The Bunnyman Massacre

Dir: Carl Lindbergh

2014

*

Carl Lindbergh's The Bunnyman Massacre, the second of his horrors to feature the chainsaw-wielding giant bunny, is basically every poor slasher film put together, with a tall man in a bunny suit. The editing is ridiculously bad, even for a low-budget horror film. To be honest, the clear direction and the great sound quality only highlight the film's basic flaws. There are moments within the film that make you think that it might just get better. So many clichés are thrown about early on, I thought the film was going to be one big double-bluff and that it was going to turn into something profoundly unique, but no. Some of the conversations were interesting and the interactions between the Bunnyman and Joe, and Joe and the Sheriff were quite intriguing and could have gone somewhere special but they never ended properly and it soon became clear that they were just poor attempts at Tarantinoism and trying to recreate the creepy family scenes that featured in the various Texas Chain Saw Massacre sequels. The Bunnyman Massacre makes the Texas Chain Saw Massacre sequels look like pure masterpieces of horror in comparison. The Bunnyman is basically Leatherface but with a bunny suit rather than a mask sewn from human skin. Seriously, there is no comparison. You'd think they'd get the gore right and would have been inventive in their slaying but no, it looks cheap and is uninteresting. Lindbergh forgets all the important elements that make a good horror. There is no dread, no terror, no character development, no apathy or sympathy. It's not funny, if that was the intention, so what you are left with is watching a series of people you don't care about killing each other for no real reason. There is nothing new for the film to offer the genre. The premise is great; Man dressed as a bunny kills people for his brother who sells the victims meat as beef jerky in his roadside convenience store. The possibilities are endless. Lindbergh has no creativity, no panache, no writing skills and no clue. A horror fan making a film without understanding what really makes a good horror. The bunny suit is a poor gimmick that gets tired quickly, especially as the characters real scary face is revealed very early on in the film. Every mistake is made and unnoticed. Poor show. If horror isn't art then it is something you should reject with disdain in my opinion, it does a disservice to the wonderful genre and insults all the films it rips off.

Swiss Army Man

Dir: Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert

2016

****

It is rare that any film released these days is 100% unique and incomparable to another, indeed, Weekend at Bernie's was always in the back of my mind when watching 2016's oddest film Swiss Army Man but even then, I can't say I've ever seen anything quite like it. It stars Paul Dano as Hank, a man Marooned on an Island for some time (one would assume from the length of his beard), we're not told where he is or how he got there, only that he is alone and contemplating the taking of his own life. Then suddenly, he sees a body wash up from the sea (enter Daniel Radcliffe). He rushes over to see if the person needs help but it is too late, the man is deceased and looks as if he has been dead for several hours. Just as he goes back to his crudely constructed noose, he notices the body shake violently, he rushes to examine it, and discovers it has a terrific build-up of wind inside. He jumps on its back, points it out to sea and rides it like a jet-ski and embarks on the most surreal adventure committed to film. Hank names the body Manny, after the sound he makes when he leans on his lungs. He takes him in-land and they both hide in a cave where Hank discovers that Manny has filled with drinkable rain-water when left outside. From then on, Hank uses Manny as a tool, hence the title Swiss Army Man. Before long Manny begins speaking to Hank and asks him lots of questions about life and death and Hank decides that with encouragement and his guidance, Manny will want to live again so much that he will eventually come back to life. The story keeps a lot of the mystery to itself and only unravels what it has to when it has to. The levels of intrigue are never unbearable and the balance is just right. At its core is a warm and affectionate buddy film, you forget that one of the characters is a rotting corpse and it is a wonderful journey of escapism that doesn't ever seem as horrific as it really is. It left me musing over just what the story was trying to say for hours. At first I saw as a metaphor for how people use others, how you can use someone who is essentially dead to you for your own personal gain, but I've since changed my mind. I then wondered whether I had been overthinking it and that it was just an odd-ball comedy with fart gags aplenty. It wasn't until I watched the making of interviews with the crew and team of film makers did I really get it. It's a film made by a group of best friends, all completely nuts but with a very different take on storytelling. Its structure isn't terribly different from most films, it just has its own unique flare about it. The soundtrack is as brilliantly inventive as the story is and pretty much every element is pure craftsmanship from a group of very proud weirdos. At its basic level, it explores what one can learn about life from those that are dead, the effect but also what loneliness can achieve and that that farts are natural, why should we be so quick to condemn them. It has more in common with Richard Heslop's little known 2012 film Frank (with a possible influence from The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie) than it does with Ted Kotcheff's 1989 dark-comedy Weekend at Bernie's but it is its own glorious oddity. It's wonderfully heart-warming, a real experience and disarmingly odd. Story aside, it is the brilliant performances that are key to its workings, Paul Dano is as good as he always is, the guy can do no wrong in my mind. Daniel Radcliffe was a concern of mine, I don't think he's a great actor at all but he was fantastic here as Manny the corpse. A film full of surprises, all of which are pleasant, strange and pleasantly strange.

Ghost in the Shell

Dir: Rupert Sanders

2017

****

Rupert Sanders's adaption of the 1995 Manga classic is stunning and about as authentic as a live action version could be without sticking to the original movie. It received mixed reviews upon its release and was accused of all sorts of things, such as whitewashing and having a lack of character development, which makes me wonder whether I was watching the same film, as I thought it was fantastic. Those that never wanted a remake to their much loved Manga film need not apply for obvious reasons, but if you aren't an animation purist, then I think you may find yourself pleasantly surprised, but I would argue that you need to understand the original before laying down criticism, if the live action version isn't for you, then I'd guess neither is the 1995 version. The film follows the original as closely as it can, it adds its own flare but keeps everything that made the first so captivating. The special effects are some of the best I've ever seen, with loads of new stuff I have never seen before, in this respect it is like watching something ground-breaking. I've heard people mutter things about The Matrix and how this film copies it, by people who don't realize that The Matrix copied Ghost in the Shell, and I have to say, I was more impressed watching this film than I was watching The Matrix for the first time. It is the epitome of Manga, without the animation. I actually thought some of the imagery was more Manga than the original in places, a bold statement but I stand by it. The whitewashing nonsense makes no sense to me either, as many Manga characters were made to look more western to appeal to the west, so a dark-haired Scarlett Johansson was actually perfect for the role and no matter what you look like and where you are from, I can't think of anyone better suited to the role. I thought the development of her character was good, much better than the original. Typical Manga animations are somewhat detached, both in character and in story. They're also a little bit samey in that respect but I thought the vision of the future was absolutely spot on, in that it feels gravely unenthusiastic about the future, without being too dystopian. Underhand decisions are made by our politicians and by big business all the time without our knowing, the story sort of taps into this, in a 'everything seems fine on the outside' sort of way, even though you just know something isn't right. To me that is what every futuristic film should be like because it's true and it feels real. The film's tone reflected all of what the original did, a sense of dread, a feeling that technology was going too far and that an android-dominated culture had made people forget their responsibilities and worth. The characters are detached for a reason, they're left cold because they know the truth. The vision of the future in a pan-Asian metropolis is stunning and completely believable. It reminded me of Blade Runner in many respects but I won't call them out, as influences come from all over, starting with Metropolis, but I will say that Ghost in the Shell has done it better, second only to the aforementioned Ridley Scott classic. I thought the plot was best left simple, as it was in the original. Critics seem to be complaining that it wasn't complicated, but I'm not sure how that would have been an improvement. There was something new and exciting to behold every five minutes, from the Robot Geisha to the awesome performances. Scarlett Johansson was perfect and thought back in 1995 that Michael Pitt would be perfect as Hideo Kuze. Pilou Asbæk was great as Batou and looked more Manga than Manga, Chin Han finally gets a big film outing fit for his talents and I was thrilled to see Anamaria Marinca as Dr. Dahlin, an actor I've been following for a while and have thought needed more appreciation. Juliette Binoche made a good Dr. Ouelet, although I wasn't sure at first and it was great seeing Peter Ferdinando as Cutter, Hanka Robotics' CEO. The short but sweet appearance from Michael Wincott was immensely satisfying, but it was Takeshi Kitano's appearance as Chief Daisuke Aramaki that really got me excited. I thought it was a great choice for the main character but when it came for his special scene I was in proper fan-boy heaven. Beat rules. Rupert Sanders has made the most honest and authentic adaptation you could possibly make, if you don't like it, blame the original. I'm pleased he didn't mess around too much with the source material and change things, purely because other sci-fi films made since have used similar ideas. It's dark sci-fi, moody, depressing and melancholic but with beautiful cinematography, one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard, courtesy of the great Clint Mansell, and plenty of action for everyone who wants it, although as impressive as it is, it's never overcooked or overdone. Every scene counts, nothing is wasted. I had issue with some of the editing but apart from that, I loved it.

The Shallows

Dir: Jaume Collet-Serra

2016

***

Jaume Collet-Serra's 2016 thriller is probably the best shark film since Jaws. However, that's not really a bold statement, given that pretty much every shark film made since Jaws has been close to awful. The only other great shark film I can think of is Chris Kentis's Open Water, The Reef coming a close second but with heaps of flaws. I should point out that when I say best I really mean serious, the best shark films in my opinion are the over the top ridiculous ones. Shark Attack 3:Megalodon is amazing, absolutely awful but brilliant at the same time. We all know that sharks aren't really the big horrible monsters they are made out to be, they do occasionally attack but only as every other animal in the world might, they're only real flaw is that they don't look cute. They are the perfect movie villain, just behind us Englishmen. Back to The Shallows though, Jaume Collet-Serra has decided to go serious with his shark film, serious to a point that is. The first half of the film is pure thriller, a simple situation with a puzzle to solve. Blake Lively, who gives a great performance - probably the best in the genre - has said in interviews that her inspiration for doing the film was thanks to her boyfriend Ryan Reynold's work in the similarly minimalist film Buried (2010) stating "That was one of the reasons why I wanted to take on this movie so much, because I know how tough that was for him and how rewarding it was". I think Blake Lively is a phenomenal actor, she was brilliant in The Age of Adaline and having a good actress rather than just a 'scream-queen' in this thriller setting was crucial in getting the tone right. That said, I think there was far too much leering going on, the constant camera panning to her bottom region was unnecessary and rather childish but anyhow, she was brilliant in what is practically a one character film. It is thrilling, the feelings of dread, suspense and anticipation are duly unbearable and are in all the right places. It is also stunning. The visuals are utterly beautiful and some of the underwater photography is by far the best I've ever seen. This is also crucial for the film to work, some of the CGI is a little shaky, but there is nothing wrong with the direction. However, just when the film gets to the point where you just can't tell what is going to happen next, it gets rather silly indeed. It's not quite Sharknado silly but it does get a little Tom & Jerry in places and one scene in particular was straight out of The Little Mermaid (the scene where she is chased by the shark, it is almost frame for frame identical). I can see why a lot of people hate it, particularly the last scene featuring the shark, it's not great but the sharksploitation fan in me thought it was pretty cool, even though it was pretty damn stupid. I think though that the last half of the film forgot the golden rule of shark films and that is the less you see the scarier they are. I wasn't scared of the shark at all, and Jaws gave me recurring nightmares well into adulthood to the point that I wouldn't close my eyes in the bath. I'm not sure I liked the final conclusion of the film, I didn't really fit within the horror or thriller genres and it was a little boring. Still, overall it was a pleasant mix, I certainly appreciated the mix of serious and silly but I can see how many would be put off by it, and by trying to please two types of shark watchers, they could end up pleasing no one. No one can deny how beautiful it looks though, and it does have some respectable key attack scenes that I'm sure will appeal everyone interested in the genre. Above average for sure, which is very rare for shark film.

My Old Lady

Dir: Israel Horovitz

2014

*****

I noticed the release of Israel Horovitz's My Old Lady back in 2014 and I avoided it. The poster made it look like the sort of comedy-light British film that was more suited to Sunday night TV rather than the cinema and I decided that it just wasn't my sort of film. I judged a book by its cover but didn't overrule a viewing should it be on TV. A couple of years later, it was indeed on TV (a sign that it didn't do that well financially) and I gave it a go. The premise was clear fairly early; man is left a sizable Parisian apartment by his late father, travels to Paris from the US, only to find a little old lady living there. The French have some wonderful laws that seem strange to anyone outside of the country and one of them is something called a 'viager' which is an old system for buying and selling apartments that can mean that the ownership of land or a property can last for the duration of the tenants life. In legal terms, it is an estate in real property that ends at death and ownership then reverts to the original owner or another person that they might have left it to, in this case Mathias 'Jim' Gold (Kevin Kline) is left the apartment by his father, who gave a viager to 92 year old Mathilde Girard (played by Maggie Smith). Gold and his father were never close and so he sees it as something of a test of character, which it turns out is exactly what it is. So, a loud and largely unsympathetic (and broke) man arrives to find an elderly, but young spirited lady living at the house and all he has to do is wait for her to die to get the house. Huge A Fish Called Wanda vibes were calling out in the first twenty minutes, especially as Kilne's Jim Gold has a lot like an older version of Otto West. Kline is Kline, Smith is Smith and then Kristin Scott Thomas turns up as Smith's daughter (and is very Kristin Scott Thomas-like) and the film matches the horrible poster. I was at this point just happy that Dominique Pinon was in it, as I'm a big fan of his. Then, around twenty-five minutes in, secrets are revealed, the plot thickens and suddenly what was a stale comedy drama, becomes a suspenseful drama mystery, with genuine funny moments but more importantly, two of the best performances I've seen in quite some time. Kevin Kline is phenomenal as his character starts to unwind and reveal himself and I'm not sure he's ever been better. From then on in, the story was compelling and original with any whisper of cliché of predictability thrown out the fenêtre. I feel Horovitz played quick the unsuspecting trick with this film, although I'm not sure how anyone could really get suckered in, so I'm glad I stumbled into it blind. This is not the light-hearted bumbling comedy drama I thought it was, it's actually one of my favourite films of 2014 and a reminder to never, ever judge a film by its poster. Kline, Smith and Scott Thomas are all brilliant and the film deserves high praise and to be seen by the many people who probably overlooked it like I did. 

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Dir: Taika Waititi

2016

****

I love director Taika Waititi, I wish he could direct every film but I have to say, other than the fact he's a Kiwi, I didn't really see his style working with one of Barry Crump's novels. However, that said, there is a similar humour that you could say both men have in common. Crump was famous for his good-natured itinerant self-sufficient characters who each had an idiomatic "blokey" feel about them. Crump was a hunter, a bloke, no nonsense guy who still revelled in pointing out the nonsense in others. His most famous novels include Hang on a Minute Mate (1961), One of Us (1962), A Good Keen Girl (1970) and the brilliant Bastards I Have Met (1971). Hunt for the Wilderpeople is based on his 1986 book, Wild Pork and Watercress, not his most famous work but one that resonated with Waititi and one he has been adapting into a screenplay since 2005. The adaption has gone through multiple drafts, Waititi stayed faithful to the book in the beginning but slowly realized that the film had to be different if it was going to work. it is safe to say that Hunt for the Wilderpeople is 50% Crump and 50% Waititi without either's work being diluted or hard done by. Sam Neill's "Uncle" Hector is straight out of one of Crump's books and is the epitome of his style. Ricky on the other hand is far more of a Waititi creation but then the character needed to be updated given that the film is set in the present day. It works extraordinarily well, maybe even better than it did in the original 1986 setting. It is Sam Neill's best performance in years and he is clearly having fun with it but it is young Julian Dennison who steals the show as Ricky, a troubled kid who has been passed from one foster home to another and is sent to live with a couple on the outskirts of the bush as a last ditch attempt at getting him settled before juvenile detention centre becomes child welfare services' only opinion. Waititi was lucky enough to work with Dennison a few years earlier on a television commercial he directed and he clearly left an impression. It's hard to see any other child actor working today fit the role as well as he does. He gets the subtly, the power of the awkward silence and the importance of chemistry between two contrasting characters. Neill praised him in an interview I saw around the same time the film was released, he's a laid back guy but he really raved about how talented the young actor is and he's not wrong. Serious drama isn't easy but comedy isn't either, in some respects it is harder but isn't given the same amount of credit. That said, Dennison displays a whole range of skills and he nails every single one. The scenery is stunning and is almost the third character in this two man film. The film was filmed over five weeks, and was shot in locations including the Central Plateau and the Waitakere Ranges. It's incredible that the entire film was shot using a single camera but then as epic as it looks, it clearly works well from being a relatively small production with a smaller than average crew. When Dennison isn't stealing every scene, Rhys Darby is, as the hilarious Psycho Sam, a man who has lived alone in the darkest corner of the bush for over a decade. I'm not sure who I love the most, Anton the head werewolf or Psycho Sam the bushman, the man is a comedy genius. It's an altogether different sort of film to Waititi's hit films Eagle vs Shark and What We Do in the Shadows but it is just as original, just as enjoyable and just as funny. There is a unique charm about it that I absolutely adore, the world of film needs a bit more of Taika Waititi that's for sure!

Monsoon Wedding

Dir: Mira Nair

2001

****

When Mira Nair's romantic drama Monsoon Wedding was released in 2001 it was referred to as a celebration of Bollywood meets Hollywood, which is simply not true. Monsoon Wedding is neither Bollywood nor Hollywood, the tagline is lazy and misleading, and somewhat insulting if you ask me, and the film deserves so much more than that. The story is something of a much ado about nothing, set before a big wedding in an upper-class modern New Delhi. The story features a financially worried father of the bride, a wedding planner smitten with the family's maid, a bride with a secret lover and an uncle with a dark secret. A large section of the story was lost when a lot of footage was destroyed when the film reels were passed through an airport x-ray machine but I'm not sure the final movie could have coped with any further sub-plots. Nair's direction is superb with every scene visually rich with colour and vibrancy. The editing is also great, as the story flows from character to character with a wonderful fluidity, no one character or story has more screen time than they need to and everyone receives their fair share. The acting is also superb, Naseeruddin Shah's performance is so real you forget that you are watching a film, it is like watching a fly on the wall documentary. The romance of the film doesn't actually come from the couple getting married but from the Wedding planner (played by the charismatic Vijay Raaz) and the family's maid Alice (played by the beautiful Tillotama Shome) which gives the story an interesting alternative look at love outside of an arranged marriage. The film is joyous, full of charm and happiness with brilliant character detail considering just how many characters there are. The film's music is also stunning, it is infectious and made me want to get up and dance. The film does have a darker side to it when a secret is unearthed by the bride's uncle. It is a delicate subject but is handled firmly by Nair and the actors involved. The visuals are stunning throughout but even more so towards the end of the film during the celebrations. The rain scenes are particularly magnificent. It was the first Indian film since Satyajit Ray's 1956 film Aparajito to win the Golden Lion, the highest prize at the Venice Film Festival, and it was well deserved. A wonderfully uplifting film that is perfect to get lost in.