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