Change Your Image
Thomas-Giffin
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Monsters University (2013)
A Solid B+
It's Pixar time again.
The animated wonder house that released some of my favourite films (The Incredibles, Up) has unleashed a prequel to the seminal Monsters Inc. Certainly, the effect of Pixar on my consciousness is such that I pretty much grade any animated film now as being 'the best non- Pixar animated film I've seen'.
It doesn't rank up there alongside the Pixar greats, where I would place the film's predecessor Monsters. Inc, but it was great fun.
I'm actually going to start out with what I felt was the reason that this film doesn't quite live up to Monsters. Inc. I feel once I get these few points out of the way, I can then concentrate on the many things that the film does right.
Firstly. The originality of the first film has gone. The film realises it cannot just re-hash the same material so Monsters University is a pretty normal college comedy film, it just so happens that it contains monsters. The fraternity competition is there, the harsh dean, the supportive lecturer, all characters well known in the genre. But they're monsters. Despite this however, the film manages to circumvent this through sheer enjoyment and imagination with the monsters themselves and the world they inhabit.
Secondly. No Boo! One of the main reasons that Monsters Inc. worked so well was that apart from the great characters of Mike and Sully, Boo provided so much heart, laughs and sad moments that her absence just can't fill. Monsters University never quite manages to reach the same emotional heights that Monsters Inc. had and I believe that the lack of a character like Boo is the sole reason behind this.
So what does the film get right?
Well, Billy Crystal (Mike) and John Goodman (Sully) are still perfect in their vocal roles. Somehow sounding younger in this film than in Monsters Inc., they both still infuse the two characters with huge amounts of charm, humour and emotion. The animators must also get their credit here too by giving both characters expressive faces, especially Mike. His smile is so sweet, earnest and optimistic, it's a joy to watch.
The other characters are also really well done, all of the members of Oozma Kappa are sweet and have some really funny moments. Special mention must go to Charlie Day, who provided the vocal talent for the character Art.
The film is also so bright and colourful. Pixar love their bright, vivid colours and with realism out of the way, the animators saturate the screen with bright greens, red, purples, blues. It's a lovely film to watch. The story itself really surprised me as well. It's not a complex plot by any means but at several points, I was wondering how the film was going to resolve to where Monsters Inc. started.
So it's not as good as Monsters Inc. for sure. But it is still a bright, colourful, funny and really enjoyable film. And it's still as good as most non-Pixar animated film's I've seen.
Pacific Rim (2013)
Great fun
This was an interesting film.
Interesting because I could see so many influences from other films and genres present. You have noticeable nods to anime, godzilla, Top Gun, Transformers, previous Del Toro films and huge blockbuster films like Independence Day and War of the World.
And it was a good, fun film.
I was expecting a bright, colourful action film with minimal story and pathetic characters. Instead, what I got was a bright, colourful, epic action film with minimal story and reasonable characters.
First of all, the colour palette.
It looks incredible, the deepest blues, the neon of Hong Kong, the lighting. All incredible. The scenes indoors in Hong Kong reminded me most of Hellboy 2 with the oranges and reds present. The film looks like live action Manga and that works to the film's advantage because it keeps everything from becoming too dour, somber and moody.
And aside from the colour palette, the other huge nod to Del Toro's back catalogue is the design of the Kaiju themselves. Looking much like steroid pumped Hellboy rejections, these monsters are huge, varied, capable of massive destruction and provide perfect opponents to the man made Jaegers.
And the Jaegers themselves are hugely impressive feats of CGI. Constantly reminding us of the sheer, implausible scale of the them is a consistent joy whilst watching the film and each of the few that appear on screen are varied and recognisable.
When the action does start, it is massive. Hugely impressive but there are some points I really want to make about the action scenes and it directly contradicts the action scenes in Man of Steel, because they're pretty similar in terms of scope and collateral damage.
Firstly, Del Toro makes an effort to show the streets and worlds emptied of people before the Kaiju go crazy on land. They're all in shelters and so when the Jaeger and the Kaiju fight and buildings are going over and entire areas are getting destroyed, there's no mass killing of people. In Man of Steel, everyone is caught up the catastrophe and you assume that the death toll must be in the hundreds of thousands.
Secondly, when Superman and Zod smash the hell out of each other, there's no threat, no danger. It's just punch, punch, fly through building, smash into the ground. Boom Boom Boom without any sense that they're doing any damage to each other. In Pacific Rim, the pilots gets battered around, cut up, bloodied. They're in danger! It's a small point but it makes the fights in Pacific Rim much more gripping and intense.
And this partially works because of the characters and the cast. They're not original, hugely complex and most of them are little more than decoration but they serve their purpose and some actually stand out as being good fun. Idris Elba is pretty damn good as the gruff, mysterious commanding office. Charlie Hunnam is fine as the washed up pilot given a second chance. Rinko Kikuchi is great as the potential love interest. They're not new takes on original characters but they're done well here.
So it is left to the story to fall flat. The whole 'mind drifting' idea was clearing created as a potentially novel way to introduce character drama and interaction between characters but the whole idea never quite hits, despite the pseudo-scientific jargon around the idea. And the whole reason for the Kaiju being there is underwhelming for sure, them being there provides the conflict but the explanation is weak. There are also pretty big plot holes and stupid decisions that get made by the characters don't ruin the film, but it's certainly no where near as clever as it means to be.
All in all. I got what I expected. It's like Del Toro looked at Transformers and Godzilla and thought "Hey, I can do better than that." and he did better than them.
World War Z (2013)
A good zombie film
I really liked this film.
It was the perfect mix of intimate intensity, emotion and absolute, terrifying spectacle.
Directed by Marc Forster (Quantum of Solace, Monster's Ball), and starring Brad Pitt, the film deals with a zombie outbreak on a global scale and the attempts to find the source and cure.
Certainly, the film is barely ten minutes young when it all kicks off. We're quickly introduced to Gerry Lane (Pitt), his wife (Mireille Enos) and their children and then the outbreak begins. Certainly the difference between this film and almost any other zombie film preceding it is scale. It is a LARGE scale film, the CGI is used incredibly effectively for portraying thousands of zombies at a time.
It is this that creates the intensity. The sheer numbers and volume of the zombies overwhelm and the film certainly has fun with the large scale scenes and the behaviour of these creatures. There are a few times where the sheer scale of the events on the screen is awesome in the very literal sense of the word, you are in awe.
This scale is impressive on a technical level but it's even more impressive that Marc Forster, Brad Pitt and scriptwriters (initially J. Michael Straczynski, then later Matthew Michael Carnahan, Drew Goddard and Damon Lindelof for re-writes) manage to find the human story and relationships amid all the mayhem. Certainly the supporting cast provide compelling roles, special mention must be made to Daniella Kertesz as an Israeli soldier.
The humanity of the story helps to fuel the tension for the other kind of 'zombie' scenes, which are the quieter, scarier type of scenes which don't feature as many zombies. Is it here that the pacing (and scale) are dimmed down hugely. The film doesn't stop to a halt, but the tone of the third half of the film is certainly slower than the rest of the film. Apparently, it was here that the rewrites and re-shooting had their main impact on the film. It's a noticeable shift in the overall tone of the film which actually is quite welcome for one main reason.
There is no way they could have gone bigger than scenes earlier in the film. They don't try to outdo the earlier scenes in scale or number of zombies present, instead, it shifts the tension much more to the characters and I found it works. I could imagine that people could have disappointed with the lack of 'bang' at the end of the film but for me, it worked.
The film has a few really nice touches in there as well, nice actions the characters take that seem very honest and real as well as you hear about some countries reactions to the outbreak which make sense.
Now, it is most certainly true to say that the film differs from the book. That is a fact. The book deals with World War Z as a series of interviews from people important to the event itself, separate narratives and so on. The film has a single narrative path, beginning, middle, end, and only really following Gerry Lane throughout the events. However, I found the film to be a superior zombie film as well as a stunning (and intense) action picture.
The point was also made afterwards that whilst it has scary moments and is very intense, it is light on actual gore. Certainly the usual zombie cliché of some guy graphically getting eaten alive is not present. The film certainly isn't a 15 for explicit violence but the general tone of the film is not only intense, but pretty bleak too(I don't often mention the film's rating in my reviews btw).
Anyway, really enjoyed the film. Would easily watch again.
Man of Steel (2013)
Disappointing
It almost breaks my heart saying this but I was....disappointed in this film.
I think it's the best Superman film I've seen so far and quite possibly the best the film could be but the weaknesses of the film aren't belonging to the director, or cast, but to the character itself.
I was hoping, based on the trailers, that they would explore the emotional frailty of the character and present a new, Nolan/Goyer-esque unravelling of Kal El, to give him some emotional grounding. They don't really, there are several flashbacks to his youth and his difficulties growing up which provide many of the best scenes of the film but once he dons the famous cape and the action really starts, the film has nothing new to offer other than really, really good CGI and an epic scale which earlier film couldn't realistically create.
The cast is a varied bunch, Henry Cavill provides a physical presence and is actually very capable in the role. Amy Adams as Lois Lane, not so much. If she's a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, then I'm Vladimir Putin's favourite hunting rifle. Laurence Fishburne is really quite good in a small role as Perry White and Ayelet Zurer provides a nice evil henchwoman to the General Zod antagonist.
And whilst we're on the topic of General Zod, it must be mentioned that is a really, really good villain. His portrayal by Michael Shannon is intimidating, honest and nuanced in ways you wouldn't have expected it to be. His character is easily one of the more outstanding parts of the film. The other standout character for me is Kevin Costner, the 'earthly' father rather than the smug, superior Jor El (Russell Crowe). Costner's Johnathan Kent is the main reason the 'young Superman' scenes work so well, providing an honest and human voice.
But as I mentioned earlier, once the costume is on (no red pants on the outside anymore), the non-stop action really begins. It's visually stunning but lacks force or threat. It's like watching the fight scene between Neo and Agent Smith towards the end of Matrix Revolutions, in the sense that there's a lot of impressive effects, being thrown about the place and loads of collateral damage but very little honest threat or drama. Having these super being fight each other and throwing themselves hundreds of yards, or destroying buildings all over the place is very impressive to watch, but it just underwhelms in almost every other respect.
I think it's the weaknesses of the character that let me down, Superman is just not interesting. The secondary cast is interesting (Zod, father Kent, etc) but Superman himself, even when shown his moral turmoil as a youth, is just very one dimensional. There's none of the lovable rogue of Tony Stark, or the moral darkness of Batman. Even goody two shoes Captain America has an honest appeal to him, a humanity. But Superman isn't human and his powers are godly.
The other oddity about the film is the universe that's been created for other DC heroes to fill. There's other planets, super beings and absurd technologies. How's a hero like Batman (Nolan/Goyer Dark Knight type Batman) going to have any real impact in a world like that. The answer would be a re-introduction, a new actor, having the character reinvented into this universe with new toys, tricks and powers.
When leaving the cinema, we heard another patron say "The film would have been good if Joss Whedon had directed it."
Whilst harsh on the visual genius of Zack Synder, it does highlight just how Marvel still have a large advantage in the cinema stakes. Even Gods in the Marvel films have very human flaws, something that Superman for one finds hard to replicate.
Despite the last 500 words saying otherwise, I didn't dislike the film. I was just hoping for so much more. I was hoping that the film would bypass the flaws of the character and deliver an emotionally engaging Superman. Instead, you get an emotionally engaging young Clark Kent and then forty five minutes of CGI cities falling apart.
It's also painfully unfunny. Seriously. They try to put some jokes in there that are so flat, so badly timed. They'd be funny if Joss Whedon had directed it.
Further reviews at: http://thegiff.typepad.com
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Not as bad as you've heard
There were many things that made me dubious about this film. Firstly, the decision to split a modest novel over three films seemed silly. There was also a lot of focus on the 48 frames per second filming speed instead of the usual 24 fps which was supposed to give the film a 'cheap' appearance. The running time and the side by side comparison with the excellent Lord of the Rings films also meant that the reviews in general were mixed, not as impressive as people had hoped.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a great film which provided a lot of entertainment. I must admit to watching the film in 2D and the increased frame rate had no obvious impact on the film's look or feel. Certainly the sets, props and effects looked fantastic. Similar in tone and scope to The Fellowship of the Ring, the film certainly seems smaller than the epic scale battles of the last two LoTR films but everything looked fantastic.
The tone of the film is lighter than the LoTR films (because the stories had different tones too) so this is a much more light hearted film with the occasional song (not too many thankfully) and silly scene but overall there is still the hearty combat and fantasy violence you would expect from Middle Earth. Despite the difference in tone, the film remains emotionally powerful and filled with well drawn characters but lacks the immediate scenes of pure emotion such as the death of Boromir on LoTR: Fellowship.
Certainly it is a joy seeing all the returning actors in their various roles, Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf always being watchable and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White is fantastic, as his character differs greatly from the LoTR films. Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett are always entertaining as elves and Andy Serkis remains as mesmerising as ever as Gollum. The new characters are equally as well cast: Martin Freeman has a helplessly endearing quality which really suits young Bilbo Baggins and the dwarfs tend to blend into each other but certainly their leader, played by Richard Armitage, gives a performance which makes you believe in their plight.
Now, the film is certainly long, there is no doubt about that. However, the film never felt like it was dragging, even with the extensive opening in the Shire before the party sets off on their quest. Well fleshed out backstories betray the film's desire to stretch the material as far as possible but at no point during watching the film was I bored. In fact, the scenes in the Shire are the charming and the adventure is gripping, all the various characters which have been fleshed out via back story have important and well placed roles in the film.
All in all, the initial fears I had about the film were inflated by the mixed variety of the reviews but I am pleased to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the film and look forward to the next instalment.
Skyfall (2012)
Certainly on par with casino Royale
Is this the best Bond film ever?
No. Is it the best Daniel Craig Bond film?
Harder to answer, I would say that it is certainly on par with the brilliant Casino Royale in many respects. It has less of the shockingly raw feel that Craig's first Bond film had but overall it seems that he has settled much more into the role. To see James Bond now still as the physical monster he is but also showing a humanity and character depth works hugely to Skyfall's advantage.
Director Sam Mendes shows just how much difference having an Oscar winning director at the helm can make. The film is visually stunning and yet it is the characters that form the main piece of the film. For each exotic location to show off, there is a quieter scene that adds to either Bond himself or another character.
But at it's core, it is a quintessential Bond film, from Adele's brilliant theme song to a creepy villains lair. At some points it is almost too eager to look after the past 50 years of Bond films, in some cases that is the cause of several laugh out loud moments, at other moments it feels a little blunt.
Speaking of villains, Javier Bardem is perfect as De Silva. A blond, reptilian wall of unpredictable power. His back story really gives the character a greater sense of fear and menace and towards the end, his single minded drive to complete a mission of his own gives the last act a great feeling of desperation and urgency.
The Bond girls in this film really do tend to take a back seat, Naomi Harris as Eve pops up every now and then and Berenice Marlohe (Severine) has very little screen time but both of them are strong characters in their own right. But, the real girl of the film is Judi Dench as M. Developed even further than in previous films, Sam Mendes really brings out the hard, callous edge that M needs to do her job whilst also highlighting her fondness for Bond. It's a really quite touching relationship and one that has only really been explored since Daniel Craig took over.
The action is great in the film too, less of the borderline superheroic chases of Casino Royale and more of a human feeling edge of both the fist and gun fights. One particular scene in Shanghai is utterly beautiful and fantastic to look at.
It's not perfect, by any stretch. There is a long running time for the film but I didn't notice much at all. What I did notice is that the third act, where the personal story starts to take the stage, slows the pacing of the film to a crawl compared with the jet setting shenanigans that fill the first two acts.
I suppose all in all, this was a damn fine film. And a bloody good Bond film. As I said, it lacks the 'Wow!' factor that Craig's debut film had but the whole thing is much more fluid, emotional and the characters are much more satisfying. Watch this if you haven't already.
Dredd (2012)
Happy 2000AD Fan here.
I must start by getting my Judge Dredd fanboi out of the box so any future words are placed in a proper context. I am a HUGE fan of Judge Dredd, one of the most important and iconic British comic book characters. I have anthologies of his early progs from 2000AD as well as a quick 30 sketch of Judge Dredd by Frazer Irving in glass in my room.
Big fan.
Stallone's 1995 vehicle, Judge Dredd got some things spot on, despite it being critically destroyed upon release. It looks good, it has several integral elements such as the Cursed Earth wastelands and Stallone looks suitable as Judge Dredd himself. However, it does MANY more things wrong, the 'company' sidekick role provided by Rob Schneider is simply terrible. The villain, Dredd's brother is pretty poorly underwritten and the whole thing fails to satisfy in any way that the source material deserves. It's budget was $90 million.
Enter 2012, and Karl Urban fills the famous helmet of Judge Dredd. Cut the budget in half to a reasonably cheap sum of $45 million and get Vantage Point director, Pete Travis to direct and Alex Garland (28 Days Later) to write the script and see what happens..
F**king awesome is what happens!
This Dredd is a tightly made, tightly scripted, claustrophobic film with a healthy dose of brutal violence and a wicked view as to what makes the comic work so well.
For $45 million the director had to make the film enclosed and the production design is exquisite, the Peach Tress block is a marvel of near real highrise coupled with an impossible futuristic scale. Mega City One itself hardly plays a part, only on few occasions does Travis let the camera soak in the whole city, instead teasing us with closer shots which are indicative of the larger city at work. The colours, the framing, the sets are all created beautifully to give this horror of a futuristic life not too far removed from the future to be fantastic.
The drug featured in the film 'Slo-mo' is obviously used as a means to get slow motion shots which play out so beautifully. I watched the film in 3D and these scenes are horrible in their violence and beautiful in their movements. The suddenly flooding of colours and the ethereal haze these sequences create is one of the best uses of 3D I've ever seen, take that James Cameron!
Speaking of violence, the film does deserve its 18 rating. In fact, film fans, Dredd is the first 18 rated film to open number 1 at the UK box office since 2010 with over £1 million on its opening weekend alone. This is GREAT news because they have hinted at doing further Dredd films if the movie makes double its production costs, that's only $90 million worldwide folks!
But yes, the violence.
It is violent. Very violent. The violence in the film isn't directed with a voyeuristic approach, instead it is done in a much more matter of fact way. It is as if the violence on the screen, although horrible, is nothing special and that such violence happens in the world of Mega City One all of the time. It's really well played.
But the BEST thing about the film and I'm so happy to say this, is Judge Dredd himself as a character. Karl Urban puts in a masterful performance without ego as a man who refuses to change his ways, refuses to compromise in the face of the law and also (crucially), doesn't grow as a character. He is not a person who gains an important lesson or whose character arc is the crux of the film. No, Judge Dredd starts the film as Judge Dredd and ends the film in the same way.
It is left to the secondary character of Judge Anderson to give that character progression to the film. Played very well by Olivia Thirlby, Judge Anderson is the rookie cop assigned to Dredd for a performance review and goes through a trial by fire. However, her character is the 'interesting' one, growing, changing and learning as the film progresses. Lena Headey's Ma- Ma is simultaneously clever but terrifying, providing a worthy villain for Dredd's rampage. Add in dealers, vagrants and other Judges and you have a great series of characters for a film.
At a well paced 95 minutes, the film is brisk but never dulls whilst also not skipping past details. The main plot starts quickly after a searing introduction to the world and Dredd himself. The rest of the film's pacing goes well, allowing you a slightly slower scene or two just before the unrelenting pace and tone becomes too much. To help counter this is a surprising sense of humour. It's black humour, for sure, mostly from Dredd himself, who's single word here and there regardless of the insanity of the situation is played up well.
All in all, I am honestly glad to say that Dredd is a triumph of a film. Fast, well made, funny, violent, everything the much loved 2000AD deserves and that makes me so happy!
Total Recall (2012)
Not actually as bad as you assume it will be.
Back in 1990, one of the most visually inventive directors of his generation (Paul Verhoeven), teamed up with the biggest action star in the world (Arnold Schwarzenegger), to make the original Total Recall. It was a typically overblown affair as you would expect from Dutch OTT artist Verhoeven and Schwarzenegger pretending to look like he's a construction worker. It came at a time before CGI would become a large part of films (T2 came out in 1991) and as such, it used miniatures as well as cunning practical effects. The only fully CGI sequence in the film is the visually arresting x-ray scanner fight scene.
Enter 2012's version and what you have a fully integrated CGI world in the style of The Fifth Element and Blade Runner with a few nice addition touches. It seems that a large amount of the $125 million budget went on CGI because the film looks great. Both the world that the film takes place in as well as the larger scale action scenes look utterly convincing. The production design in the sets is also really good, the Chinese/Russian influences on the world, architecture and objects really helps create this future. The cast are all attractive (seriously, Kate Beckinsale = very attractive) and when they get hurt, it's bruises and cuts in that 'movie/sexy' way that never happens. In terms of visual appeal, it is stunning to look at. No doubt.
Then there is the story. Based on a Philip K. Dick novel, the set-up is identical to the 1990 version, worked unhappy with his life dreams of something bigger, hears of Rekall (as it is in the 2012 version), where they implant you with the memory of an event that never actually happened but you can't tell the difference. At this point, Colin Farrell suddenly becomes philosophical master, debating with John Cho's salesman about the authenticity of illusions. However, it would be a quick film is Farrell left the building then and there but unfortunately for his character, Douglas Quaid, he agrees to have the memories of a secret agent implanted (a nice touch earlier is Quaid reading The Spy Who Loved Me on his way to work). Turns out Farrell is ALREADY a secret agent and was Rekalled as a lowly construction worker.
The chase begins.
There are so many elements that are identical to the 1990 film, the double agent wife (spoiler?), the guy who tries to convince Quaid that he's still at Rekall (although this version is worse at that scene), the three breasted prostitute makes an appearance for no reason at all apart to remind people of the original, which seems odd because the overall style and attitude of the 2012 version is utterly different from the ultra-violent and camp 1990 version. There are a few other nods to the original film that you would need binoculars to spot, luckily I had my theatre pair so I caught them good. So you end up with many of the main plot elements of the original being excised, Mars being the main one. The bad guy, Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) is trying to get hold of one important amenity instead of the 'ultimate power source' of the original film.
I guess I didn't have many problems with the new film in theory. It is well directed, it looks fantastic and the action is well done. The script verges violently from pretty good (mainly Colin Farrell) to downright terrible (Bill Nighy says some pure rubbish) with some cliché in between. The last scene is totally not needed, in fact, there is a bit when it fades to black before the last scene and that would have been the PERFECT mind messing ending. But no, they need the guy to get the girl. All in all, I was expecting this film to be bad and whilst it doesn't hold a candle to the 1990 version, it is by all rights a reasonable, yet flawed, film.
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Better than I expected
In steps Tony Gilroy as director (screenwriter of the first three Bourne films) and now certified action star Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cross in a film that has been pretty critically pounded (55% RT) but I actually thought was alright. I certainly didn't regret watching it at all, I found it intense and enjoyable although without the coherence and emotional draw of the previous Bourne films.
The main things I took away from this film is that there is potential for further films after Jason Bourne himself. I was concerned that without the central character, the movie would fail in every respect but actually having the film deal with the aftermath of Jason Bourne's actions in the previous three films is a pretty smart move. It allows the series to continue but following a different character, in this case augmented super agent Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner).
Another thing I took away from this film, The Avengers and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is that Jeremy Renner is a damn good action star. Especially for a 41 year old, he is every bit as likable as Matt Damon was and equally capable of kicking butt. The only reason Aaron Cross is not as well fleshed out as Jason Bourne is that the script and plot of the previous three films were superior.
The plot is a bit strange, the first part of the film is fairly heavy exposition. Characters from previous films are dragged out and new ones are introduced and things move at a breakneck pace. Ironically, at this stage, Aaron Cross is in one place doing very little for a long time. Some people have said that the film is slow and it doesn't leap straight into action but then none of the Bourne films have started fast, they set up the plot and then the pace speeds up and up. This film is no different.
However, the plot actually ends up pretty muddled and as the stakes get raised, your emotional investment doesn't increase as much so towards the end of the film, the film behaves like the events on screen are more important than they actually are. An example of this is another agent who we are told is utterly amazing and better than Aaron Cross, they have one chase scene as that's it. We are told how important this rival agent is and yet you don't feel that way. The best sequence of the film is actually pretty much halfway through the film, when Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz's Dr. Shearling join forces in a fantastically thrilling scene in a house. It is an action film in full gear and no other sequence in the film is as thrilling, intelligent and realistic as this one.
The film is also gritty as anything. One scene is particular is incredibly intense. It doesn't pull any punches and whilst it isn't that explicitly violent, the aggression of the scene is surprising.
So the credits rolled and I was happy. Happy because I'd seen a reasonable good action film that had its flaws but felt like a Bourne film.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
(No Spoilers!) A worthy end of a fantastic trilogy
Well, the first thing to report is that it is good. No doubt about that.
It is overall a very satisfying end to the trilogy (apart from a few points aside which I'll mention later) and it feels a lot more epic and important socially than The Dark Knight. However, it is far from perfect and somehow manages at the same time to be thrilling, powerful and yet clunky and pretentious. I'll go into more detail later as far as the lack of spoilers will allow.
Well, let's start off with the huge successes of the film (which there are a lot of). Firstly, it looks and sounds incredible, from the use of light and shadow. Wally Pfister outdoes himself, the use of colour leaps out after so much of the film being in darkness. The sound work too is inspired, Hans Zimmer may not have the Pavlovian, dread-building piece to herald Bane as he did the Joker but the music is soaring and impressive (if a little OTT in places). The chant you hear throughout the film ends up acting in the way. It works extremely well. Bane's voice is FANTASTIC, (you still need to pay attention in some parts) the off-mechanical tint lets enough emotion come through but it really works.
In Bane, Tom Hardy shows off his ability to project himself through physical movement and his eyes alone. Having the mask over his face stop him from being able to act in a traditional method but at times Bane is fierce, aggressive, imposing and whilst some part of that is due to the fact he is hench as anything, it mostly comes from his physical movements and actions. Added to this is the fact that he is very smart, his overall plot is a masterfully nasty affair.
Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle is another victory for the film. My initial hesitation about the casting gave way almost immediately. She is fantastic, a sultry, seductive, clever morally ambiguous character. Everything the character could and should have been she was. I was hugely impressed.
On top of this you find the emotional core of the core being carried in three supporting characters. Gary Oldman's James Gordon, the Police Commissioner who has a much larger and more important role this time around. Joseph Gordon Levitt's earnest, hotheaded police officer John Blake, personifying the ideals that Bruce Wayne and James Gordon had before the Joker. Finally, you have the powerhouse that is Michael Caine as Alfred Pennyworth, Bruce Wayne's heartbreakingly faithful butler, to be honest, it is Caine that steals the show. Just awe inspiring.
Even Christian Bale's Batman/Bruce Wayne, who, to be honest I usually find less interesting than other characters is at his peak here. His character is put through his paces in this film in ways that the first two films never even dreamt of and the overall character progression and evolution means that as the third act of the film kicks in, there is so much more to Bruce Wayne/Batman than was touched upon in either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight.
The film is long but unlike The Dark Knight, where I felt it started to lose pacing towards the end of the film with the introduction of Two-Face disrupting the breakneck narrative speed of the Joker, in this film the first hour or so is pretty slow to start. There are loads of new characters and developments since The Dark Knight and the first part of the film deals mostly with them and it is actually quite a while before Batman himself appears. The prologue of the film (like The Dark Knight) deals with the villain, an introductory piece and I must say that Bane's opening scene is utterly brilliant in every way.
Once the film starts to gain momentum, it does not stop. Building on itself towards a huge and impressive final act. The size, scope and direction of the film as more starts to happen is a masterful display of direction. The second act in particular is when the film really starts to draw you in with expert skill.
Now for the not-so-good.
It is not a subtle film. At all. The parallels between events in this film and real life are so obvious and it ends up being (whether intentional or not) quite political and as such will end up dividing the audience between sympathisers and those unimpressed.
You end up feeling that the film nails individual characters and their motives but the larger social movements are painted with the broader brush with nowhere near the same level of intelligent detail.
There are also occasional irritating pieces of scripting, often where characters would state the obvious for the benefit of reminding the audience of what's going on but since the rest of the film treats the audience as intelligent, these occasional (and it is only two or three) lines do stand out as being clunky compared with the overall streamlined script.
There's also a bit near the end which is COMPLETELY unnecessary. Really, you'll know it when you watch it and you'll agree it's utterly not needed.
However, gripes aside. This film completely succeeds as a powerful and satisfying end to the trilogy, bringing in plots, themes and images from the previous two films to give this a grand sense of scale whilst never forgetting that despite all of the emotion, it is the spectacle that matters. Every character is developed perfectly and acted to the same standard. It should not disappoint you at all. A worthy end to the trilogy and a high standard for superhero films afterwards.
Prometheus (2012)
A great film!
I'd been looking forward to Prometheus for as long as I'd been hearing news about Ridley Scott's return to science fiction films and any film set in the Alien universe is a celestial chorus to my ears. The marketing campaign was very well constructed and layered and apart from the one trailer where you thought you were sold the whole story, very solid.
Then the film was released, some said it was great science fiction, beautifully designed and directed, others said it was confusing, needlessly pompous and slow.
I finally got around to watching the film and I was utterly entertained.
I have to admit first that the film is no where near as scary as Alien, nor as intense and action filled as Aliens. However, that being said, I found it a gripping, intelligent and epic science fiction film that benefited hugely from Ridley Scott's calculated direction and a well picked cast that really do work well. Noomi Rapace is oddly un-Ripley-like (now a word) until the last act starts to play out, she's much more warm and inviting as a character. A frankly gender warped twist on the classic chestburster scene and she begins to become a fighter. The other cast, Idris Elba, Charlize Theron, Benedict Wong and Logan Marshall-Green all are a lot deeper than initially are characterised early on. However, it is left to my man-crush Michael Fassbender to show the world what a good actor is, his android David is a tour de force of physical performance and understated creepiness, not enough to be menacing or evil but he freaked me out in several spaces.
The plot is epic stuff but it does require a level of concentration and imagination to fill in the unanswered questions in the vein of many great science fiction films. It's not as clever a plot as you may have heard but you develop your own theories and ideas (or latch onto ones that fit better than your own) about what goes on. The only disappointment with the plot was really that it doesn't end as far towards the start of Alien as I was expecting, certainly the bit image from Alien I was hoping the film would replicate remained not shown.
Certainly the film looks great, the sets, CGI and technology all look great have this retro- fitted vibe from the Alien series where it looks usable and durable but not pretty or stylish for its own sake. There is more than enough gruesome bits too, not too often but when they do happen, you're aware of them. Again, there is no sheer outright terror like there is in Alien (Dallas in the ducts anyone?) but it had me at the edge of my seat several times.
All in all, my initial zealous excitement was tempered by several people telling me it was a huge disappointment. I am (personally) very happy to say I was not disappointed and thoroughly enjoyed the film
Dark Shadows (2012)
Not great but watchable
I have never watched Dark Shadows, the television show that ran for 5 years in the late 1960s. A Gothic horror soap opera (my mind thinks of The Munsters and The Adams Family, correct me if I'm wrong) about the family Collins has been turned into a reasonably good film, directed by the Gothic master Tim Burton and starring everyone's favourite odd-ball actor Johnny Depp.
Filled with the typical Burton-isms you'd expect, fog, ships, Gothic architecture , Johnny Depp, vampirish women, the film is not breaking new ground or even the best of Burton's oeuvre but it makes for a passable way to spend the day.
However, the most surprising thing that struck me was two aspects of the film that I was not at all expecting: the first is that it is surprisingly violent, everyone's heartthrob Depp kills a load of people (not well advertised), the second is that it is pretty risqué (advertised), certainly much more than I was expecting when I first sat in my chair. Certainly Eva Green's method of seduction appears to be exploiting the fact that she is extremely attractive with a nice chest, not that I, as an average film goer was complaining, it just was not something I was expecting to feature so....prominently in the film. In regards to the film's violence, it is not gruesome but it must be said that Depp contributes to a rather high bodycount in this film.
The plot of the film is pure Burton. Ghosts, curses and jilted lovers all appear several times throughout the film. The film's plot essentially focuses on Eva Green's Angelique Bouchard and the reason why she's such a meany to poor old Johnny Depp and her attempts to manipulate and force her way into his heart. Add into this dashes of family business rivalry, a lavish party attended by Alice Cooper (his cameo one of the film's highlights!) and an utterly insane and strange plot twist at the end that made literally not one jot of sense to me and you end up with a well scripted, well directed, well acted film that suffers from bad pacing and walking the uncomfortable line between not being that funny and not being scary.
In terms of humour, it is down to three aspects:
Jackie Earl Haley as the caretaker. He is funny. Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman, not as funny as Haley but still gets some of the best line. The 1972 setting. Not used as well as it could have been but Depp's man-out-of-time routine does raise some laughs and the soundtrack is pure awesome (Cooper's cameo counts towards this 3rd point.)
In the end however, Dark Shadows is not as funny as Burton's finest, nor as scary as Burton's finest. Johnny Depp is better here than in a lot of recent Tim Burton films (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland) and the supporting cast here work really well. Carter and Haley I've mentioned already but Michelle Pfeiffer is great as the matriarch, leading to some quality scenes with Eva Green. Speaking of Green, she is one of Burton's finest vampish woman and she shines in this film too. Chloe Grace Moretz is pretty good as a rebellious daughter but the previously mentioned insane plot twist includes her and it just didn't work for me. Finally, and I must mention this because it is too awesome for words, another cameo from greatest man ever, Christopher Lee as a grizzled fisherman had me smiling like a crazy man.
So all in all, not the best film I've seen all year, not the best Tim Burton film I've seen, not the best Johnny Depp film I've seen but overall, it is a passable film and one I enjoyed watching.
Under Siege 2: Dark Territory (1995)
Poor
Seagal returns as Casey Ryback, SEAL turned cook. Oddly enough, apart from the same character, there is almost no mention of the first film, there's none of Die Hard 2's 'How can the same stuff happen to the same guy twice?' going on here.
But instead of a battleship being seized by hostages it is a train, as the poster above makes plain as day. This time, instead of Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey crazy-ing it up as the villains, you have a computer hacker and his mercenaries using the train to take control of an awesome weapons satellite. I'm not going to give a spoiler alert warning this time because if you're worried about me spoiling the 'plot' of this film, you're watching the wrong film.
So whilst the set up is similar (mode of transport aside), we have added into the mix Ryback's niece, played by Katherine Heigl. Whilst she is not given much to do, Heigl does stand out as one of the better performers in this film. The villains (as I said earlier) pale in comparison with the baddies of the first film and there is none of the menace or cunning. Instead you have the writers stretching the bounds of plausibility to stretch Seagal's game of hide-and-seek over nearly 100 minutes.
Needless to say, this is one of the worst film I've seen in a long, long time. It is so bad it is hilarious. Some of the particulars of the plot caused me to break out into rich peals of laughter like the merry bell I am. One particular line 'Oh my god! An earthquake....in midair.' (DURRRRRRR!) was a standout as was the delaying of the terrorist's plans as an investment banker wants to pay $110 million dollars to explode an airliner carrying his ex-wife. It is baffling! Amusing but baffling, no one told me this film was a comedy.
The Glimmer Man (1996)
Another poor Seagal film.
I was told that this film was an action comedy, the blurb on the back specifically made reference to 'punches mixed with punchlines' and the Pulitzer Prize winning 'the wit hits the fan'.
What I actually got was a very large, rusted nail heavily thumped into Seagal's credibility. This coming from the guy who'd watch Under Siege 2 several days earlier.
The Glimmer Man is ACTUALLY an action-thriller film about two cops trying to find a serial killer called the Family Man because he kills and crucifies whole families, what a hoot! Add in a dash of political intrigued, Vietnam veterans and conspiracy and you have a flop.
The problem with this film is that the gunfights are handled relatively well but the fist fights (Seagal's selling point) is so rapidly edited that you only ever see about two kick strung together before the footage cuts elsewhere. Watching classics martial arts films (I'm thinking Bruce Lee/Donnie Yen films here) is that the editing and filming actually shows off the skills of the fighters on display. That is not present in the Glimmer Man,
So what you eventually have with this action comedy is a film that has very little comedy and the action is badly done. Not all is bad however, the plot is actually fairly reasonable and there are plenty of twists and turns that somehow command your attention and there is quite a lot of potential there but you somehow end up with a hugely forgettable film.
Under Siege (1992)
Seagal's Best
Well, this film is the height of Seagal's career. The best film he has ever done.....fact!
Playing Casey Ryback, the ship's cook, Seagal brings a level of charm, charisma and action man can-do attitude to this film. Aided, of course by beautifully OTT villains, played by the unholy trinity of Tommy Lee Jones, Gary 'Insane in the membrane' Busey and Colm 'DS9' Meaney, they all chew the scenery until their mouths are full. Gary Busey especially excels as the charmless and dangerous Commander Krill (Busey in drag is a scene that highlights his frame of mind).
The director, Andrew Davis (who also directed Nico) directs this film with flair and style and commands a not terrible cast to perform well with a run of the mill script. The story is a simple, terrorist highjacking narrative but it is elevated with a cheeky humour, nice little one liners and characters fleshed out a little bit more than you would have expected from a film of this type. Once again, the martial arts and gunfights are well done, there is a knife fight towards the end of the film which is just good and there is no shortage of explosions, creative deaths and gunfire to keep the crowd from noticing a number of plot holes.
All in all, a good film. Not even a good film compared to the other Steven Seagal films listed here, it is actually a good film if you're in the mood for, and can tolerate, mindless action.
Above the Law (1988)
A poor start to Seagal's career.
This early on in his career, Seagal has not mastered emotion or facial expressions beyond 'serene', 'angry' and 'concentrating'. Luckily, the film attempts to bypass the leading role's lack of acting talent by placing as many humanoids in his way for him to punch, kick, throw and shoot.
With a script that is so far into parody it makes Black Dynamite look like a subtle treatise on inter-race relations, it is surprising that the film started up a career considering action films by 1988 had produced some stone cold action classics (Die Hard, Predator). The inclusion of FBI bigwigs, Vietnam buddies, mafia connections and terrible, terrible clothes means that this film is frankly laughable at several opportunities and only means to be funny less than half of the time. Sharon Stone stars as Seagal's wife and is easily the best acting talent in the film, no contest. Add to this ol' Foxy Brown herself Pam Grier in an underwritten role (she's an action star in her own right) and you have a reasonably enjoyable film.
This film's attempt to introduce Steven Seagal as a new martial arts star works fairly well, it gives descriptions of the character's martial arts prowess which oddly mirror Seagal's own. It is strange then that there is remarkably little martial arts in the film, there's a lot of shooting and foot chases and car chases but considering I was expecting a 'martial arts' film, I was hoping Seagal would have had more akido to do.
All in all, not a good film.
Not a good film at all. It is interesting (and a little odd) that Seagal became the action star some of us know and love today off the back of this vehicle.
Out for Justice (1991)
An improvement on Nico
Aww, they don't mess around with these films titles do they? There's none of this '2001: A Space Odyssey' nonsense going on here. Steven Seagal is 'Out For Justice', need you know more?
The reason Seagal is 'Out For Justice' in this film is because his childhood friend, Bobby Lupo got shot in front of his family by one time friend now turned enemy, Richie Madano. The name of Seagal's character is Gino Felino and at one point Gino tells a story about his uncle Pino.....Pino Felino. These are all true. Honest.
Unlike Nico, the reason this film instantly gets a better score in my eyes is that there is a damn good fight scene in this film. Seagal vs Dive Bar. One man enters, one man leaves. Unlike a lot of flashier martial arts, Seagal isn't about looking good, he's about breaking limbs and throwing people about the place and he does it very well. Actually this fight is the film's highlight because the final fight scene is so implausibly one sided, it is funny to watch Seagal spend the best part of five minutes beating up some overweight guy.
The overweight guy in question is William Forsythe, who I only recognise as the gravel voiced sheriff in The Devil's Rejects but here looks like a psychotic child, shooting people for no reason and being menacing and unpleasant to everyone he meets. Needless to say, Seagal and his mob connections are back to find Richie and make him pay. Seagal is on better form here, both with the fighting and the acting but the film still is bordering on self-parody, but without knowing it. A particular highlight is near the beginning when the opening credits begin, the camera freeze frames of Seagal's face through a broken car window that he'd just thrown a pimp through. It's funny and again, it doesn't mean to be a lot of the time.
However, the story in this is a lot less complex than Nico. It's too simple. It's 'Where's Richie?' and then they find him and they fight. Where Nico started to add in crazy plot twists to appear clever, Out For Justice is almost brain dead.
The Expendables (2010)
Directed by the wrong guy.
So we are back to several action film trappings from the 80s, fictional South American country, large private army of what can only be described as warm bullet holders and a very male-centric world with women mainly in the peripheries. If you've seen films like Commando, it almost identical but with better stunt work.
In fact, given the reputation of so many of the cast (a reputation the film's success was founded upon), it is reassuring to see the stunts are good. Most of the cast did their own stunt and with Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham and Jet Li (to name a few), there is more than enough bang for your buck. Add in charmingly throwaway cameos from action classics Willis and Schwarzenegger (a bit unfair since if Die Hard 4 was anything to go on, Willis is STILL an action man), and you have a film that tries to be nostalgic but in doing so highlights just how little the genre has changed.
The script and dialogue is still rubbish, there are still hilariously dubious zoom shots of fists bumps, veined arms and tattoos. Whilst the film and the cast (and story) play to the expectations of an old school action film, it is revealing that it is only really Jason Statham that comes across as a real action hero. He is not a steroid fuelled melted waxwork, or a flesh coloured egg made entirely out of sinew, Statham is (and has always been) the achievable, human, emotional action man and placing him next to MMA stars, NFL stars and 80s action men and he emerges as the film's winner.
What is bizarre is that for all my........elaborate tastes in films, apart from Stallone, Statham, Li, Schwarzenegger, Willis, Lundgren and Austin, the other I had not heard of at all but they more than hold their own against the more familiar names.
I have no great desire to watch the film again, many of the older films The Expendables tries to homage are better and more inventive and with steadier camera work. The acting, script and story have almost always fallen away with this genre, the emphasis being on fights and explosions and The Expendables delivers on this level, as I expected it to.
I was just hoping that for a modern film to be made in the style of old action films, it would be a bit more clever, more nudge-nudge, wink-wink about the whole affair but the film is played straight the whole way through and since it was directed by Stallone, one of the old school, is that any wonder.
Contagion (2011)
Fascinating.
Contagion, a 2011 medical based thriller posing an eerily accurate depiction of a lethal epidemic. Created with assistance from the CDC, the film spans a period of time from discovery through control to cure with (seemingly) a very high level of accuracy.
Steven Soderbergh very ably intertwines several individual narratives and characters successfully, each one a different aspect and angle of the epidemic. Also, considering the not terrible cast list (wiki), Soderbergh controls every aspect of this complex and intelligent film with a mastery of balancing the micro with the macro, mainly by using Matt Damon.
Damon is the emotional core of the film, whilst other characters face trials and hardships, it is Damon's character the film returns to as the small-scale individual effect of the large scale epidemic. Other characters work for the CDC or WHO, others are scientists or epidemiologists but Damon is just a man, a human being on the ground. His story is therefore the most painful, emotional and scary. Damon himself is more than capable of carrying the film on his own, acting with aplomb.
The film was described to me as a medical horror, a term I found didn't do the film justice. It was not horrifying in the way I had assumed, I would say it was more of a medical thriller. It makes you think and uses suspense and tension rather than exploiting a fear which horror films usually do. I personally did not find the film scary, I found it a fascinating study of what would (probably) happen if a very nasty epidemic did spread.
Although if you are a germaphobe, you will be terrified. Soderbergh lingers the camera on surfaces that could and would cause a contagion to spread, you end up being able to trace the spread back to its Ground Zero as the characters do.
One of my main problems with the film was that I found it very hard to place events that occur within the overall narrative structure. It is not an overly long film but characters would get sick, recover or whatever and I couldn't place if the narrative was near the end. I suppose this adds to the realism but it wasn't structured like a regular film. It threw me off at several points where I assumed the end of the film and yet it continued.
Overall, I was very impressed with the technical ability of the film, the soundtrack adds a nasty electronic pulsing to the proceedings which helped the film's tone. The main successes of the film are the near real feel of it as well as using one character as the emotional core of the film to identify mostly with.
Impressive, and interesting.
Iron Man (2008)
Marvel goes nuclear!
The first Marvel Studio film entirely produced in-house had a lot riding on its shoulders. The possibility of creating a new franchise beyond the co-production of the X-Men films, the Blade films as well as introducing another 'layer' of superheroes beyond the big three (Batman, Spiderman, Superman).
Initially, when news reached me of the original story being updated and set in contemporary times instead of the Vietnam setting of the comics, I assumed this was the first of many rusty nails that would make Iron Man a failure.
Luckily I was proved extremely wrong. The film instantly grips your short and curlies (as they are fondly known) and doesn't let go until end credits. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man was a masterstroke of casting, he brings the perfect amount of arrogance and unpleasantness balanced with the change in attitude and character that being Iron Man brings. Opposite Downey Jr. is the frankly stunning Jeff Bridges as Obadiah Stane, a fantastic character with enough depth and drive to make him more than Downey Jr's equal. Much like Loki in Thor and Avengers Assemble, Marvel knows that the secret success to any good superhero film is the villain and they have the material to select the very best and bring them into a real world setting successfully.
I say real world rather than comic because director Jon Favreau goes to extraordinary lengths to give the film a realistic setting, even the idea of creating an Iron Man comes naturally to Tony Stark given the situation he finds himself in and the actual building and refinement of the Iron Man suit is built on a bed of science and extremely realistic. It is a joy to watch Tony Stark build his suit and even peripheral machines and AI are given playful and entertaining personality with very little effort.
This film had a lot resting on its shoulders and it more than succeeded, spawning a direct sequel in 2010 and a third being filmed soon for release next year as well as the runaway success of Avengers Assemble.
Marvel hit the jackpot.
Kidulthood (2006)
Bleak, but not terrible.
This drama film about London youths is bleak, depressing, violent, shocking and simultaneously deep, stylish and witty. Much like the characters portrayed in the film, you think you what is going on and that you've seen it all before. The greatest strength of the film is not letting you down in that respect by delivering what you expect whilst at the same time, providing a bit more dimension and depth than you'd expect.
When a girl at at a West London school kills herself because of bullying, the students are given a day off for mourning and this film is about that 24 hour period. Needless to say, there is not much mourning done by the principle characters as they prepare for a house party in the evening and on the way they drink, do drugs, rob, flirt and do sexy things.
Without wishing to sounds like the old man I'm not, considering the film follows the exploits of these characters and they are meant to be around 15 years old, they do a lot of dubious and highly illegal activities. However, as I mentioned earlier, whilst you initially see the characters and judge them instantly as hoodies/thugs etc, throughout the film it is made clear that everyone has a surprisingly deep character, something which I started to notice more and more as the film went on.
The tone of the film is pretty unrelenting though in its approaches of violence and revenge, something which may be in place to put the viewers in a similar state of mind as the characters. However, the effect of all this is that film operates mostly as a diary of single events with not much narrative driving each event. It ends up being 'meet up - flirt with lady - rob short - beat up man' without a consistent narrative drive linking each event together.
That being said, the film is remarkably well acted and directed. A directorial style is present which propels the film along and keeps the various characters and their stories linked together. Add to this a fiery soundtrack of UK rap (Dizzee rascal et al.) and you have a style of film that adds onto the power of the events themselves.
All in all, a potent and thought provoking look at inner city London.
The Avengers (2012)
So good!
I suppose the question on your lips is 'Any Good?'
The short answer is 'yes'.
The longer answer is 'F**k me silly, that film was awesome!'
The even longer answer is:
Joss Whedon has created a witty, entertaining superhero that more than capably juggles different characters and threads all together into an unsubtle, but solid film.
It helps if you've seen the previous Marvel Studio films in the franchise before seeing this. I had personally seen Iron Man 1 and 2, Captain America and Thor although I had not seen The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton and I had a good idea of the principal characters and what was going on. There is the barest bones of back-story for each of the heroes but the majority of exposition is around the character of Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Bruce Banner/Hulk (Mark Ruffalo).
Speaking of which, Mark Ruffalo somehow steals the show as the Hulk, utterly removing the previously uninspiring film adaptations. He is amazing, in every way. Bruce Banner gets some quality lines and Mark Ruffalo delivers in pretty much every way, it is a lot more of a subtle performance than most of his fellow actors, who are much more brazen, brash and forward.
Robert Downey Jr once again delivers as Iron Man, a character that is as rich and as interesting two films down the line as he ever was. He gets the best lines and even though it takes a little bit of time to introduce Iron Man compared to some of the other characters, he sticks in the mind and has his own standouts moments alongside the rest of the Avengers.
Captain America (Chris Evans) is also on top form as Captain America, a character I was initially concerned would not fit well into the dynamic of the group but his character fits really nicely.
As a personal favourite, it is always nice to see Loki on the screen. His 'little brother' syndrome makes his a fascinating villain in Thor and Tom Hiddleston absolutely proves he is brilliant as this twisted, powerful trickster. In Loki, once again, Marvel Studios provide a villain that is as well fleshed out and as interesting as the heroes.
I've already mentioned Josh Whedon's outlandish ability to fuse together so many characters into a film well. When all the Avengers have assembled, each character and their traits clash in a....realistic way, the selfless with the arrogant etc etc. Whilst the film does try extremely hard to have as many Avenger on Avengers fights as possible and they are thrilling, seeing them work together as a team is frankly fantastic. Again, several stunning shots pan seamlessly from one character to the next, cutting through the large amounts of chaotic action to deliver what you wanted to see, superheroes beating on things.
Another key Whedon-ish (tm) is the humour. It is a pretty funny film too boot.
Its $220 million budget went a long way too. Apart from the actors and the not inconsiderable sums of money they would have been paid, the CGI is almost faultless. It is awesome, and always seems to make the events feel like a comic book. Again, the standout being a very realistic, physical Hulk. The best incarnation yet, for sure.
It's not without fault:
The plot is nonsense.
The script is sometimes clunky and awkward.
It is a long film (although doesn't really feel like it)
However, these are mere grains of sand on a beach of AWESOMNESS.
Watch this film!
9/10 easy.
District 9 (2009)
A fantastic film, cannot recommend enough!
Amply filling the previously lacklustre genre of South African science fiction, District 9 is one of the smartest, most engaging, emotionally powerful and well directed film I've seen in recent times. It is as simple as that.
Acting as a mirror for the events of the apartheid regime (specifically District 6), this film is a powerful social and political allegory for those events brilliantly moved over to the fictional narrative of an alien race landing on earth. Apart from this, if you do not have much knowledge of that era of South African history (and I am no expect by any means), the film also operates as a fantastic piece of cinema by its own right.
Originally Peter Jackson (who produced) had picked South African director Neill Blomkamp, to direct a film adaption of the Halo game. When this project fell through, Jackson gave Blomkamp around $25 million to make any film, District 9 was an expansion of a 6 minute short film Blomkamp made in 2005 called Alive in Joburg.
Playing the main character is Sharlto Copley, who is absolutely incredible. His Wikus van der Merwe is an incredible character, an utterly fallible real human being. The narrative means that he spans this incredible scope from callous and distant to heroic but never in a linear fashion and he still remains a flawed but identifiable character. It's a marvel of script writing married with great acting.
The direction is beautiful too. Hand-held but visually alive, occasional static CCTV type shots fit right in with the inventive style of directing and considering the director had less than $30 million, the CGI is stunning. Christopher Johnson (the main alien) is almost as emotive as fellow CGI creature Gollum even without being able to speak English. It is a great lesson in how far money can get you in cinema (By contrast, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End cost upwards of $300 million to make....)
Even as the film nears the end and it becomes more of a 'regular' action film (although expertly done), it still retains all the character and style of the preceding events and unlike a lot of films, it ends in a very satisfying way without handing you all the answers. The 'bad guys' too are almost comically nasty, evil laughs and all. It's not hugely detracting but it does seem odd considering how fully realised Wikus is. This is literally the worst criticism I can level at the film and it is not a film-destroying accusation by any means.
Please, please watch this film if you haven't seen it.
I don't usually plead or beg but in this case, I will make an exception.
Le pacte des loups (2001)
A film inventive enough that you can bypass its flaws.
Now this is a bizarre film. A startling mix of action, historical drama, thriller, horror, fantasy and (most importantly) erotica. It is a film that is hard to categorise and indeed lurches quickly from one to the other, often within the same scene.
Watching this, I suspect my reason for enjoying it so much is that it is charming and inventive. It is a flawed film (something I will elaborate on later) but it is so shameless in its style and story that I can't help but be swept up in it.
The story itself starts out very simply, a Beast (la bete!) is terrorising a region of France so the King sends a taxidermist and knight to the region to capture the beast and bring it back to Paris for examination. The knight, Gregoire de Fronsac brings with him an Indian, Mani. The film soon plunges forward with other tales of incest, political intrigue, assassination and religion at an alarming rate, so fast in fact that some of the more subtle parts of the film don't get the time and the resolution that they deserve.
Some of the actors are extremely familiar, including Vincent Cassell (one of my favourites) as the slimy and creepy Jean-Francois de Morangias, who lost an arm in Africa to a lion. Samuel Le Bihan (Fronsac) and Monica Belluci (Sylvia) are reasonably good but despite the genre blending nature of the film, the characters (among others) are irritatingly under-developed. Whilst each has a reasonable back story, motive and so on, there is little characterisation beyond that.
The director, Christophe Gans appears to be a huge fan of slow motion, the effect coming in often at bizarre and borderline intrusive times. Whilst the action is very entertaining, the fighting scenes in some cases are obviously shoe-horned into the scene with little or no relevance to what is currently going on.
The film also goes on for a long time and could easily shave off several scenes overall and not lose pacing or characterisation.
All in all, an odd film. I find it really quite entertaining and inventive, enough that I can overlook the flaws that can be levelled at it.
The Hunger Games (2012)
A Film Worth Watching
I must begin my review by stating that I have not read the books. My views may be altered if I did read them but I have not and this may be taken into account
I was initially hesitant about seeing the film mostly because I had up to that point assumed that it was a watered down version of Battle Royale, a soulless and charmless big budget film aimed at young adults.
I was only half right.
The film does have noticeable similarities to Battle Royale, the idea of youngsters fighting to the death is similar to both films as is the purpose of the fight being a tribute or lesson to keep a fragmented society in line. Where the two differ is that whilst Battle Royale was a controversial and twisted pieces aiming its lens at social groups in schools and how school children would react in a 'kill or be killed' situation, The Hunger Games instead is a much less cynical study of individual strength and psyche. Whilst a group does form early in The Hunger Games, it is not a social clique as would have been found in BR, it is instead a group of individuals who find that grouping up early helps themselves in the short term.
Another aspect of the film that really surprised me was the highlighting of just how important and pervasive the media is in the film. Centered around the fantastic Stanley Tucci, the media and appearance play a huge role in making each participant in the Games popular (an attribute that helps the participants). Tucci interviews each youngster and tries his best to show each in their best light to give audience a good show. It was a theme I was not aware would come up when I started to watch the film.
So I guess the best and most flattering way I could describe the film would be a mix of both Battle Royale and The Running Man, in particular Richard Dawson's character in the latter (in reality, he used to host a popular US gameshow, a stunning piece of casting).
I've already mentioned Stanley Tucci's acting in this film and he is only one piece of a solid cast, each performing the solid script without fault. Jennifer Lawrence in particular shines as Katniss, her performance is incredibly nuanced, intelligent, strong, resourceful, shy and emotive. She does a fantastic job. So does the always entertaining Woody Harrelson. Another surprise (in a good way) is Donald Sutherland as the President, a chillingly subtle portrayal of a leader without much screen time or lines, a pleasure to watch.
The direction is perfectly fine apart from an occasional over-use of the hand-held camera work, not so much an issue during quieter scenes but during the action it really turns the events on the screen into streaking blurs. This helps keep a lot of the violence implied (thereby achieving it's 12A rating despite quite a dark tone), as well as creates a documentary feel that plays against the calmer (still not static) shots of the capitol and the cameras in the Games itself.
The film goes on with a long running time of just over 2 hours and 20 minutes and it does feel long. They could have easily have trimmed at least 15 minutes without losing too much of the films power and emotion. The actual event itself doesn't happen until at least halfway through (it seems) so you have a sudden jarring change in pace from the slow buildup to the rapid culling of several minor (really, really minor) participants and the rest of the film is a slow fight for survival. Not in itself a bad thing but the pace really switches up and down very unevenly at times.
However, whilst the 84% it currently resides on at Rotten Tomatoes I think is a tiny bit high (I'd say closer to 75-80%), it is a very good film and it is proof that you can turn a popular young adult novel into a complex, thrilling and entertaining film.