Tag: #POUNDSHOPFLIX

Snakes on a Plane, I can’t complain, Snakes on A Plane

Warning: Spoliers throughout; Snakes (pictures, discussion of) throughout!

Hi all, thanks for bearing with me and coming to read this delayed piece on Snakes on a Plane. Those of you who read the set-up post for this one know that I essentially went into this film expecting something pretty noteworthy. SOAP was commonly referred to/ joked about by my friends and I back when it was originally released having become something of an internet sensation. This was entirely the point of course, once the filmmakers got wind of the films’ buzzworthy status, they amped up the ridiculous, B-Movie leanings of the film and pushed it up to an age rating of 15.* However, in truth having watched SOAP I feel… slightly disappointed. It wasn’t as nuts as I thought it was going to be!

‘Yeah…uh…you delivered the wrong order? I asked for rare STEAK…’

SOAP for the unintiated stars Samuel L. Jackson as an FBI agent tasked with escorting a young man named Sean (Nathan Phillips) on a flight from Honolulu to L.A- Sean having witnessed a mob hit. In an attempt to kill Sean, the mobster has snakes hidden on the plane and pheromones sprayed on the leis (the flower necklaces that you always see in media associated with Hawaii) given to the passengers- pheromones which cause the snakes to become ‘hyperaggressive’. In terms of plot, that’s pretty much all you know. The title of the film IS the plot.

So yes, we watch as Samuel L. Jackson tries to keep as many people alive as possible, with the courageous Sean and flight attendant Claire (Julianna Margulies) assisting at various points. With a fairly uncomplicated (and frankly, unimportant) plot and characters that never really develop beyond surface level the film, like any good B-Movie, is reliant on its actions, thrills and shocks to engage the audience. And indeed there are some pretty effective moment in this film. A man being swallowed whole by an enormous constrictor snake, the initial frenzy of snake attacks and Jackson killing a snake with a harpoon gun all spring to mind. The snakes are obviously CGI, but this doesn’t really detract from things. One major problem though is that all the build up to the snakes being released is basically pointless. The film is utterly dull up until that point and the first quarter of the film could probably have just been cut. We don’t need a set-up, we don’t need character backstories, its just filler.

But the bigger problem for me is that the film doesn’t quite commit to its’ crazy. A film like this live or dies on its spectacle, and while there are some moments as I’ve discussed above they are just that- moments. They don’t come thick or fast enough, and the spectacle isn’t wild enough. The film is stuck somewhere between being a ludicrous pastiche of B-Movie nonsense and something slightly more coherent- with moments of human drama and even romance that feel like they belong to a more sensible film. In trying to be both, it achieves neither. Yes there’s a snake killed with a microwave which has a ‘snake’ setting, and yes Jackson saying: ‘I’m so tired of these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane’ IS funny, but where were our flying snakes? Our mutant snakes? Why didn’t a snake shoot a gun? Maybe I’m being silly, but I feel like the film should have been sillier!

Liam Gallagher resorted to practicing with snakes after Noel took all the Microphones in the divorce

That said the film hangs together better than it might have done. Rather than a hot mess, it is pretty watchable- at least as watchable as Hard Rain, and actually quite a bit better than Dark Crimes, Red Surf or Beastly. I could have done without some of the leering at women’s bodies done by the camera -presumably under the excuse that it’s what old B-Movies did-, and it seems that in 2006 (when SOAP was released) some quarters of Hollywood thought limp jokes about a character who ‘looks gay’ but actually isn’t were a fucking riot. But largely this film is fun. Not great. Not even good. But watchable.

2 stars!: **

-Tom


No copyright infringement intended!

Midweek Full Frontal

No peek this week, because this film cannot be peeked. It cannot be teased. It exists in our hearts and minds, lurking…. slithering. It would be all too easy to guess.

That’s right readers, this week we’ll be tackling Snakes on a Mother-Lovin’ Plane.

Before Tommy Wiseau vomited The Room into existence, before Sharknado destroyed the very concept of irony, we had Snakes on a Plane. Samuel L. Jackson. Snakes. A Plane. I have actually never seen this film, and yet sort of feel like I know it, so all-pervading was its notoriety in the mid-noughties amongst young film fans. I’m looking forward to whatever surprises it still has in store for me.

So check back in this weekend for the full post- unless you’re afraid of snakes, in which case probably skip this week!

-Tom

The truth about The Truth About Cats and Dogs

Alright readers? Better late than never, here’s my blog post on 1996 screwball rom-com The Truth About Cats and Dogs– henceforth to be written as ‘The Truth…’

That freaking font man…

Here’s the thing, as I alluded to in my midweek tease post for this film, the reviews written of it back when it came out were quite complimentary. And with good reason- for the second time on this bad-film blog, I’ve picked up a half decent film by accident. My methods are not flawless, I basically go with my gut, and I actually quite enjoy the fact that you can’t be 100% sure. It makes something of a game of choosing my next film. Returning to The Truth though, it is a fairly enjoyable rom-com; a riff on the Cyrano De Bergerac tale of mistaken identity- itself a screwball/ sitcom trope for many a year. The concept in this film is that Brian (Ben Chaplin) falls in love with radio host/ veterinarian Dr Abby Barnes (Jeneane Garofalo), listening to her show and talking to her on the phone. But whenever they arrange to meet in person, Abby’s self-consciousness leads her to send her neighbour Noelle (Uma Thurman) in her place. Within the fiction of the film, Abby/ Garofalo is the smart but ‘unattractive’ character and Noelle/ Thurman is the gorgeous but ‘dumb’ character. To the films credit, the two women are fleshed out to a greater degree than that description would suggest as the film develops, and they get to be more than just those archetypes. However, in a similar vein to Reece Witherspoon in Hot Pursuit, I find myself watching this and wondering- who in their right mind thinks Jeneane Garofalo is unattractive? These things are objective of course, and I really do feel that everyone has a beauty to them*, but even if we ignore that and work within the confines of mainstream, Hollywood attractiveness, Garofalo is still very pretty. So what gives? Then again I suppose the alternative is casting someone who is not what the culture considers ‘attractive’ and then expose them to the insults and self-loathing that Garofalo’s character feels- and that would hardly be better. SO I dunno what to say? It’s a problem with no easy solution. Perhaps Hollywood and the world at large just need to stop obsessing about whether it’s female leads (whether we mean the actresses or the characters) fit some imaginary mould.

Anyway, the two women both fall for Brian and a web of emotions and heartache ensue. The truth doesn’t come out until late in the film, and when it does Brian is left angry and hurt. But Abby comes clean and wins him over as he really did love her- he cared for Noelle too, but the real substance of his feeling was directed toward the conversation and connection he shared with Abby, rather than Noelle’s good looks. Noelle learns and grows from the experience, and chooses her friendship with Abby over chasing Brian, which was pleasing to see as a viewer- she had gained in Abby a best friend throughout the story, and that was as valuable to her as a man’s affection, which is a refreshing change from the norm.

The three leads play there parts well, with Garofalo bringing her wit to the fore as Abby, and Thurman bringing a remarkable vulnerability to Noelle- though she is beautiful and frequently told it, the abusive relationship she’s in means Noelle’s self-regard is just as low as Abby’s- which I’ve never seen her asked to do before. Chaplin as Brian is good, giving him a kind of wistful yearning that I think most can relate to, the only real drawback being that the character is written a little thinly.

The film has some genuinely sweet moments and a few genuine laughs. Not all of the jokes land, but even the one’s that don’t are told with a kind of dry wit which means they don’t fall so hard. The only real complaint I have is that it feels like Brian spends more time with Noelle than with Abby, and her being the one he was truly falling for all along doesn’t quite feel true to what we see.

Nevertheless the film all hangs together pretty well, and certainly isn’t a ‘bad’ film by any means. Clearly the aggressively kitsch font of the title and almost non-existent marketing present on the DVD sleeve led me to believe this was a forgotten dud. In truth, it’s pretty good. It’s a little aged and unpolished and it doesn’t say or do anything particularly profound or groundbreaking, and the moment when Brian monologues about how it doesn’t matter what Abby looks like is a bit on the nose, but its a nice, passable film. I could see a nineties couple- like a normal couple but with backwards baseball caps and mad-baggy jeans, also there’s ska-punk music in the background- sitting down and watching it on a lazy afternoon and that being just fine.

Choosing a star rating for this one is tough, I’m torn between 2 stars and 3. It’s not as good as Ronin, but it’s better than Hard Rain and a little better than Hot Pursuit. But I think its still a two-er. Nope, changed my mind. It’s three.

3 stars!: ***

All right, so that’s that! Join me in a few days for a tease for one of the true holy grails of bad flix… I can’t wait.

-Tom

*Yeah all right I’m a sap.

All copyrighted material belongs to copyright holders. Reproduced here only for entertainment purposes. All property is theft, however, and come the revolution I will be nationalising the film industry. That is all.

Midweek Tease to bring you to your knees!

Hey guys, this post is tease for this week’s film. It’s a day later than normal BUT I think I’m going to relax the rules on when I post the teases. They’ll be coming on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday of any given week from now on.

I knew more or less what to expect from Beastly. It was a film that snugly fit my preconceptions. Perhaps this is from my own experience, through formulaic marketing and presentation, or simply by growing up wen I did, and recognising the stars, the tone and the influences that went into it. This weeks film is less obvious to me. It stars two women I think highly of, but looks for all intents and purposes like completely forgettable make-up-the-numbers type of film. This is reinforced by the pretty unpolished (by modern standards) box art and the fact that the sleeve contains no reviews. However some initial research suggests that, just like Ronin, I may have piced a film that- despite mediocre presentation and me having no prior knowledge of it- is actually pretty decent. Time will tell!

For now I can tell you its a screwball comedy loosely based on the story of Cyrano De Bergerac , a French play about a man who, ashamed of his large nose, writes letters to a woman he loves on behalf of another man, who also loves her. The film is not as highbrow as this might suggest however, just taking the idea of love via a sort-of avatar and the theme of physical insecurities.

So here’s a little peek:


While you chew that over, here’s some other things I think are interesting:

-New Peanuts Cartoon! Don’t know too much about it yet, but any new Peanuts stuff is good by me. Feast your eyes:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYA23cYTOB0

-Also, a film I’ve always meant to watch but haven’t yet got around to: Tetsuo The Iron Man is up on the BFI player. It’s a Japanese sci-fi body-horror cult classic: you should watch it if that’s sounds cool to you!  https://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/features/five-reasons-tetsuo-iron-man  

-I’ve created a dedicated page for the ranking of every film from the blog- check it out: https://onepoundoneflick.video.blog/film-rankings/


Until Sunday then, that’s all from me. See you here again soon!

-Tom

Beastly: Subtext be damned, it’s what’s announced loudly that counts!

Alright readers here we are. Another Sunday, another flick. That flick? Beastly, a riff on the beauty and the beast fable starring Vanessa Hudgens and Alex Pettyfer. Congratulations if you guessed that: I’ll try not to judge you too harshly for knowing of this film’s existence.

The stage was set for this film by a series of trailers for other films deemed of interest to similar audiences that this was intended for; that is to say, tweens and early teens in the market for a quasi-supernatural love story. The first of these was for a film called Fred: The Movie. Perhaps you remember Fred? An youtube star who I know very little about, but who’s schtick appeared to be yelling. Lots and lots of yelling. I’m not entirely sure what it was about as my brain left my body as a means of self defence about five seconds into the trailer. What I can tell you is it made me feel old. So very old.

This was an inauspicious start to proceedings. However in Wednesday’s post I promised you fine people that I would judge this film on its own terms. And I intended to do just that! So I watched on, beginning the film itself, ready to see what was what. SPOILERS AHEAD!

She knew he’d been drinking… his mate’s had gotten handy with the Sharpie while he was passed out…

The film began on a speech by a character named Kyle. Played by Alex Pettyfer, he is aggressively handsome and campaigning to become the head of his school’s ‘Green Council’. He talks in his speech about how he doesn’t care about the environment and simply wants the post because its looks good on his record. He says people will (and should) vote for him because he is good-looking, rich and popular. It is at this very early juncture that it becomes abundantly clear: this is a film that approaches its themes with the subtlety of a sledgehammer made out of grenades. And this is my chief complaint about the film: it is as predictable and ham-fisted as they come, spelling out each story-beat or emotional moment via dialogue and never once veering from the exact course you expect it to take. If last weeks flick Red Surf was bafflingly odd in its choices, Beastly is bafflingly overt in its choices. Getting back to the plot though, the central character Kyle is met with cheers for his speech by all but one; a girl called Kendra, played by Mary-Kate Olsen. Kendra is a witch… No explanation, no context, nothing. She’s just a fucking witch. Fine.

In a move no-one saw coming, Kendra curses Kyle, leaving him covered in scars, warts and tattoos/ growths in the shape of trees. Kyle’s dad, a News Anchor (or ‘presenter’ as we Brits call them), is where he gets his moral compass (or lack thereof) from. Upon seeing his ugliness, Kyle’s dad moves Kyle out of his house and into an apartment that is specifically not their place ‘in the city’, despite being quite obviously in the middle of a city. Here he is looked after by a Jamaican housekeeper Zola (LisaGay Hamilton) and tutor Will (Neil Patrick Harris, who really ought to know better). His father never visits and Kyle slips into depression. Until that is he happens upon with Vanessa Hudgen’s character Lindy, whom he had harboured an affection for a school, despite him being a popular dickhead and her being… not? I guess?

Lindy’s father is a drug addict who pisses off some dealers who promise to kill Lindy. Witnessing this, Kyle convinces Lindy’s dad to let him come and stay in his apartment for her safety. She is then brought to his apartment by her dad and left there. She is not allowed to leave. Everyone is fine with this. Because the apartment is like… the Beast’s mansion see? And now Belle/ Lindy is trapped inside!

Despite his face and his overwhelming flaws, the two begin to fall for each other, he becomes a better person blah blah blah and the witch lifts the spell.

Now, as I think I’ve made clear, the plot is ludicrous. And the film lacks any kind of nuance or subtext, choosing instead to clobber the viewer over the head with its themes. Themes that, even with its younger target audience, the viewer will have already come across in superior films/ tales/ books a million times. Looks aren’t everything! Love is blind! Don’t be an unrepentant dickhead!

But the thing is, this is more or less fine. Its target audience won’t care that the story is nonsense be bothered by a lack of thematic complexity. If they relate to the characters and are swept up in the emotional beats then it won’t matter. Everyone loves a love story, and the two leads play their parts pretty well all told. In truth, I can’t speak from the perspective of a tweenage cinema-goer. I don’t know how they would all react. I would guess there were/ are some who watch Beastly and thoroughly enjoy it and find meaning in it. There are things however that I think hold it back from wide appeal even amongst its demographic, which I’ll talk about now.

Firstly, the film rushes through its plot. Perhaps it feels the need to announce so many of the emotions and motivations of the characters via dialogue because it doesn’t take the time to SHOW them to the viewer. Leaps of logic are made, and details of how each domino follows the last are thin on the ground. This stops us from investing in the characters and their relationship as much as we might. Secondly the dialogue is pretty bad in places. Not only do characters spell out their feelings in the manner of a robot trying to pass as human, but the slang employed by the teenage lead characters careens from legitimate youth-speak to stuff that your mum thinks teens say. The two dialogue issues remind the viewer that these are actors reading a script and again detract from us investing in the characters. Overall the film just never feels like it has any depth. There are a couple of moments when you root for the central love story, but not many. A romance film lives or dies on it’s central human relationship(s)- and just like Kyle at the beginning of the film, it’s all superficial, never stopping to catch its breath long enough to discover anything of any real significance. Finally, Lindy is not quite one-dimensional…. more like no-dimensional. She doesn’t feel like a person so much as a series of interests or quirks. She favours cheap coffee! She likes modern poetry! She’s kind of a nerd, but also kind of alternative! She’s creeping toward Manic Pixie Dream Girl territory, though not quite- she never dyes her hair after all. Still the idea that she (or anyone) might be even slightly attracted to or interested in Kyle during the beginning of the film is also hard to accept. I’d sooner swallow a brick than get a coffee with this raging jackoff. He’s the worst. I’m talking, like, Apprentice contestant level shithead.

So yeah, all in all the film fails to land its story and characters. It confuses playing acoustic guitar music during emotional scenes for storytelling, and never really tugs the heartstrings. Lindy’s Dad overdoses, comes close to death and it’s hard to even care. Its not entirely without merit, but the same things been done infinitely better elsewhere.

1 star! *

-Tom

P.S all copyrighted material belongs to copyright holders yadda yadda yadda.

Hey you… wanna sneaky peek? Yeah you do…

Okay so! Merely days after the Red Surf post, here’s a sneak peek in its proper place to get us back on schedule.

This week’s film is going to be an interesting one. It’s a young adults film, but I’m not going to hold that against it- these films have a place, and there are plenty of good ones. However early indications (i.e a quick google) suggest that this film is not one of them. It stars a former High School Musical Alum -don’t tell anyone I know that okay- and another familiar face of the teen film scene.

My intention then with this film will be to take a slightly different. No-one wants to read a 26 year old bloke talk about why he thinks a teenage love story is dumb. Of course I do, I’m not the target audience! Instead I will try to judge the film on it’s own terms; does it do what it sets out to achieve, do I think its target audience would have enjoyed it? I’ll also try and tease out any points I think are good or anything I think it does well. I think this will make a more interesting read- it will certainly be more enjoyable to write for me.

So here’s your tease you naughty readers:

They wouldn’t say that if they’d seen me on the pull…

Any ideas? Lemme know! Otherwise, here’s some other points of interest:

– https://deadgoodfilm.com/ This film looks really interesting. A documentary based around the end of life, Dame Emma Thompson says: “(The film is) Beautifully crafted, so comforting as well as moving and gives the wisdom forth so simply and compellingly. Everyone should see this.” I missed it in cinemas, but perhaps its ne fairly well suited to home viewing anyway.

-It sounds like a new Matrix film is on the way. https://www.independent.co.uk/topic/the-matrix As a good 90’s boy I freaking love The Matrix and I love the sequels too (fight me!!!!). I must confess I am nervous about them looking to revisit the franchise. It exists in a specific time and specific place, like most remakes I feel it will be impossible to recapture that. But the Wachowski’s (directors, writers etc f the originals) are involved so I guess there’s some room for optimism!

The 90’s called- they don’t want Red Surf back

Hey gang, thanks for your patience as I got around to watching the film and writing this a little later than normal!

As usual, spoilers ahoy!

The film we’ll be discuss for our own perverse pleasure today is Red Surf, a 90’s action film starring a young George Clooney, Doug Savant and Deedee Pfeiffer*. It is ropey as hell. The film is pretty bad thought the fist three quarters, and then in the last 20 minutes or so nosedives into the territory of being bafflingly bad in ways that we will explore.

Nirvana tribute band? No! Crazy drug dealing beach bikers!(?)

The film centres around Mark Remar (George Clooney), his girlfriend Rebecca (Deedee Pfeiffer) and their best mate Attilla (Doug Savant). Remar is the infomral leader of a group of ‘beach bums’/ street punks (henceforth to be called BumPunks) who both take and assist in the dealing of a lot of drugs. They fetch cocaine, dropped off in the ocean attached to a buoy, for gangster Calavera (Rick Najera). Exactly why Calvera’s own men can’t pick the drugs up themselves is unclear. Perhaps they use the BumPunks to lessen the liklihood of being caught with the drugs by police? Who knows. This improbably arrangement keeps the BumPunks in drugs and booze and they all seem to be having the time of their lives. However, Rebecca drops a bombshell on Remar when she tells him she is pregnant and wants to keep the baby. Remar promises to clean up his act and get out of the drug trade so that they can move away and raise the child in peace. The old ‘one more heist’ schtick kicks in and suddenly we’re on a predictable road to disaster. I say predictable, but I cannot in truth say I saw the last section of the film coming. Probably because it was completely batshit. But we’ll get to that.

By and large the film is bad, though not unwatchable. Some odd production/ design choices detract from it, but the central performances are decent enough and Gene freakin’ Simmons (lead singer of KISS and attempted copyrighter of the devil-horns hand gesture that he did not invent! https://loudwire.com/kiss-gene-simmons-regret-nothing-horns-trademark/) plays a fairly major supporting role for some reason! So that’s fun. The film is also a fascinating time capsule to early the nineties, and enjoyable on this level. Remar wears a Guns ‘n’ Roses tee, people still have big hair left over from the eighties, people unironically wear bandannas.** I’m also fairly certain it is the only time I’ve ever heard a character react to being told of a pregnancy by saying: ‘That’s bitchin!’

New Nespresso advert looks good…

However, though I at least can find entertainment in that magical time period- old enough to be uncool, but not old enough to be ironically rediscovered or branded as retro- there are some major problems which prevent one from liking this film too much. The first of these is the production/ design flaws I mentioned earlier. This film either suffered from too tighter budget or too tighter deadline because there are some glaring, fixable flaws in it. The opening credits roll over a practically static, boring shot of water, the volume level of the characters voices plummets during a scene that should be dramatic, and the jetski chase is backed by a sort of low-tempo electronica that would be better suited to a guided meditation recording. Between that and the fact the chase scene is poorly shot and dark enough to be hard to see properly, one of the most climactic scenes of the film is rendered decidedly dull. HOW DO YOU MAKE A DRUG-FUELED JETSKI CHASE DULL. Finally, the cut in the final scene of the film where Pfeiffer and Savant are replaced by their stunt doubles is probably the most obvious I’ve ever scene. This all results in a decided lack of quality.

The second problem I would identify with Red Surf is in its tone. Between the occasional quite serious violence and the genuinely surprising amount of swearing, the film clearly WANTS to be a kind of Scarface-style hard crime/ gangster film. But the total lack of tension or emotional engagement with the characters or plot render the film pretty toothless through most of its runtime. It almost feels like watching someone pull out an Uzi in the middle of an Eastenders episode; it makes a kind of sense, but still feels like a jarring gear shift.*** Especially as the film, so clearly running down the path of ‘failed final heist’ suddenly contorts itself into finding a (sort of) happy ending- and its to this series of ending events that we now turn.

Red Surf might have scraped a two star rating from me. Its not great, and it lacks the goofy almost-charm of Hard Rain, but its not as actively punishing to watch as Dark Crimes. However, I more or less gave up on this film by the end. After the previously mentioned Jetski chase-I’m only five films in and already have watched two films with Jetski chases, what the hell- the main character Remar is found dead. Despite the general disappointment of the wonky chase scene, the film seems to be landing a fairly emotional crime-doesn’t-pay finish. And then, at what I can only assume was at the behest of a coked-up studio exec, the film CONTINUES for another twenty minutes without its main character! Gene Simmons leads the BumPunks is an insanely suicidal yet somehow entirely unexciting raid on Calvera’s home, everyone except Simmons and Attilla dies, and then the late Remar’s pregnant girlfriend and Attilla decide to run away together- with the film ending on a shot of them/ their stunt doubles riding off into the sunset smiling. The person who you value most in life, who you, Attilla, have literally described in this film as ‘family’, and who you, Rebecca, claimed to love was just brutally exploded. The wages of sin have come crashing down around you. Gene Simmons has run off to Mexico to build a houseboat****. On what planet are you on!!!

So all in all, I would not recommend Red Surf. It is amusing to see Gorgeous Georgie playing a drug-dealing ex-surfer who crashes peoples cars for fun, and if you want a crash course in why we should all pretend the 90’s did not happen, this film is perfect. If you want a coherent plot, compelling characters or just some cheap gangster thrills, you need to look elsewhere.

1 star: *

-Tom

*How many Pfeiffer’s are there anyway? According to IMDB, Michelle is the eldest, Deedee is in the middle and Lori is the younger sister.

**I should totally buy a bandanna.

***I heard Bianca is coming back to Walford though so anything could happen!……. (Any readers who actually watch Eastenders, please let me know if this joke works.)

****This is not a joke.

All copyrighted material belongs to its owners. Anything reproduced is for review/ discussion purposes only. Please don’t sue, I’m just a wickle babby.