Tag Archives for " satire "
”28 Days Later” is not only one of the most iconic horror films of the 21st Century’s but also a pivotal one regarding British horror. 2002 turned out to be a landmark year for British horror films as it also saw the release of “Dog’s Soldier’s.” Both of these films led to the re-emergence of the UK horror film scene which it had been mostly dormant in the ’90s. Not that there were no horror movies from our fair isle in the 90s just most of them were rubbish, and it would be uncontroversial to call it one of the worst decades for British Horror, if not the worst.
Funny then, that the film the re-sparked the UK scene did not come from some with a track record in the genre but Danny Boyle who was at that point most known for “Trainspotting” and had not made a horror film before nor has he since. Boyle is now, of course, considered one of this country’s finest genre filmmakers and has long established his “national treasure” status but at this stage, he was looking for a career renaissance after two critical and commercial failure in “A Life Less than Ordinary” and “The Beach.” With even Boyle later openly disliking.
Both “A Life Less than Ordinary” and “The Beach” were glossier Hollywood productions and in the latter cases much bigger budgeted than Boyle had been used too. “28 Days Later” on the other hand saw Boyle come back to his roots not just due to it being a smaller British production but also it has a more rough and ready shooting style. You sense this was as much of a practical choice as an aesthetic one as the use of digital camcorders allowed Boyle’s crew to set up and move on quickly which came in useful for capturing many of the film’s most memorable shots of capturing desolate streets and empty motorways on the hoof.
The most iconic of which is where we see Jim (Cillian Murphy) standing on an empty Westminster bridge with Big Ben looming in the background. In fact, that whole section at the start where Jim wanders around a deserted London is so memorable that many forget that the film does not open with it but instead with a prologue where we see how the “rage” virus escaped in the first place.
The use of digital camcorders did not just help with shooting on quick turnaround, but it also suits the movie, in terms, of giving it a grittier, documentary-like look which makes the action that unfolds feel more visceral and realistic. There is something about this use of digital over film that suits the frenzied energy and kinetic pace that Boyle keeps going over its near 2 hours running time. It also seems to be appropriate for this British urban tale differentiating from glossier American zombie films. Not that "28 Day's Later" is really a zombie film as the hordes are not undead but infected with a virus. This fact did not, however, stop lots of subsequent zombie films take inspiration from 28 Days and introducing running zombies as a thing.
Away from the look of the film, there is a great deal else to admire about “28 Days Later”. For example, anyone who has seen it will remember John Murphy’s pulsating score which greatly adds to the tension of proceedings particularly the instrumental track "In the House – In a Heartbeat" which scores the climactic confrontation in the mansion house.
Director Boyle was also bold in his casting decision with the leads being played by, then, relative unknowns Cillian Murphy and Naomie Harris. Both of whom excel in their roles with Murphy playing everyman Jim who has just woken from a coma and Harris playing Selina who, initially at least, is a hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners survivor. Murphy and Harris both brilliantly portray their characters journey with Jim becoming more of survivor while Selina comes to show other things are going on underneath all those hard edges. Balancing out the fresh faces Boyle also cast experienced character actors Brendan Gleeson and Christopher Eccleston, both of whom leave there mark on the film although in very different ways.
Gleeson plays Frank a father who, along with his daughter, teams up with Jim and Selina to travel to a potential safe haven in Manchester. Frank is possibly the warmest and funniest character in the film and the relationship with his daughter Hannah is also nicely played. All this plus the brief sunny patch in the movie makes it all the more gut-wrenching when he is killed after becoming infected. Eccleston’s role as Major Henry West is entirely different initially seeming like a possible saviour before quickly revealing himself to be unhinged. The point this is revealed is a scene where our protagonists are welcomed with a dinner by Major West and his soldiers only for it to become one of the most unnerving dinner scenes this side of the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre.”
Not that Major West think he is doing anything unhinged, in fact, from his point of view his actions, which presumably most viewing would see as despicable, seem not only logical but vital for survival. Something which is a recurring theme both what would you do to survive in a situation like that? Moreover, is there meaning beyond mere survival in a world like that? No easy answers are given. Herein lies another key strength to the movie namely that while you can enjoy it as a pure piece of entertainment with explosive set-pieces, gory deaths, and kinetically charged action sequences, there is also plenty morally and intellectually absorbing elements bubbling under the surface for those inclined to engage with the feature.
While there is not much to criticise here, it would be fair to say the film never quite matches the intensity of its opening 20 minutes. On the other hand, it would be accurate to say that opening is up there with the very best in horror, so it is understandable the film is unable to sustain the same level of ferocity. If there is another criticism to be made it would be Garland script between its environmental allegory, political commentary, and ethical debate is thematically over-stuffed meaning not everything is explored as fully as it could be. In subsequent years this has become a hallmark of Garland’s work, but then again I would rather have that than puerile entertainments devoid of value.
Some of these weaknesses were also picked up by critics at the time but mainly “28 Days Later” was a major critical as well as commercial hit. The film also went to win several accolades and has only gone on to grow in stature ranking seventh in Bloody Disgusting top 20 Horror films of the Decade (the 2000’s). Also in that rarest of occurrences, it spawned a solid sequel in 2007’s “28 Weeks Later” which while no match for the original does a good job of building upon the world established by its predecessor. There has also long been talk of a “28 Months Later” to complete the trilogy but that project never really got off the ground and now seems unlikely to be made.
Director: Dan Gilroy
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Zawe Ashton, Toni Collette John Malkovich
Run Time: 113mins
Horror has seen it all killer cars, dogs, mirrors you name it but killer paintings? That might be a new one (although it probably has been done) and it would be about the only new thing in this sophomore effort from “Nightcrawler” director Dan Gilroy. Not to say there is not much to enjoy here as the feature is a campy delight but just to say there are clichés and stereotypes abound.
Certainly, anyone expecting the same razor-sharp satire displayed in the Jake Gyllenhaal-starring “Nightcrawler” will be sorely disappointed. As where that film cleverly satirised the world of the paparazzi and asked intelligent questions about the role, this movie takes obvious pot shots at the commercial art world. A world ripe for satire indeed but given it has been so heavily satirised before it is hard to say anything new and so many of the gags here feel tired. For example, a bit where an art dealer mistakes a pile of garbage bags in an art studio as an artwork seems particularly hack. There are more bits like this, and you may feel they lack the any of the same bite shown in the likes of last year’s “The Square.”
The characters seem similarly one-note a revolving line-up of bitchy, pretentious and shallow art dealers, artists and critics. However, some of these characters are still entertaining given the relish they are played by some of the cast. In particular, Jake Gyllenhaal’s who camps it up to 11 as flamboyantly vicious art critic Morf Vandewalt. Yes, once again the effete razor-tongued art critic is a well-worn trope but Gyllenhaal’s wild-eyed bug-eyed performance brings the character especially the more the movie wears on, and Morf’s sanity starts to fray. Gyllenhaal is not the only one having a ball though as both Toni Colette and Rene Russo bring a similar devilish glee to their respective roles as conniving art dealer Gretchen and ruthless gallery owner Rhodora.
What of these killer paintings then, you may ask? Ah yes as this piece is not only an art satire but a supernatural horror centring on a series of paintings by unknown artist discovered by Josephina (Zawe Ashton), who so happens to work for Rhodora after the artist died in her apartment block. After this bad things start happening to all those who try to profit from them. The horror element, like the satire element, is not as clever as it thinks it is. Also for a movie that is aiming for something arty it’s funny it is not above using a classic cat based fake-out jump scare. On the flip side, some of the deaths are well staged, and there are moments of surreal horror flourishes that really land such when one character ends up turning into graffiti.
In the end “Velvet Buzzsaw” is probably best summed up by itself when Morf manically describes his theory of the cursed paintings to Rhodora and she pithily replies; “A bit baroque, isn’t it?” Indeed.
Overall: If you are looking for intelligent horror, a truly scathing satire or a thought-provoking critique on art vs. commerce look elsewhere, but if you want some campy fun on a Friday night this movie could be just the thing.
Often two movies come out at the same time, that have been developed separately and simultaneously without one having knowledge of the other, that work on similar or even the same themes. It is generally the case that whichever is released second is compared to or even sometimes seen as ripping off the first. This is the case here with “Mayhem” coming out hot on the heels of “The Belko Experiment”. Although in this particular case it is a little unfair as while broadly similar this is set up differently to that film. As “The Belko Experiment” is more of a “Battle Royale” deal with office workers made to kill each other as part of a game. Where in this movie a virus makes them do it (which in some ways makes it more similar to 28 Days Later or the comic book “Crossed”)
The virus is called ID7 which makes anyone exposed to it completely free of any inhibitions and makes them act out all their most violent and sexual impulses or as the film puts it makes the viruses victim “pure Id”. The effects of the drug are illustrated in a violent opening narrated by our protagonist Derek Cho (Steven Yuen of “The Walking Dead”) who explains he is the lawyer that found a loophole which means nobody can be held legally responsible for their actions while under the influence of the virus. The use of Rossini’s “The Thieving Magpie” during this montage of violence also brings to mind “A Clockwork Orange” (a presumably deliberate nod by the director).
After that we are told about Cho’s job at a high powered law firm and how he went from wide eyed and enthusiastic to being another soul crushed by the corporate world. There are several stabs at corporate satire throughout the film which are fitfully funny and effective but really amount to little more than giving the corporate world the finger.
It seems unlikely though you will come to watch a movie called “Mayhem” for its nuance or biting satire but more for the violence and gore which it delivers in spade’s once the virus inevitably spreads through Derek’s office. This could not happen at a more convenient time for him as he has just been fired after being set up for something he did not do. He knows he now has window to carve his way to the top of the building to prove his firing was unjust to the board on the top floor and he is not liable for any the damage he causes on his way there until the virus wears off. He is helped on his mission by Melanie (Samara Weaving) who is a defendant he turned away but whom reluctantly teams up with him as she also want to get to his bosses.
From this point on the film is a series of increasingly over-the-top violent set-pieces. Which sounds dismissive but is not entirely as many of these gory standoffs are very entertaining indeed and in something of a throwback we even get a weapon tooling-up montage at one stage which is fun and generally fun is the operative word here. There is lots of fun to be had with this movie from the gore to the one-liners to the fight choreography to the chemistry between Yuen and Weaving (who similarly impressed in “The Babysitter”). Also Yuen acquits himself well in what is, his first, leading man role to date.
That said it also all feels a bit weightless as we know there is not going to be any consequences to this violence right from the very off and this means there is no sense of jeopardy nor emotion and the violence washes over you much like in a video game. In fact as our duo have to achieve certain things to continually progress their way up the building it is very much structured like a video game as well as bring to mind the film “The Raid”. All that said the movie always remains nothing less than watchable.