Ieri ho visto il film “28 Settimane Dopo” e, nonostante non sia un fan dei film dell’orrore, mi è piaciuto un bel pò. Credo infatti che mantenga la qualità del primo film “28 Giorni Dopo”. Quello che ho trovato particolarmente apprezzabile è la colonna sonora. Il compositore, lo stesso del primo film, si chiama John Murphy. La strumentazione è semplice e piuttosto costante: chitarra acustica/elettrica, basso, piano, batteria. Poi ogni tanto si sentono sintetizzatori e il tutto è effettato a dovere. In molti film dell’orrore la strumentazione “rock” è utilizzata in maniera pietosa creando un suono inutilmente pesante e una sensazione generale di cattivo gusto. Mi viene in mente come esempio il film “Ghost Rider”, musiche di Christofer Young, non è proprio un film dell’orrore ma le ambientazioni e la fotografia cercano di darne il feeling. Ebbene il risultato è d’avvero patetico, sembra di sentire una band che suona durante un ritrovo di motociclisti dall’inizio alla fine del film… Nel caso di Murphy la storia è del tutto diversa: qui il sound è funzionale allo svolgersi della storia ed è trattato con estrema eleganza e stile. La musica descrive le azioni, si evolve e gioca con lo spettatore senza mai prenderlo in giro. Inoltre i temi riprendono le sonorità del primo film (musica sempre di Murphy) creando continuità e mettendo subito lo spettatore in un ambiente familiare, evitando quindi di distrarlo dall’azione visiva. Do a John Murphy un 8.5 su 10, specialmente perché è riuscito, senza l’uso di un’orchestra, a farmi rimanere attaccato al film con le orecchie oltre che con gli occhi!

Per acquistare la musica di 28 Settimane Dopo su iTunes clicca sulla copertina del CD.

G.

The MTV Movies Blog hints that Danny Boyle, who directed the incredible ‘28 Days Later’ might be considering to jump back on the franchise for the third installment… though he claims it won’t be called, ‘28 Months Later.’  Oh, and he also requests people stop saying they’re zombies in his film.  “They’re infected.  They’re not zombies,” he’s quoted. 

Well fair enough Mr. Boyle.  After you enjoy your success with indie-hit Slumdog Millionaire with possible Oscar nominations, please go back onto the franchise and restore the griddiness that the sequel 28 Weeks Later lacked.  You don’t have to call it 28 Months Later, though I don’t know why you wouldn’t.  Just finish off the franchise with a bang!  Global pandemic style!

Movies seen in 2008:

21 (2008): §§§§§ (5 on 10)

Pretty much by-the-numbers but reasonably entertaining fare based on true events about a group of MIT geniuses with their teacher-cum-mastermind taking over Las Vegas casinos bigtime by counting cards at blackjack table. The main character’s (a supergeek >< close to getting into Harvard Med School but desperately short of booty) intentions, dilemmas, motivations and actions are painted with stark black and white hues with cliche after cliche piled to give a familiar cosy lesson of growing up and realisation of the-stuff-what-really-matters-in-life, but all of it somewhat works and although you pinch your bum gone numb after a 2 hour morality lecture, it makes for good natured, harmless popcorn-cola entertainment. And yes, it made me refresh another card game. Which is sort of handy. So no love lost.

12 Monkeys (1995): §§§§§§§ (7 on 10)

Though jaded and uninspiring visually (which is rather surprising considering it comes from Terry Gilliam), this is another worthy addition to cerebral science fiction which sports a cracker of a script, applaudable performances from Willis and Pitt and such intelligent dialogue as very seldom heard in movies now. Great characterisation and idea-wise some great sequences. A prisoner of a now-surviving-in-underground-humans in future being sent back in time to find the virus that wiped it all and led to dominion of chief cities by animals has its moments. After time-travelling first to 1990 in an asylum where a panel of psychiatrists disbelieve him (obviously) and meeting a scientist’s insane son (an uproarious Pitt) to then going back to WW1 times only to get shot and then finally to 1996 with his now-ex-psychiatrist lady who slowly gets convinced its not really all going on in Willis’ head and he really is someone from future, its convoluted because it should be, not because it can be. Its a pity that her timing coincides with Willis’ believing he’s nothing but a goner, and all this saving the world thing is going on in his head; anyways it finally turns out they are unable to stop the inevitable disaster (Willis’ was having pre-visions of the climactic airport scene throughout and besides being a brave denouement resolution wise for the genre, it also lays to rest any incongruities that could have been brought about by the Butterfly Effect). In film’s own words, its a depiction of what’s known as “Cassandra complex” in which sometimes knowledge of the future comes with the impotence of not being able to avert it. But yea, the lackadaisical visuals (its similar to the more recent Children of Men in that it reconstructs a grimy apocalyptic future but with near-zilch slickness) meant it took me many fragmented viewings to get into this, but am glad I pressed on. It is a quality film. 

2 Days in Paris (2007): §§§§§§§§§ (9 on 10)

An exceedingly assured, poignant and honest slice-of-life love story about a middle aged couple (a young French woman and an American guy) and what transpires in their 2 day detour to Paris which happens to be the girl’s home city. The slow revelations about her past relationships through walks and wine parties with bizarrely eccentric guys and the overall openness about sex and intimacy topics in family and in the French land freaks out the hypochondriac guy no end. To say nothing of putting up with the verbal duels that the girl keeps on having with mum, minicab drivers, exes who are almost-paedophiles and a dad who scratches cars parked on pavements with his keys, bathrooms with moulds, condoms that are too small, and organic French grocery markets where skinned piglets and rabbit tongues are in the open. Its not any surprise he gets a bit freaked out and a little paranoid about the girl’s proximity to the guys around as the language barrier and a diametrically opposite way of everyday social protocol make things really tough.

But since, its a slice of life dramedy, the differences the couple have, the misunderstandings and all–they get resolved like they always do; when you have two people with a same world view, sense of humour, who’re all heart and who’re genuinely exasperated by the whole shabang of the “break-up”, it does come together in the end, or does it? Eternal Love or compromise in the end then?

There’s Delpy’s awesomely sincere monologue with all things that exasperate her-from the endless photo-clicking on night outs and sightseeing (is that jibe timely or what for us facebook addicts!) to when she confesses to the audience how there comes a point in time when you don’t want to start all over again, and how she’s still puzzled by how people can go from loving each other madly to nothing at all. Midway through, her difference of opinion with Jack about how she’s friends with her ex-es play on the same note, the neuroticism of this character resonated resoundingly with me. It is immensely sincere and as I said before, very assured a debut where the director has the audience by the collar and knows her characters inside out. Delpy’s totally adorable and so caring, so unpretentious and so unflinchingly French, your heart goes out to her despite all her eccentricities. The conversation romcom is  cute, keenly observed, and the lead characters are consistently spontaneous. The most interesting part is, even though you as a viewer hear Delpy’s monologue all the way through and the perspective totally switch to her in the final pivotal scene, it is as much an Adam Goldberg’s movie as besides everything else, it is a movie about cross-cultural relationships and unsubtitled, your identification to his viewpoint and the stuff that ticks him off as an English-speaking person is instant. Its a little gem of a movie, totally in line with Before Sunrise and Before Sunset about what its really like to be in a relationship. Atleast for me. 

3:10 to Yuma (2007): §§§§§§§§§ (9.5 on 10)

Never in this lifetime would I have believed to like a Western so much, until I watched this one. Its an absolutely fantastic Western drama with a bewitching background score and supremo performances by Bale, Crowe and the whole ensemble. It works so well because its more of a character driven drama where a prisoner plays off his captors by more of his verbal acrobatics and smooth tongue than his christ-engraved pistol. He would probe where they stand, try to buy them off, and then in the final act, give in to the bond shared by a family-man-but-no-hero rancher and his eager-for-a-role-model elder son. Or does he? The final act absolutely seals it in my all time favourites, as Crowe performs with class, wit and totally tuned-in emotion. And no-one does the quiet suffering and pent-up angry male as Bale. Very interesting supporting characters too (Ben Foster in the career-defining sidekick role) , and just overall, a very mobile movie that doesn’t bore for a second (this whole trek to catch the 3:10 to Yuma really keeps things going and simmering). Fabulous morality play that totally redeemed Mangold as a director for me. Very enjoyable and not at all disposable. Compulsive viewing.

4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days (Romanian) (2008): §§§§§§§§ (8.5 on 10)

I watched this one back in January with crappy subtitles and despite the fact that I was still absolutely able to tap into this story of two friends, one of whom is raring to have an abortion, in late 80s Romania, means somewhere someone got a lot of things right. And that someone is the director and the casting director who cast Anamaria-the girl who gives an absolutely winning performance as a wholly sacrificing friend who arranges and does everything for her friend’s abortion. The everyman heroism that her character has, and the values that it embodies-of friendship, trust, compassion, and most of all sacrifice at the cost of her own life is very heart-wrenching, and hits you much after the movie’s ended. Soon after her character is raped (to make up for the total sum of money for the abortionist), she has to hurry to her boyfriend’s mother’s birthday party, and there’s this one scene where she sits at the dining table with all the “educated” and classist elders who, like most elders invariably do, chide away her generation as being pampered, and how people from simple families don’t deserve allotments etc, and this girl’s stoic composure even as her eyes sway with frustration, anger and shock of what transpired barely an hour back, is a scene to behold. And then there’s the whole sequence with the abortionist itself, its a winningly written, directed and performed scene where the 2 hapless girls try to convince the abortionist they’ll pay the full dues for the abortion. Its probably one of the most tension filled, personal conversation I’ve seen, and the movie’s ability to capture the human pathos in so much honesty makes it worthy of all the accolades. The style is very minimalist and realistic and in noway does the extraneous setting of Romania intrudes overtly (except for every official’s callous attitude and obsession with IDs–both very Indian attitudes). But a very humane movie, all in all. A grim and unflinching watch!

Movies I saw in 2007 titled 0-9:

300 (2007): §§§§§§§§ (8 on 10)

What happens when you mate contemporary video-game production design with swords, shields, crowns, sandals, kings and wars? You have something as thrilling and as sensorily overwhelming as 300. Stylish to the core, bordering on homoeroticism and sporting a thumping score, the movie’s charm is in the combat scenes where every move of the choreographed action can be enjoyed in slow motion. Besides being ultrastylish, the two plus two storyline is equally compelling to watch for its simplicity and unambiguity, something of a rarity in these post-modern times. The preposterousness of the politics of the “committee of the wizened and the learned” who wouldn’t send backup to its courageous ruler simply because he’s taken 300 of the best human killing machines as the queen struggles to get her point across in that uproariously written speech has a deft contemporary sensibility about it and the delineation of black and white is so clear and powerful, it has your attention. Its filled with those old-school scenes of unambiguous emotions when courageous people are fighting in outworldly circumstances: like that somewhat cliched wail of a mighty old warrior who sees his son decapitated in plain sight–its wonderfully simple in its virtuosity. But perhaps more than anything else, its the no-holds-barred and fight-till-I-drop spirit of the brave Spartans that you take away long after the movie’s finished. Honour and valour never had such an unquestioning ode from the otherwise bloated, tired war movie genre where attention to detail usually detracts from the heart and core. Let’s thank Zack Snyder for making us all feel like we were holding shields and spears ourselves when it was only popcorn and coke. And Gerald Butler too, for making us believe in every syllable of “Hail Sparta!” 

25th Hour (2002): §§§§§§§§§ (9 on 10)

Simply put, this is Spike Lee at his best. The director turns even a seemingly turgid premise of a drug addict gone introspective on his last day of freedom before a seven year jail term into a story that’s so sincere and so humane, its spell-binding. Boasting of virtuoso performances from Edward Norton (watch him swear at everything that New York stands for in front of a mirror or pleading his best mates to pulp his face or the final 30 minutes as he drives away with his dad to the prison is the stuff great cinema’s made of), Barry Pepper, Brian Cox and Philip Seymour Hoffman, a background score that’s fresh and haunting and characterisations plus sequences so sincere and real, you can’t get them out of your head. Manipulativeness is replaced by languid geniality which might make the first half a tad difficult to get into, but stay put and if you are a sucker for nostalgia in real life, you’d be rooting for everyone and everything this movie stands for. The story arc is fantastic, you won’t be able to guess the next thing happening and you’d be surprised how honestly it captures a man’s desire for redemption and that “one more chance” in life. 

My commentary hasn’t finished yet, by the looks of my log though,

Scenes that stood out for me: 4 most noteworthy:

1. Ed’s outburst in the bathroom mirror where he monologues away to his reflection how pissed he really is with everyone and everything that’s New York.

2. Then, the scene where Ed demands his friend Barry to make him ugly. The whole unflinching sequence right from he’s pulped by his friend, to the way he swaggers away into his girlfriend’s arms, l remember secretly sobbing through it all. Just thereafter, his dad Brian Cox telling him to drive away to prison while his girlfriend goes to the fridge for ice cubes-it felt REAL, so real I thought I was hallucinating.

3. Finally, his dad’s monologue of how Ed could just run away and start afresh (which is very interesting a tag-on because without it the movie would have been very visceral if a tad too depressing. With that monologue and Ed’s dream tagged on, the picture of hope painted towards the really emotionally heavy fag-end of the movie really turns up the mood and yes, the final shot of ed sleeping on his windscreen is open to interpretation (are they actually making a run? Is he dreaming?). Any which way, its an inspiring and deeply affecting movie (90% so because the characters are so lovingly sketched).. its almost like you become one with ed’s character towards the latter half (since he really is a good man) and you really don’t want him behind the bars and you’ve so enjoyed every moment on screen with him.

4. The random subplot of Hoffman’s character’s affair with a student, not only is a fab attention diverter and relief tactic, but also makes the whole movie filled with one more old-school home truth- a geeky friend who accompanies them to the bar, is the butt of most of their jokes but is the 1st one to shoulder his pulped friend on a shoulder, this movie really is just all heart. 

Loved the background score throughout (Spike’s got an achilles heel for Indian music–I like that, even though at times it sits awkwardly for me atleast, but overall, the experiment pays off where the score never intrudes/manipulates the viewer. And it is a film that’s going to shine brighter with a second viewing as u then for sure know what’s going to happen to Ed. Its his last day before he goes to prison (boy, the scene in the bar where he breaks down in front of his best mate is class), there’ll be nostalgia for 1st-time suckers of this movie like me, and boy its gonna be worth it. So looking forward to another watch.

Probably the best book adaptation I have seen and a resounding reminder that Spike Lee really knows his movies, his humour and his action. Class! 

13 Conversations about One Thing (2001): §§§§§§ (6 on 10)

A drifting, maudlin, multiple-stories-interjecting around a common theme movie that supposedly talks about happiness. Supposedly being the operative word. The soporific and sleep-inducing background score aside, it is a very organic and real movie with some really believable performances (Especially Alan Arkin who rocks as the boss who’s pissed at an employee with a perpetual smile on face…haha). Only problem being that it probably takes itself a little too seriously and there’s a slight stink of pretension in one of the story arcs of this girl who breaks into a moronic lecture about looking at the life’s bright side even in the face of cold unpredictability (she’s just been bumped by a car when she was walking down the road holding the ironed shirt of an architect she works for and even after the accident, she buys a new shirt and goes back to return it only to be confronted by the sod who suspects she’s stolen his watch).

And then there’s Matthew McCaunahey’s character who in his sanctimonious mode after winning a case is lecturing everyone how he’s worked it all out and he’s so lucky and more such blah blah to Arkin and then just when he thinks he rules the world he bumps a girl on the road. And his world falls apart as he hides his crime and his whole belief on how justice prevails in the world is shaken. Its reasonably well done.

The last story arc is about this professor who enters an affair with a fellow teacher but on the day when he gets to know that its going nowhere since the hubby’s found out, his rebuking a keen student sends the latter off the rooftop really amplifies how even the littlest things we do or say can have such an effect on another person’s state of mind. Actually I like this movie more as I write about it but then some movies are deceptive like that. Awesome on paper, mediocre on screen. Still, its a middlingly atmospheric movie with good performances that says nothing exceptionally new but for its believability begs one watch maybe.

28 Weeks Later (2007):§§§§§§§ (7 on 10) 

I had absolutely given up on zombie movies now. Until this movie. It managed to somewhat freak even a zombie-immunised soul like me with some nicely staged action sequences, good quality acting, exhaustingly different camera techniques to spook one out (the torchlight, the night camera, the tracker… hell every camera and lens kind is experimented with), its pretty ambitious, but really the storyline’s got zero credibility (oh stop the moaning I should!) and what spirals the whole movie off is two kids purposely doing a stupid thing (like they do in these horror flicks, it is such a regular thing, I should stop bemoaning its existence as well. Bah!). 

Scenes that rocked it: The helicopter-chopping-zombie scene, the chase sequence where the people are chased trapped in a volvo through increasingly smoke-infested london streets, then the scene where all the mortals are trapped in the parking lot and a zombie enters and starts off a snowball of biting each other… quickly thereafter the orders for military to eliminate everyone-zombie or not.

So yea, its a stretch, but the one time watch was quite entertaining and the attention to detail in creating a mood was laudable at times. And more than anything, it was good enough to be one of the few creditworthy sequels that lived up to the now-modern-cult-classic original (Boyle’s 28 Days Later), and I am waiting for the sequel in the making. Hail the big studios turning every little germ of an idea that gets their money back into a money-milking franchise of diminishing creative returns. I hope this one-in-the-making proves me wrong, although I highly doubt it.

An Aparna Sen-directed movie of which I really had heard about quite a lot. Underwhelming and ho-hum by the end of it all I have to say. So an old teacher in an old-age home has been estranged by her daughters (married and gone off abroad) and an erstwhile student who bumps into her takes advantage of her by using her home as a sod-pad tricking all the way through the poor lady into thinking that him and his partner really care for her. By the end of it, the couple move on to better pastures forgetting about the old lady (as it happens in life). I won’t deny that the issues handled here are real (the loneliness that envelopes the old age, of people moving on and the place of the spoken word in the contemporary sensibility) but somehow I wasn’t impressed by the Shakespearen style acting and the bookish dialogue. The dialogue and the acting’s very mannered, almost as if every actor’s learned the British and Scottish colloquialisms and figure of speeches the day before. I also thought the whole movie was ham-handed, patronising and manipulative, which is a surprise since its an arthouse classic; but it is what it is: too theatrical to touch me in any way.  

Moving on to the first alphabet now!

28 Weeks Later 4.5/10

Today I’ll be reviewing 28 Weeks Later. Maybe a name like 28 [measure of time] Later sounds familiar, that’s probably because you read my earlier review of 28 Days Later, or maybe you’re psychic. Either way you probably figured out that the 2 movies are related, that is if you aren’t a complete twat. In fact 28 Weeks Later is a “sequel” to 28 Days, in the same sense that World War 2 was a sequel to WW1. None of the characters are the same, there’s a new director, new writers, and a new storyline, how the hell is that a sequel?. Basically they took the success from the first movie, removed all the good parts and put the rest in a blender with a generic horror/action movie and expect you to buy this shit. On top of all of that, the infected act completely differently than before, rather than vomiting blood and usually just killing their prey, they bite them, that’s fine, but what isn’t is a disregard for reality. You’re telling me I’m suppose to believe that a helicopter can fly low enough to the ground to cut up a huge group of infected without screwing up the blades, not only that, but a large number of the infected survived even with major bodily damage. No, you sir are mistaken, these are not zombies, they’re just crazy humans, they will die without their lungs.

The movie starts out with our 2 main characters Don and Don’s wife. They’re trapped in a cottage with a few other people, presumably around the time of the first movie. After a few minutes a young boy starts knocking on the door yelling to get in. They let him in and he tells them about his family and a lot of other infected coming from about 10 miles upriver. The infected break into the house, killing one of the survivors, and Don, his wife and the boy run upstairs. The boy hides in a closet and Don runs into another room, leaving his wife and the boy to die. He runs to the boat nearby being chased by infected, and one of the other survivors is readying the boat. The other guy falls in the water and is killed by the boat propeller. Don escapes and fells bad that everyone else died.

We then jump forward 28 Weeks, this is where I stopped liking the movie, which was about 20 minutes in. This is where most of the British characters mysteriously disappeared, which would be okay, if the movie didn’t take place IN ENGLAND. Don tries to explain to his kids that their mom is dead, and makes sure to say it wasn’t his fault. Only, his wife isn’t dead, turns out she’s immune. And when they capture her they leave her in an unguarded room, how the hell did anyone think that was a good idea. I did enjoy the ultra-violent sequence similar to the last movie where one character kills another by pressing their thumbs into their eyes, only this time its much more disturbing because it’s the infected Don killing his wife.

Whatever, they basically ruined the good name of 28 Days. Hopefully the 28 Months Later movie will be better, it should because Boyle said he’d be returning to direct. One thing that I did still like was the music, it really added to the mood, and it was still the amazing work of John Murphy that we’ve come to expect. I give 28 Weeks a 4.5/10.

~ Sean Bertoniere

The recent films 28 Days Later, its sequel 28 Weeks Later, the “Firefly” film Serenity and I Am Legend with Will Smith all involve humans converted into frenzied murderous demons due to a man-made virus - usually a virus created with noble intentions. In Weeks and Legend, the hero(s) must give their lives to protect a “special” individual whose blood may hold the key to humanity’s salvation; in Serenity the sacrifices are (less convincingly) necessary so that truth can out. In all cases not only are the demons trying to stop the heroes, but the heroes are up against the establishment as well. Similar setups can be found in many recent films, good and bad, from Children of Men to Ultraviolet.

Why does this theme of the demon virus and the special savior keep popping up, and what are all these movies really about?

Seems to me most of them are about the failure of ‘liberalism’ (in the American sense), i.e. the failure of social democracy - and also, more surprisingly, a longing for monarchy.

A certain stripe of horror/disaster/apocalyptic/exploitation film serves to play upon some widespread yet unstated fear, a fear that cannot or does not find its expression via “respectable” outlets. It’s not politically correct to make a straightforward movie about the threat of commies, but who will object if you make Invasion of the Body Snatchers? ’70s teen slasher films were about the dangers of casual sex and free love: teens have sex, then get killed. The subtext, which could not be stated in progressive company but could be woven into a cheesy movie, being that teens who have sex are sluts and deserve what they get.

What happens in a demon-virus movie? Who are the monsters? The monsters are other people. And not just some evil or colluding subset of other people, either: basically, it’s all other people (except the protagonists). The message is pretty clear: people are monsters and will come after you and claw at you and not stop until they are dead. But, how did those people - regular, faceless people - all get to be monsters? Usually it’s like this: the government is working on some project, something that they think will do a lot of good (say, cure cancer), and something goes horribly wrong.

The well-intentioned government program ends up going awry and turning people into monsters.

This sounds like every far-right caricature of their view of every liberal government project, does it not?

This is not to say that the people who write and make these films are actually far-righties who have such a view of liberal government programs. Probably, most of the people involved in making these films (as with all films) are well to the left of the political spectrum and probably would not even recognize this subtext of their films. (Some of them, e.g. Serenity director Joss Whedon, probably even think the critique they are levelling is pro-left and anti-right.) Nevertheless, these films appear designed to tap into that fear, the fear that liberal social projects will inevitably backfire and have disastrous unintended consequences.

This brings us to the Solution in all these films. The Solution is miraculously finding the Special Savior whose very existence will save humanity. Usually, there is something special about his/her blood (”immunity to the virus”, for example). Once this is learned/exposited, the heroes spend the rest of the movie trying to keep the Special Savior alive, and may give up their lives in doing so. But it will be worth it, because the Special Savior - often, tellingly, his/her actual bloodline - is important.

This, of course, is a metaphor. The Special Savior is, essentially, royalty and must henceforth be treated as such. And why not? Since liberalism/socialism doesn’t work, it’s only natural to turn back to the most widespread pre-liberal system: monarchy. “Monarchy is what will save us”, these films seem to say, and their third acts are mostly concerned with the of one thing: a celebration and glorification of self-sacrifice for the sake of the new royalty.

One may object that the savior storyline is more obviously and straightforwardly just a Christ/messiah parallel, and that is clearly true. But let’s not forget what the messiah prophecy was about: it was about a special child who would be born, who would be a king to lead the Jews and save them. The fact that these movies make use of a messiah storyline buttresses my point that they are pro-monarchist, rather than refutes it. Particularly since it is the physical aspects of the messiah (the kid’s blood in 28 Weeks Later, the woman’s random ability to conceive in Children of Men, etc.) rather than any metaphysical claims to being born under a special sign or being the ’son of God’. The stories here are far more close parallels of the monarchist aspects of the messiah prophecy than they are of the religious/metaphysical ones.

The cynic in me would say that these stories have their most natural appeal for disillusioned liberals, liberals who have (deep down) lost faith in the potential of their ‘progressive’ projects for doing good. Stripped of this faith, all that is left is the naked desire to be celebrated as nobility. As saviors. If not because of the great social projects they produce (which they now realize are doomed), simply because of who they are. Their “blood”, i.e. their intrinsic specialness.

Because just as the demon-virus storyline allows people to confront their fears of social projects gone wrong, the savior resolution allows them to indulge their fantasy of being saviors. Which is, after all, the central fantasy behind the appeal of ‘liberalism’, for so very many.

I won’t complain too much about this one, since I’ve generally liked these movies. First there was 28 Days Later, then 28 Weeks Later, you get the idea, right? There are no director or plot details just yet, despite some rumors on the internet. This could go horribly wrong, because from what I can tell, Danny Boyle is not involved in this one in any capacity.

Soapbox moment: Don’t they know when the originals walk away these franchises start to go haywire. Think about when John Carpenter walked away from Halloween, it started to produce the lamer ones like 3, 4. And let’s not even talk about Halloween 3 that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Halloween franchise at ALL. Same thing happened with A Nightmare on Elm Street. Wes Craven left and they started to make Freddy into a comedic parody, not that I didn’t watch.

So, my question is to you guys, when the creative forces behind these franchises walk away, do they get crappier?

Ever since Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull was released, lead star Harrison Ford has expressed enthusiasm in a potential fifth big-screen entry in the popular adventure franchise, as long as it doesn’t take to long for production to start, and he’s recently stated that creator George Lucas currently has an idea for the plot that is “crazy, but great”.

According to the official publication Production Weekly, Christopher Nolan, the director of the previous two Batman films, has officially signed on for a third one, and pre-production will start in February 2009. Take this with a grain of salt because that date seems way too close.

The highly anticipated Tr2n will be made in 3D while newcomer director Joseph Kosinski believes the film will be released by the end of 2010 and confirms the first movie’s director, Steven Lisberger, is involved in the production. Also, original star Jeff Bridges, who reprises his role, is extremely enthusiastic.

Rumors have it that Paul Andrews Williams (The Cottage) has signed on to direct 28 Months Later, the third entry in Danny Boyle’s superb zombie franchise. The only problem? Danny Boyle has always stated he would return to direct the film himself.

Source: /Film

Bourne Ultimatum, The
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]

Jason Bourne pulled a Sydney Bristow. For the fans of the great show called “Alias,” you’ll know what I’m talking about. If not, that’s okay. All the more reason for you to see it. Although I predicted that something like that happened to Bourne, it remains extraordinarily exciting. No one is safe in this supposed final installment. I am immensely glad they had the bravado to kill off a potential main character in the first few scenes, not to mention put Julia Stiles’ beloved character in an unimaginable danger in the roofs. It was so exhilirating, I got numb and shaken at several points throughout the film. The assassins are deadlier, the hand-to-hand combats more real, and the car chases at its best. Not to mention desperation is in the air as characters switch from one side to another in search for the truth. I can only hope they make a fourth movie in the future–I can’t get enough of Jason Bourne! For me, “The Bourne” series has revolutionized the spy-thriller genre in so many levels. Which one is the best “Bourne” movie? All of them. They’re unique in their own way. This one expertly used flashbacks, past dialogues, scenes, character foils, and similar situations that happened in the past two movies. It was eerie yet it provides some form of closure. It reminded me of the last season of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” It is officially my favourite film series of all time, right next to “Indiana Jones.” “The Bourne Ultimatum” is THE best movie of summer 2007.

28 Days Later
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]

The first time I saw this film, I was in total awe because of how well-written and well-executed it was. Cillian Murphy was great as a man who wakes up in a London hospital, completely unaware that the city has been evacuated… and the ones left are the hungry undead. I must admit that I love placing myself in his shoes, knowing that all of it is fictional. But when I actually had a dream that is extremely similar to this film, I was absolutely horrified and woke up soaked in sweat, my heart pounding a thousand beats per minute. The tone of the film is nothing like I’ve ever seen in a horror movie, which was really refreshing. The use of silence is masterful and the scares are first class. Although the movie takes a bit of a dive in its third act, it’s more than forgivable because the rest of the film was eerily consistent. This was also interesting because this is not a zombie film that takes a look at the global crisis. It focuses on one group of people, which means it is more personal and we get to learn more about the characters as the movie goes along… That is, until or if they get infected by the Rage Virus. This is a modern classic zombie film, which I have no doubt will be a horror favourite twenty or fifty years from now.

28 Weeks Later
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]

A sequel that is as good, at times better, than its predecessor. What made this movie better than the original is that there were more scenes where the characters were being attacked. With that comes a sense of danger lurking around the corner wherever they go, so the audiences anticipate what’s coming and it becomes engaging. This movie also had some sort of progress: the focus is now on the family rather than the individual like in the first movie. It also embraced a possibility of how the virus infected others society-wise prior to the first scene in “28 Days Later.” Not only that, they also managed to talk about the idea of a mutation and a cure which, as a Biology student, I appreciated because the scientists’ explanations made some sort of sense. What this film lacked, nonetheless, is that bleak tone the first movie had–that sense of hopelessness, misery, and isolation. It also lacked a sense of sadness that the first movie fully grasped. This is a solid effort and, I must say, I’m looking forward to “28 Months Later.”

The Infected are coming… Here’s the review.

The characters aren’t as great as the ones in 28 Days Later, but that set a very high standard and the one here are still quite good. They’re realistic, reasonably fleshed out, didn’t seem superficial, decently acted, had arcs, characterization didn’t go away once the horror started. There is a tendency in modern horror movies where the horror takes place over a matter of hours. Once it starts, what usually happens is everyone will just sort of revert to “scared,” mode, and for the rest of the movie the only thing they will do is try to combat the threat and don’t really display a personality. Sometimes the way they combat the threat displays a personality, which is great, but it doesn’t happen all that much. Anyway, that’s why I put that in there, it should be the standard to avoid this but it really isn’t. And having character arcs during the horror is well above the bar.

The atmosphere was so fantastic, 28DL was excellent, but wow, this was a better. They shot parts of it like a doco to make it feel more realistic, and also used the shaky cam and the music to get chaos, and as we moved through the movie it kind of progressed into being more surreal [through lighting and colouring for the most part] and lonely – that was camerawork and silence.

It was quite a contrast to the first movie, like one of the themes of that was subverting the saying that “Hell is other people,” by doing “Hell is no people.” This one goes back to the original saying, with the scenes of crowded pandemonium, practically riots. But it wasn’t just that, the army, the people, they were even more dangerous than the Infected, who weren’t people in the same sense.

The group dynamic was really cool, I thought, the role of protector kept shifting around as new members were added, first it was Tammy [the sister], then Scarlet [the military doctor] then Doyle [the soldier] and it kind of became this family unit, for a little while, then the “protectors,” started getting killed off so the role shifted back down the line until it was just Tammy again. And they all made the decision to put their life into that role at some point, like Scarlet did when she gave up her chance of getting out the military exit to stay with Tammy and find Andy, Doyle kinda did when he abandoned his post to help people get out and then followed through on that with the car, Tammy was so desperate to stay with Andy that she was actually chasing her brother so they would stay together and he would eat her face rather than leaving her alone.

And I don’t know whether this was supposed to be because he got it from Alice or because the new writer/director team just wanted to do the virus that way, but after Don was infected he still seemed to have some intelligence and some memories. We hadn’t seen anything like that before, they even made a point in the first movie of explaining that the Infected had nothing else to them but the desire to attack and eat. It was interesting, so many things InfectedDon did were really different. Killing his wife seemed to be more of personal thing, especially given that her survival for so long would indicate the Infected wouldn’t attack her because she was technically one of them. Then he kept popping up everywhere like he was following the group the entire time, and he didn’t attack his kids immediately, [HERE BE SPOILERS!] he went for Scarlet and left Tammy [this might have been jealousy over the false "family unit," and Scarlet being the protector of his kids], he used the gun as a club, he responded to his name… There were other examples, but you get the idea.

As good as 28 Days Later? Almost. Not as pretty, and the tone wasn’t as defined in places and as mentioned the characters weren’t quite as good - but even those things weren’t done badly at all, just not as well as the first movie did them. So it’s still a highly commendable 9 out of 10, and it’s somewhere among my top 10 horror flicks.

Videodrome
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

It’s a shame because this film stared off very well. During its first fifteen minutes, it was able to swiftly and astutely state its hypothesis and relate it to its audiences. Even though it was released in 1983, two subjects that are seemingly disparate–sex and violence–are more relevant today than ever. The picture was able to take those two things and combine them in multiple scenes to show that their effects are not as different as most people think. It makes a commentary regarding how much people can take before they become desensitized or maybe even dehumanized by the media’s images. Although the acting may have been on the weaker side and the special effects are dated, the concept makes up for it. What makes this really flawed is that it wasn’t able to keep the kind of great focus it had in a beginning. About forty minutes into it, I wanted to do or watch something else. The last twenty minutes were typical and maybe even predictable in many respects. It became another head trip that could easily be forgotten once it passed. Still, I’m not against recommending this film to people who care more about the concept than the story because the ideas and horrifying images are truly original.

Prestige, The
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

When I saw this movie for the first time, I didn’t like it because I thought the ending was a big head-scratcher. After seeing it for the second time, I liked it a little bit more (although not by much) because I knew which hints to look for that will eventually justify the twist ending. My problem with this movie is not the acting, the pacing, or its ideas. My problem with it is the writing. If they were going to make a movie about magic tricks, the writing should stay grounded in reality from start to finish because, that way, the audience won’t feel cheated. Adding science fiction into the mix is a big no-no because that would mean anything goes, which means the whole magic storyline is down the toilet. The filmmakers might as well have put aliens trying to invade the world into the movie for the sake of being random. Apart from that, this movie has one twist after twist after twist… until I started to get a headache. Watching more attentively the second time, I also realized that the story is somewhat convoluted to the point of suffocation. There were just so many frustrating pieces that had no role or didn’t seem to fit in the bigger picture. If one wants a better movie about magic tricks, I recommend “The Illusionist” instead.

Diary of the Dead
[ 1 star out of 4 ]

There’s nothing scary about this movie. Throughout the picture, I feel like the actors were a bunch of amateurs who are going for camp more than anything; since their characters weren’t convincingly scared, the audience, too, weren’t scared. The social commentaries felt beyond forced and heavy-handed to the point where I thought, “Enough already! I get what you’re trying to say about the media. Now, give us solid thrills!” But the commentaries weren’t just about the media. It covers issues such as racism, feminism, dependence on technology, anarchy, terrorism… I like that the picture has ideas, but in this instance, the ideas overwhelmed the script and the story. I didn’t get to know the characters so I didn’t care what would happen to them. You’d think that a film by George Romero would be good or even borderline great because he is very capable of producing films that are truly scary. This is a big unfortunate exception because everything felt so out of place and pointless. Maybe the problem are the zombies as well. After “28 Days Later” and “28 Weeks Later,” slow-moving zombies just don’t pump up the scares anymore.

So I just saw 28 weeks later.   I enjoyed that movie quite a bit.  The cast was great!  It had the good doctor from American Gothic and Micheal from Lost, which leads me to believe that eventually Lost will incorporate both the Santa Clause Demon (because of the movie Santa’s Slay staring Clair) and zombies into the show.

This movie followed the same typical mold for a sequal zombie movie but did some different things with it.  I like how the movies starts with the zeds overrunning the house, and the introduction of an infected carrier is awesome.

What I really noticed is that the 28 series is not real zombies, but I would call them a cousin of the zombies.   They are cousins because they have enough similarities that they obviously belong in the same family but there is one huge difference.  Death…   The way I see it zombies are dead or technically “undead”.  Meaning that to become one the victim dies for a period of time and then comes back.  The things in the 28 series don’t die before they turn.  This type is seriously easier to kill seeing as how it is alive and not already dead or undead . Some might think that this cousin seems more real and therefore scarier but I don’t know.

I know that alot my readers (3out of 5) don’t really care about zombies so I promise the next few posts will NOT be about zombies!!! :)

A new Conan The Barbarian movie has been in the works since what seems like forever. It was originally supposed to be King Conan: Crown Of Iron, a third movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, but then he became Governor of California and plans fell through. Since then, producers have the oh-so-trendy reboot in mind, and are planning to resurrect the fantasy franchise in 2010.

Now the question is, who will direct? The Wachowski siblings (Speed Racer), Brett Ratner (the Rush Hour trilogy), Robert Rodriguez (Grindhouse), Wachowski protégé James McTeigue (V For Vendetta), Neil Marshall (Doomsday), Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (28 Weeks Later), the Brothers Strause (Alien Vs Predator: Requiem) and duo Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor (Crank) are reportedly all in the running. Who will it be? Who would you like it to be? Discuss!

Personally, I just hope they’ll set this movie in the same continuity as the forthcoming Red Sonja reboot produced by Rodriguez, starring girlfriend Rose McGowan (Grindhouse) and directed by protégé Douglas Aarniokoski (Highlander: Endgame). Conan, Red Sonja and Kull are all part of the same universe created by pulp writer Robert E. Howard.

Source

Shop ’til you drop!

MUSIC!
Metallica - Death Magnetic: Great album, a post is forthcoming from me over at Metal Excess.
Buckcherry - Black Butterfly: Their best and one of the year’s best as well. I’ve already posted my thoughts on my music blog.
Extreme - Extreme: Their latest release has gotten me fired up for the band, so I finally broken down and ordered their debut from CDUniverse.com.

BOOKS!
Fables, Vol 10: The Good Prince: Picked it up last night at Barnes & Noble. One of the best comic book series of all time. I only pick it up in trade paperback format though just because it reads better that way. Can’t wait to start in on it.

MOVIES!
Nightbreed
Night of the Demons
Chopping Mall
28 Weeks Later

I haven’t seen ANY of these yet, but I’ve always heard good things, plus I needed some new ammunition for fall/Halloween. I’ll be getting Monster Squad soon as well.

VIDEO GAMES!
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (Wii): Picked this up last night also and I’m loving it. It’s like PsiOps but with a lightsaber. Great game and get this– the Wii version is actually getting better reviews compared to the PS3 and 360 versions!

So with the official start of fall rapidly approaching, and Halloween not too far behind, my mind now shifts into horror movie mode. Sure, I have a fairly large collected that was amassed during my video store years (at a nice discount, to boot), but I need some fresh… blood this year.

Here’s what I’m thinking about picking up…

Monster Squad - I’ve YET to ever see this movie. It had been flying under my radar until about 2 years ago. I can’t believe I’ve missed it, sounds like something I’d love.
Halloween II - I don’t care what anyone says, the sequel is almost as good as the first one.
Diary of the Dead - Haven’t seen, I’ve heard mixed review, but Romero + zombies = me buying it.
28 Weeks Later - I loved 28 Days Later and I’ve heard this was just as good, if not better, another no brainer…
Chopping Mall - 80s horror cult classic cheesefest from what I’m told– sounds good to me!
The Prowler - I’m trying to pick up the lesser known (or at least lesser grossing) 80s slashers, this is just another on my list but probably the most prolific of what’s left for me to track down.
Pumpkinhead - A classic that I’ve never owned and there’s a new DVD edition coming out, so why not?

Danny Boyle, director de 28 Days Later… y productor de su respectiva secuela llamada 28 Weeks Later, le contó a MTV News que tiene una idea para la tercera parte de la historia, que relata los  hechos ocurridos tras la infección y propagación de un peligroso virus, similar a la rabia, en Londres, lo cual obliga al éxodo de la capital del Reino Unido. La segunda parte tenía una conclusión que funcionaba bien como broche final de la historia, sin embargo, al parecer Boyle tiene pensada una idea bastante original… tan original, que podría ser ridícula según sus propias palabras. “Estamos discutiendo sobre la historia en este momento. Tengo una idea, pero quiero saber que opinan algunas personas primero, ya que podría ser realmente tonta”. ¿Infectados, tipo zombies, en el espacio? Esperemos que si esta tercera parte se materializa no termine por destruir los recuerdos de la excelente primera parte y la entretenida segunda parte (aunque varios escalones más abajo que su predecesora). Si usted es anciano y necesita de un ayuda memoria para recordar estas películas, vea a continuación los trailers de 28 Days Later… y 28 Weeks Later.

TRAILER: 28 DAYS LATER…

TRAILER: 28 WEEKS LATER

EInfach nicht aufs Video achten, nur das Lied hören! Mein Zitat der Woche liegt darin tief verborgen!!!

]]> http://aberg.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/how-not-to-do-it/ Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:19:08 +0000 aberg http://aberg.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/how-not-to-do-it/

En bekant till mig hävdar envetet att alla filmupplevelser är subjektiva och det av den anledningen inte går att bedöma film på ett för honom meningsfullt sätt. (grovt förenklat)

Givetvis är detta ren löja. Det handlar bara om att man saknar grundläggande föreståelse för den gemensamma kulturella grammatik som filmupplevelsen bygger på. En dålig film är en som presenterar en grundpremiss och sedan inte klarar av, av berättartekniska eller strukturella skäl, att hålla sig till.

Låt mig exemplifiera med en film jag såg igår, 28 veckor senare. (Som för övrigt inte är en film om att upptäcka att man gått en bra bit över abortgränsen, även om kopplingen är logisk)

Om vi godtar premissen att det finns en sjukdom som gör folk till hyperaggresiva zombier och att man efter att den sista zombien dött av svält försöker återbefolka storbrittannien, efter ett halvår… STOPP! Stanna precis där för en stund. Ponera att hela Englands befolkning dött i Ebola istället för zombiepesten, skulle man vänta ynka sex månader med att deklarera det säkert? Not blody likely, tre år av strikt karantän är mer troligt.

Nåja, ett halvår räcker för amerikanska militären att förklara det dags för repatriering, ingen blir väl glad av att ha engelsmän i flyktingläger så länge. Gud bevars, de är ju inte som om de vore Palestinier eller nåt.

Nästa steg som är helt åt fanders är att man börjar skeppa tillbaka ungar. Både för att vi alla vet att barn är mindre tåliga för umbäranden och för att situationen inte är säkrad än. Tro mig, det skulle vara “vänd i tullen immediatment, tack så mycket” om någon försökte smuggla in småglin i första stadiet av en repatriering.

Barn är för övrigt ett av de sämsta valet av bärande intrigdel i en film för vuxna som finns. Barn tenderas alltid att porträtteras som truliga, dumdristiga och alltid förmögna att i en situation med nittionio bra hanterbara val göra det hundrade riktigt korkade som ingen vettig människa skulle göra.

De här barnen, som mycket riktigt stämmer in på alla ovanstående beskrivningar får för sig att de ska ta sig ut ur karantänzonen och in i det ännu inte säkrade London för att leta upp lite foton och grejer från huset där de växte upp. Och de lyckas ta sig ut! Detta trots att en sniper ser dem när de krälar över bron. Okej, jag kan förstå att han kanske inte ville skjuta barn, även om varningsskott kunde varit berättigade, men borde inte hela basens tillgängliga personal varit ute och plockat in dem så fort han såg dem. De var på väg ut i icke säkerhetsklassat område och skulle mycket väl ha kunnat komma tillbaka med något som om inte zombiesmittat så åtminstonde tyfus eller något annat. Man etablerar en säkerhetsperimeter av en anledning mina damer och herrar, för att den skall fungera som ett såll är inte den anledningen.

När ungjävlarna sedan hittar sin mamma, som överlevt trots zombiebett så tas hon tillbaka till basen för studier, men lämnas i ett obevakat rum där ungarnas totalt efterblivne farsa knallar glatt in med sitt “Access All Areas”-pass och hånglar till sig lite zombiesmitta. En civil lirare, med access till karantänavdelningen? Jo tjena… Till den totalt obevakade karantänavdelningen där en potentiell smitthärd ligger fastspänd ensam på en brits.

Ja ja… dumpappan blir smittad så klart och börjar löpa runt och bita folk så de också blir zombier. Då visar millitären att de verkligen tänkt till och låser in alla civila i ett garage, för att hålla dem isolerade från smittan. De pressar in civilister som sardiner i ett garage, lämnar inga som helst vakter trots att smittan bärs av rosenrasande zombier, och de kedjar bara igen en av dörrarna. Så zombiedad, som för övrigt tycks ha en speciell radar för var hans ungar befinner sig så han ska kunna springa och zombiebita dem också, kan bara knalla in och sprida sin pest.

Hur som helst, en plucky american scientist inser att ungarna är bärare på vad som kan vara ett botemedel och gör ett försök att kommunicera detta. Eller jag tror hon gör två, men varje gång hon inte blir lyssnad på omedelbart så verkar hon ge upp och tänka att världen får skylla sig själv.

Bla bla bla… yada yada yada… sniper med samvete, flykt undan ännu mer zombier, flykt undan brandbomber, flykt undan gas… vid det här laget har filmen ändå upphört att vara engagerande och den enda orsaken att man ser på den är att man hoppas barnen skall dö. Något som deras gravt jason vorhees-artade pappa borde klara av. Med tanke på att han kan hitta dem var som helst de än är i London (om filmen utspelat sig i Hjo hade jag kunnat förlåta detta) och dessutom ser i mörkret. Men icke…

På slutet görs ett försök att skapa lite hederlig zombiefilmsångest och allthoppärute-känsla men det är too little too late.

Se om 28-dagar senare istället, den är en suveränt bra film.

American network ABC has picked up five shows to premiere mideason. According to Wikipedia:

In North American Television a midseason replacement is a television show that premieres in the second half of the traditional television season, usually between January and April. Midseason replacements usually take place after a show that was in the fall schedule was canceled, put on hiatus or had a shorter season than other shows and the timeslot needs to be filled. Some midseason replacements get canceled like the shows they replaced, but others have gone on to be very successful.

First up we have Castle, a drama created by Andrew W. Marlowe (Hollow Man) starring Nathan Fillion (Waitress), Monet Mazur (The House Bunny) and Stana Katic (Quantum Of Solace). Fillion stars as a writer of horror novels who helps the NYPD on some cases. Mmmh, sounds pretty standard but who knows? Castle’s pilot was directed by Rob Bowman (Elektra).

Next is The Unusuals, also a drama, created by Noah Hawley (6 episodes of Bones) and relating the daily happenings of a police station. The Unusuals stars Harold Perrineau (Lost), Adam Goldberg (2 Days In Paris), Amber Tamblyn (The Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants 1 & 2) and Jeremy Renner (28 Weeks Later), and its pilot was directed by Stephen Hopkins (The Reaping).

Third is Cupid, a drama created by Rob Thomas (Veronica Mars), who’ll be remaking his own, eponymous, failed show from 1998. Bobby Cannavale (Diminished Capacity) will play Trevor Hale, a man convinced he was sent to Earth by Zeus in order to make people love each other. Rounding up the cast are Camille Guaty (Las Vegas) and Sarah Paulson (Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip). It’s interesting that this project has been greenlighted as ABC is the network that cancelled the original show.

In fourth we have Better Off Ted, a comedy created by Victor Fresco (4 episodes of My Name Is Earl), about a morally upright man living in a morally corrupt world. The series stars Jay Harrington (Desperate Housewives) and Andrea Anders (The Class). The pilot was directed by creator’s relative Michael Fresco (12 episodes of Earl).

Last is Single With Parents, a comedy created by Kristin Newman (2 episodes of How I Met Your Mother) in which a thirty-something year old woman played by Alyssa Milano (Charmed) attempts to take control of her life by distancing herself from her family, friends and work. Beau Bridges (Stargate SG-1), Eric Winter (Days Of Our Lives), Amanda Detmer (What About Brian) and Stella Hudgens (Vanessa Hudgens’ sister) round up the cast. The pilot was directed by Michael Engler (6 episodes of 30 Rock).

I’ll give them all a try, but honestly, none of them seem that interesting to me, what do you think?

In related ABC news, it has been reported that Michelle Rodriguez (Battle In Seattle) will be back in an episode of Lost’s fifth season. Michelle’s character, Ana-Lucia Cortez, was introduced at the end of the popular show’s first season and played a prominent part in the second. It is unclear how Michelle’s appearance will play out, but knowing Lost, you can expect anything.

Source

After the first installments of Harry Potter and The Lord Of The Rings rocked the global box-office back in 2001, American  movie studios started buying the rights of every fantasy book they could find in the hope of striking cinematic gold. Barely any executive was able to shout “cha-ching” however, as only a handful of these opportunist films have proved successful, namely Disney’s The Chronicles Of Narnia and New Line’s The Golden Compass (sure, it bombed in the US, but it was huge everywhere else). Indeed, in their rush to shell out movies about magical worlds, studios seem to have mostly forgotten what made Potter and Rings so successful: it’s not only an established fanbase and an otherworldly setting, but mainly faithfulness, and a creative team truly invested in the source material.

Which brings us to Eragon, which is adapted from the first book in Chistopher Paolini’s Inheritance Cycle. The movie was directed by first-timer Stefen Fangmeier, a visual effects supervisor on films such as A Series Of Unfortunate Events, and adpated to screenplay form by Peter Buchman (Jurassic Park III). It stars newcomer Edward Speleers in the title role, as well as Jeremy Irons (Kingdom Of Heaven), Sienna Guillory (Resident Evil: Apocalypse), Robert Carlyle (28 Weeks Later), John Malkovich (Beowulf), Garett Hedlund (Death Sentence), Djimon Hounsou (Never Back Down), Rachel Weisz’s voice (Definitely, Maybe) and pop singer Joss Stone in her first (albeit brief) film role.

Eragon’s story goes pretty much like this: Once upon a time, peace was kept by an order of knights with special abilities. One of these knights turned to evil however, and betrayed his comrades, killing them all (or did he?) and establishing himself as ruler of everywhere. Years later, a young blond male living at his uncle’s farm stumbles upon something stolen from the evil lord. After his family is killed, he is recruited by a wise old ex-knight and sets on a journey to join a small band of dedicated rebels, to whom the stolen item could prove extremely useful. Along the way, they will venture into one of the enemy’s fortresses to rescue the young princess who stole the thing in the first place. Sound familiar? Review and trailer after the jump.

Yes, Eragon can be pretty much be described as Star Wars in a Lord Of The Rings setting… Jedi Knights become Dragon Riders, Luke becomes Eragon, Obi-Wan becomes Brom, Princess Leia becomes Princess Arya, the Death Star plans become Saphira the dragon, the Rebel Alliance becomes the Varden, etc… At one point, Eragon even looks up at the sky, longingly observing the sunset. Elements of The Lord Of The Rings and, apparently, The Dragonriders Of Pern are also thrown in for good measure. However, all this was in the book, which was very well-received, so why would the film be any different?

Many elements contribute to Eragon being an extremely disappointing film. This could have been a huge franchise for Twentieth Century-Fox, so it’s baffling that they chose to put it in the hands of Fangmeier, who may be a very talented effects guy, but has virtually no directing experience (all he did was direct Galaxy Quest’s second unit). However, while Fangmeier’s inexperience is surely an issue, I don’t think it’s the main one. Nor is the acting, which ranges from decent to quite solid. No, one of Eragon’s biggest problems, in my opinion, is its length. Indeed, most of the recent successful fantasy movies have been more than two hours long (with the notable exception of The Golden Compass). Barely more than 90 minutes long, Eragon feels like it should be much, much longer. Take the first two Harry Potter and Narnia books, which are a bit more than 200 pages long, while their respective movies each clocked in at about two hours and thirty minutes. By comparision, Eragon is around 500 pages long, and I swear to you this hampers the film. Events seem to happen one after the other, with little room for development and explanation, such as Eragon apparently mastering the elven language in under ten minutes. You can plainly see where scenes were taken out, and this is one film which could truly gain from an extended/director’s cut. Also, there’s the fact that most of the film’s props look ridiculously fake.

So should you dismiss Eragon as the turd everyone makes it out to be? Not really. Despite its many flaws and bad choices such has the long stark black nails every villain sports and its awkward handling of the clichéd storyline, the film is much better than, say Uwe Boll’s BloodRayne or Jeremy Irons’ previous fantasy effort, Dungeons & Dragons. The special effects aren’t groundbreaking, but they’re good enough. The cinematography is quite decent, though not to the level of The Lord Of The Rings. And sure, the storyline is conventional, but it’s a convention that has proven it’s worth time and time again. Also the score by Patrick Doyle (Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire) is excellent and features a memorable, heroic theme. To conclude, if The Lord Of The Rings is the Dark Knight of fantasy movies, then Eragon would be Fantastic Four.

Eragon was critically bashed upon its release, and was a box-office flop in the US, though it performed quite well overseas. The possibility of a sequel is however extremely unlikely and Fox seems to have missed its fantasy franchise opportunity, ironically in a play to make more money (epic fail). As for Stefen Fangmeier, he’s gone back to visual effects work, most recently in this summer’s Wanted.

Verdict: don’t expect much out of it, but a decent alternative if you’re tired of rewatching Star Wars and The Lord Of The Rings. Eragon currently hold a 5/10 on IMDB and a 15% on Rotten Tomatoes.

More “Movies Of The Day”

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463854/

Gory context of the movie:
Society has plunged into a horrendous crisis where a part of the population has been transformed into raving mad creatures upon having been infected by some horrible transmuting virus (read: biological weapon). The hostile creatures ravage across the land trying to infect, by means of biting or vomiting, all the uninfected humans who come in their way.

Because of the severity of the national emergency situation, the country (UK) has transformed itself into a full blown police state, in which the military has totally usurped the task of the police and the rights of the people seem to have been totally neutralized.

Thematic PP elements:

1. Surveillance cameras everywhere (at least in downtown areas), with military snipers doing the extra bit of surveillance through their rifle scopes. This programs the public to accept and get used to all the cameras snooping all over the place as well as the presence of military walking about everywhere and interfering with everyone. The sniper surveillance part seems to serve to instill some extra fear into the public.
2. There’s a mention of a presence of refugee camps and so-called “containment areas” (quarantine areas). This programs the public to get used to being herded as cattle and to accept living in camps or confined emergency spaces overseen by the military.
3. Streets are deserted, shops abandoned, there’s lots of garbage, and a blatant lack of hygiene and thus the city is depicted as being in a general dystopian mess. Images of chaos and discord such as these, seem to instill fear into the public in case a viral epidemic should break out. More programming of futuristic dormant terror on the plates of the public.

Suggested PP elements:

1. Because of their utter indiscriminate, remorseless and extreme hostility, people sick by viral infection should not only be shunned literally like the plague but also be destroyed where ever and whenever possible. This programs the public, on the basis of fear, to prepare to part from family and loved ones once they get infected and sick. In addition, the communicated severity of the situation helps to generate acute antipathy of the uninfected towards the infected and sick.
2. Those people infected but who haven’t actually become sick should be shunned as well, since they may make one sick through biting or spewing blood-vomit or even simply by kissing. This programs the viewer to prepare to part from friends and loved ones who are infected but who haven’t manifested the accompanying disease (yet).
3. Because the military has difficulty in distinguishing between ‘friendlies’ (uninfected) and ‘targets’ (infected), just to be on the ’safe side’, the military command decides to open fire on both parties. The public will thus be programmed to keep a distance from the infected even more so lest being confused for a ‘target’ by trigger happy military marksmen.
4. I’m less sure about the next one, but here we go - for completeness’ sake. The life in the inner city gets totally obliterated by incendiary bombs. This may instill fear into the part of the public living in crowded cities (at least, downtown) during times of crises and emergencies.

Needless to say, the conclusion is that this is a particularly antipathetic movie towards those of us who may get infected by viral agents in the future.

Este continuarea la thriller-ul din 2002 intitulat 28 Days Later. Ce s-a intamplat in primul? Pai, vechea poveste cu zombii care cauta se te omoare cu orice pret si tu nu poti sa faci mare chestie ca sa-i omori, plus ca daca te mai si musca te transformi in unul de-al lor.
Ei bine dupa cum sugereaza si titlul, actiunea se petrece dupa 28 de saptamani de la raspandirea virusului care transforma oamenii in zombii (parca ar fi Resident Evil). Lucrurile s-au cam calmat, adica nu a mai existat un infectat de ceva vreme si a inceput repopularea Londrei. Dar dupa cum bine va dati seama, ceva trebuie sa se intample rau si iar apare virusul.

imdb rating: 7.1/10
imdb link: 28 Weeks Later

Trailer:

Okay, I meant to write a post about this the other day when both @agautsc and @thebrandbuilder linked to this wonderful article by Simon Pegg of “Shaun of the Dead” fame.  It is a genius little piece examining the problem with the new school of zombies who are unnaturally fast.  Now I, being the zombie fan that I am, obviously have some personal opinions on the matter.  First and foremost I am of the school that the best zombie use is with the slow shambling decaying corpses that most people, including the characters in zombie situations, tend to believe should be avoidable but turn out to be more tenacious than is generally liked.  Part of the disturbing quality of George A. Romero’s Dead Series zombies is the fact that they are these slow dead things and yet they still prove incredibly dangerous.  But at the same time there is unquestionably something terrifying about a creature (not exactly a zombie mind you, regardless of how zombie-ish it may be) that can run you down before tearing your throat out.  ”28 Days Later” (and “28 Weeks Later” a little less) is a truly horrifying film with truly disturbing monsters.  But at the same time the unnatural speed and strength takes away from the real sense of good zombie movie.  Essentially, as Pegg points out in the article, it creates a new monster that is scary for similar but ultimately different reasons.  I could go on for hours about the absolute genius that is the zombie archetype and how, I think, more than any other monster (Vampires, werewolves, aliens, etc.), it embrace a truly human fear of death, not just of the body but, probably more so, of the mind, the consciousness.  Really that is what I think it is with zombies.  The fear of death yes but more than that (because almost all monsters present a fear of death through being killed) the fear that the “self”, the human conscious, will be lost and what will remain will only be a husk, a dead body, of what once existed.  Read about philosophical zombies which in many ways embraces this very idea (essentially it states that theoretically it is possible that there could be beings in a parallel world exactly like us in every way — physically, through action and interaction, etc — except they lack any consciousness or sense of self).

A good twist on the traditional slow zombie along with faster varieties comes from Jenny Romanchuk’s webcomic “The Zombie Hunters“, which besides having wonderful illustrations and a decent story, has created a range of different zombie types that threaten humanity (check out her encyclopedia on the site).  Good stuff I really enjoy it.

Oh, and this, a slide show along with Pegg’s article.  Damn I love writing about zombies.