Super Sunday: The Nightmare Before Christmas

Jack and Sally get together. For some reason.

Super Sunday
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Written between 26 and 27 October 2012

Four years. That's how long The Nightmare Before Christmas took to make. All of the characters and sets had to be sculpted out of clay, each character having many, many different mouldings for different movements, expressions and scenarios. They then of course all had to be painted and designed according to a long series of preliminary sketches and storyboards. Then, each frame of film had to be set-up and photographed seperately, with one second of film for every 24 frames. Add in the editing, voice-acting work, and issues elsewhere, and you've got a film that is not only a labour of love, but a work worthy of being considered many people's magnus opuses. I say this now so that even if I do happen to say anything bad about the film in the positive paragraphs, I haven't ignored the effort that went into it.
     Jack Skellington, the spindly-armed king of Halloweentown, has one hell of a midlife crisis and decides that this Halloween thing is getting a bit old. While wandering through the forest, he stumbles into a portal to another Holiday-land, sending him to the cheery realm of Christmastown. The idea of Christmas entices Jack to do it for himself, against the advice of his belittled friend Sally, and after getting the whole town involved he delivers a warped and strange Christmas to a world that doesn't want it. The experience teaches Jack to love Halloween again, and thus he returns and saves Santa Claus from the evil Oogie Boogie in order to save Christmas.
     Like I said on Tuesday, one of the problems with a film with such a deliberately "spooky" aesthetic is that they lose something by being so unreal. Jack is fundamentally in search of something different, a change from his regular routine. But unlike most midlife-crises, it's a very destructive way of doing things that nearly gets quite a few people killed or seriously injured. We're supposed to sympathise with Jack because he's awesome and he's tired of life and who hasn't been tired of life at some point? But I guess what I'm saying is, that, like another Jack from a TV series that I recently decided I should pick up again next year, I don't get why there's such a big buzz around him.

Oogie Boogie.

     At the same time, though, the incredibly over-simplistic plotting also leads to ridiculously black-and-white characterisations. I mean, Jack, Sally and perhaps Oogie Boogie are the only characters in this damn thing who have a character with more than one beat. It's frustrating to the point of anger that so much effort went into this film and yet they never once thought to do something more with this momentous project than tell a silly little Christmas/Halloween story. It could have been about something, but at the end it settled on, "be happy with what you've got, no matter what your situation - any attempt to change will fail spectacularly". Very family friendly. Oh, and Sally and Jack get together at the end despite having ridiculously little chemistry in the film prior. For that extra hack value.
     I don't want to hate on Nightmare or Corpse Bride, but they could have been so much better, and the issue is not in the aesthetic but in the damn script. If either of these films could have cobbled together better scripts, then maybe they'd be more worthwhile, but as they stand they're filled with unfortunately two-dimensional characters despite their deliberately three-dimensional construction. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. And, if you don't like that, ignore this post and wait for the Misfits one that's coming around 11:30.

Thanks.

P.S. That ends this run of Super Sundays. I might do a December one for Christmassy films, but ciao until then.
P.S.S Fans of this film, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, don't kill me.

Review: Corpse Bride

Victor is prepared to die to make Emily happy.

The One That Got Away
Corpse Bride - Produced by Tim Burton
Written 21/10/12

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride is a story that doesn't really know what it's doing. I mean, sure, they probably had a plan and worked to it, and there were tons of motivations behind every little stylistic and script-writing decision, but there's something to it, something inherantly wrong that prevents Corpse Bride from ever reaching the true heights that its spiritual predecessor, The Nightmare Before Christmas, ever did. And that's weird, really, considering that he surely had more time to work on this one. It isn't the visual style that lets Corpse Bride down, nor its music, but a general sense that while it's all very well-done, it isn't particularly relevant to anything.
     The story follows Victor Van Dort (Johnny Depp) as he is due to be married to daughter of bankrupt aristocrats, Victoria Everglot (Emily Watson). He messes up his vows and runs off into the woods, where, by practising his vows on what appears to be a tree branch, inadvertantly awaken the sleeping Corpse Bride, Emily. (Helena Bonham-Carter). While Victor tries to figure out a way to escape his arrangement, they must also foil the plans of the evil Lord Barkis (Richard E Grant) who killed Emily years ago and is planning to do the same to Victoria. Eventually Barkis is defeated and Emily gives Victor to Victoria, finally free to move on.
     It's clear that Burton is making some ironic statement about how the land of the living is more dead and stagnant than the land of the undead, but aside from the surface aesthetic it's not clear why. I mean, is he talking about rules? About the dangers of adhering to social conventions? Because, you know Tim, we don't really have those Arranged Marriage things in the West any more. Or is it about the perils of seeking True Love, like Emily did? Well, why does he then have Victor and Victoria get together, when they've known each other for even less time? It's confusing. It's very, very strong aesthetically, but there's nothing backing it up.

Lord Barkis weds Victoria.

     The film is Stop-Motion Animation, which is making me feel incredibly, incredibly guilty for even daring to say anything about it. Basically, stop-motion means that you can create awesome animations that look very physical, but it also means that you have to take each frame individually, meaning that you're producing a few seconds of film with each day's work. Therefore, these films are the hardest to make - they have the most effort, the most love and I practically feel like some sort of criminal for even daring to say that perhaps The Corpse Bride is a little bit on the empty side. But it's not just down to the animators, because they're great. Or the designers, because the design is awesome. No, it's to do with the writing and, in particular, the music. What's so wrong about the music, you ask, clutching hold of your signed Danny Elfman soundtracks and baring your teeth like I've just said that Adolf Hitler would have looked great in a tutu.Well, it's simply that the songs are too relevant, too specific to gain outside appeal.
     Corpse Bride is a success in its animation, style, atmosphere and aesthetic - a wonderfully gothic masterpiece that celebrates the style as well as furthering it. But it is also the epitome of style over substance, pretending to say lots of important things while really not saying anything at all. And that was a downright shame, because the story of Emily and Victor could have been one of great poignancy and drama. Instead, it felt like it was there just so we could see all the pretty clay animations. I still enjoy the film, and i think that it's something very beautiful, but I wish that it could have just been better.

Thanks.

Super Sunday: Batman (1989)

Sit down, relax, have a drink...

Super Sundays
Batman (1989)
Written between 18th and 20th October 2012

Batman, as a character, is legendary for simply how awesome he is. He dressed up in dark clothes and goes off into the night, striking fear into the hearts of Gotham's undesirables and fighting the schemes of Gotham's ridiculously large array of insane supervillains. While he's perhaps not as awesome as Iron Man, he takes the same tropes and puts them to rights in a way that asks the viewer simply whether they're man enough to face the world's darkness and hit it with a batarang. Tim Burton's version of the character and the series is a rather interesting one for many reasons, one of the biggest being his attitudes towards the central character and some of the questionable decisions his obsession with the gothic leads him to make.
      Gangster Jack Napier (Jack Nicholson) is about to take over his mob, and for good. He is made restless by the appearance in the news of a strange, Bat-like figure known only as The Batman. Batman's true identity is the charming billionaire Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton), who, after entertaining reporter Vicki Vale, rushes off to stop a raid on a factory by Napier and his men. While there, he knocks Napier into a vat of acid. He doesn't die instantly, but his private Doctors are forced to suffer when it turns out that the experience has turned him into the Joker - a permenant smile, green hair, paper white skin and something seriously wrong in his brain. Batman must fight The Joker to the end to rid the town of his menace, and on the way identifies Jack Napier as the man who killed his parents in childhood and led him to becoming the Batman.
     The story's most unique take on the Batman mythos is the humanisation of Jack Napier; Nicholson's Joker isn't just deranged, he's also someone who is very clearly developed from a more ruthless but logical persona. Instead of being something that the already-insane Joker gave to himself, this Joker's appearance has been forced upon him and is often detrimental to his plans. What this results in is a very methodical, extravagant Joker who seems to relish in the newfound freedom that the persona creates. He performs to his audience and he likes it. While this part is great, I did disagree with the way that Burton twisted the story to make Napier his parents' killer, because it creates an Archenemy structure that disagrees with what Batman's about. Batman's is not a quest for vengeance, but for justice, and he never explicitly seeks out his parent's killer but instead sees him as an example of a trend in society that he needs to stop, with the authorities' help or otherwise.

Michael Keaton makes a decent Bruce Wayne but
as Batman he's less than I'd hoped.

      I think my ultimate problem with Batman in general is that while the story is very much able to say things about our society, it ultimately collapses into a standard, "morality is grey and so are our curtains" tale of death and destruction that most of the time I'm just not in the mood for. It stops being about justice and power and about wondering exactly who is more of a complete and total dick. Of course, Keaton's Batman is effing whiter-than-white, creating a clearer hero/villain structure that conflicts with the ambiguity the character is known for. I think Keaton makes a much better Bruce Wayne, and you certainly would have no suspicision that he was a crime-fighting superhero, but in a way he seems too nice, too normal. Bruce Wayne as a character is an inherantly fucked up guy - he's got such mommy and daddy issues that he dresses up as a bat, goes around beating people up and then doesn't care what happens to them afterwards. And this Batman isn't really as imposing a presence as he could have been, for the sole reason that, as we see in the sequel, Burton much prefers gothic villains to accepted comic-book heroes.
     I suppose at the end of the day, my problem with the film is simply that it's a little too full. I think Burton realised his bias very early on in the writing process and did his best to give Keaton interesting stuff to do, but what that results in is a film that's two hours long and contains long, long chunks where nothing of any value really happens. Well then, I could have gotten behind the messages and themes of the film, surely - oh, wait, sorry, Burton has taken those themes and packaged them for Hollywood. The film was still very entertaining and I enjoyed some of the aesthetic choices and ideas that Burton used, but I've come away from it without much feeling, without emotion. It didn't give me anything, and it didn't leave me wanting to watch it again.

Thanks.

Super Sunday: Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events (2004)

Damn you, Carrey, and your really long
arms.

Super Sundays
Lemony Snicket's A Series Of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Written 7/10/12

I would be lying if I said that the film wasn't at least partially responsible for getting me into the Series of Unfortunate Events books penned by Daniel Handler under the pseudonym Lemony Snicket. Back in the early days of this blog, around two or so years ago now, I reviewed all of the books in a very loose style that showed in a way why I loved the series and why I felt it was so important to my development as a person. Handler's books taught me that the world was one where humour could be found in the darkest of circumstances, one in which there were no good or evil people but simply people with agendas, ideas, philosophies, allegiances and bitter rivalries. It was a world of ambiguity and of sadness and pain but fought for intelligence and the power to look past the follies of the world and just get on with it. Spoilers for the book series follow.
     In 2002, Nickelodeon won the right to make a film version of the first three books in the series, The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window. Wisely, the filmmakers chose to shorten the two later books to adventures within the first, allowing it to have a more rounded quality. The film's biggest problem does come with the conflicting style and tone that results from the book series' episodic nature, and I would have perhaps preferred if they had stuck to the complex if brief first book. The film also manages to rather admirably contain a lot of references to the V.F.D plot from the books which, if you've not read them and don't mind being spoilered, was a secret organisation that split into two opposing factions one of whom was devoted to fighting fires and another to starting them. I didn't like where it was going at the beginning of the film, but by the end I think they left enough of that plot ambiguous for either future sequels or for the viewer to get into the book series.
     The story's villain, Count Olaf, is played by a very interestingly cast Jim Carrey. Now of course, he's in my favourite film ever and all that, but the truth is that I'm not a big fan of the vast majority of Carrey's work. I hate his rubberface persona, the way that directors always give him free reign to go crazy. Some of Carrey's improvs are very funny, especially in his Stefano persona half-way through the film, but they do sorta ruin the tone. Olaf is supposed to be charming and sophisticated and yet at the same time a very desperate, weasley man who is murderously obsessed with acquiring the Baudelaire fortune and annihilating the remaining members of the fire-fighting side of the V.F.D. His death in the final book shows his love for Kit Snicket and the deep complexity behind his apparent cruelty - the Baudelaires' parents made him an orphan and he provoked the Schism in the organisation in revenge. Carrey and his mad-cap ad libs may do well to create a persona of his own, but don't fit within the story as a whole. In the books, much comedy (and tragedy) was made of the fact that the adults around Olaf could never see through his ridiculous disguises. Frankly, if anyone doesn't see that Carrey's character is a nutjob, they need their head examining.

The Baudelaires. Emily Browning is the only one of the three
to ever really work again, and even then they've been
semi-edgy indie flicks with mixed agendas.

     The problem that I have with the film isn't just Carrey overacting with every little chance that he gets, but also due to the film's tone, which while commendably matching that of the book, with its overly pessimistic outlook as tempered by a strange narrator, has one small difference. The film ends with the message that hey ho, good will triumph over evil in the end and if you keep your chin up everything'll turn out alright. It seems like a very lazy way to end the film, especially after the repeated themology from the book that this is not a story with a happy ending. By the end of the books, these characters end up as murderers themselves, and they end by sailing off to an ambiguous future which may either be being swallowed up by an enormous black question mark or living a life of secrecy. This is not a story with a happy ending and it ruins the bloody point if you're gonna try and give it one just because it's for kids and you think they're soft!
     But despite that, I don't hate the film. I don't. I think the main child stars, especially Emily Browning (who would later star in her unfortunate tries-to-be-a-parody-but-fails-due-to-both-problems-with-execution-and-people-just-missing-the-point magnum opus Sucker Punch), do their job admirably and play the main leads as best as they could have been played; they give the characters a more appropriate voice than Handler ever managed, his protagonists always sounding a smidgen too adult for my liking. The film's style and tone matches of the books and on its own, the film is an interesting if misguised adaptation of one of my favourite series of books. It's not perfect, but I'm fine with it.

Thanks.

Super Sunday: Fantastic Four (2004)

Chris Evans. On the left.
He regrets this movie. Or at least I hope
he does.

Super Sundays
Fantastic Four (2004)
Written 6/10/12

Before Marvel Studios was off making billions of dollars with some of the best superhero movies ever fucking made and breaking box-office records like it's nobody's business, they made films which... left a lot to be desired. In 2004, Sony had the rights to their poster-boy Spiderman and were producing campy-as-shit blockbusters in the Marvel name. Marvel Studios wanted to do something which would keep them relevant, on the map, and not outshined by their rivals. So, they thought, let's do a movie about the Fantastic Four! There's a great way of doing a film with tons of awesome superpowers and great characters! This is gonna be great!
     The reason why I'm including Fantastic Four in my Halloween month of Super Sundays is not just because the Four create great costume designs, but because this is simply a horrifficly mediocre superhero film. It tries to defy all logic to create these awesome moments that don't feel as awesome because their characterisations mean that we don't feel anything. When Johnny Storm goes skiing with his nurse over some mountain ranges to a bitchin' rock soundtrack, the immediate thought is not, "omg awesome!" but rather, "why the hell is she doing that?" Also, the vast majority of the characters are either unlikable douchebags or just cripplingly unrealistic.
     Ioan Gruffudd's Richard Reed is a workaholic scientist, being funded by the asshat Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) and helped by old flame Susan Storm (an annoying Jessica Alba), her brother Johnny (a pre-Captain America Chris Evans, in a role that he's still trying to make up for) and his old and unlucky friend Ben (No Ordinary Family's Mike Chiklis). They develop powers after they're caught in a solar storm and become superheroes - Mr. Fantastic with his amazing flexibility, The Invisible Woman, The Human Torch and, to Ben's annoyance, The Thing. These characterisations are what funamentally cause the film to be such a shambles.
    Susan is annoyingly smarmy and her entire character seems like an excuse for Jessica Alba to be "hot", including one scene in which she has to strip down to her panties for little good reason. Yay for Feminism! Ben Grimm's Thing is played almost schizophrenically - I don't know whether it was supposed to be tragic, funny, a decent mix of both... the film can't decide which to use. By far the worst character is Chris Evans' Johnny Storm, whose arrogant mix of Wesley Crusher and Sean Connery brings us some of the film's worst moments. My favourite character is probably Victor Von Doom, though, as despite his very thin characterisation he comes out the most sympathisable. The project and later the team themselves basically ruin his life, and his desire to get rid of them is perfectly justified. Also, his powers are awesome. And would totally be the powers I'd want if I was a superhero.
     Fantastic Four was aiming to become bigger than Spiderman, and that didn't happen. It did create a sequel, The Rise of the Silver Surfer, but that bombed harder than Dresden in 1944. (Too soon?) The Fantastic Four was stripped from Marvel canon and their next venture would be four years later, when Spiderman was done for and they had room to start an entirely new Universe... starting with one Tony Stark. While Fantastic Four certainly wasn't anything to write home about, it was important as the kick up the backside for Marvel to do something interesting that it really needed.

Thanks.

NEXT WEEK: After two years, I take another look at a series of very, very Unfortunate Events.VFD out of here.

New Timetable

Since I'm hoping to get back into the swing of things, I'm going to be changing my review schedule. I'll be resurrecting my Super Sundays feature, this time mainly written and/or posted on Saturday. The weekend will also have a review of that week's episode of Doctor Who, and I'm planning on reviewing some of the classic serials when that half-series is over. Lost will be reviewed on Fridays and if I get the chance, Being Human  will be reviewed on Mondays.
    May's Super Sundays will be on the topic of Life Stories; inspirational stories that look at people's lives, however extraordinary (or fictional). Films covered this month will be Big Fish, about the adventures of Edward Bloom, Catch Me If You Can, the true story of con-artist Frank Abignale, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the curious case of Benjamin Button, Riding In Cars With Boys, based on the autobiography of Beverly Donofrio, and The Aviator, the story of eccentric billionaire Howard Hughes. 
     I hope that you'll enjoy the next six weeks of my lineup. As usual, my posts will be posted on the Facebook page and @AudenSReviews on Twitter. 

Thanks.

SuperSunday: Moon

Spoilers Follow. Science Fiction in 2009 was shrouded by the release of 3D epic Avatar, a film now recognised as nothing more than a lazy (albeit very pretty) recant of old Western classic Dances with Wolves. But this review isn't about Avatar. It's about the other major Science Fiction film released in 2009, directed by the son of musical legend David Bowie, Duncan Jones. That film was Moon.
     The film stars Hollywood supporting man Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell, a worker nearing the end of his three-year work period as a maintenance worker on the titular satelite. His company, the Korean Lunar Industries, employs him to take care of the automated diggers that harvest the helium 3 needed for Earth's clean fusion energy. Problems with communication satellites mean his only communication with home are videos sent by wife Tess, who was pregnant with daughter Eve when he left.
     Two weeks to go before he returns home, and Sam starts to hallucinate. On his way to fix a harvester he crashes, and when "he" awakens in the base his suspicions are aroused. Sam goes back to the rover, and brings back his body. It turns out that both Sams are clones, built from the DNA and memories of the original Sam Bell, who is now back on Earth. Now the two Sams have only a limited amount of time to try and expose the secrets of the base and hopefully escape before the "rescue team" arrive to clean them up...
      Behind all of its ilicit technobabble, Moon is really a parable about sollitude and deceit. The first Sam we see, Sam 4, has lived for three years in the desperate hope that one day he will return to his wife - who, as we later find out, has been dead for many years. In a way, the discovery of this deceit frees him for the little time he has left (clones die after three years, probably of some form of radiation poisoning), and allows him to eventually make the sacrifice that allows Sam 5 to send himself back to Earth. Who are we meant to see as the villians here? Lunar Industries, for creating the program in the first place? Or the original Sam Bell, who willingly gave his DNA and helped create the hundreds of clones stored in the base?
     The vital variable that makes the film work is the outstanding acting by Sam Rockwell and stand-in Robin Chalk. Rockwell manages to portray two sides of one man - the loose, relaxed Sam 4 versus the paranoid but determined Sam 5. His charting of a man's steady breakdown due to sheer loneliness presents a tragic look at the human condition on the whole, and the film would be nothing without it.

Sam examines the model he works on.

     As supporting characters go, the ship computer GERTY (voiced by, of all people, Kevin Spacey) certainly helps to stir the tension with his HAL-reminiscient overtones, and then turns out to be a subversion as, heartwarmingly, he helps the two Sams to escape. I think that was what Jones was going for; playing on the ever-increasing public mistrust of technology. One could say that it's quite clever; one could say that the whole film is quite clever, in the way it plays on so many science fiction tropes and preconceptions to form its own, semi-realistic warning for society.

     If you want to follow the masses, go to Avatar for your Science Fiction. Or, you could look towards a certain British director and his smaller project, Moon, which is an excellent melding of high-standard acting, direction and storytelling. The decision, ladies and gentlemen, is yours.

Thanks.

SuperSunday: Monty Python Films

From left: Top Row: Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam. 
Bottom Row: Terry Jones, John Cleese and Micheal Palin

Introduction
Monty Python. One of the best, if not the best comedy troupe in the world. Four television series, four films, many stages shows and even a few singles have marked them out as witty, satirical and very, very weird. It's this strangeness that tends to ward away most newcomers, as at first it takes a certain frame of mind to comprehend the level of humour on offer here. Nevertheless, the Pythons are a national treasure that really set the bar on the standard of British comedy. This, the first of my Mega Reviews, will cover the four Python films in all their flexibilities. Think of it as four reviews for the price of one.
     I'll also be looking at the group dynamic and how it affected the course of their comedy style. Monty Python were half-oddballs, half-products of their time. The four films are very different in style, and I'll be giving some insight as to why that is...


And Now For Something Completely Different (1972)
In between their penultimate and final series, the Pythons were advised to make a film composed of the best sketches from the show. They did so. And Now For Something Completely Different is the oddball in the Python film series in that it contains a scarce amount of new material.
     In all honesty, this film is more-or-less just a cash-in on the phenomenal success of the series. That isn't to say that the film isn't of very high quality; it just dampens the spirit of the film. Regardless, you can tell that the troupe are giving it their all.
     As mentioned in my first Rhineland post, this was the film that introduced me to Python. What I originally saw didn't impress; in hindsight it seems that most of the funniest sketches were left until the end. Indeed, the missed shots come to a nadir in the centre of the film, with Conrad Poohs and his dancing teeth...
     The film has, however, a wonderful atmosphere that encapsulates not only the general feel that the troupe were going for but also a strange sense of absurdity along with it. This is of course helped in spades by Terry Gilliam's masterful animation.
     At the end of the day, there isn't a lot to say about ANFSCD; simply a summation of the best three series of Monty Python's flying circus. It can be a little uninteresting in places due to its sketch nature, but where it is funny it excels in Python's usual absurdist commentary.

...and the Holy Grail (1975)

Ah, my favourite of the films. Holy Grail takes the pure, unadulterated spirit of the Pythons and channels it seamlessly into a well-researched and hilarious story set around the myths of King Arthur. Directed by the two Terry's, Jones and Gilliam, it often strikes a contract between their two very different styles of direction. 
     Using a (seemingly) rich set of environments, the film shows Arthur's (The great Graham Chapman, who plays it totally straight.) quest to gather his knights (played by the other Pythons), and then, by virtue of God, find The Holy Grail. Eventually, they find the grail in the hands of those filthy heathens, the French.
     The film's intense amount of research and thought only improves the comedic value, as it is able make implicit and explicit statements with every action. The peasants eating mud, for example. A funny gag, or a realistic one? Does their talk of repression refer to the Middle Age despots, or to the problems going on with Communism in the 1970s? There's so much to read into. Too much, one would think. But with all of that, it still remains an excellent piece of work.
     As aforementioned, everyone has a chance to shine. Chapman plays a straight-man Arthur which makes everyone else funnier. Micheal Palin and John Cleese get to play a myriad of characters throughout the film, the former having over 10 to chew on.  The two Terries have fewer roles, because they understandably had their directing duties, but they still make a big impression - Jones with his great Sir Bedevere and Gilliam with his near-random animated shorts.
     Of all of the Monty Python films, this one has had the largest effect on both British and sometimes American culture. Mentioning the troupe in public will often provoke a hail of lines from this film - too many to mention. In filming terms, the film's use of coconuts to jokingly imitate horses has been referenced all over the place, as well as references to Swallows (African or European.) The culture around this film is insane and for very good reason.
     Ultimately, this is Python at its pure, unadulterated best. The film stands as an iconic piece of British culture and set down the basics for almost all modern British comedy. It manages to take the sketch format and run it along a straight enough track to form a basic narrative while still delivering its wonderful randomness. An excellent film. 

 ...'s Life of Brian (1979)
The most controversial Python film (and probably the most controversial comedy) ever made, Life of Brian is surprisingly light and fluffy in comparison to its literally devillish reputation amongst the ignorant. The mere fact that the film was set in Biblical times was enough to cause a storm in a teacup, and many councils around the world banned the film before it was even screened...
     Graham Chapman (again, another brilliantly humourless protagonist) plays Brian Cohen, a boy whose life runs in parallel to that of Jesus Christ and who becomes caught up in the fight against the Roman occupation of Judea. The film, while seeming to satire only religious concepts, was in fact more focussed towards British Left-wing movements in the 1970s. Regardless, it's a film with many, many layers, as well as balancing out a sketch format.
    This time, however, the sketch format is (almost) thrown out of the window, as Brian's story is told more or less in a purely narrative form. This certainly improves both the story and the fluency of the messages they're trying to get across, but it does somewhat constrain the Python's usual creativity to a strict timeline of events.
     Many religious people prop up their criticism of the film on the assertion that Brian is an allegory for Christ, ignoring the fact that Christ appears several times in the film and is perfectly respected. I try not to get religious on this blog, but my anti-religious tendencies were in fact the very reason that led me to watch Life of Brian and properly discover Monty Python.
     Inevitably, the film's slightly anvilicious nature and lack of sketch-format makes laughs a rarer commodity, but where it is funny it strikes into new, much fresher territory that the Pythons tend not to wander into: political satire. And I love political satire. Life of Brian isn't my favourite Monty Python film, but it's certainly a strong one and deserves its place in the public spotlight.

...'s Meaning of Life (1983)

I thought that ANFSCD was the epitome of Pythonesque weirdness, but they really excel themselves in this final, more disjointed effort from the early eighties. By this time the group was becoming tense and their writing a lot more unfocussed. The Python equivalent of Let it Be, Meaning of Life is a last swansong for the group to work their comedy muscles in many ways. As John Cleese once noted, "[The Meaning of Life] contains some of our best and worst material."
      Unlike the previous two films, which were worked on together, each Python worked on their sketches independently - so very rarely did they actually meet, that the development took many wild turns before they settled on the neat framing device the gives us the film's title - sketches examining different areas of "life". The group tension really shows, as the incredibly disjointed sketch structure can be a little jarring. Of particular note in this regard is the expansive short at the beginning of the film (which I could review on its own merits) created as side project by Terry Gilliam. While a fine piece on its own, its unfortunately necessary placement at the film's beginning robs the beginning of the actual film of any gravitas.
     Meaning of Life takes its chances and ups the controversial content to absurd degrees, giving us such gems as "Every Sperm is Sacred", "The Penis Song" and "Wafer Thin Mint" (look it up). This is, however, what Python has always been about - an uncanny ability to shock and teach at the same time. The team manages, through their sketches, to put across their opinions on society, while still being so absurd as to entertain and to offend.
     In hindsight, I'm not too much of a fan of Meaning of Life in comparison to the two previous films because of its last-ditch attempts to retain some fun factor, but really my problem is with its regression from their highly political style into inane sketches. There's a lot to like here, things that will stay with one for a long time after viewing, but there's also a lot to feel a little awkward about.

The last full group photo before the death of Graham Chapman

.

Conclusion  
The Pythons were anything but predictable. Their styles of both writing and comedy changed over the years, as did their attitudes towards each other. Eventually these attitudes broke the group apart, each going on to do their own thing (with the sad, sad exception of Graham Chapman, rest his soul). 
     The noticeable differences of course stem from who was in charge of direction. Holy Grail was directed by the very much differing Terrys Jones and Gilliam, whose styles clashed frequently. Life of Brian and Meaning of Life were solely directed by Jones, and it shows (the directing is generally more straightforward, and there is less animation.)
     Monty Python are a fine institution that while completely absurd and offensive, were also breathtakingly witty and funny. They my have had a lot of extremes when it came to quality, but with their happy-go-lucky approach that was always going to be the case. Three cheers for Cleese, Idle, Jones, Gilliam, Palin and Chapman (r.i.p).


Thanks.

Super Sunday: Blood Diamond

Here to finish off African November, we go to Sierra Leone...
Super Sunday
Blood Diamond (2006)

The one thing present in all of this month's films is a historical background, because the continent's story is powerful enough to dramatise on its own. What should be a land of paradise, strangled by disease and greed, bought out by Europe and America. Nowhere is this more epitomised than in the core of Blood Diamond, the most critically aclaimed of this month's films and one of the best.
     1998, and Sierra Leone is under the grip of a terrorist organisation called the RUF, led by nicknamed Captain Poison (David Harewood). This is the Sierra Leone Civil Car, where the RUF cut off the hands of eligible voters and train young boys as soldiers. Their main source of income is the illegal smuggling of Diamonds to the Western World - "blood diamonds".
     Soloman Vandy (Djimon Honsou) is a fisherman with a loving wife and family, and is particularly proud of his son Dia, who goes to school. When their village is attacked by the RUF, Soloman gets seperated from his family, and is sent to a diamond camp, where he finds 100 carat diamond and buries it in the sand.
     Elsewhere, and expert smuggler and white mercenary Danny Archer (Leonardo Di Caprio) is having some trouble getting his next payload due to his British associates cutting off all ties. However, when he hears about Soloman's find, he rushes to try and aquire it. He bumps into journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Conolly) who disagrees with his practices. Danny tries to work with Soloman to get the diamond so he can leave Africa, but Soloman has one prerequisite - find his family, and save his son.
     The pacing is incredibly fast, jumping through locations because of the fast-moving nature of the RUF attacks, as our protagonists scramble either through jungle or through battlefields. (And sometimes both.) Indeed, the film is packed with high-budget action scenes, saved from being an unnecessary distraction by them actually advancing the plot. A lot of this violence is also perpetrated by children, further nailing in the anti-war messages. With all of this action going on, it's surprising to find that Blood Diamond also offers many moments that advance character and actually give insight into plight of the native peoples.
     To conclude, Blood Diamond is a tight action-thriller with excellent acting, direction and pace, which isn't afraid to take its strong historical context and message and dilute it with excellently executed action scenes to excite the average moviegoer. An absolute triumph.

Thanks.

SuperSunday: The Last King of Scotland

Super Sunday
The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Moving away from South Africa, this week's film takes a look at another African regime, that of Idi Amin (played here by the incredibly convincing Forest Whitaker) in the 1970s. The film is based off of the book of the same name, a fictionalised account of the experiences of Amin's Scottish doctor Nicolas Garrigan (James McCavoy). The film has a fell that rather parallels the development of Amin's reputation with the outside world - it starts out comic and light and eventually develops into a powerful, tense drama that strikes at the heart of his regime.
     Dr. Nicolas Garrigan has spent the majority of his life in the shadow of his older, more successful father. Desperate to get away from the bleek Scottish lochs, he goes to Uganda to help the sick and poor. Immediately, Nicolas is swept away by Amin's charm and public spirit, and when he helps him out after a small road accident, the dictator signs Nicolas up as his personal physician. As he rides the high-life, it soon becomes apparant to him that Amin's regime isn't as glorious as he had imagined.
      A British Film Council production, Last King of Scotland has some interesting concepts at hand, but it feels a lot more like a documentary on Amin's rule, especially during the main core of the film. The comedic feel at the beginning is an excellent juxtaposition for the tension at the end, and the transition between the two is exceedingly subtle. At some points it felt like it was making comedy from Amin's mad philosophies, but I think this is needed to counteract the brutality of his ideals. To quote Nicolas, "You're just a child, that's why you're so f**king scary."
      Not that our protagonist is entirely sympathetic himself, although he does gain a sort of "redemption" at the end. Like Wikus and Gregory, Nicolas at first goes along with the evil regime. He has other problems though, as he has very little concept of the dangers of Uganda, and tries to seduce two married women (one of whom dies because of it.) His punishment at the end of the film really redeems him in more ways than one; not only is he being punished, he's also proving Amin wrong.
     Overall, I think this is a very well crafted film that despite having very little atmosphere, has a number of concrete themes and very good characterisation. The two leads are utterly convincing, and I had trouble seeing Whittaker in other roles afterwards. If you want a good British film with a historical turn, this is the one to watch.

Thanks.

Review: Catch A Fire

The One That Got Away
Catch A Fire (2006)

Writer-and-producer team Shawn and Robyn Slovo have a grand story to tell. Their father was the head of the South African Communist Party, a major Anti-Apartheid force. Here they present the dramatised version of the struggle of Patrick Chamusso (Derek Luke), a man from Secunda in South Africa whose treatment by the Apartheid government, in particular Man-In-Black Nic Vos (Tim Robbins), leads him to take up arms and try to free his country.
     If nothing else, Catch A Fire is an excellent character piece, and does well in portraying both sides as basic human beings. Indeed, the two main characters are very similar in the beginning; both are family men with two daughters each, a wife that they love over everything else and views that only just follow their side of the Apartheid. The humanisation of Vos really helps to eradicate any feeling of (pardon the term) black and white morality, and seeing as he here is the amalgamation of many real people, it goes a long way to push the idea of forgiveness given towards the end.
     In many places, focus on character overrides plot. This is especially jarring in the beginning, where we know very little about our setting other than a few facts and figures. Indeed, the true horrors of apartheid don't start to appear until around the twenty-five-minute mark. Regardless of this slow pacing near the beginning, Chamusso's false capture really sets things going. The atmosphere is kept high throughout using a soundtrack of both background singing and the characters themselves chanting Anti-Apartheid songs.
     Inevitably, your enjoyment of this film depends on your enjoyment of this genre as a whole. Catch A Fire is a moving tale of courage and loss, but one with strong characterisation and a brilliant atmosphere. The plot may be a little thin in some places, but once it gets going there is a stirring pace that makes for a thrilling and heartbreaking movie experience.

Thanks.

SuperSunday: Goodbye Bafana

Super Sundays
Goodbye Bafana (2007)

Billie August presents this moving true story, following the life of James Gregory, prison warden to influential black-rights hero Nelson Mandela. The tale is beautifully shown by August's skillful direction and excellent choice of filminh locations. This film is not only emotionally potent, but beautiful.
     James Gregory is an average white man in 1970s South Africa. He's a prison guard, wildly suspicious of the black population, and has a similarly strung wife and two kids. However, his childhood knowledge of the black language Xhosa means that the South African government put him in to watch over Nelson Mandela. In the prison he starts to get to know and empathise with Mandela. Looking further and further into the horrors of Apartheid, Gregory starts to fight between his duties of country, and of conscience.
     I can't talk much about "plot", so to speak, as this is a true tale, but it is dramatised exceedingly well. All three leads play their parts to the full, and the genuine feeling of fraterntity between Joseph Fiennes and Dennis Haysbert makes Mandela's release at the end of the film all the more powerful. The film presents an exceedingly positive view of humanity on the whole; in all of our petty, rascist  squabblings, the worst of us can still rise above it and treat other with respect. This is emphathised by Mandela and Gregory's relationship throughout the film.
     As above, the film is aesthetically beautiful, which counterpoints the harsh dealings occuring in the prisons and really helps to highlight the plight of these peoples. August's direction is superb, with wonderful shots and a flexible attitude in regards to setting and character. The music score only reinforces the film's poignancy as well as fitting perfectly with the setting.
     Ultimately, this is a perfect dramatisation of the long period of Apartheid. The film takes no prisoners in regard to the idiotic and harmful nature of white-black rascism but it also paints a positive picture about the goodness of humanity. A must-see.

Thanks.

SuperSunday: District 9

Kicking off African November here on Audenshaw Reviews...

District 9 (2009)

From the man who brought us The Lord of the Rings, District 9 is an action-packed sci-fi social commentary on miliarisation and the evils of apartheid. It rarely lets up on its breath-takingly powerful and sometimes tragic journey of discovery, and provides not only a scathing satire but entertainment in its own right.
    The plot follows an alien ship that has landed over Johannesburg, South Africa, in 1990. Its occupants are thousands of ill and starving "prawns" that are apprehended and then segregated by the weapons company MultiNational United into an area known only as District 9. As MNU attempts to move the prawns out of Johannesburg, company head Smit elects low-rank employee Wikus Van de Merwe (Shalto Coply) to head the operation. Wikus is elated, until unfortunate circumstances force him onto the side of the Prawns in an attempt to save both his life and the lives of the aliens.
     The majority of the film is composed of faux security and archive footage, and is presented like a documentary on the events of the film. This is a flexible and insightful method of filmmaking, and director Neil Blomkamp's expert skill only reinforces it. The CGI necessary to create the film is incredibly immersive and realistic, and Coply's skill in interacting with his imaginary environment is astounding.
     The plot is a little Anvilicious in places, but not without reason as anvils need to be dropped. The character development in both Wikus and his main Prawn ally Christopher heps the flow of the film immensly, as we watch a deliberately ignorant and obnoxious bureaucrat transform into a tragic and sympathetic everyman. We also see vicious villians Smit and army general Koobus get their rightful just deserts, which is made so much greater by their strong characterisation and how their actions echo with reality.
    The film's mixture of strong satire and awe inspiring action means that there is something for everyone - if you're not watching for the politics, then there's still the massive alien weaponry on show. This is a great film, of unusually high quality for a Summer blockbuster, and a must-watch.


Thanks.

SuperSunday: The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight (2008)

Why do I love this film? Why do so many people love this film? Why was the third highest grossing film of all time about a man in a Bat costume? Well, my dear reader, welcome to the well-directed and well-written world of The Dark Knight Saga... (Warning, this review assumes you know a little bit about Batman.)
     After the horrific Batman and Robin in 1997, effort was made to seperate the franchise from the light-hearted attitude that led to that fiasco. One director decided to give it a go; Christopher Nolan (One of the best directors in the business) released Batman Begins in 2005, with a star cast consisting of Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne/Batman), Michael Cane (Alfred the Butler), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and many more. That film was a roaring success, updating the concept of the Masked Vigilante for the modern era and firmly stamping a serious take on the series. It didn't, however, use the franchise's most popular villian, The Joker.
     The Dark Knight's strength lies in two things: The seriousness of how it deals with the concepts, and the performance of Heath Ledger as The Joker. His incarnation of the character is a chilling psychopath, in direct contrast to the consistantly comical depictions previously. I wouldn't, as other have, call it truly frightening, but it certainly is chilling just because of how convincing and madcap the character truly is.
     Elsewhere, the strong story and character development stands out; particularly in the transformation of the character of Harvey Dent: A shining, perfect politician who slowly takes on more of a negative outlook on life until his girlfriend is seemingly left to die by Batman, and he finally turns to a path of retribution.
     Really, I'm just gushing about the film, as so many others hav done. Go and buy this DVD. You won't be disappointed.

Thanks.

SuperSunday: Spiderman 2

Spiderman 2 (2004)

If Superman is the leader in the D.C. collection, then Marvel's poster boy is definitely Spiderman. The teen infected by a radioactive spider bite, he stands as an identifiable role model to preach the rights and wrongs of society. They also made some films, and if this is news to you than you're either deaf, blind or both, in which case you have no way of understanding this article in the first place.
      The first Spiderman movie in 2002 was ok; it was a decent origin story for the character, as well as using his iconic villian The Green Goblin to great effect. I remember liking it as a kid, as we all did. It was so popular, they made a sequel, which was insanely popular. Then Spiderman 3 came around. We're not talking about that today. No, I'm reviewing the first film I ever got on DVD, Spiderman 2.
     Tobey Maguire (Pleasantville, one of my favourite films) stars as the eponymous hero Peter Parker, along with Kirstin Dunst (Jumanji, Wimbledon, many other films) as the Mandatory Love Interest Mary-Jane Watson and that guy off the perfume ad as Harry Osbourne, Peter's pal and love rival. Maguire's acting is very samey to me; light. sensitive, and very unrealistic. It isn't bad acting but it certainly isn't appropriate for a character like Spiderman, who's usually much more headstrong and cocky.
     We pick up two years after the first film, and Peter is having trouble keeping up with both his life as Peter and Spiderman - losing his job, forgetting his birthday, and having Spiderman turned into a public enemy. He's also madly in love with MJ. As usual. This early part of the film has a few OK scenes, but everything is played very lightly, and when it jumps into serious relationship territory the move feels jarring and awkward. Maguire's acting really doesn't help here, as his thoughtful, stoic figure just doesn't fill the gaps. He's often like a small child, and the script doesn't do him any favors.
     The main subplot early in the film, apart from an intoduction of the villan, is that Peter has to go and see a play that Mary Jane is in, and cannot make it because he's too busy Spidermanning. The whole thing isn't very interesting. Oh, and he loses his powers. For some reason.
     Peter's writing an essay on Doctor Otto Octavius (totally a villan name). He's played by excellent British actor/comedian Alfred Molina, who's quite charming early on here. Otto has been working on a form of atomic fusion to create renewable energy, but he needs a four-armed steel structure around his waist to help his control the reaction. In an accident, the fusion fails and he becomes fused to the arms, turning him instantly into a Supervillian.
     While its not necessarily a bad thing when a film's strongest character is its villan (see The Dark Knight for a good example) you need to have at least an interesting set of events for your protagonists to go through. That isn't apparant here; all of the main scenes are either boring or romantic mush, with such a light-hearted tone that it's lethal to Care Bears.
     Spiderman 2 is an enjoyable movie once it gets underway, but the constantly schizofrenic flittering from interesting to dull means that there are huge chunks where you'd rather not be watching. Having the main character as perhaps the most unlucky person in the world is never a good move unless you're a pure comedy; moving into tragedy every five seconds makes for an unpleasant experience. You can't define the film by one level of quality, because it shuffles itself too often.

Thanks.

Review: Hellboy

When I wrote the schedule for SuperSundays, I regretted not being able to review Hellboy and Fantastic Four. I felt that I needed instead to cover Superman, Spiderman and Batman, by far the three biggest Superheroes in fiction. First, I review Hellboy.
     The titular character (Ron Perlman under heavy makeup) is a devil from Hell, who escaped as a child through a dimension-gate opened by para-normal obsessed Nazis (aided by the immortal Rasputin) in rural Scotland at the height of the Second World War. Adopted by the proffessor (I can't remember his name, so hereon he's John Hurt), he grows up to be part of an elite paranormal group that fights other demonic creatures. Yes, this thing is epic. Introduced to this team is John Myers, an FBI agent asigned to "look after" Hellboy after repeated public sightings. He's the audience proxy, of course.
     The nature of the comic means that the colours and designs are very cartoonish, and the characterisations and ideas serve to lay a childish bed for the film to lay in. But somewhere just under the surface lies a complexity that outshines its simple nature. The film's structure doesn't help - it spends half-an-hour throwing background at the viewer, then serves up a few excellent action scenes before settling down and churning a mixture of the two. The film is good at each different tone, but it doesn't flow very well between them.
      Ultimately, director Guillermo del Toro has done very well to match the comic's style and colour scheme, as well as its general themes, but in some places adapting the comic-based slapstick is a little weak. Otherwise, the camerawork is fine. The film's other main issue is that when the focus isn't on the paranormal/scientific, it's relationship based, and the script doesn't do well to make us empathise with Hellboy.
    In summary, Hellboy is a fun demonic romp that while sometimes being cartoonish and over-the top with it's mythology, actually has some very strong moments and is overall quite powerful and thoughtful. It just needed that little bit of toning down during its lighter moments to fine-tune it into an efficient and more watchable experience.

Thanks.

SuperSunday: Superman Returns

Superman Returns (2006)

Superman is the superhero. He embodies everything in the genre, its fantasticism and its range, and how the exploits of the superhuman can affect the human. In short, the Superhero Genre would be a vast empty space were it not for Christopher Reeve's Superman.
     The 4 original Superman films of the 70s and 80s mirrored the Batman films; a decent original, followed by a stronger second, and then the last two taking turns for the worse. Superman Returns decides to ignore those last two, explaining that Five Years have passed, and not explaining why all of the characters look younger than when he left. New boy Brandon Routh is a dead ringer for Reeve and yet offers his own sensitivities and quirks to the role. This incarnation is certainly more benevolent and believable. Our villian is of course Lex Luthor, played here by the brilliant Kevin Spacy, with a scheme that puts quite of a few of his originals to shame.
     The basic plot is as follows: Superman has been away from the Earth looking for the remains of his home planet. The world has learnt to live without him, and some have begun to even resent him - Lois Lane has recently won the Pulitzer Prize for an article titled "Why the world needs Superman". She has a husband and a four-year-old child (no prize for guessing who the father is.) Superman returns, as Lex begins to put into action his plan to create a new supercontinent out of Kryptonite - killing millions, including Superman.
     I'm simplifying things here. The plot does work well within the confines set for it; it remains cohesive and fluid while still allowing for well-excecuted action scenes and satifying call-backs to the original films. However, there are quite a few issues. The direction is mostly ok but there are some moments where it's a tad dodgy. A lot of the script relies too heavily on the references to the part and there isn't enough advancement with the concepts to make them more interesting.
     There's also a problem with the scale of the film. Luthor's plot is supposedly going to destroy the entire North-American continent, and yet we only witness destruction in the relatively small area of city around the offices of the Daily Planet. There are Earthquakes and power-outages for crying out loud, and Superman only had to save a street-worth of City. In New York. The younger cast, working on older material, means that the sense of sentimentality feels alien and undeserved.
     Ultimately, Returns is a light-hearted return to the franchise with a firm grasp on the previous films but with a new cast and a more modern outlook. It could have been great, but its overreliance on the past, as well as unnecessary sentiment, means that it can feel like a bit of an interloper in Superman's history. As a Superhero film? It's perfect. Not too edgy, nor too childish, but still maintaining a family atmosphere and a coherant plot.

Thanks.