Film Review: Kung Fury (2015)

Copyright: Laser Unicorns

Like all great plagues in history, the 80�s nostalgia was also gaining strength unseen and hidden, sprawling in the corners of the public collective consciousness. It started with the demonic resurgence of pixel art, a form of visual design that people in the gaming industry happily buried more than two decades ago. This spread to VHS tapes, vintage computers and many other things which are now cool as cucumbers only because the generation that grew up in that period (like me) entered their fourth decade and is prepared to pay money to see more of this falsely golden decade. But like Mary Schmich remarked long ago, nostalgia is essentially a process of recycling that turns old memories into overpriced notions which we cherish.

Kung Fury is a half an hour of 80�s roller-coaster of action and comedy, but it�s not a cheap trick to get money out of the pockets of the Millennials and X generations (not completely, at least). In the film, the viewers are bombarded with colors and action scenes, making the film something similar to a 12-year-old boy�s dream that took place somewhere in 1987. There is a loose plot, where the main character goes through an epic adventure involving porno-looking Viking female warriors, Hitler and hacking time, but watching Kung Fury is mostly about the laughs. Using some true kung fu wisdom, the creators of Kung Fury decided to steer clear of long dialogue or verbal humor, apart from several 80�s puns and instead focused on the slapstick elements, some of which are really brilliant (shooting through the phone connection, for example).

During its crowdfunding campaign, the film promised a joy ride colored in the tones of a none-existed era of Regan on LSD and definitely delivered the same. Like Blue Ruin, it shows that this system of gathering money really can produce very successful films, both from an art and business perspective.  For me, the great thing about the film is how its director David Sandberg compacted it into a run-time that is neither long nor short. I believe that this is the ideal length for the future genre of YouTube feature films (along with a brand new production and financing model) and I�m very much looking forward to those movies.

Watch the complete Kung Fury right here.

Film Review: Poltergeist (2015)

Copyright: 20th Century Fox

Poltergeist from 1982 is one of those films that are etched into the hearts of many generations. Here, Spielberg showed how horror and utter amazement can go hand in hand while it also generated incredible amounts of money. Naturally, topping that for any would-be re-imagining is a pretty big deal, which is why, it seems to me, the creators of Poltergeist 2015 really didn�t even try.

I have to say right off the bat that I really loved this film. It has some awesome visual moments, mainly where the light from objects is used as a material element, not as something untouchable. Here, the director Gil Kenan really presented some impressive moves, which are not overproduced or hammered upon the audience by the 3D setting.

At the same time, many problematic things that often show up in horror films, like obnoxious little children or the irresistible need to make the actions of the protagonists logical (they never are and we�re never convinced as the viewers by the explanations) are completely excluded. From the first moment a child disappears, the parents are like: �This is supernatural. We have to call the Ghostbusters.�

A minute later, Ghostbusters (in this case a team from the local university) show up and say �Yep, these are ghosts you have here. Even worse, they are a Poltergeist. We have to call a Ghostbusters specialist.� Soon after, a specialist appears, played by Jared Harris, who is also immediately assured that stuff is supernatural to the max. Fortunately, Harris got to try out this role, minus the humor and benevolence, in The Quiet Ones, and does a decent job, unlike others, but more about this later.

This approach is really liberating from the regular horror ebb and flow of belief/disbelief which I find more and more to be pointless and dull. It allows the Poltergeist movie to evolve as a ride and provide ample amounts of satisfying twists and turns, although nothing that will make James Wan wants to steal a trick or two for his next film.

But, I completely understand why many did not like the film. Firstly, it copies the narrative of the original play by play, adding only stuff like iPad controlled camera-carrying drones, which is kind of lame. It also has this weird imbalance of production values. Because of it, the house where the action takes place looks painfully boring, along with its surroundings. While the first film made a huge deal about this transformation of the suburban landscape into a hell portal, Poltergeist 2015 fails to pull off anything similar to this idea. The house that is featured in it begins as a boring home and ends up as a boring exploded home, which isn�t much of a story arc for it.

Lastly, there is the issue of Sam Rockwell as Eric Bowen, the father and husband of the family. I really love Rockwell as a character actor, but he was a serious miscast for this film. Throughout the film, he emits an ironic, detached feel that is completely out of his character�s supposed frame of mind. His many dry remarks not only fail to produce humor, but also make it harder for the audience to be immersed in the plight of the Bowen family. I�m not sure why Rockwell accepted the role, but he sure seems like he wanted to do something else.

This, along with the production issues, tells me that Gil Kenan fully understood that he wasn�t making the �next� Poltergeist and instead he tried his best to make �another� Poltergeist film.

The Poltergeist full movie was something that I very much enjoyed, but most of that came from expecting to see weird and scary things in a setting that was familiar to me. While I wish it to be enjoyable for others as well, it is by no means a great horror film.

Film Review: Ex Machina (2015)

Copyright: A24

When I heard about Ex Machina, I was really looking forward to seeing it, mainly because of one name � Alex Garland. 

As an experienced writer, Garland worked on a number of sci-fi-ish things, including excellent films by Danny Boyle. But, when I saw it, I realized that the whole film indeed resides on a single name, but that�s not Garland, but one of its three main actors, Oscar Isaac.

In the film�s plot, a young coder meets a strange and reclusive IT genius who is working on a secret project in his mountain villa/research complex. There, the same coder meets Ava, an AI in the form of a robot. His task is to use the Turing test and determine if she/it is really fully conscious and self-aware.

Garland made Ex Machina like he would write a novel. The dialogues are smart and dependent on the notion that no one in the audience actually knows much about the Turing test (film tries to brush this aside, but doesn�t do a great job at it). The characters are layered and the Machiavellian plots are ripe all over the place. But, in the end, Alicia Vikander just does not show anything else than a robot. This machine-to-human transition is exceedingly difficult and often fails when it is approached directly and head-on. On the other hand, films like Her, who approach it sideways and through relatable characters, tell the basic Ex Machina story in a much better way.

The only great thing going for Garland in the film is Isaac. After A Most Violent Year, I can easily say that this man has all that is needed for a very cerebral acting star. His character is distant as any imaginary tech genius and possibly a sociopath, but also someone who the audience can practically touch through the screen. Isaac glides thought the role, unlike the other two characters.

Ex Machina feels and delivers like any Twilight TV show episode would � there is some cool cinematography, some tension and a heavy-hitting twist, but all failed to impress as a whole.

Film Review - Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Copyright: Warner Bros. Pictures

At one point in the Mad Max: Fury Road, a character calls bullets �anti-seeds� because you plant one and then watch something die. This is not a big part of the film, nor did its director George Miller put some special emphasis to this idea, which is delivered in less than 20 seconds and then never mentioned again.

But, as soon as I heard it, I thought to myself that this is a pretty interesting idea, but more importantly, one that I never heard before. It made sense instantly while, at the same time, it was very original and funny in a dark way. I had one of those �why didn�t I came up with that idea first?� moment. Its morbid, biting, and comical wisdom is like the entire film. In it, there is nothing spectacularly new or never seen before. But, as a whole, it�s an anti-thesis to the idea that big blockbuster films need to be stupid or made by Christopher Nolan.

Essentially, George Miller took the story of Mad Max 2 and made it into something perfectly crafted for the Millennials, but he did not cater to their short span of attention like AAA action films usually do. He also didn�t do what Nolan does and try to show them how shallow or self-centered they are by making even more shallow and self-centered films. Miller made a film that is relentless like a rabid dog and lost in oneself like an addict before an OD shot. In it, the action is not something that happens; it is the only thing that happens, but this does not rob the film of depth or meaning. Like the anti-seed idea, it�s cleverer that the audience, but the audience does not feel this in any negative way.

In fact, like Dredd 3D, it injects its sense of purpose through action, violence and machines breaking up and exploding. In an endless post-apocalyptic desert, a single man tries to run and escape a warrior society that captured him. On his path, he meets a woman called Imperator Furiosa driving a War Rig and looking to escape from the same society, carrying a precious cargo. The man does not care for her, but he will help her to make sure he stays alive. Film like The Rover show us how it can begin in the Australian outback. Films like this one shows us here it will end up.

In Mad Max: Fury Road there is no sugar coating and no attention grabbing. Like a face submerged in a bowl of water, there is only the now because the next breath might flood the lungs. In the desolate, savage and sand-covered space, the escape is not a plot device, but the plot itself. It does not want to stop and it can�t stop unless War Rigs occupants are victorious or dead. This film is like Transformers made by a person who does not care about the focus group feedback and producer cuts. It only needs to roll out and its tires have to dig deep into the ground because that is its only purpose. Stay moving, stay alive, and continue to watch. But it�s not serious about itself, or any of its characters. At the place and time where they exist, being alive is a transient category. All along, glorious cinematography and 3D effects paint the movie in every tone of the Ultraviolent specter. And then the film ends.

No one will fall asleep during this film. Some might leave it, but no one can ignore it. The same is true for the entire Hollywood industry, where a myth about the idea that blockbusters have to be only a certain type of film (I mentioned already the stupid vs. dark dichotomy). George Miller showed with Mad Max: Fury Road that gripping cinema only needs to grip you and its authors can choose among many ways it can do this. This film�s grip will leave on most people burn marks that will last for days.