ah f it. here it is. This is long and makes no apologies for it, beware!
Ok haters. I went to the 9pm showing at the (very nice) Woodward's theater to see this film after reading page after page of internet speculation.
Whilst watching the film I realized that everyone who is complaining about slow motion is completely missing the point. It's like saying lord of the rings sucks because it is an epic and you hate epics. Lord of the rings is an epic, will exhibit characteristics typical of an epic, and so will this movie. You have to judge it for what it is. If you go into this film comparing it to an Animal bmx video or a skate video, you will obviously be disappointed. This is doing something completely different. In an industry like mountain biking with its type of demographic, there will always be an audience for films like this whether you like it or not. Complaining about it will not change anything. This review takes this into account, as I'm going to ignore my usual hatred for gratuitous slow motion.
Lifecycles' strongest point is its cinematography, which is absolutely, mind-blowingly, drop dead stunning. Have been a fan of Derek Frankowski's for a long time now, and his incredibly talented and skilled eye is evident - it is IMO the most beautiful film about mountain biking ever made. I use the word 'about' and not 'of' because this is not a film about riding only. It's focus is also on everything around riding. Although there are full riding segments, equal or more attention is paid to the locations you ride, the way your bike parts are made, the mechanic who retunes your suspension. Some of these sections aren't so strong, but others, like the suspension rebuild segment, are very nice. The introduction featuring shots of the bike factory is excellent. You cannot hate on cinematography like that, I honestly thought I was watching star wars.
Editing-wise, this is a terribly ambitious film and at times does not fair so well. The film doesn't feel like a complete whole, but rather a series of trailers and differing narratives glued together with weird excuses for transitions. When you consider the gigantic scope of what this film is trying to achieve, it is almost inevitable that the film feels disjointed at times. Still, Lifecycles does a somewhat alright job of tying everything together, which is surprising given the huge number of shots that are often nonsensically squeezed into forty or so minutes. But given the choice, I'd rather watch a film that was tighter and more focused, as opposed to one that was a jack of all trades…
Now the real bad news - the worst part about this movie, without an ounce of doubt, is the narration. I'm sorry to say, with all respect to Graham Tracey and Mitchell Scott, it is god fucking awful. My girlfriend describes it as "national geographic meets chevrolet meets daniel boone in a mountain biking film." Not only does narration add nothing to this film, it severely detracts from the sophistication of the imagery. The words are indescribably cheesy, the narrator is (see quote above), and worst of all, it severely limits the number of repeat viewings one can get out of this film. Can it be turned off on the DVD? This is a film that you want to watch over and over, and it definitely deserves repeat watchings. But how is anyone expected to watch this again while it pretends to be a bad 1960s cowboy film? Narration is already treacherous territory in sport films, but in this case it is an enormous mistake - a pity considering the otherwise strong sound design.
But when the narration isn't waxing puke lyrical about rivers, Lifecycles delivers punch after punch. In particular the Darren Berrecloth section, although short, is completely ridiculous (that hip wtf). Not to mention the shot of an incredible Bike Mag photo of the year line. Watching Semenuk and McCaul trick their way around agriculture was fun, and they easily make for some of the best shots of the movie. As for the first trails section, the considerable amount of thought and effort that went into the season-changing effects is very respectable, but the utilization wasn't all that effective and the section probably would have been just as strong or even stronger without. One of the most memorable clips to me is near the beginning of the movie, shot using a rising crane with the rider blasting straight at the camera going mach ten. It is a breathtaking piece of cinema that communicates the obscene speed of riding, and a good example of how this film, especially when it shows clips at normal speed, uses devices like cranes to great effect.
This film is half a sort-of documentary and half a riding movie, which puts it into an interesting place. Do you show it to your non-riding friends and family, or do you watch it before a ride to get stoked? The answer is both. Although it tries to do a lot of things at once, it still manages to deliver on various fronts, making it a new entry to a category occupied by films such as Blank Paper Studio's 91 Words for Snow. We all know the difficulty in trying to communicate riding to a non-riding audience, and it is always welcome to have films that help successfully bridge that gap.
Overall, this is a rad movie and I'm really glad it exists. Ryan Gibb and Derek Frankowski dedicated blood and soul into Lifecycles and it shows. It does have its lacking moments - particularly the narration and disjointed, over-ambitious scope - but I'd rather forget them in favour of the sections that literally had my heart racing. The imagery is simply just fucking amazing, and the riding is extremely solid. Some of those clips have already burnt themselves into my memory and I'd absolutely be down to watch the movie again (albeit with my finger on the mute button). Lifecycles easily ranks as one of the best mountain bike movies made in the past few years, and by far the most beautiful.
Much respect to Gibb and Frankowski. Truly hope this isn't their last.
