Directed by: Chris McKay
Written by: Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern, John Whittington
Starring: Will Arnett, Michael Cera, Rosario Dawson
The LEGO Movie was shockingly great, better than I think anyone expected it to be, and robbed of a Best Animated Feature Oscar in its year. One of the absolute highlights of that film was LEGO Batman, who when voiced by Will Arnett made for a hilarious child's/teenager's interpretation of what 'dark' and 'edgy' mean. Giving that character a film to himself after the success of The LEGO Movie seems like an obvious slam dunk, and it is.. almost.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
This is an already established Batman, living in a world that acknowledges the existence of while ignoring the inconsistencies between literally every other Batman movie. Everything about Batman is dialed up to eleven and the film is completely self-aware about it, even if Batman necessarily isn't; He opens the film with his own narration over a black screen, talking about how all great films start with a black screen and how great he is. It's all in your face from the very start and manages to lampoon just about every blockbuster trope, from the opening black screen to the opening narration to the opening text-on-screen (I'm fairly certain that the writers/director may be a fan of Cinemasins because they even comment on the text-on-screen as 'reading'). From there we're given at film that flies at you like a bolt from the blue (or black, I suppose); it's basically all happening all the time, serving up interchangeable amounts of jokes and action with almost no respite, save for one slow and silent scene that emphasises and pokes fun at Batman's forced loneliness, as well as a couple of heartfelt moments. Everything is all flash and quick wit jokes about the selfishness of Batman's character and bad puns (Count Dracula literally drops the line "You can count on me") and cute mock references (Killer Croc does exactly the same amount in this movie that he did in Suicide Squad, and when he activates the bomb he loudly exclaims "I did something!") and LEGO brick explosions and music that heavy on the guitar solos and it's delivered to you in a way that makes you feel like you're six years old and sitting through a sugar rush. Put simply, the film has a lot of energy.
I absolutely loved the lampooning of everything "Batman". There's light jabs at the comic-book villains (Joker lists a whole bunch of one-time Batman villains and makes you realise just how stupid some of them are), and constant pecking at Batman's character and what he does. The film takes the time to consider that Batman is constantly closing himself from everybody, and this particular case hides it by completely overcompensating with his machismo ("I have a nine-pack"). By showing everything about Batman in an amplified state, the film has the opportunity to consider the weaknesses of who Batman is and provide and opportunity for him to grow and change and a meaningful and family-friendly way while still cracking jokes five times a minute and finding a reference to cram in to every available space.
The high energy of the film is reflected in the animation. Everything is moving (everything is awesome), and the filmmakers clearly tried to include every possible spin and kick in to every fight scene while still throwing in a physical joke or reference or a follow-up pun every few seconds; one fight even includes the old "THWAP!" and "BAM!" clouds in to the mix. Like its predecessor, what makes the film impressive here is the effort that went in to making the animation look and feel like actual moving LEGO bricks and figures. The twitchy movements and "brickening" of every object in the universe works almost as well as it did before... emphasis here on 'almost', because of one slight issue that I had with the animation. Something that I appreciated so much about the first LEGO Movie was that absolutely everything within the LEGO world was made of LEGO, right down to the water. The water was, in LEGO Batman, just water. That's not a huge issue, but it's something that I so appreciated about the first film that I found it impossible not to notice with this one.
While we're on issues with the film in comparison to the first LEGO Movie, that's basically all that noticeably average about this movie. It's all good, in reductive terms, but it's also not as good as what has come before, going ever more over the top with everything than what already has, taking things one step further in the animation, the jokes, etc., to the point that it's almost an overload. Also, while the film does offer a well-written arc for Batman and some nice family moments, there's nothing that hits quite so hard or at home as the tear-jerking moments of The LEGO Movie. That said, there's still a lot of value to be had from this film, particularly its meta moments regarding Batman, superhero movies and blockbusters in general.
The Verdict: The LEGO Batman Movie is in-your-face, over-the-top, and often laugh-out-loud funny or hold-your-head-in-your-hands awkwardly funny. This hyperactive and playfully mocking take on Batman isn't as good as it's previous LEGO counterpart, and it's so visually intense that I can see it leaving some with a headache, but the film offers something for the whole family while also surprising us with a more thorough deconstruction of Batman's character than we saw in Batman vs. Superman. I think everyone can enjoy this film; even if it isn't the best thing you've ever seen, I can still almost guarantee some laughs and some heartfelt moments.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published March 30th, 2017
Thursday, 30 March 2017
Sunday, 26 March 2017
2017 Film Review: Beauty and the Beast (2017)
Directed by: Bill Condon
Written by: Stephen Chbosky, Evan Spiliotopoulos
Starring: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans
IMDb Link
This film had a lot to live up to. Disney's Beauty and the Beast (1991) was a hugely popular, successful, and critically acclaimed film, one of Disney's greatest, earning two Oscars wins for its music as well as a Best Picture nomination in its day. The filmmakers clearly knew this, as their live-action remake is well and truly a meticulously sincere interpretation. At the same time, in sticking so close to the original, Beauty and the Beast does very little new with its live-action medium.
The tale is, as they say, old as time, and the plot for this is the same as the animated film it lifts is visual design from. It really is almost exactly the same beat-for-beat, however there was a small addition in to Belle's backstory that was not unwelcome, as it helped to add a little more realism to Belle and Beast's slowly growing bond through the mutual understanding of loss. It's a minor change, but it helps the believability of their relationship a little, which has been a criticism of the story in general for a long time. However, other than this light addition, everything that was good about this film's story was only good because it copies the original exactly, and while it's nice to see such an adherent live-action re-creation, there's also nothing added here because of it.
The music is very much the same, and once again we're given something that's good only because it was good in the original, no changes. The songs are wonderful, some of Disney's best, and for that reason there's no reason to change them, but also seemingly no reason to re-do them. They're wonderful, but like the movie itself feel unnecessary. Oh, but they really are wonderful. The live-action numbers are as joyous to behold as they ever were in animation, particularly one of my favourites in "Be Our Guest"; each musical proceeding is sumptuous, extravagant, and as close as to the original as they could get. It's good to re-visit the classics, but the lack of innovation in the music is one more reason that I could've just watched this at home and lost nothing for it.
Probably the most important part of the live-action version for some people is how the Beauty and the Beast were portrayed. Watson is absolutely Belle, bringing the same dignity and intelligence to the role that she did Hermione; I can't pick anything that I'd call a weakness in her performance. Stevens has the more difficult job of expressing the Beast with just his voice, but he does so well enough, the gruff, angry and sullen slowly progressing to cheeky and a little happy believably enough. That said, I must say the Beast's animation, while good, is a little 'uncanny valley' with his expressions and the way he talks. His horns, static as they are, look almost real, but the fur, the mouth, the ears, all move just oddly enough to seem not quite right, I can't exactly put my finger on it. At least they got the eyes of the Beast to look right, expressive and understanding, and ultimately an important part of the film's climax.
Regardless of my mixed feelings towards some aspects of the film, I have to take a moment to fully praise the costume and set design here. These are both incredible standouts from the experience; the village is beautifully brought to life, appearing very much like you'd imagine a whimsical fantasy version of an 18th century French village would. We're given a small town straight out of The Three Musketeers, with a few cartoonish curves to hone the feel of light reverie, and look very much like the animated original's version with a lot of elaboration to further the reality of the setting. Likewise the castle is wonderfully complex, filled with extensive detail in every nook and cranny, a living, breathing realisation of the space offered by the animated original, especially the gorgeous and luxurious library that we spend all too little time in. The costumes are just as well considered, particularly Belle's iconic golden dress, which was breathtaking to see move in real life (though that may have just been Emma Watson taking my breath away). In all sincerity, the movie is good, but the costumes and the sets are great, and the only aspect of the film that was well and truly added to by existing as a live-action piece.
The Verdict: This live-action remake faces the double-edged sword of faithfully re-creating a timeless classic while trying to have its own identity. In the end, the film doesn't offer anything particularly different outside of being live-action, but its reverence for the source material is clear, so we're left with a very good but also seemingly redundant movie. It's certainly a family-friendly experience like its predecessor, so I can see it as a wonderful outing for today's kids who never had the chance to see the original in theatres, and for people who adore the animated version they'll absolutely enjoy the painstaking effort that must've been gone through in order to realise the sets and costumes (seriously they're the best thing about the film), as well as hearing some of Disney's best songs again. I'd personally sooner re-watch the 1991 version, however.
Rating: 7/10
Published March 26th, 2017
Written by: Stephen Chbosky, Evan Spiliotopoulos
Starring: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans
IMDb Link
This film had a lot to live up to. Disney's Beauty and the Beast (1991) was a hugely popular, successful, and critically acclaimed film, one of Disney's greatest, earning two Oscars wins for its music as well as a Best Picture nomination in its day. The filmmakers clearly knew this, as their live-action remake is well and truly a meticulously sincere interpretation. At the same time, in sticking so close to the original, Beauty and the Beast does very little new with its live-action medium.
The tale is, as they say, old as time, and the plot for this is the same as the animated film it lifts is visual design from. It really is almost exactly the same beat-for-beat, however there was a small addition in to Belle's backstory that was not unwelcome, as it helped to add a little more realism to Belle and Beast's slowly growing bond through the mutual understanding of loss. It's a minor change, but it helps the believability of their relationship a little, which has been a criticism of the story in general for a long time. However, other than this light addition, everything that was good about this film's story was only good because it copies the original exactly, and while it's nice to see such an adherent live-action re-creation, there's also nothing added here because of it.
The music is very much the same, and once again we're given something that's good only because it was good in the original, no changes. The songs are wonderful, some of Disney's best, and for that reason there's no reason to change them, but also seemingly no reason to re-do them. They're wonderful, but like the movie itself feel unnecessary. Oh, but they really are wonderful. The live-action numbers are as joyous to behold as they ever were in animation, particularly one of my favourites in "Be Our Guest"; each musical proceeding is sumptuous, extravagant, and as close as to the original as they could get. It's good to re-visit the classics, but the lack of innovation in the music is one more reason that I could've just watched this at home and lost nothing for it.
Probably the most important part of the live-action version for some people is how the Beauty and the Beast were portrayed. Watson is absolutely Belle, bringing the same dignity and intelligence to the role that she did Hermione; I can't pick anything that I'd call a weakness in her performance. Stevens has the more difficult job of expressing the Beast with just his voice, but he does so well enough, the gruff, angry and sullen slowly progressing to cheeky and a little happy believably enough. That said, I must say the Beast's animation, while good, is a little 'uncanny valley' with his expressions and the way he talks. His horns, static as they are, look almost real, but the fur, the mouth, the ears, all move just oddly enough to seem not quite right, I can't exactly put my finger on it. At least they got the eyes of the Beast to look right, expressive and understanding, and ultimately an important part of the film's climax.
Regardless of my mixed feelings towards some aspects of the film, I have to take a moment to fully praise the costume and set design here. These are both incredible standouts from the experience; the village is beautifully brought to life, appearing very much like you'd imagine a whimsical fantasy version of an 18th century French village would. We're given a small town straight out of The Three Musketeers, with a few cartoonish curves to hone the feel of light reverie, and look very much like the animated original's version with a lot of elaboration to further the reality of the setting. Likewise the castle is wonderfully complex, filled with extensive detail in every nook and cranny, a living, breathing realisation of the space offered by the animated original, especially the gorgeous and luxurious library that we spend all too little time in. The costumes are just as well considered, particularly Belle's iconic golden dress, which was breathtaking to see move in real life (though that may have just been Emma Watson taking my breath away). In all sincerity, the movie is good, but the costumes and the sets are great, and the only aspect of the film that was well and truly added to by existing as a live-action piece.
The Verdict: This live-action remake faces the double-edged sword of faithfully re-creating a timeless classic while trying to have its own identity. In the end, the film doesn't offer anything particularly different outside of being live-action, but its reverence for the source material is clear, so we're left with a very good but also seemingly redundant movie. It's certainly a family-friendly experience like its predecessor, so I can see it as a wonderful outing for today's kids who never had the chance to see the original in theatres, and for people who adore the animated version they'll absolutely enjoy the painstaking effort that must've been gone through in order to realise the sets and costumes (seriously they're the best thing about the film), as well as hearing some of Disney's best songs again. I'd personally sooner re-watch the 1991 version, however.
Rating: 7/10
Published March 26th, 2017
Thursday, 23 March 2017
2017 Film Review: Life (2017)
Directed by: Daniel Espinosa
Written by: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson, Ryan Reynolds
IMDb Link
A movie called Life where everybody dies? I bet someone pat themselves on the back when they came up with that title.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Scientists on the ISS bring on samples from a Mars probe that contain a frozen organism which, once brought back to life, proceeds to systematically grow and consume the members of the crew in brutal fashion. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's essentially the same plot as Alien, from the mostly smart decision-making from the crew to the one crew member who has reasons for wanting the creature to survive down to the final need to keep the creature in space as circumstances cause the ISS to have its orbit fall back in to Earth.
That's all the film is, really: Alien but a lot closer to Earth. There's nothing particularly wrong with that idea, either, but what was innovative 38 years ago is essentially a formula at this point, and any deviation this film makes from Alien can be traced back to a different horror movie, right down to the misdirect ending.
So, the movie doesn't do anything particularly new, but it does do quite a few things well.
I would first mention the creature, which the crew of the ISS dub "Calvin". Calvin changes form as he grows throughout the movie, and he's pretty damn creepy in every form, from his 'flower with a death grip' baby stage to his 'Lovecraft meets Orga' adult stage. His design is basic, but never not interesting, and his movement is quick and elusive, so he's always an impending threat.
That said, if I hadn't been able to call what was going to happen in every scene, he might've been more than just 'creepy'. One particular moment involves Calvin in his baby stage, ducking and hiding from Ryan Reynolds' flame torch until Reynolds is out of fuel, only for the little guy to come from behind Reynolds and throw himself down Reynolds' throat, before ripping Reynolds up on the inside. Reynolds' death is very effective as we watch him recoil in pain as his insides are shredded, watching only his face as his eyes go red and he slowly coughs up blood. The actual death is a lot less explicit than, say, the chest-burster scene in Alien, (which makes it a little unique I suppose), but the build up to the death has little tension because it's done in a cliche way, with a couple of fake scare moments before the death and no real question as to whether he will die.
The characters are a little bland, but I liked the mixture of good and bad decisions from each of them. These people are scientists and engineers, they don't turn in to teenagers with the IQ of children the moment a monster shows up, but they also make mistakes and bad decisions that are understandable. However, most of what happens to them that causes further conflict can be attributed to bad luck (hey, kind of like real life). They attempt to seal and quarantine Calvin, but a floating open flame sets off the smoke detectors and creates a space for Calvin to get out. They attempt to seal themselves in a space and drain all the oxygen from the rest of the ship to suffocate Calvin, but the one who's most attached to Calvin lets Calvin literally attach itself to him so that it can survive. Sometimes it's good decision-making combined with bad luck, sometimes it's good decision-making combined with bad decision-making, but it always happens in a way that you predict it will happen.
Another strong aspect of Life is the pacing. The film spends a little time on the setting, offering a feel for the characters and the ISS, giving you an idea of where things are, but once the conflict is set in motion, the film takes off like a bat out of hell, trying to maintain tension by offering up little conflict after little conflict. Again, if I hadn't already seen this movie in every other horror/sci-fi I might find it exciting, but as good as it could be there isn't anything that's ever more than a little jumpy as it moves from one conflict to the next.
Finally there's the general mood and tone of the film, which is helped considerably by director Espinosa's commitment to making the experience feel very much like being in space. Characters bob a little or their hands waft in the zero gravity when they aren't doing anything, the camera is never static, floating about as if it's part of the ISS's atmosphere, it's all very similar to Gravity, even including one long, unbroken shot in its first scene. It gives a sense of freedom of movement, but also contrasts with the confines of the space in which they move, which is tight and filled with sealed doors. Unfortunately it never feels as claustrophobic as it seems to be trying to be.
The Verdict: Life is fast and formulaic, walking along the same path as horror/sci-fi classics such as Alien but never reaching quite that level of sheer terror. I appreciated how quickly it moves once it gets going, and how nasty it gets with Calvin's picking apart of the space crew, but it never deviates in to unexpected territory. If you enjoy this sort of sci-fi horror, I do recommend it, because it hits a lot of familiar notes within the drama. If you're new to the genre this may be a good modern film to help you work your way in to it, because it's so subservient to the path that it follows, it's effectively a good genre-starter. I liked the movie, but I've seen the same movie done better.
Rating: 6/10
Published March 24th, 2017
Written by: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rebecca Ferguson, Ryan Reynolds
IMDb Link
A movie called Life where everybody dies? I bet someone pat themselves on the back when they came up with that title.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Scientists on the ISS bring on samples from a Mars probe that contain a frozen organism which, once brought back to life, proceeds to systematically grow and consume the members of the crew in brutal fashion. If that sounds familiar, it's because it's essentially the same plot as Alien, from the mostly smart decision-making from the crew to the one crew member who has reasons for wanting the creature to survive down to the final need to keep the creature in space as circumstances cause the ISS to have its orbit fall back in to Earth.
That's all the film is, really: Alien but a lot closer to Earth. There's nothing particularly wrong with that idea, either, but what was innovative 38 years ago is essentially a formula at this point, and any deviation this film makes from Alien can be traced back to a different horror movie, right down to the misdirect ending.
So, the movie doesn't do anything particularly new, but it does do quite a few things well.
I would first mention the creature, which the crew of the ISS dub "Calvin". Calvin changes form as he grows throughout the movie, and he's pretty damn creepy in every form, from his 'flower with a death grip' baby stage to his 'Lovecraft meets Orga' adult stage. His design is basic, but never not interesting, and his movement is quick and elusive, so he's always an impending threat.
That said, if I hadn't been able to call what was going to happen in every scene, he might've been more than just 'creepy'. One particular moment involves Calvin in his baby stage, ducking and hiding from Ryan Reynolds' flame torch until Reynolds is out of fuel, only for the little guy to come from behind Reynolds and throw himself down Reynolds' throat, before ripping Reynolds up on the inside. Reynolds' death is very effective as we watch him recoil in pain as his insides are shredded, watching only his face as his eyes go red and he slowly coughs up blood. The actual death is a lot less explicit than, say, the chest-burster scene in Alien, (which makes it a little unique I suppose), but the build up to the death has little tension because it's done in a cliche way, with a couple of fake scare moments before the death and no real question as to whether he will die.
The characters are a little bland, but I liked the mixture of good and bad decisions from each of them. These people are scientists and engineers, they don't turn in to teenagers with the IQ of children the moment a monster shows up, but they also make mistakes and bad decisions that are understandable. However, most of what happens to them that causes further conflict can be attributed to bad luck (hey, kind of like real life). They attempt to seal and quarantine Calvin, but a floating open flame sets off the smoke detectors and creates a space for Calvin to get out. They attempt to seal themselves in a space and drain all the oxygen from the rest of the ship to suffocate Calvin, but the one who's most attached to Calvin lets Calvin literally attach itself to him so that it can survive. Sometimes it's good decision-making combined with bad luck, sometimes it's good decision-making combined with bad decision-making, but it always happens in a way that you predict it will happen.
Another strong aspect of Life is the pacing. The film spends a little time on the setting, offering a feel for the characters and the ISS, giving you an idea of where things are, but once the conflict is set in motion, the film takes off like a bat out of hell, trying to maintain tension by offering up little conflict after little conflict. Again, if I hadn't already seen this movie in every other horror/sci-fi I might find it exciting, but as good as it could be there isn't anything that's ever more than a little jumpy as it moves from one conflict to the next.
Finally there's the general mood and tone of the film, which is helped considerably by director Espinosa's commitment to making the experience feel very much like being in space. Characters bob a little or their hands waft in the zero gravity when they aren't doing anything, the camera is never static, floating about as if it's part of the ISS's atmosphere, it's all very similar to Gravity, even including one long, unbroken shot in its first scene. It gives a sense of freedom of movement, but also contrasts with the confines of the space in which they move, which is tight and filled with sealed doors. Unfortunately it never feels as claustrophobic as it seems to be trying to be.
The Verdict: Life is fast and formulaic, walking along the same path as horror/sci-fi classics such as Alien but never reaching quite that level of sheer terror. I appreciated how quickly it moves once it gets going, and how nasty it gets with Calvin's picking apart of the space crew, but it never deviates in to unexpected territory. If you enjoy this sort of sci-fi horror, I do recommend it, because it hits a lot of familiar notes within the drama. If you're new to the genre this may be a good modern film to help you work your way in to it, because it's so subservient to the path that it follows, it's effectively a good genre-starter. I liked the movie, but I've seen the same movie done better.
Rating: 6/10
Published March 24th, 2017
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
2017 Film Review: Power Rangers (2017)
Directed by: Dean Israelite
Written by: John Gatins, Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Michele Mulroney, Kieran Mulroney
Starring: Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler
IMDb Link
I'll just leave this here before I start.
Power Rangers is nothing special. I've seen just about everything that the film uses a dozen times before, and it doesn't do anything with what it has to really make itself memorable.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film's plot is essentially The Breakfast Club if the kids were also going through a collective super hero origin story, with a little sprinkling of Chronicle in particular. Five teenagers happen to be in the same place at the same time when they discover coloured coins in a rock face that give them super powers and allow them to become the Power Rangers: an ancient order of warriors who protect a crystal that gives life to all beings on Earth. The Power Rangers are guided by Zordon, an ancient alien who was once a Power Ranger, who tries to teach them to control their powers; their opponent is Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks, completely over the top and perfect for this reason), another ancient who seeks to take the crystal to destroy life on Earth and use it to conquer the universe. It's similar enough to the plot of the show, but presented without any real awareness of the ridiculousness of itself, and the film is so slavish in its following of the origin story formula that it's never unpredictable or particularly exciting in any way; it's stiff and safe, and a lot of conflicts happen seemingly simply because the plot demanded it. The power levels of the good guys and the bad guys are never quantified, so there's no tension as to what will happen and you're basically waiting for the film to come to each step in the narrative. It wouldn't be a problem if the effects weren't so terrible, but more on that later.
In the mean time the teenagers all go through their respective emotional journeys of struggling with identity and dealing with mistakes, overcoming various dysfunctions. It's probably the only element of the film that really works despite how obviously derivative it is. The writers seemed to get a little creative with the characters here, giving various relationships to pairs withing the five and promoting diversity and acceptance. The Blue Ranger is on the autism spectrum, the Yellow Ranger is gay/bi-sexual (the movie didn't seem entirely clear to me on that), and they made those traits part of the characters without making the characters all about those traits. It's surprisingly decent and considerate, making those traits obviously part of their emotional struggles as teenagers without pushing them as some sort of 'other' struggle that makes them different from the struggles of the Red, Black, and Pink Rangers (Red screwed up and ruined a potential career in football, Black has to take care of his sick and dying mother who is his only family, Pink did something horrible to a friend and now has to live with the mistake and the guilt).
The Rangers talk to each other and help each other to confront their issues, and we see a few good moments like "You have to live with it. You did an awful thing but that doesn't make you an awful person". The ways in which the Rangers interact as people and come together by sharing their struggles isn't new, but it's the most well done thing about this movie, and if they had spent more time developing the ideas they put forward, I might have even been able to call the film good. That said, there are more than a few trite moments and elements in the film that, once again, seem like they only happen because the plot demands it. One aspect in particular that felt forced was this blatantly hinted but never directly spoken rivalry between the Red and the Black Rangers. It's hinted at, it gets heated and comes to a peak, and then it's sort of forgotten about, like it was never real and only happened because rivalries are the sort of thing that happens when a team is just starting out.
Alright, now to the effects, because they really were awful, and were a detriment to a few moments that would be important to fans of the series. I'm not sure how exactly to describe what I saw, but the design of the Zords (robot dinosaurs/prehistoric creatures for anyone unfamiliar) are awful, almost completely unrecognisable from the animals upon which they are based, looking essentially like transformers on four legs. My friend who watched the movie with me wasn't even able to identify what anyone of the Zords were supposed to be besides the Tyrannosaurus Rex. Past the designs themselves, the animation was pretty terrible too, as none of the Zords had any real weight to them, and so we're just watching multi-coloured mess smash about the screen without ever feeling like their smashing was at all real. The ultimate giant boss that they fight, Goldar, is even worse. He's made purely of semi-liquid gold, without any defining physical characteristics besides a pair of wings, and his lack of definition causes a look akin to a CGI cartoon like Beast Wars. The only exception here is the MegaZord (the combination of the five DinoZords); unfortunately, the supposedly epic reveal of the MegaZord is completely obscured by lava and fire, so when it came to reveal the giant robot and maybe raise my heart a little, the whole moment is wasted because you can't really see anything besides moving orange. You know that mechanical parts are moving, but you aren't really given a look at how the five Zords fit together, and so the big reveal is a bit of a flat moment, which is disappointing considering it's one of the key moments for fans of the series.
With the fans in mind, I want to finish with a quick word about the film's identity. Obviously the people who paid to have this film made wanted to make their money back, so they had to appeal to fans of the series while also drawing in kids who may not be familiar with the show but like the idea of super heroes fighting monsters with the help of their robot dinosaur friends (ie. every kid ever), so the film had to be presented in a way that younger audiences were comfortable with while still having enough 90s extreme cheese to remind adults why they loved the show as kids. The film ends up trying to tow the line between these two ideas, and suffers for it, as it never uses its big budget to try and make the extremes of the series work, while also presenting a plot that's so overplayed at this point that there's no reason for people to want to see this when they could easily watch a dozen other movies and get the same essential experience that they're looking for.
The Verdict: A derivative and predictable plot, mostly bland acting, as well as ugly and sometimes incomprehensible CGI, offset by what seems to be a genuine effort to push characters past their archetypes (an action that is in and of itself derivative, but not poorly done) makes for an overall slightly less than mediocre movie. The film also has a trouble with identity, too far removed from the series to really please fans beyond a couple of homages, and too much like every other super hero origin story to stand out.
Rating: 4.5/10
Published March 23rd, 2017
Written by: John Gatins, Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Michele Mulroney, Kieran Mulroney
Starring: Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler
IMDb Link
I'll just leave this here before I start.
Power Rangers is nothing special. I've seen just about everything that the film uses a dozen times before, and it doesn't do anything with what it has to really make itself memorable.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film's plot is essentially The Breakfast Club if the kids were also going through a collective super hero origin story, with a little sprinkling of Chronicle in particular. Five teenagers happen to be in the same place at the same time when they discover coloured coins in a rock face that give them super powers and allow them to become the Power Rangers: an ancient order of warriors who protect a crystal that gives life to all beings on Earth. The Power Rangers are guided by Zordon, an ancient alien who was once a Power Ranger, who tries to teach them to control their powers; their opponent is Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks, completely over the top and perfect for this reason), another ancient who seeks to take the crystal to destroy life on Earth and use it to conquer the universe. It's similar enough to the plot of the show, but presented without any real awareness of the ridiculousness of itself, and the film is so slavish in its following of the origin story formula that it's never unpredictable or particularly exciting in any way; it's stiff and safe, and a lot of conflicts happen seemingly simply because the plot demanded it. The power levels of the good guys and the bad guys are never quantified, so there's no tension as to what will happen and you're basically waiting for the film to come to each step in the narrative. It wouldn't be a problem if the effects weren't so terrible, but more on that later.
In the mean time the teenagers all go through their respective emotional journeys of struggling with identity and dealing with mistakes, overcoming various dysfunctions. It's probably the only element of the film that really works despite how obviously derivative it is. The writers seemed to get a little creative with the characters here, giving various relationships to pairs withing the five and promoting diversity and acceptance. The Blue Ranger is on the autism spectrum, the Yellow Ranger is gay/bi-sexual (the movie didn't seem entirely clear to me on that), and they made those traits part of the characters without making the characters all about those traits. It's surprisingly decent and considerate, making those traits obviously part of their emotional struggles as teenagers without pushing them as some sort of 'other' struggle that makes them different from the struggles of the Red, Black, and Pink Rangers (Red screwed up and ruined a potential career in football, Black has to take care of his sick and dying mother who is his only family, Pink did something horrible to a friend and now has to live with the mistake and the guilt).
The Rangers talk to each other and help each other to confront their issues, and we see a few good moments like "You have to live with it. You did an awful thing but that doesn't make you an awful person". The ways in which the Rangers interact as people and come together by sharing their struggles isn't new, but it's the most well done thing about this movie, and if they had spent more time developing the ideas they put forward, I might have even been able to call the film good. That said, there are more than a few trite moments and elements in the film that, once again, seem like they only happen because the plot demands it. One aspect in particular that felt forced was this blatantly hinted but never directly spoken rivalry between the Red and the Black Rangers. It's hinted at, it gets heated and comes to a peak, and then it's sort of forgotten about, like it was never real and only happened because rivalries are the sort of thing that happens when a team is just starting out.
Alright, now to the effects, because they really were awful, and were a detriment to a few moments that would be important to fans of the series. I'm not sure how exactly to describe what I saw, but the design of the Zords (robot dinosaurs/prehistoric creatures for anyone unfamiliar) are awful, almost completely unrecognisable from the animals upon which they are based, looking essentially like transformers on four legs. My friend who watched the movie with me wasn't even able to identify what anyone of the Zords were supposed to be besides the Tyrannosaurus Rex. Past the designs themselves, the animation was pretty terrible too, as none of the Zords had any real weight to them, and so we're just watching multi-coloured mess smash about the screen without ever feeling like their smashing was at all real. The ultimate giant boss that they fight, Goldar, is even worse. He's made purely of semi-liquid gold, without any defining physical characteristics besides a pair of wings, and his lack of definition causes a look akin to a CGI cartoon like Beast Wars. The only exception here is the MegaZord (the combination of the five DinoZords); unfortunately, the supposedly epic reveal of the MegaZord is completely obscured by lava and fire, so when it came to reveal the giant robot and maybe raise my heart a little, the whole moment is wasted because you can't really see anything besides moving orange. You know that mechanical parts are moving, but you aren't really given a look at how the five Zords fit together, and so the big reveal is a bit of a flat moment, which is disappointing considering it's one of the key moments for fans of the series.
With the fans in mind, I want to finish with a quick word about the film's identity. Obviously the people who paid to have this film made wanted to make their money back, so they had to appeal to fans of the series while also drawing in kids who may not be familiar with the show but like the idea of super heroes fighting monsters with the help of their robot dinosaur friends (ie. every kid ever), so the film had to be presented in a way that younger audiences were comfortable with while still having enough 90s extreme cheese to remind adults why they loved the show as kids. The film ends up trying to tow the line between these two ideas, and suffers for it, as it never uses its big budget to try and make the extremes of the series work, while also presenting a plot that's so overplayed at this point that there's no reason for people to want to see this when they could easily watch a dozen other movies and get the same essential experience that they're looking for.
The Verdict: A derivative and predictable plot, mostly bland acting, as well as ugly and sometimes incomprehensible CGI, offset by what seems to be a genuine effort to push characters past their archetypes (an action that is in and of itself derivative, but not poorly done) makes for an overall slightly less than mediocre movie. The film also has a trouble with identity, too far removed from the series to really please fans beyond a couple of homages, and too much like every other super hero origin story to stand out.
Rating: 4.5/10
Published March 23rd, 2017
Thursday, 16 March 2017
2017 Film Review: Jasper Jones (2017)
Directed by: Rachel Perkins
Written by: Shaun Grant, based upon the book by Craig Silvey
Starring: Levi Miller, Aaron L. McGrath, Angourie Rice, Toni Collette, Hugo Weaving
IMDb Link
Jasper Jones is a film that captures the essence of its setting and characters.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Charlie Bucktin (Miller) is a thirteen-year-old living in a small country town in WA in 1969. He's approached one night by Jasper Jones (McGrath), a young man living in the town who is generally outcast because of his mixed White-Aboriginal heritage and defiant lifestyle. Jasper comes to Charlie's window one night, begging for help, and takes Charlie to the site of a dead girl, Laura Wishart, hung by her neck from a tree. Jasper believes that he will be blamed for Laura's murder, as she was secretly his girlfriend, backed by the townspeople's general attitude towards Jasper. Charlie helps Jasper hide the body, then works to investigate the cause of the girl's death, while also becoming involved with Laura's younger sister Eliza (Rice, who some may remember from the Australian film These Final Hours). Charlie also has to avoid drawing the attention of any parents, who have become hysterical and protective after the disappearance of Laura, particularly Charlie's mother Ruth (Collette, playing a role oddly the parallel opposite of her's in The Way Way Back).
The tale of a young person experiencing adult themes while coming out from under their parents to behave of their own accord is a good, if a bit done-before, way to structure a coming-of-age story, and the murder mystery adds a level of intrigue to the film; even if you think you've figured it out by film's end, it's still satisfyingly delivered. The film starts oddly: while the pace is quick and adds a level of tension and confusion, the film doesn't do much to add context to some of the first scenes down the track, and it initially adopts character inner-thought as narration but drops it after ten minutes, so you're left with a quick and concise delivery of the plot that has you interested, but with no real idea of who these two main characters are, and even as the film goes on and you start to become engrossed in the town, there's this sense that neither Charlie nor Jasper existed as characters before the film's story started; I understand that they don't need their whole life stories fleshed out, but the film doesn't offer them much detail as to why their characters are involved with each other and why they do what they do, other than Jasper's initial comments about them both being 'outsiders', a statement that doesn't really hold up when you examine Charlie's place in the town. It wouldn't bother me as much if the film didn't end on a slightly ambiguous note, but the ending of the film creates this sense of realism to the story, that what we're watching is a part of the greater narrative of the lives of the characters and the town that they live in, that what we see will continue to affect the characters long after the credits role, that we're watching people, but the film's start just creates this sense that Jasper and Charlie were pointless entities waiting for the plot to start. The brisk pace works for quickly establishing intrigue, but doesn't do as much to create a foundation for the characters. However, while this isn't worked on immediately, the film does ultimately go a long way to give Charlie a strong arc, having him come to understand more mature themes and issues, while also leaving the fate of him and the town in a bittersweet manner. There are some odd characterisations that aren't given much context; Charlie's mother Ruth is completely irrational and never has anything positive attributed to her, while Charlie's father Wes is pretty much perfect and is never seen on-screen doing anything but the best for people. It would make sense if we knew more about them, but without proper background, they feel a little like caricatures.
There are also several additional plot points that, while interesting on their own, have little to do with Charlie's experience with Jasper. While in book form these extra details may have done much to give the town a living, breathing, realistic feeling, in the film they draw too much focus away from the primary narrative. The added racial pressure of Charlie's Vietnamese best friend Jeffrey's family being treated poorly by certain members of the town is a good idea on its own, but only intertwines with the Charlie/Jasper story a little thematically rather than in any direct way. A subplot involving Ruth works tangentially and gives a little more insight in to Charlie's home life, but its resolution doesn't have anything to do with how Charlie, Jasper and Eliza all end up. It's almost like the film is pulp, mixing and intertwining various stories, but their only connection is that they all take place in the same town, without any strong direct narrative causes for each other. It could work if the subplots were fully fleshed out, but that's a little lacking here and ultimately draws attention from the main story that was so quickly set as a focus.
While it meanders a little around the rest of the stories, the main plot is still solid, intriguing and with a lot of good ideas at work. I loved the dynamic of Jasper and Charlie with Mad Jack Lionel (Weaving), a recluse old man whom Charlie and Jasper believe to be Laura's killer. I also enjoyed the constant air of mystery, drawing me in and investing me enough to get to me think about who the killer might be and try to consider the dynamics between characters in the town.
What I was most impressed by in this film was the setting and how Perkins managed to really catch the look and feel of an Australian country town, with the overarching themes of racism giving a good sense of the time the story takes place in. The background tension of the Vietnam War combined with the hysteria over the missing Laura set the mood of the film, and the actions and reactions of the townspeople reflect the time and circumstance, while the countryside is easily perceived as gorgeous but hot.
I was also impressed by some of the performances in the film, particularly Collette, as well as Weaving as Mad Jack Lionel. Collette, is effective as the irrational and unlikable mother, playing her part very convincingly, even if the total demonising of Charlie's mother vs. the complete lionising of Charlie's father did appear skewed. Weaving isn't in the film much, but has a pivotal scene (which I won't give away) that reminds you why he's such a talented actor.
The Verdict: I appreciated Jasper Jones as a film that captured the atmosphere of an Australian country town, and while it told a story that's nothing new, it told it well, with the added tinge of uncertainty but hopefulness by film's end that I've come to find common in Australian film and storytelling. While the film lacks focus in its narrative, it's held together by its intrigue, as well as strong performances from the likes of Collette and Weaving. It's also a movie set and filmed in Western Australia, so I highly recommend it to people in support of the Australian Film Industry.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published March 16th, 2017
Written by: Shaun Grant, based upon the book by Craig Silvey
Starring: Levi Miller, Aaron L. McGrath, Angourie Rice, Toni Collette, Hugo Weaving
IMDb Link
Jasper Jones is a film that captures the essence of its setting and characters.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
Charlie Bucktin (Miller) is a thirteen-year-old living in a small country town in WA in 1969. He's approached one night by Jasper Jones (McGrath), a young man living in the town who is generally outcast because of his mixed White-Aboriginal heritage and defiant lifestyle. Jasper comes to Charlie's window one night, begging for help, and takes Charlie to the site of a dead girl, Laura Wishart, hung by her neck from a tree. Jasper believes that he will be blamed for Laura's murder, as she was secretly his girlfriend, backed by the townspeople's general attitude towards Jasper. Charlie helps Jasper hide the body, then works to investigate the cause of the girl's death, while also becoming involved with Laura's younger sister Eliza (Rice, who some may remember from the Australian film These Final Hours). Charlie also has to avoid drawing the attention of any parents, who have become hysterical and protective after the disappearance of Laura, particularly Charlie's mother Ruth (Collette, playing a role oddly the parallel opposite of her's in The Way Way Back).
The tale of a young person experiencing adult themes while coming out from under their parents to behave of their own accord is a good, if a bit done-before, way to structure a coming-of-age story, and the murder mystery adds a level of intrigue to the film; even if you think you've figured it out by film's end, it's still satisfyingly delivered. The film starts oddly: while the pace is quick and adds a level of tension and confusion, the film doesn't do much to add context to some of the first scenes down the track, and it initially adopts character inner-thought as narration but drops it after ten minutes, so you're left with a quick and concise delivery of the plot that has you interested, but with no real idea of who these two main characters are, and even as the film goes on and you start to become engrossed in the town, there's this sense that neither Charlie nor Jasper existed as characters before the film's story started; I understand that they don't need their whole life stories fleshed out, but the film doesn't offer them much detail as to why their characters are involved with each other and why they do what they do, other than Jasper's initial comments about them both being 'outsiders', a statement that doesn't really hold up when you examine Charlie's place in the town. It wouldn't bother me as much if the film didn't end on a slightly ambiguous note, but the ending of the film creates this sense of realism to the story, that what we're watching is a part of the greater narrative of the lives of the characters and the town that they live in, that what we see will continue to affect the characters long after the credits role, that we're watching people, but the film's start just creates this sense that Jasper and Charlie were pointless entities waiting for the plot to start. The brisk pace works for quickly establishing intrigue, but doesn't do as much to create a foundation for the characters. However, while this isn't worked on immediately, the film does ultimately go a long way to give Charlie a strong arc, having him come to understand more mature themes and issues, while also leaving the fate of him and the town in a bittersweet manner. There are some odd characterisations that aren't given much context; Charlie's mother Ruth is completely irrational and never has anything positive attributed to her, while Charlie's father Wes is pretty much perfect and is never seen on-screen doing anything but the best for people. It would make sense if we knew more about them, but without proper background, they feel a little like caricatures.
There are also several additional plot points that, while interesting on their own, have little to do with Charlie's experience with Jasper. While in book form these extra details may have done much to give the town a living, breathing, realistic feeling, in the film they draw too much focus away from the primary narrative. The added racial pressure of Charlie's Vietnamese best friend Jeffrey's family being treated poorly by certain members of the town is a good idea on its own, but only intertwines with the Charlie/Jasper story a little thematically rather than in any direct way. A subplot involving Ruth works tangentially and gives a little more insight in to Charlie's home life, but its resolution doesn't have anything to do with how Charlie, Jasper and Eliza all end up. It's almost like the film is pulp, mixing and intertwining various stories, but their only connection is that they all take place in the same town, without any strong direct narrative causes for each other. It could work if the subplots were fully fleshed out, but that's a little lacking here and ultimately draws attention from the main story that was so quickly set as a focus.
While it meanders a little around the rest of the stories, the main plot is still solid, intriguing and with a lot of good ideas at work. I loved the dynamic of Jasper and Charlie with Mad Jack Lionel (Weaving), a recluse old man whom Charlie and Jasper believe to be Laura's killer. I also enjoyed the constant air of mystery, drawing me in and investing me enough to get to me think about who the killer might be and try to consider the dynamics between characters in the town.
What I was most impressed by in this film was the setting and how Perkins managed to really catch the look and feel of an Australian country town, with the overarching themes of racism giving a good sense of the time the story takes place in. The background tension of the Vietnam War combined with the hysteria over the missing Laura set the mood of the film, and the actions and reactions of the townspeople reflect the time and circumstance, while the countryside is easily perceived as gorgeous but hot.
I was also impressed by some of the performances in the film, particularly Collette, as well as Weaving as Mad Jack Lionel. Collette, is effective as the irrational and unlikable mother, playing her part very convincingly, even if the total demonising of Charlie's mother vs. the complete lionising of Charlie's father did appear skewed. Weaving isn't in the film much, but has a pivotal scene (which I won't give away) that reminds you why he's such a talented actor.
The Verdict: I appreciated Jasper Jones as a film that captured the atmosphere of an Australian country town, and while it told a story that's nothing new, it told it well, with the added tinge of uncertainty but hopefulness by film's end that I've come to find common in Australian film and storytelling. While the film lacks focus in its narrative, it's held together by its intrigue, as well as strong performances from the likes of Collette and Weaving. It's also a movie set and filmed in Western Australia, so I highly recommend it to people in support of the Australian Film Industry.
Rating: 6.5/10
Published March 16th, 2017
Monday, 13 March 2017
Film Review: Cowboy Bebop: Knockin' On Heaven's Door (2001)
Directed by: Shinchiro Watanabe, Tensai Okamura, Yoshiyuki Takei, Hiroyuki Okiura
Written by: Hajime Yatate, Keiko Nobumoto, Marc Handler
Starring: Steve Blum, Beau Billingslea, Wendee, Lee (all English Dub)
Cowboy Bebop is a series that has had more of an effect on me personally than almost any other. It's one that I keep coming back to, one that I can't stop watching; the animation is gorgeous, the music I can say confidently is some of the best you'll ever hear from a television show, the characters are vibrant, each holding their own personal philosophies and growing in complexity over the course of the series, the stories offer consistent and poignant themes, and the world is one that Joss Whedon totally ripped off for Firefly. The movie, released years after the series' completion, fits snugly in the overall narrative, at the height of the development of the characters, but before the emotional finale. It's the movie I choose to review today because I'm currently once again at the point of re-watching the movie as a part of the series.
Knockin' on Heaven's Door is quintessential Bebop; we're offered a lot of the same issues that the series focuses on, such as 'life as a dream', and 'carrying the weight of your experiences'. The film's antagonist Vincent is much like one of the many from the show, only more fleshed out with a near-2-hour run time as opposed to 20-odd minutes. He's a man haunted by his past, driven insane by the experiments conducted on him the same experiment that killed his entire squad, now incapable of telling his dreams from reality, and hellbent on afflicting everyone with the same experience, to find out if how he sees life is real, or kill everyone in the process. Vincent is a sick man rather than a truly evil one, and in many ways reflects the protagonist Spike Spiegel (Blum, in his usual sardonic tone), who has lived his life throughout the series with the same attitude towards existence, choosing to find out if his experience is real by living dangerously rather than bringing danger to others. Both characters are defined by their pasts, Spike running from it, Vincent chasing after it trying to confront it head on.
The film works similarly to the show, using the antagonist as the subject that tries to enact change for the protagonist to witness, and the same is true for the film's animation and music.
Bebop has always had awesome musical numbers, showcasing different varieties of jazz from episode to episode and even stepping outside jazz for a little heavy metal or bluegrass. Knockin' on Heaven's Door sees the return of the same artist Yoko Kanno and her band The Seatbelts, and her expertise in giving the show added weight and changing the tone or mood of a scene with a key or timing alteration are heard here just as precisely; just listen to the song from the film's opening credits as an example. The music is crafted specifically for each scene and moment of the film, and it plays perfectly.
As for the animation, I was surprised to hear it wasn't rotoscoped. I imagine if you have no context for the show your could still be impressed by the work in this area, because it's unbelievably fluid for something drawn entirely by hand, comparable to the best work from Studio Ghibli. character movements are as you would expect people to move, they don't move like cartoons or anime characters, and it's a piece of both the show and this film that helps to ground the series in realism despite its sci-fi context. The fight here shows off the gritty but smooth style, the casual violence mixed with vibrant colours, all fantastic, not done with any cartoonish or melodramatic flair, the film's animation attempts and I believe succeeds in achieving realism despite its medium.
The Verdict: Knockin' on Heaven's Door is a great film contribution to a fantastic TV series. If you watch it after seeing the series, it's a reminder of why you fell in love with the show in the first place. If you watch it as a part of the series, it's one more step towards the climactic finale, hammering home the series' philosophy and themes with the same style as the series as a whole. If you go in cold and watch this on its own, you won't get the same experience out of it as I have, but even forgetting the story and character elements, the film has truly incredible animation and music to behold.
Rating: The rating here could be just about anything depending on a person's knowledge and viewing of the TV show; because I've watched the show a half dozen times and at this point deem it one of the greatest series to grace the small screen, I could easily give this a 10/10 and call it a day. At the same time, I know that this film only works as well as it does because of its contribution to the overall series, and that if viewed on its own many plot points may feel forced or out of place, as the film's world is predicated on the idea that you're already familiar with it's more mystical and philosophical elements from the show. It also seems unfair to give this film a 10/10 just because the overall series is worth that much; it's not a rating I hand out lightly, only going to the films that offer the best filmmaking I've ever witnessed (Apocalypse Now), or some obvious and incredible influence on filmmaking as a whole (Citizen Kane), combined with the film's ability to resonate with me personally despite how distant the film's experience may be from that of my own life (2001, or more recently, Moonlight). In the end, as great as Knockin' on Heaven's Door may be, it's a stepping stone in a near-perfect show, and as well-made it may be, it doesn't stand without the audience's relationship to the characters. With this in mind, it's hard to settle on a defined number, but the technical and musical artistry at work here is worth at least an 8/10.
Published March 13th, 2017
Written by: Hajime Yatate, Keiko Nobumoto, Marc Handler
Starring: Steve Blum, Beau Billingslea, Wendee, Lee (all English Dub)
Cowboy Bebop is a series that has had more of an effect on me personally than almost any other. It's one that I keep coming back to, one that I can't stop watching; the animation is gorgeous, the music I can say confidently is some of the best you'll ever hear from a television show, the characters are vibrant, each holding their own personal philosophies and growing in complexity over the course of the series, the stories offer consistent and poignant themes, and the world is one that Joss Whedon totally ripped off for Firefly. The movie, released years after the series' completion, fits snugly in the overall narrative, at the height of the development of the characters, but before the emotional finale. It's the movie I choose to review today because I'm currently once again at the point of re-watching the movie as a part of the series.
Knockin' on Heaven's Door is quintessential Bebop; we're offered a lot of the same issues that the series focuses on, such as 'life as a dream', and 'carrying the weight of your experiences'. The film's antagonist Vincent is much like one of the many from the show, only more fleshed out with a near-2-hour run time as opposed to 20-odd minutes. He's a man haunted by his past, driven insane by the experiments conducted on him the same experiment that killed his entire squad, now incapable of telling his dreams from reality, and hellbent on afflicting everyone with the same experience, to find out if how he sees life is real, or kill everyone in the process. Vincent is a sick man rather than a truly evil one, and in many ways reflects the protagonist Spike Spiegel (Blum, in his usual sardonic tone), who has lived his life throughout the series with the same attitude towards existence, choosing to find out if his experience is real by living dangerously rather than bringing danger to others. Both characters are defined by their pasts, Spike running from it, Vincent chasing after it trying to confront it head on.
The film works similarly to the show, using the antagonist as the subject that tries to enact change for the protagonist to witness, and the same is true for the film's animation and music.
Bebop has always had awesome musical numbers, showcasing different varieties of jazz from episode to episode and even stepping outside jazz for a little heavy metal or bluegrass. Knockin' on Heaven's Door sees the return of the same artist Yoko Kanno and her band The Seatbelts, and her expertise in giving the show added weight and changing the tone or mood of a scene with a key or timing alteration are heard here just as precisely; just listen to the song from the film's opening credits as an example. The music is crafted specifically for each scene and moment of the film, and it plays perfectly.
As for the animation, I was surprised to hear it wasn't rotoscoped. I imagine if you have no context for the show your could still be impressed by the work in this area, because it's unbelievably fluid for something drawn entirely by hand, comparable to the best work from Studio Ghibli. character movements are as you would expect people to move, they don't move like cartoons or anime characters, and it's a piece of both the show and this film that helps to ground the series in realism despite its sci-fi context. The fight here shows off the gritty but smooth style, the casual violence mixed with vibrant colours, all fantastic, not done with any cartoonish or melodramatic flair, the film's animation attempts and I believe succeeds in achieving realism despite its medium.
The Verdict: Knockin' on Heaven's Door is a great film contribution to a fantastic TV series. If you watch it after seeing the series, it's a reminder of why you fell in love with the show in the first place. If you watch it as a part of the series, it's one more step towards the climactic finale, hammering home the series' philosophy and themes with the same style as the series as a whole. If you go in cold and watch this on its own, you won't get the same experience out of it as I have, but even forgetting the story and character elements, the film has truly incredible animation and music to behold.
Rating: The rating here could be just about anything depending on a person's knowledge and viewing of the TV show; because I've watched the show a half dozen times and at this point deem it one of the greatest series to grace the small screen, I could easily give this a 10/10 and call it a day. At the same time, I know that this film only works as well as it does because of its contribution to the overall series, and that if viewed on its own many plot points may feel forced or out of place, as the film's world is predicated on the idea that you're already familiar with it's more mystical and philosophical elements from the show. It also seems unfair to give this film a 10/10 just because the overall series is worth that much; it's not a rating I hand out lightly, only going to the films that offer the best filmmaking I've ever witnessed (Apocalypse Now), or some obvious and incredible influence on filmmaking as a whole (Citizen Kane), combined with the film's ability to resonate with me personally despite how distant the film's experience may be from that of my own life (2001, or more recently, Moonlight). In the end, as great as Knockin' on Heaven's Door may be, it's a stepping stone in a near-perfect show, and as well-made it may be, it doesn't stand without the audience's relationship to the characters. With this in mind, it's hard to settle on a defined number, but the technical and musical artistry at work here is worth at least an 8/10.
Published March 13th, 2017
Thursday, 9 March 2017
2017 Film Review: Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Directed by: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
Written by: Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, Derek Connolly, John Gatins
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson
I completely and utterly love monster movies. There is no other type of movie that tugs at my nostalgia the same way; when I played with my toys as a kid, I imagined giant monsters fighting each other with their incredible weight and power, unmatched in strength as they clash a hundred stories above us. Seeing that brought to life on the big screen gives me more pure joy than any other kind of film can. As such, I am incredibly biased towards looking upon these types of films favourably; instead of trying to consider the value of a film based on its ability to execute its story, or how well the actors perform, or how the music and the tone and visuals all synchronise, there's always a part of me that looks at these movies purely for the colossal chaos that ensues from my favourite monsters beating the crap out of other monsters that are not my favourite monsters.
With this in mind, let me first act as I would if I were my child's self (Spoiler Warning)
THIS IS AMAZING, DID YOU SEE KONG THROW THAT TREE THROUGH THAT HELICOPTER? LOOK AT HIM BEAT THAT KRAKEN TO DEATH! WTF A GIANT SPIDER WITH BAMBOO LEGS, THAT'S SO CREEPY! AAAAH, KONG IS SO BADASS, HE JUST CRUSHED THOSE TWO SKULL CRAWLERS! YES LORD!! THAT FINISHER WAS INCREDIBLE!!! HE RIPPED THAT THINGS GUTS OUT BY THE TONGUE!!!
... And back to reality.
In truth, Kong is a surprisingly good movie, considering the quality people normally associate with monster movies, although it isn't flawless, despite what my inner child might say.
Bill Randa (John Goodman, appropriately wacky) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins, a little stiff) have motivations to go to an uncharted island known in legend as 'Skull Island'. Brooks wants to confirm the 'Hollow Earth' theory, and Randa wants to prove that monsters exist. They need a military escort (led by Jackson), a tracker (Hiddleston), and a photographer (Larson). Brooks wants to use seismic charges to map the earth underneath the island, and Randa wants to flush out something big.
The set-up is unfortunately heavy, and weighs down the first act of the film as we're bombarded with character introduction after exposition dump after character introduction after exposition dump. To be honest, my first thought when considering this was how similar the set-up felt to Suicide Squad, and that is not a movie you want to be compared to. However, despite the rocky start, the film takes off with incredible pace as soon as the characters get off the boat, in to their helicopters and on to the island. Just a couple of minutes on the island, and Kong shows up, wrecks every helicopter, and generally shows how big and tough he is, while still reflecting that he is an animal rather than a monster (he injures himself on the rotors of the copters and a couple of explosions). With all the helicopter crashes and characters surviving helicopter crashes I was once again reminded of Suicide Squad, but thankfully this was the last time that horrid film entered my mind during my experience with Skull Island.
After the characters collect themselves in to small groups, they make their way across the island to a rendezvous point, while Jackson's Packard has his mind set on revenge against Kong. The soldiers, led by Packard, have a few monstrous encounters on their way, including a bout with a spider that will not soon forget; rather more horrific than what you'd expect for this type of movie, similar in tone the bug scene in King Kong (2005). Hiddleston and Larson's group encounter Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly), who is undoubtedly one of the best human aspects of the film. He offers a hint of comedic relief tied to the sad fact that he's been trapped for 28 years on the island, and is one of the more developed characters in the film. Considering that, there's a lot more character work done here than is to be expected from a monster movie. They do just enough more than the usual minimum to make you want to see the characters make it out alive. Most are still fodder, of course, but Hiddleston for example, is such a logical character who makes correct, well-minded decisions that you root for him in every situation because he isn't losing his head and he treats the whole experience very cautiously. There are many situations that could've easily gone South had Hiddleston's character not been there. Larson is also a character to root for, compassionate and curious, but not always stupidly so. Reilly has enough for you to want to see him return home. It's not a whole lot, but it's a few little things to help make the overall movie better.
That's what the movie gets right, really, is the little things. They filmmakers didn't choose to force a romance between the leads, the motivations are clear, good decisions are rewarded and bad decisions are punished, a character trying for needless self-sacrifice dies in vain, a character bent on avenging his fallen brethren ends up getting more of them killed, and the constant references to other films like Apocalypse Now and Jurassic Park are appreciated. It's enough to make this movie more than its flaws.
That said, I want to acknowledge the weaker aspects of the movie, because, they aren't small. As I said before, the pacing of the first act is pretty poor, meandering and filled with boringly delivered expositional dialogue. It's as if Skull Island is two-thirds of a good movie, and you need to sit through the iffy first act to get to the amazing spectacle. It's a similar problem that Godzilla had, only Godzilla's weak act was its second. There's also the matter of the film's dialogue; if the characterisation is deeper than the average monster movie's, then the dialogue is even more shallow than most. There are a few scenes that I found to be particularly bothersome, such as one scene involving the characters trying to talk down Packard so that he doesn't kill Kong. The dialogue in this scene is awfully abrupt and empty, as if there were blanks that they hadn't filled in yet. The scene is indicative of the issue with the dialogue that permeates most of the movie; unless it's banter between the soldiers, it's either expositional or mostly empty.
That said, what matters most when it comes to monster movies is the spectacle. While Skull Island has a lot more monster mashing than Godzilla, it's also not quite as impactful. The sense of scale is there, the monsters do indeed feel huge, but there's less weight to it. Watching is on the big screen in IMAX 3D, I had hoped that the experience would match the few showings of power from Godzilla, but the scenes where Kong fights Skull Crawlers (the big bads of the movie) aren't as heavy-hitting as the scenes between Godzilla and the MUTOs; I know they're on a different scales, but the creatures moved differently. Perhaps it's because they're lighter, I'm not sure. However, the actual choreography and animation on display are impressive to say the least. While the design of the Skull Crawlers are a little simplistic, the amount of detail that went in to them is pretty astonishing; you can see cracks in their hard heads, scales along their necks, the way their muscles move, there's a lot of effort put in to these things.
The Verdict: Speaking with a considerable amount of positive bias, Kong is actually a good film
overall, offering a lot more monster action than 2014's Godzilla, as well as a surprising amount of characterisation for a monster movie. The film is flawed in its pacing until the second act, and the dialogue is mostly empty, but the film offers a lot of little things that it does well, such as a strong rapport between the leads not ultimately turning romantic, and characters being punished for stupid decisions. If you see this, I must warn you to stay until after the credits; a moment of pure joy awaits.
*One more spoiler*
THE KAIJUVERSE IS COMING, GODZILLA WILL BE BACK! RODAN! MOTHRA! KING GHIDORAH! THEY'RE ALL COMING AND I CAN'T CONTAIN MY EXCITEMENT!!!
Rating: 7/10
Published March 9th, 2017
Written by: Dan Gilroy, Max Borenstein, Derek Connolly, John Gatins
Starring: Tom Hiddleston, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson
I completely and utterly love monster movies. There is no other type of movie that tugs at my nostalgia the same way; when I played with my toys as a kid, I imagined giant monsters fighting each other with their incredible weight and power, unmatched in strength as they clash a hundred stories above us. Seeing that brought to life on the big screen gives me more pure joy than any other kind of film can. As such, I am incredibly biased towards looking upon these types of films favourably; instead of trying to consider the value of a film based on its ability to execute its story, or how well the actors perform, or how the music and the tone and visuals all synchronise, there's always a part of me that looks at these movies purely for the colossal chaos that ensues from my favourite monsters beating the crap out of other monsters that are not my favourite monsters.
With this in mind, let me first act as I would if I were my child's self (Spoiler Warning)
THIS IS AMAZING, DID YOU SEE KONG THROW THAT TREE THROUGH THAT HELICOPTER? LOOK AT HIM BEAT THAT KRAKEN TO DEATH! WTF A GIANT SPIDER WITH BAMBOO LEGS, THAT'S SO CREEPY! AAAAH, KONG IS SO BADASS, HE JUST CRUSHED THOSE TWO SKULL CRAWLERS! YES LORD!! THAT FINISHER WAS INCREDIBLE!!! HE RIPPED THAT THINGS GUTS OUT BY THE TONGUE!!!
... And back to reality.
In truth, Kong is a surprisingly good movie, considering the quality people normally associate with monster movies, although it isn't flawless, despite what my inner child might say.
Bill Randa (John Goodman, appropriately wacky) and Houston Brooks (Corey Hawkins, a little stiff) have motivations to go to an uncharted island known in legend as 'Skull Island'. Brooks wants to confirm the 'Hollow Earth' theory, and Randa wants to prove that monsters exist. They need a military escort (led by Jackson), a tracker (Hiddleston), and a photographer (Larson). Brooks wants to use seismic charges to map the earth underneath the island, and Randa wants to flush out something big.
The set-up is unfortunately heavy, and weighs down the first act of the film as we're bombarded with character introduction after exposition dump after character introduction after exposition dump. To be honest, my first thought when considering this was how similar the set-up felt to Suicide Squad, and that is not a movie you want to be compared to. However, despite the rocky start, the film takes off with incredible pace as soon as the characters get off the boat, in to their helicopters and on to the island. Just a couple of minutes on the island, and Kong shows up, wrecks every helicopter, and generally shows how big and tough he is, while still reflecting that he is an animal rather than a monster (he injures himself on the rotors of the copters and a couple of explosions). With all the helicopter crashes and characters surviving helicopter crashes I was once again reminded of Suicide Squad, but thankfully this was the last time that horrid film entered my mind during my experience with Skull Island.
After the characters collect themselves in to small groups, they make their way across the island to a rendezvous point, while Jackson's Packard has his mind set on revenge against Kong. The soldiers, led by Packard, have a few monstrous encounters on their way, including a bout with a spider that will not soon forget; rather more horrific than what you'd expect for this type of movie, similar in tone the bug scene in King Kong (2005). Hiddleston and Larson's group encounter Hank Marlow (John C. Reilly), who is undoubtedly one of the best human aspects of the film. He offers a hint of comedic relief tied to the sad fact that he's been trapped for 28 years on the island, and is one of the more developed characters in the film. Considering that, there's a lot more character work done here than is to be expected from a monster movie. They do just enough more than the usual minimum to make you want to see the characters make it out alive. Most are still fodder, of course, but Hiddleston for example, is such a logical character who makes correct, well-minded decisions that you root for him in every situation because he isn't losing his head and he treats the whole experience very cautiously. There are many situations that could've easily gone South had Hiddleston's character not been there. Larson is also a character to root for, compassionate and curious, but not always stupidly so. Reilly has enough for you to want to see him return home. It's not a whole lot, but it's a few little things to help make the overall movie better.
That's what the movie gets right, really, is the little things. They filmmakers didn't choose to force a romance between the leads, the motivations are clear, good decisions are rewarded and bad decisions are punished, a character trying for needless self-sacrifice dies in vain, a character bent on avenging his fallen brethren ends up getting more of them killed, and the constant references to other films like Apocalypse Now and Jurassic Park are appreciated. It's enough to make this movie more than its flaws.
That said, I want to acknowledge the weaker aspects of the movie, because, they aren't small. As I said before, the pacing of the first act is pretty poor, meandering and filled with boringly delivered expositional dialogue. It's as if Skull Island is two-thirds of a good movie, and you need to sit through the iffy first act to get to the amazing spectacle. It's a similar problem that Godzilla had, only Godzilla's weak act was its second. There's also the matter of the film's dialogue; if the characterisation is deeper than the average monster movie's, then the dialogue is even more shallow than most. There are a few scenes that I found to be particularly bothersome, such as one scene involving the characters trying to talk down Packard so that he doesn't kill Kong. The dialogue in this scene is awfully abrupt and empty, as if there were blanks that they hadn't filled in yet. The scene is indicative of the issue with the dialogue that permeates most of the movie; unless it's banter between the soldiers, it's either expositional or mostly empty.
That said, what matters most when it comes to monster movies is the spectacle. While Skull Island has a lot more monster mashing than Godzilla, it's also not quite as impactful. The sense of scale is there, the monsters do indeed feel huge, but there's less weight to it. Watching is on the big screen in IMAX 3D, I had hoped that the experience would match the few showings of power from Godzilla, but the scenes where Kong fights Skull Crawlers (the big bads of the movie) aren't as heavy-hitting as the scenes between Godzilla and the MUTOs; I know they're on a different scales, but the creatures moved differently. Perhaps it's because they're lighter, I'm not sure. However, the actual choreography and animation on display are impressive to say the least. While the design of the Skull Crawlers are a little simplistic, the amount of detail that went in to them is pretty astonishing; you can see cracks in their hard heads, scales along their necks, the way their muscles move, there's a lot of effort put in to these things.
The Verdict: Speaking with a considerable amount of positive bias, Kong is actually a good film
overall, offering a lot more monster action than 2014's Godzilla, as well as a surprising amount of characterisation for a monster movie. The film is flawed in its pacing until the second act, and the dialogue is mostly empty, but the film offers a lot of little things that it does well, such as a strong rapport between the leads not ultimately turning romantic, and characters being punished for stupid decisions. If you see this, I must warn you to stay until after the credits; a moment of pure joy awaits.
*One more spoiler*
THE KAIJUVERSE IS COMING, GODZILLA WILL BE BACK! RODAN! MOTHRA! KING GHIDORAH! THEY'RE ALL COMING AND I CAN'T CONTAIN MY EXCITEMENT!!!
Rating: 7/10
Published March 9th, 2017
Monday, 6 March 2017
The Descent (2005)
Directed by: Neil Marshal
Written by: Neil Marshal
Starring: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid
To put it mildly, Horror is a tricky genre. A Horror film has to find a way in which to scare its audience, which is complicated by the fact that different people are frightened by radically different things. You may sit down to watch Alien and find yourself needing a new pair of pants by the end of the film, while someone else watching the film may simply be grossed out and unhappy with how they spent their time. There's also the matter of the type of scared people are looking to feel when they sit down to watch a Horror film; The Babadook evokes an entirely different set of emotions to A Nightmare on Elm Street (I suppose you could ask yourself, "Do I want to be freaked out or creeped out?"). Furthermore, we have the annoying factor of aging scares in Horror films; a person may be able to watch Les Diaboliques (1955) and appreciate what that film did for the Horror genre, but not have their emotions affected by the attempted scares because they're desensitised to it in this day and age. Finally, there's the matter of tropes; there's only so many techniques and image types that can scare a person, and they can only be used so many times before they stop being terrifying.
While these factors are true for all film genres, they're particularly prevalent in Horror, which is absolutely flooded with cheap exploitation films designed to make a quick buck off of people willing to watch anything that might scare them and has a brand name. As of the writing of this review, there are a total of eleven Friday the 13th films (including one reboot and one remake), two of which are 'Final' chapters, as well as eight A Nightmare on Elm Street films (also including one reboot and one remake), with a crossover film of the two franchises. There's also six Wrong Turn movies, seven Saw films, and six Child's Play films with a seventh set for release this year. It's a sea of mediocrity.
Enter The Descent. one of my personal favourite Horror films.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
There's not much that The Descent does that's particularly unique for Horror, but what sets it apart from most of the other films in its genre is the fact that it does what it does well. Scares in The Descent aren't memorable because I've never seen them before, they're memorable because it's rare to see something I've already seen two dozen times done so effectively. I'd seen more than my fair share of Horror films, good and bad, by the time I finally watched The Descent for the first time in 2015, but it still managed to make me jump out of my skin more than a few times, or send chills down my spine with the type of scares I was already familiar with. A possible villain being barely seen by a character, and as the character goes back to investigate, the villain has disappeared? Yeah, I've seen that a few too many times. What makes it work here is the environment in which the director chose to use it.
Part of what makes The Descent work is its use first of natual dangers and scares. People are frightened of the dark, heights, tight spaces, and The Descent has all three within its first act, creating an uncomfortable environment for the viewing audience before dropping the cast in hell-on-earth. We become familiar with the dark and how little we as the audience can see in to it; the director takes very good care to assure you that everything you can and can't see it his doing, and tensions rise as we see glimpses of further dangers to come. When those dangers show up, they do so in a way that works off the tension built by the previous scenes in the movie. This seems like storytelling basics, but so few Horror films execute it well because they spend so little time building tension, so when most Horror films come to a crescendo it's already as scary as it's gonna get, while The Descent merely hints at danger bit by bit until you're on the edge of your seat.
In a lot of other Horror films it's very easy to write off characters as dumb, disconnect yourself from their struggle to survive based on that idea, and spend the rest of the film laughing or rolling your eyes as idiots step in to their doom. This is not entirely the case in The Descent. While there are one or two dumb decisions made by characters, what makes this whole scenario work is how much of the initial conflict is instigated by forces beyond the control of the characters, and how most decisions can be chalked up to their very extreme survival scenario. The only poor decision we hold over the head of any character is the one initially made by Juno (Mendoza), to explore a thought-to-be uncharted cave as a bonding exercise, which is ultimately fine because we learn to dislike Juno as a character for reasons that are attached to factors that influenced Juno's decision. The only character that makes an unforgivable mistake is one that we end up hating.
What adds to the film, impeccably in my opinion, is the characterisation of Sarah (Macdonald), and the struggle that she goes through as a character. She was reluctant to come on this caving expedition in the first place, still dealing with the loss of her husband and daughter, and the film in part turns the trials she faces in these caves in to a metaphor for her emotional trauma, in a similar fashion to The Babadook or The Shallows. Sarah goes through pain and suffering, losing those that she loves because of the mistake of one of her best friends, and so her experience in the cave is one of pain and suffering, losing those that she loves because of the mistakes of one of her best friends. You're rooting for Sarah to survive, because she's been through so much, and didn't ask for any of what's happened to her. She's a character who's become defined by her grief, and you want to see her move beyond that.
This is what makes the ending of The Descent so deeply cutting. I don't want to give away details, because I hope anyone who has not seen the film and is reading this review will eventually watch the film, but writer/director Neil Marshal's choice to effectively kick you in the gut, stand you up, and kick you in the gut again, and then show you how hard it is going to be for you to stand up again. is one of the most effective negative Horror endings I've seen in recent memory. While negative endings are common in Horror films (bringing back the monster for one last scare, leaving you with the knowledge that the terror will never end), Marshal's choice to evoke something similar, but then follow it up with the weight of knowing exactly what Sarah's in for, is so effective simply because Marshal took the time to actually make you care about the characters. There's real power in the film's final moments because The Descent does so much more for its characters and therefore the audience's reaction to those characters.
The Verdict: The Descent is a very good film that works amazingly within the bounds of its genre. While it regularly uses Horror tropes, it never does so cheaply, always attempting them for maximum effect. A lot of its scares are based on threats that are close enough to universal that they should be effective for almost anyone; darkness and claustrophobia are extremely broad strokes, and are used in a way that most people who've seen a horror film are familiar with. The film is also effective due to its strong characterisation and character motivations, adding more to the film with these two factors than most other films in the genre. If you're in the mood to be scared, I highly recommend that you give this a go.
Rating: 7/10
Published March 6th, 2017
Friday, 3 March 2017
A Look at the Worst: Birdemic 2: The Resurrection (2013)
Directed by: James Nguyen
Written by: James Nguyen
Starring: Alan Bagh, Whitney Moore, Thomas Favaloro
IMDb Link
Yes, Birdemic got a sequel. One of the worst, most cheaply made films of all time got a sequel. Kill me.
I don't even know what to say about this film, it's literally a repeat of the first film. Two people meet in a restaurant who happened to know each other from high school, they get together, some incredibly awkward scenes that have nothing to do with anything happen, the actual Birdemic from the title happens about an hour in and only because the main characters have sex, some more incredibly awkward scenes related to the Birdemic happen,there's some global warming stuff, the movie ends. It's a failure in every regard, from pacing to dialogue to sound mixing and editing, the film is an assault on the senses that drains you to your very core and leaves you sick all over your body, wondering what you're doing with your life.
To makes matters worse, the film behaves in a pseudo-meta way. The film's opening line is edited badly on purpose to sound the same as the first film's opening line. Characters are re-introduced for no reason other than the fact that they were in the first film. They even use coat hangers to fight off the birds in a ..."hilarious"... callback to the first Birdemic. The film even takes oddly spiteful shots at Hollywood filmmaking, then tries to pass off its own shoddy work as a commentary on Hollywood methods (you gotta have tits and blood and stuff if you wanna be successful, guys). In the first one it was so pathetically cringe-worthy that it was almost endearing; here, with the apparent self-awareness this whole film just comes off as conceited, like the Director thought he was making some backlash at Hollywood for not recognising his genius, that the first Birdemic is an underrated masterpiece and Birdemic 2 is somehow simultaneously an attempt at a Hollywood sequel and a film that admonishes Hollywood sequels. Birdemic 2 ends up being neither; just a sad excuse for a film made by someone who has no idea how to make a film or even tell a story.
There's not else to say about this film without getting in to the details of the plot, which I really don't want to do because if you haven't seen this film then you have no idea just how many pointless scenes are in this film, and you can't fathom just how draining an experience it is to sit through this literal trash. A friend of mine who sat down to watch the film with me while I wrote this review is now lying on the floor, catatonic, slowly losing the will to live as this movie trudges along. That's essentially what this film does to anyone; you truly cannot comprehend how bad this movie is without watching, so in that way, I almost recommend it; Birdemic 2 is an exercise in appreciating good film, because by witnessing this you'll be able to better understand the little things in most movies, like pacing, editing, sound mixing, acting, dialogue, and a coherent story.
The Verdict: Birdemic 2 is a poorly-conceived attempt at self-awareness, a movie that tries and fails to get by on Birdemic references and weak shots at Hollywood filmmaking. Depending on how you look at it, it's either slightly more bearable than the first because it has noticeably higher production value, or it's far worse because someone decided to make a sequel to one of the worst movies of all time by making essentially the same movie, and thinking that that's ok. There's nothing of value here (like that's a surprise), but if you enjoyed harming yourself by watching the first Birdemic, you'll probably get the same sick sensation from watching the sequel. I still can't believe that they decided that making a sequel to this film would be a good idea.
Rating: 1/10
Published March 3rd, 2017
Written by: James Nguyen
Starring: Alan Bagh, Whitney Moore, Thomas Favaloro
IMDb Link
Yes, Birdemic got a sequel. One of the worst, most cheaply made films of all time got a sequel. Kill me.
I don't even know what to say about this film, it's literally a repeat of the first film. Two people meet in a restaurant who happened to know each other from high school, they get together, some incredibly awkward scenes that have nothing to do with anything happen, the actual Birdemic from the title happens about an hour in and only because the main characters have sex, some more incredibly awkward scenes related to the Birdemic happen,there's some global warming stuff, the movie ends. It's a failure in every regard, from pacing to dialogue to sound mixing and editing, the film is an assault on the senses that drains you to your very core and leaves you sick all over your body, wondering what you're doing with your life.
To makes matters worse, the film behaves in a pseudo-meta way. The film's opening line is edited badly on purpose to sound the same as the first film's opening line. Characters are re-introduced for no reason other than the fact that they were in the first film. They even use coat hangers to fight off the birds in a ..."hilarious"... callback to the first Birdemic. The film even takes oddly spiteful shots at Hollywood filmmaking, then tries to pass off its own shoddy work as a commentary on Hollywood methods (you gotta have tits and blood and stuff if you wanna be successful, guys). In the first one it was so pathetically cringe-worthy that it was almost endearing; here, with the apparent self-awareness this whole film just comes off as conceited, like the Director thought he was making some backlash at Hollywood for not recognising his genius, that the first Birdemic is an underrated masterpiece and Birdemic 2 is somehow simultaneously an attempt at a Hollywood sequel and a film that admonishes Hollywood sequels. Birdemic 2 ends up being neither; just a sad excuse for a film made by someone who has no idea how to make a film or even tell a story.
There's not else to say about this film without getting in to the details of the plot, which I really don't want to do because if you haven't seen this film then you have no idea just how many pointless scenes are in this film, and you can't fathom just how draining an experience it is to sit through this literal trash. A friend of mine who sat down to watch the film with me while I wrote this review is now lying on the floor, catatonic, slowly losing the will to live as this movie trudges along. That's essentially what this film does to anyone; you truly cannot comprehend how bad this movie is without watching, so in that way, I almost recommend it; Birdemic 2 is an exercise in appreciating good film, because by witnessing this you'll be able to better understand the little things in most movies, like pacing, editing, sound mixing, acting, dialogue, and a coherent story.
The Verdict: Birdemic 2 is a poorly-conceived attempt at self-awareness, a movie that tries and fails to get by on Birdemic references and weak shots at Hollywood filmmaking. Depending on how you look at it, it's either slightly more bearable than the first because it has noticeably higher production value, or it's far worse because someone decided to make a sequel to one of the worst movies of all time by making essentially the same movie, and thinking that that's ok. There's nothing of value here (like that's a surprise), but if you enjoyed harming yourself by watching the first Birdemic, you'll probably get the same sick sensation from watching the sequel. I still can't believe that they decided that making a sequel to this film would be a good idea.
Rating: 1/10
Published March 3rd, 2017
Thursday, 2 March 2017
2017 Film Review: Logan (2017)
Directed by: James Mangold
Written by: James Mangold, Scott Frank, Michael Green
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen
IMDb Link
The X-Men series has had a lot of ups and downs over the years; for every X2 or First Class, there's been an Origins: Wolverine or The Last Stand. Add to this fact that FOX has multiple continuities across the franchise, and some films that are designed to straight-up erase others from the canon, and you end up never being quite sure of what you're going to get when you sit down to watch one of these films. I'm happy to say that Logan is a film that works very well despite the checkered past of the series to which it belongs.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
We're shown an unforgiving world in Logan; Wolverine (Jackman, in what he claims is his final performance as the character) scrapes out a living as a limo driver in Texas, and lives in an abandoned building in Mexico with Professor X (Stewart, in what he also claims is his final performance as the character) and another mutant named Caliban (Stephen Merchant). Mutants have been all but wiped out, and no new mutant has been born in years; the Professor is in a sorry state, with poor control of his powers, taking medication to stop his powers from accidentally hurting or even killing people. Wolverine essentially passes the time between working and keeping the Professor medicated, and Caliban keeps the place together while Wolverine is away. It's a set-up that's hard to watch because of just how low these characters have sunk; a scene involving Wolverine trying to medicate the Professor is harsh, showcasing how hopeless the Professor has become in his prison, and how drained Wolverine has become in containing and maintaining him.
What's most interesting here is how different Wolverine is from his previous incarnations; simply put, he's old. Wolverine is slow, he's scarred, his claws don't always come out all the way, he doesn't heal like he used to. It's a very different depiction of the character that lends itself very well to the arc he goes through, a man at the end of his rope trying to find a reason or a purpose in life, a man destroyed by his loss.
Things start to kick in to motion when a young girl named Laura (Keen, in her film debut) becomes involved with Wolverine. An artificially manufactured mutant, Laura is Wolverine's biological daughter, and comes with his set of powers. Laura is positively vicious, ripping in to faceless soldiers with glee as she lets her animalistic side take over. She's also very well portrayed by Keen, who manages to do a lot with a character he says literally nothing until the third act; she's very meaningful with her expressions and movements, incredibly naive but not stupid, and hopeful for her future.
The plot from here is very simple; the people who made Laura want her back, and Logan is paid to take her to a place where she will be safe. It's a little like Children of Men in the X-Men universe. The simple set-up gives way to some amazing tension building from Mangold, who does a very good job of keeping the film focused at the personal level; these are the few characters you have to worry and/or care about, and the stakes set a very real precedent of danger for them. The danger is dispatched with a very bloodthirsty endeavour; the film likes to remind you of it's restricted rating by regularly putting spikes through people and cutting heads off. It's gritty, savage, perhaps a little overzealous at points, but it's also grounded in the conflict that revolves around the characters; it isn't violence simply for the sake of it, it's just violence presented in a way that make the stomachs of some turn. What makes this most impactful, however, is the moments of levity and breaks in tension that the film offers. This isn't a DC film where everything is constantly drab and self-hating, or an MCU film where they feel the need to keep everything light-hearted even the most inappropriate of moments; Logan offers both, and knows when to switch between the two without feeling like the film is giving you emotional whiplash.
The Verdict: Logan is the best film ever offered by FOX's X-Men franchise. It's also, in a lot of ways, very different from what you'd expect to see out of an X-Men film. Logan is bleak, brutal, and ballsy, offering a more grounded approach to superpowers and a satisfying end to Jackman's tenure as the Wolverine. It's a strong film, if imperfect, but I recommend it only if you can stomach the sheer violence the film offers; no punches are pulled and no skulls go un-stabbed. With this in mind, I suggest not showing this to your kids, no matter how big of a superhero fan they are.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published March 2nd, 2017
Written by: James Mangold, Scott Frank, Michael Green
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Dafne Keen
IMDb Link
The X-Men series has had a lot of ups and downs over the years; for every X2 or First Class, there's been an Origins: Wolverine or The Last Stand. Add to this fact that FOX has multiple continuities across the franchise, and some films that are designed to straight-up erase others from the canon, and you end up never being quite sure of what you're going to get when you sit down to watch one of these films. I'm happy to say that Logan is a film that works very well despite the checkered past of the series to which it belongs.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
We're shown an unforgiving world in Logan; Wolverine (Jackman, in what he claims is his final performance as the character) scrapes out a living as a limo driver in Texas, and lives in an abandoned building in Mexico with Professor X (Stewart, in what he also claims is his final performance as the character) and another mutant named Caliban (Stephen Merchant). Mutants have been all but wiped out, and no new mutant has been born in years; the Professor is in a sorry state, with poor control of his powers, taking medication to stop his powers from accidentally hurting or even killing people. Wolverine essentially passes the time between working and keeping the Professor medicated, and Caliban keeps the place together while Wolverine is away. It's a set-up that's hard to watch because of just how low these characters have sunk; a scene involving Wolverine trying to medicate the Professor is harsh, showcasing how hopeless the Professor has become in his prison, and how drained Wolverine has become in containing and maintaining him.
What's most interesting here is how different Wolverine is from his previous incarnations; simply put, he's old. Wolverine is slow, he's scarred, his claws don't always come out all the way, he doesn't heal like he used to. It's a very different depiction of the character that lends itself very well to the arc he goes through, a man at the end of his rope trying to find a reason or a purpose in life, a man destroyed by his loss.
Things start to kick in to motion when a young girl named Laura (Keen, in her film debut) becomes involved with Wolverine. An artificially manufactured mutant, Laura is Wolverine's biological daughter, and comes with his set of powers. Laura is positively vicious, ripping in to faceless soldiers with glee as she lets her animalistic side take over. She's also very well portrayed by Keen, who manages to do a lot with a character he says literally nothing until the third act; she's very meaningful with her expressions and movements, incredibly naive but not stupid, and hopeful for her future.
The plot from here is very simple; the people who made Laura want her back, and Logan is paid to take her to a place where she will be safe. It's a little like Children of Men in the X-Men universe. The simple set-up gives way to some amazing tension building from Mangold, who does a very good job of keeping the film focused at the personal level; these are the few characters you have to worry and/or care about, and the stakes set a very real precedent of danger for them. The danger is dispatched with a very bloodthirsty endeavour; the film likes to remind you of it's restricted rating by regularly putting spikes through people and cutting heads off. It's gritty, savage, perhaps a little overzealous at points, but it's also grounded in the conflict that revolves around the characters; it isn't violence simply for the sake of it, it's just violence presented in a way that make the stomachs of some turn. What makes this most impactful, however, is the moments of levity and breaks in tension that the film offers. This isn't a DC film where everything is constantly drab and self-hating, or an MCU film where they feel the need to keep everything light-hearted even the most inappropriate of moments; Logan offers both, and knows when to switch between the two without feeling like the film is giving you emotional whiplash.
The Verdict: Logan is the best film ever offered by FOX's X-Men franchise. It's also, in a lot of ways, very different from what you'd expect to see out of an X-Men film. Logan is bleak, brutal, and ballsy, offering a more grounded approach to superpowers and a satisfying end to Jackman's tenure as the Wolverine. It's a strong film, if imperfect, but I recommend it only if you can stomach the sheer violence the film offers; no punches are pulled and no skulls go un-stabbed. With this in mind, I suggest not showing this to your kids, no matter how big of a superhero fan they are.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published March 2nd, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)