Establishment-setup-reveal-punchline. Imagine, if you will, taking a recurring sketch from a weekly comedy show. For example, Lou and Andy from Little Britain. The sketch (pretty much any of them) is indeed funny in isolation, but it is formulaic. Establishment-setup-reveal-punchline. And that's fine, because that's how comedy works. Now imagine taking the Lou and Andy sketch from each of the eighteen series-episodes of Little Britain and playing them in continuous succession. Establishment-setup-reveal-punchline. Rinse and repeat.
That's why I gave up on the novel of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. A quiet scene would be eloquently and painstakingly set up, following which the arrival of a flesh-hungry ghoul would cause a catastrophic breakdown in etiquette and decorum as we're shown that the elegant young heroines of the piece are actually trained and efficient zombie killers! Funny the first time, smirk-inducing the second. Still happening fifty pages in? Forget it.
The only reason I mention this is that I'd feared the cinematic adaptation would fall into the same trap (and logically, why wouldn't it?). After all, a novel which was written in all earnestness but which was received largely as a quirky oddity isn't necessarily going to translate well to the screen. There are already more than enough iffy zombie movies, and the ones which also employ humour in their arsenal are worse than most. So as it turns out, the "hahaa it's funny because they've got swords and they're cutting zombies heads off at a ball!" motif actually only accounts for the first thirty minutes or so of the film. Half an hour in which an actual story is desperately struggling to break through every cliché you're expecting from the film. Now obviously much of this comes from the fact that Pride and Prejudice is the primary source-material for the story, so the stilted, formalities of the original have to play a large part, and they have to be broken by the zombie-element. But it's still like watching the same sketch five times.
Then after a while, the forced juxtaposition of narrative styles relaxes and director Burr Steers is able to bring us something more like the film that the zombie-fans are wanting to see. While the primary undead-outbreak has already long-since occurred at the start of the film and is sketched in fairly loosely in an opening-title sequence, the main plot centres around a resurgence which threatens to over-run the surviving population of ninteenth-century England. Truth be told, even when the film actually gets going, the plot is still relatively loose, relying more on style and setpieces to do its work.
Thankfully, the whole thing is shored up with a very competent cast, headed marvellously by Lily James and Sam Riley as Elizabeth Bennett and Mr Darcy, respectively. Younger players fill most of the main roles, and the film employs Charles Dance and Lena Heady to stand at the back and bring a bit of dramatic gravity to proceedings (although thankfully with a minimum of scenery-chewing). I should also mention how much I enjoyed Matt Smith as Mr Collins the Parson. It seems odd that in a film which relies so much on comedy, he's the only performer who seems to be able to deliver it fully.
Fans of Jane Austen will see this as a parodic curiosity, and fans of George Romero will doubtless feel the same way. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is ultimately its own worst enemy, and can't break free of one genre to adequately serve the other.
The film becomes a lot of fun, but can't take its tongue out of its cheek long enough to convince the audience it has anything worth saying…
Maybe it's the nature of the original source material, but even the addition of the undead doesn't make this particularly cinematic, no.
Probably, but only just.
No, but it was never really meant to be.
Nope.
Not that I heard.
Level 2: P+P+Z stars that Charles Dance and that Lena Heady, both of whom appear in that Game of Thrones alongside that Gwendoline 'Phasma' Christie.
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.
The Purge Cert: 15 / 85 mins / Dir. James DeMonaco
There are two films, here. One of them is a fairly taught thriller set in a borderline dystopian near-future, in which a family is forced to defend their home against an escalating series of threats and there are no guarantees as to who (if anyone) is going to make it out alive. The other is a mawkish, contrary morality tale which delights in baiting the viewer down several ethical dead-ends before pulling its spectacles down the bridge of its nose and saying 'Aaah, but do you not SEE?'
I enjoyed the first one.
The Purge is hamstrung, of course, by the fact that the hypothetical 'Purge Day' wouldn't work in reducing crime for the other 364.5 days a year. If anything it'd just increase grudge-bearing which would inevitably spill over outside of the allotted 12-hour murder window. Add to this the clean-up costs for the following days, and it's ridiculous to even think about. Although as I am thinking about it, the main thrust of the film is the legalisation of murder; but the exposition tells us that "all crime is legal". So even fraud, hacking and general financial corruption, then? The kind of thing that would royally fuck over any society irrespective of an on/off date? Good luck with that.
So leaving aside the mechanics of the plot, and the moralising that goes hand-in-hand, it's quite good. Just don't think about it too much.
Oh, and it's always nice to see a remote-controlled spy robot operated by a tech-wiz kid from a secret compartment in the house featured in the first twenty minutes of a film and think 'Oh, I wonder if this will be mentioned again later on..?'
Hmm, largely-ish.
Not exactly, but it did hold my attention throughout.
IMHO, no.
The home-setting of the film makes it ideal for DVD.
No.
At some point.
No.
Ooh, wouldn't it be great, though? But wouldn't it be terrifying? And wouldn't it be wrong? But it'd be great though, wouldn't it? It's SO complicated!
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.
Y'know, you wait bloody ages for a movie about a principled, uncorruptable cop, trying to make his way to the top floor of a slum apartment block, because a drug-dealing crimelord who owns the whole building (in every sense) has locked it down when they've gotten wind of the aforementioned cop's presence… and then two come along at once.
The Plot: Pretty much that thing I said, up there. Oh, his rookie sidekick has Psi powers in this one, though. And the baddie's a chick, as well. Are you with me, fellas?
The Pre-amble: In all honesty, I can't call myself a Judge Dredd fanboy. I read 2000AD religiously for a couple of years in the early 90's (it was the awesome Necropolis run that got me into it), but after a while it just wasn't for me. I get Judge Dredd, and I know what I want from a movie adaptation, but I don't speak for those who know it far better than me. I'll also point out now that I never actually watched the god-awful Stallone version: I turned it off after twenty minutes. So with that, I sat down this afternoon to watch the last big movie of the Summer...
The Good: Some of the photography in Dredd is gorgeous. Part of me suspects that the whole 'drug that makes time slow down' thing was just a massive excuse to shoot in hi-def 3D at 2000 frames per second, because it's used a lot. More than is strictly needed, really. The 3D's not too shabby for a live-action, but like most 3D, it's not really necessary. I quite liked that Judge Anderson uses her psychic abilities fairly regularly (and usefully), rather than it just being a device to get them out of a tight spot. The actual scope of the film is fairly small, so after a very generic and cringe-inducing voiceover intro, the film-makers don't really have to explain the rest of the Mega City One universe, it's just sort of there. In this respect, it'd make a good introduction to a TV series about the Judges.
The Bad: This really is just The Raid, but with no martial arts (…or excitement). Dredd's worst crime is how grindingly average it is. Karl Urban was a terrible choice for the role as he has neither the build, voice or presence to pull it off. Wearing a decent rendition of the outfit and doing your best Eastwood impersonation isn't enough, I'm afraid. There's also a point early in the movie where he tells a vagrant (illegal in M-C1) not to be there when he gets back. It may be a setup for a weak joke down the line, but the Dredd I thought I knew wouldn't let anyone off with anything, no matter how small or whatever other job he was on. On a character front, only Anderson gets any real room to breathe, and everyone else may as well be cut out of cardboard with numbers on their heads. Even Dredd is left-be, as everyone seems to have taken the approach of 'preserving his mystery'. Y'know… 'not bothered laying out any characteristics outside of catchphrases from the comics'.
If this had been a non-franchised future-noir action thriller, it'd be pretty good. Unfortunately, it sets its own bar too high with pre-release promises of greatness, and can't quite shake of the shadow of a former disappointment. Just being better than a shit thing does not make you a good thing.
The Ugly: I'd half-prepared a rant about the ridiculous excuse for the Lawmaster bikes they're using, but they're not actually featured in the film much, so I'll leave that for those with a more genuine grievance to handle. I was a little surprised at all the effing and jeffing going on in the film (even at its 18 Certificate), only because I thought the universe had developed its own friendlier terminology. That said, having hardened criminals walking around in an 18 Cert and saying 'Drokk' may undermine the seriousness of the piece somewhat. And it does take itself quite seriously.
All-in-all: It's not good, bad or ugly. Just a really straightforward action-thriller. If there'd been some sort of setup for Judge Death appearing in a sequel, I could probably get more excited about it. As it stands… well, it's not as awful as I was expecting it to be.
After the Credits: Nothing. Names on the screen? You can make your way out.
Worth £10+? Not really, in all honesty. Worth an Orange Wednesday though, for sure.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
