Total Recall Review

One can't help but imagine what Paul Verhoeven would think if he saw today's remake of 'Total Recall'. His 1990 science-fiction movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sharon Stone is a minor genre classic. Only twenty-two years later Len Wiseman comes up with a new take on Philip K. Dick's story 'We Can Remember It for You Wholesale'.

Colin Farrell stars as Douglas Quaid, an ordinary guy in the midst of an identity crisis. He's married to the beautiful Melina (Jessica Biel), has a boring job as a factory worker and has a drinking buddy called Harry (Bokeem Woodbine). Quaid's world is ruled by Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) who's having a hard time defending his state against a group of rebels led by Matthias (Bill Nighy). 

To get rid of his depression Quaid visits a company called Rekall which specializes in manufacturing and implanting memories. The lowly factory worker dreams of being a double agent and before he knows it he's suddenly wanted by both Cohaagen and Matthias. Unlike the original the film never explores the question if everything's real or not. Instead simplifies the story by assuming it’s the real thing. Quaid turns out to be a double agent called Hauser and that's the end of that.    

Wiseman honours his name by not trying to go for a shot-for-shot remake of the original movie. Instead he takes out some key story elements and replaces them with less inspired ones. While Verhoeven's film took place on both Mars and Earth, this adventure is set in a post-apocalyptic Great-Britain and Australia. Connecting the two islands is a tube, named The Fall, that goes straight through the Earth's core. Ridiculous, I know, but just the right kind. 

The Fall is probably the most interesting concept this film comes up with. The rest of the world created for this movie feels bland and fake, it’s like a watered down take on material from better movies. It's fine to take inspiration from other films but this is just lazy. There's even a three-breasted prostitute in a cynical attempt to appease fans of the original 'Total Recall'. Trust me, that film had a lot more things going for it than a lady with three dinglebobbers. 

Anyway, for a movie with a lot of chase sequences it's not that exciting. In fact, there's only one major set piece that grabbed my attention. It featured a group of fast elevators that moved around like a game of Tetris. The trick for Quaid was not to get squashed or shot by Cohaagen's henchmen. The villain himself, played by the always formidable Bryan Cranston, is somewhat of a moron. I mean, if you're only hours away of becoming the ruler of the world it's only wise to stay away from your enemies. This guy, he's wondering through as many violent scenes as he can with little protection. 

In conclusion it's hard to believe this movie could have been any less effective. It's taken a solid science-fiction film based upon some fertile material and instead of doing something new or interesting they watered it down to a forgettable chase movie. It's a shame because it's the first of Paul Verhoeven's wonderfully subversive science-fiction films to be remade. 'RoboCop' and 'Starship Troopers' are already underway. Let's hope they turn out better than 'Total Remake'. Until then, you're better off giving the original film a spin. 

The Dark Knight Rises Review

Batman's done. After three films, Christopher Nolan brings an end to the story of the caped crusader. And despite it's rather uninspired title 'The Dark Knight Rises' is a worthy send-off for one of cinema's most enduring and recognizable heroes. My hopes for this movie were high, especially when considering its predecessor which is probably the best superhero movie in recent memory.

That's probably why, at the end of this movie, I felt a little down. This is it, the ending to Nolan's series and I was not sure what to feel. Everything's there, every character reaches a fitting conclusion, so what the hell am I missing? Maybe a second viewing, one not hampered by unrealistic expectations, will diminish these feelings and make the movie stand out more clearly. 

It is, certainly, a very enjoyable film, worthy of the names of everyone involved. But a lack of focus seems to pervade the story. Parts of 'The Dark Knight Rises' are a mess, the middle suffers from its convoluted storytelling. An element which was already present, but a lot less distracting, in 'The Dark Knight'. This film's story could have been told much more effectively, which would've helped the impact of its conclusion.

As it stands the film is still very good. Nolan finds the perfect point of entry with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) still dealing with the death of his true love at the hands of the Joker. Batman has dissappeared and is still held responsible for the death of Gotham's white knight Harvey Dent. Meanwhile on the other side of the world a terrorist named Bane is plotting his attack on the fair city.

Bane is an interesting character. He had to be, considering the villain that came before him. Heath Ledger's brilliant turn as the Joker is still fresh in our minds but Tom Hardy's Bane is something else. Here's a man the size of a gorilla, donning what appears to be a gas mask and he speaks with an unnervingly uncharacteristic voice. He's brutal but cunning, and for the first time ever we fear for Batman's life as an unrelenting Bane pummels him. In short, he's the Anti-Batman.

Joining him is another well-known character. Anne Hathaway offers us a delightfully sinister version of Catwoman. Considering the ending it is unfortunate that we don't get to spend more time with her character. Another new addition is Tom Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a young cop who might be more deserving of the batsuit than the grief-ridden Bruce Wayne.

Batman's three allies also return. Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Alfred (Michael Caine). All portrayed by veteran actors, these characters, with Alfred in particular, serve as the emotional core of the film. These are the men who have stood by Bruce Wayne and Batman and are about to be tested as well.

When the storm comes this film reveals itself to be a lot more loyal to its comic book origins than 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'. The evil plot involves a nuclear bomb meant to level the city of Gotham. It might sound a little familiar but it works fine. Nolan knows how to dial up the tension and the film's climax is hugely entertaining because of it.

In conclusion, we leave Christopher Nolan's Batman on a hopeful note. The ending manages to tie everything up in a satisfying way. And, however unlikely, the prospect of sequel isn't out of the question. Seeing how things are at the end of 'The Dark Knight Rises' I'm not against the continuation of this story. This final film is an overly elaborate but very effective way of bringing this solid trilogy to a close.

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

'The Amazing Spider-Man' is a peculiar project, so before I begin my review I'd like to take a gander at its troubled history. A few years ago director Sam Raimi was gearing up for a fourth ‘Spider-Man’ film. Tobey Maguire was returning as the titular hero and the movie was already well into pre-production. However because of issues between Sony and the director the studio opted for a reboot instead. Subsequently Raimi and Maguire left the franchise to Sony’s mercy.

Meanwhile the appropriately named director Marc Webb came off his directorial-debut '(500) Days of Summer'. Sony saw something in this newcomer and handed the reigns of the would-be blockbuster to Webb. Filling the way too tight spandex suit this time is Andrew Garfield from 'The Social Network', also an up-and-comer.

I'm not a superhero kind a guy, really. My interests don't reach much further than the Batman movies so I wasn't bugged by the liberties this film takes with the original story. From the start I genuinely liked what I was seeing in the trailers for 'The Amazing Spider-Man'. Garfield seemed way more likeable than goody two-shoes Maguire and the tone of the film appeared to be slightly less goofy than Raimi's films. But still I was curious if audiences would take to a different version of the same story.

Now that I've seen it can I say that I liked this version a lot more. Sam Raimi's films, especially 'Spider-Man 2', are good but this is better. Supported  by a sympathetic cast, Marc Webb succeeds in bringing us one of the most entertaining summer blockbusters yet. Even though Spider-Man's origins have already been well-explored this latest incarnation manages to make it feel fresh and involving. It also scores points by aiming at the emotional core of the characters.

I was especially surprised by the touching scenes involving Garfield's Peter Parker and his aunt and uncle, played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen. It's been a while since we've seen such heartfelt moments in an action flick like this. It's apparent that Webb's focus lay on this element of the film and the action scenes suffer visibly. The editing in these adrenaline-fueled sequences is often too quick making it hard to follow exactly what's going on.

Of course, every superhero needs a baddie. In 'The Amazing Spider-Man' we get the one-armed scientist Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), a former collegue of Peter's lost father. When an experiment to regenerate his arm goes awry Connors turns into a huge humanoid lizard. This rather fantastic element clashes with the quite down-to-earth tone of the movie's first half. Luckily, it never seriously derails the movie and the confrontations between Spidey and the Lizard, especially the one taking place in Peter's high school, are very entertaining.

'The Amazing Spider-Man' also benefits from its score. Veteran film composer James Horner creates a memorable musical identity for our hero. It's great to hear some good thematic music in a major blockbuster instead of the bland industrial works of Hans Zimmer and his cronies. 

So did Marc Webb succesfully reboot a series which didn't really need to be rebooted? Yes, he did. Here's to hoping Webb's new series won't be cut short like Sam Raimi's.

Snow White and the Huntsman Review

Much like the poisoned apple from its story 'Snow White and the Huntsman' looks great. It's colour and feel will make your mouth water but after one bite you're sure to stagger around for a dramatic moment and die. Director Rupert Sanders has given us a visually appealing film but sadly the special-effects are not enough to save this frustrating drivel.

Marred by lazy writing, off-putting performances, chaotic camera work and choppy editing the film attempts to retell the classic story of Snow White. In keeping with the audience's presumed thirst for darker and edgier stories the familiar elements are all corrupted. This actually works quite well and had the filmmakers been less lazy in the telling of their story we might have had a worthy addition to the fantasy genre. As it stands 'Snow White and the Huntsman' is a huge bore.  

The casting, however, is inspired. Charlize Theron steals the show as the evil queen, looking for eternal youth. Kirsten Stewart pales (they didn't call her Snow White for nothing) in comparison. The young actress has little to no charm, making her a very boring protagonist. 

The casting of Stewart seems to betray a level of cynicism on the part of the filmmakers. Especially, because underneath all the fairy tale stylings the film feels like a new version of 'Twilight'. For instance, the film feels the need to add a romantic subplot in which Snow White is torn between the hardened Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) and her childhood love William (Sam Claflin). Which side are you on? Team Huntsman or Team Will? Whichever way, we all lose. 

The eight dwarfs (Yes, apparently you need seven of them to get people to see your movie these days.) consist of a company of well-known Britisch actors. And even though it was fun to see them together like this, the film does not give them anything interesting to do. In fact, they act rather peculiar. It's as if the actors themselves are not quite sure about what's expected from them.  

In between the film manages to steal shamelessly from other fantasy films, such as 'The Neverending Story', 'The Chronicles of Narnia' and of course 'The Lord of the Rings'. It's sad, because Sanders certainly gets the look right. But never is there a moment of genuine wonder or excitement. The characters, except for the dwarves and Theron's queen, seem to be made from carboard, pretty cardboard, but that ain't saying much. 

Iron Sky Review

No, this isn't some weird conspiracy theory, rather it's the premise of the movie 'Iron Sky'. The project originated from Finland where a group of amateur filmmakers set out to use the internet to get their movie financed. On their website Wreck a Movie the producers established an online community of film fans. People connected to this community could donate money or otherwise aid the filmmakers.

The film's concept is ludicrous. In the last days of the Second World War the Germans execute a secret mission. Their plan is to use their anti-gravity technology to colonize the moon. Amazingly, they succeed and while old Adolf is blowing his brains out in Berlin, his sympathizers are bouncing around the moon. In 'Iron Sky' we see what happens when the vengeful Space Nazis return.

I've been following this production ever since I saw this enticing teaser back in 2008. Due to the nature of the project it took a long time to get started. But judging from the film this way of filmmaking works quite well for director Timo Vuorensola. Fortunately, the film doesn't take itself too seriously. After all, 'Iron Sky' is about goddamn Space Nazis!

The film opens in 2018 with a moon landing, executed primarily to boost the current US president's approval ratings. Quickly, the two astronauts encounter a group of Nazi... Nazmonauts? Anyway, after dispatching one of the newcomers the Nazis arrest the survivor. They are surprised, and more than a little offended, to find a black man inside the suit with a computer the size of a moon rock.

The phone holds enough computing power to activate the Space Nazi's ultimate wunderwaffe. However, when the phone's battery goes dead so do their plans of invading Earth. Now the search is on for more cell phones.

In tone 'Iron Sky' seems like a cross between 'Mars Attacks!' and 'Starship Troopers'. Much like those two films the satire feels forced, but there a few moments of genuine comedy. In one scene there's a wink to 'Dr. Strangelove', which undoubtedly served as a major inspiration for Vuorensola. Unfortunately, the movie suffers from its amateur origins.

First off, the pacing is all over the place. More than once the film grinds to halt in order to deliver an elaborate and goofy gag. One of the them is a parody to 'Der Untergang'. This scene in particular is characteristic for 'Iron Sky'; it is a film which wears its nerdy fetishes on its sleeve.

Vuorensola's attempts at satire feel strangely dated, quite possibly due to the long time it took the produce the film. For instance, The US president and her slogan ''Yes she can!'' riff off of Sarah Palin and the 2008 election. With the next elections coming up in less than a year these references lose much of their power.

After four years of waiting you can't help but feel a bit disapointed. 'Iron Sky' has become nothing more than a curiosity. A film which you might watch once or twice just for the silly concept. However, as a piece of independent satire it falls flat.

There's no trace of the strange melancholy from the original teaser. The whole film is a just too goofy. One of the primary reasons why good satire works is because the people inside the movie don't know they're being satirized. 

Prometheus Review

Back in 1979 a film hit the screens which would change the way people thought about science-fiction and horror. Ridley Scott's 'Alien' became a hit and screenings were characterized by screams and puke. The combination of horrific, often subliminally sexual, imagery and the gritty portrayal of interstellar travel struck a nerve with audiences worldwide. People had been exposed to the optimistic view of space through 'Star Wars' and 'Star Trek', now they came to know it as a dark and unforgiving terrain filled with danger.

It is only natural that Scott's announcement to return to the 'Alien' series was greeted with some apprehension. Could the aging director reclaim his brand of existential horror? Would a prequel spoil the mysteries of the original movie? But perhaps most importantly, could Ridley Scott make us puke again?

Well, when I walked out of the cinema after having seen 'Prometheus' I came across a fresh splash of stinking barf. To any horror fan this speaks for, not against, the film. It's a quiet testimony to the unsettling nature of at least one scene in 'Prometheus'. Scott has done what he promised to do. He has delivered a beatiful looking film which is at the same time 'Alien' and not 'Alien'. The DNA's definitely there but this story in particular has bigger things on its mind. 

'Prometheus' sticks to the concepts established in every other 'Alien' film. The universe is a cold, dark place without any regard for human existence. This Lovecraftian vision is even more pronounced in this story. Often I was reminded of the classic short novel 'At the Mountains of Madness', which also features an ''aliens are our Gods'' scenario.

As a prequel 'Prometheus' works quite well. The story did evolve from Ridley Scott's attempt at revealing the origin of the iconic alien creatures. However during development Scott and writer Damon Lindelof uncoverd a story of grander scale. What if our origins are linked with that of the aliens?

However, to me the film works better as a seperate entity. The quest for our creator is a staple in literary science-fiction but we rarely come across it in the cinema. The best example is Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'. 'Prometheus' isn't able to reach that level of profundity but it would be an unrealistic expectation anyway. In actuality, it is an admirably well-executed entry in the exceedingly rare genre of intelligent sci-fi.

You need a solid cast to make an outlandish story like this believable. As always Scott does a great job at choosing the best actors for any given role. He also has a flair for creating strong female protaganists, in this case he even finds room for a female antagonist played by Charlize Theron. In the lead is Noomi Rapace, who has to deal with abuse the likes of which would make any grown man cry like a baby. The portrayal of all the supporting characters isn't as clear-cut as I would've liked but it is serviceable.

The best performance belongs to Michael Fassbender. His character is the robot David, who seems to be the only one capable of understanding that the power of creation isn't all that special. When he asks a human why they created him he receives a brutal answer: ''Because we could.'' What makes man think his creator would have any other motivation?

These are the kind of questions 'Prometheus' asks. It is unfortunate that the film isn't able to handle all of these questions in a satisfying way. It seems too caught up in scaring us with gore to mind the bigger existential horror which lies at the heart of the story. 'Prometheus' flirts with these concepts on more than one occasion, but shies away from completely exploring them. However, the 'Wizard of Oz'-like reveal of the creators is surprisingly effective. Behind all the smoke and mirrors there is just another imperfect 'human'.

That said, I expected the film to end up connecting all the dots to the original 'Alien'. It didn't, there are a few loose threads left. It felt like Scott wasn't ready to give this story up yet and therefore created an opening for future movies in this universe. You won't hear any complaints from me. When this director is fully immersed in the stories he's telling he can do great things. And I'll asure you, 'Prometheus' is a great flick. Don't take my word for it, trust the puke.

Dark Shadows Review

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have a long history together. They struck gold over twenty years ago with 'Edward Scissorhands' and never really left each other's side from then on. The collaboration has given us some neat little films. Burton's weird sensibilities seem to be a perfect inspiration for Depp's unique persona. However, in the last few years they seem to have lost their edge, with 'Alice in Wonderland' marking a definite low.

'Dark Shadows' fares a little better. It's a far cry from their best works: 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Ed Wood' and 'Sleepy Hollow', but it is a very enjoyable film aside from some storytelling problems. Based upon a soap opera from the late sixties, 'Dark Shadows' revolves around a Nosferatu-like vampire named Barnabas Collins. After being locked up in a coffin for 200 years by a vengeful witch he seeks to reclaim his family's former fortune and respect. 

By the time he returns it is 1972, and the Collins family, along with their gloomy-looking castle, has fallen into disrepair. When he arrives he is greeted by a bunch of eccentrics, a collection of troubled indivuals who are remarkably at home in a Tim Burton film. The cast is pitch-perfect, with Michelle Pfeiffer delivering a sympathetic and eye-catching performance as the family's matriarch Elizabeth. 

Despite struggling to fit in with the times and killing a few people to satiate his lust for blood, Barnabas succeeds in revamping the family's fishing business. All is well, until he discovers that the rival company is led by Angelique; the immortal witch who turned him into a vampire because he turned her down. The interaction between Eva Green's witch and Depp's Barnabas are some of the most ejoyable bits from the film.

Unfortunately, 'Dark Shadows' is a bit too heavy on Depp. The film would've profited from a fairer balance between him and the other family members. Barnabas is an interesting character, but not interesting enough to be the focus of the entire film. It got so bad that in some of his scenes I was wondering what the other characters were doing.

The irksome lack of information on any of the other Collinses comes back to bite the movie in its ass during the third act. Here, elements are introduced which feel like they've been added at the last possible second. The children, played by Chloë Moretz and Gulliver McGrath, have powers which, if revealed earlier, would've made for a far more interesting story. Now, this leads to a deus ex machina if there ever was one. 

What is fun about this movie is it's depiction of 1972. It's not a realistic depiction by any degree but rather a tonic of all popular culture from the early seventies. The film is soaked in images and sounds which we inherently connect with this time period. And, typically for Burton, the retro-style clashes quite bizarrely, and often comically, with the gothic nature of Barnabas. It's a nice trick and it works well. 

Unfortunately, 'Dark Shadows' is not a return to form for Depp or Burton. The two seem more in love with each other than with the story they're trying to tell. The originality of Depp's weird characters is wearing thin but Burton regains some of his former flair by setting this film in the 'real' world. The only collaborator who excels is Danny Elfman, who creates a driving and memorable musical score which manages not be drowned out by the songs of the period. 

So if you're in for some typical Tim Burton weirdness, I can recommend this movie. However if you're allergic for the inherent quirkiness of his work you should pass on this one. For me the bizarre comedy sprinkled with some light horror worked quite well. Though, it's a shame Burton didn't dare to let the film breathe.