Eastern Promise

Intense, brutal, menacing

A couple of years ago, it emerged that Will Smith (at the time an actor whose star was shining a little brighter than it is today) had signed on to star in a mystery thriller under the guidance of Hollywood's only no-risk, dollar printer himself, Steven Spielberg. It promised to be a taut, dramatic affair, tracing one man's journey from isolated imprisonment to a horrific denouement where the truth would emerge to be the most brutal punishment of all.

The Fresh Prince

This, by anyone's standards, was as a close as you get to a cinematic sure thing. So why was there a lack of excitement? Why, indeed was there an online petition to stop this film from going ahead at all? Because this was to be a re-make of Park Chan-Wook's brutally brilliant 'Oldboy'. I was amongst those who intially spouted with rage and railed against this American re-imagining/heating/gurgitating of a modern classic, simply to pander to those who couldn't be arsed to watch something with subtitles and without anyone regularly featured in the 'Spotted' pages of 'Heat'.

Spotted! Park Chan-Wook at Nando's Wood Green

Eventually, this project died a death, although how much this had to with fan power is unclear to me. So the recent news that the American 'Oldboy' is back on, perhaps under the title 'Olboiiii' to appeal to contemporary tastes. This time, Spike Lee will direct, with Josh Brolin in as protagonist. I want to hate the concept, and sometimes I wish Lee would shove his 'joints' into his own retinas (retini?)

But I don't. In fact, I'm looking forward to it. Of course, it's always going to be seen as a kind of sacrilege to remake a picture which, despite only being released 8 years ago, has almost out-stripped it's 'cult' beginnings to land somewhere close to the outers of the mainstream.

Of course, this doesn't mean the Lee/Brolin version will be any good. In all probability, it won't get close to the original, while the always the chance it will be as entertaining as cress. But there is hope..........

"She's behind you"!!! With massive fuck-off teeth

By all accounts, Matt Reeves' recent 'Let Me In' had it enough of it's own beats to enjoy whilst sticking closely to the core ingredients that made 'Let The Right One In' such a twisted joy, where it could have easily, and predictably, fallen flat on it's face.

This example also highlights how Hollywood is showing signs of moving away from simply remaking Asian horror, a staple of the early parts of this decade. Of course, there will always be a conveyor belt of slippery turds to endure. Exhibit A: Keifer Sutherland's 'Mirrors', a horror film so bad you would take 7 years bad luck over having to watch it. Then there's junk such as 'The Eye' and 'One Missed Call', examples of a lazy Hollywood devoid of imagination or pupose, essentially just replacing subtitles with Sarah Michelle-Gellar or someone who looks/screams like her.

But there's also the good stuff, some of it we don't even realise we almost missed. 'The Departed' may not be Scorcese's best, but it's still better than good, and wouldn't be here had the film makers not adapted Hong Kong's 'Infernal Affairs' from a decade or so ago.

'The Ring' was the first of the raft of Asian horror stream to occupy the Western pschye, and whilst it doesn't have the tension of the original, it's certainly not a bad film. In the same vein, 'The Grudge' remake retains most of the scares of the original, and is perhaps even on a par with it's predecessor. By the same, Norway's 1997 thriller 'Insomnia' didn't make much of a splash, until it was re-made with Pacino in 2002 and gave Christopher Nolan a platform to show he can do cat-and-mouse as well as anyone.



"I'm just not sure the colour is quite........me"



But perhaps the most interesting by-product of the remake trend is it's ironic capability to empower the viewer, to show them something they wouldn't otherwise seek out, or even be privy to. Let's be honest, if you're a subtitle-averse film viewer, no amount of film praise is ever really going to make you scout out a copy of 'Yojimbo'.



But if Hollywood can retain the essence of the original, without resorting to duplication, then the benefits are 2-fold. It can provoke the viewer into seeking out the original, even if it's for as trivial a reason as comparison, which certainly cona't hurt other markets. Secondly, it gives the audience something they wouldn't otherwise get, and it's surely better to see second best than nothing at all.

So whilst remakes will usually be inferior, and invariably lighter fare, they do have the capacity to surprise, and indeed push an original to a far bigger audience that it could have hoped for. Still though........Spike Lee?!

Great Expectations

ill.

When the spectacle and brou ha ha (it's a word) surrounding this summer's blockbusters subsides in a few weeks time, we'll be left with something of a void in terms of brash, bold action to steer us out of summer and into autumn. Good.

Because this is the time where some really interesting films can emerge, lying as they do between the visual orgy of summer and the 'For Your Consideration'  baiting worthiness that has to be submitted prior to each year's end.  

So imagine how my contempt for most things very briefly almost made way for a period of joyous apathy when I heard about this: new Steven Soderbergh film (good start), starring Matt Damon (cool), Larry Fishburne, Kate Winslet, Marion Cotillard (the best thing to come out of France since Dogtanian and Babybel), with the considerable back up talents of Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law. Oh...............

Also ill.

But, doubts aside, only the hardest of hearts could deem this line up unimpressive, each of them leads in their own right. So, what kind of vehicle do they get? My money was on something tricksy yet fun, a kind of Ocean's Eleven crossed with a bit of derring-do and a flash of action/Cotillard's left boob.

Nope. Not even close. On October 21, we get 'Contagion'. A film about, and I quote:

       " the threat posed by a deadly disease and an international team of doctors contracted by the CDC to deal with the outbreak" (IMDB).



Please don't be like this



Er. What? Damon, Soderbergh, hundreds of millions of dollars, and we get a film about glorified FUCKING MAN FLU???!!!! Never let your synopsis contain the words "international team of doctors". It isn't sexy, in fact it conjures up images of a big screen version of 'Casualty', which no one needs in their life.

I expected spies! Sex! Action! Smarts!

NOT WHOOPING COUGH SODERBERGH! NOT FUCKING WHOOPING COUGH!



Tenuously linked jpeg



Of course, I speak out of turn. The track record of all the above is almost beyond reproach. With credits between them of the calibre of films such as 'Public Enemies' and the entire 'Bourne' series, they make up a fair share of my film going highlights over recent times. But it's just the.............the expectation. It's very hard to get worked up over pretty people getting ill.

Lest we forget, Soderbergh polarises opinion at the best of times (Full Frontal/Solaris), so this shouldn't come as a surprise as he's never been one to conform to audience expectation. So maybe my initial scepticism is a good thing. A sign of imminent satisfaction. After all, hype and fanfare inevitably only bring disappointment, so this stealthy approach may well be a good thing, a way of managing expectations only to stun us with cinematic gold at a later date.

In fact, yes, I see what you're doing Mr Soderbergh. You've compiled the plots of every film ever shown on Channel 5 in a deliberate attempt to trick us into cynicism and bubbling anger. Genius.

But I see you for what you are Soderbergh, and I predict that come October 21, what will be unleashed is a tornado of human drama, a scathing metaphor for society cloaked in a suffocatingly tense picture laden with action and emotion.

 Masterful.

 But if not, please at least show a bit of boob.

Small Screen Big Screen Cardboard Box

Let's start with  a fact:

* 100% of big screen TV adaptations are shit. Alright, I'm rounding up the number, but if you consider it for a minute, probably not by much. This week sees the (not very) much anticipated cinema release of Channel 4's hit comedy 'The Inbetweeners'. Not seen it much, but good show. Obviously had a massive following in the UK, along with the kind of critical endorsement that Danny Dyer would 'give his nuts for'. It's had 3 series' to date (and may well return one day), and didn't seem to have reached saturation point just yet. In fact when you consider 'Two Pints And A Packet Of Crisps' was re-commissoned 8 times (E.I.G.H.T/ VIII) then 'The Inbetweeners' seemed positively in it's infancy.



Bad film



So with all the evident goodwill and zeitgeist behind it, why not make a film of it?! Wouldn't that be a laugh!!! Well, probably not. History says as much. Yes, there's a been a few examples of films striking out successfully from their TV roots (South Park being one), but consider the considerable evidence against: 'The X-Files', '24', 'Miami Vice' (yes, it's bad), 'Charlie's Angels', 'The Dukes of Hazzard', 'Starsky & Hutch' and, most importantly of all, 'Kevin & Perry Go Large'.

Kevin and Perry Go Home.
Please.

The latter was of course based on an overblown sketch, a couple of teenagers rebelling, getting into scrapes, then trying to get laid on a generic Euroisland. It bombed. Deservedly. There was barely enough plot in the TV version to fill the small screen. Sound familiar?

British comedy struggles to unearth real gems, and it's only every now and again that a 'Royle Family' or 'The Office' comes along and laughs a nation into bed. These were 2 comedies that shunned the bright lights of the multiplex, and rightly so. The result? Legacy intact.

In it's defence, 'The Inbetweeners' may turn out to be that rare exception to the rule, but the timing smacks of financial greed and audience manipulation. British film fundng is again at a low ebb, and striking whilst the iron is hot means the captive audience will make this a relative success, but it's far more likely that the producers will take their money back ten fold whilst delivering a contrived package and damage a show that could have been left to carry on doing what it did best, being good.



Definitely not a film awards

An hour long epsiode featuring the japes and antics of teens abroad would be pushing it, 100 minutes seems a fragrant and opportunistic cash in.

Of course, if the venture does end in tears, slipping back in to the comfortable slippers of a weekly repeat slot on Channel 4 won't mean the show suddenly dying a death. But it may leave a critical wound which could be tough to recover from. The great shows have always tended to leave the audience wanting more. By cashing in so transparently, 'The Inbetweeners' is in danger of leaving them, full stop.

Too Many Crooks....



No, not this one.



It's now, give or take, about 270 days until the release of what will undoubtedly be, bar a very quick turnaround on Basic Instinct 3, the most anticipated flick of 2012, The Avengers.

That's 270 days for the hype machine to go even further into overdrive, to whip our collective cinematic psyche into a deeper frenzy, and 270 days for the drip feed of teasers, trailers, adverts, and press junkets to lead us dribbling towards to the box office next May.

Will it work? Of course. It takes a behemoth of some magnitude to out hype the third and final outing of Christopher Nolan's thus far impeccable Batman series.



Hawkeye: "Legolas is gay"



Should we be worried? Probably. If big screen history teaches us anything, it's that big, ensemble action pictures with more characters than the Bible generally flatter to deceive. More than most, I want Joss Whedon to disprove this theory and provide the exception to the rule. But it will take something special, something that even the likes of Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson couldn't muster, to triumph come next summer.

The odds are stacked against Whedon, however. So far, confirmed characters include Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, Bambi, Black Widow and Nick Fury. God is rumoured to be in negotiations to play himself. With blockbusters these days rarely running over 2 and a half hours, this will leave approximately 19 seconds of exposure for each of Marvel's biggest players to stamp their mark and then disappear stage left before the screen explodes. And all this, by the way, will occur after we have seen Mark Ruffalo as the new Hulk and Jeremy Renner take on the role of Hawkeye in their own films, just so that by next summer we have more of a chance of knowing what's going on when they all collide.

Please. Fucking. End.



Oh dear.



It's telling that two of the best and most successful trilogies of the past decade also trod this familiar, bloated path, and paid the price. Spiderman 3 crowbarred in multiple villains in the shape of Venom, The Green Goblin, and Sandman, resulting in  a fatty mess which marred the series as a whole. To a lesser degree, Jackson's inability to end The Return of The King without 176 false starts meant the (still sublime) trilogy climaxing with a whimper instead of a bang.



Whedon clearly has the chops to make complex, character-laden pieces work. Lest we forget this is the man who steered the Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel series' to success, and the writer responsible for penning ensemble pieces like Serenity and Toy Story to such acclaim. But these former successes have been created on a vast canvas, TV's episodic, leisurely pacing giving so much more time to weave such a complex tapestry than the relative confines of a summer blockbuster.

The Avengers will do business, it will probably break records. But it's by avoiding the pitfalls suffered by so many predecessors that The Avengers will ultimately be judged. Here's hoping.