SPIDERS

After having read some very poor comments on the quality of conversion for “Spiders 3D”, I opted for the safe bet and purchased the regular DVD for $10. “Spiders” is directed by Tibor Takacs (Ice Spiders), who has done his fair share of creature feature films over the last decade. I’m not sure if this is supposed to be a remake of the film of the same name from 2000, but I’m assuming it is. Spiders is set in New York City, the story follows Jason (Patrick Muldoon), a traffic controller for the NY subway system. After a soviet space station crashes into a section of the railway and mutated spiders are released an outbreak threatens the entire city. Jason and his soon to be ex-wife Rachel (Christa Campbell), and their daughter Emily (Sydney Sweeney) must survive the military protocol and the scientists as well as the Spiders themselves and put a stop to the rise of the Queen mother. The film also stars Shelly Varod, William Hope and Pete- Lee Wilson.

Now, right off the bat you either take these silly Syfy or Asylum presented creature features for exactly what they are cheesy fun or you don’t. If you can’t ignore all the obvious issues and low budgets enough to get some entertainment from them (and I’m sure that’s most of you haha) then your better off giving them a miss. I have always had a soft spot for the B movie and for the most part these are made for the love of the genre and everyone just sets out to have a bit of fun. You still have to have some essentials though before you decide to make one of these. I was hoping for a modern version of the 1955 monster movie “Tarantula” which I recently watched. I didn’t think much of the film it’s 60 years old and obviously dated now. However, what I did like was the techniques they used to shoot the spider because it was real, CG wasn’t even a thought back then. Did I get a modern-day Tarantula with “Spiders” or not?? (haha doesn’t sound right does it?)

THE GOOD

Lets kick things off with the technical aspects which can only be described as a mixed bag when you’re looking at this genre of film. The audio and camera work in this one is pretty good. They used a lot of crane shots which give the action scenes a pretty interesting look. The investigative and dialogue orientated scenes are done solidly too. The various sets like the warehouse, the apartment and the restaurant were clearly cheaply put together to replicate something you’d see in NYC and they looked decent enough.

Patrick Muldoon has been a part of a lot of these creature feature films and originally started in daytime soap acting but he actually stands out above the rest of the cast here. Is he that good? Or is everybody else that bad? A little bit of both probably. I read a lot of reviews that really slammed the acting, I didn’t think any of it was particularly cringe worthy but all of Rachel’s lines Christa totally underplayed with emotion/expressionless facials. It’s the secondary characters though, like friends of Jason’s and members of the Military that were quite bad and you couldn’t take anything they had to say seriously. The better part of the film was the climax and the overall look of the spiders. Yeah sure it’s cheap CG, which most of these films rely on but if you watch enough of them you can tell the difference between the cheesy lame and the god awful (which no one wants to see). The bigger the spiders get the better they look and I think given the budget, most of which was clearly spent on CG you’d expect this result.

THE BAD

Okay wow the bad, where do I start. Let’s face it a film like this isn’t at all original and it’s virtually a remake of 3 or more other films, therefore it was never going to be a masterpiece. However, I’m thinking that some of that estimated 7 million dollar budget should have been spent on some council/city permits to make shooting on the streets of New York City a reality. I will break it down for you, what we have here is a junction of two streets made out to look like New York City. Now the problem with that is it’s near impossible to recreate the backdrop of the rest of this massive city with cheap CGI and blend it seamlessly. They chose to shoot the same shot over and over as well as from different angles to try to make it look like a different part of the city and it’s so obviously a studio back lot that looks terrible. From the pavement, to the fire hydrants, to the coffee shop fronts and the one wall facades holding up entire “pretend buildings”, it’s all so obviously abysmal you can’t ignore it. The B-movie hit “Sharknado” wasn’t much different but it had a certain charm, a flare, it was fast paced and had that pure entertainment, this did not.

Changing signs of different platform stops and hanging a few fake cobwebs in an otherwise clean set design of a subway system isn’t going to fool many folks, or maybe it is? (haha). A lot of the other reviewers didn’t mention a thing about the pathetic lack of attention to detail so maybe I’m imagining this?. If you don’t have the money to get council or city approval to shut down streets/traffic etc, then fine that’s okay but change the location don’t shoot two streets and retreat into the studio. Don’t have a chase sequence in a warehouse full of boxes that contain nothing, what the hell?? When they all fall over you will get a hollow sound effect, it’s just embarrassing. Couldn’t the crew be bothered filling them with something? or were they worried they wouldn’t get what they needed in one take. We are given a lot of standard stock footage of traffic, but zero extras in any of the scenes and to make matters worse the continuous establishing shots of New York just remind us of how truly amateurish this is put together, I could go on but I wont.

Ignore the fact all the familiar family cliché’s are there. The bickering couple going through a divorce and the neglected daughter. You know Jason is going to probably save the day, rescue his family and everyone will live happily ever after. Obviously the film has to lose points for not having a different spin on the characters but in the greater scheme of the  story it’s not going to make or break the overall enjoyment. The biggest hindrance to the entertainment value of Spiders is the awful pacing, especially in the second act. They hint at a doctor/scientist who may become more involved in the story but never does, along with a random killing from a hitman?? not sure what that had to do with anything and where did he go??. By the time there is any on-screen action you will be well past the point of caring. The final battle with the Queen has a few fun moments but ultimately the action stinks. Spiders drag soldiers away or wrap them up in webbing while the colonel shoots at them with his pathetic hand gun, (as you would if you were a colonel *rolls eyes*). The military is completely useless and to make things more disappointing they don’t even get killed off in any cool or gory manner.

If your still reading you know what Spiders is all about by now, don’t say I didn’t warn you. If this thing actually resembled a 7 million dollar budget and we got some deaths and a lot faster pacing it could have been alright. This is a guy who enjoyed “Battledogs”, “Sand Sharks” and countless other cheese balls, but this almost scrapes the barrel at contending with “Jurassic Shark” and “Shark Week” a couple of the worst films your likely to ever see. I suggest watching “Eight Legged Freaks” if you’re keen on a giant spider movie, hell even watch “Tarantula” at this point anything would be better.

My rating for “Spiders” is 2.5/10

BOUNTY KILLER

“Bounty Killer” was released in 2013, it’s an action/grindhouse style flick set in a futuristic/post apocalyptic world populated by corporate greed. The Council of Nine have become the new law, judges but not the executioners. They leave that task for hired guns known as Bounty Killers who are responsible for killing white-collar criminals. These men and women kill for the body count, the fame but most importantly the money that goes along with it. The story follows Drifter (Matthew Marsden), a bounty hunter who has had some trouble with the law and decides to take a ride and visit the council in hopes that they will spare his life for the crime he committed. Mary Death (played by the gorgeous Christian Pitre), has been on and off with Drifter since they met at a bar long before things went south. She decides to take it upon herself to hunt Drifter down and finish the job herself. With clear inspiration from films such as “Mad Max”, “Shoot Em Up” and the cool little indie flick “Bitch Slap”, Bounty Killer combines gorgeous women, fast cars, arsenals of weapons and pure carnage and manages to deliver on all fronts. The film also stars Kristanna Loken (Terminator: Rise Of The Machines), Barak Hardley, Beverly D’Angelo and Gary Busey.

THE GOOD

Let’s begin with the style of a film like this, at no point does this claim to be original in style or in story so don’t get carried away writing this thing off before you even get started. The intro credits open up much like a Robert Rodriguez film (Machete) and some of the editing and sketching looks awesome. The camera zooms in and out of drawn maps that transition onto location and sets, it really gives it that cool grindhouse dynamic. The plot of course is very much along the lines of so many other films like Dredd, Mad Max and Shoot Em Up, just to name a few. I liked the modern-day social popularity contest and the competitive nature of these bounty killers, it was almost like something you see on reality TV these days. Mary Death has a lot of sass and knows how to kick some ass, she takes it up to Drifter for most of the film. The two seem in constant competition as to who has more kills and whose the bigger fan favorite and that makes for some really fun scenes.

We get some pretty cool characters throughout the film. For starters, the eye candy in the movie is a real treat. Christian rocks a killer “Old Town” (Sin City reference), kind of wardrobe with awesome white boots with complimentary knives attached (of course), she kicks just as much butt with her hair down as she does up and you won’t want to miss a couple of her absolutely brutal kills as well as having a good perve (haha). Drifter is a bit of a dope and not all that interesting as a character but his side kick and shy “gun caddy” Jack (Hardley), was a breath of fresh air. I recently saw Barak in Bryan Bertino’s “Mockingird”,which was a very underwhelming film but he was by far the best aspect of it and played his role of a clown very well. Loken as Catherine, head of one of the main corporations still looks every bit as good as she did twelve years ago in T3. Although her attire is a little different she still pulls of the sexy office manager look. Topping things off I make quick mention of Mindy Robinson (up and coming actress with a lot of credits to here name), and her bar girls who supply us with some nudity and look stunning. The gypsies also make for an interesting addition to the script. This is surprisingly well shot considering the modest budget. The car chases through the arid landscape look awesome and the action sequences play out perfectly. The interesting music choices really helped add to the enjoyment as well.

I think Bounty Killer’s strongest aspect is the pacing and choreography of the fight sequences. They are every bit as good as a Rodriguez film and nothing ever gets boring. Each of the acts of the film has a main fight and I think as the film progresses they get better and that’s how it should be. In the beginning a few criminals bite the dust and the dry but funny Willy hands out the payments along with a few pretty funny lines. In the middle portion of the film we get a great daytime chase sequence through the bad lands involving Drifter and Jack and a bus being followed by a group of crazy gypsies. This made for some intense action and some great blood and gore. I don’t want to spoil any of the kills but this one is a hard R rating and there’s some of the best kills I’ve seen in a film of this genre and most of them are all done practically.

THE BAD

Right off the bat we all know this thing isn’t one bit original and that causes most critics to judge it unfairly. Most people would naturally draw comparisons between this and other films of the same genre, I have already acknowledged that so let’s move on. Technically the film is not without fault, it’s evident in the audio issues during some of the action sequences. When characters are in vehicles or on motorbikes and they are attempting to talk to each other it comes across pretty hollow and distant. The dialogue probably isn’t terribly important in those scenes but who knows if it was because you can’t really hear it over the sound of engines. Some of the explosions and CG backgrounds of the landscape look pretty hokey and that stuff probably should have been kept to a minimum due to budget issues. It’s almost as though the crew thought they were making a hundred million dollar movie and tried to construct it accordingly. The stuff on location, the buildings the detail of the scenes look really good for the most part, it’s just when things are shown on a bigger scale that it looks a little corny. The bad lands (big desert), at night looked particularly average. The scene was shot with almost zero lighting, just a few flashes here and there and a lot of wind. I’m not going to sugarcoat it because it looked pretty cringeworthy, fortunately it was only for five minutes or so.

There is definitely some inconsistent acting as well, some of the acting during general conversation was a little bit hammy and didn’t really add much to the story, which was kind of a typical one anyway. I thought Christian was really good in some of her emotional scenes but some of the “I’m a tough girl” stuff was a little forced. The rest of the cast put in decent enough performances given the content of the film. The lack of plot and predictable tropes held the film back from really competing with the best. You know the predictable romance is coming and that each of these characters are going to try to save the other one and when the writers really try to raise the human emotion in order to connect with you in a film like this it kind of takes you out of it because everything else in it isn’t supposed to be taken seriously, it’s just stupid fun.

Bounty Killer is just 80 minutes of pure entertainment. I’m not a real guys guy but everything in this looked great, from the girls, to the cars and bikes, to the gun and knife fights and most importantly the brutal practical effects. I feel like I shouldn’t be giving this thing a high rating simply for the fact that countless other films have done exactly the same thing well before this was even an idea. Nothing will ever be as good as a Robert Rodriguez film within the genre but Bounty Killer is just a blast and about as good as these things get!

My rating for “Bounty Killer” is 7/10

FOXCATCHER

“Foxcatcher” is the much-anticipated true story of John Du Pont, a multi millionaire philanthropist and all around Renaissance man and the relationship he forms with brother wrestling pair Mark and Dave Shultz. As Mark prepares for the 1988 Seoul games, John’s manipulative personality pushes the trio to boiling point. The screenplay was adapted from the book which was written by Mark himself. It’s directed by Bennett Miller (“Moneyball” and “Capote”) and stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo and Steve Carell. I had the opportunity to see this before its official release date and it’s one of those films that I built up so much in my mind it was probably always going to struggle to reach the height I expected. How does it shape up against the other drama’s of 2014? Find out.

THE GOOD

Let’s talk about the extremely risky decision made in the casting of Channing Tatum as Mark and more importantly Steve Carell as John. Most people are used to Tatum playing this hunky/heart throb type of character, taking his shirt off, dancing and basically acting a lot younger than he really is. The success of the movie largely rests on his shoulders, Mark is the protagonist and your along for his journey and you have to be sold on those feelings of failure, disappointment and resentment that he has throughout the film. I think Channing really conveys Mark’s vulnerability and those characteristics that probably drew John Du Pont to him in the first place. This is Channing’s best work by a long shot and I feel much better knowing he can handle a serious role because he was cast in Tarantino’s new film “The Hateful Eight” which I’m really excited for. Mark Ruffalo plays Dave the older of the two and the more well-known amongst the wrestling community. Dave sees himself more as the teacher but seems to have the respect of just about everyone he meets and I’m not sure he is entirely aware that Mark feels inferior and that nothing he does is good enough and that he will always remain in his brothers shadow. Ruffalo has put in some pretty solid performances over the years and he does what’s required of him here but his character isn’t fully explored and the acting highlights aren’t there.

I need to start a fresh paragraph for Steve Carell. Wow, To the skeptics out there and those of you who said Steve Carell was typecast and could never pull off a serious dramatic role you might end up with egg all over your face! I don’t know a lot about the real John Du Pont but Carell’s timing and delivery is fantastic and must surely put him in the running for an Oscar nomination this year. Combine the subtle hints of underlining psychiatric issues and that amazing transformation into making him look like the real John and you have yourself a winner. He makes for a very interesting character study and it’s very odd because a lot of the people who knew him said he must have been insane at the time of the crime because it was so out of character for him. He was known and respected throughout the community and nobody seem to know that he had these issues with alcohol and drugs, amongst other mental problems. A lot of the details about him aren’t fully explored at length in the film, which spends most of its duration focusing on the dynamics of his relationship with both brothers, Mark in particular.

From the very opening frame this has some wonderful shot choices and some lovely cinematography. There is a real focus on showing the intensity and work that goes into becoming the best at something and that’s reflected in the style in which the sporting scenes are shown. The transition from scene to scene is really neat and it never lingers on any one thing for too long. Sometimes the camera is stationary while the actors move in and out of frame and I really like that. The score sets a particular mood right from the outset and minus a couple of oddly placed songs, it accompanies the tone of the film very well. There isn’t any one scene that stands out in the film as most important but the essentials of their lives are depicted. On one side of the coin you have the competitive nature of these two brothers, one who has nothing except for a dream and the other, a family man well-respected by those involved in the sport trying to teach his craft to others. John on the other hand comes from a very isolated lifestyle and seems to have been raised by a somewhat vacant and disillusioned mother who doesn’t seem to really know her son. At heart, I think this is what the entire film is about. John trying to prove his worth to his mother in order to connect on some level with her, or with anyone for that matter. It’s a sad story about a lonely man who appears to have everything but in reality has nothing. Comparisons can be drawn between John Du Pont and Jay Gatsby in their search for love and acceptance for who they really are.

THE BAD

There aren’t many issues with Foxcatcher but the biggest one is the pacing. It’s a combination of the fact that this is based on a true story and therefore I think most of this is exactly what happened. A few scenes get a little bit tedious and one involving some drug use in a helicopter on the way to a dinner party seemed out-of-place. Other than conveying John’s issue with drugs (which could have been in any other scene) it served no real purpose. The comedy in said scene was awkward and not all that funny either. Speeding up the middle act and cutting the entire running time by 15-20 minutes would have just tidied the screenplay up a little bit.

The only aspect I found fault in was that nobody noticed John’s decline and increasingly odd behavior. His mannerisms and a few of the seemingly insignificant things he wasn’t happy with and had to vent about surely would have raised alarm bells with someone in his life?? Then again, maybe not because things unfolded as they did and don’t seem like they were ever going to be avoided. I would have liked to have known more about his issues with Drugs and Alcohol because other than one celebratory scene with a few to many glasses of wine and that helicopter flight, I wasn’t even aware he had any real problem with those two things. He drinks a few times in the film but no different to most people.

Foxcatcher is such a well made movie that accurately depicts the true story of a lonely man and his eventual psychological breakdown. The performances are fabulous and alone are worth the price of the ticket. It’s richly shot and edited, sounds great and the makeup team did some of the best prosthetic work since Clint Eastwood’s “J Edgar.” Although it is a little plodding and lacks full disclosure containing a clear-cut motive that some audiences need, it remains one of the best drama’s of the year, catch it in theaters from January 15th!

My rating for “Foxcatcher” is 7/10