Monday, August 16, 2010

City of Ember

(This is the pre-edited, 'writer's cut' version of this review - as you can see, it's way too rambling with the storyline. Granted, it was a complex premise to sum up quickly. The real published version was quite slimmed down.)

At a time when ominous threats have taken up permanent residence over our heads (think economic crisis, global warming) City of Ember speaks to large-scale helplessness in the guise of an imaginative sci-fi/fantasty flick.

When the world suffers an unnamed catastrophe (my money is on nuclear war) the great scientific minds of the day (‘the builders’) co-operate to create ‘Ember’, a vast underground city to house humanity. Food is stockpiled and a behemoth generator is built to power the place while the occupants weather the storm.

Unsure of just how long it will be before the surface is safe, the builders aren’t taking any chances of a premature exodus. They opt to keep Ember’s residents in the dark (so to speak) by keeping the exit a secret. The exit instructions are sealed in a metal box, time-locked for 200 years and given to Ember’s first mayor. If each successive mayor plays pass the parcel, the 5th or 6th generation of Emberites will see the light of day. Foolproof, no?

Naturally, the box goes missing. Some 200 plus years later, future Ember citizens aren’t even aware there is a surface to escape to.

This is where we’re introduced to Ember, a charmingly ramshackle metropolis. Alleys are cramped, rusty pipes drip and the populace gets about in homespun sweaters––all by the glow of dangling light bulbs. But the quaint visuals soon give way to a sense that things are dire. Resources are wearing thin. To cement the sentiment, the vital generator regularly fails and plunges the city into complete darkness. Ember is past its expiry date.

But life presses on, and we meet our teen protagonists Lina Mayfleet (chipper Saoirse Ronan) and Doon Harris (Harry Treadaway) at a momentous occasion: the presenting of their lifelong vocations (drawn out of a hat, kris-kringle style). Doon’s disappointment is palpable as he draws ‘messenger’, while Lina is overwhelmed by the daunting idea of working in the ‘pipeworks.’ A trade is eagerly negotiated and a friendship is formed. Idealistic Doon is stoked to be working near the generator, which he believes he could fix and save his people.

Yet it’s Lina who gets the salvation ball rolling when she stumbles on the unlocked metal box while flitting around delivering messages. When the papers inside are weathered beyond comprehension, she calls on Doon for help.

From hereon the film enters teen Da Vinci Code mode as the two race around the city meeting colourful characters and gathering clues. As the pieces fall into place, the pair begin to entertain the impossible­­––could Ember really have an exit? And can they find it before the generator shuts down for good?

Meanwhile, the rest of civilization (not-privy to the concept of an ‘outside world’) stage a fascinating pantomime of human nature. While growing visibly more disturbed by the depleting resources, everyone sports wide smiles of faux assurance. The hungry masses are further soothed by the style-over-substance speeches of plump Mayor Cole (a brilliantly deadpan Bill Murray) who is far too busy saving his own skin for any genuine attempts at leadership during the crisis.

Despite some minor pacing problems, City of Ember is an enjoyable compromise between adventurous treasure hunt and thought-provoking social commentary. But it’s the sheer detail of Ember that makes you glad you sat down in a dark cinema––and grateful for the light when you leave.

The Incredible Hulk


‘Don’t make me angry…you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry’ is the iconic warning scrawny scientist Bruce Banner offers to anyone rubbing him the wrong way.
However, after Ang Lee brought Banner to the big screen in 2003’s much criticised, over-introspective Hulk, I felt to the contrary. I would’ve preferred you angrier, Bruce.

Loathe to have squandered such a familiar (read: bankable) character, Marvel Studios embarked on a rare venture: not a sequel, not a remake but a ‘reboot’. A new Hulk movie filmed as if Lee’s version had never existed. With a new director in Louis Leterrier (The Transporter, Unleashed), a new cast headed by Edward Norton and an entirely new script, The Incredible Hulk was reborn.

An innovative opening credit sequence sums up our protagonist’s ‘Dr. Banner and Mr. Hulk’ predicament with superb brevity, leaving the remaining 112 minutes for the fun stuff.

Gradually we’re introduced to the major players: Norton as Banner; William Hurt as General Ross, doggedly intent on using Banner as a lab-rat, Tim Roth as the unstable army vet Emil Blonsky, and Liv Tyler as the adorable Betty Ross, Banner’s true love.

After the military locates him in Portugal and attempts a capture, Banner reluctantly introduces them to his hefty green friend before fleeing back to his native America. When Ross and his military juggernaut catch up, the rest of the film plays out predictably enough, with the Hulk facing a series of battles against an increasingly doped-up Blonksy.

In much the same way Superman’s biggest weakness is his strength (writers have a notoriously difficult time coming up with formidable opponents) the hardest part of The Incredible Hulk would be finding an adversary who wouldn’t be a pushover.

The solution? The only challenger worthy of a smash-off with the Hulk was a very similar looking hulk.

Blonsky volunteers himself for the task and, in the wonderful world of comic-book quasi-science, mixing the Hulk’s blood with a few other nifty performance enhancers results in the grotesque, raging ‘Abomination’. Carnage ensues.

The climax plays out in downtown New York City (of course, it’s impossible for epic superhero battle to take place anywhere else). If you enjoyed the climactic melee of Transformers, prepare for pleasant nostalgia.

Despite a well-balanced plot, it’s clear The Incredible Hulk’s owes its success to the calibre of its performances. Norton brings a distinct vulnerability to Banner, and watching Roth’s Blonksy grow slightly more deranged with every appearance is a pleasure.

Leterrier provides an earnest look at a man at war with his inner demons. And while many people have struggled with inner demons—although possibly not one where you’re transformed into a green giant!—generally they can be conquered by turning to loved ones, friends or faith.

A healthy dose of wit, scores of nods to fans (the purple pants cameo is gold) and smashtastic action sequences combine to make this a thoroughly enjoyable outing. Where Leterrier trumps Lee is that he doesn’t forget the magic ingredient—fun!

Monday, August 9, 2010

Harry Brown


Michael Caine has a new modus operandi. He isn’t quite out of the acting game for good, but his script-chasing days are over. Instead, Caine has declared he will sit at home waiting for a script that’s so good he cannot refuse. Otherwise, retirement it is.


I’m not particularly sure why, then, the elder statesman spent several months last year running around a run-down housing estate in North London’s impoverished Elephant and Castle district toting pistols instead of staying at home, cosy in his slippers—because Harry Brown seems a poor reason to stir his 77-year-old bones.


For those old enough to remember, the plot hints at elements of Caine’s notorious performance as a ruthless killer in Get Carter—for the rest, it just looks like Alfred trying his hand at being Batman.


Harry Brown (Caine) is a widowed ex-Royal Marine living in the aforementioned estate, which has become overrun with British hoodlums or ‘chavs’, dealing drugs and amusing themselves by harassing everyone in proximity.


When Harry’s fed-up pensioner pal Leonard finally retaliates, he’s killed for his trouble. The loss and subsequent news that the thugs may dodge murder charges on ‘self-defence’ claims are the last straw—Harry is going to clean up the neighbourhood himself. With extreme prejudice.


The following cat-and-mouse vigilantism chugs along rather predictably. The action is plausible—more or less the results you might expect from a 77-year-old ex-marine—but unsatisfyingly so. I found myself torn between congratulating rookie director Daniel Barber on not subscribing to over-the-top action-film stereotypes and rebuking him for the anticlimactic feel of it all.


Caine is in his element—literally. Growing up just around the corner from the film’s setting, he fits into the stark surrounds effortlessly. It’s just the script that lets him down: there’s a missing link between Brown’s raw vulnerability at losing a dear friend and his uncompromising hunger for justice.


English rapper Ben Drew (aka Plan B) is visceral as Noel Winters: hoodlumery boiled down to human form. Harry’s primary prey, Drew is a swaggering, anarchic presence, threatening to steal any scene he’s in (among other things). Harry Brown may be perpetuating a blunt stereotype in regard to Noel and his ilk, but they do such a good job of alienating the viewer, it’s forgivable. Just don’t try too hard to understand what they’re saying—dripping with slang, their cockney tips the scales at Guy Ritchie levels.


On a similar note, special mention must go to the environment itself—the uncomfortably bleak housing estate offers a smorgasbord of grime, grit and graffiti that will have viewers feeling soiled on their way out.


Stylistically, Barber puts in a solid effort at the helm (the opening scene shot on a thug’s camera phone makes for a startling introduction) and controls the pacing well. However, the idea of an indignant, elderly Michael Caine giving the local hoods what-for is more gratifying than it actually plays out—sadly, this makes for a better trailer than film.

Greenberg



Recently discharged from a hospital for psychiatric patients, 40-year-old Roger Greenberg (Ben Stiller) is ‘trying to do nothing for a while’. Spoiler alert: he succeeds—so spectacularly, in fact, that the whole film winds up following suit, and the end result is 107 minutes of nothing. And not the good Seinfeld variety—just regular old, unsatisfying nothing.

For a director with so many critically acclaimed notches in his megaphone (The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Squid and the Whale) Greenberg feels like a rookie mistake for Noah Baumbach—‘green’ is right.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of films—character driven and plot driven (or a balanced combination of the two.) One end of the spectrum can generally compensate for the other—if your characters aren’t interesting or well-developed, just make sure your plot is dynamite. If your plot meanders and goes nowhere, just ensure there are fascinating characters along for the ride.

Well, Greenberg’s plot is barely discernible: overly neurotic, self-analytical man house-sits for his brother. Which means the bulk of our cinema-going expectations fall on Roger’s character to bear. Unfortunately, his character is unlikable in every way—selfish, cynical, petty and utterly unrelatable, Roger offers no reason for us to want to spend any more than a few moments with him.

Having made his ‘nothing’ declaration, he spends his days writing stupidly specific complaint letters to restaurants and airlines; however, even these ‘edgy’, cynical diatribes about modern culture fall completely flat—they lack any of the pinpointed truth or acidity that usually make these soapbox moments so memorable.

When not penning trite tripe, he’s becoming reacquainted with old college bandmate Ivan (Rhys Ifans) and romancing (or nomancing, rather) his brother’s personal assistant Florence (newcomer Greta Gerwig). However, the only characters more unsympathetic than Roger are these two—simply for the limitless tolerance they have for his company.

I understand suspension of disbelief is a requirement to enjoying many aspects of films, but the Golden Gate bridge couldn’t suspend my disbelief that anyone would become intimately involved with Roger.

Dry quips are strewn about, earning a smile here and there, but they’re too sparse to solidify any sense of attachment with the cast. In an uncomfor­table way, Greenberg seems to almost avoid engaging with substantial meaning or humanity at all—and the inconclusive ending sees nobody really having changed.

It’s a pleasant film to look at, but a pain to watch—and the most painful part of the whole sordid affair is that Stiller is brilliant in it. Unfortunately, he’s poured his remarkable talent into a pointless role in a pointless film. The upside is, Greenberg will at least make you feel better about your own life—even your slightest relationships are likely to be more substantial than Roger’s, and thus, more meaningful. Just don’t take those friends to this film if you wish to keep them.

A Conversation With Drake, Who May Or May Not Have Been Present

Me: Hello and welcome.

Drake: (leaning back in a chair with a sizeable bagel) A’Young Money!

Me: …uh, indeed. Well, Drake, things are certainly looking good for you. ‘Leader of the new school’, —you’re not as ugly as Jay-Z, nor do you look like a tattooed, cough-syrup swigging rasta hobo. If anyone has potential to ‘change the game,’ as they say you will, I’d agree you’ve got a sporting chance. Your debut album Thank Me Later is about to drop – so what’s the plan?

Drake: Well, I figured I’d rap about how I’m about my paper.

Me: …

Drake: (smiling self-assuredly)

Me: I’m sorry, you’re g-

Drake: And about all the bitches I get! I’m tellin ya, lots of bitches.

Me: Well, ok, sure but-

Drake: And I sung the choruses in Autotune.

Me: Isn’t t-

Drake: You know, it’s all like ‘wheeuruuuaaaooohhheuu!’

Me: Ok, ok, I can see how riches, women and autotune could make for an alright song. You’ve probably got lots of cool and clever rhymes to describe-

Drake: Ten.

Me: I’m sorry?

Drake: Ten songs. I wrote ten about the paper. You know. How I’m about it. And the bitches.

Me: Thank Me Later has ten songs about women and money?

Drake: With Autotune! You can thank me now.

Me: But there are only 14 tracks in total!

Drake: Yeah, I know what you’re saying. I wish they all could have been about bitches who love paper-chasin’ too. But I had to save two.

Me: No, I….you… Ok. You wrote two songs that aren’t about money or bitches. Sounds promising—what was it, something personal? Maybe a relationship story? Or some social commentary?

Drake: They’re about how I’m on my grind.

Me:…

Drake: You know, grindin’ for the pape-

Me: I got it.

Me: But that still leaves two tracks. What’s going on there?

Drake: I switched things up a bit there. Can’t have a whole album about chasin’ paper, bitches and grindin’ can I? That’d be crazy.

Me: Right, right, I agree. So, what about the last two?

Drake: They’re about how many millions I have. Young money!

Me: Millions? Isn’t this your first album?

Drake: Yeah, can you believe it—it’s tight huh? Well, I also had a mixtape.

Me: Wasn’t that free?

Drake: Yeah. I mean, don’t get me wrong: I’m about my paper, but sometimes you gotta do it for the fans.

Me: So to sum up, you took your poised position, with all the hype and momentum, and dropped 14 tracks about being interested in money, women, working for money, and inexplicably already having ludicrous amounts of money?

Drake: Word. We poppin’ bottles tonight, cuz!

Me: …

(Drake takes a bite of his bagel)

Me…

Drake: I was on DeGrassi.

Me: Shut up.