Film Review: Maleficent (2014)

(Contains spoilers)

There are two things - or rather people - to be cited in this film's defense.  One is Angelina Jolie, who is pretty much perfectly cast (even if sometimes it looks like a primary school production of "Sleeping Beauty" somehow managed to afford an A-list celebrity - basically, she's too good for this) in what is made clear from the outset, a "retelling" of the story we know as Sleeping Beauty and made familiar with the 1958 Disney "animated classic", which is evoked throughout the film, namely in Jolie's costume and headgear.  If Disney ever planned on a dark, "gritty" reboot of Mary Poppins, Jolie would be ideal for the lead role.  The other contributor of note is Lana Del Rey, who provides a cover of the original film's love theme, "Once Upon A Dream":

These two are pretty much the only elements of the previous film that survive what is essentially a remake that is kind-of the Disney equivalent of the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre "retelling" (even the ending somewhat resembles where 2013's Texas Chainsaw 3D took what was previously established as a classic movie villain).

After making her own contribution to the Disney "canon" with Beauty And The Beast (1991) and The Lion King (1994), writer Linda Wolverton penned the Tim Burton-directed Alice In Wonderland (2010), which was more of a sequel that acknowledged the original story via flashback rather than a simple remake.  With this film, Wolverton develops a theme and takes a massive step down from the "prestige" of "Classic Disney" (rather than the other way round) by writing a film that, over a decade ago, would have been produced with animation fit only for the Disney Channel and sent straight to video (and would have stuck closer to the original film, too).  Here though, we have a film that is a a dark, "gritty"(ish) retelling of a classic children's story that fits somewhere between Universal's Snow White And The Huntsman (2012) and Warner Bros.'s Jack The Giant Slayer (2013), but dressed in what Peter Bradshaw described in his review of Enchanted (2007) as "a cellophane shrink-wrap of corporate Disney plastic-ness" (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/dec/14/family.animation) and presented in optional (in this case, avoid) 3D.

As mentioned, this is a remake of-sorts but not merely the "Sleeping Beauty" story, nor the events of the 1958 film shown from Maleficent's perspective, but an origin story whose origin could be traced to the line in the animated film where one of the fairies suggests that Maleficent is "not all THAT bad" that gives some backstory to Maleficent, who is no longer the incarnation of evil but an orphan fairy and jilted lover of king-to-be Stefan (whose own character assassination sees him beg Maleficent not to curse his daughter, rather than order his guards to "seize that creature" and going mad.  He ascends to the throne after drugging Maleficent and hacking off her wings in order to pretend that he killed her - understandably, she now seeks revenge as that is quite a cunty thing to do), which recalls the "wicked" Witch of the West's origin in Disney's don't-call-it-a-prequel, Oz, The Great And Powerful.  It is during the first act that we are introduced to the concept of the "true love's kiss" on the 16th birthday (perhaps as Maleficent's inspiration for her own birthday gift for Aurora, which is now revised so she'll go into a sleep rather than death seeing as Maleficent is nice now so Merryweather doesn't have to come up with a counter-spell).  Other references to the original film include the three "guardian fairies" (the true leads of the original, here reduced more to comic relief) being dressed in green(ish), pink and blue, and their leaning-tower birthday cake.

After the curse, we have the whole fairies-take-Aurora-into-the-forest thing and here, any tension of whether she will be found by Maleficent is thrown out the window as the film moves to focus on their "relationship" - Aurora (Elle Fanning, who is worth seeing in JJ Abrams' Super 8 and Sofia Coppola's Somewhere) grows up to assume this woman she met as a child is her fairy godmother and earns the "affectionate" nickname, 'Beastie' (as far as revisionism goes, especially with the ending, it's not far off the near-bestial romance of Catherine Hardwicke and David Johnson's post-Twilight take on Red Riding Hood but without the romance).  During Aurora's growing into not-quite-womanhood, Maleficent sits by and plays magical pranks on the real godmothers.  No, seriously.  And in this version of events, her crow companion is granted the ability to shift shape (sometimes at Maleficent's command) so he can resume the human form of Sam Riley because reasons.

There is, perhaps, an interesting idea at the heart of the film, of having some connection between Maleficent (now more of an anti-heroine than a clear-cut villain) and Aurora (whose gift for singing is passed to Del Rey and replaced with the gift of never being sad - it didn't work) but only the idea itself is the really the interesting thing rather than the execution.  Maleficent even tries to revoke the curse but, having bound it so no power could undo, she finds herself unable to take it away so even while she tries to rescue Aurora before it's too late (yes, really), whatever power works its magic works of its own accord and manifests a spinning wheel for Aurora (who is shown to have an irritation with her finger) to make the required prick to be sent into a coma. Furthermore, Philip (who here, is presented as even duller than the original and doesn't get to say "No carrots!") is proven pretty useless when it comes to being a "true love" (again, a somewhat interesting take on the story) and it's up to Maleficent to ultimately save the day and Stefan is dealt with in a shot that reminds one of Die Hard, of all films.

If the intention is to turn elements of the original story on its head (such as the prince being useless and setting up a bond between Aurora and Maleficent) then sure, but my concern is more to do with simply making the villain "nice".  Another thing to point out is that Maleficent's fairyland of origin, The Moors (situated between two kingdoms), is initially set up without a monarch and by the end, Aurora is their queen.  Go royalty.

And one or two more comparisons I shall make with the original film.  The scene in the original where Aurora is drawn to the spinning wheel is actually quite creepy and the film pretty much turns into a horror movie whereas here, despite the CG monsters, there is nothing particularly scary (only one shot of Maleficent standing in silhouette warrants some merit).  And talking of CGI, none of it is as impressive as the '50s-era design of the original's backdrops, which look very impressive in a bang-up restoration job on the latest Blu Ray release.

Film Review: Postman Pat The Movie (2014)

*Possible Spoilers*

TITLE: Postman Pat The Movie
DIRECTOR: Mike Disa
PRODUCER: Robert Anich Cole
SCRIPTWRITERS: Annika Bluhm, Nicole Dubuc, Kim Fuller
YEAR: 2014
COUNTRY: UK
UK DISTRIBUTORS: Icon Film Distribution, Lionsgate

PLOT: Postman Pat enters a talent show and gets famous.

REVIEW:
Your liking of this film may depend on how you like your Postman Pat served.  If you like it with scary robots and slapstick violence (and you do not mind it being computer-animated as opposed to using the traditional stop-motion), then this should provide sufficient entertainment.

Made in 3D but seen in 2D, the main bit that I would have liked to have seen in an "immersive" third dimension is the lovely opening establishing shot that takes us into the digitally-recreated world of Greendale.

The 1981 Postman Pat TV series was of no particularly noticeable genre (co-creator Ivor Wood's previous work dabbled in fantasy, e.g. The Magic Roundabout and The Wombles) but the film is perhaps surprisingly film-literate, make references in particular to Science-Fiction and fantasy classics in film (The Wizard Of Oz, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator) and television (Lost In Space, Doctor Who).  One can even look to the voice cast, which includes performers from Harry Potter and Doctor Who.  There is also a key point of introducing (actually quite creepy) robot duplicates of Pat ("PatBots") and Jess, brought in by evil corporate-type Carbunkle as part of his take-over plot.

The writers (including Annika Bluhm, who has worked on Special Delivery Service incarnation of the series) demonstrate their screenwriting knowledge by setting up a goal for Protagonist Pat by having him enter a talent show in the hopes of winning a trip to Italy to take his wife Sarah for a "proper Honeymoon", and introducing perhaps the series' first antagonist (someone correct me on this) in Carbunkle, who wants to replace all the SDS workers with robots.  The key family film-friendly theme looks at how Pat's fame costs him his family time (interestingly, due to his popularity as a result of being in a TV talent show) and the subsequent attempted take-over plot with robot doppelgangers leads to Pat's friends and co-stars being alienated from him in a case of mistaken identity.

The humour is also actually quite witty, although not quite on the level of Aardman.  It is also somewhat interesting what the filmmakers actually managed to put in and get away with, free of whatever restrictions would have been place for the television series, albeit played down so there is very little to be concerned about.  There is at least one suggestion of gross-out gag where Carbunkle introduces a bring-your-own-toilet-paper policy to the Special Delivery Service and an employee is worried, having recently eaten a curry.  And the insinuation that Pat's glasses make him look "a bit dodgy" may not sit too easily in a post-Savile world.  Another plus is that the dialogue and performances rarely, if ever, feel like they are patronizing the audience, although if I had a bone to pick, it would be that this version of Jess seems rather overly anthropomorphic, whereas the TV incarnation seemed to have not-quite a deadpan expression.  Perhaps something more akin to Gromit would have been preferable.

There is also quite an amount of slapstick violence, ranging from the PatBots delivering mail, to David Tennant's character Wilf trying to foil Pat in scenes resembling a Wile E. Coyote short.  Anyone objecting that Postman Pat was never violent should look to the 1981 episode Pat Takes A Message.

Claiming to be "based on the original television series" co-created by Ivor Wood and John Cunliffe, 'the Movie' is fairly ambiguous in its place within the Postman Pat canon.  IMDB lists it as a "remake" but having 'the Movie' in the title suggests a spin-off of some sorts.  The main cause of head-scratching comes when Pat's fame spawns a franchise that includes a TV show "with puppets" and we hear a sample of Bryan Daley and Ken Barrie's theme song, thus putting into question whether this is the "real" world of Pat and that the TV series is retroactively a product of this world, or whether it is just pure meta and a way of the film poking gentle fun at the franchise that spawned it, before it even sends itself up (villain Carbunkle's plan suggests a "computer-animated film").  There is also the suggestion that Steven Spielberg and Michael Bay are involved in a film (something to watch, even if just to see how things could have been worse).  The animation is fairly faithful to the original design and there are cameos and supporting roles from familiar characters (although Sam Waldron is nowhere to be seen, like Edward was missing in Thomas And The Magic Railroad). 

Perhaps if this is successful enough, how about the filmmakers consider adapting other Woodland Animations shows (Gran, Bertha, Charlie Chalk) before an Avengers-style team-up?

Initial Review(ish): 'Neighbors' (Film, 2014)

UK Title: 'Bad Neighbours'

Director: Nicholas Stoller
Screenwriters: Andrew J. Cohen, Brendan O'Brien

Having not yet really seen any of the apparent auteur Stoller's previous work ('The Five Year Engagement', 'Get Him To The Greek', and 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'), I could not really take any proper artistic preconceptions in (and had not watched a trailer, besides glimpsing a TV commercial).

However, after an amusing opening scene, there is eventual laughter to be had. It's not filmed in a particularly disciplined style (possibly almost cine-verite-ish in places but that's not to say it's like 'Project X' in that regard) and certain sequences even recall Gaspar Noe (c.f. 'Irreversible' and 'Enter The Void').

I should not give away what did make me laugh (and I would even have to sit down and write from memory what some of those moments were). I would say that if you were thinking of watching it, laughter can be guaranteedbut I'm not sure I would go out of my way to recommend it in the same way I might for, say, 'Muppets Most Wanted' or 'The Lego Movie'. But for this kind of comedy, it's perhaps above 'The Heat' (which I did find quite funny in places) if one was to go purely by the number of laughs but I may prefer 'This Is The End'. It's certainly funnier than '21 And Over'.

Zac Efron is an interesting actor to watch and I'm not quite settled on what I make of him. But if you want to see a film in which he tries to shed his 'High School Musical' image, I'd suggest 'The Paperboy' (in which he gets stung by a jellyfish and Nicole Kidman wees on him).

New Life's Resolutions

New Life's Resolution

I’ve had some of the best days and nights of my life in 2013. Since December 2012, I have stepped into a new world, made new friends and, for a time, shared something very special with one of them. It’s been a life-changing and inspirational experience that I am grateful for, during which I have known acceptance, hospitality, courtesy, patience and grace and I have memories to cherish for the rest of my life.

New Year’s is a time when people set out to make new resolutions, often in the form of a list (e.g. lose weight, giving up things). But I don’t want to make a new YEAR’s resolution, so much as a new LIFE’s resolution. I know people get told they should love themselves and be proud of themselves/who they are but as I’m the one who spends the most time around me, it’s pretty clear I need to change. It’s been observed (or I’ve been told that) I over-analyse, think too much, been over-apologetic, that I need to build my confidence, and that I don’t give a straight answer. It’s possible some of these stem from my upbringing and living circumstances (and maybe also 3 years at university) and maybe sometimes it’s just me. Myself, I’d say that I’ve been lazy and procrastinate (namely by spending way too much time online). I want to get back into my interests such as watching movies, TV shows and get back into reading and writing.
There are also aspects of my past that have played a part in how I have been as a person over the years and want to change.

A lot of my friends are probably aware that I had a religious – to be specific, Christian – upbringing and while I don’t have an overall problem with religion, my own personal problem is that I want to follow a particular set of beliefs out of my own choice rather than simply because I was raised on them. But I shouldn’t be entirely ungrateful for my upbringing. Without it, I wouldn’t be interested in the things I’m into and it may well help with my creativity (e.g. storytelling). Some of my “problems” may have stemmed more from studying Christianity when on my own in my more adolescent years and maybe the problem is more with me in how I think and choose to act. In terms of how I interacted with other people, I apologise to those who have been on the receiving end of a misguided, naive youth who tried to share a faith without knowing about other people’s beliefs and backgrounds (not to mention his own). I tried to be “better” (i.e. not being preachy) as I grew older and moved away to university but I reached my lowest point in 2012 and it was then that I realised I wanted to follow this religion out of my own choice but I won’t deny I have had doubt-type thoughts. But it wasn’t just the sense of duty to evangelise, I had also developed fears over certain issues. I remember as a child saying I didn’t want to go to Hell and being told to ask for God’s forgiveness when praying. When I was 14, I was worried I might miss the Rapture for some special purpose (thank-you, “Left Behind”). I was worried about my salvation and re-prayed the “Sinner’s Prayer” more than once. At 17, I was baptised and have since had regret over it.

If I am to continue in this line of belief, I want to see change in how things are being done right now. I want to see a Christianity that lives up to the name it’s named after and will repent of the harm it’s done over the last 2000 years and continues to do today.

Fear and worrying have been common in my life of late. It’s been said/suggested that the way I went about trying to lose weight has affected my thinking and I have been told by friends that I don’t need to lose weight (my goal has been a healthy BMI). It also doesn’t help that, having learned screenwriting at university, I have been making up scenarios in my head based on what I think or worry about. It’s often been a cyclical thing where I worry about something and imagining something bad going to happen, only to find I was worrying for nothing. For over two years, I’ve been aware of having thoughts I don’t want to have and have tried to block out in the past. This may’ve stemmed from when I went to a Christian holiday camp during summer when I was a teenager and first encountered what I have described as a voice in my head (the kind that “speaks” like it’s a thought). When I was at university, I would worry about referencing so I could avoid plagiarism. At work, I’d use hand sanitizer too much. I also don’t want to let my emotions get the better of me, as happened in 2012. Speaking of emotions, I’d like to be able to cry properly again, having not done so in over a decade. I don’t want to bottle my feelings and emotions up. I haven’t been diagnosed with anxiety or OCD but maybe it’s worth pursuing further than I’ve already gone. I just want to be able to stop worrying. And to stop putting my foot in my mouth.

Similarly to the fantasising/scenario thing, speculation is one of the things I want to put behind me. For example, a year or two ago, a Church I had been going to for years separated and it was said by someone that the there was a “satanic attack”. Maybe it wasn’t? Fear of the occult is something I want to put behind me. From now on, rather than speculate on something, I only want to think about what I know to be true (OK, that might contradict the whole religion thing or vice versa but, whatever helps).

From now on, I want to be able to live a life that is rooted in love, rather than fear and prejudice. I want to have conversations and learn from other people. I want to learn about other faiths, beliefs, cultures and subcultures. As I mentioned, I’ve been told I over-analyse and think too much. Perhaps talking to people will help and maybe blogging will help so I can get my thoughts out.

But whatever happens, I want to thank my friends for the times we’ve spent together, for putting up with me, for the conversations and for being there for me.

Peace, love and hugs to you all both this year and forever more.

'Who' Years Resolutions 2014

I haven't blogged in a while and so one of my new year's resolutions is to do more of it.  So to start off, here's my (in no particular order and slightly tongue-in-cheek) list of resolutions for Doctor Who in 2014 and onwards.

1. Less of/no sonic screwdriver.  The Doctor managed without it for the first five years and for most of the '80s.  And even if he should use it again, use it for things like opening locked doors (except wooden ones, of course).
2. No making-out with the companions.  Again, this is something the whole of 'Classic' Who managed until Paul McGann started it in 1996.  Can we please make it through one companion who doesn't make out with the Doctor or show any romantic interest?
3. Bringing back "classic" monsters - if you're going to do it, don't just make the episode into an exercise in showing off the revamped design(c.f. Dalek - which was good, and Cold War).  And don't use CGI (c.f. Cold War).
4. Stick to your guns and don't listen to the fans (and that includes me) - if you're going to revamp the Daleks and wipe out the previous "new" design (Victory Of The Daleks), then keep them rather than bring back the previous ones and retcon in the explanation that the new ones are the "officer class" (Asylum Of The Daleks).  True, that explanation isn't even given on screen and it could just be that they "adopted" them.  Except the "officer class" are nowhere to be found in Time Of The Doctor.  At least with the Cybermen, they're moving on.  The Daleks are at risk of being retrograde.  If you have to go back to an old design, go way back to the '60s or '70s and build new models with a 2010's budget (it might at least make up for the lack of 'classic' Daleks in Asylum).
5. TARDIS console room - next time you redesign it, please make it brighter.  And bring back the round things.
6. Music - less orchestral and more of what you'd hear in the 'classic' series (at least what you might hear on the 50th Anniversary soundtrack they released).  

DVD Review: "The Wedding Video" (2012)

DIRECTOR: Nigel Cole
SCREENWRITER: Tim Firth

Billing the film as "from the director of Calendar Girls" (and, according to IMDB, also Made In Dagenham), the DVD sleeve also neglects to mention it is also from the screenwriter of Calendar Girls.  Credited as "a Nigel Cole film", the main auteurisms I could list from memory (it's been a while since I've seen Calender...) would be that The Wedding Video is a sunny British comedy set in the countryside.

If there is anything worse than a comedy film that isn't funny, it could be a British comedy film that isn't funny.  The Wedding Video has an approximate two-and-a-quarter laugh record (which is probably two-and-a-quarter more laughs than Keith Lemon: The Film) but thanks to Robert Webb (Peep Show), manages to raise about 2-3 smiles.  So it's not entirely without amusement or indeed interest, particularly in the second half (which may or may not be to do with my break to get a sandwich).

The film is made in the found-footage style with linking narration from our protagonist, Raif (Rufus Hound), and maybe a satire on the rich excesses of a society wedding (one excess did raise a laugh) and can be seen a contrasting with what the groom (Robert Webb) gets up to before the wedding (i.e. a stag night, which frankly, is probably more fun in concept).

Raif is the travelling brother who comes home to see his brother (groom Tim) after three years.  Tim is marrying Saskia (Lucy Punch), Raif's former school peer and whose rebellious past sounds more interesting than as she is now but is eventually brought up.  Raif is filming his own wedding video for them (despite Tim's initial reluctance) but once a professional is brought in, the film manages to split into separate-but-linked narratives once two cameras are involved.  When things take a predictable turn (though there is the dubious use of audio when filming a conversation in a kebab shot while the camera is placed outside), the pay-off is slightly more interesting than the set-up.

There are some capable performances.  Hound is kind-of well-cast as the slobbish brother while Webb shows he can do "drama" as well as raising a smile.
 

Film Brief: "House At The End Of The Street"

"HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET"

DIRECTOR: Mark Tonderai
WRITER: David Loucka
STORY: Jonathan Mostow

While suspenseful in places (there's at least one or two decent Jumps), it is essentially Psycho for Twilight fans that are too young to watch any of the Saw movies.  The handling of certain scenes may suggest that director Tonderai may be a safe hands for a Saw revival but if you want something better than this, I'd recommend his previous film (also his feature debut), Hush.  Written by David Loucka, who wrote the ill-reputed (i.e. I haven't watched it yet) Dream House.