How to Train Your Dragon (live action)

 

The usual approach to any live action version of any animation is to be cautious. Disney’s tack-less parade of live action remakes that have been one bore after another and in some cases, not as profitable as the House of Mouse had hoped for, have become a staple in the cinematic calendar. Each year a new abomination makes it’s way to the big screen or small screen and reviews are usually middling, good but not great, ok but not necessary. The obvious reason as to why these films get made is, money. Disney want to make money but peddling the same ideas and not creating new ones, which is a creative shame. The worry that other studios that have produced beloved animated films would follow suit had been at the back of my mind for sure. But I never thought it would be Dreamworks with How to Train Your Dragon.

How to Train Your Dragon first arrived in cinemas back in 2010 and was a welcome sensation. Spawning two sequels in 2014 and 2019, along with spin off series and shorts exploring the world of dragons with the same characters. The world built around these characters and their dragons felt like nothing before, hence why the films and extras were so successful. When the filming was quietly announced, it felt like a prank that a live action version was being filmed until suddenly a cast was ensembled and the film had been shot. You could say, the film’s release coincided on purpose with the opening of Isle of Berk at Orlando, Florida and that maybe the two were creates to market the other. All is probably true but we still got a film that we didn’t see coming.

HTTYD is essentially, if not shot for shot, sometimes line for line, the exact same as the 2010 original. But its still feels the same. Carrying the emotional wave, we felt 15 years ago but just a little more realistic. Hiccup is still the outsider in Berk, his father is still the chief disappointed that his son is not exactly Viking material. Hiccup still injures and eventually creates an unbreakable bond with Toothless the Night Fury dragon and together they change the course of Viking and dragon history. Story wise, it is the same. There is nothing to fault the storytelling or the plot, its what we know, what we love and nothing to fault it.

The casting for the film is very satisfying, especially with the re-casting of Gerard Butler as Chief Stoick the Vast. The stand outs are of course is Mason Thames who embodies Hiccup completely and Nico Parker as Astrid who jumps into this role whole heartedly.

But the most magical and they always will be, are the dragons. Apparently, some thought they were too scary for kids, but this film is really for the adults who saw the original, if we’re being honest. The dragons still maintain their characters, which is usually what is lost in live action films when it comes to animals. Thankfully, Toothless still feels and looks like Toothless. The other dragons too have their moments and it’s a relief to still see them maintain that wonder. 

Overall, apart from a few wobbly non important contextual plot points but in essence, HTTYD live action has the same beating heart of the original animation. So, beyond saying, its all for money, if the film is essentially the same, no matter how good it is, what was the actual point?

Slumber Party Massacre

 

As with all remakes of any genre, there will always the original that overshadows the new imagining, new adaptation or interpretation, whether the remake out shines the predecessor or not. Some classic horror slasher films are better left untouched with the grime, the red paint and the video aesthetics. However, if a film just so happens to be a feminist slasher of its age, then bringing it into the present day could actually be a twist on the stereotypical genre traits it comes with. In the case of Slumber Party Massacre, it’s a mixed bag of energy, legacy and dare I say, a superficial glance of what could be, the female gaze. 

 Nearly 30 years after escaping the crazed murderer Russ Thorn as the sole survivor, Trish worries about her daughter Dana going on a trip with her friends. On the way to the car breaks down and the girls are forced to stay in the exact same house that Trish stayed in all those years ago. Not wanting to waste the night the girls decide to have their slumber party in the house, but an uninvited visitor soon shows up. 

Making the tagline ‘You know the drill’ could not be more apt for this film. Not only is the drill, weapon of choice for the killer as it was in the original, but history repeats itself within the film as well. As a slasher, you know what beats it will hit and you know what to expect. You can already guess who will make it to the end and when it comes the final showdown, you know who the killer is. The film tries to show us what to expect but throws a few curve balls in the form of an unexpected escape, the timings of the (SPOILER) second killer and the fact that the girls planned the whole damn trip on purpose. 

The reasons for the girls being at the house are convoluted; Dana wanting to get revenge on behalf of her mother who has moved on from the previous events. If the girls were there just so they could kill Russ Thorn, this might have been simpler and cleaner. But having her friends all play roles as well as imitate everything that happened previously, slightly over kill. They come across as obsessed fans even though that’s meant to be the boys across the lake’s roles. Not the mention the very messy, not gory, end scenes when Trish randomly shows up yelling at her daughter for not calling. There could have been a better way to end the story and some of the characters. 

 Despite the questionable character motives and the overly long shots of the boys taking a shower and the exaggerated pillow fight they have; the film has merit in its moments of self-awareness and poking fun itself. They don’t quite balance out the more serious and terrorising scenes but it does homage the original in the tongue and cheek tone and even in some of the kills. The extended story twist that its not over yet is tiresome but at least it gave the killers something more to do and show that even the toughest characters are never prepared in horror films. Although the original still is very entertaining and first of its kind, the remake has merits, along with some memorable scenes, even if they aren’t kills.

Slumber Party Massacre will be available on Digital Download from 13th December

Neo Noir: Cape Fear

 

The 1991 version of the film was dramatic but felt dated, compared to the 1962 original, as if it were just an imitation. Danielle Bowden, the teenager is not doing well as school and is forced to take summer classes, which is how she meets Cady as he pretends to be her drama teacher and he manages to convince her to suck his finger in a seductive manner. Leigh Bowden, Sam’s wife, works from home, she is a ‘modern woman’. The two lead male roles felt strange to me. Nick Nolte played Sam Bowden, who I found extremely uncharismatic. Jessica Lange and Juliette Lewis are the ones that carry this film for the Bowden family. Robert De Niro as Max Cady was terrifying but it wasn’t the tattoos or the greasy hair or the way he spoke, it was his ability to flip from seemingly charming guy to raging maniac. He is repulsive, which is what the character is meant to be and De Niro really does throw himself into the role. Unfortunately, Nolte, beside De Niro just feels miscast.

 

Cape Fear, both films, boast an impressive cast and director yet it’s quite difficult to compare the two films as they are almost identical in how the story plays out. The differences are obviously the ending and the change of character of Lori Davis and Diane Taylor. The former was a colleague, who has a crush on Bowden and after being rejected by him, meets Cady in a bar. She is then violently raped and beaten and left too afraid to testify. The change from the 1962 film, where Diane is a woman, not connected to other characters Cady picks up at a bar. Cady threatens Bowden when he attacks his friend, showing this is what he’ll do to his wife and daughter. Both women are used as plot device to show what Cady is capable of and shaming these women for having sex with someone they hardly know. An age-old device.

 

 

For more #noirvember & #NeoNoir follow @little_sister_filmnoir

 

Rams

 

Rams is a comedy with equal part heart-breaking and heart-warming moments all centred around sheep, rams and the farmers that raise them is unexpectedly entertaining and, in some moments, rather thrilling.

Full review is over at Filmhounds and can be read HERE. 

If you'd also like to read my post about the original Rams, you can go HERE - its short but sweet.

 

 

Watching Psycho

In all honesty, I don’t remember the first time I watched ‘Psycho’ but I know it was after I saw the 1998 remake. I was at a Halloween party, I think I was 15 or 16, I don’t remember the costume I wore but I know it was not a ‘sexy looking’ outfit. I went to an all-girls school and all the attendees of the party were girls so I didn’t have anyone to impress. As this was pre-Facebook days, I don’t have any photographs from that night. I say it was a party but really it was just a night of playing a few games and watching a ‘scary’ film while eating sweets. My memory is hazy so I don’t know what the other film choice was but I definitely had a hand in picking ‘Psycho’. This was because I thought it was going to be Hitchcock’s version. I was incredibly disappointed to find it was Gus Van Sant’s remake. On top of all that, it wasn’t particularly scary so most of the girls were annoyed and made fun of me for wanting to see it. It’s not as if I was the one who rented it from Blockbuster.

Growing up in a time when I’d only seen Vince Vaughn is mediocre comedies, seeing him as Norman Bates, one of the most famous characters in Hollywood film, seemed out of place and terribly miscast. I wrote in a post back in 2014 (please excuse my writing back then, I was still finding my style) that he was cast against type which is exactly that and upon reflection, is actually out of the box casting choice. He has that horrible disturbing laugh that fits in with the character’s mindset and you could easily believe, this guy is unhinged and definitely could be a killer.

Being ‘into film’ in secondary school was a like navigating a maze. I had to be into the films that everyone else wanted to watch, like ‘8 Mile’, ‘The Notebook’, ‘Honey’, ‘Notting Hill’, while also maintaining my edge of wanting to watch all genres of films from all eras. I read Empire while they all read Grazia and Heat. I am guilty of buying the latter on occasion but mostly, I read film and music magazines. I was and am an avid old movie watcher and probably only had one or two friends I could talk to about films so seeing the chance to watch and try and get a group of my peers to watch ‘Psycho’ was a big moment. I gave the remake a chance but I actually forgot most of it after the film ended. I asked my parents if we could get a copy of Hitchcock’s original. I think I had to wait 2 more years before I actually got to watch the film.

I’d seen other Hitchcock films and asked for a boxset for Christmas one year so I could devour as many as possible. ‘Psycho’ has always been one of those revered films that all the film critics, theorists and filmmakers say to watch only then to twist round a decade later and say its really awful. Usually. My personal experience of the film was as if I was learning how to make films and appreciate the story structure, as I had decided I wanted to go to film school. I was finally able to watch the film I knew so much about, seen clips and scenes from and able to piece together what made this film a masterpiece. Sometimes it takes a few viewings of a film to see how great or bad it is, but ‘Psycho’ is a film, for me, that I could see just how brilliant it was from the first viewing, even mentally removing the remake from my mind to make room for the occasion.

Where Are The Originals?

In a world of remakes, sequels and franchises, we look to the rare originals out there, breaking through.

There has been so many remakes in recent years as well as sequels and franchises consisting of numerous films that feels as if there is barely any room out there for the original things to break through. I was reading this week about 'Us' and 'The Farewell' which have been two original films that broke through to the top ten US box office while the rest of the films were the usual, more of the same films. The fact that there was only two to be named was rather disheartening despite knowing full well that cinema has been in a time of turmoil of years. This isn't a dig at streaming services, as that is a whole other issue to be discussed on another post. But the steady decline of cinema attendance cannot all be blamed upon the fact that there are other ways to watch films. In my opinion, as someone who goes quite frequently to the cinema, the decline of cinema audiences is due to the cost of tickets and the lack of originality.

The cost of a cinema ticket is insane. When I was a teenager it was £5 to see a film or approximately that much, compares to now where its three times that. The fact that cinema is so expensive does put many people off. Sometimes a film is judged on whether its worth the trip and waiting for the DVD release or worse, for it become available on a streaming service seems to be the choice more and more. I know there are some people out there who illegally download films - honestly just don't as this does affect the industry, those annyoing adverts are right. Its a never endiny circle of saying its too expensive but then downloading a terrible copy of the film 'for free' just adds to the cinemas charging more money. Aside from the cost, cinema is lacking and has been ever since we entered the age of the superhero film, now a genre in its own right. I'd like to point out that I do like superhero films and I do watch and like Marvel/Disney films but they are dominating the cinema screen space.

Original stories are craved but are rarely given and when original films are given a fanfare, they are hailed by critics but audiences simply do not care. The the average audience member will see the latest blockbuster/studio offering and that's about it. Adaptations are used as a safe bet, with a built in audience who may be interested in seeing that book they read made into a film BUT even this sometimes frustrating to watch as the same books are adapted with little to no difference from the versions before. Adaptations fall between original and remake and are loved or hated, anything in between and you'd be lying to yourself.

As cinema continues to decline, the way of the world as it keeps going, there may not be any cinemas to go to anymore bit I doubt this will be for a long time, there is still hope it will become a niche things to do so there will be a market for films. As for stories and how original they are, there isn't a clear cut answer except maybe shaming the studios into realising smaller more intimate films matter. But as the whole industry runs on money, it'll be far interesting to see how this plays out when there isn't enough money to make an films.