"THIS IS MY GIFT, MY CURSE... WHO AM I? SPIDERMAN!"

Peter Parker (Spiderman)


A pointless bit of theorising. I don't often allow myself this. It doesn't serve any purpose...

But.

I think we've missed the opportunity for a perfect Spiderman film now-days. I've seen all the perfect elements come together, half realised, and drift apart.

Something I photoshopped up. Am I right?

For my money, the perfect Peter Parker, in terms of casting, demeanor, and how the character would fit realistically into a modern setting, has already been pulled off. Sadly, not in a Spiderman film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's portrayal of Dave Lizewski / Kick-Ass was bang on the money.

Emma Stone makes for a perfect Gwen Stacey, shame the Amazing Spiderman films couldn't do her character justice.

The suit itself has never looked better than in The Amazing Spiderman 2 (that's one hell of a design).

And lastly, can anyone think of a better casting call than Willem Defore as the Green Goblin? Sure, the suit / armor could have been miles better, but the casting itself? Perfect.

And who would I put in the directors chair? In my ideal world Alfons Cuaron would be a solid choice. His career so far involves the best of Harry Potter, Children of Men and Gravity. He understands budgets, character, and can serve up family-friendly and a way that doesn't trivialise or make the material stupid.

So there you have it. 'MY' Spiderman will never be...

The MCU alternative.

Admittedly, the Marvel Cinematic Universe now have the rights back for the Spiderman character, so Garfield is now out and relative unknown Tom Holland is set to take his place. Tom Holland looks to be a good fit (he's nearer the correct age, too), and the MCU does have a good track record, they're quite astute. Even their failures have been interesting... If anyone can do this character right, then surely it has to be Marvel themselves?

Watch this space.

ANT-MAN; Carlisle's Final Word

"My days of breaking into places and stealing shit are over! What do you need me to do?" Scott Lang

 "...I want you to break into a place and steal some shit." Hank Pym

I imagine when Paul Rudd was offered a lead role as a superhero, Ant-Man wasn't what he had in mind...

SYNOPSIS:

Down on his luck cat burglar Scott Lang is fresh out of jail, broke, and unable to see his little girl unless he can find a way to settle his outstanding alimony. However, little does he relaise he's an aging scientist's last hope of preventing high-tech weaponry from falling into the wrong hands. Under the tutelage of this scientist, as well as the older man's estranged daughter, Lang must don an experimental costume and become the Ant-Man.



SCRIPT 1/2

The script is an interesting thing, and it's as much a success as it is a failure. It manages to be witty, smart and self assured, always ready to poke fun at it's own (frankly) ludicrous premise, and revels in its own small-scale- as apparent in the marketing. Bravely it steers away from the typical Marvel climax of 'giant-things-falling-out-of-the-sky-and-endangering-the-world-or-city' in favour of a brawl through a little girl's bedroom- which manages to be dramatic and humorous all at once (Thomas the Tank Engine has never been so terrifying). See, for me, the success of the story was in it's intimate scale; sure, the world was technically in danger, but the drama which played out for the characters was personal; it was about families, children, broken relationships, and the heartbreak of parenthood. In a way that would seem oddly fitting, the larger-scale world-effecting issues feel less significant (or smaller), and the small-scale personal drama is played-up (made larger). I would suspect these elements were very much present in the Edgar Wright script- but more on that later.

So considering that, it would seem an odd thing it made such a ham-fisted attempt in other areas. Aside from the ever present nag that the very idea of Ant-Man is completely bonkers, the story itself was awfully contrived. The Marvel formula of advanced technology falling into the wrong hands has been so over-used now, and it's tiring having so many Marvel Cinematic World references and set-ups shoe-horned into what should be a stand-alone story. But most daunting here are the giant lapses in logic. Marvel films may be fantasy but they make sense in their own internal worlds. Unfortunately some of the plot-holes in Ant-Man are so glaring they prevented me from enjoying the many quirky pleasures of the film.

If the military could enlarge and control thousands of ants, would they really bother with a suit? 

The antagonist of the films is said to have had his mind warped by imperfect shrinking technology, yet we know as an audience that this can't be true because until half way through the film he hasn't perfected shrinking beyond accidentally turning things into jelly...

 And those explosives planted in the building during the climax? They were put in place knowing full well all the characters would still be inside the offices, and if not them, God knows how many innocent security guards and employees (after all, the main characters were hardly likely to warn everyone inside or alert the villain to their plans)...

PACE: 2/2

Like all the Marvel Studio films, this moves along at a fairly snappy pace, but unlike the majority of these other films, bloated behemoths over the 3 hour mark, Ant-Man is also a much shorter film, and this lends proceedings a sense of urgency missing from most blockbusters. This fast pace also deprives the audience time to consider the absolute ridiculousness of the plot, or the many plot holes that will begin to dog them as they leave their seats.



ACTING: 1/2

As with other recent Marvel efforts, most of the casting is top-notch. Note I use the word casting, rather than acting; it feels as though everybody plays a part rather than a character. I guess that's the distinction here, it's not about acting or about being believable, it's about entertainment. Everyone seems to be having a blast making the film, especially Michael Douglass, who steals all of his scenes as the curmudgeonly scientist (and inventor of the Ant-Man suit) Dr. Pym. Paul Rudd gives a good turn as the snarky cat-burglar with a heart forced to become the Ant-Man (although some of his dialogue feels a little forced), while Evangeline Lilly, playing Hope, Pym's estranged daughter, brings a certain spark and wit to an otherwise bland troupe. But like Guardians of the Galaxy, Captain America, Iron-Man 1 and 2 (to mention but a few), the film's central villain is pretty weak. Corey Stoll, here playing the morally bankrupt Darren Cross, the ruthless protege of Dr. Pym, just comes across as made-for-TV-bland. He's bald, he's unhinged, he's rich, he wears a suit- he's pretty much a diet Lex Luther.


AESTHETIC: 1/2

Considering the budget Marvel Studios has at it's disposal, a lot of the film looked quite cheap, most notably the poor CGI used for the ants; they looked like something you'd see on a straight-to-DVD film, alongside titles "Sharknadeo" and "We are Omega". That's unforgivable considering the money involved, or how important the ants are to the story of Ant-Man! Having said that, the sound design, optics and focus-pulling used when the characters shrink is very, very effective. Familiar surroundings feel gargantuan- it genuinely feels like a tiny camera is being used to film a miniature little man, as opposed to someone just scaled down with computer effects.


INTENTION: 1/2

Well, you can't criticize it's noble intentions; Ant-Man strives to be an entertaining antidote to the usual high-steaks and large-scale-damage of other Marvel films, and for the most part it succeeds. It's rare to see a film with such a budget take genuine risks, or by straddling so many different genres all at once, but Ant-Man manages to be an endearing, if flawed, mash-up of superhero blockbuster, comedy and heist movie. It may not manage to fully pull-off it's intention, but it's a brave effort.
Having said that, in a lot of respects this is pretty much more of the same from Marvel Studios, and it suffers from the constraints of association with that cinematic background, while the almost patented witty-banter-with-big-explosins Marvel blue print is also showing signs of age.



FINAL SCORE: 6/10

Much was made of how Peyton Reed stepped up to direct this after Edgar Wright (he of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced fame, as well as Scott Pilgrim infamy) left the project after continual disagreements with Marvel Studios- despite the public support of Joss Whedon, the man responsible for shaping the quote/unquote Marvel Cinematic Universe... But, unlike most people imagined, Reed can hardly be said to have dropped the ball. Sure, it's not a perfect movie, but at this point it would be unfair to blame Reed for this, seeing how the real power behind the camera are Marvel Studios.
Ant-Man remains a lovable and gimmicky bag of tricks, but far from a satisfying whole, and while Wright's writing certainly still remains in the spine of the film, it's intriguing to contemplate how different his version might have been...

"SHE'S KILLING FOR SPORT"

 Owen (Jurassic World)

Brice Dallis Howard faces off against man-eating monsters... And dinosaurs.

I don't often risk voicing an opinion when I've not seen all the facts for myself, but I feel, given my position as a critic and an equalist, I have to address the 'sexism controversy' surrounding the new Jurassic World. I may well need to reconsider my position after seeing the film, which hopefully I will do soon, but I do want to at least want to discuss the matter first...

The sexism controversy in question surrounds the female lead of Jurrassic World, a character named Claire Dearing (played by the bautiful and very talented Bryce Dallis Howard)- a career-driven, office-based 'cold fish'; a woman with no maternal instinct whatsoever, and no wish to spend time with her two young nephews, thrust on her during the first act. Well, I guess it's pretty obvious from this set up, and the subsequent trailers, that the dinosaurs eventually escape their pens and go on a rampage. Through the course of the film Claire reflects on her life decisions, ditches her job, finds herself a "good man" and (having finally bonded with her nephews) decides to try having children of her own...

"Everyone remain calm!" Claire (Jurassic World)

Feminists united in their outrage of the film the world over because, in their opinion, Clare's shift in attitude encapsulates the myth that for any woman to be 'truly happy' she first needs to find a man and pump-out a few sprogs. And it's not just the feminists who are pissed-off either. Writer / director Joss Whedon (a man for whom I have a great deal of respect) also gave his two-sense-worth over Twitter, calling the film "70's era sexist", although this comment was made after viewing only the trailer, having not seen the actual film (and if he's allowed to have an opinion before seeing the film, then I guess I must be entitled, too).

"We need more teeth!" Gary (Jurassic World)

So, having read the criticism leveled at Jurassic World, watched the trailers, read some of the interviews, and being a man with what I hope is a sound and rational mind, I've come to two conclusions.

1/ The first Jurassic Park film focused on a character called Alan Grant, a job-driven and up-tight archaeologist, a 'cold fish' who couldn't stand the company of children (can you see where this is going yet?). During the course of the film Grant finds himself the unlikely protector of two young children, and as these two sweet kids eventually melt his cold and unfeeling heart Grant comes to realise he might quite like having some of his own. This is a carbon copy of Claire Dearing's character arc throughout Jurassic World (or rather, her's is a carbon copy of Grant's), yet Jurassic Park has never been considered sexist in its treatment of men. Why's it considered OK for a male to play the 'stiff' while not for a female? Interesting. You could draw a number of conclusions from this, but the concept that I find the most uncomfortable is that it appears feminists deem women unable to make their own decisions; to choose for themselves what will bring their lives the most joy and / or sense of completion. And again, this serves as yet another example of the dual standards by which the more extreme echelons of feminism operates.

2/ Jurassic World is a popcorn movie about dinosaurs eating people. It's unlikely it has sinister and salacious designs on society. It encourages you to turn your brain into neutral-mode and enjoy the spectacle, so perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to search for a subtext... In fact, I'd go a step further. Perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to read meaning into ANY film? Not every character should be considered a microcosm through which we can view a specific gender, religion or ethnic group. The world is a diverse place, filled with many diverse people- different creeds, colours and beliefs. Some are good, some bad, and many are pitched somewhere in between; their views will not always reflect our own, and neither will their actions. Claire Dearing decides she wants to settle down and have children, and this is Claire Dearing's decision, not ours- she is not, and should not be considered, "every-woman" (no more than Alan Grant or Travis Bickle are "every-man").  If the film making process reaches a point where every character has to pander to certain demographics, then we may as well fucking quit making films.

Or perhaps I've missed the point somewhere?

With that in mind, I'll leave you with one last quote from the film.

"Nothing in Jurassic World is natural..." Dr. Henry Wu (Jurassic World)

MAD MAX, FURY ROAD; Carlisle's Final Word

"You know, hope is a mistake. If you can't fix what's broken, you'll go insane."
Max Rockatansky

Wait, where's Max? Isn't he supposed to be in this film?

SYNOPSIS:
30 years since completing his troubled third installment of the Mad Max series, writer/director George Miller returns to his roots with this, Fury Road, part sequel and part reboot of the classic science-fiction franchise.
After escaping from the clutches of a mutated tribe of marauders led by the fearsome Immortan Joe, Max is forced into a fragile alliance with Furiosa, a warrior woman who has just liberated Joe's prized sex-slaves and is now in search of the fabled 'green place' she once called home. Can Max and Furiosa survive not only each other, the seemingly endless challenges of the vast desert wastes, but also elude Immortan Joe's war-party, hot on their heels and thirsty for blood.

SCRIPT: 1/2
The emphasis of the first couple of Mad Max films was the acquisition of fuel, and by any means (still not entirely sure what the hell was going on in Thunder Dome). This time around however the focus is on life; water, vegetation and birth giving- the hope of a better future ("who killed the world?" is tellingly graffitied into the background of one dramatic shot). Life and hope become the subtext, but don't expect that to slow the pace or curb the insanity none- because while these themes remain prevalent throughout, the film is essentially a 90 minute chase from start to finish- a delirious homage to the western Stagecoach, or if you prefer, Mad Max 2's own brutal finale 'tanker chase'. It's very simplicity is the key to it's strength.
That said, the script isn't quite issue-free. The most notable 'issue' with the script, put simply, is this is NOT a Mad Max film. Firstly, While Max may well be an important character, he is, essentially, the sidekick. He's Han Solo, not Luke Skywalker: this is not his tale to tell. The character who drives this story forward, whose arc is changed by these events, who develops and becomes a stronger character throughout (although admittedly she's pretty bad-ass to start with), is Furiosa. And while I'm cool with that notion (Hell, it's quite daring to have your titular character drifting into someone other's story), I felt cheated by it's presentation. It's Max that opens the film and narrates the introduction, so it follows that, even if Max is not the most important character in this story, it should at least unfold from his perspective. But it doesn't...

Picture the scene: It's dark. The truck used by the main characters has broken down, and the marauders are closing in. Max, grim-faced and determined, volunteers to meet the threat head-on while Furiosa and her allies try and repair the vehicle. Now, if this were Max's story, as the film's title might suggest, we'd have followed him into battle. Yet, it is with Furiosa with whom we linger, and what could have easily been another action set piece is stripped back to distant gun fire in the night.

During the films final action-scene, it is Furiosa who comes face-to-deformed-face with Immortan Joe, while elsewhere Max grapples Joe's muscle-bound henchman. Even the denouement (abrupt and white-washed in my own view, but I appreciate at this point you need to wrap things up) closes alone on Furiosa. No further voice-over from Max to talk us out of the film as he did into it. That's because it isn't Max's story, and more importantly, it's not even Max's film. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, the film would be no less successful had he not been in it, or his character's name changed to something else.
And a final, if very minor, gripe- the end of act two is a little late to be introducing a collection of new characters who, essentially, are there to make up the numbers, their only purpose to be killed of in a number of ways while the important characters survive...

PACE: 2/2
This has to be said for the film, it really doesn't slow down, except for a brief moment before the start of the third act, where aforementioned character-fodder are introduced before the climax.
If anything it rushes into the crux of the story a little too soon, and as a result we have little time to learn anything much about our main cast, beyond their broad stereotypes. But, that said, this was never going to be a film about subtleties- we get the bare bones of what we need to know, the rest is left blank. No concessions here to back-story of fleshing out the characters. If it's of no consequence, it's been trimmed. Consider the film like one of its many vehicles; the seats and dashboard have been hacked out, it's been welded with spikes, jump started, turbo injected and driven at 90 mph into the eye of a storm.

ACTING: 1/2
A tricky thing to address. Where do we draw the line between 'brilliance' and 'as much as the film calls for'? Well, for the most part, everybody embraced the absurdity of both the script and the setting and made their characters, if not exactly textured, at least memorable.
The very beautiful Rosie Huntington-Whitely, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee and Courtney Eaton have the unenviable task of playing the scantly-clad sex slaves of Immortan Joe, but they also bring a refreshingly barbed aspect to the typical 'damsel in distress' situation, while still fulfilling their quota of screaming and falling into danger. Hugh Keays-Byrne (who also played the lead villain in the first Mad Max film) Literally chews through his scenes with a gusto usually only associated with pantomimes or aboard pirate ships, and is one genuinely creepy head-fuck of a creation- a blistered, bloated and grotesque combination of Road Warrior's Humongous and Tom Hardey's Bane.
Charlize Theorn, herself a respected thesp, is far and away the best thing in Fury Road, and brings some real pathos to her role. In fact, addressing her performance alone is probably worthy of another post. While most action films seem content to simply cast a sexy girl in a traditional male story, Fury Road takes a surprisingly enlightened approach by embracing the work of Maureen Murdock, who built upon Joseph Campell's 'Hero with a Thousand Faces' in such a way as to address the different desires and obstacles on a woman's heroic journey.
So we come to Max, the titular character, as played by the ruggedly chiseled Tom Hardy. Now, it gives me no satisfaction to say this, because I actually like Tom Hardy, but his portrayal of Max is possibly one of the film's biggest short comings. He's a charmless, twitchy, charisma-vacuum of a character. He's out-shone in literally every one of his scenes and constantly fades into the background, even in the few scenes that focus on him. And when he talks (which he does rarely), he's affecting a voice so deep it borders on parody- like the Dark Knight with a throat infection.

AESTHETIC: 2/2
This is where the film comes into it's own and is truly something to behold. Sure, it's grotesque, surreal, disturbing and grimy, but it's really quite like nothing I've seen before. Writer / director Miller has taken the best aspects of Road Warrior and Thunderdome, given them a dust-off and crammed it full of so much rust, sand and bile as to push beyond the boundaries of science fiction and well into fantasy.
The film is certainly inventive in it's insanity; I mean, come on, while many armies have waltzed into battle behind a drummer, Immortan Joe drives to war with an orchestra and an electric guitarist! Other nice touches include; smiley faces drawn on tumors, donor details tattooed onto hostages, the Dali-esque stilts of the swamp dwellers, the list is endless. The world building detail is so rife you're sure to see more on repeat viewings. Even the War Boys, who could have easily existed as wreckage-fodder, are dealt with in like fashion. The enthusiasm for which they go into battle, with little to no self regard, is almost comical- it's like someone took Gru's Minions and brainwashed them with Prodogy albums.
Much has been made of the films reliance on actual vehicular carnage, but despite this it still leans too heavily on the crutch of CGI, and unfortunately it just isn't up to scratch. In fact, in some points it looks terribly cheap (even the rather impressive looking sand storm looked pretty shoddy inside). The film would have been stronger for keeping moments like this to a minimum, but they pop up with alarming regularity and they compare badly to the physicality of the real-life stunt work. The moments of slow-motion also work to the films disadvantage.
And is it me, or did a lot of the scenes in the first half of the film feel like they'd been cranked-up? Not just the car chases. On a few occasions I swear Tom Hardy's movements had been sped up as well, making him look even more twitchy than usual (especially apparent in the scene where he begins filing his muzzle- keep your eyes open for this and tell me what you think).

INTENTION: 1/2
If the film is to be taken on it's own merits alone, it's a pretty solid effort and will easily entertain action and science fiction junkies, and it will no doubt spawn a successful new franchise. But a Mad Max film it is not. And I don't mean simply that Max wasn't prevalent enough in the story...
I have  a better memory of the first two Mad Max films than I do of Thunder Dome, but as I wrote in my lead up to Fury Road's release date, these were unrelentingly grim, unglamorous and brutal. They were rough-edged and uncomfortable to watch. Simply put, Fury Road is too sanitised. In Fury Road, characters are allowed meaningful last glances and heroism is usually rewarded. Despite all the carnage you 'think' you've witnessed, you never once see people crushed beneath the wheels, smashed through windshields, impaled on spikes and barbed wire, or trapped in blazing wreckage. What little violence is on show throughout Fury Road would almost be permissible at a 12 certificate (I think the scantly clad women and one uncomfortable scene involving a stillborn delivery are what tipped the film into 15). Sure, people are hurled through the sky, and vehicles blow up, but that's mostly what you get- it's a very bloodless affair. Even the death scene of Immortan Joe, who so richly deserved a nasty finish, is cut so fast that I couldn't tell how he actually died.
And I make this criticism not as a gore-hound but as a critic. I'm absolutely fine without blood and guts; a great many of my favorite films haven't needed excess violence to work- but the Mad Max films ARE violent, it's integral to how that universe functions, therefore the removal of such things leaves this an oddly sanitised experience.

FINAL SCORE: 7/10
At it's best, it's a slick, fast-paced and deliriously inventive chase through a nightmarish wasteland, and at it's worst it feels like only half a story. But kudos where it's due, a shout out has to be made to the studio for helming such a staggeringly strange project- it feels like a straight-to-VHS classic from the 80's. Keep an open mind and think of Fury Road as a homage to Mad Max rather than an actual reinvention and you'll probably enjoy the film a whole lot more. He may be 70 now, but George Miller proves he still has a trick or two up his sleeve, and can still make a better action film than most of today's generation of copy-paste directors.



FINAL, FINAL WORD:
I'm not a fan of the 'haunting' scenes in Fury Road, where Max is tortured by unforgiving visions of his murdered son. I mean, I get that Mad Max isn't a subtle picture, but Christ. If you do have to go down this road, you don't need all the jump-editing and dodgy skeleton flashes, they really steal away any sense of loss or grief. All this CGI trickery, and yet not one single moment as haunting or effecting as the one lingering shot in Mad Max of a lone shoe on the highway... Sometimes less is more, even in a film like this.

Just as a point of interest, I watched the film with two very close friends, one of whom described Fury Road as "30 Days of Night meets Benidorm". I'm not quite sure in which context she intended the statement, but it's a sentence that deserves repeating. How can I compete with a review like that?

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES; Carlisle's Final Word

"War has... already begun. Ape started war. And human... Human will not forgive." 

Caeser

What did I learn watching this film? Never piss off an ape.

Synopsis:

In the years following their escape across the San Francisco bridge, Cesare and his intelligence-enhanced tribe are living peacefully in the forests, almost oblivious to the complete collapse of mankind by a deadly virus. That is, till a small group of human survivors accidentally wander into their territory. What follows from this tense encounter is an unlikely yet shaky alliance, as both sides strive to better their lives, but old hatreds die-hard and tragedy looms on the horizon, threatening to lead both man and ape into a bloody conflict...




Script: 1/2

The script is solid by any standards, with a small-scale focus and intimate drama rarely seen in Blockbuster fodder. Cesare’s character arc is the most effecting (he is, after all, the lead), and it's the primates who are given the most to do on screen. Despite the fact the titular primates do more than carry the film, more effort could have been put into fleshing-out some of the human characters. During the more human-centered elements the film is at its weakest; story arcs and character motivations aren’t so well defined, meaning that the film's nail-biting climax, while very dramatic from the point of view of the apes, lacks punch while resolving the human character's journeys.


Pace: 1/2

Never a dull moment. The story appears to take it’s time and build suspense while simultaneously rushing at break-neck speeds to its inevitable and tragic conclusion. And even though it’s clear from the outset that man and ape will know no peace, audiences will still find themselves engrossed to uncover the reasons for this bloodshed, and captivated by the heroism and betrayal on both sides of the species divide. However, that same script flaw also costs the film a further mark here- while the pace may work in favor of the apes, it still leaves the humans with little time to become fully rounded characters...


Acting: 2/2

No weak links here, believe me. I mean, has motion capture ever been so captivating? Never. But leaving aside the incredible facial performances of the apes (as played by the always incredible Andy Serkis and co), even the less developed humans, as played by veteran Gary Oldman, and the lesser-known but equably reliable Jason Clarke and Keri Russel, convey a desperate and anguished realism: they all have the look of people who have seen terrible things, and lost something inside during the process of survival.


Aesthetic: 2/2

One of the film's many triumphs (and possibly its biggest talking point) is the superb special effects. While they don’t quite manage to cross the 'uncanny valley', like many knee-jerk critics claim, they do represent a big step in the right direction, and this is a far more significant breakthrough than claimed by the overhyped Avatar. While most of the CGI seen in films is distracting at best, on this occasion you'll soon forget that what you're watching are a bunch of CGI primates; instead, you’ll find yourself completely captivated by the realism and subtleties of their performances and character arcs.

One very minor gripe, I personally found the score distracting (all percussion drums and awkward pauses before the beats). While I do understand this is a conscious call-back to the original Planet of the Apes films, I did found myself being “taken out” of the action. But like I said, it’s very a minor gripe.


Intention: 2/2

The first Planet of the Apes reboot / prequel was a pleasant surprise- a blockbuster with both invention and heart, but this, the second in the new run, is a superior film in all respects, and technically and dramatically better than most summer fodder.




Final Score: 8/10

Serious-minded, affecting, heartrending and exhilarating- a film that actually does more than live up to the hype; I hope the series continues in the same vein, although this has certainly set the bench mark staggeringly high.

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN; Carlisle's Final Word

"There's something else about bears not many people know. If a bear gets hooked on the taste of human blood, it becomes a man-killer. He'll go on a rampage and has to be destroyed. And that's why you should never hug a bear. " 

Hobo

Rutger Hauer, you deserve so much better than this...

Synopsis:

A nameless drifter wonders into the city, hoping for a fresh start, only to realise he’s literally entered the most corrupt, sinister and lawless inner-city war-zone this side of Bosnia. As he witnesses with growing despair the violence all around him, he finds himself compelled to act for the greater good of the city’s many victims, arming himself with a double barreled shotgun, and dispensing some bloody civic-minded justice. Along the way he finds time to bond with beautiful-hooker-with-a-heart Abby, before finally squaring-off against the city’s all-powerful, untouchable criminal overlord "The Drake".


Script: 0/2

Not that the script was ever intended to be more than an excuse for  stringing together as much gratuitous gore and shocking violence as possible, even by the most forgiving standards, the script is terrible. Worse than terrible. Fucking useless. Plot holes (even if you’re trying your hardest to overlook them) litter the run-time, patchy ideas are never fully developed, awful (heinous, actually) dialogue undermines the story at every turn, and there is sweet F.A in terms of character development- outside of what ‘old pro’ Rutger Hauer manages to bring to his titular role.


Pace: 0/2

Despite its many faults, at least it rattles along at a fast pace. However, at a relatively brisk 90 minutes the film still feels stretched and, unforgivably, dull. As a 3 minute joke-trailer, the idea had probably run its course, so you can see there could be some issue with the remaining 87 minutes… It put me in mind of all the ‘dead baby’ jokes I heard as a young teenager- because, I’ll freely admit, sometimes shocking people is quite satisfying (although it’s much funnier if you can also make them think, too!), but those old jokes only worked (if they ever worked at all, which is debatable) because they were short and sharp.


Acting: 0/2

The acting (if you can call it that) should be scored in the negatives, but genre veteran Rutger Hauer somehow transcends the material, rising above the limp scenarios and risible lines of the script to deliver a gravitas and pathos that almost (almost!) makes the film worth catching. He offers something raw and real amongst all the surreal chaos and you’re left wishing bitterly that the film had tackled its subject in a way that showcased his talents in a better light- because, believe it or not, there is a germ of a good idea buried in this rancid shit-stain of a film.
So, does Rutger’s performance somehow counterbalance the shockingly amateur acting offered up by the rest of the cast? Sadly no, not by a long way...


Aesthetic: 1/2

Rating the film in terms of an aesthetic is a tad difficult in this respect. It’s garish and rough-edged, but intentionally so- and if anything it actually looks cheaper than its meager budget. But, having said that, the gore is elaborately handled, and the film does more to recreate its sensibility to time-and-place than simply adding grain and poor focus to some of the shots- even the framing and colour pallet echo the ‘grindhouse’ style, and perhaps in this respect alone, Hobo’s creators deserve some praise, and this mess of a film comes closest to any high-minded pretensions.


Intention: 0/2

Half way through the film, I was struck with a single thought, and once it hit me I was unable to shake it from my mind: “why am I still watching this?” I mean, what is the point of this film, why does it even exist? Is it funny? No. Is it poignant? No. Does it have something to say? No. Beyond offering up shocks, is it of any other value? No. When the controversy dies down (particularly in regard to its censor-bating "school bus flamethrower" scene), will anybody remember it? I doubt it. So, in answer to my own question, I think I only finished watching this film for Rutger Hauer...

It’s not enough to simply ‘be grindhouse', you need to subvert it, or bring something different to the table. 1000’s of films like this have faded into obscurity because (crucially) they were crap. The films that people recall affectionately from this period of cinema history did something more than simply delivering the expected excess and shocks of the genre.


Final Score: 1/10

Kudos where kudos is due; as a 3 minute trailer on the Grindhouse film, Hobo With a Shotgun was pretty funny, in a base sort of way, but at feature-length the joke is pretty thinly spread. At best, Hobo with a Shotgun can be considered a 90 minute ‘dead baby’ joke, and at worst it’s a disturbing harbinger of cinemageddon and a worrying indictment of humanity.


Final Word:

I’ve made a small exception to my usual scoring rules; if you neither care or know who Rutger Hauer is, consider this a neon-flashing 1/10 rating, but if, like me, you respect Rutger Hauer and enjoy his work enough you would consider watching anything, no matter how cheap or awful it is, simply because he’s in it, consider this film a 2/10… The man deserves so much better than this.

"A long time ago I was one of you. You're all brand new and perfect. No mistakes, no regrets. People look at you and think of how wonderful your future will be. They want you to be something special... like a... a doctor or a lawyer. I hate to tell you this, but if you grow up here, you're more likely to wind up selling your bodies on the streets, or shooting dope from dirty needles in a bus stop. And if you're successful, you'll make money selling junk to crackheads. And you won't think twice about killing someone's wife, because you won't even know what was wrong in the first place. Or, maybe... you'll end up like me - a hobo with a shotgun! I hope you can do better. You are the future." 

Hobo.