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.

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

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

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

'The silence' movie review

movie review blog - maldeegan.com/blog

“When the world is under attack from terrifying creatures who hunt their human prey by sound, 16-year old Ally Andrews (Kiernan Shipka), who lost her hearing at 13, and her family seek refuge in a remote haven.”

— imdb

Recently netflix have been doing more and more original content. With varying degrees of success, some better than others but all, at least, with an emphasis on content that you wouldn’t see a major movie studio investing money, especially not in this climate of comic book movie overkill. Its a least refreshing to see a studio investing in other material that isn’t cartoony comic book superhero extravaganza. An adult orientated adventure where there could be genuine stakes and not a falseness primed on the possibility of a ‘reboot’ if they don’t hit the ‘right demographic’.

In truth, their brave decisions don’t always work out. And this is the case with ‘The Silence’. An intriguing premise that actually pre-dates the far superior ‘A quiet place’. Some have said that netflix have copied a format that worked when in reality they were working from a book by Tim Lebbon called ‘the silence’ Released in 2015. So it begs the question of who was copying who here. The setup almost identical even down to a girl who is deaf and a family in jeopardy from blind creatures that hunt by hearing alone.

Without trying to spoil anything I will say that there are some effective scenes namely one where a car is parked on a side road. But the main problem here seems to be the fact that Director John R. Leonetti hasn’t embraced the material. A potential for scares and tension that ‘ A quiet place’ mastered. It didn’t help that the creatures in ‘The silence’ where a type of hybrid bat that wasn’t set up in a frightening way. They seemed far too simple to kill. Setting aside the obvious plot holes or the fact that we didn’t really get to know the main protagonists aside from their limited family dynamic, the plot just didn’t really engage.

The start had potential and they could have gone in a number of different directions (I haven’t read the book so I can’t say whether this closely mirrors the plot of the source material) instead taking it down a tired path that held very little tension. With, at times, some very shoddy CGI creatures and potential setup that didn’t result in a satisfying conclusion we have a feature film that has potential but falls flat and lifeless.

The ending where they meet a group of religious fanatics, again had potential but how that concludes was just as unsatisfying and worst still irritating because it just.. well ends on a weird abrupt note. Three or so minutes later and we have an epilogue that feels rushed and out of place. Either they ran out of money or the screenwriter had sequel squarely in his mind. Either way potential ruined. There could have been hints of ‘The road’, a harsh climate where having a family is dangerous in itself.

But that isn’t the case we are instead delivered a type of B movie with quite large plot holes. Not that ‘A quiet place’ didn’t have plot holes either, it did. There was just enough ingenuity and tension to suspend your disbelief so you could get on board with the story. It also help immensely that you actually got to know the family in the movie. In this, the criminally under utilised Stanley Tucci is hand cuffed into a nothing role where he is given very little bar a few minor scenes to play with.

In the end ‘The Silence’ is a pale photocopy of ‘A quiet place’ where the original stands head and shoulders above it in execution. Which is a shame really as the story had potential.

** out of *****

Like what you see? Then consider sharing our page. Go on, you know you want to.