16 November 2009

Film: The Star Trek (2009)

Film: The Star Trek.
Year: 2009
Director: J.J. Abrams
Source: Blu-Ray
Viewings: 2
Runtime: 130mins
Thoughts:

Lens flare as an artform. There, out of the way. Look, I never watched The Star Trek much. After falling out with The Star Wars many years ago, I just didn't feel the need to fill a void that wasn't there. I didn't feel I was missing much. I had nothing against it, I HAVE nothing against it. It's just not a necessity to me, like it was to my old housemate. That being said, I enjoyed The Star Trek immensely.

Yeah, I'll describe it. Ship meets gigantic ship at black hole, little ship gets destroyed, Kirk born while father dies on ship. Spock the Vulcan is half human, chooses to "exile" himself to Starfleet command, while now-older Kirk joins the fast-track leadership program. They end up hunting the gigantic ship. The classic crew gets assimilated on the way. The end.

That's enough. Seriously, this movie gets it right. There's enough asplosions, enough character drama, enough love and titillation, enough laughs. And that whole lens flare thing really lends the film a very unique feel, one that every time you think of it, you immediately think of The Star Trek. You know what I'm talking about; that lens flare in the 3 thirds of the screen, as the camera goes close up and spins/pans. Lotsa closeups.

And on Blu-Ray, The Star Trek is a thing to behold. I'm not gonna lie, my 42" barely shows it off like some other films I've gawked at, because there's simply so much going on in each frame that I'd need to kick it up another notch (BAM!) just to truly go "aaaaaaawww". The sound holds up equally, constantly making my amp cut out like it's Advent Children all over again. Just not as much. Watching Advent Children was a real pain.

Watching The Star Trek again revealed a couple of logic gaps, like, if the drill could be simply shot and destroyed by Spock's mini-flyer, why didn't they do it sooner? And did Nero immediately come to the conclusion and choose the path he did IMMEDIATELY after the explosion? No reel-time? That all being said, I was going "Whatever." long before I noticed, OR cared. Bones saying "Goddammit man, I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" and Scotty telling his alien friend off almost by rote fills any logic gaps required in my book.

"Kyle Reese's journey automatically negated the future? Look, it's Simon Pegg, and he's doing a funny dance!"

I don't know how my mum couldn't like this. But then again, sorry mum, but you recommend some terrible films. TERRIBLE films!

I've yet to explore the special features, but from the looks of it it's like Iron Head all over again. Fucking extensive AND interesting.

In Ads' Nutshell: The Star Trek is a bumpy, fun-filled ride that can be enjoyed over and over, like Urkel!

Would He Blu It?: Oh I did. And I'm loving every minute of it. Like Urkel!

Score: 4.5/5.

Film: Thirst (2009)

Film: Thirst
Year: 2009
Director: Chan-Wook Park
Source: "Acquired"
Viewings: 1
Runtime: 130mins

Thoughts:

My relationship with Park's work has been a tumultuous one. My first viewing of the widely-acclaimed Oldboy left me with a bad taste and worse opinion, and I didn't care who I told. But then again, those of you who know me know that my first experience and usually my no experience with something results in an opinion of "Hate it. Never liked it." Well, I'll tell you what. After hunting down and viewing Oldboy again recently, my opinion of the director and his work changed very dramatically, and I knew it was love. I watched all 3 of the Vengeance films and haven't looked back in anger since. So, with my newfound admiration of Park, I awaited with bated breath and anticipation his latest release, with vampires no less. And here I sit, after the fact. What's my verdict? Read on.

Thirst touches on many aspects at once and at any given time, whether you are expecting it or not. Korean superstar Kang Ho-Song plays Sang-Hyeon; a devout but outspoken and under appreciated catholic priest who, with the world's best interests in mind, elects to receive a vaccine for a virus that is plaguing what I think was Africa. It doesn't work (just like the 50 attempted cases before him) and Sang-Hyeon ends up dead. But not quite. It would appear the blood transfusion he received just before death had something a little off in it's genetic strains, and now Sang-Hyeon can smell like a spaniel, hear like a dolphin and seems unable to control his hunger for blood. Yup, he's a vampire.

Despite my relatively long summary, that's just the first 20 minutes. This film covers so much ground, introducing us to the sensual, passionate awakening of a celibate, restrained man, a very, VERY dysfunctional family unit, the small but important difficulties and differences that are unearthed when you can't stand in sunlight, or eat normal food. And even then, that's just the first hour! Just when you think it's gotta be wrapping up, or closing down, or preparing the 3 acts, it just continues to evolve, like our protagonist. And I haven't even touched on the many facets of his doomed relationship with the astounding Ok-vin Kim as his illicit lover Tae-Joo. The rounds and changes that affect her character, and how Kim handles them are just mind boggling. Tae-Joo morphs from timid, beaten sex-kitten to fully-fledged femme-fatale, amidst the chaos that surrounds. Honestly, my review can't do the many tendrils of this film justice.

And Park's direction. Seriously, like his fellow Korean compadre Joon-Ho Bong (The Host, Memories Of Murder), there is just this constant flow of confidence that just oozes from every frame, every densely-lit corridor, every gout of blood, every twitch and moment. To describe it to someone who isn't watching is criminal, and is nigh impossible. You have to see it to understnad. Filled with the director's trademark flourishes, visual gags and unpredictable awesome, it's difficult to find more brazen director's these days (No Michael Bay, brazen with TALENT, not just brash and balls-out. Literally. Stupid constructicon.). There are so many little things, and combined with the fact that there are vampires- VAMPIRES- means that Park had so much to play with that it is almost impossible to not be transfixed.

All this said, Thirst still demands some legitimate choice from the viewer. Obviously sex is an inherent part of the vampire mythos these days, so Park weaves that in almost too powerfully. I'm sure I didn't blink during the countless extended sex scenes (charting every moment, from awkward foreplay right through to pillow talk and subsequent shocking revelations), and yeah, I usually had a broad smile plastered on my face during due to Park's unmatched skill for weaving styles together (in this case, humour and sensuality and violence and, oh I give up. All in the same goddamn scene!) but sometimes it got a bit much. And the constant jumping between story types can be jarring and throw you off a bit, but with most of Park's work, stay on your game, and you will be justly rewarded.

And good god, are there some funny scenes. After a character, well, DIES, Park's trademark twisted, macabre humour goes fucking ballistic, putting the characters through their paces without pause. Funny and thrilling.

All in all, I guess if you're a potential viewer of Thirst, you already know it. I can't exactly recommend it to anyone who hasn't watched a Park film, and I probably couldn't recommend it to a general audience like I could Let The Rate One In, Eh (*sigh*. I want that on Blu-Ray.) but those who wish to tread the path should be happy they did.

In Ads' Nutshell: Thirst provides a humourous, violent, incisive, sensual, fantastically lensed dive into the nature of lust, control, piety, faith and other nouns that can't be pigeonholed.

Would He Blu It?: Negatory. Unless it's super cheap with some rad as hell bonus features, its DVD fo' me.

Score: 3.5/5.

Film: 9 (2009)

Note: Hey, I apologize for the relatively sober, sterile tone of my review. I'll swing back into Big Ads mode soon, I promise.

Film: 9

Year: 2009

Director: Shane Acker

Source: "Acquired"

Viewings: 1

Runtime: 87mins

Thoughts:

I haven't seen the short film that preceded the creation of 9. Comments of that sort will have to be held off, for now. What I can comment on is the film itself, which is the way it should be, I know. But every little thing you view adds to an experience. Anyways, onwards.

The film follows an Animatrix Renaissance Pt. 01 & 02 style vision, where we humans have created AI which has then gone on to gain sentience and destroy us all. Usual dystopian outlook. The difference comes about in the later dissection of the story, but that's spoiler territory.

So a few different dolls were created, each possessing a different personality and clothing style etc. Our main protagonist is a newly minted doll named 9 (Elijah Wood). As he begins to explore the ravaged world surrounding him, he learns of the existence of the first 8 dolls, voiced by such talents as John C. Reilly, Martin Landau, Crispin Glover, and more. What follows is a tale of spirit, endurance, cowardice, courage, loss and ultimately hope.

My first thoughts upon watching the film was the interesting look and feel of the film. Drab is what is meant to be relayed, and drab is what is received, in an almost steampunk or something style. The budget had to have been smaller than most productions, and at times it shows, such as the "skin" of each doll is just a texture map and not individual fibres, but that's just nit-picking, there's really no problem. The animation and style are comfortable and fit suitably.

Where the whole thing began to fall down was in the script. Such talent involved, and yet the whole thing feels lifeless, and the script is to blame. It seems to be very amateur, very standard, with not much weight in the dialogue, and most notably a lack of depth to the characters, which proves very jarring and uninvolving. Statements are made and resolutions sought, without much true feeling or pathos. There's a backstory to the characters, but of life and reason there is little.

Another thing I noticed was the constant sense of deja vu I experienced during the runtime. I was continually notching up the cliche's and plot developments that were hinted, played and sometimes completely torn from other films and stories. Star Wars, The Animatrix, and more that I can't remember (I watched this earlier last week) that, coupled with the lack of realism or depth to the characters, became slightly disappointing.

The direction is also a bit tame, reusing a lot of camera angles over and over; like the "monster isn't there, now it's right in the camera and roaring" shot. Admittedly, it's only occasionally a problem, but in the early parts of the film it is very evident.

Enough of the bad, the good! The fight scenes. Oh man, the fight scenes! On Blu-Ray, these would be devastating, like the Robo-Bird sequence, or the cannon sequence. 9 is jam packed with lots of electric action, and definitely delivers where a lot of other animated films fail. Blades slice, robots roar, machines clank and grumble, and we can enjoy it all.

The music and sound... I honestly can't remember.

Amanda commented on the dark feel of the film, and after learning of Tim Burton's presence was understanding. I mean, it was pretty good, but there just wasn't enough depth to truly be a great work to stand up alongside others.

In Ads' Nutshell: 9 is a short, dark action-filled journey through a dystopian earth, let down by occasionally amateurish direction and constant lackluster scriptwork.

Would he Blu it?: As a $20 blockbuster ex-rental, sure.

Score: 3/5.