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.

Review: Transformers

I've really been looking forward to this one. Which is a bit of a surprise as I couldn't be arsed with the original series. Trite morals, unimaginative scripts and cheap animation wrapped up in a huge advertising campaign just didn't, for some obscure reason, encourage me to watch it. Odd that...

My initial reaction to the idea of a 'live-action' version of this was "Oh no! That'll be crap." took its first hit when I saw the Renault? ads. That shows how good the campaign was, I remember the ad but not the model of car. Limitead as they probably were for some French car manufacturer's sales they did convince me completely that transforming robots in a real-life setting could be done believably. Then I saw the trailers and I thought "That looks like fun!"

Of course, by this time, the nay-sayers were panicking about the director being one Michael Bay. Let's be honest, both his producing and directing credits include some total turkeys. Pearl Harbour anyone? The likes of The Rock gave me hope, though. Yes, his work is totally overblown, generally shallow, and often patronising. He uses a LOT of product-placement. Oh! Wait. That sounds like just the guy for this job, then.

So, we went along (Yes, both of us as Abby was actually off!) and, as expected had a rip-roaring old time. It is everything those nay-sayers said it would be; overblown, self-indulgent and full of product placement. It is also fun, smart and much more grown-up that I thought it would ever be allowed to be, considering that it's still pretty much just a big commercial for the toys. One of my friends had taken her kids along and they absolutely loved it, as the bruises on my thigh will attest to how much the nearest one jumped and bounced in his seat. Finally, someone jumped and laughed more than Abby!

Are there negatives? Hey! It's me!

It has the corniest voice-over opening I've heard in years which, aprt from the cheese factor, manages to contradict the later script by claiming that the Transformers originated on 'The Cube' (Ah! They're Borg, then.) and not on Cybertron as is stated later. The script's full of holes like that. I mean, DefCon Delta? What was up with good-old DefCon One? Not Sci-Fi enough? The technobabble factor is off the scale. Megan Fox, though gorgeous is about as believable as a teenager as the cast of Happy Days (too much time in the sun, m'lady) and is definitely not someone you'd accuse of wearing a training bra. And the film reference in-jokes are often almost too obscure to notice. (Amongst others I spotted Terminator, Kill Bill & The Matrix)

Worst of all for an action movie is that the action is shot in such a way as to be almost incomprehensible. It becomes not only very hard to track what's going on, but which Transformer is involved. It's almost as if Mr Bay didn't trust the CGI to look good enough to be shown clearly in the fights. Perhaps this is the reason it all just starts to get a little dull. If you're lost and can't actually root for the good guy it's hard to stay involved. Of course, about 2/3rds of the way through it seems as if Mr Bay has enough of the story and just goes all out on the action and that means it goes on for a looong time. Sadly, it begins to feel like it and, again, it's mostly because it's poorly shot. This is a great pity, because the fights are brutal. None of that namby-pamby crap from the series. These are giant, heavy, armoured and armed killing machines. Bits get broken off, people die, buildings get flattened and, best of all, Furbys get blown to bits. Not sure that's quite how Hasbro wanted their products placed, but it made me laugh.

This could, and should have been a great action film. It misses the mark, but not by much. It is thrilling in places, just not enough, and it is great fun. As with most Hollywood actioners it requires brains be checked at the door for maximum viewing pleasure.

Afterwards ask yourself these questions:

1. Why does the Spark only seem to produce Decepticons?
2. Why is there an Australian student working for the NSA? (Rachael Taylor). And just what purpose does her character actually serve?
   
3. How did they manage to get an actor to play a character with a weird name who managed to have an even weirder name that his character? (Shia Saide LaBeouf)
4. After causing untold havoc in a VERY public fashion, what makes Optimus Prime think that the Autobots will be able to "[hide] in plain sight." and which American government would allow them to?
   

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.

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.