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.  

The Avengers Review

With 'The Avengers' Marvel Studios has completed one of the most admirable attempts at universe building in modern film. We've been introduced to most of this film's heroes over the last few years. I wasn't too fond of most of them but Marvel should be commended for taking on such a daunting project. Before I start my review I'd like give you a rundown of the all of this film's heroes.

First off there's Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, who got not one but two fairly dull films. Chris Hemsworth is a demigod with a ridiculous accent from 'Thor'. Mark Ruffalo replaces Edward Norton as The Hulk. And Chris Evans' character originates from the best film of the bunch 'Captain America: The First Avenger'. A selection of those film's supporting actors return for 'The Avengers'. The most prominent of them being Samuel L. Jackon. I never really got Jackon's badass image, which by now feels forced to the point of being hilarious. 

The story seems like something a ten-year-old would concoct while playing with his collection of Avengers action figures. The basic ingredients and plot devices have been spoon-fed to us in the previous films. There are, for instance, other worlds that exist beside our own but can be reached by portals. Tom Hiddleston's Loki, the villain of the piece who previously appeared in 'Thor', emerges from one of these portals with the goal of subjugating earth. To do so he has allied himself with an alien force and before long an army of these nasty creatures spills forth from a massive interdimensional portal. The only thing standing between the people of earth and Loki's horde is a collection of superheroes called The Avengers. 

In short, it's a load of nonsense on top of another load of nonsense. But somehow it works. Besides, this movie isn't really about anything but watching these superheroes fight among themselves and finally side by side. Director Joss Whedon, the creative force behind TV shows like 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer', 'Angel' and 'Firefly', manages to make the film an enjoyable, if somewhat silly, action-adventure romp. He knows the characters and offers them some depth. Giving them moments that outshine the ones seen in their own seperate movies. 

In itself the film is okay. There's some nice action scenes here and there, and some fun bits of comedy. Luckily, 'The Avengers' doesn't feature the kind of offensively immature humor that plagued the 'Transformers' movies. More dissapointing is the fact the movie plays it safe on pretty much all fronts. 

There's a lack of urgency and danger; a weakness of many films these days. A good example is a moment in which one of the major characters decides to sacrifice his life. What should have been a poignant scene is robbed of any drama because of the nature of these characters.   

These are supermen, they can not die, at least we're never given any hint of their mortality. They're all pretty much indestructable, which makes it hard for us to care for them. We know they're going to be alright in the end because we see them take so many beatings without sustaining any injury at all. Any sense of danger is effectively nipped in the bud. 

Aside from that major downside the film is fun, and if you like big spectacular movies you'll enjoy 'The Avengers'. Whedon makes good use of his sympathetic cast, which is this film's major attraction. Still, I'm quite sure this year's ultimate superhero movie is still waiting in the wings.  

The Woman in Black Review

Hammer Horror has risen from the grave, let's just hope it's here to stay. 'The Woman in Black' is an entertaining gothic ghost story, the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. The film contains enough of that spooky atmosphere that made the old school British horrors so much fun. 

The film stars 'Harry Potter' survivor Daniel Radcliffe, he plays a young solicitor assigned to handle the estate of a mysterious family. Word in town is that the family's property is haunted. As is tradition in these films, the townspeople are wary of visitors and look upon the new arrival with blatant distrust.

''Amazingly'', the Eel Marsh House actually turns out to be inhabited by a ghostly presence. Of course, there's a creepy back-story involved, which I won't spoil. What I can say is that this so-called Woman in Black can be quite persuasive, driving the local children to violently kill themselves.

The primary reason why I took interest in this film was my fondness for Hammer Horror. I'm going to delve into some film history here, so bear with me. Hammer Films is a British company founded in 1934; it specialized in producing quick and cheap pictures without any particular appeal. This changed when the company acquired the rights to film a new version of 'Frankenstein'. It ended up as the horror classic 'The Curse of Frankenstein', which was quickly followed by 'The Horror of Dracula' and 'The Mummy'. 

Those three movies paved the way for a slew of horror pictures. With these Hammer redefined the genre by adding colour, blood, violence and lots and lots of cleavage. By today's standards the films could be regarded as quaint, but back in the day Hammer's brand of horror was found to be quite disturbing. The company made stars out of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. It was also home to the often overlooked director Terence Fisher. 

There isn't as much cleavage in 'The Woman in Black', but there's enough of the classic ingredients to make the film feel instantly familiar. I’d love for Hammer to return to its roots and deliver more of these small-scale genre films. With Daniel Radcliffe they might even have found their new Peter Cushing. The supporting cast is also very strong. Especially Ciarán Hinds who, until recently, was a severely underused actor.

That’s not to say ‘The Woman in Black’ is without flaw. In fact, the film doesn’t really pack a punch. The mood is suitably creepy and the whole affair is enlivened by some well-executed jump scares but the film fails to become truly frightening. It’s more of an atmospheric piece with a rather dull story. It’s unfortunate, had the film been more intriguing and disturbing we would’ve had a superb haunted house movie on our hands.

In conclusion this film makes for a fine viewing. If you’re sick and tired of ‘modern’ ghost movies like ‘Paranormal Activity’, ‘The Woman In Black’ might be exactly what you’re looking for. It’s rather mild and could have done with some more excitement. But all in all, it is a fun but flawed haunted house flick.

P.S. From what I understand they are already hard at work on a sequel called ‘The Woman in Black: Angels of Death’. It won’t feature Radcliffe and will take place a few decennia after the original. I’m curious as to what the filmmakers wish to add, the ending to this film appeared to be quite conclusive.

'Hugo' Review

Compared to his contemporaries Martin Scorsese's output has been one of consistent quality. Where his fellow movie brats wavered in their ability to bring true magic to the screen, Scorsese managed to stay fit. It's hard to tell where his inspiration lies.

Through the years he has shown to have a fascination for morally ambiguous characters often dumped in a gritty and violent milieu. This makes his latest film, 'Hugo', all the more peculiar. It might be the most atypical film Scorsese has ever directed.

Hugo Cabret is a twelve-year-old forced to maintain the clocks of the Parisian railway station Gare Montparnasse. Before being stuck at the station he lived with his widowed father, a master clockmaker and loving parent. Tragically, he dies in a fire leaving Hugo with nothing but a broken automaton; a mechanical man with the ability to write.

Fixing the contraption means everything to the poor orphan for he believes it contains a secret message from his late father. Getting the necessary parts and tools, however, proofs dangerous. He continuously steals from an old man's toy store. His name is Georges Méliès; a name which should (but probably doesn't) ring a bell with film fans everywhere. With help from Méliès' goddaughter Isabelle, Hugo discovers the connection between the bitter old man and the mysterious automaton. 

As some may know Georges Méliès was one of the pioneers of early cinema. The greatest joy of 'Hugo' is the way it mixes fiction and reality to create a dream of a story. In the end, we kind of wish was all true, even though we are perfectly aware that there never was a boy called Hugo Cabret. Scorsese takes on the role of your favourite history teacher. The one that didn't just dryly conjure up historical facts but who took the effort to draw you into his story. 

In the latter half 'Hugo' reveals itself to be a love letter to cinema; featuring a romanticized retelling of Méliès' return to his cinematic past. Sprinkled throughout are tiny surprises like a wind-up mouse brought to life with stop-motion. There's much more fun to be had as Scorsese beautifully shows us how Georges Méliès brought his dreamlike visions to life. It's the perfect illustration of how filmmakers are the natural descendants of the illusionists and magicians.

Then there's the incredible cast. Asa Butterfield does a remarkable job as the titular hero; he possesses a natural charm which makes Hugo a character worth watching. Chloë Grace Moretz provides an appropriate amount of innocence and wonder in contrast to Hugo's grim look on life. 

The main attraction, however, is Ben Kingsley who portrays Méliès with grace and a bitter yearning for the past. Filling out the cast are some familiar faces. Sacha Baron Cohen, for instance, as the funny but vulnerable station inspector. Another welcome surprise was the presence of Sir Christopher Lee; who, at 89, has become a living part of film history.

With 'Hugo' Martin Scorsese has shown a side of him which seems deeply personal. So, if you have any love for the medium of film, please, go see this movie. It might run a little long and could do without some of the padding but it's a charming piece of cinema. And if you do take my advice, do mind to see it in merciful 2D. It looks a lot better that way. 

Chronicle Review

When I saw the first trailer for 'Chronicle' I wasn't impressed. To me it looked like just another attempt to exploit the found-footage genre. Mixing it up with superheroes seemed like a pitiful combination of two tired genres. I mean, what's next? We've already got witches, ghosts, aliens, giant monsters, zombies and rave parties. It's getting old.

Fortunately 'Chronicle' delivers. It makes wise use of the nature of found-footage films. For instance, instead of sticking to one camera the filmmakers dare to cut to different viewpoints originating from many different devices. This way we get a good look at what's going on. Also, the logical problem of that one guy who keeps recording even though the world crumbles around him is avoided. We can thank writer Max Landis (son of the well-known filmmaker John Landis) and director Josh Trank for creating a smart and engaging supernatural thriller. 

As with many films about otherworldy happenings we need good characters to connect with. These come in the forms of Matt, Steve and Andrew; three high-schoolers in their senior year. All three of them fit within the familiar stereotypes so often found in flicks about the teenage years. Steve's the popular jock character, Andrew's the socially awkward nerd and Matt's the Regular Joe everyone can identify with. Don't let this put you off, though. The three leads are sufficiently fleshed-out to make you care. 

'Chronicle' starts out feeling like a docudrama about Andrew's troubled life. Through his old camera we meet his father, an abusive drunk, his deathly ill mother, his nephew Matt and the people who bully him at school. Later on he's asked by Steve to take his camera to record 'a strange thing in the woods'. They find a glowing orb which has burrowed it's way deep into the ground. After touching the thing they possess telekinetic powers; meaning they can move stuff around without using physical contact. 

From here on out the film provides a plausible account of how a couple of teenagers would use these powers. At first they screw around, playing pranks on people. But as their powers grow so do their exploits. Predictably, someone ends up getting hurt. Andrew, the tortured youngster, grabs the opportunity to change his life for the better. But when life throws him yet another curveball by revealing the fleeting nature of  social acceptance he's driven over the edge. 

What follows is a brilliantly executed tragedy. Trank and Landis suck us in with a well-told story about human nature. One that we've seen countless times before but when well done can still be powerful. Much of its succes is rooted in the chemistry between the three young actors. Michael B. Jordan and Alex Russell give sympathetic performances as Steve and Matt. But Dane DeHaan, in particular, shines as the disturbed Andrew. In some scenes he reminded me of a young Leonardo DiCaprio. All in all, 'Chronicle' is a succes that should resonate with today's young audiences.  

Want some more Piranhas with that?

Are you into campy horror nonsense? If so this trailer is exactly what you're looking for. 'Piranha 3DD' is the sequel to the remake from 2010. That film, as directed by Alexandre Aja, was a lot of fun and featured so many in-jokes it was a film fan's nightmare.

Unfortunately, this sequel has not been directed by Aja, instead John Gulager took the reins. Can he bring back that specific B-movie charm? I sure hope so, the trailer seems to suggest an even campier feel than the first one.

Here's one for the history buffs! The original trailer for the very first and very brilliant 'Piranha' movie. Produced by the legendary Roger Corman to cash in on the 'Jaws' craze back in the late seventies. The film was directed by genre hero Joe Dante, who went on to have a long and illustrious career.