Before I get stuck in, let me say right at the top that the effects-work in Into The Storm is nothing short of outstanding. When the twisters are closing in and hurling cars and farm machinery into the air, you feel every howl, whoosh, and gut-wrenching crack. More to the point, the cinematography in those scenes is breathtaking, too. The sheer chaos and savage beauty of the squall is thrust at the viewer with deafening precision as the audience collectively holds its breath, either wide-eyed or peeping from the corner of one eye.
Which is why it's a real shame that the rest of the film is such an utter turd. Taking the standard disaster-movie structure that outstayed its welcome in the 1990s, John Swetnam's screenplay is so formulaic and unashamedly dumb it makes Roland Emmerich's work look like Wes Anderson's. Perhaps the worst part is that the film spends 15 minutes clunkily setting up a device whereby each of the four groups we'll encounter are recording any-and-everything on video cameras, in order to give the film that found-footage feel that the kids are loving these days*1. Notwithstanding the fact that the professional cameras, semi-pro domestic cameras and redneck-owned cameraphones all seem to be recording at the same ultra hi-def, super-stabilised resolution with crystal-clear audio levels, we also get plenty of shots which can't be filmed by any of the characters. The film never forgets about the first-person vibe, it just can't be bothered to stick to it.
Hastily slapped onto this are some of the most one-dimensional characters ever to be partially-written, substituting phone conversations with their children for character-depth, and autopiloted soundbites for meaningful interaction. Of course Richard Armitage has got to be a single-father doing his best to raise his two sons after his wife's death. Of course Sarah Wayne Callies has to be a brilliant, if underrated workaholic meteorologist with a five-year old daughter she doesn't see enough and that breaks her heart at twenty minute intervals. Of course Matt Walsh's hardened stormchaser is going to redeem his arsehole personality by sacrificing himself for the good of the group and seeing the eye of the storm first-hand just like he's always wanted before dying*2. Of course the supporting cast of young identikit actors will barely even have names, let alone personalities (guess which one's going to die next? You're right, it doesn't really matter).
Only in this film would a group of people decide to hide in a storm drain (a structure designed to be flooded with water during a storm), during a storm, ten minutes after two of the lead characters almost drowned. Only in this film would the grilles at either end of the storm-drain be held on by two trucks outside and a length of steel winch-cable pulling them together, which everyone holds onto as a super-massive electrical storm passes directly overhead. Only in this film would the ill-timed comic relief come from two redneck stormchasers who are a danger to everyone around them throughout the film, but are also apparently invincible as the hi-def cameras which operate, untended, for the film's entire runtime.
Thankfully, it's all over in less than an hour and a half, done and dusted in time for hugs and clean-up operations under blue skies, and eggshell platitudes straight-to-camera. It's never the ones you want to die that buy the farm…
The second-stupidest film of the year, if big, loud, but ultimately empty bangs are your thing, you may well get something out of Into The Storm. Then again, if you're happy to pay £10 for an extended effects showreel, propped up with a script written by a computer, Expendables 3 comes out in a couple of days…
Oh, the trailer aspires to be as stupid as the film, but two and a half minutes isn't long enough to convey the absolute fucking density of the completed work.
I winced during the storm scenes, and I winced during the rest of it.
I have no idea.
Asda. £3 bin. Within 12 months. Seriously.
You know what? I probably will.
You know what? Not a chance.
There is. It doesn't help.
How little do 'The Walking Dead' and 'The Hobbit' pay, that Callies and Armitage accepted this job without reading the script?
*1 Traslation: that NO-ONE is loving these days.
*2 No, that's not a spoiler. That's my point. If anything, director Steven Quale spoiled this film by making it.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
The general feeling: RT Score: 10% / IMDB Score: 3.4
This film was released in the same year as Kill Bill Vol. 1. Think about that for a second. Groaning into the cinesphere a whole nine years after the Carrey/Daniels original, this is the first of the #CrapSequels season's shite prequels, as the titular Harry and Lloyd meet as new students in high school in 1986 (apparently. Although there's little-to-nothing in the film to suggest that this takes place in any specific timeframe).
It becomes apparent from the very first scene, set inside Mimi Rogers' vagina, that the film will be full of ideas which must have seemed absolutely hilarious on paper, but which completely fail to translate to the screen. Maybe the problem is the lack of connection between the Farrelly's writing and Troy Miller's direction, but despite the near-constant shrieking of the ensemble cast, Dumb And Dumberer is just not funny. The plot (well…) centers around Eugene Levy playing Eugene Levy With A Moustache™ as a corrupt/inept school principal, who sets up a fake special-needs class in a bid to extort money which he intends to embezzle in order to abscond to Hawaii with a dinner-lady. This scheme is thwarted in true whacky-comedy style by the aforementioned class of misfits, like some tasteless bastardisation of The Breakfast Club and Mind Your Language.
A calculated insult to the original movie, there's even a section where the writers have aped the 'embarrassing / early-stages-of-a-date / I can't come out of the toilet because there's shit everywhere' scene from last time, in a shameless attempt to remind audiences of the film they're not watching. Except this time, the punchline is a comedy-straight-man standing in the bathroom shouting "Everything's covered in shit". You can't buy class.
The only good things about When Harry Met Lloyd: 1) Eric Olsen makes a pretty fantastic Jim Carrey. The looks (aided by makeup and wardrobe, of course) are already there, and he's got the voice and mannerisms down pat, and 2) At 84 minutes including credits, it's mercifully short.
Shite.
No, I have not.
Seen it, loved it.
Well, I suppose it'd help a bit, although it'll also raise your expectations unrealistically.
Lin Shaye is back from the first film as a different character. That's it..
Well, a sequel-threequel is in the works, due for release later this year.
I am reserving my judgement.
None of these. You don't need to see this.
I didn't hear one, but I was banging a metal tray against my head for a lot of the film's runtime.
Why would you wait nine years and then do this?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
#CrapSequels: Grease 2 Cert: PG / 109 mins / Dir. Patricia Birch
Year: 1982 (4 years after the first movie)
The general feeling: RT Score: 22% / IMDB Score: 4.1
This film was released in the same year as Blade Runner. Think about that for a second. And a four year gap? That's long enough to think about making a sequel, decide against it, and then have someone pester you into signing off a lacklustre cash-in slightly too late for it to feel like something organic.
It becomes apparent from the opening song 'Back To School Again' that this is going to be an exercise in acute cringing on both sides of the screen. You've got to feel sorry for the cast who signed up for this hoping to emulate (or at least continue) the success of the film's predecessor. The soundtrack occasionally attempts to ape the heady days of 1978, but in all honesty seems to owe as much to Rocky Horror as it does to Grease. That said, the film has a closer connection to the high school ethos than the last one, since the lyrics to 'Score Tonight' and 'Who's That Guy?' seem to have been written by a fourteen year-old. I know these things are notoriously difficult to judge at the time, but surely the mood on-set must have been one of pre-emptive embarrassment?
Disjointed, unengaging, and nowhere near as bitingly funny as it'd like to think it is, Grease 2 features just enough callbacks (hammered repeatedly and mercilessly home) to suggest to the audience that what they're watching is a continuation of That Film They Liked. Set two years after the original, a smattering of supporting characters remain, and it's good to see that the school's teenagers are still clearly in their mid-twenties. The principal cast of Pfeiffer, Caulfield, Luft and Zmed are intent to coast on a charm that they can't muster; indeed if Maxwell Caulfield was any more wooden he'd need to be operated by overhead wires. His screen-presence is so underwhelming that I found myself disappointed at the film's zenith when it turns out that he's not actually dead, after all.
By the time it hits the hour-mark, any half-arsed semblance of a plot has taken a back-seat to the turgid songbook, and you're just waiting for it to end. The film's cast-wide finale serves as a reminder that there's supposed to have been some character development in the previous hour and three quarters, although that's pretty difficult to achieve without actual characters. It feels like being forced to sit through a nostalgia-based musical show (where you don't know any of the songs) touring the nation's provincial theatres, starring a b-list singer from the 1960s and someone from the early stages of last year's X-Factor. As far as high-school stories go, this makes Saved By The Bell look like Back To The Future (hey, it's got a kid on a skateboard and a rendition of 'Mr Sandman, so it's practically there already, yeah?)
As crap as Grease 2 is (and it is), I think in order to be properly appalled by it I'd have to have some overriding love for the original - which I don't, really. In fairness to the sequel, it's shite on its own terms, as well as in direct comparison to Grease, but it's not a complete aberration, just an ill-judged, directionless mess.
No.
I have, but not for about six years or so.
I think you're meant to have, but in reality: no, it'll make little difference to the crapness of this.
Didi Conn is back as Frenchy, Eve Arden returns as Principal McGee with Dody Godman back as Blanche Hodel, and Sid Caesar would go to the opening of a fridge as Coach Calhoun. Dennis Stewart returns as a different character, as does Dick Patterson.
Although despite a reasonable turnout from the supporting cast, Venice High School didn't want to reprise its role, so Excelsior Union High School had to step in.
EVEN THE SETS DIDN'T WANT TO BE INVOLVED AGAIN..
Thankfully, this spelled the end of the cinematic life of the franchise, although the stage-production of Grease is, by all accounts, very good if that's your thing.
You don't need to see this film.
There isn't.
If Sandy in the first movie was a visiting student from Australia, why would her cousin Michael in the sequel be from England? I mean, it's not beyond the realms of possibility, but probability?
And why is that even my question?
Is that the thing which bothered me most about this whole film?
(no, it's not)
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Disney's anthropomorphic aeronautical spinoffs return to cinemas a mere year after their last, slightly muted outing, but can a new director propel the returning core-cast to a new altitude? As champion racing-plane Dusty Crophopper develops the U-Certificate equivalent of a terminal illness*1 and decides on a change of career in order to help Mayday, the lovably decrepit airport fire-truck, the film is a step above the 'who's going to win the race? vibe that's par for this particular course. While it's still strictly youngling-friendly, there's a lot more riding on the outcome of Planes 2, which should help it connect more with older audiences.
The film goes some way to giving the older folks a few wry grins (the Howard The Duck and CHiPs references are awesome, and I have to admit that I loved the AC/DC, Thunderstruck sequence) including a scattering of very mild double entendres, but generally speaking if you're here for the film, you're here for the characters. The central thread about trust, duty and (to a lesser extent) sacrifice gives Fire and Rescue a whole lot more heart than its predecessor, and along with the film's opening dedication to the world's firefighters, suggests that this is more than just a cash-in sequel to a cash-in spinoff.
Yet Despite the absolutely gorgeous animation, this isn't Disney bringing their A-game (which would seem self-evident since the feature was produced by DisneyToon Studios, the straight-to-video arm of their animation house), but then it's not the quality of the visuals which hold the film back. The voice-casting has an air of B-list about it (or at least, not the A-list we're accustomed to for this sort of thing), and while the actors do a marvellous job, it's one string less in the bow of the marketing department. Combine this with the shortened run-time*2 and you get the feeling that this is filler, in lieu of something big for the Summer holidays. There's no real harm in this of course, but Fire and Rescue had the potential to be so much more than an amusing distraction for the little ones.
While it may not be a classic in the making, Planes 2: Fire and Rescue is pleasantly surprising and could well hold its own in the Summer marketplace if it can attract an audience*3. Visually stunning in its aerial sequences, it's worth a watch if you're in the mood for a warm, if undemanding, family movie.
(don't tell Disney this, but you won't lose too much by watching it at home; it's still a straight-to-video spinoff at heart).
Nope.
Probably only the the company of my nephew/niece.
There isn't. Gutted. Although there is that eagle/hawk sound-effect that you hear in everything.
And was I the only one who thought of Mustafar thoughout the movie's incendiary finale?
*1 I know I mentioned it with a flippant tone, but he really does develop have a heart condition, and while it's handled very euphemistically, there is a sense of consequence about the whole thing.
*2Monsters University clocked in at 110 minutes, and Wreck-It Ralph at 92, but more importantly both of these films had a larger scope.
*3 The screening I attended had an audience of no more than 20 people, which given it was daytime during the school holidays (and on the film's opening day) is worryingly low. Hence the need for stronger marketing; ie 'celeb' voice actors.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
