Change Your Image
StrongKanegou
Reviews
Infini (2015)
Slipstreamed into a positive surprise
When I saw the trailer to 'Infini' I was intrigued, although it appeared to be chock-full of space survival horror clichés. Moreover, I was a put off by its low score on IMDb, however decided to check it out anyway; the worst that could happen, I expected, was an imitation of genre classics, maybe with some unused costumes, props and scenery (I'm a sucker for those Aliens-type movies anyway) cast against a standard-sci-fi-fare backdrop. Given this outlook, Infini turned out to be a gem in the rough, though.
Make no mistake, the movie was produced on a budget, and it shows. Effects and production design are far from striking, but solid, the cinematography is actually quite good. The acting runs the entire gamut, from surprisingly positive (Daniel MacPhesron, Tess Haubrich, and Luke Ford – nice to see his face again) to weaker performances (Grace Huang, Matt Minto – he really hams it up).
The movies weak spot is definitely the beginning; weird dialogue and a somewhat off pacing seemed to confirm my initial suspicions. However, as the story progresses, the plot gets room to unfold and about half-way in, it shifts and Infini slowly picks up speed and begins to deconstruct genre conventions. I certainly didn't expect this from a budget film, and it was really refreshing to see how the movie played with run-of-the-mill sci-fi and horror elements. Daniel MacPherson holds this neatly together by his performance and the cinematography and pacing pick up to turn the proceedings on the ill-fated mining colony at the end of the universe into an engaging vicarious experience. Ultimately, the movie arrives at a surprising (but rewarding) conclusion.
A definite strong point the film has to offer is its innovative take on and gradual dismantlement of classic sci-fi/ horror elements. It manages to infuse very personal aspects into its protagonists while grazing topics like the human condition. Be warned, this is done on a rather superficial level, so expect no deep philosophical insights. On the other hand, by doing so it avoids losing its pacing, which is a boon to its overall integrity – keeping this balance is not a small feat in my eyes.
If you have an inclination towards classic sci-fi horror (and don't expect it to outdo its spiritual predecessors) and are willing to give this one a chance, you'll be in for a pleasant ride. There are shortcomings, needless to say, but all things considered, Infini manages to deliver at the end of the day. Would recommend.
O-bi, o-ba. Koniec cywilizacji (1985)
"Haven't we learned anything?"
In the aftermath of a nuclear war, the last survivors are jammed together under one giant concrete dome, which is protecting the remnants of human civilization from the deadly atomic winter. As resources grow scarce people become more and more rampant, eagerly awaiting the arrival of a fabled Ark which is supposed to save them all. Amidst this mess we find Soft, whose job is to check the structural stability of their shelter. When he discovers that the dome is close to collapsing, he plunges himself into the pandemonium of the last human civilization in order to find out more about this mythical Ark.
I was able to watch a subtitled version of 'O-Bi O-Ba - The End of Civilization' at a festival, which had a segment dedicated to Eastern European sci-fi flicks. I didn't know what to expect - none of the actors rang any bells, neither did the director. Boy, was I in for a surprise! The acting is very solid throughout the movie, I especially liked the laconic fatalism of Soft's boss (Marek Walczewski) and the performances of Jan Nowicki as the Engineer, and of Soft himself (Jerzy Stuhr) who acts as our guide into the depth of the dome, and does a wonderful job of trying to keep calm and rationalize his way out of certain doom.
What struck me most, though, is that this movie works perfectly as an post-apocalyptic dystopia. It displays the (at times pointless) struggle of Soft against his and the others' fate, while at the same time painting a very dark and cynical portrait of human society living on borrowed time on the brink of certain oblivion. As we follow Soft into the underbelly of the dome's society, we discover its secrets layer by layer and realize how paper-thin the wall between madness and reason really is. I am not overly familiar with the circumstances in which the movie was made (it was shot when Poland was still a Socialist Republic), but the social commentary is quite clear. The movie lends itself to be read as criticism of a capitalist society, basically (and at times quite literally) devouring itself. My guess is that it works both ways and can also be applied as an attack on Socialist societal mechanisms (as the movie was shot during the last years of collapsing Polish Socialsm), but I'd venture on very thin ice if I were to substantialize this claim.
At the very least, this film revolves around the human condition and contests if the human race has grown in any way over the last centuries and millenia. Great stuff, go see it if you have the chance - especially if you're a fan of dystopian fiction!
Minecraft: The Story of Mojang (2012)
Asking the right people the wrong questions
I recently was in the lucky position to watch three documentaries on video games in rather short succession (Get Lamp, Indie Game: The Movie, and Minecraft: The Story of Mojang). In this trifecta, Get Lamp has to probably be the odd man out, since Indie Game and Minecraft revolve around recently released indie games, whereas Get Lamp presents itself more like a nostalgic retrospection. Still, out of those three, Minecraft, I am afraid to say, turns out to be the weakest - for a variety of reasons.
The movie documented facts and events after Minecraft had circulated the internets, turning out to be a tremendous success and having created an immense fan base. This may be partially due to the fact, that the film was founded through Kickstarter and thus needed some time until it was in the clear financially (I am not familiar with the exact details, though). The thing with Minecraft is, however, that the game is probably the most thoroughly documented gaming phenomenon on the internet (being responsible for numerous Let's Players and game commentators on YouTube) – those videos alone vividly depict the endless possibilities Minecraft has to offer and are able to make you understand why it turned out to be the phenomenon it is, even if you are not familiar with the game itself.
So what does this documentary add? Well, other than Indie Game, which focused on the people behind the games, their relation to what they were doing, and the reason why they did it or do it, Minecraft basically renders Markus Persson as a nice guy who simply lucked out making a game that he thought would be cool to play himself. Period. And then moves on to all the other aspects that are the Minecraft phenomenon – all of which, however, you are able to witness yourself first-hand by using your internet connection. Do I need a documentary to inform me about the existence of The Shaft or Yogscast? Or that Persson founded a company and is working on a new game? The most insightful comments are probably Peter Molyneux's in which he explains why he thinks Minecraft is such a big hit and discloses the fact that Minecraft played a role in him founding yet another game dev studio. Guys, seriously, for having Peter Molyneux, Tim Schafer, and Jonathan Blow (although he just makes a very brief appearance) available for interviews, these are pretty meager yields.
For fans of the game it absolutely may be interesting to see more of the people behind the game (especially 'Notch' Persson – and it is good to see that he has remained a likable, down-to-earth guy, despite being responsible for possibly one of *the* gaming sensation of this decade), for the average gamer or documentary aficionado, however, this might be too little. Where Indie Game was able to tell a captivating story about the minds behind the games, Minecraft is asking the right people the wrong questions and leaves the viewer with an unsorted array of factoids about the phenomenon that is Minecraft.
Hell (2011)
German shot at 'The Road'
Imagine you are a writer/director who saw 'The Road', and now want to make a movie ''just like that'', but you lack the budget, the cast, and the writing. Your result may resemble 'Hell', a German foray into the post-apocalyptic genre. Don't get me wrong here, being a fan of both dystopian narratives and German film, 'Hell' really did pique my curiosity, but sadly failed to meet expectations.
What does appear striking is the strong Road semblance its creators obviously wanted to give the whole thing (even down to the canned peaches). What may have doomed the whole enterprise from the get-go is the fact that Hillcoat's adaptation of McCarthy's novel is one of the best pieces of post-apocalyptic fiction ever made. Setting the bar at this height does not bode well for Fehlbaum's endeavor.
Heightened solar activity has heated up Earth's atmosphere, leaving its surface an inhospitable and barren place, where plant life no longer can sustain the blistering heat. The remaining survivors fight for Earth's scarcest resource – water. Rumors have it that water still can be found in the higher regions of the German Alps, destination of our group of survivors (Marie, Leonie, and Phillip).
Evidently the movie was shot on a very tight budget. The only noteworthy CGI is the bloom effect of the glaring sun, which is simple but does its job. Other than that, the film does little to convince us of the inclement world the characters amble around in. There are no money shots to speak of (crucial to establishing a fictitious world), the only rewarding part in sense of immersion is the rest area right at the beginning. Whatever set-up comes after this locale appears ill-conceived and lackluster.
The cast does not really seem to grasp their characters, either, dealing further detrimental blows to the credibility of 'Hell''s world. Worst, by far, is veteran actress Angela Winkler, whose delivery is at times comical. Throughout her entire screen time she doesn't seem to be able to make heads or tails out of her role. To a lesser degree the same is true for the rest of the cast. Hanna Herzsprung's decisions are hard to follow, her acting is random at best. The same goes for Lars Eidinger, who apparently is unsure whether Phillip is an coldhearted realist, craven opportunist, or takes heart from Marie's actions and mans up after all. Only Stipe Erceg is able to bestow some depth upon his rendition of Tom. All of this, however, does not stem from bad acting per se – it appears rather obvious that the character design was poorly executed, accompanied by a weak director's vision for the characters at hand.
This also manifests in many inconsistencies throughout the film. The dangerousness of the sun, for example, ranges from 'deadly' (2 hours of exposure will burn your skin) to 'bright' where people simply 'cannot see so well' but otherwise couldn't care less if they are exposed to the supposedly deadly sunlight. It is pretty much self-explanatory what this does to the referential frame of the film, and it leaves a staunch sensation of arbitrariness.
Another dubitable decision is the movie's pacing. Suspense-laden slow takes work well in stretches where this exact sense of suspense is supposed to be conveyed. To choose only slowly paced takes will eventually tire the viewer and lose his attention. And at times, the scenes drag along like the nets of an Atlantic trawler. All in all, 'Hell' has a net screening time of approx. 80 minutes, which is not a lot – but with the few events actually going on on-screen, everything could easily be wrapped up in 30 minutes or less. In addition, slow paced takes are usually a staple of the horror genre, with often visceral effects resolving the tension abruptly in a shock effect way. The overuse of this technique gives 'Hell' more than a hint of horror shocker, and in the last third of the film you are not sure what genre you are actually finding yourself in. Whereas the themes and motives are the same as in 'The Road', the genre seems to have shifted in 'Hell'. Statements about the human condition in 'The Road' have given way to a capitalization on shock value in 'Hell'. Which in my opinion is a poor artistic choice.
All in all, I still welcome Fehlbaum's attempt at post-apocalyptic film-making, a genre (among many others) neglected by German cinema, although the outcome as such fails to convince. I wouldn't go so far as to call 'Hell' bad (it certainly is not good), but its flaws render the whole enterprise disappointingly boring and lackluster. However, this shot at a German post-apocalypse is maybe necessary to spark further attempts and may set the stage for more stringent and enthralling works. Or so I hope, at least.
Black Death (2010)
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you
The bubonic plague is ravaging 14th century England. The monk Osmund (Eddie Redmayne) volunteers to guide Ulrich (Sean Bean), envoy of the Bishop, and his motley crew of inquisitors to a village miraculously unharmed by the Black Death. The movie liberally borrows bits and pieces from various historical periods (and fiction) to create its own version of this 14th -century plague-ridden England, which is, historically speaking, somewhat (not to say highly) inaccurate. The good thing is, though, that this fact could not be any less concerning, since the movie only uses the black plague and its time as a backdrop to convey its basic narrative.
The characters in this picture are very strongly put on screen. Each of Ulrich's companions have their own cross to carry – the characters are introduced in a very concise yet poignant way, leaving the actors enough room to unfold, develop and convey their characters. John Lynn, Emun Elliott , Johnny Harris, Andy Nyman, and Tygo Gernandt perform superbly, supported by a solid costume department, despite the aforementioned drawbacks concerning historical (in-)accuracies.
Moreover, the pacing of this film is excellent as this group of god-fearing men ventures further into the British marshland. The eerie cleanliness of the village which marks the end of their journey stands in stark contrast to the environs depicted before. The ensuing confrontation within the village's walls highlights the film's main motifs of devotion, conviction and religious relentlessness. What the movie accomplishes very aptly is to depict the human side of those motifs without ever becoming moralizing about religious beliefs themselves.
What follows, though, is the film's absolute weak point. The ending does not only feel very much tacked on – the developments, which are presented in the last three minutes, are so profound that they, in my opinion, warrant a much bigger portion of the movie than granted. And this is where I am at odds with this film: Up to this point, it has delivered an above par (for its genre) performance; somewhat ambitious at times, but always able to keep the promises it set out to make in the first place. The ending, however, reveals a character development so profound that the way it is presented does in no way do justice to its (I am tempted to say epic) ramifications. Should it have been omitted then? I do not think so, since the end provides a further depth to this film that I wouldn't want to miss – it is the fashion in which it is presented that leaves me with an uneasy feeling.
Make no mistake – this picture is, within the adventure/fantasy/history genre, able to convey an interesting point with a somewhat fresh approach. Up until right before the end, this works perfectly, rendering this whole film a solid enterprise. The added ending, however, leaves you wanting something more than this film is able to deliver. Definitely still worth your time, though – give this one a try.
Age of the Dragons (2011)
Thanks for butchering Melville's classic!
The premise "Age of the Dragons" has to offer sounds engaging enough: One of the greatest works of literature refurbished as a tale of fantasy. With dragons. On the other hand, knowing what the fantasy genre is capable of churning out should make us wary of what this here film might actually turn into. And lastly, the bar has been raised pretty high when it comes to "Moby Dick", by other filmic adaptations, so naturally there is a lot of competition in that field.
The parallels the movie tries to draw between this version and the original become apparent (after a somewhat superfluous introduction) real fast. The beginning of the film bears very strong resemblances to the outset of Melville's novel. The two harpooners are Ishmael (Corey Sevier) and Queequeg (Kepa Kruse), the rest of the crew consists of Starbuck (David Morgan), Stubb (Vinnie Jones), and Flask (Larry Bagby). Tashtego (John Lyde) and Daggoo (Scott Chun) are also in the mix, and, of course, Ahab (Danny Glover) is the captain (mysteriously enough, Fedallah does not make an appearance in this film). The land ship they sail (or ride) on is the Pequed, and even the inn where Ishamel and Queequeg sign on is consequently called 'The Dragon'.
This being a fantasy adaption, the screen writers, needless to say, took some liberties, and substituting whales with dragons is only the beginning. For instance, Rachel (Sofia Pernas) is a very real woman, and introduced as Ahab's daughter at that (even the most oblivious viewer at this juncture should be able to notice that we're going to be in for a twist later on). She is part of the motley crew under Ahab's command. In the olden days it was considered bad luck to bring women aboard ships – maybe the producers should have stuck to this superstition, since it becomes apparent pretty early on that this adaption has the potential to turn into a major train wreck.
First off, the general idea of exchanging whales for dragons seems followable enough, even more so for a fantasy adaption. The one glaring difference between those two creatures is that dragons dwell on land (or roam the skies above), which renders the whole point of hunting after them in a ship moot. The movie tries to work around this contrariety by having our crew hunting after the scaly beasts in land ships, partly because they provide fire protection (spoiler alert: they really don't), and partly because "Hey, now we have a ship the story can take place on!". Other than the seemingly non-functional fire protection, the vessel's only notable feature is its slow velocity, becoming painfully obvious as it drags along through the tundra in a sluggish manner, much like the story of the film itself.
Well, the thing with the ships is that the original draws a lot of intensity from Ahab's crew being ensnared and led astray by their maniacal, albeit charismatic, captain, while at the same time being trapped inside the Pequed on the high seas. This intensity can hardly be reproduced if the crew members can choose to simply walk away. "Ahab, you are crazy, I'ma walk home!", and beat it. Why even stay?
Enter the love interest, Rachel. Either to save her from her obviously demented father, or for much less noble purposes – after all, she is the only woman the crew will get to see for the remainder of the film – the guys stick around. And this is where the whole story really becomes threadbare. Without a shred of doubt, the 'miscast of the movie' trophy has to go to Sofia Pernas. Clearly cast for looks only, as she fails to deliver in every other field, she can't be bothered to act as if she had the slightest clue about acting. On the plus side, she definitely does boost the cleavage factor.
Surprisingly, Danny Glover and Vinnie Jones somehow made it on board this doomed vessel. Pleasantly enough, Jones manages to stay in the background and delivers a solid performance. Glover, on the other hand, really hams it up and goes over the top at the end of the hunt for the white dragon – although it is hard to discern whether this is his or the script's fault. In any case, at no point is any other member of the otherwise bland cast to contrast Glover's performance. It sometimes appears as if Glover is acting in the emptiness of an abandoned warehouse, waiting for his echo to deliver the cues. To add insult to injury, the costumes look like they must have been a real steal at a LARP vendor's bargain bin.
All in all, the movie becomes an amalgam of inconsistencies so much that it is hard to put the finger on the which chock is actually responsible for the derailment of this whole enterprise in the end. The CGI are passable, but can't compensate for what has been botched up in the other departments.
Sadly, movies of the fantasy genre (and low-budget productions in particular) seem stumble into the same pitfall of cutting the wrong corners time and again. Good effects do not make for a good fantasy flick – yet still it is there where most of the budget seems to go. What really brakes the camel's back here is the premise of this project, which is way too ambitious. At no point does "Age of the Dragons" even stand a chance of being a creative adaption of Melville's classic. Without this pretension, this film might have been another run-of-the-mill fantasy flick that we have so may of. Nothing spectacular, mainly for fans of the genre. 4/10, if only because of Glover's ham and cheese sandwich.
Daybreakers (2009)
Missed Opportunity
* Minor spoilers *
'Daybreakers' starts with a promising outset: A vampire film, nay, rather a dystopia with a vampire twist. The future is bleak for the vampiric populace of planet Earth in 2019; after a not-further-disclosed pandemic, vampires have become the dominant species, while humans are kept as livestock or are hunted, with their numbers on the decrease. And with the humans their precious blood is dwindling, which it is the vampyrs have to feed on, lest they turn into blood-sucking animals, 'Subsiders', bereaved of their last shred of humanity and driven by their insatiable appetite for blood.
The world 'Daybreakers' takes place in is presented in a visually stunning way, lending a huge amount of credibility to the nocturnal society of 2019. Countless money shots with state-of-the-art CGI introduce us to a world in which the vampires have taken over. The dark tones of the nightly shots match the drab atmosphere of the movie; as the vampires are running low on human blood, they start turning onto each other. The hematologists of Bromley Marks, the world's leading blood supplier, frantically search for a blood substitute with minimal success. Chiefly among them Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), vampire with a penchant for the humans and their fate. In a dialog with Charles Bromley (Sam Neill), CEO and head Dracula of Bromley Marks, he even grazes the subject matter of what 'being human' really constitutes. Things really seem to go well for this one flick - heck, we even got smidgens of subtext (capitalism, totalitarianism, racism, what have you) resonating from within this undead dystopia.
At least until the plot engine is started, and with it the movie's dynamics change. And boy do things go downhill fast. Enter Frankie Dalton (Michael Dorman), Edward's brother, who doesn't lose too much time to propel the film into the direction of a vampiric slaughter fest in style of Tarantino (better) or Carpenter (worse). Lionel 'Elvis' Cormac (Willem Dafoe) seals this deal as he crossbows his way through the undead's rank and file.
Not only are we presented a run-of-the-mill action story, which is paper-thin, to say the least - this would be excusable. It was really when, as the action progresses, the meticulously crafted and coherent world is sacrificed for the plot, when 'Daybreakers' incurred my rancor. Torn down and relegated to being a somewhat clever backdrop for an action flick with seemingly interchangeable characters and a foreseeable outcome, the dark and dreary world of 'Daybreakers' quickly loses its allure. The shift from Orwellian Transylvania to a gory undead anarchy (of sorts) is so unconvincing that I really wondered why they went to these great lengths to establish this undead version of 2019 in the first place. And with the capsizing of the venture that was the Vampire States of America the whole film turns into something resembling gore-laden B-movie for the last third or so. The movie ends on a messianic note, albeit the salvation plot line manages to remain a mawkish pot of schmaltz.
With its very auspicious and fresh start, I really wanted to like this movie, and maybe that was what broke its neck in the end. I had hoped for a some new blood in the dried up veins of both the vampire and dystopia genre. And from what was served during the first third of the film, it may very well have been able to keep this promise – nothing great or outstanding, necessarily – something solid like 'Equilibrium' would have absolutely sufficed. Sadly, 'Daybreakers' has missed this shot at being something more than it turned out to be, reverting mid-film into an action flick you would rather expect to find in the B-movie section of your video store.
That being said, the rest of the movie is not bad per se, if undead action films are your thing. Although the story is at points laughable, it is on par with the action in remaining half of the movie forming a consistent block of unexciting but somewhat entertaining vampire action. Sadly, it is not more. 7/10, if only for the ambitious first third.