Showing posts with label Catherine Hardwicke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catherine Hardwicke. Show all posts

Sunday, June 20, 2010

500th post

It’s been two and a half years and 500 posts since I started The Agitation of the Mind, my third stab at a blog after MovieBuff on 20six and MovieBuff Redux on Platform27, but the first time I got the balance right and attracted a halfway decent readership.

To celebrate, I’m opting for the lazy man’s guide to blogging and digging out (or at least linking back to) my ten favourite posts from the first age of Agitation. Original material will resume shortly.

1) Peckinpah as Prospero. I dedicated the whole of December ’09 to a celebration of Sam Peckinpah’s life and career, tying in with the 25th anniversary of his death. It proved the most well-received project I’ve undertaken on the blog and gave me the most satisfaction personally. I’m proud of every single article I posted during that month, but “Peckinpah as Prospero”, a distillation of the importance of Peckinpah’s cameo as Will the coffin-maker in ‘Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid’, stands out as the first (and thus far only) time I’ve abandoned the standard operating procedure of overall movie reviews and concentrated in specific detail on one crucial scene. This is the deepest I’ve ever engaged with a film.

2) THE HEY, INTERNET, STOP BEING SUCH CYNICAL EFFING DOUCHEBAGS BLOG-A-THON: Where Eagles Dare. When the inimitable Stacey Ponder at Final Girl put out the call, two years ago, for contributions to a blog-a-thon whose only remit was “write about something in the world of film that fills you with complete and total unbridled fucking retarded JOY … wear your heart on your sleeve and tells us all why you love something”, I didn’t need asking twice. ‘Where Eagles Dare’ is one of those movies that I absolutely loved as a kid – I loved the explosions and the derring do and all that business with the cable cars and I loved the music and it was the first ever movie I saw Clint Eastwood in – and is that rarest of beasts: a movie I love just as much as an adult. This article was the impetus for my Personal Faves project, an on-off series that I’m still working my way through.

3) Inglourious Basterds (a review in five chapters). The day Quentin Tarantino’s controversy-baiting war movie opened in the UK was my first wedding anniversary. We’d booked time off work; a restaurant table had been reserved. Ordinarily, I’d never have dreamed of dragging my better half to a war movie on such a day. But it was Quentin fuckin’ Tarantino! Luckily, Paula was more than receptive and loved the movie as much as I did. I knew then I’d married the right girl! I blogged a “first impressions” review that day and probably would have left it at that but for a fucktarded miss-the-point review in the New York Times that I just couldn’t leave unchallenged. The result, at 2,100 words, was the longest review I’d posted prior to the Peckinpah-fest getting underway.

4) Exorcist II: The Heretic. Last year, I dedicated a week to watching, researching and reviewing all five ‘Exorcist’ films. Since only one is a bona fide masterpiece, two are pretty decent (Blatty’s ‘Exorcist III’ and Schrader’s ‘Dominion’) and the other two are vile, heinous, filthy, poisoned, bilious, despicable and malicious acts of desecration upon cinema, this proved to be something of rollercoaster in terms of quality. It’s a tough call on which is the worst of the franchise, Boorman’s ‘Heretic’ or Harlin’s ‘Exorcist: the Beginning’. ‘Heretic’ probably wins out in terms of open-mouthed disbelief at just how bad it is – and how much pant-wettingly worse it gets. This review is far and away the most sarcastic piece of prose on the blog, challenged only by …

5) The Twlight Quartet: Romeo and Juliet, Bonnie and Clyde, Edward and Bella?!? The centerpiece of four articles I posted on consecutive days, royally ripping the piss out of Catherine Hardwicke’s fuck awful adaptation of Stephanie Meyer’s (allegedly; I haven’t read it) fuck-awful novel. It’s a review so snide that I interrupted myself parenthetically half way through to muse “I ought to abandon the mission statement of this blog and review more bad movies. I am just loving how much of a bitch I can be!”


6) Unforgiven. Clint Eastwood’s supreme work as actor and director. The best western since Sam Peckinpah passed on. This piece is the kind of straightforward appreciation I try to produce for Agitation as a matter of course.


7) The Prestige. I’ll be revisiting this one next month as part of the Christopher Nolan blog-a-thon being hosted by Bryce at Things That Don’t Suck between 11 and 18 July, but I’m still quite proud of my original piece on what remains one of my favourite films of the last decade. I’m most proud of the fact that I wrote a fairly in-depth review, discussing all of the reasons I love this tricksy and brilliantly constructed film, whilst delicately manoeuvring around the lacunae with nary a whisper of a plot spoiler. As I noted in the article, “to get into a really interesting discussion of the film … I'd have to give away an audacious, jaw-dropping triple-whammy ending (I've spoken to some people who think it's a double-whammy ending; it's entirely possible it's a quadruple-whammy ending - like much of the film, it's up to the viewer to figure it out) … and I want everyone who watches 'The Prestige' to be as blown away as I was by it.”


8) The Wages of Fear. Like ‘Where Eagles Dare’, ‘Unforgiven’ and ‘The Prestige’, this was written as part of the Personal Faves project. Mostly I talk about the films I’m considering in terms of the direction, the performances, the iconography, etc. – based, of course, entirely on my opinion; other times, I link my articles in to a personal recollection triggered by or involving the film. In other words, a lot of what I write is as much about me as it is about the movies. This is one of those rare pieces that is driven by the atmosphere of the film. Clouzot’s cynical thriller is as black-hearted as it is white-knuckle. I’d like to think this article captures why.


9) Grindhouse. Another article I owe to Stacie at Final Girl. For those of you not in the know, Stacie hosts a semi-regular film club. She selects a film, sets a date and the good and the great of the blogosphere contribute articles on said movie. In January ’09, she picked the Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez collaboration ‘Grindhouse’. One problem: ‘Grindhouse’ had never been released in the UK. Not in its intended format, anyway. The distributors saw fit to release and extended (almost two hour) cut of ‘Death Proof’; there was rumour that ‘Planet Terror’ would go direct to DVD. It eventually got a theatrical release, several months after ‘Death Proof’ had done the rounds. However, thanks to the Region 1 DVD of ‘Planet Terror’ and a bit of surfing for the spoof trailers on the net, I managed to create my own ‘Grindhouse’ experience. I would still dearly love a release on DVD of the film QT and RR intended.


10) The Day of the Jackal. Have you ever written a piece you’ve been inordinately pleased with? You’ve crafted some decent turns of phrase, struck a conversational tone, achieved a nice line in droll humour. You post it on your blog, feeling quite satisfied. Check back the next day for any comments. Check back again. And again. Absolutely bloody nothing. Granted, in the early days of this blog it was a big deal to get just one comment (whole swathes of posts went by without any response) and I didn’t start Agitation with the sole intention of getting lots of hits and being uber-popular. (I’m reminded of a cartoon I saw depicting a little kid sitting on the knee of a department store Santa; Santa asks what he’d like for Christmas; the kid replies, “I want an X-box and an iPod and fifty comments a day on my blog.”) But I digress. The point is: my ‘Day of the Jackal’ review, posted as part of last year’s Shots on the Blog crime festival, fits the old saw of all my articles being like my children; I love them all, even the unpopular ones that don’t fit in and get bullied by the other kids and stay in their room listening to heavy metal and reading back issues of “Guns ‘n’ Ammo”. Hell, I probably love those kind of articles even more and for precisely that reason.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

How to kill a vampire: garlic, stake through the heart, franchise reboot …

‘The Twilight Saga’, Stephanie Meyer’s bestselling chronicle of lovelorn vampires, hunky werewolves, anguished longing and shag-free romance, currently stands at four volumes: ‘Twilight’, ‘New Moon’, ‘Eclipse’ and ‘Breaking Dawn’.

In terms of adaptations, ‘Twilight’ (directed by Catherine Hardwicke) appeared in 2008. It earned poor reviews, including a scathingly sarcastic one on The Agitation of the Mind. The “twi-hards” lapped it up.

‘New Moon’, with Chris Weitz taking over directorial duties, came out late last year and despite promising my readership that I would subject it to a similar satirical savaging, I just haven’t been able to bring myself to watch it. Reviews were no better than ‘Twilight’ and its IMDb rating is lower. None of which really mattered, since the “twi-hards” once again lapped it up.

‘Eclipse’, with David Slade helming, is on course for a summer release. I’m confidently predicting bad reviews and hysterical “twi-hard” response.

Now, to my way of thinking logic would dictate going straight into pre-production with ‘Breaking Dawn’ while (a) the principle cast can still almost get away with playing teenagers and (b) the “twi-hards” are still interested.

But no, Summit Entertainment have scrapped plans to film ‘Breaking Dawn’ and concentrate instead on rebooting the franchise. Which immediately raises the question: is ‘The Twilight Saga’ a franchise? With only four novels to go at in terms of source material and only two films thus far released, surely it is (as the catch-all title suggests) a saga.

Moreover, aren’t franchise reboots traditionally undertaken when a longstanding series has become moribund and is in need of reinvention, ie. ‘Batman Begins’ or ‘Casino Royale’? Summit haven’t even been able to gauge the box office performance of ‘Eclipse’ yet. Sure, ‘Twilight’ and (from what I’ve heard tell) ‘New Moon’ are lousy examples of the filmmaker’s art, but they’ve proved profitable and the “twi-hards”, as much as I take the piss out of them, seem genuine in their love of both the books and the movies. They’ve made the films successful; the least Summit Entertainment could do is finish what they started and film the last instalment of the saga before going back to the drawing board and reinventing it.

Which raises the question: how exactly does one reboot a high school vampire romance saga. Over to the VP of Summit Entertainment:

“We feel that the series should appeal to a newer generation. We’re pleased that the Twilight saga has reached a number of fans, but we want to expand on that fanbase by putting Bella and Edward in middle school. We also would like to make a grittier, more contemporary take on vampires.”

Now, I’m a limey and I’ll freely admit I don’t have the first clue about the US school system. But middle school? Doesn’t that imply the characters will be younger than in the current films? And how does retarding the protagonists’ ages sit with “a grittier, more contemporary take”? Did somebody go see ‘Let the Right One In’ then walk into a production meeting next day and say “Hey, guys, I’ve got this awesome concept”?

And how does this bode for the future? Can we expect a really down and dirty ‘The Addiction’-meets-‘Near Dark’-stylee incarnation of ‘The Twilight Saga’ when it gets its 2020 reboot and they set it in a toddlers’ playgroup?

Friday, November 20, 2009

The Twilight Quartet: Romeo and Juliet, Bonnie and Clyde, Edward and Bella?!?


Just your average boy-meets-girl-boy-turns-out-to-be-vampire-girl-just-wants-to-jump-his-deathly-white-bones story, really.

Meet Bella Swan. She's just moved out from the low-rent dive that her ten-gallon-hat-wearing white trash mom shares with the stud-muffin new boyfriend. She relocates to a rainy mid-western town populated by old people and big rigs hauling lumber (think Twin Peaks with a frontal lobotomy) to be with her dad. Swan senior is town sheriff and sports a 'tache that would be sniggeringly reminiscent of the Village People if he didn't have the habit of snapping his shotgun shut like there was still a chance for him in a Peckinpah movie. Daughter of Swan is a twitchy, scowly type who gives the impression of having sucked on a lemon for the duration of pre-production; that, or she's read the script all the way through and is balking at the dreadful dialogue it'll be her thankless task to utter.

Can I just say, to start with, Bella Swan?!? Even Victorian romantics with a contractual obligation to write three volume novels would have stopped short of calling their heroine Bella frickin' Swan.

Meet Edward Cullen. He's got bigger hair than most of the gals in the cast, a forehead you could use as a chopping board, and a marked disinclination to getting a suntan. Although that doesn't stop him from sashaying around during daylight hours. He just can't stand in direct sunlight, that's all. Otherwise he'll "reveal his true self" and sparkle a bit. I swear I am not making this up. 'Twilight' is a vampire film where the worst thing that happens to a vampire when they get hit by a ray of sunlight is they fucking sparkle a bit. What. The. Fuck? Also, there's a scene where some vampires besiege a victim in his boathouse (excuuuse me? running water, anyone?). Novelist, screenwriter and director finally get done raping the mythology after throwing in a narratively pointless piece of padding where Edward's vampire family cook a meal. An Italian meal. Oh, you did have to go there with the garlic, didn't you, motherfuckers?


Seriously, has nobody who was involved in this precociously presumptious and piss-poor production ever read 'Dracula'? Or 'I Am Legend'? Or 'Salem's Lot'? At the very least, they could have got down with a few Hammer titles. Christopher Lee as Dracula - he's a vampire. Max Schrek in F.W. Murnau's 'Nosferatu' or Klaus Kinski in Werner Herzog's remake - those bad boys are vampires. Robert Pattison as Edward Cullen in 'Twilight' - I don't know what in the name of Bram Stoker he is, but he ain't no vampire I ever heard of. Robert Pattison as Edward Cullen in 'Twilight' is more like the non-threatening lead singer of an asexually asinine boy band who's tried to goth up a la Robert Smith out of The Cure in an attempt to appeal to a more mature audience. An attempt that has all the miserable desperation of Miley Cirus taking the role of Mimi in a production of 'La Traviata'.

(Damn, I ought to abandon the mission statement of this blog and review more bad movies. I am just loving how much of a bitch I can be!)

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, can I just say: Edward Cullen?!? There's a fish-and-potatoes Scottish broth called cullen skink. If I were a lesser blogger, I'd toss in a grubbily gratuitous cullen skank quip about now. (Ooops, I just did.) But still: Edward frickin' Cullen.

Incidentally: Edward / Ed Wood. Anyone? ... Anyone? ... Bueller?

Sorry. I digress. There's something about 'Twilight' that encourages digression. I wish a tape recorder had been rolling while me and Paula watched it; they could have re-released the DVD with my commentary as a special feature. C'mon, which would you rather listen to - Catherine Hardwicke, Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart waltzing through a scene-by-scene exercise in self-congratulation; or Mr Agitation of the Mind ripping the piss and laughing it up for two hours?

Where was I? Oh yeah, Bella gets some interest as the new girl in town (God knows why, she's got all the personality of a tombstone), principally from a geeky dude who edits the school paper (his chat up line: "I'm on the paper, baby, and you're front page news") and a hunky but self-conscious guy called Jacob (Taylor Lautner) who may or may not be a werewolf. Oh, shit, I just gave away the plot of the sequel. Anyway, Bella is intrigued by Edward's tireless attempts to push her away and not get involved. He has his reasons. Said reasons are being a "vegetarian" vampire. This means he drinks animal blood instead of human blood. I can only assume that actual vegetarians (whose motivation is chiefly the non-consumption of animals) are in the habit of administering a good hard slap every time they see Robert Pattison, Stephanie Meyer or Catherine Hardwicke on the street. In which case: yay! go, salad-munchers, go!

Sorry, I digress again. Where was I? Oh yeah, try as he might to resist it, Edward is inextricably drawn to Bella. He expresses himself with agonised poetic longing. "I don't have the strength to stay away from you anymore" and "you're my own personal brand of heroin" have now joined "I'm not happy with the fenestration" from 'Intersection' and "I chipped my tooth on a quaalude" from 'Showgirls' as amongst the worst examples of the scriptwriter's art ever to make the final cut.

Before you know it, the awkward obstacle of Edward's vampirism has been addressed and resolved (Edward: "I've killed people"; Bella "It doesn't matter"*) and they're deeply and miserably in love, doing all the things that teenagers in love the world over are renowned for doing.

Except shagging.

'Twilight' is perhaps the weirdest film I've ever seen. With its hormonally charged adolescent leads, lustfully lingering looks, heavily heaving bosoms and soulfully sappy dialogue, it's got all the makings of a panting and priapic piece of poontang pumping pornography. (Note to self: okay, that's enough of the Hush-Hush alliterative style. Seriously.) It is, in fact, pornography without the porn. They barely even hold hands. Their first kiss is so halting, hesitant and drawn out that I was willing the cartoon crustaceans out of 'The Little Mermaid' to pop up and give it a couple of verses of "Kiss the Girl" just to give Eddie boy a push in the right direction.

At this juncture - ie. before the will to live finally drains from me and I cursorily abandon this review, upload it as it stands and go do something infinitely more life-affirming (watching paint dry, tuning in to a party political broadcast, reading a Dan Brown novel and cleaning the oven are all presenting themselves as viable options) - it's worth noting that Pattison and Stewart have. Absolutely. No. Chemistry.

Whatsover.


Their scenes together are painful to watch. Director Catherine Hardwicke tries to compensate by drawing your attention anywhere but to Edward and Bella. They're in a forest - her camera swoops through the trees and spirals through a canopy of branches. They're at Edward's family's designer house - her camera probes every corner of Jeff Kobel's architecture. They're playing baseball in a field (no, really) - the camera lights on three antagonistic vampires who turn up out of nowhere to start some shit. This happens about three quarters of the way through the movie, as if someone suddenly reminded the production team that, actually, there's supposed to be some dramatic tension ... and a villain ... and something that vaguely resembles a storyline. So - apropos of sweet FA and with no provenance, development or context - Bella and Edward and his family go on the run while a "stalker" ... well ... stalks them. Then Edward and the stalker have a big fight. Edward wins and gets to be Bella's date at the prom. So that's all right, then.

There's a twist ending that's as obvious as a Reader's Digest prize draw notification that requires you to buy something before you qualify; a bit part player who's had three lines in the whole movie pulls off a last-moment bit of scene-stealing that makes Pattison and Stewart look totally redundant; then a segue to black and white heralds the closing credits. Finally, the ordeal is over, the terror is terminated, the deathly dullness is done, and the facile, fucked-up fungoo is finished. (Note to self: no kidding, enough of the Hush-Hush verbiage already!)

'Twilight' teems with wretched writing, debased direction, appalling acting and cranky camerawork. It's routinely random and unintentionally uproarious. It notches up non-sequiturs and depilorates dramatic tension. It aims for mediocrity and misses. It's the best film Ed Wood never made.




*Not that I'm suggesting the girl's easy, but - shit! - when this kind of thing doesn't bother you ...