Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film. Show all posts

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Monsters Review Monsters: "Pacific Rim"

L:  Hello, I have many names, but you may call me Leviathan. I am the End of All Material Things, the Final Nemesis, and an amateur movie critic. With me is Quatra, a West Atlantic Defense Tower measuring approximately 985 feet in height and carrying an 878,000 megaton explosive yield nuclear stockpile. She also enjoys movies.

Q:  Hello, everyone!

L:  In recent years the so-called giant monster genre of entertainment has seen increased popularity. More than ever, puny humans with incomprehensibly brief lifespans are becoming fascinated by tales of kaiju and other large monstrosities ravaging the Earth.



Q:  Such interests also cross the mecha, cosmic horror, and mythological fantasy genres, but regardless of title, these works all have, at their core, an antagonist of astounding size. And given that Leviathan and I are both entities of astounding size, we thought we could offer a unique perspective on the books, movies, television shows, and games that feature "strange beasts."

L:  We're going to start with something relatively new and popular, the historical drama "Pacific Rim," directed by Guillermo del Toro. The story is set during the final years of mankind's dominance over their birth world as they struggle to survive an onslaught of kaiju, which emerge from the bottom of the sea. Cities are destroyed, millions killed, and though the Sons of Adam are successful in developing new weapons forged in their own image, the monstrous invasions grow increasingly frequent and destructive, with no end to the violence in sight.

Q:  Let's talk accuracy, because that was a huge stumbling block for me. In typical fashion, Hollywood has completely glossed over history in order to tell a more streamlined, "action-packed" story. The first mecha gargantua weren't even born until AFTER the Wall of Life program was instituted. We're talking a thirty year gap here - a pretty significant chunk of history that includes the Akira Incident, the Third Impact, and confrontations with Dagon. 

L:  History, in the human sense, is an entirely fallacious concept. I tried to focus on the film's thematic progression and its handling of the story arc overall. I did think they were a bit heavy with the exposition, though.

Q:  Also, the kaiju in this movie are tiny. Seriously, look at this chart: 

Those tiny black silhouettes are the kaiju from the movie. The bigger, grayer ones represent the creatures I fight almost every single day.

L:  Eons ago, the Nephilim walked the Earth, and though they had many slaves, they were hunted by still larger entities - luminous beings which could blot out the sky with their mass. Grandeur is always relative.

Q:  The fights were pretty rad, though.

L:  Yes, let us discuss the bloodshed.

Q:  I haven't lived as a human in centuries, so I find it difficult to empathize with fleshy consequences like dismemberment and melting skin, but I did find the plight of the jaegers - the giant robots employed against the kaiju - to be a very compelling aspect. 


L:  I am a manifestation of the sea, and though countless waves will break upon the shore, my assault is unrelenting.

Q:  Exactly. What we have here is a war between robotic slaves and a race of twisted alien simulacra, bred to kill from the moment they're born. As a living defense Tower that spends her days engaged in long-distance bombardment of enraged biomechanical beings, that really spoke to me. And I think that's the beauty of historical fiction - its ability to transcend time by portraying struggle as a universal and timeless facet of life. Its eerie how closely the distant past resembles the present.

L:  I too felt time that time and place were being transcended, though more specifically in the way this film entirely resembled "Independence Day," directed by Roland Emmerich and starring Will Smith.

Q:  Well, it's true that both conflicts were resolved with the use of tactical nuclear warheads - a solution I am not unfamiliar with. 

L:  Wholesale destruction of famous human landmarks, alien invaders, a species on the brink of extinction, scientific hubris, environmentalist overtones, a rousing speech by a war veteran, utilizing subterfuge to breach an otherwise impassable barrier, a look of recognition and terror on the face of the Other as they greet their annihilation, a non-provocative hug between romantic partners at the film's conclusion...

Q:  Romantic partners? What romantic partners?




L:  Our protagonists Raleigh and Mako. Mako was caught staring at Raleigh's naked torso. They had an innuendo-laden sword fight. They were Drift compatible, implying compatibility in other ways. She begged him not to leave her alone when she thought he was dying.

Q:  So, what, just because a man and woman are on screen they have to fall in love? Maybe their Drift compatibility allowed them to bypass mere infatuation and arrive at a deeper connection that's wholly platonic, which might be why things seemed more playful in the beginning but less so after they Drifted. Love isn't all about the desire to bone. There are many kinds of love.

L:  I am the Antithesis of Life and Love. It is my entire purpose to bring an end where there is a beginning. I am Death, which severs all human emotion forever.

Q:  But love isn't an emotion, Leviathan. It's a connection. Emotions come and go, but love transcends us. Although I think it's silly that one measly 250 foot robot would require two human minds to operate, the implication is that connections can overcome even the most frightening levels of adversity. My partner, Alti, is also a Tower, and we wouldn't be able to do what we do - fight for a thousand years - if it wasn't for our bond. The promise that, no matter what, we'll be together. 

L:  I do not wish to hear about your husband and his anxiety problems again. Overall, as an ageless and unknowable entity, I give "Pacific Rim" 3 stars out of 5. A solid action movie. Strong visuals with an uninteresting character arc. Ultimately satisfying if largely forgettable.

Q:  Hmph. I give it 4 out of 5 stars for its subtle undertones, masterful use of color, and excellent fight scenes. I could have done with better performances from the main actors and more historical accuracy.

L:  If you have a suggestion for the next giant monster related item we should review, let us know in the comments. And be sure to check out the novel "Towers," by Karl Fischer, which includes my co-host Quatra and a cameo by me, Leviathan, the Enemy of Man.

Q:  Till next time!

 Buy Towers on Amazon

Monday, March 28, 2016

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice – A Review


What the hell was that? Seriously, what just happened? Did I just dream that? There was Superman. But Superman was a nervous wreck, on the edge of a breakdown, crippled by self doubt and pretty much only concerned with saving Louis? And Batman was there too, except Batman was filled with rage and hate and regret and fear, and I mean filled with it. Lex Luthor was around as well, but this Lex Luthor wasn't the suave self assured sociopath that we all know and love. This Lex was a raving lunatic, more like the Joker than Luthor? Also Wonder Woman was there, but she didn't really seem to be doing much?

Oh no, wait, I know what that was, I just watched Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

The plot? Well, it's been nearly two years since Superman's (Henry Cavill) colossal battle with Zod (Michael Shannon) devastated the city of Metropolis. The loss of life and collateral damage left many feeling angry and helpless, including crime-fighting billionaire Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck). Convinced that Superman is now a threat to humanity, Batman embarks on a personal vendetta to end his reign on Earth, while the conniving Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg) launches his own crusade against the Man of Steel.

I've got to say up front, when the trailers were coming out for this film, I was not excited. I was indifferent. It looked like a yawn fest. A tiresome repeat of the wanton destruction at the end of Man of Steel. A boring slugging it out between an inhuman Superman and a tired old bat. Well, I went anyway, and I was wrong, it wasn't boring.

Was this the superhero movie we wanted? Was this the superhero movie we deserve? Was this even a superhero movie? To answer those questions in order: no, maybe, and no.

It's a brutal film, filled with hate and revenge and selfishiness. It's concerned with weighty questions, like man v god, who is to blame, who does Superman owe allegiance to? And it's totally freaking weird. I mean, off the wall weird. Garrett Cook said it was “a superhero's nightmare” and that's a fair summation. It's full of imaginary and dream sequences and if you're not paying attention you're going to get lost.

The DC universe is often described as the coming of the new gods and this seems to fit with what DC are doing in their ambitious film universe. The film is just chock-full of questions about what does it mean for there to be a man who is so powerful he can literally do anything? Does he have the right? What does he want? And what can we do as humans to stop him, if we don't like the answers to those questions?

Is this even a superhero movie? Arguably not. Sure people have superpowers but, a bit like the end of Man of Steel, no one does much heroic. Everyone is selfish and self absorbed. They have a reason to fight, but they aren't holding up a noble ideal, they're fighting for their reasons and their reasons alone. It's not for a brighter dawn, or protecting the weak, they're fighting because they're pissed off or have something to lose. That makes them the old Greek Gods, but certainly not heroes.

This is the nightmare scenario. When gods fight. Yeah, Batman is just a human, except he clearly isn't. If Kal-El is Ra, or possibly Zeus then Batman is Hades, stern and unyielding and unmoved by prayer. Gone is the Christopher Reeves Superman, there is no fanfare. Now we have a Superman who leveled Metropolis to stop Zod. A Superman who appears to have nothing to fear. And gone is Batman too, no Adam West goofiness, or Michael Keaton steel, or even George Clooney cheese. Even Christian Bale's bat is banished in favor of a brutal Frank Miller-esque Dark Knight. A huge, bone snapping gladiator ready to punch the man of steel in the face. Who will seek vengeance for the slain? Who will bring the guilty to justice? Who is the Man of Steel accountable to? Batman.

Do we deserve this? Do we deserve a DC universe which is filled with weighty gods who rain destruction down upon the innocent civilians and appear to care nothing about it? Unfortunately, yes we do, because we did this. I don't know if BvS was in preproduction when Man of Steel was getting roundly thrashed by the critics, but it certainly feels like the criticisms of that film were listened to. Most people, myself included, complained about the wanton destruction at the end of MoS - “What about all the people who must have died in Metropolis? Doesn't Superman care?” Well, here's your 2.5 hour reply. If you said that, or thought that, you are Batman. You did this.

Zack Snyder's reply is more destruction (with a slight nod that no one is in fact in these buildings at the time), god v man, a Superman who appears to only care about two women on the planet and a brutal Batman who snaps limbs and brands his victims.

Garrett Cook also said of this film “you're not high enough to watch this film”, here I don't agree with him. You're not sober enough to watch this film. This is the cold hard sobering smack to the Marvel Movie face. Shit is real. People are going to die. What do you believe in?

Secondary question, do I even want this film? Do I want this dark and macabre DC universe? How the hell is it going to hold itself together? Remember this DC universe, in potential, has Captain Marvel with the power of Shazam, 52 Earths, Gorilla Grodd and Krypto the Superdog in it too? Only time will tell if they can balance this universe or not. At the moment, on the strength of this outing, I'm willing to give it another shot. This sure as shit ain't Marvel and that's alright, now that I understand that.

So, did I enjoy it? Enjoy is not the right word. I respected it. I came out feeling like a piano string after a Shostakivich recital - battered and bruised but feeling like something good had just happened to me. It's intelligent, and it's asking questions, which I have to give it points for. It's brave and bold. It wasn't boring, but it's not for kids either. This is not Marvel. This is the DC universe, and the DC universe is cold, and brutal. Bones are snapped. Fires are started. People are branded. Characters are flawed and wracked with guilt. Nightmares walk abroad. And humans are scant on the ground. Hold onto your loved ones and pray that the giants don't notice you.


My name is Chris Meekings, I watched this film, you might want to too.

Monday, March 14, 2016

6 Surrealist Films from Silent to Now, Some You May Not Know


by Madeleine Swann

From The Seashell and the Clergyman (1928) to the modern day, Surrealist films have delighted and enraged in equal measure. To some they exist purely to make fun of those on the outside while to others they explore humanity via the subconscious. Perhaps they do both. They're strange, opaque and often have a mischievous sense of humour.

There are too many films and filmmakers to look at them all including Jean Cocteau, Christiane Cegavske, Luis Bunuel, Guy Maddin, David Lynch and many, many more, but here's a few to get your evening off to a clock melting start.

1. The Life And Death of 9413, A Hollywood Extra (Slavko Vorkapic & Robert Florey, 1928). 

 Slavko Vorkapić and Robert Florey - Serbian American and French American respectively - both made their marks in Hollywood, Florey directing The Marx Brothers' Cocoanuts among others and Vorkapić inventing the montage.

The story in Life and Death is quite easy to follow compared to others and seems old hat now, but at the time it must have been exciting to see a film mocking film making and exploitation. The mask imagery and forehead branding seem cliched but this is where those cliches stem from. Plus look at that actress' coat...it's gorgeous.


2.  The War of Jan-Ken Pon (Shuji Terayama, 1971)

Shuji Terayama was a Japanese poet, writer, photographer and director. In 1967 he opened an experimental cinema and gallery called Universal Gravitation.

I could go all intellectual and say I like this film because of its depiction of war as a childish game, and I do, but really it's because it looks like something I and my friend Steve might do (though not as well of course).

The men's game of rock paper scissors devolves into a physical fight, which is absurdist and daft, but there is a serious side to it. Like Sarah Kane's play Blasted a couple of people enact everything that happens on a large scale in war, but here there's more humour and less baby eating. Bomb and army sound effects play and a small crowd of onlookers - other countries who stand by without helping? - watch through the window.



3. Last Year at Marienbad (Alain Resnais, 1961)

Alain Resnais began his career as a contemporary of the French New Wave directors, though never truly associated himself with the movement.

 This beautiful film echoes Noel Coward's Shadow Play and the yet to be made Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, though in it's own very unique and very French way.

A couple drift through a grand building and it's estate (literally the corridors of memory), he convinced they met last year and she uncertain, both unable to remember what happened next and unsure of how to proceed. They analyse their past, present and future while apparently existing outside of it in some peculiar dream.


4. Dreams That Money Can Buy (Various, 1947)

A portmanteu of surrealist shorts held together by a connecting narrative, Dreams contains almost everyone we associate with the early Surrealist movement. Denounced by many at the time as inconsequential and shallow, it was an attempt to make surrealism more accessible to the general public.

Now, though, I think it stands up as an enjoyable film with a clear link to Being John Malkovich (the scene where people crowd outside Joe's office to purchase a dream is too similar not to be an inspiration) and, if you don't feel it has a deep enough message, you can still appreciate it's beauty.


5. Daisies (Vera Chytilová, 1966)

Part of the Czech New Wave, Daisies led to Vera Chytilová being unofficially banned from making any more films in her home country until 1976 due to the anarchic behaviour of it's protagonists and the amount of food, "the fruit of the work of our toiling farmers," being wasted.

Two girls decide that as the world is rotten they should also become rotten, and the result is scene after scene of joyful mischief - they trick men, play up in bars, argue, make up and generally loaf around. It's done with an innocence that makes it devoid of malice, rather it's a celebration of seeing what they can get away with.


6. The Dance of Reality (Alejandro Jodorowsky, 2013)

Jodorowsky's latest film is a kind of autobiography, though one with an opera singing mother who urinates on her husband to cure his wounds. One of the things I love about his films is the recurring theme of circuses, a shorthand for outsiders and misfits, but in The Dance of Reality it's also a symbol of home and belonging.

It's probably, not to sound simplistic, his happiest film. Not to say it doesn't deal with big subjects like war and death and sadness, but it left me with a warm feeling and a sense of knowing him a little bit better, however true that is.


Well, there we have it my little slices of cherry pie served at the Twin Peaks cafe. Speaking of which, I'm going to leave you with a BBC documentary from 1987 of David Lynch discussing his favourite early surrealist films. I must warn you, the last minute has been chopped off, but you don't really miss anything. Toodle pip!

Madeleine Swann's novella, Rainbows Suck, was published as part of the 2015 New Bizarro Author Series. Keep up with her writing at her website and her twitter.