I seemed to go through a terrible stretch of movies during this period.
Having not enjoyed Fanboys and The Raid, I then received Cockneys versus Zombies. I'd heard this wasn't very good, but was hoping it would be a bit of humorous relief.
Unfortunately, it wasn't all that funny.
One of the problems with it is that it doesn't actually seem to have much of a grasp on what it wants to do with "cockneys" side of things. Yes, it's set in the East End of London and the older characters are definitely getting into "proper" cockneys territory, but the younger element of the cast could almost have been anywhere. And it's the younger element of the cast that's really carrying the story.
Well, I mean, obviously the story is a bit thin, but it takes up most of the time, so they're obviously on screen more of the time.
It almost feels like the whole "Snakes on a Plane" grand-concept thing. They've come up with a title and then tried to work a plot up so that they can call it Cockney's versus Zombies, but in reality haven't really achieved that as it could have been set anywhere - there's nothing all that cockney about it
It also fails to really hit the mark in terms of scares and laughs. I'm guessing one of the inspirations for the film was Shawn of the Dead, but the problem of course is it's not as well written and not as funny. Also, one of the things that's probably not obvious with Shawn of the Dead is that it's actually a RomCom in structure with Zombies added as a twist.
CvZ lacks this as its core, which is okay, there are other types of films, but it's replaced it with something along the lines of a heist movie, and it doesn't do a very good job at being a reasonable heist movie.
The effects were okay, if a little thin - I'm guessing that they couldn't quite scrape up enough budget to do everything they wanted and the horror side of it ended up without enough cash to do lots of good, gorey kills. It doesn't make up for that by being scary - there are some good jumps, but it's not really a horror movie-proper.
And as I say, it doesn't achieve the trick of being a comedy either, so it was very disappointing.
Showing posts with label films. Show all posts
Showing posts with label films. Show all posts
Thursday, 3 October 2013
Wednesday, 2 October 2013
the raid
I'd heard good things about the raid.
Specifically I'd heard it was an entertaining, somewhat old-skool martial arts film, that had loads of great action.
Well it had loads of action, I will give it that, but I have to confess I found a lot of it a bit dull. No, that's not quite right - it's more that I got rather bored of it.
One of the things I say in quite a lot of my reviews is that they've taken a perfectly good 1hr 30min film and made it 2hr long. Well, the raid is only 1hr 30min (ish) long, but it felt like it should probably have been 1hr long.
A lot of the fights just drag on, and I know they're brutal and harsh and well filmed and all that, but I just found myself fast-forwarding through them.
A big part of the problem was that I found the whole film ludicrous. The plot makes no sense whatsoever. There are also some twists in it, and these just make things confusing and undermine whatever little sense it had.
Now, don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting it to be sensible, it's just that some of the stuff that happens doesn't actually hang together, even within the logic of the film.
I dunno - I guess I'm being harsh again, but I just found it boring. Maybe if I'd watched it back when I went through that traditional phase most young guys go through of loving all things martial arts (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, et al) then I'd have liked it more?
Specifically I'd heard it was an entertaining, somewhat old-skool martial arts film, that had loads of great action.
Well it had loads of action, I will give it that, but I have to confess I found a lot of it a bit dull. No, that's not quite right - it's more that I got rather bored of it.
One of the things I say in quite a lot of my reviews is that they've taken a perfectly good 1hr 30min film and made it 2hr long. Well, the raid is only 1hr 30min (ish) long, but it felt like it should probably have been 1hr long.
A lot of the fights just drag on, and I know they're brutal and harsh and well filmed and all that, but I just found myself fast-forwarding through them.
A big part of the problem was that I found the whole film ludicrous. The plot makes no sense whatsoever. There are also some twists in it, and these just make things confusing and undermine whatever little sense it had.
Now, don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting it to be sensible, it's just that some of the stuff that happens doesn't actually hang together, even within the logic of the film.
I dunno - I guess I'm being harsh again, but I just found it boring. Maybe if I'd watched it back when I went through that traditional phase most young guys go through of loving all things martial arts (Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, et al) then I'd have liked it more?
Thursday, 26 September 2013
fanboys
What a terrible film.
I thought it best to just come out and say it. The problem I had with fanboys is that it was just a sort of weak, thinned-down version of a Kevin smith film. Indeed if you take the dialogue of Clerks and mush it into Jay & silent Bob Strike back then you've basically got fanboys.
The idea behind it is of a bunch of nerds going to Skywalker Ranch to steal/view Star wars Episode 1 ahead of its release. So you're talking about a bunch of nerds and you're talking about a road movie. And that's basically it.
Unfortunately, the movie is just not as well written as a Kevin Smith film. The dialogue lacks real punch. It also seems to try to be "inclusive" of non-nerds - it felt a bit toned down and 'lite', instead of being full-on nerdy. It was like they felt they couldn't be too extreme with the jokes because they might alienate some of the non-nerd audience.
The characters also felt a bit thin - fairly loose stereotypes, without a great deal of interest or individuality to them.
And of course the plot is very minimal - more like a series of sketches than a plot. Given it's a road movie it could perhaps have had some saving graces in terms of how it was filmed, or the places they went to, for example, but it fell down thee too.
I'm being very harsh. It wasn't painful to watch, the acting is okay and it's watchable, it's just that it was supposed to be funny and I didn't laugh once.
I thought it best to just come out and say it. The problem I had with fanboys is that it was just a sort of weak, thinned-down version of a Kevin smith film. Indeed if you take the dialogue of Clerks and mush it into Jay & silent Bob Strike back then you've basically got fanboys.
The idea behind it is of a bunch of nerds going to Skywalker Ranch to steal/view Star wars Episode 1 ahead of its release. So you're talking about a bunch of nerds and you're talking about a road movie. And that's basically it.
Unfortunately, the movie is just not as well written as a Kevin Smith film. The dialogue lacks real punch. It also seems to try to be "inclusive" of non-nerds - it felt a bit toned down and 'lite', instead of being full-on nerdy. It was like they felt they couldn't be too extreme with the jokes because they might alienate some of the non-nerd audience.
The characters also felt a bit thin - fairly loose stereotypes, without a great deal of interest or individuality to them.
And of course the plot is very minimal - more like a series of sketches than a plot. Given it's a road movie it could perhaps have had some saving graces in terms of how it was filmed, or the places they went to, for example, but it fell down thee too.
I'm being very harsh. It wasn't painful to watch, the acting is okay and it's watchable, it's just that it was supposed to be funny and I didn't laugh once.
Wednesday, 18 September 2013
starship troopers: invasion
Invasion is actually the fourth film in the Starship Troopers series.
It is a "canon" in the sense that it follows on from the events of the previous films and even includes some of the characters; however, there's a notable difference in that it is a CG film.
When I started watching I wasn't sure it was canon. It used the costumes and equipment from the previous films, as well as the bug designs, but that didn't necessarily mean it fit properly into that same universe. It also even included the Marauder suits, which appeared in the third film (one of the weird things with me getting so far behind with reviews is that I have watched this, but it was on TV, so it is a lower priority for me to write about, and there are now about 20 things I've rented and not blogged about!).
The marauder suits are the films finally incorporating the proper mobile infantry concept that is actually key to the original books. Indeed, the concept of powered suits was actually invented by Heinlein for the original book and it was always a bit odd that it wasn't included in the original film.
I mean, I understand why they took all the troopers out of the suits - expense, difficulty identified with people covered up in suits, reduced threat from the bugs - but they could have had them in it a little bit, like at the end or in a lab or something.
Anyway, this CG film is actually Japanese. I actually think it was made by the same group that put together the Appleseed CG films, but I'm not totally certain on that. It looks about similar to the second of the Appleseed films, so certainly better than the first of those, but not quite in the realms of so real you can't tell it from reality.
It's also a bit odd in that it was filmed in English. I mean, it was filmed in Japan by a Japanese Director, but many of the actors were American and spoke English and the VAs spoke English. This works okay, but felt a little odd if I'm totally honest, but I'm not sure why.
The film itself is okay. It continues quite a lot of the tongue in cheek over the top aspects, but manages to stay this side of pastiche. The plot is a bit hokey, though, and twists itself in a couple of knots.
The real question though is whether being filmed in CG really adds anything. I'm not sure it does, tbh. I mean, I guess it means they were able to produce a bigger film than they otherwise might be able to? However, it also makes it more of a niche product, which limits the degree to which they can distribute it.
It is a "canon" in the sense that it follows on from the events of the previous films and even includes some of the characters; however, there's a notable difference in that it is a CG film.
When I started watching I wasn't sure it was canon. It used the costumes and equipment from the previous films, as well as the bug designs, but that didn't necessarily mean it fit properly into that same universe. It also even included the Marauder suits, which appeared in the third film (one of the weird things with me getting so far behind with reviews is that I have watched this, but it was on TV, so it is a lower priority for me to write about, and there are now about 20 things I've rented and not blogged about!).
The marauder suits are the films finally incorporating the proper mobile infantry concept that is actually key to the original books. Indeed, the concept of powered suits was actually invented by Heinlein for the original book and it was always a bit odd that it wasn't included in the original film.
I mean, I understand why they took all the troopers out of the suits - expense, difficulty identified with people covered up in suits, reduced threat from the bugs - but they could have had them in it a little bit, like at the end or in a lab or something.
Anyway, this CG film is actually Japanese. I actually think it was made by the same group that put together the Appleseed CG films, but I'm not totally certain on that. It looks about similar to the second of the Appleseed films, so certainly better than the first of those, but not quite in the realms of so real you can't tell it from reality.
It's also a bit odd in that it was filmed in English. I mean, it was filmed in Japan by a Japanese Director, but many of the actors were American and spoke English and the VAs spoke English. This works okay, but felt a little odd if I'm totally honest, but I'm not sure why.
The film itself is okay. It continues quite a lot of the tongue in cheek over the top aspects, but manages to stay this side of pastiche. The plot is a bit hokey, though, and twists itself in a couple of knots.
The real question though is whether being filmed in CG really adds anything. I'm not sure it does, tbh. I mean, I guess it means they were able to produce a bigger film than they otherwise might be able to? However, it also makes it more of a niche product, which limits the degree to which they can distribute it.
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
underworld: awakening
I wasn't sure what to expect with this fourth film in the underworld series.
I enjoyed the first one quite a bit, but found the second one underwhelming and a little confusing. The third film was actually a prequel and was okay, but really Selene (Beckinsale's character) was the only one that was interesting and she wasn't really in it.
This fourth one does star Selene, but also introduces a daughter (sort of). Now when actresses and characters get older there seems to be a bit of a thing for them acquiring children. I mean, don't get me wrong, obviously people get older and have children, but when those characters are odd (vampires or superheroes or whatever) the children thing is also normally odd (not really a child, but a clone or whatever).
I dunno, you can get some weird stuff in order to force the film down the whole maternal instinct path. And that's basically the case here - the maternal thing is pretty much crowbarred in.
However, if you set that aside, I actually quite enjoyed the film. Selene is still quite an interesting character and it doesn't hurt that Beckinsale seems even more gorgeous (she may be of equal gorgeousness, but the previous films were a long time ago!). I mean, don't get me wrong, the story was a bit poor, constructed of quite a lot of clichés, but then if you're watching the fourth Underworld film, why would you be expecting anything less?
No, what I enjoyed was the visual look of the film, the action and the special effects.
Now it's not all great the film was shot in 3D and there were a few of those stupid moment they always build in to have stuff flying out at the audience but then look daft when you watch them non-3D (and daft in 3D if you're of that persuasion) but it wasn't too bad here.
I enjoyed the first one quite a bit, but found the second one underwhelming and a little confusing. The third film was actually a prequel and was okay, but really Selene (Beckinsale's character) was the only one that was interesting and she wasn't really in it.
This fourth one does star Selene, but also introduces a daughter (sort of). Now when actresses and characters get older there seems to be a bit of a thing for them acquiring children. I mean, don't get me wrong, obviously people get older and have children, but when those characters are odd (vampires or superheroes or whatever) the children thing is also normally odd (not really a child, but a clone or whatever).
I dunno, you can get some weird stuff in order to force the film down the whole maternal instinct path. And that's basically the case here - the maternal thing is pretty much crowbarred in.
However, if you set that aside, I actually quite enjoyed the film. Selene is still quite an interesting character and it doesn't hurt that Beckinsale seems even more gorgeous (she may be of equal gorgeousness, but the previous films were a long time ago!). I mean, don't get me wrong, the story was a bit poor, constructed of quite a lot of clichés, but then if you're watching the fourth Underworld film, why would you be expecting anything less?
No, what I enjoyed was the visual look of the film, the action and the special effects.
Now it's not all great the film was shot in 3D and there were a few of those stupid moment they always build in to have stuff flying out at the audience but then look daft when you watch them non-3D (and daft in 3D if you're of that persuasion) but it wasn't too bad here.
Wednesday, 31 July 2013
tinker, tailor, soldier, spy
I actually listened to this as audiobook while walking shortly before watching the film.
I found the book good but a little confusing. It's one of those with a lot of characters who are introduced in fairly subtle ways and often without much in the way of physical description so there's not much for you to hang onto.
Plot wise it made perfect sense, but I had to really concentrate on the characters - particularly since the point is that one of them is a spy!
This film has a bit of a hard act to follow. It's one of a few adaptations and one of the most famous was by the BBC and starred Alec Guinness of all people and was quite well regarded.
This is also the first in a set of stories by le Carre and featuring the character George Smiley and revolving around Karla, a Russian spy. Smiley features in many other of le Carre's novels, but these are probably the most well known. What I'm saying is that if they are adapting this then they probably intended to do all of the other Karla books.
So do I think they should - was it any good?
Well yes, I thought it was quite a good adaptation. Smiley is played by Gary Oldman and I have to say he's perfect in the role. He really nails the character and it's a suitably subtle performance - Smiley is a very taciturn, deliberate, thoughtful character, not given to outbursts or displays of emotion.
The story is necessarily tweaked to fit the running time, though the main core of the story is there. The real changes are around the more peripheral characters. One of the best examples of this is Jim Prideaux. In the book there's quite a lot of stuff around his job as a school teacher, particularly revolving around one of the boys. In the film he's a school teacher, and we see some of the events, but they're incidental flavour, rather than things that take up significant screen time.
This has the advantage of not muddying the waters - the focus is squarely on Smiley, though it does remove some of the colour.
Overall I thought it was a good adaptation then, particularly of material that's very cerebral in nature.
I found the book good but a little confusing. It's one of those with a lot of characters who are introduced in fairly subtle ways and often without much in the way of physical description so there's not much for you to hang onto.
Plot wise it made perfect sense, but I had to really concentrate on the characters - particularly since the point is that one of them is a spy!
This film has a bit of a hard act to follow. It's one of a few adaptations and one of the most famous was by the BBC and starred Alec Guinness of all people and was quite well regarded.
This is also the first in a set of stories by le Carre and featuring the character George Smiley and revolving around Karla, a Russian spy. Smiley features in many other of le Carre's novels, but these are probably the most well known. What I'm saying is that if they are adapting this then they probably intended to do all of the other Karla books.
So do I think they should - was it any good?
Well yes, I thought it was quite a good adaptation. Smiley is played by Gary Oldman and I have to say he's perfect in the role. He really nails the character and it's a suitably subtle performance - Smiley is a very taciturn, deliberate, thoughtful character, not given to outbursts or displays of emotion.
The story is necessarily tweaked to fit the running time, though the main core of the story is there. The real changes are around the more peripheral characters. One of the best examples of this is Jim Prideaux. In the book there's quite a lot of stuff around his job as a school teacher, particularly revolving around one of the boys. In the film he's a school teacher, and we see some of the events, but they're incidental flavour, rather than things that take up significant screen time.
This has the advantage of not muddying the waters - the focus is squarely on Smiley, though it does remove some of the colour.
Overall I thought it was a good adaptation then, particularly of material that's very cerebral in nature.
Wednesday, 24 July 2013
the king's speech
I think part of the reason I've fallen so far behind with these reviews is because I wasn't really sure what to say about this film.
You'll almost certainly be aware that the film won four Oscars and a whole slew of other things, was critically praised and made a bucket load. And, unfortunately for writing this review, I don't really disagree with that. It is a damn fine film.
As I understand it was actually based on an adapted version of a screenplay written by the voice coach (Lionel Logue). It is deftly written - the characterisations of Logue and Albert are particularly good, though some of the more peripheral characters are rather incidental and not really fleshed out in any particular depth, but then it doesn't really suffer for that.
Anyway, what is particularly good is it does make them feel like real people - Albert is quite caustic in many places and the no-heirs Aussie nature of Logue isn't over-done as it could easily have become pastiche.
The performances are also excellent. Firth and Rush portray Albert and Logue extremely well. Firth actually sounds just like Albert (there's some extras with original audio on there).
The locations are also well used. It could so easily have fallen into a big productions palaces and posh frocks thing, but it avoids that altogether. Indeed, much of the film takes places in relatively ordinary spaces.
So yeah, pretty short review as I'm not quite sure what I can really add. It is a good film. I guess if you were a total anti-monarchist you may be able to be miffed at it, but really the point of this is that it works because of that, rather than against it.
You'll almost certainly be aware that the film won four Oscars and a whole slew of other things, was critically praised and made a bucket load. And, unfortunately for writing this review, I don't really disagree with that. It is a damn fine film.
As I understand it was actually based on an adapted version of a screenplay written by the voice coach (Lionel Logue). It is deftly written - the characterisations of Logue and Albert are particularly good, though some of the more peripheral characters are rather incidental and not really fleshed out in any particular depth, but then it doesn't really suffer for that.
Anyway, what is particularly good is it does make them feel like real people - Albert is quite caustic in many places and the no-heirs Aussie nature of Logue isn't over-done as it could easily have become pastiche.
The performances are also excellent. Firth and Rush portray Albert and Logue extremely well. Firth actually sounds just like Albert (there's some extras with original audio on there).
The locations are also well used. It could so easily have fallen into a big productions palaces and posh frocks thing, but it avoids that altogether. Indeed, much of the film takes places in relatively ordinary spaces.
So yeah, pretty short review as I'm not quite sure what I can really add. It is a good film. I guess if you were a total anti-monarchist you may be able to be miffed at it, but really the point of this is that it works because of that, rather than against it.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
sherlock holmes: game of shadows
This wasn't a rental but a film I got for Christmas (which shows how long I take to watch things and then write a review!).
I've actually recently been listening to the Sherlock Holmes stories on audio book while I do my walking. Only a handful of them are novel length, which I haven't been listening to, and the vast majority are short stories. As such you can kinda see why they tend to stick them together or come up with original stories when they make films.
In the case of these Downey Junior films in some way they're more of the "inspired by" the originals than adaptations. The Moffat BBC series is similar in this sense - the stories are inspired by Holmes and just take bits of the original plots and weave them together. One of the big differences is that the BBC series is set in the modern day where the Downey Jr ones are set in the correct time period - turn of the century England. This gives them both a distinct feel, but also makes you think the Downey Jr ones are somehow "closer" even though really they're more divergent.
However, one thing that has struck me about the originals is how inconsistent they are with each other. In the stories themselves the chronology of events is confused (cases are referred to in the wrong order of occurrence on multiple occasions - to the degree that it's really noticeable), but also the character of Homes is all over the place.
One thing I particularly noticed is that early on he's referred to as going round solving mysteries that relate to royal houses in Europe - something that would surely bring him a degree of fame - but in later he is shunning fame, going so far as to get Lastrade to pretend he'd solved cases, and later still he's so famous in the fictional world that everyone knows who he is.
A particularly frustrating thing for anyone creating an adaptation must be the inconsistency and short-lived nature of key characters. So Moriarty, the apparent arch-criminal and rival is basically only referred to in one story (Reichenbach Falls) in an active sense and then referenced as the ultimate bad guy in subsequent stories - yet he never appeared before that. Irene Adler, who is inflated to a love interest in a lot of stories, is in just one story. There are also the Baker Street Irregulars who pop up in a vague handful of stories but are inconsistently used and then basically forgotten about and then in later stories he acquires a page, an assistant and all sorts, even though many of these stories are apparently set during others where they're not mentioned.
I appear to have gotten very side-tracked. The point I was trying to make is that when you really read the stories you can kinda see where they're getting a lot of the stuff from in these films. In particular, the plot of this second film is grown out of short story that appears quite late on and dabbles with political intrigue. It blends this with Moriarty to form what is a quite satisfying story.
On that front, and in others, this film is actually much better than the first. By using Moriarty and tying it to a meaty plot it feels firmer and is more enjoyable than the first. There's also quite a bit more humour than in the first, some of which is surprisingly surreal, and the action is just that bit more satisfying.
One thing the first did well was that the action was often quite grounded and physical - people beating each other up, rather than flying through the air on wires - and this continues, but it's also tied with a more clever take in some scenes. There's also a part in a forest I won't spoil that is probably one of the best action sequences I've ever seen.
The only thing I was disappointed by was the treatment of the aforementioned Addler - the way that part ends is very unsatisfying. Again, I won't spoiler, but I thought it undermined the first film quite badly, though when you think about it, it wasn't definitive, so it could be developed further, but if it's taken as face value (and little hints otherwise) then I found it quite disappointing.
I've actually recently been listening to the Sherlock Holmes stories on audio book while I do my walking. Only a handful of them are novel length, which I haven't been listening to, and the vast majority are short stories. As such you can kinda see why they tend to stick them together or come up with original stories when they make films.
In the case of these Downey Junior films in some way they're more of the "inspired by" the originals than adaptations. The Moffat BBC series is similar in this sense - the stories are inspired by Holmes and just take bits of the original plots and weave them together. One of the big differences is that the BBC series is set in the modern day where the Downey Jr ones are set in the correct time period - turn of the century England. This gives them both a distinct feel, but also makes you think the Downey Jr ones are somehow "closer" even though really they're more divergent.
However, one thing that has struck me about the originals is how inconsistent they are with each other. In the stories themselves the chronology of events is confused (cases are referred to in the wrong order of occurrence on multiple occasions - to the degree that it's really noticeable), but also the character of Homes is all over the place.
One thing I particularly noticed is that early on he's referred to as going round solving mysteries that relate to royal houses in Europe - something that would surely bring him a degree of fame - but in later he is shunning fame, going so far as to get Lastrade to pretend he'd solved cases, and later still he's so famous in the fictional world that everyone knows who he is.
A particularly frustrating thing for anyone creating an adaptation must be the inconsistency and short-lived nature of key characters. So Moriarty, the apparent arch-criminal and rival is basically only referred to in one story (Reichenbach Falls) in an active sense and then referenced as the ultimate bad guy in subsequent stories - yet he never appeared before that. Irene Adler, who is inflated to a love interest in a lot of stories, is in just one story. There are also the Baker Street Irregulars who pop up in a vague handful of stories but are inconsistently used and then basically forgotten about and then in later stories he acquires a page, an assistant and all sorts, even though many of these stories are apparently set during others where they're not mentioned.
I appear to have gotten very side-tracked. The point I was trying to make is that when you really read the stories you can kinda see where they're getting a lot of the stuff from in these films. In particular, the plot of this second film is grown out of short story that appears quite late on and dabbles with political intrigue. It blends this with Moriarty to form what is a quite satisfying story.
On that front, and in others, this film is actually much better than the first. By using Moriarty and tying it to a meaty plot it feels firmer and is more enjoyable than the first. There's also quite a bit more humour than in the first, some of which is surprisingly surreal, and the action is just that bit more satisfying.
One thing the first did well was that the action was often quite grounded and physical - people beating each other up, rather than flying through the air on wires - and this continues, but it's also tied with a more clever take in some scenes. There's also a part in a forest I won't spoil that is probably one of the best action sequences I've ever seen.
The only thing I was disappointed by was the treatment of the aforementioned Addler - the way that part ends is very unsatisfying. Again, I won't spoiler, but I thought it undermined the first film quite badly, though when you think about it, it wasn't definitive, so it could be developed further, but if it's taken as face value (and little hints otherwise) then I found it quite disappointing.
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
the ides of march
The 15th of March.
Technically that's what the title means. The romans used to count dates in a bit of a weird way and the ides was (basically) the middle of the month.
However, what the title is really referring to is the assassination of Julius Caesar, which happened on the ides of March. I have to confess the title is a little esoteric in relation to the plot - nobody actually gets assassinated, as such, though there is a bit of metaphorical assassination, and perhaps a bit of "death of faith".
Ides is a political film. It's surprising how few big political films there are. I guess a big part of the reason for that is that if you come down on one political side you're essentially alienating half (or more) of your audience. I don't mean films with politics in them, btw, I mean serious films about politics - set in the world of politics and exploring it.
It's like The West Wing is one of only a handful of political TV shows. Comedies are more common, I think, particularly as satire is generally focused on politics.
Ides of March is quite complex, but there's not a lot I can say that won't give the good stuff away. It's not too complex that you won't understand it, though.
I've kinda already mentioned the crucial bits - the meat of the plot is about ideology hitting reality and faith in a person hitting the reality of people. What is quite clever, though, is the way that actually two plots are inter-linked and intertwined in such a way that they are together, but can also be compared and contrasted.
The differences between them are intriguing, but the similarities more so. In particular the way in which the main character treats the plotline that affects him directly and that affects him more incidentally is very revealing. When you think about it the film then boils down to hypocrisy, both willing and forced.
And when you start to look at it in that way it's clever how the film sets up all sorts of mirrors at different levels to make the same point. I mean, it's not really judgemental about it, it's just presenting a reality.
I mean many people will say they hate politicians; that the way they flip-flop and compromise is terrible, yet that is the heart of politics - you compromise on things to achieve consensus. It is the essence of us as social animals.
I've gotten quite deep there, and a clever thing about the film is that you can enjoy it without having to delve too deeply into that side, although in some ways that is also its flaw. Because you can enjoy it in this way it could seem relatively flippant - the depth needs a bit of teasing at to really be apparent.
Also, it's not really saying anything you probably didn't already know, unless you were relatively new to this sort of thing.
Technically that's what the title means. The romans used to count dates in a bit of a weird way and the ides was (basically) the middle of the month.
However, what the title is really referring to is the assassination of Julius Caesar, which happened on the ides of March. I have to confess the title is a little esoteric in relation to the plot - nobody actually gets assassinated, as such, though there is a bit of metaphorical assassination, and perhaps a bit of "death of faith".
Ides is a political film. It's surprising how few big political films there are. I guess a big part of the reason for that is that if you come down on one political side you're essentially alienating half (or more) of your audience. I don't mean films with politics in them, btw, I mean serious films about politics - set in the world of politics and exploring it.
It's like The West Wing is one of only a handful of political TV shows. Comedies are more common, I think, particularly as satire is generally focused on politics.
Ides of March is quite complex, but there's not a lot I can say that won't give the good stuff away. It's not too complex that you won't understand it, though.
I've kinda already mentioned the crucial bits - the meat of the plot is about ideology hitting reality and faith in a person hitting the reality of people. What is quite clever, though, is the way that actually two plots are inter-linked and intertwined in such a way that they are together, but can also be compared and contrasted.
The differences between them are intriguing, but the similarities more so. In particular the way in which the main character treats the plotline that affects him directly and that affects him more incidentally is very revealing. When you think about it the film then boils down to hypocrisy, both willing and forced.
And when you start to look at it in that way it's clever how the film sets up all sorts of mirrors at different levels to make the same point. I mean, it's not really judgemental about it, it's just presenting a reality.
I mean many people will say they hate politicians; that the way they flip-flop and compromise is terrible, yet that is the heart of politics - you compromise on things to achieve consensus. It is the essence of us as social animals.
I've gotten quite deep there, and a clever thing about the film is that you can enjoy it without having to delve too deeply into that side, although in some ways that is also its flaw. Because you can enjoy it in this way it could seem relatively flippant - the depth needs a bit of teasing at to really be apparent.
Also, it's not really saying anything you probably didn't already know, unless you were relatively new to this sort of thing.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
transformers - dark of the moon
I seem to have missed something with these new transformer films.
In the original comic book series the Ark crashes on the earth millions of years ago. It crashes in a volcano, from memory, and the robots on the ark are from both sides - autobots and decepticons. I seem to recall that the ark is revived by the volcano re-activating and proceeds to repair all the robots utilising modern man's technology as the template for their rebuilding.
Reading the Wikipedia entry this isn't quite what happened in the first film - there's a crash landing on earth, but it's only Megatron. It's also not millions of years ago, but probably hundreds.
I mean, I'd twigged that it was not millions of years (no Dinobots ever :() but I dunno - for some reason I'd thought the film was closer to the original, and not just Megatron. The problem for me is this makes the stories in the films even more confusing. I mean, I'd found them a bit confusing and non-sensical the first time, but having missed that it wasn't the ark that crash landed, I was very confused to find that in this third film the ark crash lands at the beginning :/.
I mean, why do the autobots and decepticons look like human cars and planes, etc, if they've not been remade in the image of our machines? It gives them a stealth quality while here, but surely that would have been ridiculous on their home world? But also does that mean they can change what they transform into?
Anyway, point is I hadn't realised the films were quite so divergent. When I did realise this, at the start of this third film, I think it kinda made me see this third one in a slightly different light. I mean, I don't think it's a good film in the sense of having a deep plot and well written characters, just that the fact that it was different to the comics/cartoons didn't bother me as much - I judged more on its own merits.
I think this film is the best of the three, though as I say, I may be judging it slightly differently. The plot is certainly more coherent in my opinion. Also, rather than try to be a direct sequel, it seems to simply be "later on" so you don't get so much in the way of those rubbish bits in the second one where they try to fudge things to get Megatron back to life.
And I think that's its main strength - it's not really carrying any baggage. The first film you had all the issues over what they'd changed (which clearly I missed some of!), the second they were trying to make it a 'proper' sequel, but this third one they don't care so much and just spend the time blowing as much stuff up as possible (well, it's still a Michael Bay film after all).
I guess it's more playful is the point, so I found it a bit more enjoyable.
In the original comic book series the Ark crashes on the earth millions of years ago. It crashes in a volcano, from memory, and the robots on the ark are from both sides - autobots and decepticons. I seem to recall that the ark is revived by the volcano re-activating and proceeds to repair all the robots utilising modern man's technology as the template for their rebuilding.
Reading the Wikipedia entry this isn't quite what happened in the first film - there's a crash landing on earth, but it's only Megatron. It's also not millions of years ago, but probably hundreds.
I mean, I'd twigged that it was not millions of years (no Dinobots ever :() but I dunno - for some reason I'd thought the film was closer to the original, and not just Megatron. The problem for me is this makes the stories in the films even more confusing. I mean, I'd found them a bit confusing and non-sensical the first time, but having missed that it wasn't the ark that crash landed, I was very confused to find that in this third film the ark crash lands at the beginning :/.
I mean, why do the autobots and decepticons look like human cars and planes, etc, if they've not been remade in the image of our machines? It gives them a stealth quality while here, but surely that would have been ridiculous on their home world? But also does that mean they can change what they transform into?
Anyway, point is I hadn't realised the films were quite so divergent. When I did realise this, at the start of this third film, I think it kinda made me see this third one in a slightly different light. I mean, I don't think it's a good film in the sense of having a deep plot and well written characters, just that the fact that it was different to the comics/cartoons didn't bother me as much - I judged more on its own merits.
I think this film is the best of the three, though as I say, I may be judging it slightly differently. The plot is certainly more coherent in my opinion. Also, rather than try to be a direct sequel, it seems to simply be "later on" so you don't get so much in the way of those rubbish bits in the second one where they try to fudge things to get Megatron back to life.
And I think that's its main strength - it's not really carrying any baggage. The first film you had all the issues over what they'd changed (which clearly I missed some of!), the second they were trying to make it a 'proper' sequel, but this third one they don't care so much and just spend the time blowing as much stuff up as possible (well, it's still a Michael Bay film after all).
I guess it's more playful is the point, so I found it a bit more enjoyable.
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
anchorman - the legend of ron burgundy
I have to confess I wasn't expecting to enjoy Anchorman.
I'm not sure why, exactly, I just wasn't sure it would be my cup of tea. However, actually I found it rather funny.
It's basically a silly movie. That's not meant to be any sort of insult, it's just the type of comedy it is. In fact, actually, it felt very similar to the type of humour you get in Python or, in fact probably more the old Steve Martin films (The Jerk or the Man with Two Brains). There's a lot of being silly.
A very good example of this is the relationship between the various news crews, which comes to a head with a gang-rumble style fight where they all pile into each other with knives and chains. As I say - silly, but in a good way.
There was one aspect of the film I wasn't entirely keen on, though - the animals. Burgundy has a dog (Baxter) and I think they went a bit over the top with the idea that the dog is cleverer than him. I dunno, that element of it just didn't really work for me. Also there's a scene towards the end involving lots of bears and it again it didn't really do anything for me.
Comedy is about as subjective as things get, so I wouldn't really say these parts were bad, I just didn't really find them all that funny. On the other hand the voice over, which I believe uses a famous American newsreader (this is one of the difficulties I was expecting - I'm sure there were probably lots of references in the film, but I don't have the knowledge to have spotted them, but in the end it didn't really seem to matter) was very funny - it was pitched just right.
I watched the Blu Ray version and there were actually two versions on there - the theatrical version and an "uncut" version. There didn't seem to be a massive amount of difference, just a few jokes that were a bit grosser or involved foul language. However, the extras did include a huge set of extended and alternate scenes - there appear to have been several different endings.
The Blu Ray also had commentaries for both versions (they sort of overlap - it's a bit weird) and I have to confess I didn't really like these. I couldn't work out if they were pre-scripted or improvised (I think probably a bit of both - improvised, but with "then this happens" elements) but I found they kinda went on a bit with the themes. It's a bit like when they improve shows they do loads of stuff (alternative versions in particular) and then filter down in the edit, well this didn't have any edit so in parts they seemed to bang on and on, thrashing the same basic gag into the ground.
But then commentaries are extra, so it didn't impact on my enjoyment of the film itself.
I'm not sure why, exactly, I just wasn't sure it would be my cup of tea. However, actually I found it rather funny.
It's basically a silly movie. That's not meant to be any sort of insult, it's just the type of comedy it is. In fact, actually, it felt very similar to the type of humour you get in Python or, in fact probably more the old Steve Martin films (The Jerk or the Man with Two Brains). There's a lot of being silly.
A very good example of this is the relationship between the various news crews, which comes to a head with a gang-rumble style fight where they all pile into each other with knives and chains. As I say - silly, but in a good way.
There was one aspect of the film I wasn't entirely keen on, though - the animals. Burgundy has a dog (Baxter) and I think they went a bit over the top with the idea that the dog is cleverer than him. I dunno, that element of it just didn't really work for me. Also there's a scene towards the end involving lots of bears and it again it didn't really do anything for me.
Comedy is about as subjective as things get, so I wouldn't really say these parts were bad, I just didn't really find them all that funny. On the other hand the voice over, which I believe uses a famous American newsreader (this is one of the difficulties I was expecting - I'm sure there were probably lots of references in the film, but I don't have the knowledge to have spotted them, but in the end it didn't really seem to matter) was very funny - it was pitched just right.
I watched the Blu Ray version and there were actually two versions on there - the theatrical version and an "uncut" version. There didn't seem to be a massive amount of difference, just a few jokes that were a bit grosser or involved foul language. However, the extras did include a huge set of extended and alternate scenes - there appear to have been several different endings.
The Blu Ray also had commentaries for both versions (they sort of overlap - it's a bit weird) and I have to confess I didn't really like these. I couldn't work out if they were pre-scripted or improvised (I think probably a bit of both - improvised, but with "then this happens" elements) but I found they kinda went on a bit with the themes. It's a bit like when they improve shows they do loads of stuff (alternative versions in particular) and then filter down in the edit, well this didn't have any edit so in parts they seemed to bang on and on, thrashing the same basic gag into the ground.
But then commentaries are extra, so it didn't impact on my enjoyment of the film itself.
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
four lions
I tend to have a bit of a marmite relationship with the Chris Morris's stuff.
Some things I've adored (the Day Today, Brass Eye) and others I've really not liked at all (Jam, Nathan Barley). And yes, I appreciate he wasn't the sole person involved with all of those, but he's the main force behind Four Lions.
Well, in this case I have to confess to being somewhere in between - there was a lot I liked about Four Lions, and it has some very funny stuff in it, but I also found it a little frustrating in some regards and other bits didn't seem to work at all.
One thing I definitely wouldn't say is that it has a pop at Muslims - it's not anti-Islam in any sense. It is anti-suicide bombing and it does parody terrorism in quite a twisted way, but I don't think there's any real problem with those.
What I did have a bit of a problem with is that it relies quite heavily on stupid people. Two of the characters are clearly not working with a full deck of cards. Now I'm sure that such people are probably taken advantage of by terrorists, it's just that we don't really see anything of that side of things.
And that applies to all the characters - why are they terrorists? What has convinced them that blowing themselves up is the thing to do? Weirdly there's more on this in the extras, where issues such as racism are touched on, but in this it's not at all clear how these particularly guys came to be terrorists, just that main character is convinced it's the thing to do and the rest are either idiots or not quite mentally all there.
Another point of frustration was the flipside of things. I appreciate the focus was on the main characters, but the film does also touch on the government side of things, I just wish there'd been a bit more of that. I'm not saying it should have been like 24 or anything like that, but a bit more of the authorities botching things would probably have helped provide a bit more balance - if the terrorists are stupid but still getting away with it, then clearly the police are too.
Which is the other aspect I found didn't work - the logistical aspects of being a terrorist and that side of things doesn't actually seem to be consistently portrayed. So when they eventually decide to target the marathon they basically turn up in London in a van, have no troubles finding somewhere close by to park and then at one point basically randomly join some of the runners. It's just unrealistic and surely the point of the film was to focus on that side of things.
I've been quite harsh there - as I say, there was plenty in the film I enjoyed, and some good comedy. It also makes some good points and makes you think. I guess my real issue is that it's not entirely consistent with that, but it doesn't really harm the film, as such, it just feels like they missed a couple of opportunities.
Some things I've adored (the Day Today, Brass Eye) and others I've really not liked at all (Jam, Nathan Barley). And yes, I appreciate he wasn't the sole person involved with all of those, but he's the main force behind Four Lions.
Well, in this case I have to confess to being somewhere in between - there was a lot I liked about Four Lions, and it has some very funny stuff in it, but I also found it a little frustrating in some regards and other bits didn't seem to work at all.
One thing I definitely wouldn't say is that it has a pop at Muslims - it's not anti-Islam in any sense. It is anti-suicide bombing and it does parody terrorism in quite a twisted way, but I don't think there's any real problem with those.
What I did have a bit of a problem with is that it relies quite heavily on stupid people. Two of the characters are clearly not working with a full deck of cards. Now I'm sure that such people are probably taken advantage of by terrorists, it's just that we don't really see anything of that side of things.
And that applies to all the characters - why are they terrorists? What has convinced them that blowing themselves up is the thing to do? Weirdly there's more on this in the extras, where issues such as racism are touched on, but in this it's not at all clear how these particularly guys came to be terrorists, just that main character is convinced it's the thing to do and the rest are either idiots or not quite mentally all there.
Another point of frustration was the flipside of things. I appreciate the focus was on the main characters, but the film does also touch on the government side of things, I just wish there'd been a bit more of that. I'm not saying it should have been like 24 or anything like that, but a bit more of the authorities botching things would probably have helped provide a bit more balance - if the terrorists are stupid but still getting away with it, then clearly the police are too.
Which is the other aspect I found didn't work - the logistical aspects of being a terrorist and that side of things doesn't actually seem to be consistently portrayed. So when they eventually decide to target the marathon they basically turn up in London in a van, have no troubles finding somewhere close by to park and then at one point basically randomly join some of the runners. It's just unrealistic and surely the point of the film was to focus on that side of things.
I've been quite harsh there - as I say, there was plenty in the film I enjoyed, and some good comedy. It also makes some good points and makes you think. I guess my real issue is that it's not entirely consistent with that, but it doesn't really harm the film, as such, it just feels like they missed a couple of opportunities.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
welcome to the space show
Rather shamefully, given that it's supposed to be my hobby, this is about the only anime I've watched in the last 3 months or so.
That's not really relevant to the review, just an embarrassing admission.
I wasn't entirely sure what space show was going to be about and I have to say if I'm totally honest it was a bit more... predictable than I'd anticipated. I wanted to use the word cliché there, but I'm not sure that's quite right - it's more like it's generally familiar as the plot isn't hugely original.
The characters were more promising - there was a degree of usage of archetypes, but actually they weren't as bad as all that. I mean, the tropes were there (nerdy kid, responsible but struggling with that responsibility older kid, "genki" older sister who's upset younger sister that adores her) but it was more subtle than all that.
The interesting characters compensated for the somewhat predictable story. I'd also say, in fairness, that it's aimed at a younger audience than me. It's broadly a family film, but really with a slant generally more towards children than adults. I'm undecided if that excuses it using a very familiar story or not.
Also I have to say the bad guys weren't as convincing or interesting - they could have done with a bit more delving into their backgrounds, where instead it tended to rely on those familiar plotlines to short-cut the baddies.
Another thing in its favour is in the visuals and the awesome imagination on display. When the story gets into space they really let rip with all sorts of odd aliens and the locations and backgrounds clearly show them having a riot of imagination. As noted, it's also beautifully animated and looked awesome in Blu Ray.
I'd say overall then that it would probably work best for a younger audience, but it's certainly visually arresting enough and there's plenty of fun with the characters for older viewers not to be disappointed.
I guess Studio Ghibli's work is about the best comparator, but I thought it was quite distinct from those. In other words, it would appeal to a similar audience, but if I'm honest it's not up to the same standard in terms of quality of storytelling.
That's not really relevant to the review, just an embarrassing admission.
I wasn't entirely sure what space show was going to be about and I have to say if I'm totally honest it was a bit more... predictable than I'd anticipated. I wanted to use the word cliché there, but I'm not sure that's quite right - it's more like it's generally familiar as the plot isn't hugely original.
The characters were more promising - there was a degree of usage of archetypes, but actually they weren't as bad as all that. I mean, the tropes were there (nerdy kid, responsible but struggling with that responsibility older kid, "genki" older sister who's upset younger sister that adores her) but it was more subtle than all that.
The interesting characters compensated for the somewhat predictable story. I'd also say, in fairness, that it's aimed at a younger audience than me. It's broadly a family film, but really with a slant generally more towards children than adults. I'm undecided if that excuses it using a very familiar story or not.
Also I have to say the bad guys weren't as convincing or interesting - they could have done with a bit more delving into their backgrounds, where instead it tended to rely on those familiar plotlines to short-cut the baddies.
Another thing in its favour is in the visuals and the awesome imagination on display. When the story gets into space they really let rip with all sorts of odd aliens and the locations and backgrounds clearly show them having a riot of imagination. As noted, it's also beautifully animated and looked awesome in Blu Ray.
I'd say overall then that it would probably work best for a younger audience, but it's certainly visually arresting enough and there's plenty of fun with the characters for older viewers not to be disappointed.
I guess Studio Ghibli's work is about the best comparator, but I thought it was quite distinct from those. In other words, it would appeal to a similar audience, but if I'm honest it's not up to the same standard in terms of quality of storytelling.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
pirates of the caribbean - on stranger tides
I was a little perplexed by on stranger tides.
I suppose I should make a bit of a confession that I'm not quite a big a fan of the first film than seems to be the general consensus. In particular Johnny Depp's performance as Jack Black doesn't really do that much for me - I found him quite difficult to understand, in particular.
I should also probably note that I hadn't appreciated this was a "reboot".
Weird - I've just had the strongest sense of deja vu. I was suddenly convinced I'd already written and posted this review (it's a good while since I watched the rental as I'm a fair few weeks behind) but I've checked and I certainly haven't posted it on the blog. If I've written it before then I've either deleted it or lost it.
I guess also there's a point there that reboots seem to be "the thing" at the moment. Well, that and pointless 3D. I guess rebooting something is really just the modern phrase as they've been remaking films in Hollywood for ages. The distinction they're trying to make is that you reboot a franchise, with the aim that you will then make further sequels for your reboot. In a normal remake you're just making the same thing over.
Of course some reboots are also remakes - the recent spider man film is, I understand, basically a remake wearing a reboot jacket.
Anyway, the point is that on stranger tides is essentially a reboot. Well, that's what it says on the sites I looked at anyway - what I actually experienced was a similar sense of confusion I did for resident evil damnation, which I watched shortly before this film. By that I mean that I felt confused as to whether this was meant to be a proper sequel (the story was unconnected, but several of the characters from the previous films are in this one, but, adding to my confusion, some of them are somewhat different and some of the actors re-appear, but playing different roles) or if it was a separate adventure, just using the same characters.
Discovering it was a reboot didn't really help, as in that case they seem to have picked a few bits out of the previous films and carried them forward, but then felt free to dump other things. What they've picked also seems fairly random, rather than sort of being the best bits. Perhaps they relate back to the original Disney ride the best?
Anyway, the real point here is that I felt rather disorientated by the film story and character-wise, but then to make things worse the film itself was very loud and brash and bombastic and unfortunately the plot was a little bit confused too.
It was also very long - another victim of this trend of making what should be fun action films be two hour long and doing so by sticking in and extending pointless action sequences.
I think, overall, you can tell I wasn't hugely enamoured.
I suppose I should make a bit of a confession that I'm not quite a big a fan of the first film than seems to be the general consensus. In particular Johnny Depp's performance as Jack Black doesn't really do that much for me - I found him quite difficult to understand, in particular.
I should also probably note that I hadn't appreciated this was a "reboot".
Weird - I've just had the strongest sense of deja vu. I was suddenly convinced I'd already written and posted this review (it's a good while since I watched the rental as I'm a fair few weeks behind) but I've checked and I certainly haven't posted it on the blog. If I've written it before then I've either deleted it or lost it.
I guess also there's a point there that reboots seem to be "the thing" at the moment. Well, that and pointless 3D. I guess rebooting something is really just the modern phrase as they've been remaking films in Hollywood for ages. The distinction they're trying to make is that you reboot a franchise, with the aim that you will then make further sequels for your reboot. In a normal remake you're just making the same thing over.
Of course some reboots are also remakes - the recent spider man film is, I understand, basically a remake wearing a reboot jacket.
Anyway, the point is that on stranger tides is essentially a reboot. Well, that's what it says on the sites I looked at anyway - what I actually experienced was a similar sense of confusion I did for resident evil damnation, which I watched shortly before this film. By that I mean that I felt confused as to whether this was meant to be a proper sequel (the story was unconnected, but several of the characters from the previous films are in this one, but, adding to my confusion, some of them are somewhat different and some of the actors re-appear, but playing different roles) or if it was a separate adventure, just using the same characters.
Discovering it was a reboot didn't really help, as in that case they seem to have picked a few bits out of the previous films and carried them forward, but then felt free to dump other things. What they've picked also seems fairly random, rather than sort of being the best bits. Perhaps they relate back to the original Disney ride the best?
Anyway, the real point here is that I felt rather disorientated by the film story and character-wise, but then to make things worse the film itself was very loud and brash and bombastic and unfortunately the plot was a little bit confused too.
It was also very long - another victim of this trend of making what should be fun action films be two hour long and doing so by sticking in and extending pointless action sequences.
I think, overall, you can tell I wasn't hugely enamoured.
Wednesday, 23 January 2013
john carter
I recently reviewed the latest Conan film and gave it a bit of a slating.
One of the things I tried to say in something of its defence is that the types of story that other people have done since the Conan films means we've all become very familiar with that type of thing. So, in other words, it ends up feeling like cliché, even though it's actually the thing that started what other people made into cliché, if that makes sense.
As I understand it, John Carter is very similar in that sense - the original novels were very inspirational to other people, who then went on to write books and make films that essentially used the ideas so we've all become very familiar with them, even though we may not ever have actually read those original books.
In the case of John Carter it has something of a tick in my case, because we're in the realm of science fiction, which is much more my cup of tea, where Conan was fantasy, which isn't so much my thing. As such I'm probably a bit more pre-disposed to liking it than I was Conan.
I guess I should also mention the price tag thing. I don't know how you wouldn't be aware, but Disney spent an absolute fortune on John Carter. Assuming what has been reported is true (not necessarily always the case and I'm sure more complicated than all that) I have to confess I don't really understand how they thought they'd make their money back.
I mean if they really did spend the amount of money they did then the end film would have had to have been about the biggest movie ever. Now that's always possible, of course, but you have to feel the odds are stacked against it. You have to wonder - particularly when it lacked one of the things Disney tends to rely on: any clear merchandising.
Don't get me wrong - they could certainly have produced some figurines, but there was nothing in the way of cute and cuddly and even when you look at figurines it's relative small beer. The majority of characters were humans and the alien characters didn't exactly show a vast array of variety. Unlike Star Wars where just about every background figure is unique so you can sell toys of each one, there were only a tiny variety of different species in John Carter. And even then the number of actual characters was actually fairly small. There also weren't that many vehicles or other things you could make as toys.
Where I'm really going with this is I think it's actually a bit of a shame that it was seen as a big flop, as I thought it was kinda fun.
Unlike something like Conan John Carter maintained just the right level of a sense of fun. It steered away from being ironic or too knowing or too clever, and it wasn't a comedy movie, but it kept things light and pacey (though if I'm honest I feel it was another too long movie).
The plot also basically worked and I think it also did a bit of a neat trick in terms of exposition in particular. There's a bit of a tendency in films like this for them to have bit wodges of terrible exposition where the McGuffin is explained and things like that. Here they basically didn't bother - we got enough of a sense to know that certain things were important and there was an explanation behind them, but the focus was on the characters and the preventing the bad guy winning side of things, rather than blasting loads of ridiculous pseudo-science at us or similar.
Of course I'm not saying it was perfect, but if you look at some of the rubbish that gets produced, it's a shame this has been perceived to fail as some more John Carter films wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
One of the things I tried to say in something of its defence is that the types of story that other people have done since the Conan films means we've all become very familiar with that type of thing. So, in other words, it ends up feeling like cliché, even though it's actually the thing that started what other people made into cliché, if that makes sense.
As I understand it, John Carter is very similar in that sense - the original novels were very inspirational to other people, who then went on to write books and make films that essentially used the ideas so we've all become very familiar with them, even though we may not ever have actually read those original books.
In the case of John Carter it has something of a tick in my case, because we're in the realm of science fiction, which is much more my cup of tea, where Conan was fantasy, which isn't so much my thing. As such I'm probably a bit more pre-disposed to liking it than I was Conan.
I guess I should also mention the price tag thing. I don't know how you wouldn't be aware, but Disney spent an absolute fortune on John Carter. Assuming what has been reported is true (not necessarily always the case and I'm sure more complicated than all that) I have to confess I don't really understand how they thought they'd make their money back.
I mean if they really did spend the amount of money they did then the end film would have had to have been about the biggest movie ever. Now that's always possible, of course, but you have to feel the odds are stacked against it. You have to wonder - particularly when it lacked one of the things Disney tends to rely on: any clear merchandising.
Don't get me wrong - they could certainly have produced some figurines, but there was nothing in the way of cute and cuddly and even when you look at figurines it's relative small beer. The majority of characters were humans and the alien characters didn't exactly show a vast array of variety. Unlike Star Wars where just about every background figure is unique so you can sell toys of each one, there were only a tiny variety of different species in John Carter. And even then the number of actual characters was actually fairly small. There also weren't that many vehicles or other things you could make as toys.
Where I'm really going with this is I think it's actually a bit of a shame that it was seen as a big flop, as I thought it was kinda fun.
Unlike something like Conan John Carter maintained just the right level of a sense of fun. It steered away from being ironic or too knowing or too clever, and it wasn't a comedy movie, but it kept things light and pacey (though if I'm honest I feel it was another too long movie).
The plot also basically worked and I think it also did a bit of a neat trick in terms of exposition in particular. There's a bit of a tendency in films like this for them to have bit wodges of terrible exposition where the McGuffin is explained and things like that. Here they basically didn't bother - we got enough of a sense to know that certain things were important and there was an explanation behind them, but the focus was on the characters and the preventing the bad guy winning side of things, rather than blasting loads of ridiculous pseudo-science at us or similar.
Of course I'm not saying it was perfect, but if you look at some of the rubbish that gets produced, it's a shame this has been perceived to fail as some more John Carter films wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
Wednesday, 16 January 2013
resident evil - damnation
I seem to recall I did a review of the previous cgi resi movie.
I've not actually looked it up, but I think I thought it was okay, but the cgi wasn't great and it was a bit clunky. I think I'd say the same basic thing about this one, which is also a cgi film.
It's not a sequel, though. At least, I don't think it is - I found this aspect a bit vague, actually. In some places it seemed to be that it was a sequel in some sense (with recurring characters having been involved in the events of the previous film, rather than events following on directly) but in others it seemed to be quite stand-alone.
I think a big part of my problem as that the background to this film wasn't properly fleshed out and explained. I mean it was clear what the plot was, but quite why Leon was there and who he was working for was very vague indeed. I think this was probably deliberate so that they could meld it to suit particularly markets, but it also meant it was all very vague.
I have to say it wasn't as strong a plot in this film either. In the first the events are very reactive to particular situations, but in this they'd tried to use more in the way of deep schemes to form the plot and these just didn't hold together. There seemed to be a lot of inconsistency and why stuff happened as it did came across as a bit more random than it should have done.
In particular both sides seemed to be using the bio-weapons, but in ways that suggested the other side wasn't using them, if that makes sense. So one side was using them as if they were a secret weapon that the other side knew nothing about, but then it seemed like the other side was using the same thing like a secret weapon the other side knew nothing about.
Another good example is the tyrants, which are included in the movie. It's not at all clear how they come to be there - were they developed, or bought or what, and why were they not actually using them? They seem to get released almost by accident towards the end, but surely if the other side are using lickers you'd probably want to role your tyrants out, rather than keep them in your secret lab.
I dunno. One of the criticisms I have of these cgi films is they feel just that bit too much like cut-scenes from games. My problem here, I think, was that this felt like a cgi cut scene from half way through a game and I was watching over someone's shoulder, having not seen the previous half f the game.
I've not actually looked it up, but I think I thought it was okay, but the cgi wasn't great and it was a bit clunky. I think I'd say the same basic thing about this one, which is also a cgi film.
It's not a sequel, though. At least, I don't think it is - I found this aspect a bit vague, actually. In some places it seemed to be that it was a sequel in some sense (with recurring characters having been involved in the events of the previous film, rather than events following on directly) but in others it seemed to be quite stand-alone.
I think a big part of my problem as that the background to this film wasn't properly fleshed out and explained. I mean it was clear what the plot was, but quite why Leon was there and who he was working for was very vague indeed. I think this was probably deliberate so that they could meld it to suit particularly markets, but it also meant it was all very vague.
I have to say it wasn't as strong a plot in this film either. In the first the events are very reactive to particular situations, but in this they'd tried to use more in the way of deep schemes to form the plot and these just didn't hold together. There seemed to be a lot of inconsistency and why stuff happened as it did came across as a bit more random than it should have done.
In particular both sides seemed to be using the bio-weapons, but in ways that suggested the other side wasn't using them, if that makes sense. So one side was using them as if they were a secret weapon that the other side knew nothing about, but then it seemed like the other side was using the same thing like a secret weapon the other side knew nothing about.
Another good example is the tyrants, which are included in the movie. It's not at all clear how they come to be there - were they developed, or bought or what, and why were they not actually using them? They seem to get released almost by accident towards the end, but surely if the other side are using lickers you'd probably want to role your tyrants out, rather than keep them in your secret lab.
I dunno. One of the criticisms I have of these cgi films is they feel just that bit too much like cut-scenes from games. My problem here, I think, was that this felt like a cgi cut scene from half way through a game and I was watching over someone's shoulder, having not seen the previous half f the game.
Thursday, 10 January 2013
despicable me
I actually watched this some time ago, but found it a bit difficult to write a review for.
I did enjoy the film, and that's really the problem. I've said many times before it's harder to write the reviews where basically you liked the film and want to recommend it.
The thing here, I guess, is I was a little trepidations about the film. I'd heard what it was basically about and it appealed as a concept, the thing I was worried about, though, is that it would fall over when it came to the nice ending aspect.
I don't know why you wouldn't know, but the film is essentially about a super villain and how he tries to use three young girls in one of his schemes. I guess I should warn for spoilers, but of course the point of the film is he comes to genuinely care for the girls, and that was what I was worried about. Or rather, I was worried it wouldn't quite work - a film like this can easily fail at the whole aspect of him coming round to love them. It's something that has to be properly earned, and that can be a tricky thing to pull off properly.
And that's why I liked the film - it does a really good job at earning that ending. It also doesn't totally cave in - he's still basically a super-villain at the end, although perhaps one who is reforming.
IF I was to make one criticism of the film it would be the minions. With characters like that there's a really fine line with making them cute and loveable and clearly just an attempt to sell toys. In this case I have to say for me they were on the wrong side of that line.
I think part of my problem was that there was also another character, Dr Nefario, who was meant to be an evil scientist character. The problem I had was that overlapped quite a lot with Gru and the minions, but the minions could only talk in gibberish. I can understand the problem he was there to solve (the minions only talk gibberish and Gru is otherwise on his own, so who does he talk to and how, therefore, do we advance things like plot?) but the problem is it introduces some redundancy.
So if Gru had been an evil-genius scientist as well (somebody needs to build the death rays, et all, right?) then the Dr would be redundant. If the minions are weird geniuses types who madly invent things (they did still seem to sort of do this) then the Dr is redundant. But in both those cases, who does Gru talk to that the audience can also understand?
As such you're left with the minions being like gofers, which was okay, but I dunno, to me it made them fairly pointless, and because they're cute they then start to feel like a way to sell toys.
I know - I'm really overanalysing this, but then, as I said at the top, I liked the film and don't really have much else to say!
I did enjoy the film, and that's really the problem. I've said many times before it's harder to write the reviews where basically you liked the film and want to recommend it.
The thing here, I guess, is I was a little trepidations about the film. I'd heard what it was basically about and it appealed as a concept, the thing I was worried about, though, is that it would fall over when it came to the nice ending aspect.
I don't know why you wouldn't know, but the film is essentially about a super villain and how he tries to use three young girls in one of his schemes. I guess I should warn for spoilers, but of course the point of the film is he comes to genuinely care for the girls, and that was what I was worried about. Or rather, I was worried it wouldn't quite work - a film like this can easily fail at the whole aspect of him coming round to love them. It's something that has to be properly earned, and that can be a tricky thing to pull off properly.
And that's why I liked the film - it does a really good job at earning that ending. It also doesn't totally cave in - he's still basically a super-villain at the end, although perhaps one who is reforming.
IF I was to make one criticism of the film it would be the minions. With characters like that there's a really fine line with making them cute and loveable and clearly just an attempt to sell toys. In this case I have to say for me they were on the wrong side of that line.
I think part of my problem was that there was also another character, Dr Nefario, who was meant to be an evil scientist character. The problem I had was that overlapped quite a lot with Gru and the minions, but the minions could only talk in gibberish. I can understand the problem he was there to solve (the minions only talk gibberish and Gru is otherwise on his own, so who does he talk to and how, therefore, do we advance things like plot?) but the problem is it introduces some redundancy.
So if Gru had been an evil-genius scientist as well (somebody needs to build the death rays, et all, right?) then the Dr would be redundant. If the minions are weird geniuses types who madly invent things (they did still seem to sort of do this) then the Dr is redundant. But in both those cases, who does Gru talk to that the audience can also understand?
As such you're left with the minions being like gofers, which was okay, but I dunno, to me it made them fairly pointless, and because they're cute they then start to feel like a way to sell toys.
I know - I'm really overanalysing this, but then, as I said at the top, I liked the film and don't really have much else to say!
Wednesday, 19 December 2012
conan the barbarian
What a terrible film.
Okay, terrible is a bit extreme, but it really wasn’t very good.
I recall the Schwarzenegger Conan films with a great deal of affection. They were terrible too, but in a jolly, fun sort of way. They were extremely low budget and Arnie isn’t the greatest of actors, so what do you expect.
The films were also, apparently, not hugely faithful to the original character. I’ve never read any of the Conan stories, though I recall the comic book adaptation, but apparently Conan is quite clever. The Arnie Conan is basically a slab of muscle who hacks and slashes his way through the films.
This film is, I think, an attempt to take Conan back to that original book version. He’s still quite muscly, but he’s also quite clever - well, in a relative sense. You don’t get the impression he’s secretly a nerd and if he’s so clever, why not learn magic or similar? But he certainly thinks things through and plans.
The problem with the film is that problem that all film adaptations of classic works have - you basically know the story already. You know what’s going to happen, either because it’s something you’ve read or there have been loads of adaptation before as, in the case of Conan it’s been imitated to the point of cliché.
I mean, there haven’t been that many adaptation of Conan and while I’m sure it’s well read, it’s not something I’ve read, but the trouble is that loads of films have basically been Conan without Conan. Think of any fantasy film or (in particular) game that has a barbarian character and that barbarian is Conan.
But also we’ve seen all the baddies too - the evil wizards and princesses that need saving. It’s all been done so many times that it takes a real trick shot to give it any sort of feeling of freshness or newness, and this film just isn’t up to it.
It also makes some classic modern mistakes. It’s way too long - this is a popcorn action film, but it’s very nearly two hours long because film tickets are so expensive that’s become the norm - give them better value for money at 2 hours. But it would have been far better to make it quick, pacy, exciting, thrill-a-minute stuff.
It’s also clearly been filmed in 3D, so there’s the classic “stuff coming at you” tedious 3D cobblers in it too. This does not make it a better film.
In this case there’s also a few specific problems, in particular with the magic. The basic plot of the film seems to revolve around the bad guy trying to resurrect his dead wife using magic, but the magic in the film is very inconsistent. When he finally gets hold of this magic at the end it seems very weak, particularly when compared to some of the magic earlier in the film. And the magic at the end seems really difficult to get to use, but the stuff earlier seems like a piece of piss, yet is much easier.
It’s just not very good, as I say.
Okay, terrible is a bit extreme, but it really wasn’t very good.
I recall the Schwarzenegger Conan films with a great deal of affection. They were terrible too, but in a jolly, fun sort of way. They were extremely low budget and Arnie isn’t the greatest of actors, so what do you expect.
The films were also, apparently, not hugely faithful to the original character. I’ve never read any of the Conan stories, though I recall the comic book adaptation, but apparently Conan is quite clever. The Arnie Conan is basically a slab of muscle who hacks and slashes his way through the films.
This film is, I think, an attempt to take Conan back to that original book version. He’s still quite muscly, but he’s also quite clever - well, in a relative sense. You don’t get the impression he’s secretly a nerd and if he’s so clever, why not learn magic or similar? But he certainly thinks things through and plans.
The problem with the film is that problem that all film adaptations of classic works have - you basically know the story already. You know what’s going to happen, either because it’s something you’ve read or there have been loads of adaptation before as, in the case of Conan it’s been imitated to the point of cliché.
I mean, there haven’t been that many adaptation of Conan and while I’m sure it’s well read, it’s not something I’ve read, but the trouble is that loads of films have basically been Conan without Conan. Think of any fantasy film or (in particular) game that has a barbarian character and that barbarian is Conan.
But also we’ve seen all the baddies too - the evil wizards and princesses that need saving. It’s all been done so many times that it takes a real trick shot to give it any sort of feeling of freshness or newness, and this film just isn’t up to it.
It also makes some classic modern mistakes. It’s way too long - this is a popcorn action film, but it’s very nearly two hours long because film tickets are so expensive that’s become the norm - give them better value for money at 2 hours. But it would have been far better to make it quick, pacy, exciting, thrill-a-minute stuff.
It’s also clearly been filmed in 3D, so there’s the classic “stuff coming at you” tedious 3D cobblers in it too. This does not make it a better film.
In this case there’s also a few specific problems, in particular with the magic. The basic plot of the film seems to revolve around the bad guy trying to resurrect his dead wife using magic, but the magic in the film is very inconsistent. When he finally gets hold of this magic at the end it seems very weak, particularly when compared to some of the magic earlier in the film. And the magic at the end seems really difficult to get to use, but the stuff earlier seems like a piece of piss, yet is much easier.
It’s just not very good, as I say.
Thursday, 22 November 2012
pirates! in an adventure with scientists
I should have posted this yesterday, but was far too busy and forgot!
I really wanted to like this.
It's made by Aardman (in Claymation - they've done a few digital films too) and is an adaptation of a series of popular books. As I understand it the books aren't actually aimed at children, but I think this film was.
I'm not sure if that was my problem with it, though. My real problem was more that it felt like you needed to have read the books to really get the film. Or, to put it another way, it felt like we were being dumped inside a world where we were supposed to know how everything worked (what the "rules" were), but I didn't, so I felt lost.
Which isn't to say I thought it was a bad film, it's just that I found myself confused at bits and so missing other bits. Why, for example, is the Pirate Captain called Pirate Captain? I'm guessing there's actually no explanation for that in the books as it's meant to be a joke, but why are all the other pirates on his ship known by their defining characteristics, rather than proper names. So there's Albino Pirate and Pirate with Gout, for example. It's particularly odd as other pirates that aren't on the ship have names - is it just because Pirate Captain forgets their names? Forgetfulness isn't really a trait they play up.
But then saying that they never really refer to each other by name either - the only one who does is Pirate Captain, and even then, not all the time. So Pirate with Gout has a bandaged leg, but it was only at the end when the credits rolled I realised that this was because he was meant to be suffering with gout.
I mean, perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere in the film but I missed it. The trouble is that's my point - I seemed to miss quite a few things that were important to make things funny or to help the plot.
So, for example, at one point a character is crushed. After a few moments he then appears in a doorway, confounding the hero's theory. Well, how did he get in the doorway? Did he crawl along the sewer? Maybe it's explained, but otherwise it's random.
Now random can be funny, but I don't think random was meant to be the type of funny here.
Another example was that another character finds a document that then explains some stuff later on. However, I completely missed this and only discovered that was meant to be the point when they said it in the commentary.
As it was when he said "I found out X" I was left wondering how he found out X and where he'd got the bit of paper from that he showed Pirate Captain to prove X.
Again, it's a relatively minor thing, but it seemed to happen quite a lot and I kept finding myself going "eh?" rather than laughing.
I dunno, maybe it's me - perhaps I was a bit tired or something?
I mean the film looked great and there was plenty in there I did enjoy, it's just I didn't like it as much as I thought I would.
I really wanted to like this.
It's made by Aardman (in Claymation - they've done a few digital films too) and is an adaptation of a series of popular books. As I understand it the books aren't actually aimed at children, but I think this film was.
I'm not sure if that was my problem with it, though. My real problem was more that it felt like you needed to have read the books to really get the film. Or, to put it another way, it felt like we were being dumped inside a world where we were supposed to know how everything worked (what the "rules" were), but I didn't, so I felt lost.
Which isn't to say I thought it was a bad film, it's just that I found myself confused at bits and so missing other bits. Why, for example, is the Pirate Captain called Pirate Captain? I'm guessing there's actually no explanation for that in the books as it's meant to be a joke, but why are all the other pirates on his ship known by their defining characteristics, rather than proper names. So there's Albino Pirate and Pirate with Gout, for example. It's particularly odd as other pirates that aren't on the ship have names - is it just because Pirate Captain forgets their names? Forgetfulness isn't really a trait they play up.
But then saying that they never really refer to each other by name either - the only one who does is Pirate Captain, and even then, not all the time. So Pirate with Gout has a bandaged leg, but it was only at the end when the credits rolled I realised that this was because he was meant to be suffering with gout.
I mean, perhaps it was mentioned elsewhere in the film but I missed it. The trouble is that's my point - I seemed to miss quite a few things that were important to make things funny or to help the plot.
So, for example, at one point a character is crushed. After a few moments he then appears in a doorway, confounding the hero's theory. Well, how did he get in the doorway? Did he crawl along the sewer? Maybe it's explained, but otherwise it's random.
Now random can be funny, but I don't think random was meant to be the type of funny here.
Another example was that another character finds a document that then explains some stuff later on. However, I completely missed this and only discovered that was meant to be the point when they said it in the commentary.
As it was when he said "I found out X" I was left wondering how he found out X and where he'd got the bit of paper from that he showed Pirate Captain to prove X.
Again, it's a relatively minor thing, but it seemed to happen quite a lot and I kept finding myself going "eh?" rather than laughing.
I dunno, maybe it's me - perhaps I was a bit tired or something?
I mean the film looked great and there was plenty in there I did enjoy, it's just I didn't like it as much as I thought I would.
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
attack the block
I think one of the basic underlying themes of Attack the Block is assumptions and the misunderstandings they lead to.
So the film starts with a mugging of a woman by a bunch of kids, but later on it's revealed that the woman lives in the same block (as in block of flats) and they tell her that if they'd known they wouldn't have mugged her. So they assumed she wasn't part of "their" block and so mugged her.
Later on the explanation of why the aliens are attacking the block and, in particular, the kids, shows how what they had been assuming to be the case is actually false. I'm trying to avoid spoilers, and I think it's fairly obvious a reveal like that is coming - it's usually the case in this sort of film.
Overall I thought the film basically fulfilled what it was going for. My only real complaint was with the kids - to me they didn't seem quite real. I dunno - realistic urban kids is a very difficult thing to pull off.
I mean, part of the problem is that that sort of culture changes incredibly quickly - the kids, after all, grow up and so move through phases very quickly. This week's cool phrase is next week's cliché.
They attempt to get round that by making the kids dialogue less real and more normal (it would likely be indecipherable if it were really real), but of course that makes the characters feel a little artificial. Interestingly the kids almost don't swear - it's the adults that have real potty mouths. Quite why this is I'm not sure, but again, it makes it seem slightly artificial.
In its favour the kids aren't too cookie-cutter. I mean they are presented to some degree as having "traits" so one is into pyrotechnics and another is a glasses-wearing nerd, but these aren't heavily laid on - think of the characters having preferences, rather than being entirely defined by those things. They're also all distinctive and memorable.
The above are actually relatively minor - things you can basically ignore or may not actually agree with. A bigger problem is that, actually, I didn't like the kids.
Having just moaned about them being a bit unrealistic, it's because of what they are trying to get close to (urban miscreants) that I didn't like them. During a bit where the police showed up I was, I have to confess, rather on the side of the police.
There are also some flaws and problems with the logic and the events - in particular it's not quite clear what's going on outside the focus on the kids. So the police are there at the end and the residents are outside as if they'd been in and evacuated the residents, but the police only actually seem to enter the building when the armed officers arrive.
Also the internal geography of the flats seems quite mismatched in places and it seems to have a lot more floors on the inside than the outside. The place also seemed weirdly deserted - particularly given all the people outside at the end. None of them seemed to interact with the aliens, which seemed a bit odd.
But overall I think it's worth a watch
It's a shame it didn't have any extras on the disk, though. I would particularly have been interested in how they did the aliens - they were very convincing and it was a clever idea to have them jet black, because I'm guessing the lack of details avoids CGI / model issues.
So the film starts with a mugging of a woman by a bunch of kids, but later on it's revealed that the woman lives in the same block (as in block of flats) and they tell her that if they'd known they wouldn't have mugged her. So they assumed she wasn't part of "their" block and so mugged her.
Later on the explanation of why the aliens are attacking the block and, in particular, the kids, shows how what they had been assuming to be the case is actually false. I'm trying to avoid spoilers, and I think it's fairly obvious a reveal like that is coming - it's usually the case in this sort of film.
Overall I thought the film basically fulfilled what it was going for. My only real complaint was with the kids - to me they didn't seem quite real. I dunno - realistic urban kids is a very difficult thing to pull off.
I mean, part of the problem is that that sort of culture changes incredibly quickly - the kids, after all, grow up and so move through phases very quickly. This week's cool phrase is next week's cliché.
They attempt to get round that by making the kids dialogue less real and more normal (it would likely be indecipherable if it were really real), but of course that makes the characters feel a little artificial. Interestingly the kids almost don't swear - it's the adults that have real potty mouths. Quite why this is I'm not sure, but again, it makes it seem slightly artificial.
In its favour the kids aren't too cookie-cutter. I mean they are presented to some degree as having "traits" so one is into pyrotechnics and another is a glasses-wearing nerd, but these aren't heavily laid on - think of the characters having preferences, rather than being entirely defined by those things. They're also all distinctive and memorable.
The above are actually relatively minor - things you can basically ignore or may not actually agree with. A bigger problem is that, actually, I didn't like the kids.
Having just moaned about them being a bit unrealistic, it's because of what they are trying to get close to (urban miscreants) that I didn't like them. During a bit where the police showed up I was, I have to confess, rather on the side of the police.
There are also some flaws and problems with the logic and the events - in particular it's not quite clear what's going on outside the focus on the kids. So the police are there at the end and the residents are outside as if they'd been in and evacuated the residents, but the police only actually seem to enter the building when the armed officers arrive.
Also the internal geography of the flats seems quite mismatched in places and it seems to have a lot more floors on the inside than the outside. The place also seemed weirdly deserted - particularly given all the people outside at the end. None of them seemed to interact with the aliens, which seemed a bit odd.
But overall I think it's worth a watch
It's a shame it didn't have any extras on the disk, though. I would particularly have been interested in how they did the aliens - they were very convincing and it was a clever idea to have them jet black, because I'm guessing the lack of details avoids CGI / model issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)