Listmania ’12! The Worst Movies Of The Year

Rather worryingly, it was a lot easier to get this list up to thirty than the best movies list, and I even had to stop watching bad movies because otherwise I’d never have finished. There were so many candidates this year that I ended up having to force myself to kinda sorta like some of them just to get them out of contention. As I said in the Best Movies list, this has been a shaky year for me with movies. I found myself becoming very disillusioned with the medium at one point, possibly because I’ve been writing and have found my patience for over-familiar storytelling tricks waning. It has caused much brow-furrowing, and as anyone who has met me knows, I have a lot of brow to furrow.

thisislandearth

An important thing I want to say before I get into this. A lot of internet debate this year has concerned the politics of popular art (or maybe it’s always like this and I only just started following the people who talk about it the most). Much of it has been fascinating and illuminating, shaping the way I understand the responsibilities of storytellers, to the point that even more than in previous years I now respond very strongly to negative portrayals of women, persons of colour, members of the LGBT community, or anyone differently abled. However, one thing hasn’t changed, and that’s that I come to these movies as someone interested in the mechanics of story first. Some readers may think I should do it the other way around, but this is how I’m built, how I’ve been doing this for years, and it’s the approach that suits my (privileged white male) outlook the best.

Which is not to say I don’t care about such matters; I do, very much. However, I’ll always watch a film for the film first, and deal with the rest later, mostly because I’m more confident in assessing something through the storytelling lens than the political one, as I’ve been thinking as a storyteller for a lot longer than I have as an analyst of political messages (and I’m always going to be in the process of learning more about both). If a film does interesting or worthy things on a story level, I won’t automatically ignore or excuse its political problems; my praise will be tempered, but I’ll still feel compelled to commend what works.

jackreacherandwomen

For example, Jack Reacher has massive problems in how it treats women, which made me livid, but in terms of directorial approach and storytelling tricksiness I loved it, so I’m on the fence about it. Only when we become fixated on binary love/hate reactions would such a thing be a problem, but I’ve always tried to see films as an aggregation of different variables, so I can like something for one reason, hate it for another. The truncated nature of social media, and the subsequent removal of nuance, means it often feels like no one does that any more, though I’m sure I’m wrong on that one. Right?

As for the movies on this list, they’re here because I think they failed on a storytelling or artistic level, and all deserve to be here for that reason alone, but the top ten especially seemed to fill up very quickly with movies that committed both crimes against storytelling and people. I will inevitably come across as a humourless, overthinking, fun-averse chide during this post, but as I wrote it I realised how angry some of these films made me, so my usual chirpiness vanished. This is where trying to have an open mind gets me; watching everything in the hope that I’ll find a misunderstood gem means I have to wade through an ocean of fecal matter to get the odd gem.

atlasshruggedpart2

Anyway, apologies for the traditional caveats. Two more quick ones before I get into it: sadly I haven’t seen Atlas Shrugged Part 2 in time for this, which is a shame as it’s supposed to be worse than the first one and that topped last year’s list with ease. This is the Bad Movie List equivalent of not seeing Django Unchained or Zero Dark Thirty before finishing the Good Movie List. Also, please don’t be offended by any selections here that you liked. Nothing here is meant as a judgement on anyone other than the people who made the films, and even then their failure is often the result of a badly-tossed coin rather than anything more worrisome. If you liked any of the movies here, then it fit your Criteria For Success, as I’ve taken to calling it, which is obviously fine as no two people have the same ones. And that’s cool. These just really weren’t for me, and that means nothing in the scheme of things. Though really, number two in this list is just flat-out fucking horrible.

25. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part Two

twilight

It wouldn’t be a worst of the year list if it didn’t include a Twilight movie at some point, though from next year onwards Shades of Caruso will have to figure out a way to cope without our least favourite supernatural bores. Our long, international ordeal is over. Bella and Edward are together, like they were pretty early on in the first film and continued to be for the majority of the series; a perfect example of that depressing narrative stasis I’ve been complaining about for half a decade. So, considering how high these films have been on each year’s worst list, why is this at no. 25 and not, say, no. 1, like when Return of the King won all those Oscars? Because this one was actually sporadically entertaining, with a bit more Michael Sheen than usual, a crazy mid-movie sequence involving some hastily introduced story-padding vampire eccentrics, one undead ghoul with the brilliant super-power of “PARALYSING VAPOURS” which made me laugh for a week, and a fantastic big finale fight that left me reeling with shock. But in that case, I hear you cry, why is it on the list if you liked it so much? Because of one choice made right at the end that invalidates everything that has happened, meaning that once more we get absolutely no narrative progression at all. It’s two hours of waiting for something to happen, only for that thing not to happen. The book contains no dramatic impetus and the only way the movie can get around that is by lying to the audience. It’s a very entertaining lie, but it’s still unacceptable. Goodbye. Twilight, thanks for the laughs. But I won’t miss you. Not really.

24. [REC]³ Génesis

rec

Since Evil Dead 2 a lot of horror comedies have hewed to a very familiar template; while Kevin Williamson, Joss Whedon, Drew Goddard, and Robert Rodriguez have tried to break open the genre to figure out how it works, most filmmakers have been content to mimic Raimi’s groundbreaking work by throwing some monsters at a group of protagonists in order for them to be dispatched in as grisly a way as possible. It’s the easiest kind of transgressive cinema, with slapstick taken to the logical, unpleasant extreme; tread on a rake in one of these films and your head will fly off and land in a nun’s lap, probably. The third in the [Rec] series eschews the intensity of the previous installments in favour of laughs; a promising way to inject new life into a franchise that was finding it hard to maintain its found footage format. Sadly the result is an underpowered and overfamiliar gross-out comedy that often resembles the execrable Torchwood episode Something Borrowed, itself guilty of mimicking Raimi’s horror-comedy landmark. Juxtaposing the horror of a demonic zombie plague with a wedding ceremony sounds promising but instead all we get is some depressing wacky hijinks from some of the guests and a bit of unimaginative gore. Less scary than Lamberto Bava’s Demons, to which it bears passing resemblance, and disappointingly low on laughs, this might only be as underwhelming as every other horror comedy clogging up the shelves, but considering the pedigree, and the damage it might do to the integrity of the ongoing [Rec] saga, it’s especially annoying. Let’s hope [Rec]: Apocalypse gets the franchise back on track.

23. The Five-Year Engagement

fiveyearengagement

Many of the films on this list are by writers and directors with previous form. If you haven’t looked further down the list you’ll see that some of Shades of Caruso’s many bêtes noire are coming up. More depressingly, then there are misfires by people we like, and these entries are no fun to write. Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel have, between them, been responsible for three films we think of very fondly; Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him To The Greek and The Muppets are a big deal in SoC HQ. You can imagine how excited we were when we heard they were collaborating again, this time on what they trumpeted as the ultimate romantic comedy. They studied the classics, they analysed the conventions, they stuck to the rules, and yet this is what we got; two hours of contrived stasis, with a malfunctioning and unconvincing premise as its spine. And where were the jokes? Even the Reality-Bending Charisma Storm that is Emily Blunt (future Monarch of the post-apocalyptic Human Alliance of Planets; you heard it here first) can do nothing here other than make you wince in horror at the indignities poured upon her. It’s rote, it’s mechanical, it’s absurdly drawn-out, much like the titular engagement. Only a spirited final scene registers in the memory, but what a slog to get there. God knows what it was like before the reshoots that occurred before release. What should have been one of the best examples in this genre has turned out to be one of the worst; a how-to manual that unexpectedly ends up showing future storytellers how-not-to instead.

22. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

ghostrider

How to disappoint Shades of Caruso part 2. When I heard that Neveldine / Taylor were going to make a sequel to Ghost Rider – one of our favourite bad movie indulgences – I was thrilled. With money and support there was a chance that their chaotic and ballsy visual approach would yield dividends, a suspicion bolstered by a trailer showing Johnny Blaze pissing fire. This was what we wanted; some honest-to-god madness, and none of Mark Steven Johnson’s hesitance. But again, this weirdness of this character defied the attempt to translate him / it to a new medium. Neveldine / Taylor’s madness only really works when the stakes in their movies don’t matter. We don’t give really give a shit about Chev Chelios’ survival, except that his death would mean the end of the movie. As N / T don’t care either, and are only interested in throwing more random imagery at the camera in the weirdest ways possible, it works. But Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance has a sympathetic protagonist and attempts to create a goal for him to achieve, people to protect. Fine, except that this ends up feeling like scenes from two movies shuffled together, and we see how hollow it truly their approach is. N / T don’t know how to make us care, but even worse they don’t seem to realise that they’re meant to. The result is truly disheartening, and hints that early suspicions about N / T are true; they don’t actually know what they’re doing. It’s on them to prove me wrong. This boring, ugly mess is not the way to go about it. That said, my main men Cage and DJ Big Driis are awesome in it, at least.

21. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

marigold

Movies set in India tend to make me nervous, with Western filmmakers treating the country like some kind of magical spiritual wonderland. I blame The Beatles. Slumdog Millionaire annoyed me for its flaws as a film, more than anything, and Darjeeling Limited walked a fine line, falling mostly on the side of satirising the idiocy and ignorance of its rich protagonists rather than making some patronising argument about the virtues of the country. Eat, Pray, Love‘s trivialisation of issues like poverty and depression, on the other hand, were unforgivable, and while watching Best Exotic Marigold Hotel I held onto the thin argument that at least John Madden and Ol Parker’s adaptation of Deborah Moggach’s novel wasn’t as clueless as that. But the depiction of the honest poor of India is still wince-inducing and overly sincere, most horribly seen in Dev Patel’s gallumphing performance as the cowering simpleton running the old folk’s home. Even worse is the pandering, shallow guff about living life to the full even when old, reducing the characters to two-dimensions, their arc a binary switch which will be flicked during the final act in a tornado of predictable uplift. The cast contains many of my favourite actors, doing their best with the weak source material, but compared to Hope Springs, which dealt with the complications of old age in a more sensitive and measured way, this comes across as just yet another mechanical British movie about overcoming adversity, devoid of genuine warmth and humanity despite the great performances from almost everyone involved.

20. Taken 2

taken2

The first Taken was one of the most surprising box office hits of recent years. Why this movie? Films about action men killing swarthy foreigners are a dime a dozen and have been for years. Liam Neeson wasn’t a huge box office draw, and neither was Maggie Grace. It didn’t have anything that seemed to be a hook and yet it made $145m in the US. The uncharitable reading is that it appealed to an undercurrent of xenophobia in a sub-section of the populace, but thanks to Pierre Morel’s taut direction it is at least, for all its faults, a compelling action movie, and Neeson’s re-emergence as an action hero makes a lot of sense as the film powers towards its conclusion. So how to explain Taken 2‘s popularity? This time let’s chalk it up to familiarity with the format, and the now-justified position of Neeson as box office powerhouse, because this doesn’t even have competence as a variable. Morel did wonders with Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen’s traditionally tin-eared dialogue and threadbare plotting, but Oliver Megaton is unable to bring anything to the table other than straight-to-DVD-level mundanity and brain-scrambling editing used to hide the thin, unappealing footage. Without lizard-brain appeal this franchise’s shortcomings are laid horribly bare, and Neeson and villainous Rade Sherbedzija, both men with inbuilt gravitas, can do nothing to save it. Back in the day we had Silver Pictures to churn out a series of cheap but wry and appealing action movies; Besson and Kamen should stay in and watch a bunch of them one weekend to see how high the bar is really set.

19. One For The Money

oneforthemoney

Funny that this came out at the beginning of the year, and Jack Reacher came out at the end. Both are about characters in popular novels, both were turned into star vehicles by actors who desperately needed a new tentpole franchise to call their own, both were rejected by the fans as entirely wrong for the part. And yet, while Jack Reacher is made with care and attention to detail – while preserving the worst and most beloved aspects of its source material – One For The Money is one of the laziest films in recent memory. It all hinges on Katherine Heigl’s charms, and if you’re resistant then this is a tough slog, but to be fair her spiky personality is better matched with protagonist Stephanie Plum’s brassy NJ persona than fans of Janet Evanovitch’s novel would accept. Sadly Heigl struggles to inject any life into this still-born project, which neither amuses or excites. On top of that there’s a tedious romantic subplot that makes the recent atrocious The Bounty Hunter look like a Hepburn / Tracy classic. If this mini-review seems to lack detail that’s because this eminently forgettable film left my mind within minutes of the credits rolling. All I can recall with full confidence is that 90 minutes felt like 16 hours, and the only thing I got from it was a rage headache at all that wasted time.

18. Snow White and the Huntsman

huntsman

As if we didn’t already have enough reason to hate Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, still the most maddening piece of cultural vandalism that this blog has seen in its time on the net. Its incredible, baffling success means “fairy tales” are in, triggering the genesis of Jack The Giant Killer and Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. ::pauses to sigh wearily:: It also gave us two Snow White movies. Mirror, Mirror is merely a leaden star vehicle for Julia Roberts, with Tarsem’s usual visual business curiously lacking in oomph this time around. Rupert Sanders’ Huntsman, on the other hand, is one of the more depressing films of the summer, finding its own success despite offering nothing but a listless mishmash of tones in search of a unifying idea. It’s got a bit of Twilight, not just in the casting of Kristen Stewart as Bella Swan with a sword, but also the love triangle between her, the Prince of the original tale and the Huntsman who searches for her, his role in the tale beefed up past breaking point. It’s got lots of Lord of the Rings too, not realising that expanding the original Grimm tale with courtly drama and big action scenes means empty spectacle without a complex and well-imagined world to build on. There’s even some faux-Miyazaki stuff about the spirit of the forest lifted almost directly from Princess Mononoke. But this is no light-footed genre mish-mash. It’s just the lining of a magpie’s nest, shot like an advert by a man who doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing, with only an over-thought, noted-to-death script as a guide. The dead-end of the genre; next to this even mad shit from the 80s like Hawk The Slayer looks visionary.

17. Take This Waltz

takethiswaltz

Sarah Polley’s second movie may not have won as many critical plaudits as her first movie — Away From Her — but it still got multiple award nominations and festival raves. Certainly Polley does something very welcome in taking on a thorny subject with a refreshingly non-judgemental approach, detailing the slow and regrettable dissolution of a marriage as the protagonist, Margot, makes a choice to take control of her life and allow herself to fall for another man. Affairs in films are usually used to make “slut-shaming” judgements on women for their wanton ways, so Polley’s decision to make this choice an empowering one for Margot is commendable. However, to do this means we get a full 90 minutes walking on the spot as Margot, played as a cutesy child-woman by Michelle Williams, agonises over her choice in scene after scene of overplayed, near-unwatchable stasis, eroding the sympathy of any audience member with a low-threshold for meandering storytelling. Take This Waltz spends so much time justifying Margot’s choice, clearing her of any possible audience negativity, that the whole film seems like a defensive argument, blunting the drama of her choices and making her seem more a fool for taking so long than a brave woman taking control of her destiny. It leads to a lopsided film that lacks the courage of its convictions, made worse by its unbearable mopey characters and their self-consciously twee behavior; to endure Luke Kirby’s drawn-out-beyond-the-limits-of-endurance café seduction scene is to know burning, soul-deep agony.

16. What To Expect When You’re Expecting

whattoexpect

The thought that movies are being made of pregnancy guides and relationship advice manuals has caused much hilarity and/or despair among the critical community, but as I argued in this review of Battleship, it doesn’t really matter where you find your inspiration from as long as the end product is worthwhile. This is not worthwhile. Using a similar structure to Garry Marshall’s Valentines Day / New Year’s Eve ensemble pieces, WTEWYE addresses a number of different scenarios involving childbirth, from adoption to miscarriage to the long road to birth, but while the book offers advice and tips on how to cope, this has nothing but cheap jokes, clumsy slapstick, and a strange balance in which there seems to be more time spent dealing with how the fathers will cope than the mothers, who are only really present to be hysterical. That’s not its main crime, and neither is the depiction of one character’s miscarriage, which is as movie-convenient and insultingly sugar-coated as you’d imagine in a light comedy. The true horror comes when J-Lo’s childlessness triggers a tearful rant during which she says of herself, “I’m the one who can’t do the one thing that a woman is supposed to be able to do.” Yes. The one thing — THE ONE THING — that a woman is supposed to do. Of all the things I saw in 2012, that probably generated the most vocal reaction of disgust. Good job I didn’t see it in a cinema, or I’d have gone Shoshanna Dreyfus on the building.

15. Intouchables

intouchables

Kicking this feel-good movie about a paraplegic and his carer feels like torturing a puppy, but sometimes needs must. While sincerity in films is a big plus point as far as we’re concerned, when it tips over into oleaginous sentimentality we close the door and never look back. Olivier Nakache and Éric Toledano’s dramatisation of their documentary A la vie, à la mort looks like it’s on solid ground, transcribing reality into life-affirming cinema, but once separated from reality the temptation to coat this tale in sugar seems to have been irresistible. Much of the movie is spent presenting Philippe’s depression as being easily cured by the intervention of Driss, but this eagerness to show the efficacy of all that dancing and lovable hamminess from Omar Sy means the film is dangerously lopsided, and the second act crisis – in which Driss quits for plot convenience – is so feeble they might as well have not bothered. It’s inert on a dramatic level and cutesy to an intolerable degree; two terrible strikes against it. But then we have the deeply questionable decision to change the real life carer – an Algerian – to an African who is pathologically lazy and thoughtless. So we have the stereotype of the lazy black man transformed by the benevolence and friendship of the cultured and affluent white male, compounded by the also-included trope of the square middle-class guy learning to live life thanks to a Magical Negro. And France chose this as their Foreign Language Academy Award nominee instead of the far-superior Rust and Bone? FFS.

14. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

abrahamlincoln

There are two ways to make a movie based on a gimmicky idea like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter; make a dumb joke out of it or go serious. Comedy would be an insult to the people who fought and died in the Civil War and the fight against slavery, so you don’t want to do that. Of course, pretending that it was vampires that almost split America down the middle, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is also an insult to the people who fought and died in the Civil War and the fight against slavery, but Seth Grahame-Smith and Timur Bekmambetov seem to see no problem in trivialising the issue in this manner. Quentin Tarantino has received considerable flack for addressing slavery in the context of a Spaghetti Western homage but from all accounts he goes all out in depicting the horror of the South’s treatment of African-Americans, whereas this spectacularly misjudged debacle barely drew any criticism for saying, “yeah, the enslavement of over four million slaves by Americans was bad, but hell, it could have been vampires doing it.” SERIOUSLY, WHY WAS NO ONE BOTHERED BY THIS? Is it just because it’s a metaphorical use of vampires? Why bother doing that when the thought that humans would commit this crime is more potent than adding supernatural elements? This doesn’t illuminate the issue, or bring a new perspective to it. It just takes tragedy and turns it into an instantly forgettable Syfy-worthy one off, not even making up for its redundancy by being exciting, or funny, or even alive on screen. Now that I think about it, there’s actually a third way to tell this tale; don’t make a movie about it, just treat it as the mildly amusing idea for a Halloween costume that it actually is and leave it at that.

13. Dark Shadows

darkshadows

You can show me a hundred interviews with Tim Burton in which he claims that this adaptation of the quirky supernatural ABC soap opera is a dream project borne of his childhood love of the show, but that won’t make it seem any less like a movie Burton felt obligated to make, like he woke up one morning and said, “I guess it’s time to do that one,” before letting out a weary sigh and storyboarding the whole thing while his morning pot of coffee finished brewing (FYI he takes his coffee black because he’s a fucking Goth, you might have noticed). The realisation that this fantasy scenario might be accurate comes when you finally endure the desperately dreary movie and it occurs to you that Burton would have phoned his producer and sold it on the strength of the wacky sex scene, and his producer would have exclaimed, “Holy crap, I can see it now! Or rather, I can see the trailer!” And that’s because there’s nothing here we haven’t seen before. Dark Shadows is so perfunctory, so devoid of life or vibrancy, that it feels like you’ve already endured it before you have, but even then, with this dearth of imagination on display, you will still be astonished by the ill-thought-out plot that tries to mimic the soap opera format of the show by writing characters out after one or two key scenes — meaning the film never seems to settle down — or the seemingly endless first act in which Barnabas goes around the Collins household meeting people. Just meeting them. For, like, fifteen minutes. This isn’t cinema. It’s not even old TV. It’s just shit.

12. The Sweeney

thesweeney

While the James Bond franchise busies itself with the job of turning its out-of-date misogynistic asshole into a tortured, justifiably hateful shitbag we can all love – three dimensions of worthy but highly entertaining odiousness – this reboot of the beloved original doesn’t even bother to address the problematic 70s-era politically incorrect Jack-The-Lad hijinx, presenting it with no commentary as business as usual. Perhaps it should be commended for trying to remain faithful to its origins, but even to a target audience that has a Sweeney boxset at home and lectures its friends dahn the boozah abaht them PC wankahs will find this to be pretty thin gruel. Nick Love and co-writer John Hodge – yes, the man behind Trainspotting and Shallow Grave – do an unconvincing job of updating the original, taking a bunch of cliches and adding in the names “Carter” and “Regan” every so often, ladling in some excruciatingly dated banter about them birds and making sure the bad guy is a Serb for extra Guardian-baiting fun. Ian Kennedy Martin would likely look at this metallic blue machine and weep. Not even for a moment does this feel like anything other than a rote retelling of a million other stories, yet another cash-in, hoping to make some money from the kind of incurious twerp who thinks Garry Bushell is a man of insight and courage. Watching a cast this good (well, Damian Lewis, Hayley Atwell and Ray Winstone) swallow their pride is enough to make you pray for the British film industry to immolate itself; we’ve got the accelerant right here.

11. Friends With Kids

friendswithkids

Anyone reading this list of the year’s most horrible movies could end up thinking that Shades of Caruso is populated by terrible prudes, what with all the necklace-clutching over those off-colour comedies. Nothing could be further from the truth, but considering the glut of adult comedies released into the post-Apatow world like cum-scented Kudzu, someone has to take a stand. This shift from numb acceptance to active annoyance occurred midway through Jennifer Westfeldt’s Friends With Kids, an off-putting adult comedy about a woman who decides to have a child with her platonic best friend. Westfeldt wrote Kissing Jessica Stein, which I recall was frank about sex and relationships but never became unpleasant. This, on the other hand, seems to be overly aggressive in its urge to shock the audience with swearing and “daring” jokes. This might be the kind of thing a prude would say, but the crime here is not to be offensive but to drive past the point of acceptability, beyond where transgression is funny, to end up in a place where the tone is uncomfortably, relentlessly sour. It’s bad enough that Westfeldt’s premise is so unbelievable; the protagonists decide to go through with their plan on what feels like a whim, and are then required to snottily dismiss everyone around them in a whirlwind of misanthropic complaints. None of it rings true, and the convenient final act muting of that inappropriate voice to show growth comes out of nowhere. I’m sure Westfeldt would cry foul if I said the crass dialogue spouted by her hateful characters was a cynical choice, but even so, it feels like she jumped on a bandwagon and tragically misjudged how far she could go before alienating the viewer.

10. The Expendables 2

expendables2

Perhaps the worst thing about the Expendables franchise – and with the second installment making $300 million, it’s fair to say that this is a franchise, not an anomaly – is that the idea behind it is so compelling to a sub-section of film fandom, so ripe with promise, that the dreary first movie is especially disappointing. But that movie is like a peak-era Silver Pictures film compared to this, something that even Golan and Globus would consider dumping in a lake and never talking about again. Eschewing the poorly dramatised double- and treble-crosses of the first film, Simon West’s sluggish sequel relies solely on the goodwill of the audience to ignore the threadbare plot, the underwritten villain, the overly familiar scenarios and flatly-shot action scenes. Because look! It’s everyone’s favourite birther, Chuck Norris, slowly walking into shot and referring to himself as a Lone Wolf! And look! Arnie and Bruce swap catchphrases! “Will this do?” screams the film, as we cut once more to Stallone looking like his batteries are about to run out. Apparently it will, if it’s going to make this much money. Less a homage to the best of the genre, more an out-of-date nightmare mutated through the introduction of irradiated dollars into a lumbering beast crushing the genre underfoot. Don’t put a copy of this on your DVD/Blu-Ray shelf; your copies of Die Hard, Predator, Lethal Weapon, The Killer, First Blood, Demolition Man, The Last Boy Scout, 48 Hours, Con Air, The Rock – even Action Jackson – will jump down and beat you to death for the insult.

9. The Lorax

thelorax

At the forefront of culture, where sentiment’s free,
There’s a well-meaning well-spring of sanctimony.
A clattering chatter of serious chaps
Come to warn us of doom; Eco-horror collapse!
And plastic doohickeys that suck out the soul
Of we miserable fools, our dead hearts black as coal.

“Oh woe, these poor dopes — grasping, ignorant saps
With their claptrap and waffle and counterfeit crap.
Don’t they see,” cry the men, their hands wringing in fear,
“What dire fate lies in wait if our cries they don’t hear?”
So they commenced their project, to adapt a great book,
Spent ALL OF THE DOLLARS, begged, “Please, you must look!”

And what did they give us? A veritable onslaught
Of ads and promotions, TV spots with a cohort
Of fabulous faces; An orgasmical sight!
Taylor Swift and Zac Efron! Ed Helms! Betty White!
And there’s Danny DeVito, who was chosen to play
The thing they call LORAX, nature’s orange Sensei.

The Lorax was unleashed but, a curious thing;
We heard rumblings and mumblings; “Oh this movie doth ming!
It’s so garish and ugly and much more than a tad
Hypocritical and lousy and vapid and bad.
We know that the future holds horrible trials
For our kids and our kids’ kids; We’re not in denial.

“Yet you treat us as if we’re all deaf, dumb, and blind,
Preaching ‘caring for nature makes you virtuous, kind.
And also buy Mazda! Our corporate sponsor who
Makes cars that don’t run on splut-splatter goo.
No no no, someone else commits those crooked acts.
Mazda’s cars run on wishes, fairy farts; check the facts!’

“We see through your flim-flam, this insult to the truth
You exploit to justify selling trash to our youth.
This far, no further! (Oh yes, we went there). No more, please!
Our next generation knows it’s gotta save trees.
Admit it, you made this because of the guilt
At the towering shower of turds you have built.”

“So now,” say the victims of this loud, joyless screech,
“To those midwives who birthed it, of you we beseech:
It’s time that you ended this endless abuse
Of beloved and gentle and saintly Doc Seuss.
UNLESS filmmakers like you give up making this rot,
Nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

8. The Watch

thewatch

As time passes you realise that big summer movies that work are as rare as hen’s teeth, or sober compositions in a Tom Hooper movie. This means you cherish the ones that work; Ghostbusters, Raiders, Back to the Future; they all look better now than ever, while the underpowered nature of a half-competent sequel like Men in Black 3 casts the inventive original in an even better light. Those were movies that sweated the details, polishing a promising idea, adding layers of detail to create an immersive world. The makers of The Watch figured you can just turn Invasion of the Body Snatchers into a bitter comedy about empowering under-achieving men and then pile on the popular actors until the jokes just spontaneously happen. Watching actors like Vaughan and Stiller – men who once showed up on set to do a job instead of sending life model decoys programmed with all of their previously endearing stock personality traits – go through the motions, unwilling to be prodded into life by their director Akiva Schaeffer, is this misfire’s most disheartening spectacle. Well, second most. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, whose script work until now has been mostly very entertaining, do nothing to bring this 90-minute ad for Costco to life, choosing instead to turn it into another of their now patented meditations on male friendship, except without the insight or jokes or sincerity of their previous films, and betraying a lack of interest in the female worldview that limits their range. It’s tempting to say it couldn’t have been any lazier, but then I think, “They could have removed Richard Ayoade, Rosemary DeWitt and Will Forte from it,” and I realise that’s the version they play on a loop in Hell.

7. Resident Evil: Retribution

residentevil

Notorious performance artist Armond White’s most provocative review of the year saw him denigrate Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master while praising Paul W.S Anderson’s latest installment of the Resident Evil franchise; how thrilled he must have been when he realised they were being released in the same week, thus giving him a hook for his latest exercise in peer-trolling. The sentence that betrays his lack of conviction is the last, where he says that RE: R “transforms a genre franchise with visionary newness,” suggesting that he wrote the review without even seeing it. Because this is the total opposite of new or visionary. As with all of PWSA’s films, RE: R is a compilation of moments from other films that he remembers, transcribed with low-budget creakiness, cobbled together into a barely coherent and emotionally empty collage, but without the enthusiasm or glowing adoration of Tarantino’s genre pastiches. It’s just another money-maker from a man with no urge to innovate or communicate a point, and while SoC is happy to watch unambitious B-movies, PWSA’s cynicism and lack of imagination is especially dispiriting. This is perfect for anyone who enjoys watching Milla Jovovich, wearing her “Determined Face” expression, yet again posing stiffly in front of a green screen with co-stars who mechanically utter characterless exposition, safe in the knowledge that they don’t have to go to the trouble of making the cyphers they’re playing come to any recognisable kind of life, while PWSA recycles not only shots from his other movies but from this one too; numerous action beats are replicated over and over again, almost defiantly rubbing the audience’s face in it. Here’s a sobering thought, though; considering the persistent, viral success of this franchise, perhaps games will spell the end for cinema, just not in the way we thought. (NB: Worth noting that this is the only film in the top ten that treats women as human beings, so massive, sincerely-meant kudos for that.)

6. The Devil Inside

thedevilinside

If the case against Found Footage ever went to trial, the defence lawyers, with Blair Witch Project, [Rec], Paranormal Activity and Chronicle at their side, would weep with horror at their imminent defeat when the prosecution calls just this catastrophic failure into evidence. There are dozens of lazy exorcism movies out there, so William Brent Bell’s low energy home movie has company, but compared to a qualified success like Daniel Stamm’s The Last Exorcism, you realise just how little effort was put into this. Bad enough that the premise doesn’t even work logically – two rogue exorcists scared that their secret work will be revealed to the Vatican allow a documentary film crew to follow them around – and bad enough that the last 20 minutes of this 70-minute-long film are basically filled with people screaming incoherently at each other, the biggest insult is the incomplete finale that directs the viewer to a website that explains what happens next. Considering that the movie rests on the archaic and disgusting idea that the protagonist is being punished by the Devil for daring to have an abortion when it turns out her baby won’t carry to term, it’s probably not worth the effort of typing the URL which, let’s face it, is about as much effort as has been expended by the filmmakers. Unconvincing, cynical, histrionic, The Devil Inside single-handedly sets the horror genre back fifty years. And yet it made millions. Abandon hope, all ye who love horror films, and despair.

5. Act of Valor

actofvalor

This bare-bones actioner should be seen by everyone interested in cinema or storytelling, but not for the reasons the directors and writers would like. Famously shot originally as a video for the military, it was expanded into a film by Scott Waugh, Mouse McCoy and Kurt Johnstad with real soldiers playing the main characters. Well, I say characters, but basically they’re the equivalent of NPCs in a video game, holding guns and moving about the screen but doing very little in the way of coming across as sentient beings, with the two “protagonists” leaving me with the impression that one of them is called Steve, the other isn’t, and the only things they can say to each other is, “bland comment about family,” followed by “awkward laugh”. The comparison between this and games like Call of Duty has been made numerous times – after all it features a lot of POV shots from behind guns, and vapid quotations from military thinkers to add gravitas so they’re practically identical, right? — but games have plots. Oft-derided games like CoD at least have an emotional charge, much as critics would like to pretend they don’t. Sure, sometimes they don’t work but when they do they have compelling protagonists and antagonists, arcs and momentum and event and all of the things that good stories should. This has nothing other than a string of firefights and a threat to be vanquished. Act of Valor is How Not To Make Movies 101; indifferently-directed action wrapped around a hollow core, plus lazy sentiment replacing meaning. Even worse, despite the heavily-signposted death of Steve (or not-Steve, I couldn’t tell who was who), it still serves as an advert for the Navy. It’s the equivalent of a giant erection pointing at a bloodied corpse.

4. Ted

ted

Credit to Seth McFarlane for coming up with this great idea — like a twisted version of AI in which David somehow grows up and gets stuck with a sociopathic Teddy — with which to explore the ways in which child-men resist the responsibilities of adulthood. It’s such a great visual, the man accompanied everywhere by the visual representation of his infantile attitude. Which makes McFarlane’s traditional lack of effort even more frustrating than usual. The man is a machine cranking out very basic material on an industrial basis, and thus Ted goes through the motions much like his irksome TV shows, except this time he can add profitable and fashionable R-rated jokes about sex to his repertoire, which usually just consists of pop-culture references and hastily tossed-off non-sequiturs. Getting into a discussion about what is and isn’t funny is a waste of time; I think McFarlane’s a one-note huckster, but he has passionate fans who would be annoyed at my dismissal of his work. I get that. But what makes Ted truly worthless, aside from the cracks about Muslims and “sluts”, and the obnoxious nods and winks he throws at the crowd to “excuse it all”, is that I don’t believe, not even for a femtosecond, that McFarlane means a thing in this film. Not the moral ending, in which the slacker hero gets everything — including a Hallmark-card lesson about responsibility that McFarlane figures constitutes an arc because he saw it in an Apatow movie — and his girlfriend gets nothing. Not his supposed love for Flash Gordon, which I bet he watched once before making this film, knowing that a section of the audience would respond favourably. Not even the filth. He just knows what makes a buck, and he shovels it into our faces without a second thought. He’s P.T. Barnum with dick jokes. If this guy’s really the cultural powerhouse he seems to be, then we need to find the reset button, and pronto.

3. This Means War

thismeanswar

Remember Mr. and Mrs. Smith? That was a curious film. Kinda hateful, but with a central conceit that might have worked, with a few dozen rewrites and a complete change of cast and director. I don’t know how you’d go about getting it into full fighting shape but it’s conceivable. Now along comes This Means War, a film that treads in the same footsteps (and shares a writer in Simon Kinberg) in which relationship troubles are dramatised via the conventions of the espionage genre. That’s an unusually good match, the consequences of secrecy being the most compelling aspects of both kinds of story. It’s telling, then, that only James Cameron got close to getting it right with True Lies, but even then had that massively problematic middle act. Imagine an entire movie of that and you’ve got this… thing… from McG, a film in which we’re meant to root for two colossal fuckbags who manipulate and spy on the ditzy heroine, a film in which the only choice she gets to make is which of these maladjusted fratboy scumbags she will end up with. If Mr. and Mrs. Smith had some possibility of working out with some tweaking of the material, or the tone, or some goddamn thing, there’s nothing that could be done to save this vile mistake. It’s nasty, it’s devoid of jokes, it’s unexciting, it has no insight, no verve, no wit, no purpose other than to fill a gap in a studio’s release schedule and to further chip away at the possibility that women’s lot in life will ever improve; to watch it is to feel all hope of parity between the genders evaporate. Its other big crime? Surgically removing Tom Hardy’s continent-sized SuperMojo to prevent him rightly showing up everyone else in it. I suspect Christian Bale’s infamous Terminator: Salvation rant was an EMP that wiped all sense from McG; we’ll get nothing competent from him ever again.

2. Project X

projectx

The recent American elections saw a phrase enter the lexicon: The War on Women. Republicans eager to restrict the lives and opportunities of women by making it hard to get on in this world by removing their rights cynically refused to accept that their policies were motivated by a distrust or hatred of women, but the wave of bitterness coming from the Right was impossible to ignore. But then it’s no wonder legislators figured women were fair game. If there’s anything this list of the worst films shows, it’s that men still think it’s perfectly acceptable to treat women as baby-incubators or, in their teens, as a reward men deserve for being bold. Nima Nourizadeh’s Project X might pretend to be another film in a lineage including Porky’s, Animal House, American Pie and Superbad, but this isn’t fit to be mentioned in the same breath. Three nerdy teen boys hold the biggest teen party imaginable in the hopes of getting “pussy”. And they do. That’s the movie right there. The most odious teenagers ever committed to film are rewarded for their sociopathic disregard for everyone around them with the respect of their peers, the adoration of numerous mute naked girls, and barely any censure from the law. Only the ostensibly sympathetic protagonist is prosecuted, but that’s okay, because his dad secretly thinks he’s a bad ass and the virginal girl who he previously cuckolded with a “slut” (here punished for her sexual activity by being secretly filmed naked) still loves him and forgives him, but then she would, as she’s practically a dudebro so she’s okay. This was written by Michael Bacall, the guy who co-wrote 21 Jump Street and Scott Pilgrim? This was co-produced by Joel Silver? It’s by far the worst thing he has ever been involved with, a fuck you to half of the population of the world, a diseased window into the worst of what Western civilisation is. Everyone involved should be fucking ashamed of themselves, and forced to wear a scarlet A (for Asshole) on their chests.

1. Alex Cross

This blog’s Best of 2012 Movies list was topped not by the intellectually challenging movies we saw but by the one that made us happiest; a choice made necessary by a desire to honour the intensity of that joy. Let us carry that on into this list. Instead of placing one of the loathsome, misogynistic insults to humanity in the top spot — for surely Project X or This Means War would be right at home there — it only seems right to pick a bad movie that made me so happy, so sore from mocking laughter, that all I wanted to do was run around all the social networks quoting lines and posting clips and basically just worshipping at the altar of the most haphazard, clumsy, ugly and stupid movie since Madonna’s brilliantly dreadful W.E. In other words, Alex Cross is the perfect cinematic representation of James Patterson’s galactically monstrous novels, with its lead character — a grab-bag of contrived tics and dull virtue fighting to save the world from exhaustively-described maniacs who murder or violate every woman he loves — now brought to life not by Morgan Freeman, a man far too charismatic to embody this thinly-written void, but by his living equal; Tyler Perry, giving what is easily 2012′s most hilariously awkward performance, almost the match of SoC’s recent favourite, Chris Klein in Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li.

alexcross

It’s impossible to encapsulate the myriad ways in which this colossal sack of shit entertained us recently, the sheer number of gaffes and howlers and WTF moments that poured from the screen like a deluge of rainbow-coloured diarrhoea. Suffice to say Rob Cohen has now jumped past Paul W.S. Anderson, Jon Avnet, and Robert Luketic to become SoC’s pick as the worst director currently working in cinema, a man who has channeled the spirit of Ed Wood to bring us a film of such hysterically wooden and ugly imperfection that the Rifftrax guys might have to take two or three runs at it to cover all of its nigh-infinite incompetence. From its clumsy blocking (actors stepping in front of each other so we can’t see them half the time) to its 100% pure-cliche screenplay (in other words, a totally accurate adaptation from the source material) to its woeful compositions and photography (easily worse than anything else in 2012); this goes beyond Lifetime movie or rejected TV pilot to find its own slot on the quality spectrum. It’s a distillation of every shitty cop drama you’ve ever seen, a compilation of the worst aspects of our culture, but done with such a straight face, with such cluelessness, that I loved it. And in case you think I should have picked one of the three previously-mentioned misogynistic films instead of something that’s just bad, that I’m being finicky for going after something for little more than being a bit shoddy, don’t worry; three of the five women in this film are murdered — two of them mutilated horribly — because that’s all cinema seemed to be this year. Just a never-ending bellow of horror at the mere existence of women, and even when a movie is dumb enough to be relatively harmless, we still have to endure the presence of this disgusting bullshit, because that’s apparently just the way it is now. Fuck you, cinema! FUCK YOU, WORLD!

Dishonorable Mentions:

The Raven: A transparent attempt to tap into the success of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, sadly this is reminiscent of the Hughes Brothers’ misfiring From Hell more than anything else. James McTeigue never gets a grip on the material or the tone; John Cusack’s obnoxious Edgar Allen Poe is overplayed, performances misfire and tension fails to materialise. I asked a passing raven if it thought McTeigue had a chance of making another movie; it said, and I quote, “NEVERMORE!” Bit harsh.

Chernobyl Diaries: Oren Peli continued to scramble to consolidate the slice of industry power provided by the success of Paranormal Activity with this Wrong Turn-esque horror film set in Chernobyl. Yes, that Chernobyl, the one in Russia, the one that was irradiated by a horrifying accident that changed the world. A perfectly tasteful location for a dumb exploitation flick, I’m sure you’ll agree. It’s not even a good dumb exploitation flick; there’s no tension, no plot, just a long wait in some really interesting (non-Chernobyl) locations until everyone’s dead.

Step Up Revolution: SoC loves Step Up 3D, a movie with very little to recommend it other than the dancing, the one thing good enough that we recommend it constantly. This is worse, and the dancing’s so poorly shot that it lacks even that saving grace. Extra points for the heroes’ plot being remarkably stupid, using their incredible dance skills to gain enough YouTube hits to win a competition, staging flash mobs that could get them arrested, instead of trying to get jobs as dancers that would pay all of them, cumulatively, probably more than the prize money. Genius.

The Cold Light of Day: Hitchcock would have wept to see the state of the thriller genre today. This weirdly bland North By Noroeste plants bland Henry Cavill into a classic thriller template, trying to figure out who killed his somnabulent dad (Bruce Willis, between naps) while avoiding the police through touristy Spain. But the ramshackle plotting means characters only do things for convenience, not recognisable motivations, so even when it wakes up you don’t really care. I think in the end it was something to do with Mossad? In Euro-set thrillers it’s usually Mossad.

Ruby Sparks: A brilliant idea, indifferently brought to life with one great moment and a cop-out ending. At least, that’s the movie I saw. Friend-of-the-blog @DarkEyeSocket has passionately argued to me that the ending that so offended me (no spoilers, but from where I sat it seemed to invalidate the lesson learned by the odious protagonist) has a deeper meaning. Sadly, on first viewing I don’t agree, meaning I’m left with an bold idea about male expectations of relationships and the manipulation of partners that ultimately amounts to nothing. Sorry DES. :-(

More to come, as ever. For anyone who has come to Listmania! for the first time, you should know I really milk this for all its worth. You’ve been warned.

With Great Sadness Comes Great Introspection

Perhaps it’s a good thing I’m only a blogger, and not a Sorkin-approved paid journalist with official opinion-having credentials, because if I had to review Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man for an actual publication, it would be my last. Sure, I could add a synopsis, which would account for about 52-67% of what I write, and I could talk about how much I like Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone as performers in general, and I could talk about the history of the character a bit, throw in some stats about how popular he is around the world, maybe draw a comparison with The Avengers or speculate about its chances against the impending behemoth that is The Dark Knight Rises, but other than that all I can write about is tiny tiny details, nitpicking and highlighting and basically turning the whole thing into a pro/con table. [1]

Is it bad? No, not really. I’ve been engaged in a Twitter chat with the very lovely friend-of-the-blog Gally Freya about Green Lantern this morning, which led to a repeat of my usual unedifying frothing rants about why that movie is the barrel-scrapings of the superhero genre, a betrayal of the character, a bone-headed focus-grouped overthought and cowardly monster of a movie that should never have been allowed onto the screen. Probably the only really bad thing I can say about The Amazing Spider-Man is that it’s way too long and a bit boring. Sadly, the best thing I can say about it is, “Hey, good work Columbia and Sony on doing the bare minimum to keep hold of those valuable Spidey film rights!”

It’s obvious that the movie was made with affection for and awareness of the character, and some effort has gone into it, into thinking about who Peter Parker is and what motivates him to become a hero, and for that we should be grateful, even if the studio’s motives for rebooting the series are a little shaky. What’s most egregious is the lack of life in the movie. For a character who is meant to be an expression of youthful exuberance, a way to release a young science geek’s inner confidence in the most obnoxious/lovable manner possible, this is a dour, slow movie that very rarely perks up. I do not relish the thought of watching it again.

It’s impossible to talk about Webb’s movie without comparing it to Sam Raimi’s incredibly successful trilogy. [2] Though generally thought of fondly, there are many dissenters (at least, in my Twitter timeline) who dislike Raimi’s Spider-Man series. If they think they were too goofy or too garish, this Spider-Man might be the version they have been waiting for. For the rest of us, this bleak movie runs counter to Raimi’s (and Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s) vision, a bright and sunlit New York patrolled by an exuberant, colourful wise-ass in contrast to Webb’s shadow-coated city and the out-of-place flash of red-and-blue who spends an age deciding to look after the citizens; almost as long as Hal Jordan in that goddamn Green Lantern movie, in fact.

Even fans of Raimi’s movies would admit that his Three-Stooges-inspired wackiness could get in the way — even before we get to that dancing scene in Spider-Man 3 there’s the “Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head” montage in 2 and the Power-Rangers-iness of the Green Goblin’s costume in the first movie — but that heightened comedic tone worked because the character is inherently ridiculous. Not just in the sense that the idea of a man with the powers of a spider is daft, but that he’s meant to be jokey and irreverent. Considering Marvel’s popular Ultimate Spider-Man series features a modernised version of the character, Brian Michael Bendis eschewed any foolish ideas about ejecting Webhead’s comedic persona, keeping him silly instead of adopting a modish personality change, all without reducing the comic’s dramatic heft in any way. Spidey is fun; Raimi remembered that. [3]

Which is not to say Webb is wrong or fit for censure for trying something new with the character, especially as the history of Spidey includes many dark periods that can inform the reader’s mental image of the character as much as the early years with Steve Ditko and John Romita Sr. Even then the comics still featured the deaths of beloved characters from time to time, most notably Gwen Stacy. However the general air of melancholy in Webb’s movie, and the first half in which Parker is basically a total dick, are horribly stodgy. [4]

Things pick up later in the movie with some heroics, wisecracks, and gravity-defying FX sequences, but liking Parker is really hard work — a necessary narrative move to power the late-movie  conversion to heroism, but a real slog to get through. It didn’t seem that hard when Raimi did it, and he still managed to create that powerful scene with Uncle Ben dying in Parker’s arms without abandoning the lighter tone. In fact the only thing that harks back to the tone of Raimi’s series comes near the end, when some citizens of New York rally around their hero and help him out, but it’s a trick that doesn’t have the same soaring effect as it did before. The laboured scene here is no match for the emotional aftermath of Spider-Man 2‘s train setpiece.

It doesn’t help that maintaining this down-to-earth tone is incompatible with the presence of an over-the-top villain. Just as Batman Begins‘ goal of breaking down its main character and rebuilding him in a more recognisably real world isn’t helped by adding a supervillain who uses a microwave weapon to activate a madness-generating gas, all of the effort put into grounding the Spider-Man mythos is damaged by introducing The Lizard and getting Rhys Ifans to intone every line with ALL THE DRAMA, like a parody of what a supervillain would sound like. While Garfield fills the screen with his quiet competence, Ifans tries very very hard and makes no impression at all.

Of course Dr. Curt Connors is meant to be a tragic figure undone by his own hubris, but even before that Ifans sounds like he’s doing a bad impersonation of a depressed Christopher Lee villain from a Hammer horror movie; portentous intonation and stony expressions, which later give way to cackling, speechifying, and convenient character-erasing insanity. His motivations are present and correct and yet mean nothing on an emotional level, mostly because The Lizard is a boring threat already, and a few gruff internal monologues to add direction where there was none isn’t satisfying. Connors wants to put an end to weakness, and luckily he has some handy weakness-destroying technology lying around, giving Spidey something to battle against in the finale.

Again, compare that to Willem Dafoe’s brilliant work as The Green Goblin. Dafoe played Osborn as a vain and foolish megalomaniac whose worst impulses are accentuated by magical sciencey things, but the motor for his evil — wounded pride and jealousy — is a richer motivation than Connors’ frustration over his weakness. It’s more of a leap for Connors — who seems decent enough, despite hints of past wrongdoing — to go from wanting to heal the sick to poisoning New York, than it is for the fundamentally flawed Osborn to go from wanting to control everything and wreak vengeance on the people who wronged him to wanting to control everything and wreak vengeance on the people who wronged him but this time using superpowers.

Dafoe also did a great job of shading his demented villainy with comic notes, a touch of pathos, and some wonderful physicality. Heartbreaking though it is that for the majority of the film he’s hidden behind that ridiculous mask, that voice, those movements, those funny little additions — the moment he melodramatically drinks the serum, smashes the vial, and then lets out a little complaint about the machine’s restraints being cold on his skin is utterly perfect – all of those things add up to something that transcends the suit. I’m already having difficulty remembering Ifans’ work in this movie and I only saw it four hours ago.

Andrew Garfield is a good enough actor that the decision to play him as sour and petulant for the first half of the movie and haunted but increasingly heroic in the second doesn’t obscure his work. It’s a direction I don’t much like, but within that framework Garfield is terrific, playing Peter Parker as an angry young man who accidentally finds his calling. And if that’s not enough for you, the script — credited to James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent (writer on the last two Spidey movies) and Steve Kloves — makes sure to stress that Parker’s character arc is his search for himself by having one character say to him, as he looks for a name badge, “ARE YOU HAVING TROUBLE FINDING YOURSELF ZOMG THEMATIC MOMENT?” and finishing the movie with a teacher saying the only plot that exists is, “Who am I?” GEDDIT?? [5]

Even better is Emma Stone, despite getting to do very very little. She pops up every so often to ineptly flirt with Peter (very charming), get into trouble, and even get in a bit of Lizard-bashing, but her primary function is to be the object of Peter’s desire. It says a lot for Stone’s performance that I missed her whenever she wasn’t onscreen, even if being there meant she would just be Supportive Girlfriend, but anything would have been better than more interminable scenes with Ifans booming his lines at the walls, or Irrfan Khan making vague references to Norman Osborn, or Peter forgetting to buy eggs. Denis Leary is a nice surprise; his Captain Stacy is more interesting than his daughter, and makes a lot of what little screentime he has. His final scene is one of the highlights, giving some emotional charge to what is otherwise a ruck on top of a building while a doohickey counts down.

But the main crime of the film is that it wasn’t diverting enough or competent enough to make me turn off the part of my brain that was noticing a million trivial little things that pissed me off. How many scenes with Peter letting down Uncle Ben and Aunt May do we need? [6] Was the scene with him finding his powers on the train added later in the shoot, because he seems to go through another big discovery scene right after it? How did he get into the car when the car thief he’s ambushing needed a big technological doohickey to unlock the door? Is Peter Parker going to find Rodrigo Guevara and apologise to him for ruining his life? How did Connors get all of that equipment down into his sewer lair when he is, by that point, basically going, “Wibble madness blurg” all the time? A removal service? If I move to New York, I’ll use those guys.

How blind is Peter that he doesn’t notice the enormous patch of green skin on Connors’ neck during a long and boring conversation? Why does his Spidey-Sense only work about half the time? Do the filmmakers think we’re dense when they keep dangling Peter off the side of buildings as a big scary threat moment when we all know that he can just stick to the windows? Is that the most anti-climactic mid-credit scene ever? Will James Horner’s insipid soundtrack ever shut up? Will future Blu-Ray versions of the movie airbrush in whoever they cast as Norman Osborn in the sequel, considering the lengths they go to to include him while conveniently obscuring his face? Didn’t Gwen object to Peter turning up at her house covered in shit at one point? And why does she even like him? They spend about 15 minutes together before they’re in love. Garfield and Stone make it seem to work through charm alone, but looking back I realise I didn’t really buy it at all, certainly not as much as I did Tobey Maguire’s desperate longing for Kirsten Dunst, and her slow realisation that she loved him all along.

And my God, didn’t someone at Oscorp think it was a bit weird that some guy was ordering tons of their biocable cartridges, which I doubt come cheap? And even if they didn’t pick up on this ordering anomaly, wasn’t someone in the NYPD a bit curious about where all of the webbing left around the city was coming from? There were all sorts of controversies about the organic webshooters in Raimi’s movie (I’ve already seen people rejoicing at the inclusion of mechanical webshooters) but at least it simplified things. Here it’s just one of the many elements introduced that has to be jammed into place, like the costume and the growing sense of heroism [7] and his father’s work and Norman Osborn and Gwen and her dad and a poorly-designed lizard thing and a million other things.

None of this is organic. It’s all just pushed into place, with no narrative momentum to carry it. Koepp’s script for Raimi’s Spider-Man has lovely flow, and part of that was because Peter had a friend and romantic rival in Harry Osborn, a man who loves him and resents him for recognisably human reasons. The threat from Norman/Goblin — and Peter’s need to do the right thing to honour Ben — jeopardises his relationships with his aunt, his best friend and the woman he loves. Norman targets them knowing he can hurt Peter, and their confrontation at the end is only possible because he knows he can hurt Spider-Man most by using the tension between his heroism and his love of Mary-Jane Watson against him. All of the character work ties together, each choice builds to a crescendo in the last act and makes emotional sense. The big showdown in the new movie is between Spidey and a guy with a canister of gas. Who cares? Only the use of Captain Stacy makes this work at all, and even then it’s a shadow of the moment on the Queensboro Bridge, or Spidey dropping Norman’s body off at his house, thus turning Harry against him. [8]

There’s even a misguidedly similar moment between Gwen and Peter and Raimi’s final scene with Peter turning Mary-Jane away, but while Raimi and Koepp make this a grandiose, tragic choice on Peter’s behalf, Webb and whoever wrote that scene fluff it by making Peter exasperatingly quiet on why he has made his choice, giving Gwen enough smarts to see through Peter’s silence (negating the point of his exasperating silence), making her go along with it without question (guess she doesn’t really care for him after all), and then having Peter maybe possibly change his mind at the end, who knows? The narrative simplicity of Raimi and Koepp’s movie is one of its greatest strengths; this just feels like a lot of clumsy storytelling to make a malfunctioning plot work. Spider-Man was a smooth ride. The Amazing Spider-Man stalls and stalls and stalls.

Remember, it’s not bad. It has moments to celebrate — Stan Lee’s hilarious cameo, good performances here and there, a lovely line or funny line-reading, some perfect visual iconography, especially in the customary “I’m swinging around the city like crazy” scene before the credits — but the overall impression is that Webb either didn’t have enough of a coherent vision of what he wanted to do with the character, or he did and the studio got in the way too much. At times his approach works; taken as an intimate movie about a tortured boy it works okay, and Webb has a feel for creating male protagonists who are miserable (see also Tom from 500 Days of Summer), but to do that he has to lose something else, and that thing might have been what makes Spider-Man appealing in the first place.

This is obviously going to be one that the fanboys argue over for a very long time. [9] By not being an out-and-out calamity, and also by being so low-key and kind of anonymous, The Amazing Spider-Man will have its defenders, and it will generate a fanbase and money and sequels. But without a strong authorial voice, or more primal iconography such as that upside-down kiss, the memory of it is already fading. Raimi may have alienated some fans with the force of his zany vision, but at least his movies were vibrant, odd, memorable, flashy, weird, stirring, exciting, funny, confident and memorable. This Spider-Man movie is just a semi-competent film about Spider-Man, and that’s not enough.

Update: This morning I had a long conversation with blogger and fellow John Carter enthusiast Bassim El-Wakil, which can be found here for the sake of openness. If you don’t want to look at it the point of contention was with my use of Raimi’s Spider-Man as a comparison point with Webb’s reboot, and that I shouldn’t have damned TASM for not doing what another movie did. I argued that my problem was not that Webb failed for not making the same movie or the same choices as Raimi, but as Bassim said, “If Webb makes choices for angst vs Raimi for exuberance, it’s fallacious to then say ‘It fails because it’s not as exuberant’”. My intention in comparing these movies was simply borne of convenience, and I didn’t intend to say that Webb’s movie was a failure because it wasn’t the same as Raimi’s, or to say that if he had done the specific things I noted that Raimi did right or approached the movie from the same direction as Raimi, he would automatically have made a better movie. I apologise if I gave that impression.

As I said during the conversation, there were a number of things I think Webb did wrong, and have tried to express that. The script, also, is a tangled knot, and comparing it to Koepp’s script was merely a way of sorting out my thoughts. I don’t wish to imply that TASM‘s script is a disappointment because it doesn’t do what that one specific script did right; it’s just handy to have that comparison point around, especially as I only just watched the first Spider-Man again and it was fresh in my mind. I could’ve compared TASM‘s script to any number of films, or just said this: The script just doesn’t do a good enough job of creating emotional links between some of the characters, which is frustrating when some of them — Peter and Ben, for instance — work fine. The relationship between Gwen and Peter seemed almost arbitrary, though perhaps that was simply because early reviews hinted at a greater focus on this relationship, in a Twilight-audience-placating way, and I didn’t really feel that.

But the question of tone seemed to become the main sticking point, and the point I tried to make, and hoped that I had, was that Raimi’s vision of the character was more consistent with the idea I have of Spider-Man, but also that there are different takes on Spider-Man even in the comics: see my point about Bendis’ Ultimate Spider-Man, and the two visual takes on Spider-Man during J. Michael Straczynski’s run on the character. My focus was more on the movie because I was talking about the movies, but Peter Parker, in the traditional version of the character, is a light character — compare him to, say, The Punisher, or Daredevil — who suffers terrible tragedy and copes with it by donning a bright blue and red costume and becoming a sassy, confident version of himself.

Within the run of the character he has suffered further tragedy, and with different writers/artists has had different tones (look at the Venom period, with the black costume), but primarily he’s a wisecracker in a slice of the Marvel Universe that’s not particularly dour. He has ups and downs, but those are against a cheerier backdrop that doesn’t hang oppressively over him the way it does for some characters (Batman is the most obvious instance of that). I happen to think Raimi depicts that very well, but let’s ignore that now. As Bassim said, and I didn’t clearly express, this Spider-Man does indeed crack wise. He sasses Flash Thompson early on, and has many jokey moments throughout the film. One throwaway line — while swinging through New York he yells at a cab driver, “Hey, I’m swinging here!” — made me laugh heartily. Some of the jokes are great. But tone alters the context within which the jokes are received, and while Peter tells jokes, within this interpretation of the character, those jokes come off as more aggressive, more rooted in anger and frustration, than usual.

Again, I will stress, Webb is within his rights to take the character down this path. However, this Spider-Man may lack something that made the character so popular, as I stressed within the review. The key scene, which made me realise I just didn’t really like this Spider-Man, was the showdown with the car thief. Some of it is very funny — the knife joke was great — but having Spidey go so far as to cover the thief’s mouth and nose with webbing while ascertaining if he is the man who killed Uncle Ben troubled me. I get that Spidey is mad at the guy, but it’s sadistic, and his jokes suddenly seem like taunts. I’m not saying Webb turned Spider-Man into a monster; he’s still Webhead! Yay! But the decision to paint the character with darker colours means everything comes off differently.

I’m not even sure it’s the thing I disliked most about the movie — a movie I didn’t actually hate, but think is hollow and inelegant — and it’s not like Webb turned Spidey into Spawn or Rorschach, but it is the thing that stuck in my mind, and informed my review the most. I think I did enough to express that what Webb did — independent of Raimi’s movie — is come at the character from a place that I think distorts him, and makes him less appealing. So what I’m saying is that Webb’s movie fails for many reasons, but also because exuberance — an exuberance not confined to Raimi’s movie, but is intrinsic to what Spidey is — has been replaced with angst, not because that’s not like a movie I once liked, but because humour coming from a place of angst and aggression comes off more as sniping and arrogance than it does the chirpy, irreverent mocking of a Spidey I find more entertaining. My error was in drawing a direct comparison to Raimi’s version when in fact this is a widely recognised take on our wall-crawling hero, but I stand by my opinion that once you put Spidey in a darker context, be it in The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3, or any number of comic versions, the guy comes off as kind of an aggressive jerk. And I don’t like aggressive jerks.

Return 1. Synopsis: It’s another origin story for Webhead, but this time with The Lizard. Actors: I really like Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. They are great. The history: this is pretty loyal to the well-known origin of Spidey, though despite its punishing length much of the canonical detail (look, a wrestling ring!) feels shoe-horned into a plot that’s mostly interesting in pointing out just how depressed Peter Parker is. How popular is Spidey? Very! This movie is already packing them in the countries in which it opened early, despite inspiring numerous shrugging reviews and barely any noticeable excitement. How about them Avengers? Oh man, I loved that movie. What about The Dark Knight Rises? This movie has a couple of weeks to make its money and then it’s over.

Return 2. Before you ask, yes, this is significantly better than the appalling Spider-Man 3; easily the worst movie Raimi has ever made, and one of the very worst superhero movies ever inflicted on the world. And not just because of the dancing and the Hitler hair-do either. Nothing in it works. Fuck that movie.

Return 3. Still, saying that, Raimi’s movies are sadder than a lot of people seem willing to admit. There’s a tragic element to all versions of Peter Parker; there has to be, with an origin that includes being made an orphan and being indirectly responsible for the death of the man who raised him. Nevertheless, Raimi is assured enough to let that darkness play in the corner, allowing Maguire to come into his own in the foreground. Webb, on the other hand, swamps the film in blackness, almost smothering his lead actor. As I say, that’s a valid interpretation. It’s just one I find less interesting.

Return 4. If Raimi’s movie has a visual equivalent in comics, it’s John Romita Jr.’s bright work on Spidey back when J. Michael Straczynski was writing about Spider Totems. Webb’s movie, on the other hand, looks more like Mike Deodato Jr.’s gloomy issues with all of that malarkey with Norman Osborn fathering two super-powered children with Gwen before she died; a true low point for the character, aesthetically and narratively.

Return 5. If I were to believe this, it means The Amazing Spider-Man 2: 2 Amazing 2 Spider is kinda screwed already because Parker finds himself the end thanks to some graffiti or something. The end.

Return 6. Martin Sheen is so goddamn lovable and noble as Uncle Ben that I’m now torn on which is my favourite interpretation. He’s crabbier than Cliff Robertson’s version but as Garfield’s Parker is so much brattier than Maguire’s enthusiastic doofus I was grateful that someone was willing to call him on his crap. Sadly Sally Field’s Aunt May makes much less of an impression than Rosemary Harris, who was so perfect in that role that she basically owns it forever.

Return 7. Gotta give a shout out to the movie’s best scene, with a panicky Spider-Man struggling to save a young boy from a burning car which is seconds away from plummeting into the Hudson river. Garfield brings his A-game to the scene, and — as regular readers will be sick of hearing me mention — if there’s one thing I love about superhero movies it is unapologetic heroics. I don’t watch superhero movies to see superpowered individuals getting into tussles with each other. It’s not the “super” I’m interested in, it’s the “hero”. Any affection I will have for The Amazing Spider-Man will be from this scene, and Peter’s subsequent adoption of the hero’s persona, as he realises Ben was right about the responsibility of the good person. And yes I cried at that scene get off my back just be glad I had an emotion during the movie that wasn’t annoyance!

Return 8. If it seems unfair that I keep comparing this movie to the previous origin story, I’m sorry. But it’s hard not to, considering how often it treads on the same territory. Unavoidable for an origin story, yes, but even when it looks like it’s going to skew away from the Raimi version, Webb’s version just moves back toward it with some new narrative (but not tonal) similarity. Compare that with the Nolan reboot, which came eight years after Batman and Robin (the gap between Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man is only five years). Again we see something colourful (in the hands of Joel Schumacher, at least) replaced with “realistic” and dark, but as the four Burton/Schumacher Batman movies never directly addressed Batman’s origins, Nolan’s use of the same iconography didn’t seem as familiar, especially as he also brought in Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows; something very unfamiliar for many audiences. Webb, on the other hand, is at times replicating beats the audience knows all too well. Much as I watched this new movie in the spirit of it being a clean break from Raimi’s movies, coming home and writing about it just made me want to write about how much I liked Raimi’s first two movies, and why I thought they worked so well; not just as an interpretation of a certain superhero, but also as well-plotted character dramas with strong emotional cores. Raimi (and Koepp and Sargent) gets a lot right that I think Webb (and Vanderbilt, Sargent and Kloves) got wrong, and it’s worth putting the two approaches together for comparison. If that makes me seem like someone who walked into The Amazing Spider-Man determined to hate it for not being Raimi’s , I can only assure you, dear reader, that this was not the case. I really hoped this would be a new franchise that I could love. Maybe the sequel will be good enough to silence my doubts.

Return 9. If I were to compare The Amazing Spider-Man to anything in terms of quality it would be last year’s X-Men: First Class (which I wrote about here); another franchise reboot that contained the germ of a good movie but squandered it by hiding a simple story under too many ideas, too many characters, and a divisive tonal choice.

Listmania ‘09! The Best Movies Of The Year

For the longest time it seemed like 2009 would be a truly dreadful year in film, perhaps as a consequence of the writers’ strike last year. By the end of it I felt like we’d had a pretty good run, once the summer was over. The early months were a desert with only Coraline making a dent in my memory, but by the time December rolled around with the release of Avatar, it felt like a more rounded experience. Even better, though we had a few horribly delayed releases (such as Up, which was disgracefully held back from UK release for six months), there are only a few movies that have yet to be released over here that have attracted our attention, and even then we’re not that bothered. The most frustrating omissions were our own fault. Jane Campion’s Bright Star came and went so quickly we missed out on seeing it, as did Lone Scherfig’s An Education. Sherlock Holmes came out this week but illness and schedule clashes mean we will be seeing it in 2010. It’s frustrating, but compared to last year’s maddening delays in seeing Rachel Getting Married and Synecdoche, New York, it’s nowhere near as bad.

So anyway, here are my top 25 movies of 2009, in order. Hopefully soon I will get to post my bottom 25. It was depressingly easy to complete that list.

Best Movies of the Year:

25. Adventureland

Greg Mottola’s coming-of-age story is good enough to make me forgive it for being a coming-of-age story (a sub-genre I have little time for). Sensitive performances and a perfectly judged tone set it apart, and I expect second and third viewings will cement it as a favourite in the future.

24. A Christmas Carol

Though Charles Dickens’ novel suffers from being adapted too many times, this version was loyal enough to the source material to stand above the rest. Robert Zemeckis cleverly used his performance capture technology to create a world that looks like a living painting, and — for the most part — his thoughtful direction and stately command of pace are refreshingly old-fashioned.

23. Red Cliff: Part Two

A crushing disappointment after the genius of the first installment, John Woo’s epic finale to the Three Kingdoms story was hobbled by tedious subplots about the horrors of war, as well as an unsatisfying final confrontation with evil Prime Minister Cao Cao. Still, there were enough superb moments to save it, including an enormous conflagration, hardcore badassery from the heroes, and entertaining cunning from Zhuge Liang.

22. White Material

Working as a comment on racial identity, colonialism, and the guilt that attends it, Claire Denis’ movie is a fascinating and thought-provoking experience. It also serves as a fantastic thriller, with its air of imminent collapse building to a nerve-wracking conclusion. Isabelle Huppert is mesmerising as the plantation owner who dooms all around her with her arrogance.

21. Zombieland

While vampires became a singularly obnoxious cinematic plague, zombies went from flavour-of-the-month to pariahs. Nevertheless, Ruben Fleischer’s apocalyptic comedy was a delightful surprise, perfectly cast and thoroughly entertaining. It also featured the cameo appearance of the year, and one best left unspoiled.

20. The Brothers Bloom

For a few minutes Rian Johnson’s con-trick drama seems like a precious and finicky conglomeration of obnoxious post-Anderson tricks and tics, but thankfully it becomes a warm and humane antidote to David Mamet’s cerebral dominance of the sub-genre. The key to its appeal is an endearing central performance from Rachel Weisz, whose enthusiastic embrace of the brothers’ tricksiness grounds the film even while the plot spirals off in unexpected directions and Johnson’s camera flies around with such exuberant unpredictability. Despite faltering slightly in the final act, its ambition and seriousness of purpose were a resounding success.

19. A Serious Man

The Coens excel at taking on unorthodox projects and surprising their fans, but they also rely on a set of narrative tricks that repeat from movie to movie. A Serious Man was no different, with their familiar exploration of our cosmic insignificance coming into play again. Nevertheless, here their tricks felt fresh again, matched as they were to a plot revolving around morality and heavenly punishment. Casting unknown actors was possibly the masterstroke: it certainly made the movie feel like nothing else out there. It ranks as their most entertaining and most challenging film since The Big Lebowski.

18. Ponyo on a Cliff by the Sea

Remarkable to think that Hayao Miyazaki is capable of making movies even lighter and more whimsical than anything he has previously offered us. At times Ponyo can feel too fluffy, and longueurs plague the second half of the film, but these minor errors are easily forgiven in the rush of incredible images. Ponyo’s mid-movie escape from the clutches of her misguided father is among the most visionary and exhilarating setpieces of recent times, aided by the Wagnerian stings of Joe Hisaishi’s beautiful score.

17. Coraline

Henry Selick’s stunning adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s book is a feast for the eyes, as technically impressive as anything committed to film this year by Digital Domain, ILM or BUF. It’s also one of the scariest films of the year, one of those rare childrens’ movies that is unafraid to terrify its audience. Some of the imagery lingers in the memory with the upsetting persistence of the worst nightmares. Also great was the delicate use of Digital 3D. In the year of Avatar, it’s worth remembering that Selick and his team figured out how to use the technology to subtly enhance the viewing experience before anyone else.

16. The Hurt Locker

By the midpoint of 2009, it honestly felt as if the writers’ strike of 2008 had left us in the middle of a drought. Nothing truly exceptional had been released, and so when Kathryn Bigelow’s superb war thriller came out it was leapt upon as if it were a fusion of Paths of Glory and Apocalypse Now. Third act problems drain some of the energy from it, but even so, no other movie about the Iraq war has done so much to capture the futile stupidity of it, nor made such a pointed comment about the deranging effect it has had on our psyche. That it is also a nerve-wracking thriller is a welcome bonus.

15. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans

Expectations for Werner Herzog’s crime thriller were low, with only those few of us who revel in the unpredictability of Nicolas Cage holding out any hope. Thankfully Herzog surprised everyone with this demented triumph. Though it could have been turned into a conventional tale of depravity and redemption, Herzog, Cage, and writer William Finkelstein have little interest in following a traditional path, sketching all kinds of entertaining madness in the margins. It helps that Cage was let off the leash. His intense level of commitment to the project is the key to Bad Lieutenant: POCNO‘s success. Welcome back, you mad bastard.

14. Drag Me To Hell

While Sam Raimi’s gleeful homage to EC Comics-style moralising concerned one young woman’s efforts to avoid being sent to hell, this felt like Raimi had escaped from the kind of big-budget purgatory that he had once railed against. Though still obviously made with more money than he had once had at his disposal, Drag Me To Hell was a return to Raimi’s anything-goes ethos. No other movie made this year tried so hard to generate a response in the audience, and it was almost entirely successful. A regression for the genre, maybe, but an incredibly entertaining one.

13. Where The Wild Things Are

It looked like we would never get to see Spike Jonze’s unconventional adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s book. When it finally arrived, critical and popular opinion seemed to split right down the middle. Post-release discussion seemed to focus on subjective accounts of how the movie resurrected very specific memories of childhood, with those who were unmoved by the movie stating that it just didn’t speak to them personally. The vision of Jonze and Dave Eggers is certainly gloomy, repetitive, unfocused and pretty unappealing, but I cannot lie: early scenes brought back horrible memories from my youth, and the unflinching depiction of Max’s confused rage rocked me to my core.

12. District 9

Viewed as an allegory about apartheid-era South Africa, Neill Blomkamp’s low-budget SF action film gets tangled up in clumsy metaphorical dead-ends and ill-judged racial stereotyping that blunts the message. Seen as a misanthropic denunciation of venality across all races and species, it becomes far more palatable. Blomkamp’s exciting and imaginative tale takes the audience down unexpected paths, skillfully building to a finale of surprising emotional resonance. I won’t lie: the final sacrifice of one character made me sob.

11. Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs

The most pleasant surprise of 2009. Clone High creators Phil Lord and Chris Miller did the same as Spike Jonze — take a beloved but slight children’s book and adapt it into a new format with a drastic change of tone — but veered off in a different direction. Perhaps Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs accomplished less than Where The Wild Things Are in terms of illuminating the mental turmoil of childhood, but while it “merely” sets out to entertain, it did that with amazing success. Gleefully irreverent, pro-nerd, and willing to poke fun at every awful convention of lazy cookie-cutter filmmaking, it is also arguably the funniest comedy of the year.

10. Up

It’s tempting to leave Up off the list as punishment for manipulating adult audiences into crying miserable tears of mourning for an adorable animated couple and, by extension, ourselves. Nothing else this year moved us as much as that magnificently rendered and utterly devastating opening montage. The level of storytelling talent on display was humbling. The rest of the movie was wonderful too, building on that resonant set-up to deliver a winning adventure, featuring the funniest animal characters of the year. An emotionally exhausting film, but a life-affirming one.

9. Fish Tank

Avoiding the tawdry cultural voyeurism of the works of overrated ghouls such as Mike Leigh or Lee Daniels is the least of Fish Tank‘s many achievements, though one we can be most grateful for. It is also a compelling exploration of youth culture as seen through the eyes of a confused child on the cusp of adulthood. Katie Jarvis’ Mia is a fascinating and sympathetic character, aware that she is trapped in a life that offers her nothing, but eager to escape with her dignity intact. Unfortunately, she’s incapable of avoiding making some terrible mistakes along the way. It also has the grip of a thriller, cleverly changing tone in the final act without sacrificing believability. Yet another classic from Andrea Arnold.

8. Public Enemies

It’s possible to reduce Michael Mann’s adaptation of Bryan Burrough’s exploration of the 1930′s crimewave to just a period retelling of Heat, with Johnny Depp’s Dillinger and Christian Bale’s Melvin Purvis as dapper versions of McCauley and Hanna, but that would miss out on his deft commentary on the narcissism of these criminals and how new technologies increased popular fascination with the outlaw. Mann marks the moment where demand for titillation grew to the extent that public attention began to fuel the events that it demanded, and this fine, exciting crime thriller ends on a memorable moment where popular culture begins to eat itself.

7. Antichrist

Lars Von Trier has finally appeared to let his obnoxious mask of superiority drop long enough to tell a tale informed by his recent nervous breakdown, and the result is one of the most affecting and disturbing horror films of recent times. Conjuring an atmosphere of dread even more upsetting than anything that master of mood Hideo Nakata could create, Von Trier pits man against woman, and humanity against nature. No one wins, except anyone brave enough to endure this remarkable and starkly beautiful nightmare vision of a world — and a grief-stricken mother — gone mad.

6. Fantastic Mr. Fox

How bold of Wes Anderson to take the work of a respected author and bolt his own style of preppy, fussy humour onto it, and your acceptance of this depends fully on your acceptance of his shtick. To those of us in love with that viewpoint — and that obsessive attention to amusing detail — Fantastic Mr. Fox was yet another success, playing with the same themes of redemption and forgiveness as his previous movies while being just as sassy and fleet-of-foot as his non-animated work. It also works as a satire on the habitual anthropomorphism of the usual animated fare, with these characters being both more human and more bestial than anything populating the movies of Disney and Dreamworks.

5. A Prophet

No matter how much Jacques Audiard maintains he was not making a political statement with this movie, his rousing prison thriller proved to be as multi-layered as the best crime movies of recent times. Malik El Djebena’s growth from callow youth to crime kingpin is fascinating and weirdly inspirational, while the world he lives in is filled with detail about identity politics, French correctional failings, and racial tensions in Europe. It’s also nail-biting, beautifully judged, and performed to perfection.

4. Avatar

While armchair critics fall over themselves to dismiss this movie for being too predictable  – a criticism that is being applied with more force than with any other movie released this year – the story is told with enough energy to forgive its clunkiness. James Cameron has always been a master with pace, and here he succeeds in manipulating the audience with a magician’s touch, delivering a groundbreaking visual tour de force into the bargain. Viewing it in Digital 3D IMAX is an unforgettable and thrilling experience.

3. Enter The Void

What James Cameron aimed to do in 3D, Gaspar Noé managed in 2D just months before. His tale of one man’s journey through death is the joint most immersive movie experience of the year, a terrifying and exhilarating cinematic experiment of enormous emotional power, and a technical marvel to boot. Any reservations about its pacing problems are swept away as Noé brings an obsessive rigour to his visual template: a first-person viewpoint that doesn’t falter at any point. That this brave experiment still has no distributor is criminal. If it ever becomes the Midnight Movie phenomenon it deserves to be, make every effort to see it on the biggest screen possible.

2. In The Loop

Armando Iannucci and the Thick of It gang brought their wonderful TV show to the big screen in style, expanding its scope to include the bureaucrats and fools of America, complete with the same venality, paranoia, and incompetence. Funnier even than the original series, it was also densely plotted but lighter than air: a feat of screenwriting to match that of Martin McDonagh with In Bruges last year. None of that would matter if the new cast members were not as talented as the original crew, but the US contingent adapts to the semi-improvisational style with aplomb. A triumph that rewards repeated viewings.

1. Inglourious Basterds

More than any other movie made this year, Inglourious Basterds surprised us all with its piercing intelligence, seriousness of purpose, and deft gameplaying, all of which are applied to an emotionally complex revenge plot that confounds the viewer at every turn. Much has been made of Tarantino’s effort to make a movie in which cinema has the last laugh and reality is forced to bow to its power, but less has been said about his continued facility with character. To the immaculate roll-call that includes Jules Winnfield, Vincent Vega, Jackie Brown, Mr. White, The Bride and Stuntman Mike can be added Shosanna Dreyfus and Hans Landa, the most compelling and haunting characters of the year. Tarantino has every right to be proud of this movie: it is, quite simply, his masterpiece.

Best Documentary: Soul Power

Considered as a sister project to Leon Gast’s When We Were Kings, Jeffrey Levy-Hinte’s documentary about the music festival that ran alongside the Rumble in the Jungle offers up yet more fascinating footage of Muhammad Ali in his prime, sparring with mouthy opportunists and talking about the potential impact of the forthcoming event. It also shows how the festival almost sinks under a tide of ego and bureaucracy. The worst thing that can be said about the movie is that it doesn’t show enough of the festival itself, but even then you still get to see thrilling performances by The Spinners, BB King, Miriam Makeba, and James Brown at the height of his powers. Stingy though the amount of concert footage is, it’s still some of the best music you will ever hear.

Most Embarrassing Admission of the Year: Okay, Soul Power was actually the only documentary I saw this year. Nevertheless, don’t let that put you off seeing it. Even if I’d seen a dozen documentaries this year, I doubt any of them would have been as fun or fulfilling as that one.

No time to dally with small talk: on with the listmaking! More to come when I get the time…

Summer Movies Poll: Readers Choice Bonanza

Many moons ago I asked readers to cast their votes for best and worst movies of the summer season circa 2009. First: Best.

  • Eric Bana Is: An Especially Tetchy Romulan – 7 (25%)
  • Quentin Tarantino Presents: Quentin Tarantino’s Masterpiece - 7 (25%)
  • Christopher Johnson and Wikus Van Der Merwe’s Excellent Adventure – 4 (14%)
  • That’s No Moon; It’s Hott Sam Rockwell’s Talent! – 3 (11%)
  • Pixar’s The Bucket List – 4 (14%)
  • Cover Me With Drool, Drop An Anvil On Me, Then Drag Me To Hell – 2 (7%)
  • G.I. Joe: STOP THE NANOMITES, JOES! – 1 (4%)
  • Hangover: (n. painful & unamusing experience) – 0 (0%)
  • Publicity Hungry Enemies (Now In Grainy-o-Vision) – 0 (0%)
  • When Anti-Matter Met The Vatican – 0 (0%)
  • STREEP, TUCCI & LYNCH vs. a Blogger and her Annoying Husband – 0 (0%)
  • Night at the Museum: Sound, Fury, & Nothing – 0 (0%)
  • Futile and Fatuous – 0 (0%)
  • Dad! My Guinea Pig Sounds Like Tracy Morgan! – 0 (0%)
  • The Shaking [Cameras] of Pelham 123 – 0 (0%)
  • Klansformers: Revenge of the Fratboy – 0 (0%)
  • X-Men Franchise Sabotage: WTFverine – 0 (0%)
  • Eric Bana Is: An Absentee Time-Travelling Husband – 0 (0%)
  • The Ugly Truth Is That Katherine Heigl Is Not Charming – 0 (0%)
  • Terminator 4: When Third Acts Collapse – 0 (0%)
  • Harry Potter And The Toenail of Effervescence – 0 (0%)
  • Eric Bana Is: An Endearing Aussie Cuckold – 0 (0%)
  • Final Destination: We’re Trying To Get Inside Your Eyeballs – 0 (0%)
  • Zooey Hall – 0 (0%)
  • Oh Will Ferrell. A TV Show Remake? We Want Anchorman 2 KTHXBAI – 0 (0%)

The number of high votes for Star Trek are no surprise at all. People have been calling for a light, fun movie with some substance during summer for years now, and Star Trek‘s blindingly bright visuals and hectic tone hit the spot, disregarding the fact that all of the fun surrounds the genocide of several billion Vulcans in the middle of the film. Yay summer movies! I’m a little more surprised that Inglourious Basterds (or, as the TV spots would have us believe, Inglourious!) got that many votes. Not because it doesn’t deserve them: more because many who liked it only seemed to just about like it, not love it with a passion. Perhaps there are more of us out there who think it’s a flat-out masterpiece and one of the greatest movies of the decade. Did the former camp vote for it because they thought “good enough” made it better than everything else on the list?

It was a great summer for genre fans, with the release of two audacious low-budget SF movies that were good enough and popular enough to stop nerds complaining about the success of less intellectually ambitious mainstream SF movies like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and — later in the year — Avatar. Ha ha! Only kidding. Nerds will never stop being mad about mainstream filmmakers making money off their beloved genres. For a while there it felt like the only reason Moon and District 9 were being praised by nerds was that they were not Michael Bay movies, and indeed Duncan Jones’ film was the anti-thesis of big budget pyro-movies. The rush to praise them for what they were not meant it took a while for anyone to spot that there were problems with both of them. Moon‘s considered pace was refreshing, but at times faltered on the wrong side of slow, and it was perhaps not as surprising as it thought it was. District 9‘s problems were more glaring: the sub-plot about how Nigerian gangs dabbled in prostitution and cannibalism was horribly ill-judged. I could see where Neill Blomkamp was going with it — i.e. painting a picture of all of humanity as a broken, venal species with no compassion to spare — but by explicitly stating it was Nigerian gangs running the show in District 9, that bleak message of living creatures as selfish and brutal became unpleasantly specific.

That said, despite those flaws, both movies were terrific, and I would never argue that those flaws overshadowed the things Jones and Blomkamp got right. Moon was a lot of fun even just to look at, with those Gerry-Anderson-esque production designs and lo-tech FX. It also featured possibly the best performance of the year, with Hott Sam Rockwell giving what might be his best work ever. For that alone, I’ll be eternally grateful Jones took us on his genial ride. District 9 risked more, caused me more agita over its racial politics, but in the end thrilled me far more. With all of humanity — and Prawndom — portrayed as singularly awful, the whole movie boils down to a single act of sacrifice. The final action scene of District 9 was powerful enough to overshadow my concerns over Blomkamp’s tone-deaf error, and even managed to make me cry, completely catching me by surprise. All of that despite sitting next to the most inconsiderate woman in film-going history, who spent the entire movie narrating the onscreen events to her annoyed boyfriend, and then got pissy with me when I asked her to be quiet an hour in. The kind of behaviour that makes me wonder why I bother going to the cinema.

The other three movies gaining votes were Up (a movie I didn’t care for on first viewing due to terrible projection in a crappy NJ cinema, but loved when seen in IMAX), Drag Me To Hell (Sam Raimi’s delirious instant horror classic), and G.I. Joe: Road To Nowhere. Seeing that get a vote made my soul cry. Still, it got another vote, in the Worst Summer Movie List, as seen below:

  • Klansformers: Revenge of the Fratboy – 7 (30%)
  • X-Men Franchise Sabotage: WTFverine – 6 (26%)
  • The Ugly Truth Is That Katherine Heigl Is Not Charming – 4 (17%)
  • When Anti-Matter Met The Vatican – 2 (9%)
  • G.I. Joe: STOP THE NANOMITES, JOES! – 1 (4% )
  • Publicity Hungry Enemies (Now In Grainy-o-Vision) - 1 (4%)
  • Hangover: (n. painful & unamusing experience) - 1 (4%)
  • Dad! My Guinea Pig Sounds Like Tracy Morgan! – 1 (4%)

The rest of the movies on the list got no votes, so let’s just move on. It doesn’t surprise me that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen topped this list. It had been treated like a soiled nappy long before it was even released, and though I wasn’t crazy about it, I certainly didn’t hate it either. If people really hate it that much, more power to them (and certainly whenever I think about those fucking racial-stereotype-bots I feel like putting it at the top of this list as well), but I suspect a lot of Internet commenters who rail against it just haven’t seen enough bad movies this year. Of course, if that’s the case, they’re lucky. We’ve seen so many shitty movies this year that T:ROTF doesn’t even get on our bottom twenty list, let alone bottom ten.

It certainly doesn’t beat out X-Men Origins: Wolverine as worst movie of the summer. Who’s to blame for that farrago? I’m willing to let director Gavin Hood off the hook, as his work was so often compromised by Fox executive Tom “Nerd-Sauron” Rothman. He has long interfered in the making of Fox’s slate of superhero movies and been rewarded with high box office grosses despite the shitty quality of those films. X-Men Origins was the worst yet. David Benioff and Skip Woods’ script was impossibly bad. Could there be a draft of it that wasn’t a morass of cliches and tired jokes? Did there ever exist a single line given to Sabretooth that wouldn’t make me risk breaking bones through convulsive super-cringing? Compared to this disaster, T:ROTF was a source of almost endless delight. I truly wish it killed off the X-Men movie franchise, because now it has made money we’re looking at yet more soulless, brainless movies soiling our memories of those fantastic original stories.

I also have no problem with the simply appalling Ugly Truth getting some votes, and would like to think that my renaming of it helped. Gerard Butler is not very good in that film, but he’s Rudolph Valentino compared to Katherine Heigl. Her appeal is completely alien to me. Spiky, charmless, and unable to sell even the most basic of jokes, her continued success is a mystery. I know Grey’s Anatomy is very popular, but even if every fan of that show traipsed out to the cinema to catch the latest Heigl movie, would that account for the high box office The Ugly Truth managed? (We’re talking a worldwide gross of $203m on a budget of $38m.) Rail against the success of T:ROTF all you like, but that did everything it could to attract and entertain a certain sub-section of the audience (i.e. fans of BIG). The Ugly Truth did the bare minimum to get the job done and is technically far more profitable. Yay for cheaper movies, but boo for movies that are crafted with such lazy indifference towards their audiences, that said nothing about gender politics, that think a lumbering joke about vibrating panties was classifiable as entertainment.

What else got votes? Two for Angels and Demons, which was a passable enough thriller, and was certainly more entertaining than the flat-as-Holland Da Vinci Code. I can’t get angry with it, even when it was being very silly (i.e. for much of its length). A vote for The Hangover, which ranks alongside Up In The Air as most overrated movie of the year. The one thing I liked about it — that it is a comedy with a well-developed script and fascinating initial premise — meant nothing when the jokes were so lazy and the characters so unappealing (other than Zach Galafianakis’ Alan Garner, who was a delight). Watching Graham Linehan rail against it on Twitter during the summer made me feel a lot less alone. After that we get a vote for G.I. Joe, a movie I did not like at all, and single votes for Public Enemies and G-Force, both of which I liked to varying degrees.

Thanks to everyone who voted. What now? No poll for a bit (I usually add polls after the Oscar nominations are announced), but more lists. Been working on the damn things all year.

The Top One Hundred and Six Movies of the Oughts (75-61)

As I said before, I realised after posting the first installment of this list that I had missed off some films, and decided to pay homage to those movies in the intros. I’m annoyed at not including Christopher McQuarrie’s Way of the Gun as it’s a very impressive directorial debut that vanished after release and is only now starting to attract any attention years later.

Not enough attention, though. If you’ve not seen it and feel like watching a really uncompromising crime thriller that occupies a middle ground between Walter Hill’s  Johnny Handsome and Sam Peckinpah’s Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia, then this is the movie for you. Benicio Del Toro and Ryan Phillippe play two scumbag criminals who kidnap a pregnant woman and end up bringing down a world of pain on themselves. It’s a gratifyingly dark movie, one of those movies made with the input of some well trained combat veterans (like Mamet’s Spartan and Michael Mann’s Heat) which is reflected in some tight and well-thought-out setpieces. It also features some superbly choreographed gunfights and one of the best opening scenes of the decade. I like this movie well enough to really regret missing it out, but if I were to include it now I would have to remove another movie from the list and I can’t really do that. If I were doing it over again, Way of the Gun would be definitely be included, and quite high up too.

Okay, remember the rules. Nothing from 2009 because blah blah and yes, some movies are a little lower than you would expect but I only saw them once and don’t feel familiar enough with them to assess them correctly, so I’m going with first impressions. Got that? Good.

75. Red Road

The feature debut of Andrea Arnold is one of the smartest thrillers to come out of Britain in decades. A sly commentary on the UK’s obsession with CCTV as well as being a gripping tale of revenge, the movie comes into its own with a surprising redemptive finale. Kudos also to Kate Dickie, who plays haunted protagonist Jackie with equal parts sensitivity and menace.

74. Speed Racer

Widely loathed by audiences and critics everywhere, the Wachowski’s put their reputations on the line with the boldest cross-format adaptation ever. Making the visual conventions and storytelling shortcuts of anime into vividly coloured flesh, Speed Racer offers the most consistently mindblowing visual assault of recent times, while the enthusiastic cast provide the heart. A pure triumph. Shut it, haters.

73. Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

It might be an impossibility to make a starring vehicle for John C. Reilly — complete with songs — that could fail. Certainly this was not a financial success, but in time a cult will gather around Jake Kasdan and Judd Apatow’s faux-biopic, and it will get its due for its perfect use of the genre’s conventions against itself. (Check out John Michael Higgins’ expression at 3:02. Genius.)

72. A Scanner Darkly

Perhaps the definitive Philip K. Dick adaptation, perfectly capturing his absurdist prose and paranoid, reality-denying worldview. Richard Linklater found the ideal vehicle for the unworldly rotoscoping animation that Bob Sabiston utilised so brilliantly in the also-impressive Waking Life (another contender for this list). Perfectly cast and beautifully animated, A Scanner Darkly humanises Dick’s abstract musings, something that his other interpreters have struggled with.

71. Spirited Away

Hayao Miyazaki’s hallucinatory childrens’ tale has the nightmarish morality lessons of Disney’s Pinocchio, and the matter-of-fact oddness of Lewis Carroll. By turning the real world upside down and creating a dreamland governed by rules and laws that have only a distorted relation to our own, Miyazaki has created a hazy fable for the ages.

70. The Wrestler

For much of its running time Darren Aronofsky’s adaptation of Robert D. Siegel’s tight screenplay looks like a standard comeback tale, but by the end we see what it really is: a tragedy about a man whose inability to adapt to the world around him dooms him. The final image is heartbreaking, iconic, and unforgettable. It also features what might be the comeback performance of the decade from a never-better Mickey Rourke.

69. Sideways

Alexander Payne’s delicate tale of friendship took critics by storm but in the most memorable Academy Award snub in recent memory, Paul Giamatti’s performance was not even nominated for an honour. For shame. His depiction of a man attempting to fend off the pain of life through booze and defensive snobbery is heartbreaking, his redemption quiet but moving.

68. Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence

One of the most underrated SF movies of the decade, Mamoru Oshii’s meditation on transhumanity may have fewer wow moments than his original adaptation of Shirow Masamune’s manga, but it follows the same themes into deeper holes. It’s easy to get happily lost in them.

67. Spider

Funding problems almost shut production down on this adaptation of Patrick McGrath’s novel, but it made it to cinemas, to an indifferent audience. Ralph Fiennes gives the performance of a lifetime in an exaggerated nightmare world of poverty, insanity, murder and grime. Cronenberg’s emotionally claustrophobic vision lingers long after the credits roll.

66. Iron Man

Possibly the most ambitious film project since Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, Marvel Studios’ attempt to create a complete onscreen universe a la the 616 got off to a terrific start last year. The Incredible Hulk was fun, but Iron Man was a near-total success. Light, exciting, and endlessly entertaining, it also propelled Robert Downey Jr. to the superstardom he has always deserved.

65. The King of Kong

Forget superhero movies. One of the decades greatest showdowns was between gaming enthusiasts Billy Mitchell and Steve Weibe. The roles of hero and villain were delineated so completely that Seth Gordon didn’t even need to meddle with the events through editing. We instantly knew who to root for, and who to hiss. I’d feel sorry for Billy Mitchell after news leaked of booing and hissing during convention screenings, but I don’t think he cares. He’s very successful, after all.

64. Spider-Man 2

Sam Raimi made a great origin film for Spidey, and then built upon that success to deliver a crowd-pleasing action epic, skillfully constructed for maximum emotional impact. For such a hectic film, praise is due to Raimi for making the quiet character revelations as memorable as the incredible setpieces. And when I say incredible setpieces, I’m thinking of the best superhero/supervillain fight yet committed to film:

63. Lantana

Ray Lawrence again, adapting Andrew Bovell’s play about the emotional turmoil affecting a policeman and the people around him. I’m ashamed to admit that my favourite part of this unmissable movie is not the sensitive direction, the thought-provoking screenplay, or the uniformly brilliant performances, but that Anthony LaPaglia’s character is called Leon Zat. What a name.

62. Redbelt

David Mamet’s best work is often about men and their self-aggrandising hostility towards each other. That gruffness is greatly softened here by the casting of Chiwetel Ejiofor as Mike Terry, a man whose reflective stillness and sense of honour sets him apart. Mamet expertly tightens the screws on his hero until he explodes with righteous fury in a finale of enormous emotional power.

61. Lost in Translation

After the inevitable backlash against Sofia Coppola’s semi-autobiographical tale of connection in a strange land, it’s easy to forget everything that made it work so well. It occupies a kind of netherworld between comedy and tragedy, reality and movie exaggeration, at once dreamlike and bluntly mundane. And oh my, that glorious soundtrack…

Ah, that worked out a lot better. WordPress worked fine. It was just Microsoft and their insistent Windows updates that nearly ruined it all. More tomorrow…

What Now For Horror?

For the first time in a long while, Halloween was a real event at Shades of Caruso HQ. Sure, we’ve had pumpkins and decorations before, which were fun, and absolutely no Trick-or-Treaters, which was even better, but this year I was hit with the sense that the day was imbued with some kind of unholy significance, far more so than usual. A pumpkin was carved…

pumpkin4

…and horror movies were watched. Twitter greatly helped. Scary videos, photos of costumes, and blog articles celebrating Samhain were linked to, creating a real sense of event. Twitter does a few things really well, and being a sort of mini-aggregator of topical observations and relevant information is top of that list. It really tied the night together.

The one thing that let the whole experience down were the movies we decided to watch, which were either thoroughly awful or distractingly inconsistent. The best of them was the insane mega-hit Paranormal Activity, which has become the most profitable movie of all time after grossing $85m on a $15000 budget. It’s a terribly flawed movie, filled with banal dialogue and repetitive arguments, not to mention tortuous plot contrivances that keep the conceit floating. Some of the best moments are punctured by the behaviour of Micah, whose defiantly obnoxious confidence — a plot requisite, sadly — doesn’t sit well with the really quite terrifying events surrounding him. Special mention here to the amusement he greets an EVP recording of his girlfriend’s demon. As someone who has long been utterly terrified of the sound of unearthly events captured on tape (this book fucked me up as a kid), the moment should have been chilling, but having this doofy jerkbag giggling and goading the demon on ruined the moment.

paranormalactivity

And yet, and yet… Let’s just say that there are several moments in the film that gave me the fear, and one in particular nearly made me give up on the film entirely, it was so scary. Writer-director Oren Peli has hit on a magic formula that is effective and durable enough to survive the distracting necessities of the plot mechanics that hobble the movie, with help from committed performers Katie Featherston (this year’s Scream Queen for sure) and Micah Sloat. Who cares about the contrivance, or the unpleasant behaviour of Micah, or the late-movie YouTube exorcism silliness that complicates the hair-thin plot? None of that matters. When Micah’s camera switches on at night, and the creaking starts, you forget every annoying thing that you had to go through to get there, and you instantly put yourself in their position. You’re going to be asleep later, and you’re going to be unaware of what’s going on. The scares in the movie — manifested with absolute mastery of the craft — are one thing. What makes the movie so terrifying is knowing that you are going to bed later. It’s impossible not to imagine yourself in the same situation, and that’s the scariest thing of all.

Luckily for my sanity, the resolution of the film is more mundane than the build-up, which blunted the effect of the film. For most of the running time we can’t understand the motives of the demon haunting Katie. Terrorising her from childhood is one thing, and the thought that Katie will never be able to escape her psychic torture is more upsetting than the actual resolution, but as this is a movie with a finite running time, we have to have a resolution. I’m not sure what Peli could have done to fix this problem, and the fact that the movie has three different endings suggests he wasn’t sure either. A disappointment, then, but a disappointment that touches greatness at times, and lingers in the mind far longer than you would like.

katiefeatherston

Though Paranormal Activity invites comparison with 1999′s The Blair Witch Project, it’s still very much of its time. When considered alongside Matt Reeves’ Cloverfield and Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza’s magnificent [Rec], this kind of faux-subjective horror — with the line between onscreen participant and viewer blurred — has become one of the most significant innovations in horror cinema of the past twenty years, and has surprisingly been used rarely enough to still feel fresh. Certainly, though the genre seemed to be in a rut during that period, Blair Witch and [Rec] are two of the most effective horror movies around, arguably more so than almost all others, and have revitalised the traditional horror sub-genres (ghost story, zombie movie, monster attack).

That’s not to say the genre has been completely moribund. The other horror movies that have stood out – certainly in my view — are partially most effective for playing off real-world fears that have been ignored by numerous tedious slasher films, remakes of Japanese techno-ghost stories or “torture” movies. In a world where increasing automation and computerised interaction has made us less likely to wander out of our comfort zones, the best horror movies of recent times have worked on our fear of other people, where stressful situations make us turn on each other. While a lot of horror concerns the Fear of the Other, as the groups we ally ourselves with shrink in size we find The Other is not that alien any more. The Descent, The Ruins and The Mist all feature characters trapped in horrific environments, surrounded by unthinkable horror, but ultimately these movies are upsetting because of the way the protagonists react to these threats. In all three the most dangerous thing you can encounter is the person standing next to you, who is probably someone you have known all your life.

theruins

The thought that it is not the Other that could provide the horror, but maybe even you yourself if pushed the wrong way — by betrayal in the case of The Descent, politics and religious intolerance in The Mist, and allegorical Idiocracy-style selfishness and ignorance in The Ruins — is where the real horror lies. My other favourite horror movie of the past few years — James Watkins’ gut-wrenching Eden Lake — is as topical as The Ruins or The Mist, with two well-to-do UK city-folk undone by their inability to respect their countrified brethren. Their fate is sealed when they antagonise some children — The Other — but protagonist Jenny’s ultimate doom is provided by people who should be on her side. Hell really is other people. As we increasingly use the Internet to interact, and often realise that being physically present with other people is a mixed blessing, it’s tempting to think that the current popularity of the zombie genre is down to the cathartic pleasure of seeing hordes of “people” mown down. It’s the most misanthropic of horror sub-genres, and increasingly the one where the appeal of it seems to be watching the violence we can perpetrate upon surrogate humans without worrying about morality getting in the way as much as it is the thrill of being menaced by something unpleasant.

During our weekend of horror we also watched some endearing throwbacks to previous horror eras, though sadly they left us even more cold. Ti West’s House of The Devil has been attracting attention and rave reviews for its intentionally retrograde approach. Set in the 80s, West fills his movie with period detail: feathered haircuts, synth soundtrack, clunky Walkman etc. He also spends much time setting up an atmosphere instead of throwing a bunch of youngsters into a rusty basement to have their teeth pulled out. About 75% of the movie shows college student Samantha (played by Saffron Burrows lookalike Jocelyn Donahue) walking around a creepily deserted campus and an even creepier isolated house, as she babysits an old woman for Tom Noonan and Mary Woronov. We’re talking about half an hour of walking around a campus, and then half an hour of walking around a house, with as little plot as a short movie expanded to feature length.

tomnoonan

Though I certainly didn’t take against West’s movie, and though it had several pleasurable things to recommend it (casting Noonan and Woronov certainly makes up for a lot of the movie’s flaws), I suspect a lot of the praise heaped on House of the Devil is for what it isn’t, rather than for what it is. It’s not torture porn. It’s not a shitty remake of a slasher classic. It’s not edited into an incomprehensible, staccato mess. It generates atmosphere instead of relying too much on turning the volume up to jolt the viewer. It’s paying its respects to the horror movies adored by a certain sub-set of movie critics. It has charm and is made with reverent love, and never once feels like a cheap cash-in. For those reasons, it is to be applauded.

For the most part there is little dialogue and a couple of shock jump moments (in their defence, they’re earned), but also lots and lots of longueurs. West goes the extra mile in setting up an atmosphere of eerie stillness before things kick off in the final act, but as with a lot of average horror movies from the past, that involves having very little happen very slowly. The 95 minute running time feels a lot longer, and by the time the scares arrive, there’s a good chance you’ll be bored. Is this a result of eroded attention spans? Or has West balanced the film wrong? It doesn’t help that the finale is overplayed to the point of not being that scary after all, shooting past “effectively scary” to settle at the total opposite end of the horror spectrum.

houseofthedevil

As for West’s influences, sometimes they seem to have inspired him too literally. Like the runty child of Rosemary’s Baby and The Dunwich Horror (with a pinch of The Medusa Touch), it serves up something we’ve seen a million times before which, after the long wait to get there, is just not enough. I’d even argue that it’s got its eras mixed up. While the film goes out of its way to add 80s period details, the pace and subject matter of the movie feel more suited to the 70s, like something Roger Corman and Samuel Z. Arkoff would have made before The Exorcist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre came along and changed the rules of the genre. 80s horror movies were pacier and often sillier than this, and if you’re going to pay homage to that era, you need to have more going on.

As in Michael Dougherty’s Trick ‘r Treat, which was a proper 80s horror homage right down to its bones. Ostensibly an anthology of tales linked by a couple of common threads, Dougherty pays tribute to numerous horror classics while playfully subverting expectations. Hoary horror conventions that are given a sprucing up include the sexuality of the vampire, the vulnerability of young virgins, townsfolk trying to kill a group of undesirables who then come back from the grave, the pillar of the community who has a terrible secret, the Bad Seed, and the unstoppable killing machine seemingly intent on enforcing some bizarre rules. By the end of the film, the nods to other films were keeping me more entertained than the narrative tricks or the lacklustre scares: The Howling, The Thing, Fright Night, Pumpkinhead, The Evil Dead, Nightmare on Elm Street 1 and 2, Creepshow, Pet Sematery, The Company of Wolves, Halloween (obviously)… There’s almost too many to count. While House of the Devil serves up the familiar and hopes it will still scare us, here Dougherty simply tries to pay respectful homage.

samfromtrickrtreat

This approach has its pros and cons. On the plus side Dougherty captures the look of 80s cinema with images full of rich golds, reds and oranges, not to mention leaf-strewn suburban streets, Bacchanalian fire-lit orgies of violence, and use of the frame that calls to mind vintage Carpenter and Dante. It’s a gorgeous movie, despite its low-budget, but as with House of the Devil it’s low on scares. The balance of the movie falls too heavily on the lighter side, which wouldn’t really be a problem at any other time of the year, but after seeing something as soil-yourself-scary as Paranormal Activity it couldn’t help but feel like a bit of a letdown. While the intertwined stories and narrative surprises are cleverly unravelled by the end, all four tales (and the two linking arcs) feel underdeveloped, even taking into account the bigger picture. It’s Love Actually Syndrome. Four two-act tales linked together do not replace one tale with three acts. As much fun as Trick ‘R Treat is (and it is a lot of fun), it can leave the viewer unsatisfied. Consider it recommended, however, especially if you grew up loving any of the movies listed above.

All three movies feel like throwbacks in one way or another (if you’re ungenerous and take Paranormal Activity to be a straight rip of Blair Witch), but the fourth movie we watched over the Halloween weekend was very much a modern mainstream horror movie. Jaume Collet-Serra’s demented Orphan was probably more thriller than horror movie, but with the various Catholic orphanages, wintery settings, bloody carnage and concerned nuns — not to mention that it is a Dark Castle Entertainment picture — it felt very much of a piece with everything else we had seen. Except terrible. Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard (resembling a pudgy, effeminate Keifer Sutherland with a bad case of narcolepsy) adopt a Russian child after Farmiga’s third pregnancy ends in disaster. Haunted by this, a previous alcohol dependence, and an accident that left her second child deaf, Farmiga puts all her hopes of recovering from her past on the new child, who sadly turns out to be a murderous psychopath who tears the family apart with psychological games, a can of lighter fluid, and a big hammer.

ORPHAN

The movie starts unpleasant and stupid, and gets more unpleasant and stupid than you can possibly imagine. During its initial theatrical release, an internet meme appeared that claimed the murderous child (Esther, played with astonishing eerie skill by 12-year old Isabelle Fuhrman) was actually a Lithuanian hooker born with dwarfism. This rendered the movie impossible to take seriously, though the actual reveal at the end is just as silly and possibly even tackier, especially when taken with some absurd third-act loose-end-tying of breathtaking clunkiness (I’m thinking of the frozen pond, here).

It certainly seems odd… nay, depressing that something this catastrophic and tasteless can be made with a cast of talented actors such as Farmiga, Sarsgaard (in a career-worst performance filled with drowsy histrionics), Margo Martindale and poor CCH Pounder. What’s worse is that a far superior movie with a similar plot was released in 2007 to massive indifference. George Ratliff’s Joshua starred Hott Sam Rockwell and Farmiga as — again — parents dealing with the psychological manipulations of a devious child, and again hamstrung by their inability to deal with this threat due to the perceived vulnerability of their nemesis (echoes of Watkins’ Eden Lake there). Ratliff created an atmospheric and disturbing tale with almost no tricksiness, relying instead on talented actors portraying people at the end of their tether. Collet-Serra — who, let us not forget, is part of the Pointless Remake Brigade thanks to his astonishingly tedious Paris Hilton vehicle House of Wax — has no interest in creating something as challenging as this, despite his excellent cast, relying instead on cheap shock tricks, over-direction, gothic lighting and unsubtle musical cues. Luckily, it’s hilariously wrong, and littered with bizarre tonal and directorial mistakes. It’s not quite a failure along the lines of, say, Shyamalan’s The Happening, but it’s damn close.

isabellefuhrman&pounder

When critics praise House of the Devil for being a breath of fresh air, it is garish, tawdry nonsense like Orphan that they’re comparing it to. After seeing it the other movies of the weekend seemed much better by comparison. It was particularly amusing to note that the frenetically edited Orphan generated not even a fraction of the tension created by Paranormal Activity which contains hardly any cuts at all, in defiance of Hitchcock’s theories on editing. Sadly none of these Halloween movies thrilled me as much as the movies I linked to a horror renaissance in this post (scroll down). Pastiche can be fun, but unless it has something else there, it can be little more than an empty exercise in playing off nostalgic feelings, and suggests a lack of imagination in the filmmaker. A working knowledge of the various developmental stages of a genre, allied with a vivid imagination, can give us something as respectfully constructed as Juan Antonio Bayona’s The Orphanage – which is a classic ghost story in the mold of The Haunting and The Innocents that pays homage to its forebears and then becomes its own thing — or something that bursts conventions like Tomas Alfredson’s Let The Right One In. This year, pastiche had its pleasures, but didn’t take the next step. The closest we got was seeing Sam Raimi return to what he does best with Drag Me To Hell. It was pure joy, yet another wonderful amalgam of disturbing comedy and silly horror from the man who gave us Evil Dead II. Of course, when you’re making a pastiche of a sub-sub-genre of horror that you yourself invented, it’s going to be hard to fuck it up.

So is there cause for concern? I’d argue no. This year the only completely satisfying straight horror movie I’ve experienced is Lars Von Trier’s harrowing Antichrist, which is one of the most astonishing sensory assaults in recent memory. Doused in unpleasant atmosphere and featuring imagery that will probably haunt me for years to come, even if Von Trier’s intent was not to make a great horror movie — he’s more interested in parsing his recent depression, and exploring recurrent themes like violent misogyny and humanity’s destructive urges — he managed to create something that disturbs more than anything else released this year. That’s not just because of the now-notorious genital mutilation scene. That one moment — which is utterly horrifying but not exploitative — would not be anywhere near as effective if it were not for Von Trier’s command of mood up to that point.

antichrist

While it certainly doesn’t look or feel like anything in the mainstream of the genre, there’s the hope that other filmmakers will see what Von Trier has done with the conventions of the genre, mixing fairy tale imagery, nightmarish atmospherics a la David Lynch, sustained suspense, extreme body horror, and an oppressive, Hideo-Nakata-esque dread to create something new, something chilling and unforgettable. Maybe Von Trier, who operates outside the sometimes claustrophobic and relentlessly self-referential confines of the world of horror cinema, will accidentally influence other horror filmmakers and bring about another evolution in the genre. It’s that or someone very very smart comes up with a new approach, just like Carpenter once did with Halloween. One can only hope.

Note: This blogpost was not written in an attempt to exorcise the memory of Paranormal Activity from my branes so I can get a decent night’s sleep. Anyone suggesting this is the case is dead wrong. ::whimpers::

Summer Movie Poll Madness

England just got substantially less green and pleasant. Temperatures have plummeted, and I’m having to wander around the house in a pair of warm slackerpants (and yes, in case you were wondering, I am a nerd). There’s no use denying it. Even though the local cinemas are clogged with top-of-the-line blockbusting audience-pleasers — such as The Soloist, Surrogates, and the Fame remake which made critics pine for the Alan Parker original in defiance of all that is holy — it’s fair to say the Summer Movie Season (aka My Christmas) is now over. And what an exciting time it was! Four million romantic comedies came out and actually did well, everything seemed to be 3D all of a sudden, and Michael Bay became the most hated film director on Earth, an event which apparently annoyed previous title holder Roman Polanski so much he gave himself up to the rozzers just to remind everyone what an asshole he is.

summer

Compared to last summer, it was a pretty underwhelming few months, with the odd high spot and pleasant surprise tucked away. Nevertheless, there was at least one stone-cold masterpiece, and even flat and kinda pointless movies often had something to recommend them (I’m looking at you, Meryl). There was also the occasional spectacular failure, the sort of disastrous and ill-thought-out fuck-up that gives the Summer Movie Season its bad reputation. So, in the interest of collating an overview of what people loved and hated this summer, I have begun two polls, asking for your favourite and least favourite movies of the 2009 summer season. The list is the same in both:

  • Klansformers: Revenge of the Fratboy
  • Zooey Hall
  • Pixar’s The Bucket List
  • Quentin Tarantino Presents: Quentin Tarantino’s Masterpiece
  • Final Destination: We’re Trying To Get Inside Your Eyeballs
  • Eric Bana Is: An Endearing Aussie Cuckold
  • Christopher Johnson and Wikus Van Der Merwe’s Excellent Adventure
  • Harry Potter And The Toenail of Effervescence
  • Terminator 4: When Third Acts Collapse
  • Cover Me With Drool, Drop An Anvil On Me, Then Drag Me To Hell
  • The Ugly Truth Is That Katherine Heigl Is Not Charming
  • Hangover: (n. painful & unamusing experience)
  • Eric Bana Is: An Absentee Time-Travelling Husband
  • X-Men Franchise Sabotage: WTFverine
  • G.I. Joe: STOP THE NANOMITES, JOES!
  • Publicity Hungry Enemies (Now In Grainy-o-Vision)
  • That’s No Moon; It’s Hott Sam Rockwell’s Talent!
  • When Anti-Matter Met The Vatican
  • Eric Bana Is: An Especially Tetchy Romulan
  • STREEP, TUCCI & LYNCH vs. a Blogger and her Annoying Husband
  • Night at the Museum: Sound, Fury, & Nothing
  • Futile and Fatuous
  • Dad! My Guinea Pig Sounds Like Tracy Morgan!
  • The Shaking [Cameras] of Pelham 123
  • Oh Will Ferrell. A TV Show Remake? We Want Anchorman 2 KTHXBAI

As I’ve never used PollDaddy before, I don’t really know what I’m doing. There’s a good chance I’ve got this wrong and it will all implode, taking all the votes with it, but then Blogger once started to randomly excise votes from polls I had going over there, so I’m sort of prepared for crappy functionality. Anyway, please vote in this poll. I’ll close it and collate the data later this year. Apologies if I’ve missed out a movie you feel passionately about. Feel free to leave a comment if I have.

ETA: I just checked out PollDaddy. Once you’ve voted on the poll you can leave comments. Click on the comment link and it takes you to a dedicated page for each poll. Oh, the future. Next you’ll be telling me you can embed videos in blogposts.

In The Summer, In The Cinema

My most recent poll was put up probably too late to draw much attention, but for once that screw-up was only partially my fault. As I mentioned before, this is a particularly weak summer line-up, and we can perhaps attribute that to the after-effects of the writers’ strike, as well as the stellar quality of 2008′s summer season, which set the bar so high. How could this year compare to a line-up that featured such entertaining films as The Dark Knight, Iron Man, and Kung Fu Panda? Still, I should have at least made more of an effort, even if only for old time’s sake. Here are the results:

  • JJ Abrams Risks Death by Unwashed Nerd Rage-On – 8 (47%)
  • Quentin Tarantino and the Broken Spellcheck – 3 (17%)
  • Transmogrifiers 2: Return of the Awesome – 1 (5%)
  • I’d Rather Be Dragged To Hell Than Watch Spider-Man 3 Again – 1 (5%)
  • Pixar’s Whassup, Bitches? – 1 (5%)
  • The Time-Travelling Bana – 1 (5%)
  • Harry Potter and the Thing in the Place with the Whatsit – 1 (5%)
  • District 9 (AKA Neill Blomkamp Rocks Your Face Off) – 1 (5%)
  • Terminator Franchise: Salvage Operation – 0 (0%)
  • The Curious Case of Wolverine Wutton – 0 (0%)
  • Angels, Demons, and Probably Ewan McGregor’s Schlong – 0 (0%)
  • Another Worthless Woody Allen Movie – 0 (0%)
  • Hott Sam Rockwell’s Lunar Oscar Bid – 0 (0%)
  • Depp and Bale in: Untouchablesque – 0 (0%)
  • Sacha Baron Cohen and the Inevitable Lawsuits – 0 (0%)
  • (500) Days of Self-Conscious Indie Movie Quirk – 0 (0%)
  • Demetri Martin + Ang Lee + Hippies = WTF? – 0 (0%)
  • G.I. Joe: The Struggle to Give a Shit – 0 (0%)
  • The Unnecessary Remaking of Pelham 123 – 0 (0%)
  • Final Destination: Rube Goldberg’s Revenge – 0 (0%)
  • Judd Apatow’s Self-Loathing People (feat. The RZA!) – 0 (0%)

What’s weirdest about Star Trek‘s overwhelming success is that people were still voting for it weeks after it had come out. From what I can tell people were seeing it more than once, so perhaps this was a retroactive vote of happiness after people had already seen it. Whatever the reason, it’s great to see so much support for something that was treated as a hubris-tainted disaster before even a frame of it had been shown. I had expected something approximating greatness for a while, hoping that J.J. Abrams would go for broke after playing safe with the frustrating Mission Impossible 3, but sadly my anticipation worked against me.


When I finally saw it I was a little disappointed, even though I liked it a lot. The hectic pace was necessary to get all of the characters into place while setting up the Trek universe for N00Bs and telling a story, but it might have been a touch too crazed even for me. It didn’t help that seeing it in IMAX made all of those whip-pans and lens flares far more exhausting than they would be on a regular screen, as well as making Zachary Quinto’s eyebrows and the… how can I put this tactfully… heavily-detailed face of Chris Pine hella-distracting. I have been trying and failing to see it again on a normal sized screen to give it another shot at blowing my mind. Even without that reassessment, so far it’s the movie to beat this summer. Why? Because Abrams destroyed Vulcan. That takes balls of brass. Or dilithium.

After that, the only movie generating more than baseline excitement is Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds. All the more surprising after the critical drubbing it received at Cannes. Not that that matters. Tarantino is one of those rare artists that have created a work of pop culture art of such great impact that they get a free pass for life. Just as I’ll follow Eno or Dylan or Scorsese through thick or thin, Tarantino movies will always feel like an event, even when the result is a disappointment (I’m thinking Kill Bill Part Two). It worries me that a die-hard Tarantino fan like Bradshaw gave it a memorable slating, but he seems uncomfortable around schlocky b-movie stuff.


Yes, he gave Star Trek a big five-star review, but then claimed throughout the review that Nero and his grumpy cohorts were Klingon. It suggests he never really pays attention to the “baser” end of the cultural spectrum. Which is fine, of course. Thank God for him giving props to Nuri Bilge Ceylan and Andrei Zvyagintsev despite the whining of readers offended that he would dare like something “arty”. Nevertheless, if the movie is going to feature more than one explosion or decapitation, or is actually colossally dreadful, stupid, and predictable on almost every level, best to take his review with a pinch of salt/gunpowder.

Speaking of things that explode, Disguisatrons Two: There Will Be Oil got my vote. Yes the first one had as many flaws as it had great moments. Yes it could be confusing. Yes it blah blah ah fuck it. I loved the first one just because it set out to be a robot mayhem movie with broad jokes and explosions and unearned drama, and it did that with zero apology. I wasn’t a huge Transformers fan so I didn’t weep because Mammothtron was the wrong shade of teal. I think Michael Bay’s decision to make every action scene hectic and every conversation a series of unconnected smart-ass jokes is a terrible kind of genius because you can tune out every few seconds and never lose track of what’s going on, because there’s nothing coherent to lose track of, and nothing has any dramatic weight. It’s spectacle for the sake of spectacle. Criticising Bay for not being Ingmar Bergman is as futile as criticising cheese for not being gaseous. (ETA: I wrote that sentence yesterday, and what do you know, Bradshaw hated it, using a customarily brilliant metaphor about sex to illustrate the point. However, when criticising the awful Megan Fox, he invoked the memory of Liv Ullmann! Spooky.)


Bear in mind, he’s probably the only action filmmaker I’m willing to give this latitude to (see Stephen Sommers comments below), simply because he does this stuff bigger and better than anyone else. Without the outrageous spectacle, that dramatic emptiness is really apparent. As I feel obliged to say every time I get excited about a Bay movie, I’m not crazy. I’m fully aware it could suck, but I won’t have to wait long to find out. I’ll be seeing it on Saturday on IMAX, Crom willing, and if that format made Star Trek hard to watch, it will almost certainly render hardcore Bay nigh-unwatchable. But, you know, who cares? BOOM!

I’d be very very surprised if it gave us anywhere near the pleasure Drag Me To Hell did. Sam Raimi’s gloriously silly granny-spitfest entertained parts of my brain I’d forgotten I had, i.e. all of the neurons that were born during my first viewing of Evil Dead II. Much as I have grown to dislike seeing movies with large audiences, I would have liked to have seen this with more people, even if only to drown out the noise of this one old guy who chattered away when we went to see it (my intense glare of disgust did not phase him, oddly). The few dozen people who were in there hooted and shrieked and laughed throughout, and it was great.


I can’t remember the last time I saw a film work so well simply because it is so proudly base and silly, but then that’s probably because Sam Raimi has not been making those films for a while. Seeing his return to his roots has been one of the highlights of the year, and not enough people have experienced it. For shame, humanity! If you’ve not yet seen it, you have to go see it right now, even if only for the fight scene in the car about twenty minutes in. I can’t remember a more brazen attempt to get a response from a crowd, nor can I remember a scene that has been as successful in generating one.


Canyon’s vote went to Pixar’s Up, the long-awaited follow-up to Monsters Inc. from Pete Docter. This is a particularly hard movie to write about as the majority of Americans we know have already seen it, and we remain Ed-Asner-less. It’s not out in England until October, meaning we’re going to have the same silliness we had with Ratatouille, where we saw the movie on the big screen three weeks before the release of the region 1 DVD. Wall*E came out quickly, but we were not crazy about that. Up‘s trailers have been so wonderful, and unexpected, and glowing, that we’re more excited about this than any other Pixar movie to date. Now I know how the Japanese feel (movies get released months late over there, for reasons I do not understand).

Then there’s some weirdness. A vote for The Time-Traveller’s Wife? Was this a Journeyman fan? An Eric Bana fan? Just for having Ron Livingston in the cast, I’ll be giving that sucker a miss. Same goes for Harry Potter and the Wig of Translucence or whatever it’s called. I’m afraid I’m not a fan, though that’s partially because I stopped reading the books before they, apparently, got a lot more complex. While Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy captured my imagination, J.K. Rowling’s books almost completely passed me by. I enjoyed Prisoner of Azkaban (the book), but never got any further.


As for the films, Chris Columbus’ dreadful work on the first one put me off for good, even though Alfonso Cuaron eventually turned up to save the day. Of course, that fifteen-hour narcolepsy-inducing disaster is the one Potter movie that’s in constant rotation on Sky Movies, so there’s no getting away from it. I will watch them all eventually, even though the second one is full of icky spiders BAD BAD MOVIE!!! I like that they’re becoming darker as they progress (just like the books), but from the impressive trailers for the latest film, if the next two are darker, they’ll have to be directed by Michael Haneke. (Idea!)


One final vote, for Neill Blomkamp’s District 9. Alien Nation without a rubber-headed Mandy Patinkin drinking sour milk? I can’t wait either.

After that, the majority of the films on the list got no votes. Fair enough. I struggled to come up with a list, and most of these films wouldn’t interest me either. I had high hopes for Terminator Salvation, though most fans had written it off just because McG was involved. For a good stretch of the film he did a good job, with two stand-out setpieces in the first hour, and the good sense to hire Bryce Dallas Howard, Christian Bale, relative newcomer and scene-stealer Sam Worthington (Marcus Wright rocked), and last but certainly not least, internet search engine sensation Moon Bloodgood, as Tough But Beautiful Post-Apocalypse Lady In Sexy Tight Trews.


Sadly, it all fell apart in the final twenty minutes, with action scenes dragging on for too long, before a horribly compromised final reel fell flat. Then there was the distracting and relentless tide of references to the first two movies. I had had enough by the time Christian Bale pulled out the CD player and cranked out You Could Be Mine, an act that suggested he had occupied himself during the nuclear winter by scavenging in burned-out record stores when not shouting into his walkie-talkie. Sadly, there was more to come, with numerous shots lifted wholesale from James Cameron’s originals. By the time “Arnie” showed up, I half expected Rick Rossovich to rush in from stage left to hit him in the head with a lamp.

Still, at least I had enjoyed it for a while, and it exceeded my expectations by some distance. The opposite could be said for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which could well be the worst Marvel adaptation to date. It’s definitely in the bottom three. There are no words to express how awful the goddamn thing is, and even my fanboyish pleasure in watching Hugh Jackman do his thing was dented, probably because I know he got more involved in the making of it, which means the stink of failure is upon him. Sadly, that stink oozes off the screen like some kind of miasmic deathcloud, and settles on us as well. And when I say stink, I’m talking a mouthful of skunk-ass-juice stink right in the mouth. That stinky. That FAIL-y.


Even weeks later, after numerous failed attempts to remove the stink with lemon juice, Viakal, and Febreeze, I was still flashing back to some of the dreadfulness. The hilarious sped-up shot of Wolvie hacking away at a fire escape; Ryan Reynolds wasted as Deadpool; that horrible final fight in front of a green screen; the pointless last act retcon of one major death just to have that death happen all over again; Cyclops’ eyes setting fire to things when any fule kno that his eyebeams are pure force, not heat; Wolverine meeting Ma and Pa Kent and getting them killed within a few minutes of showing up; “Why is the moon so lonely?”, which has to be the funniest line of dialogue of 2009; the galactic-level stupidity of the whole sorry enterprise. Right now, not even an Uwe Boll movie written by Paul Haggis and starring Cameron Diaz and Paul Walker could topple it from the Worst Movie of 2009 position.

I mean, Angels and Demons was not as bad as Wolverine. How is this possible? Middle-aged man runs around Rome shouting factoids about Catholicism vs. adamantium berserker rage. It should have been a slamdunk. And yet the former was more entertaining, even though the identity of the bad guy was obvious as soon as they opened their mouth. I spent the whole film being very obnoxious to Canyon, acting like a cross between Rex Reed and Sherlock Holmes, and I was even more annoying when my suspicion was vindicated. Still, my mom liked it, so it all worked out well.


What else is there? I have high hopes for Moon, as my mancrush Hott Sam Rockwell is pretty much the only person in it, which is how I feel about a lot of movies he’s been in. God knows when it comes out here. Public Enemies will thrill me no matter what: my love of Michael Mann is so strong that I liked Miami Vice despite its many many flaws, so the only thing this could do to disappoint me is to be less entertaining than John Milius’ muscular feature debut, Dillinger. Bruno could be fun. Who doesn’t love jokes involving dildos and rednecks?

Other than Woody Allen, who seems to have hired Larry David to replicate his own shtick but without the bite. No votes for Whatever Works, which tells me that this blog is not read by Larry King. He recently tweeted ‘Just saw Woody Allen’s new movie Whatver [sic] Works” It’s his greatest movie, even better than “Annie Hall” I can’t say good enough about it!’ Considering the endearingly random quality of his tweets, which are not that far removed from the comments in this prescient Onion article, I’m not sure this is an opinion to be trusted. After the hysterical car-crash that was Cassandra’s Dream, I just don’t see how Allen can even recapture the dizzy heights of Alice and Another Woman, let alone Husbands and Wives or Manhattan.


I’m also uninterested in (500) Days of Summer and Taking Woodstock, partially because they seem super-quirky, but mostly because I can’t help but think that Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Demetri Martin accidentally switched movies. Surely JGL should be working with Ang Lee by now? If we do see (500) Days, it’ll be in the hope that a) Zooey sings, and b) we find out if that fucking irksome (500) is justified by the plot.

For a change, I’m even less interested in seeing the last two action movies on the list, which is odd considering my love of pyrotechnics. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is by Stephen Sommers and will therefore have the same tedious talkFIGHTtalkFIGHT structure, but without the exuberance of Bay, or his gift for composition. (I will ignore all flaming on this point, so don’t bother.) Plus, it will not be anywhere near as good as the Warren Ellis-scripted cartoon on Adult Swim.


Speaking of futile attempts to improve on greatness, The Taking of Pelham 123 shouldn’t even exist. Last week we rewatched the original Joseph Sargent thriller, and it’s enormous fun. Plus, it’s already been remade as a TV movie, and indirectly by Spike Lee with Inside Man (obviously it’s not the same plot, but it has the same feel, and has great fun dramatising New York’s infamous air of exasperated cynicism and multicultural tension).

Though I’m not surprised no one wants to see The Final Destination (now in eye-shattering 3D!), why does no one want to see Funny People? Okay, so it sounds like incredibly mawkish navel-gazing sub-James-L.-Brooksian tripe, but The RZA is in it! Bobby Digital, people! Have you seen Derailed? He plays a postroom guy who hangs out with executive Clive Owen, and it’s the most out-of-place performance I’ve ever seen. Each time they interacted, my brain tried to leap out of my head. There’s that bloke from Chancer, walking through the office, and OMG HE’S CHATTING WITH THE RZA! Everything’s better with a bit of RZA in it.


So, anyway. Go see lots of movies, and in a couple of months, if I remember, I’ll put up my usual end-of-summer polls to determine which movies sank, which swam, and which soared like celluloid eagles.

‘Twas Here My Summer Exploded

Summertime! Or, as Prince of Freshland Willard Smith once put it, summersummersummertime! All of its joys (such as the sunshine, the wasps, the ever-present sheen of sticky sweat) pale into insignificance next to my favourite thing in the world ever; the summer movie season. As usual, the anticipation is bound to be much more nourishing than the actual movies themselves, though last year saw an unprecedented bumper crop of excellent popcorn entertainment which should, technically, raise my excitement to even greater levels, what with the summer movie season finally offering brainfood as well as robot wars. Sadly, that 2009 highwater mark and the recent writer’s strike means I’m less excited about this year’s line-up. Sure, I’ll see a fair few, but there’s only one or two I’m goggle-eyed with obnoxious enthusiasm over. My face is sad.

Those who know me have a pretty good idea which movies have me froth-mouthed, but I’ll save that for now, because I’m more interested in what you, the readers of this blog, are most excited about. Just like last year, I want to see what is getting this small cross-section of people most pumped. Sadly, due to RL complications, I forgot to do this earlier, and have therefore included a film that has already been released (The Further Adventures of Logan T. Loganstein And His Whirring Claws Of Kill), but perhaps, if you’ve already seen it, you enjoyed it so much you can’t wait to see it again! I gather it’s depressingly bad hella-exciting. Anyway, here’s the list.

  • Terminator Franchise: Salvage Operation
  • I’d Rather Be Dragged To Hell Than Watch Spider-Man 3 Again
  • JJ Abrams Risks Death by Unwashed Nerd Rage-On
  • Transmogrifiers 2: Return of the Awesome
  • The Curious Case of Wolverine Wutton
  • Angels, Demons, and Probably Ewan McGregor’s Schlong
  • Another Worthless Woody Allen Movie
  • The Unnecessary Remaking of Pelham 123
  • (500) Days of Self-Conscious Indie Movie Quirk
  • The Time-Travelling Bana
  • Harry Potter and the Thing in the Place with the Whatsit
  • Demetri Martin + Ang Lee + Hippies = WTF?
  • District 9 (AKA Neill Blomkamp Rocks Your Face Off)
  • Hott Sam Rockwell’s Lunar Oscar Bid
  • Pixar’s Whassup, Bitches?
  • Depp and Bale in: Untouchablesque
  • Sacha Baron Cohen and the Inevitable Lawsuits
  • G.I. Joe: The Struggle to Give a Shit
  • Quentin Tarantino and the Broken Spellcheck
  • Final Destination: Rube Goldberg’s Revenge
  • Judd Apatow’s Self-Loathing People (feat. The RZA!)

Seriously! The RZA is in the next Judd Apatow movie! I can’t wait, though I’d much rather see a full-length Bobby Digital film than some navel-gazing James L. Brooks homage, no matter how good it is. Anyway, the poll will be up in a sec, and will be around for approximately numerous weeks.

Another Apology Re: Torchwood

In previous posts on this thread, we may have given the impression that what had once been seemingly beyond salvaging had become a potentially interesting show. Titles such as “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Torchwood“, “Martha Makes Everything Better”, and “I May Not Like The Taste Of Humble Pie But I’ll Happily Eat It” may have given the impression that what once had been the canker sore on the lip of British TV drama had become a soilbed from which challenging and intelligent sci-fi might one day spring.

We now realise that those flawed but interesting moments were an aberration, not a newly established status quo, and the usual standards of the show would be restored as soon as an opening was found. Future post titles such as “If In Doubt, Having A Character Wave A Gun About Will Fill A Minute Of Screentime”, “Dear God, Will Someone Inject Some Dignity Into This Debacle?”, and “Does Anyone On This Show Understand The Concept Of Plagiarism?” will hopefully restore normality to this blog. Thank you for your patience. (Again, apologies to Private Eye.)


I’m in two minds about this. It was great seeing the show stretch a little during the Martha Trilogy, but it wasn’t really enough for it to become “appointment TV” (oh how I hate that phrase), so I felt like the TV village idiot had been rehabilitated Flowers-For-Algernon-style, and I had no one to laugh at and throw rocks at anymore (though we do intend to start watching CSI: Miami again pretty soon). Last week’s “terrestrial” episode, Something Borrowed, was a return to previous shoddy form, giving Meat a run for its money, and brazenly referring to its own unoriginality in its title. Well, I reckon Something Stolen and Ineptly Rehashed would be closer to the mark, but you get my point.


Any seriousness of purpose the show might have built up over the patchy but promising Martha Trilogy was stripped away, replaced with knuckle-chewingly inane comedy, staggering contrivance, a total dismissal of all logic, replacement of human motivation with plot-furthering stupidity, poorly executed Evil Dead homages, and inept action moments. I can’t decide which is worse: Meat, this, or the season opener with James Marsters and his big fat paycheck.

What was so poor about it? Perhaps it was because it was a Gwen-centric episode. I’m really not crazy about the character at all, and couldn’t give two shits for her relationship with Jack. I also find it odd that she is suddenly cast as the comedy relief in the show, being sidelined almost entirely during the ostensibly more dramatic episodes of the Martha Trilogy. Maybe it’s a temporary thing, or just because this was the comedy episode of the season, but her line-readings and gestures were very very peculiar in this, as broad as you can possibly imagine.


Comedy episodes of most dramatic shows are to be avoided, unless of course the show has a strong comedic element already (Buffy, Angel, and Firefly did this better than most). Even a very dramatic show can pull it off. Lost did it with Expose and, arguably, Tricia Tanaka Is Dead, despite the oft-humourless tone of the show. By comparison, Torchwood is obviously under the impression that it’s already very funny, but the odd comedic line is either childish, obvious, or poorly delivered, and sometimes all three at once, so imagine the pain caused by an episode that concentrates solely on this kind of broad silliness. I know appreciation of what is funny or not is subjective, but how anyone could find this ineptly staged juvenile nonsense a joy to watch is a mystery to me.

So, in a effort to ensure that the overall internet opinion about this show doesn’t skew exclusively towards the positive, I present The Ten Worst Things About Something Borrowed, by Admiral Neck, aged 5 1/4.

10. The Pointless Editing In The First Scene.

After flashing back to Jack’s bizarre reaction to Gwen’s engagement from the season opener, we cut to a depressing Cardiff nightclub and two depressingly loud and obnoxious women in cowboy hats greeting Gwen with a depressing song about her having anal sex. Yay, hen nights! Is there anything more entertaining than drunk women talking about sex at the top of their lungs and then cackling? Still, I bet there’s a stripper.


This then cuts to Gwen chasing a shapeshifting alien, which is exciting! And then back to the hen night, where a stripper arrives! And then back to the exciting chase! And then back to the hen night! And then… You get the picture.


Firstly, as Rhys points out later, Jack’s an asshole for sending her out to kill aliens on the night before her wedding. Second, Gwen has friends? When did this happen? Third, while chasing the alien she gets bitten by it, which is the inciting incident. (I can imagine it was referred to as that during script meetings.) This fact is subtly revealed when one of Gwen’s gobby friends asks her what the time is, and Gwen suddenly unveils the biggest pre-wedding bandage you’ve ever seen.


What’s that on her arm, the viewer thinks. I wonder how she got that! Like this.

monster2
Look at the size of those space gnashers! Jack shows up to save Gwen (so he was obviously available for alien hunting, which once more begs the question as to why Gwen was getting into danger), and his reaction to this enormous wound is, “Owen should take a look at that.” You think?


He obviously doesn’t check it very closely, as she ends up getting pregnant from it. Stupid dead doctor. Anyway, though there are several things about this dire opening that annoyed me, it’s the editing that irked me the most. Is it a suspense scene? No, because we keep seeing Gwen alive and relatively healthy during that scene. Is the storytelling device useful for teasing us with hints about Gwen’s night and then paying it off with reveals? No, because we don’t have to wait very long to find out. Is it used to generate the funny? Next question. Is it just another way of showing the contrast between Gwen’s social life, which is the same as most lairy boozed-up people of her age, and her secret life chasing aliens and getting knocked up by them. Almost certainly, but we spent the entire first season doing this, and getting Rhys involved in Torchwood’s affairs should have drawn a veil over that (geddit?). Instead, we’re still banging away at that point. When I realised the show was slipping back into its bad habits I started to hear warning bells about the loss of momentum from the Martha Trilogy. Time elapsed: 3 minutes 15 seconds.

9. Alien Impregnation? Really?


For an start, it’s a cliched idea. Even a show I loved, Angel, featured Cordelia getting knocked up twice by demons (okay, so the second time was a way to get around her real-life pregnancy, and it did bring about the excellent season four arc with Jasmine, but still). Even the relatively tame Star Trek: The Nextest Generation had Troy get pregnantised by a glowing light; a Hallmark Card way to have a character raped.

Just on a personal level, stories about women being impregnated by aliens don’t really appeal to me much, mostly because it reduces the woman to a reproductive system that is vulnerable to invasion, and it’s icky and tasteless and kind of insulting. Admittedly it can be done well (Alien 3 handled it with the appropriate seriousness), but most often it’s done really really badly (I’m thinking Species II here; a despicable film, and poorly made to boot). I get the “appeal” of the concept, and my love of Cronenberg should give you an idea of my stance on body horror (short version; yay!), but done wrong these stories treat something very serious in an exploitative and distasteful way. It makes me feel very uncomfortable.

So imagine how I feel when it’s played for laughs. For fuck’s sake, Gwen has an alien egg in her belly! Only when the team realise childbirth involves her evisceration do they take it seriously. No amount of over-the-top pickle-chomping and high-larious wedding-day tantrum-throwing will disguise the fact that Gwen’s body has been invaded.


She’s gorging herself on phallic objects! My sides are splitting! Because I am the host for an alien foetus, obviously.

8. Gwen’s Desperation About Getting Married Blinding Her To The Consequences Of Such A Decision.

So, Gwen is the host for the egg of a shapeshifting alien. It’s the day of the wedding. Jack is concerned for her health, obviously, as he doesn’t know what the alien gestation is like (useless former Time Agent!), and both he and Owen strongly suggest she postpone the wedding while they figure things out. But Gwen really wants to get married anyway. So they let her.


It’s very generous of everyone to let Gwen do what she wants, and certainly it’s a tradition that the wedding day, while special for everyone, is even more special for the bride, but there’s a line to be drawn there. Right across her enormous pregnant belly. Why would anyone in the world think that this was a good idea? Jack and Owen and Rhys all know this is a bad idea, but she blunders on anyway, using yelling and weird acting tics do her arguing for her.

What’s worse is we tried to give the show the benefit of the doubt, and entertained the idea that this could be explained away as possible brainwashing by the alien in her body, that in its culture the birth demands some kind of ceremony, and it was making Gwen desire a wedding so that it could be born properly. The alternative was that Gwen is a halfwit. Sadly, she really is. She’s just a girl that wants her wedding day and won’t even postpone for a couple of days to sort out the whole possibly-deadly-egg-in-the-belly thing. Even worse, later on Tosh tells her she made the right decision, which means the guys are pragmatic about the whole impregnation thing, but the women are all about the pretty dresses and the wonder of the wedding day princess thing. Those dames sure do love a good wedding!


Seems like the writer, Phil Ford (more on him later) was aware that he was making Gwen do stupid things, as Gwen suddenly realises (after telling her parents that she is pregnant and then realising they’re excited about a grandchild that will never exist) that perhaps she is doing the wrong thing, but bringing attention to it doesn’t get rid of the fact that the episode was written to show a wedding framed within the format of Torchwood, using the alien pregnancy as a heavy-handed way to metaphorically dramatise the effect of Gwen’s wedding ceremony on our characters, and to get to that point it was necessary to remove all semblance of logical human behaviour from the show. It’s contrivance, pure and simple, and is utterly unforgivable. By now I realised the show was back to its usual dreadful state, and the scene that convinced me, featuring Gwen’s overjoyed parents and her sudden realisation that she’s made a mistake, is only eleven minutes into the episode, and the worst is yet to come.

7. Comedy Relief!

Gwen and Rhys’ friends are clumsily introduced (though I think I remember Rhys referring to Mervyn or Banana Boat in a previous episode. I should remember, as I usually hang on his every word), mostly to fill the cast out a bit, but also to provide laughs in this most amusing of comedy episodes.


All of them are lecherous jerks, which means they’ll probably be joining the Torchwood team very soon. It was all very depressing for the actors, especially Jonathan Lewis Owen, who plays Banana Boat as a cross between Prince William, a Welsh chav, and a lobotomised sex-addict.


He had to bumble through some awful dialogue, which wasn’t his fault, but I so dearly wanted him to die horribly. Sorry Jonathan Lewis Owen! I’m sure you’re a lovely chap in real life. However, he kept chatting up Tosh (of all people), and even managed to molest her while trapped inside a web of bin bags weaved by the alien. Here are the bin bags…


…and here is Banana Boat’s face as his genitals are crushed by Tosh in annoyance over his lechery and loudness.


Sadly, he was not to be killed in a terrible fashion. Instead it was the turn of Mervyn, the other lecherous wanker, who leered at the alien…

monsterleer
…and then got his genitals chomped off by her during what he thought was going to be a sexxy sex act.


So, men are mindless sex-obsessed beered-up pigs, and women want to get married despite alien inpregnation, the heartbreak of their parents, and terrible danger. They will also happily damage the gonads of any man in range. And gay men?

iantodress
They buy wedding dresses. I can bet the Stonewall Awards judges will be thrilled.

(Yes yes, this is all played for laughs, and if I was going to be really generous I would say it could be an un-PC spoof of the show’s usual admirably PC stance, but I think they were just going for easy gags. Let’s not go overestimating the intelligence of anyone involved in making Torchwood, okay?)

6. Tosh.

In Mad Men, Betty Draper memorably (and anvilliciously) asked a pertinent question about her husband; “Who is Don Draper?” (The answer to which is, “Don Draper is Dick Whitman!”) Well, I ask, who is Tosh? And should I care? (The answer to which is, “no”.) Early on in the episode she stalks Owen again, in an attempt to get him to attend the wedding. She keeps on that it isn’t a date, but obviously she thinks it is, what with her continual simpering and annoying passive-aggressiveness.


Five minutes later, she’s beating up Banana Boat and mouthing tough guy dialogue.


Oh my God! It’s like McKee says! Reveal the true character through action and not dialogue! So she’s a tough guy at heart, really. Except she’s all jittery and sentimental when she’s talking to Gwen about the wedding.


So what is Tosh? Whatever the scene needs at any given point. She’s just a cipher, and as such means nothing. That’s a criticism of Tosh and the lack of show bible that I’ve already gone on about in the past, and not a criticism of Naoki Mori. Rumour has it she’s being written out at the end of the season. Hopefully in future she’ll get a chance to bring to life a coherent character instead of this nebulous gap where a recognisable human should be.

5. What To Do With Dead Owen.

Having turned Owen into the only character other than Jack that’s not just a boring human who’s obsessed with sex, the show ran riot with the concept for two episodes (one of which was okay, the other was less so but still littered with interesting moments). Now? Well, it was a Gwen episode, so there wasn’t really anything for him to do. Other than wear badges for no apparent reason.


I can understand it. I don’t really have a problem with it, and the rumour about Tosh leaving extends to him too. A shame, as Burn Gorman has been growing on us, and we won’t get to experience his gun machismo. It’s often the episode highlight.

I really have to find a way to get his Countrycide effort on here. It was the funniest thing on TV in 2007 that didn’t include Alec Baldwin or Tracy Morgan.

4. Worst. Shapechanging Carnivorous Alien Antagonist. Ever.

Annoying enough that Cap’n Jack’s alien expertise is so incomplete that he doesn’t immediately realise the nature of the creature they’re up against despite having been alive for hundreds or dozens or however many years he’s been around, thus putting Gwen and her family in danger (yet more obnoxious contrivance). It’s up to Owen and his badges to figure out that it is a Nostrovite, which will kill Gwen to get hold of the egg.


Even worse was that the first shapeshifter they go up against is easily killed by a bullet and the second one becomes enraged with an alien babycraziness that makes it almost invincible, which is the sort of empty and contrived expositional nonsense used to justify plot developments that I often refer to as Reason X (“If we’re going to save the President’s daughter we have to disguise ourselves as nuns because [Reason X]!”). It’s like a MacGuffin, but even more contrived.


Worst of all is just how crap the alien is, convenient invulnerability notwithstanding. It’s killed one person and trapped two others in its non-biodegradable web, so does it change shape in order to ensure it will not be caught? Nope. It stands around with the same face, making no effort to find the woman carrying its child, and when confronted by human intervention in the shape of Tosh, it does this. Also, note that even though Jack and Tosh are equipped with normal guns, for some reason they sound like the old toy gun I had as a kid that had four different laser sound settings.

It then gives itself away by turning into someone at the wedding, i.e. Rhys’ mother, played by Nerys Hughes, abandoning all her dignity to run around with fake gnashers and bad fingers. It would be a good ploy, to become someone that the host of its egg knows so it can get closer to her. Sadly, it doesn’t go after Gwen, choosing instead to mingle and chat with Gwen’s mother, though Jack and co. assume it would go after Gwen. Because that makes sense. Instead, it just sets up this case of mistaken identity, which might be the worst ninety seconds of TV this year.

“Come to Mama!” That, my friends, is Nostrovite for EPIC FAIL!

3. Jack And Gwen, Sitting In A Tree…

I used a hammer on my head to try to unremember the first season of Torchwood, so I might be wrong here, but did Jack and Gwen spend as much time drooling over each other as they do in the second season?


It seems to be the emotional core of the show, this love story between the human and the immortal ::coughCordyandAngelcough::, and it’s worked in other shows, so why not here? Well, because they have no chemistry, and Jack’s got a cavalier attitude to relationships anyway which undermines his sudden sadness here, and Gwen is now happily betraying her husband while pretending to be loyal which makes her seem less like a sympathetic and tortured heroine and more like a bit of a cow, and Jack is frigging immortal and should have higher standards. For God’s sake, he was in love with the Doctor! He’s the ideal man for him, because they are equally galactic. You’re telling me Jack’s been around the cosmos and he’s getting depressed because a Suzi Quatro lookalike is getting married to this guy?


No accounting for taste, I guess. Still, that’s a failure of the series in general, but in this episode she barely acknowledges her lovepain for Jack until defending her decision to get married with an egg in her belly, where she says something along the lines of, “I’m marrying Rhys because he will have me and no one else will. No one. Right? No one at all. Eh Jack? No one at all.” Rhys is standing there the whole time and misses the coded signals and thinks she’s saying nice things about him, which proves what a dope he is. Even stupider, this entire scene, where Gwen seems to forget that speech about loving Rhys with barely any prompting, which leads to this hair-eating insanity.

Best thing I can say about it is that it gives John Barrowman his best acting opportunities, as shown by his inner turmoil here.

jackpain
One day you’re going to be a big head in a jar, but it’s a long time to be sulking over Gwen. Oh Captain Jack! When will you be fun again?

2. Cliche, Plagiarism, and Laziness.

I’ve already pointed out that alien impregnation has been done before, and alien shapechangers or chameleons are staples of sci-fi, so if you’re willing to be generous to the show (and I know a lot of people are), you could say it’s unfair to criticise the show for using these popular plots. Okay. I’ll grudgingly give you that. But can I please rail against the wedding sequence in the middle of the episode, where Jack, Ianto and Owen race to the wedding to save Gwen from the Nostrovite and Jack bursts in two seconds after the vicar asks if anyone has any objection to the marriage going ahead? Can I? Please? Because that shit is just unacceptable.


If only there was a Wikipedia page listing all the times that plot development has been used, though I wonder if there is enough server space in the world. Pretty much every soap wedding features this moment, as well as every crappy romantic comedy made between 1980 and 1999, at the very least. It’s like littering. Just because everyone does it every so often doesn’t make it right. (For the record, I don’t litter. Not even that one time when I hid the polybag down the side of a Tube seat. That was someone else entirely.)


Even worse than that, the show plagiarises itself! A few weeks back, in Reset, Owen has to use a nifty gadget called a Singularity Scalpel to burn away the insects infesting Martha’s body, though he is not entirely sure how to use the machine. After a couple of near misses that blow up things around him, he succeeds in destroying the lifeform without blowing out her spine. This week, because his one hand is knackered (a consequence of his continuing status as a dead person), he can’t operate the scalpel, and has to hand it over to Rhys. The set up is acceptable, and it’s a nice reference to Owen’s new shortcomings, so I have no trouble with that. What does annoy me is that this means Rhys has to go through exactly the same thing Owen did just three episodes previously, with the panic and near-misses. Does BBC Wales think we have amnesia?


Just to make things even more annoying, during the dance scene at the end, Jack cuts in on Gwen and Rhys’ dance just so he can have a moment alone with her, which is yet another convention of this kind of plot, and then Ianto shows up to cut in as well, but he doesn’t ask for Gwen’s hand. He wants to dance with his boyfriend! It’s not the most amazing moment ever, but it’s easily the episode highlight, and a pleasing twist on that cliche.


So they can do it if they try. One of the best things about Buffy and Angel is that it would set up the potentially cliched plot early on, and then subvert it at least once if not more during the episode. It amazed me that they could keep doing that on a weekly basis. If the Torchwood showrunners are going to steal anything from Mutant Enemy, why can’t they steal that philosophy? It would instantly improve the show 1000%.

2.5. Ripping Off The Evil Dead.


Connected to that complaint, another pop culture legend stolen by the show came toward the end, with Rhys preparing to attack the shapeshifter, disguised as his mother, with a chainsaw, prior to it being blown up by Jack and his big gun, leading to black blood goop flying everywhere. Sounds like The Evil Dead? Jack agrees.

It definitely seems that this episode was meant to be a homage to that hyper-real Sam Raimi style of horror comedy, as well as the big silly sci-fi B-movies I grew up with, and I’ll bet Phil Ford is a fan of such and figured this was his chance to pay homage to that with over-the-top action, sex jokes, violence and exploding bodies. Of course, that’s all well and good in practice, but 1) pointing it out in dialogue is a failure of nerve, and 2) the show might have the confidence to think it can pull something like this off, but it doesn’t have the ability.


It’s the kind of amateurish stuff teenagers dream of filming, and I know when I was young I imagined myself as a West Midlands Peter Jackson, making horror movies with lots of aliens exploding and men standing around posing with big guns, because that’s what happened in all of my favourite films. There are so many of these plagiaristic films made on shoestring budgets littering the sci-fi/horror sections of HMV’s DVD shelves that we really really don’t need any more, especially if they have nothing new to offer. This certainly didn’t. And that gun looks stupid. And even if it didn’t look stupid, no one on this show looks cool with guns.


Torchwood showrunners, watch Planet Terror to see how it’s done. I may have parted ways with Robert Rodriguez in recent years, but that was a massive return to form, and exactly the kind of crazy horror blow-out Torchwood thought it was for one whole week. The gulf in quality between the two is vast, and it’s not a consequence of the BBC show having a smaller budget. It’s the lack of imagination that dooms the show, not the lack of pounds.

1. The Retcon Finale.

At the end of the episode, much to Jack’s displeasure, Gwen finally gets to have her happy moment with Rhys, alien egg disintegrated and everything back to a semblance of normality. The families watch with joyous faces as Gwen and Rhys share their vows, and Canyon and I assumed Jack had gone around to everyone with Retcon pills and erased their memories of the terrible day. BTW, I know the Retcon pills are a dreadful ripoff of the Neuraliser from Men In Black, but boldly calling them Retcon pills made me very happy as a comic nerd, reminding me of Dan Slott’s boldly named Retroactive Cannon (AKA Ret-Can) from She-Hulk.


We then cut to everyone having the dance and meal afterwards, and everything seems hunkydory, until suddenly the assembled guests start falling asleep. Turns out Jack has administered the retcon pills after the wedding ceremony, and not before.


So what they’re saying is that once the Nostrovite was defeated and Gwen returned to non-pregnant normality, the guests just accepted this turn of events, and went about celebrating the wedding. Even though they had been terrorised by a shapechanging alien threatening to kill the mother of the bride. Even though several of the guests had been running around with guns. Even though the best man’s dismembered corpse was lying in pieces in a room upstairs!!!

To make things worse, Jack’s use of the retcon pills robs everyone of their memories of the wedding. Perhaps there is a way for them to talk to the guests and make them think they saw it, as shown in Men In Black when J and K interrogate people post-neuralisation, but still, why not do it before the ceremony so that they can still have the full memory of the wedding and forget the gunfights and shootings and aliens and half-eaten best men for fuck’s sake!?!?!? There is no reason other than monumental stupidity on the part of the writer, director and showrunner. How can this be considered logical or defensible? How is this not insulting the intelligence of the viewers? I call super-colossal-gigantic BULLSHIT on the whole thing.

The thing that makes me most angry, though, is that this was written by Phil Ford, who was pretty much solely responsible for the scripts on the recent excellent revamp of Captain Scarlet, which was the most interesting and intelligent early-teen-targeted show on TV until ITV predictably got cold feet and cancelled it. Those scripts were tight and serious and sometimes shocking. I thoroughly recommend it to everyone.


I’ll grant that this episode was obviously conceived as a way to comment on real life using the trappings of sci-fi in the same way that Buffy and Angel used horror conventions to do the same thing, and as such Something Borrowed was chock-full of metaphors for marriage-as-horror-nightmare, but they were either crashingly obvious (mother-in-law jokes), half-baked (could the shapeshifter have represented the way your friends change their opinion of you once you get into a relationship? Or am I giving the show too much credit?), or severely malfunctioning (the impregnation could have represented the second thoughts she was having about marrying Rhys because of her love for Jack, but why dramatise that as subtext when it comes up as text over and over again towards the end of the episode?). That said, even if it did work, that contrivance at the end with the retcon pill kills the episode deader than dead. It’s just unforgivable.


So, once more, any fans wandering in here will ask why I’m still watching. Well, the next episode, already screened on BBC Three, is written by P.J. Hammond, who I’ve gone on about before. The preview looked peculiar, which is what we want and what he does very very well (if you get a chance, watch his wholly original sci-fi/horror series Sapphire and Steel to see him at full quirky strength). I have high hopes for it. But the next three episodes? All written by Chris Chibnall? Let’s just say I’m looking forward to them for different reasons. Look away if you don’t want to see the spoilers from the BBC Press Office.

When a local teenager disappears, Gwen is drawn into an investigation that reveals a darker side of Torchwood, as Doctor Who writer Russell T Davies’s award-winning drama continues. Hundreds of people have disappeared without trace, but Jack is obstructing attempts to find them. The answer seems to lie in the rift – literally – and as Gwen follows the trail, she makes a shocking discovery.

That sounds intriguing, I have to say, but Chibnall will find a way to screw it up. Making it another Gwen-centric episode is already a bad start. As for the next episode…

A booby-trapped building explodes and knocks the team unconscious, as Doctor Who writer Russell T Davies’s award-winning drama continues. As each team member’s life flashes before their eyes, viewers learn how each of them was recruited to Torchwood: Captain Jack was initiated into a shocked Victorian Torchwood in 1899; Toshiko went on a daring mission to trade alien technology for her mother’s life; Ianto wooed Jack with coffee and a flair for alien-catching; and Owen had a medical revelation that changed how he saw the world.

…::coughOutofGasfromFireflycough:: Also, Ianto woos Jack with coffee? I can’t wait for that! I wonder if he will mention his girlfriend Lisa, who got cybermanned in the first season. I seem to recall him mourning her for the majority of that season. If she doesn’t get even namechecked, I will certainly poke fun of it here. Oh boy, a special treat for the finale!

Captain John Hart returns to have his revenge on Torchwood in the concluding episode of Doctor Who writer Russell Davies’s award-winning drama. Taking Captain Jack prisoner, he sends him back in time for a long overdue reunion. Without their leader, Torchwood are faced with a city flooded with Weevils, on the brink of destruction. But who is Captain John really working for? Can anyone trust him? And how great a price must Torchwood pay to save the city?

Weevils everywhere! James Marsters! A great price to be paid that might feature the removal of two major characters if the rumours I heard are true! Don’t forget, it’s on tomorrow night and Good Friday. Set your PVRs, Torchwood fans!