3 of the Best and Worst Twin Movies

October 13, 2017 Jaaŋɡ-Michael Terryjäck 0

Some movies fall from the same money tree, for better or for worse…

 

 

Both Dreamworks and Pixar had success with their miniature-sized heroes in 1998.

 

Sometimes the business of making movies can be a terribly derivative one.

 

Call it hedging their bets, call it a coincidence or call it plain cheating: over the years we’ve often been ‘treated’ to two movies in the space of a year that either cover the same contextual ground or are even based on the exact same intellectual property.

 

Now, whilst the box office potentials of these films are evidently going to be effected by each other, there’s nothing stopping both films being well received on their own merits. For example, Antz and A Bug’s Life, two films released in 1998, both concerning a plucky ant’s journey away from his colony with the purpose of seeking a sense of individuality, were both critically acclaimed. However, sometimes there is clearly just one outright winner in both commercial and critical terms:

 

Here are three examples of movie twins that couldn’t be any more different from one another, in terms of straight up quality:

 

Lincoln [2012]  vs. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter [2012]

 

In 2012, the popcorn munching masses of the cinemas were offered two very different representations of one of the most iconic American historical figures, from two directors who only shared one similarity in their vision: seriousness. It’s easy to forgive Steven Spielberg for the seriousness of his epic historical drama.

 

In the main role of Abraham Lincoln, he cast Daniel Day-Lewis, one of the most revered actors of our time, who only emerges every few years or so to uniformally stun audiences. The Tony Kushner-penned screenplay was based on the Pulitzer Prize winning author Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book on Lincoln and his cabinet of rivals that he united to steer young America through the Civil War. It was considered a success, both commercially and critically, in addition it was nominated for 12 Academy Awards, including the Best Actor accolade, which Day-Lewis took home.

 

Benjamin Walker and Daniel Day-Lewis, two very different Lincolns.

 

On the other-hand we have Timur Bekmambetov’s effort, released 5 months earlier at the start of the summer box-office season. His adaptation, based on the Historical-mashup of novel of the same name, portrayed Lincoln in a similar serious light to Spielberg’s, with one major difference – this Lincoln moonlighted as a vampire hunter. Although the Russian-Kazakh director had found success with similar genre fare before, in the shape of 2008’s comic-book adaptation Wanted, he failed to inject his movie with any kind of levity – preferring to revere his fictionalised version of Lincoln rather than poke fun at the evident outlandishness of his situation.

 

The film not only bombed at the box-office, failing to recoup it’s marketing and production costs, but it was also savaged by critics. As admirable as his impression of the great man was, Benjamin Walker did not pick up any nominations for his performance and has struggled to rebuild his career since…

 

Chef [2014] vs. Burnt [2015]

 

Released just over a year apart from each other, both Chef and Burnt feature cooking professionals with anger issues who go about seeking redemption in very different ways. In Jon Favreau’s Chef, questionably named Carl Casper attempts to revive his ruined career by cooking with his heart and reconnecting with his family. This good-natured giant, played by the writer-director with grumpy but genial charm, sets out on the road in a food truck with his estranged son and best friend, discovering why he loved cooking to start with. What follows is a heart-warming comedy-drama that treats the senses to what can only be described as ‘food porn’.

 

Jon Favreau and Cooper lose their respective cools in the kitchen.

 

On the other hand we have Bradley Cooper’s Adam Jones (more realistic but edging on the dull) who sentences himself to cooking a million oysters in a New Orleans bar after blowing his own career in Paris a year before.

 

Several industrial extractor fans would be needed to suck out the hot air from this self-indulged cook. Adam might feel like he’s served his time, but his destructive behaviour does not end with his self-imposed exile. Soon he’s back in London, ruining his friends’ careers and blowing his lid all over again. Cooper performs well, but when a character is this much of an ass, it’s really hard to care if he wins his third Michelin Star or not.

 

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice [2016] vs. Captain America: Civil War [2016]

 

In 2016, two movies were released, pitting some of the biggest names in comic book history against each other. If we were to judge these films on the merits of expectations alone, it’s safe to say that Zack Snyder’s BvS (that title is just too long to repeat) had the edge over the Russo Brother’s third instalment of the Cap franchise. When people think of superheroes, Superman and Batman are usually the first on their mind. In theory, the collision of these two heroes, a vision never before brought to the big screen, should have been a home run, but somehow Snyder found a way of turning this titanic idea into a gargantuan flop.

 

Promotional materials even suffered from a case of deja-vu.

 

Dead on arrival, a huge opening led to a record-breaking drop in the second week and, thanks to poor word of mouth, the $300m production slowly limped past $870m after 12 weeks in cinemas. Meanwhile, Civil War, dealing with the moral and physical battle between the entire cast of the Marvel Universe, fared a lot better, both critically and commercially. Made for $50m less, the Marvel Studios movie made well over $1.1bn in 20 strong weeks of business.

 

The defining difference between these productions was in the tone of the final products. Although both movies dealt with serious issues (at least for comic book flicks), Civil War maintained a rollicking sense of fun, whereas BvS became quickly bogged down in weighty dialogue and overly-dramatic musical cues. If it weren’t for the surprise success of DC’s Wonder Woman this year, I’d be declaring the DCEU dead in the water, but the release of Justice League will be the real test of the franchise’s chances.…

A Movie Buff’s Hat Buying Guide

September 25, 2017 Jaaŋɡ-Michael Terryjäck 0

They say that there’s a hat for every person.

 

 

Hats play a key role in some of the most iconic movies of our time, often playing the role of costume and prop simultaneously.

 

Whether it’s a broad-rimmed fedora, a tightly knitted beanie or simply a classic trilby; a piece of headgear can be crucial to intimating a particular era, theme or sense of character.  Part of the reason why us everyday folk have such trouble with picking out a particular hat is that so many of them have been claimed by iconic movie characters and to pull on one of these items is almost like dressing up in their image.

 

Before you take the plunge and grab your first one, take a little perusal of some of my favourites and consider if you really want to align yourself with these particular characters:

 

Indiana Jones’ Fedora

 

It takes a brave person to pull on a fedora before leaving the house. For decades this hat has been inextricably linked with George Lucas’ Indiana Jones, played with rogueish charm by Harrison Ford. The character was created as a homage to the adventuring heroes of the 30s, with the events of the Indiana Jones movies taking place between 1912 and 1957, a time when a hat was an essential part of a man’s wardrobe, rather than just an accessory.

 

 

When should I wear it? Just don’t. Unless you’re going on an archaeological dig or taking a trip into the desert; a fedora has no place in your wardrobe.

 

Robert Angier’s Top Hat

 

The Prestige is one of Christopher Nolan’s less talked about movies. Made in between his sleeper hit Batman Begins and the record-breaking The Dark Knight, it tells the story of two stage musicians in the 19th century competing to create the most dazzling illusions. Their ongoing feud leads both men down dark paths in order to achieve their goals, leaving a trail of tragedy in their wake. Aristocratic magician, Robert Angier’s top hat symbolises both his class and also plays a part in revealing the dark sacrifice that his character makes for the sake of his show.

 

 

When should I wear it? Are you going to a 19th century ball or an Edwardian tea-party any time soon? Didn’t think so – leave this one in the shop.

 

Steve Zissou’s Red Bobble Hat

 

A basket of bright red winter pom pom hats sits in the corner of Steve Zissou’s ramshackle bedroom; like the Speedos and custom made Adidas Roms, these quirky items are essential pieces of uniform for the crew of the Belafonte, the eponymous character’s exploration vessel in Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic. These little touches are what makes Anderson’s movies so distinctive, they communicate to the audience the superfluous level of Zissou’s success, allowing us to see how far he has truly fallen from those halcyon days of merchandising deals and television shows.

 

 

When should I wear it? A cold winter’s day, a trip into town – this is a low-key piece of headgear that can be worn without drawing too much attention.

 

Godric Gryffindor’s Sorting Hat

 

It’s rare that a hat has it’s own lines in film, let alone plays a key role in the action, but such is the case for the Sorting Hat in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Voiced with rambunctious entitlement by British veteran actor Leslie Phillips, the Sorting Hat is worn by every major student character in the film series, deciding which house that they will be aligned with for the entirety of their stay at Hogwarts. Besides this initiation ritual, the Hat comes to the aid of the students in a number of surprising ways, proving to be more than just an accessory.

 

 

When should I wear it? This would be an odd choice of headgear even if you were heading to a Potter convention. However, a replica could sit well on a plinth in your hallway…if you’re that way inclined.…

6 Upcoming Films from Original Ideas

September 20, 2017 Jaaŋɡ-Michael Terryjäck 0

Sequels, Reboots and Remakes have been making the most money this year.

 

 

Is there anything original to look forward to in 2017?

 

Just taking a brief look at the Box Office figures for the year reveals what kind of films make the most money in today’s movie age. The top 10 internationally grossing movies of the year so far have are all been either sequels, remakes or reboots. Take a closer look and you’ll soon see that only 5 of the top 30 grossing films of the year were based on original ideas, those chosen few include: The Boss Baby, Jordan Peele’s outstanding Get Out and several Asia-only releases including, ahem…Kung Fu Yoga.

 

Although critics are constantly threatening that ‘franchise fatigue‘ will soon bite large scale productions where it hurts them most, support for big tent-poles, such as Wonder Woman and Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2 suggest otherwise. With a packed schedule of sequels and reboots, including the now obligatory Star Wars instalment, a third film based on the Lego toys and Zack Snyder’s mammoth Justice League; you’d be forgiven for thinking that there’s no room for original movie ideas anymore.

 

In reaction to the inevitable feeling of fatigue that you might be feeling at the moment, I’ve collected 6 trailers for movies hitting screens this year, which should surprise you with their originality and unique vision:

 

Logan Lucky

 

A director that’s been lurking in the shadows for some time, Steven Soderbergh returns to the seedy world of the heist with his 30th feature film. A far cry from the high-roller casinos of his Oceans films, Logan Lucky takes place in the deep South and involves a group of down on their luck siblings (Channing Tatum, Riley Keough and Adam Driver) seeking a way to get rich and break a family curse.

 

Logan Lucky is in cinemas now.

 

Mother!

 

It’s been nearly three years since Darren Aronofosky’s last film, the grand but flawed Noah; he returns this year with an original screenplay and an all-star cast including Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kristen Wiig. The film centres around a young wife (Lawrence) whose peaceful domestic life is upended by a mysterious older couple, who lodge with her.

 

Mother! will be released on September 15th.

 

Beach Rats

 

Director-writer Eliza Hittman’s second film promises to take the audience on yet another hyper-realistic journey through the dangerous landscape of youth and sexuality. A teenage boy in Brooklyn balances a difficult home life with delinquency and casual sex with older men he meets online. Newcomers Harris Dickinson and Madeline Weinstein lead the cast of mostly unknowns.

 

Beach Rats gets its UK release on November 3rd.

 

The Killing of a Sacred Deer

 

Grecian director Yorgos Lanthimos’ career is still in its infancy yet he continues to attract big names to work on his bizarre, high-concept projects. His follow-up to the wonderfully weird The Lobster will also star Colin Farrell as well as seasoned vets Nicole Kidman, Alicia Silverstone and British newcomer Barry Keoghan (fresh from his trip to Dunkirk). The plot revolves around a young lad (Keoghan) attempting to introduce a plastic surgeon into his dysfunctional family.

 

The Killing… is out on October 27th.

 

Coco

 

Some haven’t noticed, but for the last few years Pixar have been building a slate of movies that include sequels to longstanding franchises balanced with launching original movies that take real risks in terms of new ideas. Coco‘s low-key cast is exclusively hispanic for this musical themed adventure through the Land of the Dead, as always though, the animation will be the draw for most.

 

Coco hit cinemas on November 22nd.

 

Downsizing

 

So far in his career, Alexander Payne’s bread and butter has been deeply moving character dramas about normal people, in extraordinary situations, think: The Descendants or, his last movie, Nebraska. For his next though, he’s reuniting with his writing partner from Oscar-winner Sideways, to make something a little outside of the box. Matt Damon and Kristen Wiig play a married couple seeking to reduce their environmental impact and live a better life, by shrinking themselves down to 4-inches.

 

 

Downsizing arrives in theatres on 22nd December.…

In defence of…Gone in 60 Seconds

September 18, 2017 Jaaŋɡ-Michael Terryjäck 0

There were a lot of awful movies released in the 90s.

 

 

Super Mario Bros, Showgirls and Val Kilmer’s awful remake of The Island of Dr. Moreau come to mind, but it’s important to remember that the shit didn’t stop hitting the fan at the turn of the millennium.

 

Although the year 2000 brought us such cult classics as Requiem for a Dream, Almost Famous and Sexy Beast – the brave new world that we were living in also brought us some absolute stinkers. I’m talking Disney’s Dinosaur (a saccharine animated feature which they bizarrely repeated with 2015’s The Good Dinosaur), Battlefield Earth and, brace yourselves, Coyote Ugly.

 

Despite some truly great work being done during this time, it’s a sad truth that young, original directors were not being supported by an industry that was mostly propped up by financiers in their 40s who mistakenly thought that a heady mix of nudity, fast cars, dumb as heck plotting, or a blend of all three, was the only way to make money in the movie industry. As a result, movie goers were treated to a veritable schlock fest of trash that has quite rightly been consigned to the past. Films like Road Trip, Scary Movie and What Women Want might well have entertained the masses, but time has proven them to be crass, shallow and toxic in their treatment of sexuality, race and relationships.

 

It would be a mistake to lump Gone in 60 Seconds in with these howlers from 2000. A loose remake of the 1974 film of the same name, this film was unappreciated, even by the schlock trained audiences of the time, and was said to have lost it’s backers up to $90 million. A re-watch of this sturdy actioner will reveal a movie that has clearly been made with more passion and patience than most other productions of the time.

 

Admittedly, the premise for the film is a little ridiculous.

 

Nicolas Cage, still riding a high from action triptych of The Rock, Con Air and Face/Off, plays retired car thief Memphis (the first of several laughable name choices) and Giovanni Ribisi (brilliantly wired and nervy) is his younger brother who’s in deep with extremely British mobster, Raymond Calitri played by hammy, but fun, Christopher Eccleston. Ribisi’s Kip (that’s right, two brothers called Kip and Memphis) botches the job to Calitri’s distaste. Preferring his cars whole, as opposed to a barely drive-able collection of Porsche parts, he threatens to kill Kip unless Memphis comes out of retirement for ‘one last job’ and nab the cars in the space of 72 hours. Cue a visit to the matriarch of the family, followed by a rapid assembling of his old crew in order to tackle the gargantuan task.

 

In less than two hours we’re taken on a whirlwind tour of California, meeting colourful characters such as Mirror Man, Sway (a feline Angelina Jolie) and…Sphinx (a mostly silent but effective Vinnie Jones). Even the cops chasing the crooks are lumped with questionable names: Detectives Castleback and Drycoff (a name that literally no one in real life has) are hot on the trail of Memphis and his crew, making for an exciting thrill ride that is light on narrative and heavy on quips and action.

 

Gone in 60 Seconds is not going to go down in history as ‘one of the greats’, however, t’s clear that the producers have real love for the vehicles and the rough-diamond crew of thieves, regardless of how ridiculous their names are.

 

It might not test your brain, but it will certainly put a smile on your face more than Coyote Ugly.

War – war never changes…

August 9, 2017 Jaaŋɡ-Michael Terryjäck 0

Dunkirk [2017] and War for the Planet of the Apes [2017]

 

 

In Christopher Nolan’s tenth feature, you could be forgiven for thinking that war has never been any more real or threatening.

 

There’s a palpable sense of tension throughout the entirety of this highly original war movie (it’s hard to describe a 108-minute movie as an ‘epic’) that ceases to let up. The ensemble cast of mostly unknown players are propelled forward by Hans Zimmer’s metronomic soundtrack, as each strand of his carefully structured narrative slips and winds through each other.

 

It’s been over 75 years since the evacuation of Dunkirk, an act of retreat that has been celebrated as a military success that turned the tide of the Second World War. Over 800 civilian boats, many of them no larger than sail dinghies, made their way across the channel to aid the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of soldiers, a feat as much attributed to national pride as a sense of self-preservation. Characters repeatedly utter how close to home they are, heightening both the sickening feeling of isolation as well as the fear of enemy troops touching home soil.

 

At it’s heart, Dunkirk is more of a survival movie than a war movie. Aside from Tom Hardy’s steadfast fighter pilot, the other players are more concerned with escaping their situations than escalating them with any kind of heroic actions. Mark Rylance and his two-man crew are hellbent on aiding the evacuations themselves, an old man and two young lads who want nothing more than to help. Meanwhile, Cillian Murphy is a shell-shocked officer struggling to come to terms with his cowardly actions and newcomer Ffion Whitehead is just a boy, willing to do anything to get home.

 

Mark Rylance and Cillian Murphy in Nolan’s ‘triump’ Dunkirk.

 

Dunkirk is a triumph of technical wizardry as well as tone. We fear for the characters and share in their brief moments of elation, regardless of the short amount of time that we spend with them, but this elation never feels saccharine. These are not flawless heroes fighting for democracy, they are simply men trying to do their best in an unprecedented situation.

 

War is the subject of another major blockbuster released this summer, what we can assume will be the final entry in the recent Planet of the Apes prequel trilogy. Matt Reeves (Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Let Me In) is back for seconds and it’s clear that he cares for his friendly mo-capped apes, it’s just a shame that he couldn’t tie together the story of Caesar and his family with a little more panache.

 

Woody Harrelson ‘underused and immobile’ in Matt Reeves’ War for the Planet of the Apes.

 

War starts strong with a failed attack on the apes’ forest compound by a group of newly branded soldiers led by Woody Harrelson (mostly underused and immobile here), but the repercussions of this exciting opening do not lead to the kind of thrilling conclusion that we were treated to in previous instalments. Reeves takes us from forest ambush, to mass exodus, to road trip, to post-apocalypse to POW camp (dropping heavy references and symbolism) without ever really engaging us. Harrelson’s antagonist is a loosely shaped cliche who explains himself through pained exposition, behind mirrored sunglasses, whilst Caesar’s conflicted emotions simply make for frustrating viewing.

 

By the time the gargantuan 2 hours 22 minute running time is at it’s end, the immaculately rendered apes have worn their welcome out and War feels more like one of attrition than anything else.

 

I know which movie I’d prefer to see again…