Review: Captain America - The Winter Soldier (3D)

This Marvel train ain't stopping for anything! The Winter Soldier is quite possibly one of the best entries into the film series yet!

Captain Steve Rogers tries to find a sense of place in the modern world working for S.H.I.E.L.D. But when Nick Fury is targeted by a mysterious assassin, Rogers discovers that his patriotism could just be used as a pawn for corrupt political forces.

Captain America, as a singular character in the current Avengers team, has the most groundwork and the most to build upon in a sequel. There's a lot to work with! Tony Stark and Thor had mostly completed stories when going into their sequels, but the Captain did not; he's been left untouched since his debut in 2011. This is a great boon for The Winter Soldier.
The film opens with a very stealth driven action sequence with the Captain and Black Widow taking on a terrorist takeover at sea. This is heralding more to come; the film's entire storyline is about espionage, spy networks and ambiguous political intent. The story is intelligent and interweaving, frequently summoning up ghosts from Steve Rogers' past, but in no unlikely manner, in fact the linkage with The First Avenger is were a lot of the film's intensity comes from. That and its not-so-heavy-handed social and political subtexts.

Of course, it isn't all talking and mystery (though I was surprised at how moody the film became) there is still plenty of action. The Winter Soldier himself is an excellent addition to the Marvel mythos, the soundtrack adding to the foreboding atmosphere around him and the film shows how deadly he really can be. The Captain too gets a much better sense of strength here too (I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt he was a little underpowered in Avengers Assemble) being thrown about, running through walls, using his shield in such marvelously silly ways. It is greatly entertaining when the bullets and punches start flying.
It is also a surprisingly brutal film. With Captain America's origins and current story trapped in comparatively realistic settings (we are dealing with countries, governments and spies, not gods and space aliens) even to Iron Man standards, the action is intense and scenes get quite dark. People are shot, often viciously, they are wounded, they bleed, even tortured. A clear sign that Marvel aren't only delivering more mature content, but are confident in doing so.
That said, there's a healthy sense of humour in there too. Maybe not as riotous as some of Tony Stark's adventures, but it is there.

I have trouble thinking of what's wrong with the film. The action scenes sometimes fall into a lot of shaky camera work, again, but other times it is fine. This could be due in part to the 3D, which I had no time for; just see the film regularly, the 3D does nothing. Some of the plot might seem predictable, but I imagine the younger audiences will be totally captivated.

All in all a great movie, and it stands alone and as an Avengers continuation very well! What is remarkable is that Marvel is successfully giving each of its character's movies a distinct theme and mood. Like reading the different comics, there is a difference. You know you are watching Marvel, but the heroes have their own presence and strength to give.

Additional Marshmallows: As if you need to ask, yes there's two extra clips during the credits! Like with Thor 2, there's an important, longer clip after the initial "graphical credits" (connotations to Avengers 2: Age of Ultron!) and then a shorter, slightly less important clip after the regular credit role. However, the credit role isn't too long.  

  

   



 

Review: Turbo

While EA produces a film adaptation of a racing video game, I go back to Dreamworks answer to Cars. It was... okay.

Theo is a simple garden snail who daydreams of a life of racing, motor racing that is. He has a racing driver for an idol, and his fellow snails laugh at him for his oddness. But one day he is sucked into a street racing car's nitrous oxide fuel and gains super speed. With a team of friends he works his way to compete in the Indy 500 race circuit.

Now... a lot of this film's success lies on how far you reject the absurd concept! I gotta say, it is ridiculous and I can't say I fell in love with the character or the supporting characters; they mostly fall into street racing stereotypes (voiced by Samuel L. Jackson and Snoop Dogg, for example) and Turbo's morality tale feels a little too carefree and inconsequential. Super powers solve your problems!
This is comparable with Pixar's Cars, where flashy oddball McQueen must learn humility and appreciate others. Turbo on the other hand is about his success and taking it all the way. While it is about a little man making it big, it is a little too convenient and centralised around his story.

Visually it is fun, Theo's transformation into a super snail is entertaining with his eyes turning into headlights... a gimmick that wasn't used again, but it was funny.

This is certainly one of Dreamworks more shallow experiences, which makes it quite forgettable, but it is fun at the very least. Also makes it a little hard to write about.

    

Review: The Zero Theorem

A story of a man's existential crisis in a high tech future as he tries to comprehend the meaning of life, and whether or not everything is meaningless. Hard to fathom, but I found this original story to move me just enough to be intrigued.

Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz) is a technician, one of many, who works on monotonous, systematic tasks for a controlling corporation. His life has been forfeit for this task, and he is now a shell of a man without hopes or dreams; but he waits for a phone call, a mysterious phone call that will never come, but when it does it will give his life meaning. While those around him are boisterous and obnoxious, he is recluse and sociopathic, yet they try to get through to him, and prove that he is... in fact, trapped in a delusion.

Like a lot of Terry Gilliam films, The Zero Theorem has a lot of subtext that is exaggerated in gaudy bright and chaotic set pieces and costumes. Like someone took The Fifth Element, covered it in glue, and rolled it around in a scrapyard. But I like it, it reminds me of the scrapbook animations he made for the old Monty Python series.

The film opens with establishing the world that has isolated Qohen so harshly. Everything is digital; advertisements follow you down the street, parks are festooned with “Do Not” signs, and everyone uses mobile phones and tablets all the time. One moment in particular during a party; people standing together in a group, but displaying themselves through tablet screens.

There's a lot of sociopathic influences, and the film tries to balance whether we sympathise with Qohen's sad isolation, or reject him as “weird” and non-conformist. Personally I sympathise with him, I found the film's clear distaste for a loud, obnoxious, corporate fueled world compelling.

But like a lot of Gilliam's films, it is a hard sell. It is incredibly unique and that's what I look for in cinema nowadays and I am very glad I watched it. But for a lot of today's audience they will be left in the dark, utterly perplexed by its weirdness and lack of traditional storytelling tropes.

 

Review: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Director Wes Anderson has ever really wow'ed me with any of his previous works, often they are too wild and unprecedented, but with The Grand Budapest Hotel he has excelled.

Our story begins from the perspective of a writer who, in visiting a rundown Hotel, meets the owner who tells a tale of the Hotel's exciting, quirky and unorthodox history. He was once a Lobby Boy who becomes the Hotel concierge's confidant when he hides a valuable painting left to him by a deceased guest. However, the guest's "extended family" are wanting the painting for themselves, and they will do anything to get it.

It is easy to say that Ralph Fiennes owns this movie as hotel concierge Gustave. He is ridiculous and hammy, but enthusiastic and buzzing with self-confidence. The film is loaded with actors who frequently blend into their roles: Edward Norton; Tilda Swinton; Bill Murray; Harvey Keitel, even Jeff Goldlum, Jeff Goldblum does well in this film! They all have such small but crucial roles that they blend in, and their familiarity only adds to the film's perplexing atmosphere.

But it is far from just the acting talent that makes the film shine. Wes Anderson has shot the film in such a way that intensifies the quirky weirdness that this Hotel exudes; ninety percent of the shots in the film are very symmetrical! Shots are long and still as the characters rant and quip to each other. There are dozens of tracking and panning shots throughout bright, gaudy and antique settings, making the narrator's accounting of events seem dreamlike.
The way some of the comedy is paced and executed reminded me of some old Monty Python-esque humour. Chase scenes are very stylised, cartoonish, or similar to pantomime. Everything is given a very jovial, honest vibe whether it be love, imprisonment or murder!

It may not say very much, but The Grand Budapest Hotel was a fine and riotous experience and I would surely check in again. 

  

Review: 300: Rise of an Empire

It's time to trim your beards, wear eyeliner, shave off your chest hair and bludgeon and stab people to death in slow motion! With 300: Rise of an Empire, I've also reviewed the 2007 Zack Snyder film.

300: Rise of an Empire

Here's a good example of when a director puts his name only to the role of “executive producer” and not the main task. Director Noam Murro has done adequately with extending Zack Snyder's original experience, but it is a different animal, and far more jumbled.

While the three hundred Spartans commit to defending their land from the Persian armies, Greek general Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton) takes charge of defending the coasts of Greece against the Persian navy led by the malicious Artemisia (Eva Green). Over time, when the Spartans are defeated, their martyrdom inspires the rest of Greece to band together and fight against God-King Xerxes and Artemisia.

What surprised me was the film's initial focus on the Persians and the backstory of Xerxes himself. This is played much like Leonidas in the first film, we see Xerxes' motivation and otherworldly transformation into “The God-King”. The Persians are less monstrous in this story, though they still have forces that appear brutish and ugly.

But don't worry, the towering, gold adorned God-King functions as a bridge from one film to another, while Eva Green's protrayal as Artemisia rules the roost. She does steal the show from her broad-chested male counterparts, she is easily the most involved and deeply portrayed character in both films. It is safe to say that the villains own this film.

What cannot be denied is new director Murro hasn't quite captured the simplicity or the integrity of Snyder's action sequences; here he falls into the old trap of waving the the camera about to invoke frenzy. While you could argue this represents the Spartan control and precision, but then I would argue why are Athens warriors dressed the same as Spartan warriors? Spartans in fact wore armour, but I forgave 300 because it was exaggerating how hardy Spartans were, but here, some contrast between the two armies (asides blue or red cloaks) would have been nice!

I would also like to make a special mention, this film loses an entire cup of cocoa because of possibly the most ridiculous sex scene I've ever seen (true, it does involve Eva Green, but still) Some things are best left as metaphors!

It is passable as an action film. Those of you obsessed with all things Sparta and ancient Greek warriors will love it still; plenty of action and plenty of naked bodies on show. But I'd warn you, it doesn't have 300's artistic cinematography, a lot of the action sequences are at sea rather than on land, and the blood is... well... overly computer generated. For me, its quite forgettable (asides from Eva Green) unlike its predecessor.

300 (2006)

Director Zack Snyder's adaptation of a graphic novel's embelished vision of the historic battle between three hundred Spartan warriors and the entire Persian army encroaching on Greece is a bloody, ridiculous, testosterone fueled killing machine.

While three hundred Spartans did give up their lives for a glorious death against impossible odds at the Battle of Thermopylae (480 BC) and they used incredible tactics and fighting prowess to do so, the film 300 (and by extension Frank Miller's comic adaptation) does embellish history for dramatic and visual effect. While the Spartans are noble, stoic and fierce warriors, the Persians are regularly depicted as grotesques, as monsters more suiting to myth and fairy tales. All for dramatic comparison. Those looking for a historically accurate vision... might be put off.

However, as a show of artistic cinematography born from a graphic novel's panel art, you cannot get a more fantastic looking film. It has been a while since I've watched Snyder's Watchmen, but for now I can easily say 300 is his finest work so far.  Every shot is brazen and bold, the compositions are dramatic and ooze with earthy reds and metallic bronze, like Gladiator on steroids, it is a mythic action film with every intent to wow you with gut busting fight sequences. Yet the sequences are paced wonderfully; they aren't frenetic or confusing (like a lot of modern action cinema) Snyder's love for slow motion is in overdrive here, and scenes play out more like stage productions, replicating its source material.

The acting is as good as it could be with what the film passes off as a script, but then the film has no intention to be more than what it is: a battle. Gerald Butler gives a intensely memorable performance, roaring and yelling with a primal sense of honor, but the more sensitive scenes in Sparta, featuring Game of Thrones elite Lena Headey as Queen Gorgo, fall into forgettable territory next to the bloody warmongering and over-the-top villainy.

It knows what it is; a bloody, kinetic action film that takes no prisoners. Zack Snyder should be proud (although how much directorial work is required when taking stills from an artist's existing work is debatable) as this film, nay, this artwork is surely his most polished and most comprehensible piece yet. There might be little under the surface and it might be an indulgence, but it sure is memorable cinema!

Additional Marshmallows: 300 was released before the Cinema Cocoa blog as it exists today, but the records still remain. It was rated tenth in 2007's final leaderboard. Tenth of a massive one-hundred and twenty films watched that year!

           

Review: The Men Who Stare at Goats

Having just seen The Monuments Men, I opted to find another unorthodox "war film" starring George Clooney. This time though, it was a lot of fun!

Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is a reporter out to prove himself to his cheating girlfriend, and may have found the story to make a name for himself. Lyn Cassady (George Clooney) was once a military officer who was trained in psychic warfare as part of "The New Earth Army". In following Cassady, Bob must travel to Iraq and discover whether the story is true or utter lunacy.

The film opens with the teasing text: More of this is true than you would believe. That is exactly how this entire film plays out, in a constant state of egging you on, testing how far you can believe a real military organisation would go to win a war.
A lot of the comedy comes from bending your suspension of disbelief, and the deadpan, honest delivery of so much nonsense. The root of the story, for example, is that the American military decide to start researching into psychic powers because the Russians had begun similar tests. Tests the Russians begun because the Americans had attempted it first... which wasn't the case at all; it was a French hoax. Eventually entire divisions were created and funded for the development of real psychic powers!

Enter Jeff Bridges as Bill Django, a Vietnam veteran who started the project and inspired Lyn to be come a "Warrior Monk", or "Jedi", through military practices more closely resembling a hippie movement! Believing they can walk through walls, stare animals to death, being able to remote view distant places and will people into submission.
Bob is unfortunately stranded in wartorn Iraq with Lyn, living with the man's delusions while trying to discover if any of it is in fact true!

The film is a bizarre, oddball experience but seen through the sane lense of McGregor's character. Had this film been directed by Terry Gilliam or The Coen Brothers it would have been a surrealist experience, but as it stands it is a comedy simply about the characters. Clooney delivers some great lines, true nonsense yet given with such deadpan sincerity. Bridges, of course, chews the scenery and has a riot as a new age pacifist, and it is hard to restrain the giggles when Ewan McGregor asks, with a straight face, "What is a Jedi warrior?"

I definitely enjoyed it. It isn't a war film, but it encapsulates a lot of the lunacy and blind convictions that people can have in times of crisis. It is a great example of actors delivering so much humour with such conviction.
It is good fun, full of familiar faces, and far from the norm!

 
 

Banter: Compare and Contrast

So I finally have some time off to talk about this.

I have had some criticism about my opinion regarding remakes, and this post has been a long time in the making.

I hate remakes. "Hate" may be a strong word, and I am well aware that there are exceptions and examples that blur the lines of what isn't acceptable... but for the most part remakes/reboots/re-envisioning, or whatever you want to call them, are dreadful, unnecessary cash-ins that lack all sense of respect or creativity.

Let's go head first into the most recent debacle:

RoboCop.

The 1987 original was not based off existing source material, it was not an adaptation, it was the film industry (and a pioneering screenwriter's) unique and original story. It was popular too! Spinning off two sequels (of questionable quality) a kids cartoon, a toyline and a television show. All from a screenplay no one had any preconceptions for. All from a script that could have failed, bombed and to never resurface.
Why? Because it was given its own personality. Director Paul Verhoeven is an artist with a distinct style, elevating Robocop above the rest, and allowing its message to be remembered and cherished over the decades.

RoboCop 2014 on the other hand. Sure, it is reminding us how popular the original is by merely existing, it is as much a tribute as the original's sequels (and about as good).
And of course, the original still exists, why be bothered about a new interpretation?

Well asides from it being generally a BAD movie, I'll tell you.

Do we honestly believe that RoboCop 2014 will be remembered three decades on, in 2044, as fondly as the Paul Verhoeven version was? Does a skeptical, cynical audience going in to see a film only to come out saying things like: "Well, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be" really a testament to memorable, masterful film making?
No! It most certainly is not.
I ask again, will anyone care, quote or remember RoboCop 2014 in the year 2044? Sure, the kids who went to see it might. In the same way I hold the original to my heart. But you want to know the difference there?
RoboCop 1987 was an 18, an R-rated film. I had to wait to experience it. RoboCop 2014 is a bland 12A experience. A kid getting it immediately has none of the anticipation, or any of the gleeful daring of simply getting to watch it.

In 2050 when we look back at the film history between the years of 2000 and 2020 what will we say for it as a medium? Oh, well they adapted comicbooks, they copied and remade creative properties, they even rebooted adaptations not five years old (cough, Spider-man, cough). Is that a good legacy to remember?

Need another example?
Remember the Total Recall remake only two years ago? No? It had Colin Farrell in it. No? With the crazy elevator-thing that went through the centre of the Earth? Nothing? Point made.

Of course, these two are money spinners, plain and simple. Total Recall 2012 had the opportunity to follow Phillip K. Dick's original book "We Can Remember it for You Wholesale" more closely than the Schwarzenegger film. But it decided to lazily remake the existing film. Best to try and hit average than to burn out trying to be your own adaptation, right?

I've yet to watch the Spike Lee Oldboy remake... I hold the original Chan-wook Park film in such high regard... but from the overwhelming amounts of criticism that panned the remake before it had even released makes my point for me.
(I will watch it... one day... you need my opinion, after all.)
The same goes for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Funny. The original Swedish film managed to weave the entire trilogy together with a remarkable sense of continuity, something rarely seen in even the most popular trilogies and sagas.
How many entries of the trilogy did the David Fincher remake get through?
...
Oh... Oh I see, just the one? No worries; you join my pile of ammunition too.

(Don't even get me started on how those two examples are merely because people are too lazy to read subtitles). 


Now at this point I could keep going and skirt around what many of you are now arguing against me with. But I will address it, don't worry:

Judge Dredd / Dredd.

Possibly the biggest exception to any rule. But hear me out.

Sylvester Stallone's 1995 Judge Dredd is awful.
Now sure it has been long enough that the film has entered "So bad its good" territory, but that doesn't ignore the fact that it is an awful film. It is awful in how it doesn't respect the source material, and as a result it has fallen into obscurity.

2012's Dredd was a necessary remake. The source is excellent and lends itself to film interpretation, and director Pete Travis and actor Karl Urban obviously saw it as such. What we got is so far removed from the 1995 version (Judge Dredd was a 15, though by today's standards it could easily be a 12A, while Dredd is very, very much an 18 or R-rating!) that they are almost indistinguishable.

They didn't "remake" Judge Dredd, they made a more faithful adaptation of the source.

People argue with me that "You shouldn't compare" the remake to the original. But how can you not? Dredd by its own merits is an incredible achievement, but it earns that by being so much better than the 1995 film, no? Look who's comparing now.
I insist that when it comes to remakes or reboots, comparison is absolutely vital. If not, then your Total Recalls, RoboCops, Spider-Man-Infinitums will not stop, and we will end up with a creative medium that simply regurgitates itself, making obscene profits from an audience rolling over and mumbling: "Eh, it wasn't too bad."

Finally, people ask me what could be done instead?
I'm certain that there are many, many, many original screenplays out there that Hollywood outright ignores in preference for remaking classics. Screenplays written by talented individuals who deserve recognition and/or a visionary director to make their dream come to life. Your RoboCops of the 1980s. Something fresh and exciting with new characters and new worlds, to define a generation with and make new franchises with.
Even if it is a screenplay even remotely similar to an existing property, that is better than straight up remaking that property. You want an example of that concept? How about instead of remaking RoboCop, why not have a soldier from the wars in the middle east come home terribly wounded only to be reborn as a half-man, half-machine soldier? Why not? Relevant to the times, new characters, new settings. New franchise.

No. That wouldn't work, I hear you cry. Everyone will know it is a rip-off RoboCop.

You see this original film from 1991? One of the first major films from Academy award winning director Kathryn Bigelow? Point Break?
It could be regarded as the original to this:

It is a common comparison, but no one cries that The Fast and the Furious is just a rip off of Point Break, do they? No, of course not. What happened to this very similar "remake"? Did it fade off into obscurity? No, it just made millions, had video games franchises, and inspired just six sequels.
(by the way, there's only ten years between these two films)

Does my belief in an original screenplay similar to RoboCop doing better than a direct remake seem so ridiculous now?

And just to end this with a big, fat nail in the coffin...

Point Break is getting a remake next year.

Review: The Monuments Men

The Monuments Men is less of a heist film and more of a casual stroll through a war museum.

Towards the end of World War Two, with Allied forces pushing into Germany and the Russians also bearing down on Europe, one officer forms a small unit of scholars to go into dangerous areas and recover priceless art stolen by the Nazis during the occupation.

George Clooney both stars as our lead and directs the film, and honestly he might want to consider sticking with the acting.

That's not to say the film is without merit. As a story it is worth telling; I am sure that many people will be unaware of Hitler's possessive nature towards all European art and sculpture, or how valuable these treasures really are to society as a whole. I commend the film for having the decent budget, production value and stars given to such an overlooked aspect of the war.
Also being set after the major events in the war is quite unique; our characters reaching the Normandy beaches long after the fighting has ended, had a certain quality to it.

But... it really isn't as good as the sum of its parts, and the film becomes a muddled, cliche bore.

Clooney's film has some really unpleasant editing choices. Scenes come and go so quickly at times that we cease to feel any reason for them, or are oddly thrown in while another scene unfolds. Sure you can do this to add tension, but here it is done so many times (and with a multitude of date stamps, as if paranoid we will forget this is set during 1943!)
There are a lot of names in this film, but not a whole lot to do with them. The comedy elements are often forced, at least when in subsequent scenes characters are being killed off!
Did we really need Bill Murray's character making his own beef jerky, only to require a tooth removed because of eating it?

I went into the film with reduced expectations, yet I still felt the film was poorly executed and without clear focus. Make the film about finding lost paintings and rescuing them from a desolated Europe, or make a comedy about it. You can't easily have both. Why waste time with half-hearted character development (Do you think the horse would like a cigarette??) and show us the story. No, I didn't feel anything for any of the characters; the film simply didn't tell me anything about them. Not really. The one soldier's death which becomes a means to rally the others together... I barely even knew the guy! He was in the background while Damon and Clooney pretended the film was Ocean's World War Two.

Ach. It had good intentions, and it is obviously a subject Clooney personally wanted to do, but god is it forgetful. It would work as a forty-minute television documentary, not a star-studded feature film.

  
Additional Marshmallows: Damon's character James had a funny schtick about being unable to speak French though. Subtitles and all.