zanity

Does the market really care for either R-rated action flicks, or films that at least attempt to satisfy the scifi fan? Sadly the answer, at least in the English speaking world, seems to be a resounding "NO!".

Let me cut to the chase. 'Mutant Chronicles' is far better than we deserve. Why would anybody waste time and money making a little gem like this when the supposed fans like nothing better than to scream about every little irrelevant flaw, the majority of which arise purely from budget restrictions. And when the budget gets very much larger, as with 'Chronicles of Riddick', are the fanboys any more generous- yeah, right.

Look, I loved the sci-fi channels adaption of two of the 'Dune' novels. I loved the third season of 'LEXX'. I have no problem with supposedly cheap CGI used to create worlds that let the film-makers express their glorious imagination. In fact, I'd take this form of SFX over the dreadful sterile efforts of ILM seen in junk like POTC3.

Mutant Chronicles plays like a mix of Starship Troopers, Lord of the Rings, and Resident Evil, but not in the bad way that this might suggest. As scifi, it is lightweight but very satisfying (oh, to live in a world, where filmed scifi was so commonplace, that I could be free to be dismissive of a film like this). In truth, the story plays a little too commercial with respect to its clichés and especially the neat conclusion (as if those that funded it truly expected to get proper distribution if they followed these rules).

The world shown is clearly 'steam-punk', despite the far future setting, and this may confuse/dismay those that have never gotten their science fiction/fantasy from a book or graphic novel. The characters are a cross between the armed forces of the various 'houses' of Dune, and WW1 troops. The visual approach can most fairly be compared with that used in Sin City, but with far more varied sets and action.

Acting is solid enough for the budget, but the American lead is a little bland. The cast shown is suitably diverse from an ethnic viewpoint, illustrating the non-American aspect of the production. The action is well shot, and pretty good for what is mostly a 'zombie' type adventure.

Mutant Chronicles has a lot of action content, and bests the likes of Die hard 4, and the Will Smith remake of The Omega Man by a very long way. It is also a fairly hard-R, and how often do they come along? The story is not mean-spirited, the heroes are self-sacrificing, and I recall no sexism, so the film is probably female friendly for those ladies that enjoy visceral horror action.

Please consider giving this film a viewing if you like the subject matter, and consider the effort that goes into a film's design/special effects more important than the money spent.

Let me say from the off that Mr. Eastwood has made a movie that any intelligent person can enjoy. Well directed, pleasing performances, decent if unremarkable music, and stunning special effects. The film is rather lightweight, both in drama and history, but goes down very easily.

Of course, this massively expensive movie was not funded to entertain us. Spielberg is the main Hollywood propagandist for what the US government has termed "The long War" (no doubt in honour of the never-ending 'war' from the novel 1984), and his efforts are focused on the glorification of the US and Israeli military machines, and their present and future campaigns of aggressive warfare.

Flags of our Fathers portrays (on the US side) idiot and cynical leaders, although the president is shown as a great guy, gaining the automatic respect of the otherwise somewhat disillusioned 'flag' men. On the other hand, the 'fighting men' are all saints that don't care if they are ultimately led by donkeys because, by god, they are really fighting for one another. Yes, ironically, it's the favourite soviet message, safe to use now the USSR is long gone. The powers that be in Hollywood never understood why the methods of psychological control perfected at great cost in Red Russia were frowned upon in US propaganda.

However, there is a more interesting point. The theme of Flags is that the best propaganda pops up out of nowhere. Flags is about the serendipity of the famous flag raising photo having such an amazing emotional effect on the citizens of the US just when the US government was seeking one more great war bond push. One photo, without intent, out did the combined propaganda efforts of Hollywood at that time in history.

Flags of our Fathers, like the vast majority of over planned and overly expensive propaganda, fails to come close (with respect to public recognition) to the accidental success of that photo. In this respect, this is no different from the vast majority of people failing to understand the point of Verhoeven's Starship Troopers. To the greater audience, Troopers was a very stupid action flick, and Flags a dull slice of history spiced with expensive FX that failed to portray any conventionally exciting action sequences.

I would like to think Mr Eastwood smart enough to understand that while the motive for giving him an insane budget to make this movie (and its partner) was a wicked one, that in the end it would not matter since the audience that would enjoy his films would do so in a way that the director desired, and not in the way Spielberg and his money men craved.

I would recommend this film to anyone who hated Windtalkers or We Were Soldiers. I do, however, hope that Letters from Iwo Jima is 'meatier'.