Trivial post year thumbs up to rich and important people who do not know or care; that’s right, it’s yet another Top 9. Why top 9? Because when compiling lists I’m alway stuck on number 10 as there are always 5 films I could put in it’s place. Further more there is no number 1 in the conventional sense of being THE top of 9, just the closest to it, as 2 and 3 are also. And of course this is the 2010 for UK releases so IMDB’s dates might disagree with my own criteria.
9. Invictus
(Directed by Clint Eastwood)
Morgan Freeman finally performs the inevitable role of former South-African president Nelson Mandela as he uses rugby as a way to unite a nation split by racial tension. On the surface it’s a by the numbers sports drama of the underdogs winning the championship, which reads very cliche but in actual fact is what really happened, instead making it a well acted historical piece.
8. Machete
(Directed by Robert Rodriguez)
Robert Rodriguez casts Danny Trejo and co to fight Steven Seagal and co with big knifes and even bigger guns... need I say more?
Ok fine. While many films of it’s kind despite all “fun factor” are in actual fact very bad pieces of cinema (some not even being released in one). What sets this apart, crossing the line into “good film” territory is the the self-referential feel it has with all this being done by a good director and even a few good actors. On top of that it’s one of the best films to touch on immigration in recent time... if you find that an odd notion, take it up with cinema in general, its their fault. Though it’s mostly pure over-the-top violent fun, plain and simple.
7. Toy Story 3
(Directed by Lee Unkrich)
The final chapter in Pixar’s animated sensation that even with all the childish antics appeals to film-goers of all ages, after all like the character Andy, the original audience of the first and second are grown up themselves now. It’s hard to explain but the best way to describe it’s appeal is that it’s pits memorable characters in dire situations while at the same striking a perfect balance between comedy and drama (plenty of the former)... and the current children of this generation can still get onboard.
6. Kick-Ass
(Directed by Matthew Vaughn)
Based off the graphic novel no one had read, with “graphic” having multiple meanings, this clear cut action comedy is strikingly brutal since after all, vigilantism isn’t a clean and noble practice. With numerous break out performances for multiple new and upcoming actors, and one of the best from the mixed bag veteran Nicolas Cage, pretty much every character gets room to breath resulting in plenty of varied and humorous scenes... also did I mention it was brutal?
5. Crazy Heart
(Directed by Scott Cooper)
A limited release of a 2009 American film that was mostly known for one simple achievement: it finally earned Jeff Bridges an Oscar. A simple story about an aged-washed country musician and his new found relationship with a young journalist, Jeff Bridges really steals the show as the believable yet entirely fictional Otis “Bad” Blake who despite his alcoholism and sex antics quickly shows his true colours as an old man down on his luck who just wants the normal family life. If only the Dude got the Academy's respect.
4. Inception
(Directed by Christopher Nolan)
Modern Batman director takes a walk down the beaten path with an original science-fiction thriller with a script than can in the most professional terms can be best described as a “mind-fuck”. Despite in all honesty having to watch it twice to completely understand every other detail... and twist... and revelation, the plot itself is at the end of the day fairly straight forward. It’s just quite simply the thinking-man’s action film and to produce that successfully in the age of style over substance CGI, it’s a genuine achievement.
3. Four Lions
(Directed by Chris Morris)
Brass Eye’s Chris Morris dips his toe... dives head first into the world of amateur(?) Islamic terrorism in the UK. Despite all the crude humor and slapstick comedy, this bold grounded comedy actually depicts these four Stooges as just the sort of people extreme ideals can prey upon, the main cast themselves knowing little about the cause they “fight” for. Despite the balls the film has, the characterization and humor fits in and thankfully doesn’t participate in shock comedy with a sensitive theme, which most of the time is just for the sake of it.
2. Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World
(Directed by Edgar Wright)
Based off the series of graphic novels that weren’t even complete when this film was in production, Edgar Wright still manages to to geek out in the best way possible with a coherent plot in a world that works on retro video game conventions. Yet despite all the flash and references to popular culture, the story itself is actually more than a modern story of fighting for the princess but rather reflecting a young adult’s not yet perfect mindset and relationship issues. And if the best way to convey someone trying to workout their relationship in a proper dignified manner... is to portray that through a series Street Fighter fight sequences, well then, that’s just good entertainment.
1. The Social Network
(Directed by David Fincher)
In the modern age where the internet knows all and sees all, with Facebook currently as its church, David Fincher explores the thought process behind this simple (and to an extent sad) fact. Even though many have claimed that the narrative and characterization is noticeably dramatized from the real life story, that being the case is actually why this piece of film-making is so compelling to watch, showing just how innovation can quickly shape and break people’s lives. Further more to its credit is the lack of any noticeable protagonist or “hero”, myself and others still wanting to see how events unfold and just who will come out on top... the short answer is no one. In addition to a brilliantly composed soundtrack by Trent Reznor, the pacing and narrative flows perfectly with all the personal turmoil and back stabbing practices.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Sunday, 29 August 2010
Film Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
(Directed by Edgar Wright, running time 112 minutes)
NOTE: This review isn’t completely objective, having read all six volumes of the original Scott Pilgrim graphic novels.
While still waiting on World’s End, the third film of the humorously dubbed “Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy”, so far made up of modern British comedy classics Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, director Edgar Wright has gone completely state side, although further north... Canada in fact. Setting his sights on the comedy graphic novel series Scott Pilgrim, Wright intends on not only transferring the downright surreal and outlandish humor to the moving picture, but at the same time cramming all six volumes into the space of nearly two hours (incidentally, “vs the world” is the subtitle to volume two, while the film that shares the same name it’s still about six).
Like novel, like film, the story follows the daily trials of Scott Pilgrim (played by Michael Cera), a young adult living in Toronto and bassist for his aspiring band Sex Bob-omb (a’la Super Mario). Things quickly (and conveniently) take an unlikely shift when Scott falls for the mysterious Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). After hitting it off, Scott soon learns that Ramona has not only been with seven others, but he must defeat them all in order to stay in a relationship with her, being dubbed the “League of Evil Exes” (not ex-boyfriends, emphasized for reasons to knock the socks of the male viewers). What sounds like an odd set up is actually only the half of it. When you take into consideration that the league is more of a collection of super villain like characters with real powers in a world where bodies explode into loose change, any fight would surely be some form of spectacle.
The first thing viewers will notice however is how casual people react to displays of magical powers, super human strength and gravity deifying martial arts when the punch ups get heavy. Even the side characters show moments of other worldly fighting ability at times. Further more, the basic structure of daily life plays out at times like an 8-bit video game, with ability stats, experience points, life bars and extra life pick ups. Even some of the fights themselves play out like a game of Street Fighter or Tekken and that just scratches the surface of video game references. Throughout the entire run, random in-jokes and subtle hints will keep the most twitchy thumbed individuals with a great sense of reverence and nostalgia. The writers clearly have as much love for the medium as those of you.
But it’s not all Pac-Man (contrary to Scott’s belief), underneath all the geeky flash is actually a surprisingly solid social and relationship based narrative. From the get go, Scott is in fact a rather unlikable character, so rather than just an excuse to get laid in the long term, each fight also seems to slap some sense into his messed up inner mind (of which we get surreal literal glances of periodically). On top of that, Scott also appears to have baggage of his own as there’s very little in the way of the XX chromosome that hasn’t had a fling with him, particularly in the case of his recently dumped teenage girlfriend, the young Chinese Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) who is also the band’s biggest fan, border-lining on religious devotion. Despite being oddly left out of the marketing campaign and trailers, she is one f the most important characters who is having to deal with the break-up in her own irrational way. But don’t worry to those of you who may be fearful of walking into a “romantic comedy”, it’s much of that ill-fated genre as Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead was. Along for the ride are a mish mash of social stereotypes as the gang of friends including Scott’s gay roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin) who is one of the most down to Earth yet funny characters in the whole film, along with the pessimistic other members of Sex Bob-omb. In fact, there are plenty more realized characters to fill up the roster, but I’d be writing this for days to each fully mention.
Regardless of whether you have read the original stories or not, Edgar Wright’s new coat of paint is actually very faithful with only a few noticeable changes, for better AND for worse. On one hand, some scenes have been completely re-imagined, such as the the battle between Scott and the fifth and sixth evil-ex twins where before it was a series of encounters (with robots), this time around is a giant musical standoff between the twins and Sex Bob-omb where their music summons giant monsters. It’s a hilariously over the top sequence but at the later stage in the film not out of place and fits perfectly with the constrained length. Yet on the other hand, audiences WILL notice the fast pace of the overall plot, more so for those unfamiliar with the series. While hardly too erratic, the film is trying to get to each set-piece fight to the next while trying to also keep the consistent mood of the characters. More to the point, what happened over a course of a couple years, this time around happens in what feels like a week or two and it shows. Another is the general style of editing. However this is rather a mixed bag down to personal preference. The film utilizes an eccentric form of editing that mirrors the style of the graphic novels such as separate character frames, jump cuts without warning, information boxes that spring up throughout and flashbacks in the original art style. While I could have done without the latter that feels tacked on and lazy on the film-makers’ part, the rest in something very unusual in conventional cinema and as a result creates a unique viewing experience. Yet while trying to be as objective as I can, I have to admit this fast paced comic style will be bewildering to those very used to traditional editing techniques.
If you’re willing to take real life yet hurl basic science and social norms into the sun then you’d be able to appreciate Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. For all it’s over the top fight sequences and video game conventions, there’s also a good chunk of characterization and well written humor, meaning there should be AT LEAST a few things to enjoy, long time fan or not. For fans however, the adaptation is outstanding. Sure plenty has been cut and remodeled but it’s all to provide a coherent viewing experience that’s faithful and not an insult.
Also starring Chris Evans, Jason Schwartzman, Mark Webber and Alison Pill.
As a side note, the graphics novels are worth reading. The scenes that were changed are significantly more fleshed out, yet best of all there’s significantly more characterization and depth to the many side characters (including some great ones that never appeared in the film).
NOTE: This review isn’t completely objective, having read all six volumes of the original Scott Pilgrim graphic novels.
While still waiting on World’s End, the third film of the humorously dubbed “Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy”, so far made up of modern British comedy classics Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, director Edgar Wright has gone completely state side, although further north... Canada in fact. Setting his sights on the comedy graphic novel series Scott Pilgrim, Wright intends on not only transferring the downright surreal and outlandish humor to the moving picture, but at the same time cramming all six volumes into the space of nearly two hours (incidentally, “vs the world” is the subtitle to volume two, while the film that shares the same name it’s still about six).
Like novel, like film, the story follows the daily trials of Scott Pilgrim (played by Michael Cera), a young adult living in Toronto and bassist for his aspiring band Sex Bob-omb (a’la Super Mario). Things quickly (and conveniently) take an unlikely shift when Scott falls for the mysterious Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). After hitting it off, Scott soon learns that Ramona has not only been with seven others, but he must defeat them all in order to stay in a relationship with her, being dubbed the “League of Evil Exes” (not ex-boyfriends, emphasized for reasons to knock the socks of the male viewers). What sounds like an odd set up is actually only the half of it. When you take into consideration that the league is more of a collection of super villain like characters with real powers in a world where bodies explode into loose change, any fight would surely be some form of spectacle.
The first thing viewers will notice however is how casual people react to displays of magical powers, super human strength and gravity deifying martial arts when the punch ups get heavy. Even the side characters show moments of other worldly fighting ability at times. Further more, the basic structure of daily life plays out at times like an 8-bit video game, with ability stats, experience points, life bars and extra life pick ups. Even some of the fights themselves play out like a game of Street Fighter or Tekken and that just scratches the surface of video game references. Throughout the entire run, random in-jokes and subtle hints will keep the most twitchy thumbed individuals with a great sense of reverence and nostalgia. The writers clearly have as much love for the medium as those of you.
But it’s not all Pac-Man (contrary to Scott’s belief), underneath all the geeky flash is actually a surprisingly solid social and relationship based narrative. From the get go, Scott is in fact a rather unlikable character, so rather than just an excuse to get laid in the long term, each fight also seems to slap some sense into his messed up inner mind (of which we get surreal literal glances of periodically). On top of that, Scott also appears to have baggage of his own as there’s very little in the way of the XX chromosome that hasn’t had a fling with him, particularly in the case of his recently dumped teenage girlfriend, the young Chinese Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) who is also the band’s biggest fan, border-lining on religious devotion. Despite being oddly left out of the marketing campaign and trailers, she is one f the most important characters who is having to deal with the break-up in her own irrational way. But don’t worry to those of you who may be fearful of walking into a “romantic comedy”, it’s much of that ill-fated genre as Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead was. Along for the ride are a mish mash of social stereotypes as the gang of friends including Scott’s gay roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin) who is one of the most down to Earth yet funny characters in the whole film, along with the pessimistic other members of Sex Bob-omb. In fact, there are plenty more realized characters to fill up the roster, but I’d be writing this for days to each fully mention.
Regardless of whether you have read the original stories or not, Edgar Wright’s new coat of paint is actually very faithful with only a few noticeable changes, for better AND for worse. On one hand, some scenes have been completely re-imagined, such as the the battle between Scott and the fifth and sixth evil-ex twins where before it was a series of encounters (with robots), this time around is a giant musical standoff between the twins and Sex Bob-omb where their music summons giant monsters. It’s a hilariously over the top sequence but at the later stage in the film not out of place and fits perfectly with the constrained length. Yet on the other hand, audiences WILL notice the fast pace of the overall plot, more so for those unfamiliar with the series. While hardly too erratic, the film is trying to get to each set-piece fight to the next while trying to also keep the consistent mood of the characters. More to the point, what happened over a course of a couple years, this time around happens in what feels like a week or two and it shows. Another is the general style of editing. However this is rather a mixed bag down to personal preference. The film utilizes an eccentric form of editing that mirrors the style of the graphic novels such as separate character frames, jump cuts without warning, information boxes that spring up throughout and flashbacks in the original art style. While I could have done without the latter that feels tacked on and lazy on the film-makers’ part, the rest in something very unusual in conventional cinema and as a result creates a unique viewing experience. Yet while trying to be as objective as I can, I have to admit this fast paced comic style will be bewildering to those very used to traditional editing techniques.
If you’re willing to take real life yet hurl basic science and social norms into the sun then you’d be able to appreciate Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. For all it’s over the top fight sequences and video game conventions, there’s also a good chunk of characterization and well written humor, meaning there should be AT LEAST a few things to enjoy, long time fan or not. For fans however, the adaptation is outstanding. Sure plenty has been cut and remodeled but it’s all to provide a coherent viewing experience that’s faithful and not an insult.
Also starring Chris Evans, Jason Schwartzman, Mark Webber and Alison Pill.
As a side note, the graphics novels are worth reading. The scenes that were changed are significantly more fleshed out, yet best of all there’s significantly more characterization and depth to the many side characters (including some great ones that never appeared in the film).
Friday, 27 August 2010
Film Review: The Expendables
(Directed by Sylvester Stallone, running time 103 minutes)
Big guns, big explosions and big muscles, what some journalists have dubbed the “big dumb action flick”, this pseudo-genre is one of the more noticeable critical divides between critics and audiences. On one hand the critic is right since their only drive is to cause on screen havoc and cheap thrills, yet on the other the audience is right since there’s really nothing wrong with a little pure mayhem once in a while. It was popular throughout the 80s and early 90s and now such demands have resonated once again with The Expendables, an ensemble 80s throw back starring real 80s throwback action stars while tossing in a view recent “manliest men” archetypes for good measure.
From the various incarnations of movie posters, The Expendables boasts a near perfect action ensemble cast. Action veteran Sylvester Stallone is fresh off the killing floor from 2008’s Rambo, this time driving the cast as both lead star and director with Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lunggren, Mickey Rourke and a whole convoy of muscle men that either haven’t been blowing up bridges and turning over trucks for as long or as memorably for me to mention in the same sentence. As with the “big dumb action flick”, the plot is supposed to be as straight forward as the many, many bullets going through the many, many disposable cronies. The low down on the synopsis is basically “agency wants to kill maverick in hostile country, mercenaries hired for dirty work”, simple as A to B and you don't care. How we eventually get to that conclusion however is not so much needlessly complicated, rather postponed for the first half hour. Prior to this set up, it’s a slog between establishing the entire parade “built like a brick-shit house”.
The first scene invokes memories of John Rambo’s notorious hyper death extravaganza with a crime boss getting a chest of projectile explosives before having to be wiped from the shaken faces of the nearby hired goons. Yet quickly the film already exposes a fatal flaw; BBFC 15. Despite Stallone at helm, The Expendables is far from the meat grinder that was Rambo. In fact, the first death of this film is probably the most violent and with the entire cast’s filmography having an on-screen body count large enough that could populate a small country making it genocide, you’d expect overkill to be an understatement in his next project. Instead the piles of bodies prior to the climax (that I will get onto later) is rather tame, with generic explosions, shot outs and punch ups making up most corpses. On top of that, between action scenes are sparse between exposition. With the exception Mickey Rourke (who gives an excellent yet out place within the film speech about death), the characters naturally are, how you say “meat heads” so of course the dialogue is equally simple. This wouldn’t be a problem if there was enough “big dumb action” to make up most of the “flick”. Between the opening and climax, the action is rather basic and in all fairness not that over the top either. Sure it’s fun but more to the point, it’s all been done in the 80s and early 90s, in some cases by the same cast members.
On top of that, the cast is regulated to Stallone and Statham, with the average on screen time for the rest of the ensemble before the climax amounting to roughly 5 minutes each. Even Jet Li who actually mostly appears in genuinely good films has a somewhat limited role and the much touted Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger are cameos at best. Now granted, Schwarzenegger was always going to be nothing more than a quick walk in and wave given his focus now being world conquest (of which they even joked about in the film) but Willis, who is still alive and kicking in acting was billed as an important role. For the man who played the immortal John McClane, that was a downright tease. It may seem like I’m being harsh on something that’s not supposed to be taken seriously, but things like that are supposed to be consistently entertaining... well, I wasn’t consistently entertained.
Ah, but don’t call me out just yet. I wasn’t not entertained either, like I’ve mentioned previously the climax was a check point before the flip flops between dumb fun and mediocrity. What seems like half an hour, the last stand of the rag-tag band and two-dimensional antagonists is the over the top ultra violence everyone came to see. It’s here and only here where each member of The Expendables earns their standout moment. We’re talking wide spread demolitions, gruesome dismembered, violent bone breaking and plenty of good old fashion cannon fodder on display. All past groans and yawns were rolled up in rug and thrown off a bridge as the insane massacre unfolded.
Yet there also lies the problem that it was pushed up against the wall from the get go. Unlike Rambo and even the very recent The A-Team, the build up was less than expected in the context of the “big dumb action flick”. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely down right mad at times (the notable case being an explosive get away in a plane), but when it’s the throwback to cheesy action greats, moments of serious exposition that isn’t supposed to be taken seriously and general lack of bloodshed, I can’t help but feel disappointed at times. Despite the climax being the most of the promise of over the top action expected from such a cast, everything else pales in comparison. Sure, some movie goers might lap up the action for the sake of it being action but they should also admit they saved the best till last. Best usually does come last in films, but Stallone failed to take the best bits and scatter them throughout. It’s definitely a “big dumb action flick”, where it aims to please it's an absolute success but not really a great one, and given the ensemble it really should have been just that. But now I won't SHAME it.
Now lets wait for, Machete.
Also starring... *sigh* a lot.
Big guns, big explosions and big muscles, what some journalists have dubbed the “big dumb action flick”, this pseudo-genre is one of the more noticeable critical divides between critics and audiences. On one hand the critic is right since their only drive is to cause on screen havoc and cheap thrills, yet on the other the audience is right since there’s really nothing wrong with a little pure mayhem once in a while. It was popular throughout the 80s and early 90s and now such demands have resonated once again with The Expendables, an ensemble 80s throw back starring real 80s throwback action stars while tossing in a view recent “manliest men” archetypes for good measure.
From the various incarnations of movie posters, The Expendables boasts a near perfect action ensemble cast. Action veteran Sylvester Stallone is fresh off the killing floor from 2008’s Rambo, this time driving the cast as both lead star and director with Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lunggren, Mickey Rourke and a whole convoy of muscle men that either haven’t been blowing up bridges and turning over trucks for as long or as memorably for me to mention in the same sentence. As with the “big dumb action flick”, the plot is supposed to be as straight forward as the many, many bullets going through the many, many disposable cronies. The low down on the synopsis is basically “agency wants to kill maverick in hostile country, mercenaries hired for dirty work”, simple as A to B and you don't care. How we eventually get to that conclusion however is not so much needlessly complicated, rather postponed for the first half hour. Prior to this set up, it’s a slog between establishing the entire parade “built like a brick-shit house”.
The first scene invokes memories of John Rambo’s notorious hyper death extravaganza with a crime boss getting a chest of projectile explosives before having to be wiped from the shaken faces of the nearby hired goons. Yet quickly the film already exposes a fatal flaw; BBFC 15. Despite Stallone at helm, The Expendables is far from the meat grinder that was Rambo. In fact, the first death of this film is probably the most violent and with the entire cast’s filmography having an on-screen body count large enough that could populate a small country making it genocide, you’d expect overkill to be an understatement in his next project. Instead the piles of bodies prior to the climax (that I will get onto later) is rather tame, with generic explosions, shot outs and punch ups making up most corpses. On top of that, between action scenes are sparse between exposition. With the exception Mickey Rourke (who gives an excellent yet out place within the film speech about death), the characters naturally are, how you say “meat heads” so of course the dialogue is equally simple. This wouldn’t be a problem if there was enough “big dumb action” to make up most of the “flick”. Between the opening and climax, the action is rather basic and in all fairness not that over the top either. Sure it’s fun but more to the point, it’s all been done in the 80s and early 90s, in some cases by the same cast members.
On top of that, the cast is regulated to Stallone and Statham, with the average on screen time for the rest of the ensemble before the climax amounting to roughly 5 minutes each. Even Jet Li who actually mostly appears in genuinely good films has a somewhat limited role and the much touted Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger are cameos at best. Now granted, Schwarzenegger was always going to be nothing more than a quick walk in and wave given his focus now being world conquest (of which they even joked about in the film) but Willis, who is still alive and kicking in acting was billed as an important role. For the man who played the immortal John McClane, that was a downright tease. It may seem like I’m being harsh on something that’s not supposed to be taken seriously, but things like that are supposed to be consistently entertaining... well, I wasn’t consistently entertained.
Ah, but don’t call me out just yet. I wasn’t not entertained either, like I’ve mentioned previously the climax was a check point before the flip flops between dumb fun and mediocrity. What seems like half an hour, the last stand of the rag-tag band and two-dimensional antagonists is the over the top ultra violence everyone came to see. It’s here and only here where each member of The Expendables earns their standout moment. We’re talking wide spread demolitions, gruesome dismembered, violent bone breaking and plenty of good old fashion cannon fodder on display. All past groans and yawns were rolled up in rug and thrown off a bridge as the insane massacre unfolded.
Yet there also lies the problem that it was pushed up against the wall from the get go. Unlike Rambo and even the very recent The A-Team, the build up was less than expected in the context of the “big dumb action flick”. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely down right mad at times (the notable case being an explosive get away in a plane), but when it’s the throwback to cheesy action greats, moments of serious exposition that isn’t supposed to be taken seriously and general lack of bloodshed, I can’t help but feel disappointed at times. Despite the climax being the most of the promise of over the top action expected from such a cast, everything else pales in comparison. Sure, some movie goers might lap up the action for the sake of it being action but they should also admit they saved the best till last. Best usually does come last in films, but Stallone failed to take the best bits and scatter them throughout. It’s definitely a “big dumb action flick”, where it aims to please it's an absolute success but not really a great one, and given the ensemble it really should have been just that. But now I won't SHAME it.
Now lets wait for, Machete.
Also starring... *sigh* a lot.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Film Review: Four Lions
(Directed by Chris Morris, running time 100 minutes)
To those who may be unfamiliar with names alone, director Chris Morris is better known for his written and starring role in the highly controversial satirical faux-news program Brass Eye. That alone would make complete sense of the already awkward premise of Four Lions. Yes, it seems to sheer mention of Islam in popular media these days is enough to incite a fraction of doubt and unease in the public’s mind, yet here we have Al-Qaeda meets the Three Stooges...er, Four Stooges.
Four Lions follows the dimwitted exploits of four radical Islamic terrorists, in Sheffield, England, composed off two young adult brothers Omar (played by Riz Ahmed) and Waj (Kayvan Novak), the latter of which is how you say slow, middle-aged British convert Barry (Nigel Lindsey) and bumbling fool Faisal (Adeel Akhtar), all of whom aspire to of all things pull off a successful suicide bombing. The only problem with this gang of irrational simpletons are not only ill-equipped to use weaponry, they even have a poor grasp of the religion they’re fighting for. Soon enough, further problems arise when a fifth recruit, Hassan (Arsher Ali) joins the fray, whose just as way over his head than the rest of the “happy campers”.
The obvious point to note even before viewing is just how far the controversial premise goes. Islam aside, the set up of a suicide bombing on British soil is hardly the first sketch that comes to mind in situation comedy. As a satire on a recent news worthy issue however, the comedy just plain works. While the audience is treated to a foreseeable series of bombings gone wrong and near blown cover as punch-lines, the majority of the comedy however comes from the constant bickering between the cast, a staple of cynical British humor. Despite all sharing the same faith (supposedly), the entire ensemble are in fact perfect misfits. Even the young brothers are on opposite ends of the spectrum intelligence wise, a somewhat classic image of the narrow-minded yet idealistic modern day British youth. The rest however are just not well adjusted enough to be in the terrorist trade... and that has to say something.
Which brings me on to the most unique point of the film. In an odd yet compelling way the characters are actually rather likable with their [counter-]witty lines of dialogue and predictable failures like a cast of cartoon archetypes. In reality they’re the villains but since failure is a recurrent theme it’s no different from cheering on Dick Dastardly or Wile E. Coyote. The only difference is instead of getting a black cloud of smoke in the face you get reduced to a bloody pulp on the pavement. Don’t worry though, in the few instances when something does go boom, the said cloud is all you see. It’s rather clean on screen when your profession involves scattering your limbs down the high street. Thrown in for good measure is the other side of the coin, the British intelligence agency who as we know is prone to... how you say, “hiccups” in their profiling and direct handling with the apparent threat to national security.
There are to say the least a couple of dry spells humor wise given the heavy handed message the script is quite obviously trying to hammer home and much of one’s own enjoyment would be based on how they react to similar news stories and their stance on political correctness. Of all scenes that make the greatest impact is hands down the last character driven scene before the credits begin to roll. Naturally without spoiling anything, I’ll just say it’s both funny and relevant to the characters, but not what they’re doing.
The final point of note about Four Lions is how such a film wouldn’t be achievable if made in the good old US of A. This isn’t just due to the obvious fear of showing acts of terrorism in a slapstick tone within their own borders, but also my own guess is that the representation would be a more cliche and less believable cast of Muslims, perhaps using stereotypes that would cause an outcry that this film has thankfully avoided. No offense to the US filmmaking, but this is based of prior attempts. While no British comedy classic, Chris Morris however has once again gone against the current media mindset and produced a film that’s not afraid to show to a realistic enough approach to a news heavy issue and laugh about it.
Also stars Julia Davis, Preeya Kalidas and Kevin Aldon.
To those who may be unfamiliar with names alone, director Chris Morris is better known for his written and starring role in the highly controversial satirical faux-news program Brass Eye. That alone would make complete sense of the already awkward premise of Four Lions. Yes, it seems to sheer mention of Islam in popular media these days is enough to incite a fraction of doubt and unease in the public’s mind, yet here we have Al-Qaeda meets the Three Stooges...er, Four Stooges.
Four Lions follows the dimwitted exploits of four radical Islamic terrorists, in Sheffield, England, composed off two young adult brothers Omar (played by Riz Ahmed) and Waj (Kayvan Novak), the latter of which is how you say slow, middle-aged British convert Barry (Nigel Lindsey) and bumbling fool Faisal (Adeel Akhtar), all of whom aspire to of all things pull off a successful suicide bombing. The only problem with this gang of irrational simpletons are not only ill-equipped to use weaponry, they even have a poor grasp of the religion they’re fighting for. Soon enough, further problems arise when a fifth recruit, Hassan (Arsher Ali) joins the fray, whose just as way over his head than the rest of the “happy campers”.
The obvious point to note even before viewing is just how far the controversial premise goes. Islam aside, the set up of a suicide bombing on British soil is hardly the first sketch that comes to mind in situation comedy. As a satire on a recent news worthy issue however, the comedy just plain works. While the audience is treated to a foreseeable series of bombings gone wrong and near blown cover as punch-lines, the majority of the comedy however comes from the constant bickering between the cast, a staple of cynical British humor. Despite all sharing the same faith (supposedly), the entire ensemble are in fact perfect misfits. Even the young brothers are on opposite ends of the spectrum intelligence wise, a somewhat classic image of the narrow-minded yet idealistic modern day British youth. The rest however are just not well adjusted enough to be in the terrorist trade... and that has to say something.
Which brings me on to the most unique point of the film. In an odd yet compelling way the characters are actually rather likable with their [counter-]witty lines of dialogue and predictable failures like a cast of cartoon archetypes. In reality they’re the villains but since failure is a recurrent theme it’s no different from cheering on Dick Dastardly or Wile E. Coyote. The only difference is instead of getting a black cloud of smoke in the face you get reduced to a bloody pulp on the pavement. Don’t worry though, in the few instances when something does go boom, the said cloud is all you see. It’s rather clean on screen when your profession involves scattering your limbs down the high street. Thrown in for good measure is the other side of the coin, the British intelligence agency who as we know is prone to... how you say, “hiccups” in their profiling and direct handling with the apparent threat to national security.
There are to say the least a couple of dry spells humor wise given the heavy handed message the script is quite obviously trying to hammer home and much of one’s own enjoyment would be based on how they react to similar news stories and their stance on political correctness. Of all scenes that make the greatest impact is hands down the last character driven scene before the credits begin to roll. Naturally without spoiling anything, I’ll just say it’s both funny and relevant to the characters, but not what they’re doing.
The final point of note about Four Lions is how such a film wouldn’t be achievable if made in the good old US of A. This isn’t just due to the obvious fear of showing acts of terrorism in a slapstick tone within their own borders, but also my own guess is that the representation would be a more cliche and less believable cast of Muslims, perhaps using stereotypes that would cause an outcry that this film has thankfully avoided. No offense to the US filmmaking, but this is based of prior attempts. While no British comedy classic, Chris Morris however has once again gone against the current media mindset and produced a film that’s not afraid to show to a realistic enough approach to a news heavy issue and laugh about it.
Also stars Julia Davis, Preeya Kalidas and Kevin Aldon.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Film Review: Kick-Ass
(Directed by Matthew Vaughn, running time 117 minutes)
Last year’s Watchmen was something of a mixed bag... well not for me, I loved it but I’m not narrow-minded enough to not acknowledge that for certain others it was hardly their favorite film that either they couldn’t understand or take its dark themes. Regardless of how you felt, what it was was a spin on the superhero genre, a plot element underused in cinema. To those who may have said nay to Watchmen (shame on you), while the very much hyped Kick-Ass has much in common with Alan Moore's brainchild; humanizing superheroes, casual violence and a twisted sense of irony, the plot is significantly more stream-lined and the general tone is much lighter.
Aaron Johnson plays Dave Lizewski, a teenage “comic-book nerd” who has an epiphany moment over the notion that despite its popularity, no one has tried putting being a superhero into practice, thus engaging in mask vigilantism himself in the form of “Kick-Ass”. Initially such attempts are comically futile even though being filmed and posted on YouTube helps his credibility much more than actual crime fighting (this subtle reference carries more weight as a a piece of commentary than at first glance). During the ride he gets mixed up with two highly skilled yet deeply deranged masked heroes; Big Daddy and Hit Girl, played by Nicolas Cage and Chloë Grace Moretz, both who are on the warpath against kingpin mobster Frank D’Amico played by Mark Strong.
Sounds simple enough right? That’s because it is, while the story changes direction and tone between comedy and drama, the climax is clear on the the horizon. The prime issue to grapple with here is not the moral ambiguity of the script (trust me, if you haven’t already you’re bound to hear it from some heavily right-wing nut job radio commentator), I’ll get onto that later. No, it’s the genre. While all previews and trailers depict Kick-Ass as something of a comedy for young adults, greatly at times the whole mood takes a plunge into a psychological/social drama. While not overshadowing the obvious comedy touted outside the theaters, the drama is very much clear cut and stands out in a one by one ratio. Often at times the audience will witness a series of slapstick skits before taking in angst or sorrow the character might experience (because satire can be serious). This is a human related story after all. Even though such subject matter is sprinkled out in doses throughout the film to prevent becoming overbearing and in itself is defiantly apart of the overall experience as the comedy, I fear some questionable advertising may be setting some common folk up for a potential unpleasant surprise after having been put into the wrong mind set.
On the comedy front however, there is thankfully deliverance. Even with the glaring pit falls his character experiences as his alter-ego, Dave Lizewski also engages in a close friendship with one of the most attractive girls at his school, after having mistaken him for being a homosexual with the first joke to mind being the resulting sexual-tension on Dave’s parts as he consistently pretends to play along. Aside from the endeavors of the protagonist, further humor in exhibited from the youngest of the D’Amico clan, Chris/Red Mist played by Christopher Charles Mintz-Plasse, better known to the student audience as McLovin a’la Superbad who is as pleasantly awkward as ever, being an even more cocky yet useless rookie crime fighter than Kick-Ass himself. Additionally, the side cast such as Dave’s even more geeky friends and D’Amico’s hired goons have their own moments in the comedy spotlight.
However, it’s Big Daddy and Hit Girl who steal the show, being a pair of downright deranged individuals while at the same time oddly compelling that we even cheer on as they blatantly gruesomely decimate wave after wave of all sorts of unsavory low lives. And that’s something, like Watchmen, the violence is in plain site and rather unexpected, we’re talking massive head-shots, severed limbs and in one instance a guy exploding in a giant microwave oven. In terms of its violence however, given the comedy angle, it’s more reminiscent of Tarantino, being apart of the humor and colossal sense of irony. Nicolas Cage’s Big Daddy is something of a parent-orientated Batman who despite some hiccups in the past, I would say has redeemed his credibility as an actor. Chloë Grace Moretz is more of an oddity since despite being a mere child, pulls off some of Kick-Ass’s heaviest profanities and executions to the extent of forgetting her age completely... which leads me onto this...
NOTE: This next paragraph is more of a brief commentary over the recent controversy this film has caused rather than a view on the film itself so skip to the last paragraph to get right to the conclusion.
There may be some out there who find certain elements of Kick-Ass questionable, for others even distressful. One reason for such negativity to resonate may be a result from the already explained unexpectedness of the heavy violence and profanity. In this one’s own opinion, all this does is benefit the spin on the superhero genre and enhance the elements of social commentary here and there. The prime issue however is that of Hit Girl, where some have found distasteful and exploitative. First of all let me say anyone who thinks it’s exploitative is sick and for that you sir/madam are the deranged individual. As for the violence, I will admit at first it is somewhat bewildering to see a small girl massacre a group of drug dealers and towards the end even take a bloody punch to face, and while I can understand why such an image might be distressing to some, in the end it’s a matter of taste. Sure, a loving parent would not take such violence kindly whereas a teenager out for cheap thrills wouldn’t batter an eyelid.
Kick-Ass is definitely a unique film experience that you should check out, being part teenage comedy, part violent action and part social drama, all of which is helped further by its in your face satire and sharp script. For most I assume reading this, they’ll find something about it entertaining, but due to some hang ups people have had in the past I must emphasize they approach with caution as it is not entirely what it seems at first.
Also stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Clarke Duke and Nelson Frazier, Jr (that’s Viscera the wrestler).
Last year’s Watchmen was something of a mixed bag... well not for me, I loved it but I’m not narrow-minded enough to not acknowledge that for certain others it was hardly their favorite film that either they couldn’t understand or take its dark themes. Regardless of how you felt, what it was was a spin on the superhero genre, a plot element underused in cinema. To those who may have said nay to Watchmen (shame on you), while the very much hyped Kick-Ass has much in common with Alan Moore's brainchild; humanizing superheroes, casual violence and a twisted sense of irony, the plot is significantly more stream-lined and the general tone is much lighter.
Aaron Johnson plays Dave Lizewski, a teenage “comic-book nerd” who has an epiphany moment over the notion that despite its popularity, no one has tried putting being a superhero into practice, thus engaging in mask vigilantism himself in the form of “Kick-Ass”. Initially such attempts are comically futile even though being filmed and posted on YouTube helps his credibility much more than actual crime fighting (this subtle reference carries more weight as a a piece of commentary than at first glance). During the ride he gets mixed up with two highly skilled yet deeply deranged masked heroes; Big Daddy and Hit Girl, played by Nicolas Cage and Chloë Grace Moretz, both who are on the warpath against kingpin mobster Frank D’Amico played by Mark Strong.
Sounds simple enough right? That’s because it is, while the story changes direction and tone between comedy and drama, the climax is clear on the the horizon. The prime issue to grapple with here is not the moral ambiguity of the script (trust me, if you haven’t already you’re bound to hear it from some heavily right-wing nut job radio commentator), I’ll get onto that later. No, it’s the genre. While all previews and trailers depict Kick-Ass as something of a comedy for young adults, greatly at times the whole mood takes a plunge into a psychological/social drama. While not overshadowing the obvious comedy touted outside the theaters, the drama is very much clear cut and stands out in a one by one ratio. Often at times the audience will witness a series of slapstick skits before taking in angst or sorrow the character might experience (because satire can be serious). This is a human related story after all. Even though such subject matter is sprinkled out in doses throughout the film to prevent becoming overbearing and in itself is defiantly apart of the overall experience as the comedy, I fear some questionable advertising may be setting some common folk up for a potential unpleasant surprise after having been put into the wrong mind set.
On the comedy front however, there is thankfully deliverance. Even with the glaring pit falls his character experiences as his alter-ego, Dave Lizewski also engages in a close friendship with one of the most attractive girls at his school, after having mistaken him for being a homosexual with the first joke to mind being the resulting sexual-tension on Dave’s parts as he consistently pretends to play along. Aside from the endeavors of the protagonist, further humor in exhibited from the youngest of the D’Amico clan, Chris/Red Mist played by Christopher Charles Mintz-Plasse, better known to the student audience as McLovin a’la Superbad who is as pleasantly awkward as ever, being an even more cocky yet useless rookie crime fighter than Kick-Ass himself. Additionally, the side cast such as Dave’s even more geeky friends and D’Amico’s hired goons have their own moments in the comedy spotlight.
However, it’s Big Daddy and Hit Girl who steal the show, being a pair of downright deranged individuals while at the same time oddly compelling that we even cheer on as they blatantly gruesomely decimate wave after wave of all sorts of unsavory low lives. And that’s something, like Watchmen, the violence is in plain site and rather unexpected, we’re talking massive head-shots, severed limbs and in one instance a guy exploding in a giant microwave oven. In terms of its violence however, given the comedy angle, it’s more reminiscent of Tarantino, being apart of the humor and colossal sense of irony. Nicolas Cage’s Big Daddy is something of a parent-orientated Batman who despite some hiccups in the past, I would say has redeemed his credibility as an actor. Chloë Grace Moretz is more of an oddity since despite being a mere child, pulls off some of Kick-Ass’s heaviest profanities and executions to the extent of forgetting her age completely... which leads me onto this...
NOTE: This next paragraph is more of a brief commentary over the recent controversy this film has caused rather than a view on the film itself so skip to the last paragraph to get right to the conclusion.
There may be some out there who find certain elements of Kick-Ass questionable, for others even distressful. One reason for such negativity to resonate may be a result from the already explained unexpectedness of the heavy violence and profanity. In this one’s own opinion, all this does is benefit the spin on the superhero genre and enhance the elements of social commentary here and there. The prime issue however is that of Hit Girl, where some have found distasteful and exploitative. First of all let me say anyone who thinks it’s exploitative is sick and for that you sir/madam are the deranged individual. As for the violence, I will admit at first it is somewhat bewildering to see a small girl massacre a group of drug dealers and towards the end even take a bloody punch to face, and while I can understand why such an image might be distressing to some, in the end it’s a matter of taste. Sure, a loving parent would not take such violence kindly whereas a teenager out for cheap thrills wouldn’t batter an eyelid.
Kick-Ass is definitely a unique film experience that you should check out, being part teenage comedy, part violent action and part social drama, all of which is helped further by its in your face satire and sharp script. For most I assume reading this, they’ll find something about it entertaining, but due to some hang ups people have had in the past I must emphasize they approach with caution as it is not entirely what it seems at first.
Also stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Clarke Duke and Nelson Frazier, Jr (that’s Viscera the wrestler).
Film Review: Clash of the Titans
DISCLAIMER: I know I’m trying to shorten my reviews but in this particular case I’ve got a lot to get off my chest, which even then still isn’t long enough, so apologies.
(Directed by Louis Leterrier, running time 118 minutes)
Greek Mythology is somewhat of an oddity for film makers, while it provides a ready selection of mythical creatures, legendary heroes and a sizable pantheon of Gods, the originally stories themselves don’t translate to the moving picture in the slightest sense if reverence is on the agenda. Arguably the best attempt at bringing life to the ancient fables was the 1963 Jason and the Argonauts, one of the first “swords and sandals” epics and easily featuring the best of stop-motion wizard Ray Harryhausen. However liberties were taken to give life to the exaggerated tales of old. His second Greek outing (no, not like that) however came in 1981 in the form of Clash of the Titans. Unlike Argonauts, the spectacle however was not the best acted or even groundbreaking, in fact it was a step back for special effects at the time. But why is it still remembered? Charm and camp value, which makes it a cult classic that being the case would make me “Brother Frank”.
A remake however is not a farfetched concept since Greek Mythology can also be epic, just look at the God of War video game series. The original Clash of the Titans however wasn’t actually much of an epic story to begin with so naturally any attempt at making it epic would either mean taking liberties or over doing the grand scale of story itself... where this 2010 incarnation does neither.
By all means does the screenplay take liberties with the original story (which took liberties of its own with the original legend so for all those familiar with the genuine text; you’ll stop grinding your teeth after 20 minutes) but this does not involve inserting some epic battle sequences. Sam Worthington, having washed off his Smurf make-up plays Perseus, the bastard child of Zeus (played by Liam Neeson), who after losing his adoptive family and ship is swept ashore the kingdom of Argos that initially relishes in it’s independence from the Gods not long before they’re groveling at the feet of Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes) who demands a sacrifice for the Kraken, lest they be completely obliterated. So naturally this set up leads Perseus and co on a grand adventure to stop potential annihilation, overcoming many obstacles in the form of mythical beasts... or “big bad beasties” using Hollywood logic.
Already I’m questioning the plausibility of this set up. The writers themselves must have been in the mind set of “this happens because it was in the original” since a number of scenes played out in 1981 that don’t make sense in 2010. The most glaring of these is why is Perseus even on this journey? In the original, Perseus is out to save his beloved Andromeda and his soon to be kingdom while nearly 30 years later he is just out for revenge for the death of his family at the hands of Hades despite his quest not involving the goal of killing said Godof the Underworld. Further more upon his arrival at Argos he is treated like a scraping from under their sandal that begs the question why help them, especially since the people are bringing the wrath of Zeus upon themselves to the point of borderline painting a giant middle finger on the mountain side. The second issue is not so obvious since the plot element doesn’t come up much... and that is why it’s a problem. In 1981 the cursed beast Calibos is the whole reason the Kraken is summoned while in 2010 he is nothing more than a bribed peon of Hades, a tacked on reference to the original (although I will admit the mechanical owl joke was pretty clever). And thirdly Pegasus, the winged horse just turns up at the end sent by Zeus after a change of heart, there is no developed bond from the original making the creature more of a tool than a companion. I could name many others but I digress, in short it appears the film is so eager to get of the ground and wow audiences, there is no time to rationalize the legitimacy of the basic script. I’m not saying the original’s was perfect, but it was at least coherent.
Ok, so the script is clearly flawed but what about the characters? In a positive spin, the beauty part is there is definitely a band of interesting characters, that are built up from the start with different traits and backgrounds... slight problem however. Without giving away who and how, a good chunk are arbitrarily killed off making all that screen time building them up pointless if their deaths were so insignificant, screen time that could of been used developing the story itself. The acting is... ok. Not cringe worthy but tolerable... at times. The biggest chip on my shoulder is the Greek Gods themselves. Now Neeson and Fiennes are perfectly acceptable but why are they dressed like a camp stage theater retelling of King Arthur? What happened to the togas, the auroras of thunder, giant muscles and general sense of power? Why do the pantheon congregate over a landscape for train sets? They may act like Gods, heck the much touted line “release the Kraken” does pack a punch, but they don’t look like Gods.
This really isn’t going well?
CGI then. Thankfully, unlike the rendition of Olympus, the landscape does invoke the epic scale of Greek Mythology with the city of Argos alone rivaling that of the Lord of the Rings Minas Tirith. Even the desolate lands where twisted old witches reside comes off more as the shores of hell (or Hades). As for the inevitable monster mash, the bands of warriors plow through giant scorpions, harpies, Medusa and of course the Kraken, although the course is a little light, lacking the 1981 giant hawk and two-headed dog. In their place however are mysterious, almost wood like sand people who actually ally themselves with our heroes, which to their credit are at least visually striking and unique. The Kraken is defiantly the highlight despite like the original doing little in the way of... being the Kraken, but the hype prior is actually overbearing in a good way. Medusa however is less menacing this time around, having much less build up and sense of horror with the confrontation being more action orientated like the rest of the film. While it’s good action no doubt, it lacks any importance given the monsters before were casually despatched as mere hurdles. I mean even the sand people are immune to her powers, making her as an entity of pure dread redundant. On the up side, the giant scorpion sequence appears more important and exciting than it’s supposed to be given its significance to the overarching plot.
As a remake, if you saw the original first, you probably will be wanting more. As a stand alone film, it is deeply flawed. While action and spectacle take centre stage, the various hiccups along the road make the whole epic experience more of a bumpy ride. Since I essentially have a great gay boner for Greek Mythology (joke), I found myself crushingly disappointed. Not because of the liberties taken with the source material or the lack of charm the original film possesses but for the lack of epic scale and fantastical sense of awe that Greek Mythology is perfect for. The best case in cinema is still Jason and the Argonauts and very few things can even such the sheer spectacle of the God of War games, Greek Mythology or not. 2010 Clash of the Titans is not a straight up bad film, I’m sure there many who can enjoy it for the grand CGI fest it is since there is a lack of mythological orientated films, but the overall experience is lacking. I mean with a name like CLASH of the TITANS, you'd settle for nothing less than over the top epic scale. While I prefer not to grade or score a complex opinion like most critics, this film can best be described as around the C- range film, not too bad, but not really that good either... it’s just there for you.
Also starring Gemma Arterton, Jason Flemyng and Mads Mikkelsen.
(Directed by Louis Leterrier, running time 118 minutes)
Greek Mythology is somewhat of an oddity for film makers, while it provides a ready selection of mythical creatures, legendary heroes and a sizable pantheon of Gods, the originally stories themselves don’t translate to the moving picture in the slightest sense if reverence is on the agenda. Arguably the best attempt at bringing life to the ancient fables was the 1963 Jason and the Argonauts, one of the first “swords and sandals” epics and easily featuring the best of stop-motion wizard Ray Harryhausen. However liberties were taken to give life to the exaggerated tales of old. His second Greek outing (no, not like that) however came in 1981 in the form of Clash of the Titans. Unlike Argonauts, the spectacle however was not the best acted or even groundbreaking, in fact it was a step back for special effects at the time. But why is it still remembered? Charm and camp value, which makes it a cult classic that being the case would make me “Brother Frank”.
A remake however is not a farfetched concept since Greek Mythology can also be epic, just look at the God of War video game series. The original Clash of the Titans however wasn’t actually much of an epic story to begin with so naturally any attempt at making it epic would either mean taking liberties or over doing the grand scale of story itself... where this 2010 incarnation does neither.
By all means does the screenplay take liberties with the original story (which took liberties of its own with the original legend so for all those familiar with the genuine text; you’ll stop grinding your teeth after 20 minutes) but this does not involve inserting some epic battle sequences. Sam Worthington, having washed off his Smurf make-up plays Perseus, the bastard child of Zeus (played by Liam Neeson), who after losing his adoptive family and ship is swept ashore the kingdom of Argos that initially relishes in it’s independence from the Gods not long before they’re groveling at the feet of Hades (played by Ralph Fiennes) who demands a sacrifice for the Kraken, lest they be completely obliterated. So naturally this set up leads Perseus and co on a grand adventure to stop potential annihilation, overcoming many obstacles in the form of mythical beasts... or “big bad beasties” using Hollywood logic.
Already I’m questioning the plausibility of this set up. The writers themselves must have been in the mind set of “this happens because it was in the original” since a number of scenes played out in 1981 that don’t make sense in 2010. The most glaring of these is why is Perseus even on this journey? In the original, Perseus is out to save his beloved Andromeda and his soon to be kingdom while nearly 30 years later he is just out for revenge for the death of his family at the hands of Hades despite his quest not involving the goal of killing said Godof the Underworld. Further more upon his arrival at Argos he is treated like a scraping from under their sandal that begs the question why help them, especially since the people are bringing the wrath of Zeus upon themselves to the point of borderline painting a giant middle finger on the mountain side. The second issue is not so obvious since the plot element doesn’t come up much... and that is why it’s a problem. In 1981 the cursed beast Calibos is the whole reason the Kraken is summoned while in 2010 he is nothing more than a bribed peon of Hades, a tacked on reference to the original (although I will admit the mechanical owl joke was pretty clever). And thirdly Pegasus, the winged horse just turns up at the end sent by Zeus after a change of heart, there is no developed bond from the original making the creature more of a tool than a companion. I could name many others but I digress, in short it appears the film is so eager to get of the ground and wow audiences, there is no time to rationalize the legitimacy of the basic script. I’m not saying the original’s was perfect, but it was at least coherent.
Ok, so the script is clearly flawed but what about the characters? In a positive spin, the beauty part is there is definitely a band of interesting characters, that are built up from the start with different traits and backgrounds... slight problem however. Without giving away who and how, a good chunk are arbitrarily killed off making all that screen time building them up pointless if their deaths were so insignificant, screen time that could of been used developing the story itself. The acting is... ok. Not cringe worthy but tolerable... at times. The biggest chip on my shoulder is the Greek Gods themselves. Now Neeson and Fiennes are perfectly acceptable but why are they dressed like a camp stage theater retelling of King Arthur? What happened to the togas, the auroras of thunder, giant muscles and general sense of power? Why do the pantheon congregate over a landscape for train sets? They may act like Gods, heck the much touted line “release the Kraken” does pack a punch, but they don’t look like Gods.
This really isn’t going well?
CGI then. Thankfully, unlike the rendition of Olympus, the landscape does invoke the epic scale of Greek Mythology with the city of Argos alone rivaling that of the Lord of the Rings Minas Tirith. Even the desolate lands where twisted old witches reside comes off more as the shores of hell (or Hades). As for the inevitable monster mash, the bands of warriors plow through giant scorpions, harpies, Medusa and of course the Kraken, although the course is a little light, lacking the 1981 giant hawk and two-headed dog. In their place however are mysterious, almost wood like sand people who actually ally themselves with our heroes, which to their credit are at least visually striking and unique. The Kraken is defiantly the highlight despite like the original doing little in the way of... being the Kraken, but the hype prior is actually overbearing in a good way. Medusa however is less menacing this time around, having much less build up and sense of horror with the confrontation being more action orientated like the rest of the film. While it’s good action no doubt, it lacks any importance given the monsters before were casually despatched as mere hurdles. I mean even the sand people are immune to her powers, making her as an entity of pure dread redundant. On the up side, the giant scorpion sequence appears more important and exciting than it’s supposed to be given its significance to the overarching plot.
As a remake, if you saw the original first, you probably will be wanting more. As a stand alone film, it is deeply flawed. While action and spectacle take centre stage, the various hiccups along the road make the whole epic experience more of a bumpy ride. Since I essentially have a great gay boner for Greek Mythology (joke), I found myself crushingly disappointed. Not because of the liberties taken with the source material or the lack of charm the original film possesses but for the lack of epic scale and fantastical sense of awe that Greek Mythology is perfect for. The best case in cinema is still Jason and the Argonauts and very few things can even such the sheer spectacle of the God of War games, Greek Mythology or not. 2010 Clash of the Titans is not a straight up bad film, I’m sure there many who can enjoy it for the grand CGI fest it is since there is a lack of mythological orientated films, but the overall experience is lacking. I mean with a name like CLASH of the TITANS, you'd settle for nothing less than over the top epic scale. While I prefer not to grade or score a complex opinion like most critics, this film can best be described as around the C- range film, not too bad, but not really that good either... it’s just there for you.
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Film Review: How to Train Your Dragon
(Directed by Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois, running time 98 minutes)
Looking back at the many animated films I delved into, I can only sneer at the sugary AND cheesy onslaught that insulted my intelligence, if I had any that is, I was 6. I my view, a good children’s film is one you can look back on fondly and even enjoy once you’re all grown up... and the same applies today. So as a huge cynic, any children’s animated feature I can enjoy must be worth a glance for the bigger hearted regular audience. So far, only Pixar seems to be able to charm my critical attitude... but How to Train Your Dragon is a DreamWorks production and I did not enjoy Shrek. Before I get this review underway, let me briefly explain why I paid the price of admission; one, the reviews to mine and everyone else’s surprise were phenomenally positive and two, I’m a sucker for Vikings... with that child like remark, now I don’t seem so negative as a person.
The oddly named How to Train Your Dragon follows the endeavor of Hiccup, also oddly named, voiced by Jay Baruchel, a weak and young Viking blacksmith who supplies the weapons to the rest of his more typical fat, drunk and horned Viking clan who are under constant attack from an array of monstrous and cartoonish dragon archetypes. After inadvertently bringing down one of the harder to slay beasts, being the lesser Viking he is, he instead helps it heal before learning to ride and eventually befriending one of the dragons his people have been fighting for so long...
...yeah, it does sound familiar, more so to anyone who read my Avatar review. The story of of a hero switching sides is a tired out formula but as strange as it sounds, this animated feature isn’t the overhyped cliche spectacle some “other” films turn out to be. The prime difference is in its characterization. First of all, the dragons aren’t innocent creatures, they’re violent fire breathing behemoths, basically they’re real dragons. Secondly the Vikings aren’t even villainous, they’re just defending their homeland. In fact, neither the dragons or Vikings are the protagonists or antagonists, it’s about Hiccup and his juggling of caring for a dragon in secret while trying to train himself back at his village in a rather comically blunt series of Viking duels, all of this before an epic climax that you won’t guess from the trailers alone.
Might sound simple enough, but it’s the characters and humor that stand on its own feet. The dragons come in different shapes and sizes (and methods of attack) ranging from the simple design of the lead dragon to both cartoonish and menacing with their entire personality shown through their movement and facial expressions. In short they don’t talk or try to act like humans, which the animations of old did... excruciatingly. The Vikings themselves are also more typical of their kind, enjoying to drink, eat and fight and we’d expect nothing less. When Hicupp’s overbearing father and chieftain of the Vikings, Stoic the Vast (voiced by Gerard Butler) was introduced in the opening, I couldn’t help but grin for minutes afterwards at that name alone. Another Viking of note is Gobber the Belch (voiced by Craig Ferguson), sporting artificial limbs and an unconventional and downright dangerous training technique for new dragon slaying recruits.
The story is somewhat formulaic and there aren’t that many surprises outside of the characterization making for a somewhat predictable flow in a couple of instances, but what you do get is a series of excellent set piece scenes and epic battles with subtle humor and charm. Further more, the Viking setting is a fresh change of pace from talking animals and inanimate objects, which also allows for a pleasant orchestral score accompanied by Celtic pipes, which isn’t the most common thing to hear in an animation... except Beowulf, but I have it on good authority that may not be for children.
It might sound odd at first to enjoy such a film at my age but how many of you are planning to see Toy Story 3 hmm?
Also stars America Ferrera, Jonah Hill and David Tennant (yes, that one).
Looking back at the many animated films I delved into, I can only sneer at the sugary AND cheesy onslaught that insulted my intelligence, if I had any that is, I was 6. I my view, a good children’s film is one you can look back on fondly and even enjoy once you’re all grown up... and the same applies today. So as a huge cynic, any children’s animated feature I can enjoy must be worth a glance for the bigger hearted regular audience. So far, only Pixar seems to be able to charm my critical attitude... but How to Train Your Dragon is a DreamWorks production and I did not enjoy Shrek. Before I get this review underway, let me briefly explain why I paid the price of admission; one, the reviews to mine and everyone else’s surprise were phenomenally positive and two, I’m a sucker for Vikings... with that child like remark, now I don’t seem so negative as a person.
The oddly named How to Train Your Dragon follows the endeavor of Hiccup, also oddly named, voiced by Jay Baruchel, a weak and young Viking blacksmith who supplies the weapons to the rest of his more typical fat, drunk and horned Viking clan who are under constant attack from an array of monstrous and cartoonish dragon archetypes. After inadvertently bringing down one of the harder to slay beasts, being the lesser Viking he is, he instead helps it heal before learning to ride and eventually befriending one of the dragons his people have been fighting for so long...
...yeah, it does sound familiar, more so to anyone who read my Avatar review. The story of of a hero switching sides is a tired out formula but as strange as it sounds, this animated feature isn’t the overhyped cliche spectacle some “other” films turn out to be. The prime difference is in its characterization. First of all, the dragons aren’t innocent creatures, they’re violent fire breathing behemoths, basically they’re real dragons. Secondly the Vikings aren’t even villainous, they’re just defending their homeland. In fact, neither the dragons or Vikings are the protagonists or antagonists, it’s about Hiccup and his juggling of caring for a dragon in secret while trying to train himself back at his village in a rather comically blunt series of Viking duels, all of this before an epic climax that you won’t guess from the trailers alone.
Might sound simple enough, but it’s the characters and humor that stand on its own feet. The dragons come in different shapes and sizes (and methods of attack) ranging from the simple design of the lead dragon to both cartoonish and menacing with their entire personality shown through their movement and facial expressions. In short they don’t talk or try to act like humans, which the animations of old did... excruciatingly. The Vikings themselves are also more typical of their kind, enjoying to drink, eat and fight and we’d expect nothing less. When Hicupp’s overbearing father and chieftain of the Vikings, Stoic the Vast (voiced by Gerard Butler) was introduced in the opening, I couldn’t help but grin for minutes afterwards at that name alone. Another Viking of note is Gobber the Belch (voiced by Craig Ferguson), sporting artificial limbs and an unconventional and downright dangerous training technique for new dragon slaying recruits.
The story is somewhat formulaic and there aren’t that many surprises outside of the characterization making for a somewhat predictable flow in a couple of instances, but what you do get is a series of excellent set piece scenes and epic battles with subtle humor and charm. Further more, the Viking setting is a fresh change of pace from talking animals and inanimate objects, which also allows for a pleasant orchestral score accompanied by Celtic pipes, which isn’t the most common thing to hear in an animation... except Beowulf, but I have it on good authority that may not be for children.
It might sound odd at first to enjoy such a film at my age but how many of you are planning to see Toy Story 3 hmm?
Also stars America Ferrera, Jonah Hill and David Tennant (yes, that one).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)