THE RAID - REDMEPTION, Carlisle's Final Word

 "Pulling a trigger is like ordering a takeout."

Mad Dog.

Half circle down-to-forward and 'square' unleashes a Fire Ball.

Synopsis;

The Raid (or, The Raid Redemption as it’s also known) is the second film by Welsh (Welsh???) director Gareth Evans- an explosive Indonesian action movie.

A 20-man elite unit is sent on mission to eliminate a notorious criminal king-pin held up on the top floor of an apartment block which serves as his own personal fortress. Amongst the unit are the experienced Sergeant Jaka and young rookie Officer Rama- who also happens to be a master in the deadly art of Pencak Silat. This is a useful thing to know because (as you can probably imagine) the raid quickly goes catastrophically wrong. The surviving members of the team are then forced into a brutal game of survival while being hunted down by the king-pin's ruthless henchmen.

Script Logic; 0/2

There isn't really any logic to the script, but does it matter? The film is hoping you'll be too caught-up in the action to really care for the plot-holes. How did (spoilers ahead) a corrupt Lieutenant manage to deploy an entire armored unit without the proper authority or expecting his superiors not to notice? How was the unit even assembled without the proper documentation and warrants? Not a bother. Such a disregard for realism is ballsy if nothing else.

Pace; 1/2

Well, the film starts off at a run and doesn't really let-up. I was almost going to award the film 2/2 for this, but a perfect score has to be withheld for a perfect pace, and many of the films individual action scenes are overly-long- especially the final three-way battle, clocking in at over 8 minutes, I was ready for this clash to finish by the halfway point...

Acting; 1/2

Again, it's not really an 'actors piece'.  I mean, they have little to do besides grunt and fight, and the only concession to character building before the action starts is 30 seconds spent establishing that 1; the hero's wife is pregnant, and 2; he's pretty good in the gym. Still, that's all you need, and the film spends very little time concerning itself with minor details like character development. Only Joe Taslim, as the squad's experienced Sergeant, manages to bring any pathos or credibility to his time on screen- everyone else appears to be on strict instruction to ham-it-up.

Aesthetic; 2/2

The sets are suitably grungy and foreboding, so nothing really to report in that respect. However, the real aesthetic here is the martial arts. The Raid works largely as a showcase for Pencak Silat- a fast and fierce Indonesian martial art, almost like a bastard hybrid of Wushu and cage-fighting. There’s no denying that Pencak Silat is impressive, and up on the screen it makes for some breathtakingly athletic scenes- any fan of martial arts or action cinema is going to enjoy seeing this previously under-exploited form , and I’d put money on us seeing it a lot more from now on.

I guess my only complaint with the style, if any (or perhaps this is a failing of the film / director rather than the style), is that I felt like I was continually seeing the same few moves over and over again. It took me a while to notice this, but I found myself by the start of act 3 thinking “seen that, seen that, seen that”- like watching a computer game. I realise that criticism sounds a little harsh, but it’s probably a result of the individual action sequences being over-played. I feel that shorter (and as a result more intense) fights would have gone a long way to preventing this strong sense of Déjà vu. It's as though director Gareth Evans was so excited to 'strut his stuff' that he didn't hold anything back for later encounters.

Regarding a more personal and petty gripe- if I'm watching an 18-rated film with a fight including machetes, I WANT to see someone HIT with a machete! Still, kudos for the inventive door-frame related death, that was suitably grim.

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Well, like what was said during my review of Dredd, it hardly matters that the plot has been done before- is the same story that both Howard Hawks and John Carpenter used to tell so well.  In an odd twist of fate The Raid and Dredd (both of which shared a wincingly similar idea) were released almost simultaneously. It was easy to see why many people suspected subterfuge or breach of intellectual property, but I think in all honesty it was just an instance of cosmic-chance- and one that was disastrous for Dredd which most people compared unfavorably to The Raid. The Raid did good business and was quickly picked up for a sequel (coming soon) while the planned Dredd trilogy was shelved (although it found a new lease of life on DVD).

Admirably, The Raid set out and achieved exactly what it meant to do, and waved an unforgiving anarchic middle finger to everyone else in the process.

Final Score; 6/10 

OK, let’s not kid ourselves here; The Raid is all about the action, and on that score alone The Raid is most certainly a success and it’s easy to see why action-junkies lapped this up. The Raid was never meant to be anything else other than 100 minutes of bone-crunching action scenes. Anyone looking for anything other than this is going to leave disappointment.

“So, why the low score?” you may well ask. Is it possible that my rating system does The Raid a disservice? Well, no, for the simple reason it’s more than possible to have this level of action with a better plot, better acting, and a better pace, etc. Providing the fun stuff doesn’t have to be at the expense of rich storytelling. But I digress, and the entire reason for breaking the review down into separate scores is purely so people can read about the aspects that interest them the most and disregard the rest. I'll be honest, I got bored, but I do appreciate that as a bloodthirsty teenager this would have been right-up-my-street...

Interesting little fact; Yayan Ruhian, who played Mad Dog (the crime lord's diminutive but deadly bodyguard and only memorable bad guy), was once responsible for training Pencak Silat to the Indonesian Presidential Security Forces and the Indonesian Military Police... True.

KICK-ASS 2; Carlisle's Final Word

"If I was even thinking about a Kick-Ass sequel, I had to get serious." 

Dave Lizewski.

Will they kiss-and-makeup?

Synopsis;

Bumbling but well-meaning superhero Kick-Ass joins forces with like minded have-a-go-superheros to make the streets a a safer place. However, Hit-Girl (Kick-Ass' infinitely more capable crime-fighting partner) succumbs to the pressure of her new guardian to hang up the cape and lead the life of a normal fifteen year old girl. But trouble is looming on the horizon in the form of super-villain The Motherfucker- an enemy from Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl's shared past, and one who is intent on a very violent revenge...

Script Logic; 1/2

Well, the script sort of makes sense- given the context of superheros and the constraints of comedy. While the film does well to avoid the original comic's more-offensive moments (such as a gang-rape, child executions and a tortured dog) in many ways it does take a swipe at plot threads so well established in the original film- in particular the main character's relationship with Katie Deauxma. Here, Katie has been rewritten as something of a bitch, possibly to better fit with the continuity of the comic sequel (the first comic and first film had wildly different endings). That's is a real shame, seeing as that same relationship was so well-established and affectionately played-out- while Kick Ass' new 'fling' with fellow vigilante Night-Bitch is a hollow one-note affair by comparison. All that work and chemistry completely gone to waste...

Despite this, perhaps the script's worst failing is the lack of any wit. The one-liners are dead-on-arrival and the comedy in-general is far more juvenile; nowhere near as smart, sassy or subversive (or deliberate) as it's predecessor. Without that particular ace-in-the-hole, all we're left with is a sub-par action movie, and a reliance on cranking-up the grossness and violence...

Pace; 1/2

It has to be said that at least the pace is never slow- if anything, it's too rushed! The film's tendency is to wedge too much into the running time, which means that whole sub-plots, character arcs and set pieces struggle to make any impact; individually these are all sound 'ideas' that simply fail to take flight because of a lack of substantial screen-time allowing an audience to properly invest in these characters and their individual struggles. Instead the film relies on a certain amount of good-will generated by the previous film rather than working out it's own failings. One or two stories well told is better than a dozen botched attempts.

Acting; 2/2

Nobody really drops the ball here; Aaron Taylor-Johnson does what he can with his scenes and a scatty story arc, Christopher Mintz-Plasse makes an amusingly volatile villain (and epitomizes everything wrong with the worst kind of teenage fan-boy), and Chloe Grace Moretz makes a very welcome return as Hit-Girl (who is clearly the script's most favored character). However, the real stand-out performances in this film belong to the criminally underrated John Leguizamo and (dare I admit this) Jim Carrey. The first plays a pivotal role as the villain's first body guard, a sympathetic crook whose murder acts as that character's tipping point from 'pathetic snot-nosed nerd' into a very warped antagonist, and the second puts in  a scene-stealing and unrecognisable turn as psychopath-turned-born-again-christian superhero Colonel Stars & Stripes (shame he ruined any kudos by bad-mouthing the movie in relation to the Sandy Hook tragedy- see my note on the subject for more details).

Aesthetic; 1/2

While the costumes and sets all remain fittingly-glossy, the fight scenes- such a highlight of inventive insanity the first time around, here are all flat and lifeless. I watched this film only the other day and I struggle to remember any of them- nothing as outlandish or stand-out as 'that' corridor scene, or Kick-Ass' first failed outing and subsequent beating at the hands of two car-jackers. Even the film's climax, a mass-battle between hundreds of masked heroes and villains, fails to make an impact.

A clash of titans, something that the film intentionally build towards, Hit-Girl vs. the bulging and brutal Mother Russia (Motherfuckers most dangerous ally) is also depressingly mundane and unimaginative. I'll admit, seeing a teenager slicing up a bunch of criminals is never going to be as eye-popping as seeing a child do the very same thing, but even overlooking this fact there's no excusing just how uninspiring the fight sequences are. Only one moment featuring a lawn mower even comes close to anything in the first Kick Ass...

On a similar note, in this film the violence is far more leery and mean-spirited, which I appreciate may be more in keeping with the source material (myself, I'm not really a fan of the comic), but it's strikingly at odds with the overall warmth of the original... This is especially true in relation to the 'prison murder scene'...

Originality & Intention; 0/2

The original Kick-Ass film, despite the language and violence, was a charming film with a big heart and a mischievous sense of humor. By comparison, this is a leery, immature and spiteful film which feels more like the bad fan fiction of a teenager with a few 'issues'. This film is the product of a creative team who just aren't as driven, talented or witty as those responsible for the first Kick-Ass; failing to build on the foundations of the first film, they have instead turned-in a lack-luster sequel that fails to properly appreciate (or understand) what a gift the first film actually was.

Final Score; 5/10 

It's not that Kick-Ass 2 simply fails to live up to the first film, it's that Kick-Ass 2 is just a shoddy film, full-stop.

13 ASSASSINS; Carlisle's Final Word

"No mercy! There's no samurai code or fair play in battle! No sword? Use a stick. No stick? Use a rock. No rock? Use your fists and feet! Lose your life, but make the enemy pay!"

Shinzaemon Shimada

A little bit off the top?

Synopsis;

Director Takashi Miike, famed for such hyper-violent and bizarre cult films as 'Ichi The Killer' and 'Audition', here retells an epic saga from Japanese history about thirteen Samurai who take a fierce last-stand against a sadistic warlord who plans to use his influence to bring about chaos and bloodshed. 

While the construction owes much to the classic Seven Samurai (as well as the less-known 1960s film of which this is a remake), the film thematically concerns itself with the tangled ideology of the period; the conflict of honor and duty.

Script Logic; 2/2

While audiences not so familiar with the Japanese feudal setting may struggle with the politics and social structure which so greatly influences the plot, there is no denying that it holds-up and proves a strong framework for what is essentially a standard men-on-a-mission movie. 

Characters are given clear motivations for their actions (with the exception perhaps of the antagonist, who we except as simply being a vile and corrupt bastard).

Pace; 1/2

While the film never outstays it's welcome, it does at times tend to meander leisurely towards it's climactic showpiece- a berserk 45 minute battle scene. Still, at least these quieter moments are well used and bring depth to some of the film's more prominent characters.

Acting; 2/2

Nobody here drops the ball, but the film does have some very stand-out performances. Gorô Inagaki, who features as the sadistic warlord, is truly a terrifying character and should rank high in any poll for psychotic evil (more than a little reminiscent of King Joffrey in 'Game of Thrones'), while Kôji Yakusho, as the reclusive older samurai, tasked with bringing about the former's assassination, is the stand-out heart-and-soul of the film; it's his magnetism and charisma that holds the film together.

Some of the minor characters remain incidental to the point that their inclusion feels unnecessary, and during the final battle the distinct lack of diversity in costume and hairstyle may make it difficult to distinguish exactly who is doing what, and to who, but the main cast (those of the assassins given the majority of the screen-time and the more intricate backstops) always stand out. 

Aesthetic; 2/2

The film creates a fully authentic feudal Japanese landscape for it's bloody subject; a hybrid of almost mythical beauty and gritty realism- complete with weather worn streets, trickling streams and dirt spattered robes. Clearly the budget has been well used and establishes a strong sense of period.

As for the style, everything here is played for realism. Although the odds are staggering (13 against 200), the carnage isn't your usual bullet-time wire-martial-arts affair; nobody here is superhuman, everybody is very (painfully) vulnerable. It's very refreshing to see an action scene play-out without slow-motion, jarring camera work and jump-cut editing.... Although some of the traps that the assassins set to ensnare their victim may rely on a slight suspension of disbelief they are never entirely implausible.

Originality & Intention; 1/2

A far more constrained movie than might be expected of it's director, both in terms of gore and the surreal (it is worth noting that not all Miike's work is of this nature), although with some trademark stylistic flourishes- this surprisingly mainstream effort is sure to surprise many Takashi Miike enthusiasts with it's straight-storytelling approach, but is also likely to win over some newcomers as well.

Comparisons with countless other films, such as the aforementioned Seven Samurai, are inevitable, and while the theme of "honor vs duty" is hardly a new one, the film still managers to feel relevant and vibrant- thanks in part to its visuals and strong cast.

It is worth mentioning here that the only exception to the film's strong line in realism, and perhaps the film's most obvious leaning to Takashi Miike's unique brand of surreal ambiguity, is the allusion of (possible spoiler) the "goblin" character. Goblins, in this sense, are a race of mischievous immortals from Japanese folklore. This odd tonal-shift comes in the film's final moments, and it's inclusion is, well, inexplicable, and may well irritate some viewers.

Final Score; 8/10 

All in all, a very impressive period adventure which boasts both a strong cast and a spectacular final. Sure to appeal to anyone who; is fascinated by the feudal setting, enjoys Takashi Miike, or appreciates well made and well acted films- or any connoisseur of bloody heroics and swordplay!

“POLITICAL LANGUAGE... IS DESIGNED TO MAKE LIES SOUND TRUTHFUL AND MURDER RESPECTABLE, AND TO GIVE AN APPEARANCE OF SOLIDITY TO PURE WIND.”

George Orwell.

Well, that sounds about right to me. I can't remember who said it, but "wolves in different shades of grey" always stuck with me.

Anyway, if you hadn't guessed this is about British politics. I planned on writing a few different posts, but for now we'll just see how this one goes over, it's bound to be more divisive than films...

Something my friend shared on Facebook. Scary, huh?

The following is NOT my own work (starting from under the image), and is re-blogged here from 3 different sites; dummies.com, thinkingpolitics.org and idontgetpolitics.co.uk. Afterwards I have included  detailed yet easy-to-grasp poster form infomationisbeautiful.net addressing "left and right wing ideology", it's well worth a look.


Anyway, it's to serve as a simple way into a complicated subject and assumes no prior knowledge. Hope this helps anyone who struggles to keep up with the news, myself included...

The last person to enter parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes

Ideologies:

Let’s face it, ideologies are confusing things. The -ism bit seems to makes them so very forgettable. But not anymore! Here’s a quick alphabetical guide to the major (and not so major) political ideas that inspire people to get involved in politics.

Anarchism:

Can be grouped around socialistic or individualistic strains. Anarchists believe that the state and forms of compulsory government are harmful or unnecessary to people’s lives.

Communism:

Communists believe that capitalist system is damaging to interests of masses, and that workers must unite and overturn it by revolutionary means. Communists also believe in the state ownership of all land, natural resources and industry.

Conservatism:

Conservative thought is coloured by the belief that – over time – history has produced institutions and modes of government that function well, and which should be largely preserved for the future. They also believe that political change should be organic and gradual, rather than revolutionary.

Environmentalism:

Key political concern is protecting and improving the condition of the natural environment. Many believe there is a need for much greater regulation of humans’ interaction with the environment, and aspects of our lifestyles are environmentally unsustainable.

Feminism:

The belief that society and the political system is patriarchal. Feminists seek to improve the political and particularly, the social and economic position of women.

Liberalism:

The belief in protecting the rights of individual, so as to ensure their maximum freedom. There have been shifts in liberal thought, the most prominent of which was the move from classical liberalism (minimal role of state, unsecured liberties) to progressive liberalism in early twentieth century. Progressive liberals argued that civil liberties and freedoms must be safeguarded and actively protected by state.

Socialism:

Socialists are motivated by the desire to improve quality of life for all members of society. They believe in a political system characterised by strong state direction in political and economic policy. Another key idea is redistribution of resources to redress inequalities inherent in free-market economy.

    

General info of the political system in the UK

 The UK is a parliamentary democracy with The Queen as the Head of State. The Prime Minister leads the government and people vote in elections for MPs who will represent them in Parliament.

The Queen

Elizabeth II is a constitutional monarch: that is, she is Britain’s head of state, but her executive powers are limited by constitutional rules. Her role is mostly symbolic: she represents Britain on state visits and on ceremonial occasions. According to the royal website, her primary role is as a “focus of national unity”.

She is queen of 16 former British colonies, including Australia, Canada and New Zealand; and head of the Commonwealth, a multinational body created after the dissolution of the British Empire.

The Prime Minister

The Prime Minister is head of the UK government, currently David Cameron of the Conservative Party. He is ultimately responsible for all policy and decisions. He; oversees the operation of the Civil Service (which does the practical and administrative work of government) and government agencies, appoints members of the government, and is the principal government figure in the House of Commons.

Coalition

The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government was formed on 10 May 2010. The coalition agreement sets out a joint programme for government to “rebuild the economy, unlock social mobility, mend the political system and give people the power to call the shots over the decisions that affect their lives”.

House of Commons (the lower chamber, the UK is bicameral)

The UK public elects 650 Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons. MPs consider and propose new laws, and can scrutinise government policies by asking ministers questions about current issues either in the Commons Chamber or in Committees.

House of Lords

The House of Lords is the second chamber of the UK Parliament. It is independent from, and complements the work of, the elected House of Commons. The Lords shares the task of making and shaping laws and checking and challenging the work of the government.

Shadow government

The Shadow Cabinet is made up of frontbench MPs and Members of the Lords from the second largest party, or official Opposition party. The Opposition party appoints an MP to ‘shadow’ each of the members of the Cabinet. In this way the Opposition can make sure that it looks at every part of the Government and can question them thoroughly. It also means that the Opposition has MPs and Lords that are ready to take specific jobs in the Cabinet if they win at the next General Election. In the House of Lords the term “spokesperson” is used instead of “shadow”.

Political parties in the Commons

In addition to the main three parties, the Commons has a range of other political groups also elected by the public. This includes nationalist organisations like Plaid Cymru (Wales) and the Scottish National Party, Northern Ireland’s various political parties and minority parties like the Green Party or Respect.

Political parties in the Lords

Outside of the main parties there are a small number of Members that are not affiliated with a main political party and those belonging to minority groups. In addition there are a limited number of Church of England archbishops and bishops and the Crossbench Peers group.

The Crossbench Peers group is currently the second largest group in the Lords (after Labour); and is formed by independent Members who don’t take a party whip – which means that they are not told how to vote by a political party.

Right and Left Wing - What Does it Mean?

People are always going on about ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ - but what does it mean? Well it basically means what people believe a country should do for its citizens.

Left Wing

Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality. People who are left wing believe in taxation to redistribute opportunity and wealth - things like a National Health Service and job seeker’s allowance are fundamentally left wing ideas. They believe in equality over the freedom to fail.

In the UK the main left wing parties are the Labour Party and the Green Party. They believe in making laws that protect women, ethnic minorities, and gay people against discrimination. They believe that we should tax rich people more to support people less well off, and they believe we should regulate big businesses so they serve people’s interests. They believe that a good welfare system means people are healthier, more able to work, and will put more back into the economy. They also typically believe country-wide tax-funded action on climate change is necessary.

Right Wing

Right wing beliefs value tradition, they are about equity, survival of the fittest, and they believe in economic freedom. They typically believe that business shouldn’t be regulated, and that we should all look after ourselves. Right wing people tend believe they shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s education or health service. They believe in freedom to succeed over equality.

In the UK the main right wing parties are the Conservative (or Tory) Party, and UKIP (who focus on the UK not being a part of the European Union). They believe that if you have more money, you should get to keep it, and buy better education and health services for yourself. They believe that businesses should be less regulated, and that the more money they earn, they’ll bring more benefits to the country. In 2008 2/3 of Tory MPs didn’t think climate change was a priority, but their leadership says it’s important. They are more likely to focus on energy security (oil and gas are set to run out very soon, and they won’t want to rely on other countries).

Far Left to Far Right

Communism, Socialist Worker’s Party, Green Party, Unions, ‘old’ Labour, ‘mainstream’ Labour, Lib Dems*, ‘mainstream’ Conservative, ‘traditional’ Conservative, UKIP, BNP, Nazism.

Further Notes

*The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) are another major party in the UK but people often argue about where they fall, politically. They have some traditionally left wing ideas, and some right wing ones as well, for simplicity I have put them in the middle of this diagram.

Extreme versions of either scale, Left and Right, have caused the deaths of many thousands of people; see Communism or Nazism.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/

THIS IS THE END: Carlisle's Final Word

"I don't wanna die at James Franco's house."

Jay Baruchel.

Script Logic; 1/2

Pace; 2/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 1/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Final Score; 8/10



I had really high hopes for this as the trailer left me chuckling, but in the back of my mind I kept on remembering how disappointed I usually am in Seth Rogen comedies; he's always likeable and humorous but I rarely bust-a-gut. So imagine how surprised I was to be genuinely thrilled, horrified and shocked by this unfairly-panned gem. I could be heard laughing out loud from start to finish, and I honestly don't remember the last time I enjoyed a comedy film this much (possibly because I have quite an odd sense of humor, 'gallows' some may call it). Finally, a horror comedy that remembers that the 'horror' parts still have to be played straight, not that they ever let scares get in the way of a good laugh! The danger is real, and the humor comes organically from the response. This has much more in common with Shaun of the Dead than it does Super Bad and its ilk.

When the cast of a film play 'themselves' that's usually a warning of "pretensions ahoy" (I can't remember the last time that was done successfully, has it ever?), but here the cast send themselves up with an enthusiasm that borders on career-suicide. These winging self-absorbed pre-maddonnas bicker over egos, argue about rations, botch scavenger hunts and succumb to sheer bloody panic when Hell literally opens up in the Hollywood Hills. That may sound like a terrible thing to watch (a bunch of spoilt rich people bickering for 100mins) but it's done so well and with so much charm that you actually begin to warm to these idiots. Hell, I was starting to hope they'd all escape alive...

Be warned though, the deaths are pretty gory at points, and you'll "oooohhh" as much as you'll laugh as familiar-faces cop-it in grisly fashion left-and-right (kudos to Michael Cera and Channing Tatum for their cameos, amongst others). The film never outlasts it's welcome while  successful peppering the run-time with decent gags (itself an achievement to be applauded), and although some of the CGI  looks a little fake towards the end, you'll be too engrossed to let it spoil your good time.

Could have done without the last 5 minute segment* (daft and undermining), but on the whole; well done Seth, Baruchel, McBride, Hill, Franco and Robinson.Shame you can't make a sequel...



*No, before you ask, it's not all a dream and they don't turn-back time.