Oh dear... I mean, oh dear... Let's get this review out of the way.
I quite enjoyed the first Cars film, in fact I have it on DVD, it was a heart warming story about what's important in life (and not simply winning) and had likeable, quirky characters, a beginning, middle and end. Cars 2... has none of these.
Mater the tow truck is invited to aid racecar Lightning McQueen as he takes part in the World Grand Prix, but upon making a fool of himself Mater is shunned, only to be mistaken as an undercover spy by two covert agents working to reveal a diabolical fuel conspiracy.
Need I say more?
I had hopes, with John Turturro, Eddie Izzard and Michael Caine supplying new voices (and they certainly do their best) but what I got was a messy and divided movie that shuns virtually ALL of the original quirky cast and replaces them with underdeveloped spy movie stereotypes. Plus Mater. Mater who has apparently broken the bonds of quirkiness to become downright aggravating to almost Jar Jar levels.
Not to mention the two professional spies couldn't tell Mater wasn't a spy, somehow his bumbling idiocy was mistaken for just really good acting. Yeeeeah. I know it is a kids movie, a cartoon, but there were so many plot inconsistencies and vapid humour here; Pixar has shown time and time again that they can marry both childhood fantasy and mature storytelling, but not here.
It seems unfair to slam Pixar as soon as they drop the ball, but it is so blatantly obvious here; none of it feels clever, the only bit I liked was the brief shot of little biplane pigeons at the French Grand Prix. That made me chuckle.
It had no purpose, the Cars universe was probably the last of Pixar's creations in need of expanding. The nice "Radiator Springs" characters are ignored completely, the plot is stupid, and there was no message or morality suitable for a Pixar feature film (or even a Saturday morning cartoon). It's just a big marketing scheme to sell lots of toys.
I was keen to watch The Woman in Black for two reasons: one, to see how Daniel Radcliffe's career begins after a decade of Harry Potter, and two, it is made by Hammer Studios, the studio that brought us Christopher Lee as Dracula in the 1950s and a landslide of the "classic movie monster" films. Only recently had they remade the Swedish Let the Right One In.
The result? As a 12A rated horror movie, both have done an exceptionally clever thing by combining; making it the highest grossing Hammer film in the USA, no doubt giving the studio a new lease of life. Radcliffe too proves he is very capable outside of the coy, wide-eyed children's genre. His career should be promising.
Radcliffe plays the part of Arthur Kipps, a young lawyer and single father who is sent to settle the deed on an abandoned house since the owner's death. Spurred on by the threat of losing his job, Kipps is initially undeterred by the locals' fearful superstition, but once his presence in the house awakens a curse upon the town and its children... Kipps must uncover the mystery of the ghostly Woman in Black.
The film is virtually silent whenever it sneaks cautiously through the old Victorian house, the scares varying between jump scares and subtle, fast glimpses; the camera lingers with great gaping dark spaces over Radcliffe's shoulder frequently. The physical presence is extremely limited until the chilly finale, limited to the torture inflicted upon the town's people.
While it could be argued the film should have been a 15 (or a return to a 12 rating) it is still an attention-holding ghost story. Simple with very traditional trappings, but wonderfully chilling, as it should be.
Additional Marshmallows: This film reminds me exactly of an older post made on Cinema Cocoa during my October Halloween fest about "less is more" in horror films. There is Nothing to Fear, but Fear itself
With the success of Taken, Liam Neeson returns in this mystery thriller, with somewhat mixed feelings.
While the cover shows a moody Neeson with a gun, Unknown is quite a different animal from Taken. Our hero is a man travelling to Berlin with his wife to give a science lecture at a prestigious event, only for an accident to rob him of his memory. What he does remember appears to be robbed from him also when he finds another man with his identity, and his wife doesn't recognise him either. Without anyone to trust, he must piece together fragments of memories while evading men intent on killing him.
Unknown is a film more about paranoia than gun battles; Neeson's character is always on the run and surrounded by potential enemies. The film does boast a car chase and a later fight scenes, but neither outshine Taken (in fact the car chase was pretty lacklustre).
The film's strength is also its weakness; the mystery and total lack of history with Neeson's character makes for intense developments down the road, keeping you watching... but when those big twists are revealed, they aren't greatly surprising after all of the ambiguity preceding them.
Overall Unknown is a solid mystery thriller, fans of Neeson and perhaps the television show 24 should be interested in this.
Remaking one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1980s classics proved controversial, but as someone who's never bought into the franchise... the 2011 film was acceptable, if clumsy.
The film follows the story of a young man's vengeance against the one who killed his father, his killer being a necromancer king bent on unlocking the powers of resurrection with an ancient mask.
The narrative is incredibly straight forward, from the villain's quest for the shards of the mask, to Conan's protection of a "pure blood" monk whose sacrifice is required to empower the mask. The whole thing feels phoned in.
The introduction gave me hope; production values were good, Ron Perlman is Conan's father, good sword work and action scenes, but once the second act kicked in I realised the film was dragging its feet. Everyone watching will think "She's going to be kidnapped", and the film dawdled around with the idea: "Is it going to happen now?... No? Oh, okay now it is. No? Okay I'll just wait..." Evidentially the time could have been spent on character development, but it wasn't particularly. This dragging practically killed the final act's suspense for me, in fact errors seemed to increase as the film continued.
The film certainly had a lot of action, and cannot be faulted for at least being interesting to look at, but there are some flaws in editing and definitely in writing with any consistency. Did the thief character even need to be in here?
If you like your fantasy films, big burly men smashing people's heads in, swords and sorcery, you can't go too far wrong. It isn't as bad as people are saying. I'd rather watch this than the Arnie version (sorry guys) but it certainly isn't a gem.
Additional Marshmallows: Why doesn't Hollywood learn that having three writers for one film is the equivalent to the kiss of death? Still, Brett Ratner was meant to direct this originally, at least we were spared that!
A surprisingly simple and genuine take on the tired superhero genre!
Three American high school boys discover they have the power of telekinesis; the ability to move objects with the power of the mind, after finding a mysterious object underground.
I was wary at first glance. Yet more shaky-cam "found footage" and a plot all too similar to a season seven X-Files episode by the name Rush. But with lots of rave reviews, I had to take a look.
Overall, I was pretty impressed! While it doesn't make any genre defining changes, I was pleasantly surprised at how viable and original it was. Here is an original superhero origin story that feels genuine and doesn't succumb to clichéd writing (I'm looking at you Hancock) Chronicle knows what it is, and does it well.
The first half of the movie we see the three boys toying with their powers like any boy probably would (I know I would...) and proves really good fun to watch. The later scenes become increasingly angry and eye-widening in scope.
The whole "shaky-cam" is actually executed really, really well, and puts most of these sorts of films to shame. While yes you can still argue "Why are they still filming this?" at times, when the boys master their powers on the camera itself the cinematography opens up into epic grandeur. It certainly beats the snot out of Cloverfield, not to mention the boys themselves are much more interesting than any of the cardboard cut-outs in that film!
It felt like a decent origin story of any classic superheroes, and the developing moralities when someone small is given impossible powers. Simple, but very effective.
Oh George, I go looking for your redemption in the years before your obsession... only to find more unnecessary CGI tinkering!
Yes, before Star Wars and before American Graffiti young director George Lucas had a powerful collaboration with executive producer Francis Ford Copolla and composer Lalo Schifrin to create his first feature film, THX 1138.
In a future society human beings are reduced to mere statistics; workers designated in a world automated by machines and technology. Drugs, pseudo religion and television keep the populous docile and efficient, while systems are in place to match couples together to breed. A man working in a robot factory, known only as THX 1138, resists the drug medication in an attempt to experience a normal life. He finds himself cornered in a world entirely designed to "help" him from his affliction of humanity.
It is genuinely intriguing to watch something so subtle from Lucas, something with long, ponderous moments and silent exchanges. The film reminded me of other films I have seen such as 2001 and Gattaca, it is a claustrophobic and mellow experience, minimalist and stark. While this story has been told many times and is straightforward, it is impressive to note THX still has merit and has hardly aged.
Except for the 2004 CGI updates.
Now, most of these updates were not too fatal to the films' credibility, they were even quite subtle at times. But, there are others that are blatant and unnecessary computer animated additions (including a car chase... Somewhat destroys the subtle minimalistic designs of the film) I'm sure there's an essay one could write about THX's original longevity being ruined by modern computer graphics.
Any fan of science fiction really must watch THX 1138, and if possible find an original copy, though it seems only the "director's cut" got a DVD/Blu-Ray release. That means only Laserdisc and VHS exist of the original edit.
Additional Marshmallows: "THX 1138" has been referenced in multiple places, from film and television to music. The most obvious being the THX sound department at Lucasfilm.
What a peculiarly divided film, and as such I really don't know how to tackle my thoughts on it!
Released the same year as Kick-Ass, Super tells the story of a socially awkward cook who turns to superhero vigilantism after he believes a drug dealer had kidnapped his wife. Becoming the Crimson Bolt, he beats up crime with a pipe wrench, and is joined later by his femme fatale sidekick Boltie.
This film has a critical flaw with its mood. On the one hand it is an empowering, comical and sincere look at one man's fight against non-existence in society, while on the other hand, it is a bloody, violent, surreal and black comedy.
There were plenty of moments I enjoyed, mostly when our hero is trying to be a vigilante for the first time, and even the hyper-violent ending. But for every solid moment there was a disturbing scene or tone just around the corner. The Crimson Bolt's motivation is a televised superhero Jesus? Religion inspires vigilantism now? This is only the tip of the iceberg for some pretty questionable ethics surrounding our hero and the overarching storyline the film is providing.
Ellen Page plays a great show-stealing performance as the side kick Boltie, and Kevin Bacon and Liv Tyler are there too, but are perhaps underused due to the focus on our hero's mental neuroses. A really tough call, as some elements were perfect yet the overall tone felt obscure, I feel as though I should have enjoyed it more than I did.
Additional Marshmallows: Nathan Fillion playing a superhero Jesus is... indescribable really.
