The second part of the embellished Hobbit trilogy continues, and my opinion hasn't changed from part one... except to say that this film makes An Unexpected Journey look completely unnecessary.
While still being pursued by the orc horde, Biblo Baggins and the dwarf company are led by Thorin Oakenshield and Gandalf through the region of Mirkwood and finally to the Lonely Mountain, lair of Smaug the Dragon. Along the way they meet many foes and challenges and only a few to help them.
Well here's a thing: An Unexpected Journey took perhaps twenty pages of the original text and inexplicably stretched it over three hours, yet The Desolation of Smaug probably covers a massive eighty percent of the story!
I'm serious, most of (if not all) my favourite scenes are in this one film, and if I wanted I could just close my eyes and imagine the beginning and end on my own. (It would save me six hours!) We have the barrels, the wood elves, the Mirkwood spiders, Lake Town, Bard, Beorn and of course Smaug the Magnificent! I honestly can't remember anything of comparable substance in the first film, and I cannot fathom the third film having any more material to work with.
Sounds good right? Well naturally the film looks great too; one cannot criticise its looks any more than previous films (although the indulgent use of CG is still there...) The action sequences here are actually better than in the first film, they feel more natural and without the "surfing on wooden bridges down chasms" problems. The barrel sequence is not the same as the book, it too is an action sequence, with orcs attacking and a dwarf being propelled out of the water, rolling across the cliffs and knocking them down! Very imaginative and creative additions.
But like all good artists producing more of the same, familiar imagery, we can only pick at the imperfections.
Tauriel.
I said it already, and I'll say it again. I have no problem with strong female characters, but I do have a problem with a character entirely made up by the film makers to force a pointless love triangle that only snares up the film's exciting climax with needless cutaways. If I may indulge (heck, the film makers do!) The Hobbit is set in earlier times; the elves and dwarves do not like each other. Legolas features in the film, and though he was never in the book I didn't mind his inclusion: he exaggerates the disharmony between the two races (...despite the fact that the Wood Elf King does this fine on his own...) but Tauriel has a romance triangle with Legolas and............ Kili.
Utterly absurd, and I know exactly where this is going in part three, and it is as throwaway as Tauriel herself. She doesn't override the film, but her scenes just take me out of what I want: The Hobbit as a film.
Right, with that out of my system. The subplot that tethers The Hobbit to the Rings trilogy is much stronger here than in the previous film. Gandalf does indeed leave the company in the book to do other "important tasks", these are shown as the film deviates from Bilbo's perspective. It is welcome, if you survived An Unexpected Journey this stuff is more than appreciated by now.
But the same old problem surfaces while watching the film, and as this trilogy goes on, I fear for its longevity. The Hobbit book is not the same as Lord of the Rings, and this is not a good adaptation of it. I dare say this singular film is the best-worst adaptation I've seen. The Hobbit is about Bilbo and his very small perspective of a vast world. It is a children's story. Embellish, but never forget what the focus of a story is...
I still feel there is a better Hobbit adaptation to be made. That Guillermo Del Toro film that was never to be? This outing actually crushes its predecessor into dust, boasting all of the book's finest moments through the wonderful lense of the films' creative team. But, there are still unnecessary additions, and I know that they are chess pieces to make the final film more exciting... But are they literally just pawns in an epic that was never meant to be?
Additional Marshmallows: The HFR (high frame rate) 3D was more familiar to me this time, and took a lot less getting used to.
And the winner of "most unnecessary and indulgent director's cameo" goes to... Peter Jackson! Fabricating an entire opening scene that has little to no purpose other than to get him in there.
... if you are also wondering, is it worth watching only for the dragon?
...
Heck yes!
We are moving to a new site: www.cinemacocoa.com! I've spent several years compiling film reviews and my annual Best/Worst choices, as well as being bit of a movie buff. I figure the best thing to do is make a Blog for my reviews, lists and general film related trivia :) Enjoy.
Monday, 30 December 2013
Review: The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug (HFR 3D)
Labels:
3D,
action,
adaptation,
book,
fantasy,
film,
HFR,
ian mckellen,
lord of the rings,
martin freeman,
orlando bloom,
peter jackson,
prequel,
review,
sequel,
the desolation of smaug,
the hobbit,
tolkien,
WETA
Friday, 27 December 2013
Review: The Place Beyond the Pines
This film kept on giving, and while its
pace is slow and its mood set permanently to “morose” it did
surprise me in the directions it went.
Following side-show stunt biker Luke
(Ryan Gosling) after he quits his job to try and make amends to the
mother of his son he never knew about, he provides for them by
turning to bank robbery. This callous turn in character dooms him,
his family and others who become involved and long into the lives of
their children.
I knew very little about the film,
asides from it being another vehicle for Gosling. But truth be told,
the performance of note here is Bradley Cooper. Gosling does a great
job, but if you have seen Drive (in my honest opinion, my preferred
film of the two) you have seen his performance before. Cooper comes
out of nowhere and steals the show, literally.
It is a very slow and quiet film
(again, like Drive) with the characters pulling a lot of weight
around with them in the first act, all bottled up and angst-ridden.
It only gets more convoluted when more characters are introduced in
the second act (this film has very much the three act structure) and
it may lose some audience members with its apparent lack of
commitment to its established characters.
But then the third act comes along...
and I am doing my best to not spoil this entire story (which is very
easy to do, by the way, kudos to me)... and everything, and I mean
everything we have seen so far, comes together and it feels
like you've embraced an entire trilogy of films in the space of 140
minutes.
As a result, it a film that is very
slow at first, and a little alienating, but if you stick with it you
will see it escalate and the characters (even those you thought
abandoned) become richer as time literally moves on around them.
You need patience, time and no
distractions to watch the film and appreciate it. I thought I had all
of them, yet I was starting to struggle a little. It is an excellent
film, and it may require another viewing, but it isn't something I
would go out and buy.
Sunday, 22 December 2013
Review: Safe House
A mess of a thriller that had good intentions but just boils itself down to a generic action venture.
You know its bad when you start writing the review before the film's even finished.
Ryan Reynolds plays Matt, a low ranking CIA officer in charge of one of many safe houses and is looking for a promotion. As fate would have it, the CIA have to put a high-risk target in his care, an information trader Torbin Frost (Denzel Washington). But when the safe house is attacked, he goes on the run with a reluctant Torbin.
Honestly, the concept intrigued me. We have Reynolds and Washington playing roles fitted perfectly for them, a possibly dialogue-heavy thriller with a potentially claustrophobic atmosphere, a "safe house" (the clue is in the name...)
But no... the actual safe house barely features after the fifteen minute mark, and after that the film becomes an off-the-rails action chase film of the mid 1990s. We have constant car chases, constant gun fights and betrayals, our hero Matt (and the audience by extension) totally in the dark as to who persistently finds them, attacks them and attempts to kill them. Even Washington, doing his usual best, can't recover this uninteresting sequence of chases; so little of the film is dedicated to slowing down and letting the characters breathe.
For a thriller that obviously wants to keep you in the dark, by doing so it in fact makes itself incredibly predictable. With so few potential masterminds, and the ridiculous amounts of foreshadowing, you will know why everything is happening and who is behind it all long before Matt ever does.
A missed opportunity if ever there was one. This could have been a great example of characters parrying and fighting with words, involving mind games and intrigue (they set it up as much!) but it all dissolves into a noisy, rapidly edited action sequence. Quite disappointing.
I give it two cocoa cups mostly because of the two leads, who do fit their roles well and play it out perfectly for what they have been given!
You know its bad when you start writing the review before the film's even finished.
Ryan Reynolds plays Matt, a low ranking CIA officer in charge of one of many safe houses and is looking for a promotion. As fate would have it, the CIA have to put a high-risk target in his care, an information trader Torbin Frost (Denzel Washington). But when the safe house is attacked, he goes on the run with a reluctant Torbin.
Honestly, the concept intrigued me. We have Reynolds and Washington playing roles fitted perfectly for them, a possibly dialogue-heavy thriller with a potentially claustrophobic atmosphere, a "safe house" (the clue is in the name...)
But no... the actual safe house barely features after the fifteen minute mark, and after that the film becomes an off-the-rails action chase film of the mid 1990s. We have constant car chases, constant gun fights and betrayals, our hero Matt (and the audience by extension) totally in the dark as to who persistently finds them, attacks them and attempts to kill them. Even Washington, doing his usual best, can't recover this uninteresting sequence of chases; so little of the film is dedicated to slowing down and letting the characters breathe.
For a thriller that obviously wants to keep you in the dark, by doing so it in fact makes itself incredibly predictable. With so few potential masterminds, and the ridiculous amounts of foreshadowing, you will know why everything is happening and who is behind it all long before Matt ever does.
A missed opportunity if ever there was one. This could have been a great example of characters parrying and fighting with words, involving mind games and intrigue (they set it up as much!) but it all dissolves into a noisy, rapidly edited action sequence. Quite disappointing.
I give it two cocoa cups mostly because of the two leads, who do fit their roles well and play it out perfectly for what they have been given!
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
Review: Zero Dark Thirty
Zero Dark Thirty is more of a requirement in film than it is in art, giving some sense of closure to millions affected, and treats the subject with respect.
The film follows the true events of one CIA woman's dogged determination to finally find and kill terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden.
Directed by Katheryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) the film is in good hands; it maintains a dedicated honesty from start to finish, it never blemished the story, its development or the characters and gives you a real sense that these events took place. It is almost more of a documentary than a drama in that respect.
Its pace is slow, and with a runtime of 210 minutes it may seem a little long in the middle, but it is good to be enacted in such a way. Everyone is waiting for the film's climax, but the slow burning build up only heightens your dedication to seeing it through to the end.
It is a necessary film. I mean that it feels like it takes you very personally on the characters' journeys to finding the terrorist, and this will give a tremendous amount of closure for the millions of people affected. The final night-time sequence is fascinating and starkly shot, giving the audience a full and involving representation of how the events truly unfolded.
The way that our protagonist Maya (Jessica Chastain) struggles to find the evidence and the clues she needs to give rise to military action, threatening to see it all collapse and give in at any moment, nicely catches the audience up in the cause.
I have my issues with films based on real (and recent) events. Film's like The Impossible, United 93, World Trade Centre do not interest me as they appear too deliberate and almost showboating with horrific events that are too fresh in our minds. Zero Dark Thirty however feels distanced enough to be acceptable; yes, it opens with real audio from the 9/11 attack, and includes a sequence representing (and archive News footage of) the London bus bombing, but the purpose of the film is not showing these events, it is to show the end of these events.
Some might argue that it is boring, too long and that the characters are relatively neutral but... I find it hard to agree. The film is an efficient and arrow straight visualisation of real events, to say it is inherently "bad" would be a mistake!
It is implemented with cold precision, and it doesn't attempt to charm or alleviate you as it progresses. The film's sole purpose is to give closure, and by the time the film finishes I think many people will feel satisfied and a little startled because of it.
The film follows the true events of one CIA woman's dogged determination to finally find and kill terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden.
Directed by Katheryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) the film is in good hands; it maintains a dedicated honesty from start to finish, it never blemished the story, its development or the characters and gives you a real sense that these events took place. It is almost more of a documentary than a drama in that respect.
Its pace is slow, and with a runtime of 210 minutes it may seem a little long in the middle, but it is good to be enacted in such a way. Everyone is waiting for the film's climax, but the slow burning build up only heightens your dedication to seeing it through to the end.
It is a necessary film. I mean that it feels like it takes you very personally on the characters' journeys to finding the terrorist, and this will give a tremendous amount of closure for the millions of people affected. The final night-time sequence is fascinating and starkly shot, giving the audience a full and involving representation of how the events truly unfolded.
The way that our protagonist Maya (Jessica Chastain) struggles to find the evidence and the clues she needs to give rise to military action, threatening to see it all collapse and give in at any moment, nicely catches the audience up in the cause.
I have my issues with films based on real (and recent) events. Film's like The Impossible, United 93, World Trade Centre do not interest me as they appear too deliberate and almost showboating with horrific events that are too fresh in our minds. Zero Dark Thirty however feels distanced enough to be acceptable; yes, it opens with real audio from the 9/11 attack, and includes a sequence representing (and archive News footage of) the London bus bombing, but the purpose of the film is not showing these events, it is to show the end of these events.
Some might argue that it is boring, too long and that the characters are relatively neutral but... I find it hard to agree. The film is an efficient and arrow straight visualisation of real events, to say it is inherently "bad" would be a mistake!
It is implemented with cold precision, and it doesn't attempt to charm or alleviate you as it progresses. The film's sole purpose is to give closure, and by the time the film finishes I think many people will feel satisfied and a little startled because of it.
Labels:
9/11,
CIA,
drama,
film,
katheryn bigelow,
osama bin laden,
review,
war,
zero dark thirty
Sunday, 15 December 2013
Review: Frozen (2D)
There's a lot to be said about Disney's latest offering, some people saying it is the beginning of a new golden age for the studios, others saying its awful. But everyone agrees, the trailers are not to be trusted!
Elsa, a princess of a far away kingdom, has the power to control and create snow and ice, and is locked away by her parents after accidentally striking her sister Anna. But when it is her time to take the throne years later, her powers overwhelm her and the land becomes gripped in an eternal winter. Anna must rescue her fleeing sister from her own self-doubt with the aid of a prince, a commoner and a reindeer!
I'm not going to lie, I'll be straight with you; seeing this film's initial poster (a Snowman with buck teeth wearing a rubber ducky life ring?) and the trailers (all focusing on Olaf the snowman) I... I thought it looked cringe-worthy and saccharine.
Whether intentional or not, this had lowered my expectations and the sudden critical acclaim it received got me very interested.
The film is not about a high-pitched snowman bringing back summer. It is a surprisingly developed, character driven story rotating around our two brave female protagonists Anna and Elsa. Anna is a socially inept goof with a heart of gold, personable, honest and kind, while Elsa (the older sister) has these qualities, her banishment has warped her sense of place in the world, and it all comes down to how she copes with her powers.
The first act of the film will likely lose the youngest audience members immediately (Olaf from the trailer doesn't appear for half the running time) and this is down to a surprisingly grim setting. Think of Pixar's UP and you have a vague idea. It feels a little clustered too with its story-telling, as if it is cramming all the exposition so it can go onto other story arcs.
Unfortunately this lingers throughout the film; arcs and plots and entire scenes feel a little sudden and badly segway together.
But while the plot slips and slides about frantically and it feels like backstories are left out in the cold, Frozen looks gorgeous. Naturally Disney has put all their effort into the ice effects, making shards and spikes and snowflakes look delicate and cold.
It is also... wait for it... a very good musical. Yes, I said it. While not technically a musical it does have a lot of songs, but I am happy to admit I didn't have a problem with any of them! Which is extremely rare for me (A Nightmare Before Christmas probably being the only other one?)
So we have a lot of songs and two leading ladies, is Frozen a girl's film then? Certainly from the subtext and the two sisters' stories, it will resonate best with girls I'd imagine? But I loved the character of commoner Kristoff and his reindeer Sven, he has his moments of biting realism with these manic girls. And Sven, well... of course the reindeer is the best character!
I'd recommend it to everyone, frankly! It stumbles a bit with backstory and its story progression, but don't be too scared of the songs, and don't heed what the trailer's are selling you (they are selling it to the kiddies) Olaf the snowman is not that bad either. It is a great winter film!
Additional Marshmallows: The film is based loosely on Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen and as a tribute, three of the film's lead characters are called Hans, Kristoff and Anna.
Elsa, a princess of a far away kingdom, has the power to control and create snow and ice, and is locked away by her parents after accidentally striking her sister Anna. But when it is her time to take the throne years later, her powers overwhelm her and the land becomes gripped in an eternal winter. Anna must rescue her fleeing sister from her own self-doubt with the aid of a prince, a commoner and a reindeer!
I'm not going to lie, I'll be straight with you; seeing this film's initial poster (a Snowman with buck teeth wearing a rubber ducky life ring?) and the trailers (all focusing on Olaf the snowman) I... I thought it looked cringe-worthy and saccharine.
Whether intentional or not, this had lowered my expectations and the sudden critical acclaim it received got me very interested.
The film is not about a high-pitched snowman bringing back summer. It is a surprisingly developed, character driven story rotating around our two brave female protagonists Anna and Elsa. Anna is a socially inept goof with a heart of gold, personable, honest and kind, while Elsa (the older sister) has these qualities, her banishment has warped her sense of place in the world, and it all comes down to how she copes with her powers.
The first act of the film will likely lose the youngest audience members immediately (Olaf from the trailer doesn't appear for half the running time) and this is down to a surprisingly grim setting. Think of Pixar's UP and you have a vague idea. It feels a little clustered too with its story-telling, as if it is cramming all the exposition so it can go onto other story arcs.
Unfortunately this lingers throughout the film; arcs and plots and entire scenes feel a little sudden and badly segway together.
But while the plot slips and slides about frantically and it feels like backstories are left out in the cold, Frozen looks gorgeous. Naturally Disney has put all their effort into the ice effects, making shards and spikes and snowflakes look delicate and cold.
It is also... wait for it... a very good musical. Yes, I said it. While not technically a musical it does have a lot of songs, but I am happy to admit I didn't have a problem with any of them! Which is extremely rare for me (A Nightmare Before Christmas probably being the only other one?)
So we have a lot of songs and two leading ladies, is Frozen a girl's film then? Certainly from the subtext and the two sisters' stories, it will resonate best with girls I'd imagine? But I loved the character of commoner Kristoff and his reindeer Sven, he has his moments of biting realism with these manic girls. And Sven, well... of course the reindeer is the best character!
I'd recommend it to everyone, frankly! It stumbles a bit with backstory and its story progression, but don't be too scared of the songs, and don't heed what the trailer's are selling you (they are selling it to the kiddies) Olaf the snowman is not that bad either. It is a great winter film!
Additional Marshmallows: The film is based loosely on Hans Christian Andersen's The Snow Queen and as a tribute, three of the film's lead characters are called Hans, Kristoff and Anna.
Labels:
adaptation,
alan tudyk,
animation,
anna,
cartoon,
disney,
elsa,
fantasy,
film,
frozen,
hans christian anderson,
olaf,
princess,
review,
snow queen,
snowman,
winter
Friday, 13 December 2013
Review: The Last Stand
Even with the simplest premise imaginable, Arnold Schwarzenegger's newest solo outing is surprisingly good fun.
Now sheriff of a lazy, backwater town, Ray Owens (Schwarzenegger) used to be an LA cop and soon finds his old skills required once more when a drug lord makes a prison break for the Mexican border and only his small town stands in the way.
Directed by Kim Jee-Woon (director of The Good, The Bad and the Weird, which I highly recommend by the way! Very oddball) The Last Stand benefits first and foremost from its good sense of humour.
One cannot help but compare to Stallone's solo reprisal Bullet to the Head that came out this year, and unlike Stallone's preachy, testosterone fueled medodrama, Schwarzenegger's film feels a lot more entertaining and ever so slightly self-aware. He only complains that he's old once. Once! Plus his lines aren't completely cheesy (he doesn't even say "I'll be Back", in fact he says: "I'll be right back", twist!) and my favourite was surely: "You make us immigrants look bad," with the stony irony only Arnie can deliver.
Strangely, Arnie is teamed up with a bumbling, insecure lot of small town police officers (shades of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's Hot Fuzz) who include Johnny Knoxville. Wait, what? Knoxville is zany, but it only makes Arnold's grim facade more amusing by proxy.
It isn't the most original of stories. There is a parallel story involving Forest Whitaker's FBI trying and failing to stop the drug lord's escape, but it feels a little repetitive and there's no surprise in the payoff (except possibly the most underplayed "twist" I've ever seen). The soundtrack is average, the sound effects are stock, and there's even a romantic couple thrown in for good measure just to tick all the necessary boxes.
But, for a "welcome back Arnold" vehicle, it is great fun. You can tell he is happy to be back and doing his own thing, with plenty of subtle undertones for an ex-Governor. Recommended for action junkies and (obviously) Arnie fans.
Just... do more of your own thing, Arnold. While I've not seen Escape Plan yet, I can safely say The Last Stand is better than The Expendables film (the first one, definitely) it probably helps that Stallone wasn't directing here.
Now sheriff of a lazy, backwater town, Ray Owens (Schwarzenegger) used to be an LA cop and soon finds his old skills required once more when a drug lord makes a prison break for the Mexican border and only his small town stands in the way.
Directed by Kim Jee-Woon (director of The Good, The Bad and the Weird, which I highly recommend by the way! Very oddball) The Last Stand benefits first and foremost from its good sense of humour.
One cannot help but compare to Stallone's solo reprisal Bullet to the Head that came out this year, and unlike Stallone's preachy, testosterone fueled medodrama, Schwarzenegger's film feels a lot more entertaining and ever so slightly self-aware. He only complains that he's old once. Once! Plus his lines aren't completely cheesy (he doesn't even say "I'll be Back", in fact he says: "I'll be right back", twist!) and my favourite was surely: "You make us immigrants look bad," with the stony irony only Arnie can deliver.
Strangely, Arnie is teamed up with a bumbling, insecure lot of small town police officers (shades of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's Hot Fuzz) who include Johnny Knoxville. Wait, what? Knoxville is zany, but it only makes Arnold's grim facade more amusing by proxy.
It isn't the most original of stories. There is a parallel story involving Forest Whitaker's FBI trying and failing to stop the drug lord's escape, but it feels a little repetitive and there's no surprise in the payoff (except possibly the most underplayed "twist" I've ever seen). The soundtrack is average, the sound effects are stock, and there's even a romantic couple thrown in for good measure just to tick all the necessary boxes.
But, for a "welcome back Arnold" vehicle, it is great fun. You can tell he is happy to be back and doing his own thing, with plenty of subtle undertones for an ex-Governor. Recommended for action junkies and (obviously) Arnie fans.
Just... do more of your own thing, Arnold. While I've not seen Escape Plan yet, I can safely say The Last Stand is better than The Expendables film (the first one, definitely) it probably helps that Stallone wasn't directing here.
Monday, 9 December 2013
Review: Elf
So I finally get around to seeing this after multiple Cinema Cocoa fans ask me to review it.
Oh people will be cross with me.
Buddy is a little too big to be an elf because he is in fact a human being, and when he's told this he is sent back from the North Pole to the human world... New York to be exact. There he finds his real father, a stick-in-the-mud businessman who has very little Christmas spirit. Will Buddy's love of Christmas restore his father's clouded mind?
Well... sort of.
There are classic Christmas films and then there are Christmas films, Elf is a Will Ferrell Christmas film... and honestly he gets my back up at the best of times. He plays Buddy, a man who has been brought up with the mind of a child by Santa's elf helpers, only to be tossed into New York city on his own. While he revels in eating gum off the street he somehow gets a job in a shopping mall after being mistaken to be a floor assistant in costume (................. there's a massive problem right there, no?) Where he meets Jovie, our love interest for the movie.
For all Ferrell's mindless antics that are both hit and miss, I understand what Elf wants to be. His father Walter is clearly Scrooge and Buddy's free spirited, childlike wonder is his only salvation (and Walter is probably the most compelling character) but what the film fails at is making our "New York" characters particularly interesting. The strong character moments that would make this a Christmas classic are pushed aside so Farrell can chew more scenery (literally) and the third act... oh dear. We don't really want emotional investment, so here's a sudden, random action sequence instead! Yay?
Ack. A lot of you don't like me anymore!
I will grant you that Elf is a fun film, and I'd recommend it for all the family and especially for kids. There are some genuinely funny moments that are built up nicely, like when Buddy meets a shopping mall worker dressed up as Santa. You know its going to go badly, and it certainly does! I liked how Santa's one comment about Buddy's human father was: "He's on my naughty list" and how soul destroying this fact is for Buddy. There are lots of funny moments, don't get me wrong.
Personally it hits right in the middle; its good fun but it isn't a particularly heartwarming Christmas tale; its an awful lot of by-the-numbers storytelling and faffing around. Perhaps I'm just suffering from the "over-hyped" syndrome?
Additional Marshmallows: My FAVOURITE bit of the movie? Those little stop-frame animated North Pole animals! They were so cute! The little snow puffin thing?? Why weren't they in the film more, they were great!
Oh people will be cross with me.
Buddy is a little too big to be an elf because he is in fact a human being, and when he's told this he is sent back from the North Pole to the human world... New York to be exact. There he finds his real father, a stick-in-the-mud businessman who has very little Christmas spirit. Will Buddy's love of Christmas restore his father's clouded mind?
Well... sort of.
There are classic Christmas films and then there are Christmas films, Elf is a Will Ferrell Christmas film... and honestly he gets my back up at the best of times. He plays Buddy, a man who has been brought up with the mind of a child by Santa's elf helpers, only to be tossed into New York city on his own. While he revels in eating gum off the street he somehow gets a job in a shopping mall after being mistaken to be a floor assistant in costume (................. there's a massive problem right there, no?) Where he meets Jovie, our love interest for the movie.
For all Ferrell's mindless antics that are both hit and miss, I understand what Elf wants to be. His father Walter is clearly Scrooge and Buddy's free spirited, childlike wonder is his only salvation (and Walter is probably the most compelling character) but what the film fails at is making our "New York" characters particularly interesting. The strong character moments that would make this a Christmas classic are pushed aside so Farrell can chew more scenery (literally) and the third act... oh dear. We don't really want emotional investment, so here's a sudden, random action sequence instead! Yay?
Ack. A lot of you don't like me anymore!
I will grant you that Elf is a fun film, and I'd recommend it for all the family and especially for kids. There are some genuinely funny moments that are built up nicely, like when Buddy meets a shopping mall worker dressed up as Santa. You know its going to go badly, and it certainly does! I liked how Santa's one comment about Buddy's human father was: "He's on my naughty list" and how soul destroying this fact is for Buddy. There are lots of funny moments, don't get me wrong.
Personally it hits right in the middle; its good fun but it isn't a particularly heartwarming Christmas tale; its an awful lot of by-the-numbers storytelling and faffing around. Perhaps I'm just suffering from the "over-hyped" syndrome?
Additional Marshmallows: My FAVOURITE bit of the movie? Those little stop-frame animated North Pole animals! They were so cute! The little snow puffin thing?? Why weren't they in the film more, they were great!
Labels:
christmas,
comedy,
elf,
film,
jon favreau,
new york,
peter dinklage,
review,
will ferrell
Saturday, 7 December 2013
Review: It's a Wonderful Life
No. Just get it out of your system now, no, I hadn't seen It's a Wonderful Life until now. Yes, I should have, what kind of a film reviewer am I? Now let's move on!
A businessman who is compassionate and kind to everyone around him, intent on running a bank for the people, find himself despairing about what his life has slowly become. But an angel is sent to show the frustrated man what life would have been like for those around him had he never been born.
It is hard to review a classic, especially one that is parodied ever since it came out, but I can safely say that even now I thought it was great!
My usual gripes with older films are entirely how they become dated; I usually withstand a great deal but sometimes they can simply be too saccharine or so stiff that they come across as emotionally dead, but It's a Wonderful Life doesn't fall into either category. James Stewart and Donna Reed as the leading roles are excellent, in fact all of the acting here is perfect and you immediately see chemistry between them all. The tone is very light (though not comedic) and this only intensifies what happens later when our protagonist George Bailey's life turns upside down.
I guess my only grievance with the film is the ages of our actors... The film follows George and his sweetheart Mary from when they are kids, and of course as kids they have child actors, but when George is eighteen/twenty, talking about going to college etc, he's played by a thirty-eight year old George Stewart! Don't get me wrong, the two of them act that age incredibly well, they had me fooled for the most part! I guess it is a knit-pick and is unavoidable... but it really is quite obvious.
The film's strength lies in its second and third act, this is when George's life peaks and we see how he so desperately wants more but finds his dreams are not obtainable. Our angel, Clarence, arrives on the scene surprisingly late on (you might almost forget that he's meant to appear, as engrossed as you already were!) and the film's theme ultimately moves and rejuvenates you even in today's world, perhaps even more so.
You'd have to have a heart of stone to not feel something while watching this film back, I would hope our society isn't so cynical that this sort of story would be forgotten about.
A businessman who is compassionate and kind to everyone around him, intent on running a bank for the people, find himself despairing about what his life has slowly become. But an angel is sent to show the frustrated man what life would have been like for those around him had he never been born.
It is hard to review a classic, especially one that is parodied ever since it came out, but I can safely say that even now I thought it was great!
My usual gripes with older films are entirely how they become dated; I usually withstand a great deal but sometimes they can simply be too saccharine or so stiff that they come across as emotionally dead, but It's a Wonderful Life doesn't fall into either category. James Stewart and Donna Reed as the leading roles are excellent, in fact all of the acting here is perfect and you immediately see chemistry between them all. The tone is very light (though not comedic) and this only intensifies what happens later when our protagonist George Bailey's life turns upside down.
I guess my only grievance with the film is the ages of our actors... The film follows George and his sweetheart Mary from when they are kids, and of course as kids they have child actors, but when George is eighteen/twenty, talking about going to college etc, he's played by a thirty-eight year old George Stewart! Don't get me wrong, the two of them act that age incredibly well, they had me fooled for the most part! I guess it is a knit-pick and is unavoidable... but it really is quite obvious.
The film's strength lies in its second and third act, this is when George's life peaks and we see how he so desperately wants more but finds his dreams are not obtainable. Our angel, Clarence, arrives on the scene surprisingly late on (you might almost forget that he's meant to appear, as engrossed as you already were!) and the film's theme ultimately moves and rejuvenates you even in today's world, perhaps even more so.
You'd have to have a heart of stone to not feel something while watching this film back, I would hope our society isn't so cynical that this sort of story would be forgotten about.
Wednesday, 4 December 2013
Tribute Review: Running Scared
After Paul Walker passed away in a car accident on November thirtieth of this year, I wanted to see one of his films I hadn't seen as a tribute. I think I picked the right one.
Husband and father Joe is involved with mob dealings, and when he is asked to dispose of a gun that is used to shoot a corrupt cop he finds himself on the chase for a young boy who took the gun from his house.
This is one of Paul Walker's highest rated films (on IMDB, and outside of the Fast and Furious films) and it isn't hard to see why.
While the film is a relatively simple story: father tracks down a gun that implicates him while mobsters, gangsters and police also hunt for it, making it your typical chase thriller, it does have some remarkable aspects to it.
First and foremost, the directing and cinematography style is off the rails; our opening few shots are swooping, sliding camera swings all composited together to make single shots. The film continues with an almost Zack Synder like style-over-substance, painting gritty urban environments with intensity. Which works perfectly given its other remarkable trait.
The film follows closely the tribulations of Joe's neighbour's young son Oleg, who takes the gun in attempt to kill his own father. Oleg flees into the city night and encounters numerous urban nightmares along the way, from pimps to child abductors.
No, this isn't a comfortable film to watch.
But the style in which its implemented sells it, the child actors are great, and Walker himself does a remarkably three dimensional job with an otherwise straight-forward character (I'd imagine Jason Statham doing a worse job) once the film grabs you it won't let go. A defining trait of the chase movie.
I'm glad I picked this as a tribute, and I'd recommend it to all fans of gritty, gangland thrillers. It isn't for the faint of heart; there's plenty of violence, blood and mature themes all shot with an intensely focused direction. I can't say I can fault it particularly asides from being a blow-for-blow, regular genre film, though the supporting characters do feel like they are thrown in there to up the body count at times!
Additional Marshmallows: I suppose it is difficult to avoid given his choice in films, but Running Scared does open and finish with Paul Walker's character in a car chase/car accident... given the film's intensity it was a little unsettling.
Husband and father Joe is involved with mob dealings, and when he is asked to dispose of a gun that is used to shoot a corrupt cop he finds himself on the chase for a young boy who took the gun from his house.
This is one of Paul Walker's highest rated films (on IMDB, and outside of the Fast and Furious films) and it isn't hard to see why.
While the film is a relatively simple story: father tracks down a gun that implicates him while mobsters, gangsters and police also hunt for it, making it your typical chase thriller, it does have some remarkable aspects to it.
First and foremost, the directing and cinematography style is off the rails; our opening few shots are swooping, sliding camera swings all composited together to make single shots. The film continues with an almost Zack Synder like style-over-substance, painting gritty urban environments with intensity. Which works perfectly given its other remarkable trait.
The film follows closely the tribulations of Joe's neighbour's young son Oleg, who takes the gun in attempt to kill his own father. Oleg flees into the city night and encounters numerous urban nightmares along the way, from pimps to child abductors.
No, this isn't a comfortable film to watch.
But the style in which its implemented sells it, the child actors are great, and Walker himself does a remarkably three dimensional job with an otherwise straight-forward character (I'd imagine Jason Statham doing a worse job) once the film grabs you it won't let go. A defining trait of the chase movie.
I'm glad I picked this as a tribute, and I'd recommend it to all fans of gritty, gangland thrillers. It isn't for the faint of heart; there's plenty of violence, blood and mature themes all shot with an intensely focused direction. I can't say I can fault it particularly asides from being a blow-for-blow, regular genre film, though the supporting characters do feel like they are thrown in there to up the body count at times!
Additional Marshmallows: I suppose it is difficult to avoid given his choice in films, but Running Scared does open and finish with Paul Walker's character in a car chase/car accident... given the film's intensity it was a little unsettling.
Labels:
action,
chase,
film,
gangster,
paul walker,
review,
running scared,
thriller,
tribute,
violence
Sunday, 1 December 2013
Review: The Man with the Iron Fists
To critique this by saying "god this is stupid" is somewhat missing the point... but its hard not to!
In feudal China, several warrior factions battle over a hidden treasure, the battle leads to a small village where a local blacksmith must defend the love of his life against the chaos.
With a screenplay co-written by Eli Roth, production credit to Quentin Tarantino, staring Rick Yune, Lucy Liu and Russell Crowe in leading roles, you might believe this has got a lot going for it! But, its written, directed and features RZA as its lead star. Don't know who RZA is? He is a hip-hop music icon. Acting is not his fortay.
The film does not have story, acting or structure as strong points, in fact I was getting a little tired of it after a while. I don't know, imagine Kill Bill mixed with... Black Dynamite?
Russell Crowe looks like he is having a lot of fun here though; introducing his character in the middle of a brothel fight by shouting at the top of his lungs: "MY NAME IS MR KNIFE!" Yes, all the characters have ridiculous names, but I grew to like them: Lady Silk; Bronze Body; The X-Blade; Poison Dagger. It was an entertaining leap of distilled silliness.
The action and the creative weaponry is the reason to watch this film otherwise. We have a duo who throw each other around, a woman with guns on her thighs, spinning gun-daggers, the golden brother of X-Man Colossus, tongue daggers, its pretty lively in its methods of killing people.
But for all its ridiculousness I found the dull, droning narration from RZA ill fitting, and the story cannot linger on one character long enough to really appreciate them (except Russell Crowe's Jack Knife, who probably steals the show) as such I would rather watch Kung Fu Hustle, Kill Bill or even Sucker Punch, which all feel like they truly grasp what they want to achieve.
It is brainless and predictable, but somewhat unique in its attempts. Not one-hundred percent sure about feudal-China mixed with a hip-hop soundtrack though, and I'm sure that was one thing Mr RZA was banking on.
In feudal China, several warrior factions battle over a hidden treasure, the battle leads to a small village where a local blacksmith must defend the love of his life against the chaos.
With a screenplay co-written by Eli Roth, production credit to Quentin Tarantino, staring Rick Yune, Lucy Liu and Russell Crowe in leading roles, you might believe this has got a lot going for it! But, its written, directed and features RZA as its lead star. Don't know who RZA is? He is a hip-hop music icon. Acting is not his fortay.
The film does not have story, acting or structure as strong points, in fact I was getting a little tired of it after a while. I don't know, imagine Kill Bill mixed with... Black Dynamite?
Russell Crowe looks like he is having a lot of fun here though; introducing his character in the middle of a brothel fight by shouting at the top of his lungs: "MY NAME IS MR KNIFE!" Yes, all the characters have ridiculous names, but I grew to like them: Lady Silk; Bronze Body; The X-Blade; Poison Dagger. It was an entertaining leap of distilled silliness.
The action and the creative weaponry is the reason to watch this film otherwise. We have a duo who throw each other around, a woman with guns on her thighs, spinning gun-daggers, the golden brother of X-Man Colossus, tongue daggers, its pretty lively in its methods of killing people.
But for all its ridiculousness I found the dull, droning narration from RZA ill fitting, and the story cannot linger on one character long enough to really appreciate them (except Russell Crowe's Jack Knife, who probably steals the show) as such I would rather watch Kung Fu Hustle, Kill Bill or even Sucker Punch, which all feel like they truly grasp what they want to achieve.
It is brainless and predictable, but somewhat unique in its attempts. Not one-hundred percent sure about feudal-China mixed with a hip-hop soundtrack though, and I'm sure that was one thing Mr RZA was banking on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)