PROMETHEUS REVIEW (SPOILERS)

Warning! Spoilers! Do not read on if you haven't seen the film!

Seriously! This review is comprised of HUGE plot details!

Still here? Okay then, onwards & upwards...

For many of us Alien fans, it seemed as though Prometheus was exactly what we'd been waiting for. Initially announced as a direct Alien prequel, the film then took on screenwriter Damon Lindelof (Lost, Star Trek) who altered, from what I hear, the majority of the film. Scott vehemently denied that Prometheus was going to be a direct prequel to Alien, teasing us with lines like, "Fans will recognize the DNA of Alien". And while I can confirm the film is indeed a prequel, telling the origin story of the Space Jockey race, the film is almost also a stand-alone exploration of creation, wonder and fear.

Prometheus starts out with beautiful high flying shots of Earth, presumably billions of years ago, right when the unknown creature, presumably Prometheus, sacrifices himself in order to give life to the planet. His body is thrown into a thunderous waterfall, spreading his DNA throughout the river. We then cut to the year 2089 in the Isle of Skye in Scotland, where scientists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover an ancient cave painting of a God-like creature, standing amongst early homo-sapiens, pointing to the stars. It just so happens, this depicted constellation, matches several other cave paintings from throughout many other civilizations, so the pair are hired by Weyland corporations to travel to LV-223 (the central planet in the cave paintings) to unravel the mystery of the God-like creatures.

The rag-tag group that accompanies them is comprised of David the Android (Michael Fassbender), Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), Captain Janek (Idris Elba), Fifield (Sean Harris) and many others. David awakens the crew after two years in cryogenic sleep to see they've arrived on the jagged-rock desert planet. Things quickly move on from here, with the team gathering their gear in order to explore whatever facility they can find.

This being the origin story of the Space Jockeys, the film doesn't waste time addressing them. Only a brief time is spent inside the haunting, dark chambers of the alien facility before we see a chilling hologram of the creatures in their last moments before death. It's here that the film begins to spin it's intriguing web of mystery. Who are these 'Engineers'? And how did they find themselves wiped out? Or are they all dead? Admittedly, while these questions that are fascinating and the pace keeps you enthralled, it is also at this point in Prometheus where the script begins to get caught up in itself. One minute we'll be addressing a threat inside, then the film will cut and run to another scene altogether, often not returning to conclude the thread it brought up in the first place. The question's structure is the problem. And Prometheus is a true paradox for this reason. It's an Alien film, but not an Alien film. There are two films sown together here, an Alien prequel and a grand space-exploring epic; and the two don't often gel together so smoothly as the filmmakers would like.

Undoubtedly, what makes the film work so well is the Android character, David, and the extraordinary performance by Michael Fassbender. One part HAL, one part Peter O' Toole, David is a fascinating character, proving to be more likable than any of the human characters he interacts with. He's like an alien himself, struggling to truly understand human emotions and motivations, all the while wishing he were more like them himself. There comes a point in the film when David drugs Holloway with the oil-like substance found in the chamber's urns. And this is where it gets interesting. Is David intentionally poisoning the crew in order to bring his creator's a sample of the specimen (after all, the specimen would more than likely have a better chance at survival if it were incubating in a human host)? Or was there an actual emotionally driven reason for it? Did he poison the doctor because of the way he was being treated aboard the ship? I find it more likely that he was programmed or ordered to infect a crew member by Peter Weyland himself, but it's nice to theorize. But one thing's for sure. Prometheus is Michael Fassbender's film. Rapace and Elba turn is really solid performances, too, but Fassbender elevates the film with his calming, but slightly menacing, robot.

As for the 3D. Prometheus is essential viewing in the format. Cinematographer Dariusz Wolski brings his A game to the project with some of the most beautiful imagery I've ever seen in cinema. The opening scene is just a wonder to behold in three dimensions. Scott and Wolski really make the most of the desolate-looking Reykjavik locations, and combined with the 3D, gives you a sense of immersion like never before. For years I've been staunchly against the technology but I have to admit, Scott's use of the extra dimension is smart and additive, like Scorsese's Hugo.

In the end, Prometheus is a very, very good film. Yes, there are some underdeveloped characters. Yes, there are some minor plot holes. But Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof have created a wonderful science fiction story. One that answers some questions raised in 1979's Alien, while asking some provocative new ones. And it should be praised for not explaining everything. Cinema is imagination and audience participation. So the puzzles not solved are left open for you to decipher on your own. With it's solid story, pacing, direction and performances, Prometheus is a real treat and I have a feeling that those who are raging over it this weekend are the ones that expected Alien 5.

IS BLADE (1998) THE MOST UNDERRATED COMIC BOOK FILM?

Hey folks, it's been awhile.

My attention was recently drawn to an article from the ever-awesome guys at Hitfix in which they chose and discussed their Top 10 most underrated comic book films of all time. Included on the list are Constantine (2005), Hulk (2003) and Dick Tracy (1990). Some baffling picks, some I wholeheartedly agree with. Also included on the list was Guillermo Del Toro's sequel, Blade II. Now, I'd been meaning to rewatch the trilogy for quite some time, so with the franchise in mind I sat back and watched all three. It's now that I feel obligated to discuss the Stephen Norrington-directed original 1998 film.

While I completely agree with Hitfix's assessment of Blade II, I have to say, after catching the film again after so long, I really find it to have not only aged very well, but also to be one of the most entertaining and wickedly dark comic book films ever made.

Released at the tail-end of summer 1998, Blade starred Wesley Snipes as the titular vampire slayer; a half-man, half-vampire hybrid who undertakes the mission of ridding the world of the blood-sucking undead. With his tough-as-nails partner, Abraham Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) and an arsenal of deadly weaponry, Blade sets out to destroy the leader of the vampires, Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff); the very same vampire that murdered his mother years before. And so the table is set for all manners of gory set-pieces and action a'plenty.

And there is bucket loads of gore and action (including some of the best practical effects work I've seen in a vampire movie). But that's not all there is. Blade is carried by a fantastic lead performance from Wesley Snipes (kind of ironic he played a superhero in a trilogy of successful films only then to go to prison...but that's besides the point) as well as a plethora of really great supporting roles filled out by really great actors. Stephen Dorff's portrayal of Deacon Frost is really rather brilliant. He layers his performance with a slithering creep factor unlike any villain in recent comic book flicks. His character compliments Blade's very well, too. Every so often we see Blade's stoic attitude interrupted by his pure, 'real' side (evident when the police shoot at him and he yells, "Motherfucker you outta your damn mind?!") which further cements his character as a real bad-ass, straight-edge hero with a strong and honest code. The flip-side to that being Deacon's morally-rotten soul. To Blade vampires are killers of the innocent and weak. To Deacon the innocent and weak are, as he so eloquently puts it, "cattle". And so you have this classic good vs. evil tale on top of Blade's origin and the imminent rise of La Magra (the vampire God).

While Del Toro's style is of course unique and often gorgeous, Norrington's visual style is much more suited to the franchise. Blade's universe is cold. Full of steel, concrete, metal and blood. And so Norrington and cinematographer Theo Van De Sande fill the screen with tight shots and subdued colors (the only really pronounced color is, suitably, red). Blade is often remembered for it's fantastic opening scene in which the titular slayer raids a nightclub called Bloodbath, but if you look beyond that, the scene is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The club is dark and cold with the only light being the white polish of the surrounding tiles. When the DJ hits the sprinklers and the place literally turns into a bloodbath, the red pops off the screen, letting you know the world in which we are; Blade's world.

I feel like both the original and the previously mentioned sequel need more attention from the masses. When I hear people discussing the best comic book films, the answer is more-often-than-not; Spider-Man 2 or The Avengers, etc. But 14 years ago Wesley Snipes, Stephen Norrington and screenwriter David S. Goyer brought us the one of the coolest, most violent and most fun adaptations of a comic book there's ever been.

So we need to stop forgetting that.

EDIT: Of course, I feel the need to mention that it's also an important film in that it's a very successful comic book film centered on an African-American character, which unfortunately, you don't see much of at all, with Black Panther & Luke Cage adaptations constantly collapsing.

THE RAID REVIEW

Watching The Raid at this year's JDIFF, I recalled a quote from action-icon Sylvester Stallone, regarding his stance on the genre itself. He said that action films should have a physical effect on you. That you should leave the theater with a thumping heart, sweaty palms and a sky-rocketing energy level. Stallone succeeded in giving me that exact feeling with his 2008 sequel, Rambo; a film that's thrilling, crazy violent and yet smart and emotional. Gareth Evans may have read that exact same quote too, as The Raid is surely the most intense and physical action film since Stallone's Rambo.

The Raid begins slow and silent, with our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) preparing for his early-morning mission to the slums of Jakarta. With his calm preparation over, Rama kisses his pregnant wife goodbye and sets off. The film wastes no time in diving straight into the titular raid, as the next scene is Rama and his fellow team members hauling-ass to the tower where the cities crime-lord is living among dozens of addicts, thieves, murderers and other assorted low-lives. Splitting into groups to two, the team enter the building and are shortly confronted by the swarms of villains that stand between them and their goal. 

While The Raid is, at first glance, a little light on plot, don't be fooled. It's smart and well-written with a tight storyline that's kept moving at breakneck speed. Admittedly, I was surprised at how much care and attention was given to the film's characters and story as opposed to the often poorly-written-with-amazing-action films that plague the genre. Here we have a fully realized hero, villain, supporting characters and honest and realistic motivations...as well as amazing action. 

And speaking of amazing action, The Raid contains some of the greatest displays of martial arts to ever grace the silver screen. Using the martial arts style Silat, Rama destroys enemy after enemy in gloriously gruesome and incredibly choreographed ways. The team moves from guns to knives to their fists as the action gets better and better, building to new heights of Holy-Shit madness. The action is also technically flawless, as the editing, direction, stunt choreography and soundtrack all come together to create action-exquisiteness. It really has to be seen to be believed. 

I'd heard that director Gareth Evans' first film, Merantau, cemented him as a talented filmmaker on the way up, but with his work here, I'd be surprised if people don't hold him up against the likes of John Woo in the future. The Raid is a masterpiece of action cinema. You have never seen anything like it. 

CHRONICLE REVIEW

WARNING: this review contains minor SPOILERS!

The found-footage sub-genre has long been a staple in the horror world. There are countless entries and it seems recently we've been inundated with piss-poor efforts such as Apollo 18 and Paranormal Activity 3. It's also one of cinema's biggest enigmas. Each new found-footage film seems to get an all-round beating from audiences across the globe only to go on and make millions and millions of dollars (I'm looking at you, The Devil Inside). And so it was with genuine reluctance that I entered the movie theater this morning to catch an early showing of 20th Century Fox's Chronicle.

Chronicle takes the found-footage basic rules and applies them to the other hugely popular sub-genre; superheroes. The film begins with Andrew (Dane DeHaan), the lonely, isolated high-schooler, setting up his camera in the mirror. Stomping and shouting outside his bedroom door is his abusive alcoholic father, Richard (Michael Kelly). This is where we learn the reasoning for the camera; Andrew tells his father he's going to continue to film everything, both inside and outside the house, perhaps in hopes this warning will curb his father's beatings. It's a very interesting idea and it makes for a hell of a better reason than the usual "the world should know what happened here today" bullshit. Later we're introduced to Andrew's cousin, Matt (Alex Russell) and his friend Steve (Michael B. Jordan), just as the trio discover a mysterious glowing stone buried deep in a cavern near a party the boys are attending. The glowing stone seems to emit some type of radiation that then gives the boys their super-powers such as flight, invulnerability and psychokinesis. It's here that director Josh Trank fast-forwards to get into the meat of the story, not concerned with telling us where the stone came from or what it is.

The next 30 minutes or so play out roughly as we'd expect; one super-powered prank after another, each showcasing the boy's growing strength and control over their abilities and the abilities themselves. Each fantastical stunt builds onto one another until we reach the film's astonishing climactic set-piece. And it's here that Chronicle really soars. The finale is so well-realized that it'll leave you with your jaw on the floor. Trank applies a few sneaky tricks to work around the questionable constant-camera technique that plagues found-footage films (really, why would you keep filming in the midst of a battle, chase or disaster?) including S.W.A.T. cameras, news helicopters and CCTV cameras. Chronicle most resembles the classic hero archetype in it's final moments. It's the epic battle between good and evil. It's the birth of a hero and the death(?) of a villain. By the end, you'll have forgotten all about the found-footage angle of the film, which is a success in my books. Instead you'll be sucked into the character's story and their all-too-relatable emotions (and the great special effects, of course).

I find that one scene in Chronicle captures my delight with the film perfectly. When the trio first learn they can fly, they quickly soar to the sky to play a game of 1,000ft-high football. As they're wizzing through the sky, we get some really beautiful footage of the clouds and the landscape below, with the sun setting far in the distance. It reminded me of Warner Bros.' original teaser trailer for Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie in which we first heard the tagline, "You will believe a man can fly". Chronicle has almost had the same effect on me as Donner's superhero classic. I feel like a kid again, one that daydreams of shooting through the sky, faster than a bullet, away from my troubles and strife's. That's kind of the point of it all. And director Josh Trank, Dane DeHaan and the rest have created a wonderful superhero story and a piece of pure escapism for all of us who ever dreamed we could fly.

JOE CARNAHAN IS REMAKING DEATH WISH. THIS IS GOOD NEWS.

Earlier this week the LA Times, through an unknown contact of their's in Warner Bros., announced that The Grey director, Joe Carnahan, will be writing & directing a remake of Charles Bronson's violent classic, Death Wish. And just tonight, Joe himself clarified a few things. Yes, he is doing the film. Yes, he will still make Killing Pablo. And finally this Death Wish will take place in the city of Los Angeles. In my eyes, Carnahan has proved himself to be a really great filmmaker, so I've confidence he can bring this story to life again in his own way. But with that said...

I have a love/hate history with remakes; some I genuinely love (My Bloody Valentine, The Fly, True Grit) and some I fucking hate (The Fog, The Taking Of Pelham 123 & Prom Night) but my one thought toward any remake that stays unwavering is this; Can the story work in our world today? Let's face it, we live in a pretty fucked up planet. Crime is at an all-time high. Our politicians have cheated & lied to us and the global economic meltdown has had a massive effect on us. So it's this thought that I think right now is the perfect time to remake Death Wish. If there ever was a time, it's right now. Michael Winner's original is dirty, gritty and violent. It shows us a side of New York we don't want to know; somewhere dark and frightening. And it worked so well in capturing the audiences thirst for justice. Bronson's Paul Kersey was the man we always wanted to be. The one that stands up to the bullies and criminals and scares them away with a ferocious "Fuck You". He's almost the righteous character, cleaning the streets and making it safe again. Making it the world we want to live in. If Carnahan can recreate this story and alter it in his own way to fit the modern world, we could be looking at a really great film.

In this world, we as an audience need guys like Paul Kersey to shit-kick the bad guys so as we don't have to in real life. And right now, more than ever, audiences need that 90-minute release. So don't let us down, Joe. Give us a gritty, urban vigilante tale for the modern masses.

DO WE REALLY NEED THE OSCARS?

This week, the nominees for the 84th Academy Awards were announced in Los Angeles. The reaction to the nominations have been varied; some are surprised, some are shocked. But the general attitude most have to this year's nods seems to be that of total and complete apathy. So while some people ponder as to why Nic Refn's Drive received but one nomination, I'm going to tackle a far more important question...do we really need the Academy Awards anymore?

The Oscars has always been the center of attention to those in Hollywood. Ever since it's pilot ceremony in the Roosevelt Hotel on May 16th, 1929, the show has been a time for producers, directors, actors, writers, crew and cast to get together and nominate each other for various awards. The original ceremony ran for 15 minutes and AMPAS (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) handed out 12 awards as well as an Honorary award for Charlie Chaplin and his work in The Circus. Shortly after the award show, Louis B. Mayer spoke out about his creation of the awards. He said, "I found that the best way to handle filmmakers was to hang medals all over them...If I got them cups and awards they'd kill them to produce what I wanted. That's why the Academy Award was created". A lot can be taken from Mayer's statement, but could it confirm that the Oscars has always been a thinly-veiled show of vanity, not the celebration of cinema many take it to be?

Not a lot is known about the Academy's board of voters. As of this article, I've not found any information about the 5,783 cast, crew & producers that make up the group. A lot has been said in the past too about the committees political leanings and it's habitual isolation of filmmakers who disagree with their favourite policies, presidents or financiers (something I won't get into, purely because I'm not learned on the controversy), but it raises interesting questions. Was there another reason behind not giving Martin Scorsese a Best Director award until 2006's The Departed? Was the Paddy Chayefsky/Vanessa Redgrave incident at the 1977 Oscar ceremony a telling look at the show's inner workings (he scorned her for her politically-driven speech about "Zionist hoodlums" rather than merely thanking the Academy)? Perhaps there is a 'right way' to play the game as a filmmaker in Hollywood. A way that leads you to the back door, or to Oscar 'glory'.

During the awards season, there is always the same point that needs reinforcing and reiteration. Great cinema is great cinema, regardless of whether it's cast & crew receive little gold men for their work. A film like Drive, which I mentioned earlier, does not need a plethora of awards to affirm it's quality. It's a work of art, created by a storyteller and performed by a wonderful group of actors. Sure, it's nice to see your hard work recognized by your peers, there's no denying that, but the idea that a film's reputation lives and dies during the Oscar race is ridiculous. And that's not a bold statement, there really are people that believe if a film has been nominated for an Oscar, it is better than a film that has not. So it's this reason the awards are totally redundant. Drive, Shame, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, etc, are all fantastic films. And while they were largely ignored by AMPAS, we, as an audience, know that these are truly great films and we don't need a committee of right-wing suits to solidify that.

So maybe this year we'll all try something a little bit different. Instead of staying up all night to catch the 84th Academy Awards, we'll rent, buy or go to a good movie and get swept away in it's story and forget who gets what in which category.

LET'S TALK: TEASER TRAILERS

The most powerful tool at any studios disposal is undoubtedly the teaser trailer. Throughout the history of cinema, studios have used the teaser trailer to entice audiences all over the world to find the answers to the questions proposed in their sixty second clips. Teaser trailers work phenomenally well in planting an idea in our minds of what wonderful things we might see in our local cinema. They tells us, "We can't show you. You must see it for yourself".

And so with the release of 20th Century Fox's superb teaser for Ridley Scott's Prometheus, I've decided to take a look back at some of the greatest teaser trailers of our time. From horror, to sci-fi, to superhero epics, these trailers not only excite and intrigue, they often go on to become more popular and revered than the movies they represent. Find the list below.

SUSPIRIA 

Showing only about 25 seconds of footage, Suspiria's teaser is probably my favourite of all time. It's a beautiful and terrifying compilation; showcasing the wonderful lighting and direction but also giving you a the briefest taste of the horror that lies ahead. And that closing image of the slashed-up old hag dribbling blood while holding a knife above her head...really great stuff. The perfect teaser. 

HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES 

This teaser was released by Universal before director Rob Zombie had even begun principal photography. The ad was meant to pique the morbid curiosity in us all by hinting at the "worst crime in American history", similar to that of the poster of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which proclaimed, "Who will survive and what will be left of them?". Mostly released on VHS copies of other horror titles, the teaser for House of 1,000 Corpses is extremely effective. The imagery is extremely macabre, with hundreds of little wooden crosses surrounding investigative teams as they pull body after body out of the dirt. And what's even better is that the way the teaser is shot, it's almost as if we are an onlooker at the scene, desperate to know but excluded from the grizzly details. And the only way to find out said details? Go and see House of 1,000 Corpses. 

SUPERMAN RETURNS 

Regardless of the quality of the completed film, the teaser trailer for Superman Returns embodied everything a fan could ever want from a big screen adventure for the man of steel. Each hallmark in the life of Kal-El is brought to life by director Bryan Singer and we get a test of how his life will eventually go from small town boy to savior of the world. The accompanying John Williams music takes the trailer to another level; one of cinematic wonder so strong it'll leave you with goosebumps. And massive plus points for this teaser ending with our hero in an almost meditative state above the planet earth. Beautiful stuff.

PSYCHO 

What a great little quirky teaser! For such a dark, terrifying film. A fantastic piece of advertising; director Alfred Hitchcock gives us, the audience, a tour of the set of his newest thriller, Psycho. The motel, the house, the grounds, all are explored as Hitchcock remains deliberately secretive as to what kind of crime actually took place here. Was it a theft? Rape? Murder even? Of course, Hitchcock eventually indulges us and shares some of the building's secrets. And right as he's explaining the ghastly murder that took place in the motel's bathroom...well, watch and see. It's a powerful teaser trailer that sucks you into the mystery of it all and leaves you with more questions than answers.