The Blair Witch Project has a lot to answer for. None of it good.
J.J. Abrams latest production has taken chunks of Godzilla and mixed them with Blair Witch's hand-held, reality tv style and web-buzz advertising and come up with a film equally annoying and devoid of interest.
There's a good premise here which seems to be looking at the action in Godzilla from the viewpoint of ordinary citizens not involved in the main action. As a result the main monster is almost kept to the status of featured extra. The fact that the creature looks so much like the CGI from Godzilla helps this impression along nicely as does our heroes being chased through the subway by small versions of the parent. The cast are pretty and the performances more than adequate, but Abby & I were both ready to leave by 20 minutes in and afterward we heard not one good comment from the assembled reviewers. Several did leave.
What's the problem? It's that hand-held style. Leave aside that we're supposed to believe that a slacker who didn't want to use a camcorder he's never handled suddenly becomes an obsessive photo-journalist who continues to film even as being attacked or running from explosions. Forget that we're supposed to believe a domestic cam-coder can film constantly for about 8 hours on one battery and an SD Card (I want an SD card that can hold that much footage!). Ignore that the military don't take it from them as they run around filming their operations or that it's apparently indestructible. Forget all the stupid rubbish you're just meant to ignore and all the rip-offs from other films and being unable to care about most of the characters & their yuppie lives & concerns. The BIG problem is that hand-held style.
There are times you can't even look at the screen it's so awful. In a thriller/horror movie the only thing that should make the audience look away is fear not motion-sickness induced by aimlessly waving the camera around. Long sequences pointed at the floor as people run, more lying at an awkward angle as the action flits incomprehensibly through the static frame or others pointed away from the action leaving only sound for a clue as to what's happening.
The style is meant to make one feel part of the action. It's meant to give a sense of immediacy and truth and use the power of imagination to heighten the tension. What it does is get very irritating very quickly and soon becomes an insurmountable barrier to connecting with the story. Did no-one watching the rushes spot this? Or were they all too busy feeling self-satisfied & clever? Hell, they couldn't even be bothered comin gup with a real title; they named it after the street the production offices were in. SHows the level of thought they actually put into this mess.
Total turkey. Avoid at all costs.
Showing posts with label A Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A Review. Show all posts
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, November 26, 2007
Review: Beowulf
Let's be honest, unless you're a serious scholar you have no more than the vaguest clue about the story of Beowulf. An Old English poem written practically before there was literature may be a great work, but it's totally impenetrable and utterly tedious as far as most of us are concerned. I've tried to read it several times and never got terribly far with it. So let's dismiss the criticism this film has suffered because of the 'liberties' it has taken with the original. The vast majority of the audience are never going to read it and if this keep s the tale alive and in the minds of a new audience then only good has been done. It's not like the mess Hollywood made of William Wallace's story which was a) history rather than legend and b) better in the original than in the adaptation. It will no doubt encourage a few to read the original, too, and that is even better.
It is, though, the film I am concerned with here and I find it as flawed as I do the source material.
There are points, such as the race with Breca, where the pace dips and the narrative flow is interrupted for no really good reason other than making an attempt to appease the 'stick to the source' faction. Without them it would be quite a bit shorter and much punchier. Despite some stunning sequences, some excellent vocal performances and a much more accessible version of the story it does still drag on a bit.
The animation is absolutely stunning, and that is not hyperbole. The level of detail on the characters is incredible, fight down to pores, flaws and little hairs growing out of the old men's noses & ears. Photorealistic is a term too often used to describe animation but this is actually there. At some points you won't be sure whether or not it is animation or film. The 3D is excellent and, apart from a smattering of the usual effect shots, is used to enhance the film rather than for cheap thrills. It never, though, feels like reality rather like being immersed in a really good computer game. It's never more than an animated feature (despite how real some of it can look), and that's down to how good we are at identifying fakery. The animation always suffers from the same flaws, even at this superlative level; Things just don't quite touch each other somehow, certain movements don't look right (Especially the horses for some reason. The fictional dragon seems to move more 'realistically' somehow.), hair and fur still aren't quite there
and eyes just never look alive. The latter is always the most telling and in addition to occasional lip-synch'ing problems are what keeps us actors safe for the time being.
The ability to age a character, have flawless makeups, and better creatures is the strongest argument for this kind of project and Beowulf uses all of them to its advantage and credit.
Ray Winstone, as fond as I am of the man as an actor, is wrong for this character. Perhaps it's because his voice is so distinctive and you know he doesn't look like that, but his voice from Beowulf's mouth just doesn't look right. It's like watching Jimmy Sommerville sing. Wrong. Perhaps it has to do with him having a totally different accent to everyone else in the film. True, he's meant to be from outside, but so are his men and he sounds different to them, too. Elements of the character are also rather unpleasant. Arrogant, rude and openly covetous of his host's wife this is likely just how such a hero would have been, but when added to the lies we see him tell it makes one wonder how much is boast and how much is reality. And what is all this fighting naked business? If he's going to do that why does he wear armour in the first place? Oh yeah, as an excuse to do a striptease. This is then followed by a, frankly, ludicrous sequence of objects being conveniently placed to block any view of his tackle that would have looked more at home in a sit-com. Considering it's his armour that saves him in the poem the whole nudity thing is just daft.
It also leads to a big continuity error.
Beowulf brings with him fourteen warriors as his crew and companions. In the poem one is killed by Grendel. Here Grendel kills at least five of them. After the battle Beowulf and his remaining crew are seen standing in front of the wrapped corpses. There are still thirteen members of his crew with him.
It's a big, bold, mostly exciting, novel and entertaining film. The 3D version makes it much, much better and where you have a choice is the only one to pick.
One more thing. It has a 12a certificate. It is not suitable for young children. Especially the sequences with the horribly deformed Grendel whose attacks are violent, brutal and gory. Yet another example of studio pressure overriding common sense for the sake of getting to a 'wider' audience.
It is, though, the film I am concerned with here and I find it as flawed as I do the source material.
There are points, such as the race with Breca, where the pace dips and the narrative flow is interrupted for no really good reason other than making an attempt to appease the 'stick to the source' faction. Without them it would be quite a bit shorter and much punchier. Despite some stunning sequences, some excellent vocal performances and a much more accessible version of the story it does still drag on a bit.
The animation is absolutely stunning, and that is not hyperbole. The level of detail on the characters is incredible, fight down to pores, flaws and little hairs growing out of the old men's noses & ears. Photorealistic is a term too often used to describe animation but this is actually there. At some points you won't be sure whether or not it is animation or film. The 3D is excellent and, apart from a smattering of the usual effect shots, is used to enhance the film rather than for cheap thrills. It never, though, feels like reality rather like being immersed in a really good computer game. It's never more than an animated feature (despite how real some of it can look), and that's down to how good we are at identifying fakery. The animation always suffers from the same flaws, even at this superlative level; Things just don't quite touch each other somehow, certain movements don't look right (Especially the horses for some reason. The fictional dragon seems to move more 'realistically' somehow.), hair and fur still aren't quite there
and eyes just never look alive. The latter is always the most telling and in addition to occasional lip-synch'ing problems are what keeps us actors safe for the time being.
The ability to age a character, have flawless makeups, and better creatures is the strongest argument for this kind of project and Beowulf uses all of them to its advantage and credit.
Ray Winstone, as fond as I am of the man as an actor, is wrong for this character. Perhaps it's because his voice is so distinctive and you know he doesn't look like that, but his voice from Beowulf's mouth just doesn't look right. It's like watching Jimmy Sommerville sing. Wrong. Perhaps it has to do with him having a totally different accent to everyone else in the film. True, he's meant to be from outside, but so are his men and he sounds different to them, too. Elements of the character are also rather unpleasant. Arrogant, rude and openly covetous of his host's wife this is likely just how such a hero would have been, but when added to the lies we see him tell it makes one wonder how much is boast and how much is reality. And what is all this fighting naked business? If he's going to do that why does he wear armour in the first place? Oh yeah, as an excuse to do a striptease. This is then followed by a, frankly, ludicrous sequence of objects being conveniently placed to block any view of his tackle that would have looked more at home in a sit-com. Considering it's his armour that saves him in the poem the whole nudity thing is just daft.
It also leads to a big continuity error.
Beowulf brings with him fourteen warriors as his crew and companions. In the poem one is killed by Grendel. Here Grendel kills at least five of them. After the battle Beowulf and his remaining crew are seen standing in front of the wrapped corpses. There are still thirteen members of his crew with him.
It's a big, bold, mostly exciting, novel and entertaining film. The 3D version makes it much, much better and where you have a choice is the only one to pick.
One more thing. It has a 12a certificate. It is not suitable for young children. Especially the sequences with the horribly deformed Grendel whose attacks are violent, brutal and gory. Yet another example of studio pressure overriding common sense for the sake of getting to a 'wider' audience.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Review: Stardust
With more imagination in five minutes than J.K. managed to give Harry Potter in the entire series this film is just a wonderful tale.
It tugs the heart-strings in the right places without ever becoming mawkish, it has thrilling fight scenes often done in ways you'd not expect to see them. It has modern morality right in amongst the fairy-tale elements and they all blend pretty-well seamlessly. The acting is excellent, the effects dramatic and the scripting sharp and witty.
See it.
Are there no problems for me to gripe about?
Of course there are!
Some of the digital backgrounds are piss-poor. The just don't blend well with the action and it looks like someone went far too heavily on the 'add noise' button in the editor. Ricky Gervais is every bit as tedious as he was at the Diana concert and having two in-jokes which were about as unsubtle as the man himself within the time his three minute first scene took was pathetically self-indulgent. I wonder who wrote them in?
That brings me to another gripe. To listen to many of the comments made about this film you'd think that Jane Goldman gave birth to it herself rather than doing (an admittedly excellent job of) the screenplay. It's a Neil Gaiman story and his imagination knows no bounds. I've not read Stardust but I shall certainly have a look. I have heard quite a lot of negativity about it, though. I'll let you know my totally unhumble opinion.
It tugs the heart-strings in the right places without ever becoming mawkish, it has thrilling fight scenes often done in ways you'd not expect to see them. It has modern morality right in amongst the fairy-tale elements and they all blend pretty-well seamlessly. The acting is excellent, the effects dramatic and the scripting sharp and witty.
See it.
Are there no problems for me to gripe about?
Of course there are!
Some of the digital backgrounds are piss-poor. The just don't blend well with the action and it looks like someone went far too heavily on the 'add noise' button in the editor. Ricky Gervais is every bit as tedious as he was at the Diana concert and having two in-jokes which were about as unsubtle as the man himself within the time his three minute first scene took was pathetically self-indulgent. I wonder who wrote them in?
That brings me to another gripe. To listen to many of the comments made about this film you'd think that Jane Goldman gave birth to it herself rather than doing (an admittedly excellent job of) the screenplay. It's a Neil Gaiman story and his imagination knows no bounds. I've not read Stardust but I shall certainly have a look. I have heard quite a lot of negativity about it, though. I'll let you know my totally unhumble opinion.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Review: Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix
Harry's latest cinematic outing is likely to be the biggest children's movie of the Summer. After Shrek the Third proved to be such a washout and FF4 proving to be rather less than fantastic it's left to the boy Wizard to take up the slack in the family movies department. He does it pretty well.
The Weasley brothers all steal the show, with the twins doing rather better out of it this time around than Rupert Grint. Imelda Staunton is perfection as Dolores Umbridge and shows Helena Bonham Carter how to do character without descending to caricature. Speaking of which, you'd think that Emma Watson could have developed some degree of subtlety by now. The girl seems only able to act with her, nonetheless impressive, eyebrows. When you see this count how many scenes she does before she manages not to look like she's trying to audition for a one of those period bodice-rippers. Here's a wee acting tip for you, hen; stop top-breathing.
Daniel Radcliffe does seem to have benefitted from his time in the West End and has settled into a much stronger performer, albeit still saddled with a dull character. The problem with being the hero is that you're usually just no fun. Normally there's a side-kick who has to have everything explained to him so the audience can get a handle on the situation. Ms Rowling decided to make the hero the outsider who has to have everything in the Wizardly world explained to him. Therefore he's not only dull, but stupid-seeming, too. You'd think by his fourth term he'd have got a better handle on the place by now.
The script, despite the tone of the book, is not as dark as the last installment and has pared the flabby text down considrably. This time around perhaps a little too much. The direction is competent and pacey, if not exactly inspired.
Then we come to the effects. Despite being done by ILM this film has been smitten with some of the shoddiest CGI I've seen in recent years. Hagrid's brother and the Centaurs being particularly poor. In the scene where Dolores Umbridge is carried off by the latter, her model looks like a doll, although, in fairness, that kind of movement is still very hard to depict believably.
In short, a fine, entertaining film which manages to rise above both its own failings and those of its source material.
The Weasley brothers all steal the show, with the twins doing rather better out of it this time around than Rupert Grint. Imelda Staunton is perfection as Dolores Umbridge and shows Helena Bonham Carter how to do character without descending to caricature. Speaking of which, you'd think that Emma Watson could have developed some degree of subtlety by now. The girl seems only able to act with her, nonetheless impressive, eyebrows. When you see this count how many scenes she does before she manages not to look like she's trying to audition for a one of those period bodice-rippers. Here's a wee acting tip for you, hen; stop top-breathing.
Daniel Radcliffe does seem to have benefitted from his time in the West End and has settled into a much stronger performer, albeit still saddled with a dull character. The problem with being the hero is that you're usually just no fun. Normally there's a side-kick who has to have everything explained to him so the audience can get a handle on the situation. Ms Rowling decided to make the hero the outsider who has to have everything in the Wizardly world explained to him. Therefore he's not only dull, but stupid-seeming, too. You'd think by his fourth term he'd have got a better handle on the place by now.
The script, despite the tone of the book, is not as dark as the last installment and has pared the flabby text down considrably. This time around perhaps a little too much. The direction is competent and pacey, if not exactly inspired.
Then we come to the effects. Despite being done by ILM this film has been smitten with some of the shoddiest CGI I've seen in recent years. Hagrid's brother and the Centaurs being particularly poor. In the scene where Dolores Umbridge is carried off by the latter, her model looks like a doll, although, in fairness, that kind of movement is still very hard to depict believably.
In short, a fine, entertaining film which manages to rise above both its own failings and those of its source material.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Review: Bridge to Terabithia
Based on the trailers I was expecting a full-fledged fantasy film. Based on what I'd heard I expected an Americanised version of Narnia. As a result I thought I'd be sitting through something derivative, saccharine and just maybe entertaining enough to pass a while.
What I got was a wonderful, tenderhearted, unbridled, passionate film. Not a movie, a film.
The acting's not always the best, there are some moments of schmaltz and, yes, some of the issues are dealt with a little glibly, but the flaws are minor and easily forgiven. The depths of a child's imagination and the power it can give them should be rich grounds for storytellers and so it is here. It deals with life from the perspective of its barely teenage protagonists and it pulls no punches. I'm not going to talk about the script, I'd give too much away that you need to see to get the impact. Let's just say that you may well need hankies.
It's beautifuly shot, Weta have done their usual wonders with the effects and the leads are stunning. Josh Hutcherson and AnnaSophia Robb are outstanding whilst Zooey Deschanel goes a long way to wiping the stain of Hitchiker's Guide from her copybook, and both ladies contribute to the soundtrack, too.
There are comparisons to be made in this film, most notably with Pan's Labyrinth and certain passages from Beautiful Things, but only in how they utilise the power of imagination as held by their principals. I'm going back to see it again because Abby will love this film. That means I'll actually have to pay to see a film and there's not much I'll do that for these days. I haven't read the book, but I shall be.
Oh yeah, and I did shed a couple of tears.
What I got was a wonderful, tenderhearted, unbridled, passionate film. Not a movie, a film.
The acting's not always the best, there are some moments of schmaltz and, yes, some of the issues are dealt with a little glibly, but the flaws are minor and easily forgiven. The depths of a child's imagination and the power it can give them should be rich grounds for storytellers and so it is here. It deals with life from the perspective of its barely teenage protagonists and it pulls no punches. I'm not going to talk about the script, I'd give too much away that you need to see to get the impact. Let's just say that you may well need hankies.
It's beautifuly shot, Weta have done their usual wonders with the effects and the leads are stunning. Josh Hutcherson and AnnaSophia Robb are outstanding whilst Zooey Deschanel goes a long way to wiping the stain of Hitchiker's Guide from her copybook, and both ladies contribute to the soundtrack, too.
There are comparisons to be made in this film, most notably with Pan's Labyrinth and certain passages from Beautiful Things, but only in how they utilise the power of imagination as held by their principals. I'm going back to see it again because Abby will love this film. That means I'll actually have to pay to see a film and there's not much I'll do that for these days. I haven't read the book, but I shall be.
Oh yeah, and I did shed a couple of tears.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Review:300 & Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
It may strike you as odd that I have decided to run two such radically different films into one review. The fact is, though, that they have a surprising amount in common. Okay, the former is based upon an incident from history and the latter on a marketing ploy, but both draw on graphic novels as their main source of inspiration and both deal strongly with issues of honour, courage, responsibility and comradeship. Despite one featuring live actors and one being entirely animated 300 is so heavily dominated by CGI that it might as well be entirely animated.
It plays so fast and loose with history and reality that it drifts into the purely fantastic realms on TMNT. The portrayal of the (self-proclaimed) god-king, Xerxes as an 8 foot tall lipstick-wearing gulch-monkey may be meant as a subtle motivation for the character; i.e., he had to conquer the world to make the rest of the planet accept him & make him feel loved, or I might just be reading a smidgeon too much into it. It has a few extra scenes inserted to expand it to full feature length because, let's face it, the story was a bit light on detail even before it got hacked back for the constraints of the narrative-lite preferences of the graphic novel fan. Mostly, these deal with a rather odd political set-up which sees the king of the Spartans undermined by politicians. This, alongside the final speeches about fighting for the 'restoration' of democracy and 'freedom' give the film a distinctly pro-war, and support-America-in-Iraq tone which must go a long way to explaining its popularity in the US.
It's entertaining enough, but it didn't need the addition of orc-like characters and freaks.It's also hard to give a damn about anyone in the film. They're all cyphers rather than rounded characters and why should we care about a king who starts a war against both overwhelming odds and the wishes of his people, who is further offered more than he could ever gain by allying with his foe and who still refuses to yield to reason?
Despite it's target juvenile audience and its far more frivolous tone, TMNT actually draws some deeper characters, whom it is possible to like. Alright, we're not talking any real depth, here and the script is far from literature. Indeed it seems to be little more than the typical Hollywood hackery I usually despise, but it's entertaining, light-hearted fun. It has a clearer and somehow deeper and more resonant morality to it and this should not be. Where 300 seems to be in a rush to get to the next fight and the next rock video-style slow-motion, blood-spattering, homo-erotic pec-fest TMNT actually has decent pace and development.
And there's a sentence I never thought I'd say!
The real reason these films are combined in one review, though is because I draw the same conclusion about each:
Perfectly pitched at its target audience, with enough to keep the rest of us entertained and engaged. Once one accepts this film for what it is - an animated roller-coaster ride - a more than happy couple of hours can be passed in the cinema with one's brain deactivated.
TMNT wins by a length, though and - again I can't believe I'm saying this - the one to choose.
It plays so fast and loose with history and reality that it drifts into the purely fantastic realms on TMNT. The portrayal of the (self-proclaimed) god-king, Xerxes as an 8 foot tall lipstick-wearing gulch-monkey may be meant as a subtle motivation for the character; i.e., he had to conquer the world to make the rest of the planet accept him & make him feel loved, or I might just be reading a smidgeon too much into it. It has a few extra scenes inserted to expand it to full feature length because, let's face it, the story was a bit light on detail even before it got hacked back for the constraints of the narrative-lite preferences of the graphic novel fan. Mostly, these deal with a rather odd political set-up which sees the king of the Spartans undermined by politicians. This, alongside the final speeches about fighting for the 'restoration' of democracy and 'freedom' give the film a distinctly pro-war, and support-America-in-Iraq tone which must go a long way to explaining its popularity in the US.
It's entertaining enough, but it didn't need the addition of orc-like characters and freaks.It's also hard to give a damn about anyone in the film. They're all cyphers rather than rounded characters and why should we care about a king who starts a war against both overwhelming odds and the wishes of his people, who is further offered more than he could ever gain by allying with his foe and who still refuses to yield to reason?
Despite it's target juvenile audience and its far more frivolous tone, TMNT actually draws some deeper characters, whom it is possible to like. Alright, we're not talking any real depth, here and the script is far from literature. Indeed it seems to be little more than the typical Hollywood hackery I usually despise, but it's entertaining, light-hearted fun. It has a clearer and somehow deeper and more resonant morality to it and this should not be. Where 300 seems to be in a rush to get to the next fight and the next rock video-style slow-motion, blood-spattering, homo-erotic pec-fest TMNT actually has decent pace and development.
And there's a sentence I never thought I'd say!
The real reason these films are combined in one review, though is because I draw the same conclusion about each:
Perfectly pitched at its target audience, with enough to keep the rest of us entertained and engaged. Once one accepts this film for what it is - an animated roller-coaster ride - a more than happy couple of hours can be passed in the cinema with one's brain deactivated.
TMNT wins by a length, though and - again I can't believe I'm saying this - the one to choose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
