Saturday, 30 October 2010

Movie Review and Analysis: Full Metal Jacket

Yes, not the Bourne Identity still. I know. I'll watch it soon!

*This review contains spoilers*

Full Metal Jacket is a film that, despite famous lines of dialogue and the impressive performance of R. Lee Ermey, I only recently got around to seeing.

Let me say this now - I thought The Shining, also directed by Kubrick, was a good horror film. It is.

Even so Full Metal Jacket is an even more effective horror film despite being a different genre altogether. It has to be one of the most openly anti-war films I have seen.

The first half or so of the film centres on some green US Marine Corp recruits being trained up for deployment in the ongoing Vietnam War.

R. Lee Ermey plays Sergeant Hartman, a tough, intimidating and yet generally fair Drill Sergeant. Kubrick apparently allowed Ermey to improvise his lines, something which he almost never allowed his actors to do. It was a wise move - the ad-lib nature of the lines (many of which are profanity filled and repulsive) allows Ermey's performance to shine given his real background as a drill instructor. The actors actually look scared and uncertain the minute he opens his mouth.

 That's SERGEANT R. Lee Ermey, you scum-sucking waste of space!

There are many moments of dark humour in the first half of the film, most often through Ermey's creative put-downs of his recruits. These are interspersed with some profoundly disturbing scenes, most of which centre around Leonard Lawrence (Vincent D'Onofrio), or as Hartman calls him, "Gomer Pyle".

Lawrence is an unfit and mentally slow recruit who has an almost childlike innocent demeanour. Hartman's relentless abuse of him during numerous failed training drills, and the other recruits' bitter (and even violent) resentment towards his ineptitude is shocking but captivating.

Other main characters include Joker (Matthew Modine) and Cowboy (Arliss Howard), who form a friendship while at the barracks.

 Joker

Joker attempts to help Lawrence with aspects of the training that he struggles with (even helping him dress smartly), but slowly becomes exasperated. After one particularly bad foul-up in which Lawrence gets the entire group punished, he is gagged and then beaten with bars of soap in the middle of the night by his fellow recruits.

Joker eventually caves into the frustration along with the others, and joins in the beating of the helpless Lawrence. One of the most haunting shots of the film shows Cowboy, the only recruit not to join in, lying in his bunk and covering his ears to drown out Lawrence's cries.

Ironically this harsh kind of treatment transforms Lawrence into a model soldier, and he becomes one of the best in the unit at the various discipline drills. Then Joker notices that he is holding conversations with his rifle in private.

From there things get worse and worse, eventaully building to a tense crescendo. In the dead of night, the unhinged Lawrence loads his rifle with live ammunition. Joker walks into a shower room to find him screaming drill commands and shouldering the gun. Horrified, Joker is powerless to calm him down.

Hartman wakes up and attempts to defuse the situation, but his ultimate lack of emotional understanding proves fatal. Lawrence shoots him dead when he begins to shout orders at him. Grinning uncontrollably, he considers killing Joker too, but eventually sits down on a toilet seat.

Before the stunned Joker can do anything Lawrence lifts the rifle and promptly commits suicide - an act which brings the first half of the film to a chilling conclusion.

Lawrence, mid break-down

How close is a "model marine" to a psychopath in a system which encourages loss of emotion and dehumanisation? The film makes a powerful and uncomfortable argument that the line is very blurred indeed.

Is the system of mentally breaking recruits to form new soldiers as inhumane and cruel as war itself? Or even worse?

The second half of the film covers the actual war, in which Joker is assigned a journalistic role. He frequently writes semi-propaganda stories for army media to appease his superiors.

A lot of reviews I've read rate FMJ highly, but state that the film loses cohesion after the first half. Here I agree, but I don't think it's to the detriment of the film.

The rest of the movie has a kind of organised chaos about it. We move rapidly from location to location with Joker, again culminating at the end of the film in a prolonged tension-laden scene. We see fleeting pieces of the war with Joker's eyes and start to build up our opinions as he does.

This half of the film is of course home the infamous comic relief scene with "Da Nang Hooker", which popularised the whole "me so horny" thing that you still hear occasionally today.

The film throws us another interesting scene here. On the way to his next assignment (which coincidentally causes him to run into Cowboy's squad) he flies in a helicopter.

The door gunner, firing the machinegun at enemy troops, repeats almost constantly under his breath:

"Get some. Get some. Get some, get some. Get some. Get some."

Apparently unaware he is even muttering it, the camera pans round to reveal that he is actually gunning down civilians below indiscrimately. Joker notices this, and asks the soldier incredulously how he can shoot women and children.

The gunner boasts of his kill count (157 people and around 50 water buffalo, apparently equivalent in his view) and explains that shooting women and children is easy. "You just don't lead 'em so much."

This scene is never laid to rest, which is partly what makes it so uncomfortable. Joker doesn't respond, we never see any kind of conclusion to such a dark moment, the film simply moves on.

It's hard to sum all of the characters up, but easily one of the most prominent from here on is "Animal Mother" (Adam Baldwin), a heavy-machinegun toting soldier in Cowboy's squad. He is renowned for being brave and aggressive while under fire, and we see numerous times that he is.

However, he is simultaneously cold and emotionally hollow, his feelings apparently burnt away by the fighting. When Joker questions his motives for what he does, he explains that all that matters is "winning". Being right doesn't matter, and it was never about that. His whole motivation comes from surviving the next battle, and the prostitutes they all frequent afterwards.

 Animal Mother in a tough situation

From then on Joker finds himself in the thick of combat (and is widely criticised by his peers for having never killed anyone before). This all changes in the final act of the film.

Cowboy is forced to lead the squad after the previous leader is killed by a booby trap. Eventually the squad advances through an urban area, where a deadly sniper picks off several more squad members. Animal Mother suppresses the sniper and leads the squad forward.

Cowboy himself is sniped and wounded while answering the radio. His last words echo weakly from training: "I can hack it." The others can do nothing to help him but whisper words of encouragement, and he bleeds to death.

Finally they settle on killing the sniper as payback. They sneak into the building and Joker is the first to encounter him - or more precisely her. The sniper is a young girl dressed in a dusty uniform. Joker's gun jams as he goes to fire on her, and he cowers behind a pillar as she shoots at him.

Eventually she is gunned down by Joker's friend, who tastelessly whoops with joy as she lays dying on the ground. The Marines gather around her and she starts whispering something.

Eventually Joker's friend stops cheering, everything becomes silent and someone asks what she's saying.

"She's praying." Joker says. Animal Mother reasons to leave her "for the rats", but Joker insists that they must put her out of her misery.

She begins quietly begging them to kill her, and AM tells Joker that he'll let her die quickly - but only if Joker himself does the deed, and so gets his first kill.

Joker hesistates for a long time, grimacing and staring at the floor, but eventually he pulls the trigger. No-one speaks for a while, and then everyone but Joker begins whooping and cheering again, who just stares down at the corpse pale-faced and vacant eyed.

The closing scene of the film shows the soldiers marching across the landscape and singing, and Joker narrates that he "is in a world of shit, yes. But I am alive. And I am not afraid."

This very ambiguous statement is all we get in way of closure, and it works perfectly. Has Joker found some kind of meaning in the horrors he has witnessed? Is that what his last quote refers to? Or has he finally lost his grip on humanity, like so many other characters in the film?

The "world of shit" quote is particularly interesting. Early in the film, Hartman informs the Marines that "No Marine dies without permission", because doing so lands them in "a world of shit".

One of the last things that the mentally broken Lawrence says to Joker in his final scene, is that he is "in a world....of shit."

Does Joker's use of the term imply that he has also lost that "spark" that makes us people? Or has he become stronger, having overcome that initial shock, and understood what Lawrence meant in his final moments?


Final Word:

So this has been a long review/analysis, and I could rattle on more (I won't fortunately ;) ) but FMJ is a film that really gets you thinking. Every few moments something comes along that really feels masterfully planned and executed, and the whole film drips with themes.

The ending, and scenes such as the soap beating generate a kind of emotional reaction that movies so regularly fail to nail. That alone makes FMJ more disturbing than any horror film and many times more poignant than lots of other films in the same genre.

If you want to see an occasionally amusing, frequently chilling film which has a hefty layer of meaning on top, I highly recommend this film. Just make sure you're suitably hardened for the harsher bits before you turn it on.

5/5


[*][*][*][*][*]

Saturday, 23 October 2010

Movie Review: Orphan

*This review contains spoilers*

"There's something wrong with Esther." is the tagline for this film, and it certainly isn't lying.

Unfortunately though, Orphan is one of the most frustrating films I've watched in recent times. It's a textbook example of how needless cheap scares and shoehorned cliches can derail a decent thriller.

Peter Sarsgaad and Vera Farmiga play a kind and well-off couple who have a nice house and lovable kids. Their life is shaken when they lose their third child before birth. They decide, after much deliberation, to adopt a child. That child is Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman).

Esther is something of a child prodigy. She's polite, mature, intelligent and is very good at art. She also has some rather bizarre personality traits, and her history is dogged by a series of tragic accidents.

I found the first half or so of Orphan very watchable. It was surprisingly smart for a "horror" film, and reminded me more of a thriller. The characters were likable and believable. As the story progresses, we learn things about them not easily guessed (Farmiga's character used to have an alcohol problem, for example).

Interesting characters who develop? A dubious antagonist? Unreliable viewpoints? Good film so far.

Sadly though, the film is filled with these little nuggets that seem forced in from the scripts of other, lesser films.

It's kind of like someone in Hollywood watched the film, then said "Nah, this won't appeal to the market enough. Throw some cheap-ass scares in and change the ending."

So, the character building and interesting build-up is then interspersed with some of the most ludicrous "make-u-jump" scenes I've seen in a film. Think of it, and it's in the film. Kids laughing suddenly (at deafening volume), things banging, sudden unusually aggressive hugs, that sort of crap.

It just feels so unneccesary and cheapens the whole movie. It's like eating lobster and having a guy run up and bellow in your ear at random intervals.

Even worse, I didn't actually jump at any of the "sudden" bits (and I haven't done in any film for some time now). That makes it feel even more redundant.

Then I mentioned it felt like the ending was changed. Well, yeah. The film does well to avoid cliches until about 50-75% of the way through, and then they start sprouting like ugly mushrooms.

Cops taking a millenia to arrive when needed? Check. Main character dying through very dubious judgement? Check. Antagonist refusing to be killed off? Check

It really is sad to see what felt like such a promising film take a nosedive, and all because it tries to up the "horror" side of things while ditching what made it interesting in the first place.

Final Word:

Orphan oozes a kind of sneaky, devious charm until around halfway through. Then it tries to escalate things higher and higher until it has nowhere to go but cheesy horror film territory. Disappointing.


3/5.

[*] [*] [*] [ ] [ ]

Monday, 11 October 2010

Movie Review: Casino Royale

Weren't expecting that, were you?!

Since unfortunately I didn't manage to see The Bourne Identity this weekend, I decided to have a look at the "old new" Bond film.


Now, while I found the original James Bond movies entertaining as a kid, as an adult I find them dated and tedious.

Yes, Roger Moore and Sean Connery game some reasonable performances, but the content was formulaic and sometimes rather insulting, especially in the oldest ones.

*Old Bond film rant starts here*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bond is some kind of superhuman being in all of them who is ridiculously excellent at everything. Villains are always genius madmen who nonetheless are too stupid to just shoot Bond, and insist, every single film, in putting him into "escapable situation X".

The other bad guys are always great at murdering anyone but Bond, and then they suddenly become incompetent morons who can't shoot straight. Ebert's review of Casino Royale also nailed something I find annoying in most films: when was the last time in an action film, if ever, that the main character was killed by a machinegun?

It's strange movie logic that comes up again and again - machineguns aimed by baddies make sparks fly everywhere, but are otherwise utterly useless against a hero. On the other hand, a simple pistol in the hands of a hero becomes some kind of 100% accurate railgun that can kill 10 people in 5 seconds. Sigh.


Then there are the women, perhaps the most irritating part of old Bond films. They're always named after some kind of lame double entendre (which fortunately I never cottoned on to as a kid, aside from thinking the names were "weird".)


Holly Goodhead, Pussy Galore, Mary Goodnight, Honey Rider.


I mean, the second one in particular isn't even a vaguely realistic name, and it's pretty graphic. Quite why the films are seen as harmless for kids when the characters are practically named "Ivanta Shagyu" I don't know >_>


Then there's how they behave. I forget which film it is, possibly The Man With The Golden Gun, but the girl helps James fight the baddies. She's insultingly stupid and inept, hopping around and squealing "Oh James, I don't know what to do! Which button do I press?!" when the only button is a giant red one.

Plus there are also several Bond films with cringeworthy lines towards racial minorities. I'm don't like how Britain is so PC-obsessed now days, but even so some of the Bond films definitely class as being in the "exploitation" genre.


So, old Bond films: The villains are idiots, Bond is some kind of superman, henchmen are useless, black and asian people are stereotyped completely and all girls are sex objects with IQs of about 10. Nice.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Rant end*

The following review may contain some spoilers.



Fortunately, Casino Royale is a departure from 99% of the crap in the old films.

The main antagonist isn't a bald maniac with a base on the moon, but a slimy, desperate banker who provides large scale investments for terrorists.

The "Bond girl" (Eva Green) displays refreshing intelligence and saves Bond's life on several occasions.

Q, the gadget guy, and Moneypenny are both missing. Instead there is just M (Judi Dench), Bond's boss. Dench puts in a characteristically decent performance. This cuts down quite considerably on the cheesy humour typically associated with the "Bond formula".


Bond (Daniel Craig) is very competent at his job, but is also ruthless and emotionally cold, something that intentionally makes him quite unlikable in several scenes. While still intelligent and sharp-witted, he is a more realistic character than in any of the old films. He is a human being with strengths and flaws rather than a man made of steel.

In one scene he seduces and manipulates a target's wife purely to gain information - she is murdered as a result. As the body is bagged up and removed from a beach, M and Bond stare at it.


When M speaks her voice is sad, almost disgusted. "I would ask you to remain emotionally detached, but that's not really your problem, is it, Bond?"

Bond doesn't seem to feel a twinge of guilt. "No."

This more mature character development is a shining example of how the film differs from its predecessors, in which I couldn't imagine a scene anywhere near as stark or chilling.

Even the action has had an overhaul. While the scenes are familar: fights in speeding vehicles, fights in stairwells, car chases, they also soak up the new visceral feel. Bond frequently ends struggles blood-smeared, beaten and exhausted, but his enemies end up even worse. No longer are fights your usual Bond case of Big Evil Man With Cheesy Advantage versus Man In Sharp Suit.

Sebastien Foucan, one of the big names of parkour, makes a cameo in a very impressive chase scene.

Mixed in with all this are casino scenes that manage to milk every last drop of tension from the turning over of two cards, and an end which results in the villain's demise in a far more satisfactory and creepy way than any over-the-top cartoony death ever could.


Final Word:

Casino Royale is in a different world to the Bond films before it, and I highly recommend watching it even if you typically dislike old Bond cliches.

[*] [*] [*] [*] [*]

5/5

Friday, 8 October 2010

Coming Soon: The Bourne Identity Review

This evening I hope to sit down with The Bourne Identity, a bowl of noodles and/or a beer and write a review for it, work permitting. If not, maybe this rather redundant blog post will jog my memory!

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Friday, 1 October 2010

Movie review: The Day After Tomorrow

After enjoying Collateral in my last review, it makes sense that it couldn't last and I've now seen a film I loathe!

I have seen The Day After Tomorrow perhaps 4-5 times. This is not out of choice, but because (for perplexing reasons I can't fathom) it is on TV about every 2 weeks. Nothing else is on when it's on either.

Let's get one thing straight from the start: I am not "trendy" when it comes to Global Warming, which is what this film claims to be about.

(Global Warming rant here. If you want to skip, move down second dashed line!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I accept there is a problem, yes, and I believe we should closely monitor it. I also believe mankind should attempt to be eco-friendly as much as is possible while maintaining efficiency.

However, I don't believe this scaremongering crap that has been so popular lately - that we are going to be the "tipping point" with our CO2 emissions.

Why? Well, when one huge-arse volcano can erupt at any time and totally dwarf the CO2 emissions of the entire Human race, I tend to think this talk of Human tipping points is ludicrous. Include underwater volcanos we don't even know about and the fact that geysers are always spewing crap out (plus the gases emitted when tectonic plates shift) and we start to look less and less significant.

Scientific evidence for this "human factor" theory is also weak, and this is what really annoys me.  Take the leaked emails from East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which announced that "[we] must suppress the level of change" - I.E. no significant evidence to point to human-caused climate change, but the Unit wanted to cover it up. That's great ethical science right there!

There is a cult-like mentality (ingrained in many self-righteous individuals I have met personally) that we are killing the planet with CO2, and the science is being bent to fulfill this political agenda. Science is there to present an empirical, quantitative truth, but sadly with GW that one goal seems to be obfuscated completely.

The way half of this stuff is presented is really more like religious zeal than factual evidence.

The Government loves these types of smug fanatics and this kind of perversion of science. Up taxes, and people actually agree with it! Perfect!

This is all compounded by the fearmongering adverts put out by the government and climate change groups. I remember seeing one recently aimed at children, which announced that "scientists" (got to love generalisation) have told everyone that we're all going to get screwed soon by it. Then we see images of animals and people drowning, and kids crying.

Another I saw showed a tearful young girl being teleported to an arid desert, and then being nearly killed by huge tidal waves. Then a stark voice boomed out about CO2 emissions. What scientific references did the ad make use of? None, naturally. Just a whole load of fear-spreading bull.

Now, one of the most "GW-active" people I know pretty much sums up the whole mentality. He owned 8 phones at one point recently, and must change to a new phone model once every couple of months. He also owned two laptops and a desktop computer.

I presently have one laptop, one desktop, and one cheap phone. According to this guy, I was a "materialist". I almost choked laughing! Similarly, he announced on his FB that "flying is immoral", strangely after he broke up with his overseas partner, who he was previously flying out to every 5-6 months.

I haven't been on a plane for about 8 years.

Yet this guy is THE Eco-Warrior™. It's amazing, simply incredible...but he sees himself as some kind of enlightened saviour of the planet, and naturally is a great big fan of the more baseless scaremongering ads and campaigns.

He has no idea of the science, as demonstrated in his poor reasoning over energy efficiency and countless other eco-related areas, but hey, he's a GW crusader, so logic and hypocrisy be damned!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Review resumed)

Well, basically TDAT layers on the GW theme thick. Chokingly thick. The protaganist is a super-enlightened scientist who suddenly realises the world will end due to climate change in a couple of days.

Naturally the politicians are all idiots and refuse to listen, and the film just keeps piling on the smug lecturing. "If only they had listened earlier!" is a common expression, often followed by a saddened headshake or a melodramatic kneading of the forehead.

Yes, we're stupid for not subscribing to the CO2 tipping point craze. We get it. We don't need any more patronising bollocks, thank you very much. Oh wait, we're going to get it anyway. Cheers!

Anyway, the film goes through every disaster movie cliche in the book. Tsunamis, ice storms (which somehow freeze low-flying military helicopters but not the protaganist's car. He must have an Eco-Warrior™ Shield. I wonder how much CO2 it takes to keep that thing rocking) and all other sorts of stuff.

Everyone except the Enlightened Few act like brainless tossers and generally die. There is a "brave sacrifice by cutting my climbing rope" scene that you see in every film ever to feature climbing ropes.

There are some truly laughable scenes, such as when a group of survivors successfully outrun a skyscraper-sized tsunami, or (my personal favourite) when they run away from the weather!

That's right, the building they're in freezes behind them amd they run away from the ice as it materialises in seconds behind them. Futhermore, they "shut out" this bizarre demonic freezing agent by shutting a door.

Ell-Oh-Ell.

So yeah, cliched, stale disaster movie with syrupy coverings of very biased Global Warming preachiness, this is one of the most tiresome films I have seen for a while.

Final Word:

Plot is gusty with heavy showers of smug. Extremely dangerous conditions, do not stay indoors, leave the house if neccessary!


1/5.


[*] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Also, because it's perfect (and you suffered my rant):




Watch 'til the end for big lols ;)