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: [no rating] / IMDB Score: 4.9
This film was released in the same year as Watchmen. Think about that for a second. I suppose the problem with a low-budget, ill-considered prison drama is that when you hire actors who look like thugs, you cut down massively on the average percentage of them who can actually act. It leaves you with the sort of extras who'll be fine milling around in the background of a prison corridor with a mop, but when it comes to dialogue? Forget it.
Green Street 2: Stand Your Ground is a follow-up to a film which starred Elijah Wood, Charlie Hunnam, Claire Forlani and Marc Warren. None of these names are in the credits for the sequel (not that they're Sir Laurence Olivier, by any means, but think of how far down the ladder we've gone). As I haven't seen Green Street, I can only surmise that this return to the story follows the only surviving character, 'Dave' (not that's how you name a lead character) during his time in prison following arrest for football hooliganism, along with his two best mates who inexplicably weren't in the previous film (or so I'm informed by the IMDB). The opening scenes show the three protagonists already in the nick and being transferred to another prison in a bid to break up a firm. Y'know, by transferring them to another place where they'll get to share a cell. Or something.
And what a tawdry, vindictive and crucially shoddily-constructed piece of straight-to-DVD entertainment it is.
A film for an audience who see no layered irony in Al Murray's Pub Landlord character, this is like a car crash between Prisoner Cell Block H and Grange Hill. The gleefully enthusiastic violence erupts every six minutes or so, each melee more tediously provocative than the last, with only handheld cameras and choppy editing to prevent the viewer from actually seeing what's meant to be happening in the close-up shots. The long-shots however, often feature an array of unnamed extras standing around waiting for other unnamed extras to hit them so that they can start acting. The film feels like it's been written by someone who knows nothing about football hooligans, gangs or prison. And I say that as someone who knows nothing about football hooligans, gangs or prison.
Showing the hardened reality of life in a grim British jail by being filmed on location in sunny, dusty California, and casting performers whose accents suggest they hail from the London borough of Sydney, Green Street 2 is not for the picky. Or for anyone who's likely to think whilst watching it. The low-cost film stock suggests the air of one of those shonky old episodes of Minder, and the accompanying pantomime characters and script do their damnedest to push every button in eliciting a reaction other than the rolling of eyes.
The echoing hallways, jangling keys and near constant swearing are occasionally punctuated by some sloppy, rowdy punk or hardcore for no real reason whatsoever (like when it's bedded over a dialogue scene, or shots of nothing actually happening). In its 68th painful minute the film decides it's going to try and be Escape To Victory, with the last minute addition of an inter-gang football match, the winners of which will be prematurely released from prison. No, fucking really. This is a scheme cooked up by the prison governor himself. Not the one who decided to split up a gang by keeping them together, but the next one down that chain of seeming ineptitude.
But like all the worst sequels, for all its wanton profanity, violence and mayhem, Green Street 2 is just staggeringly boring.
And feel for the performers. They thought an added extra would be the product placement deal the film's producers had secured with a brewery! You can see the bitter, disbelieving disappointment in their eyes as they have to pretend they're enjoying those 330ml cans of Heineken...
I haven't, no.
I haven't, no.
Well, it should work as a standalone prison-drama, but it'd have to work as a decent screenplay first…
Ross McCall is back as Dave. That's about it.
Based on this, hardly. Although they did anyway.
I pity the state of your TV's EPG when Green Street Hooligans 2 is the best thing worth watching…
Not that I heard.
Are you happy now, Daniel? Are you happy?
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.
And so we find ourselves in the fourth-quarter of 2014. Not withstanding the feeling that time seems to be running at an alarmingly accelerated pace, another thought has been rattling around my film-obsessed brain, recently. What will be the enduring, mainstream-breakout movie of the year? What will be 2014's Timeless Classic™?
I only ask because this is quite an extraordinary year of cinematic anniversaries. Ghostbusters celebrates its 30th birthday in 2014, Pulp Fiction turns 20, and Shaun Of The Dead is the beaming 10yr old in the room. Each of these movies came seemingly out of nowhere, gained a legion of fans and instantly cemented its place as an all-time favourite. Looking further back, this canon should rightfully include 1974's The Godfather Part II, a film which also features in many, many 'Best Of' lists. But since Coppola's gem is not only based (a bit) on a novel but also a sequel to his 1972 original, its success wasn't quite as unprecedented as its stablemates, here...
I first saw Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters at Low Fell's Classic Cinema in 1984. My dad obligingly accompanied me (alright, took me) to see the film at the centre of a marketing storm, with each tie-in book, cereal box and pencil case bearing the iconic logo which has become more recognisable than even Darth Vader's glowering visage. Other than being slightly terrified by the ghost in the library, I adored every frame of the film (even if much of the dry humour went over my head at the time). With Star Wars living in stasis at that point, Ghostbusters effortlessly filled the gap for schoolyard chatter and exercise-book doodling (although the lack of action figures at the time seems odd, which only came later with merchandising for The Real Ghostbusters animated series).
Not that this was really a 'kids' film. The outlandish narrative captures the imagination of the youngsters, but for everyone else there's a very sharp comedy and action/adventure movie to enjoy.
Oh, and Sigourney Weaver. My word.
By the time Ghostbusters hit video-rental (which wasn't the three month gap it is nowadays, you young whippersnapper), it was instantly awarded the mantle of Go-to Movie for school holiday days slouching around the house, and not too much has changed. A sequel nobly tried to recapture the magic five years later (and it's a much better film than you remember), but the standalone awesomeness of the original is its greatest strength and continues to be to this day.
I'll be seeing Ghostbusters later this month at its anniversary screening.
Having not watched the already-notorious Reservoir Dogs at the time, 1994's Pulp Fiction was my introduction to Quentin Tarantino at Canterbury's ABC cinema, and is arguably his finest work. Probably the first 'film'-film I'd really appreciated, the scattershot timeline kept my brain fully active as it was bombarded with more quotable lines that I could hope to remember in one screening. Indeed, the re-watch value of Pulp Fiction is nothing short of phenomenal, and is the reason it stands head and shoulders above its countless imitators.
The kind of achingly hipster but undeniably likeable film that could only come from the mind of Tarantino, this was a breakout hit; a genre-flick that burst into the mainstream, and a 'cult' movie with a larger fanbase than many blockbusters. After three viewings during its theatrical run, this was a movie I bought the day is was released on VHS then subsequently wore out the tape and bought again (and since on DVD and BluRay, obviously).
Other than the clunkiness of the film's cellphones, Pulp Fiction is utterly timeless (especially as the phones are the only thing tying the story to any particular decade). The film came out of the blue, decided to hang around, and is still entertaining audiences twenty years later. I saw the anniversary screening of Pulp Fictionin May, and was pleased to notice that some members of the audience wouldn't even have been born in its initial outing. How's that for timeless?.
Ah Shaun, Shaun, Shaun. Coming off the back of semi-surreal TV sitcom Spaced and achieving far more than any pseudo-spinoff should be able to, Shaun Of The Dead was the surprise hit of 2004. I persuaded Mrs Blackout to come and see the film at Oxford Odeon (George Street) with the logic that while she's not a fan of horror movies, she loved Spaced and it'd be predominantly a comedy. To this day she hasn't let me forget that she spend the majority of the film hiding her face behind her hands (she really doesn't like horror).
While it's more of a cult movie than the others in this entry, Shaun's Britcom cast and exposure still meant it easily became the mainstream figurehead of the modern zombie movement (and the film is responsible for a lot of sub-standard imitators), and I have friends who love SotD that enjoy neither Spaced nor zombie flicks. Go figure.
This is another movie I bought on its day of release, and that I'm never not in the mood for watching (a feeling which ITV2 seems to have picked up on, if their scheduling is anything to go by. Although the frequency and quantity of their adverts means I always skip past it when I'm channel-hopping).
With a decade under its belt and little signs of ageing, this is a bonafide classic I'm going to be enjoying for years to come.
So, while it hasn't been by any particular design, that's the pattern. Will 2014 produce an all-time great? Has it already produced one? There have been films I've loved this year, certainly, but none which seem to fit the standard yet irregular-template of the movies listed above.
For example, I can envision me watching Guardians Of The Galaxy if/when it makes a return to cinemas, but with the Marvel machine behind it, Guardians was more of a finely-honed tactical-strike rather than a genuine surprise hit. June's Edge Of Tomorrow was the most fun I've had in the cinema for a long time, but, won't stand up to frequent repeated viewing (perhaps ironically) in the years to come.
What's needed is a flick which works on more than one level; a title that you can switch-off to when you've had a busy week, bring you up when you're down, and interest you when you're bored. A film unlike any other, which you'll happily to pay to see again in five, ten, twenty or even thirty years, despite you already owning it on two (or more) formats. And with the best will in the world, I don't think I've seen that yet in 2014.
What's made an impression on you in this year? Big or small, what's been the one movie which you couldn't have predicted, but that's already taken a special place in your memory?
If you could pre-book tickets to 2024's anniversary screening, what film would it be?
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.
Every so often, a film comes along which is in equal parts compelling and harrowing, which enthralls you utterly but also beats you into submission. By no means a film which you'll want to watch on a weekly basis, but a one which will stay with you and that you know will require another viewing. When you've got the strength. Requiem For A Dream is one of those films, as is Harry Brown. This year, it's '71.
The story of a young relatively inexperienced British soldier, Gary Hook, deployed to Belfast in 1971, when violent tensions between Irish unionist and nationalist factions were at a critical head. Separated from his unit on a routine callout, Hook finds himself seemingly abandoned in the heartland of an area which doesn't take kindly to the sight of a British army uniform, and it will take all of his resources just to stay alive…
Actually, I've made that sound far more Hollywood than it actually is. Despite Jack O'Connell clearly being the film's protagonist, the film focuses as much on the events surrounding him as it does his continued survival, and this is a war story without heroes (but plenty of victims - on all sides). I don't pretend to know anything about the troubles, and if anything the film only makes the situation clearer by illustrating that it's much more complicated than having two sides at each other's throats. While I'm sure there'll be differing opinions on this, the film I saw tells its story without taking sides, instead focusing on the bleakness of the whole situation.
That's not to say the war is depicted as pointless, but the end-goal of the conflict certainly seems as unreachable as any happy ending would be. '71 is one of the few films I've seen where the use of handheld cameras feels like a natural choice, as it only intensifies the sense of general noise, confusion and desperation. The desolate streets, pubs and houses*1 are filmed with a yellowing wash which evokes the past without nostalgia, and the film's wardrobe and makeup departments capture the era perfectly without going full Life On Mars*2. The only thing which struck me as odd was the lack of bite in the gunfire sound effects (of which there are plenty), considering how many of them occur in 'close quarters'. This could be an artistic choice to help the audience focus on the narrative, or to demonstrate how desensitised the characters are to the sound of gunfire, but the guns then become one of the least provocative aspects in the film. Like I said, odd.
In terms of performance, everyone brings their A-game here, with Jack O'Connell leading as only he can, bringing a sort of hardened-naivety to his role. It's essential that the audience is rooting for Hook, but not to the point where the other characters don't matter, and the cast pull this off fantastically under Yann Demange's direction. As great as he is in this, I think O'Connell's best work is still to come, and I look forward to seeing which roles he chooses after films like '71 and Starred Up. Also singling themselves out for praise among the ensemble are Corey McKinley as the funniest, sweariest 12 yr old loyalist you'll see on film this year (probably ever), and Barry Keoghan as the emotionally turbulent, but blank-faced nationalist-in-training, Sean. Both actors bring an intensity to their roles which, like O'Connell's, are bolstered by a level of innocence which the older members of the cast don't have at their disposal.
While I can't personally vouch for the historical detail or thematic accuracy of '71, the film moved me like few others have done recently, and has a violent urgency which demands a viewer's attention without being needlessly provocative. While I'd recommend the film to anyone, I know that it's not intended to be universally loved, even though it asks its questions without judging or moralising.
'71 is a bleak powerhouse of a film. Film-of-the-year material, and I don't say that lightly.
Yes. Nails it in one.
I did. Mostly gasping and crying, to be fair.
From where I'm sitting, undoubtedly.
The cinema release for this film is small, but catch it as and where you can.
I won't, largely because some people will find it too much, and for various reasons.
I will.
There isn't. Which is okay as despite the amount of screaming in the film, it would feel a little out of place.
In the bit where Private Hook is hiding in the outside toilet for several hours to evade being shot, how come none of the householders needed the loo? There's washing on the line in the yard remember, so people are living at the house, and toilet paper on the holder so the alfresco cubicle is in use.
*1 If the film's Wiki page is anything to go by, the streets used in the film are in Blackburn rather than Belfast. And I don't know if it's commendable that the production crew didn't want to stir tensions in Belfast by re-creating traumatic times-past, or more worrying that the streets of Blackburn are so easily transformable into a 20th century war-zone.
*2 Not that I'm slagging off Life On Mars, but if the TV series' "do you remember" rhetoric of flared trousers and wide-collar shirts is akin to the act of Peter Kay, then '71 is closer to the tone of Doug Stanhope or Jerry Sadowitz.
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.
While I'd been initially skeptical about another Young Adult Novel™ to screen adaptation*1, it didn't take long at all for Wes Ball's The Maze Runner to gently brush those worries aside. The film is actually just a very competent dystopian action-thriller which happens to have a predominantly young cast. For the most part, The Maze Runner is incredibly well acted given the outlandishness of the plot, with a strong lead from Dylan O'Brien and an array of naturalistic supporting performances. Oh, and Thomas Brodie-Sangster effortlessly stealing every scene he's in.
After a dream-like opening sequence, young Thomas (O'Brien) finds himself in 'The Glade', an inhabitable woodland clearing walled off by a gigantic concrete maze which 'opens' nightly. Amnesiac to the point of only eventually remembering his own name, he soon discovers that he's not alone, but in the company of thirty-odd other inhabitants with the same mnemonic handicap, all in their mid-to-late teens, and all male. The existing 'tribe', as they've become, are wary of Thomas' presence as he seems to somehow instinctively know more than they have worked out in their time there (up to three years for the 'oldest' ones), and Thomas' arrival is the first in a chain of events which will reveal exactly who they all are, and why they're there. Including the subsequent arrival of The Girl One™...
On top of the performances, the film's visual and special effects are outstanding throughout, and while they're a little too murky-looking for my liking, the sequences within the maze itself are fantastically tense (and I can't be the only one who, at the first glimpse of the Grievers' mechanical arachnoid legs, thought of the Clone Wars' Spider-Maul). I think the narrative itself would work better with an adult cast, but the kids here certainly hold their own. The young-adult nature of The Maze Runner could well rob the film of the wider audience it deserves, but since a 'grown-up' version would probably star Tom Cruise, we've got the better end of the deal as it stands. Ironically, the film would lose a lot of its subtlety with an adult cast (and not just because of Cruise).
There are, of course, hiccups along the way, mostly plot-based. A lot of the practical questions about the boys' warder-less incarceration seem to be answered by the fact that no-one asks them (on-screen, at least), but it seems jarringly unworkable that a group of necessarily intelligent characters have unquestioningly accepted the status quo, amnesia or not. I have no problem with a story being split into a trilogy*2, even if that structure has been established from the word go, but The Maze Runner seems to raise questions then withhold the answers not in a teasing way, but as if the writer hasn't quite figured them out yet. And hey that can bulk out the sequels, right? Once again, perhaps the source text haa been ruthlessly trimmed to fit onto celluloid, but I certainly think there are fascinating questions here that are barely even asked, while too much time is spent trying to make the film appeal to the Teen Adventure Film™ demographic.
Plot niggles aside, the slightly-meta action puzzler of a movie was going really well for me until the final reel. When the adults show up on set. Bringing with them that overbearing sense of teenage paranoia, complete with a patronising "you're so special because you're young, that's why your lives have been a living hell for the last three years" monologue. In any other flick, this section would be where an hour and a half's worth of questions are answered. In The Maze Runner, it's where I.O.U.s are handed out in lieu of exposition, with a hint that the sequel could be a mashup of The Matrix and Half-Life. Oh, I'd love that to be the case, but I know if won't be. Either way, I'm on board now, the film proved to be head and shoulders above many of its 'grown up' contemporaries. I only hope the sequels don't try too hard to fulfil more than their already-considerable potential.
Kinda, but the film's way more engaging than the trailer.
Mostly.
It probably does, and that's just not what I want from it.
Cinema if it's your thing, otherwise renting/streaming it at home should be acceptable.
No.
Probably not until the sequel's due to arrive.
Didn't hear one. Plenty of opportunities, too.
For those who've seen the film, highlight-to-read: We see an aerial shot of The Maze at the end of the film with The Glade at the centre. Other than being in the middle of a 100-metre high technologically unfeasible engineering, it's completely exposed to the elements. If the Earth is "scorched" as Dr Paige says in her expository assault in the film's final throes, how come the flora in The Glade is thriving, largely unassisted by human intervention? (the farm project that the group have set up isn't what I'm referring to) If The Maze had just been a simulation, I could have lived with it. Hmmf.
*1 It's not so much their existence which irks me (anything which gets people reading should be a positive thing, so how can a cinematic spinoff be negative?), but more than they're all marketed as the same genre. Y'know, in the same way that all films for 30-40yr olds are the same, right? Yeah, that. it's insulting to the audience, more than anything else.
*2 Come on, how could "I", of all people, let alone anyStar Wars / Indiana Jones / Back To The Future fan?
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.
I first saw Ivan Reitman's Ghostbusters at Low Fell's Classic Cinema in 1984. My dad obligingly accompanied me (alright, took me) to see the film at the centre of a marketing storm, with each tie-in book, cereal box and pencil case bearing the iconic logo which has become more recognisable than even Darth Vader's glowering visage. Other than being slightly terrified by the ghost in the library, I adored every frame of the film (even if much of the dry humour went over my head at the time). With Star Wars living in stasis at that point, Ghostbusters effortlessly filled the gap for schoolyard chatter and exercise-book doodling (although the lack of action figures at the time seems odd, which only came later with merchandising for The Real Ghostbusters animated series).
Having not watched the already-notorious Reservoir Dogs at the time, 1994's Pulp Fiction was my introduction to Quentin Tarantino at Canterbury's ABC cinema, and is arguably his finest work. Probably the first 'film'-film I'd really appreciated, the scattershot timeline kept my brain fully active as it was bombarded with more quotable lines that I could hope to remember in one screening. Indeed, the re-watch value of Pulp Fiction is nothing short of phenomenal, and is the reason it stands head and shoulders above its countless imitators.
Ah Shaun, Shaun, Shaun. Coming off the back of semi-surreal TV sitcom Spaced and achieving far more than any pseudo-spinoff should be able to, Shaun Of The Dead was the surprise hit of 2004. I persuaded 
