Inferno - Movie Review

Title: Inferno

Year: 2016

Director: Ron Howard

Writer: David Koepp

Cast: Tom Hanks, Felicity Jones, Omar Sy, Irrfan Khan and Ben Foster

Bias: I read the book.

"The greatest sins in human history were committed in the name of love." - Robert Langdon

Dan Brown is one of those authors that knows what his fans want and then delivers it to them in spades. The formula for his books is quite simple: have an interesting mystery full of puzzles to solve, write short, action-packed chapters so people can't put the book down, sprinkle a couple of cities and their art and history, and viola. Obviously, this is a slight oversimplification, although it goes to the heart of it all.

In contrast, the films based on the novels don't tend to enjoy the same level of easy craftsmanship that the books enjoy. The characters tend to be uninteresting on screen and the action never really translates to the page. Those same problems plague the newest Robert Langdon adventure. Langdon (Tom Hanks) is a Harvard professor that teaches symbology and iconology and one day finds himself waking up in a hospital with a head wound and no idea how he got there. Dr. Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) saves his life and they both find themselves embroidered in transhuman scientist Bertrand Zobrist's (Ben Foster) plan to help the world's overpopulation problem by releasing a virus that will kill most of human kind. A bunch of other people are also looking for the virus for different reasons.

The most interesting thing about this film is the one thing that was touched for a second and then forgotten. Would you kill 3 billion people if it meant saving humanity? The moral quandary is dismissed derisively by the characters and it is never touched fully, except to make it seem like a crazy thing. Moral questions of these kind are interesting to me, and while I know it might not be interesting to watch, I would have liked to see them think about it for a moment.

To me, not having the moral discussion worked against the film as it just makes the film become the 'good v. evil' trope we are so used to. It also totally misses the whole point of the book which it was based on.

In technical aspects, Ron Howard is very good, as he always is. The shots of Venice, Istanbul and Florence are breathtaking, especially the artwork and architecture. The actors seemed to be dozing off, even while running around. I've never really liked Hanks as Robert Langdon and Felicity Jones matches him in a passionless and unconvincing portrayal. Even Hans Zimmer score felt passionless.

I will give this film 5 Mickey Mouse wristwatches out of 10

Swiss Army Man - Film Review

Title: Swiss Army Man

Year: 2016

Director: Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert

Writers: Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert

Cast: Paul Dano, Daniel Radcliffe and Mary Elizabeth Winstead

We're gonna die. That's a thought. Everybody dies. I'm sorry if this makes me weird or you don't understand, but I wish I was dead again. - Manny

Most films are formulaic, not only in the way they are told, but in the way they are filmed. Whenever a film comes along that challenges that, I take my time to check it out. I think it is important to talk about films with something to say. Thus, there is Swiss Army Man. The film tells the story of Hank (Paul Dano), a man stranded in a deserted island who, while trying to commit suicide, finds a corpse on the shore who he eventually calls Manny (Daniel Radcliffe). What happens next, is one of the strangest trips a film has taken me to this year.

One part fun buddy movie, two parts introspective analysis of self-worth, loneliness and depression and ten parts what-in-the-actual-fuck crazy, the film ha a lot more to say than the crass, ridiculous comedy it pretends to be. Besides all the fart and dick jokes, which this film has a plethora of, the film is strangely life-affirming and sweet in the way it portrays its characters. Hank is a man with some serious emotional issues, and while he seems controlling and weird, at first, you end up rooting for them both by the end of the film.

I have to give a lot of credit to directors Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert for taking a chance on a script that is completely over the top and complex and layered. The two of them had just done shorts and television before getting their directorial debut with this film. The film is not only visual, but it also goes deep with its philosophy. The movie makes you question the reality in the film, you never really know what is going on, except that a suicidal man is trying to convince a corpse that life is worth living. Which, when you think about it, is very clever.

Credit also goes to Daniel Radcliffe and Paul Dano, especially Radcliffe. After making Harry Potter, he could have just phoned it in, but he has decided to make a bunch indie films he is passionate about. Radcliffe is more alive, as a dead person, than with most of what other actors with his money and fame have been doing for a while.

Even the music for this film was great and of a high quality.

Finally, this is not a film for everyone. I know some people will just not like it because it is crass and disgusting. But, if you can see further than that, you will probably appreciate what is a wholly original story that is deceptively smart with a good team behind it that deserves your support. if you are tired of sequelitis and remakeatitis, then you should go and check out Swiss Army Man. If nothing else, I'm sure you will not see anything else like it this year.

I will give this film 8 farting corpses out of 10. 

The Shit is Dead is back!

Hello everyone, Loz here. 

After a few years of writing reviews for Geek Whale, I have decided to bring back this endeavor I started way back when with my friend Chiko.

I will be doing movie reviews, TV show reviews, book reviews, columns about pop culture and whatever strikes my fancy. I might eventually do a podcast, hopefully, probably... Hope you enjoy. 

Andrei Tarkovsky Spotlight: Ivan's Childhood

Film Review - Ivan's Childhood

Andrei Tarkovsky did one more student film after “There Will Be No Leave Today” called “The Steamroller and the Violin”. I haven’t found it yet, so whenever I can get to it, I will. This next film, his debut film, is probably one of the most important films to be made in the Soviet Union at that time. Released in 1962, Tarkovsky stumbled into this project when the original director, Eduard Abalov, was fired from the film. Thankfully, Vadim Yusov, the cinematographer on “Ivan’s Childhood” had worked previously with Tarkovsky on “The Steamroller and the Violin”.

The film was based on a novella called “Ivan” by Soviet writer Vladimir Bogomolov. The film tells the story of young Ivan Bondarev, a 12 year old that lost his family during World War II and is looking to avenge his family. The fact that he is a kid makes him a good candidate for spy work. There are members of the Russian military who know his identity and care for him when he comes back from his mission. The story is not complex and while at its core it could be said that it is a revenge film, it doesn’t follow the usual tropes of that style of film. This film is so much more.

I am not a connoisseur of Soviet films, but I have seen my fair share of war films and I know there are basically two types: the ones that emphasize the patriotism and victory and the ones that deal with the terrible consequences of war. This film is very much the former. Not so much a criticism of the Soviets or even the Nazis, but a criticism of war in general. The difference between this film and the usual war fare is the way that Tarkovsky chooses to tell us the story through images. Ivan’s backstory is mainly told through surreal dreams and nightmares. The sudden change between the brightness of the dreams and the stark contrast with the reality of Ivan’s world is a nice touch that helps to put into perspective how quickly things change for some people during war.

The real star of the film is without a doubt Andrei Tarkovsky’s direction. There are some scenes that are not that important to the story but are made important simply because Tarkovsky’s ideas are prevalent throughout. The static camera and characters coming in and out of the picture work to make the illusion that what you are witnessing is a dream. And it works. Scenery like the one in the kiss scene, filled with leafless trees make it all seem surreal.

This is a fantastic film and everyone should give it a try. It is nothing like people are used to nowadays, but that shouldn’t detract anyone from enjoying Tarkovsky’s Ivan’s Childhood.

Netflix Reviews - December 14th

After finishing with finals for the semester, the first thing I did was sit down and watch movies. Here are the four movies I watched.

Hyde Park on Hudson (2012)

I remember seeing the trailer at the theater for this movie a while back. I was interested in seeing Bill Murray portray Franklin D. Roosevelt, although at the same time I thought it might take away from the film if it wanted to be serious at some point. I was surprised that the best thing about this film was Murray and especially his relationship with King George VI (portrayed by Samuel West). It felt genuine. The biggest problem with this film I think was that it started to give you an interesting plot, FDR's relationship with his cousin Daisy (played perfectly well by Laura Linney), his relationship with the royal family, etc. and you never really knew what this film wanted to talk about. The director was fine, but the screenplay was lacking. If they had tightened the script a little bit, this film would have been much better.

6 out of 10

Broken City (2013)

I don't really know why I bother sometimes with films like this one. I think the cast is what made me want to spend my time with this movie. Russell Crowe always does interesting movies and Mark Wahlberg can throw down on a nice action movie. That wasn't enough to salvage this film from being completely predictable. If you have seen 20 movies, chances are you have come across the powerful politician using his power to commit a crime plot. I would be surprised if you couldn't figure everything out after watching the first scene. I did. That really takes me out of a film. I like to be surprised and if you are going to do something that has been done to death, at least do it in an incredible way. None of that happens here. It just fails to be interesting in any way. Meh.

5 out of 10

Red Dawn (2012)

If the last film was a meh, this one is an ugh. First time director Dan Bradley tackles on a remake of the 1980s campy as fuck but still entertaining because its so ridiculous and it knows it film about a Russian invasion of the US and a group of teenagers who fight back. Why someone felt this needed a remake is beyond me. The original was a child of the times. Last years of the Cold War mixed with some 80s teenager action and sprinkled with a dose of patriotism. Here we have the North Koreans being the invaders and apparently being helped by the Russians... even though we only ever really see one Russian. Anyway, pretty boy Chris Hemsworth takes a break from ruling Asgard to ham it up something heavy in this flick. Sadly, everyone seems to be hamming it up. Josh Peck, who plays Hemsworth's brother (yeah, right), seems to be bored to tears by everything that is happening. Its a run of the mill actioner where you really root for the Koreans to stick it to these ingrate kids. And it doesn't even have the courtesy to show some tits or something... Also, by the way... fuck shaky cam.

3 out of 10

Killing Season (2013)

 After watching this film, I decided to check out the director. He wasn't terrible, but he wasn't great. There were some really interesting shots in the flick and I wanted to see what else he had made. Turns out Mark Steven Johnson has done crap filled with crap. Daredevil, Ghost Rider, and When in Rome... yeesh. Talk about a terrible track record. The movie deals with a Serbian soldier who searches for a US military man who served in Bosnia. Forget about the questionable history behind the conflict after Yugoslavia was torn to different countries and the involvement of US troops, forget the questionable serbian accent that Travolta tries on (and he talks a LOT), it all overshadows and makes seem worse a movie that is mediocre but has some interesting things. Especially the ending. It caught me by surprise and I thought it was a nice touch. I also have no problem with the torture scenes. People get all riled up whenever there are torture scenes in movies and video games and they need to chill out. Torture is supposed to make you feel queasy, that's the whole point. In the end, this is not an entirely terrible movie, but this one at least had some beautiful shots of the wilderness.

6 out of 10