Wait till you see what Ralph Fiennes gets up to in The Bone Temple

Ralph Fiennes' performance in The Bone Temple is worth the price of admission alone. There is a scene in this film which is so delirious, OTT and frankly quite joyous despite the circumstances of some the characters that I was convinced I was seeing one of the best scenes of the year and it's only January. 

I watched a double bill of 28 Years Later and The Bone Temple and it was great to see them back to back as they do feel like two halves of a whole. I liked 28 Years Later a lot more on this second viewing. I find it to be quite an impressively odd, experimental sort of film. The score by Young Fathers feels brilliant in some places and strangely out of place in others - but it consistently feels very Danny Boyle though. The much discussed cinematography is also very distinct. It's got that cool new way of capturing the kills with the iPhones setup but also the focus/depth of field in some shots is very striking. I still wish it was scarier.  There is nothing like the end of 28 Days Later where Cillian has to cope with deranged soldiers and the Infected. The decision in 28YL to bring a terminally ill person to the mainland is bonkers, but it worked better on this watch, and I found it much more affecting this time. Alfie Williams as Spike really is excellent. Fair play to Aaron Taylor-Johnson for playing such a dick, but fair play to Alex Garland for not making him completely one dimensional - there is a good Dad in there probably, but not much of a good husband. Fiennes' Dr Kelson is still the standout, and even moreso in The Bone Temple.

What an absolute blast this film is. There is a scene where Jack O'Connell and Ralph Fiennes finally meet that is absolutely bonkers. It's all far less experimental than 28 Years Later, but with the Jimmys and developments in the Kelson/Samson relationship, this is still a pretty strange film. Low on scares, but someoretty damn nasty stuff all the same. Jack O'Connell and Fiennes are both absolutely exceptional. I wish the Jimmys had a bit more to do and had been utilised more scarily come he climax, but I still can't wait for the next one.

Ralph Fiennes deserves some kind of award for the Iron Maiden scene. Absolutely wicked.

Ex Machina Review and Alex Garland Interview for Starburst Magazine

Here is my review of one of the first must-see movies of 2015, Alex Garland's Ex Machina. I was stupidly excited for this seeing as Alex Garland is the author of my all time favourite book The Beach and also the screen writer of one of my favourite horror films, 28 Days Later. Thankfully Garland's directorial debut did not disappoint! Check out my review by clicking on the link above.

I also got to interview Alex Garland for Starburst. I was supposed to get 20 minutes talking to him by phone but unfortunately only got 12 minutes which meant I had a huge amount of questions I was still desperate to ask! Never mind... it was still a privilege. Check out the interview by clicking above.

Check out Starburst Magazine for more.

More interviews from I Love That Film

More reviews from I Love That Film

Cult Movies - 28 Days Later

In 2002, writer Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle developed the most terrifying update to horror imaginable. In 28 Days Later, running zombies were unleashed.

When is a zombie movie not a zombie movie? When it’s Danny Boyle’s digitally shot post-apocalyptic nightmare featuring new horror monsters The Infected. If, like me, you have a strong affection for the zombie horror sub-genre, the thought of running zombies could go either way. Some will cry it’s not necessary; that zombies are meant to shuffle and the scares take a back seat to the social commentary. Others, me included, saw Boyle’s sprinting Infected as the logical evolution of the sub-genre and slapped our collective foreheads. Why had no one come up with this before?

When I saw the trailer for 28 Days Later with its promise of speedy zombie-style Infected people in over-run Britain, I leapt at the chance of the thrills that would no doubt ensue. Not only is this a zombie film set on my home turf, but these ‘zombies’ actually looked bloody terrifying with the emphasis on the bloody...

Read more of my 28 Days Later review at Static Mass Emporium.  

TWTWB and The Perils of Book Adaptations

Won a competition this week to go and see a preview screening of 'Tomorrow When The War Began', an Australian film directed by Stuart Beattie and based on the book by John Marsden. I first read this book around 1995 when I was 14. There are now seven books in the 'Tomorrow' series and these were then followed by a new trilogy; 'The Ellie Linton Chronicles'. Thanks to Paramount Pictures for offering the free tickets and for the free coke and popcorn. Rachel Hurd-Wood introduced the film ('I don't know what to say... it was fun to make') and then quickly disappeared. Despite having already seen the film as a good friend had sent me a dvd copy from Australia, I really enjoyed it on the big screen and on a second viewing.



It got me thinking about book adaptations in general. This is too big a subject for one post and I'm sure there are whole blogs dedicated to book to film adaptations but I thought I'd mention personal bests and worsts for me.

So starting with 'Tomorrow When The War Began', probably my second favourite book of all time. I have read it many times and know it back to front. I have been waiting for a film version for 16 years; even tried adapting one part of it myself for some A level film studies coursework. The first time I watched the film with friends... I was satisfisfied BUT... my expectations were SO high, I was also disappointed. The screenplay is not brilliant but the production design is amazing and as with most book to film adaptations, there is much missing from the film. However the performances are generally good with a couple of exceptions and even though they drastically changed one character, they made him funny and likeable.

Anyway I decided I would not watch the film again until it was released in UK cinemas (got to support the film and make sure they produce and release the rest of the series!). The second time I watched it (at the free screening this Wednesday), my expectations were readjusted. I knew the film had faults but it was time to watch it with sensible perspective.

I loved it so much more this time. I appreciated the effort and the dedication of all involved in attempting to get it right. Many of the scenes were very faithful to the book and some of the perfomances are really very good. I realise that some subplots (the hermit and his house) were unnecessary to the narrative and therefore were understandably left out.

But I also wonder what people who have not read the book will think of the film. Without the constant thoughts of the protagonist (the book is written in the first person), will the actions of the film's characters seem believable? Films have to simplify... they have to cut down a 200+ page book into an under 120 page screenplay. The film version has to skim over some ideas and themes. It has to show a character arc beleivably but quickly. It has to convey the thoughts and feelings of the characters through visuals and not an over-reliance on voiceover. Very tricky and I have nothing but respect for the writer and director who tackles such a task.

The I thought about my favourite book and one of the film adaptations that I really cannot stand. Danny Boyle's 'The Beach' based on Alex Garland's novel. SUCH a good book... SUCH a bad film. I love Danny Boyle, Leo Dicaprio and the book. But this film- despite many great scenes from the book, really does not work. And for so many reasons. Leo's character getting the girl when the book is all about unrequited love. BIG mistake. Video game graphics of Leo running in the forest. BIG mistake. Completely dropping one of the novel's most interesting characters (Jed). BIG mistake. I could go on but who likes a miserable critic?

So next I consider my all time favourite film. An adaptation that for me is actually BETTER than the book: David Fincher's 'Fight Club'. Now I'm not sure if this is because I read the book after I had seen the film. I generally try to read the book before I see a film version but when Fight Club came out, I did not even know of the book's existence.

I'm sure this has happened before. Watch the film first and I love it. The book is then enjoyable but no better than the film. 'Silence of the Lambs' for example. Great film... great book. But if I'd read the book first, would I be sitting here bitching about the bits they left out and the simplifying of the themes and characters?

Fight Club, however does seem like an exception. This film takes the rapid-fire narration of the book and turns it into a brilliant voiceover and perfect dialogue from the main characters. The performances are perfect and the ending is an IMPROVEMENT on the book's. The visual style and soundtrack are also great additions that make the film an even more satisfying experience than reading the book.



So that's my initial thoughts on book to film adaptations but I feel I may return to this subject one day. Anyone want to share their thoughts? Other films that are better than the books they were based on? Worst adaptations? Is this the same for comic/graphic novel/video game adaptations? Anyone like the film version of 'The Beach'?