Today's Mini-Review: Death Race

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

Starring: Jason Statham, Joan Allen, Ian McShane

Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson

USA/UK: Universal Pictures, 2008

A good remake keeps the message of its predecessor intact, just altered to fit and reflect the times that influenced its own production. Since Paul Bartel's and Roger Corman's original exploitation movie Death Race 2000 didn't pretend to have a message to speak off, but instead aimed to be a simply entertaining action flick hellbent on giving spectators a gory thrill ride filled with absurdist jokes making fun of politics for the heck of it, there was room for negotiation in that regard when the time was deemed right to tell the story again. The good-humoured gags and slightly satirical and subversive elements were brusquely traded in for a more serious approach, as the new Death Race is set in a bleak world where the economy is in such a shambles the huge masses can only be appeased by watching other people, worse off than they are and pushed into a life of crime, engage in excessively risqué driving behavior. Inmates are offered a chance to reclaim their freedom in return for surviving a race where they must win by avoiding lethal obstacles and more importantly, each other as the goal is to viciously dispatch other contestants. Enter Jason Statham, who by now is well known for playing tough characters who won't tolerate such conditions and fight back with a vengeance.

Statham plays Jensen Ames, an honest man skilled in driving who lost his job and subsequently his wife, quickly framed for her death and sent to serve for life in jail. The wicked warden of the prison, an ice cold Joan Allen, obviously with a sinister agenda of her own, offers him a potential way out by competing in her 'Death Race' programme under the guise of a recently deceased racing legend called Frankenstein, a favorite of the crowd. Of course Ames turns out just as efficient a driver as he works his way through the game, brutally taking out many an adversary along the way and annoying his most fierce opponent, Machine Gun Joe (Tyrese Gibson). As he discovers there's more to his inclusion in the race than simply his established skill set and the warden may have been involved in the murder of his wife, Ames' objective evolves from winning the race to escaping it. Names and a general premise are about as much as this film and its Seventies' counterpart have in common. Very different in style, the modern version is an effective popcorn flick of an action film, but lacking a character of its own and feeling a tad generic overall. No poking fun at politics here. Prison clichés cannot be avoided, as is the case of sidekick typecasting (an old mentor, a nerdy technician, a hot dame as co-driver, you get it). About as inventive as the character set-up gets is Joe's status as a (black) homosexual, a notion with which nothing is done in the course of the film. Why would it anyway? The film is all about racing kick-ass cars making kills.

What Death Race lacks in terms of characters it more than makes up for when it comes to its real stars, the four-wheeled (or more) monstrous machines that form its main attraction. Various grizzly hot-rods adorned with all kinds of deadly accessories have been assembled by a clearly enthusiastic design and stunt team, guaranteeing quite the spectacle as they are pitted against each other in road racing, asphalt blazing fury. The plethora of grotesque vehicles – including an impressive monster truck loaded with ingenious weaponry – steering and hacking their way through a course of rusty, rundown warehouses makes for an eerie, hopeless post-industrial look reminiscent of such classic action fare the likes of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, except with the constant attention of the panoptical media at its back dominating every move of the race to ensure audience attendance. And despite the blandness of their characters, the cast does a solid job making this grim world feel convincing, Statham doing what he does best (and we wouldn't have it any other way). However, under the direction of action specialist Paul W.S. Anderson (not that Paul Anderson, as this one is not known for his carefully balanced quality storytelling), the movie never conveys the idea that it might revolve around more than just decently dynamic action scenes. If it's butch cars you want, it's butch cars you get, might as well have been the film's tagline. All else is merely secondary.

As a whole, the major differences between this latest Death Race and the original are the result of a bigger budget and scope. A true message is still not a thing of note. The 2008 version simply looks cooler and feels slicker because it had the money at its disposal, but it plays it safe by staying in its comfort zone, solely delivering action while devoid of surprise, instead of throwing oddities and black humour in the mix like the original could afford for being a smaller, independent production. Nevertheless, its tactics proved successful enough to spawn two direct-to-video sequels, and so the premise returned to its more exploitative roots (just not in a particularly good way).

And if you don't like disturbing race car driving, there's always this new Game of Thrones Season 4 trailer to drool over:

 

Today's Mini-Review: Death Race 2000

Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10

Starring: Sylvester Stallone, David Carradine, Simone Griffeth

Directed by Paul Bartel

USA: New World Pictures, 1975

Ah, dystopian societies... If they're not engaged in brutalizing their own population, they're exploring new avenues of keeping the crowd in line by trite but true methods of 'panem et circenses', also guaranteeing their own existence is kept in check by ruling through that most potent combination of fear and wonder. Some form of gladiatorial event is ever a popular choice, appealing to the inhabitants of the totalitarian regime (or simply intimidating them) as well as to cinemagoers around the globe who cannot help but be mesmerized by the ruthless spectacle that ever delivers a paradoxical sense of blatant abjection and undeniable attraction. While these days the rage consists of teenagers battling each other to the death in fancy arenas, far more colourful and bizarre forms of contest have been portrayed at the movies in earlier decades. In 1975 Rollerball introduced spectators to the sport of the same name, an odd combination between hockey and boxing, that helped set new standards of onscreen violence. Capitalizing on the advance press publicity for this film, producer Roger Corman wasn't afraid to cannibalize the notion of 'blood sports' in order to produce an exploitation film making use of similar themes, thereby taking advantage of the media interest in the topic and subsequently beating Rollerball's theatrical release by a mere two months. And so a cult hit was born with Death Race 2000.

As the title successfully indicates, the premise of the movie revolves around a lethal race set in the then futuristic sounding year 2000. After the merger of the two major American political parties when the economy collapsed, a dictatorship runs the country and the titular contest is used to keep the populace satiated, bound to their television screens instead of giving them the opportunity to go out and start plotting the government's downfall. Contestants drive across the continent and win the race not only by driving faster than their opponents but also by the number of accidental bystanders they purposefully run down. Throwing out all morality, killing kids and old folk scores you more points than hitting people in their prime, as it's the utter depravity of the kill that determines the number of points awarded. To make matters even more interesting (and weird), each driver has a theme applied to their car, so we witness zany cars in Roman, Western and gangster style designs. Commentary on the race is given by the most obnoxious sportscasters imaginable to enhance the viewer's general sense of 'what-the'f**k'. The most popular participants of the 2000 race are Frankenstein (David Carradine, the world's most (in)famous autoerotic asphyxiation victim) and Machine Gun Joe Viterbo (a pre-Rocky Sylvester Stallone), both very able killer car drivers with little to no compunctions about hitting pedestrians hard. Frankenstein however finds himself caught in a ploy from a resistance movement to sabotage the race and assassinate the president, but he holds his private motives and political convictions (if any) as well. As the deplorable race progresses, Frankenstein must both survive his race rivals and outwit political insurgents who would abuse him as a puppet for their own shady agenda.

As you may have gathered, unlike Rollerball, Death Race 2000 has no pretensions of being a serious film, as it's more occupied with satirizing the social mores and the role of the media than with exploring the changing nature of violence in present day society; a major theme in the Seventies, as movies got increasingly more bloody and gory and actual violent incidents were allegedly inspired by such audiovisual fare, making society fear civilization was rapidly spiralling out of control. Though a fair amount of blood and gore (and nudity to top it off) is present in Death Race 2000, the movie mostly feels like a comedy and wants to do just that, making ample fun of people's projections of the future debasement of political standards and the mental deterioration caused by the media dumbing people down by pushing mindless drivel down their throats. It's easy to read social commentary in this film, even though Corman and the film's director Paul Bartel have no desire to come off as overly political, instead opting only to make a simple fun and ridiculous movie appealing to bored teenagers, appropriating themes and trends of the day just to ensure the movie makes more money than it cost (always a specialty of Corman's). Their intentions are adequately underscored by cheap production design, cheesy oneliners and completely over-the-top performances throughout the picture. With such ingredients and lack of willful message, it's no surprise Death Race 2000 became a smash cult hit, generating quite a profit from its obvious low budget (only around 300,000 bucks). A remake (and two sequels to that) starring Jason Statham would eventually follow, which traded in the good humour for a much grittier and convincing look and cars and stuntsto match that actually delivered the spectacle dystopian society already promised its audience three decades earlier.

Today's Double News: apes and agents

Old news by now (I was busy these last few days I'll have you know), but since I wrote it I post it here today regardless:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152961/_rupert_friend_vervangt_paul_walker_als_agent_47

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152922/reeves_terug_voor_planet_of_the_apes_3

The signs of the impact of Paul Walker's demise continue to reveal themselves as recuperation is in order for a second project that he signed on for but obviously is unable to complete. In this case little actual work had been done on the film in question so the damage his death hath wrought is not nearly as severe as on Fast and Furious 7. And since it was a reboot with no ties to the previous incarnation of the cinematic Hitman legacy (in terms of casting at least), recasting was the most simple and cost-effective of solutions. One actor known for his expertise when it comes to action sequences replaces another as Rupert Friend has filled Walker's boots. No biggie, really? The general public probably won't realize or care about this switch when the movie 'hits' theatres (see what I did there?). Was another Hitman movie necessary or something the public was clamoring for? Not really, otherwise the studio would have made a sequel to the 2007 movie sooner. Since that movie wasn't received all that well and video game adaptations are still a much maligned phenomenon, I doubt this reboot will fare that much better at the boxoffice, but that doesn't stop the studio from trying its luck. Odd thing here is the fact the guy who wrote the previous film is also scripting the new one. He must have done something right if the studio doesn't bother with finding a different writer.

Speaking of people who are doing things right in terms of making movies (look at me, applying effective segues all of a sudden!), it seems Matt Reeves is one of them. Fox apparently liked what he made of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes so much they signed him on as director for a third film, six months prior to the release of his current project. So other than studio bosses, nobody has had the chance to deduce whether the current cut of Dawn is indeed any good, we'll just have to take it on good faith. Happens a lot in Hollywood these days, movies being geared up while their predecessors haven't even been finished yet, because the studio is convinced the movie is awesome, and so the finanical results will be. If Dawn proves a dud at the boxoffice (I personally doubt that, but the possibility is always lurking around the corner), you'll see the third movie will be swiftly scrapped despite ample dollars having been spent on it already. Also an increasingly common occurrence. Hollywood nowadays just doesn't dare risk losing the audience's attention if they got a good franchise going. Wait too long and the public might lose interest after all. Mindless consumers have no memory, they might as well say. It seems they instead opt for rushing sequels into production, in hopes that tactic pays off. Rise of the Planet of the Apes did better than expected, so the same could very well be true for Dawn (I sincerely hope so, since I too liked Rise). Reeves in my mind is a very capable director, so if the studio says he's making a good film out of Dawn, I'm inclined to believe it, even if it proves to be just a marketing tactic. You've got intelligent apes in a post-apocalyptic world fighting humans, so what are the odds of a screw-up here anyway? Okay, so the original concept wasn't explored so satisfactorily in the Seventies with Battle for the Planet of the Apes (I blame the mutant element of that film), but let's have a little faith here. So far every project featuring Andy Serkis donning a goofy mo-cap outfit has turned into a major success.

On a sidenote, something that doesn't seem to have been such a success (there I go again!) this week turned out to be a fabulous little show called Boardwalk Empire, which I thoroughly enjoyed as it happened. We'll get one more season to round things up and that's that. They better give the show a decent send-off, or I might go al(l) Capone on HBO (the witticisms continue). Fortunately we'll always have Game of Thrones. New teaser for the trailer was released this week, the actual piece will follow tommorrow. Hear me cheer!

Today's Mini-Review: The Deadly Mantis

Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10

Starring: Craig Stevens, William Hopper, Alix Talton

Directed by Nathan Juran

USA: Universal Pictures, 1957

Giant movie monsters, usually (though not necessarily) spawn or awakened by atomic experiments, that subsequently went rampaging through unsuspecting cities could be divided into two categories in the Fifties, the decade in which they were most prevalent. The first and most famous category was reptilian in nature, and hearkened back to Willis O'Brien's Brontosaurus crushing London in 1925's The Lost World, eventually giving rise to the famous ultimate atomic nightmare Gojira (1954) (though certainly not stopping there). The second category consists of the various types of creepy crawlies that together can be sided under the general moniker of 'bugs'. As notable creatures in this regard the giant ants of Them! (1954), the gargantuan 'sixtopus' of Ray Harryhausen's It Came from Beneath the Sea (1955) and the oversized spider in Tarantula (1955) deserve honorable mention. Less well known is the tremendously large praying mantis from The Deadly Mantis, which is not surprising since it offers little that has not been seen in other bug movies, save a different monstrous creature threatening mankind. Nevertheless, it's a fairly entertaining atomic age flick.

Surprisingly, the origin of the titular beastie is not actually atomic. In this case, a volcanic eruption is responsible for freeing a 200-ft long prehistoric mantis – since everybody knows that in prehistoric times every animal was stupendously big after all – from its Arctic tomb. The effect is all the same though. The creature travels southwards, wreaking havoc and killing many people in its path. The United States military soon responds to the loss of its polar outposts and sends a team to investigate, which includes a paleontologist, a handsome army officer and a beautiful woman. Of course, the latter pair predictably gets more involved with each other than with the big bug running rampant, as is all too typical for movies from this era. But when the mantis finally attacks Washington D.C. decisive military action is called for and the team searches for a way to annihilate their hideous opponent. But naturally not before it has had a decent opportunity to terrorize a few national landmarks, also an ever delightful genre staple.

Nathan Juran, who would continue making similar pictures like The Brain from Planet Arous (1957) and the original cult classic Attack of the 50 ft Woman (1958), serves as a capable director for crafting an enjoyable monster movie out of a by this time already worn-out premise, which betrays his qualities that would later cause him to become a valuable collaborator on several excellent Harryhausen movies, namely the rather similar 20 Million Miles to Earth (1957) in which a reptilian/humanoid Venusian threatens Rome, First Men in the Moon (1964) and of course, the wonderful 7^th Voyage of Sinbad (1958). The obvious mantis mock-up doesn't look as phony as it could have looked under the instructions of a lesser director (though a far cry from realistic), while the cast plays their parts convincingly enough for this type of B-movie. While The Deadly Mantis proves less than a stellar entry into the 'creature' subgenre of the 1950s, it remains somewhat of a cult favorite among fans of the science fiction pictures of the era. However, it's also exemplary of the tail end of the decade, that witnessed the notion of big beasties trampling both civilization and audiences' interest to death in rapid succession in ever cheaper and worse movies, despite the decent start offered by all too similar pictures in the first few years of the First Wave of science fiction films. Don't blame the mantis for that though.

Today's Review: Philomena

Finally another review for MS:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152474/philomena_-_recensie

Not the greatest dramatic presentation, nor the funniest of comedies. Rather an average film, a true mixed bag in every sense of the word, despite the intriguing and stil fairly topical substance. Damn fine good old fashioned British acting though, as could be expected. This was the last film shown in the now deceased Provadja theater in my home town of Alkmaar. Not the best swan song imaginable, but a far cry from a wasted evening. As for the lack of arthouse now plaguing Alkmaar, events have been set in motion to remedy that, and I'm happy to be a part of it. Hopefully those in need of finer, more thought provoking cinema will soon be able to get their occasional fix again. If I have anything to say about it, better titles will be made available, though there's bound to be a few disappointments down the road (well, sorry!).

Today's News: Spidey slinging into more action on novel poster threesome

Here's some more MS news for ya:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152901/nieuwe_posters_voor_the_amazing_spider-man_2

The marketing campaign for The Amazing Spider-Man 2 continues to throw more goodies our way in rapid pace, even though the release of the film is still a good three point five months away. I must say, I both love and hate this particular set of posters. I like the dynamic pose of the protagonists on these, rather reminiscent of actual comic book cover art, especially the one showing Spidey in typical web slinging fashion (top). They're bound to get more enthusiastic attention than the rather dull posters of Sam Raimi's trilogy of movies, which in typical Hollywood fashion showed just a bunch of heads, or at best, a full shot of Spider-Man in a fairly energetic posture. The poster that shows an extreme close-up of Spider-Man's mask with a reflection of an angry Electro in his eye (bottom) certainly can be taken as a nod to some of the posters of the predecessors, where you would have the identity of the movie's main antagonist revealed in a similar fashion, except much smaller.

However, I'm bugged by the laziness of these posters, applying the same elements in slightly different order and size. Whereas there's a respectable diversity in the way the titular character is displayed, you'll notice Electro assumes an identical pose on all three one-sheets, as the exact same piece of imagery is used. A similar thing is happening with the video boards on all three posters, showing the same characters in precisely the same shots. It's like some member of the promotional team just had him/herself a ball photoshopping these posters by rearranging the way said elements are portrayed, the only piece showing any originality being our friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man himself. Given there's still three months of marketing to be done, you wonder whether releasing a single new poster of Spidey versus Electro would not have sufficed for now, so more money and attention could be spend on following posters showing Rhino and Green Goblin too (even though there's a hint at the Goblin present here, poor Rhino is totally neglected on these posters!). Assuming such posters won't be released later on, which remains to be seen as this film's promotional campaign seems to go all-out. Even though the blatant similarities on these posters are kinda disappointing for movie/comic nerds nitpicking at home on their computers for lack of existential purpose, it probably won't matter where theater marketing is concerned. I doubt many theaters, save for the really big ones, will get all three of these anyhow, considering there's been a few TAS-M2 (much shorter!) posters released already - though at my theater we didn't receive any yet - and I doubt these will be the last of them. Besides, it's only posters: it's the actual movie that counts. I'm certainly looking forward to it, though I'm kinda hesitant about the presence of three baddies (plus hints to various others) all in a single film. Didn't work out so well the last time...

Today's News: Spielberg back for clash of conquistadors?

Hot off MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/152883/spielberg_maakt_mogelijk_montezuma

Spielberg is having a tough time in Hollywood at the moment. His Robopocalypse got cancelled while already in production (and after a year of development hell still hasn't resumed filming), and he stepped out of American Sniper (after which Clint Eastwood took over that particular project, so it'll still be a good movie). He hasn't signed on to direct anything else at present, though he is expected to do Indiana Jones 5 whenever that gets geared up. So what's a world renowned director to do? He's not the type to retire (despite pushing his seventies), so looking for new material is his best bet. Maybe he finally found something worth his while with Dalton Trumbo's Montezuma script (or the current adaptation by his colleague of old Steve Zaillian), one of the grand unfilmed scenarios in Hollywood for nigh on five decades. The epic tale of conquest and historical tragedy seems perfectly suited for a visionary director like Spielberg, who has shown to respect history without sacrificing the need for artistic license in favor of dramatic effect the audience craves. But what's to say Hollywood won't back out of this project as well? Historical epics are not exactly a hot item at present, nor are they guaranteed to bring in the big bucks, though they sure tend to cost a lot of bucks. Personally I think Spielberg would do better crafting a miniseries for television out of this, similar to his WWII dramas Band of Brothers and The Pacific. History does a lot better on telly these days, and quality TV would only enhance the possibilities of storytelling to the better. Cortez' brutal tale of conquest is rife with violence and suffering, exactly the type of story that would suit an HBO adaptation perfectly. Taking into account Spielberg already predicted the fall of Hollywood due to overexpensive productions not seeing their profits returned and thus dragging studios into bankruptcy: coupled with his own professional troubles in the studio system in recent years (he had major problems getting Lincoln going to), you'd think he himself would come to the conclusion that the past has more of a future on the home screens.

As for Javier Bardem as Cortez, I'm all for it. He's from Spain, he excels in playing brutal and cruel characters and he's a terrific actor too, so there's no reason against it in my mind, especially if he's motivated to play the part himself.