"IT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIOUS TO SEE THE WORLD HAS PROBLEMS!"

Adrian Veidt / Ozymandias (Watchmen, 2009).

Jesus Christ! What the Hell is that?

To address a point raised in the review of the Watchmen, the ending for the film differs wildly to that of the comic, and this upset a lot of the die-hard fans. 

Before I can explain further, first I must talk a little about the two different endings.

Essentially, in theDC comic there is a minor subplot involving Ozymandias kidnapping artists and writers to work on ‘designing’ an alien life form which, through bio engineering, he intends to create in-the-flesh. These ‘fake aliens’ will be used to wage a false invasion on Earth, to give America and Russia (who at this time are on the brink of nuclear war) a reason to unite; to battle this superior foe. This is Ozymandias’ plan, his conceit is that if the world cannot be encouraged to live peacefully together, then perhaps it can be tricked- united in fear.

In the film, this whole plot-thread is cut, yet Ozymandias’ general principle remains intact. Instead of ‘creating’ an alien life form, Ozymandias instead frames Dr Manhattan with a terrible attack on Earth from his lair on the moon. He does this by ‘mimicking’ the nature of his energy. Again, this gives America and Russia (who at this time are on the brink of nuclear war) a reason to unite; to battle this superior foe.

Controversially, I prefer the film’s deviation from the source material. I always found the squid-alien out of place for a comic that tries desperately to root itself in some sort of believable world. It was needless, almost insignificant till the point of reveal, and daft. By inserting Dr Manhattan as the fall-guy (with minimal changes to the story, or the overall outcome) the film ties its endings together gracefully and more fittingly. Fall all of the film’s miss-steps, this is perhaps its most intuitive success. 

Sorry fan-boys, but get over it.

"HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS?"

Dr. Curt Connors (The Amazing Spiderman, 2012).

Here's the new outfit, which has already cropped up a fair bit around the web.

 

My first thoughts were "a backward step in terms of the realism that the first film seemed intent on gunning for" but on reflection I think I quite like it... 

Admittedly I did like the first rebooted suit, but it's actually kind of fun to see something closer to the comics, and does this also mean that the next film will play tonally different- perhaps lighter? Will our next Spiderman film feel more like Marvel's ultra-successful Avengers film? Perhaps, and no bad thing.

On closer inspection, gone are the basket-ball textures of the first and instead we are given a more spandex-based leotard, more along the lines of what would readily be available to a typical high school kid.

It only seems like a few weeks ago that I was covering the lead up to The Amazing Spiderman, how time flies?

"SORRY, VENKMAN, I'M TERRIFIED BEYOND THE CAPACITY FOR RATIONAL THOUGHT!"

Dr. Egon Spengler (Ghostbusters, 1984).

I personally would love to see a third Ghostbusters film. Who wouldn't?

Hell, I'll admit I even enjoy the much-maligned Ghostbusters 2, I don't see what was so wrong with it- some witty banter topped off with a few creepy moments, what's not to like?

Only thing is; the guys (gotta love er'm) are just too old to don the ol' proton packs... It's a shame, but it's true. Google them, it's actually a bit sad. Still, growing old is something that should, with any luck, befall us all.

Tell you what I would like to see done with another Ghostbusters film: good quality CGI with the original voice cast, so (like with the recent console games) we sidestep the age related issues nicely and keep continuity with the previous films. And, CGI has a real scope to be properly creepy- excellent examples are A Nightmare Before Christmas, Coraline and Monster House (let's not forget, the original Ghostbusters played much of the horror straight).

Just a thought.

"THEY COULDN'T FIX ME. NOTHING CAN CHANGE WHAT I AM!"

Harvey 'Two Face' Dent (Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, 2012).

Batman's reply? "You and me both..."

I've just watched Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (parts 1 & 2). Enjoyed the first part more than the second, but that's an issue I had with the comic book rather than a fault with the animation. Peter Weller is well cast as the voice of the Batman and pulls it off with darkly humorous charisma.

In short, the story (which in part inspired Nolan's final Batman movie) features a jaded and creaky 55 year old Bruce Wayne coming out of retirement to take on a dangerous new enemy.

Watching it got me thinking: "If I had to cast this as a live action film, who would I have play the Batman?" Well friends, I thought long and hard, and I think I found the perfect grizzled face and bulky figure. Hell, this guy is even (currently) 56!

Any ideas who I mean?...

Yeah, this man-mountain. Look at that face- that scowl! Perfection! He's big, he's mean, he's funny, and he has a voice like grating tomb stones! Dolph Lundgren, 80's action hero and all-round bad-ass.

Well, that's my hat in the ring. If anybody has a better suggestion I'd like to hear it?

Step right up and have a go, if you think you're hard enough to beat The Dolph...

"HOPE. IT IS THE ONLY THING STRONGER THAN FEAR!"

*President Snow (The Hunger Games).

Let's pretend.

You are the overlord of an evil empire, and (for whatever malicious justification you deem motivational) you hold a yearly tournament. The surrounding lands offer up teenagers to compete in a fight to the death, where by the winner earns much needed food for their starving homeland.

Very simple idea, all hinges on the fact that only one teenager can win. Right?

Firstly, you'd expect each of the areas to have some sort of training program to increase their chances of victory, but that's beside the point...

Here's the problem:

The public quite like two of the protagonists, who are coming to represent something of a rebellion amongst the lands you want to keep under the heel of your oppression. And wouldn't you just know it? despite your best efforts (including rule changes, stupid fireballs and ridicules mutant dogs) these two have managed to reach the final together...

Wait, there's no problem here! All can continue as normal. One winner, that's always been the rule (and why you'd ever need to change that is beyond me).

So what if they have a suicide pact? That's perfect- you turn them from being a symbol of freedom and righteousness  into selfish teenagers, who'd rather die than bring food home to their loved ones. Skewer their image. They're hardly going to be popular after that.

If you let these kids get away with this shit once, that's it- the floodgates are open. Next thing- you have a whole bunch of whiny kids sitting around in the arena refusing to fight. You need to come down HARD. Even if everybody takes a lethal dose of something (marmaite, raisinberries or whatever) all at once, technically one person will survive longer than the others. A winner doesn't necessarily have to remain alive.




On a final and unrelated note, I thought a nice (and very cynical touch) would have been if Peeta faked the whole love-story as a way of surviving the game, beating the system on its own terms and pulling the wool over the eyes of his teammate. Hell, even Haymitch might have been aware of his ploy. The talk-show, the missing lessons- all part of a desperate long-game to make it through to the final, whereby he would never have really killed himself when pressed. That would have been a kicker. In my head at least, that's what happened...

"I LIKE THE WAY YOU DIE, BOY!"

*Django (Django Unchained).

Not as topical as it has been, I've still decided to wade in on this Tarantino debate:

Is Quentin Tarantino's portrayal of black slavery culturally sensitive?

Rather than drag this out I'll try and get straight to the point. Yes and no.

"Explain yourself Mr Carlisle! What sort of a half-arsed answer is that?" Alright, I will.

What I found most uncomfortable about the film wasn't so much what I saw on screen, but what I took into the experience from my understanding of Quentin's character. See, Good 'ol Quentin has often been heard telling people that he enjoys the "aesthetic of violence" which in my mind doesn't really qualify him for the job of 'sensitive exploration of controversial subject matter' (when it's very clear Tarantino doesn't have a nuanced  bone in his body).

How can I know (for certain) that he's not getting the same satisfaction out of his violence-on-blacks as he is his white-on-white violence? For example, while we accept the bloody shootouts as comic-book style entertainment, is their inclusion here in this film inviting a similar voyeuristic enjoyment of a scene where attack dogs literally rip a slave to pieces?

Even that question poses difficult sentiments. Should violence (any violence) be seen differently just because of the colour of a victim's skin? Is drawing such a distinction, in its own way, not racist?

So here's the thing. My issue is not with Tarantino's 'take' on slavery (for his own part he clearly knows that "slavery is bad" and sees everybody equally whatever the shade of their skin). My issue is more to do with his 'take' on violence in general. I genuinely feel that he is unable to distinguish between comic-book sensitivities which glorify 'action' from gritty 'brutality'. At least, if Tarantino can distinguish the difference, then I feel that perhaps he enjoys them both equally- which is very problematic...
 Reservoir Dogs is NOT Kill Bill, and while their content can both be considered violent, one is realistically visceral while the other is highly styalised. To my mind, one is a condemnation of violence while the other is an action-ballet designed to both thrill and entertain. By including both tones within the same film you send out very mixed messages, and when you apply that rather jarring combination to such a sensitive subject as slavery, then you're going to upset people and invite the criticism of 'trivialising history'.



On a final note; 
Quentin, you really don't help your cause when, aside from showing the horrors endured by the black slaves, you start making shit up like Mandingo fighting! As if things weren't bad enough for them already, you have to draw 'popcorn entertainment' from their suffering? That's pretty insensitive... You dick.

"THE SUSPECT IS BEING TORTURED! THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!"

*Helen Brodey (Unthinkable).

Without giving too much away (spolier alert, just to be safe) Unthinkable is a film that asks the question "how far is too far when it comes to the defence of your country?".

Yep, it's the old 'torture question'.

The reason I bring it up here is because this caused something of a rift in my household between me and my lady friend. I shall explain why...

The terrorist, who early in the film has surrendered himself to the authorities, has planted a number of bombs across America. They will detonate at a given time, causing thousands, perhaps even millions, of deaths. At first interrogation yields no results, and it's at this point the govenment unofficially enlist the skills of a professional torturer- a man who seemingly knows no boundaries in his work.

Through the film various characters come into conflict regarding the 'right' way to proceed.

Here we come to the crux. During the climax of the film, after the terrorist has supplied the government with directions leading to the safe diffusional of the bombs, information comes to light that there is in fact one last bomb hidden in a major city. Time is almost out.

The terrorist will no yield further information, no matter what deal or harm befalls him. Many people, including women and children innocent of any wrong doing to this man, will die as a certainty.

Is it right to torture the terrorist's own wife and children?

Doing so could save thousands, so do the needs of the many outweigh the human rights of the few? Or by doing so do we become as vile, or worse, than the enemy we mean to eradicate? Victory at what price?

So allow me to put the cat amongst the pigeons. I said "torture the terrorist's family." For my money, it was a simple choice. If I had a wife and child in danger of being killed in an explosion, I would rather harm befall the family of the man responsible than my own loved ones. Selfish? Yes. Barbaric? Yes, but wouldn't you also prefer that to the alternative? Hell, you'd rather wish that fate on anybody except your own family, am I right? My thoughts are "the terrorist made his family a part of this when he decided to take the lives of innocent people. If harming them is the only way to save others, then that's an unfortunate trade".

My lady friend disagreed with me. She said it can never be the right thing to torture children, whatever the situation. By her thinking, these children, whoever their father is, are innocent. And she's absolutely right, which is what makes this a difficult subject.

I won't spoil the ending of the film, but it's well worth a watch, so long as you have a strong stomach and you can accept the subject matter.



So, over to you. What do you guys think?

Torture the terrorist's family for information or allow the bomb to detonate?

"GIZMO CACA!"

*Stripe (Gremlins).

Is it me, or are the Gremlins in Gremlins 2 bigger than the Gremlins in the first film?

That's my question- feel free to submit visual proof with your answers (if any are forthcoming).


...I realise the Gremlins are textured and colored quite differently from film to film. Despite thinking the first is a much better film (darker, edgier, funnier) I actually prefer the way they look in the sequel.

I heard they are rebooting the Gremlins franchise, but I have no idea what (if anything) will actually come of it. Watch this space.



On a final note. I watched Gremlins 2 for the first time in about 10 years yesterday, and was amazed to see Hulk Hogan. Does anybody else remember that, or was I suffering some form of contact-high?

"THEN THOSE HORRIBLE MEN CAME AND TOOK ME AWAY..."

*Aggie (ParaNorman).

In my review of ParaNorman I raised a nagging concern I had with the ethics of this film. "What can he possibly take against a children's film?" Well, I'll tell you.

Spoilers ahead...

The film revolves around a heinous crime that took place a hundred years previous. Tyrannical puritans put a young girl to-death for the crime of witchcraft. The fact that the said child was actually a witch is besides the point; the child was sweet and harmless, but the men responsible were driven by fear- they did not understand the child, hence they perceived her as a danger. So she was burnt (what you might call 'virgin fuel').

The vengeful spirit of this witch-girl returns in the present day to exact a terrible justice. Coinciding with this, the puritans responsible for her execution are resurrected as zombies. The zombies are initially presented as antagonists, yet through the course of the film we are encouraged to pity, even sympathiese with them, while they struggle to maneuver through a world they do not understand, looking for a means to find peace.

So here's my issue:

THEY KILLED A FUCKING CHILD!

Not just killed- burned alive! Why in bloody Hell should we feel ANY sympathy for these characters at all? I find it morally repugnant that the film would even present these figures as even slightly likeable, let alone play their behavior off as some understandable mistake. Sod 'em, they deserve their curse, long let 'em rot! So there.

Or am I just overeating? Your thoughts, please?

"LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH!"

Max Renn (Videodrome, 1983).

Much to the surprise of my closest friends (who'd assumed I must have watched this many years ago), I have only just now watched Videodrome.


What? How? Why?


...Fucking Hell, what was that?

I finished watching this at close to 2am, and for some unknown reason thought it would be a good idea to follow it up with Naked Lunch (another David Cronenberg movie) on the rational that nothing could possibly be any weirder. Man, was I mistaken.

Reviews to follow, I think...

"The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye. Therefore, the television screen is part of the physical structure of the brain. Therefore, whatever appears on the television screen emerges as raw experience for those who watch it. Therefore, television is reality, and reality is less than television."

Brian O'Blivion