The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

OMFG!!!!1 ECLIPSE WOZ AMAZING!!

...may be the only positive criticism of the new Twilight film you would anticipate. However, my feeling's reflect this sentiment given the surprisingly good turn David Slade has done for the teen-vamp franchise.

So we're at the third instalment of this decades' ultimate love it or hate it – most would have you believe that those who love it are exclusively 15 year old girls, of course – from an unbiased cinephiles viewpoint the films so far have been passable but haven't met their potential in terms of storytelling and balance of fantastic action and weepy love story. However, I am not unbiased, I like what I like but I just guess that I'm too much of a pro at this to hate something so socially acceptable to hate. Coming soon: “10 things I hate about The Shawshank Redemption” - just joking... I haven't seen it.

We've joked at length about the whole boyfriend dragged to the cinema notion and indeed this is my introduction to Twilight Saga, but this time I was looking forward to it. And that definitely wasn't on the strength of New Moon. A new director can give a series the direction it needs, a comparable example is Alfonso Cuarón's turn on the third Harry Potter film The Prisoner of Azkaban, whose dark change of tone and careful balance of plot elements made it far superior to its too predecessors, even if it is one of those “in between” books.
This issue was given to explaining the poor result of New Moon, not much happens and worse still Robert Patternson's Edward Cullen character is absent for a lot of it. But the reason Eclipse is such a good film is not just a more suitable plot outline from the source, but the careful a management of these elements and a clear understanding of what these films could have been like all along.

David Slade hits the nail on the head.

Eclipse starts in a much more horrific manner – it's night and a man is stalked by an unseen creature - and Slade's vision of the Twilight universe revels in its heritage of gothic romance & horror. The pure horror aesthetic is a strong undertone in the movie, before we could've forgot we're talking about dark dark shit... yeah, they sparkle but they suck blood out of your neck ! Nicely, Slade avoids clichés, or at least it feels natural. So from full moons and dark dark woods, the film visuals are brilliant when sun rises too. We really get a sense of the landscape in this movie helping the fantasy ride out in a more engaging fashion that its only fitting for an epic romantic tale – think Wuthering Heights. What's more whatever trendy music they've used perfectly compliments the film and adds to a great atmosphere.

Atmosphere and mood are important in a film like this. Yes more than plot .. shh.

To be honest, I'm writing this quite a while after seeing it and don't really recall the plot in detail. But get this: there's a love triangle and an impending battle. The important thing, and what impressed me was the way it was balanced so neatly. This stopped one element being more or less engaging. Similarly this is easily the most unisex, in it's appeal, of the movies. The action and indeed violence is brilliantly executed, harsh (but appropriate within the age rating), stylised and doesn't look as daft as the others, I assure you. On the other side, the romantic trials of our heroine Bella are really involving. Working as a metaphor the film is powerful – many have contested the message of the movie but the journey Bella is going through in this film is something we can all understand it is not just a choice of who she wants to make it with but who she wants to be. Doesn't get more teenage than that. This love triangle is what roots the film through all the fantasy to something universal... though maybe you'll appreciate it more as a heartache soaked teeny-something - and also makes Bella a lot more likeable than in the other films. She's is presented as a well-rounded character, who's head we can really get into, in a well-balanced film that doesn't let the fantasy override the romance or the kissing get in the way of the horror.

Not perfect enough a mix for you? There's some great humour in this film too, that should help erase memories of squirming in your seat, next to your girlfriend, screaming inside your head “Bella for fucks sake!! Lighten up!”.

Death Rides A Horse

A while back I decided to try and see each of Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 Spaghetti Westerns as an introduction to the genre outside of the Leone standards. I'm glad I did as there is very little chance I would've seen this film otherwise. I'm trying not to review films through the veil of Tarantino, but it can be tough when he rips off so much. Oooooh. Indeed an important thing to note is Tarantino's borrowings from this film but let's not let it get in the way. You'll notice the Kill Bill Vol.1 moments as you watch it and it can be a fun element but let's look at the film on it's on merits.

Death Rides a Horse came out in 1967 and stars Lee Van Cleef (star of For A Few Dollars More, The Good The Bad The Ugly and Escape From New York) and John Philip Law. I will probably watch anything with Van Cleef - he's a great screen presence, if you've seen the Dollars films you should be acutely aware of this. He makes a great tough guy and is probably one of the less highly regarded actors in that area. As for Law, I dunno who he is but he makes a nice straight up gun-toter with a score to settle.

As a child, Bill (Law) witnesses the murder of his family by four robbers. Fifteen years later, an expertly honed marksman, he embarks on his revenge. During his quest, he crosses paths with Ryan (Van Cleef), an ex-con who wants the money the robbers owe him. It's a simple but effective story that plays well in the plot but my essential recommendation for this film is two-fold.

Firstly, there are other good Spaghetti Westerns out there aside from Leone's masterpeices. Yes, they're not of the same calibre but they are different takes on that cinematic territory that are often entertaining little pieces. Examples in my expericne include Sergio Corbucci's The Mercenary, and Day of Anger (also starring Van Cleef) and now this. In the 1960's, spaghetti westerns were your basic precursor to the modern action movie and this brings me to my second reason to check out this movie – it's packed with badass moments. Case in point...

Man walks round corner with gun, looking for Van Cleef.
Van Cleef is standing against the wall like “wtf is with dis guy?”.
The man is oblivious and continues to lurk forward.
Van Cleef, cool as hell, whistles to get his attention.
Man turns round and Van Cleef guns him down, before getting on with his biz.

Just watch the trailer and you'll see what I'm talking about, go on.

Straight up classic tough guy movie.

The bad-assery is also in the barrels of great lines in the film, these really elevate it amongst its counterparts, it's script is engaging and you're are pretty interested in the characters considering that's usually not that essential for the enjoyment of such a film. We open with the act that needs avenging, meet the characters and then get down to work, and it keeps it nice and quick, witty and full of glorious Old West action.

Essentially this is a surprisingly entertaining popcorn movie, and I have QT to thank for finding it, love him or loathe him. If you manage to find it (I've just discovered you can watch the whole thing on Youtube, in a single video, yet!) my bet is you'll be impressed. The film boasts the ever present Morricone score that does its job brilliantly as usual adding to the raw power of the film and the over the top drama of the story, it also has some great cinematic flourishes that show enduring originality and an enjoyable over the top nature so well used in Spaghetti Westerns – restraint is clearly not an important element, as in any modern day action film, the story is nicely rounded with two central characters that work more than adequately for a movie of it's kind giving it a great functionality and a punch that still lands nicely today. For fans of the genre I'd say it was a lesser known must see, and it's a decent enough entry to the visceral and less lengthy side of Spaghetti Westerns

Watchmen

Alan Moore once said that Watchmen was designed to be unfilmable and for many years it seemed that way. Often considered the greatest work of graphic fiction the Watchmen project has passed through many hands but ultimately was brought to the screen by 300 director Zack Snyder - very much the fan boy – in 2009, with Moore's name noticeably absent in the credits.

The plot is incredibly complex, given its 12 issue arc and unique narrative style that covers many interweaving, simultaneous events. The essential premise lies in bringing the notion of the super-hero into the real world for dramatic effect and social commentary. We enter a world, in 1985, that has grown up with masked vigilante's and in recent times outlawed them. America has employed a super man to win the Vietnam war and is now locked in a cold war with Russia, using “Dr Manhattan” (a name alluding to the project that created the A-Bomb) as its nuclear deterrent - a man who, given god like powers finds himself drifting away from any emotional connection with the world. (It is interesting that the heroes of Watchmen are either of lesser ability than your average Spider-man or far beyond). Now some of the retired Watchmen are being killed off leading the survivors to seek out the plot behind it all. We are witness to a variety of ex-vigilante characters, humans with complex personal issues; one insane and fascistic pushed forth by personal demons, one pursuing his twisted Utilitarian beliefs, some others broken men who feel powerless without their alter egos, each trying to cope with the situation and their day to day lives and interactions as Armageddon ensues.

Some of the notions of Watchmen are incredibly powerful and will startle those who think comics are child's play. Watching it before ever reading the book I was torn between seeing issues in the construction of the film, and being very attracted the it's unique interpretations of the super hero and view of society. This is a film review so it's not right to get hung up on issues concerning the graphic novel but it is significant that I felt I needed to read the book after seeing the film (and have waited to before writing this review). I imagine many others who have not read the book will feel the same, watching the movie. There is a clear sense you're missing out, even after the mammoth 160 odd minutes.
Snyder's concentration on the surface level of the film means we get a very impressive looking film. There is a superficial attempt to recreate the book in using it for story board design and it can definitely be considered a faithful adaptation in that respect (not one to rival Sin City however – but then they had Frank Miller on board) and many moments are quite satisfyingly brought to life, through careful art design and cinematography. However past this outer layer it doesn't come close to addressing the political and psychological issues that are the strength of the book but nonetheless alludes to them frequently in its sheer premise - built around this humanisation of the super hero and the whole cold war setting. This serves to make the film seem very self important as we don't get the insight, satire and analysis of Moore's work. It is a criticism of Snyder's ability that he is short sighted enough to put such staggering effort into the visual details whilst missing out on so much of what Watchmen is about. The focus on visual style also poses problems when the highly graphic content comes into play. Snyder fought to make it R-rated to accommodate the story in its entirety but seems unsatisfied with this, often amplifying the violence of less significant moments and this becomes very much an issue when dealing with Sally Jupiter's rape, for instance, where the obsession with the style seems to detract from the seriousness of the situation, making it rather troublesome to watch. On a smaller level the fact that we do, at its heart have a very engaging plot means the continuous instances of ridiculous, slow-mo fight scenes gets very tired and I found myself getting very bored of costumed clobbering when I wanted to see the story unfold, and certainly with a film of this length any unnecessary screen time needs to be kept down. This hyper-stylisation also detracts from the realism of Alan Moore's Watchmen, which is a pretty integral basis to its premise, after all. Perhaps this is an attempt to accommodate an audience expecting a super hero film, which suggests a lack of conviction for someone taking on the Watchmen film.

However, I will say a reason why the film manages to engage despite these problems is the fine handling of the casting. Crudup handles the emotional drift of Dr Manhatten very well with the aid of ever capable visual effects and the rest of the cast are very fitting for their graphic counterparts.

Ultimately there's going to be an issue in the debate as to whether you're a fan of the source or not - and moreover if you do like Watchmen it's highly probable you're obsessed. The film certainly has merits, largely because the strengths of Alan Moore's Watchmen are, even in diluted form, still pretty remarkable. Indeed, if this had been written as a film it would be considered incredibly imaginative and a great achievement just for its original viewpoint on the genre. For the viewer of Snyder's take on Watchmen, however there is a clear sense you are missing the story no matter how well certain aspects and scenes are realised in their cinematic format - there are great moments but ultimately they are by necessity a mere interpretation of the text that is “unfilmable”.
Not all the creative decisions are in vein (even the fairly significant changing of the ending is not the worst move) but style-over-substance approach to transitioning the text ultimately means it is flawed in its realisation and even on its own terms the film suffers but it is still a spectacle worth watching. I would just recommend that if you are planning on ever reading the book you should read it first, and that's tough to pre-empt because, I'd say, there's a good chance the film will leave you wanting more.

Dennis Hopper Tribute Video

Top 5 Charles Bronson Films

Ok, I think I've seen enough of the huge Cannon (sic) of Charles Bronson films, which as we all know are the Platonic Form of "Badass" (and he can kick Chuck Norris' candy-ass anyday) to do a top 5, so here goes...


5. Mr Majestyk (1974)




Bronson plays a man who just wants to harvest his melons when he gets involved with some local heavies and mob boss Al Lettieri. A lot better than it sounds, an odd little crime tale with the most insane off road scene I've ever witness that was used an advert for Ford.

4. Hard Times (1975)

Bronson plays a lonesome depression era prize fighter in Walter Hill's understated tale of well... hard times. The fighting is brilliantly shot and executed and the films hits the tone of underlying sadness and desperation just right.






3. The Mechanic (1972)



An action film with existential undertones? Just about. Bronson plays a hit-man with his own set of rules. Taking on an apprentice Bronson teaches him the trade but treachery lurks. Awesome action and scenery, just a pure slice off badassery. "Bang, you're dead."





2. Death Wish (1974)



Quintessential Bronson in this vigilante classic. Achieving more in moral and psychological issues and real character study than the preposterous (but sometimes enjoyable) sequels and with a fantastic score by Herbie Hancock, this revenge tale still packs a gritty punch and is a true peice of cinematic history for its contraversial impact.




1. Once Upon A Time in the West (1968)












Okay, the others were movies. This is a Film. I'm starting to think this could be Leone's best movie, and I love the dollars films. Leone jumps from Spaghetti to John Ford's westerns and does it in a way that summarises and surpasses. And Bronson is the leading man alongside Henry Fonda and Jason Robards and he kicks his fair share of ass.

"Did you bring a horse for me?"



"Well, looks like we're... shy one horse."



"You brought two too many."


...

Here's a lil' tribute video I made for the Bronze Man by me.

Coming Soon CinemaJournal's Cult Corner

Dennis Hopper Dies of Cancer Aged 74

In a streak of celebrity deaths, Dennis Hopper's death from terminal cancer, may have been less of a shock but is, for my money anyway, the most affecting. Gary Coleman may have his legacy and recent cancer victim Ronnie James Dio certainly will be missed but Hopper is a man who I always looked up to as a true original and an inspiration.

...so it comes with some pain that the last thing I saw him in was Hell Ride - I knew there'd be a price to pay, and it is this disrespect to his memory! So let's remember his finest hours as I'm sure we'll be marathoning a few Hopper joints - so to speak - over the next few days.

How many of my favourite films is he a part of? Well, let's start with the daddy - Easy Rider. I can't sing this film's praises enough, especially when people don't understand it's power and significance. As I've often said, Easy Rider is a counter-cultural cornerstone of cinema. What makes it more remarkable is its lineage, before Rider, biker movies were mindless tales of violence and machines and here we have a film that's cool as hell in terms of music and machines but has a depth to it. It harsh grittiness, in a philosophical sense as opposed to a physical one of films like The Glory Stompers that Hopper was a part of is its power, and it's scathing depiction of America is an enduring one - and it's portrayal of the drug culture certainly came along way from Fonda's earlier outing in Corman's The Trip. A simple yet intricately crafted film. And as my dad always says "Dennis Hopper directed it and he plays the stupid character" - how's that for acting chops?

Hopper's best performance? For my money it's Blue Velvet. Hopper's portrayal of Frank Booth anchors the darkness and sinister tone of the film and as we know he was probably the only man brave enough to play the character, he relished it. Just chilling but darkly enjoyable - probably because you know it's a master at work. I'm not sure what else to say, I guess it's that sort of film.

At this point I start to realise the impact of his work, and it's starting to kick a little that he's gone. Whether it's the fact that he's there at so many key moments of cinema - Rebel Without a Cause, Easy Rider, Apocalypse Now - or his hellraising contribution to the world of film and the school of rum-acting, Hopper made such an impact and seems to be a part of all the great things film has to offer for me, from a great character to a revolution. Rest in Peace.