The Calling (Spoilers ahead)

Gosh, I've been a tad abysmal at this whole posting thing haven't it? You're probably all sick to death of reading me saying sorry and explaining why I've been unable to post, so let's just get on with it shall we?

Susan Sarandon and the guy from That 70's Show team
up to catch a serial killer, what more do you want?

I'm going to go ahead and warn y'all that spoilers are imminent within this review, but somehow I don't think you'll mind, as I highly doubt any of you are going to watch this film, and I can't really talk about it at length without going into spoiler territory, so otherwise this review would just be this:

Lisa Simpson: providing more reviews for Pop Culture Cynic than Rhona

So, straight off the bat, this was director Jason Stone's first full length film and boy does it show. It's awfully formulaic. Small town where nothing much happens is shaken when one of it's residents is murdered in a grotesque (their word, not mine) way. Enter alcoholic, worn out detective Hazel Micallef (Sarandon), poppin' pills like no tomorrow and doesn't need anyone's help. Next up is Detective Ben Wingate (70's guy Topher Grace), young and full of life and spirit and is everything Hazel isn't. It's clear to see where Stone got his influences: I feel like he probably watched Fargo and Se7en in the same night and thought to himself, "Heeeeeeeeeeeey. I gots an idea, so I do."

There really aren't many screencaps of this
film floating about, I don't think anyone has
watched it.

This also appears to be screenplay writer Scott Abramovitch's first full length feature film screenplay, which is equally as glaringly obvious. The screenplay really isn't particularly strong at all; the dialogue, though generally passable, is very clunky in parts, and the plot itself is something I have a lot of issue with. The killer is revealed to the audience fairly early on in the film, and it's explained to us that he's killing for religious reasons - he wants to use the people he's killing as sacrifices to bring back his death brother. The catch is that he needs the people he kills to be willing sacrifices. Key word being willing. As soon as it's revealed to us that the victims are willing (all of them suffering from some terminal illness or another), my interest in the detectives catching him kind of died a little. Like, I don't really care that much any more, these people wanted to die, they don't really need saving. This film is no longer a thriller.

Oh hey Marge- wait. nope.

Next is that there are a lot of these weird throw-away lines to do with Hazel's past - we can gleam that she lost her child somehow, she was married at some point, she was in the hospital (possibly for an overdose) and she's injured her back somehow. None of these get developed upon in the slightest, and sure it's great to let the audience piece things together themselves, some of these definitely could have done with some development for Hazel as a character. We don't know why she is the way she is and it makes it hard to identify or sympathize with her. It's possible that she miscarried her child, this put a strain on her relationship so her husband divorced her which led to her attempted overdose and this alcoholic, pill popping cycle. But that's me filling in a lot of them blanks, and there's other stuff in the film that contradicts this story. She also had this weird relationship with this guy who was literally in two scenes, Andy. They appeared to have possibly had a relationship in the past, but he's married now, and Hazel and his wife have some kind of rivalry? I don't know. So yeah, could've done with a bit more fleshing out.

Lastly is the fairly unsatisfying ending. Hazel is abducted by Simon (the murder) and it's made clear that he's going to use her as his final victim (he needed 12). He creates this concoction for her to drink which would kill her and Hazel (depressed having lost her child) is almost convinced to drink it. But then she literally just says no. She doesn't want to die. Which throws the killer's plan way off, since the whole point is that the victims need to be willing sacrifices. So he just kills himself. Like it's so unsatisfying. Hazel doesn't fight him off and escape, the other detectives don't do anything. He kills himself. The house catches fire so that creates our sense of threat and adventure I guess. When Ben visits Hazel in the hospital at the end of the film, the stock dialogue of:

"You did it."

"No, we did it."

I was just sitting there like, no. Y'all didn't do shit. You didn't catch him or arrest him or kill him. 

"Heard you were talkin shit." No, no Susan, I'm sorry- AAAAHHHHH.

Finally, this is the kicker, remember how I was saying that these killings were motivated by a religious belief that would result in bringing Simon's brother back from the dead? No? Well I just explained it again so there you go. Simon had been keeping his brothers body wrapped in towels soaked in formaldehyde in a camper van, this is discovered about halfway through the movie. At the end, after Simon has killed himself and all 12 willing victims have been sacrificed, detectives that we haven't met before go out to the camper van and investigate it and dun dun dun - the fucking body has moved, implying that it worked. Gah. No.

"Go on anon, send Rhona hate!"

Okay, I know I've been shitting on this movie a lot. But, I didn't entirely hate it. The film looked pretty nice visually and the performances were actually reasonably strong. It just goes to show however that good actors can't save a film that suffers from poor direction and writing. 

Till next week time follks!

Everything, Adequately #2 - A Nice Warm Cuppa

You're getting another comic because I'm super stressed and this is helping me relax. Once resits are done we'll have ourselves some proper posts. Also, yes, that is my Troy and Abed in the Morning mug.

"I am wearing my pyjaaaamas!"

(This comic is in no way autobiographical. Any resemblance of characters to reptiles living or dead is purely coincidental.)

Everything, Adequately #1 - Greetings

I have been doing much more drawing recently that I have writing, so you're getting another comic! Hooray! This will hopefully continue to be a regular thing, let me know what you think of it all; I want it to be fun to read as well as draw, so tell me if it's crap.

Newts are notorious card sharks.

I Drew A Thing - The Platypus and the Newt

Hey everybodilypeeps! Things have not been going great over in the real world (I'll likely whinge at you rather soon), so here's a little story that I wrote and drew

all by my selfsome. I've been hoping to get a webcomic of some sort going for a while now, so consider this an attempt at starting it. Enjoy!

Dear Zachary: Nought to Blubbering Heap in 90 Minutes

"I don't like documentaries." It's a phrase that, as a film fan, you will likely have heard from countless people. It comes from the same place as "I don't like subtitles/black and white films/fun," where either laziness or simply an unwillingness to put a little extra effort into an experience to get something back leads to a broadly dismissive statement. You can, however, see the logic in the argument: if you wanted to have to read along with your entertainment, you would have picked up a book; and black and white movies are, like, old... And documentaries feel a bit like homework; you're given lots of facts and arguments and are expected to think and have opinions. Ugh!

"Move me from the fire, I'm burning."

It pains me every time I hear these kinds of things; not just because it means people are missing out on some great stuff. The blanket lack of acceptance of subtitles by the general populace has led to any and all foreign film being consigned to a single award in the Oscars rather than being allowed to run for the main prize. I have friends who don't like Psycho or pretty much anything before the 1950s because it's "not got any colour in it"; actual quote. But I think the complete dismissal of documentaries as a genre has to be the most agonising to hear.

There are few types of film more varied and more capable of actually affecting a person than a documentary (although fair's fair, they're also some of the most untruthful, manipulative bullshit possible), and yet so many will point blank refuse to give them a chance because they think it's boring, or don't like sad stories, or are uncomfortable facing nasty truths. When you don't want to experience things that have changed lives and altered the course of human society (for better or worse) because it seems like too much effort, you are in dire need of an encouraging kick up the backside.

The crux of that whole introduction? You people stop whinging and watch some documentaries; they're amazing pieces of art and culture and you're doing yourself a disservice by not giving them a chance. As you might have already guessed, today's film is a documentary; a very good one at that. May I introduce you to Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About his Father?

It's just behind that ocean of tears there.

Now this isn't, to be perfectly honest, a very original documentary. It does the typical "we started out planning to make one thing but we actually made it about something else in the end" bit, it's blunt, it's emotionally manipulative, it's very opinionated, it tells rather than shows... But you still need to watch it. Why? Because it is one of the most sincerely emotional pieces of film I've ever seen, and I think the main reason for that is down to how personal the subject matter was to the director, Kurt Kuenne.

On the right.

The man on the left, Andrew Bagby, is the initial subject of the documentary. In 2001, Bagby was murdered by his ex-girlfriend Shirley Turner. That, right there, is the happiest part of the whole sorry story, and the reason Kuenne began filming. He decided to commemorate Bagby's life as best he could by interviewing family members and the such, and that's where we come in as the film opens. From there, Kuenne goes on a blistering emotional crusade that's about as agonising to watch as being forced to ride a flaming motorbike. Naked. While being tattooed. By rattlesnakes...made of dirty needles... That analogy ran away from me a tad.

Point being it only goes downhill from there, with each turn of the tale (un)lucky enough to have been caught at the time it happened by Kuenne (or so we're led to believe; we have to stay sceptical when dealing with documentary chronology). This means we get to see Bagby's family and friends go through some pretty harrowing stuff with the candour that most "this is what happened" after-the-fact documentaries often lose, all at the hands of this monster:

That baby's got fucking motives, man...

That's the aforementioned Shirley Turner, and boy do we hate her. I mentioned before that Dear Zachary is a rather opinionated documentary. Much of that opinion is that this woman is evil, and Kuenne expends a great deal of effort portraying the disgust and fury he and Bagby's family feel towards her. Imagine if someone did something so unthinkably cruel to you and the people you love that you're simply overwhelmed with debilitating anger and frustration at the situation. Now imagine you were able to capture that sensation and put it on film; that's the level of powerful emotion Kuenne manages to invoke in Dear Zachary.

It's untidy, messy even at points, but so bursting with absolutely visceral passion that you can't help getting swept up in the family's ordeal. I can't remember who said it (help me if you can) but someone once said that you should leave a documentary angry, hungry for change, and Dear Zachary delivers on that ravenous desire for righteous justice in spadefuls.

If you say you don't like documentaries or don't see the point in them, I implore you to put this on. If you feel anything by the end, then you can understand what these films are for.

Overall Ben Equivalence Rating

Screaming at a Slasher Movie Victim to Fucking Notice the Monster!!! -

Like a train wreck in slow motion you can see exactly what's coming but, much to your dismay and frustration, there's absolutely nothing you can do to to stop it.

Felony

Gosh, it's been a wild few weeks hasn't it? Okay, good news: I've not killed myself due to stress ... yet. Bad news: I neglected Pop Culture Cynic. But in my defence, I couldn't handle the workload I was dealing with for university, let alone try and keep up with weekly posts on top of it. But that's all in the past now! Well, at least for summer, so let's get back to Pop Culture Cynic-y goodness, shall we?

Today I am reviewing a film called Felony, released in 2013.

The casting call for this film was "slightly disgruntled
straight, white man."

So, in a sentence, Felony is an Australian film about three detectives (in the picture above). We have Detective Malcolm "Mad Mal" Toohey. Next we have Detective Carl Summer, which leaves his partner, Detective Jim Melic. When an incident leaves a nine year old boy in critical condition, the three detectives are swept up in web of secrets, lies and workplace politics.

"Yeah, the McDonalds is just down the road, take a left, can't miss it."

After celebrating a big bust and being hailed as a hero, Mal puts himself behind the wheel despite the previous scene showing him doing shot after pint after shot after shot. I feel like you guy's can guess where this is going. "An incident leaves a nine year old boy in critical condition" paired with "hero drunk cop drives home". Don't worry this isn't spoiler, you see it coming less than two minutes into the film. Mal hits the youg boy on his paper route with his car, and screeching to a stop, we see Mal wait and weigh up whether or not to just drive off and leave the boy, or to intervene and help.

Mal leaves the boy, the credits roll and the film lasted about twelve minutes, okay folks, i'll see you next week with a brand new review!

Nah, Mal gets out and helps the boy, phoning for an ambulance and shoddily avoiding questions about his involvement in the accident. 

Then up rolls Jim and Carl.

Something witty perhaps?

Carl, the more senior officer in command, is more than willing to just brush things under the carpet and move on, he is a strict follower of the code of "police officers have got each others backs." A quick, "did you run over the boy?" ".........Noooooo?" is enough for him. However this doesn't fly for Jim, the younger detective new on the scene. Despite the fact that he is meant to be focusing on a different case, the details of the hit and run just can't seem to settle in his mind and he decides to push things further, which exposes Carl's real lack of authoritative power.

*sad trumpet plays in background*

First things first, I actually did enjoy this film. It wasn't quite what I thought it would be and I really liked some of the style choices and directorial decisions, but I'll go into those in a minute. However, just because I liked it doesn't mean I don't think there was a fair bit wrong with it.

Firstly, the previously mentioned case that Jim is supposed to be focusing on however is much more interesting than this story. I'd much rather have a film about Jim and Carl pursuing the people involved in the abduction and rape of a young girl rather than this hit and run thing. Rule number one, don't make the side plot more interesting than the main plot. In fact the other case isn't even a side plot, it's briefly mentioned and explored in the beginning before it's totally thrown out the window in favour of the main plot. 

You're gonna wanna get used to this angle.

Secondly, no-one in this film is particularly likeable? Like, I wasn't really rooting one way or another. I never feared for Mal getting caught, or cheered in triumph at the prospect of him getting found out. I didn't really care about Jim and Carl either. I thought Jim and Carls dynamic was good at the beginning of the film ... when they're investigating the abduction case. Their dynamic is interesting, but it quickly spirals out of control towards the end of the film, which leads me on to my thirdly.

Side eye game is strong.

Thirdly, I feel like the first half of the film is great. It establishes a good tone and a consistent atmosphere, but it loses its steam about halfway through. The story begins to fall apart and everything starts to get out of hand, which is slightly farcical at points I felt, which isn't exactly in keeping with the rest of the film.

I'm bad at writing captions, let me die.

Criticisms aside though, I thought that from an aesthetic standpoint, the film looked great. I also got an ever so slightly David Fincher vibe from the director Matthew Saville. He wasn't afraid to just let things happen. We could watch a character go from point A to point B with no cuts, and if he could avoid it, he did. Conversations played out without cutting from face to face to face, and instead things were allowed just to unfold naturally. I think the cinematography is great, and the script also has some fantastic lines in it.

So basically, if you're looking for style over substance, then yeah, go ahead and watch it, but if you're looking for more, it may not be the film for you.

Till next week!

Film Favourites: Blade Runner

The Film

Ridley Scott's sci-fi masterpiece Blade Runner is, like any good film, esoteric, weird as hell, and an adaptation of a Philip K. Dick novel; in this case Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. It's everything you would hope for in an epic sci-fi noir movie, even down to the inexplicably austere police chief's office.

"This room hasn't changed in 80 years; we just added more monitors."

The Plot

Harrison Ford is Rick Deckard, a no-nonsense Blade Runner (android bounty hunter) and winner of Best Private Investigator Name three years running who has been tasked with hunting down 4 extremely dangerous replicant (this universe's name for androids) fugitives, led by the supremely talented Rutger Hauer as Nexus 6 Combat Model Roy Batty.

Here we see the full range of Hauer's acting ability.

The replicants have returned to android-free Earth in order to try to extend their stunted 4 year life span. What ensues is a hunt through gritty future-Los Angeles streets where lots of people die, many, many extremely quotable lines are delivered, and the very serious tone of the movie is undercut surprisingly regularly with sudden and jarring moments of unexpected slapstick.

Seriously, you would not expect this guy to still be sinister after some of the adorable faces he pulls.

The Critique

Really, I can't stress enough how silly this movie can be. I got the joyous opportunity to see it in the cinema for the first time very recently (thus this post, actually) and it reminded me how unusually out of place much of the comedy is in the context of the film's world. This is meant to be super grungy dystopia with lots of discarded newspaper and midgets and shit, and yet we end up with androids who run around naked and consider headbutting themselves through walls a viable means of taunting.

"Heeere's Joh-noh-flehbleh..." *collapses*
Smart move, Roy.

You'll also notice that most of my screenshots seem to be focussing on Rutger Hauer, and the simple truth is that he's the only really good actor in the whole movie; everyone else is fine, sure, but they can be a bit flat... Deckard says everything in a slightly disgruntled voice, Rachael (Sean Young) does not move her face, like, at all, and Pris (Daryl Hannah) acts akin to a curious child with all the emotions mixed up wro- oh wait. Replicants don't have fully developed emotions. OK, we'll let them off.

All of them...

Despite some stunted acting, which you may consider a blessing or a curse (I think I've just managed to convince myself it's a good thing), every character in the movie feels fascinatingly unique and fleshed out; particularly when many of them only get a matter of minutes in the whole run time. Edward James Olmos' origami-folding Detective Gaff has about 5 lines across 3 scenes and yet he feels like a complete part of a breathing world. Which, now that we're on the subject, is fucking gorgeous. 

Visit Los Angeles; where you'll never have to worry about scrap paper or steam shortages again.

The attention to detail is brilliant as well (I'd sincerely recommend having a peruse of the countless IMDb factoids about the set design once you've watched the movie), with the sets, costuming and even the made up language all melding together to create a believable future world full of noodles and pipes. That, plus some now iconic film techniques (cool ass eye glimmer, represent), makes for a completely bespoke experience, and is, along side the great characterisation, subtle exploration of human mortality, and amazing soundtrack, the reason why this movie is and always will be one of the best ever made.

It's fucking stupid, but we love it.

It's Special Because...

This is one of my dad's favourite movies; I think it's between this and Apocalypse Now for his top. My brother hated it the first time he tried to watch it. I remember his words very vividly after he tried our old VHS copy of the first Director's Cut (yeah, there's like 8 versions now): "It's too dark too see anything and the sound is weird," or something to that effect. Naturally, I saw this as a challenge and sat through that awful, awful video on our big old CRT TV that would leave a big green splodge on one side of the screen and a purple one on the other. It was grainy, the sound had kind of warped a bit (when your soundtrack is 80% synth, that's not a good thing to have happen), and it was generally a poor way to see the film first time. 

And yet, I still enjoyed it. Not long after, the 2007 Cut was on Film4; I watched it again and I fell in love. At long last my dad had someone who could finish off the sentence when he inexplicably started spouting William Blake, or groggily reply with "Painful to live in fear, isn't it?" when he decided to burst into your room in the morning, growling "Wake up! Time to die!"

He really likes quoting this movie...

Best Enjoyed With

No distractions, a quiet room, and a band of friends who love every second of it as much as you. Nothing beats that moment when you all silently mouth those immortal lines together in the dark. Blade Runner is most definitely a world best shared.