Drag Me From Mediocrity - The Perils Of Horror Fandom

Partial Education Presents

Drag Me From Medicority - The Perils Of Horror Fandom

Featuring Partially Educated Review of

Drag Me To Hell

You're Next

The Awakening

The Conjuring

and

The Borderlands

No intro, straight into the reviews. Here's why. I consider myself a big fan of horror, yet always dread picking out a film because of just how many get released and just how many aren't worth the time. As a result, my own disenfranchisement with the genre has led me to become a bit cynical about it. Nonetheless, I decided that enough had been recommended to me that would be worth giving a go. First though, I wanted to cover Drag Me To Hell, as that is probably the most recent horror film that I have genuinely enjoyed.

Here's the thing though, Drag Me To Hell isn't remotely scary. In fact, it's absolutely hilarious in the same way that many of director Sam Raimi's films often are when you wouldn't necessarily expect it. Alison Lohman plays a promotion seeking loan officer who decides to get tough with the wrong person and has a gypsy curse placed on her. This gives her three days of demonic torment before she is (title check) dragged to hell. Naturally, the film follows Lohman as she deals with the, shall we say, loveable antics of her demon stalker, whilst attempting to find a way to stop said demon from following through on the final part of the deal. Lohman makes for a hugely likeable heroine and, though you can see why this fate has befallen her, you never suspect her of truly deserving it. This means that the unfortunate bloodlust that some films try to instil in their audience is far from applicable here. Add to that the fact that the idea of an eternal damnation in Hell feels like one of the most horrible fates that could befall someone and you've got a solid plight for the heroine. As I said though, the film isn't scary. It's not a huge issue when you consider the level of fun that's to be had here, but it doesn't even achieve much in the way of simple creepiness. Also, the film has a slightly worrying preoccupation with horrible things entering Lohman's mouth. Though the first few instances of this achieve the gross out factor, it becomes something that is fallen back on far too much and thus loses all of the effect by the end. However, Drag Me To Hell survives on a solid plot, excellent acting and has more than a few welcome surprises up it's sleeve. Obviously, I'm not going to give away those surprises, but I find myself fairly safe in saying that regardless of whether you love, hate or stand indifferent to Drag Me To Hell, you will definitely remember it.

FOUR out of five

So, there we go. That is the most recent horror film that I have even come close to loving. Given the lack of fear, it proves to me that it's not that I want to be terrified, but instead just entertained. Could I find one that would do that?

Sort of.

With an opening that feels more like a badly acted version of Lars Von Trier's Melancholia, than it does a slasher film, You're Next sets out it's stall very badly. An uninteresting family feud hangs over this ill-fated reunion as a conveniently large and (even more conveniently) disposable family gather together, only to find themselves targeted by a group of masked killers. To be fair, the simplicity is refreshing, saving us from the usual overdone backstory or campfire tales that will foretell the mayhem to come. These people exist to die and little more, so the filmmaker's figure we might as well just introduce the victims and then get on with it. If you are a slasher fan, this simplicity may appeal to you and the film definitely gains some momentum once the killing starts. The deaths are moderately inventive, without feeling too contrived and it's anything but restrained when it comes to gore. OK, so it's not on the same level as your average "gorno" film, but the kills look and feel alarmingly brutal. Character motivations remain fairly believable throughout (I don't recall anyone hiding in a closet) and, though the final survivor is fairly obvious, the film sets out it's stall fairly well when it comes to an "anything goes" mentality. But, when I say the acting is bad, I mean it. This is daytime television fare and I'm thinking that might offend the stars of daytime television. The attempts at humour don't work either, ranking somewhere near "huh huh, that stupid person just died", instead of demonstrating a solid grasp on dark humour. You're Next is alright, maybe even good, but little more, at times overcoming the heinous acting and dull opening by providing us with copious amounts of action, but is it going to stand with the best that slasher films have to offer? Not a chance.

THREE out of five

I didn't like The Awakening. Yet, weirdly, I find myself quite keen to watch it again. The reason is the twist, as I'm fairly certain it's one of the most cack-handed twists I've ever seen, particularly when it comes to maintaining continuity. Unfortunately though, I can't quite prove this and so I am interested to go back and see if I am right. I just couldn't bring myself to do it quite yet. The real shame of this is that the film begins very well indeed. Instead of going for the opening scare, it throws you straight into the mindset of Rebecca Hall as author Florence Cathcart, a lady who has made her name by debunking other people's supernatural scams. This works because if you are a skeptic, you are with her and if you are a believer, you want to see if her mind will be changed by the end of the film. The scenario that offers the chance for this to happen is the ghost of a child walking the halls of a boarding school, terrifying the other children as a result of his distorted face. Rebecca Hall is excellent, as is Dominic West as one of the school's teachers. Despite West's questionable filmography, he always puts in a decent performance and this one is no exception. As for Hall, if she doesn't become a highlight of British acting in the next few years, this world contains precisely bugger all justice. Unlike the likes of Drag Me To Hell, this is a film that sets out it's stall in a manner that needs to be scary and in this respect, it fails. Though some scenes manage to qualify as eerie, there really isn't anything that's going to send an acceptable amount of shivers down your spine, bar one "blink and you miss it" moment. It's hurt even more by an overcooked score that often feels like it belongs to a historical epic, more than it does an atmospheric horror film. The Awakening is a film that starts off well and looks at though it could be great. Unfortunately, as time moves on, it gets worse and worse until the whole thing feels wholly average.

TWO out of five 

Of all the films that make me feel like I've seen too many horror films, The Conjuring is probably the most notable. It's a film that has become famed for terrifying audiences all over the world and yet, after I watched it, I slept as soundly as I ever have. It suffers from one of the flaws that has dogged a number of James Wan's films, most notably Insidious. He simply shows us too much. Everything gets wrapped up in a neat little package too, leaving us in no doubt as to what is going on, what is causing it and why it's doing it. Fear of the unknown is what makes some of the best horror films retain their fear and, though it may be an overused comparison, films like The Others will always serve to make efforts like The Conjuring seem like an inferior product, particularly when they keep falling back on cheap tricks. The story doesn't help either because, basically, there isn't one. A family move into a secluded house in the woods (it's the 60's so I guess we can forgive them for their idiocy) and shit happens, so they call in the experts. Fair enough going for the simple concept, but that means your film really does live and die on whether it can scare the audience. Therefore, for me, The Conjuring is a failure. It's not me trying to seem all big and tough, there were some moments that creeped me out, but little to nothing stuck with me. There's some solid acting that works to it's credit, particularly from Lili Taylor as the mother in the family. It's not the best written role, but she handles it very well indeed and seizes her moment to shine in the ending. Areas like that save The Conjuring from being a complete bust and I didn't find it anywhere near as bad as Insidious. Nonetheless, I'm happy to accept this is a film that was just lost on me, so if you enjoyed Insidious, I guess I can recommend it to you. I'm just prove that there's no guarantees that you'll love it.

TWO out of five

By this point, I really didn't want to watch The Borderlands. My mission to find a decent horror film was starting to look like a bit of a bust and about ten minutes before watching the film, I realised it was found footage. I'll save my hatred of that particular area of horror for another time. Nonetheless, I had committed and didn't really have time to watch five other films before the review was due, so I sat down for a likely hour and a half of boredom. More fool me, because that hour and a half passed and I was scared of leaving the room. Gordon Kennedy, Robin Hill and Aidan McArdle create the main (and very much unknown) cast of Vatican investigators who have been sent to determine whether mysterious events at a village church are legitimate and whether or not they may constitute a miracle. Director Elliot Goldner pulls a bit of a masterstroke by having absolutely no concern with scaring you from the start. In fact, the majority of the beginning seems more like a comedy and a very funny one at that. Kennedy and Hill make for a brilliant double act, somewhere along the same lines as Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith did, albeit in a far more British way. However, as time goes on, the comedy becomes lesser and the scares begin to develop very gradually, very subtly and very effectively. I said earlier about how sometimes showing nothing is a more effective method and this is the proof, creating a truly horrible feeling that something is going to jump out at any moment. Will it? Won't it? I'm not telling you, but if you're not terrified then, in my opinion, you have nerves of steel. Exceptional sound design boosts that terror even more. Sometimes they use music and this doesn't work as well, but when they stick to atmospheres and sound effects, this is first rate. However, as much as I want to give The Borderlands a perfect five, I can't. The two reasons are simple. The first is that it has clichéd weird villagers in it and they're never properly justified, bar the incredibly freaked out vicar, played brilliantly by Luke Neal. Also, the ending is a bit of a disappointment, though that's all I can say because by ending I literally mean the final 30 seconds. Most of all though, I am grateful to The Borderlands for showing me that there is still some decent horror being made. I just think it might be a while before I can start bringing myself round to the idea of looking for more of them.

FOUR out of five

Next Time (14th August)

Not-So-Great Scott

2013 - A Boring Odyssey

Partial Education Presents

2013 - A Boring Odyssey

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

After Earth

Oblivion

Pacific Rim

Elysium

and Ender's Game

Sci-fi faced a massive problem in 2013. Though it had it's big sequels, most notably Star Trek Into Darkness, there were a number of new properties making their way to the screen, some looking to possibly start a franchise, others not. The problem was that they all looked a little boring and, as a result, a number of them didn't do as well as hoped. The issue came from the trailers not selling the films particularly well, but a bad trailer doesn't always add up to a bad film. In the same way that trailers are capable of making bad films look good, they're also capable of the opposite. So, I decided to embrace the potential inflictions of narcolepsy and sit through the five most notable ones.

I always make a point of checking out M. Night Shyamalan's films, despite the general consensus that he hasn't made a decent one in years and my own opinion that he's only made one worth bothering about (obviously, The Sixth Sense). After Earth was different though, as it was the first of his films that I had no desire whatsoever to watch. It didn't even seem to have the unintentional amusement of The Last Airbender on it's side. Sitting down to watch it, my suspicions were soon confirmed. The thing with it is that there isn't one single area to point the blame at. From the painful acting (particularly the two leads), to the unimaginative look and the script that sounds like it's suffering from a bout of scientific tourettes, it all congeals together to create an experience that's nothing short of arduous. Shyamalan is blatantly a director for hire, seemingly providing name value to the director's chair, but then serving to present us with the Smith Family Chronicles. As father and son Kitai and Cypher, Will and Jaden Smith find themselves crash-landing on the now uninhabitable Earth, leaving Kitai to venture through the hazardous, creature-strewn lands in an attempt to launch a distress beacon. Jaden's performance in particular is terrible, putting on a grating accent and mistaking petulance for determination. That doesn't let his Dad off a career worst performance, but it does provide Will with something to hide behind. As for the creatures, they are wholly uninteresting and nothing else is there to provide the film with a sense of threat. Each one disappears almost as soon as they've appeared, meaning that there's no real sense of true danger from any of them. Also, though the final battle is foreseeable, it's not a particularly appealing one, giving you very little reason to sit around other than to say you survived through to the end. Being bad in a way that's boring, rather than entertaining, this is Shyamalan's worst film and it suffers it's final irony in the end credits. When the main cast and crews' names all appear showered in gold, you can't help but feel like you've just been showered in something else.

ONE out of five

There's an alarming sense that director Joseph Kosinski isn't far away from referring to himself as a 'visionary' (that dreaded point where a director's head finds a way to place itself somewhere uncomfortable). So focussed is he on technical creation that Oblivion forgoes a decent plot, interesting characters and entertaining action scenes in favour of Kosinski spreading out his pallet of white, grey or desolate in a way that he considers beautiful. In a world that has been long abandoned (yes, again), Tom Cruise and Andrea Riseborough are two of the few humans left on Earth, performing the world's longest maintenance job. All the while, the rest of the human race reside in a giant ship headed for Titan where they will take their new residence. In other words, they've remade WALL-E and forgotten to give it a credit. There's even a part where Cruise gets excited about a plant. He's on autopilot here, playing the same hero he usually plays, but reigning himself in on his usual stunt-loving antics because they've decided more scenes of him reminiscing would be preferable. As the object of Cruise's reminiscing, Olga Kurylenko adds nothing to the film other than standing there waiting to reveal the major twist of her character and then going back to just standing there. Riseborough is decent though, rapidly joining the long list of actors unable to find films that are as good as they are. However, the biggest problem really is Kosinski. His focus on realising his imagination has apparently blinded him to the fact that his imagination is comprised of amalgamated scenes from other superior films. Meandering ponderously through the already sparse story, his rare moments of excitement are squandered (there's a shootout in the dark, meaning you see nothing). When the twist arrives, it falls into two elements, one predictable and one less so, but it's hard to get invested in the repercussions of it because Kosinski has forgotten to present us with characters that we give the remotest damn about. Oblivion isn't After Earth bad, but when the trailers presented the film as being boring, it turns out they were just being honest.

TWO out of five

The idea of humans in robots fighting giant lizard-like creatures is hardly an original one. Let's face it, you may as well call it Mighty Morphin Power Rangers VS Godzilla, but despite marketing campaigns that indicated otherwise, I always knew this would have something up it's sleeve, if only because of the presence of Guillermo Del Toro. Turns out I was wrong. Though Pacific Rim is helped along by some genuinely fun fight scenes and some seriously top notch special effects, it's disappointing to find the same director who gave us the likes of Pan's Labyrinth on such unimaginative form. The script (also written by Del Toro) is utter dross, complete with characters and lines recycled from many films previous. Effectively, monsters have risen from a portal at the bottom of the Pacific ocean and the humans have built giant robots that will face them. The acting is nothing to write home about either. Most are competent, but lack anything that's going to stick in the memory for too long. One exception is Rinko Kikuchi, who is excellent in a female role that involves neither romance nor taking her clothes off. The other exceptions, for the wrong reasons, are Charlie Day and Burn Gorman as a pair of gratingly annoying scientists, providing the comic stress, as averse to relief. I'm also feeling the need to note Idris Elba, who may do well in his role on the whole, but delivers one of the worst attempts at a rousing speech since Keira Knightley's in the third Pirates Of The Caribbean film. In the end, Pacific Rim has it's fun moments, but never achieves anything higher than that and drags horribly between the surprisingly rare action sequences. Del Toro has made worse films (step forward Mimic), but he's never been so commercially soulless as he has here.

TWO out of five

The weight of expectation weighs heavily on many films, be it through the love for a prior film in the series or for the expectation on the filmmaker's. With Elysium, all the expectation lay on it as Neill Blomkamp's Hollywood debut, following the excellence of District 9. So, to get straight to the point, if you watch Elysium expecting something that ranks anywhere near District 9, you will be disappointed. It's not awful, but is merely good. Set in a future where Earth has become more and more polluted, the rich live in Elysium, a utopian society floating above the Earth (yes, again) in which all disease is curable. Meanwhile, the poor are left to live on Earth, in which they toil away to meet the needs of the rich that have left them for dead. It's fairly standard "all rich people are evil" fare, but does come with some exciting moments. Sadly though, a lot of the quirkier aspects from District 9 have been stripped away and Elysium often seems like a reigning in of Blomkamp's style, in favour of meeting the spectacle that would be expected of it's higher budget. Acting is solid to excellent, with Matt Damon making a good hero, although it does at times become more like a Matt Damon performance than it does an actual character. Sharlto Copley is a lot of fun, despite his straying into some serious overacting (quickly becoming the theme of his career). Meanwhile, Jodie Foster is always excellent, but her performance is hindered here by some unforgivably bad dubbing on her dialogue. That voice is coming from somewhere, but it is not her mouth at that time and place. Though the concept works, a predictable plot and cookie-cutter style renders Elysium solidly pedestrian and rarely kicks into that gear that will fill you with the most basic level of excitement.

THREE out of five

As I said, all of these films were ones that I personally felt looked boring and unappealing. Standing way above them all though was Ender's Game, despite recommendations of the story from people who had read the books. The simple fact was that nothing about this film made it look remotely interesting. A child prodigy is picked to lead a space fleet. Great. Why should I care? Turns out Ender's Game is one of the best science fiction films of recent years. A slow start doesn't bode well, but this turns out to be a good thing as the film reveals itself to be a slow burner. The child prodigy in question is Asa Butterfield as Ender, who is taken into training by Harrison Ford's Colonel Hyrum Graff, as they prepare to fight an incoming alien invasion. Satirical bite is established early, as it is revealed that child warriors are being trained through the use of video games and the result has been a growing desensitisation towards death and taking lives. The worrying nature that this is going to be biased sensationalism is completely thrown away, as a true gut punch of a finale vilifies only the humans. It's an absolutely brilliant final twist that will leave any adrenaline you may feel completely sapped from you, but is all the better for it. There are still some flaws though. The nature of the film involves a lot of training sequences that lack some excitement, mainly due to not much going on. You never get a sense of anything happening outside of the main action and, as a result, these sequences feel lazily sparse. If they were saving it for a showstopping finale, this would be fine, but, for entirely justifiable (and spoiler-filled) reasons, this isn't really the case. Also, though Butterfield and Ford are both great, some other characters do feel under-utilised, namely all the female ones. Viola Davis all but disappears by the halfway point and Hailee Steinfeld just doesn't have much to do, a shame when you consider the potential she showed in True Grit. This isn't going to destroy her career, but taking on too many roles like this won't help it. Abigail Breslin also gets sidelined, but her wooden acting in her first scene makes that feel like a good thing. Mostly though, Ender's Game is great and is the beginning to what should have been an excellent franchise. I use the past tense because the shocking marketing meant that not enough people went to see it and this franchise is pretty much dead in the water. Meanwhile, Pacific Rim's getting a sequel. Good times.

FOUR out of five

Next Time (31st July)

The wheat from the chaff

A Very Basic Evolution Of The Vampire Movie (Minus That One!)

Partial Education Presents:

A Very Basic Evolution Of The Vampire Movie (Minus That One!)

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of:

Nosferatu

The Lost Boys

Buffy The Vampire Slayer

Blade

and

Let The Right One In

It's become a sore point for me: the arrival of a new vampire film is often greeted by little more than a groan from the masses due to a virulent case of over-saturation. Of course, the problem is rooted in perception towards the Twilight series, but this is not going to be one of those cornucopias of Twilight digs as I've only seen one of them and so don't feel overly qualified to comment on it. Instead, after several weeks of negativity, I decided to force my grumpy-arsed soul away for getting too bitter and look back at some of the more influential vampire films of all time. That's not to say that they're categorically THE most influential, as that would involve various versions of Dracula and a whole slew of others. Nonetheless, these are five very notable, although not always decent, ones

First things first, if you're one of those people who turned off The Artist because there was no talking, bad news: Nosferatu was made in 1922. However, if that puts you off, then you are missing out on one of horror's most influential masterpieces. Nosferatu is basically the story of Dracula, with names changed (Dracula becomes Count Orlock, Jonathan Harker becomes Thomas Hutter, etc.) in an attempt to circumvent the studio being unable to acquire the rights. The thin disguise almost didn't work though, as plagiarism charges from Bram Stoker's estate led to nearly all copies of the film being destroyed. Fortunately, at least one survived. Now, the obvious question: is the effect of the film still the same as it was back then? Of course not. In that respect, it serves more as a document of what would scare audiences back then and endless imitations of the style has reduced the effect considerably. Where it still succeeds is in it's transference of the absolute finest of theatrical melodrama to the screen, complete with actors throwing the back of their hands across their foreheads and frequently demonstrating literal wide-eyed horror. The pinnacle is Max Schreck as Count Orlock, still retaining a relative creepiness 90+ years on. He rarely shifts from a cold dead stare, as this is all he needs to retain his position as a true dark force. Also, the film is not without it's wit and many of the jokes still work today. Some have inevitably dated, but I defy anyone not to at least let out the slightest guffaw at Count Orlock's "complement" towards Hutter's wife. Most of all though, Nosferatu stands up as (and I do not say this lightly) the most important vampire film of all time. Without it, nothing that followed would exist in the form that it does today. To recommend it to everyone would be foolish, as some just won't want to watch silent films and others won't be able to get over the technical deficiencies (the film doesn't have missing frames, it has missing chunks). However, it an essential watch for film and horror fans and anything that still carves out an influence so long after first being released deserves it's place in immortality.

FIVE out of five

In the pantheon of awful directors, a name that often gets mentioned is Joel Schumacher. It is, in my opinion, a little unfair to completely destroy his career by throwing him in with the likes of Uwe Boll, but the wounds inflicted by Batman & Robin still rear their ugly heads from time to time. In that respect, The Lost Boys is worrying, displaying some early hints towards the style he would inflict upon the Batman franchise. Yet, despite those hints, the hideously dated dialogue and moderately hammy acting, The Lost Boys still manages to be bloody brilliant. It helps that the film doesn't care how it's being perceived, as long as people are having fun. It's achingly 80's and thus comes from a decade that has aged more than most, but as soon as the opening theme of Cry Little Sister kicks into gear, fun is exactly what you start to have. The plot is fairly predictable, a mother and her two sons move to a beachside town in California, only for the two sons (Jason Patric and Corey Feldman) to discover that the place has a bit of a vampire problem. There's also a twist that you will guess fairly quickly, despite the film's admirable but not very successful attempts to steer you away from it. Where The Lost Boys really stands the test of time though is in just how instrumental it was in bringing vampires into the modern world. As much as I'm about to fly the flag for Joss Whedon, I don't think Buffy would exist (at least not in the same way) without The Lost Boys, in which vampires are removed from the idea of relics from a forgotten age and turned into a vision of the youth that would serve as a hefty portion of the audience. There are some who will despise The Lost Boys and balk at it's inherent cheesiness, but it's proven track record of influence stands in it's favour and when you finish a film with a grin on your face, deficiencies become a much lesser issue.

FOUR out of five

Not for a second am I going to sit here and pretend that the film version of Buffy The Vampire Slayer is a masterpiece, nor can it hold a candle to the brilliance of the TV series. It's flaws are numerous and obvious: shockingly bad acting, scene transitions that jerk rather than flow, David Arquette. The list goes on. Even Joss Whedon's script leaves a lot to be desired, although does show early blinks of the elements people would come to love him for. Also, we can thanks the Gods that Kristy Swanson's performance as Buffy was only for the film and not the series (I'm not citing Sarah Michelle Gellar as the greatest actor, but when placed next to Swanson, she may as well be). However, the film is the start of what would become a minor revolution, not just for vampires, but for the realisation of a female hero that could exist without rampant objectification. It's got some solid moments, but they're all smothered in errors impossible to ignore. The flaws here send The Lost Boys' flaws into insignificance. The glimmers of hope are there though, with Whedon's spiky, sarcastic humour making the odd appearance and the simple concept being adhered to, without a need to fall into annoying subplots or pretentious metaphor. Girl is picked to kill vampires, girl kills vampires. That's all you need. Buffy The Vampire Slayer becomes more understandable when taken as the starting point for the greater things that followed and this helps the tolerance levels, but it's legacy may lead some in with a false sense of security.

TWO out of five

Blade is one of those films that I was dying to see when I was younger, but couldn't due to my failure to yet reach puberty. Unlike the likes of Scary Movie though, when I finally got round to it, this one didn't disappoint. It didn't matter that I already knew the whole plot. I loved every second of it. So, I received a nasty surprise last week when I sat down to re-watch it. I'm not about to say it's rubbish. It's not. It's still great. Sadly though, it's starting to age and I think it's going to be a rapid process. The effects now look fairly dodgy, even when compared to some films that came out before it, the emerging of Wesley Snipes' ego is much easier to spot and the gore (a shallow selling point, yes, but I'm sticking with it) now seems fairly tame in a world that has experienced the likes of the Saw and Hostel franchises. What helps to keep it great though is the story, a simple yet unashamed fight between the antihero half-vampire and the none-more-evil vampire who wants to firmly entrench himself as the baddest of the bad. With Stephen Dorff relishing the chief villain role and Kris Krisotfferson as Blade's grumpy mentor Whistler, they're more than enough to counteract the minor issues in the script and major deficiencies in Snipes' modesty. Where Blade will always hold relevance though isn't in it's influence as a vampire film, but the fact that it made comic book adaptations viable again. If X-Men made them a big deal again and Spider-Man made them huge, then Blade did all the hard work, something that needed to happen in the wake of a certain George Clooney film that may or may not have already been mentioned. Far more than any other film can claim to, Blade took the comic book adaptation and made it relevant, edgy and just plain decent again. For that alone, it deserves to be remembered, perhaps more than it actually is.

FOUR out of five

I'm afraid this involves another Twilight mention, as the release dates between the first film of the series and Let The Right One In were mere months apart, allowing …Right One to serve as the beacon of hope to those despairing at the sparkly things that were besieging their screens. Crafting a tender beauty from an overcast fog of murkiness and brutality, director Tomas Alfredson doesn't focus on the vampirism of young in body vampire Eli. Instead, he appears to acknowledge that his audience is already well-versed in the mythology and slightly exhausted of it and uses her tortured soul as more of a, still captivating, side plot. The focus is on her relationship with bullied Oskar, a social misfit with a decent heart and well-meaning spirit. As the two young characters, Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson are stellar, managing to be ever likeable and sympathetic despite their distant personalities and, in Eli's case, blind thirst for blood. The way they are treated by others is believable and at times you can see how Oskar has become the easy prey, but he's so likeable that revulsion is the only acceptable response to the relentless bullying that he receives from his schoolyard tormenters. Adult characters don't shine through anywhere near as much as the young cast, but their performances are still solid and the far more interesting characters are the one's that hold the focus of the film. If you don't like reading, then tough tits, it's in Swedish. You can feel free to go watch the deeply inferior American remake. Let The Right One In is too young a film to be able to stand up in the same ways as the others here when it comes to influence, but give it a few years and I guarantee you that will have changed. It is a modern masterpiece; a story that may be using mythological creatures, but couldn't be more human.

FIVE out of five

Next Time (17th July)

Boredly going...

Car-Fex-Air-Bee - The Many Faces of Keanu Reeves

Partial Education Presents

Car-Fex-Air Bee - The Many Faces of Keanu Reeves

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of:

Bram Stoker's Dracula

The Devil's Advocate

Sweet November

The Day The Earth Stood Still

and

47 Ronin

After last week's reviews, a friend of mine christened me "Thumbs Down Boothman". I've been called worse, but something tells me that this week's entry is not going to help in relieving me of that moniker, as I take a look at five films that demonstrate why Keanu Reeves may have a right to the title: Most Boring Screen Presence in Film.

The 1990's weren't particularly kind to Francis Ford Coppola. They began with him exposing his daughter's acting "talents" to the world and also included him making Jack. In between those two films, he made Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's a curious entity really, as it manages to be both incredibly immersive, whilst also being strangely dull. On the plus side, for just over 2 hours, you genuinely feel as though you're in 19th century London, with the beautiful gothic setting of Transylvania infecting the city, as the Dark Lord himself descends upon them. On the flip side, the film feels overburdened with a general aura of pomposity and ill-found over confidence. This isn't helped by some pretty awful acting. Reeves gets most of the stick and, let's face it, it's deserved, with his British accent ranking somewhere around level with Dick Van Dyke's. If you've not seen it, here's a fairly perfect example: 

In all fairness, Winona Ryder's not much better, but her performance itself is at least acceptable. Reeves' performance feels like what happens when you tell a 6-year-old to put some emotion into reading out loud. Gary Oldman's Dracula WAS an excellent one, but it has dated badly (much like the film on the whole) and it now feels more like a precursor to the endless caricatures that would follow it. It's left to Anthony Hopkins then to give a great performance that still stands up today. As the now slightly mad Abraham Van Helsing, Hopkins provides the film with much of it's humour, but refuses to go overboard and embrace the exuberant, and slightly indulgent, melodrama around him. Deadpanning his way though the comedic parts means that not only are they genuinely funny, but they also allow his more serious moments to be effective. The pacing is fairly good, bar some unnecessary deliberation leading up to the grand finale, which also lacks the spectacle that the rest of the film suggests it should have had, with a general feeling of "is that it?" pervading. Bram Stoker's Dracula is solid and, as a result, slightly disappointing. Nevertheless, the film at least ends in greatness, as Annie Lennox's Love Song For A Vampire plays over the end credits; a song so good, it may even convince you that the film that came before it was better than it actually is.

THREE 

BRITISH KEANU FACES 

out of five

Putting on his best suit (not a metaphor), Reeves plays hotshot lawyer Kevin Lomax, whose perfect record in the courtroom has essentially consisted of helping some genuinely nasty people run free. This brings him to the attention of a law firm in New York, headed by Al Pacino's John Milton (bonus points if you catch the reference). Welcomed, embraced and saddled with a case that he sees as a test of just how good he is, Reeves relishes the new challenge, but events and shady characters begin to show that everything may not be A-OK. It takes a while for Reeves to realise this, but it won't take the audience very long because the film is about as subtle as a brick to the go-nads. If you don't get the end twist from Al Pacino's character name, the imagery that's every bit as restrained as the flame adorned end credits will certainly ensure that you do. Also *SPOILER!* it's the film's title! The Reeves problem is that he's just not that interesting. There's two stories going on here: Reeves' case and just what the hell (pun intended) is going on in Pacino's company. The interest level of the former lies in Reeves' hands and he's entirely unable to add even the slightest level of intrigue to it. It doesn't help that the script treats it like an absolute afterthought, practically screaming "Look! There's Al Pacino! I wonder who his character really is!" every chance it can get. Speaking of which, Pacino is scenery chewing all the way. While that would normally annoy me, it doesn't here as he's providing the film with a much-needed dose of fun. His final scenes may feel a little bit like Tony Montana on Ritalin, but at least it's memorable. Finally, the film is TWO AND A HALF HOURS LONG! A wholly unnecessary length, with the final half hour being irritatingly bonkers and in desperate need of a huge trimming. The Devil's Advocate has a decent film hiding within it and is by no means a bad film. It's just so bloody exhausting.

THREE 

CHARISMATIC KEANU FACES 

out of five

There's a much-maligned trope that's thankfully dying off in cinema, known as the "magical negro". In brief, it consists of a black character coming along to assist the white characters with the problems that they're having. A particularly notable example is The Legend Of Bagger Vance, in which Will Smith helps Matt Damon play golf better. The filmmakers' belief that this is some sort of black empowerment is usually muted by the fact that the character's sole purpose is to help out those white folk over there and then disappear from whence they came. The only difference between this character and Charlize Theron's character in Sweet November is that she is instead the "magical woman", doing for feminism what Nigel Farage does for restrained modesty. Reeves plays a big-headed, arrogant advertising executive who's, let's not beat around the bush, a bit of a shit, meaning that there may as well be giant flashing arrows reading "REDEMPTION STORY!" above his head at all times. After screwing Theron out of her driving theory test, she begins to stalk him, offering him the chance to spend the entire month of November with her, promising to lead him to a better life if he agrees to do so. The entire thing is riddled with manipulative schmaltz, not helped by the fact that even when Reeves is doing something nice, he still seems like a bit of a bell-end. To Theron's credit, she's a fairly likeable presence, but the romance between the two leads is pretty irksome and many of the grand gestures are rendered laughable by painful dialogue. The only real things of note are a welcome, but all too brief, appearance from Frank Langella and the world's lightest dishwasher. Feeling far too much like a Nicholas Sparks adaptation, the best way to deal with Sweet November is to ignore it and pray for the arrival of December.

TWO 

ROMANTIC KEANU FACES 

out of five

Seven years after Sweet November, Keanu decided to ruin December as well, by giving us a remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still. It's another alien invasion film and this time the aliens aren't happy that humans have been destroying the environment, so the humans fight back by destroying things. If the aliens lose, they must at least feel as though they've made their point. The whole film just feels incredibly uninteresting and slightly preachy. There's nothing particularly original here (yes, it's a remake, but still...) and there's a whole load of waiting for something to happen, only for what does happen to be not particularly impressive. Every character feels like they're taken from the archives of pre-requisite sci-fi characters. Reeves is the alien with no emotion and an eternally blank stare and it turns out he can't even play that particularly well. Other revolutionary character types include Jennifer Connelly as the mother with the deceased husband, Jaden Smith as her rebellious stepchild, a load of bland army generals, a slightly gung-ho government agent and the Secretary of Defence regularly getting defensive. Director Scott Derrickson hasn't had the most brilliant of careers, but his horror efforts (Sinister, The Exorcism Of Emily Rose) have at least been slightly scary, if also slightly crap. The Day The Earth Stood Still shouldn't be scary, but it should be exciting and it never is. To call it an outright disaster isn't strictly true (there's some OKish bits at the end), but it is notable in being a perfect presentation for the dictionary definition of dull.

TWO

ALIEN KEANU FACES 

out of five

And so we come to the final film, officially the biggest box office bomb of all time. Does it deserve to be that? No. That's not to say it's good, but in a world that also contains the likes of Battleship, Grown Ups 2 and Michael Bay, 47 Ronin is a much lesser crime. It also feels as though the makers of 47 Ronin tried hard and genuinely wanted to (may have even believed that they had) made a decent film. Visually, the film is nice. The 3D's fairly throwaway, but the beasts look good and the environments are just as nice, albeit blatantly CGI. However, the story feels fairly boring, which it shouldn't as it's a brilliant story. 47 disavowed samurai seek to avenge the death of their leader after he is tricked into assaulting a court official and executed as a result. I'm not going to pretend like it's a rarity for my mind to wander astray, but this was one of the hardest experiences for me to remain interested in what was actually going on. The whole thing remains deadly serious throughout, without the slightest glimmer of hopefulness or good spirits to lighten the mood. It's based a true story, but they've thrown in some blatant fantasy there, so why not a little bit of humour too? The odd good bit does appear, with the rousing score helping to keep some excitement there, even if it's used a little too much and in some rather inappropriate places; a one-on-one fight between Reeves and Hiroyuki Sanada has the sort of music you'd expect from a Lord Of The Rings-style epic battle. As the unmarketed lead character, Sanada is actually very good, with a real feeling of sincerity to his performance that stands to make Reeves seem like he's lost the one dimension he previously had. What really saves 47 Ronin from true awfulness though is actually The Last Airbender. In some ways, 47 Ronin shows the same misguided attempts to hold both epic status and gravitas. However, in being nowhere near as awful as The Last Airbender, it actually helps to make it seem almost acceptable. Keep your expectations low and you may find things that surprise you, but even beginning to recommend this film is a difficulty.

TWO 

HALF-JAPANESE KEANU FACES 

out of five

DISCLAIMER: I wrote this review a few weeks ago and since then my quest for Full Education has led me to a Danny Dyer marathon. Keanu: all is forgiven.

Next Time (3rd July)

Taking that thumb and turning it upwards

The Alternative Fairytales - All The Better To Bore You With

Partial Education Presents

All The Better To Bore You With: The Alternative Fairy Tales

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of:

Beastly

Red Riding Hood

Snow White And The Huntsman

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

and

Jack The Giant Slayer

It's a craze that someone apparently asked for, but I can assure you it wasn't me. The alternative fairytale has inundated cinemas over the last few years and the results have been relatively 'meh'. Here's five of the reasons why.

Always say something positive. Always say something positive. Always say something positive. Always say something positive. Wait, I've got something. Neil Patrick Harris is OK in it.

Taking the tried-and-tested story of Beauty And The Beast and throwing it in a modern setting shouldn't necessarily guarantee success, but you have to admire the skill that director and writer Daniel Barnz has demonstrated here. I don't think anyone else could have made quite as much of a royal balls-up. Alex Pettyfer takes the Beast role, while Vanessa Hudgens handles the Beauty side of things. The acting is awful, with the young cast seemingly trying to outdo each other in the sincerity department, but instead coming off hokey, with top prize going to Mary-Kate Olsen (yes, that one), as the witch responsible for the Beast's curse. The real reason for why this film is awful though is Barnz's direction and script. Lines feel forced and people converse in a way that you have never heard people ever converse before. You can tell when it thinks it's got a winning line because it makes sure it focusses all the action directly on that line, before everyone pauses and basks in the glory. The fact that Barnz is also directing means that this all comes off like some sort of self-congratulatory masturbation ritual. So convinced is he of his genius that he's failed to notice everyone else is groaning and just how uncomfortable Pettyfer looks in the lead role, presumably because he realises what he's starring in. Special, and final, mention though has to go to the film's idea of insults, managing to come up with some of the most ridiculous and pathetic attempts at sounding adult within a PG-13 / 12A environment you have ever heard. Of particular note: "you have the humour of a marmot". OK, then.

ONE out of five

Aesthetically, Red Riding Hood is near flawless. It's opening credit sequence is so well done that it may make you sit back and think this isn't going to be as bad as you'd expect. As we approach the village of Daggerhorn, the beautiful surroundings also feels dangerous and isolating; menace being amply supplied by Brian Reitzell and Alex Heffes' outstanding score. For the remainder of the film, the visual aspect rarely lets up and the overbearing feeling of imminent doom remains ever-present. Unfortunately, the film is borderline ruined by an incredibly boring plot. Amanda Seyfried plays Red Riding Hood, here named Valerie and mostly wearing blue. Instead of her entering the wolf's territory, the wolf enters hers, as it has taken to offing the residents of Daggerhorn. Oh, and it's also been upgraded to a werewolf. The plot then becomes a whodunnit as Gary Oldman's Wolf-finder General, Father Solomon, comes a-huntin'. The problem with the whodunnit is that the film pretty much gives away who the wolf is very near the beginning and, if you miss the shot that does that, you will have worked it out by the end. In addition, the acting is fairly poor. Even Oldman's phoning it in, but he's nowhere near the worst. Seyfried's OK in the calmer scenes, but when expressing more anguished emotions, she falters and the less-said about the shoe-horning in of "what big teeth you have" the better. Meanwhile, Max Irons, as Valerie's unwanted betrothal, isn't an actor I've seen much of, but on the basis of this and this alone, he may want some tutelage from his Dad. With Catherine Hardwicke as director, it's safe to say that Red Riding Hood is aimed squarely at the Twilight crowd and, as a result, not me. On that basis, if you enjoyed Twilight, you may enjoy this. For me though, despite the pleasing nature to both the eyes and ears, the brain's gone to sleep.

TWO out of five

The biggest problem with these new takes on fairy tales is that a lot of them feel incredibly po-faced, so enamoured by their own visions of grandiosity and style that they forget to find a way to successfully spread these stories over near 2 hour running times. In that sense, Snow White And The Huntsman is the worst of the offenders here. That's not to say it's the worst film here. It isn't, but it is the most snobbish. Rupert Sanders is all about the realisation of his vision, in a very literal sense. Much like Red Riding Hood, it looks undeniably fantastic and Sanders has a real talent for the capturing of mood, no doubt from his days in advertising. When it comes to character though, it's flat. He squanders his best opportunity when Chris Hemsworth's Huntsman arrives in a drunken flurry that suggests he may provide the film with a much-needed injection of humour. This isn't continued though, as The Huntsman reveals himself as even more mopey than the other characters. Acting-wise, there's nothing particularly special, but there are notably awful performances in the villains. I must have missed the part where the Evil Queen in Snow White is constipated, but thankfully Charlize Theron noticed and portrays it incredibly well here, moving between a whispering calm and a herniated scream, presumably during the stomach spasms. End sarcasm. As her equally evil brother, Sam Spruell perfects the art of curling the upper lip and appears to be about to burst a blood vessel at numerous points. Aside from the dwarves (which are still a bit of a misfire), Theron and Spruell provide the film with it's only real dose of amusement; shame it wasn't intentional. Most of all though, Snow White And The Huntsman is just a bit boring and Kristen Stewart doesn't make for a remotely interesting heroine. With zero surprises in the story and nothing that's going to particularly stick with you afterwards, other than the worst excuse for a mirror you've ever seen, it's another film which survives on visuals and pretty much those alone.

TWO out of five

Having stated that I don't like these films when they're po-faced, you'd have thought Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters would have had the best chance of me liking it. It's not just reeling out the same story with a little bit of a twist, but instead presents itself as more of a sequel. Hansel and Gretel have entered an adulthood of witch hunting and slaying and that's really all the plot you should need. Sadly, two problems cripple the film from the get-go. The first is the swearing and the second is the gore. There's a lot of both and precisely none of it is necessary, preventing the age group that would probably have the most interest in watching this from actually being allowed. Writer-director Tommy Wirkola obviously likes his gimmicky concepts, after his Nazi-zombie film Dead Snow, with it's exceptional tagline Ein! Zwei! Die!, but …Witch Hunters doesn't even have cheap laughs such as that. Similar sins to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter are committed, by taking itself quite seriously at times and focussing more on being a riveting action film (which it isn't) than brainless fun (which it should be). Gemma Arterton is flat-out terrible as Gretel, so too is Famke Janssen as chief villain witch. Jeremy Renner, meanwhile, is fairly boring, whilst the attempts at chemistry between him and Pihla Viitala's character (Is she a witch? Isn't she? Of course she bloody is) feels dreary and uninvolving. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is not so bad it's good. It is an entirely inexcusable waste of an hour and a half that's trying to sell itself as a guilty pleasure, but forgot the pleasurable bits.

ONE out of five

Let's go in all guns blazing here. Of all five of these films, this is the worst. I mean, technically, Beastly is the worst, but that gains some enjoyment from just how inept it is. Jack The Giant Slayer is just a sorry effort from a director who should (and does) know better, with an incredibly flat lead performance from Nicholas Hoult. It starts off fairly similar. Jack buys beans. Beanstalk grows. Giants are at the top of it. The story develops though as Jack uncovers an impending war that the giants are about to wage on humans. This then gets further exacerbated when Stanley Tucci's treacherous Lord Roderick finds a way to make himself King of the Giants. First problem: the human characters are pretty much all so dull or pompous that wiping them out seems like a positive. The rich speak in posh accents, while the poor are (what else?) Northerners. Second problem: the effects. The big beanstalk set-piece is set on a rainy night, rendering the most impressive visual sequence pretty much unwatchable. Then there's the giants, who, frankly, look awful. It's CGI at it's absolute worst. Third problem (and this is the main one): the film's outright failure to adhere to one set bad guy. Without giving anything away, the film changes it's mind on a number of occasions with regards to who the main villain is, despite the fact that Stanley Tucci is stood there as the obvious choice. Despite the odd glimmer of humour here and there, Jack The Giant Slayer is a true bust, worthy of nothing other than forgetting. Bryan Singer more than just misfired here, he swan dived.

ONE out of five

Next Time (19th June)

Ted's Not-So-Excellent Adventures