Friday, 30 June 2017

RUSH; Full-Tilt Review

“Twenty five drivers start every season in Formula One, and each year two of us die. What kind of person does a job like this? Not normal men, for sure.”
Niki Lauda

Not exactly 'The Tortoise and the Hare'...


Synopsis:
The “true life” story of one of Formula One's “greatest rivalries”. James Hunt, a charismatic English playboy racer who enjoys his hedonistic lifestyle of fast cars and lose women, finds his spate of easy wins come to a sudden halt with the arrival of Niki Lauda, a straight-laced and coolly calculating Austrian. Tempers flair off the track and tragedy looms on the horizon...

Script: 2/2
Despite the fact that there seems to have been very little rivalry off the track between Hunt and lauder in real life (photographs are widely available of the 2 chatting amicably between races), the story obviously takes a few liberties in pursuit of drama. That's not necessarily a failing so much as an observation. Rush instead presents a character study between two men who, ironically, would only later come to realise they had more in common than first appears, not least of all a near self-destructive and all-consuming passion to be the best.

Pace: 1/2
While I was aware on odd moments that I was sitting and waiting for the 'next thing' to happen (the first half is especially episodic), it's hardly a dull ride- and the races themselves are suitably covered without ever taking the lion's share of the screen time.

Acting: 2/2
Despite a range of familiar faces, this is really a two-man show. Chris Hemsworth dons his best English-toff impression and, despite a few wobbly accent moments, is suitably chiselled and roguish while never being too self engrossed that we can't find something in the character to warm to. Hemsworth gets by more on charisma than any real acting, but it serves the character just fine and doesn't hamper his performance. Daniel Brühl as Lauda is almost the antithesis of Hemsworth (as Lauda was of Hunt, fittingly); his was a character that would be easy to dislike, a cold-fish seemingly devoid of emotion, but due to the subtlety of Brühl's performance and subtle comic timing he manages to make the audience really route for his character. Their scenes together, though few and far between, really spark.

Aesthetic: 2/2
The film has a fairly loose grasp on time and place, but intentionally so. The fashions and staples of the mid-70's are present on screen but never in a way which draws attention; the film is at great pains to appear contemporary, most likely so it doesn't isolate or distract it's audience (the 70's is hardly a selling point). The races themselves are filmed in an exciting flourish of quick edits involving screeching tires and heat-hazed tarmac, even people without an interest in F1 will likely find their pulse quickening.

Intention: 1/2
I'm always dubious of anything “based on true events”, because, by and large, there's very little fact involved. But likewise I'm not a stickler for fact either, I'm aware films have to work to a certain dramatic format. It's easy to see what attracted director Ron Howard to the project; there was plenty enough in the Hunt / Lauda dynamic to make the situation worth mining for inspiration, and Lauda for his part (still alive) approved of the film.

Final Word: 8/10

Where the film struggles the most is in its closing; trying to make something dramatic of a non-event (the most dramatic moment happens at the close of Act 2), artistic license can only be taken so far. However, this is redeemed in part by it's melancholy denouement. All in all, Rush is a commendably character-driver spots movie, and a film which should hold the attention of anyone regardless of how excited they are about F1, or for that mater, how much or little they might know about the Hunt and Lauda rivalry and how it ended. 



As a point of interest, the casting of this film was incredibly accurate. I found this online, thought it was worth sharing. Naturally, there's a certain Hollywood glamorizing, but on the whole striking similarities...

 
Biggest change here is poor ol' Lauda.

Saturday, 24 June 2017

“LUKE... HELP ME TAKE THIS MASK OFF...”

Darth Vader (Return of the Jedi)

Was I the only one watching Rouge One thinking “what the Hell is going on with Vader's neck?”

The rim of it looked much wider and clunkier than I remembered it. Distractingly so. Anyway, I checked it out (yes, really) and I think I have a valid point. I was planning to write this back when Rouge One was still at cinemas, I've missed that window of relevance slightly. But when has not being current ever stopped me wasting my time?

Here it is, in all it's irrelevant glory, a guide to the many necks of Darth Vader; from Revenge of the Sith through to a New Hope. Hope you enjoy it... You're welcome.

Revenge of the Sith; quite a slim neck I feel, and a bit of 'bling' in the form of a chain. The cape is also outside the neck.



Rouge One; The neck is overhanging the body by quite a margin, and there's definitely no chain there. Also, red eyes.

A New Hope; The cape is now tucked under the neck, which is also closer to the body. The chain is also back.

Empire Strikes Back; The armor is shinier here than in New Hope, and the chain is missing... What am I doing with my life?

Return of the Jedi; Super shiny armor now, and the chain is back again... How am I married? I used to have friends.


There you have it! Rouge One Vader definitely has a thicker neck, and I require help! If you've read this to the end, so do you. It's not too late if you do something, right now! Go on! Talk to people, go outside, and scream "help me" at the sky...

Thursday, 1 June 2017

WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS; Full-Tilt Review

(on the subject of feeding from virgins)
“I think of it like this. If you are going to eat a sandwich, you would just enjoy it more if you knew no one had fucked it.”
Vadislav

Just your average vampires... Sort of.


Synopsis:

A small group of Vampires living in Wellington New Zealand agree to be followed by a team of documentary film-makers. Instead of establishing themselves as the dominant terror of the night, they only illustrate how out-of-touch they are with the world around them. Things are further complicated when, to help them connect more successfully with modern life, one of the Vampires decides to add to their number by turning an outsider into one of their undead clan. Shame that the 'new-blood' happens to be arguably the most arrogant and dim witted man in all of Wellington...

Script: 1/2
A format where the documentary style feels like a natural aspect of the story and simply not shoe-horned in for budgetary constraints (as it usually is). For every 4 jokes that misfire there's a real gem, that's pretty good odds.

Pace: 1/2
Perhaps a direct result of it's budget and indie nature, but the film does feel (at best) meandering. It's almost as though the story isn't quite sure what ending it's heading towards.

Acting: 2/2
For what it is, a surreal comedy, all stars hit their stride. Jemaine Clement steals the show as the barbaric and over-sexed Vladislav, while Taika Waititi is endearing as the foppish Viago- also the main narrator of the documentary. Jonny Brugh is also entertainingly embittered as an ex Nazi experiment turned punk.

Aesthetic: 1/2
It's a cheap movie but the budget is well-used and thankfully required little else other than for it's stars to show up in costume and bicker.

Intention: 2/2
A little too mellow to be true slapstick, and a little to daft to be anything approaching genuine horror, What We Do In The Shadows is far from a masterpiece but endearing in it's eclectic sense of humor and boasts nerd-appeal aplenty with it's innocent flaws and quotable dialogue.

Final Word: 7/10

Bought to you by the minds behind Flight of the Conchords, it's a bizarre sit-com in the tried-and-tested 'outsiders' / 'odd couple' mold. Think something like The Big Bang Theory meets Dracula Dead and Loving It and you're on the right lines. Sort of...