REVIEW: Safe House

Paranoid conspiracy thrillers have, irritatingly, become a staple of Hollywood cinema of late. Every month or so, a movie will be released that focuses on some government agency, usually the CIA, and some poor schmuck who gets tangled up in a supposedly important and top-secret conspiracy, which, if unravelled, will expose corruption from within the agency. A craze I can't help but think that, as much as I love the films, was started by the Bourne trilogy.

So Safe House is unfortunately a prime example of this. A young rookie agent – Ryan Reynolds – is the "housekeeper" of a CIA "safe house". Hardman Denzel Washington, meanwhile, is brought in as a "houseguest", having just handed himself in in order to avoid being killed.  Mid-interrogation a group of intimidating men enter the building and proceed to shoot everything in sight, meaning Reynolds and Washington must go on the run to avoid being killed. Predictable plot twists ensue.

As you may have guessed from the previous paragraphs, this is a movie full of clichés. Everything has been done before and better. The only distinguishing aspect of the movie is its cast, the majority of who try to make the best of a flimsy plot. Denzel Washington brings his trademark charisma to the role, relishing the opportunity to be the bad guy, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Faminga are good in supporting roles and, despite all of his previous sins (Green Lantern, I'm looking at you), I actually don't mind Ryan Reynolds and his performance.

But the biggest flaw here is the movie itself, with its dull plot and characters, mostly consisting of chase scenes and the occasional bit of weak development. You could argue that it's light entertainment, and there are certainly worse films to go and see on a Friday night – however, there's an unpleasantness to the action, which makes the film feel grimy. All in all though, this is just the same film you saw last month.

★★

REVIEW: Carnage

Adapting the play The God of Carnage into a motion picture seemed like a strange choice to me for a number of reasons, but most prominently being the fact that the play consists of four actors doing very little but talk on stage for around 90 minutes or so. Don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting it – on the contrary, in the atmosphere of the theatre this format often works very well, as we can focus on the script and characters with little distractions – but, traditionally, this doesn't translate particularly well to the medium of motion pictures.

Yet, despite being a shot-for-shot, or rather angle-for-shot, remake of the play (which feels like we're observing it from the best seats in the audience), Carnage actually does work.  It's a hugely entertaining slice of comedic drama, with emphasis on outrageous attitudes and unpleasant characters being humiliated and ridiculed for the sake of comedy. The story begins with two boys having a fight in the park, which leads to one attacking the other with a stick. It then moves on to their parents having a meeting discussing their sons' behaviour and the subsequent action they should take. As the afternoon progresses, however, the social boundaries between the characters break down, and they become far more aggressive towards each other, slowly reverting back to their childish instincts.

The success of this movie must partly be attributed to the skill of director Roman Polanski. After adapting the phenomenally dull The Ghost a few years back, it appears he's back on form with his latest adaptation (he has, for some reason, had a lack of original ideas of late). While it is true that, yes, the movie is basically a filming of the aforementioned play, it's done so in a style that retains the original atmosphere (to some extent).

However, I believe that the real reason why the movie is such a success is because of the excellent cast; John C. Reilly, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz, all of whom are Oscar-nominated and the latter three are Oscar-winning (Jodie Foster has actually won two, the greedy...woman). Reilly is very funny, drawing on his moronic everyman image, and Foster and Winslet are both good – Foster in particular plays against type, with her character acting both needy and vulnerable – but it's Waltz who manages to steal the show as an unpleasant corporate executive who can't stay off the phone. The cast pull off the tricky feat in keeping the audience interested in four very dislikeable people throughout the course of the movie – it's worth saying that, with maybe the exception of Winslet's character (to some extent), we feel no sympathy for these characters.

While the movie is by no means a masterpiece, it's certainly refreshing to see a Hollywood picture with such a sharp script, free of any form of sentimentality of redemption, just focusing on comedy and satire. And for that, I respect it.

★★★½

FEATURE: E.T. Phone Hollywood

Every now and then, I'll be writing a feature centred around a movie that I watched the previous night, and I'll try and get some kind of discussion out of it. Kicking things off is a movie I taped a long time ago, and only just got around to watching; James Cameron's The Abyss.

So if you haven't seen The Abyss, it's a pretty good movie for what it is; a group of oil workers and marines dive deep into the sea to rescue a nuclear submarine, and discover something...else. It's tense, claustrophobic - all of the things which a good underwater movie should be. And, if like me, you have a morbid fear of deep, dark water, then this will certainly provide to be, at best, uncomfortable viewing and, at worst, viewing which makes you curl up into a ball and sob like a little girl (I don't wish to give away spoilers, but there's an agonizing segment dealing with the effects of pressure when descending into the depths of the titular trench).

But there's little point in reviewing a 22-year-old movie. If you've heard if it, then you've probably seen it and read various other reviews, and if you haven't heard of it, then, well, you probably don't care. But I'd like to take this opportunity to take a look at a particular aspect of The Abyss, which was pretty integral to its plot. I am talking, of course about the presence of aliens.

 

Now, aliens have been a part of the industry for a very long time now - dating back to 1902 - but it seems that the quality of these creatures can vary from the brilliant to the flat-out awful, even in today's world of high tech CGI. In this case, James Cameron can do aliens very well (see Avatar), as he makes these kindly extra-terrestrials seem both stunning and haunting, due to the clever use of purple light. Yet in the hands of a lesser director, the movie could have turned out to be far worse. This is why I present my list of the best and worst aliens present in movies.

THE GOOD: Alien (1979)

Might as well start off with one of the all-time classic monsters of 20th Century horror cinema. Created by the very, very strange H. R.Giger, it was the star of the movie Alien, directed by Ridley Scott. The success of the alien, or "xenomorph", wasn't simply due to the design of the monster itself (despite it being magnificent), but due to the expert handling of it by one of the world's greatest directors. Only ever glimpsed throughout most of the movie, Scott managed to create tension by alternating fake scares (a cat jumping out of a locker) with genuine ones (the creature slowly appearing, out of focus), and made one of the scariest and most iconic haunted-house style movies of all time.

THE BAD: Dreamcatcher (2003)

On the other end of the spectrum come the phenomenally awful "shit-weasels" from Dreamcatcher. A horrible concept to being with (you get infected by aliens, this thing grows in your stomach then exits out of your rear end, killing you in the process), this was made worse by surprisingly awful special effects. Not Stephen King's finest moment, and certainly not sci-fi cinema's finest moment. Moving on...

THE GOOD: District 9 (2009)

It's no secret that I love this movie. First-time director Neil Blomkamp used a documentary style when creating this alien-invasion flick, and it works brilliantly. The aliens, already established in South Africa when the movie begins, are rejected by humanity, and confined to a slum known as District 9. These "prawns" (as they have been nicknamed) feel both alien and human at the same time, clearly a different species but one which shares many of the emotions we do. The undercurrent of segregation adds another layer of depth to an already great movie.

THE BAD: Signs (2002)

Now, don't get me wrong, I liked Signs. I thought it was an interesting, tense alien invasion movie, with decent performances from Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix. But, unfortunately, the ending let itself down. It was inevitable that the monster would have to be revealed, due to the building tension throughout the movie, and the idea behind it was solid. Yet the special effects were a genuine let down here, portraying it as awkward, cheesy and, simply put, rubbish. What a shame.

THE GOOD: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

How could I not include E.T.? The original (in my opinion) alien was the star of one of the best family movies ever made in the history of motion pictures. This cute little guy bewitched the heart of millions of children (mine included) and adults alike, and still gives me nostalgia when I watch it to this day. In fact, I'm not ashamed to say that this has made me cry on several occasions, both past and present. Don't judge me.

THE BAD: Mac & Me (1988)

And at the other end of the spectrum is this embarrassment. A blatant rip-off of E.T. with absolutely none of the charm, depth, or anything that made it a masterpiece, this is a hollow cash-grab of a movie, with an awful-looking alien. This doesn't even deserve talking about; it represents the worst of cinematic culture and has zero artistic merit. This is making me feel sick just thinking about it. Blargh.

NEWS: Testing the waters

Having extensively worked on my domain name for a very long time, I have finally ventured into the intimidating world of blogging. I welcome you to the tragically unoriginal "Movie Bash" (the best I could come up with with a total lack of imagination), a blog where I review movies and the like, as well as discussing the world’s current movie-related affairs. Don't be surprised if I hypocritically review the odd video game or TV show as well.