The Raid: Retaliation

From the opening shot of a wide open field it's clear that Gareth Evans' sequel to The Raid is going to be a much different affair in scope and atmosphere. Picking up almost immediately after the last film finished we are first shown the unfortunate fate of Andi before picking up with Rama - and things not exactly going the way he'd envisioned either. 

After learning that the events of the first film obviously run deeper than one dirty cop, Rama is given the option to go under cover and befriend the son of one of the most influential men of the city, Uco, who unfortunately happens to be in prison. Already Rama's moral character is challenged as he must commit an offence that will place him there as well. 

Thus we encounter our first action sequence as Rama is besieged by 15 other prisoners - a sort of, prison welcome, I suppose. It's a sequence that sets up the tone of the film to come; the tension and build up to a fight, the quiet moments offering more suspense that intensify the taut action.with the anticipation of the action sequences almost as satisfying as the actual pay-off. It is interesting that in a recent interview Evans stated an interest in making a horror film one day, and from the set up of the action pieces, use of music and editing its clear that all the elements are there and that's a film I'd be interested to see.

But what of the actions sequences themselves? That's what we're all here for, right? The frenetic pace of the first film and the dynamic hand to hand battles. There was some fear that without the confines of the location in the original film the claustrophobic atmosphere that made it so enjoyable might be lost. Not so; the very first fight we get is actually confined to a smaller space - a toilet cubicle, and acts as a masterclass in fight choreography in tight spaces (Captain America: Winter Soldier directors take note, this is how it's really done). We may not be trapped in a building anymore, but the use of space for many of the action sequences seemingly finds our protagonist in ever tighter spaces to try and punch his way out of. 

Having said this, the larger fight sequences are also as exhilarating as anything in the first. There are long shots that weave in and out of the action and other modern action directors should take note here - this is how hand-held cam shots should be used. Too often, the use of this shaky style of filming is used to cover-up elements of the action - whether thats the brutality of what's on show to gain a lower rating (The Hunger Games) or presumably to cover up the lack of actual fighting prowess of the stars involved in the punch-up. Not so here, the hand-held cam does what it should; takes you into the heart of the action, and give a sense of dynamic interaction within the fight sequence - especially in the early mud fight in the prison.

Maybe I'm biased, I loved the first film, so was always going to go in with a desire to like this film. But almost a week on from sitting in hat darkened cinema, and when I think back all I want is to see it again - and isn't that the hallmark of a brilliant action film? Until the DVD release, I guess I'll have to make do with reruns of the original...

Finally Back to the Future...

Last weekend I righted a wrong in my film viewing history that has needed addressing for way too long. Ok, so the main motivation behind this was a resounding blight of procrastination, with a dash of depressive tendencies, that led to total head in the sand avoidance of PhD related work for the last few days, but that's not the point. 

So, as I was flicking through the channels trying to find something to distract me from my absolute lack of motivation, I stopped on the Sky Action/Adventure channel at Back to the Future. This holds the place as one of those special films that I'd seen bits of but never actually seen all the way through. I knew many of the cultural references and had always bluffed my way through the nostalgic reminisces of friends on the film with a non-committal laugh - a 'I get that reference, but don't feel the need to comment further' type of deal. Well, I have this rule that I need to try and do at least one productive thing a day, and what more productive way to spend a Sunday than to fill an embarrassing gap in your filmic knowledge for the future. Oh, and if by way of a bonus, Part II and Part III (the only one I had seen all the way through, several times, in fact) were on straight after - that's the whole day wasted (productively spent) right?!

As it turns out, this is by far the best way to watch the Back to the Future trilogy as each film starts immediately after the last one finished - you even get a nice little recap of the final scenes just in case you needed a reminder. 

It seems a mark of a classic teen movie that it can be viewed almost 3 decades after its release and not feel incredibly dated. And it doesn't. Maybe it's the virtue of this being a piece that transcends different eras in time, so that you feel like the 80s segments aren't 'the present' but the 'present' for the character. Given, the ageing make-up effects don't really stand up to any scrutiny these days, but they have a certain charm (a so bad, they're ok, kind of feel) that you really don't give it much thought. 

Perhaps the most jarring segments come in Part II when Marty and the Doc go to the future. A good part of this must be our proximity to the actual date in which they end up - we are, after all, only just over a year away from the 2015 that they visit. And their 2015 world, how much does it resemble our own? Erm, well not really. But then what imagined future that we might have now will we be laughing at in 30 years time? Where we see ourselves and where inevitably will be will always be somewhat at odds. What they did seem to hit quite appropriately on the head was the nostalgia themed cafe - ok, it's probably a plethora of vintage 50s themed places that are currently popular, but who's to say in twelve months time the 80s won't be more en vogue. 

So was my time wasted? Do I feel like I missed out on something coming to this trilogy so late? Well, yes, sort of. They are good fun and packed with the kind of quotable lines and pop culture references that I love to bore people with. So maybe I had a great gaping hole in my 80s movie knowledge during my teens, but I've finally righted the wrong. Just need a few more viewings to really get me up to speed with everyone else...

300: Rise of an Empire

‘Shall we see the Muppets?’

‘Can’t stand Ricky Gervais, how about Cap. America?’

‘Nah, saw that last week…’

And that is how we arrived at the cinema to see 300: Rise of an Empire (Noam Murro, 2014). It was basically one of those cinematic experiences that was not so much fuelled by a desire to see the film in question, but by the constraints of scheduling; what else is showing at the time that we are going? As such, I had no preconceptions; I don’t think I’d even seen a trailer for it. It was a film that hadn’t really crossed my radar, which is strange given that I generally like films based on comic books (sorry, graphic novels) and gory action.

300: Rise of an Empire picks up where the last film finished; surveying the dead bodies of the 300 dead Spartans. Through the words of Lena Headey’s Queen Gorgo we are transported back in time to a battle in Greece that set in motion these events and are introduced to our lead protagonist, Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton), who, by killing Persian King Darius, sets in motion the events that lead Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) to become the ten-foot god-king we encountered in 300. As well as introducing us to a new foe in the form of Eva Green and the formidable Artemisia – a Greek born woman with  a ‘Persian  heart’, as she puts it. The story then proceeds to run in parallel with the events of 300 and show the aftermath and subsequent battles, thus acting as a prequel and sequel in one.

‘It’s really gory’ my friend whispered to me as the opening titles started to roll. And it was. And while it was nice to actually see a film that isn’t afraid to portray the fact that if you severe a limb or spear someone through the chest there will be a substantial amount of blood involved (I still haven’t gotten over the gall of White House Down showing Channing Tatum slit a guy’s throat with not even a hint of blood. Which in itself raises some many questions about the way in which we portray and sanitise violence, but I’ll save that rant for another day) which in the current market, must be commendable. But, and perhaps this was due to the fact that we watched it in 2D, rather than the intended 3D (which I think this is one of those films where it would’ve worked in its favour), the blood looked more like a thick sludge of mud. Then again, this is a stylised comic book adaptation, so maybe I should let that criticism slip, at least they showed some form of blood!

The film plodded on with some nifty, but perhaps not entirely necessary, slow-mo, an array of accents (apparently ancient Greek warriors had all sorts of international ‘twangs’ to their utterances, who knew?) and a totally superfluous bit of father-son melodrama. Perhaps that is being overly critical, but it definitely feels like this is a film that relies too heavily on its style rather than its substance. Having said this, I didn’t wholly find it unenjoyable, which in many ways is thanks to Eva Green’s Artemisia. Who relishes every instance she has on screen, every line of dialogue (even the badly written ones) to create a presence that carries you along for the ride. It almost seemed a shame when it becomes clear how 9-lives Themistokles plans to achieve his victory.

Ultimately, 300: Rise of an Empire falls into the category of film that you don’t mind having wasted two hours of your time for, but that you will not feel compelled to see again.