Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Jonathan Liebesman, 2014) Review

For those unaware, 2012 saw the start of a new TV show based on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It's good. It's damn good and is currently one of my favourite shows on TV at the moment. Now I'm sure you nostalgia blinded people won't believe that anything can be better than your precious 80s show and yes, it was good...emphasis on "was". It's very dated now and the new show delivers much more on what the old show established. Let's see what happens when the mindset behind the Transformers films gets a hold of the franchise. Let's find out.

New York City is under threat by the Foot Clan led by a villain known as the Shredder (Tohoru Masamune) who has a hold on everything of importance thanks to high connections. Their reign is challenged by four mutated turtles taught in the art of Ninjutsu: Leonardo (Johnny Knoxville) Raphael (Alan Ritchson), Donatello (Jeremy Howard) and Michelangelo (Noel Fisher) who fight to protect New York as well as a reporter named April O'Neil (Megan Fox) who stumbled upon the Foot Clan's plans and is in need of protection from them.

I'm going to say this. You're probably not going to like it but I'm going to say it anyway. I enjoyed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Does that means it's a good film. Not entirely. The plot is pretty bad as it is almost a complete retelling of The Amazing Spider-Man right down to the collapsing tower during the climax (that's not even a spoiler. They shoved that in every trailer!). A problem also rises in that they made the turtles the best characters (naturally) meaning that every scene they're off screen you feel like you're wasting your time.

So what then? This is just a generic action film? No. It is a Ninja Turtles film. They nail the personalities of the four turtles and, dare I say, the look fine. I know that everyone was concerned about how they look seeing as they were made more realistic with nostrils and lips but they fit into the look the film is going for and, just like the modern show, have different statures and face shape. I love that they've started to do this with recent TMNT stuff to make them more unique and less samey. Really, my only issue with their designs is why Donatello wears glasses. Yes, I get it! He's a nerd but look at the show. The 2012 Donnie is easily the best version of the character (thank you, Rob Paulsen). As for the human characters, it is fair to say that this is Megan Fox's best acting (not that that's saying much). The main reason is that she isn't really used for sex appeal and is allowed to just play a character. The surprise for me, though, was Will Arnett. When he was cast, I assumed he was going to be a cringe worthy comic relief on the side lines but instead we get a competent yet generally funny character who holds their own and has his fair share of proper moments. William Fichtner is wasted though especially when his character isn't even given any closure. He just disappears during the climax. Wasted.

One of my biggest worries about the film was that it would lose the comedic and lighthearted side the franchise is known for. Luckily that isn't the case as I found myself laughing out loud many times throughout. From the turtles pumped on Adrenalin to the out of nowhere elevator scene, there is no fear about the lack of humour. I will admit there were a few moments that were pointless and not funny but, overall, I would label this as a funny film. The action is also great but after the phenomenal action from Captain America: The Winter Soldier earlier this year, it falls a bit short...although the snow chase scene was one of the films highlights.

So all in all, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is not a childhood destroying abomination. While the original film is arguably a more 'pure' TMNT experience, this one doesn't do too bad. The action is cool, the humour is retained, the turtles are well captured and it just looks good however the story definitely takes away from it. Maybe because I'm a huge fan of the current show that I was clamouring for something more like that but overall I did find myself enjoying it. You can quote me on this: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is not a disaster. I would recommend it for those that like the franchise and know not to take it seriously...but the 2012 show is still the best version of TMNT...just throwing that in still.

Verdict: 
6.5/10
The story is cliche but it's the little things that make this one worth a watch just don't take it too seriously.

The Rover (David Michôd, 2014) Review

Continuing on with this week of 2014 catch-up now with The Rover. This one definetly went under the radar as I hadn't even heard of it when it was around earlier this year but I suppose that's one of the perks of studying on a film course. So this little indie film that no-one had heard of is next in line for my review and it's time to take a look. I guess the problem with indie films is that there isn't much to say in the introduction. It's a film...it's independently funded...let's take a look.

Set in a dystopian future, a drifter named Eric (Guy Pearce) is left scouring the outback for his only possession left in this world - his car. When he tracks down an abandoned member of the gang who stole his car (Robert Pattinson), the two join together to find Eric's car and return Rey to the gang who rejected him.

I suppose one of the best things about this film is that we can finally close the case on Robert Pattinson and call him a good actor, because he is. Maybe it's just because he works well alongside Guy Pearce, also giving a good performance. It is hard to talk about them independently because they are a duo for the long run and...remind me of a certain other duo. Yeah, I would be lying if I said that this film didn't remind me of Breaking Bad, especially the portrayal of the protagonists. Their relationship and chemistry is also pitch perfect Walter White and Jesse Pinkman terratory. Even the themes and content is remenisent with the steps Eric will go to get his car back and the unbalanced revenge tactics. It's fascinating to see these two together but they work so well it makes you want to see more of them.

While the main focus, the duo, is well done, the rest of the film does come up short in comparsion. The film is set in a dystopian future and it therefore needs to look bland and lifeless (and the opening borders on Mad Max...especially since both films are Australian) but there is a lot of time dedicated to...nothing. I'm fine with lingering shots, just look at 12 Years a Slave, but it's weirdly implemented here. The first shot of Eric you'd swear was your DVD freezing. It lingers for way too long and drags because the film hasn't established anything yet. Sure, we learn more as it goes on (and the journey is the best part anyway) but it sure takes it's time. I suppose I can't really fault it as, with only two main characters, it doesn't have much to work with but I've seen better with only one character (All is Lost and Gravity).

The Rover is interesting and I do believe it is worth a watch purely down to the chemistry between Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson who deliver great performances. I would definetely recommend to Breaking Bad fans, that's for sure. While it does have pacing issues mainly because of the lack of things to work with at times, it still leads to a good conclusion but hey, the journey is what matters in this films. Join me next week for some ninjutsu and pizza, dude! COWABUNGA! (or Booyakasha because I prefer the new show...)

Verdict:
7/10
While it has issues in the writing department, the acting is great and you feel satisfied by the journey to undertake.

Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014) Review

This one is late. Really, really late but I have good reason. Like I said in my previous reviews back early October, I can only use the internet when outside of my accomodation. It sucks, I know, but I have some free time and three films from 2014 to review that are...relativly new so I can get away with the lateness of this one. After Se7en and Fight Club, I have been won over by David Fincher and had heard about his latest film, Gone Girl. So now that I've seen it, let's take a look and see how it stacks up against his previous titles.

Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy (Rosamund Pike) Dunne are married couple whose world comes crashing down after Nick returns home one night to find the house in a mess and Amy missing. After days without a word, the press come down hard on Nick over the dissapearence of his wife as people begin to speculate about his connection to her dissapearence. To try and prove otherwise, Nick goes to people her can trust and people from Amy's past such as her ex-boyfriend Desi (Neil Patrick Harris).

Throw this one on the pile of 'great films that leave me fuming with rage' along side Watchmen and The Hunt. Heck, Gone Girl even taps into the reason as to why those two films make me so angry when watching them. They are fantastic films, as is Gone Girl, but injustice and the mindlessness of scared, stupid people just make me incredibly angry as a topic. As a critic, I have to be open to these things but they hit a cord with me. Gone Girl dives into both topics really well (maybe too well) and I can't fault a good script and narrative for such. They nail exactly what I hate about these topics and make me think deeper into why exactly I do. It does a fantastic job of doing so.

Looking on a more technical level, Gone Girl also delivers well on this department. The acting is fantastic with Rosamund Pike playing a very torn character beautifully and Ben Affleck's delivers naivety very well. They're performances coupled with the script leave you guessing throughout the entire picture as the film runs on the idea of doubt and making you reconsider everything you've built up. It's also incredbly to say that Tyler Perry can act and be one of the characters I really can get behind in this whole debacle. The whole idea of doubt is exemplified by Neil Patrick Harris' character. His backstory makes you want to avoid him but his attitude throughout the rest of the film makes you think he may have intentions even if he actually doesn't. A very complicated character that Neil Patrick Harris was key for.

Gone Girl makes me angry. It's a well written and performed film that is sure to be in the Oscar bracket this year but the themes and topics hit hard. I've seen my fair share of unpleasent but poignant films like 12 Years a Slave that are fantastic films but leave a bad taste in the mouth because of diving into the taboo. Gone Girl is this for me but is well worth watching. It isn't Fincher's best film as I feel his previous films have exceeded but it's poignant, thought provoking and keeps you guessing. What more could you ask for...except a happier film to watch after so you aren't angry for the rest of the day.

Verdict:
8.5/10
Risky yet rewarding. This is a fantastically written and performed piece from the new king of suspence.

The Cabin in the Woods (Drew Goddard, 2012) Review

And now it's finally Halloween. Thank God. The pressure of getting reviews out this month with major internet issues sure was a wild ride but it's all over now. Anyway, for Halloween I decided to take a look at my new Halloween tradition and what I see as a the latest classic for the holiday: The Cabin in the Woods. Seems fitting after looking at The Evil Dead but how this film celebrate Halloween so well? Let's find out!

As you might expect, five teenagers go to a secluded cabin in the woods for vacation. While chilling out, they discover that the basement is filled to the brim with ancient artifacts and they begin to mess around with them. One of them finds and reads out the book of the dead, making an undead family rise and attack them one by one. It's not a typical horror film as we switch between the cabin and a group of scientists who appear to be monitoring the whole event from afar for a dark purpose. The cabin group have to fend off the dead and figure out just what the hell is going on.

The Cabin in the Woods is a love letter to the entire horror genre. It's actually very hard to talk about this film without giving things away. There is a lot to this film and there are many twists that turn the whole genre on its head. The main strengths derive from just how much it is apparent that the writers care about the genre. Poking fun at the flat and cliche characters by bringing the more developed characters down to that level once they enter the cabin (one of my biggest gripes with The Evil Dead ironically) as well as just being a gargantuan mash up of all the great horror tropes. It's really hard to say why without giving it away but, trust me, it's filled with them. It's almost a game of guessing what thing comes from which film.

Looking at this film in a technical sense is also great. The actors do a great job of portraying the cliche characters that we saw in the likes of The Evil Dead while also giving them a bit more depth in a way that it's obvious that they have been affected by the cabin. It's interesting and the cast are wonderful. Chris Hemsworth needs no introduction since he's the jock...bascially Thor but the rest are not to be ignored. Fran Kranz and Kristen Connolly are probably the best of the cabin group but the real acting strengths come from Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford who portray the main overseers of the cabin. They are a fantastic duo and bring most of the best moments of the film. They easily play the best characters in the film.

If you're looking for the ultimate good time and Halloweeny fun fest, then look no further than The Cabin in the Woods. This film celebrates and yet still mocks what is so ingrained about the horror movie genre. It has a good sense of humour yet still has its fair share of horrific moments. The cast is great and do a good job of mimicking the tired and dull characters of the genre. The climax an absolute blast. Do yourself a favour and watch it  ASAP. Now that the month is over, I can finally review all the flashy new films I saw over the month! CATCH UP TIME!

Verdict:
9/10
A genius celebration of the horror movie genre. Sure to be a Halloween classic!

Army of Darkness (Sam Raimi, 1992) Review

We've reached the end of the Evil Dead trilogy and I realise I need to do loads of one off films. After the gargantuan Saw franchise and now just finishing up a trilogy, I'm a bit fatigued. Well, there is one film left for October but before we look at that, we need to dive into where the trilogy decided to end...hence why it's a trilogy (my god, I'm tired). After Evil Dead II opened the door for a more comedic horror film, where can the last installment go from there? Let's find out.

Continuing off from Evil Dead II, Ash (Bruce Campbell) finds himself prisoner in the medieval time period. He manages to convince the townspeople that he is there to save them from the curse of the Necrenomicon. He travels to find the book but blunders his way out of way the right spell which causes the dead to rise as an army, led by his evil self, who start a war against the innocent people. Ash stands up as their savior armed only with his new prosthetic hand and his "boomstick"!

Army of Darkness is the best of the three. I'm throwing that out there. Leaving behind the generic horror genre for...something that doesn't even resemble it was a great idea. This makes Army of Darkness stand out and would probably explain why The Evil Dead title is omitted for this iteration. Ash combined with the medieval setting makes for a good subversion of the 'fish out of water' cliche. There is little time spent of Ash being an outcast as we almost instantly jumps into the ass kicking and wise cracking. Actually, the wise cracks are what make the film even better. This is a very quotable film and Ash becomes an even more iconic character. The rest of the cast is also improved (slightly cheating since the Evil Ash is obviously played by Bruce Campbell too) with the likes of Embeth Davidtz helping to expand the film. In the end, Ash is the only relevant character but the cast is much better than the rest of the series.

Weirdly enough, my biggest problem is that there are actually two versions of this film. If you were to buy Army of Darkness on DVD, who should end up with two discs, therefore two versions. I suppose it's down to personal preference as the differences only stem to slightly different dialogue and a completely different ending. I personally prefer the original theatrical ending as opposed to the director's cut as I prefer to see Ash win for once and it gives us one of the best lines. The expanded sense of humour is fantastic. Ash has since become one of my favourite film characters solely due to Army of Darkness. Evil Dead II was a start of what Ash would become. From generic, scared teenager to one handed, gun toting, wise cracking badass. THAT is character progression.

Army of Darkness is a fun good time. It's not out to change your life or offer social commentary, it is purely existing to entertain. Bruce Campbell is wonderful as Ash who proves to be a much better character thanks to much more comedic moments and wise cracks. The two endings does sour the experience as you have to debate which version you would prefer to watch. It's less of a horror film now but considering that horror movies have since become over saturated, jump scare filled and souless productions...that is expect one. There is one recent horror film that I have recently discovered and I will address that this Halloween. See you then!

Verdict:
8/10
Fun, quotable and a rip-roaring good time. Less focus on horror and more on comedy proves to be a good move.

Evil Dead II (Sam Raimi, 1987) Review

So the first Evil Dead films, while it was scary at the time, hasn't aged well. Sure, the effects look good for the time, it just comes off as cheesy and accidentally hilarious...so what would happen if the film makers themselves realised this and thought "you know what? Why don't we just make it again but deliberately cheesy and silly". Evil Dead II is this exactly this idea. So will the sequel (..or remake...kind of) be better than first or will it just be too forced with its humour. Let's find out.

Retelling the first film, Ash (Bruce Campbell) takes his girlfriend Linda (Denise Bixler) to a secluded cabin in the woods where thing to wrong after a professor's recording of the book of the dead is played. Linda is transformed into a 'deadite' and the same could happen to Ash. The professor's daughter (Sarah Berry) returns to the cabin after Ash fights off the curse (and his own hand) but things continue to spiral out of control as the spell strengthens. Ash has to fight the evil dead armed with a shotgun and a chainsaw for a hand.

Let's address Ash. In the first film, he was a generic survivor character who didn't have much to him outside of living (debatably). This time, however, he is expanded as a more interesting character who Bruce Campbell brings a lot to. He is more competent despite the horrible situations he finds himself in. I think the more relaxed and comedic environment that he finds himself in makes for more character based moments that make him stand out. With a more interesting protagonist also makes for more interesting villains. The monsters in this film are much more impressive and well designed than before. Instead of just make up, we are given stop motion monsters that are more threatening and actually can freak you out. A much needed improvement over vines and camera tricks.

The new tone that the film established is much better than playing horror straight. It gives a new twist on what was established (literally) and makes the film much more unique. Seeing the look of a gritty horror film combined with more comedic dialogue and character moments is bizzare but welcomed. I suppose my problems with the film derive from the fact that Ash, once again, is the only interesting character in comparison to the rest of the cast. Considering that Ash this on his own for most of the film. Most of the my flaws with the first one are fixed as whittling the cabin crew down to two was a smart idea.

Evil Dead II is a big improvement of the first film. It's interesting that a film labelled as the second film is more akin to a remake than a continuation. Begs the question which film is canon but, considering what's next, I can assume this one is seeing as the next film literally takes place seconds later. Join me next time for the last in the Evil Dead trilogy that doesnt even have the name: Army of Darkness. What about the actual remake of the first film? Well, I have it on DVD now but with Army of Darkness and my Halloween pick there won't be time...maybe next year.

Verdict:
7.5/10
The new found sense of humour is welcomed as the series steps into a more comfortable environment.

The Evil Dead (Sam Raimi, 1981) Review

Horror films have come a long way. From actual terror to...jump scares (a long way is apparently a long way down in terms of quality). Yeah, horror isn't what it used to be as it has since become an over saturated, jump scare filled attempt to be edgy. Jump scares aren't scary by definition. Shocking, yes but not scary. They don't haunt you, they just make your natural instincts kick in. Where am I going with this? No idea. Here's The Evil Dead...that was one of my worst introductions I've done.

Five friends take a trip out to an abandoned cabin in the woods where they find themselves caught up in the evil that lurks in the forest. They discover an ancient book known as the Necronomicon as well as a tape translating what the book says. As the tape plays, evil beings are released as the group are slowly attacked and/or possessed. The only survivor, Ash (Bruce Campbell), has to take on the evil dead alone and survive the night.

I'm sure this may be considered blasphemous but The Evil Dead is very, very dated. I could agree with those that claim the effects are still decent as I always favour practical effects for horror films over CGI anyday and the plot was fresh at the time (its basically a cliche now) however there are things that just don't hold up. This is a minor point but young Bruce Campbell does amuse me. Maybe it's because of what he ended becoming (see Army of Darkness for the answer), It is no wonder that Ash was the character they kept around seeing how forgettable and dull the rest of the cast are. Sam Raimi had to pick one to keep around and thank god it was Ash. Who knows where we would be without him. The Spider-Man trilogy would be nothing without Bruce Campbell. 

Looking at this film in terms of originality, it does very well actually. The horrors that befall the group are unique and imaginative and leave an impression. The first possessed being locked in the cellar is one of the most iconic bits of the franchise and that goes for the remake too (don't expect that this week. I haven't seen it yet). At the time, I'm sure this was a fresh horror film with great effects and I would agree. Really, the biggest problem is that they made sequels. Evil Dead II is basically a semi-remake that surpasses this one in every way. It's become a redundant film now.

The Evil Dead WAS horror classic but really hasn't aged well. This is partially down to very tiny budget and indie feel however this gives the film its charm. Its silly and cheesy...probably accidentally but that's for the sequel to decide. Did I enjoy it? Yes but I recognise that there are better films now and the sequels just did too well in surpassing it. So with all my bragging about the sequels, I reckon we should take a look and see what they did so well that made them stand the test of time much better than the original.

Verdict:
6.5/10
At the time it was a horror classic but now it's starting to show its age and was superseded by the sequels anyway.