Gibson has been on the rough end of Hollywood for well over a decade, if its not his off-screen antics, it’s his on-set antics that have prevented Gibson from being the number one star in Hollywood he was some twenty years ago. His climb back up the ladder starting with Edge Of Darkness has been a long, slow process but with How I Spent My Summer Vacation, you really feel he has returned to top form.

You cannot help but draw a comparison to this movie and Brian De Palma’s Scarface, the prison that Gibson is incarcerated in feels very much like a more established Freedom Town, filled with the same level of low lives, and a similar class system. Towards the end of the movie as the prison falls under siege, again it echoes the final moments of Scarface’s Freedom Town.

What’s really nice about the movie is the sharp mix of fairly brutal violence, and some very dark wit, How I Spent My Summer at times is a really funny movie, the kind of funny that is not unfamiliar to Gibson, in fact you can’t help but see echoes of Martin Riggs (Lethal Weapon) in Gibson’s new incarnation. The comedy his you from very early on in the movie, as his character narrates over an action chase telling the audience something his mother said to him. As the movie progresses the humor generally combines with death, someone’s demise is lightened by some subtle comedy.

The story is nicely rounded, and you cant help but think that Gibson who starred, produced and contributed to the script has been working on this little project for sometime, there has been so much effort into making the perfect story, and to ensure that all aspects are flawless. There is not one point where you think, they could have taken the story that way, the journey goes exactly where you want it to go, and that does not make it predictable in any way, it just makes it right. Something that to be honest you never get to see in a movie, and this is the movies greatest power.

If you have a group of characters created individually, who operate in very different ways and occupy very different versions of the world (even if the developers insist it’s the same universe) it’s very difficult to get them to feel right in the same story. It works for characters who were designed to work together, the X-men and the Fantastic Four were originally written as groups and as such have a proper hierarchy and balance of characters that makes them work, but when you throw too many characters from separate comics together, it can get messy pretty quickly.

So kudos to Marvel Studios for not only giving this difficult setup a go on the big screen, but also for having this planned all the way through. I for one was so keen to look out for clues to the wider plot I went to see films about characters I really had no interest in (sorry Captain America, but I’ve never been a fan). It was an ambitious project and now we can finally see the results. Is it worth the wait? Well… sort of.

If you’ve already gone through the preceding films, you’ll already be familiar with most of the main characters and if you haven’t the next paragraph might seem a more than little ridiculous. Nick Fury, the eye-patch sporting agent of shady government organisation SHEILD, has to gather together a bunch of disparate heroes after the Norse god Loki steals some magical energy macguffin and threatens to destroy the earth. So Fury rounds up World War II super-soldier Captain America, arrogant playboy genius Iron Man, and anger-management nightmare the Hulk, to join the two unfortunate heroes that didn’t get their own films, Black Widow and Hawkeye. After Loki goes on the rampage, Thor arrives to give his (adopted) brother a stern talking to, before promptly joining the other heroes in stomping around a giant aeroplane arguing. Oh and there’s some business with an alien army of what I think were supposed to be the Skrulls but they look like escaped demons from the Constantine movie wearing Warhammer 40K armour.

It’s the sort of big, brash, dopey action movie that’s big on laughs and flashy action sequences with explosions. So suspend your disbelief from the top of the Empire State Building and you’ll probably enjoy it. Directed and co-written by nerdy fan-favourite Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy and the marvellous Firefly), you can expect snappy one-liners and well-choreographed fight scenes that make good use of the 3D gimmick without causing too many headaches. The cast look like they are having fun, although most of them don’t have much to do. Robert Downey Jr is starting to look slightly too comfortable as Tony Stark after two Iron Man films. Poor Scarlet Johanson is stuck trying to breathe life into Black Widow, the only significant female character and stereotypical sex object. Black Widow is a bit out of place as a character; how is being a spy a super power and why is that her defining characteristic? Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans are basically playing watered down versions of their earlier characters, although there are some nice moments where they get to play up the “fish out of water” thing a little. Tom Ruffalo really stands out as the mild mannered Bruce Banner, Hulk’s alter-ego, and delivers the most interesting and engaging performance of the film; it’s a real shame they didn’t find him in time for the earlier installments.

All in all, the film is nowhere near as disastrously childish as it could have been, but nor is it the industry changing masterpiece some were hoping for. It proves that it is possible to combine franchises on screen and make a film that isn’t entirely horrible (New Line cinema I’m looking at you). Unfortunately, although the basic overall plot was presumably worked out long in advance, each film was written by a different person and it shows in some of the characterisation, I mean, what on earth has happened to Loki? In the Thor movie, he was out for revenge on the rest of the Aesir and earth just got caught in the crossfire, now he’s on some sort of megalomaniac quest to rule earth with his army of shiny space aliens. His IQ seems to dropped a few points too; he’s gone from being a Machiavellian master of deception to a shouty sadist who gives away his plans far too easily and repeatedly walks into traps. Wow Marvel, you’ve managed to turn the archetypal trickster into a dumb, narcissistic supervillain, real smooth guys. Admittedly, it’s still a lot of fun watching the lovely Tom Hiddleston run around dressed like an over-enthusiastic LARPer and it was nice to see him involved in a few more action sequences, but I would have preferred a little more depth or at least some continuity.

Actually, while I’m on the subject of the Nordic contingent of the film, something has been bothering me since the Thor movie came out. Why are there so few films based on Norse mythology? Hollywood has been mining the depths of Greek and Egyptian myths since the creation of the medium, but I can only find about a dozen films based on Norse ones. So here’s a thought: now that Skyrim, Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings have proved that fantasy fans love Celtic knot-work, dragons and big burly men in furs and helmets, and now that the Marvel movies have reminded everyone of the gods themselves, why not make a film based on the old sagas? Why not start with Thor and Loki, they’re familiar and there’s an interesting dynamic there. The son of the All-Father and the ultimate outsider in a friendship so intense that they’re accused of being lovers by Thor’s own wife, that could be pretty powerful if handled properly. The myths give a nice mixture of broad bawdy humour and sinister foreshadowing. Then there’s Loki’s extended family. That could be fascinating, I mean, what does Loki think of his monstrous brood and how would Thor react to the discovery that his best friend is the father of the sea-serpent that aims to kill him? And what about the death of Baldur, there are so many  interesting ways to handle that. What are Loki’s motivations there? Is this the final reveal of a malevolent anarchist, a cry for attention from jealous admirer or just a prank gone horribly, horribly wrong? Plus you’ve already got the perfect melancholy ending with Loki’s punishment and the enduring threat of Ragnarok. Good grief, this stuff is gold! Now where did I put my notebook?

Er… where was I… Oh yes Avengers. You see, this is the problem. It’s fun and it’s witty and the action sequences are fairly exhilarating, but it’s not quite diverting enough to stop me distracting myself with the notion of Norse mythology films, or Tom Hiddleston’s eyes, or how much popcorn I had left. It’s not a bad film, but it’s not quite as clever or as revolutionary as it could have been.

ATM is a fairly capable indie thriller, cleverly charged to release little bursts of action and excitement so as to avoid overly wordy monologues/dialogues between the characters trapped inside the booth. In fact, like so many similar types, ATM succeeds in not becoming dull at any point, then when you think all the punches have been drawn as the movie comes to a close, it takes you further down a dark passage into territory you would not normally see in similar movies. ATM does the one thing that these sort of movies keeps secret, it answers those questions that you normally walk away from a mystery thriller with, it gives solutions, and its these solutions that make the message the movie delivers that much worse.

The two leads David (Brian Geraghty) and Emily (Alice Eve) are incredibly like-able characters, a little sad really because this is one of those movies that you get the feeling from the start that things might not end nicely. So along with the action, and the horror, begins a love story between David and Emily, as they battle for survival against the odds. As performers, they do very nicely too; just the right level of looks and charisma to keep you glued to their actions.

ATM is a dark, compelling movie with more kicks than you might expect, and ultimately the blackest of journeys possible.  

A SCI-FI SWARM AND HORROR HORDE: Interviews with 62 Filmmakers, Tom Weaver, 2010, McFarland & Co, 404pp, index, photos

Filmmakers who turned out science fiction and horror movies during the period 1930-1970 are once again the focus of author and film historian Tom Weaver who brings together a raft of interviews with Hollywood people from all walks, focusing on their genre work.

Weaver forsakes the Q&A approach with particularly loquacious interviewees whose discussion allows him to drop the “Q” and pull the answers together into a nearly seamless “as told to” article. Because of Weaver’s tight focus, sometimes on an individual film as when Fess Parker discusses his brief, comedic role in Them (1954), often the stories are rather short. Ths is not to be confused with criticsm.

Actors, actresses, makeup artists, stuntmen, producers, writers, and others discuss individual movies and TV shows, and some of the stars they worked with like Elvis, Boris Karloff, Lon Chaney Jr., and Bela Lugoi.

You’ll read actress Lisa Davis’ take on Zsa Zsa Gabor’s imperial turn as the pampered star of the space schlock Queen of Outer Space (1958). In fact, Davis’ imitation of Zsa Zsa, not at all intended as a compliment, got her in the door at Disney where she was interviewed by Walt Disney himself to voice Cruelle de Vil although she wound up voicing Anita. Davis also describes the sexual harrassment actresses had to put up with in Hollywood, made difficult because as the breadwinner for her family, she couldn’t afford to alienate the would-be letharios.

Sid (The Danny Thomas Show) Melton tells how he interviewed for a movie job for Billy Crystal and the moment he walked in the door, Crystal shouted at him about how his death scene in The Lost Continent (1951) in which comic relief Melton was drilled by a triceratops caused young Crystal four nights of childhood nightmares.

Diana Gemora tells how, as a 12-year-old, she and her dad, makeup artist Charles Gemora, pulled an all-nighter, successfully altering the three-eyed, tentacled Martian costume needed for an 8am filming on the set of the classic War of the Worlds.  It was a great special effect in a movie that was people by then-unknown actors so that the effects could be played up.

Roger Corman tells how he had to qualm the objections of American International Pictures co-producer Sam Arkoff about putting up the money for the House of Usher that there was no monster, by saying “the house is the monster.” Corman then confused star Vincent Price by putting in a line about the “house breathing”, but Price agreed he could play it when he understood Corman’s motive in allaying the fears of Arkoff.

Actor Tony Randall discusses the make-up process involved in portraying six characters in the 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)…the seventh being a stuntman playing the Abominable Snowman.

Ross Martin, who played Artemis Gordon, in The Wild Wild West, was 75% of the successful CBS television show, says stuntman Whitey Hughes. Although a friend of Robert Conrad and respectful of Conrad’s skills, especially in doing a lot of the stunts, Hughes insists Martin’s contribution is underrealized. Ross Martin, of course, entertainingly donned a wild disguise in each episode. As Hughes points out, it didn’t matter — Gordon, after all, was a government agent, a stranger who could easily pass himself off any way he wished. But that was the gimmick so Martin donned disguises.

And towering Richard (”Jaws”) Kiel talks about how he tried to upstage 3′10″ Michael (”Dr. Miguelito Lovelace”) Dunn in one of his three appearances on The Wild, Wild West as Dunn’s gargantuan sidekick (Dunn did 10 episodes as Lovelace, the show’s Professor Moriarty to agent Jim West). During an odd musical duet with his girlfriend – but nevertheless effective — Kiel stood by and tapped his foot and ate some candy. Robert Conrad spotted what he was doing and laughed,

Cover of Seven Faces of Dr. Lao

Cover of Queen of Outer Space

then had the cameras focus  a moment on Kiel tapping his foot to splice it into the sequence. Anything to make it more interesting, claimed Kiel.

Waht can I say? I love this stuff.

Made by Richard Driscoll AKA Steven Craine, (who also stars in the movie) this Welsh born “actor/director” has spent much of his career making movies that nobody wants to see. To add insult to injury he also has a nasty habit of engaging in work, and releasing press articles to explain projects he is working on that never get to become a reality. Eldorado is one movie that really should never have got off the drawing board.

The story revolves around two Jewish bothers The Rosenblum’s who perform as an act called the Jews Brothers. When their agent JJ (Steve Guttenberg) accidentally confuses their act, with that of a strippers, the Jews Brothers end up at a Neo-Nazi rally headed up by former Doctor Who Sylvester McCoy. Having escaped they head for Eldorado for their next gig.

I won’t lie, Eldorado was so painful to watch, so awful on every single level I simply could not watch it to its conclusion. I lasted just half (of the almost two hour running time), and then the only reason I stayed was to see just who would turn up next. You see Eldorado is one of those movies s laden with stars, but is so awful in the process you need to keep watching just to make sure you are not missing something. Driscoll allegedly claims that the movie was a big one-fingered salute to the movie industry, the truth however is that it is a movie designed simply to show you what not to do in a movie.

Realising that the movie is absolute bobbins, Driscoll engaged the services of Peter O’Toole to narrate and try and make sense of the unintelligible story, in fact he makes the movie even less legible, a fact that Driscoll with without a doubt claim is a deliberate act.

The movie goes to prove that actors will actually go where the money is, regardless of the content; in fact it’s almost unbelievable that so many former A-List performers would even lend their names to the project. For some of the performers, who have not been around lately you can understand their inclusion, I’m speaking of performers like Rik Mayall, Brigitte Neilson, Robin Askwith, Steve Guttenberg and Sylvester McCoy. But then you have performers like Daryl Hannah, the late David Carradine and Michael Madsen who all starred together in Kill Bill just a few short years ago, and really should not have fallen so low so quickly. And then you have performers like Bill Moseley, Peter O’Toole, Patrick Bergin, Jeff Fahey, David Soul and Caroline Monro who still have popularity on various circuits and still work regularly. There are at least a dozen other actors you’ll be familiar with but I wont embarrass by listing them. There is of course one tell tale sign, about the movie, none of the performers are seen than more than a few minutes, and most are shot against green screen backdrops.

If the story is not bad enough, and to be honest the performances of some of the actors even worse, there is a final element to really stick the knife in. It’s singing, yes all the performers (pretty much anyway) get to mime to popular songs of yesteryear at some point or another, and when I say mime, this too is very badly.

I brush over the “3D”, and pretend its not even there.

I’m sure Driscoll believes he has made some sort of statement, maybe that statement is simple, that when it comes to the crunch actors are no different to whores and will go wherever the money is. If he’s making any other statement than that, he’s naïve to say the least. Eldorado will never regain the expenses laid out to create the film, and Driscoll really is one person that will never make a good movie, or even a mediocre one, which compared to this would at least be a step up.

As the movie begins Danny has seen the other side to this life long friendship, he looks at Freya no longer as the girl he used to play around with, but as an object of beauty. As is so often the case in reality, no sooner has Danny woken up to smell the coffee, but he’s left it too late, or has he?

I first saw The Year My Voice Broke in 1988 a year after it was releases and sent a stir around the movie community. A small little movie like this, had never hit such a raw nerve with so many people. A passionate heart felt tale of love, and unrequited love, about moves we should make, and moves we would have been better off not making. As the movie and I met, I too was thinking about the first stirrings of love, so it was not surprisingly a movie that was close to home. Nearly 25 years on, and the movie still remains a firm favourite, though for whatever reason it’s not a movie you can get hold of that easily.

Story wise, it’s a completely well modelled work of art, watching Danny firstly working up to make a move on his best friend, and then being forced into a battle to try and woo her, after the local bad boy takes an interest in her, is a tale that to some degree keeps you on your toes. Especially when from the offset encounters with bad boy Trevor (Ben Mendelsohn) you realise that he is a little bit more than just a bad boy.

The performers are great, particularly that of Carmen as the sexually inviting but naïve Freya, a girl with a past that nobody wants to speak about, and few know about. Taylor’s Danny is a performance of the right sort of teen stupidity we all saw growing up. Between the great performances and the truth led storytelling by John Duigan, The Year My Voice Broke is a winner on every level, filled with good humour and raw emotion, it’s a film few others similar types have had the guts to pull off.

Four years after the movie was released, and having proved to be such a success, there was an unofficial sequel made (called Flirting) in which Danny (again played by Taylor) heads to boarding school, where again he gets to feel love, this time however he falls for a girl of a different ethnicity, in a time interracial relationships were strict no-no’s.

Shame is one of those movies, those groundbreaking films that challenge the normal taboos of cinema. Like 9 ½ weeks, Last Tango In Paris and Basic Instinct, Shame has come along at a time that its acceptable to push the envelope a little bit more than we have been able to before. This being said, this is not the direction pushing many people that headed to the theatre were expecting to see. Like the aforementioned movie Shame is not all “Knobs & Knockers” it’s something a little bit more intelligent, in this case we see the mental decline of a man taken out of his usual “order” due to his sister turning up out of the blue and crashing on his couch.

Sex is on the down low really; there is not much nudity, strange for a movie all about sex, although the words associated with the act are always on the table. What makes Shame shocking, is the relationship between Brandon and Sissy, and it’s a really disturbing potentially incestuous one, that both seem to battle at various points with as the movie progresses.

The performances are just great, Fassbender shines as the completely emotionally detached soul you would come to expect, Mulligan pushes her usually quite reserved acting style to the limits, and as a result delivering her most inspired acting work yet.

If like so many you are looking for a sexy movie to get your kicks, this certainly is not the one. If you’re a little more curious however into the internal wrangling of sex, and the mental power play that comes along the way, then this is movie that will push all the right buttons.

The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future world, a world divided into twelve districts; each of the districts provides resources for the main capital, where the rich and powerful reside. In each of the twelve districts, once over the age of twelve a boy and girl must end by means of a “lottery” the Hunger Games. The game is a battle to the death in which only one person can survive to become victor, and a celebrity in their own right. When twelve-year-old Primrose Everdeen is selected to play, her older sister Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) understanding her sister’s weakness stands in her place as a tribute, placing herself in mortal danger. But Katniss is not like other people, she is hostile when needed, but of the belief that the games could be changed, is she the person to make this happen?

If you are of a certain age (cough) you’ll be slightly familiar with the synopsis of Hunger Games, it bears a striking resemblance to the movies Turkey Shoot AKA Blood Camp Thatcher, and Battle Royale, the delivery is incredibly similar, but this time without the graphic bloodshed, this is of course a movie aimed squarely at a teenage audience. Add a more up to date spin, in which this classic fight for your life movie blends seamlessly into the modern day world of X-Factor, making the battle for survival not just a survival of the fittest, but of the most popular.

Visually the movie is in a whole different time, it looks like the movie could hark back to the 80’s, with its bizarre fashion and lurid colours. In the outpost districts the people sport clothing of America’s great depression, while in the city, it’s a mixture of what would happen if Vivien Westwood and Jean Paul Gautier joined forces. The peacekeeper’s (police) outfits are a hybrid of the police uniform from Soylent Green, and A Clockwork Orange’s Droog’s.

I’m told that the movie is a pretty much faithful adaptation of the novel by Suzanne Collins; but you cannot help but wonder what is missing, there are points where the emotion is essentially sucked from the movie, especially when a young contender falls and you are meant to feel something, the character development of this victim simply is not developed enough to create the feeling the movies creators want you to have.

While the flaws in the movie are clear, I cannot help but hold my hands up and declare this a winner of a movie. It’s a sprawling tale told over 142 minutes, but which feels like it passes in a blink of an eye. It’s a gripping, fast moving tale (sometimes too fast), which mixes emotion, humour, action, and epic storytelling. The performers from Jennifer Lawrence, through to an almost unrecognisable Elizabeth Banks, and a lovable Woody Harrelson as an alcoholic former games winner, are spot on; and let me not forget Staley Tucci who literally steals the show as Caesar Flickerman a kind of modern day Simon Cowell.

On the whole this is a well-rounded peace, that is really only spoiled by the shaky camerawork when in Katniss’ district, and during action sequences, not aided by a large screen and high definition photography, at times it is just too much for you’re eyes. Thankfully these sequences are often brief, and pass by in a few seconds. And despite the shakiness clearly designed to make an economic point, it’s the recurring complaint from most people who have seen the movie.

One thing is for certain, The Hunger Games is going to be a massive movie, that will not only ensure fame for it’s stars, but moving its producers Lionsgate into the territory of the big players like Universal, and Twentieth Century Fox. The overlying feeling of evil that covers the whole movie is bound to keep the fans coming back, for both repeat screenings, and for pretty much guaranteed future sequels.

Michael Bay, director of the summer blockbuster “Transformers” films, will be producing a new live action film of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.  The film will be directed by Jonathan Liebesman, who is known for directing Clash of the Titans.  Paramount has announced that the film will have a 100 million dollar budget and a December 2013 release date.  It will be interesting to see how this film shapes up in comparison to other films based on the franchise.  The film follows the lives of 4 turtles who become genetically mutated into human sized turtles.  Living in the sewer, they fight crime against their arch nemesis Shredder, under the martial arts training of their sensei Master Splinter (a giant rat) and the help of news reporter April O’ Neil.

The last time we saw the turtles in a movie was “TMNT” in 2007 which was an all CGI-animated film.  Previous Ninja Turtle films were produced by Jim Henson’s company which had people in costumes.  How do you all feel about a new Ninja Turtles film?  Is it an 80’s fad, or is this a good chance to reboot this film?  Although I must say that having Michael Bay on board does not silence my worries about the film.  Everything that man is involved in always gets turned into a jumbled mess.

Source: http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2012/03/14/ninja-turtles-hits-christmas-2013/

5 Classic Sketches Featuring Fatty Arbuckle And Buster Keaton

Sketch 1: Taken from the 1917 film The Butcher Boy

Classic and simple slapstick comedy in this sketch from 1917. At the time Roscoe ‘Fatty’ Arbuckle was already an established star of the movies having already starred in 28 silent films previously. On the other hand this film marked the debut from Buster Keaton. In just a few short years time, the career of Buster Keaton would enter the stratoshpere, whereas the career of Fatty Arbuckle would soon be in decline due to allegations of murder! In the in between times though Fatty Arbuckle and Buster Keaton would appear together in many films.

Image via Wikipedia

Sketch 2: Taken from the 1917 film The Rough House

The Rough House was the second film that starred both Fatty Arbuckle and Buster Keaton. The sketch here, featuring Fatty Arbuckle, is of interest because what he is doing was later made more famous by Charlie Chaplin (in the 1925 film The Gold Rush).

Sketch 3: Taken from the 1918 film The Cook

Many of the sketches in the Cook showcase the talent Fatty Arbuckle had (perhaps with some ‘trick’ recording going on). This film was considered lost for many years until a copy was found as recently as 1998 in an unmarked canister. That is not as unusual as it sounds though as it is estimated that nearly 80% of movies from prior to the War have been lost (whether lost of destroyed)!

Sketch 4: Taken from the 1918 film Good Night Nurse

I don’t think they treat patients with alcholism quite the same way nowadays, but this film has Fatty Arbuckle as the involuntary patient about to be operated on by surgeon Buster Keaton.

Image via Wikipedia

Sketch 5: Taken from the 1919 film Back Stage

In later films Buster Keaton would make famous the gag where a piece of the set falls towards him but he is saved from being flattened by an open window – in Back Stage it happens to Fatty Arbuckle and Buster Keaton was so impressed he kept it in mind for the future! This sketch though shows the humour in the fact that a ’strong’ man is unable to lift something that a female can lift easily!

Between 1917 and 1920 Buster Keaton appeared in a total of 14 films with Fatty Arbuckle. It was a good grounding for Buster Keaton who would go on to enjoy a career only rivalled by Charlie Chaplin. From the point that Buster Keaton started writing and directing his own movies his career went from strength to strength. Over the same time the career of Fatty Arbuckle crashed after he was arrested (wrongly) for manslaughter of actress Virginia Rappe. It took three trials to clear Fatty Arbuckle of all criminal charges but the damage to his career had already been done, and although he did make something of a comeback in the late 1920’s, industry resistance meant it was difficult to get anywhere in the movie world again.