely disagreeing with what I write.

Narration I always thought I was dead against voice overs; that they are a lazy way of storytelling, spoon feeding you the narrative rather than letting the film speak for itself. Well this film made me realise that I am only dead against anonymous, omnipresent voiceovers. The one in this film is so personal and direct as it comes from one of the only sympathetic characters in the whole film. It is one of the tools used to reinforce the fact that the story is being told from an objective point of view. Another element supporting this is that right from the very beginning – through said voice over narration – it is declared that memories are funny things. A brilliant way of making it explicit early on that this is an objective point of view, a story but one which it declares will "hopefully explain what happened to this country". This gives you the bigger picture from the start. You are instructed - in a non-forceful way - to see this village as a microcosm representing the whole country; that the young characters represent the youth of the nation. The film takes us to the start of the First World War, but more importantly - as the film critic Mark Kermode rightly points out - it is the children here who will reach adulthood during - and therefore be mostly responsible for - the rise of the third Reich.

Terrifying Kids (especially Klara – who is one eerie but immensely powerful and articulate figure) The youth are completely fed up with the treatment they receive from the older generations. The film shows a variety of family/community settings and how the children are undervalued, unappreciated, sexually abused or repressed to a point of insanity. And my goodness are they plentiful; there are numerous shots families where the children swamp the screen, vastly outnumbering their elders, which really puts an exclamation mark on the fact that the old generation (along with all their values) are going to be viciously overthrown. The only middle ground / glimmer of hope is the relationship between the teacher and Eva. These are very important characters that differ from almost everyone else in the village, mainly that they both seem to have healthy relationships with their parents. Eva's dad embarrasses her but at least he speaks plainly, doesn't repress what he feels and expresses his disdain for ridiculous formality. More importantly is that both their parents do not live with them within this damned village (a representation of the whole nation – see below) and they are not products of the society within. This is possibly most important when he attempts to explain the situation as he sees it to the Pastor, who is so enmeshed with a culture of repression that he casts the teacher out. The teacher was so alien to this culture he could not even grasp why this was, anticipate that this would be the outcome of this conversation or even recognise that this repression existed, therefore he let it go on. This could be a comment on those who were not enthusiastically pro-Nazi but just did not do enough to stop them.

Rebellion Whether the film justifies this youth-led rebellion is left for the viewer to decide. It shows their reasons for it, i.e. the captivity they were being held in; a captivity that is clearly symbolised by the Pastor's caged bird. The fact that Klara kills the bird and leaves it as a symbol for her father to find shows the youths intention to fight this incarceration. To further accentuate the injustice of his contradictions, the Pastor keeps in that cage, the healed bird; the bird he told his son he must release back into the wild.

I really could go on, but it really would be... well 'going on'. I have tried to make this concise and focused and in case I didn't make the point clearly I think it is a tremendous film.