Angels and Demons - 2009

Tom Hanks returns to our screens as Robert Langdon, the symbologist tasked with prevents another catastrophe for the Catholic Church. Where The Da Vinci Code was preposterous, silly and downright bad, Angels & Demons is much of the same. The big difference being a sense of momentum and deadline to try and save the day which gives the story and audience very little time to come up for air, let alone think through the twists and turns of the plot. And thank god for that, because when the credits role you left feeling mildly exhilirated by the proceedings. This feeling soon fades aay and you are left with the impression that you have just had a trick played on you, and one which wasn't actually all that good, because the more you think about Angels & Demons the less your inclined to like it. Just The Da Vinci Code it involves a ridiculously abstract and complicated plot - this time to cease power of the Church by killing the candidates for the next Pope. The problem isn't the ends, but the means with which such a plot is attempted. So elaborate and over the top is the scheme that the gaping flaws are plastered over only by the pace and rush to visit the next landmark and watch another pope candidate suffer a horrible and violent death.

Thankfully the film is littered with great actors, from Hanks, he finds this all too easy now, Ewan McGregor, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Stellan Skarsgaard make the film enjoyable, and Ayelet Zurer is easily as good as Audrey Tautou in the female assistant to Langdon.

Overall then, if you can put logic, your higher brain function and embrace a sense of preposterousness then Angels & Demons is the right film for you. It has enough heart racing action scenes and although the ending is very long, the twist in the tale, though predictable is never less than fitting for the film.

Crank: High Voltage - 2009

I never saw Crank, and I'm actually quite pleased, because only seeing one of the Crank franchise is enough to make you realise you don't need to see a sequel. A bizarre, insane, silly, violent and downright ridiculous film starring one of the least charismatic and appealing leading men of recent years in Jason Statham. Crank tells the "story", and I use the term loosely, of Chev Chelios. The film begins with him falling out of a plane and surviving, only for some Asians to come along and remove his heart. Before they have the chance to harvest the rest of his body Chelios, powered by an electrically charged false heart, is awake and killing those responsible. He has little over an hour to find his heart and through a series of bizarre sequences must contiunally electrically charge his fake heart. The film would make a superb comedy, except that is seems to take itself rather seriously and tries to develop a convoluted plot involving Triads, Mexicans and prostitutes. It may have been that I haven't seen the original so a lot of these characters didn't see to have any characterisation, but where the film let me down was that it didn't have any good action sequences to help carry it along.

Jason Statham spends most of the film angry or electrocuted and occasionally both. He attracts skinny "sexy" hangers on - one of whom I believe was his girlfriend - who he has a close to pornographic, though not arousing sex scene in the middle of a race track; the climax arrving as a horse jumps over them, massive cock on display and all.

As you can tell the film is full of inventive, imaginative and creative ways of telling its story - its just that there really isn't a story, just an excuse to have an extremely, violent, explicit "action" film which never succeeds on any front.

Frightfest 2009 - World Premiere - The Descent: Part 2

I've been visiting Frightfest for about 3 years now. I've previously seen Pan's Labyrinth, with a Q&A with Del Toro (this was the first post Cannes screening), and Timur Bakmambetov's Daywatch. Equally as stunning as Nightwatch, even if it had a few more pointless action and effects. So this year, looking down the list of films showing I felt there wasn't anything which captured my excitement in quite the same way. So when I saw the sequel to The Descent, one of the best horror films of recent time, was the closing film, and a world premiere I felt compelled to support one of the best film festivals in Britain and also embrace the idea of a sequel to a film I didn't think needed or justified a sequel.

So the event itself was fantastic. Frightfest's relocation to Empire Leicester Square gave the affair a glamour which was helped by walking through the doors and seeing Shauna MacDonald looking ravishing whilst being interviewed. The director Jon Harris was alongside her, himself fielding questions, probably about how this film makes any sense after the ending of the original. The location was jam packed full of budding horror fans waiting with baited breath for the inevitable gore, shocks and terror which Frightfest offers. It's at events like these that my love of cinema shines brightest. You know you are in the company of likeminded fans of cinema, especially horror, and they are willing the film to be enjoyable, fun and above all scary. This atmosphere pervades the entire screening, and it raises your enjoyment; the sense of collectivity becoming infectious.

So what about the film. After the mammoth success of The Descent, I have to confess, the first I heard about a sequel seemed utterly redundant. Not only would the uniqueness of the original be lost; the all female cast, the crawlers identity, the sense of claustraphobia. I was intrigued to see if the writers could come up with a progression for the story.

Unfortunately for the most part they fail. In the brief discussion at the end of the film, Shauna and Natalie Mendoza (the original's Juno) both expressed concern about returning, and rightfully so. What I found surprising was that the film seemed to expose their concerns, and so I was confused as to why they returned.

The problem with the sequel, is directly related to thr strengths of the original. The first, had a all female cast, created believeable if not entirely likable characters (a significant difference in any script) and a great deeper narrative structure involving the history between the girls and the issues they take down with them. So as the film unfolded and the horror in the caves emerged, it was the emotional resonance which made the horror all the more terrifying. With The Descent 2, none of this is aparent, and when they try to resurrect the back story it threatens the disrail the pace and is therefore swiftly dispatched.

The premise is simple, Sarah, somehow has managed to escape (the film picks up on the America ending which is slightly different; read more optimistic) and is in hospital, whilst a rescue mission is underway at Boreham Caves - a neat little use of narrative logic. Sarah has conveniently forgotten the events which took place in the cave and after it is discovered the group dissapeared in a different cave, an impromtu resuce mission is put in place, with Sarah leading the way. This is not Aliens. Instead it becomes a retread which never really explores anything new - never expanding on the crawlers, only once creating an effective claustraphobic scenes. The film also fails to give Sarah an arch. Once her memory is restored, through a few flashbacks, and some old footage from the camcorder which is conveniently recovered.

There are also problems with the characters. Firstly, there are three men who go down, completely changing the dynamic. In fact there is very little dynamic between the new group. There are attempts at characterisation, but we are dealing with poorly concieved stereotypes here. Add to that, the story's need to get to the killing as soon as possible, we are unlike in the original, not given any time to get to know these people, and how they react to their predicaments.

Also there is a complete lack of caving. For a rescue party they seems to be extemely unprepared for the potential crevices or kazaams they may have to cross. Especially considering the supplies the original troupe bought. Oh, but they do for some reason bring a drill, which is predictably used a gorey death scene.

What The Descent 2 has in adundance though is great death scenes. Some really gorey moments punctuate the story, and the return of some of the previous films cast make things interesting momentarily.

Then we get to the ending, and things become undermined again. Sarah is given a rushed arch and new motivation, tying in the death of her daughter again, although in no way as effectively, There are some excellent human on crawler fight scenes which rival the air-punching scenes of the original. But what the ending does badly is try to set up a further installment, whilst remaining true to the downbeat ending of The Descent. It hints that there could be more history to this cave than meets the eye, and that they may be humans who have known about this place for some time. It moves the franchise closer to films such as Hills have Eyes and those sinister backwards people out in the woods, without ever actually commiting to it.

So in many ways The Descent Part 2 is merely a homage to the original, but in its attempts to be original in its own right it moves away from the tone and style of the original concept and undermines the simplicity of the Neil Marshall's classic. Despite a few great scenes and some excellent deaths The Descent Part 2 never emerges from the shadow of the original and fails to give any of the characters the emotional depth or character archs. Jon Harris handles the direction with confidence and style; he will certainly be one to watch in the future, but the blunt script and familiar setting removes any of the tension and claustraphobia from the original.