Category Archives: Review

Cockneys vs. Zombies (2012)

by

3

Zombies. If there’s one undead creature that’s as popular as vampires on television and cinema, it’s zombies. I’d also argue that they’re done rather better too. Zombies don’t have volatile love affairs. Zombies don’t even have true emotions. Zombies also don’t sprinkle glitter on their chest and fall for women that can barely crack a smile. Zombies are just all around better creatures and the better basis for a story. Then you have to factor in the fact that zombies can arise from all manner of origins and have different traits: from the speedy, enraged fiends of 28 Days Later to the classic shambling living dead from Dawn of the Dead. In summary, zombies are pretty damn cool, and in-vogue again thanks to The Walking Dead. So, why not pit them against something? We all love a good versus movie (apparently) – just see Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, Alien vs. Predator and Cowboys vs. Aliens. But who do we pit our zombies against to have a great slice of fan fiction… Wait… What?… Cockneys?!

Yes, the clue to Cockneys vs. Zombies is very much in the title. It’s a group of Londoners versus those shambling abominations. This time, the zombies emerge when one is disturbed in an underground crypt that’s unearthed on a building site. The infection spreads and the zombies infest the Earth. Did I mention this is a comedy too? I bet I can predict your thoughts now: “a comedy? Involving zombies? In England? Oh wow, is it as good as Shaun of the Dead then?”… well, the answer is unfortunately not. It’s not even in the same ballpark.

There are many things that made Shaun of the Dead the best zom-com in recent memory. It not only had a great script, and an assortment of the best comedic actors that Britain has produced, but it also featured zombies that were compelling and really looked the part. They didn’t skimp on the effects – it truly looked like a horror movie, but was funny. Cockneys vs. Zombies falls down on every one of those points, for the most part.

The film stars Michelle Ryan, Georgia King, Harry Treadaway and Rasmus Hardiker as the characters of the “main” plot (good hearted bank robbers that find the horde), which is countered by the more elderly cast of Alan Ford, Honor Blackman, Richard Blackman and others, who serve in the secondary story: the pensioners that are trapped in their home by the zombies. How was all this acting? Well, “not bad” is my verdict, but nor is it anything to write home about. The younger cast are serviceable, but it’s Alan Ford that shines. Mainly because I feel that the director’s instructions were “be yourself”, or “act like you did in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch“. He’s “cockney” personified… not an “‘orrible ****” like in his previous films (his words, not mine).

Geriatrics, guns and cockney geezers – this film has it all! If that’s what you’re looking for…

Let me also include another name in the actors list… The Phage. Yes, I’m actually in this movie. My (real) name’s in the cast list. You’d think this’d make me think the movie was magical wouldn’t you? But I’m pretty objective. Even when I was on the set I felt the humour was a bit juvenile and not really funny. I thought this would be different when I saw it on-screen, but wow – it still wasn’t funny. I laughed a couple of times (twice more than Keith Lemon: The Film if you’re counting), but overall it wasn’t to my tastes. The movie kept my attention, but didn’t truly entertain me.

So I’ve dealt with a) actors, and b) the lack of humour, but have yet to address c) the aesthetics – the three ingredients that made Shaun of the Dead so good. Now, as I was on-set I already knew that the zombies were never going to challenge The Walking Dead for truly amazing prosthetics and make-up. But what I wasn’t expecting was such shocking continuity with these zombies. In 28 Days Later you knew what to expect: red eyes, in The Walking Dead: torn flesh and gaping, jutting jaws. But here? A mix of everything. The zombies’ eyes change from normal to red to yellow, depending on which zombie you’re seeing, and the “effects” on the zombies are extremely weak. Oddly, some have full blown sunken eyes like in The Walking Dead, but the majority look like they’ve had talcum powder sprinkled on them and that was it. As I was there, I can say that that’s not far off the truth. Sure, we all have budget constraints, but the producers should have had ALL with full-blown make-up or NONE with make-up. Not the mish-mash you see on-screen.

Sure, this movie will tick some people’s boxes for a zombie film: lots of gore, guns and shambling wrecks, but I just want so much more nowadays. I’ve been spoiled by films such as Rec and 28 Days Later, as well as the almighty The Walking Dead, that this just doesn’t hit the same notes. Even if those films didn’t exist, this is still a pretty hum-drum film. It has the odd laugh, but is probably worth picking up in a bargain bin, as opposed to venturing out to find a cinema that’s showing it.

Despite the fact that I’m in the film, I just find it hard to love it. I was entertained and definitely wasn’t bored, but nor was I actively engaged with what was going on. The film appeals to a certain crowd with respects to humour – if you like all of Adam Sandler‘s movies for instance, you may enjoy this. But most of it was too basal to really register with me as “funny”. Thankfully Alan Ford really relishes his role and gets “stuck in” – his scenes are consistently the best. The rest? Let’s just say that I hope this film doesn’t rise from the dead for a sequel.

With the film hopefully now buried six feet under, with no chance of resurrection (I removed the head – we’re safe), I’m wondering what’s the next crossover we’ll get. Vampires vs. Zombies? Strippers vs. Zombies? Or maybe John McClane vs. Zombies? My money’s on John. He’ll probably deal with those zombies like he deals with helicopters: by lobbing a car at them. Yippe-ki-yay you undead mother—–s!

Phage Factor:

Lawless (2012)

by

0

Doesn’t the past always sound so exciting and cut-throat? Especially when it’s up there on the big screen looking all lavish and sexy. Take mediaeval times – a period when disease was rife, living standards were through the floor and you were oppressed at every angle by your local land baron. It wasn’t a happy time. But chuck in some Hollywood pizazz and you have something like A Knight’s Tale, or Robin Hood. The so-called “wild west” – a period of instability, uncertainty and crime also provides plum pickings for film-makers, so long as you throw in some idyllic looking towns, guns and raunchy lead actors. The only other area that rivals it for “sexy yet dangerous setting” is the period of post-Great War USA, the roaring 1920’s… cue Lawless. It was time of gangsters, prohibition and money, and Hollywood likes going back to mine it for more – we can’t get enough of the mob. But does Lawless, the newest film to draw from this period, figure more like The Untouchables, or does it have more in common with Bugsy Malone, minus all those grating kids?

For once, a film “based on a true story” means just that, as the film revolves around the Bondurant brothers – three guys that decided to flaunt the law and turn a tidy profit from the sale of illegally distilled moonshine. The book on which the movie is based, “The Wettest County in the World” was penned by the grandson of one of these brothers. Sure, the film-makers will have embellished some things, but overall you can take this as a “true story”. Come on – it’s got more truth to it than The Possession hasn’t it? The film follows Jack, Forrest and Howard Bondurant (Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy and Jason Clarke) as they build their business and live their lives, whilst contending with the ever-encroaching arm of the law, personified by Special Deputy Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce). It’s a case of pay off the authorities, or be burned. Literally.

The Bondurant boys on the big screen. Knitwear is in.

The first thing that needs to be mentioned is the sheer calibre of acting talent on offer in this film. Whilst every single actor is fantastic (yes, even LaBeouf for you doubters out there), the film is really stolen by two people: Tom Hardy and Guy Pearce. Hardy continues his run of great form following Warrior and The Dark Knight Rises with a role that really calls for strong acting. He really sells you every emotion, be it sadness, anger or humour. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t a laugh-a-minute performance (or film), but he delivers some brilliant wry one-liners that sit well.

Pearce meanwhile has had a rather odd portfolio as of late, with his weirdly over-made up appearance as a very old man in Prometheus and his peculiar decision to star in Lockout, which didn’t sit well with critics, but I quite enjoyed Pearce‘s performance. Like a grumpy John McClane in space. But his portrayal of Charlie Rakes here is sublime. He’s a thoroughly detestable and loathsome character and you’re really sold on this by Pearce from the way he walks, talks and sneers. Absolutely riveting.

Guy Pearce: Never afraid to shy away from some creepy facial effects and hairdo’s.

My main problem with the film is pacing. Now, maybe this is due to the fact that I approached it without expectations – I didn’t know what I was going in to see really. I knew it was prohibition-era set, and featured a stellar cast, but little else. The trailers didn’t really show me what the core of the film was. If you think Lawless is going to be an all-out gangster film with guns and speakeasies galore, then you’re in for a cruel shock. I’d say that it’s more of a character-driven period drama that has criminals as its focus. Hardy and LaBeouf‘s characters grow throughout the running time and you actually care about them. This led to a rather slow opening first act whilst the scene was being set and the characters established. Had they been more vapid, I’m sure we could have delved into the core of the story much faster, but they’re not. I just felt there was too much padding in this area, which lowered my enjoyment levels somewhat. However, once the film kicked into gear, I was engrossed.

LaBeouf tests out the car to check if its a Decepticon, without raising suspicion.

One thing I really ought to address is the ordering of the names in the posters, which would have you believe that Gary Oldman is a big player in this film – he’s typically listed after LaBeouf and Hardy, but don’t be swayed into seeing Lawless just because of his name. He doesn’t figure heavily in the plot. In fact, I could argue that he’s merely there as a “name” and to personify the Capone-esque gangsters of the era who’d drive round with Tommy guns. His inclusion baffled me somewhat and had a minuscule impact on the story. A great actor, sure, but his role was somewhat mis-sold. Similarly, putting Guy Pearce‘s name in the “and…” bracket at the end of the list is a) misleading and b) a disservice, as he’s one of the best things about the film. I guess he’s not seen as a “big draw” at the minute. Maybe Iron Man 3 will change that next year.

Ultimately, I found Lawless to be a compelling slice of cinema, but it wasn’t what I was expecting. Maybe this is through my own naivety, but maybe not. If you’re expecting a gun-toting action-fest then you’ll be cruelly disappointed. Conversely, if you want to see a great story acted out by a fantastic cast then this is just right for you. The film won’t be to everyone’s tastes, but I’d thoroughly recommend seeing it – just for Hardyand Pearce‘s acting.

In fact, this film has much in common with Inglourious Basterds, and not just in the way in which itself made another period of desperation: World War II, look more exciting than horrifying. It’s more the fact that you were drawn into Inglourious Basterds by the lure of the names Quentin Tarantino and Brad Pitt, but you walked out talking about Christoph Waltz and Michael Fassbender (maybe you mentioned Mike Myers, but not in the same positive light as these two). Similarly, you’re drawn into Lawless by the lure of the big names, like Shia LaBeouf and Tom Hardy, but you’ll leave talking about Guy Pearce, and rightfully Hardy too.

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

The Possession (2012)

by

0

With so many movies based on “true stories” nowadays, you’ve got to applaud the current generation of screen-writers. Not because they’re doing a remarkable job adapting these “true stories”, but because surely it’s making their job of writing fiction so much more difficult? Demons? Please! They definitely exist, as Paranormal Activity has shown. Ghosts you say? Yeah, I’m pretty sure that was covered in An American Haunting. Witches? Oh come on – The Blair Witch Project (probably) proved that. So what does The Possession – the newest “based on a true story” horror film bring to the table …? Yup, demons again. Fear not Twilight, we’ve not yet caught wussy “vegetarian” vampires on film…

As you may have astutely ascertained from the title of the film, the story revolves around the premise of demonic possession. Here, the tale focuses on a sealed box that is bought for young Em (Natasha Calis) by her dad, Clyde (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). Naturally, there’s something odd about the box – its sealed tight, but what lies inside? Yes indeed – some vengeful demon! Oh come on, that’s not a spoiler. What did you think it’d have in it? Coco Pops? Cue a demonic possession horror story that you’ve probably seen time and time again.

The trouble with the film is that it’s so derivative, although I must admit it’s hard for a writer to pen a tale of demonic possession and not have people say “oh, it’s like The Exorcist then?”. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that The Possession lurches from cliché to cliché of modern horror at a staggering pace. Firstly, there’s the lack of true scares. As with last year’s Insidious, we’re bombarded with ramped up sound effects to “scare” us. These aren’t scary – they’re startling and jarring. Then you have the target of the demon. If you had to picture someone in your mind, what would he / she look like? Young? Check. A girl? Check. Dark hair? A bit like Samara from The Ring? Well done – go collect 10 Phage points from the kiosk because that’s what you’re given! Why can’t someone break this tradition and cast a young, Indian boy as the target of the demon? At least that would be an attempt at being different.

In terms of the acting on display, I must say it wasn’t bad at all. Certain actors in the piece are actually the film’s redeeming feature. I thought 13 year old Natasha Calis acted very admirably and hit all the right notes. Too bad her make-up department decided that a look akin to a cross between Beetlejuice and the WWF’s Undertaker from circa 1994 was the correct way to emphasise she was “possessed” in the latter stages. However, it was Jeffrey Dean Morgan (Watchmen, The Losers) that really held the piece together playing a divorced dad with ambitions of coaching big league basketball. I know that the sub-plot of his basketball coaching was totally unnecessary, but I’d have been happy to see more of it. Or maybe I was hoping the film would turn into Moneyball with basketballs.

Samara from The Ring, by way of Beetlejuice and The Undertaker… Can’t guess she’s possessed at all…

But back on point, I thought Morgan really shone here, and he was clearly the most fleshed-out character in the script. This led to supporting roles such as older sister Hannah (Madison Davenport) and the mother, Stephanie (Kyra Sedgwick) coming across as extremely shallow and yes – clichéd – as neither believes in the possession until it’s too late. And before you wonder whether it at least ends in a unique way, then… no. I obviously won’t tell you what unfolds, but you probably already know in your heart of hearts if you’ve seen any horror film from the past 5 years.

They’re not an anti-Semetic family; they just love to get a bit rowdy when they headbang to Metallica.

Now, I’m not saying that there’s no point in writing stories of possession as they’re always clichéd. For instance, I thought 2010’s The Last Exorcism was a great take on the idea and was also a damn good film. Even The Exorcism of Emily Rose attempted something different, even if it did fall flat. I just don’t know why writers, directors and studios are succumbing to this horrible trend of loud noises equating to horror. I mean, this has Sam Raimi up on the posters (he’s a producer) – the man responsible for The Evil Dead – and still nothing innovative comes through. A true horror should insidiously work its way into your psyche and have your nerves shredded. As much as the series is lambasted by purists, at least Paranormal Activity (at least the first one) really draws the audience in and has them recoiling in terror owing to the tension. For me, no film has surpassed the terror pay-offs of Rec (original Spanish version) and The Ring. Those films ended with a bang and really had my nerves shot on first viewing. Sadly, The Possession comes no-where near these two juggernauts or anything Asian cinema has spat out recently.

The Possession isn’t the worst horror movie you’ll see this autumn as we close in on Halloween. That I can more or less guarantee. But it’s never going to be regarded as a classic, nor even “one to pick up on DVD”. I’d recommend a rental when it hits stores if you’re into possession stories, or if you’re looking to hook up with that girl from down the street when you have a DVD night. I’m not saying the content is erotic (unless she’s a really freaky chick), but at least it might have her jumping into your arms if you have the 5.1 booted up. Especially if she’s a Twilight fan, as all she’s used to is wussy vampires and wimpy werewolves. In fact, go grab that glitter, sprinkle it on your chest and then watch The Possession. If that doesn’t work, then I don’t know what will.

Aside from a winning personality, a stunning smile and a healthy disposable income.

Phage Factor:

Dredd 3D (2012)

by

3

Dredd’s unimpressed with neutered adaptations.

It happens so often when Hollywood tries to convert a comic book from page to screen: they compromise. The visceral and often violent nature of some of the comic world’s big guns is lost in order to make that 12A / PG-13 rating, so that you can make more money from the kids dragging their parents along. Sure, you might be able to get away with it for Spider-Man or Superman, who are both “nice guys” really. But then take a hero like Wolverine, and the transition isn’t going to be as smooth, as this is a guy that would tear people in half in the comics. Literally. But on-screen he’s thus far been neutered somewhat, and lamentably I doubt 2013’s The Wolverine is going to alter that any time soon. So we now come to Dredd 3D: based on a comic that is never afraid to shy away from ultra-violence. But does the Judge get his due this time around? Well… it’s an 18-rated film isn’t it?

To many people, the mention of Judge Dredd will stir memories of a misfiring vehicle for Sylvester Stallone back in 1995. It wasn’t good. It wasn’t faithful. It was just an excuse to milk the machine that was Stallone‘s popularity. So techinically, yes, this is a reboot of what’s gone before. But you’d be missing out if you dismissed this film out of hand for that alone. It’s got a lot more in common with this year’s excellent The Raid: Redemption than it has with that 1995 hiccup.

It’s a chin off… who’s more authentic to you?

For the uninitiated, Dredd 3D follows the titular Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) as he dispenses justice on the future city of Mega City One. These “Judges” are effectively police who have been granted the powers of judge, jury and executioner should the situation merit it. The film follows Dredd over one day in which he has been charged with taking a rookie with psychic abilities under his wing (Olivia Thirlby) as they investigate a series of homicides at a colossal tower block. However, by doing so they stumble upon something much bigger and invoke the wrath of gang leader Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) who seals them in for extermination.

Now, does this remind you of anything? Anything quite recent? Perhaps a film I mentioned earlier in this review? Yes, The Raid: Redemption is undeniably similar in plot to Dredd 3D. Both involve police being locked in a skyscraper and having to take down a gang-leader at the top of the tower. It’s actually quite alarming when you realise this. If they weren’t both in production simultaneously then you’d swear one was borrowing liberally from the other. However, don’t let this detract you from just how good Dredd 3D is. It’s different in enough ways to appeal in its own unique way. I might even go as far as saying that I preferred this to The Raid: Redemption! I’m just a sucker for a gritty, grimey cyber-punk setting with an arsenal of high-calibre weapons on offer, as opposed to The Raid: Redemption‘s (utterly gob-smacking) hand-to-hand fight scenes.

But let’s go back to a point I raised earlier: how faithful is this to the source material? Whilst you’re never going to please every fan there is, I’m happy with how this turned out. Dredd 3D eschews normal conventions and gets graphic with its violence. People will be skinned, heads caved in and yes, there will be blood. It’s great to see director Pete Travis really embraced the ultra-violence of the comics and ran with it. I wonder if this would have happened had Sony, Universal or Fox had the rights to Judge Dredd. I doubt it.

With regards to the acting, you can crack as many skulls as you like, but if the acting is weak it’s going to achieve nothing. I’m happy to report that the acting is solid throughout, with all actors seeming to embrace their roles. Much has been made of Karl Urban‘s chin in the media; owing to the fact that he never removes his helmet. How can an actor act in this way you ask? Well, Tom Hardy did fabulous without half of his face visible, and Urban does a similarly great job. He churns out wry one-liners and like Hardy‘s Bane is an imposing presence. You see him on-screen and accept that he is the Judge – a man to be feared if you’re up to no good. Similarly, the supporting cast of Olivia Thirlby (Juno), Wood Harris (The Wire) and Lena Headey (300, Game of Thrones) are all great at embodying their roles. What I like is that none of these actors are huge Hollywood icons; they’re essentially unknowns in the grand scheme of things. And this works in the film’s favour, as we have no pre-formed opinions.

And I can’t pass judgement without talking about the visuals. Whilst they’re nowhere near the level of eye candy seen in Total Recall, they’re done very well. The film was mostly shot in Cape Town, South Africa, and Mega City One was modelled on the metropolis of Johannesburg (let’s try not to draw any parallels between crime-ridden Mega City One and Johannesburg though!) The film looks grimey, dark and oppressive. This is probably why it doesn’t look as bright and vibrant as Total Recall‘s cityscapes; it’s not meant to. Fans of Zack Snyder‘s penchance for slow motion will also be in luck, as there’s enough of this in the film. Thankfully it’s not overused though and has a legitimate reason for being there: the drug known as “Slo-Mo”, which makes the user feel like time is passing incredibly slowly. A clever idea.

The Phage: I am the law.

Ultimately, if you can look past Dredd 3D‘s similarities to The Raid: Redemption in terms of plot, then I think you’re in for a treat. In fact, I urge you to try not to compare them to one another, as they’re both great pieces of film-making that have unfortunately landed in cinemas in the same year. The film’s take on a dystopian, crime-ridden future is a compelling one that doesn’t relent during its running time. I felt engaged the whole way through, thanks to the gripping portrayal of Judge Dredd by Karl Urban. The film is quite minimalistic and delivers relentlessly. He is the law. All hail.

And if you’re a fan of Judge Dredd, action films, ultra-violence or seeing an accurate portrayal of a comic book, then look no further than this. The current trend with comic book movies is to make them “gritty” and “real”. Despite Dredd 3D‘s futuristic setting, I’d say it achieved this aim better than other films that have aimed squarely for this goal. So, Mr. Jackman, it’s over to you: will we be getting the Wolverine we’re all baying for next year? One that’ll finally use those claws in the way that the comics intended, or are we staring down the barrel of another pale imitation of the one they call Logan? So bub, what’s it gonna be?

Phage Factor:

Keith Lemon: The Film (2012)

by

2

One version of the UK… sans rage.

If you’re easily influenced by films and aren’t a resident of the United Kingdom, you’d probably assume that its inhabitants fall into one of a number of camps. To Pride & Prejudice fans, we’re dashing romantics living in a land full of whimsy and charm. To Green Street fans, we’re uncompromising thugs and hooligans inhabiting a land of football lunatics. And to 28 Days Later fans… well, we’re the bringer of plagues, in a land of rage-fuelled zombies (a bit like hooligans, but more “bitey”). But don’t judge us in this way – our country has aspects of all these films… OK, maybe we don’t have aspects of 28 Days Later (yet) but you can’t escape the fact that a film can shape your views of the nation or area in which it is filmed. If we go off recent releases such as Killer Joe and The Imposter, we’d infer that Texas is a hotbed of child abduction, white trash and murder. So, with all that said, what does the UK’s latest comedy film, Keith Lemon: The Film, say about us and our fair country?

Well hopefully no other nation will be exposed to this film any time soon, so they’ll never have the chance to form those opinions. But if they did, they’d probably ask “who’s this Keith Lemon character?”, “what’s he saying?” and “is this what’s funny in England?”. Let me explain this for our international readers…

Keith Lemon is a character created by British comedian Leigh Francis. Lemon is a larger-than-life character who says outrageously over the top things to celebrities. Generally these comments revolve around wanting to “get intimate” with them and himself. And that accent? Leeds – a city in the heart of Yorkshire (not near London). The character’s been enormously successful for Francis, as he not only hosts his own quiz show (Celebrity Juice), but an innumerable amount of spin-off shows. And what’s the obvious next step? To scribble down a “script” and cobble together a movie to milk that cash cow whilst she’s good for-a-milkin’!

With that explained, I feel I can continue. You see, I was tempted to forgo my normal review stylings and just invite you to this page to read one word:

Abysmal

But I decided against that, as I’m sure you love reading about a bad film as much as a good one right? Well, I do. I don’t like middle of the road nonsense. I like a polarising film, and this is polarising alright. It’s the equivalent of magnetic south, if “magnetic south” translated as “garbage”. The film follows Lemon, oddly playing an unsuccessful inventor who’s created a security pole. This doesn’t work out for him, and through fortuity he creates the “Lemon Phone” (a smart phone with a yellow lemon on the back). He becomes a billionaire, gets wrapped up in fame, dates Kelly Brook… Are you still reading this? The plot is nonsense. It’s something a group of 11 year olds would imagine at a slumber party. In 5 minutes. Before they realised how stupid it was.

It’s funny because he’s a lot shorter and has to sit on an elevated platform. Get it? Nope, us neither.

Now, I’ve nothing against Francis‘ Keith Lemon. I quite enjoy the Celebrity Juice panel show he hosts. He’s very sharp and knows how to get a rise out of his contestants on a weekly basis. It’s funny. This just isn’t. It’s a number of tired sex gags tied together with appearances from B and C list celebrities that I doubt anyone from outside the UK would recognise. Rizzle Kicks? Peter Andre? Paddy McGuinness? Recognise these names? Thought not. I’m already regretting bolding their names. The “known” international “stars” such as Verne Troyer (Mini Me in Austin Powers), David Hasselhoff (Baywatch… you knew that one) and Kelly Brook (Piranha 3D – she swims naked with another girl, remember?) are hardly setting the world alight either. All supporting performances are phoned in, or just come across as very cringe-worthy, especially Brook in the finale. Troyer can act but has a flat script and Hasselhoff can also deliver those nonchalant “I don’t want to be here” lines that can make you smirk, as in Piranha 3DD, but they were also absent.

Kelly Brook’s breasts? Check. Sex gag? On it’s way. Boys, we’re onto a winner here!!

I know this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek movie and is probably not intended for me, as I’m post-pubescent. But my screening also had that “target demographic” of teens. And did they laugh? Nope. In fact, I counted a total of three walk outs during the film. That’s impressive for an 85 minute runtime! Hell, I’ve seen The Three Stooges, which I was gearing up to brandish as “Worst Comedy of the Year” (until now), but no-one walked out of that. And this movie even featured bare breasts, ejaculate AND “celebrities”… what more could your average hormonal teenager want out of life?! Seemingly whatever’s outside the screen’s exit doors at 40 minutes in.

Keith Lemon bounds onto our screens in what has to be one of the most ill-judged and ill-received moves from television to the big screen. Not even Harry Enfield‘s Kevin and Perry Go Large can compare to this train wreck of a movie. At least that had Rhys Ifans, some quotable lines and a good 90’s dance soundtrack. At the time of writing, Keith Lemon: The Film is pulling in a whopping 0% on Rotten Tomatoes; joining the elite club that also houses Highlander II and Eddie Murphy‘s classic A Thousand Words.

So what does Keith Lemon: The Film suggest about the United Kingdom? Probably that we speak with funny accents, have an absurd sense of humour and that we have numerous ways of describing sex, breasts and genitals. I guess it at least makes a change from describing us as “stabby” or “bitey”…

Phage Factor:

The Three Stooges (2012)

by

0

Three steps away from being funny.

Slapstick is probably the oldest form of comedy. When one of our joker ape-like ancestors fell off a log and into a lake, I’m pretty sure its fellow mammals laughed hysterically. It’s always been funny to laugh at others in mild jeopardy, so long as it doesn’t affect us in the slightest. However, if this slapstick ape was transported Terminator style into the future to entertain Sarah Conner with his routines, I doubt she’d be too excited or riveted by his performance. Slapstick may have remained and may still make us chortle, but humour has changed and moved on. Sure, we can still laugh at someone getting hit in the head with a plank (a massive achievement for an ape), but can that one joke sustain an entire film? The Three Stooges puts that to the test.

The Three Stooges originated back in the 1930’s, at a time when Charlie Chaplin and Laurel & Hardy ruled Hollywood, and have been a mainstay of American culture ever since, being reincarnated time and time again for US viewers. None of these versions made it into popular UK consciences – I’m sure of that; except for the current film incarnation, courtesy of the Farrelly brothers. These are the guys that brought comedic classics such as Dumb & Dumber, There’s Something About Mary and Kingpin to the big screen. The fact that they wrote and directed Dumb & Dumber, one of my all-time favourite comedy movies, puts them on a pedestal in my mind. People so often criticise the Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels comedy marvel that is Dumb & Dumber, but it’s incredibly well written and is hilarious. However, after being subjected to The Three Stooges, I can say that they do not always deliver hilarious movies… in fact, I would go as far as brandishing this the least funny comedy movie I have ever had the displeasure of seeing… And I’ve seen Eddie Murphy‘s Norbit. (Edit: This title now belongs to another movie, reviewed later this week…)

The movie follows the threadbare plot of Moe, Larry and Curly, played by Chris Diamontopoulos, Sean Hayes and Will Sasso respectively, as they attempt to raise the money to save the orphanage where they grew up. Add in a paper-thin murder conspiracy story featuring the buxom Sofia Vergara and… well, that’s it. The 92 minutes are padded out with facial slaps, “zany” sound effects and hammer blows to the head (and shots of Vergara‘s cleavage). None of which remotely tickle the funny bone, or sustain one’s interest. Not even the cleavage.

Sofia Vergara – always one to cover up, but not even this will keep your interest from waning. Promise!

Now, I’ve questioned whether my views regarding The Three Stooges are due to The Phage being of UK origin. Over here, we favour dark, edgy and cringe-worthy humour that’s often unpalatable to US audiences. But I doubt that this is the reason the film fell so flat for me. After all, I enjoy the physical comedy seen in films such as Naked Gun, Dumb & Dumber and BASEketball. I think the real reason is that the film is just that bad.

The three main actors all throw themselves headlong into their roles, and they cannot be faulted for their spot-on performance, which is at times quite endearing. But you can’t escape the cold, hard fact that this form of comedy is horribly dated. Silly voices and “thwak” noises no longer cut the mustard with audiences. Not even children. In my screening, there were a couple of boys with their father who were incredibly excited about the movie. Did they laugh? Once. If children that were excited about the movie can only muster a single laugh then it doesn’t say much does it?

The three main guys are great in their role… but where are the laughs? I think this was meant to be funny…?

The only humorous part for me was the pre-credits scene where two obvious stand-ins for the Farrelly brothers explain to the children that the hammers used in the film were fake, and that the poke-to-the-eyes routine didn’t actually connect with anyone’s eyes. This was funny for three reasons: a) the actors playing the Farrellys were hulking beefcakes – a great sight gag, b) kids are exposed to far more severe violence in cartoons, games and wrestling so the warning was a bit pointless, and c) you’ve got to question how many kids were actually entertained enough to care by this point in the film. Actually, I’m wrong – there was another solitary point in the movie that made me smile, and that’s in relation to Jersey Shore. I won’t divulge any more. Hopefully you can remain awake to that point if you insist on watching.

The only reason you can want to see The Three Stooges is for nostalgia, so for non-US audiences, there’s very little reason to see it. It may bring back great memories for those of you familiar with the clowns from your childhood, but for everyone else? Nothing. If you want to see a genuinely funny portrayal of The Three Stooges, then check out the South Park episode called Hell on Earth 2006, where Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Gacy are charged with getting a Ferrari cake for Satan’s Super Sweet 16 birthday party. Now that is funny. As ever, the comedy world can learn a lot from Matt Stone and Trey Parker.

Ultimately, if you’ve seen the trailer for The Three Stooges, you know exactly what you’re getting. Just extend the trailer to 30-fold the length. It’s a constant onslaught of dated slapstick comedy featuring hammers, chainsaws and “boink” sound effects. If this appeals to you, then kudos – this is the film for you. For everyone else who has no affection for the The Three Stooges of yesteryear, then avoid.

In fact, I think the only non-fans that would enjoy these antics would be apes – ancestral or not. They’d guffaw at the stooges’ clowning. At least if you distracted those “damn dirty apes” with such vapid attempts at humour then they’d never gain intelligence, rise and take over the Earth. By this reckoning, The Three Stooges is the single most important cinematic effort of a generation. Now there’s a misleading quote for a poster.

Phage Factor: