Commando movie Review

Arnold Schwarzennegger plays colonel Matrix a retired special forces operative who lives an idealic life with Jenny, his daughter, in a remote mountain location. When hench men appear and kidap his daughter Matrix must enlist an unlikely ally Cindy, a jittery flight attendent to help him find his daughter.

Turns out a disgruntled member of Matrix former crew Bennett and a deposed dictator Arius want Matrix to kill the encumbant leader of Val Verde in exchange they wont kill his daughter..

In the 80s and 90s Stallone and Schwarzennegger ruled the action genre. Arnie came off two big hits Conan the barbarian and The terminator while Stallone had finished Rambo: First blood. Looking for his next big hit, and in no small way trying to compete with Stallone’s grasp on the action Genre, Arnie agreed to appear in Commando.

The original screenplay was vastly different than the movie we see today. It was originally to centre on an israeli commando who turned his back on violence in favour of the simple life.

Steven E De Sousa, who would later write the seminal action flix Die Hard, was hired to rewrite the screenplay to suit Arnie’s movie persona aesthetic. Zingy one liners and larger than life stunts were added to the mix, favouring Arnie’s strengths as a physical action star.

Mark L Lester would direct with an estimated budget of 12 million dollars. A tiny budget by todays standards, the movie does have a slightly budget friendly aesthetic. Continuity is a mess; Sullys car a highlight with the damage appearing and disappearing between shots. Lesters direction is work man like, favouring quick cuts rather than tension and creativity. It was never going to be oscar winning but rather a quick and dirty action flick which tries to be more Rambo than Rambo.

It is reported that Lester seen an early cut of Rambo: part 2 and increased the amount of dying stunt people on screen. The adage of more is better doesn’t apply here as we witness the same stunt men die again and again with dodgy moustages and wigs.

Not to mention the even dodgier manequinns that are badly positioned in front of slow motion explosions when we eventually get to Val verde.

But I digress Val Verde only accounts for about 20 minutes of the movie. The rest is purely setup trying to find out where they have taken his daughter. There is fun to be had with Arnie dropping a one liner as he holds Sully over a cliff face using his weak arm ‘remember when I told I’d kill you last? I lied’ . Reportedly director Lester wanted Arnold to hold the actor playing sully over the cliff for real without assistance. Thankfully that didn’t happen.

The screenplay called for a sex scene between Cindy and Matrix during the two hour flight to Val Verde which wouldn’t have played very well. But considering what would have come after it it wouldn’t have been totally out of left field. The movie is a hodge podge of scenes that don’t quite fit. Case in point the strange scene of Cooke robbing a car out of a dealership. Its seemingly there just to see a car drive through a window.

One of the more bizarre decisions is the costume that Vernon wells wears who plays Bennett. A cross between the village people and an extra from the rocky horror picture show. Bennett rocks an ill fitting chain mail wife beater, leather trousers and fingerless gloves. It is the very epitomy of camp. What it doesn’t scream is scary dude. The roumer is that Wells took over from Wings Houser and they didn’t have time to remake his costume. Given how poor the costume looks its unlikely a tailored version would have been any better.

However, Wells does give a commited performance. Its campy for sure and littered with unintentional homerotic tendancies but bizarrely fun to watch. No more so that the final fight between Bennet and Matrix an OTT mano a mano duke to the death which features some unintentionally funny sequences.

In the end Commando is a guilty pleasure. Loud, Choppily edited with some OTT sequences. It’s very much a product of the 80s, filled with action man bravado.

Somewhere. Somehow. Someone is going to pay..

The shawshank redemption movie review

The shawshank redemption is a wonderful film. An old style tale of friendship and hope, filled with complex characters. In a sea of evil, surrounded by all the dark detritus, there is always hope. Hope and friendship - real friendship - not the fakery we often come across in our lives where those people purposefully choose to be false for whatever reason. Hope is probably one of the most important of things. Something to hold onto and embrace..

Andy Dufresne is convicted of murdering his wife and is sentenced to two life sentences back to back at Shawshank prison. Not the flashiest of characters, Tim Robbins embues him with a quiet sense of humanity, a humble intelligent man with numbers. His crime being the folly we all have witnessed: neglect and apathy. It set him on a colision course that will ultimately change his life forever.

Some of the most affecting scenes are the quietest. A distant look of Brooks as the darkness closes in around him, the realisation dawns on him that he is an institutionalised man and doesn’t see a place in the world for himself anymore. The screenplay is littered with great scenes and quotable dialogue, a testamount to Darabonts skill as a writer.

Elis ‘Red’ Redding played by Morgan Freeman was initially envisioned in the screenplay as a red headed irish caucasion. Freeman makes the character his own, giving him a steely humanity and a sense of morality. In this regard Shawshank holds true, a tale of morality with honour and fortitude at the centre. I couldnt imagine anyone else playing this role, Freeman’s silken voice over a key storyteller its own right.

Although the movie is deliberately slow it never gets boring, the sedate storytelling key in building this sense of friendship throughout the years between Red and Dufresne. In truth, it is a love story of sorts, a tale of two mens platonic love for one another that transcends the steely confines of shawshank prison.

There are stock characters to be found like the Warden Norton and Captain Hadley but they are treated as the flip side of honour and hope. That without honour and morals you ultimately self destruct.

In the end when ‘Red’ reunites with Dufresne it was supposed to fade out on the bus ride to Texas (in the screenplay) which would have robbed us witnessing hope come to fruition. It is something we needed to see. The final shot of them embracing in friendship as the crystal blue ocean breaks onto the shore, gives the film finality. A resolution that hope springs eternal.

Rocky 4: Rocky vs Drago

The 80s was time for excess in every sense of the word, especially with movie making. Often times a music video approach was applied to videos, fusing them with over the top montage sequences set to toe tapping music.

The original cut of Rocky 4 epitomised this approach, a movie so full of music and montages that it bordered on turning into a music video. Sylvester Stallone was never a fan of the original cut of the movie. It was heavily jingoistic with cold war rhetoric of east vs west. Given access to recut the movie into a prefered “directors cut”, Stallone delivers a 93 minute run time which slows the pace down and dials back some of the music video aesthetics.

Opening more slowly and deliberately, Rocky 4 offers a more measured and sedate version of the movie. Gone is any hint of Paulie’s Robot maid and the emphasis on the wealth that Rocky has attained. Instead it is focussed on Apollo and his mid-life crisis. A former champion struggling to come to terms with his new life out of competition. Enter Ivan drago, a Russian amateur boxer looking to make waves, challanging Rocky to an exhibition match which he cheerfully declines. Apollo has other ideas and ropes Rocky into helping him beat the russian.

This, of course, does not go to plan as Apollo is brutally beaten in the ring. There is more of an emphasis on going ‘out on your sword’ in this cut of the movie. The boxing match attempting to be more brutal and ‘real’ but the over exagerated fight choeography not quite allowing that to stick.

Cut to Rocky agreeing to fight Drago to revenge the death of his friend. There is an interesting scene where the boxing commision wont sanction the fight go ahead on American soil for fear Rocky will be killed in the ring so it must take place in Russia without any belts on the line in a more amateur capacity.

Without being a different story per se, the film is tonally different and more serious. The montages are more selected and purposeful rather than just to transition time.

Thats not to say that its entirely succesful in this approach. The original for its flaws, had energy and urgency. The musical overlays speaking what the dialogue could not. Given the slower pace and the deliberate switching of musical cues this cut can either frustrate or intrigue. The nature of the fight choregraphy holding longer on boxing shots does emphasise the fact that they are not hitting for real and takes away from the brutality somewhat.

So in that sense its a mixed bag. You will either like it or you wont. Setting aside the politics which is still equally front and centre, it is marginally toned down. There is no east vs west boxing gloves exploding on screen.

Is this cut any better than the theatrical release? It’s hard to tell. It’s certainly a little different but wheter it improves it overall is up to interpretation. Some will prefer it while others will look at the original as superior. I’m on the fence. Some aspects I prefer in both cuts so it’s fair to say that this cut doesn’t necessarily make it better.

Robocop (1987) movie review

“In a dystopic and crime-ridden Detroit, a terminally wounded cop returns to the force as a powerful cyborg haunted by submerged memories.”

— imdb

Directed by Paul Verhoven (Basic instinct, Starship troopers) RoboCop is violent, darkly comical science fiction action film that pits a cybernetic cop against a gang of ruthless criminals.

Tinged with over the top satire, RoboCop manages to sprinkle in hints of humanity amongst the detritus making us feel for Murphy (Peter Weller) - a straight talking, honourable cop who happens to transfer to a demiliterised zone. On his first day on the job Murphy comes face to face with Charles Boddicker (a brilliant turn by Kurtwood Smith) a would be crime boss hell bent on taking a controlling interest in the sleazier side of the new ‘Delta city’.

The violence in RoboCop is, at points, extreme. Opening on a boardroom filled with obnoxious ‘yuppy suits’ who are equally as cut-throat as any criminal, we are introduced to ED-209 - a state of the art automated police guard the latest innovation of OCP - Guns down an executive turning his litteral dead body into swiss cheese. Another executive screams to call for an ambulance when clearly he belongs in a body bag.

It’s tinged with black humour, making the OTT violence almost comic book in nature. That didn’t stop the MPAA calling for trims to the violence , both in this scene and Murphy’s death - with litteral hands & arms blown off and enough lead in his chest to arm a platoon. The physical effects are brilliant, handled with explosive realism by Rob Bottin.

RoboCops suit is equally impressive, a shinning beacon of hope amongst the detritus. Peter Weller does a great job of selling a cyborg from his stilted movements to his on the nose delivery of dialogue. Other notable turns are from Ronny Cox as Jones, a sleazy corporate wolf who thinks only of the bottom line and his ascention to CEO of OCP. His would be nemesis, a snotty kid ‘Morton’ (Played by the late Miguel Ferrer) half his age who steals his thunder and undermines Jones aurthority with the RoboCop programme.

For an estimated budget of 13 million, RoboCop is an impressive film. Especially given the fact that most of the effects were achieved with stop motion puppets. A sleazy world of corporate greed and nilhilistic gangs was never done any better. Despite two sequels and a short lived series.

In todays PG-13 landscape a movie like this wouldn’t exist. When they tried ot reboot the franchise a few years back they toned down the violence and made what RoboCop wasn’t intended to be: a kids film. Gone was the satire and right wing nihilism being replaced by a sedate, glossy shadow.

For some, Paul Verhoven is a very polarising filmmaker with his in your face approach to violence and sex. In a lot of ways he’s a realist, wanting to get you as close as possible to a gunshot or a sleazy sexual act. You are a voyeaur, travelling with him into a dirty picture of a possible future world.

In some ways we seem to have travelled a lot closer to the world of RoboCop than we would like to comfortably admit.

When all is said and done RoboCop is a very tight action film with explosive violence, over the top characterisation and an iconic creation. Often repeated but never bettered.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

'Shadow in the cloud' movie review

“A female WWII pilot traveling with top secret documents on a B-17 Flying Fortress encounters an evil presence on board the flight.”

— imdb

**Spoiler alert** Spoilers ahead**

Maude Garret (Chloe Grace Moretz) a female pilot who carries top secret information, boards a B17 bomber. Faced with a suspicious ‘all male crew’ who question her identity. Suddenly Maude spots a shadow in the clouds. Was it a Japanese fleet on patrol or something else more sinister?

Opening on an atmospheric setup, ‘Shadow in the cloud’ is a frustratingly silly movie that quickly deteriorates into unintentional hilarity.

Co-Written by Max Landis who allegedly sexually abused women, the opening salvo of obnoxious, predatory all male crew takes on a more sinister overtone than probably intended. Filled with gems such as ‘she has a face i’d like to fuck’ you get the general idea of the quality of the dialogue spoken here. It’s played for shock factor to a certain degree but when this continues for at least 15 minutes then you have to wonder wheter it is the only thing the writer actually has to say which is more than a little irritating.

For the first 40 minutes it is essentially a one women play. Self contained to a gun turret below the b17 bomber as Maude chats back and forth with her male counterparts. Besides the questionable dialogue exchanges it did have potential to make something claustrophobic and interesting. In the hands of a more skilled director we could have seen something different emerge. As it stands it feels laboured and forced in service of a creature that is only partially realised.

If you haven’t guessed it there is a gremlin on board the ship. Not that you needed to guess by the way, that is firmly rammed down your throat by an irrititating cartoon before the main film just in case you had a labotomy the week before and wouldn’t ‘get it’.

The other bizarre choice is how the crew is visualised when they talk to Maude. Stylised cutaways highlighted in red and green and a black background. This totally took me out of the movie and for no reason whatsoever other than to be ‘stylistic’.

But I digress the creature is for the most part well done. A hybrid rat/bat which terrorises Maude and the crew. The obvious comparison (And clearly copied) here is the episode of the twilight zone ‘nightmare at 10,000 feet’ which does a better job at creating a chaotic and suspenseful atmosphere. In this movie it seems as though suspense is an afterthought in service of trying to make something look cool.

Soon we realise that the package that Maude was carrying is, in fact, a baby and the father is one of the crew members on board trying to sequester her to a new country. No sooner has the creature invaded the bomber and he has taken the baby hostage.

Cue all sorts of death defying antics that literally make no sense physics wise to rescue her baby:

• Maude climbing underneath the belly of the bomber with a broken finger as the bomber speeds hundreds of miles an hour.

• Maude falls from the bomber hurtling through the sky to her death only to be blown back up into the plane by an explosion.

• Flying the bomber upside down to supposedly land correctly with only two functioning engines.

The list goes on and on..

By the time the finale swings around (besides the glaring fact that it makes no sense whatsoever as the creature hurtled to the ground miles away) it is a mano el mano fight to the death between the creature and Maude who suddenly has learned martial arts on her exit of the plane. She litterally beats the living shit out of the creature, pummeling it in the face, ending with a death strike using the creatures own claw as a weapon.

If the blatant over the top in your face feminism up to this point wasn’t enough then the last shot of Maude breast feeding her baby will surely tip you over the edge. My wife turned to me at that point and said to me “ God, that was a terrible movie, wasn’t it?” “Yes, yes it was” I replied.

Merry Christmas

View fullsize

Merry Christmas & Happy new year to you and yours. Let’s hope 2021 is waaay better than 2020! In the meantime stay well & stay safe.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Tenet movie review

“Armed with only one word, Tenet, and fighting for the survival of the entire world, a Protagonist journeys through a twilight world of international espionage on a mission that will unfold in something beyond real time.”

— imdb

As a filmmaker Christopher Nolan likes to take chances. In a CGI riddled film landscape he chooses to film almost entire without it, choosing a refreshing approach to shoot mostly all ‘in camera’. Oftentimes the plots of his movies are complex, multi-layered and, at the very least, interesting.

With Tenet Nolan has created a very polarising film. Some will laud it as a complex masterpiece while others, myself included, think it a messy, sometimes contrived plot littered with single dimensional characters.

It feels very much like a movie that has been edited and reedited to death, almost to the point where you can now see the seams of those edits.

Opening with a blistering pace at a amphiteathre we are introduced to ‘The protagonist’ (John David Washington) as he is unwittingly recruited into an ultra secret espionage group called Tenet. Someone in the future has figured out how to entropy objects, effectively sending them back through the same timeline without having to reverse time itself which has catastrophic implications for humanity, pitching us on course for world war 3 and the end of humanity itself.

The opening of the movie feels extremely disjointed. Introducing us in a very slight way to the character simply called the protagonist. As pitched, he is bond lite. A carbon copy minus the charisma and charm. As played by John David Washington he is almost characterless. Wheter that is down to the endless reams of exposition he is asked to say or the unweildy dialogue itself it is anyones guess.

But what is abundantly clear is the fact that he struggled with it seemingly different from scene to scene. There wasn’t anything for him to cling to to create a character so I would say it is a major flaw of the screenplay. As it stands he is sterile and cold like the plot itself lacking humanity. Which is in counterpoint to the second half of the movie where we are to believe a contrived love connection between himself and Kat, (Elizebeth Debicki) a put upon mol, with litterally zero chemistry between them.

Which places the whole female in jeopardy plot point into the realms of suspending disbelief. As the main antagonist Sator (Kenneth Branagh) struggles too. An unweildy russian accent, snarling at the screen like a panto villain. ( Sean Connery famously played a russian submarine commander using his own accent and I was totally on board with it.) So really one of the weakest parts of the movie is the characterisation itself and the constant use of exposition to move the plot along. It doesn’t help that certain sections of dialogue are deliberatly obscured by the mix.

That’s not to say that the movie is terrible, its not. There is interest to be had. The scenes involving time going backwards are inventive and interesting if, at times, a little unclear. The locations are great with some nice production design and photography.

On a technical level it is brilliant especially the end where two squadrans of soldiers, one going forward and one going backwards in time occupy the same space.

So the question really is how far can you suspend your disbelief and hang on deciphering a complex plot? If you enjoy Nolan’s movies you will definitely want to see it. The question remains wheter you will ultimately see it as a wonderous failure or potential future classic. To me it is neither a complete failure nor a classic decidedly in the realms of just passable.

Are you interested in a sequel to Alien: Covenent?

To me, Aliens (1986) was a sequel that got everything right. It never tried to be as scary as the original, taking only the elements that it needed and built them around a bombastic, sweat inducing roller coaster ride of suspense. Cameron knew his strengths - his ability to create compelling action set pieces - and stuck closely to them.

Underrated storywise, Aliens was razor sharp, (mostly)linear storytelling, gradually building in tension and suspense. It was a murky, used world that you wanted to revisit. A mechanical beast every bit as ugly as the titular character of the ‘alien’.

Since then the franchise has regurgitated often forgettable sequels. The degrees of sucess with them varying from interesting and flawed (Alien 3) to silly and forgettable (Alien ressurection).

When Ridley scott decided to come back and create a whole set of prequels I was very interested in where the story could theoretically go. With ‘Prometheus’ the story was at least sounded interesting, a deviation of sorts from the standard alien fare, asking many questions but giving very little in terms of answers. This, unfortunately, seems to be the hallmark of Damon Lindelof’s writing style, heavy on mysteries that never get answered in a satisfying way.

The movie proved to be a visual feast for the eyes. Scott’s eye for visual storytelling and production design has never wavered. His movies are always interesting to look at. And Prometheus was no exception, given a glossy retooling, tossing out the ‘used’ aesthetic of the original alien movies. The weakest element was ironically the story and certain characters; it never felt fully cohesive often grasping at concepts and ideas, never commiting to answer them.

Which, given the setup it was a surprise to many that the tone of the next prequel changed quite a bit. Gone are the engineers and the search for the answers to mankinds existence. Alien: Covenent was a reluctant step back to the alien mytholgy. It felt like Scott wasn’t as invested in telling this tale. At times painting by numbers, giving us obligatory, half hearted scenes, while pretty to look at, felt a little hallow. It wasn’t remotely scary or apart from the opening forty minutes, particularily suspenseful. Not that it was bad, it wasn’t. It was just a little underwhelming.

“I still think there’s a lot of mileage in Alien, but I think you’ll have to now re-evolve. What I always thought when I was making it, the first one, why would a creature like this be made and why was it traveling in what I always thought was a kind of war-craft, which was carrying a cargo of these eggs. What was the purpose of the vehicle and what was the purpose of the eggs? That’s the thing to question — who, why, and for what purpose is the next idea, I think.”

— Ridley Scott on Alien franchise & what's next

Cut to: 2020 and Scott has signed on to make another prequel tentatively called Alien:awakening. Given the recent take over of Fox by Disney it will be interesting how adult in tone a new Alien movie will be. As a fan of the original series, it would a huge disappointment to have a sanitised, pg version. This would surely put a final nail in the coffin of the franchise.

As it stands Alien: Covenent made a lot less than Prometheus worldwide. Given the pressure on filmmakers to hit that magic 1 billion box office of Marvel movies it becomes more of a question of how sanitised the story will be to fall into fiscal line with other releases from Disney.

On another pertinant note: is where Ridley Scott headed with the prequels still interesting and can he make a final installment thrilling given we know where they will eventually end up?

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Carlito's way movie review

rss - email - your choice

“A Puerto Rican former convict, just released from prison, pledges to stay away from drugs and violence despite the pressure around him and lead on to a better life outside of N.Y.C.”

— imdb

Carlito Brigante, released after five years in prison finds himself back on the streets. With a plan to go straight this time he is unwittingly drawn back into the detritus. Clinging to a dream of escape to the bahamas, he hatches a plan to leave but he finds that there is no honour amongst theives…

Directed by Brian De Palma, Carlitos way is a glossy, gritty tour de force of suspence and great acting. In a lot of ways this was De Palmas best picture, controlled, great set pieces, interesting characters and a story that engages.

The movie spends no time settling into the story. After a brief and somewhat funny, slightly over the top Pacino (Carlito) monologue we are straight into Carlito’s story. He is a complex character with a set of honour codes that the newer generation no nothing about. He will quickly find out that honour will get you killed and its usually your best friend who will do it.

Although not the most original set up - prisoner trying to go straight this time but failing - Pacino makes the character his own. He is slightly more understated this time, more controlled. We feel his plight as a haggard, oldschool gangster who doesn’t want that life anymore. He is too old and too wise now.

The world has changed so much in five short years and he struggles to catch up. His best friend Davy Kleinfeld (Sean Penn) has changed too. A wiry haired gangster wannabe who defends criminals for a living. He’s come up in the world, flashing an endless flow of cash and unhealthy addiction to cocaine. Penn creates a memorable character, a sleazy scumbag who has no honour or backbone and will do anything to slither his way out of a jam. When a hit is put out on his life, Klienfeld will ask Carlito to crawl back into the underworld with him… with devestating results.

Undoubtedly one of de Palmas strengths as a filmmaker is his ability to create suspence and hold onto it for extended periods of time. indeed in Carlitos way he creates quite a few memorble set pieces of particular highlight a train station sequence that skillfully builds and builds in tension.

He is a master technician, his camera work almost a character in its own right. To some he is a copy cat of Hitchcock while others feel he is steeped in film knowledge. To me he is an interesting filmmaker, often great, sometimes less so, but when he is on form as he is here there are very few who are better, if any.

There is a bone of contention with Carlitos way and that is the opening, which if you havn’t seen it stop reading now…

To me, on a rewatch, it slightly ruins the film. We open on Carlito as he is carted away on a gurney. The way it is shot clearly you are meant to take it that he is destined for the morgue which ruins the final act in the train station. Carlito is desperately trying to catch a train and his dream of a life away from crime when unexpectedly he comes face to face with ‘Benny Blanco from the bronx’ (a brilliant turn by John Leguizamo) - a carbon copy of a younger self that he dismissed as a ‘nickle bagger’ - coming to inflict a deathly blow and a final nail in the coffin of Carlito’s dream.

Without this opening, the ending would have been far more shocking and effective. As it stands now it is less so.. even though you could argue that he was destined never to make that dream a reality, telegraphing it like this was a misstep in an otherwise brilliant movie.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

'Mimic' movie review

Follow us: email (right in your 📧 email in box, rss feed - your choice!

“Three years ago, entomologist Dr. Susan Tyler genetically created an insect to kill cockroaches carrying a virulent disease. Now, the insects are out to destroy their only predator, mankind.”

— imdb

Written and directed by Guillermo del Toro, ‘Mimic’ is a throw back movie similar in tone to invasion of the body snatchers. Due to studio interference by Miramax (Harvery Weinstein), Del Toro’s vision undermined and questioned, often being asked to ‘make it more scary’ and less cerebral or suffer being fired from the job. Which is hardly surprising as Weinstein is often cited as being a childish bully. To the point where Del Toro was deliberately trying to make each shot interesting visually so he at least could show future potential investers that the movie wasn’t a complete disaster should he be dismissed.

This was Del Toro’s second feature film. Coming from an independent world where you are often in charge of your own fate with no overseers looking over your shoulder, questioning every shot and dime spent. In a lot of ways it was a baptism of fire and one that nearly broke his fledgling career. Indeed Del Toro would state that if it wasn’t for Mira Sorvino he would have been dismissed and his career might not be what it is today.

The movie starts off brightly enough as an outbreak of cockroaches carrying stricklers disease cripples New York, causing kids to get seriously ill. With no chance of therapeutics or a vaccine the CDC is tasked with solving the crisis. Dr Susan Tyler (Mira Sorvino) engineers a noval solution ‘the judas breed’, designed to erradicate the cockroach population and take with it the disease that is killing children. Cut to three years later with stricklers disease in the rear view mirror, a new breed of predator creeps up from the depths..

It’s a visually interesting film, there are echoes of other films like the relic and aliens but it has its own sensibility. There are hints of Del Toros work there but they are sporadicaly scattered throughout it. The film has more of a B movie aesthetic than I would imagine the original concept to have been so there is a sense incoherence and jump cutting.

Characterwise the movie doesn’t fair very well, they are stock tropes there just to service the story rather than enhance it. Sorvino turning in Ripley lite; tortured by frankenstein syndrome when her creation has a life of its own. Jeremy Northam doesn’t fair so well he struggles to get to grips with an unruly american accent and a character that is just beyond his grasp.

But really are you watching a movie like this for the characters? in truth its the monsters, the situations and the creep factor. The effects are good created by Rob Bottin (The thing); slimey and grim. However, it isn’t particularily scary but it does have a selection of effective set pieces.

With far too many contrivances and convenient set ups the movie descends into silliness by the end. You are left questioning what could have been without studio interference.. but such is the long history of commerce versus creativity in the movie business. Oftentimes what could have been is the moniker for just ok or passable when it had the potential to be good or great.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

The directors' series - Guillermo Del Toro

Takes you directly to ‘follow it’ to follow our blog via multiple channels - rss, email - your choice!

Not a review (one coming soon, however) but an interesting interview with Guillermo Del Toro (Blade 2, mimic etc)on his process, work and start in the entertainment industry. I would have wished for it to be a little bit longer and more indepth but such is the medium of television. His time directing ‘Mimic’ seems like it was tough being questioned about literally everything all because of budget and the bottom line. But then again commerce and art very rarely seem to mix.

So sit back, grab a coffee and enjoy ☕

If embed doesn’t work correctly here’s the link directly on youtube

6 Horror movies for halloween

Not exactly a review more a list of movies to watch and enjoy over the halloween period.

So settle in, grab a coffee and watch some highly effective, creepy entertainment.

Train to busan

An exellent adrenaline fueled zombie apocalypse movie set, not surprisingly, on a train. In a lot of respects better than most hollywood movies that use a similar formula. Highly recommended.

---

The babadook

A quietly unsettling thriller about a young widow learning to live with her 6 year old son. Trouble begins when the babadook creeps from the pages of a childrens book into the real world..

---

The descent

A creepily effective survival movie where a caving expedition goes horribly wrong for a group friends when they unwittingly come face to face with an ancient evil.

---

A quiet place

A creepy suspense thriller set in a post apocalyptic world where making a sound will be your undoing.

---

The thing

John Carpenters haunting and effective monster epic. Often copied but never equaled. Still excellent gorey special effects by Rob Bottin.

---

Eden lake

A couple unwittingly stumbles upon a group of wayward teenagers with evil intentions. A creepy, edge of your seat thriller.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Alien resurrection movie review

“200 years after her death, Ellen Ripley is revived as a powerful human/alien hybrid clone. Along with a crew of space pirates, she must again battle the deadly aliens and stop them from reaching Earth.”

— imdb

In a lot of ways the premise for Alien Resurrection is ludicrous. Ripley, burnt in a gigantic furnace at the end of Alien 3, has been cloned back into existence. Where exactly did they got her DNA from is anyone’s guess and the subject is wisely avoided in the screenplay.

Putting aside the fact that Alien 3 gave Ripley’s character a fitting end to her character - sacrificing herself to save humanity taking an alien queen with her - Alien Resurrection does at least give Ripley’s character an interesting wrinkle: how much of her is human or Alien after the cloning. They play with this in the script for a short time but it is jettisoned in favour of action and comedy.

Written by Joss Whedon who would go on to make Buffy the vampire slayer and Avengers and directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet (delicatessen) as a dark action comedy.

It is probably fair to say that Alien Resurrection is the least interesting in the franchise of movies. It relies more on humour than atmosphere and dread which are the hallmarks of the alien series. Not as visually striking as the other movies in the series despite some nice sets and a bigger budget. Perhaps due to the choice of grungy aesthetics which worked better in the previous films. It’s a very mixed bag - heavy on gore and slime and weak on story and characterisation. The only character given anything to work with is Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) the others are slight and single dimensional.

Winona Ryder and Dan Hadeya should get special mention here, one playing an android like her charisma batteries had run dangerously low and the other auditioning for Spaceballs the movie - his death scene hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

Not to say that its terrible, it's not. It does have some interesting sequences primarily the underwater chase which is really good. The biggest issue besides the ott one liner approach is the fact that the movie isn't remotely scary or really that intense. Gone are the sweaty intense sequences being replaced by something more predicable and by the numbers. It feels more like a series of scenes cobbled together than a cohesive story.

The ending where the ship is on course to land back on earth releasing aliens on an unsuspecting populace is halfheartedly explored almost to the point that we don’t care. It’s an after thought to get characters from set A to set B with a few wisecracks thrown in for good measure.

I read Joss whedons original screenplay before the movie even came out in the late 90s. There was some very interesting sequences that didn't make the cut: an extended chase through a biosphere where aliens were attacking left and right and the hybrid alien which was a bizarre, albino blood sucking spider Alien. The script had potential but it was constructed the same as the eventual film. So despite Whedon claiming that they (The filmmakers) ruined his screenplay I would wager that it is largely intact. The only notable change being the ending which was much better in the screenplay than the movie.

Speaking of which the hybrid alien human match up when it is eventually revealed is very underwhelming. As a design it’s neither scary nor particularly articulate. Its a wonder this design wasn’t scrapped in favour of something better. The original screenplay called for something more interesting - a hybrid alien/human spider with distinct red markings.

Which brings us back to the budget - perhaps it was too expensive, jettisoned along with the other action sequences from the script. Taking with it a sense of originality. At its core there was an interesting premise: Ripley as a hybrid - part alien part human.

Which sort of sums up the movie really. A watchable mess that has interesting elements coupled with eye rolling moments.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Alien 3 Movie Review

“After her last encounter, Ellen Ripley crash-lands on Fiorina 161, a maximum security prison. When a series of strange and deadly events occur shortly after her arrival, Ripley realizes that she has brought along an unwelcome visitor.”

— imdb

Very few movies have had the troubled start that Alien 3 had. Multiple screenplays - some more bizarre than others including a reportedly weird fairy tale echoing the seven dwarfs, a western influenced space station and a planet made out of wood inhabited by monks.

It’s little wonder that the film is disjointed and incomplete as it is. Without a cohesive screenplay as a road map its difficult to bring stories like these to screen. It’s nigh on impossible if you aren’t backed as a director and the studio you work for has no faith in your ability to deliver. David Fincher was in an untenable position, trying to deliver a Gothic and very bleak take on an alien movie while being constantly undermined and questioned.

I for one, would have been interested to see his completed vision. In some ways it’s present in the ‘assembly cut’ which features some of what Fincher had intended for the movie but is missing the scope and the spectacle. As reported in the making of documentary for the film he wasn’t allowed to film sequences because they were too expensive. Which is bizarre considering they had to do six weeks of additional filming when production wrapped in the UK which incurred more expense I would wager.

But such is the problem when ego, creativity and commerce clash. It is never going to end well for the film.

As it is the film looks great for the most part, (apart from the terrible optical effects work) sweeping wide angle shots filled with smoke and shadow. There is a creative vision at play. An oppressive world filled with bleak characters living out their days in the arse end of space. These ‘lifers’ choosing God and celibacy until their day ends. Enter Ripley, a female offering temptation and a glimpse of a world they have chosen to forget unwittingly bringing an Alien creature whose sole purpose is to wreak havoc with the lonely inhabitants.

Closer to the original Alien in tone, Alien 3 is a weirdly disjointed movie. Bleak, sometimes stunning and others infuriating. Its a mixed bag that never really takes off. Which is a shame as it had potential with its signature style of low angle shots and incredible industrial Gothic sets.

The physical effects work is great as well as the alien costume. It’s major failing is the optical effects by Richard Edlund which at the time I thought looked fake never mind nearly thirty years later. The ‘dog alien’ a challenge to make look real as well as do actions that we’re beyond the puppetry and fx capabilities at the time. It’s clear to see the flaws with matte lines around the alien from compositing issues.

Whenever you cut between live action and optical puppet the differences are night and day. The issue with scale apparent in the above shot compared to the life size animatronic head used for the iconic close up. In today’s CGI environment it would be much easier to achieve the desired look and blend both together almost seamlessly.

The cast deliver committed performances under what I would imagine was quite a difficult situation - Daily changes to script being one of the more demanding. Charles Dutten (Dillen) is a highlight as the ring leader of the inmates as is Sigourney Weaver and Charles Dance.

Overall it’s an enjoyable movie perhaps not quite as engaging or exciting as the previous two but certainly a worthy entry into the franchise. It is an often asked question: what would the movie have been if Fincher had been given more time to prep and left to create his vision? In that regard we will never know but suffice to say that it would have been a tonally more cohesive effort and perhaps grander in scale. What is clear is it would have been a more interesting movie as a result. As it stands, its frustrating, at times brilliantly conceived and others a bit sloppy and incoherent.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Point Break (1991) movie review

“An F.B.I. Agent goes undercover to catch a gang of surfers who may be bank robbers.”

— imdb

Fresh out of quantico recruit Johnny Utah (Keanu Reeves) ‘a blue flame special’ is partnered with seasoned FBI agent Pappas (Gary Busey) and tasked with cracking the case of the ex-presidents - A gung ho gang of bank robbers who have successfully evaded arrest and robbed Twenty-seven banks in three years. The ex-presidents are good at what they do. In and out within 90 seconds and leave no trace of themselves behind. Pappas has a theory - a crazy wild theory - that the ex-presidents are surfers. Together they investigate the surfer scene in the hopes that they can flush out the gang.

Opening on beautiful slow motion majestic surfing shots intercutting with hyper aggressive target range practice by Utah (Reeves) it perfectly encapsulates Point Break . A stylish action thriller which tries to capture moments of calm philosophy with explosive action. Directed by Kathryn Bigelow and written by W.Peter Iliff. At the time, Kathryn’s then husband James Cameron suggested that the final shooting screenplay was re-written by him and not Iliff (Iliff was paid a paltry $6,000 dollars to write the screenplay for Point Break) although Cameron is never given screenwriter credit he is on hands as executive producer.

Bigelow’s aggressive style holds the movie together in what many would consider a very standard plot. FBI agent infiltrates a gang and finds a kindred spirit that he both loathes and loves in equal measure.

Patrick Swayze as Bodhi is brilliant as the zen surfer cum criminal mastermind. The foil to Reeves straight laced ‘Blue flamer’. It’s clear that Reeves struggled at times in the acting stakes not nearly as commanding or astute as Swayze especially given some of the clunky lines that Swayze had to deliver - ‘It’s where you lose yourself and you find yourself’ - Referring to what riding waves is all about. Yet he makes it play, convincing you of his aura of a ‘messiah’ of the waves. It is a ‘bromance’ of hostile thrill seeking each not willing to back down from the other. Adrenaline junkies, with each high bigger than the last

Gary Busy is great as the wise and grizzled Pappas. Not that you’re coming to this movie for thespian-like acting. It’s all in the action and Bigelow delivers. It’s kinetic and fast paced, visually appealing stuff.

A particular highlight a foot chase midway through the film where Utah chases one of the ex-presidents through alleys, back gardens and houses in pursuit of ‘getting his man’. Bigelow and cinematographer Don Peterman films with long lenses in an anamorphic style that draws you in while still giving you a sense of location and depth.

Not that everything in the plot makes sense. It’s obvious from early on who the ex-presidents are yet it takes a long time to get to that reveal. Even then Utah goes on a sky diving ‘adventure’ with them. Indeed the movie is at its strongest when it focuses on the action. In that regard it’s a tour de force of excellent action direction. A brash and in your face aesthetic that are hallmarks of Bigelow’s style in the 90s.

Overall Point break is an excellent film and far better in every way than the subsequent remake in 2015 which substituted physical action for an unengaging CGI mess.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

Aliens 1986 movie review

“Ellen Ripley is rescued by a deep salvage team after being in hypersleep for 57 years. The moon that the Nostromo visited has been colonized, but contact is lost. This time, colonial marines have impressive firepower, but will that be enough?”

— IMDB

Marginalised by a corporation that is only interested in the bottom line, Ripley is once again thrown, quite literally, to the wolves. Partnered with a group of Gung-ho colonial marines they embark on a rescue mission to LV-426 where contact has been lost with terra-forming colonists.

Made for an impressive limited budget (By today’s standards) of 18 million Dollars Aliens is the muscular sequel to the more sedate and measured Alien. With only a minor increase in budget from the original, James Cameron manages to infuse the movie with tension driven action while still keeping the underlying sense of dread that was pervasive in the original Alien.

Not an easy thing to do considering you’re already dealing with the dreaded sequel-itis where lovers of the original movie will be looking for more of the same. It’s testament to Cameron’s ability to know his strengths as a skilled action director that he took the franchise in this direction.

There’s a certain madness to film directing especially when there isn’t enough time nor budget to do what you really want to do and compromise is unfortunately the only option. Couple that with facing a crew who didn’t necessarily share Cameron’s vision or for his abrupt mannerisms and you have tensions that mirror those of the onscreen characters. It’s a wonder the film turned out as good as it has.

Ripley’s character is fully fleshed out making her strong and vulnerable at the same time. It is undoubtedly Ripley’s movie even with all the machismo on display, Cameron deftly infuses the story with consistent echos to motherhood, loss and family. Ripley’s strength as a character lies in her humanity equally with her ability to wield a weapon. She is a surrogate mother to Newt having lost her own child - a scene that should never have been cut from the theatrical release* - marooned in hypersleep for 57 years to find that life has quite literally moved on without her and promises have not been kept to her own child. She is a stranger in a strange new land, traumatised as much by her own choices as those enforced on her by an alien creature that kills ruthlessly without remorse.

Aliens is a tour-de force of design, action and suspense. Filled to the brim with a grungy used aesthetic borrowed from the first alien movie and enhanced. The sets are excellent and everything feels real. It’s impressive world building from costume design, art direction and cinematography. The late great cinematographer Adrian Biddle taking over duties after Cameron dismissed the first DOP.

Tinged with a metallic blue, harsh highlights and contrasty shadows. The grain in the film stock enhancing the used feel of the world, adding to the heavy smoke and atmospherics. James Horner’s score is excellent, foreboding and bombastic. Coupled that with the fact that almost every effect is practical, the acting is brilliant especially from Weaver and you have a winning combination.

The first half of the movie is all about the slow build up of tension. Arguably without this the subsequent action scenes wouldn’t have the punch or power that they do have. We’re along for the ride with these characters, stranded like they are, facing a legion of almost indestructible foes.

It’s very effective, building to a reveal in the finale that added to the original alien origin and ratcheted it up to ninety. The puppetry is brilliant as is the design of the creatures themselves especially the queen. We’re there along with Ripley - adoptive mother and daughter - determined not to repeat the mistakes of the past and keep her promise this time to newt..

When all is said and done Aliens is quite rightly heralded as a classic of the genre. Often copied but never outdone. The flip side of alien, it’s bombastic cousin. This time it’s war.

*included in the extended cut of the movie.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

BLUE STEEL 1990 MOVIE REVIEW

“A rookie in the police force must engage in a cat-and-mouse game with a pistol-wielding psychopath who becomes obsessed with her.”

— IMDB

Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Point Break) and written in partnership between Bigelow and Eric Red(The Hitcher, Body Parts). Blue Steel is an action thriller from the 90’s echoing movies like The Hitcher, in particular, where a deranged psychopath takes a liking to an innocent and proceeds to make their life a misery by any means necessary.

Megan Turner (Jamie Lee Curtis) is a brash, rookie police officer, fresh out of the academy. On her first night on the job she witness a robbery in progress in a store. While her partner is taking a leak in the can she decides to tackle the robber. When the robber refuses to cooperate she guns him down, emptying six rounds into his chest sending him through a window pane onto the sidewalk. When the robbers .44 magnum goes missing, Megan is put on suspension for using unnecessary force. From here Megan’s problems escalate when her name is etched into 44. bullet casings used by ‘the 44. magnum killer’ on innocent victims..

Opening on extreme close ups of the cold steel of a weapon, Blue steel is a stylish thriller. Tinged with a cast of blue Bigelow paints each scene with shadows, highlights and smoke filled interiors. There is a gritty visceral feel to the action. Hyper real slow motion shots punctuated by effective sound design. It’s a precursor to the superior Point Break, a honing of Bigelows muscular style in the 90’s.

Megan is the lonely female surrounded by her male counterparts; a subtle sexism underpins the movie. She is continuously asked ‘What made you become a cop?’ insinuating that she isn’t best suited for the job because of her sex. Jamie Lee Curtis is excellent in the role, at times vulnerable and others brash.

The late great Ron Silver plays Eugene Hunt, a stockbroker cum .44 magnum killer. The stolen .44 caliber weapon becomes like a god to him. A twisted fetish, treating this cold hard steel like it is an extension of his person. At one point he accidentally ‘exposes’ it to an innocent man on the street. Possessed by the urge for gratification he guns him down in cold blood. Indeed his need for power and control would grow from there. Killing a prostitute bathing in her blood for pleasure. Seemingly a god, killing without reproach, untouchable by the law.

It’s a great turn by Silver. He is an intelligent psychopath playing a cat and mouse game with his prey. The cold blue steel of a weapon the twisted toy between them. Indeed the movie somewhat glorifies weapons. Filling the screen with glossy close ups; a fetish of hard steel.

The interaction between Eugene and Megan is the saviour of the movie, the other characters are stereotypes there to fill plot conventions. Not that the movie is perfect, it’s not. The biggest glaring mistake being the fact that a 44. Caliber weapon doesn’t eject shells yet they are found at every crime scene with Megan’s name on it. That in itself is quite a big gaff.

Arguably the first half of the movie is the most interesting with the slow descent of Eugene into madness. The second half becomes a little disjointed asking you to suspend disbelief a few too many times.

The inclusion of a sex scene 20 minutes from the end, at first seems odd but it descends into an effective albeit nasty power play between Megan and Eugene. Not only has Eugene to control her but he has to also take away her sexual power. It is a creepy and effective scene utilising sound effects in a very potent way. Eugene has completed his metamorphosis into a fully fledged monster. The only recourse for Megan is to give him what he most desires to die at her hands in a duel to the death.

In the end Blue Steel is far from perfect but it is for the most part entertaining. A quick moving gritty thriller from the 90’s.

Get your review fix by email 🚀:

Subscribe

SEA FEVER MOVIE REVIEW

“The crew of a West of Ireland trawler, marooned at sea, struggle for their lives against a growing parasite in their water supply.”

— imdb

**Warning spoilers ahead**

Siobhan (Harmione Corfield) is an introverted scientist who struggles to interact with people. Her college charters a fishing vessel to monitor something (isn’t exactly made clear what - perhaps I didn’t hear because the dialogue mix isn’t the clearest) for statistical modelling. A rag tag bunch of life-long fishermen and women are initially thrown by Siobhan’s red hair - a curse of doom for fishermen - superstitious of red heads. They set sail off the west coast of Ireland to trawl for fish. Straying off course into a restricted zone they encounter a creature which latches onto the haul of the ship…

Siobhan - Sea Fever

Where do I start reviewing the movie Sea Fever? A sea faring B movie which borrows heavily from far better movies like ‘The thing' and Invasion of the body snatchers.

I had hoped it would at least attempt to add something different to the mix besides having it located in the west of Ireland (although it didn't look like Galway bay despite a fishing map showing otherwise - probably Sweden considering the investors). The biggest problem is it offered little in the way of tension. The opportunity was there to have a really tight, claustrophobic movie. All the details we're there: A crew afraid of the newcomer who happens to have red hair. The old sea faring superstitions coming to the fore. A bio luminescent creature which spreads parasites that finds humans to be the perfect host. Which is a shame really that the movie is executed in such an uninteresting way.

The screenplay offered little in the way of surprises. It was inconsistent, choc full of silly character motivations and stilted dialogue. In the end it was a bit of a bore. You’re hoping it picks up but it never really does nor does it help that some of the editing choices leave the movie feeling flat and lifeless, highlighting some of the less than steller acting. To be fair the screenplay doesn’t give the actors really much to work with - the characters for what they are are single dimensional. It’s all ‘oirish ' accents dipping and resurfacing, screaming at one another and saying nothing of interest.

In the end I didn't buy many of the characters for example: Siobhan (Harmione Corfield) is supposed to be a scientist yet it takes her to nearly half way through the movie to look at slime under a microscope despite taking a sample in a petri dish. When she first encounters the sea creature which incidentally has eaten through the hull of the ship - she purposely rubs slime between her fingers - good contamination control there. At one point she also argues that bleach wont kill the parasites. Why? She knew nothing about them. They are a new type of organism. Instead opting to electrocute the ship to kill them. Interesting idea - poorly executed in the film. It just happens. A few sparks and the mast head of the ship bursts into smoke. That’s it.

Looking for Parasites - Sea Fever

Speaking of the story: 1. The Captain’s decisions albeit driven by greed and the fact that they are behind in crew payments are completely nonsensical - once they escape the clutches of the sea creature they decide to catch fish despite the creature following them. They could have easily gone back out the very next day. It begs the question how far exactly did they travel to trawl for fish the whole point of the story is the fact that they’re 36 hours away from land yet the map looks like it shows them off the west coast of Ireland - I’ve been on a scientific fishing trawler off the west coast of Ireland, trawled for fish and been back in port by the evening. Sixteen hours tops. It just didn’t make sense to me. 2. Siobhan’s sudden insistence that the creature must be saved under the guise of a frail eco-friendly excuse then suddenly electrocuting the ship when the script needed a boost. The list goes on and on..

For a director as experienced as Neasa Hardiman I was expecting more really. Her script never really explores the body horror aspect despite the one really good scene where a fisherman’s eyes explode unexpectedly. After that it becomes a bit of damp squib. It doesn't know what movie it wants to be instead opting to be middle of the road never committing fully to anything.

On a positive note the bio-luminescent creature looks really nice and the effects of the creature are all quite well done. The cinematography for the most part is solid.

It’s just a shame the movie wasn’t claustrophobic, filled with anxiety, tension and fear. That’s the movie it should have been.

In the end would I watch Sea Fever again? No, probably not.

'Underwater' movie review

Underwater movie poster - movie review blog

“A crew of oceanic researchers working for a deep sea drilling company try to get to safety after a mysterious earthquake devastates their deepwater research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.”

— imdb

Set in the murky world of a deepwater drilling facility we open on Norah (Kristen Stewart) as she dresses, we assume, for her morning stint as a mechanical engineer on board of a massive drilling platform in the depths of the Mariana trench. Set in a heavily influenced ‘Alien’ grunge design aesthetic - from the long corridors to the deliberate slow moving camera movements - Norah is thrown into an emergency situation where the drilling platform is subjected to a massive earthquake, causing an evacuation.

It’s a great, fast paced opening. The effects are impressive and it’s easily one of the better sequences in the movie. Along the way Norah finds a rag tag group of employees. Together they must embark on a treacherous journey along the Mariana trench to find escape pods to the surface.

Diving preperation

Despite its obvious nods to Alien and the abyss I found the movie mostly entertaining. Kristen Stewart is often a very polarising actress, she has a somewhat limited range, but her performance here is quite good. Even through the script doesn’t ask very much of her. In fact it’s probably fair to say that the script doesn’t ask much of any of the actors. They are single dimensional characters, stereotypical of the genre adding nothing new.

A scene early on involving a ‘baby sea monster’ is a major misstep echoing far too closely a very famous scene from ‘Alien’. In truth the movie really wants to be ‘Alien’ underwater. From it’s grunge aesthetic to the lone female heroine and nods to scenes throughout the movie. Norah is Ripley lite, the reluctant hero. But what Alien had in abundance: Tension and suspense sadly Underwater lacks.

Kirsten Stewart - underwater

What it needed was a feeling of claustrophobia, being in the deepest part of the ocean under literal pressure where one misstep will cause you to loose your life. The movie didn’t feel very claustrophobic. For me it nearly would have made a better disaster movie without creatures in it at all. As it stands there is very little story to latch onto. The main plot is a series of narrow escapes, traveling from point A to B losing one crew member after the next.

For the most part the movie looks great, the design of the underwater suits are really nice. Cinematography is great and how they shot the underwater walking sequences are really impressive. It’s just a shame the creature design is a little uninspired.

I’m a huge fan of underwater movies like The abyss so this movie should have been right up my alley. For the most part I enjoyed it but I felt it strayed to closely to Alien at times which spoiled it quite a bit for me.

Overall the movie is very watchable and moves very quickly. If you’re looking for something more than that then you may be disappointed.

THE HUNT MOVIE REVIEW

the hunt poster - movie review blog

“Twelve strangers wake up in a clearing. They don’t know where they are, or how they got there. They don’t know they’ve been chosen - for a very specific purpose - The Hunt.”

— imdb

‘The hunt’ is based loosely upon Richard Connell’s 1924 short story ‘The Most Dangerous Game’ which incidentally has spawned many other movies such as Jean Claude Van Damme’s ‘Hard Target’ .

Given it’s well documented troubled release it finally landed on March 13th straight into a world wide pandemic and perhaps overly high expectations - although having watched the trailer I was less interested, it seems, than most.

Opening on a charter flight we are briefly introduced to a series of one dimensional ‘Elites’ who are carrying a special cargo for their hunt. A heavy handed revenge on a bunch of so-called ‘deplorables’ - 12 one-note men and women - equally one dimensional as the elites. This opening scene already a misstep ultimately adding nothing of real value bar setting up a mystery that isn’t a mystery involving Hilary Swank’s character. Which is bizarrely spoiled in the trailer for the movie.

I would argue that it would have been better to open the movie on the 12 ‘deplorables’ waking up in a field, tied and gagged trying to figure out what is happening to them. But I guess that would mean you would have to imbue some character beyond stereotypes to the individuals which unfortunately is sorely missing. Instead they are cannon fodder killed, in some instances, without uttering a word to camera.

As a result the writing comes across as lazy and uninspired. Not funny or satirical enough trying too desperately to draw parallels between itself and animal farm. Although there are moments of dark comedy mostly within the first 30 minutes of the movie. It is left to Betty Gilpin to give the movie interest - she is the highlight of the movie for me and her performance is very good it’s just a shame the movie around her isn’t up to the same level.

Structurally, the movie felt very disjointed. Flashbacks happen at inappropriate moments and there is very little in the way of tension or suspense. Perhaps that’s due to the fact that I’ve seen so many other movies in the the same ilk and it didn’t really add anything new to the mix.

The trailer and advertising would have you believe that the movie has some radical view point. Red state versus Blue state. In reality it didn’t take any stance at all trying to be edgy and apolitical at the same time. A sanitised product dressed up as something more.

The finale is a disappointing extended cat fight that tends to repeat itself until the silliest death in history leaves you thankful that the movie was only 90 minutes long.

When all is said and done The Hunt is average at best.