Reviews

I saw director Robert Pratten's 1st movie, London Voodoo some time ago. I remember thinking it was an entertaining, tight, well acted, well scripted, highly competent debut. So competent was it that lacked the edginess associated with 1st time directors of self financed productions.

So, when I saw a Mindflesh at the weekend, I was expecting more of the same. Same director, same DOP, set in London, even the same composer I think.

Wrong!

Mindflesh marks an Alan Parkeresque departure for Pratten. Mindflesh and London Voodoo are as different as Angel Heart is from Bugsy Malone. This time that edgy feel is there, and it's there in spades.

The story follows a London mini-cab driver's obsession with a mysterious woman and the dire consequences it has for his friends, and ultimately himself. If that sounds straight forward, trust me, it isn't. Think strange stomach growths, kinky sex and grotesque vengeful gods and you're part way there.

I can't really categorise MF as I haven't seen anything like it before. I suppose it would fit into the trippy-horror-sex-Buddhist genre, if there were such a thing. This isn't one of those "it was pretty good" movies, everyone that sees this will have a strong opinion of it, but love it or hate it, you should see it.

Personally, I thought it was fantastic.

There's theory that a great actor can utter the most ridiculous lines and make them sound real and plausible. That being the case, either Bob Hoskins and Malcom MacDowell's powers have deserted them or, that this film hits previously unknown lows in dialogue. Hoskins and MacDowell just look embarrassed. And so they should be.

This movie is basically 28 Weeks Later meets Mad Max with medieval bits thrown in. Everyone speaks in clichés (absolutely all the time) and everything explodes. If you like the sound of that, knock yourself out.

It's difficult to describe what a confusing experience watching this movie is. Despite all the death and destruction and relentless pace, it somehow manages to be dull.

I shall attempt to explain why. Imagine a competition, like the UK's old Screen Test. This is like some kids have been given access to a (adimitedly excellent) technical crew, actors and some unconnected sets and props and told they could make their own movie using any of them. Being kids they choose them all. They then immediately got on with filming, writing in recycled one liners from Dolph Lungdren movies as they went along.

I am well aware that films like this are not intended to be taken seriously, however, that does not mean that the story and dialogue should be irrelevant.

As I've moaned about every film I've reviewed thus far I shall try to find some positives. Rhona Mitra is good, the stunts are refreshingly low on CGI and the camera and colours are nice. In fact it's all very nicely made and looks as good as the films it "pays homage" too. And, should you like gory scenes, Doomsday provides you plenty to cheer, but nothing you haven't seen before.

I feel I should mention the nudity. I like sexy movies as much, and probably a lot more than your next man. But the sexless nudity in films like this is so clearly only there so they get "contains nudity" to go with "contains strong bloody violence" on the DVD box. It therefore ticks all the boxes for teenage boys that this film is clearly aimed at. Cynical but doubtless effective stuff.

So if you are an undemanding teenage boy this may be a good mates and pizza movie, if you are anything else, run a bloody mile.

This stands out as an illustration of just how difficult it is to make a good film.

Here we have a talented cast, a superb location and a script based on a successful (and true) story. It should be great, but it isn't even close. Why? Well, there's nothing amazing or even surprising about the central "scam" itself. Perhaps it was simplified for the movie, but you certainly do not need to be a maths genius to do what the MIT students do. This of course is fine in itself, but the whole movie is shot as if it's some amazing Oceans 11 style plot complete with slow motion shots of the gang exiting the casino. It just doesn't gel at all with what is a down to earth, old as the hills, easily understood method of increasing your chances of winning at Black Jack.

The biggest problem however, is the characters. The film could have stood the stereotypes of the gamblers gang if the leads were developed (including surprisingly, Spacey), but they're not. Jill (Kate Bosworth) is the romantic interest and starts off as a slightly mysterious seductress that sucks our hero, Ben, into the world of Vegas gambling. However, part way into the movie, she completely changes into Ben's sensible girlfriend, and no longer seems like a person who would even be attracted by the high risks and bright lights of their Vegas plan.

Even that would be OK if our hero kept our interest going, but, after joining up with the team of gamblers, Ben goes from sympathetic nerd to obnoxious tosser. And he stays that way. The ending suggests that we were supposed to like, or at least be impressed by him, but he does nothing whatsoever to encourage that.

All in all, this is a massively disappointing movie.

As the above suggests, I was ultimately unimpressed with this movie. It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable. Films don't have to be believable, but films like this, with a political edge and social commentary do.

Similarly, I have no problem with commercialism as such, but once again, films like this shouldn't be making casting decisions purely based on box office draw. This is absolutely the case with Sutherland, who is frankly rubbish as Doyle. His accent was far from authentic, but he fell into the biggest trap of all, his accent IS his performance, and we end up with a caricature of Irishness with no personality outside of his nationality. I find it totally implausible that anyone involved thought he was the best man for the job. All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.

Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time. More surprising was Samantha Morton's much lauded Irish accent, which was variable to say the least. Her voice meandered between strong north and soft south, even in the voice-overs, where I would've expected any such discrepancies to be picked up.

However, these are minor gripes compared to the motivation and actions of Sarah. She never seems at home with the English, and almost instantly at home with her son and his tribe, the dilemma between the life she knew and the life she if offered just seems like a no-brainer. Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.

Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible. The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me.

As you may have guessed. this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it.