05 December 2012

Film: Skyfall (2012)

Thoughts: Even though it could definitely benefit from some judicious cutting, Skyfall provides ample amounts of entertainment and action, despite leaving most of the female characters shortchanged. The famous faces are many, and the performances are pretty good all-round, especially Javier Bardem as our over-the-top villain. Of course, the star of the show is director Sam Mendes, and his take on Bond has to be the most stylish to date.

From imdb:
"Bond's mission is to keep a computer drive that has a list of British agents from being used against them. He chases the man who has it and they have a brawl on top of a train. Eve, an agent sent to assist Bond has them in her cross hairs but hesitates to take the shot because she might hit Bond but M orders her to take it. She does, and hits Bond who falls into the river and is believed to be dead. A few months later, the British government is upset with MI6 for losing the list; specifically with M. She is told that she'll be allowed to retire but she refuses to leave till the matter is resolved. So she returns to HQ to work on it but as she arrives, there's an explosion. In the meantime, Bond, who is not dead, has been laying low. When he learns of what happened, he returns. And M tasks him with finding the one who has the information. He eventually learns that the man who has it, is someone from M's past and who has it in for her."

Right from the get go action is thrown into your face, leading to Bond himself presumed dead, and the title credits a-rolling. One thing I loved in the film was this kind of "breaking of Bond"; we see him portrayed as a bit of an adrenalin junkie who, when removed from his calling, turns to cheap thrills, alcohol and women to dull the pain. Its an interesting look at the character, and one that made me view this new ruthless, emotionless and quite vicious Bond in a whole new light: as a human. This is made especially more plain when the villain is a clear juxtaposition of our usual suave hero.

And to mention the villain, Javier Bardem gives him that looney edge all Bond villains should have. Plus he's sporting some wicked Sam Jones/Flash Gordon hair. When he's onscreen, especially with Daniel Craig, things become... sharper, more acute, and we find ourselves locked on their every exchange, verbal or otherwise. It's a testament to the actors and the writing- and definitely some fantastic choices by Sam Mendes and his DP- that we become so involved in the scenes.

I had an interesting discussion with Earl in the car after the film, and started to hurt my brain when it came to how the film played out with regards to the villain and his plot. Mostly, and I'm trying not to spoil here, but backtracking through all the story points that lead up to near the end, involve early planning, then early planning, then early planning.... You'll understand once you see it. Basically, the baddie would have to have planned a hell of a lot, and down to a point, for everything to happen as it did. Not knocking the film, because most if not all of the thoughts DID have an answer but... it was still a lot of circumstance and I guess hope that it would all follow the correct paths. Interesting to think about at least.

And of course we have the one and only Sam Mendes behind the camera. Light and colour play a big part in his films, and here they are used to jaw-dropping effect. Plus we have smooth and graceful long takes, elegant pans and some absolutely magnificent mise-en-scene, some if not all practically demanding to be set up as high definition backgrounds on desktops or TVs.

One thing I did notice was how insular the whole thing felt. Sure, we have a multitude of locations all across the globe, and an action sequence to cap each set of events, but when you look at it from the outside, each set occurs in a very central location: in the makeshift MI6 bunker, in a high-rise building, in a decrepit city. I attribute this to MGM's recent financial difficulties, and their need to save costs within the budget. None of this hurts the film whatsoever, and the set design is still impeccable- it's just an observation.

Bold moves are made with the story, and once again I'll bet purists will be snapping and stomping and causing a ruckus across the interwebs. But you know what? I don't fucking care. I've never been fond of the films before Daniel Craig became Bond, and Casino Royale is one of my favourite films. So basically, I loved this, but I don't think it reached the levels of the previous mentioned. Still worth every penny though.

4.5/5

04 December 2012

Film Rewatch: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Thoughts: ....alright, on a second viewing this was actually pretty awesome. I still have really, really big issue with the script though, and my original assessment still definitely stands- especially in the first half of the film. All the dialogue is made up of one-liners, melodramatic speechifying or exposition. Still, I really liked how the film was split into the comic storylines of Knightfall and No Man's Land. The latter was much better than the former in my opinion though, the first is riddled with bad dialogue, ridiculous and underwhelming action and story beats that are ludicrous at best.

I still love Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle though. Easily my favourite Catwoman. Batman's plight was a fair bit more involving this time around, and the story flowed much more smoothly with the advance knowledge of how it all played out, and what was really going on. Tom Hardy is still one of my favourite actors, and I valued his performance much more on this sitting. He really did kick some serious ass here.

One thing still bugs me though: how the fuck did they get those dirt bikes into the stock exchange! I watched that scene intentionally, but they still didn't show where they came from! Ah well.

The action played out better on the small screen too, and the level of effort that went into the set design was actually quite astonishing. Plus, the film really feels like a massive epic with far-reaching ideas. I still found the overall arc of upper vs lower class as far too obvious and blunt though. There are a lot more subtleties to the whole situation, and the way the film throws out its agenda is really quite heavy. But now that I think about it, it also doesn't really favour one side, so perhaps I'm not giving it enough credit... I guess I'm not.

Eh, either way, I'm glad I picked it up on blu-ray. It looked and sounded absolutely magnificent, and practically boomed the house down with the bass. I'm amazed the kids didn't wake up honestly.

REDUXED NUMBER: 4/5


Film: Headhunters (2011)

Thoughts: Despite a rather tepid first act, Headhunter's latter thirds flip to balls-out insane, and in the best ways possible. It is exceedingly violent, it is intentionally twisted, and the ending wraps everything up in a nice little bow so as to leave no stones unturned. Sometimes that's all you want from a film though.

From imdb:
"Roger Brown works as one of the most powerful headhunters in Norway. To support his extravagant lifestyle, he is also an art thief, which he does in cahoots with his friend, the gun toting Ove Kjikerud. They replace the originals with forgeries, which go undetected at least until the trail back to the thieves goes cold. His outward bravado, based primarily on building upon reputation, masks his insecurities, especially in his short physical stature. He feels he needs that confident demeanor and wealth to get what he wants, including his trophy wife, art gallery owner Diana Brown. However, he almost seems to like the thought of what Diana represents more than Diana herself. As such, he has a mistress on the side named Lotte. The issue of having a baby - Diana wants to get pregnant while Roger doesn't want her to - is another bone of contention in their marriage. The two sides of Roger's professional life intersect when Diana introduces him to Clas Greve..."

Fuck, that's a lot of text. And it barely covers the first 10 minutes! I guess you can see what I mean by tepid: there's a lot to set up. And it's not all done through boring exposition- it is all actually quite well done and comes back full circle in the end. It's just that there is so much of it, and it takes the entire first 40 minutes to really hit the go button. Once it does though, hoo boy. Things go fucking apeshit real quick. Loyalties are tested and different characters rear their true heads in different ways. Now you're talking good, breakneck cinema.

All the actors do their thing accordingly, and special props must go to lead actor Aksel Hennie, who does a great job transforming (or is it conforming?) throughout the runtime. Plus he looks like a mini Christopher Walken, which is never a bad thing. Everyone else does well in their various roles as well, keeping things from going stale.

The action is brutal, the blood flows freely, the tension is high and the twists many. I can recommend this to fans of twisty thrillers with very satisfying endings.

4/5

Film: Fright Night (2011)

Thoughts: I fucking love a film that is completely aware of what it is, and what it is trying to do. Big budget, small budget, huge cast, no cast, foreign or right next door. Any genre. Any year. As long as you understand the limits of what you're making, and have no illusions about what you're going to end up with, you have my vote. Fright Night knows exactly what it is. And it does what it does with style, strength and general awesomeness.

From imdb:
"A remake of the 1985 original, teenager Charley Brewster (Yelchin) guesses that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrige (Farrell) is a vampire responsible for a string of recent deaths. When no one he knows believes him, he enlists Peter Vincent (Tennant), a self proclaimed vampire killer and Las Vegas magician, to help him take down Jerry."

All the actors have fun with it, and the script is tight and sharp. The action is awesome, the pacing dead on, the direction exceptional and out of the box, and the ideas behind the various moments throughout the film are very inspired. I can't ask anything more from a film.

Colin Farrell is an inspired choice for the head vampire, and his performance is a whole mess of fun. He smirks and leers, slides and saunters. He flirts and growls and snaps and hisses and, god it's great fun to watch. I especially love the scene where our main kid has just become aware that he can't come into the house, and Jerry the vampire so desperately, desperately wants to get inside. Ah, so much slime and ew! Like the creepiest stalker you've ever seen. And David Tennant provides the best evidence to hire trained actors to play Russell Brand, as opposed to hiring Russell Brand to play Russell Brand. His self-centred nature and comic timings are hilarious and fun.

The events that transpire in the film are fun and well thought out, and the actions that characters take even threw me off my game. People both good and bad make decisions that I would never have thought of, and to great effect. Action scenes are inspired and filled with great direction and camerawork, and constantly laced through with humour.

My only gripe really would be with the kinda shoddy CG, but really, why poke sticks at that. They worked with what they had.

Seriously, fans of horror and comedy should check this out. I had a really, REALLY great time with this. Love a blind buy that works out!

5/5

Film: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Thoughts: An intimate working knowledge of the original book definitely helps when viewing the 2011 adaptation of Tinker Tailor, but regardless one can still enjoy the fine performances, immaculate cinematography and assured direction. What's interesting to note though, is how the book is quite internal and emotional, whereas this rapidfire version is almost like an exercise in sterility. But then again, I can't really think of an easy way to convert internal processes to the screen, when it is shared among many, many very well-drawn characters.

From imdb:
"In the early 1970s during the Cold War, the head of British Intelligence, Control, resigns after an operation in Budapest, Hungary goes badly wrong. It transpires that Control believed one of four senior figures in the service was in fact a Russian agent - a mole - and the Hungary operation was an attempt to identify which of them it was. Smiley had been forced into retirement by the departure of Control, but is asked by a senior government figure to investigate a story told to him by a rogue agent, Ricky Tarr, that there was a mole. Smiley considers that the failure of the Hungary operation and the continuing success of Operation Witchcraft (an apparent source of significant Soviet intelligence) confirms this, and takes up the task of finding him."

Sounds confusing, and yes, it can be. When you're introduced to multiple richly layered characters, and their individual recollection of events, it can be hard to keep up. Names, codenames, cyphers and hidden messages and thoughts abound. Being a convert to the book though, I liked the film as a visual representation of the amazing people and events littered throughout the text.

Despite all this, Director Tomas Alfredson proves once again how much of a talent he is in the field of cinema, and DP Hoyte Van Hoytema conjures up an almost perfect recreation of late 70s England, complete with thick grain and muted colours, dreary skies and greys mixed with brown.

Events transpire differently in the film than to the book, sometimes greatly. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. Ricki Tarr, played here by personal favourite Tom Hardy, practically screams the actor from the page. But in this adaptation, he's practically all nerves and twitch, retaining almost none of the smarm and fatalism seen in the book. A few characters and events are combined for time constraints too, but again, nothing that adversely affects the final product.

Ultimately, you're dealing with great actors, a fantastic source and strong crew behind the scenes. If you don't like talking though, you might not be inclined to stay awake for the whole ticket. Those of us who like classic spy thinkers should definitely get on board. And for the record: I personally preferred the book. A lot more emotion and flesh to the bones.

4/5

01 December 2012

Book Readings: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

I had no idea, at all, that I was going to enjoy John le Carre's classic as much as I did. I was intrigued, interested, and riveted to my seat. Who would have thought a tale written and set during the height and downfall of the Cold War, and containing nearly no action and a multitude of characters with astounding levels of depth, would capture my imagination so? And yet it did.

The story concerns the efforts (imposed efforts, I should say) of "retired" MI6 agent George Smiley. The story is told primarily through flashbacks and memories, as Mr. Smiley is clandestinely recruited to root out a mole from the tippy top of MI6 headquarters itself.

That barely scratches the surface of le Carres amazing novel. It clocks in around 268 pages or so, and is filled with all sorts of jargon from around the time this is set- late sixties, early seventies. Despite all the names, places, and events that swirl around George Smiley and through his mind, not once was I lost, or bored, or irritated. About 120 pages in I happened upon a wikipedia entry for the book that listed definitions for all the jargon throughout, which helped greatly, but honestly le Carres prose is so solid and flowing that you get the gist of the terms anyway- so long as you're not a complete dunce.

The book works through both memory and present, and with it reveals characters and events that all lead to an unearthing of the aforementioned mole. But its the characters that truly shine throughout the book. Seriously, by books end I felt I knew these guys, their passions, their desires, their means and reasons, their hopes, fears, successes and failures. Every time a character is introduced, le Carre basically goes to their childhood and lays out their path up to now. Not once is it boring, or rote, or repetitive. With a lock onto these characters as they are revealed, it allows your mind to better grasp people in places, causing or reacting to events, and it allows you to actively participate in the hunt that forms the crux of the entire enterprise. I found my mind creating possible scenarios, concocting possible solutions to problems, and even committing certain moments to memory for future reference. I'll be honest: I've never, EVER had a book stick in my mind quite like this has. I've still got images, names, people running through my mind from the book. I honestly don't think I want to let them go.

I loved it. I'd read it again. Dead serious. I think I'll start tracking down John le Carre's other work now. Oh, and I watched an interview with him after viewing the 2011 film adaptation (review forthcoming) and he seems like the coolest, most knowledgeable, conversationally exciting 80 year old that achieved success. And very humble, self-aware and humorous too. I'd love to chat with the guy. He reminded me of me but without the whole being useless at everything.

23 November 2012

Film: Motorway (2012)

Thoughts: Motorway was absolutely fantastic. The film echoes Drive, but where Drive was a like an existential nightmare, Motorway strikes more as an existential dream. Characterization is pared down to exist solely through these men through their cars, as they use them to do battle on the streets of (I believe) Kowloon. Using smart camera tricks and an emphasis on slick extended action sequences, Motorway does everything it needs to for a tense, exciting, entertaining 97mins.

Anthony Wong and Shawn Yue are road cops, with the former waiting for retirement, and the latter waiting to get out on the road and chase down bad guys. Both are above-average chase specialists, but the younger and more hot-headed keeps running off to play the hero. Suddenly, a new, very dangerous criminal element makes themselves known to the police, and the race is on for these two groups to literally play a live-action version of Cops & Robbers.

The action in Motorway- of which there is much- is presented like a dance, practically as large-scale martial arts sequences, replacing fists and swords with bumpers and wheels. The cars weave, spin, slide and blaze through all sorts of locations: highways, alleys, parking complexes, docks, and mountain passes. The camera is constantly finding new and more amazing ways of shooting the action, without ever being obvious or overly-processed. When the action starts, the music is either dropped entirely or replaced with a very subtle industrial throb- one of several reflections of Drive that film offers. Aside from the police station or drug meet scenes, there is little dialogue, and the camera places itself into the cars on multiple occasions. Where Drive explores the nature of the driver, and what it means for him to feel and live, Motorway uses the idea of driving as an escape mechanism, and a means of displaying how one feels. While there isn't much structurally to the film, technically the whole thing is a marvel to behold.

It's true, the characters are flat, and the story exists only to get the whole thing for A to B to C, but coming here for the style and action is why I signed up, and I was very, VERY pleased. The acting is good enough, and the romance kept to a minimum. This is all about the journey, and I'm glad I took the time to travel along the path. Here's to hoping I can again in the future, and on stunning blu-ray too (this was a rented DVD).

5/5

Film: The Three Stooges (2012)

Thoughts: Even though it isn't a particularly good film, you have to give credit where its due, and The Three Stooges earns some serious points for dedication. The idea and drive to pull this film off had to have come from a place of love, and the end result at least has its heart in the right plus. The level physicality on display is painful to behold, and as such, earns some honest laughs and my shrugging recommendation.

From imdb:
"Left on the doorstep of an orphanage run by nuns, newborns Moe, Larry and Curly grow up finger-poking, nyuk-nyuk-nyuking and woo-woo-wooing their way to uncharted levels of knuckleheaded misadventure. Now their childhood home may have to close due to financial difficulties. But Larry, Curly and Moe, employed as the foster home's inept maintenance men, are determined to come to the rescue. Only The Three Stooges could become embroiled in an oddball murder plot - while stumbling into starring roles in a phenomenally successful TV reality show."

The film is carved into if I remember correctly 3 separate sections, dealing effectively with the 3 act structure of most standard Hollywood films. All they serve though, is a stage for which to cast the three leads (played astonishingly well by Sean Hayes, Will Sasso and Chris Diamantopoulos) into situations where they can hurt one another or those unfortunate souls who are nearby. Fans of strong physical comedy should find their antics really quite extraordinary, with the boys committing wholeheartedly to the chaos. Of course, the story itself is ridiculous, and useful only in keeping things moving forward. All the bit players make their presence felt, with the like of Sofia Vergara, Jane Lynch and Jennifer Hudson keeping things fresh and funny. My personal favourites though were Larry David as an overly Jewish sounding nun who is constantly at the mercy of the lovable lunks, and Craig Bierko as an unfortunate conniving love-rat connected to Sofia Vergara.

The stunts are what make this film, and they are spectacular. Eye gouging, head bonking and toe stomping are all present and accounted for, but there are also well timed and choreographed sequences of mayhem littered throughout. I really loved the scene involving Craig Bierko in a full-body cast, the Three Stooges, and a stick of dynamite. Awesome stuff. The real issue I had though, was that despite the film's brisk runtime (92min) there was still a feeling of a drop inbetween the various set-ups and sequences- despite there being humour laced throughout even the more static moments. Honestly, it's mostly when our three intrepid heroes are offscreen that you truly feel it, because seriously, they really do commit to the roles.

Check it out if you like fairly crude and infantile humour, or wacky physical comedy. I recommend it. Really, I do.

3.5/5

21 November 2012

Film: White Vengeance (2011)

Thoughts: White Vengeance is far too much story for this little film to hold. While the visuals, sets and outfits are stunning, they are severely hampered by clumsy fight scenes, irritating camerawork and editing, an abundance of information at a rapid-fire pace, and acting that would make wooden dolls seem lively. But my biggest issue and a cardinal sin in martial arts films, is a little thing called Telegraphing. And White Vengeance telegraphs A LOT.

I can't sum up the story well enough, so I'll let imdb do the work:

"White Vengeance tells the story of two brothers contending for supremacy during the fall of the Qin Dynasty, which ruled Imperial China from 221 to 206 BC. As rebels rose, the nation fell into chaos. Liu Bang (Leon Lai) and Xiang Yu (Feng Shaofeng), became leaders of the rebellious army, and also became sworn brothers in battle. Xiang Yu and Liu Bang are close friends who both serve King Huai of Chu. King Huai uses a plot, saying that whoever can subvert the Qin kingdom in Guanzhong would be the Lord Qin, in order to benefit from the competition between Xiang Yu and Liu Bang. Xiang Yu is over-confident. He fights against the main force of Qin army, and entrusts Liu Bang with Yu Ji (Liu Yifei), the woman he loves. Liu Bang expresses his love to Yu Ji and takes the chance to invade Guanzhong first when most of Qin army is outside fighting against Xiang Yu's army. Xiang Yu is furious & betrayed when he found it. Xiang planned to kill Liu at a banquet held in Hong Men, during which Zhang Liang (Zhang Hanyu), the mastermind of Liu Bang, and Fan Zeng (Anthony Wong), the mastermind of Xiang Yu, have a direct confrontation. But who will emerge as the winner from this epic battle and survive to claim their path to the crown?"

Block of text eh. And it barely covers it. Despite the 131min runtime, the film still barrels through so much, with characters popping in (and out) with great fanfare and importance, despite them having zero charisma or personal movement. Yes, even the main characters seem to be acting by rote duty not by choice, which led me down a path of uncaring quite easily. I had no investment in any of the characters, because I frankly could see no motivation. Things just happen, then un-happen. For instance, the two main lovers meet in a teahouse. The young lady is singing a song of her now-conquered people, and an eeeevil with a capital E army dude attacks her, and forces her to disrobe to prove her love for her new rulers. Enter one of the main dudes from upstairs, who basically hits her mid-strip with a "Hey baby, do you like me? You want me to get you out of here?". Sparks fly between them, she whispers "yes" and he beats seven kinds of hell out of the dudes. And then they have an inseparable bond for the rest of the flick, to death's door even. Yup.

Plus, you have all the dudes in the film thinking that grimacing, with permanent death stares and pregnant pauses before EVERYTHING they say, is supposed to relay, what, I don't know, grave importance? That's all of their acting in a nutshell, and it gets real old, real fast.

My biggest disappointment though, is all the Telegraphing. Telegraphing is when in a martial arts film, you see the moves before they happen, because the defenders block or dodge before the move connects (or doesn't connect for that matter). In White Vengeance, practically all of the fights suffer from this big problem. This telegraphing, combined with the strangely slow speed of the fighters, mixes with the terrible hand-held photography and constant slow-mo replays to become both boring and tiresome. It certainly made 2 hours plus seem a hell of a lot longer.

Basically, watch if you like confusing period Asian films with some sub-standard fighting and stone-cold acting, but the requisite pretty visuals and big hats.

1.5/5

Film: Men In Black 3 (2012)

Thoughts: The Men In Black series has excelled at one particular thing: easily consumable entertainment. The films never overstay their welcome, they can be enjoyed by the whole family, they feature a great mixture of live and CG special effects, and they mix a good amount of all the best genres. So it's pretty easy to give MIB3 an above-average review and score. So that's what I did! Even despite the slow opening act, there was still a good wealth of enjoyment to be had.

imdb sum-up:

"After breaking out of a moon-based maximum security prison, Boris the Animal decides to go back in time and eliminate the person who arrested him - Agent K. When he does so, Agent J realizes that the time line has been changed and he too travels back to July 15, 1969, the day before Agent K is killed. After overcoming some disbelief, J manages to convince K and others of just who he is and why he's there. With the help of a being who can see all time lines, they track Boris down. J also learns a secret, something K had never told him."

All of the parts work together fairly well here. The actors are doing their bit, just like in previous films, and the script is snappy enough to keep a smile on your face. The opening act feels very stale though: most of the laughs are giggles at best, and the whole thing takes a while to get rolling and to the point. But once J finds himself back in '69, the ride starts to go down the ascent, and the whole thing picks up speed on all fronts.

Naturally though, I look at the aliens and designs as a kind of 3rd lead in the MIB films, and this one doesn't disappoint. There's a heady mix of real and fake, and it almost becomes difficult at times to tell the difference between the two. I personally loved the '69 MIB base, with all its classic sci-fi influenced aliens and tech, coupled with the leather seats and off-whites. And Josh Brolin pulls a mean Tommy Lee Jones impersonation.
The action is fair, and the direction rates well. Basically, this is pure popcorn fun, but not of the classic variety. I don't think I'd watch it again honestly, but I am grateful that I got to watch it and form my own opinion of the film. Which is a thumbs up.

3.5/5

16 November 2012

Book Readings: The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King

...and there you have it, personal challenge met: to start reading and complete reading The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King in 5 days.

My favourite characters were Treebeard/Fangorn and Faramir. Those with knowledge of the books should be able to discern my preferred book of the trilogy through that statement.

Fellowship Of The Ring was great, with some fantastic moments and a general 
sense of discovery and wonder, but I've always felt that it takes far too long to get to a point. The Return Of The King struck me as both exceedingly ponderous and remarkably depressing. The latter I can understand: without it the extended epilogue wouldn't be nearly as cathartic. But the former is quite a letdown- especially considering the abundance of battle sequences scattered throughout the text. The Two Towers I felt had the best combination of story, character, pace and wonderment, and I actually thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

Despite the constant initial difficulties I've encountered with the trilogy throughout my life, and my general reluctance to read it all, I find myself now at the end, and filled with a vague desire to read it again in the future. Perhaps with a better understanding of the multitude of names, people, events and lore that populate the entire journey. But I would say, most importantly of all, I would restart the tale with a more enriched mental image of the geography and landscapes, because during all of Tolkien's many, MANY detailed descriptions of the various locations and landmarks, my brain would just shutdown, make up its own scant visuals and directions, and then proceed to wait patiently until I had read up to a point where the story-essential moments would begin anew.

I used mental images from the films to fill most of the blanks, but I became very confused very often, with the text matching to incorrect visuals in my mind. For instance: I spent the first half of The Two Towers believing that Theoden King was the character played by John Noble in the films (Denethor, Steward Of Gondor, in case you needed a refresher). Regardless, I feel content with what I've taken from the books.

14 November 2012

Film: The Vow (2011)

Thoughts: It's fairly light romantic entertainment of the glassy-eyed sort, and overlong at 110mins. The peripheral characters seem to exist only to serve a select few purposes, and the two leads have lifestyles and make choices that are fairly unbelievable. But still, it is Channing Tatum and Rachel McAdams, so you can kinda forgive the whole "unbelievable" aspect of it, because two people this beautiful wouldn't have anything but what they have. Regardless, it's basic romantic entertainment, nothing more, nothing less.

Paige (McAdams) and Leo (Tatum) are living it up all bohemian style: Paige is a not-really-struggling art student and Leo has a kinda-struggling recording studio. They get married and all that, but a car accident leaves Paige with a memory gap of about 5 years, including her life with Leo. Her uptight family decide to try and get their daughter back into the fold, and Leo has to contend with that, and with this lady who no longer recognizes him or their friends and current life together.

There are some questionable decisions and dialogue choices made throughout The Vow, and the last 20 minutes or so seemed borne of coincidence and lack the gut punch needed for one of these types of tear-jerkers. Regardless though, the chemistry between the two leads is enough to keep you fairly interested, even when the characters and their lifestyles don't make you invested.


I don't have much else to say, really. The direction is standard, cinematography same, script standard, etc etc. This ain't my kind of movie. But it affords me time spent with the wife, and if it means I get to add another film notch to the belt, then I'm all for it. Also, Rachel McAdams is very attractive. I love her smile and eyes, they always seem so radiant.

2.5/5

11 November 2012

Film: Coriolanus (2011)

Thoughts: A Shakespearean update that is both interesting, exciting, easy to follow and remarkably fast-paced? That's Coriolanus: directed by and starring Ralph Fiennes as the eponymous anti-hero. Shot and envisioned as a gritty Serbian based conflict, the film offers awesome modern-warfare violence, big beefy monologues, tortured characters and a very cathartic tragedy to bite into. Typical Shakespeare really, but with more action and less men in dresses.

Caius Martius (Ralph Fiennes) is a feared military officer for the Romans, who are in eternal conflict with the Volscians, led by Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler). After a practically single-handed taking of the Volscian city of Coriols, Caius is christened with the new title of Coriolanus, and is bumped up into the ranks of General, which includes a sweet consul seat with the senate. Unfortunately though, the very outspoken Coriolanus is kind of a rough hammer type guy: he prefers truth in all its painful bluntness, no sugar-coating or flattery with his words, and no shame in his actions. Most politicians don't really run that way, and within the space of hours, the entire populace is turned against him and he is sent into exile. What's a dragon of a man to do? Why, head over to Volscian city Antium to join forces with his arch-nemesis, and declare war on Rome, of course. Wouldn't you?

Ralph Fiennes kills it, of course. Coriolanus is brutish enigma of a man, with some serious mummy issues (isn't that always the way with Shakespeare?) and who can turn from blunt rage to quivering mess when confronted with his matriarch (played perfectly by Vanessa Redgrave, who handles the dialogue expertly). He is a man who lives and dies by the battlefield and his code of honour, and yet cannot stand his exploits being paid out to the masses as manna from the gods in their palms. It would seem he finds his only true equal in Aufidius, with whom he has met on TWELVE separate occasions on the battlefield. And yet, this is a tragedy, so of course that relationship doesn't work out quite how he would have hoped. When you look at it from the objective, outside perspective, Coriolanus is like a man who just never belonged in this world, never found his right place. And Fiennes plays that marvellously. His version of the character is so awkward in life, in contact with people, and yet with destruction all around and men below him he flourishes. But the men don't respect him, for he is will and fear incarnate. He despises all around, and gives quarter to none- even his own people. And that is his undoing. He is a character with great depth to mine, and Fiennes knows this, hence the existence of this very niche adaptation.

The Shakespearean dialogue is kept in full, and yes, I found it hard to follow at times, mostly because of the rate at which it comes. But I fell in sync soon enough, and anything I missed I caught back to with responses and actions following to fill in the blanks. All the actors bring great performances, despite some of the shallowness to their characters. The characters that are given time are given much to work with: with different levels and motivations and ideas coming through the bard's text. But those that aren't fall sharply short, particularly Coriolanus' estranged wife played by Jessica Chastain. And of course there is the rate at which the film moves. It's good, in fact I was never bored. But with a story of a man's rise and fall in the sphere of politics that relies so heavily on the will of the people and their trust and vote, it literally all happens within moments of one another, and the "people" come across as a singular, easily swayed mass. And when I say lilterally, I mean literally. Coriolanus walks into the marketplace, delivers a very awkward speech, and almost immediately the people are rallied to him. And as soon as he walks away from the party- hell, he's probably still in earshot- two slithering politicians switch the people to the polar opposite of opinion. It's fucking weird and jarring to see, and it happens on multiple occasions. But as I told myself, it is just a means to an end, and it serves well enough in the grand scheme of the film.

But there are speeches, and some fucking awesome monologues. The hairs stood up on my neck and arms a few times particularly during Coriolanus' exile speech. It's a visceral, verbal explosion of bile and vitiriol as I have not often seen, and Fiennes goes for broke.

Seriously, check it out. If you like war films, character films or the great bard's work. Just remember: it is all in 16th dialogue. As long as you understand that, you'll be fine.

4/5

08 November 2012

Film: That's My Boy (2012)

Thoughts: Despite the films many, many flaws, That's My Boy still had a fair share of laughs, and kept me entertained for the one viewing I'll ever allow it. It trades in abhorrent subject matter on all counts, and is scattershot with the jokes, but at least it tries to push the attempt-per-minute ratio high enough that a chuckle is never far around the corner, crass or... well, crasser. A healthy appreciation of Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg is definitely a good card to have in your backpocket when viewing though, and more than likely made my opinion weighted towards the forgiving.

Teenage Donny Berger lived the ultimate male fantasy: banging his hot biology teacher at 14. Unfortunately Donny and his partying ways meant that he would be financially ruined by 40, and that his son would disown him at 18. Left with a 43 grand IRS debt and no way to pay, Donny (Adam Sandler) hunts down his estranged, mentally troubled but financially successful son Han Solo (Andy Samberg) in the hopes of luring him into a reality show trap and a large payday. This all lands on the same weekend as Han's (now Todd) big wedding with the lovely Jamie (Leighton Meester) and her varied family. Naturally, everything goes pear-shaped.

As is typical with a modern Happy Madison production, the whole enterprise rests on the amount of gross-out and morally reprehensible jokes it can fit into its actually quite long runtime. That aforementioned runtime is actually the first of a few big flaws in the film; a lowest common denominator comedy should never, ever reach 2 hours in length. Long stretches pass with a chuckle here and there, and that's pretty unforgivable. Thankfully, those chuckles kept me in check until the next moderate to big laugh, mostly born from "what funny visual or cameo will I see next?". The jokes range from disgusting and offensive to borderline cringe-worthy- so much so that even I, of all people, was thinking to myself "my wife is watching this you guys!". Seriously, the film jumps to some pretty male-oriented material, fairly often and fairly strongly. Masturbation, incest, cum-licking, naked fat people, naked ladies AND men, public fornication in various degrees, the list goes on. And it kinda comes out of nowhere and smacks you in the face most of the time.

And of course, the Sandler factor. I count myself a fan, but those who are less inclined towards the former stand-ups comedy best back away quickly. He creates this character of 90s nostalgia, complete with a voice and diction that resembles the songs he used to sing. Think Billy Madison when he's singing "back to school, back to school..." in that idiot kid voice, and you're practically there. I liked it. When he goes for broke, he really goes for broke, like in Zohan. And for me, its a delight to see him bounce off a wonderfully gifted comedic actor like Andy Samberg. He plays a straight foil for the first time I've ever seen, and his body and facial control is great. Nervous tics, icky contortions and stilted awkwardness are all played out very well by the Lonely Island member.

The direction and script are all pretty lazy, with stock angles, basic set-ups and prerequisite rockin' classic soundtrack that is admittedly very awesome. I'll give it this though: there were some interesting lighting and tone choices that came up, like in the beach scenes towards the end, that made me sit up and take notice. Very emotive and well set choices that evoked a certain mood, and I quite appreciated that, especially for a film of this type. The script is eh too, with all the various bit and major performers picking up most of the slack. And yes, the cameos are great, and I won't list them here, for I am tired.

...anyway, I didn't mind it. For those with a sick mind and a penchant for Adam Sandler, give it a once-over.

3/5

31 October 2012

Collection: October 2012

Added to the blu-ray collection:



Due Date
Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D
The Rescuers / The Rescuers Down Under
Dumbo
101 Dalmations II: Patch’s London Adventure (Double Play)
The Aristocats
The Fifth Element
Cinderella: 3 Movie Collection
Ip Man
The Lord Of The Rings Extended Trilogy
Rush Hour
The Back-Up Plan
The Librarian: Quest For The Spear
The Librarian 2: Return To King Solomon’s Mines
The Librarian 3: Curse Of The Judas Chalice
Dangerous Liaisons
Doomsday
Cronos
Easy Virtue
Mother
The Other Guys
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice
The Take
Demons / Demons 2 (Steelbook)
Metropolis
The Dirty Dozen
American History X / Falling Down
Frequency
U.S. Marshals
The Resident Evil Collection (1-4)

Film: The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Thoughts: I can sum up The Amazing Spider-Man as follows: it is great for one watch, and I mean that in both senses of the phrase. Viewed after the initial, I'd say that the film would suffer under its surprisingly extended runtime (135min plus!) due to a honest to goodness lack of depth in its characters, its fairly tame and uninvolved villain, and its general reliance on snark. That said, the second sense is certainly clear in that it really is great for one watch, boasting impressive (but limited, sparse and fairly short) fight sequences, some genuinely thrilling and moving moments, and some fun dialogue and fairly sturdy performances.

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is a geeky student whose parents disappeared when he was a child. Left to be raised by his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen, having a great time), he pines for fellow peer Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone, OH YEAH!) and then gets all bit like by a radioactive spider. He then becomes Spider-Man, and his Uncle dies, and he learns about responsibility, and he fights The Lizard (Rhys Ifans) blah blah blah. You know the drill.

So yeah. It's good to see a Spidey fight like Spidey, yknow. That was a kicker in and of itself. He bounces around, slides, dips and dives, using his web-shooters almost all the time. Plus we get the '90s punk-rock "spaghetti" web, my favourite kind from the comics. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have pretty good chemistry I must say, and Garfield does a great Peter Parker: full of tics and little nuances. It's never boring, really, but I'm guessing it'd get kinda grating after a while on subsequent viewings. I recall a lot of reviewers saying that this particular portrayal of young Peter is produced as kind of an asshole, and I agree. But unlike them, I don't think that's a bad thing. He's a teen, for one, so emotional selfishness is pretty much what goes on, for the most part. Couple this with the geek outcast mentality (which I know all too well) and being used as punching bag every other day, and having your parents effectively ditch you at adolescence- well, I can see why he's an asshole. Then give that kid superpowers. See where I'm going? So yeah, not a problem for me.

But then again, the whole movie really is all flash, no fire. The villain, Doc Curt Connors, seems to be tied in almost as an afterthought. Sure, his arc is closely related, but it just feels... all out of place. At least the original trilogy felt more connected, with more at stake. Its almost like this cat (lizard) just gets into the mode for the hell of it. And to be damn honest- and this hurts me, really- Rhys Ifans does not give a good performance here. I don't know if its the script, or him, or what, but its just flat and uninspired. Ah well.

Regardless, the film is pretty enough and fun enough for a single viewing. Be wary of a blind purchase though, in my opinion.

3.5/5

Film: Dredd 3D (2012)

Thoughts: Straight-up head-first balls to the wall un-PC '80s action overload. Spit and polished with a bit of extra bang for the buck. Dredd offers everything every action-starved junkie needs: brutal, unrelenting violence, awesome action set pieces, great special effects, hammy performances and chewy one-liners. Basically, it's a whole lot of "Fuck Yeah!" in 97 minutes.

Judge Dredd (the awfully under-worked Karl Urban) is one of many law enforcement officials in the future metropolis of Megacity One, tasked as Judge, Jury and Executioner. Roped into a first-day assessment of new Empath (psychic) recruit Anderson (Olivia Thirlby, oh yeah), the eponymous anti-hero is then thrust into a fight for survival through a 200 storey apartment block run by the vicious Ma-Ma (Lena Headey). Blood will be spilt.

Despite only exposing his lower jaw for the entire runtime (which, with respect to the 2000AD comics, is as it damn well should be) Karl Urban embodies the Judge with humour, cold hard will and a presence that eclipses Stallone's in the 1995 instalment. The rest of the cast does equally well, with a sense that everyone involved in the production knew exactly what to give and take with this particular production.

Alex Garland is a personal favourite author of mine, and here he provides a knowing sense of wit and intelligence behind the dumb facade of a neo-'80s actioner. There's sharp, pitch black jabs of humour, and a true viewpoint that this is nothing but violent, ridiculous entertainment, and should be treated as such, but not without thought. With that, we get an equal mix of destruction and downtime, mixed well enough together to take as a quick dose of catharsis. Basically, this is great for a fun night with the boys.

And with that, I leave my hearty recommendation, and my score.

4.5/5

19 October 2012

Film: The Devil's Double (2011)

Thoughts: A remarkable film chronicling an even more remarkable tale, boasting a dual performance that's worth the price of admission alone- that's The Devil's Double in a nutshell. Dominic Cooper blows it out of the park times two, doing double duty as Uday Hussein, maniac son of Saddam Hussein; and Latif Yahia, the unfortunate soul forced to be his body double. The film moves at a rapid pace and deals almost exclusively with the two characters, making the experience harrowing and one-of-a-kind.

Saddam Hussein used body doubles, so it makes sense to the deranged Uday Hussein that he should also. Unfortunately for Latif Yahia- the man pegged to provide that mirror- it is a decision that is an illusion. Faced with the death of his family as opposed to compliance, Latif is thrust into this world by force and is subjected to the wild, lust-filled world of Uday Hussein. Under-age rape and abduction means nothing to the man, as does killing anyone who opposes him and throwing large wads of cash on anything and everything that takes his eye. Latif's restlessness grow, and as he begins to reach further beyond his station, his safe, untouchable position becomes more and more tenuous.

Dominic Cooper man. I mean, he has done great work before (An Education, The Duchess) but here he is given not one, but two absolutely delicious roles. He is so good in the role that, I actually had to pause 30 minutes in and imdb to see if it was actually him in both roles, or just a very talented stuntman. Uday is as rambunctious, over-the-top and out-of-control as Latif is calm, cool and collected. Watching them onscreen together is like water mix with ice: perfectly suited but completely different in make-up. The conversations/shouting matches they have are so well constructed, edited and written that you get caught up in the drama, forgetting it's a dude talking to himself in real life.

All of the side actors are fantastic too, no sense in leaving them out. You have the numerous conquests of Uday, and his side players, and Saddam himself. All bring their own level of nuance, filling this sordid world with people both willing and unwilling. Its a dark journey, to be sure, with some seriously distrubing moments and activities taking place. And what's even more insane, is it is all true. Fucked up, yes, but true. It happened. Uday was a freaking maniacal bastard with an insatiable lust, and the world at his fingertips. The worst combination, to be sure.

Lee Tamahori's direction is great, working with duality, realism and horror with great efficiency. Without a strong crew this would have been an elaborate exercise in shock and excess, but everything is kept well, taut and organized, right to the end.

A fantastic film, covering an amazing (and true) story. Check it out.

4.5/5

17 October 2012

Film: Cleanskin (2012)

Thoughts: Writer/Director/Producer Hadi Hajaig delivers an interesting and brutally entertaining Terrorism-based thriller with Cleanskin. I enjoy Sean Bean when he's all grizzled and haunted (read: I enjoy him all the time) so watching him chase down an unknown terrorist using any- ANY- means necessary, is a great buzz. But what was more surprising about Cleanskin, was how interesting the other half of the story is: that of our "unknown" terrorist, and how he goes from struggling law student to willing martyr over the course of half a decade.

Sean Bean plays ex-MI6 Ewan, turned hired security for high-value political clients. In the opening sequence we watch as he fails in his attempts to block an attempt on his client, and gets gravely injured in the process. Snap forward, and he is now getting called upon by his old handler Charlotte (Charlotte Rampling) to stop a "cleanskin" from fulfilling a terrorist attack. For note, a cleanskin is a terrorist that has committed an act of terrorism, and has no record or comes up with no previous intelligence or affiliation with any known terrorism cells. Dangerous, because their motives or masters cannot be identified. Abhin Galeya does wonderful work from the other side of the fence, portraying our bad-man Ash with wide-eyed innocence at the start, and as he progresses, with the self-imposed world on his shoulders.

The action is bad-ass and brutal. Fights don't last long, nor do they need to. Damage is being dealt by both parties, with intent to maim or kill high on the list. Blood flows freely, and any means is taken to move the case forward, from both sides. Sean Bean brings his usual awesomeness to the role of Ewan, dishing out and taking punishment from start to finish. But what was really surprising was how well Abhin Galeya works with the script and the part. You feel for him quite easily, and the pace of the film picks up considerably once you start to delve into his past and reasoning. It seems odd to say that when juxtaposed against the action onscreen, but it is true. It's like the film doesn't feel natural until that point.

The direction is solid, really solid in fact. It is slick without feeling youtube'd, straight without feeling staid. It handles the subject matter with a raw feel, just like the story itself.

There's not much I can say really. I enjoyed it, a fair bit actually. Its a low-key thriller with a compelling story and great characters. I'd actually like to see more of the haunted Ewan, but considering the ending, I don't think that'll be happening anytime soon.

4/5

14 October 2012

Film: Mirror Mirror (2012)

Thoughts: Mirror Mirror is an effervescent delight, cascading with colour, good times and great feelings. I fell in with the comedic style almost instantly. The film felt to me like an updated, very stylish and AMAZINGLY well edited (I'll explain why that's important later) old-timey adventure comedy. Big laughs, big outfits, big fights and big ideas. Even with all these "big"s flying around, the story itself is really quite small scale, which means the fairly long runtime was a bit detrimental to the kind of light fun that the film offers. But regardless of that, I enjoyed the film immensely. Reminded me of Jeunet's Micmacs.

It's Snow White. But done as a comedy. It stars Lily Collins as Snow White, Julia Roberts as the Evil Queen, Armie Hammer as the Prince, and Nathan Lane as the Queen's snivelling man servant. Quite a good cast all round, actually.

Mirror Mirror is played for laughs, through and through. And if you're open to it, it should work for you. The script crackles and bounces, keeping up comedic momentum pretty much the entire time. Of course, without game actors and actresses this would all be for naught, but every player is up for the challenge, bringing an energy to each line of dialogue and physical demand that the script throws at them. And what this all adds up to is the one thing that was sorely missing from the other Snow White film from this time (Snow White & The Huntsman): Heart. This film has a big heart, open to all. And that's what the film brings to you as a viewer. It can melt a cold heart, and erase a bad feeling or occurrence. Pure entertainment in its unadulterated form.

But without snappy, properly timed edits, it would all be for naught. When to cut to the surprised look on someone's face, or jumping between several key events and items in a particular moment or exchange, this is the chewy centre to every comedy. Standing ovation to Robert Duffy & Nick Moore for their outstanding work here. The film jumps and skips at just the right moment, allowing the funny of each and every sequence or line to pop completely and without hindrance. With those kinds of strategists on board, and with writers Marc Klein and Jason Keller's ammunition, all the actors get to have all sorts of fun onscreen.

The dwarves in particular are great fun, and they also get the plum screen action sequences. They gad about with these strange accordion-style leg extenders, and these make for some great stunts and exhilarating moments. And of course with the visuals of director Tarsem Singh around every corner, we are treated to opulent designs in both set and attire, and some great magical elements. My personal favourite was the tete-a-tete with the humongous string powered mannequins at the dwarf hovel.

The runtime could have taken a bit of a hit though. Despite all the crazy, light fun, the film almost hits two hours, and for light fun- optimal word being LIGHT- the film has a few subplots that could have served trimming. That said, I can see why they would have been reluctant to cut; more Nathan Lane or the surprisingly comedy adept Armie Hammer is not a bad thing.

Plus I REALLY could have done without the left-field song and dance number at the end. I mean, I get what they are trying to say, what with the whole "no one has sung or danced for years" type deal, but come on. It was just an annoying song, with Snow White practically doing the whole thing. I couldn't help but look at all the remaining cast looking mighty awkward in the peripherals. But I guess it being at the end, and not stuck in the middle, means I can skip it at will on subsequent viewings.

Today I figured, I'm gonna aim high. Runtime aside, it was a great, GREAT time in front of the box, and one I would actually look forward to revisiting.

4.5/5

Film Rewatch: Full Metal Jacket

Thoughts: I was torn between making this a full review, because it has been an awfully long time between my first viewing and now. But during the runtime I realized just how much of Full Metal Jacket I actually remembered, so I made it a Movie Rewatch. The movie still resonates, especially as a repetitive hammer of process and form. Right from the opening sequence of young, nameless recruits getting their heads unceremoniously shorn we are slapped in the face with the dehumanizing, innocence destroying art of modern warfare. Combine that with Kubrick's remarkable eye for detail, and you have a quality film split into two equally disturbing halves.

The majority of Full Metal Jacket revolves around recruit Private "Joker" Davis, who starts as a grunt and ends as a war correspondent. We watch as he completes basic training, and works his way through a tour of 1968 Vietnam. The film doesn't waste time on exposition, or character building; instead the film works like a series of vignettes across a timeline, with fully completed and fulfilled characters showing up and dropping out as the war sees fit. In my opinion, that's the best way to describe Full Metal Jacket.

All the actors are convincing in their roles, with Matthew Modine the perfect choice to relay the constant sarcasm that our man Joker is constantly purveying. His character is very reminiscent of Watchmen's The Comedian, in that all of what is going on is just one big joke humanity is playing on itself. Look at some of the fantastic lines and comments he gets to make:

Private Joker: "I wanted to see exotic Vietnam... the crown jewel of Southeast Asia. I wanted to meet interesting and stimulating people of an ancient culture... and kill them. I wanted to be the first kid on my block to get a confirmed kill!"

Private Joker: "A day without blood is like a day without sunshine. "


All delivered with a great dose of blank obviousness. It's fucking brilliant.

The set design is one of a kind. Kubrick creates this canvas in the second half of the film, that seems to stretch off into eternity. All the shots seem to have so much happening in the fore and background: black smoke billowing into the sky from dessicated structures, armoured trucks shifting soldiers to and from the front, a bustling Vietnamese town centre. In a phrase, the entire thing is jaw dropping, and I'd love to know more of how it was all achieved.

The film is filled with iconic moments, so much so that even people who have never seen the film have probably quote lines or are aware of certain shots and moments without realizing it. I'd say that's the mark of a true mover and shaker, and frankly the film deserves the crown it wears. It's more an experience than a normal 3 act movie.

5/5

11 October 2012

Film: Looper (2012)

Thoughts: Looper was made by Rian Johnson, one of my favourite directors, so my opinion was biased before I stepped foot in the cinema. That said, Looper was still a fantastic film, dripping with style and oozing with sci-fi fantastic. Some may balk at Jo-Go's lavish Willis make-up, but I liked it. And I also liked the story, the characters, the ideas, the direction and most definitely the music.

The story concerns a Looper by the name of Joe. To confirm, a Looper is someone who is hired to kill mob hits sent from a time-travel enabled future. When their contract is up in the future, to finish off their "Loop", their future-self is sent back to themselves to be "closed". Their life then continues. Joe happens to mess up killing his future self. So the fun begins. The story also concerns a moral quandary involving that whole "would you kill a future monster as a child, to stop him from becoming evil?", and that takes up the second half of the film.

Despite their being the usual brain-bending paradoxes, I praise Looper for giving it all its got. I have my own personal issues with the logic, but frankly, we're dealing with time-travel here, so I give it a break. The film itself is magnificent, from a technical standpoint. Rian Johnson always knew how to create something with nothing, and here he is given a much larger sandbox to play in. And yet, the film retains this kind of "lo-fi" aesthetic, managing to look grimy and broken, but futuristic all the same. The music matches this perfectly, and becomes so integral to the proceedings that I would have to say more than ever, that the film would have suffered greatly with a different audio accompaniment. It is industrial, and symphonic, and plain perfect for all the goings on.

The actors bring it. Jo-Go pulls off Willis commendably, breaking out all the affectations he can. Willis plays a slightly different role than he has before, if you look closely you can see the differences. He is a man who is running out of time fast, and doesn't really know how to handle it other than by putting on a strong face. All the secondary players do great work, but I gotta give extra special props to the kid in the second half. Seriously, I usually hate kids in all films, but this kid was so well written and played, that I immediately took a shine to him. In fact, he was so natural, acting so well, that you realize he's acting but he's not acting. No breaks in concentration, no fourth wall flutters. Straight professionalism. I can't wait to see the behind-the-scenes on him.

But the movie itself, goddamn. I love me Rian Johnson's eye and dialogue. He knows where to put the camera, when, and how to set up a scene. He approaches each idea with a workmanlike attitude, and each line as truth. In particular, I loved the scene where Old Joe and Young Joe meet up with one another at a diner, and just like anyone would in real life, Old Joe proceeds to continually reprimand his younger self for being an idiot in the future. "What are doing, look at yourself. You're a fucking idiot, you know that?" Classic. Plus the numerous action sequences, and the look and feel of a city on the brink of collapse. Wonderfully handled and executed.

Altogether, very worthwhile. I do wonder how well it'll hold up in future viewings, but for now, all thumbs up.

5/5

Film: Elite Squad: The Enemy Within (2010)

Thoughts: While it had less action than I was expecting, Elite Squad: The Enemy Within makes up for it with a cracking story of crime and politics situated in Rio de Janeiro. The acting is top notch, the plot is well thought out and frighteningly believable, and what action that does exist is well handled and very awesome.

Captain Nascimento (Wagner Moura, downplaying to perfection) leads his elite team known as the BOPE into a prison riot, with the outcome being deemed less than favourable by the upper brass, and titles stripped soon after. Unfortunately for them however, the public loved the captain's brutally efficient handling of the rogue prisoners (killing them all), and so they deem a promotion necessary, thereby killing two birds with one stone. Now firmly planted into the upper political sphere, Nascimento turns all his power to ridding the streets of crime- and he succeeds. Unfortunately though, his war has just jumped to a new level, with the many, many corrupt cops all over the city taking over from the drug cartels and criminals. His life and job will now become more difficult to handle than he could ever have imagined.

The film struck me as short-form, closed in version of The Wire. The film shows all the various levels in the underworld, top to bottom, and the machinations that exist between politics and crime. We get to see battles in the media, on the open forum, on the streets and in the police stations. Weapons are drawn, both literally and figuratively, and blood is spilled more often than it needs to be. Ultimately though, what we have is a film of various people just making their way through this mire of trouble and circumstance, making decisions that have very dire consequences. In that respect, Elite Squad: The Enemy Within flies high.

The action is spaced quite far apart, and suffers from some serious shaky cam, but this only seems to add to the mucky, chaotic feel of street warfare. We do get some awesome shots of Nascimento ordering insertions into major drug favelas up high in a helicopter, switching to the men making their moves below. This sequence is damn exciting, as is one extended street battle with a drug kingpin later in the film, culminating in an unfortunate casualty. It is all quite thrilling stuff, heightened with care for the characters onscreen; you really want to them to succeed/pay for their crimes.

I haven't seen the previous Elite Squad (2007) film, so I can't comment on that. But this film is a standalone tale, and one that I can recommend for fans of crime thrillers.

4/5

03 October 2012

Film: 30 Minutes Or Less (2011)

Thoughts: I must admit, I fell in with the flow of the film from the word go. 30 Minutes Or Less hits its marks in under 85 minutes, and with its stoner/slacker ethos, it perfectly encapsulates the kind of fun, unassuming, relaxing entertainment that is sorely lacking in the current movie climate. It succeeds by approaching humour the way great stand-up comics do: poking fun at the mundane, obvious, everyday stuff we barely notice. Its these little moments that make for great laughs, and with a great cast and cracking script, it provides fun and good times in a neat little delivery.

The film centres around a very bad day for one Nick (Jesse Eisenberg, having fun), lazy twenty-something pizza boy with nothing to do and all the time in the world to do it. His best mate Chet (Aziz Ansari, also having fun) has moved on with life, but still finds time to entertain his slacker bud. Unfortunately for both, they're about to get rolled up in the dunder-headed scheming of two wannabe gangsters named Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson) who decide that killing Dwayne's rich father is the best way to quick cash. But hiring a killer is expensive, about 100k kind of expensive. But the boys have a plan: get someone else to find the money for them. And unluckily for Nick, he's about to have a timed bomb strapped to his chest, and 10 hours to come up with the dough.

The film takes ridiculous ideas, and grounds them in reality, and that, in my opinion, is the mark of great ideas and execution. The film is very conversation heavy, but with the talent involved and the witty script providing the delicious base, the actors conjure just enough character during the crazy to allow you the chance to fully invest in the goings on. Actions have consequences; it's like the entire idea is ludicrous, but once all the dominoes are in place from point A, getting to point B is all based on people making decisions. It makes for a great experience, really, and one that doesn't wear on the viewer.

The film toys with action conventions over the shenanigans, like Pineapple Express before it. Where the aforementioned title willingly went waaay over the edge (which isn't a problem, I freakin' LOVE that film), 30 Minutes Or Less sticks to the rules it lays out, and follows through on its promises by closing. Its harmless fun really, and demands nothing from the viewer but the opportunity to please. Basically, check this little gem out, and I'd say you'll be pleasantly surprised. Whoever said films weren't supposed to be just plain entertaining anymore?

4/5

02 October 2012

Collection: September 2012

Added to the blu-ray collection:



Cloverfield
Bedevilled
Chronicle (Triple Play)
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (Triple Play)
Legally Blonde
Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde
Blade
Blade II
The Raid: Redemption (Unrated Edition)
Magnolia
Brick
Alvin & The Chipmunks / Marmaduke / Home Alone
Titanic 3D
I Saw The Devil
The Host
Pontypool
Flypaper
The Hunter
Hobo With A Shotgun
Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil
Immortals
Monty Python & The Holy Grail
Evangelion 2.22 You Can (Not) Advance
The Man From Nowhere
The Guard
Above The Law / Under Siege / Under Siege 2
Stanley Kubrick: Visionary Filmmaker Collection (Lolita / 2001: A Space Odyssey / A Clockwork Orange / Barry Lyndon / The Shining / Full Metal Jacket / Eyes Wide Shut )
Elite Squad: The Enemy WIthin
The Devil's Double
30 Minutes Or Less
Cleanskin
Headhunters (Double Play)
Horrible Bosses (Triple Play)
Due Date

Film: Snow White & The Huntsman

Thoughts: Snow White & The Huntsman seems to suffer from a serious identity crisis. On one hand, it's a blockbuster that expends too much energy trying to be an arthouse flick. And on the other hand, it's a quiet arthouse effort that dumbs itself up with sound, fury, and all the prerequisites demanded by bigger summer fare. Unfortunately though, these aren't the only problems plaguing the enterprise, with a lackluster script, convoluted story and acting that ranges from cup-and-string to batshit fucking insane dropping the score. It does have some saving graces peppered throughout though.

The story concerns the usual Snow White tale, but with enough weight added to pad a 130min runtime. Something like Snow White's dad is a king, but his wife dies so he's all sad, and fights a war with some ghost... things, and marries the evil chick who's pretending she's a hostage, who then kills the dad and captures Snow White and all the lands, but then a few years later Snow White escapes, and gets chased by the huntsman, but he saves her instead, and they meet some dwarves, and some fairies, and then start a war, but only after Snow White dies and is reborn and oh what do I care. It's all ridiculous and covered in holes anyway.

Well, my biggest problem comes in star Kristin Stewart. Seriously, what a poor choice to play Snow White. Look, the tale is based entirely on the fact that the evil queen is jealous of Snow White and her beauty, hence the evil results. So we cast Charlize Theron as the evil queen, good choice, fair enough. Now lets cast... Kristin Stewart as Snow White?! What the hell is going on here? Oh, you need proof? Fine! Here:


Charlize Theron    >    Kristin Stewart

Ridiculous! I even tried to find a picture that made Miss Stewart look presentable but hey, fuck me right? Even with the looks issue put aside, her performance is somewhere between irritatingly boring to non-existent. On the flip-side, Theron eats the scenery like it was made of chocolate, or dare I say, HAM. She yells and screams and goggles and everything. It all adds up to one very jarring experience indeed.

My opinion? The absolutely stunning Emily Browning would have made a magnificent Snow White. She has looks on par with Theron, she has the slight build and fair skin that suit, and she proved in Sucker Punch that she can hold her own when it comes down to the throw down.

...yuuuuuup. No contest.

The rest of the cast fare better, with Hemsworth looking and sounding the part, not that that's saying much. There really isn't that much to the whole endeavour, despite the runtime. The dwarves are fun, and played by a veritable who's who of British talent. They're a much needed breath of fresh air in a flick that is dangerously stale and unstable, even before the halfway mark.

The film perambulates between arthouse and blockbuster with an irritatingly high frequency. There are constant blocks of silence meshed with a mixture of handheld and skewed visions, and lens flare reveals itself on multiple occasions. The action is confusing and ill-handled, and when it all stops you sometimes wonder if the film is trying to tell you something in the silence.

It's not. It's all for show.

And the script. Ugh, the script. Or lack thereof. Exposition is prevalent right from the word go, and characters exist solely to state their intentions with no room for true growth. And our fun-loving heroine even delivers what I believe to be the most nonsensical, confusing and poorly-delivered "rousing speeches" I have ever seen. Seriously, does anyone understand what she said? "Iron will melt, but it will writhe inside of itself!"

...what?

OK, Ok, despite all this, I did say there were some draws. The visuals, for one. There are some seriously cool and well-conceived visual moments in the film, like when the evil queen crawls from the black tar of her dark designs, or her shift into ravens just before. Or when Snow White hits some magic mushrooms and takes a wicked cool trip in the dark forest, in what I believe was the film's best sequence. And the set designs and outfits were something else entirely, really quite stunning. But are these REALLY enough to subject yourself to the film? I say, no.

So take all this with a grain of salt, like I do with everything. But know this: your brain will not be tested, and your hunger for adventure, romance or action will not be sated. You have been warned.

2/5

23 September 2012

Film: Under Siege (1992)

Thoughts: Under Siege is remarkably interesting and exceptionally entertaining, and stands as a quintessential example of 80s/90s action filmmaking. Seagal is dangerous, the one liners are witty, the bad guys are evil and intriguing, and the action is well placed, as is the plot. You can't beat 90 minutes with Seagal at his finest.

Seagal plays Casey Ryback, a former SEAL turned cook. I know, right?! Anyway, he's a bad-ass with no regard for idiotic authority figures, but when the shit goes sour you know he's a man you can rely on. When Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey takes over his ship, you can be damn sure that he's not gonna take it lying down. So he kills a bunch of people and generally fucks up their plans. Next!

There's NOT ONE but TWO significant knife fights in Under Siege.

Review over.


...OK fine, let me elaborate. The film, while friendly to action fans, also has a surprisingly interesting story and pace. You never truly know what is going on until the final act, so you're constantly curious as to how everything's going to play out, especially with regards to the bad guy's plan. Tommy Lee Jones plays a pitch-perfect crazy asshole with serious talent, so any time he's on screen you're never bored. There's a requisite hot chick (Erika Eleniak, smack bang in the middle of her Baywatch years), some light co-star and background character action, and enough lackeys to cut down, break apart or relieve throats from. Boredom is practically non-existent.

It all basically points to a case of elements coming together nicely. I mean, there's a reason why it's considered Seagal's best film ever. Popcorn, drinks and a recliner. It's how late century action films were meant to be enjoyed.

4/5

Film: Warriors Of The Rainbow: Seediq Bale (Theatrical Cut) (2011)

Thoughts: It was easy for me to feel a lot of internal conflict during Warriors Of The Rainbow. It was equally as easy for me to be reminded during the film that humanity is often a hell of a lot crueller and brutal to itself than even this particular film could display. The film slips into melodrama more often than it should and sometimes even touches on an eye-rolling level of camp, detracting from an otherwise eye-opening and really quite exhausting 2 and a half hours of exaggerated history that not many Westerners would be aware of. Lots of fighting, a hell of a lot of decapitations, and and some rather maddening cultural differences lie within.

Warriors Of The Rainbow concerns a group of people, the Seediq, that live a relatively primitive existence in the Taiwanese mountains. There are about 10 different tribes that make up these people, and they live off the land and abide by their own rules and cultural norms- including people hunting and the act of removing their conquest's heads from their bodies to "appease their gods", or something. Anyway, early in the 1900s the Chinese and Japanese government shook hands on a deal that opened up Taiwan for Japanese expansion, including the particularly mineral-rich lands these people presided over. The Japanese move in, the people fight back. The Japanese eventually win, and about 20 years later (1930ish) the now-ruled aboriginal tribes are subjected to the usual shit that seems to befall conquered people in history, including the quashing of various important customs that are required for the Seediq to move forward in their lives as demanded by their beliefs. Eventually, a particular incident at a ritual wedding causes some bad stuff to happen, and eventually the Seediq rise up with violence in what was known as Wushe Incident. Basically, they kill an entire Japanese township. Regardless, this leads to all-out war between the two, and the whole thing goes pear shaped for both sides.

That seems like a lot for a synopsis- and it is. Hell, that doesn't even cover all the basics. So in that regard, it is hard to check over a film that I KNOW exists in a 2 part 4 and a half hour cut, and that is confirmed to expand on just about every aspect of the story. Either way, I've seen this cut, so this cut I'm going to cover.

There's a lot of action. A LOT of action. Seriously, I wasn't expecting this much action. You get these brutal sword encounters that fully convey just what guerrilla fighting and sword battles probably would have looked like during this time. You also get plenty of your standard war movie action towards the end. In fact, practically the last hour is all action. It is really quite something else, and it is all shot and handled quite well, thumbs up for the authenticity. Not many people are spared, believe me. Women and children are NOT covered in movie-magic damage protectors.

...which brings me to my next point- my conflict. Like I said at the start, I felt a lot of internal conflict during this film. I understand that different cultures have different norms and beliefs and so forth, but some that are upheld by these people are just plain... well, insane. Like for instance, it seems like if a member of a family dies, then all the other members of the family just go ahead and off themselves. Wife, brother, son, infant, it don't matter. Or, let's say in the case of our main progatonist (there are a few) Mona Rudao, at the end of the film, he heads off to kill his wife and kids, because they're losing. It's nuts. I thought these guys were fighting for freedom! I know, I know, I guess it's because living under slavery is not freedom, but I dunno. It's just a bit odd to me. Plus, there's a moment where a shit-ton of women and their kids commit suicide for the reason that "they'll take the food out of the men's mouths; there is not enough to go around". Again, logically I guess that's fairly sound, kinda, but again, fighting for freedom guys! What's the point if all your legacy is dead!

Now I know so far this all makes sense, a bit, in a kind of "they cannot take our freedom!" way, but here's the real rub- that's not why they're fighting. They don't kill out of necessity. You find out that the reason they kill is "a blood sacrifice to appease god". Basically, these dudes are doing it so they can spill blood. Seriously, part of their rite o passage to adulthood is killing stuff to earn stripes (literally- they mark their faces with tattoos to signify it). A dude even says after finding out his family committed suicide "I fight for blood, not revenge!". So yeah, a lot of conflict. There's a lot more stuff like this that clashes with my Western ideals.

But see, every time I got confused, or repulsed, or maddened, I quickly reminded myself that shit was probably even worse than this film is displaying. Hell, there are moments peppered throughout history- even right up to now, this very second!- where shit was probably a lot worse. So I was constantly checking myself over and over.

Regardless of all this, I still think that our main guy was, kind of an asshole. You see him as a youngster, and he's a belligerent, self-absorbed killer with no regard for safety. Apparently this makes for great leadership among the Seediq, because jump forward and he's leading the bunch. And still, kind of an asshole. He's still a belligerent ass with no regard for others, but instead of being a role-model, he's lost himself to drink. And when he rises up to fight the power, he doesn't really think it through. A fair few innocents die, and you can see the "uh oh." type expression on his face after his people massacre a town of innocents. But of couse, being an ass, that don't stop him, so off he goes. Yeah well, that's how it goes I guess.

And the camp bits I touched on. The title is Warriors Of The Rainbow, and yeah, there are a fair few digital rainbows stuck in the mix. Plus there's fan-favourite moments like "drop to knees, scream at heavens" and "spirit guide fades off into a waterfall", and a very "rousing" score. The Japanese are, for the most part, there to be shot or cackling maniacally (figuratively speaking- they're eeeeeeevil.), so you got that. And the film is violent. REALLY violent. This has to be cracking a record for onscreen decapitations or something. Blood is flying all over the shop.

Look, it sounds like I'm complaining. I'm not. It's a genuinely good flick. It's a bit odd, especially if you're not used to Asian cinema or different cultures, but if you can handle that and like historical actioners, give it a try. I'm certainly going to watch the extended cut, if I get around to it.

3.5/5

18 September 2012

Film: Conan The Barbarian (2011)

Thoughts: The structure of Conan The Barbarian is the structure that every true action film should adhere to. It has the requisite main battles and note-perfect climaxes, but all that boring inbetween stuff like plotting and characterization is punctured and laced through with tiny little scuffle and action moments that never allow the pace to slacken. Conan is, simply put, one of the most action-filled films I've ever seen, bar The Raid. Movement is constant and flowing, and the plot and characters are adequately fleshed out- for a true action film. There's nothing more an action fan could ask for.

The film follows the story of the eponymous battle-born Cimmerian right from moment of birth- in the midst of a large scale conflict. He is literally torn from his fatally wounded mother's womb, and exposed to the world. Of course, this literally transfers to him being a bad-ass by birthright. It wouldn't really work if through his violent entry it led to him being a scrawny, mild-mannered banker now would it. Anyway, resident bad dude Khalar Zym (Stephen Lang) and his witchy daughter (Rose McGowan, later) bust into town chasing after pieces of a Macguffin known as the Mask Of Shazbot or something. Once collected, all one needs is the blood of a pure woman, and you can do funky things like raise the dead and take over the world, apparently. So the entire race of Cimmerians are slaughtered, and young Conan's dad is killed right in front his eyes. Needless to say, Conan gets all growed up and played convincingly by Jason Momoa, and he's off to take sweet, sweet revenge. And of course he runs into the aforementioned pure woman (Rachel Nichols) and decides to help her too- help that turns to out to be- what else- killing Khalar Zym! So it all works out.

The actors do fine, with Stephen Lang and Rose McGowan hamming it up suitably. I personally loved all the overacting and general evil-ness that is layered so thickly over the whole production. It really ties in well with the insanely over-the-top blood and violence on display. And WHAT blood and violence! It's almost like all the human beings are big ripe tomatoes just waiting to be stomped. You throw a dude against a wall, and he leaves a massive ketchup stain. Heads pop like rockmelons attacking a deadblow hammer. limbs are severed and bodies ripped in twain. It is all, frankly, quite glorious.

And the action is fantastic as well. There's the awesome main set pieces, such as the fight with sand-born demon ninjas, and the massive octopus showdown towards the end. All are well shot, and full of great sword-clanging and slicing. Personally though, I really loved all the mini fights scattered throughout. They display a great sense of space and capture these great moments of swordsmanship and badassery that are commonly lost in other films. Basically, it takes Conan himself from a man who speaks with large words to convey his awesome, and turns him into a man who displays his awesome through his skills. It is a small shift that turns a common film into a great one, in my opinion.

Of course, if you're not one for hammy, bloody fantasy actioners, then you'll probably not want to touch this with a 20 foot pole. The story can be summed up in about 2 sentences, and characters never really progress beyond their desires. But in my opinion, a great action film can easily be defined by the skill it displays in effectively producing its one proper commodity- captivating and entertaining action. And in my eyes, Conan The Barbarian fulfils that task effortlessly.

4/5