DVD Review - The Lavender Hill Mob (1951)

The Lavender Hill Mob, 1951.

Directed by Charles Crichton.
Starring Alec Guiness, Stanley Holloway, Sid James and Alfi Bass.


SYNOPSIS:

A bank clerk finds himself drawn into a gold smuggling racket.


You may as well know something right now. You will have to get a new mouth after watching The Lavender Hill Mob, because the one you’ve got will have worn out completely from grinning ear to ear for 78 minutes. It’s not just that this film is funny. It is spleen-shatteringly funny, but somehow, that doesn’t quite cover how relentlessly joyful and excitable the whole experience is.

We start at the end, of course. Henry Holland (Alec Guinness) is a man taking very well to being filthy rich. He dishes out banknotes like they were jelly babies; a radiant Audrey Hepburn (in her first film role) pops over for a quick kiss and some walking around money. Holland wants to tell his story to somebody, but it’s not entirely clear who this person is. He might be from the press, but there’s not a notepad in sight. Never mind. Guinness launches into the story in a rather charming voice, wobbling his ‘r’s like an elephant in hipster jeans.

It seems Holland wasn’t always a South American armchair philanthropist; once upon a time one year ago, he was a bank clerk manning the bullion van. A “non-entity”, playing the long game, biding his time for a chance to get his hands on the Bank of England’s gold reserves. He has a plan all worked out in his head, but he can’t do it alone, and so he’s stuck with his measly six shillings a week.

Holland is a shrewd, patient man with a taste for dry wit and a heart of gold. His only friend, so far we can see, is Mrs Clark (Marjorie Fielding), a spinster with a voracious appetite for pulp crime fiction. He reads her ‘Look Swell In A Shroud’, a paperback with lines like “...and then I glimpsed something that had my underwear creeping on me, like it had legs.” Mrs Clark nods sagely. “I know that feeling well.”

Then Alfred Pendlebury turns up. If Stanley Holloway ever had more fun playing a character, he never showed it half as much as he does playing Pendlebury. This mad, verbose art lover is large and in charge, spicing up Holland’s life no end. In each other they find the perfect friend and the ideal business partner. After all, Pendlebury’s refinery for turning lead into Eiffel Tower paperweights is no different to the bank turning gold into bullion bars...

Director Charles Crichton takes on the classic Ealing theme of unlikely criminals from here on with style and ease. His comedy world of crime, where guns fire a stick of rock and thieves miss their last train home, chimes in with the British audience’s work-a-day experiences. Crichton turns us all into Mrs Clark, lapping up the romance of the criminal world, caught in the thrill of the chase.

Every scene (and it is every scene, not just the best ones) is wrought with schoolboy mischief of one sort or another. T.E.B. Clarke’s script has enormous fun undermining and outsmarting authority at every turn. Policemen chase each other in circles; the crowned heads of Scotland Yard are led around blindfold by a gleeful Henry Holland.

The supporting cast, featuring Alfie Bass and a pre-Carry On Sid James, are indispensible, but it’s Alec Guinness who owns this film. He plays his part with characteristic subtlety, the downtrodden everyman who gets his chance to shine, just once. We totally, utterly believe in Henry Holland. We want him to win against all the odds. Star Wars fans will know that any line Alec Guinness utters becomes instantly quotable; the same is twice as true here. No other man on Earth could shout “Mess me up! It’s essential!” to a pair of professional thieves and make it sound every bit as truthful and hilarious as Guinness does.

DVD copies of The Lavender Hill Mob have been around since the dawn of the disc, no arguments there. By now though, they’re in a terrible old state, worn out by long and repeated use. So stop hoarding round the one library copy that doesn’t skip or freeze or explode all over your living room; this release is here to save the day. Like the incomparable, Whisky Galore, it’s been given a buff and a shine and a whole boxful of toys to go with it this time. Truly, Ealing DVDs are easily scratched, but they will soon be back, and in greater numbers.

Simon Moore is a budding screenwriter, passionate about films both current and classic. He has a strong comedy leaning with an inexplicable affection for 80s montages and movies that you can’t quite work out on the first viewing.

Movie Review Archive

DVD Review - Whisky Galore! (1949)

Whisky Galore!, 1949.

Directed by Alexander Mackendrick.
Starring Basil Radford, Bruce Seton, Joan Greenwood and Gordon Jackson.


SYNOPSIS:

Scottish islanders attempt to plunder a ship's cargo of whisky when it becomes stranded on the shore.


Some films need a run-up. They need their entrance onto the DVD market trumpeted by fanfare, or at least a couple of bars of Zadok the Priest tooted on on a ceremonial kazoo. Whisky Galore doesn’t need that confidence boost. Sixty years of high praise from the cinema-going public and the BFI have taken care of that. So let’s crack on with the what, the who and the why of Whisky Galore.

1943. The Isle of Todday, in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland, has run out of whisky. The locals, scotch drinkers to a man, are mortified. One man is struck down dead with the shock of it. Just as all seems lost, and it seems as if they’ll be doomed to drink lemonade ‘til the end of the war, the SS Cabinet Minister is wrecked just off the island, abandoned by captain and crew with 50,000 cases of whisky still on board.

Whisky Galore thrives on the idea that all the great Ealing Comedies play on; that anyone, man or woman, old or young, rich or poor, is capable of becoming a criminal. Probably the funniest thing about the Isle of Todday is that everyone on it becomes a criminal. If not an actual looter of the ship, they’re willing accessories to the fact, and, let’s face it, we want them to get away with it.

This is Alexander Mackendrick’s doing. A story other directors could (and would) mire in moral complexities is dealt with simply but decisively. His first feature remains a masterpiece in compact storytelling, aided in no small part by the expert pacing Charles Crichton introduced in his uncredited re-edit.

It’s Mackendrick’s outstanding cast though, that bring these canny little islanders to life. There’s a young Gordon Jackson as a henpecked son born two drinks below par, and Joan Greenwood purrs a seductive Scottish burr into the telephone exchange. Supporting them, a wealth of craggy, characterful faces fill our screens, needing only to twitch a wrinkle to prompt fits of raucous laughter. Watch the crowded scenes and see if you can tell which are the actors and which are the real islanders.

For all that, Jean Cadell and Basil Radford’s scene-stealing antics are what drive the action. Cadell plays Mrs Campbell, a strict Calvinist, strict mother and award-winning purveyor of sour grapes. Basil Radford’s Captain Waggett is the prototypical Captain Mainwaring, pompous and bureaucratic, convinced he’s the only honest man for miles around. Equally determined to stop people having fun, their personalities clash in a delightfully believable scene where the Captain’s second-in-command is locked in his bedroom by his mother.

Mackendrick delights in this oddly familiar brand of comedy. His characters aren’t necessarily funny because they always have an answer for everything. They’re funny because they feel authentic. They don’t fall into neat moral categories, they act and sound confused when faced with new situations. We don’t judge the islanders for hoarding looted goods, but neither do we hate Waggett and the customs men for trying to catch them out.

So why is this funny? Let’s take Farquharson, the customs officer constantly trimming his fingernails, as a case in point. Waggett secretly calls him in to help catch the looters red-handed. Whilst he’s there, Farquharson is the most powerful man on the island. They chase the islanders’ truckful of whisky along the island road, only to run straight into the barbed wire roadblock Waggett had the Home Guard build earlier. Waggett opens the driver’s door. “We’ll have to cut our way out.” Without missing a beat, Farquharson hands Waggett his nail scissors. From this moment, we utterly adore Farquharson.

This DVD release is the best Whisky Galore has ever looked, sounded, felt. The quality of the home cinema medium has finally caught up with the quality of the film, so waste time? Get this in your film collection, if only to fill out the ‘W’ section. Wizard of Oz and Where Eagles Dare will be glad of the company.

Movie Review Archive

Movie Review - Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

Captain America: The First Avenger, 2011.



Directed by Joe Johnston.

Starring Chris Evans, Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving, Stanley Tucci, Hayley Atwell, Dominic Cooper, Sebastian Stan and Toby Jones.





SYNOPSIS:



After volunteering for a top secret military research programme, Steve Rogers is turned into the super soldier Captain America.





I’ve never really known much at all about the Captain America character, I've always assumed that he was conceived primarily as a tool for propaganda in the comic medium during World War 2. But in the wake of Iron Man 1 & 2, The Incredible Hulk and Thor and with the forthcoming Avengers film, the pressure of piecing these four seemingly divergent stories together hinges on Capt’s ‘mighty’ shield.



The film is set in a (Marvel tweaked) 1942/3 and Steve Rogers (Chis Evans) is a sickly, small guy that’s been bullied all of his life – which has cultivated an unyielding resolve in him to face his antagonists without ever taking a backward step. During his 5th attempt to get into the army he runs across German scientist, working for the Allies, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who admires his ‘diamond in the rough’ inner value and selects him for their ‘super soldier’ program.



For me there was always going to be a roadblock with Captain America’s values because of the worse modern perceptions of America as gluttonous, greedy, apathetic, and backward. How would the audience be sold on a character build to portray American values? Well the writers and Johnston at the helm use a fantastic interlude where Cap is reduced to an interactive marketing identity for bond sales that mirrors political spin in modern society. Instead of Rogers portraying ideal American values it’s the title that hopes to associate itself with Rogers values.



Now although we’re in the World War 2 setting, Johnston and the writers (Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely) do a great side step and subvert the traditional USA verses the Nazis - instead the special army unit lead by Col. Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones is) specifically hunting Red Skull’s (Hugo Weaving) breakaway faction 'Hydra' that now seeks to destroy their former Nazi allies. So Johnston afforded the great sepia hues of the 1940’s and the familiar European battlegrounds but with a very distinct Marvel universe twist. Johnston really does a great job directing the film, the performances are good, the action set pieces are iconic but also very true to the period that they are set in and with the pressure of making this final puzzle piece fit, he doesn’t collapse he really shines and I would say outside of Iron Man makes the best Marvel superhero film to date. I do want to give one big shout out once again to the writing because like Johnson the pressure is to make all these pieces fit and the did a great and accomplished job at following the tone of the previous Marvel films but because of the period giving themselves a very distinct voice.



The film incorporates as much of the other films universes as possible most notably the Stark family into story – using Tony Stark Senior (Dominic Cooper) [Tony Stark’s (Robert Downey Jr) father] as the constructor of the shield and the villain of the piece is the head of Hydra – Schmidt a.k.a Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) is searching to harness the power of an energy cube once contained in Odin’s [Thor’s father (Anthony Hopkins)] throne room.



Johnston definitely went to the school of Chris Nolan and Batman Begins when casting Captain America: The First Avenger because not only are the integral parts with really phenomenal actors but throughout even the less significant roles there is a cache if brilliant performers.



The whole film really hinges on Evans’ performance as the weedy, skinny, sickly and short guy with a big heart – and he absolutely nails it. I’ve never really been a fan of Evans’ work but he is an endearing and charming underdog character that carries his underdog nature throughout the picture.



The antagonist of the piece Red skull (Hugo weaving) was assigned to Dr Erskine while he was still in Germany and still under orders from Hitler. Erkines super soldier serum is said to amplify pre existing qualities and unfortunately his first test subject was Red Skull, which mutated him into a demonic, power-hungry villain with an insatiable thirst to destroy the world. Weaving is effortless in a villains shoes (see The Matrix) and he perfects this really distinctive accent that really allows you to stop noticing that it Hugo Weaving at times in the film. Stanley Tucci as Dr. Erskine is really warm but also pained because his scientific advancement was used for the Nazi’s and he takes responsibility for Red Skull. Tucci kind of infuses himself with an Einstein-esque demeanour in this film and he’s what Rogers needs in order to believe that he is capable of taking on this power. Tommy Lee Jones can’t be bad of late and starring in a pulpy comic book film in the shoes of a ‘tough as nails’ army officer doesn’t weaken his impact. His role really is to doubt the success of the experiment and choosing Rogers. And there is a level of sincerity in every element of his performance that I don’t think many actors have the ability to portray.



Toby Jones is layered as Red Skull’s hesitant off-sider. Hayley Atwell is suitable as the tough “I may be a dame but I ain’t no damsel” love interest to Rogers who like Erskine sees the inner qualities of Rogers as his most valuable asset (that’s not to say that she isn’t notably impressed with his new incredible physique).



There is one unfortunate element for me and that’s the ending – it is a little too rushed and really just teases the beginning of the forthcoming Avengers film. And yes if you’re wondering whether I waited until the end credits, I did and yes I did see the tiny glimpse of the Avengers film that left Comic Con a flutter.



So really to some up, for me this isn’t the best Marvel film; that mantle stays with Iron Man, but it comes a close second with Ang Lee’s Hulk (that’s right I prefer Ang Lee’s film to the Lou Leterrier Xbox game). This was a great surprise and I would say totally worth some war bonds. Get along, and see why Bucky followed a skinny kid from Brooklyn.

Blake Howard is a writer/site director/podcaster at the castleco-op.com.



Movie Review Archive

The Week in Spandex - Marvel TV, The Avengers, Spidey, Blade, Ghost Rider and a pinch of The Dark Knight Rises

Presenting our weekly round-up of all the biggest news stories from the world of movie superheroes…

Due to the impending deadline for Holy Franchise and a review of Batman Live that’s in the works, there’s a slight change of format with this edition of ‘The Week in Spandex’… in fact, it’s more a collection of links, but fear not as there’s still plenty of superhero goodness to go around…

…Not content with dominating the multiplexes, Marvel Studios now look to be embarking on a major television push; head of television Jeph Loeb discussed a host of upcoming projects during the Marvel TV Comic-Con panel, including the animated series Ultimate Spider-Man and Hulk: Agents of SMASH, along with live-action outings for Hulk, Cloak and Dagger, Mockingbird and aka Jessica Jones (aka Alias), the latter of which is said to feature Luke Cage and Carol Danvers…

…Filmmaker Guillermo del Toro, who will serve as producer on the upcoming live-action Hulk series, also had a few words about the project for IGN, stating that its unlikely to have any connection to the character’s portrayal in The Avengers. Del Toro is also invited fans to pitch him their idea for the next big superhero movie, so if you think you’ve got what it takes head on over to Total Film…

…And speaking of The Avengers’ Hulk, we also got our first looked at the revamped Mark Ruffalo angry green giant courtesy of a fine series of interlinking character posters from Joss Whedon’s upcoming superhero ensemble. Thankfully it seems they’ve abandoned the hairy chest idea that was floating around a while back, but we’re still yet to see any sign of pants…

…In other Avengers news, Marvel released a teaser of the teaser (yes, really) along with the final scene of Captain America: The First Avenger which you can view over at Yahoo. Meanwhile fans here in the UK will be able to catch the film a few weeks earlier than anticipated as Disney announce a UK release date of April 27th, 2012…

…On the subject of Captain America, our very own Trevor Hogg has written an excellent piece over at CGSociety looking at the visual effects behind The First Avenger, which includes interviews with a number of the film’s VFX supervisors and some excellent before-and-after images. Be sure to check it out, along with a similar article on Green Lantern…

…A couple of weeks back we heard that Marvel had reacquired the right to The Punisher and now you can add Blade to their ever-expanding roster of potential properties, although Marvel CCO Joe Quesada has warned fans not to expect either of the characters to pop up in the Marvel Cinematic Universe any time soon…

…Edgar Wright took over from co-writer Joe Cornish in delivering the weekly “we’ve just handed a draft of the script in” line for their Ant-Man adaptation, telling MTV News the screenplay has been written with a view to making a “standalone genre film”, for which no pre-existing Avengers knowledge is required…

…A new international poster for Sony’s reboot The Amazing Spider-Man has been released (which you can see over to your right there), coupled with a press release from the studio stating that Andrew Garfield’s webslinger will also arrive in IMAX 3D when the film hits cinemas on July 3rd, 2012…

…Nicolas Cage returns as Johnny Blaze in next year’s sequel-cum-reboot Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (with footage going down a storm at Comic-Con last weekend) and now Empire have posted a handful of high quality images featuring Cage and co-star Idris Elba, who really seems to be in every other film these days...

...And finally, the cast and crew of The Dark Knight Rises have arrived in Pittsburgh for the next stage of the shoot, holding a press conference on Thursday which you can check out here. According to Shark Tank’s Kevin O’Leary, Christopher Nolan’s swansong will see the return of the Batcave, with a set said to be under construction on the MGM lot. Meanwhile, JustJared have secured some spy photos featuring Tom Hardy in his full Bane outfit, which doesn't look too great if I'm being honest. Hopefully he'll look a bit better once he ditches the sheepskin coat.

Gary Collinson

365 Days, 100 Films #41 - Went the Day Well? (1942)

Went the Day Well?, 1942.

Directed by Alberto Cavalcanti.
Starring Leslie Banks, Mervyn Johns, Basil Sydney, C.V. France, Valerie Taylor, Thora Hird and David Farrar.


SYNOPSIS:

A troop of German paratroopers invade the small English village of Bramley End.


A man greets the camera at the end of a tracking shot down a long country lane. “Hello there,” he welcomes warmly, showing little regard for the fourth wall. He stands beside a memorial with only German surnames. But this is in Britain, and Hitler never invaded the mainland. This is the story of the village in which that memorial sits, where German forces once infiltrated. “The Battle of Bramley End”, the old man tells us with patriotic pride.

So it’s one of those films, you’d think. The sort of film where everyone is quaint and polite, and overcomes the German foe with relative ease and joviality. Ealing Studios released it in 1942, while the war was still being fought, and the opening scene suggests such a propagandist tone. Small English village overtaken by a bunch of German paratroopers. It would play on people’s fears at the time; that anyone could be an enemy spy, and an invasion of Britain is imminent. A healthy dose of paranoia for a wartime nation.

The German paratrooper imposters speak with perfect English accents. There’s the occasional awkward moment, like when one of the village folk declares “down with Hitler” as a toast, or when one of the children references those “damned Jerrys”, when the Germans are standing right there, but they weren’t to know they’re being invaded. You kinda even feel sorry for those “damned Jerrys” in these moments, because they deal with the situation very politely, just sipping their drinks or glancing shadily downwards, not wanting to make the offenders feel uncomfortable.

Oliver Wilsford (Leslie Banks), the traitorous village squire, assists the Germans in their efforts. He makes for a good chicken villain, deceiving all and then squirming as it unravels. Unfortunately, he has no character motive to explain his treachery. It’s not as though the Germans have invaded and he’s collaborating out of self-interest, nor is any reward mentioned for his help. It works in a paranoia sense, on the wartime viewer, because an explanation could limit their imagination in who could be working for the Germans. But it doesn’t work as well in a narrative sense. The exact same criticism can be made of “why invade Bramley End?”

The village folk are an affable bunch, and they all work together regardless of their difference in class. There’s a distinct lack of men in the village, because they’re off fighting in the war, and there’s a suggestion that the women are a quite taken by the influx of males in uniform. They’re isolated, too. Even though the surrounding towns aren’t too far away, the simple disabling of their local switchboard cuts them off completely. It’s a romantic thought watching it in a communication age, even if their circumstances are a little dramatic.

After a while, Nora (Valerie Taylor), the local vicar’s daughter, discovers the Germans’ true identity. A slab of ‘Chokolate’ falls out one of the paratroopers’ bags, and a few of her earlier suspicions are confirmed, forcing the Germans to reveal their intentions. The village folk are rounded up in the church, and, suddenly, Went the Day Well? becomes increasingly more expressive and dark, for it is night time now, and light is scarce. The elderly vicar is shot dead for refusing to settle down. He attempts to rouse the nearby Home Guard by ringing his church bell. The ding-dong is cut dead by a German’s gun.

From what was a rather cheery affair, the film takes a progressively violent route. Men are bludgeoned to death with wrenches; old women are stabbed by bayonet; five children are to be executed at dawn. The violence is not gratuitous. This was made in 1942, after all. But it is affective. The camera and lighting imply the film’s gore.

The village’s morale remains throughout despite all their thwarted efforts for retaliation. It makes the final stand, in the village’s manor house, all the sweeter. Those previously imprisoned in the church have escaped there, and they defend it against the German aggressors whilst awaiting reinforcements. Main and supporting characters continue to die throughout. Their attempts to fend off the Germans appear to be dwindling.

Charles Sims (Mervyn Johns), our narrator at the beginning, and for whom the entire film is technically a flashback, withdraws from the manor house window that he is defending. He occupies the foreground, whilst the prim lady of the manor, Mrs. Fraser (Marie Lohr), fusses behind. The shot is solemn and the shots in the distance become muted. Sims reloads his Tommy gun. “Last one,” he says reflectively to his final magazine. Then a woman enters the room with a cup of tea. “That’s what he needs,” remarks Mrs. Fraser warmly.

Without a drip of cynicism or irony! Both she and the film genuinely see the cup of tea as more important to Sims than more ammunition. Well, maybe not more important, but such a down-to earth outlook is ingrained within them. It’s what, along with the risqué violence, makes Went the Day Well? so enjoyable - pure, undiluted, matter-of-fact and just-getting-on-with-it Britishness.

RATING: ***

Oli Davis

365 Days, 100 Films

Movie Review Archive

Movie Review - Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Cowboys & Aliens, 2011.



Directed by Jon Favreau.

Starring Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford, Olivia Wilde, Sam Rockwell, Paul Dano, Clancy Brown and Keith Carradine.





SYNOPSIS:



When aliens attack the town of Absolution, a loner with no memory of his past holds the key to their defeat.





Cowboys and Aliens. Cowboys and aliens. Cowboys... and aliens... Well, if ever a film delivered on its title, this was it. I mean, there is no feasible way you can get this film wrong from its name. And that is truly excellent work by the writers. Unfortunately, not much else is truly excellent. Don’t get me wrong, the film was enjoyable; it featured James Bond and Indiana Jones (!!) and it certainly fulfilled its poster promises, but... it’s a film about cowboys and aliens!



So what was good about the film? Well, the opening was brilliant. It screamed gritty Western. James Bond escapes his captors with brutal efficiency before saving a local town simply by being brooding and muscular. A grumpy Indiana wants James’ head for stealing his gold but is stopped in his tracks by the local sheriff. All is in place for a great modern cowboy film... And then the aliens come along. Twenty minutes in and the film goes from great and promising to average and predictable. Although the cowboys of 1875 react sincerely to the strange flying objects and random abductions, and although I really wanted the two to merge well, one can’t help but feel that cowboys and aliens are two genres that just shouldn’t be mixed, no matter how good the acting from Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford and the direction from Jon Favreau. Sorry guys, it just doesn’t work.



Of course, this simple error is not helped by the stereotypical characters. For example: the war-dumb Native Americans; the young boy who becomes a man during battle when, in reality, he would be bricking himself if an alien touched his face with its (drastically too humanoid) hands; and the doc who doesn’t know how to use a gun but learns just when the moment is right.



What’s more, there is no good reason why the aliens are there. They want gold. Why? Because it’s rare. Okay. That’s great. Good for them. And why (and how?!) did Olivia Wilde follow them across the universe? Because they destroyed her planet and she doesn’t want them to do the same to others. Okay, I get that. But if she can take the form of anyone and understand their language, why doesn’t she just move elsewhere – somewhere the aliens are not? Like Venus. Venus looks nice. I’m sorry, Olivia, but you clearly don’t care about Earth enough to kamikaze yourself off to save it.



The major problem is we just don’t care. We haven’t got an emotional attachment to these characters. I don’t care if Bond’s missus was killed by the aliens. He hardly says anything in the whole film for me to care about him. I don’t care if Olivia’s planet was blown up because she does nothing in the film but look pretty. And I don’t care if the town folk find their abducted relatives because they did nothing to make me like them. And that’s such a shame, because there were some great comedy moments where characters started to develop and we laughed with them, but these were not followed through enough to give the emotional resonance needed for us to care about what happened to them at the end of the film.



This film feels like too much of a mash-up between a Western and a Sci-Fi. It does the Western part really well. And, actually, it does the Sci-Fi part pretty well. But it doesn’t make the connection between the two great enough and it doesn’t make our connection with its heroes deep enough. This leaves you as an audience member feeling as though you have been watching a bog standard action film rather than engaging with a solid and enjoyable story.



If you want to see an action film, go and see Cowboys & Aliens. It won’t hurt you. If you want to see a Sci-Fi film, go and see Cowboys & Aliens. It will probably satisfy you in an unusual way. But if you have been holding out all of your life to see the cowboy and alien genres merged, I would advise you to hold out for something better.



5 out of 10.

Stephen Chalmers



Movie Review Archive

Giveaway - Limited Edition Hobo with a Shotgun T-Shirts - NOW CLOSED

To celebrate the 1st August UK DVD and Blu-ray release of Hobo with a Shotgun starring the legendary Rutger Hauer, we have extremely limited edition t-shirts to give away! Specially created and not available to buy, we have three t-shirts to give away but before we tell you how you can win them please do stop by the official FanHub website for the film - www.cult-labs.com/hobo - click on ‘Win!’ and there you'll get the chance to enter yourself into a draw to win an exclusive Hobo with a Shotgun poster!

Directed by Jason Eisener, Hobo with a Shotgun is based on the winning entry from Robert Roriguez's SXSW Grindhouse trailer content, and sees the shotgun-weilding hobo (Rutger Hauer - Blade Runner, The Hitcher, Batman Begins) delivering justice to Scum Town, one shell at a time.

Should you be fortunate enough to win, you'll have to settle for a lucky dip as to which of the following two designs you get...



To be in with a chance of winning all you need to do is drop us an email with your contact details, the subject heading "HOBO", and an answer to the following question...

Which of the following directors DID NOT produce a fake trailer for the 2007 Grindhouse double-feature?

A) Rob Zombie
B) Eli Roth
C) Quentin Tarantino
D) Edgar Wright
E) Robert Rodriguez

The competition closes at 5pm on Sunday, August 7th. UK entrants only please.

The Prize Finder - UK Competitions
Loquax Competitions
Competitions Today

By entering this competition you agree to our terms and conditions, which you can read here.

DVD Review - Limitless (2011)

Limitless, 2011.



Directed by Neil Burger.

Starring Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, Abbie Cornish, Anna Friel and Johnny Whitworth.





SYNOPSIS:



A writer takes an experimental mind-enhancing 'smart drug', attracting the attention of shadowy forces determined to use his newfound abilities for their own gain.





Is it possible to be a genius in an age when anyone can Google anything or ask their very own digital Jeeves? It’s been hundreds of years since famous intellectuals could simultaneously be true experts in fields as varied as mathematics and music, philosophy or physics. Today the depth of knowledge required is just too great. It’s a question of knowing how to look for facts, rather than deducing your own. And yet we are constantly told to reach out for our true potential because biologically at least we are using a fraction of the brain’s thinking power.



Perhaps the miracle of modern medicine can provide an answer to the world’s obvious lack of fearsomely intimidating brainiacs. Limitless is based on the novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn and tells the story of Eddie, played by The Hangover’s Bradley Cooper, a “novelist” with a book contract, a hot girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) and the looks of a beggar, and not much else. With not a word of his masterpiece written his girlfriend rapidly becomes his ex. Eddie hits rock bottom and inspiration looks to be about as likely as a knighthood for Andy Coulson. But then his ex brother in law turns up, out of the blue, leaving him a pill that utilises every synapse in the brain so it’s running at 100%. Take the pill and you become a silent superhero, a 21st century, pharmacy fuelled genius.



I had a hypothesis about Limitless. I’d heard about the concept and it was undeniably cool. I mean what would you do with an enhanced version of yourself that knew no limits? Maybe you’d end world hunger, sort out peace in the Middle East, come up with the next Harry Potter series and have some fun with attractive people you’d usually be too scared to approach along the way.



However this being a Hollywood release it was fairly obvious that Eddie would go crazy and live it up, earning big bucks on Wall Street, squandering his drug pumped intelligence on boring investment dialogue. He’d finish his “grandiose” novel in a montage and be in predictable debts with dodgy Eastern Europeans in the blink of an eye, moaning about it all in a moronic and mostly insufferable voiceover.



In fairness to Limitless the endless possibilities behind the concept are practically impossible to convey. Director Neil Burger does throw in some visual trickery to illustrate the highs of the drug and the panicky amnesia that follows. But the rush of inspiration and satisfaction after finishing a novel doesn’t translate onto film via Cooper’s swagger or a tumble of CGI words falling from the ceiling as he types.



Anyway back to my hypothesis. Essentially I thought that the interesting premise, once squeezed through the demands of modern entertainment, would end up as merely a passably adequate film overall. Stephen Fry, national treasure and king of Twitter, tweeted a while ago that Limitless was silly but fun. I thought that everyone would reach more or less the same conclusion. Despite dealing with themes like drug dependency and the potentials of the human character, Limitless skips over meaningful answers in favour of an alright watch.



The only moments that push entertainment levels above the mediocre are ones where the audience are laughing at the film, rather than with it. For example when Eddie’s ex girlfriend is trapped by a pursuing murderer (I won’t waste time mentioning plot holes) and she must take a pill to think her way out of it, she decides to sprint across an ice rink and swing a child into her attacker’s face. Yup, that’s modern genius for you.



Don’t let it be said that at Flickering Myth we do not test our hypotheses with carefully controlled experiments. I invited three lab rats to my home, lulled them into a false sense of normality with popcorn and then issued them with scientifically designed score cards to rate Limitless. Here are the results.





As you can see, Guest 1 thought Limitless was “Ok”...





...as did Guest 2.





Guest 3 decided to try to mess with my system and write some thoughts on the back of her scorecard, hence the scrawled “P.T.O”. She wrote some kind of valid stuff about Limitless being immoral because it doesn’t really show that drugs have bad consequences and it only has a 15 certificate, all of which I decided to leave out of my review. After all it’s only a bit fun, which as even she acknowledged, was "Ok".



Limitless is available on Blu-Ray and DVD from the 1st of August.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)



Movie Review Archive

For the Love of Trailers - The Amazing Spider-Man, The Dark Knight Rises and Hugo

What to look forward to (or not) as Louise-Afzal Faerkel casts her eye over the trailers for The Amazing Spider-Man, The Dark Knight Rises and Hugo...

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

Directed by Marc Webb.
Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen, Sally Field and Denis Leary.

I don’t know why I am disappointed. Well, I do. But I was sincerely hoping not to be. But unfortunately, I have been left saddened, rather than excited and stimulated, by this trailer.

Firstly, the structure is unchallenging, as it starts with an opening shot of NYC. Next, a background story is smoothly inserted about Peter Parker’s parents during his childhood. This element is interesting, dramatic and deeper than most superhero movies (forget about the good ones; I am thinking of Green Hornet, Daredevil, et. al.).

A slower and smoother transition ensues into Peter’s school days and oh my God, get to the point! I am so bored by now that I am verging on angry. And give it a rest with all the fades, will you? (can you tell I am pulling my hair out of frustration?)

Then continue into how Peter gets his powers – so far a perfect example of college project-style editing: chronological, slow, two-dimensional.

The best shot only appears a minute or so in, when Peter pulls out web from his neck. It is grim and almost manages to send shivers down your spine through the bare nature of the scene. To my major disappointment (again), the material gets more and more boring as the trailer carries on. The viewer is left in the dark; nothing is genuinely teasing or revelatory: anything but titillating.

The last 45 seconds almost rescue the whole atrocity, but they seem quite cut off and separate from the rest of the trailer. They could have, on their own, made for a good teaser. They are well made, well executed, nicely thought of and with great effects. Such a shame about the rest.

A poor, poor trailer. What a waste of money and talent. 4/10


THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

Directed by Christopher Nolan.
Starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt

As Stuart Heritage pointed out in his review of this oddity of a trailer on the Guardian’s website last Tuesday, not much of the actual footage of the new film is present here. We all know why this method was chosen (hint: it rhymes with “ease” and starts with a “t”), but is it really not just a cop-out? Cheating the audience, some might say?

After watching this, I would rather wait for a real trailer. This one is dull. Uninteresting. Annoying. Nonetheless it almost works. It does tease, essentially by the sheer size of and publicity about the franchise and the public's anticipation: it can allow itself to recycle old clips, for lack of a better word. Fans will either hate it or love it, it is a Marmite situation.

The choice of voice over is good, but I am unconvinced that the shots chosen all fit that well – half of them seem chosen at random. The effects are excellent (that goes without saying), but there is a staggering amount of graphics, almost as many as clips and fades, mainly in the second half of the trailer. It is disturbing and takes focus away from the action. They become fillers by no fault of their own.

Not amazing, not terrible. Again – I would rather wait for a second official trailer. This is disappointing at best. 5/10


HUGO

Directed by Martin Scorsese.
Starring Asa Butterfield, Jude Law, Chloë Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Emily Mortimer, Ray Winstone and Christopher Lee.

Martin Scorsese is a genius. Most people will agree with this. But a lot less people would agree with me when I say I think he is getting old. Ever since The Departed, that ghastly joke of a film (I am already bleeding here, people, stop shooting), I have doubted his efforts.

The main argument in this case I have is that this is a terribly slow and unchallenging edit (what is it with the trailers this week?), where the music does not match and the structure wobbles. It is flat and unexciting, barely saved by 30 Seconds To Mars’ over-used Kings And Queens (which is not used well in any case). It feels like a play, rather than a movie, and although the concept and story seem fun and entertaining, I fail to understand how this trailer was ever given the all-clear. It is a mish-mash of gobbledygook and pretty settings. The costumes and sets look stunning as always, but the poor trailer puts into question the execution of the film.

The build-ups to the jokes are not big and long enough, adding to the flatness of the rest of the trailer. Everything takes too long to happen – and I like to think this is a general consensus, not me being used to watching five-frame-edited trailers several times a week. The graphics are nice, the text is strong and catchy, yet sometimes unreadable (what does it say above Scorsese’s name? Nothing new most likely, but still, I would like to be able to read it).

The trailer for Hugo may not do the film justice. It is dreary and mediocre overall. A snooze-fest of a children’s film. 2/10.


Louise-Afzal Faerkel

Page and Screen - What is the real legacy of Slytherin from Harry Potter?

Liam Trim with the latest edition of 'Page and Screen'...

Warning: This article contains spoilers that may induce suicide.

When I finally saw Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 2, just a few days after its release, I was ecstatic to find that the franchise bowed out by reclaiming its magical mojo. For me it was the best film of the series by a long way. Debating my enjoyment with friends I conceded it may just be that I have forgotten the omissions from the books that used to irritate me or that I simply no longer care as long as the film is good. And this was definitely good, so good I’m tempted to use the word “sublime”.

The tone was perfectly judged. The film starts with a tense and atmospheric scene of dialogue, still drenched in the grief of Dobby’s death and the impending doom. From then on the contrast is expertly maintained, with unique action sequences following moodily shot moments of explanation and reflection. There are clichés and cheesy emotional dramas aplenty but the successful history of the series earns its self indulgent payoff. Well for someone of the Potter generation like me at least.

I simply cannot cram in everything I liked about The Deathly Hallows: Part 2. As a film experience it seems to have everything, from a dark and beautiful style, to gags and heartbreak. I rarely feel completely and utterly amazed and transported in the cinema, but I did watching this. I don’t want to diminish my enjoyment by writing a proper review, which would be biased by my personal Potter journey as well as inadequately conveying its many, yes magical, moments.

Besides there were only two moments I can remember that irritated me. One of these was when Harry grabs Voldemort and they fly about for a bit pointlessly (Voldemort is too powerful to grab!). The other was more puzzling than annoying. It wasn’t the epilogue, in which the actors play their older selves on the platform at King’s Cross. I simply laughed for the entirety of that.

It was a throwaway moment in the Great Hall, when Harry reveals himself to Snape and the Death Eaters now in charge of Hogwarts. Voldemort quickly knows Harry is there and uses some wonderfully sinister and psychological scares on the students. He speaks to them from inside their heads, assuring them that they’ll live if they give him Harry Potter but if they fight they will die. At this point some girls from Slytherin house demand Harry is seized. Maggie Smith’s Professor McGonagall, head of the courageous and good Gryffindor house, then orders the whole of Slytherin to be confined in the dungeons until the battle is over.

Now the Harry Potter series is well known for its moral messages and Voldemort’s hatred of half bloods. There are some far from subtle Nazi parallels as the bad guys constantly insist that Muggles (non magical folk like us) and half bloods (children with only one magical parent) are inferior to pure bloods of true magical families. J.K. Rowling appears to be sending the typical “don’t judge a book by its cover” and “everyone deserves a chance” messages. But these common goods have always been at odds with the Hogwarts tradition of the Sorting Hat.

For the uninitiated, when first year students join Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry they are “sorted” into houses by a magical hat placed on their head. Every house is associated with different attributes. A quick (and simplified) summary would read as: Gryffindor = brave, Hufflepuff = kind, Ravenclaw = clever and Slytherin = evil. Yup essentially if you’re in Slytherin you turn out to be bad.

And yet there is the ending to this conclusion to the series, which reveals the true intentions of slippery Severus Snape. If you ignored the spoiler warning at the top and you haven’t either seen the last film or read the last book, now is the time to abort. Snape basically loved Harry’s mother Lily. He has been looking out for Harry all along. But wait... he killed Dumbledore! Yes technically, but Dumbledore was already dying from a wound he sustained destroying a part of Voldemort’s soul called a Horcrux. Confused? Very sorry if you are, I’ll get back to my point about inconsistency.

In the epilogue Harry’s son worries about getting put in Slytherin, before he sets off to Hogwarts for the first time. Harry reassures “Albus Severus Potter” that one of his stupid names belonged to a former head of Slytherin, who was the bravest man he ever knew. Both Rowling’s books and the film series end by hailing nasty Snape’s undying unrequited love as the true, silent hero of the whole thing.

In a recent interview for Empire Magazine, Potter screenwriter Steve Kloves admits his favourite character is not Harry, but Hermione. If your favourite character is Harry you’re a bit weird and boring. My favourite character was always Snape, first for his vile putdowns and mystery and finally for his valiant but unrecognised and unrewarded selfless sacrifice in the name of love, a love that was never realised. He is a bitter dreamer so easy to sympathise with.

We are left with two very different legacies for the house of Slytherin. On the one hand the people that appear to be the villains on the outside can sometimes be the greatest heroes of all. On the other, never trust a rotten apple, even if it has the potential to taste great with a bit of work.

I’m sure some of you are probably thinking that it’s a bit stupid to be ruining a great film and phenomenally successful series with such picky analysis. I do not intend to spoil the enjoyment of the last film, which is a fantastic and fitting ending as I have said, or the creative achievement of the whole Harry Potter universe. Rowling’s muddled messages over genetics and the morals of condemning someone over something other than their actions, does illustrate that Harry Potter’s magical world is far from perfect though. Her imagination is superb and she is capable of powerful poignancy and elegance, as illustrated in the largely unaltered scene in the final film when Dumbledore praises the magical power of words. But perhaps Slytherin was her Achilles heel.

Or maybe she was also capable of realism as well as fantasy. Maybe she meant that some people are always more likely to turn out “bad”. But that makes the achievement of those who come good in the end all the more admirable. Slytherin’s ultimate legacy doesn’t matter. It will be dwarfed by the ongoing impact of the whole world of Hogwarts, Hagrid and Harry. I’m just reluctant, like everyone else, to stop talking about it.

Liam Trim (follow me on Twitter)

365 Days, 100 Films #40 - Cop Out (2010)

Cop Out, 2010.



Directed by Kevin Smith.

Starring Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Sean William-Scott and Adam Brody.





SYNOPSIS:



Paul Hodges and Jimmy Monroe are suspended from the police force, but they are unable to escape the job when a Mexican drug lord steals one of their valuable baseball cards.





If it wasn’t Kevin Smith, I don’t think I’d have enjoyed it as much. Even if it was exactly the same film, but made by someone else, I wouldn’t have cut Cop Out so much slack. It’s kinda like when your friend makes something and you think it’s a lot better than it really is.



But there’s no harm in that. If you follow a director throughout their career, especially one as polarising as Smith, you’re bound to feel more protective (and thus have a more favourable perception) of said person’s films. Do I like Weezer’s ‘Raditude’? Hell no. But do I give it a lot more leeway than I would to albums by other bands? Considerably.



Bias declared. Absolved of all following skewered opinion.



Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan/Jordan) and Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis) are partners in the New York City Police Department. They’re a bit reckless, and goofy, but they solve crimes. The film opens on them bickering behind the two-way mirror of an interrogation room. Hodges wants to play ‘bad cop’ this time; he never gets to play ‘bad cop’. Monroe concedes and Hodges proceeds to pretend he’s an extremely dangerous, escaped prisoner, bursting into the interrogation room with an empty gun as a prop. For fun, Hodges begins to act out scenes from famous films. He quotes lines from The Color Purple to Training Day. “Yipee ki yay,” he screams at one point. “I haven’t seen that one,” remarks a smiling Willis on the mirror’s other side.



There’s a lot of character groundwork done in these opening scenes. We learn Hodges is obsessively paranoid that his wife may be having an affair, and that Monroe needs to claw together $45,000 to pay for his daughter’s dream wedding. Otherwise her stepfather will. Monroe isn’t the sort of guy who wants his daughter’s stepfather paying for anything.



Hodges has an anniversary card for Monroe. They’ve been partners for nine years, and it shows in their comfort with one another. The two argue constantly, but are the first to leap to each other’s defence. It’s often against their two rival, by-the-book detectives in the department, uniting together in a tirade of trademark Kevin Smith cock put-downs. Not many other films devote this much time to fleshing out their characters.



They get suspended because of a botched operation. Without pay. Monroe needed that money for the wedding. On hard times, he elects to pawn his father’s treasured baseball card. Its worth is not only sentimental. Dedicated collectors would pay up to $90,000 for one that rare. The masked men just about to rob the pawnbrokers just want it for drug money.



In their attempts to get the baseball card back, Monroe and Hodges get deeper into a criminal underworld of drugs, kidnapping and murder. It’s all in good spirit, though - the characters they encounter are far too cartoonish to make anything overly serious. There’s New York’s most notorious car thief (a foul mouthed ten-year-old) and a hyper-annoying parkour burglar played by Sean William Scott (provider of all the film’s funniest moments). Scott can play idiot as good as anyone out there. He should get a lot more work.



And there’s the evil villain, Poh Boy (“which is fun to say”), an evil, Latino, baseball fanatic. Every scene he graces shows him torturing/executing a different henchman who has failed him. One is used as baseball-target practice in Poh Boy’s basement. Again, it’s hard to be truly scared of him because of his embellishments, but you certainly don’t like the guy. You want Monroe to get his baseball card back. Credit to Smith for making the storyline matter.



Cop Out owes an obvious debt to Beverly Hills Cop, Beverly Hills Cop II and Beverly Hills Cop III. It’s mainly to do with the synthy music score, but there’s the spirit of the 80s lurking beneath its characters and plot. Overall, it’s not great – but it ain’t bad either. It’s a happy waste of 90 minutes. And you know what? Sometimes that’s fine.



RATING ***

Oli Davis



365 Days, 100 Films



Movie Review Archive

Simon Pegg to star in new comedy film A Fantastic Fear of Everything

Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Star Trek, Paul) is going to star in the British “psycho-comedy” A Fantastic Fear of Everything. Pegg will play the main character, a crime novelist who has become a paranoid wreck as a result of his research into Victorian serial killers. Things go from bad to worse when a Hollywood executive decides to make a film out of his findings.

Amara Karan (The Darjeeling Limited), Clare Higgins (Hellraiser, The Golden Compass), Sheridan Smith (TV show Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps) and Alan Drake will also star in the film, which is being written and directed by musician turned filmmaker Crispian Mills, together with co-director and animator Chris Hopewell.

The comedy will be shooting at Shepperton Studios and on location in London. This is the first film to receive backing from a new initiative, Pinewood Films, which will help to finance a small number of low-budget British films each year and provide them with access to Pinewood and Shepperton’s facilities.

Rising to the Big Screen: Daniel H. Wilson talks about Steven Spielberg

Trevor Hogg chats with author Daniel H. Wilson about filmmaker Steven Spielberg's upcoming cinematic adaptation of his novel Robopocalypse...

Hollywood director Steven Spielberg (Saving Private Ryan), upon reading a partially written manuscript about an artificial intelligence known as Archos which takes over modern technology and converts into it a lethal weapon against humanity, optioned the film rights before a publisher was even found. “I had submitted sample pages to publishing houses through my agent to try to sell the book and I guess the studios have scouts that are out there looking for interesting material all the time,” explains Robopocalypse author Daniel H. Wilson. “The pages got shuffled on to some studios and that’s how it got a hold of them then DreamWorks called my manager and got the process started to option the rights to the novel.”

Contemplating what attracted the Academy Award-winning director to do a cinematic adaptation scheduled to be released in 2013, Wilson speculates, “There is a chapter where Marcus and Dawn are in their apartment in New York City and the Zero Hour has happened. A lot of people are leaving the city and trying to make it to the country where the robots aren’t as well adapted. They’re hanging out and staying in the city; they see that robots are basically going door to door, going inside apartment buildings and coming out with body bags. I think a lot of that evoked some World War II imagery; that might have been something that interested Spielberg.”

As for how Archos would compare to the iconic computer antagonist in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Daniel H. Wilson jokes, “I think the way you compete with HAL is that you have Steven Spielberg make a movie out of your book.” The Portland, Oregon based writer has been consulted by the production team and has been shown some of the conceptual artwork. “We just talked about robots in general and how the feel of this is so realistic and gritty, and the veracity that supports the book and will support the movie.” Asked if he is serving as a technical advisor on the picture, Wilson replies, “I’m not in any official capacity. In retrospect I probably should have tried to get that in the contract. So they’re not obligated to communicate with me at all and I really appreciate anytime they do reach out. I think that’s really great and I’m happy to help.” Contemplating how the evolving technology will be presented cinematically, Wilson states, “I imagine that on the scale of what we’re talking about there will be a lot of computer generated effects because how do you create a thousand stumpers [walnut-sized robots]? That’s just me, I’m not a filmmaker.”

“The book is too much to fit into a movie,” realizes Daniel H. Wilson. “From what I’ve seen, if you’ve read the book you’ll recognize the characters that are in the movie and you’ll recognize what’s happening. I think there are maybe a couple of instances where some characters will be combined just to make things smoother and quicker. I think it will be a familiar movie but of course that said, I’m really looking forward to seeing what the filmmakers do with it because a movie and a book are definitely two different things.” There is a specific moment Wilson hopes to see on the big screen involving Nine Oh Two, an Arbiter Class humanoid who becomes “online sentient” by the end of the book. “I love that scene where he’s sprinting across the Arctic plain and missiles are twisting down out of the sky. There is a little girl [Matilda] two thousand miles away whispering instructions into his ear…I really love that scene just because the two least likely creatures in the world are here fighting the very last gasp of the big battle.”

The author acknowledges comparisons will be made to a movie helmed by Alex Proyas (Dark City). “In terms of being similar to I, Robot [2004] I don’t see that,” remarks Daniel H. Wilson. “The robot uprising in I, Robot I feel it is hard to relate to. It’s just a bunch of translucent humanoids going crazy, whereas Robopocalypse is going to have a much more grounded feel. This is literally when you get in your car, you start it and it just locks the doors and drives you over a bridge. Or when you get a cellphone call from your father telling you to meet him somewhere but it’s not really your father, and when you get there it is just a bunch of people being massacred.” Another distinct difference exists. “I felt like the protagonist in I, Robot didn’t like robots; he was really anti-technology and part of the theme of the movie was anti-technology. I definitely don’t see that in the book because I love technology and if you read Robopocalypse you’ll see that it’s more complicated than that. It’s just not like bad robots kill good humans. You read it and you realize that the machines in this world are sentient and are fighting for a place to exist alongside humans.”

“Gattaca [1997] is my favourite movie,” reveals Daniel H. Wilson of the science fiction tale written and directed by Andrew Niccol (Lord of War) and starring Ethan Hawke (Training Day) and Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction). “He [Niccol] shows the repercussions and they’re grounded in the characters so you really feel for these two protagonists in this movie. When I first saw Gattaca I related because I was in grad school and it was very hard and other people were really smart. It’s competitive and you feel like you have to just push yourself beyond anything you thought you were capable of in order to remain competitive.” Wilson has ventured into the realm of screenwriting. “I’m doing a remake right now of a 1980s movie. I don’t know if I can talk about it yet. I’m in the WGA [Writers Guild of America] and I’ve already written screenplays but no movies have been made.” He is not discouraged. “Screenwriting is a different challenge but all my writing is pretty visual. I love writing screenplays; I have a spec right now that I’m desperately cleaning up, hoping to go out with it in January and see if something happens. The Spielberg catalogue is interesting because it’s a real thing to be associated with somebody who’s been so successful. It’s amazing. I didn’t see that coming.”

Many thanks to Daniel H. Wilson for taking the time out of his busy schedule for this interview.

For more on the author, follow Daniel on Twitter and visit his website.

Read Trevor's review of Robopocalypse, along with the first part of this interview, Novel Thoughts: A conversation with author Daniel H. Wilson.

Trevor Hogg is a freelance video editor and writer who currently resides in Canada.

DVD Review - Iron Lord (2010)

Iron Lord (Russian: Yaroslav. Tysyachu let nazad), 2010.

Directed by Dmitri Korobkin.
Starring Aleksandr Ivashkevich, Svetlana Chuikina, Aleksey Kravchenko, Viktor Verzhbitskiy and Valeriy Zolotukhin.


SYNOPSIS:

The Russian Prince Yaroslav struggles to maintain order in his kingdoms as barbarian hordes and slave-traders carve their way from one settlement to the next, threatening his power over the region.


The low-budget straight-to-DVD market has faced a bit of an upheaval lately, with the typical zombie / vampire tosh facing a new challenge from the ‘bloody historical epic’ as distributors look to cash in on the release of high-profile titles such as Ironclad and The Eagle. Now we can add another to the growing list – see Henry of Navarre, Barbarossa: Siege Lord, Knight Templar etc. – with the arrival of Iron Lord, a Russian effort by the name of Yaroslav. Tysyachu let nazad, which I’m pretty sure means something else entirely.

In 11th century Russia, the warlord Yaroslav, son of the Grand Prince Valdimir, travels the lawless Rostov region in the North of Kiev, gathering tribute for his father and spreading the world of God. Stumbling upon ransacked village after ransacked village, Yaroslav and his men – including the Viking warrior-cum-mercenary Harald – set out to repel the bandits but in order to do so, the Prince must first unite his people, many of whom have suffered years of hardship under his father’s rule.

Now, although it’s marketed at the same audience as Ironclad (even going so far as to replicate the “from the studio that brought you…” blurb on its cover), Iron Lord isn’t your usual ‘bloody historical epic’. In fact, there's more blood on the DVD cover of Iron Lord than the film itself, and its battle scenes are probably best described as skirmishes. That’s not to say it’s all bad as the story itself is fairly interesting, although I was struggling to buy Aleksandr Ivashkevich as Yaroslav. Dressed in his armour, he kept reminding me of Graham Chapman in Monty Python and The Holy Grail, and when he wore robes I couldn’t shake the image of Graham Chapman in Life of Brian. Maybe it’s just me, but I didn’t find him all too convincing in an otherwise acceptable cast.

Ivashkevich aside, the main problem with Iron Lord is that we spend the entire duration of the film building to a showdown between Yaroslav’s ‘army’ and the barbarians, only for the bad guys to up sticks and retreat before things really get underway. We do get to close on a fight between Yaroslav and the Viking Harald, which went some way to salvaging things, although it was a little clunky (which I suppose in fairness is likely to be the case when you’re fighting with giant broadswords). However, with Harald dressed all in black, I kept expecting Arthur Yaroslav to chop him limb from limb and I felt a little let down when it didn’t happen.

For a low-budget movie, Iron Lord is put together well and looks impressive on occasion, with some decent CGI effects and inventive camera techniques. Apart from the scope of the few battle scenes, the only time that the budget really hampers the film is during Yaroslav’s rousing speech to his people, with a shortage of extras making it seem like only a handful of subjects bothered to turn up. It’s a shame that the final big battle never gets going, as Iron Lord would certainly have benefited immensely from a bit more action. If that’s what you’re after then I’d perhaps look the other way, but fans of the genre may want to pick this up when it hits the bargain bin.

Gary Collinson

Movie Review Archive

Harry Potter retains the UK box office crown with a spellbinding second weekend

UK box office top ten and analysis for the weekend of Friday 22nd to Sunday 24th July 2011...

The final installment in the Harry Potter series continues to dominate at the UK box office, as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 pulls in a second-weekend haul of £8.5m (the biggest of the year by far) and now finds itself just short of The King's Speech as the highest-earner of 2011 after just ten days on screens. The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is also leading all of its predecessors at the same stage after strong mid-week returns, and that should continue now that the school holidays are underway.

It probably wasn't the wisest of moves by Pixar to go head-to-head with Harry Potter for their latest release Cars 2, which splutters out of the starting grid with £3.5m, although it does manage to overtake the opening weekend laid down by the original back in 2006. Again, Cars 2 should benefit from the school holidays and could yet achieve a reasonable haul on these shores. Meanwhile, two other new releases arrive this week as comedy Horrible Bosses takes third with a decent £2m and the Ewan McGregor / Christopher Plummer dramedy Beginners banks £146k from a limited run to settle for ninth.

Turning to the familiar faces and Bridesmaids falls one place to fourth but continues to pull in the punters, pushing its total gross to £18.3m after five consecutive seven-figure weekends. Transformers: Dark of the Moon drops three places to fifth with £931k, while Kung Fu Panda 2, Irish-only release The Guard and Bollywood drama Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara each slip two places to sixth, seventh and ninth respectively. Finally, at the foot of the chart is The Tree of Life, with the Palme d'Or winner slipping four places in its third weekend.

Number one this time last year: Toy Story 3

Pos.	Film	Weekend Gross	Week	Total UK Gross
1	Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2	£8,523,417	2	£44,271,997
2	Cars 2	£3,541,664	1	£3,541,664
3	Horrible Bosses	£2,077,239	1	£2,077,239
4	Bridesmaids	£1,022,982	5	£18,356,960
5	Transformers: Dark of the Moon	£931,334	4	£26,072,873
6	Kung Fu Panda 2	£242,775	7	£15,773,830
7	The Guard	£220,498	3	£1,769,579
8	Beginners	£146,096	1	£146,096
9	Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara	£138,926	2	£566,298
10	The Tree of Life	£114,521	3	£1,222,747

Incoming...

Joe Johnston and Marvel Studios deliver the final superhero effort of the year with the release of Captain America: The First Avenger (cert. 12A). Meanwhile, looking to capitalise on the school holidays are family comedies Horrid Henry: The Movie (cert. PG) and Zookeeper (cert. PG), along with the latest animation from Studio Ghibli – Arrietty (cert. U), and if it’s something a bit more weighty you’re after there’s also the drama A Better Life (cert. 12A) from The Twilight Saga: New Moon director Chris Weitz.

U.K. Box Office Archive