You actually have to remind yourself this is a Michael Bay movie.
Mark Wahlberg is Daniel Lugo, a bodybuilder and fitness trainer who, inspired by little more than movies, brings together two equally dimwitted friends in a bid to attain his American Dream. How? By kidnapping a man and stealing all of his money.
But even such a plan proves too much for them, and everything goes from bad to much worse...
If a Michael Bay movie could ever conceivably have actual subtext and actual compelling weight to it (no pun intended) Pain and Gain is as close as we have ever gotten! Based off a true story, yes, a genuine true story, Pain and Gain is one of those black comedies that provides exactly what it intends to give.
Mark Wahlberg and company are completely harebrained, though not in a particularly goofy, cartoonish way but in a manner that all good black comedies can show; a clueless, cringeworthy obliviousness. An ignorance of real life and the consequences that their "simple" plans have.
For the all-American / America-is-Great director, this film actually sings a different tune. While yes, these garish characters are often shown in glamorous success, by the film's end we are given an honest truth; that many people are actually this ignorant, that people don't appreciate what they have and (deliberate or not) ruin other people's lives rather than work hard for their goals.
Of course, that's looking deep. On the surface Pain and Gain is a gaudy movie about morons attempting to commit crimes without knowing how, and living the high life without any morals. There are flashy cars, drugs, torture, strippers (correction: lots of strippers) and plenty of men who care more about their pectoral muscles than any of those things!
Sounds a little divided, but honestly this film surprised me, and a lot of that is to do with its sense of humour. This is higher grade humour than say... Transformers humour. In fact it feels like low rent Tarantino humour. Dwayne Johnson has never been better. He plays a born again Christian, a man who is attempting to redeem himself but gets roped into Wahlberg's scheme instead. He is a buffoon, a huge, towering buffoon and he completely steals the show with his backseat comments and wide-eyed doubt. Seriously, even if you don't like him as an actor, this film may well convert you.
A black comedy of fine quality, quite possibly Bay's best film (whatever that means to some of you) While it is brash and uncouth because that's exactly what it should be, I'd recommend it.
I didn't like my original review for Gareth Edwards' Godzilla, it is too much of a rant for my tastes, so I took the time to watch the film again. It really has been 2014's most divisive film yet and I wanted to be sure of my original opinion (You can't say I'm not fair!) But, despite a bit more forgiveness this time, I still find it to be a poorly executed film.
Is there need for a synopsis again?
Doctor Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) has been following an ancient parasitic organism and tracked it down to a nuclear plant explosion in Japan. He finds one of the physicists there to have information he needs on the creature (known as a MUTO) but as the creature hatches and causes global destruction, Serizawa believes the military is not enough... and that an equally ancient creature is their only hope...
Now I'd like to stress, first and foremost (and despite my first ranting review) this is not a bad film, it is simply very easy and very necessary to view the many problems it has. I like the film's audacity: in a time were big monster/robot movies are light or popcorn munching flicks (Transformers, Pacific Rim etc) this Godzilla attempts to merge what is a very rich legacy of films. On the one hand, we have the original 1954 film, for its time it is an edgy, morose and compelling blockbuster, but on the other hand we have the ridiculous and often laughed at monster battle movies that Toho Studios are famous for.
Here, Gareth Edwards appears to be wanting both. An atmospheric, realistic (and almost philosophical) monster battle movie. We don't just get Godzilla, we have other monsters for him to fight, as well as human interests to follow! That is a big ask, for a film just two hours long, and I do respect the attempt.
The film looks great; there are some proper moments that are very cool and give a great sense of awe and enormity (Godzilla is staggeringly huge in this rendition) the marine "halo jump" scene is an intense sequence. I like the monsters as well, both traditional and new. The music too, upon the second viewing, is great! Going from low, trembling fear to bombastic chaos in a heartbeat. Ken Watanabe is also good in the film, giving a sense of origin to this otherwise all-American story.
But... (and it is a big, Godzilla-sized but) the storytelling, premise, motivations and character arcs are absolute garbage.
I honestly have trouble understanding people saying this has better character motivation and emotion than say the aforementioned Pacific Rim or Transformers. This film is choked with some of the most unnecessary cliches of any typical blockbuster. "Oh no, mass destruction of a major city, BUT WILL THE DOG SURVIVE!?"
There are some terrible oversights in logic also, making the military depicted appear completely incapable of rational thought, while the characters themselves work off an asinine script (something Gareth Edwards "claim to fame" Monsters also suffered from, a terrible script) All of this makes the human subplot, or should I say main plot, appear confused and redundant.
Ugh, to stop a rant from developing again I will move on.
Bryan Cranston from Breaking Bad features heavily in the film's trailers, yet his part has almost zero bearing on the film's story. Don't believe me? Watch it again. You could cut him out from the story completely. He should have been the focus of the film; he gave the most impassioned performance, but no, we follow instead his son, Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Ford, a cardboard soldier who is forever under the feet of these monsters regardless of which country he's in. I know Aaron Taylor can act, I liked Kick-Ass, but here both the script (and mostly likely the director) gave him nothing to work with.
A cynic could say, and I do, that Bryan Cranston's involvement was merely to boost ticket sales.
It is a difficult film to like; I can see a lot of it working (a sequel as a lot of potential for improvement) but it becomes so frustrating over time and two hours starts to stretch on for eternity. The monster fights climax wonderfully, but with literally one hundred minutes of build up, either of teeth-grindingly tedious character fluff, or continuously teasing grand battles with merciless edits and cut-aways (dare I say this is as bad as Cloverfield) the entire experience becomes a frustrating endurance.
I don't see why we needed a first act that is nearly pointless. Cranston's character could have been cut and replaced with more of Ken Watanabe's character giving Godzilla (you know, the titular character!) an actual backstory. We have an audience who believes the Roland Emmerich 1998 Godzilla is "the original"! That is blasphemous; Japan and Toho actively distance themselves from that film. This was the opportunity to tell western audiences about Godzilla... and the film fails to do that.
Additional Marshmallows: That's a whole half-cup of cocoa more than the first review's rating, how come!? That half-cup is basically for the soundtrack, which I hadn't appreciated until much later.
I hope this review proves to be more... constructive than the first "rant" review. Incidentally the first review will remain available on this blog!
I really enjoyed the first Cloudy movie, and was sad that I never got around to seeing this sequel in the cinema. Now I can say that while it doesn't quite live up to the quirky original, it is full of some of the most silly, most adorable food animals!
Following on directly from the events of the first film we see inventor Flint Lockwood trying desperately to join a science corporation ran by a childhood idol of his, the same corporation that has stepped in to prevent consequences of Flint's "water-into-food" device. Namely, an island inhabited by living food!
The trailer had sold this film to me (and the marketing too) by simply showing us all the crazy animals they had designed for the animation! This is easily, easily the films best quality and quite possibly the only reason it exists at all. Watermelophants? Hippopotatoes? Shrimpanzees? And quite possibly the most adorable marshmallows I have ever seen, I want one. Or several.
This design work is very straightforward but it is so enjoyable to watch, much like with the first film, and the animation work is rubbery and looney. Our characters move and behave more like squeezy toys than attempting to look "real". I think this is a benefit to the film since we have so many animated films attempting to be realistic or slick and stylish; this is just off the rails, like an old Saturday morning cartoon.
So style and design are top notch, but where the film flounders a bit is the story it attempts to provide. The first film was simple: a disaster movie with gigantic portions of food. Cloudy 2 attempts to be more like a dinosaur movie, The Lost World style, with some moral implications and betrayal. Unless you are two years old I doubt any of the "surprises" will provide such excitement. The villain isn't particularly good or inspiring, the plot just moves along with all the classic cliche that we come to expect.
Another thing I need to add would be, despite the animation on the characters being fun and lively, the backgrounds were seemingly dead, often flat and devoid of eye catching details. I cannot remember if the first film had this too and this is merely a style choice, but asides some of the final scenes, the backgrounds didn't get much love?
The humour is great but mostly in an eye rolling "oh god did they actually go there?" manner; the puns are set to overdrive in this film, in fact I think half of the first act's script is entirely puns-for-puns' sake!
If it weren't for the goofy and wonderful critters, I would rather watch the first film again. But this isn't bad either! If you enjoyed the first film, like I did, you'll enjoy this too. Just watch it for the cute animals.
A funny, if a little glib, black comedy from one of my favourite directors Luc Besson.
Giomatti Manzoni (Robert De Niro) is a husband and father and once respected head of an American mafia clan, only now he and his family find themselves relocated to France under a witness protection scheme. While mafia hitmen look for them, surveillance teams see that the socially dysfunctional family cannot blend into their surroundings.
There's only so much one can say about Besson's recent little dive into black comedy territory. Some might argue that others have done this idea better, far better (both in film and in television) and parallels can be drawn to existing work, and they wouldn't be wrong. The Family is a short affair, idling through high school angst, nuclear family and household dilemma cliches without much purpose other than through a lens of often unbridled psychopathy.
That said though, I liked it. Tommy Lee Jones is the officer in charge of Giomatti's incarceration, and the man's granite-hard, stony grimace is at full force here as he reluctantly tries to temper an unhinged and violence-prone De Niro to lay low. The family's kids, Warren (John D'Leo) and Belle (Dianna Agron) potentially steal the show despite their development initially going through some of the oldest High School stereotypes around. And Michelle Pfeiffer, well who doesn't like Michelle Pfeiffer in their films?
There is something intriguing and amusing about what must be a strong and very capable family (be it an overreacting and violent family!) trapped in some benign social purgatory!
It is a slow burn film towards an exciting conclusion, and that perhaps is its undoing. While it does crack some good black humour with how these mafia-born individuals (both adult and child!) deal with completely mundane problems, I did feel like I was in a waiting room, waiting for the inevitable.
The Family doesn't excel at one or the other; a black comedy or a straight out mafia story, it feels downplayed and while that is a boon in making the brief carnage seem intense by comparison, it doesn't quite go full comedy. Full unorthodox.
But like I said, I enjoyed it. It was a simple, violent and overall watchable film without any problems but without any real selling points.
My days of watching all the past X-Men films paid off; director Bryan Singer's return to the franchise not only triumphs but rights many of the wrongs with the series! The future seems bright again. (Yep, I just used the film's title in my opening statement)
In the distant future the world is torn apart by war. The human prejudice against mutants escalated so far as to create robots known as Sentinels; changelings that adapt to mercilessly track and kill mutants. When they begin to target humans too, Professor Xavier and Eric Lehnsherr work together and send Wolverine's mind back in time to the eve of the Sentinels' creation by Dr. Bolivar Trask. But that's the easy part; Wolverine must convince a traumatised young Xavier, rescue an imprisoned Magneto, and find the mutant who can disguise herself as anyone before she can doom all of their futures.
When this film starts, and the opening titles start with that familiar victorious theme from X2 (John Ottman returns for this film's score) I knew things were going to get good! We are shown the bleak future left for our heroes, Iceman, Xavier, Magneto, Storm, Wolverine, Kitty and some new faces as they are attacked repeatedly from super-advanced machines. There is something of an exposition dump during this sequence, which I found a little nebulous to grasp at first. But once they send old Wolverine back to the 1970s, things get interesting.
This film has a great sense of humour. Something of a mix between Matthew Vaughn's First Class (he assisted writing this film) and Bryan Singer's first two movies. We see Logan pre-Weapon-X days with bone claws, but with the memories of future events, confront our heroes from Vaughn's prequel, a confused and troubled Xavier (James McAvoy) and a deceptive Magneto (Michael Fassbender). The film isn't suffering from lame "Oh, its Wolverine in the 70s!" jokes but there is a sense of fun throughout events. Especially when they enlist the help of one mutant named Quicksilver. Possibly the most riotous fun the entire series has ever had!
Of course, things get intense too, Singer has always had an edge to his X-Men films, and Days of Future Past has some pretty unpleasant, brutal sequences! Even the not metal-infused Wolverine gets beaten up badly!
I would also say that for once Magneto doesn't steal the show. There's a lot more focus here on Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique (probably because of her rising stardom) and McAvoy's Xavier, which I appreciated; throughout the films the Professor has had very little to do. This film isn't just action and powers being thrown around, the characters do have something to say.
The film's strength lies in what some might consider its only weakness. Like the roots of a tree, the story links and curls around previous adventures, combining virtually all of the films into one massive experience. As it stands on its own, it is a blasting, continuous adventure giving only brief moments to pause, but if someone has followed all of the films to date (to some extent including the Wolverine films too) they will love it.
I was grateful I'd watched the old films again, though Logan's time traveling allows for brief flashbacks (or is that flashforwards?) to remind us of events past and future. I do love films that act as sequels and prequels.
All of our favourite characters and actors are back in surely one of the most star studded comic book films yet, and amazingly it doesn't collapse under the weight! Sure, there are a couple of lingering questions on my mind, but not enough to detract from the overall entertainment.
I'll definitely be watching it again! Is it as good as X2 in my mind? I don't know yet, but it sure feels like the good old days are back again: good, solid and exciting entertainment!
Wow, this has been an x-treme x-perience, watching all these X-Men films in preparation of Bryan Singer's Days of Future Past released this week! (Okay, I'll stop the x-puns now)
I love my X-Men movies, but it shouldn't be any surprise to Cinema Cocoa readers that I did not follow the comics... in fact these films were all I knew about them!
Let's not waste any more time, we have six films to go through!
X-Men (2000)
You know what worries me the most about the first X-Men movie? It is how a lot of people nowadays will look back at it and scoff at its simplicity. I personally love it, and respect the legacy it brought about single-handedly.
Director Bryan Singer brings the live action film interpretation of Marvel's comic book franchise The X-Men, a team of mutant superheroes battling to defend humanity despite the prejudice and fear shown for them. Here the film follows their defense of a young girl who's powers are just beginning to show themselves, and the mysterious man known only as Wolverine who vowed to protect her from Magneto, a mutant who's past has taught him nothing but hatred for humanity.
While the film is by far a stellar piece of storytelling, it is a one trick pony; showing us the X-Men and their various powers not unlike a Saturday morning cartoon (how apt) a sort of "see the film, choose your favourite X-power" vibe, but one should appreciate the history of this film.
In pre-millennium years there were no superhero movies outside of Batman and Superman, Batman had dug his own grave with Batman and Robin, while Superman was immortalised and untouchable with Christopher Reeves portrayal. No other comic-inspired film had the budget or the means to excel.
X-Men was barely any different. 20th Century Fox had no plans for the franchise and believed there was no future in comic-book films and gave Singer a meager budget of $75million. Let me through out some estimated figures for comparison: The Amazing Spiderman 2 - $200million; The Green Lantern - $200million. Heck, even Sam Raimi's Spider-man released not two years after X-Men got $139million.
Because of this budget the film barely manages a ninety-minute run time! NINETY. One hour and thirty minutes. In today's market that is unheard of. Yet with skillful manipulation of characters, action sequences that show off all of their abilities and how they can combine their powers and having an excellent cast, Singer paved the way for what we now know as the superhero genre. It truly is miraculous film-making when you think about it! It builds foundations for multiple characters, rather than being a origin story for any one person.
Of course, this budget restraint does mean the film has its flaws and I am reluctant to criticise it because of that reason; it was the best they could do! The editing gets a bit fractured, especially when the film has to follow both Professor Xavier's (Sir Patrick Stewart) X-Men and Magneto's (Sir Ian McKellen) Botherhood and some times the dialogue, while I love it and it is very punchy and memorable, can be a bit silly. A toad + lightning... What happens again, Storm?
Major fans of the X-Men franchise will find issues everywhere, and again, today's indulged audience may look back at this fledgling experience with apathy. With many characters they are reduced in scope and liberties are taken, but only to benefit the budget and entertaining nature of the film.
I love it, and while Batman and Superman technically existed first, X-Men was the first film to begin the merchandise and franchise machine that is Hollywood's superhero genre.
Additional Marshmallows: Seriously, how can you not like a film with Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Famke Janssen and a naked fashion model painted blue? Seriously, this film is so much fun.
X-Men 2 (2003)
Like how Spider-man 2 is to Spider-man, X2 takes the airtight foundations of its predecessor and ramps everything up to eleven. Beside his definitive film The Usual Suspects, I would say this is one of director Bryan Singer's best.
Taking straight off the back of 2000's X-Men, we see Wolverine trying to recover his lost past and a military general named William Stryker has been given the right to track down mutants. Little do we know that Stryker has his own agenda, one that will unite Professor Xavier's team and Magneto's villainous Brotherhood. But for how long?
Much like its predecessor X2 is an entertaining spectacle; it opens with an engrossing attack on the White House by teleporting mutant Nightcrawler and seldom slows down after that. It is loaded with memorable scenes and acting from the main stars; Magneto's escape from the plastic prison is a firm favourite (despite being such a short scene!) There is perhaps less of the first film's focus on human fear of mutants, which is replaced by William Stryker's total hatred for them, played wonderfully by Brian Cox. This elevates Sir Ian McKellen's Magneto into a permanent state of "I told you so" confidence and he and Mystique steal the show as a result.
The action is brilliantly displayed, the film released on the eve of CGI becoming all consuming (we were only just starting to make Spider-man CGI at this point) so films like X2 rely on massive set pieces and physical effects and stunt doubles, and honestly, it is better off for it!
The soundtrack is great too, the score by John Ottman had a great sense of excitement, victory and is, most importantly, memorable!
Again, like Singer's first film, hardcore fans bemoan his treatments of some characters. A lot of fan favourite X-Men are pushed aside, given cameos or are depicted as youths. I personally have no connection to the comics and have none of these issues; I get to see some cool powers on display, and some new mutants (ie. Nightcrawler, Lady Deathstrike, Pyro). Though I do find this film more about displaying individual powers rather than combining for a team effort such as it was shown in X-Men. I'm also a little sad how often my favourite star, Sir Patrick Stewart, seems to get the short end of the stick; Xavier has been incapacitated somehow in both films!
All that aside, it is a roaring good film and I find it to be one of the best comic book movies of recent years. It has none of the pretentiousness that "Nolanification" gives films nowadays, it has none of the angst and brooding teenage melodrama of the newest Spider-man films, it has just enough serious undertones and danger to the characters that you become invested. Sometimes, if done correctly, you can do a lot with little.
Additional Marshmallows: For the record, X2's budget was higher than X-Men's, but not by much; it still worked with half what Green Lantern and Amazing Spider-man had. When you consider actor pay and the cost of CGI against the quality of the films, Singer's two films are a marvel (no pun intended).
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Three years after the success of X2, director Bryan Singer steps away from the franchise and Brett Ratner takes the helm, giving us what believes itself to be the final chapter... and unfortunately it was not what anyone wanted.
When a clinic discovers a cure for mutation Magneto goes on the warpath against humanity, seeing the cure as a weapon forced upon mutants rather than a choice. While trying to stop him, Xavier and the X-Men are confronted by a resurrected Jean Grey, seemingly possessed by a powerful personality known as The Phoenix.
I think I've only seen this once before, in the cinema, so watching it again was a daunting prospect. If X2 was on the verge of "too many mutants", The Last Stand topples over it.
As if responding to angry fans about the lack of favourite mutants in Singer's films, Brett Ratner chose to cram as many of them in as possible, yet curiously ditching a lot of the favoured characters from previous films in the process. We don't get Nightcrawler, Cyclops (within the first ten minutes!) is killed off, Rogue barely features and another terrible loss occurs mid-way through. Instead we have Beast, a fan favourite, Angel and Kitty Pryde. None of them get character development.
Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants suffers the same fate, enter The Juggernaut, Multiple Man and a host of randoms who may have names but I couldn't catch them.
What happens now is we need passion and emotion: this is the final bout, the conclusion, the battle that has been prophesied by both Xavier and Magneto for two films now... but we don't get that. Half of the characters we followed through the films are barely featuring, and new characters are put in just as a generous nod towards the comic book fans.
The best that the film can muster is between Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) and Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and between Iceman and Pyro, two of the younger characters after they've chosen sides. I don't see how these elements couldn't have carried the film alone.
Instead we have Angel... who is completely unnecessary, behaving like a footnote "Meanwhile, with Angel". Kitty Pryde drives a completely unbelievable wedge between Rogue and Iceman, which goes nowhere only to add one or two moments of teenage angst.
To think, this film has the budgets of the previous two films combined! It feels like a finale that didn't want to be. Beloved characters are killed off, replaced or "cured" just as they are getting into their stride. Colours of the beginning of Alien3 come to mind.
Then, unsurprisingly, they turn the tables at the last second. Status Quo is restored.
So anything good about the film? Asides a couple of characters brief sparks of conflict, there is precious little, and a couple of action sequences are good, usually when Magneto is tossing thing around.
But ultimately the new characters aren't three dimensional, instead they fling their allocated powers to give themselves identity. There's a fine line between X-Men and its third installment, a fine line between ingenuity and failure.
Additional Marshmallows: The decent of part three is due to several problems. Singer admitted that leaving the franchise to make Superman Returns instead was a mistake, but also during the production of X1 and X2, he had arguments with actress Halle Berry. Berry almost didn't return for X3, but with the disaster of Catwoman, she returned and demanded more screen time for her character Storm.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2008)
Lesson learned from watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine? If you are a friend to Wolverine your life expectancy diminishes rapidly!
Before he met Colonel William Stryker and the Weapon-X project, we see Logan's life as it was, and his relationship with his brother Victor "Sabretooth" Creed.
Perhaps the first sign that 20th Century Fox really wants to keep the rights to the X-Men franchise in light of Marvel's own film studio building in strength, my opinion on the film remains mostly unchanged. X-Men Origins is entirely "filler": an unnecessary entry that either tells us what we already know, or gives us information that will never be relevant again.
Completely gone is Bryan Singer's original interpretations of mutant prejudice and hatred from humans, the struggle of what it means to be different... now we literally just have men jumping and leaping around attacking inconsequentially because they are either self-healing mutants or will be brought back because of potential sequelage.
It is sad because the film isn't inherently bad, but because X2 showed us Wolverine's grisly, horrifying past with Brian Cox's compelling portrayal of William Stryker, the major events of Origins just feels like repetition. In fact the film's strongest element is only featured during the opening credits, where we see the immortal brothers battle through every major war in America's history. Honestly if this film had followed that rather than Weapon-X again, I might have forgiven it for any other mistakes!
Everything else becomes yet more fan service like we had with The Last Stand; mutants don't get stories or characteristics, they merely lend their powers to help the main character get to wherever the plot needs him to go. Hey, its The Blob, he's fat. Hey its a guy who can teleport, hey, its a guy who... is good at shooting people?
What ultimately happens to the few characters who might escape this fate, such as Gambit, the film bombed (equal ratings with The Last Stand on IMDB) and we will never see this interpretation of that character, or any connections to this film what's so ever. Don't believe me? Taylor Kitsch isn't returning as Gambit.
Plagued with dodgy CGI, repetitive fight sequences between Logan and Victor, and retreading story elements that were given better treatment in X2, this is one film you can completely ignore.
Unless you are a fan of Hugh Jackman's biceps.
X-Men: First Class (2011)
With their original plan for multiple origin story films dying with Wolverine, 20th Century Fox let's Kick Ass director Matthew Vaughn helm this prequel to the X-Men trilogy. What we get is one incredible return to form!
Before they chose their sides, Charles Xavier and Eric Lehnsherr were allies and wished to protect mutants from the misunderstanding of humans, hoping all can one day live in peace. But when one mutant, Sebastian Shaw, plans to destroy most of humanity so mutants can rule the world... the two friends find themselves with differing views of the future.
After the events of X-Men: The Last Stand, audiences were relieved to see some of the best characters in the franchise return to the big screen via a prequel, but best of all Vaughn's casting is nearly impeccable! Rising star James McAvoy takes on the difficult task as a young Xavier extremely well, but Michael Fassbender's portrayal of Magneto completely... utterly steals the show. The film could be seen as his origin story above all others, but one should remember that Magneto is one of the most compelling characters in the franchise.
Alongside them are a multitude of new mutants and the return of Mystique, another favourite (played wonderfully by another rising star Jennifer Lawrence), Beast, Azazel, Angel and Emma Frost to name a few.
The action is wonderfully shot and implemented, powers are shown at their very best and there is a great sense of teamwork as Xavier begins to form the titular X-Men team. But probably best of all is its sense of humour. While it does maintain the murky reality that gives the Bryan Singer films their pathos, the wit on display is written so well that it lifts spirits immediately. The training montage, Charles and Eric's search for recruits are some of the best moments in the whole series.
Some of the magic that First Class has is due to Bryan Singer's involvement in production. While the director was busy with Jack the Giant Slayer at the time, there is a lot of continuity with his two films, most notably is the shot-for-shot remake of Eric Lehnsherr's brutal childhood experience at the Nazi camp.
I am a little sad that I didn't place this film higher in my final ratings for 2011, coming 13th, I suppose Sebastian Shaw wasn't the most compelling bad guy (as fun as it is to see Kevin Bacon return and have such fun with a role!) it is a film were the good guys get the best attention, like most origin stories. Shaw's ultimate plan seems unnecessarily long winded for such a simple end result.
It ends with a note of finality, true colours revealed, as if to tie directly into Bryan Singer's X-Men, which is a little sad as I could imagine a lot more being done with the characters as they were depicted in this time frame. It felt a little forced, but
I love it. The sense of humour, the scale of some of the battles and the casting... god the casting alone is perfect. If you lost faith after The Last Stand and didn't want more X-Men, I beg you to give this film a watch. You will not regret it.
Additional Marshmallows: Did you know, to add to the problems of The Last Stand's production, Matthew Vaughn was briefly set to direct that film after Bryan Singer dropped out. He would decline and Brett Ratner was brought in instead.
The Wolverine (2013)
Things are destined to go wrong when our western hero goes to Japan!
The Wolverine boldly follows on from the events of the critical flop X-Men: Last Stand
(something yet to be committed to in seven years) as 20th Century Fox
maintains the rights to the characters of Marvel's franchise.
We
see Logan completely lost and alone after the tragic events seen in the
earlier films, finding himself at odds with his nature and purposeless.
However when a man from his past returns with an offer to end his
brooding self-pity, Logan might rediscover himself.
The
meat of this film is that Logan's contact, a Japanese genius in control
of a super high-tech facility, is dying and wants Logan's mutant
healing ability. Eventually Logan loses his powers and becomes mortal.
He must fight to defend the man's grand daughter from Yakuza assassins
without his powers.
At last we have a Wolverine spin-off film that is justified. I found the last installment, Wolverine: Origins,
to be a dazing, absurd waste of time; it told me nothing I didn't
already know about the character. Here at least we can see a vulnerable
Logan, and how despite his weakness he still battles with ferocity! It probably makes the best of what The Last Stand gave the character.
This
is mostly descriptive of the film's opening act. It is a surprisingly
moody, dour beginning but not without Logan's signature aggressive humor
and superiority. I enjoyed this, it proved the film wasn't solely
reliant on bravado and ridiculous action scenes.
While
I liked this and Wolverine's loss of powers, something goes wrong
towards the end of the film... It certainly does not end as powerfully
as it began and continued, and I can only attribute this with some
pretty random plot devices and blatantly obvious "twists". (Logan is in a
hurry to save someone so he.... gets off his motorbike and decides to
walk the last two miles?)
Still,
despite a few glaring wobbles in the plot and storytelling towards the
end, and some "indescribable tech" that does what it does because it can, I enjoyed the movie. There isn't much to say, but it has good action and a refreshing look on a well established character.
It is certainly better than Origins.
As we look towards a new film this week that merges two different timelines, I would like to take a moment and mention how completely messed up the X-Men franchise is thanks to 20th Century Fox. Unlike Marvel Studios, who have maintained a steady narrative and casting choices... Fox has mixed and matched and confused everybody.
As a simple example: the mutant Emma Frost features in X-Men First Class as a fully grown woman, in the 60s, but in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Emma Frost features as a little girl, about the same age as Cyclops!
Certainly, watching all of the X-Men films provides quite a headache, and it isn't the same as watching all of the Marvel films (unless you include 2003's Hulk, but then why would you?) You could watch the trilogy and First Class together, and at a pinch Wolverine. But Origins has been left at the wayside, at least for now.
I am trying to not be over hyped about X-Men: Days of Future Past, but it is extremely hard not to! Not only do I get to see Sir Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen reprise their roles as well as James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, but it is directed by Bryan Singer once again!
Of course, Bryan Singer has made some terrible choices in the past... Superman Returns remains to many as an unacceptable betrayal of the fans, both of comics and of the films, needlessly harming his excellent run of films and making a bad film at the same time! I am hopeful that Singer sees his return to the X-franchise with the same importance that I do.
Like some overzealous knee-jerk reaction to the campy, indulgent movie disaster Gozilla '98, director Gareth Edwards brings us one of the most infuriatingly tedious and disappointing monster movies since his own Monsters in 2010.
An organism as old as the dinosaurs has grown into monstrous size and devastates a nuclear reactor in Japan. Fifteen years later scientist Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) teams up with a nuclear physicist who lost his wife in the attack on Japan, both uncover a monstrous egg which soon hatches. The insect-like creature craves radioactive material, and while the military struggle to stop its global tirade Serizawa believes a more ancient power, known only as Gojira, can stop it.
On paper, this sounds amazing. In the trailers, it looks amazing. In director Gareth Edwards' execution....... it feels like all of the worst cliche elements of blockbuster films combined into a laborious slog.
To get the best bits out of the way first because its easier, the film has great photography. The atmosphere is intimidating, almost everything is shown from ground level to give a sense of scale, shots are well framed, I like the monster designs. Those parts of the trailer, the halo-jump and the monster? Those are great! (shame you've already seen those in the trailer...)
Literally beyond the shots in the trailer, there is little, little else. Let's start by saying this is not a remake of 1954's Gojira (and no it is not a sequel to the 1998 film!) it is its own creation. Godzilla himself is an existing creature of Japanese legend, Doctor Serizawa perked my interest at first, but there is no connection to the 1954 film; it is just a name drop.
Now onto the major problems. We are here to see Godzilla aren't we. Well, tough. All those bits in the trailer? Yeah, that's your lot, near enough. The entire film is centred around our human characters Aaron-Taylor Johnson's Ford Brody, an army bomb disposal expert and Watanabe's Dr. Serizawa, weighed heavily towards Ford and his army colleagues as they struggle to deal with the giant monsters.
Enter a lot of hoo-hah; military focused action where the monsters aren't even involved. The film dedicates entire sequences to securing a bridge to cross, or arming a bomb, or pushing a boat out from a pier! No monsters! What's worse, this military seems to ignore logic as much as they did in the 98 film, I kid you not! The new monsters (not Godzilla) emit an EMP field, all electronics die immediately within a wide proximity. By the finale of the film the military are STILL sending aircraft into the area! What happens? Buildings are destroyed as fighter planes crash into them. No s*** Sherlock!
And that's only the tip of the iceberg of nonsense this film pulls. For a giant, lumbering and surprisingly fat Godzilla he sure can sneak up on people! Scenes are constantly set up for suspense, even after the monsters are revealed to be towering colossals. No, you can't and shouldn't be playing the suspense card over and over in a kaiju movie, it doesn't work!
Not convinced yet? Here's the real issue. While we are forever chained to our human characters and their distinctly unorthadox melodramas ("I need to get on that train to get back to my family!" He then instead continues to take train so he can face off with the monsters and a nuclear bomb) the film deprives us of seeing the monsters! In a monster movie, in a Godzilla movie, we hardly see them battling until the last ten minutes; the film shyly cuts away whenever a battle begins! Not once, not even twice but several times, all for the sake of following humans as they run away.
WHAT?
I've gone on a lot, but this film's apparent reluctance to show the monsters was infuriating, making its two hour runtime feel like an eternity. This needed some of Pacific Rim's spectacle, some of Michael Bay's frenzy (yes, I just said that) some logic from its human characters to make their cause even remotely important!
There was so much promise in the trailer, there was promise at the start of the film, but no, you'll find your suspension of anticipation worn out with melodrama and a endless line of teasing! If you aren't asleep by the end, you will probably be smirking as the film missteps and trips over its own feet.
So ask me, go on: Is it worse than the 1998 film??
I'll be honest, there are things that even that pile of nonsense does better but, I prefer this film for its atmosphere and its (misguided) respect for the original material.
Oh, and a life tip: When giant monsters attack and your husband is right in the middle of it, you should leave your phone in the other room so you can't hear it when he calls. If you think you should hold onto it for dear life and pray he isn't dead, you'd be wrong.
Additional Marshmallows: You might be wondering, "Cocoa, you didn't mention Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston at all!? What's wrong with you?"
There's a reason for that. Don't get too invested in his character. That's all I'll say...
It is ironic that people today moan about action movies having ten, twenty minutes of solid action and destruction; little do they realise that films have been doing this for decades!
This is something of a Remake Rumble as well as a saga review. The original Gojira, an American release of the same film Godzilla: King of Monsters, and Godzilla.
One of these three remains (so far) the only Godzilla film to be nominated for a Best Picture award and won one for Best Special Effects.
Another one of these films won the award for worst supporting actress and worst remake or sequel, and was also nominated for worst picture of that year.
Which ones could they be?
Gojira (1954)
Twenty years after King Kong, Japan's first major entry for what is now called the "monster movie" genre.
When ships are destroyed off Japan's east coast and all further attempts to investigate end the same way, the story follows a salvage ship owner and a zoologist as they deal with a colossal prehistoric creature behind the destruction.
Being a monster movie from the 50s and one of the original "blockbusters" the film has a remarkably casual pace; the first act of the film does not feature the monster but shows the effect his mere presence has on Japan. Godzilla is portrayed more as a force of nature, a steady, unstoppable creature who is influenced by our actions as much as we are of it.
Godzilla's prehistoric nature is because of his home deep beneath the oceans being corrupted by nuclear testing, and as a byproduct he himself is radioactive and has unnatural powers and invulnerability.
Of course, this is the heavy subtext of nuclear weapons, but the more challenging message the film provides is how far humanity should go to stop a new danger? A scientist in the story has developed a new super weapon, possibly the only thing to stop the monster, but should a new weapon of mass destruction be unleashed to stop the effects of another?
It was good fun to watch. At its most dated moments it is charming; I love miniatures in special effects! (even when it can look like someone tossing toy cars around) Most of the action is at night which helps, and even the black and white nature of the film makes the sight of destruction a little more believable. That said a lot of the fire effects around the monster are still spectacular to look at today, and Godzilla's ten minute long tirade through Tokyo is impressive.
Of course it has dated, and the first act is strangely void of major characters and in fact you have to wait until the main heroes are actually revealed. Any possible compassion for Godzilla, through the zoologist character who would rather study the creature, is left at the wayside; we see the monster causing such terrible destruction and his character can do little to stop or condone it. What compassionate subtext there is is for the audience to decide.
It was great to watch, and I recommend others appreciate the origins of the classic monster!
Additional Marshmallows: Did you know that Gojira coupled with Toho Studios' other film that year The Seven Samurai nearly bankrupted the studio?? And that Gojira was nominated for best picture and won Best Special Effects at the Japanese Academy Awards! George Lucas has been quoted saying the miniature effects in Gojira inspired the miniatures for Star Wars.
Godzilla: King of Monsters (1956)
In today's film industry of remakes, this sixty year old variation on the idea is a breath of fresh air by comparison!
The film follows the exact events from Gojira only from the perspective of an American reporter who found himself swept into the turmoil of Godzilla's attacks.
Instead of blindly missing the point by remaking a piece of art, Godzilla: King of Monsters (supplied by Toho Studios for general release in America) attempts to extend the story instead. This works at times and has noble intentions, but I suspect due to budget restraints a proper parallel story couldn't be made.
Our American protagonist, Steve Martin (Raymond Burr) is nothing more than an audience surrogate: he watches the events unfold from the sidelines and is placed among the crowds that witness the destruction. His unique scenes are entirely him and a handful of Japanese extras watching "nothing" (or more accurately, the footage of the original film!) occur off-screen, or his own narration over the more widespread events. Other scenes between Gojira's main cast, which he couldn't possibly be involved in, are dubbed.
What is most impressive about the endeavour is Toho's decision to have the Japanese characters (while in earshot of Steve) speak only in Japanese and give the audience no subtitles, giving the sense of confusion our foreign hero would experience.
It may just be my personal dislike for dubs, but the film starts to collapse when Steve starts to interact with the characters from Gojira (I'm sure this wasn't apparent back in the 50s) but a conversation between Steve and the-back-of-an-actor's-head feels clunky and impersonal. But time and budget restraints are likely the cause of these issues.
It is a film of the times. Now that we have access to watch either film this one suffers by comparison, but as a concept for remaking a film it is worth implementing today! With the resources and funds the film industry has, a parallel story with an American focus could be far more interesting than simply re-shooting everything with western actors and even missing the point of the original screenplay. That said, some of the themes might be lost in the translation; the final note here isn't as foreboding as the original film.
Having watched Gojira and now this, I can safely say that you only need to watch Gojira (unless you are as obsessed with learning about films as I am) as this is the same film. I suppose if you are one of those people who hate subtitles then Godzilla: King of Monsters might be better suited. Back in the 50s this would have been an inspired idea, but now it looks more dated than the original.
Godzilla (1998)
Uuuuuuuugh.
So you might be wondering: "Cocoa, why torture yourself so?" and the reason being that I've heard people, actual real people, asking whether Godzilla 2014 is a sequel to this movie or not. Or asking why Matthew Brodrick isn't in it.
Yeah. That's right.
News flash: Godzilla 2014 has NOTHING to do with this awful, laborious pile of nonsense!
So, after French nuclear testing in the Pacific ocean an amphibious lizard is transformed by the radiation fallout into a colossal monster. It then terrorises the city of Manhattan, and only Matthew Brodrick (seriously?) can stop it.
First of all, this is because of French nuclear tests? Seriously? Despite the fact that America has done hundreds more oceanic tests? Secondly, every scene of this film is awful or contains something awful.
Allow me to elaborate: Someone thought it was a good idea to take a metaphor of nuclear destruction and the death of millions through natural disasters, something that has become a classic piece of film iconography... and turn it into an American comedy. It is a spoof, it is a satire. It has none of the original's subtext, it doesn't try to give it an American spin... actually it does, but only with all the worst aspects America has to offer.
Enter a host of cow-eyed, mushy faced actors and actresses. Brodrick, the king of nerdy, twitchy insecurity, Maria Pitillo is the queen of wide-eyed obliviousness, and the dad from Transformers as the worst military leader, who are joined by every sitcom cliche New Yorker character you can fathom. The sheer weight of awful characterisation (including caricatures of American celebrities) manages to bury Jean Reno, one of the coolest men in cinema during the 1990s.
I've not even gotten to the action. The action is poorly, poorly paced. One is reminded of the recent Die Hard 5 and its repetitive sequences that are one and the same, but the teeth-grinding repetition isn't the worst of it, but more of the entire setup to begin with.
For some ungodly reason the screenwriters believed the best way to have Godzilla in Manhattan would be to prove how a city island, home of over a million people, is the "perfect place to hide". I...
<insert mindless rant>
... What's more, the original Godzilla came to the mainland to eat humans due to its underwater food source depleting. This Godzilla however, came to the mainland to lay eggs and eat fish. You know, because there's nowhere better than Manhattan to lay eggs near the Pacific ocean, and there's no better place to find FISH.
You see my gripe? The action doesn't matter once you lay out the setup and see how atrocious it is, regardless of the fact that the action is overblown and completely dumb anyway.
You might say I am missing the point, this movie has clearly been designed this way: comedic laughs follow total devastation and death, characters never have any straight, honest dialogue. What angers me is that this is what a lot of people consider Godzilla to be. An awful, marketed, Jamiroquai-singing, product-placed, media-driven, dullard sitcom.
This film should be forgotten, and remember: Godzilla 2014 is NOT a sequel to this film!
Additional Marshmallows: An example of how clueless this film is: At one point Maria Pitillo's boss steals her "top secret" report on the creature's history and broadcasts it himself, dubbing the creature as "Godzilla". Maria then angrily shouts at the television: "Its GOJIRA you moron!" as if to preach proper respect to the creature's origin.
But according to sources the name Godzilla was actually Toho Studio's idea during the original marketing for their film Gojira to American audiences in 1954. In fact, "Godzilla" or "Go-dzi-la" is the proper pronunciation of "Gojira".
So you see... this film is garbage however you slice it.
