Film Review: The Room

A couple of blogs back, I was talking about how it's hard to say much about a classic film. What more can be said about The Godfather? Is there really anymore insight you can give Raging Bull? It's like the exact opposite for The Room.

Universally derided as the worst film ever made, The Room comes pretty damn close to it. But, I watched it all the way through, whereas films in the past have just gone off, or have been walked out of. The key to what makes The Room watchable is that it's so bad it's good. It is a serious rival to Troll 2 for the title of 'Best Worst Movie'.

There has been discussion that lead actor/writer/director/weirdo Tommy Wiseau made this film as a joke and it's meant to be funny. It's not. It can't be, there is just so much off the wall stuff where you can see they are trying to be serious but it just doesn't happen.

The plot, for what it's worth is about Johnny (Tommy Wiseau), a big city banker engaged to Lisa (Juliette Danielle) but she wants to leave him and is having it away with Johnny's best friend Mark (Greg Sestero). That's it really. The same plot points are made again and again and again and again. Johnny and Mark are best friends. Lisa wants to leave Johnny. There are characters in this film (such as Lisa's friend Michelle, her mother and other friend of Johnny, Peter) whose sole purpose is for these points to be raked over repeatedly.

Almost as constant are the sex scenes. Within the first 25 minutes we are 'treated' to three lengthy sessions, all accompanied by cheesy soft rock or R 'n' B. It's like a soft porn, but with worse acting.

Oh, the acting. Everyone is terrible. But Tommy Wiseau takes things to a whole new level. If you're not wetting yourself laughing at what he says, you're wondering what the hell his accent is. I googled it. No one seems to know.

But as bad as...well everything about the film is, it's ridiculously entertaining. You will be quoting it for months ("Hey doggy", "Anyway, how's your sex life" and personal favourite "I did not hit her...I did NAWT".) It truly is a cult film in the truest sense of the word (it was only after it achieved cult status for being terrible that Wiseau started saying it was supposed to be a comedy.)

Why is it called The Room I hear you ask. I don't know that either. To hazard a guess, is because most of the film is set in a living room. But not all of it, it does venture onto a roof, outside by a wall (for some tuxedo football throwing), and of course the bedroom (a lot), but no real clue really. But somehow it cost $6,000,000 to make. I demand you watch it, just to try and tell me where the money went!

Sadly (I guess), The Room is currently available on DVD or Blu-Ray in this country, and quite hard to find on import but if you enjoy getting your friends round to revel in a terrible film, it's worth hunting out.

Film - *

Entertainment - *****

A terrible, terrible attempt at a movie. A massive melodramatic, repetitive, badly acted mess with corny music, pointless dialogue and characters. But it's all these things that make it so addictive. Sit back, grab a vodka and whiskey, and "Don't worry about it!"

TV Review: Spartacus: Blood And Sand Season One

One of the most controversial TV shows in recent years, Spartacus: Blood and Sand has everything that would send any Daily Mail reader jumping up and down in self righteous indignation. It covers all the bases.

The violence is so over the top it's like they asked someone who had watched 300 to describe it, but only after they zonked them out on magic mushrooms. It is mental, limbs are chopped off left and right, and blood literally pisses everywhere, covering the whole screen at times.

There are so many sex scenes, the show does some times resemble soft porn. And you see everything. Full frontal nudity from one gender or another usually occupies a typical episode, in fact the episode 'Mark Of The Brotherhood' actually uses genitalia as a motivating factor for a character, but that ends quite gruesomely.

Then, of course there is the language. I was told before watching that the show would teach me a new way of swearing, and that was pretty much bang on. Such quotes as "May the Gods shrivel your cock" and "You kiss my cheek, only to finger my ass?" are pretty much going to be lost on non-viewers. There is one point in an earlier episode where someone is called a "Shitfuck". It's all enough to make even Deadwood's Al Swearengen blush.

But what of the show itself? Well, once you get past the initial shock value (and that takes a couple of episodes) you can't help to be drawn in to the tale of Spartacus (Andy Whitfield), as he is separated from his wife and forced to train and compete as a Gladiator under the rule of Quintus Batiatus (John Hannah, who is superb throughout), whilst having to deal with rival warrior Crixus (Manu Bennett), Batiatus' devious wife Lucretia (Lucy Lawless) and the possibly even more devious Ashur (Nick Tarabay), amongst others.

The entire cast just nail it, and make the show a joy to watch. The two faced back stabbing characters elicited the sort of negative reaction at the screen not seen since the glory days of 24, and that is high praise indeed!

Without giving too much away, the series progresses masterfully and builds up to an amazing conclusion, which will leave you wanting more. Which, sadly is where problems have arisen.

After filming of this first series, Andy Whitfield was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. This obviously delayed a second series, so Starz (the channel that show Spartacus in the States) commissioned a mini series Spartacus: Gods Of The Arena, but sadly Whitfield's condition returned and the lead role has been recast for the eventual second series proper in 2012.

Quite what the future holds for the show is a concern, as recasting Andy Whitfield is a huge risk to take, as he was so iconic in the show. Time will tell of course, but there is no taking away the power and brilliance of this first season. Ballsy and amazing television, not for the weak at heart.

*****

Not for the weak of heart, but get past the sensational violence, sex, nudity and language and you will be rewarded with an amazing story of love, honor and deception. By Jupiter's cock it was good!

Film Review: Crazy Heart

Being quite a big Jeff Bridges fan, it took me ages to finally get round to watch this, the film he finally won a Best Actor Oscar for. I wasn't avoiding it or anything like that, but it just sometimes takes me a while. These kind of reviews always give me a bit of trouble - a film wins awards and gets widespread praise, and if I agree with it...what else can I add? That's the reason you won't see reviews for films like Reservoir Dogs or Apocalypse Now on this blog, there's nothing more to be said, you don't need this writer telling you how amazing they are.

But I digress, and move to the subject in hand. Crazy Heart tells the story of faded country singer Bad Blake (Bridges), who scoring several hits is now relegated to playing bars and bowling alleys (one of the first shots of the film is of Bridges at a bar with a bowling alley behind him, The Big Lebowski fans will approve) while the singer he taught everything he knows, Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell, who I had no idea was in this film), sells out arenas around the country.

Blake meets journalist Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal) on the road, and romance blossoms, but Blake drinks too much and smokes too much and health problems, as well as uncertain future, are both on the horizon.

To get the negative out of the way first, I found Crazy Heart to be a pretty unoriginal film. The whole 'ageing singer still on the road' thing has been done before, most recently for me in Clint Eastwood vehicle 'Honkytonk Man', although that was a period piece and was more about the relationship between an uncle and his nephew, but the similarities remained for me.

But any case of 'seen it all before' is overshadowed by Jeff Bridges superb performance. Everything you read was true, this was an absolute blinder, and just nailed pretty much every emotion you could feel about a character. If you don't emphasize with this character you are either not watching the film, or some kind of emotionless husk of a human being.

There's strong support from Gyllenhaal also, and the small roles from Farrell and Robert Duvall, as Blake's best friend are also spot on. And even more kudos to Farrell and Bridges for doing all the singing themselves, they could pass for country stars any day!

Crazy Heart is still an entertaining, albeit predictable watch, worth catching for no other reason than Jeff Bridges stealing the show.

***1/2

A well deserved Oscar for Jeff Bridges, it's a shame that the story is so well trodden. Great performances all round save the day though.

Film Review: I Spit On Your Grave (2010)

Unlike the original Last House On The Left, I never really had much time for I Spit On Your Grave. Released in 1978, and also known as Day Of The Woman, I just found it to be cheap, nasty, badly acted and missing the tension and flare that Wes Craven gave his film.

So, I was kind of hoping for a Last House remake style improvement, and to an extent, I got it.

I Spit On Your Grave tells the story of Jennifer (Sarah Butler, in what has to be an incredibly gutsy performance), a young author who escapes city life to write her new book in a remote cabin in the woods. Her arrival is noticed by the locals, who come round and in an incredibly long and drawn out scene, attack and rape her repeatedly. She survives (just) and seeks revenge...

Very similar to Last House again then. But, much like the original, I Spit On Your Grave struck me as cheap, nasty and too reliant on scenes on sexual abuse on a young woman (the scene where they make a mentally handicapped man rape her are particularly unpleasant), scenes which lack any kind of subtlety and tastefulness (it is possible.) Hard to believe the scenes in question were actually cut for UK release by 43 seconds (the second film in 2010 that got publicity by being cut by the BBFC, the other was A Serbian Film.) But it's still less brutal than the original.

The film finally shows some promise in the 'revenge' portion of the film, and it contains some quite original and extremely brutal (and I mean brutal) kills as Jennifer picks off her attackers one by one. Only at this point did I really get anything out of the film. The 'attack' part of the film starts about 20 minutes in, not giving the viewer much breathing room and pretty much takes up the first hour of the film, it's not till after that you get a breather.

It's all just a case of the remake again though. Like so many, no one could have asked for this former 'video nasty' to be remade, but here it is, with not a great deal added to it.

**1/2

A horrible and really distasteful first hour is followed by quite an entertaining revenge portion, but that first 60 minutes remain and the film makes no effort to try and change what the original was. A game of two halves, as it were.

Film Review: Last House On The Left (2009)

The last time I tried to watch a remake of a Wes Craven film, it didn't really end well (See here.) But I was never particularly attached to the 1972 original in the way I am the Elm Street films, so I knew I probably wouldn't get annoyed with it.

Quite the opposite happened, in fact. Not only did I enjoy it, but found it on a par with the original, even improving on it in several ways!

Last House On The Left tells the story of a convict, Krug (Garret Dillahunt) who is broken out of police custody by his brother Francis (Aaron Paul), and his girlfriend Sadie (Riki Lindhome). Nearby, John (Tony Goldwyn) and his wife Emma (Monica Potter) are driving to their holiday home with their 17 year old daughter Mari (Sara Paxton). After Mari meets up with a friend and they score some pot from a teenager (who ends up being the son of Krug), the two girls end up being abducted and abused at length, and left for dead, which is when the trio of miscreants (along with Justin, the son, who isn't that bad) meet up with the soon to be very unhappy parents.

The original was filled with tension thanks to the masterful hand of Wes Craven (who, along with Sean Cunningham produce this new version), but at the same time, it was cheap, it was nasty, the acting was pretty bad, and it included a rather bizarre comedy subplot that was at odds with the rest of the film. It wasn't exactly a classic.

That isn't saying this is either, but it seriously sorts some of the problems that the original had. The comedy subplot is gone, and the film looks fantastic. There are some incredibly impressive shots in it, not arty, but very good none the less. They help raise the film above your average remake. The tension from the first also remains, even though I knew what was going to happen, just not how. All the death scenes are different from the original. And quite inventive too.

The notorious rape scene in the original is toned down a lot also, and is done quite tastefully in comparison. Gone also, is the forced urinating and lesbian scenes, as well as the disembowelment, and the absence of these doesn't hinder the film in the slightest.

The acting also raises this above the usual cheap remake. With the exception of Riki Lindhome as Sadie (who seems to have been hired just so they could shoehorn in some nudity), the performances are all top notch. Special kudos to Garret Dillahunt, who always plays outstanding villains (Deadwood fans will remember him playing two different nasty pieces of work within its 3 season run) and Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn as the anguished parents are also believable as it gets (and raise the question - what would you do if this happened to a loved one and you had the people responsible under your roof?)

Without spoiling the end, it is almost at odds with the rest of the film though. Some would view this as a bad thing, crossing the line between realism and just being silly, but I thought it was justified and deserved.

But at the end of the day, it's another remake. No matter how much I enjoyed it, there was that persistent feeling of seeing it before. Which is a shame considering how much it improved on the factors that let the original down.

***1/2

Another good remake, but a remake nonetheless. The new 'Last House' loses the comedy and the bad acting and adds some brilliant cinematography...but we have been down this road before.

Film Review: Somos Lo Que Hay (We Are What We Are)

A film I was quite looking forward to see, Somos Lo Que Hay (or We Are What We Are) is a 2010 Mexican film that was aimed squarely at the audience of Let The Right One In (the original, of course.) But the two films have almost nothing in common, save being foreign language movies.

Somos Lo Que Hay tells the story of a Mexican family whose father passes away in confusing circumstances. Now they must survive in the quite rough part of the city they live in, and just try to put food on the table every day. Thing is, the food they need is a bit harder to get hold of than a bag of chips. Yep, they are cannibals.

I thought this was a great premise for a film. And I knew it was safe from being a gore packed (despite what posters and DVD cases that were released over here say) and generic horror film, more a look at a family left to fend for themselves in an incredibly desperate situation.

And I was right, but unfortunately the entire family are so unlikable I just could not connect with the film at all. None of them are have many redeeming features at all, and the fact that they are just going out and trying to kidnap people in order to kill, then eat them doesn't really warm you to them. This makes any scene where you try and feel any kind of empathy towards them just cold. Hell, even the policeman on the trail of the family seems to be more interested in the prostitute gang that appear so heavily in the film.

There are a few chilling moments, the abduction and fate of a prostitute is quite shocking, and the whole film is very well shot, but I was just left feeling empty after the whole thing. It's not a long film either, and it still needed a ending that seemed tacked on, almost as an afterthought.

**

A couple of effecting moments and a great premise aside, this fails to deliver on what could have been a fascinating look at what a family has to do when the 'breadwinner' isn't around anymore. Instead, most of the cast are so unlikable you don't care what happens to them. A rare case of hoping it gets remade, so someone else can have a chance to get it right.

Film Review: The Sorcerer's Apprentice

In my ongoing (and sometimes slavish) trawl through Nicolas Cage films, whether they be good, bad or The Wicker Man, I arrive at Disney's The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Of course Cage and Disney (as well as Jerry Bruckheimer Productions) have joined forces before with the two National Treasure films (which director Jon Turteltaub also helmed), but things are more of a fantasy nature in this one.

The film is based on the famous scene in (much) earlier Disney scene Fantasia, the one where Mickey Mouse starts to learn his sorcery powers and makes some mops dance. Well, Disney decided to base an entire film around it (and yes, that scene is in the film, minus the mouse of course.)

Cage is Balthazar Blake, one of three apprentices of Merlin, the others being Veronica Gorloisen (Monica Belluci) and Maxim Horvath (Alfred Molina), the latter of whom turns against Merlin and joins forces with the powerful Morgana (Alice Krige) who whilst battling Merlin, is thwarted and is absorbed into the body of Veronica. Following that Balthazar imprisons both Horvath and Veronica/Morgana in a nesting doll and sets on finding his own apprentice (with the help of a magical dragon ring), a 'Prime Merlinian' who one day will battle Morgana, and is the only one capable of defeating her.

Then we cut to ten years later where 10 year old Dave Stutler ends up in a shop owned by Balthazar, and after the dragon ring comes alive in his hands is chosen to be the sorcerer's apprentice. Unfortunately Dave accidentally releases Horvath from the nesting dolls and after a battle between Horvath and Balthazar, both are trapped in a Chinese urn with a ten year lock on it.

Ten years later Dave (now played by Jay Baruchel) is a Physics student, reconnecting with his old school crush Becky (Teresa Palmer), then everything gets a bit crazy when the urn is unlocked and Horvath and Balthazar are freed...

It's a lot of stuff to happen just to set the film up (why not just cut the whole bit with the kids out?), but luckily it's not as much of a slog to watch as it is to get across on here.

The film is OK. It's hard to really slate Disney films. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is predictable and a bit silly in places, but it's a Disney film, it's for kids mainly. The fact that any kids are still watching after the 'lots to digest' opening is a good thing, so maybe I should let that slide.

Cage, compared to other recent roles, is actually quite restrained (but, yet again looking very similar to Chad Kroeger) and kept me entertained throughout. This time, Jay Baruchel is the over the top one. Walking a very fine line between harmlessly geeky and just plain irritating, Baruchel just manages to keep to the former.

Molina is OK as Horvath. Again, Disney villain. And Monica Belluci is hardly in it, to be honest. If you plan to see the film based on her involvement you will be disappointed. And the inclusion of a Russell Brand sounding cockney teen bad guy (Tobey Kebbell) will leaving you wanting to smack your head against the wall just to take your mind off how irritating the character is (and exceptionally pointless also)

It's an alright way to spend 100 minutes, but it's not the sort of film you want to return to. Kids, on the other hand may love it (or join everyone else in finding Nicolas Cage a bit weird), but for this reviewer, it just lacked the spark of other Disney/Bruckheimer collaborations.

**1/2

Fun while it is on, but it's predictable fluff mainly with the occasional good bit of fun, but also the occasional annoying characters. Rent it for the kids.