Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SlipOfTheTongue Blog

  • Cube Squared

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Cube  (1998)

    The Cube series is quite a lot of fun if you like thoughtful, low budget horror and it has the following going for it...

    1.) Intriguing use of single room location.
    2.) Characters from all walks of life thrown together are forced to rely on (and trust) one another.
    3.) Open ended discussion of what the cube could be lets your mind disengage from reality and imagine the worst.
    4.) Open ended fears allow characters to deviate from their societal facades and become their true horrific (or good) selves.
    5.) Imaginitive deaths keep the body count high and create a sense of anticipation for next victim.

    The original (CUBE) is better than the sequel (CUBE 2: HYPERCUBE).  The third film is not being reviewed here but is a prequel of sorts and is said to go outside the cube and into the control room of those conducting the "experiment".

    The location and basic set up of the Cube series consists of the following.  A group of strangers is deposited into the belly of a giant cube.  There are doors in the floor, ceiling, and on all four sides.  It's a simple set.  Everytime the captives escape into another room the same set is used but is dressed differently.  Over time, it is revealed that the structure is a much larger cube consisting many individual cube-like rooms.  These rooms are moving and there is only one way out.  Of course it takes the better part of the entire movie for the characters to discover all of this and in that time they go from being politely guarded with one another to (in some cases) cut throat, back stabbing murderers.  Along the way there is a fair amount of confusion and speculation about why they are all there.  And there are gruesome deaths.  The cube is a prickly pear and very unforgiving.

    In the first film, the cube is made up of colored rooms providing a simple but visually diverting look.  The cube is a physical structure that exists in three dimensions and can (theoretically) be escaped if you can get to the one room with a doorway that meets the bridge to the outside world at just the right time.  In the sequel, the cube is all white and very sterile.  It is revealed to be a "hypercube" that exists in four dimensions.  This allows for all sorts of interesting possibilities concerning the relativity of time and space.  The first film is rather weak on dialogue but has a serious moral center as the characters speculate about why the Kafkaesque structure was built and who is responsible.  There is a sense of moral futility evident in CUBE as each character must decide the value of his or her own life relative to the lives of the others in the group.

    In some ways CUBE 2 is more accomplished and polished but it is also more emotionally removed.  I'm sure the relativity of time and space could be as scary as rooms that slice and dice you, but the screen writers of the second film haven't explored interesting ways to make the sequel as chilly as it might have been.  The newness of the cube concept has worn off slightly and the characters (though more believable) are no more compelling then those in the first film.

    Though CUBE never lets us know who is really behind the building of the structure, every other detail in the movie is fairly concrete.  They are trapped in a rat's maze but there is a way out if they can find it.  There is an elemental brutality evident in the first film whereas the second is more talky and theoretical though at times fascinating to watch.

    I can't imagine the third film being better than the first two.  Half the fun is not knowing what the hell is going on and discovering it slowly with the characters.

    http://www.spout.com/films/114680/default.aspx
    http://www.spout.com/films/222190/default.aspx

  • Changing of the Guard

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Queen  (2006)

    THE QUEEN brings so many relevant issues to the table.  The growing pains of the British Monarchy can be seen as a metaphor for larger struggles that all governments face to remain relevant in a world increasingly driven by the media and the insurmountable tidal wave of of public opinion that it can create.

    Among the questions raised (or implied) in this movie are...

    What balance can a Monarchy maintain in tandem with the people's government and how do both institutions serve the public good?  What is the importance of tradition in modern society when such tradition may not be in step with sensibilities of the present?  To what degree is compromise a necessity in such modern relationships?  Finally, to what degree does the media control and perhaps create all public perception throughout the world today?  (Does it serve the public or control it by forcing all parties to acknowledge the media rather than follow their own hearts and minds?)

    THE QUEEN is a character drama and rather simple in construct.  Helen Mirren plays Queen Elizabeth II (in a tight and disciplined performance) and the story follows her actions (and reactions) following the death of Princess Diana.  The script paints her as a proud and dignified leader who is out of touch with the present.  Though her actions seem callous, there is an old school logic to the way she responds to Diana's death.  Cleverly, the script paints Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) as a sympathetic character who seems to understand both sides of the issue.  It is through Elizabeth's personal secretary that he begins to understand the Queen's proud belief that the British people wanted a strong leader who would mourn with dignity in private following Diana's death. 

    The story tracks Blair's attempts to balance the needs of the country against those of the Monarchy.  We see how he is the one to finally confront Elizabeth with the notion that her approach is not working.  The story then follows Elizabeth as she begins to accept that to suffer compromise (or "humiliation" as she puts it to Blair) is the only way ultimately to regain the affection of the public.  This would in turn be good for England.  The lovely thing is that when Elizabeth finally capitulates all is well again with her people.  We see that they do truly love her.  Despite their nature to be critical of the British Monarchy it is a long standing relationship filled with positive affection and respect.

    The story is deceptively simple.  The narrative technique (of using video clips of Diana's funeral, and keeping many characters off screen in favor of more screen time for Mirren) is ultimately a smart one.  However, it does feel at times like you are watching something that would work better as a play, the focus falls so squarely on Elizabeth and Blair.  The amazing thing to see is how the Queen finally gives in and how she and Blair both learn from one another.  It seems there is hope for both tradition and human emotion in the relationships between the ruling classes of the future.  

    The irony is that as the debacle of the Iraq war continues the public is giving Blair the same kind of thumping that they gave Elizabeth in this film.  it seems that no one is ever fully beyond reproach in this world.  The public seems to have the need to both destroy and forgive its public figures simultaneously. 

    We all have days and weeks that we must necessarily lose our battles and look the fool.  To paraphrase Blair's statement to Elizabeth concerning her loss of face with the public, this was only one small incident in an otherwise lengthy and grand career.  It seems we all have chance for a reprieve in life if we keep plugging away and wait for the wheel to turn.


 


Advertisement