Black Mountain Side

I found a reference to the indie horror movie:

Black Mountain Side (2014),

and decided to watch it. Beware of spoilers this time around! I racked my brain to find a way to avoid spoilers but to no avail. I won't spoil the ending though, so don't worry about that.

This is the synopsis on IMDB: At a cold, desolate, north-most outpost in Canada, an archaeological discovery is made. A specialist arrives Nov. 1. Strange things happen. All contact with the outside world is down.

So our story takes place far in the north of Canada where a team has uncovered what seems to be a part of a structure of Mesoamerican origin. In fact it is in the style of Mesoamerica but considerably older. A find like this in a place like that is of course a big deal. This is why Professor Olsen flies up to the camp to validate their findings and possibly secure more funding.

Things go bad quickly. The native workers vanish in the night, and the archaeologists start getting sick and insane. The plot presents us with two alternative reasons;

1. A bacteria/virus that has been frozen since the ice age has been uncovered together with what they call “the temple”, and is responsible for causing mutation, madness and other problems.

2. They have freed or angered a bipedal deer god who wants them dead for some unexplained reason.

The problem with alternative one is that as the synopsis says contact with the world is down. Not only is the radio unable to establish contact, but the regular supply drop doesn't come, and a virus can't cause that. I suppose the supply drop could be delayed but in that case it is delayed by a month, stranding the people in up to -50C temperatures with no supplies, for no good reason.

This leaves the silly deer god, and that story has some bad plot holes as well.

Black Mountain Side is written and directed by Nick Szostakiwskyj, and it his second full movie as a director, and not be mean, but it shows. The actors come across somewhere between wooden and okay, and the dialogue is also quite hit and miss.

The actual horror parts are pretty good, but are let down by the surrounding parts and they are what's necessary to sell the horror to the audience.

The movie is low budget, but that is no excuse. I have seen low budget before that works smart within the boundaries set by the finances. Outpost (2008) is a good example of such a movie.

A couple of examples this movie does wrong includes calling a flat, table sized rock, a temple. Call it an altar, hint that it could be like the Aztec pyramids and that the altar is only the top of a pyramid. Of course they couldn't afford to build a temple, but the script has to reflect what you show.

Likewise they mention several times how cold it gets at night, but their breath is barely visible. I've been in only -20C many times and the film location was nowhere near that cold. -20C is more than dangerous enough if you are trapped outside all night. No need to over dramatize with -50.

Another couple of things I noted were that the cabins they live in apparently have the ability to do carbon dating and their med station is capable of blood analysis, autopsies as well as biopsies. You never see any of this gear though. Seem silly again.

Many have compared this movie to Carpenter's The Thing as well as some of Lovecraft's works. I can see why the comparisons are made, but I don't fully agree. The Thing might have been an inspiration, but there are no real similarities beyond the cold and the isolation. Likewise, beyond the “Deer God” there is nothing Lovecraftian about it. The gods in Lovecraft's stories really don't care about humans very much, at least not on a personal level as depicted in this movie.

Now that I have ranted on about all the things the movie does wrong, why even mention it when I don't like to write negative reviews? Because this movie has heart and promise. The core of the story is actually pretty good, but the pacing and execution is off. A good rewrite of the script might have elevated it to a much greater height and it wasn't panned on release, far from it. The scenery is great, being shot on location, and overall, somehow this movie was interesting! For it's sins, I actually like it.

So, do I recommend this movie? If you are a horror enthusiast or like the synopsis, then yes by all means. Otherwise no, watch something else.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great and safe week!

 

Third time lucky

I once again felt like watching a movie but this time I chose to go outside my usual haunts. So I watched the Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill movie Moneyball (2011). This movie is all about how the manager of the Oakland Athletics baseball team decides to try using computer generated statistics to set up his team instead of using “baseball people”.

I'm not a sports guy, but it was an okay movie. If you like sports, do give it a shot. This is however pretty much all I have to say about Moneyball, so I sat down and watched:

Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018). I talked about the original Sicario movie a couple of weeks ago and it is a good movie. Day of the Soldado isn't. It is in fact awful. Inconsistencies and plot holes you can drive a truck through. I do not recommend this movie. At all. Watch the first one and skip this mess.

This left me in a bind as I wanted to have something to write about and movies that I don't like or care about isn't good content. Thus I bit the bullet a third time and watched:

A Bridge Too Far (1977).

This is a WWII movie about Operation Market Garden directed by Richard Attenborough. It stars a couple of known names like Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Laurence Olivier, Gene Hackman, Edward Fox, Anthony Hopkins, James Caan, Robert Redford and many many more. Everywhere you look you run into famous faces, and the “That's that guy from that movie” syndrome is in full effect.

Operation Market Garden was an allied attempt to shorten the war. Set after D-Day in 1944, thousands of British, U.S. and Polish airborne soldiers (Market) were dropped behind the German lines in order to secure nine (three in the movie) vital bridges and cut off the Germans. Land forces (Garden) would then attack, punching through and splitting the German forces before mopping them up. As with all such ambitious operations, there were plenty of problems, and the end result was a mixed success. Some would say it failed, others that is achieved most of what it was designed to do. Either way it was a costly affair.

The movie is good, let's get that out of the way. You only have to glance at the cast to see that the actors are not a problem. Attenborough does a fine job directing, especially as he had to juggle all the balls at the same time. The airborne troops, the tank troops, officer meeting and all the fighting.

Speaking of the fighting, the battle scenes are spectacular. Planes dropping bombs, tanks and troops everywhere... It is top shelf fight scenes. It doesn't shy away from the horror of war, but it also doesn't dwell on it. People are hurt and killed and many scenes are very somber and sobering, but it's not overly grisly like Fury was. I think respectful is a good word to describe how this movie handles the subject matter.

I have a small problem with the music though. It is either easy to miss or then it is a over the top happy and bombastic march. Suitable in itself, but when played over the intense fighting, suffering and sacrifice it rings a bit hollow. This department could be a lot better.

A Bridge Too Far is three hours long so be prepared. It speaks volumes, however, that it in no way felt three hours long. Time flew by, and though there are some scenes that could have been left out, nothing screams bloat.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes. Particularly to fans of war movies. The amazing cast doesn't interact that much with each other, which is a shame, but it is absolutely worth it.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great and safe week!

 

Start the week with a laugh.

Last week was pretty hectic as I spent several evenings and all of yesterday helping a friend move. This has left me little time and no extra energy to come up with something for this blog, so it's comedy sketch time. Please enjoy!

Join me again next time and until then, have a great and safe week!  

 

 

  

 

Peaky Blinders (season 1)

A couple of years ago I started to watch the Netflix show Peaky Blinders. Perhaps it wasn't the right time for me, or perhaps I wasn't prepared for what the show really is, but I never got past the second episode.

Recently, the Youtube algorithm started throwing clips from the show at me, and I became really intrigued. Intrigued enough to give it a new chance, and I'm glad I did. Just yesterday I finished season one and these are my thoughts. Keep in mind that the following only concerns Season 1.

Created by Steven Knight and directed by Otto Bathurst (ep. 1-3) and Tom Harper (ep. 4-6), Peaky Blinders stars Cillian Murphy, Paul Anderson, Sophie Rundle, Helen McCrory and many more. Central in the first season (at least) are also Sam Neill and Annabelle Wallis. These are all amazing actors, no question about that.

The Peaky Blinders are a gang in Birmingham and the story starts in 1919. The core of the Peaky Blinders is the Shelby clan, who's men have just returned from France and the horrors of The Great War. They are all suffering from PTSD in one way or another and tend to drown their suffering in copious amounts of whiskey and sometimes opium. The Blinders run a bookmaking business and the central theme of the season is their expansion and rise to greater power through schemes, bribes and violence. They are however not alone in this, and have to contend with other gangs as well as the police.

Peaky Blinders is a violent show but not excessively so, yes there is blood and killings, but the camera doesn't dwell on it. The absence of brutality would in fact seem weird so the show carries the violence on its shoulder but once it is over, it is over.

If the Shelby clan is central to the Peaky Blinders, Tommy Shelby (Cillian Murphy) is central to the family. He's not the oldest of the brothers, but he is the smartest and the most cunning. The others are tough men, but they don't have the foresight or strategic planning that Tommy does. He is not infallible though and makes mistakes throughout. This is a big part of the tension. If Tommy was never wrong and always made the right move, the show would fail. Perfection is after all pretty dull.

The show does an amazing job in creating the coal stained, whiskey soaked industrial world of early 20^th century Birmingham. The camera work goes from solid to brilliant at times and the music is... modern. At first that took me by surprise to hear The White Stripes or Tom Waits, but the tracks you hear are chosen carefully and really work with what you are seeing. A strange choice to be sure, but one that works.

Facts:

• There was a real gang called the Peaky Blinders, but the Shelby clan is fictional.

• They smoke copious amounts of cigarettes but they were herbal non nicotine ones. Apparently they tasted awful.

• No one could get a part on the show unless they could do a Brummie accent. Of course, characters who aren't local speak with other accents, but many big names auditioned and were turned down for this reason.

• The Shelby men were so called Mud-kickers in the war. Soldiers who's job it was to dig narrow tunnels through to mud to get to the German lines which often led to cave-ins and brutal hand to hand combat with the German sappers.

So, do I recommend season 1? Oh yes. It is amazing, but very heavy to watch at times. This isn't a casual show that you can have on in the background. Everything is serious business, even when it isn't. With every episode being basically an hour long, I had to cap my viewing to two episodes at a time. But that said, Peaky Blinders is up there with the greats in television. At least so far. Once I peel off more seasons, I'll let you know what I think.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time, and until then, have a great and safe week!

Sicario

Some time ago, I watched a Youtube compilation of badass moments in movies, or something in that vein. One such moment was from the movie I watched this week:

Sicario (2015).

The title Sicario derives from the Latin word "Sicarius," meaning "dagger man." The term was used by Romans to describe Jewish zealots who killed Roman citizens using a "sica" or small dagger hidden in their cloaks. There were so many murders in the province of Judea around the 1st Century AD that the figure of "Sicarius" was codified in Roman law ("Lex Cornelia de Sicariis et Veneficis -- Cornelian Law for Stabbers and Poisoners") of 81 AD. These words also derive from the verb "secare," which means "to slice." 

(I copied this from IMDB, as I'm too tired to retype it.)

Emily Blunt plays Kate Mercer, an FBI agent who has spent her entire career kicking in doors as a member of the FBI CIRG, their version of SWAT, instead of investigating cases. When she leads a breach and clear of a Mexican Cartel house in the US, she is invited to volunteer for an inter-agency task force. The task force is led by Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) an adviser for the Department of Defense. He in turn is accompanied by Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) who is also a DoD adviser.

Kate and her partner Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya) are eventually informed that the goal of the task force is the cause the cartel so much trouble that their US boss is recalled to Mexico to explain himself. This would lead the task force straight to the top boss. Kate quickly realizes that there is more going on than she has been told. This is as much as I'm able to tell without going into spoiler territory.

Sicario is a well made movie from beginning to end. The actors are great, some scenes are expertly crafted and the music/soundtrack goes from 'Fine' to 'Excellent'. The few complaints I have are few and far between. Example: In the breach and clear in the beginning, Kate guns down a cartel goon toting a shotgun. However, she approaches and checks his vitals without removing the shotgun from his grasp. Clear violation of operating procedures, as she couldn't know for sure that he was dead before approaching. It's not a big deal, but it stood out as a small thing that would have made sense to include.

I feel I should mention the violence. There is quite a bit of killing in this movie, not so much on camera, but there are multiple shots of mutilated corpses throughout, and those with a sensitive disposition should be aware.

So, do I recommend this movie? Yes, I really do. It's not a great masterpiece that is going to go down as a timeless classic, but it is a really good action thriller, and any fan of those genres should like this movie. The scene I mentioned above was enough to make me want to see Sicario, and it was well worth it.

That's that and all that. Join me again next time and until then, have a great and safe week!