Author: Callum Forbes

Five Fingers For Marseilles: Review

The western is having a weird comeback these days. The spirit of the films of old, of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, has been revived, albeit in new and different ways. Sometimes more obviously than others – taking a sci-fi route with Cowboys Vs Aliens and an exploitation horror film twist with Bone Tomahawk. But mostly, it’s in increasingly subtle ways – films like Logan and Western taking the stories, tone and pacing of those films and setting them in a more modern era. The kinds of stories here are truly timeless and work in any time in any part of the world.

The latest of these films is Five Fingers for Marseilles. Set in South Africa, around twenty years ago, the film follows the chaos that happens when a young man, named Tau, kills two corrupt police men threatening the shanty. It’s a nice, simple story that doesn’t do anything more than what is said on the tin – we get blood and grit, leading to a climax that sets out to be a blood bath. If I had to compare the story of Five Fingers for Marseilles, it would probably be The Magnificent Seven. Although, comparisons do not do a film justice.

Five Fingers for Marseilles is violent, needless to say. While the violence was never hard to watch, it was brutal and at times fairly realistic. There are some moments of typical action silliness – a car flipping over in the desert sands and a man being shot out of a broken window, that sort of thing. But mostly, when someone gets shot it does feel like someone just got shot. It’s unapologetic, but it does feel necessarily so.

What I liked most about Five Fingers for Marseilles was the cinematography. The framing and lighting, which aren’t really things I notice unless they’re particularly bad, demonstrated everything positive about the film. From them you could feel the craft of the artist and the love he feels for this story. It pays a good deal of homage to the films of Sergio Leone, namely in the outdoor, quieter moments. There were some scenes set indoors that reminded me more of the films of Tony Scott, namely Domino and Man on Fire. It’s the matter of fact camera work and the slightly overexposed neon lighting, that gives the film a lived-in, yet staged feel – which is how I liked it. It’s unique. It gives the film a very deliberate and, again, pointed feel.

But sadly, Five Fingers for Marseilles also reminded that sometimes, Westerns can feel like very drawn out affairs. I won’t lie, while the action was well handled, the directing had style and the acting was mostly good, I did find myself looking at my watch at points. Something wasn’t grabbing me. There isn’t really much I’d call great about this film, it was mostly just good. That is praise, but it needed to be a little more to stand out in my mind – especially with how familiar the story is. The one of the bad man who renounces violence, but the suffering of others brings them back into that world once again. For me, not really enough was done to differ it from many others like it. On a side note, if you are one of those people who struggles with subtitled films, then you will be in for a harder time than usual with this one. It’s set in South Africa, and there is over eleven different languages spoken there. That means that numerous characters speak different languages throughout the film, and most change between them. This didn’t hinder the film for me, but I think there are a few who it might do.

Five Fingers for Marseilles is a good film, which I’m not sure I’ll remember long down the road. What’s impressive is impressive, but the pace, and possibly a too long running time did bog it down for me. I am very much appreciative of the effort on display and hope to see another film from these film makers again. In the end, it just wasn’t for me. It being just too similar to one too many films of a similar nature.

15th October 2018
The House With A Clock In The Walls: The BRWC Review

It’s a little early for Halloween films, but it looks like the cinemas have started already. This is my favourite time of year, and the fact that I love horror films playing a part in that. I have always loved horror films, from a young age I’ve been watching such films as Jaws, Gremlins, Deep Blue Sea and Alien. When a horror film that is aimed at children comes out, of course my interest is going to be peeked. That’s exactly what The House with a Clock in its Walls promised, and what it delivered on…mostly.

When a young orphan is picked up by his estranged uncle, he is taken to a house where strange things are going on. The furniture has a mind of its own, the portraits keep changing and there is a mysterious ticking noise deep within the walls at night. It turns out that his uncle and neighbour are warlocks, able to use magic and will teach him how too. But there is something that they still hide from him. It all revolves around the ticking in the walls, and the desperate search for its sinister source.

A part of what attracted me to this film was the cast. I’ve come to enjoy many of Jack Black films – he’s usually an entertaining and charming presence, and that is no different here. He sells the madness of the story without being too serious or too silly. Cate Blanchett has not done wrong before and still carries on with that trend. She’s possibly my favourite of the two big stars, selling the deadpan comedy and heartful sincerity wherever it’s needed. We have great performances from all the child actors, particularly from lead Owen Vaccaro, and from Kyle MacLachlan, who we don’t see much of these days.

Something else that stood out to me about this film was that it was a family film, and an obvious family, based off a children’s book and told with a relatively light tone. It’s produced by Steven Spielberg and made under his Amblin production company. So, who do we get to direct it? Eli Roth – the man who made body-horror Cabin Fever, cannibal film Green Inferno and torture-porn films Hostel and Hostel 2! This man has never even attempted to be child friendly before, so I knew that this would at least be interesting. I hated the aforementioned films – Cabin Fever was entertaining, but the rest were horrible, tasteless and just plain bad films. It surprises me to say that this is hands down Roth’s best film. His sets and eye for shooting them really stood out – they were interesting to look at and would have helped carry the film even if the performances were bad.

The story itself is fun and the tone is light, although it is darker than most family films today. This harkens back to the days of Gremlins, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and The Dark Crystal. I loved it because of this. The child I once was would have adored this film. It is a little unbalanced tonally – we have murderous puppets trying to attack a child, and we have toilet humour involving a living griffin-shaped bush. Depending on the child, it may be a little too intense at moments too – although I think that they’ll be fine really as the ending is very happy, and there is humour throughout for them. There is one very surreal moment in the climax which threw me a little – it isn’t long and is gone as suddenly as it arrives, but it was a strange moment. Other than that, I really have nothing to complain about.

I recommend The House with a Clock in the Walls. It’s filled with the elements that made me love the child-friendly horror films of my youth. It’s certainly not a perfect film, and there’s no chance it will win any awards, but I’m more than happy to have seen it. It has far more heart and personality than almost all of the films I’ve seen this year. I never thought that Eli Roth of all people would make a film this joyful to watch. I don’t know if this was lightning in a bottle, or a sign of things to come, but the makers of this film can colour me impressed.

6th October 2018
The Predator: The BRWC Review

The Predator series is one that hasn’t exactly lived up to its potential. The first film was a terrific film, and my personal favourite Arnold Schwarzenegger film. It’s a simple premise, done with the best possible execution. It works on many levels, as an action film, a horror film, a satire – but it succeeds most at being entertaining. Following this was the dull and at times unpleasant, but entirely respectably made Predator 2; the tonnes of fun, but little else Predators and two failed Alien Vs Predator films. Much like the Jurassic Park and Die Hard series, the best we could get from the sequels was just a bit of fun. None coming anywhere close. But this time, things look promising.

The Predator is directed by Shane Black, an acclaimed writer and director (whose last film was the excellent The Nice Guys) who even starred in the first Predator as Hawkins. Helping out with the script is Fred Dekker, writer/director of Monster Squad among others. The cast is all-stars who have gained enough acclaim throughout their careers, including Boyd Holbrooke, Olivia Munn, Sterling K Brown, Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Kay. Topping it off with the producers of the original film, this looked to be a hit. What could go wrong? Or should I say, what did go wrong?

Normally I’d dedicate a paragraph or so to describing the film’s plot. But I won’t here, simply because I have no idea what happened in this film. It’s completely nonsensical! Yes, Annihilation was more complex and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was possibly stupider – but I understood what was going on in both of them. This is a special kind of bad story-telling. I’ve complained about films being too overly complicated a lot these past years, but it’s not often that over eight major stories are playing at once. Come the end, when people are slaughtered left, right and centre, it doesn’t feel like people dying. It feels like plot threads being cut off.

What baffles me the most about this whole film is not just that it was bad. Very bad, truth be told. It’s that despite all the talent behind and in front of the camera, I’m inclined to call the film making incompetent. I’m now used to seeing the films I love being cashed-in, and usually in poor or just bland films that nobody remembers (I think the world forgot Robocop as soon as they left the cinema). But I’ll give them credit, they’re not usually this bad! The script is awful, banking too much on references and swearing to the point where even a “potty-mouth” like me wanted them to stop it. The directing is pedestrian, again surprisingly so considering who’s directing it. The effects are, for the most part, garbage too. Honestly, it’s a laughably bad film for the most part. Being fair, that is what kept me from leaving the cinema.

On the topic of being fair, there are thing’s the film gets right. The acting, while hampered by the words they are speaking, is very good. The actors are mostly charming and charismatic. Thomas Jane stood out to me, even though his character is insultingly used throughout the film. Before the big predator arrives, in its fully poorly rendered CG glory, the smaller one we are given is a man in a very convincing suit. I was wowed by it, something that hasn’t happened much lately. There’s some fun action and gore, particularly towards the beginning. That’s it though, the rest I hated.

In defence of the comedic take, I can see why they did it. To make this a parody of older action films is welcomed (the first Predator being a subversion of said films itself). The problem is that they failed miserably at it. Not only are the jokes not funny, they can rub you the wrong way. Disability isn’t treaded kindly, or even accurately in this film. Tourette syndrome and autism being the main (and cheapest) jabs. I heard that the entire third act (which is the worst part of the film) was almost entirely reshot. That’s nothing new in films and happens more than you’d think, even to some of the best films you’ve seen. But this time it does feel like the studio tried to save the film from something awful, and made it worse. On a related note, when I have to look up if a character actually died, because his death scene lasted less than a second, then something has definitely gone wrong somewhere.

The Predator feels like the accumulation of the issues that plague the studio films these days. It’s soulless, thoughtless and attempting to set up sequels that I hope never see the light of day. It’s also poorly constructed, executed and best of luck trying to figure out what’s going on. It’s easily the worst of the stand alone Predator films, and I’d even go as far to call it worse than the first AVP film. Between this and Alien Covenant (which was a better film, I’ll add), I think I’ve reached my limit with these series. If you really enjoy films that are hilariously bad, if you actively seek out something to laugh at and not with, then there is something here for you. Otherwise I promise, you’ll be begging for the simplicity of Arnie fighting an alien in the jungle after the first scene.

2nd October 2018
The Coolest Guy Movie Ever: Review

There isn’t really any escaping from the classic film The Great Escape. Especially come Christmas time. Often seen as one of the greatest war films ever made, featuring an all-star cast and direction from one of the greatest of classic Hollywood directors, The Great Escape established itself as a household title decades ago. And it also happens to be a film that I have not properly seen myself. That’s not been a deliberate stance for me, it’s simply that – despite the acclaim and prestige the film has – it’s not been one that interested me enough to watch. The fact that I have never seen it was made very apparent to me once I watched the documentary that focused on it – The Coolest Guy Movie Ever.

The Coolest Guy Movie Ever, a great title if I ever heard one, follows a documentary team as they travel to a small town outside of Munich, where The Great Escape was shot. Their goal is to take us back in time, to the shooting of the extraordinary film, and find out whatever new things they can about its production. It’s certainly not a bad concept for a documentary. It’s certainly been done before, with Jaws, Apocalypse Now and pretty much any film that had Ray Harryhausen’s involvement in it. The problem is that, while it’s a good idea for a documentary, the documentary itself is not an engaging one.

The Coolest Guy Movie Ever falls into that unfortunate trap that many have before, where the topic at hand is infinitely more interesting than what’s going on in the actual documentary. It is very strange to see that a film, based on a cinematic classic that is almost universally praised and loved, is just so blandly filmed. There’s no real style to it.

The coolest guy movie ever from chris espenan on Vimeo.

Visually, it’s at it’s most interesting when we are seeing clips, stills and moments from The Great Escape. When we aren’t seeing those, which is most of the time, we are seeing long shots with fairly drawn out edits. While I do have an idea as to why this was the case, it’s supposed to feel like a film of the era that it’s documenting, it comes off as visually boring in practice.

As for the narration, this is where the film mostly lost me. The voice narrating the film is very over the top, which just took away from my experience with it. It’s a voice, or at least similar to a voice, that I have heard in a number of documentaries, and it never fails to distract me from what I’m meant to be seeing. Don’t get me wrong, I liked learning about the production of The Great Escape and I did learn some fun facts. But the voice used, and the more than understandable lack of interviews with the films cast distracted me enough for most of these facts to not really sink in.

It’s clear that those who made this documentary have a passion for The Great Escape. To not be entirely unfair, I am more likely to watch it now. But I wasn’t engaged with the film as a whole. It’s probably just me, but I’ve seen enough documentaries that worked as this one did that I found it too familiar and a little boring for it. I wouldn’t call it bad per say, just uninvolving. It’s debatable if The Great Escape is truly the coolest guy movie ever – I’d personally give that little trophy to Predator – but this documentary, sadly, isn’t it.

27th August 2018
Ant-Man And The Wasp: Callum’s Take

Marvel has done it again. From them we have got ourselves another serviceably fun film. One that’s got some very good ideas and some terrific performances, but feels lacking in the creative department. I’m not going to say that Ant-Man was a masterpiece, it wasn’t, but it did hit all the right notes with me. The story was a scaled-down telling of a heist and the tone was a lot lighter than most over superhero films. It felt like a family film, and as one I think it did a good job, being accessible for all ages. It also avoided the issues that normally come with replacing a director in the middle of filming – Edgar Wright’s and Payton Reed’s visions seemed to bounce off each over very well. It was very formulaic and had a very weak antagonist, but was fine for what it was. That’s pretty much how I also feel about Ant-Man and the Wasp.

Having been shrunk into another dimension in the last film, the same dimension that Hank Pym’s wife was sent to, Pym wants to use Ant-Man, Scott Lang, to go back in and rescue his wife after over twenty years. The problem, Scott is under house arrest for what he did in Captain America: Civil War and can’t leave, lest he be sent to prison and loose his daughter for good in the process. Oh, and there’s also an arms dealer trying to steal their technology and a woman whose body is trapped between two dimensions – a state of being that is very slowly and very painfully killing here – who is wanting to use Hank’s wife to save her life, while ending the one of the woman they are trying to save. Will Scott manage to save the day without the cops noticing him? To do that, he’ll need a partner…

To not sound overly negative, I will talk about the three main elements that I loved in this film. The acting is first and foremost. It’s terrific! Not only is everyone balancing dramatic tension with cartoonish humour very well, they still come off as human beings. I’ve always loved Paul Rudd, the only role this man can’t play is a villain. He’s effortlessly likable and fun to watch. He has excellent chemistry with all his cast members and really is the heart and soul of the film. Evangeline Lily as Hope Pym, aka The Wasp, is every bit as good as Rudd. They have a couple bickering role, but they do it in a way that doesn’t feel tired. The girl playing Scott’s daughter is a stand out also, being a good motivator for our characters. Returning actors – like Michael Douglas and Michael Pena – and new-comers – Michele Pfeiffer and Lawrence Fishburne – all work perfectly in their roles.

I like the humour, which feels genuine at moments and suitably cartoonish in others. Sometimes it’s a little uncalled for, but for the most part it works well. Finally, I really like the action. They play with the shrinking and growing tech better than any other film that features it. The action is well choreographed, and it is inventively original. You’ve never seen a salt-shaker used this way before, I’ll tell you that much. There’s even some amazing stunts involving toy cars – there’s a sentence I thought I’d never say!

Sadly, everything else, while certainly not bad – although the music is completely forgettable – is just so been-there-done-that. The chief offender of this is the villain. Now, her backstory is very interesting and the motivation of just trying to stop the pain is a relatable one. But the character herself, the one we see throughout the film, is one-note. There’s no depth, there’s no human moment here or there, she’s just an obstacle, and an overused one at that, I feel her screen time could have been cut down a bit. I’m used to bad Marvel villains by now, but after the villains we’ve had this year – the intimidating Thanos, the hilarious Klau and the all-around excellent Kill monger, I did find this one particularly disheartening. There’s also a character who we don’t know what side he’s on – until it’s answered around the 45-minute mark. And the arms dealer is a boring an unnecessary addition to the film.

The story is fine. There’s legitimate tension and interesting ideas throughout, but you’ve seen it before in other Marvel films. Winter Soldier in particular, the more I think about it. It also has that issue that I’ve been noticing with almost every sequel these days – where they feel the need to complicate the story. For example, Deadpool – nice, simple story with a lot of focus on the areas it’s trying to cover. Deadpool 2 – a jumbled mess of subplots and tones that made me forget what the actual story was at times. Neither is bad, but that’s how they are. The same goes here. And has gone with more films than I can count lately. Sometimes it’s warranted – Blade Runner 2049 and Avengers Infinity War for example – but not for a film that aims to please families with fun humour and goofy action.

The effects are good, the directing’s good, the writing’s fine, Ant-Man and the Wasp works as a film. If you want a bit of fun at the cinemas, definitely watch it, I don’t think it’ll let anyone down on that level. But it did remind me of why I’m bored of superheroes. Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 got better with time and viewings, and I do hope that the same happens here, but I doubt it this time. It’s just a nice, middle-of-the-road Marvel film – which certainly isn’t bad. It’s just bland. The acting is exceptional and there’s fun ideas and just plain old fun to be had, it’s just a shame that all it came to was just serviceable.

24th August 2018