Tuesday 13 September 2011

9/11: Ten Years Later (CBS)


This post is not really a review. It is more a commentary on a stunning documentary about 9/11. I urge you all to watch.

In 2001, two French film makers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet planned to make a documentary on a rookie fire-fighter, from his journey as a ‘probie’ to a fully qualified member of the New York Fire Department. That fire-fighter was Tony Benetatos, a young man who ‘always wanted to be a hero.’ For weeks, Benetatos’ moves were filmed by the Naudet brothers as he fought small fires throughout the city. Then, one September morning, at a routine gas leak call, Jules Naudet heard the roar of a jet engine. Pointing his camera to the sky, Jules captured the only piece of footage of American Airlines 11 slamming into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre. What followed was an unprecedented series of events that would change our world forever. Jules followed the fire-fighters as they arrived on the scene and as such, caught the only film recorded from inside the towers themselves. For two hours in 2002, CBS and BBC viewers sat glued to their screens when the Naudet’s film, 9/11, finally aired. Now, ten years on, with the memory of September 11th still as raw as ever in our minds, Jules and Gedeon Naudet have returned with an ‘extended edition’, a ‘catch up’ with the fire-fighters, documenting how 9/11 has changed their lives. What they uncovered were shocking stories of how that fateful day is still claiming lives and how many men are still living with ‘survivor’s guilt’ as well as stories of hope and courage.  

Ladder 1 is the focus of the Naudet's 9/11.
The aerial views of the Twin Towers’ collapse is disturbing as it is, yet the Naudet’s documentary taps into all of our fears because it offers a glimpse of the perspective from those on the ground. I suppose we could even go so far as to say that it gives the perspective of the firemen themselves. After all, few other documentaries, if any, managed to follow the heroes of that day as they desperately sought to save as many civilians as possible. Even if we cannot fully understand what happened and why, the Naudet’s film allows us to observe these horrors like no other piece of footage that exists.

Whilst the clean-up operation and aftermath of the attack is hinted at in 9/11, there’s no real exploration into the psychological repercussions of such an event and the toll it has taken on the men. Finally, 9/11: Ten Years Later approaches the subject with full force. The original documentary resisted from delivering any kind of political message to its audience. Ten Years Later changes that. The Naudet brothers return to Ladder 1 on Duane Street, only to hear that two of the firemen who featured prominently in their film, have died from cancer, which in turn has been linked to the toxic cloud of dust that covered New York for days. The Naudet’s follow up, then, is a response, if not an attack, to the idea that compensation will not be given for cancer related illnesses. It’s a blatant criticism of a Government that has let their service men down. These stories are overwhelmingly sad. Indeed, the original documentary is now so well known that these men almost feel like our acquaintances.

Joseph Casaliggi re-appears in Ten Years Later.
One of the firemen speaks of how he no longer works for the NYFD because of 9/11, how he is no longer married because of 9/11 and how he is haunted by 343 (the number of firemen who died that day). Although you cannot really ‘review’ a film like this, I must praise the Naudet brothers for raising awareness, for not letting us forget and for informing us about how these firemen are still suffering because of what they saw on September 11th. A number of fire-fighters, for example, admit that they drink more and that they are still going through counselling. Joseph Casaliggi returns to tell how he wakes up every day, wondering whether he will be told that he has a serious illness. The event, in a way, overshadows what follows. 9/11 itself was huge, but the individual stories of those who survived it are not told. We are not made aware. The Naudet brothers must be commended here for their efforts. 

Tony Benetatos, the 'probie.'
In contrast to this, however, there is still a message of hope that shines through the film. It may be a yearning for the unification that people felt in the days following the attacks but the Naudet brothers show how life can move on, and that we can still look forward whilst remembering the past. Joseph Pfeifer is now the Chief of Counter Terrorism. Tony Benetatos, the 'probie', is now a member of the Decontamination Unit of the fire service, a husband and father, while Dennis Tardio is a grandfather after retiring. Life, as they say, moves on.

The Naudet brothers, at the close of Ten Years Later, sum up what Nicholas Cage as John McLoughlin concludes at the end of Oliver Stone’s World Trade Centre: "9/11 showed us what human beings are capable of. The evil, yeah, sure. But it also brought out the goodness we forgot could exist. People taking care of each other for no other reason than it was the right thing to do. It's important for us to talk about that good, to remember. 'Cause I saw all of it that day."

9/11 is not a documentary that attempts to tell us why this event happened. It is purely a truthful account of a heroic group of men that worked together and made a sacrifice for their country. Ten Years Later offers us an insight into what these men went through after 9/11. If any documentary on 9/11 is worth watching, it’s this one.

Photos property of CBS and the Naudet Brothers: No infringement intended.


Friday 9 September 2011

The Troll Hunter

THIS POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

Another ‘found footage’ film has made it onto our cinema screens this week. Troll Hunter, a Norwegian ‘mockumentary,’ written and directed by André Øvredal, follows a group of students who set out to make a documentary about a supposed Bear poacher, Hans. As the trio secretly follow and film Hans, they uncover a truth more shocking than anyone could ever imagine. Hans is a hunter, working for the Norwegian Government, killing trolls that have escaped their ‘territory.’ Unlike Apollo 18, this film treats its ‘found footage’ style as an asset. Surprisingly, Øvredal has crafted a little gem here, and while it may not achieve mainstream success, it will most certainly earn a cult following and rightly deserves it status as one of the better films of summer 2011.

Troll Hunter is not a horror and it doesn’t pretend to be. Part drama, part comedy, part social satire, Hunter works because of its tongue-in-cheek attitude towards itself. As a piece of film, it shines due to its ability to never take itself too seriously. Maybe this is what sets it apart from its Hollywood counterparts. There’s a sense of uniqueness here, a sense of foreign originality which is all too lacking in film these days. Yes, we are indulged with beautiful shots of the Norwegian landscape, but its genius stems from more than its patriotic, loving scenes of its homeland. Hollywood conformities are ignored and whilst the ending is predictable because of the way it is filmed, the rest is unpredictable, thrilling, and at times, down right menacing.  

Considering Øvredal shot Troll Hunter on a challenging budget of US $3.5 million, the special effects are of the highest standard. The creature designs in this remind me of Guillermo del Toro’s work on his own masterpiece, Pan’s Labyrinth. Combined with sweeping shots of Norway’s spectacular scenery and Hunter contains stunning cinematography that really adds a sense of scale to events. Although I was quite critical of the style in my previous review of Apollo 18, the ‘found footage’ aspect really gives the film a raw, authentic feel and is an excellent example of how this doesn't only have to be employed in horror films.

Creature designs reminscent of Guillermo del Toro's work.
Øvredal has fun with the creature’s ‘look.’ He is not concerned with how scary they seem. Indeed, the physicality of these monsters border on the humorous. Øvredal focuses on an ‘event’ in the film and its repercussions, rather than how he expects his audience to feel. This, in a way, adds to the realism of the picture and helps with the development of its characters. Jumping at times from the hilarious, to the tense, to the absurd, it all somehow works. Keep an eye out for the slight pokes at Hollywood blockbusters: Hans attempts to lure one of the trolls out of hiding using a sheep as bait, an obvious throwback to the infamous scene in Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, whilst a sequence where our heroes are fleeing an attack in their car is almost identical to the Tyrannosaurus Rex chase. Moments like this, with an underlying subtle humour, is where Troll Hunter excels.

I suppose UK and US audiences cannot fully appreciate the more ‘knowledgeable’ parts of the film’s humour. Hans is played by Otto Jespersen, a famous (and apparently controversial) Norwegian comedian who may be largely unknown to international viewers. The other main actors seem comfortable in their roles although a largely improvised script has its limitations and issues. When one of their team dies, they do not seem as upset as expected and within minutes they already have a new member joining them for their expedition. For a film that ‘pampers’ its realism, this seems a little disjointed compared to other moments of brilliance.

It may be slow in places, but this post-modern take on local folklore will certainly leave you feeling both satisfied and shocked. 106 minutes may be a little too long for this kind of film and the climax seems a little rushed, but its strengths overshadow any criticisms that it draws. It’s wry, it’s clever and most importantly, it’s fun. Go and see it before the inevitable Hollywood remake is released.

My Rating: * * * *

While I’m here, I must criticise the UK trailer. If you’ve seen it, ignore it. What the distributors of Troll Hunter were thinking when they put out such a ridiculous, cheap, tacky advertisement, I don’t know. In an attempt to make the film appeal to a wider audience, they’ve made it look like some ‘zany’ comedy. Isn’t it better to advertise a film on its own merits rather than trying to mould it into something it’s not? 

The official trailer you SHOULD watch!

 

The awful UK trailer:

 


Thursday 8 September 2011

Apollo 18

THIS POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS.
 
Apollo 18 is frustrating. Extremely frustrating in fact. Gonzalo López-Gallego’s ‘found footage horror’ has the potential to be something brilliant, yet in its desire to be something that it’s not, it fails spectacularly. ‘Found footage’ has been done to death, and in my opinion, The Blair Witch Project is the best of the lot, with REC coming a close second. Apollo 18, however, offers something unique, something that in hindsight, could refresh the genre for millions more to enjoy. Its strength lies in its setting: the moon. Immediately it is obvious that these characters will have to endure loneliness, isolation and segregation from humanity. If the film even bothered to tap into these simplistic yet raw themes, it would be an extreme improvement. Unfortunately, everything you want to happen is ignored and what is left is a thin storyline, an attempted horror and plot holes the size of moon craters. (Couldn’t resist. Sorry.)

The premise of the film is actually fantastic, which makes the finished outcome all the more disappointing. Film footage, uploaded to www.lunartruth.com, reveals that the cancelled Apollo 18 mission did in fact launch but never returned, which is why we never went back to the moon. The film, which acts as the material uploaded to the net, uncovers the secrets that NASA has been holding back for years. It’s all very intriguing. The problem lies with the film itself. Multiple sub-plots are stronger than the main story thread, ignored for the most part and only brought back to our attention when they’re conveniently needed. Inextricable problems are suddenly solved without a second thought and the film relies a little too much on the ‘Deus Ex Machina’ plot device to end the character’s dilemmas. It’s dumb and it’s stupid and a great disappointment.

Russians on the moon: One of the better storylines.


Visually, the film is stunning. López-Gallego should congratulate himself on his recreation, but it’s not enough for us to ignore the major flaws that exist here. The film takes an extremely long time to get going, too long for us to feel as if it’s worth investing anything here. When it does, things get interesting. Our main characters find an abandoned Russian landing module on the moon, the inside trashed and covered in blood. This is where Apollo 18 should have focused its energy; as the astronauts communicate with Earth in an attempt to uncover the truth, there is a genuine sense of foreboding and uneasiness. Not surprisingly, this disturbing atmosphere, so expertly crafted, only exists during the more realistic parts of the film, only to dissolve once the idea of an alien creature is introduced. Unfortunately, the Russian story is relegated to a subplot and left forgotten until the very end and there’s no concrete explanation as to why they are actually there. Reasons are hinted at, but for something that is given such prominence at the beginning of the film, the pay off is weak. I’m sure it would be fair to say that Apollo 18 would work far better as a conspiracy thriller. If López-Gallego could think of a legitimate reason as to why the Russians were really there and what happened to them, then this would most likely be something excellent. After all, why does the ‘found footage’ genre always have to revolve around the horrific?

Logic and realism are sacrificed to make a ‘horror’ film that offers nothing new than the one before it. When the good old ‘alien passing outside the window’ scene arrives, it turns out creatures the size of small rocks possess massive shadows that cover the entire lunar landing module. López-Gallego and his team have fallen victim to the horror clichés that dominate the genre these days. This brings me to the biggest plot hole of all, as well as the biggest spoiler. If you’re still planning on watching, I would recommend that you stop reading now and come back later.

All three astronauts die. Any footage that exists is either destroyed in space or left on the moon. We are told at the beginning of the film that, ‘we never went back.’ How, then, did this footage ever get found? I feel as if Dimension Films are really scraping the barrel when their entire marketing campaign (found footage from the moon!) is a sheer impossibility. Are we really meant to believe that this all just found its way back down to Earth? Even an unrealistic explanation would be better than nothing. Ignorance is rife here and it shows.

The casting of three unknowns is a good decision, although their performances are not the best I’ve ever seen. Warren Christie as Astronaut Ben Anderson has the best scenes out of the trio, and he makes the most of the climactic, ‘You’re not coming back to Earth’ scenario. I would be surprised if anyone still cared about these characters by the time their ‘official’ fates are revealed. Apollo 18 is only ninety minutes, yet a long, drawn out beginning makes it feel much longer. As the credits roll over a sombre, piano rendition of ‘We Three Kings’, you will already have pulled apart much of the film’s plot lines. You may also wish you’d spent your £5 on something else. This is one that is destined for the bargain bin when released on DVD and Blu-Ray. No doubt some more footage will have been 'found' by then to bulk out the special features.

Apollo 18 is an extremely predictable story. There’s no substance, no cathartic value. If there weren’t hints of something better in the remnants of an awful horror, then maybe I wouldn’t be so disappointed. It is said that in space, no one can hear you scream. After watching Apollo 18, I don’t think anyone would care.

My Rating: * *