Kill List (Ben Wheatley, 2011) Vs Killer Elite (Gary McKendry, 2011)
- Jan, 02 2013
- By tomedwards
- Ramblings, Reviews
- No comments
Warning: Spoilers
Ok it might seem like an odd comparison to begin with, and yes it began because both films have the verb Kill in the title. But there is more in common. Both were made in the UK (although Killer Elite is a US/Australia Co-Production) and both concern hired killers. However from there we begin to diverge. Kill List is a low budget thriller (costing around $800,000), that’s part domestic drama, part action, part horror. It was acclaimed by a great many critics (currently having 75% approval on Rotten Tomatoes), but failed to make much impact financially ($171,160 at the box-office), however there are many mitigating factors for this (it’s a low budget British film after all, with no stars and no clear genre). And of course box-office is no guide to quality (cf my regular rants about GI Joe for this). Killer Elite on the other hand has not one, but three stars (Jason Statham, Clive Owen and Robert De-Niro!), is clearly in the action genre and had a much higher budget. $70,000,000. It took $56,000,000 worldwide, but with DVD sales (which are often good for this sort of film) I imagine it’s at least cleared its costs. Rotten Tomatoes however tells us it only has a 25% approval. So, all things considered, should I prefer the innovative, low-budget, flick or the by the numbers action film? Turns out I rather liked the latter, not the former. Here’s why.
Kill List came onto my horizon on the strength of its reviews. There’s little other reason to have heard of it – the marketing and distribution of such films is always problematic and living in Lincolnshire, as I do, I’m a full 1.5 hours from the nearest Art-Cinema that might be showing it. However as I’m a sucker for anything about hired killers, and enticed by the promise of a supernatural twist, I eventually got it on DVD. My hopes high, I hit the play button. That’s when the problems began. It has some of the usual issues of a low-budget film (no wide shots, iffy lighting) but I’m more than happy to look past these if I’m engaged by character, etc. Sadly the first 20 minutes were domestic drama. Act 2 improved as the main character and his best friend went about their killing business, culminating in a scary chase through some tunnels. Then the finale spoiled it all. Black Magic runs through the film and is hinted at during various moments (dead rabbits, contracts signed in blood) and I suppose that the finale was to show that the main character, Jay, had sacrificed everything he had to become the new King of the Black Magic cult. To do this he had to kill his wife and child (killing kids is never a good way to endear a film to me). Sadly that the film obscured its elements so much that the sense that Jay was to become the leader of the cult was consistently obscured. In fact I’m not sure that is what happened (it’s what the internet said happened). It seemed to work as an almost reverse Wicker Man – instead of an innocent being sacrificed, a guilty man is inducted into the cult. Except that he never consciously made his decisions – the final sacrifice, of his wife and son, is done by accident. Jay may be supposed to be evil, but he clearly loves his family, only taking on jobs to help fund their lives. The ending is, I assume, supposed to be haunting but I just found it frustrating. I don’t want everything explained to me, but some consistent internal logic would help. I liked the middle section of the film the best; the parallels between sales-men and professional killers that the film makes is fun, and there’s some excoriating violence (but even this doesn’t quite make sense – I’m sure if you torture someone in a suburban house, someone would hear the screams). It’s a frustrating film because it never adds up to anything. I like ambiguity in my films, but for ambiguity you need several available meanings. I not sure this film really had any available.
No such issues with Killer Elite. So it’s not in a genre that’s noted for it’s ambiguity (although there is a nice greyness about the justification and meaning of revenge in the film). It’s a typical star vehicle; Statham does what he does well, Clive Owen wear a fantastic mustache. The film recreates the 1980s effectively, without hitting you over the head with it. De-Niro looks a little like he wandered onto the wrong set but adds some class in what amounts to an extended cameo. People get shot, punched (in the balls in one rather good fight scene) and blown up. The plot is a little silly (despite, or perhaps because of, its “based on a true story” pretensions), but it moves along at a good clip and achieves its rather modest aims effectively. Its no-one’s idea of a classic, but I was entertained.
So what, if anything, does this tell us? It may, of course, say that I have supremely bad taste. It may mean that most critics are elitist idiots championing anything that is different to the generic multi-plex fodder that Joe Blogs coughs up his hard earned cash for. It may demonstrate the power of narrative image and priming on film watching. Perhaps Kill List is best discovered with little or no expectations, at which point it might come as a nice surprise. Maybe Killer Elite was pre-judged based on pre-dispositions garnered from previous Statham films. Or maybe it simply reinforces the subjective nature of the whole process. That’s the problem with films, you don’t know if you’ll like them until you watch them; by then it’s too late.
I want to be a (Geri)Action Star…
- Aug, 20 2012
- By tomedwards
- Ramblings
- No comments
I don’t know who came up with the name Geriaction film, I wish it was me, but it’s a succint way of dealing with a run of films from the last few years. The run reached its apotheosis recently with The Expendables 2, but probably started with Stallone’s return in Rocky Balboa and Rambo. It was as if the awakening of this eigthies behemoth roused the others -since we’ve had Die Hard 4.o, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and the emergence of a 50+ Liam Neeson as an action hero. The trend shows no signs of letting up, Taken 2 is on its way, both Stallone and Schwarzenegger have movies in the pipeline (including one together) and another Die Hard is being filmed. No moreIndy,thank god, but otherwise the rolecall of 50+ action stars continues. In an industry dominated by youth the success of these films, and the ainticipation they’ve created, sits at odds with normal Hollywood logic. Indeed it took companies outside of the big studios, like Europa Corp and Millenium Films, to see the potential. But why and how did they strike lucky?
My only answer, and it’s not a very sophisticated one, is violence. Lots of it. The current crop of big action movies are dominated by the super-hero film – by definition a type of film that skews towards a more family friendly audience. But what about those of us who want to see bodies piling up? Those of us who rate a movie’s quality as much in bullet hits as plot and characterisation? For us mainstream Hollywood has been remis. They’ve abandoned the main stay of the 80s, the Hard R, where men swear, and shoot, and gratuitous nudity was common. However an audience still remains for these films, but there are few action stars capable of delivery. Jason Statham is one, but his conversion into an action star came from a French film directed by a Chinese director (The Transporter), and he has yet to find a suitable Hollywood home. We had high hopes for Vin Diesel and The Rock, but too many family comedies killed their legitimacy for the crowns of Arnie and Sly.
And so it’s to the old men we turn. Sure they’re a bit creaky, and their faces may look like the surgeon was having a bad day, but they can still take a punch, get back up, and rip your head off, light a cigar the size of your arm and bask in their alpha male status. Take that Robert Pattinson.
The Mechanic (Simon West, 2011)
- Jun, 17 2011
- By tomedwards
- Reviews
- No comments
Starring: Jason Statham, Ben Foster, Donald Sutherland
Assassin Arthur Bishop (Statham) takes on an apprentice, Steve McKenna, (Foster) the son of his murdered friend and mentor (Sutherland). However McKenna’s reckless attitude and violent desires bring him into conflict with Bishops cool professionalism.
I’m a Stath fan. From those early moments as a cockney wide-boy in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels to his transformation into a 21st Century action man via the Transporter films and the delirium of Crank I’ve enjoyed watching him. I’m the first to admit that his range is limited (let’s not talk about the attempts at an American accent) but what he does well he’s excellent at. He seems genuinely charismatic and does some very good work in the action scenes. The Mechanic is mid-level Stath; an attempt to give his usual character a slightly more complicated story while still keeping the action tropes we expect and require. In this he’s ably supported by Simon West, who directs in an efficient way (although his reluctance to use wide shots in some of the action scenes is frustrating). Sutherland makes an enjoyable cameo but the stand-out in the film in Ben Foster who nearly steals the whole film – his Steve borders on the psychotic in his enjoyment of violence but his performance suggests something deeper; watch as his character moves from wild eyed to cool and content in the action scenes. It follows the original Michael Winner/Charles Bronson movie surprisingly closely (right up to the final moments) but stands alone well and offers some diverting Friday night beer and pizza viewing.
