Banter: A Special Year

So this month was a special month for me, a prominent birthday! I'd like to celebrate on Cinema Cocoa with an image!

Review: White House Down

Probably one of blockbuster-director Roland Emmerich's better movies over the last ten years or more, White House Down ticks all the boxes as a solid action film.

John Cale (Channing Tatum) is a man out to prove himself to his wife and emotionally distant daughter by signing up to become one of the US President's (Jamie Foxx) bodyguards. But just as he is declined, his chances arises when the White House is taken over from the inside by terrorists and everyone inside is held hostage.

It is undeniable that the comparisons to Olympus has Fallen are rife with reviewers, both films released last year with barely a month between them (one of the reasons I wanted to review both back-to-back). There are weirdly similar elements besides the blatantly obvious (the titles are effectively the same!) both have scenes referring to the British attack on the White House from American history, and I'm sure both have a villain say the line: "Welcome to my house".

For all its infrequent cheesiness and let's be honest here, "Emmerichisms", this film is better paced and has more emotional connection than its overly-serious counterpart. The setup feels more believable (incredibly, considering the tonal differences of both films!) our villains appear to have a thought out plan, the heroes become tied into the action with actual reasons. Heck, I even felt these characters were actually vulnerable, unlike the scenery-chewing Gerald Butler. 
Sure, when action hero Cale teams up with the US President we get quips, we get wise cracks and the film starts to become a surreal buddy action movie that... for all intensive purposes... makes no realistic sense. But at least White House Down runs with it, it knows what it is: a bit of entertainment!

(there's no overbearing and trumpeting score, or any all-praise-America baggage here!)

It is by far a good movie, its characters are pretty stock, the action and effects aren't actually as good as Olympus in my opinion, and it may have been a little long in the tooth by the end. But it has good pacing otherwise and doesn't feel restricted by its own presence and gravity. The levity comes from the dialogue, both from heroes and villains.

Like with Olympus, I doubt I will remember this film for much longer, but I can tell you right now that this film was more enjoyable and... paradoxically for Emmerich... felt more genuine than the serious-toned alternative.

A bit of high grade action fun, the sort of thing Emmerich is good for, without the ghastly ham-fisted nature of his worst movies! 

Review: Olympus has Fallen

Well I had always intended to watch this... but now that I have I have discovered some awful not-supposed-to-be-funny 'Murica trite.

When a terrorist attack on the American White House ends with the President and his aids taken hostage and the House turned into a fortress, only an ex-Secret Service agent (who was retired due to an earlier accident that caused the death of the President's wife) can save the day.

The 1990s were full of action political thrillers and Olympus has Fallen appears to be trying to rekindle that genre of film: grounded, realistic and most importantly contemporary stories based around sieges, hostages or conspiracies. But either Olympus has missed the point completely, or something has been lost over the last fifteen years.
First of all, this film (as someone from the UK) is so overwhelmingly America, just... in your face AMERICA. Okay, that's fine for a while. But when every single scene for the first twenty minutes is noble politicans striding boldly through corridors while the score blares with trumpets and warbles with drums, over and over again, I'm sorry but you lose any sense of nobility.
We then have the actual attack on the White House which is spectacular, there's no denying that the action in the film is well done (there's no obnoxious shaky-cam for a start, I generally knew where everything was!) but again the total lack of defense around Washington DC was outright laughable.
"Suspension of disbelief" is all well and good, but when a tone of a film is generally seen as realistic or gritty, behaving like an action thriller than a standard popcorn flick, these sorts of issues become targets for criticism. Sure, trumpet how awesome America is just before obliterating everything it stands for a moment later! ...
The film is a bloody sequence too: televised executions, beatings, stabbings, traitors, all shown through a lens of gritty hardship. I can't actually call this pro-America, it comes across more like self-defecation!

Then there is Gerald Butler... Oh boy. I don't dislike the man; I enjoyed Law Abiding Citizen (for example) but this film's script and acting is atrocious. I've already said this film is bringing the 1990s back, and that is right. I've seen all of these cliche sequences before. I had all of the emotional attachment for him and his wife/girlfriend/partner/person as I do for my toothbrush: every now and then, I am reminded that it's there.
Butler's character is, for want of a better analogy, The Terminator. We see these terrorists enter the story by massacring hundreds of civilians, and so naturally Butler can go on a bloody rampage executing any terrorist he sees with impunity. Imagine Die Hard, but without the sense of humour or self awareness. He just growls and murders his way to inevitable victory (oh, could that be a spoiler? You mean you weren't sure if the personification of America would survive this ordeal?)

Ugh. Suspension of disbelief can carry you so far, but after that you need to tone down the pretentiousness. It is a forgettable action film that doesn't know how to act. "We are realistic and contemporary: We... have hi-tech Hydra weapon platforms. We Stand for American integrity: We use a three-code nuclear activation system called Cerberus."

I need a good note to finish on... uhm... uhm... It is better than A Good Day to Die Hard?

Avoid, unless you want to have some noise in the background while you do something productive.
 

     

Review: Edge of Tomorrow (2D)

Tom Cruise continues to show us he isn't getting old by strapping on a gun-totting exoskeleton to blast some aliens. But luckily for him his co-star is excellent and the film's implementation is entertaining.

In our very near future aliens arrive via meteor shower. Before long the entirety of greater Europe has been reduced to an infested wasteland. The military of all major countries amass around the borders and attempt to push the expanding tide back with state of the art weaponry. Cruise plays William Cage, a military spokesperson who is drafted against his will, only to get himself killed in the final battle. However, through unknown means he finds himself reliving the day, again and again, each time he dies.

This sort of thing has been done before, from Source Code to Star Trek television episodes, the hero trapped in a time loop offers an affordable bit of entertainment with the reuse of sets and even dialogue. Luckily, I'm a sucker for this sort of story.
Think Groundhog Day mixed with the visuals from the battle for Zion in Matrix Revolutions. Based off a Japanese graphic novel called "All You Need is Kill" (originally the film's title until it was changed to suit wider audience appeal... sigh...) the film starts out with contemporary settings and a very un-Cruise like Tom Cruise. His character is a downright coward, and we see him trying to shrink and squirm his way out of army recruitment. This was a great way to start as it proves that maybe this film will be unique.
Then you have a literal montage of Cruise dying... a lot! As is the film's gimmick; Cruise must learn (and in turn inform the audience) about the mysterious alien invaders through the only way he can: by fighting through a hopeless battle over and over again.
He finds help through Emily Blunt's character Rita, a veteran in this future war and quite probably veteran show stealer. Certainly Cruise's continual deaths are the funniest thing he's done in a long time (take that as sadistically as you want!) Blunt's grim reality is a great foil for him, especially when she must... instigate his day's repetition.

It does have some cliche of course. The unit that Cruise's character is settled with could be replaced by the Saratoga's marines from Aliens, and I've already mentioned how the entire premise has been done before. The way the story naturally develops does mean that our lead hero becomes more and more Tom Cruise-like too. It is perplexing, but the more interesting character is seen to be slowly replaced by the all too familiar film star. It also has a terrible ending that reeks of massive cop-out. Far from the worst I have seen but certainly up there, a very unsatisfying end after everything that had happened.
The action is also far too frenetic. Coupled with the aliens appearance being very, very fast and covered in tendrils, it is incredibly difficult to see what is going on! I only saw this in 2D but I am grateful for it... this mess would induce a headache in 3D.

But, it proved good entertainment and as a sci-fi fan I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot more than I expected to and I would consider it well above average.

Review: How to Train Your Dragon 2 (3D)

Four years in the making and this sequel does what few ever manage; soaring as high as its predecessor!

Life on the island of Berk has improved since Hiccup proved to the viking people that the native dragons could be friends, even pets. We see Hiccup's impression on the village with everyone using gadgets and inventions, however our hero is not feeling confident with his father's plan to make him the new chieftain. But when a notorious dragon training tyrant called Drago has plans to take their pet dragons for his army, Hiccup feels he can resolve the problem without violence.

I felt the 2010 film didn't require a sequel; it functioned as a single feature and even the series of books it is based upon does not give it a sequel, but... this new film is great!
Our characters have grown up, but they maintain their snappy dialogue and relations and possibly the best part: they aren't angst-ridden teenagers! Hiccup may have identity issues, but the film does not linger on this, it doesn't even try the old cliche of putting deliberate wrenches in his relationship with Astrid (this is very tastefully handled in general!) Toothless too has retained his cute charm and gains plenty of knowing looks towards Hiccup's more harebrained ideas. I love where they take his own personal story. Hiccup's father, Stoick the Vast, remains one of my favourites, in fact a lot of the film is focused on his past which I really appreciated; it fit what we did and did not know from the first film.
I was going to argue that Drago (Djimon Hounsou) the exotic villain of the piece, is the weakest element, but upon further reflection he does provide a tremendous amount of weight to our lead characters, and even acts as a mirror to Hiccup's own ethics (being a dragon trainer himself) and I believe his character will improve over further viewings.
The graphics are gorgeous. Over the four years between films the characters and locations have been virtually made high definition, most obvious being Astrid's hair! The 3D too was very good, much like the first film.

I'm talking a lot about the characters, but that is because I love good characters more than the stories themselves, and these two films have had a consistently great cast!

My only gripe does not affect the film itself. While the plot's narrative felt far more predictable this time around, I hate this film's trailer. The trailer gave way too much away! Trailers need to stop doing this because there are reveals in this film that should be both intense and surprising, but if you've seen the trailer entire scenes become needlessly ambiguous. This review is not giving away any of this and I implore you: if you haven't seen the trailer yet... don't! Just believe me and go and see the film (and the first one if you haven't already!)

HTTYD2 does what sequels rarely do these days; it takes everything that made the original good and didn't mess with it. It doesn't over-complicate its already splendid characters with cliched yo-yo plotlines, it doesn't throw in grandiose concepts that break the narrative's simplicity, it merely gives us what we want: more! Expanding the world, explaining the lore just enough to keep things light and fun but also challenge us with intensity and daring.

I think I have a new Film of the Year.

 
Additional Marshmallows: All the way through this film I was listening to one particular character's voice... for ages I was like: "Is... is that...? Is that really Jon Snow's actor in this film??" Yep. Game of Thrones' star Kit Harington features as a newcomer and he is pretty funny too!
  

    

Review: How to Train Your Dragon

2010 was a tough, tough year to rate films; so many excellent films, it remains the most memorable year for me. Inception won out, but even with Tron Legacy and Toy Story 3, How to Train your Dragon came a very, very tight second behind Christopher Nolan's mind-warping thriller. Even now... I question that choice: in my top 50 films of all, this film comes a solid 18th (one place higher than Inception).

I adore this movie.

In a fantastical land, warrior vikings battle dragons on a daily basis, but one viking Hiccup is not like the others; he is meek and sheltered and instead of battling he creates traps and gadgets, instantly becoming a laughing stock of his peers and a disgrace to his father. But when Hiccup wounds a mysterious new dragon and begins to form a friendship with the beast, his world is turned (sometimes literally) upside down!

I remember the early posters for this film. I remember scoffing: "Hmpf, How to Train your Dragon? Another lame animation full of crude humour from the studio that brought us Shrek? Count me out." But then the trailer appeared and wow. Then I watched it and I was floored.
For a ninety minute feature it is crammed with story and great characterization! The dialogue first and foremost is witty and snappy but never overbearing or obnoxious (something a lot of animation suffers from at least a couple of times) this comes from having genuinely wonderful characters. Hiccup (voiced by Jay Baruchel, probably now typecast for life) is not whiny or too hopeless, using intellect and unorthadox thinking to win out, and the film's core being the developing friendship between him and his dragon Toothless, which is both very powerful and fun to watch! I don't think I can forget their first scenes together on screen!
Toothless, what can one say? Media has had a lot of great dragons in the past, Toothless is right up with the best of them! Somewhere between a dragon and a cat, his is intensely cute and fiercely loyal to Hiccup. They become like joshing best buddies.
It doesn't stop there either, the supporting cast are excellent too. Gerald Butler gives a fantastic performance as Hiccup's father, the amazingly named Stoic the Vast (the father-and-son "talk" scene is actually one of my favourites) and even potential love interest Astrid (America Ferrera) isn't anywhere near two-dimensional.

It isn't all fluffy cuteness either, the overarching story is intense; these vikings live to hunt and kill dragons, this is a war going on and at times How to Train Your Dragon does not pull any punches. There are some challenging, heart wrenching moments in the third act, and as such this film single-handed showed the world that Dreamworks Studios are capable of standing as tall (if not taller) than Disney and Pixar combined.

The music is a soaring Celtic and orchestral mix, the graphics are often eye-popping (the sky and rock effects are incredible) and the animation on Toothless is to die for, the screenplay is tight and never wasteful and the dialogue is smart and refined.

Dare I say it, nothing is wrong with this film!

Additional Marshmallows: If you haven't already, I recommend you find the How to Train Your Dragon short animations, they are great additions to the world and provide even more wonderful character dialogue!

Review: Maleficent

Is there any better example of missing the point than this?
Maleficent: "I am the Queen of All Evil" - Sleeping Beauty 1959. Now, Maleficent is a Paragon of True Love.

When the realm of fairies and the world of humans fall into war, Maleficent, one of the most powerful of fairies, strives to protect her lands. Her childhood love for Prince Stephen is betrayed when he rises to power, and in a fit of rage she curses his newborn child Aurora to die before her sixteenth birthday. However as Aurora grows up in seclusion Maleficent questions her own actions... while King Stephen becomes wrathful.

This film is blasphemous to the titular character. My childhood felt butchered by the film's end.

First, you must appreciate how hard it is for me to say that... I went into this film with only quiet skepticism and I had done away with my doubts. But Sleeping Beauty is my favourite Disney film. Why? Not for the archetypal characters or accident prone fairies, no, for Maleficent herself. Sure, she has no motive and is simply an antagonist. But she is one of the greats in film villainy: terrible, wrathful and cruel, giving some of animation's most haunting moments in the process.

2014's Maleficent begins with a rosy-cheeked, innocent little fairy girl Maleficent.

Okay, okay, I can restrain myself... This is partly expected from today's Disney and I stomached Boba Fett being a kid didn't I? (not really) Everything will go wrong and the true Maleficent will bloom before my eyes!
Nope.

This film's brazenly confident narration tells me: "So you think you know the tale?" Well yes, in fact I do; it is my favourite tale. Well, turns out I don't know it at all when they make stuff up! Maleficent does not follow 1959 Sleeping Beauty's foundation at all.
I don't know the fairytale you say, Disney? Let's see... How about I research the Sleeping Beauty tale just now... maybe Maleficent is telling the true tale, maybe I've gravely misjudged the source material. Nope. Turns out nothing in this film is from the source material! The 1959 animation has far, far more references to the original tale (and I am taking into account the multiple renditions of the fairytale) Come on, Disney! Don't you dare rewrite your history and proclaim it is wrong. Don't you dare assume to teach the true fairytale if you have no desire to even come close to it! Most of all, don't you dare make a film about a villain if you have no intention of going through with it!

This film is about Maleficent (a fabrication of Disney, incidentally) but while we get a character who looks and sounds like her, she is acting out being a misunderstood, repressed fairy, fighting an evil King. How, I am desperate to know, can Disney take their most EVIL character and make her a noble, tragic soul that I should feel sympathy for?? There's even a scene where she regrets and tries to revoke the curse she placed on Aurora! Why has Disney taken their own creation, after decades of cementing her place as a grand villain, and turned her into a heroine?

God, this film...
It could have been good, no it could have been glorious, if it had simply kept the character unchanged. It boggles my mind why they did it. Angelina Jolie is exceptional, I love her as an actress and she is the perfect fit for Maleficent. The special effects are good and there's heaps of atmosphere, her ent-like tree soldiers are awesome as well. The three fairies weren't bad either (apart from being given the wrong names!) they were always ditzy, and King Stephen's fear and paranoia was great, it was an actual improvement on the 1959 animation; a father would be consumed with guilt and fear in those circumstances.

But damn did they screw.up.everything.else. By the halfway mark I was bored, and by the end I had ceased caring. What a tragic waste of Jolie's perfect talents. I would not be surprised if Walt Disney himself is turning in his grave.

This is simply a creative decision, probably by committee, that I absolutely cannot understand.

Would anyone accept a new 101 Dalmations movie where Cruella De Vil wasn't actually... erm, cruel and she was actually trying to make a dog shelter? Or if Shere Khan was just looking for a good scratching post the whole time after King Louie had stolen them all? Or if Scar was actually a good guy, he was framed by hyenas the entire time?

Review: Sleeping Beauty

Possibly the definition of style-over-substance, I can barely explain why I love this film above all other Disney films... It almost ditches everything narrative to provide one of the greatest villains of all time. For me the film is hardwired: I love it.

The story is as simple as they come. When Princess Aurora is born, she is blessed by the three good fairies with life-long gifts of beauty and song, but another fairy, the wicked Maleficent, curses the child to be killed before her sixteenth birthday. Only one true love can possibly save Aurora should the curse be fulfilled.

Even though my feelings for this film are deep, deep down in my heart and cannot be explained (when I started Cinema Cocoa, on my Top 50 films, this came 16th) I will admit there are issues with it.
It is terribly simplistic. Our characters have next to no motivation or any character outside of classic archetypes. Aurora could be any number of Disney princesses; she starts out life hidden away from Maleficent's knowledge by the ditzy three fairies Flora, Fauna and Merryweather, and while nowadays she might have become ditzy herself (ie Tangled) Aurora becomes... completely unassuming and quite bland. She walks in the forest, singing about her one true love, talks with animals, sings some more. But you can see she is at least curious, if a little ignorant. Our Prince, Prince Phillip, is even more generic and not very memorable (his noble horse is of course a classic Disney character).
No... all of Sleeping Beauty's power (and terror) radiates from the merciless Maleficent, and while she too has virtually no characterisation either outside of being the antagonist (she wasn't invited to the Royal party?? That would make anyone mad!) the film gives her so much gravitas and absolute menace. She hardly shows herself, but her scenes are easily, easily the most memorable moments and will sear themselves into any young child's mind forever. From her curse, to the mesmerising and haunting Spinning Wheel scene, to of course... the finale. The finale to end all finales, so short but so intense. I could happily go on and on about her.

So do I purely enjoy this film for its antagonist? Probably; Maleficent is at the centre of my love for villains, but Sleeping Beauty's soundtrack is wonderful, haunting and very memorable. I've not watched it in years but the visuals are very striking too. Even on the old posters it says: "Wondrous to see, glorious to hear".

A lot of it is aimed at girls, I admit. Most of the film is following the three fairies taking care of Aurora in their hideaway (failing to bake cakes and make dresses) and with only their mistakes to drive the plot forward. Aurora's constant singing about her elusive dream of her Prince Charming. A couple of kings who rather needlessly fill time with comedic singing and drinking (reminds me of another favourite: The Sword in the Stone) there's plenty to find irksome for the modern viewer.

I guess I am just smitten with it. I still get chills towards the end. A film normally requires good characters to envelope me into caring and fearing for their lives by the end... but Sleeping Beauty doesn't do that (at least not for me); it instead sells one of film's greatest villains and the terrible wrath she happily bestows upon the hapless.

I love it.