The Cement Garden

Based on the 1978 novel of the same name by English author Ian McEwan, The Cement Garden directed by Andrew Birkin was released in 1993 to critical accliam. A bona-fide cult classic which attracted plenty of controversy due to it's taboo content.

Our protagonists are Jack (Andrew Robertson),  a selfish narcissistic 15-year old boy. Julie (Charlotte Gainsbourg), his 17-year old sister and his two younger siblings, 13-year old Sue (Alice Coulthard) and 6-year old Tom (Ned Birkin). After their father has a heart attack and dies, their mother falls sick, telling her children that when she passes away to not tell anybody for they will get fostered off and their house will be torn down. Soon, the mother dies too and the children bury her in a cement coffin down in the basement. The rest of the film follows the children s attempts to stay together as a family while dealing with their grief and their unraveling mental states.

Holy shit though, this is a haunting movie. At first, Jack is a unlikable character and is generally just a wank stain of a teenager but after the Mothers death he does mature as the makeshift father-figure of the family. To be fair, everyone was pretty much a shithead teenager and he can still be pretty relatable. Still, I like his character arc. Andrew Robertson puts in a hell of an effort, channeling Malcolm McDowell's Alex DeLarge at times. He hasn't really done all that acting since (He's a musician now) and it's a shame, cause the kid is talented. Charlotte Gainsbourg is fine too, she occasionally mumbles a few lines but her facial expressions and emotion she can get across is great. Alice Coulthard is probably the most surprisingly good child actor I've seen in a while, I like the fact she is looks different from her sister and brothers too, it's a nice way of visually showing her isolation from the family. Ned Birkins is probably the only one that ain't so good performance wise. He can be pretty creepy looking (think Damian from Omen) but his lines are stumbled through and rather blank. He's a kid though and most of the time it looks like he'd rather be playing with his Transforming Ninja Reptile Mutants® toys than learning lines with his cousin and Dad. I don't really have a problem with him being the directors son though (Gainsbourg is his niece), in the scheme of things it kinda makes it more chilling.

So lets get straight down to the main event shall we? The elephant in the room. The incest. When I tell my friends to watch this, I summarize it as "A film where two teenagers mum dies and they start fucking" and they are always "What the fuck? That's disgusting" and I reply "Yeah I know but it's handled beautifully" and they look at me as if I suggested brushing your teeth with a hacksaw. But it is handled well. Near the start, Jack accidentally causes Julie to orgasm while tickling her and it is deeply uncomfortable and awkward but after they fill into their roles as mother and father in the makeshift family, it's not as shocking. And that's what I have to give credit to this movie for: Never using the incest just for shock value. Well played movie.

I'm not a fan of Julie's boyfriend Derek (Jochen Horst) and it's my biggest gripe with the film. He is first introduced to get Jack jealous and re-affirm his feelings for Julie (which is beyond a crush at this point) but after he gets suspicious by the absence of the mother and foul smell emitting from the basement, you think "Oh fuck, shits about to go down". It doesn't though and it's disappointing because the third act should be rife with tension. Instead, Derek is more or less "Yo, I know your momma is buried down in the basement" and they are all "Naw, that is just our dog." It's a misstep and although this a very faithful adaptation of the novel, these scenes could have taken some liberties. I thought that this is when Derek would be in danger and the kids would do anything to keep their secrets hidden. When he is in the basement demanding to know what is in the concrete tomb and all four children are down with him, I assumed he was never getting back out. Really though, the kids don't really seem to give a shit and are under the impression all of it will be revealed eventually anyway.

The film is beautifully shot and directed. It's a real shame Andrew Birkin never directed more because the cinematography is gorgeous and he really perfected the look and feeling of the novel. On such a small budget too, you can't help be impressed. I love a particular shot where after establishing that there is a large crack (getting larger too) in the mothers coffin, we cut to a shot of cracked concrete with swarming ants pouring out of it before it pans up to show the front of the house. That is just fantastic.

81/100 "I thoroughly recommend this movie, it is dark, sparse, disturbing and utterly hypnotic. "

KRS

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children

I always bang on about how there is no such thing as an unnecessary sequel. This might be the exception. I could say that since it's a sequel to a video game it might not count, but I dunno, this could have been a good sequel somehow. Although it would have taken a miracle from the writers. The stars would have to align, Jesus would have to convert to Scientology and there would have to be a good installment in the Harry Potter franchise. It's unlikely is what I'm sayin'.

It's nearly impossible task not because the original's story was a masterpiece, but because it is a sequel to something from an entirely different medium. Now don't get me wrong, I adore Final Fantasy VII, it's visual design, solid game-play and breathtaking score are all reasons it's beloved by the video game community. Yes, it is overrated. But something has to be good and rated well in the first place to become overrated. It's story ain't great from a critical view point, it's narrative flow is messy, full of cliches and riddled with plot holes. Video games are a different form of art, one that allows the audience to particpate and more fully immerse themselves into the story. Because of this, one can forgive the narrative flaws more, you aren't interpreting, you are participating. The best films adapted from novels incoropate the best features and translate them on screen. Think Kubrick's The Shining or Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy. Video games adaptations almost never do this. The Resident Evil series both tries to be a Hollywood zombie blockbuster while still desperately clinging to fragments of the original games. A character from the games MUST be thrown in, worse still when it's the third or fourth entry, so the audience know this is related. Heaven knows we couldn't make a zombie horror film loosely connected. They even make the film LOOK like a game. It's hideous. When a video game movie tries to tell an original story while incorporating what they feel to be the best parts from the game, they fail miserably. The Super Mario Bros film is an example, as is ironically, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Those films both sucked and bombed and ever since studios have been more and more reluctant to give writers artistic freedom.

Our "hero/heroine"

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children is guilty of all of the above. Do I really need to summarise the plot? A big criticism at the time of release was that those who had not played the original game would struggle to comprehend the plot. Well it's true, if you haven't played the game you won't have a clue whats going on. I can't be assed recapping the plot of a 15 year old Playstation game either, so we are going to have to work together here folks. There is stuff about geostigma, clones, summoning demon monsters and rescuing Bruce Campbells stolen '69 Buick. The last one might of been from the movie I was playing in my head while watching this.

Since this an animated feature and we can't discuss the plot, how does it look? Meh. It can be pretty impressive (Though not as impressive as Spirits Within) and obviously a lot of hard work and hours have been poured into this. I can't help but feel it should of been game and then it would been really impressive. As a movie however, the CGI industry can still not replicate a human face realistically. You can't CGI in a  soul and everyone has the dead eyes of a puppet still. I'd of been more impressed if it was all done in live action. It's also hard to critique lighting in a CGI film. What the fuck can I say about the sets or costumes? Cinematography?

Behind those dead eyes lies a monster

Look, I didn't enjoy this movie. It tries to pander to the original fanbase while managing to piss them off and then goes and alienates those who haven't played the original. The plot is bland and pretty un-absorbing and the characters of the personality of fresh roadkill. It's nice to have a tingle of nostalgia when you hear familiar music score though but thats about it.

51/100 - "A pandering, lifeless, dead eyed and un-original cash in"

KRS

Man of Steel Review

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It is impossible to make a great Superman film. The character does not translate well to film and while the first two installments are good fun, they are not great films. The animated cartoon was good fun, hell even Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman was 90's camp at it's best. Although even that focused more so on the Clark Kent side of the character rather than the Superman side. So, still no great Superman film though.

Okay, there is one great Superman film.

I went to see Superman 6/Man of Steel the other day, not particularly excited or hyped but then again my expectations were relatively low. I'm not a fan of Zack Snyder in any way. I enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead but perhaps foreshadowing Man of Steel, it pales in comparison to the original. I find his films to be visually compelling but completely void and hollow in the story department. His characters often too under-developed and unlikable. But we all know the focus is not on Snyder but the films producer: Christopher "Golden Boy" Nolan. I AM a fan of Nolan however, I like his direction, writing and most of his films in general. I love The Dark Knight, I like Batman Begins and I dislike The Dark Knight Rises, so his Batman trilogy can be both hit and miss with me and to be honest, was probably a big reason I was not hyped. I assumed this would be Superman Begins and be followed by Man of Steel and then finally Man of Steel Rises.

Anyway, the film opens on Krypton and Russell Crowe is playing Jor-El and Ayelet Zurer (take that spell checker) is playing Lara, Supe's biological parents. How come the father has an alien name and the mother a human name? After giving birth to Supes, we learn the planet is doomed and Jor predicted this but his advice fell on deaf ears. General Zod (Michael Shannon) stages a military coup, killing the council and Papa Supes in the process. Not before Jor manages to save his baby boy by hurling him through space in a metal can however and Zod and his followers are quickly captured and sent to the Phantom Zone (Where they play both The Phantom and The Phantom Menace on repeat for all eternity)  This whole sequence is actually pretty good, the costumes are great, the scenery looks pretty sweet and Crowe ain't too bad at all. Zurer is a bit wooden but she ain't around long enough to get on your nerves. Sure there is an abundance of CGI and things zoom and zoop around too fast but in general this is a solid opener. You just can't not picture these scenes being played out with Brando and Stamp mentally. It's actually a better movie if you do that throughout it's entirety.

Then things go down hill.

It follows the standard origin story, Johnathan (Kevin Costner)  and Martha Kent (Diane Lane) find and adopt Clark. (Both of his dads are freaking Robin Hood!) It's here we are introduced to grown up Clark Kent played by Henry Cavill. I haven't seen much else of Cavill but got to say, wasn't impressed by his performance. The character in general is horribly written but I didn't connect with him at all. Whatever. At least he looks the part I guess. Where was I? Oh yeah, Clark goes all Wolverine/Batman Begins, wandering the globe all bearded up, doing odd jobs and hitch hiking about. Nothing happens until we get to the arctic. Lois Lane (Amy Adams) is reporting about something or another and meets Colonel Exposition (Christopher Meloni) who tells her to shit in a bucket. I like Amy Adams by the by, she does a fine job here too. I never really see her as Lois Lane, she looks more like a Mary-Jane but she still does well in the role. She snopes around and follows Clark into a spacecraft and gets attacked by floating CGI bots. Clark saves the day, starts the craft and speaks to a holographic version of Russell Crowe. Oh and he gets his new suit.

He was slightly underwhelmed though

I know I'm skipping over the plot more and more but it already feels like an eternity. Basically the second-third act is Zod coming to Earth to A) Capture Supes but really it's B) Terra-form the planet into a new Krypton. Right now I can bitch a bit more and not focus on the story (Hell if the screenwriter didn't, why should I?) Firstly, the flashbacks. The fucking flashbacks. Everything is shown for us and it's a problem throughout, we see something and then have it explained for us. The Krypton scene at the start is fine until Clark meets Jor and he explains it all again. How dumb do they take us for? I know this a film that can turn your brain into a sponge but it doesn't erase your short term memory. All the flashbacks are sepia toned too because why not. Secondly, is he hell thirty three years old. Not only does act like a goddamn 14 year old who has been denied tickets to a Green Day concert but it takes him 33 years to learn he can fly?! After knowing he can lift buses and shoot lasers out of his eyes? You wouldn't be a little fucking curious about what else you could do? Thirdly, the 2 second shot cuts. I admired the framing and shots (Specially the ones without overkill ad placement) but you can't really appreciate it when it all goes flying past you. If sentences were short. This short. For no reason. It would piss you off.  I seen this motherfucker in 3D too. I was lucky my eye balls didn't melt.

Also, fuck the what was up with Costner's sacrifice for the dog? The nonchalant hand action that meant "No God Alien, this how I need to go. So you can learn something"  Apparently dogs lives are worth more than humans. In fact your dog > your Dad according to this.

In summary: I enjoyed the acting, mostly Shannon for half putting in a great performance and half chewing the shit out of the CGI scenery,  40% of the score (when it wasn't burrrrrrrrr wubwubwubwubwub'ing all the time)  and some shots here and there. The biggest crime here is that this mess cost $225 million. I'm pretty sure that could of bought copies of Superman 1 and 2 (both versions) for everyone on the planet. When you spend that much money and don't even put a CGI Richard Pryor in it, you can fuck right off.

48/100 - "I've seen 5 hour movies but this felt like the longest film of all time"

KRS

I Want Hulk Hogan To Wrestle Again

I just know right away this is going to be an unpopular article. The majority of wrestling fans on the internet flat out don't want Hulk Hogan to wrestle again. Hell even over at the WrestlingNewsWorld.com article, a commentator named Charles said "If there is a single human being in the entire world that thinks seeing Hogan wrestle in 2013 would be even remotely entertaining I would be truly shocked." Well guess what Charles, I'm that single human being. Wait a gosh darned Jimmy Hart. Didn't Hogan call me a clown and want me fired? Well I'm a Pastamaniac and just can't hate the big bootin' pasta godfather.

Glorious.

So yeah it looks very likely that Hogan is going to have one last run in wrestling, something that has been talked about for a year or two now. It wasn't until recently that his teasing tweets could really be interpreted as reality and not just hype. I understand as the years roll on, the generations of wrestling fans change too. I was not old enough for Hulkamania, so I don't truly get the phenomena , but I was around for the second coming in WCW right up to his excellent match at Wrestlemania with The Rock (Hogan was too bloated and felt like a pig for a third coming) I completely understand why the modern generation don't get  Hogan though. He isn't relevant anymore (Just like Cyndi Lauper, Mr T or any other stuck-in-the-80's star) and he is literally from a different time. Kids won't get excited by prayers and vitamins unless there is an app for it. Heck, they don't know there was once more than three Dudleys or that Kane was a dentist. They can't relate to the Hulkster anymore.

But you know what everyone can relate to? An underdog story. A comeback underdog story. A story that could be applied to many wrestlers today :Jake the Snake Roberts, Ric Flair, maybe even Scott Hall. It's a story that has been used (to great success too) for Terry Funk over the years, but the story would easily be the best fit for Hogan. Basically Rocky Balboa/6 in which Sylvester Stallone (Hogan's co-star in Rocky 3) comes out of retirement, trains like never before and has one last crack at the top. He has nothing to prove to anyone, except himself. Substitute Rocky with Hulk/Thunderlips and boxing with wrestling and voila.

Of course, Hogan would have to be deadly serious about training. It's well known his back is a wreck and part robotic, if we're talking movie parallels, we don't want it going down The Wrestler route and realistically, it could go either way. Hogan would have to be able to move relatively pain free, we know he is going to be limited in-ring no matter what and so he should get his body as healthy as possible. This means not just hitting the weights and "hulking up" and no more exploding radiators. He should seriously get on DDP Yoga, which has done the impossible for Hall, Jake and that guy who was told he would never walk unaided again. If they could get DDP involved on screen even better. It would help the audience cheer for Hogan to recover if they saw him struggle through the grueling process. Plus good publicity for DDP - everybody wins. 

Also, what everyone seems to forget is that Hogan doesn't have to win. If we go for the Rocky way again, simply going the distance is what is important. He doesn't need another title reign, it's the journey that counts. That last hulk up after kicking out from defeat, blood pouring down his face, arm extended, finger pointed. That rush throughout the crowd thinking, believing that "Holy crap, he might actually do it" only to go on and lose. It's been said a lot recently that results don't matter and I agree with that here. If we are to be realistic and say his opponent is Bully Ray, then the extra heat he would receive would be immense too. TNA could cover the story well; maybe in a pseudo-documentary style and cash in on all the guaranteed publicity (Hogan would plug it more, 'cause it'd be about him)

It's 2013 and the man he wanted fired wants him in the squared circle again.

KRS

Ong-Bak: Muay Thai Warrior

I picked this bad boy up yesterday for my movie of the day because:
A) Everybody wouldn't stop going on and on about how incredible and breathtaking the film/stunts were.
B) Was going through a martial-arts binge phase
C) It was only £2

TNA Hardcore Championship

TNA is often rightfully accused of misusing their belts. In a dream world the TV Title would have the prestige and relevance of the ECW TV Championship or the Intercontinental belt. So it might be perceived as madness when I propose TNA should bring in another belt but hear me out.

Hard Boiled Fat

Man, John Woo's Hard Boiled kicks ass. End of review.