The Butterfly Effect: The Director's Cut

Okay, not a new release (2004), but I've only just got round to watching it, so bear with me! Where do I begin? Well, let's start with that Director's Cut subtitle. This film is 7 minutes longer than the theatrical edition, and has an ending which is more in keeping with the generally bleak tone of the film. The original cut had a variant on the age old "happily ever after with a twist" style ending that these thought provoking thrillers get when initial screenings are given to focus groups. And generally they leave you feeling short changed - you come away from the film thinking of ways that it would have been more satisfying. The Director's Cut edition of this film satisfies that need. It changes the story of the film dramatically at the end, adds in a couple of extra scenes elsewhere, and puts a different spin on the backstory of the parents of the main character. It is this last change that also goes some way to sorting out the reactions of the professional critics. With a Rotten Tomatoes score of just 34%, this film scores worse than most of those dreary, predictable rom-coms out there. However, when you look at the scores left behind by people who went to see the film despite the overwhelmingly negative press, you see scores of 80+% (or four out of five stars etc.). Why?

A lot of it has to do with the actors. At the time of the original theatrical release of this film, Ashton Kutcher was big tabloid news due to his relationship with ex-wife of Bruce Willis, Demi Moore. He was the also the lead in Dude, Where's My Car? as well as irritating a lot of celebrities state-side in Punk'd (or as we know it, Noel Edmond's Gotcha!). One can't help but feel that if maybe a Tobey Maguire, or an Elijah Wood, or even a Tom Welling had been in this picture instead, the reviews would have been more favourable. Which is a shame, because Kutcher imbues the character of Evan Treborn with a vulnerability that works very well, and certainly proves he has acting chops to spare. Unfortunately it's a case of celebrity culture 1 - acting ability 0 in the eyes of many critics.

The film starts proper with a 7 year old Evan experiencing blackouts as a child - in school, during a disturbing child porn movie being filmed by the father of a friend, in the kitchen, and so on. Also, a few years later in his early teens, watching a prank go disasterously wrong, and in a subsequent incident. Throughout this he is accompanied by three friends: romantic interest Kayleigh (played as an adult by Amy Smart), her psycho-in-waiting brother Tommy, and overweight and nervous Lenny. A lot of the drama in these incidents is traced back to Kayleigh and Tommy's divorced paedophile father (played by Eric Stoltz) and provide the impetus for many of the later twists and turns in the movie. Throughout this time, these blackouts have caused concern for his mother, and at the behest of a psychologist he begins to keep a journal of every day to help him through the memory blocks. Later on, while studying psychology at college, he finds out that by reading the entries pertaining to days when he had a blackout, he can re-enter those missing minutes and change the way events turned out.

And this is where the titular effect comes into play - in essence, one of the cornerstones of chaos theory (as seen in popular science, at least) is the old adage that a butterfly could flap its' wings, and halfway round the world, due to the incalculable interactions of that small movement of air with the atmosphere as a whole, a tornado could form. In other words, small changes can have big and unforeseen effects. As a premise for a film it is most definitely high concept, thought provoking, and requires more than one viewing to truly appreciate the complexities it introduces to the film - here's an example (small spoiler alert!): one of the first examples of blackouts is in a school, where he doesn't recall having drawn a horrific picture of a double murder of two skin-headed neo-Nazi types, with him standing over the bodies (the teacher asked them to draw what they wanted to be when they grew up). Later on in the film, as a result of a change he made during a blackout, he ends up in prison, with his journals stolen and held by a group of homosexual neo-Nazi inmates who call themselves the Brotherhood. He hatches a plan to try and prove himself to his cell mate, by jumping back to that time and hurting himself to produce scars in the present. However, he is in the memory long enough to draw the picture (which even Roger Ebert noted was "rather good for a 7 year old" without realising the connection!). And when he gets back he has proved himself and his cell mate helps him attack those inmates... you see? The picture was what future Evan wanted to do! And the blackouts are not as such - they are in fact times when future Evan will have access to his past to change events.

The problem is that these changes always seem to introduce undesired effects - prison, Kayleigh's life spiralling out of control, Evan losing both arms and use of his legs, being sectioned, and so on. In addition, each change has to be made further and further back in the past as the changing events wipe out journal entries as the related blackouts may not have happened! In addition to that, whenever large changes occur, he is overcome by pain and spasms as his memories effectively get another 20 years of alternate history dumped into them each time, and the cumulative effect is damaging, both physically and mentally. And on top of that there is a sub-plot about his father, which is far more important and central to the overall story in the Director's Cut version.

So there's a lot to think about. And a bit like Total Recall, it takes some thinking about to sort it out in your head. And like that film, it also has some uncomfortable scenes - the aforementioned paedophilia, violence, prostitution, harrowing images of mental and physical illness, and more than its fair share of death. The last few minutes of this particular version will also potentially upset or anger a number of people who have had a particular sort of family tragedy in their lives, so it's not a film for the faint hearted. But it is a lot better than the "professionals" gave it credit for (but then they write this stuff for a living - so what do I know? ;) )

Overall: 8/10 (6.5/10 for the theatrical and VCD versions)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

First thoughts: The new Indy film! Woo-hoo!

Second thoughts: Remember what happened when the brought back John Mclane for a fourth outing in his vest? Or Rambo? Yuck.

Third thoughts: Could this be a Phantom Menace style childhood memory rape - Lucas is involved after all!

Fourth thoughts: Isn't Harrison Ford a little bit, well, old?

I needn't have worried so much. When they brought back the Die Hard franchise, they tried to bring it "up to date" by making the story about cyber crime, and having a ridiculous face-off with a jet under a bridge. (I still maintain that they should have moved the story to LA, replaced the Pentagon with CTU, Mclane with Bauer and had it as 24 - The Movie. Think about it. You know I'm right.) The Episode I problem was anticipated, but we needn't have worried - whilst Beard Number 2 (Lucas) was producing, Beard Number 1 (Spielberg) was directing - and he knows how to craft a good, well paced family film, without too many of the horrific "cute sidekicks" that aflict so many films. Well, we'll forget about Hook.

And Temple of Doom in fact. Thank the Beards! There is no character anywhere near as annoying as Short Round, or a character as squawky and throw-off-a-cliffable as Willie Scott. I'll go out on a limb, right here, and say that Kingdom outstrips Doom by quite a way. Hell, even Spielberg has said in interviews that Temple of Doom was "not a good movie".

What we do have is a selection of new characters, and a couple of old favourites - it's no secret that Marion Ravenwood makes a return in this film, and of course, there is Indy. The film is set in 1957, around 20 years after Last Crusade (in the movie timeline and in real life - that's a nice touch), which means no Nazis, Cold War paranoia, and an older, more bruisable hero. So let's get down to the nitty gritty:

Plot: 7/10
It's not Raiders or Last Crusade, but it is more engaging than Temple of Doom. I didn't look at my watch during the film - always a good sign - and the story moved swiftly enough. There are some fantastic nods to the previous films (watch out for the Ark near the beginning!) and continuity is maintained well, right down to the fear of snakes (obvious reference!) and the viewing of hidden messages on floors by seeing them from high above (subtler reference!). The film is a bit of a homage to '50s sci-fi, in much the same way that the previous films were homages to Saturday morning serials, gung ho adventurers, and war films. That same episodic, periodic, ebb and flow to the script is there, and barely, if ever feels laboured. Some may feel that certain revelations surrounding the titular Crystal Skull are a bit silly, but it all follows its own internal logic, and I have to ask - is it any sillier than the stuff you saw in the previous films? Face melting? Ghosts and ghouls? Arcane rituals? A 1000 year old knight guarding a cup on the other side of a seemingly bottomless chasm with a hidden way across it which incidentally came after a tiled floor with worst case of subsidence underneath it ever? And that famous giant ball sequence? Put simply - the plot is secondary, just a means to hang the famous Indy set pieces off, but it has still had thought put in, and it is still remarkably relevant. Don't dismiss it out of hand.

Acting: 9/10
Harrison Ford, Shia LeBeouf, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent, Cate Blanchett. Look at that list, and then ask yourself if there is going to be any truly bad acting from the main characters. Admittedly, this is no acting masterclass, given the nature of the film, but still, there is no Temple of Doom embarassment here! Cate Blanchett hams it up just enough. Any more and she'd be on a par with Uma Thurman doing Poison Ivy in Batman & Robin. As it is, the faintly ludicrous premise of her character (grounded in fact though it may be) unveiled in the first few minutes of her screen time does give you pause for thought, but then you nod, smile, sit back and enjoy. Shia LeBeouf plays his part fantastically - not as fast talking or wise cracking as his nerd-cum-hero turn in Transformers but appropriate for the picture, and, crucially, he handles a lot of the action sequences well - rumours on the net place him as the future of the franchise. Having seen him in this film, I'm not as apprehensive as I thought I should be about that. Harrison Ford - this man knows how to take a punch! He does a surprising amount of action, but he also adds an extra layer of gravitas and world-weariness to the character. He has allowed Indiana to age and grow. Throughout the film, the 20 missing years in the timeline are alluded to - was he with the OSS? The CIA? SpecOps in the war? Whatever it was, it has left scars, and Ford allows us to see that, without dragging the picture down pace-wise. And let's face it - only Harrison Ford could wield the fedora and whip - the silhouette is instantly recognisable, and still sends shivers down the spine.

Action: 8/10
The action works well - CGI is used to extend the scene, not replace actors (Superman Returns I'm looking at you...), or to remove evidence of safety equipment - the whip swing through a warehouse, as seen in the trailer, was apparently done by Ford, but as he said in an interview with Empire magazine, nowadays they have safety gear, and just hide it using computers. Some sequences are classic - there's not one, but two high octane vehicle chases - one through a university, one through a jungle, and both will have you glued to the screen. The motorbike/university one is particularly noteworthy - Spielberg nowadays does a lot of pre-vis, which means he creates a rough version of the film in the computer to work out what he wants, but when filming this scene, due to time constraints and a couple of last minute changes, he did old school story boarding. And you know what? It's the most organic, wonderfully choreagraphed, chunk of action seen in a Hollywood film in quite some time. For those few minutes, you're back watching the fluid action scenes of days gone by, but with a modern whiplash eye for editing that signal this as a 21st century film. Maybe there's a lesson here for film-makers? Turn off the computers guys - just get out there and feel your way through the sequence - it makes a difference! Elsewhere, the action is still top-flight, and everything you want from an Indy film (bizarre fridge sequence notwithstanding...ah, when you see it you'll understand...)

Sound: 9.5/10
It's that score. Hints and themes from the previous films drift in, providing a sense of nostalgia, continuity, comfort and familiarity. John Williams has got quite skilled at this musical referencing now after the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and it's spot on. And indeed - it gives you goosebumps! Elsewhere the mix is pristine. Every gun shot, every thump, every explosion, every smash is heard perfectly. The actors treat it like an older film style as well - the modern form of talking fast and over the top of one another (as happened a lot in the horrendous Dennis Nedry sequences in Jurassic Park) just doesn't happen - not once do you find yourself wishing you had a rewind button to go back and replay a point. Excellent effort.

A special mention must go to Spielberg, who made other important decisions that impact the look and feel of the film. It was filmed on the same type of film stock as the originals, retaining that warm quality, and very 'classic action movie' feel to the visuals. Similarly, it was edited on the same equipment as before, meaning that some of the more clever tricks available to modern directors through digital systems just aren't on display here. Spielberg has accurately replicated the process, and has really strived hard to use real sets, and not the green screens that Lucas seems to have fallen for. What were matte paintings in the original films are now CGI backgrounds, but they have been filtered well enough that the look, and more importantly, the feel of the film, has been preserved.

Overall: 8/10
It's Indiana Jones. Not the deepest film you'll see all year. Not the most expensive. Not the fastest paced. Not the most chop-socky with its' punches. But what it does do is show all those other guys how to revive a character properly. In look, feel, plot and more, this film, as an overall package, will probably be the one you want to return to on DVD more than any other released this year. And that shows the Beards have got it right. Nice one!

Welcome to this blog!

Okay guys, straight off, a quick explanation of what this blog is.

This is where I will be talking about TV, Film, Theatre etc. I will post tidbits as and when I come by them, reviews of movies, TV and so on and so forth. Some of these are old reviews from an old blog of mine, most will be new!

Enjoy, and let me know what you think!