Tribute Review: Horror of Dracula

Back in June this year cinema lost one of its most iconic actors, Sir Christopher Lee, so I opted to watch one of his most classic films; his first role as Dracula.

Based upon Bram Stoker's classic novel, this 1958 movie is produced by Hammer Studios and compared to the 1931 Bela Lugosi Dracula, this is a far bloodier and darker affair. When Jonathan Harker visits Castle Dracula he forces the inhuman count to flee to the city, bringing the threat to those he cared about.

When you have a novel so regularly recreated in film form it often becomes a matter of which version you saw first is the version you enjoy the most. Or you can compare them all even closer to the text to decide which is best, which can be unfair. 

The Horror of Dracula is only eighty minutes long, and at first I was very concerned they had twisted the novel's narrative too greatly; when Jonathan first arrives at Castle Dracula he already knows what The Count is, and what has to be done to defeat him. 
Certainly the film takes a few minutes to get going; we are waiting for Peter Cushing (Star Wars, for non-horror fans) as Van Helsing to arrive. Cushing is great as the knowledgeable vampire hunter. As someone who grew up with Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, I never really accepted Anthony Hopkins as Helsing, here Cushing looks like the intelligent hunter that can match wits with the monster.

Once Dracula leaves the castle, the film follows beats of the book closer than I expected. There are exceptions however, for example the character of Renfield is completely missing and none of that plot exists. The story follows specifically the seduction of Lucy, her late night visitations from the tall, shadowy creature and the duo of Helsing and Arthur (played by a youthful Michael Gough - Batman) trying to save her.
The film has great atmosphere and set work; Lucy's room is very exact to how I saw it in the book. Sir Christopher Lee has a great presence as Count Dracula, although I wish there was more of him; as the Count and as the monster he was very convincing! I can see why he came back to the character over half-a-dozen times.

But, the film does feel a bit clunky at times. Asides from the opening with Jonathan (can no one get this part right?) there's a laughable scene where the all knowledgeable Doctor Van Helsing is listening to a recording of himself explaining what vampires are and how they can be defeated. Yes, it is as ridiculously heavy-handed as exposition can get!

I enjoyed it, and I should look into the other Hammer Dracula films with Sir Christopher Lee. A very theatrical, short but gory interpretation of the novel.

Review: The Martian (2D)

Director Ripley Scott delivers stunning visuals to accompany this space survivalist flick.

Matt Damon plays Mark Watney, an astronaut botanist who takes part in a space mission to the planet Mars, but when their mission is cut drastically short due to a storm, the team lose him and presume him dead. With the crew returning back to Earth, Mark wakes alone on the red planet with what little supplies the team had left in their hurried exodus. Now survival is his number one priority, with the dizzying prospect of years of waiting for Earth to send help.

The film opens with a bang (after a moody title sequence very reminiscent of Scott’s Alien classic) with our Mars team settled on the planet only to be ripped away from it in their escape from the storm, all within ten minutes maximum. This opening is far too rushed; we have a half dozen characters and virtually no chemistry or personality to accompany the dangers they are faced. None until the meat of the story commences: Damon’s Mark Watney wakes up and makes the NASA base his home.
Luckily for us, Matt Damon delivers an intensely likable performance that balances the long scenes of dialogue-free survivalist drama as he builds a crop from scratch and retro-fits various space mission tech together to communicate with Earth. His wit and personal thoughts are translated through video logs he records during his long stay on the planet. This to and fro, from survivalist kit-bashing and video logs, is much of the film’s setup.

Things get more intense as NASA (alive and progressive in this film’s future) become aware of Watney’s presence on the planet (via satellite images) and struggle with the logistics of mounting a rescue. What proceeds is something akin to mashing Castaway, Apollo 13 and Gravity together, with the ever increasingly vulnerability of our hero, the unorthodox methods NASA use to help him survive with little to no supplies, and a dizzying rescue plan. You can see that Damon has physically trained himself for the role and the challenge of making the premise believable.It is a very beautifully shot film, reminding me of Interstellar but with a more grounded, more human experience at its core. It is often jargon heavy, much like Interstellar and Apollo 13, preferring to suggest realism rather than comfortable layman’s terms which tends to wash over you as something you should just accept and move on with.

On top of this are the occasional indulgence in deux ex machina devices that feel far too convenient in what is an otherwise “realistic” experience. As realistic as a man stuck on Mars can be anyway.
With the aforementioned hurried opening, I'd say secondary characters aren't quite given enough screentime, the film heavily weighted to Damon's character. I never got to know these people and so didn't especially worry about them when things got dire. Also, Sean Bean was in this? I didn't understand his character either, apart from being "the sympathetic voice" I had no idea who or what he was.

At its worse it has some conveniences (probably due to compressing Andy Weir's book to film length) and a lot of characters are left at the wayside, but at its best it has a charm and an excellent visual flare that cannot be ignored. I enjoyed it.

Review: American Sniper

Clint Eastwood's directorial step into the Iraq war with this biopic proves to be clunky despite his trademark skill at getting the best possible performances from his actors.

American Sniper is based off the real life heroics of one Chris Kyle, a Texan "cowboy" turn SEAL sniper during the war in Iraq. He was quickly realised to be the most lethal sniper in US history, called by his peers as Legend, with over one hundred and sixty confirmed kills to his name.
The film charts not only his impressive career and the dangers he faced but more importantly his fracturing state of mind and the war's influence on his family life.

This must be the most stoic and intense performance I've ever seen from Bradley Cooper, turning himself from the know-it-all pretty boy into a muscular, patriotic and multi-layered soldier.
You know what to expect going into a film directed by Eastwood; a film driven by stunning performances that drive home heart-string pulling sympathy and emotion, and he certainly rubbed off on Cooper. Kyle's relationship with his wife, played by Sienna Miller, has a lot of chemistry and proves to be the best element of the film.

But for all of this good chemistry (and without spoiling the story if you don't know already) I found the film to be skirting around some of the real issues, issues that Eastwood would have given real gravitas to, instead preferring to show rather classic and archetypal war story beats. Scenes that could provide more emotional weight end before things are fully realised, at least I didn't feel as moved by the characters and their peril as I could have been. A defining moment for this is the ending, literally the last few minutes were the most emotional of the entire movie, to the point were it almost feels forced.

Being based off Kyle's autobiography, and how seemingly patriotic he was as a person, one wonders how accurate the story's antagonists really are, specifically an enemy sniper who's skill could only be matched by Kyle himself. What could have been a moving character study that Eastwood would excel at, becomes a little cartoonishly heroic. It feels more like a movie about his incredible deeds (which are incredible) instead of a biopic about the man himself.

Clunky is the word I would use. It was a decent film for Bradley Cooper's performance and some intense moments, but it didn't do enough to get me completely invested; I came away from it remembering a lot of standard war story beats.

Banter: The Hobbit - The Battle for Tradition

So The Hobbit trilogy has ended, Peter Jackson has finally ended his Middle-Earth adventure, but unlike the first Lord of the Rings trilogy this one has ended... badly.

I loved the Lord of the Rings trilogy. A series of monstrous films made from acclaimed "unfilmable" tomes from JRR Tolkien, directed by a man who had no practice in making such massive epics, a man who made trashy gore movies, and on a shoe-string budget (at least for the scale of the project!) It became probably the best adaptation Hollywood will ever make.

But The Hobbit, as everyone has said, has been developed into a long... long... long overextended franchise spanning three films while only being based off a short children's book that Tolkien wrote before Lord of the Rings, long before anyone asked him to write an epic. Yet when Peter Jackson returned, and due to Rings success, he wanted to make a charming children's book into the same sort of epic battle trilogy.

You cannot do this, and the final chapter The Battle of the Five Armies proves that all the doubt during the first two films was true.

I read up on my Tolkien lore. Original Tolkien lore, written before the films were made, and I would like to share some of the glaring inconsistencies that bothered me so much as to make The Battle of the Five Armies (and by extension The Hobbit trilogy) the worst the franchise has to offer.
If you have read The Hobbit, you will know a lot of these already and hopefully agree with me, if you haven't seen the films (or read the book) I will warn you that there are spoilers ahead!

Tauriel and Legolas

Tauriel annoys me, she annoys me a lot and not just because I have to keep checking the spelling of her name on IMDB, but because she is (unlike anything else in the entire film franchise) completely made up; she does not exist in the books, or the expanded lore. Why? Because we need an action girl, because Tolkien was writing books about war and high adventure in a time when men were at the forefront of such things.
Sure, I'm all for strong female characters, I could even accept them inventing someone to fill the role (I didn't mind the changes to Arwen's story in the Rings trilogy) but only if the character was actually relevant. Tauriel's two narrative functions in the story are A: to be involved in a love triangle and B: need rescuing.

Top quality writing there guys. Shoehorn in a female role model only to reduce her to the worst stereotypes in Hollywood.

Legolas never featured in the original Hobbit story, why would he? Certainly Jackson had a thread of connectivity for Legolas, the character's father The Elven King Thranduil was involved in The Hobbit story and the battles.
So when Legolas is shown in The Battle of the Five Armies killing the orc leader Bolg, you can rest assured he never did that, nor did he rescue the non-existent Tauriel.

Add to this the fact that these characters are effectively the same archetype, so having two of them is inherently unnecessary. 

Azog and Thorin

Let's put aside the ghastly CGI work that has befallen the orc characters for a moment and talk about them, because there's great whopping errors here.
Azog is determined to be the worst of the worst in The Hobbit's film interpretation; he hounds the dwarf company all the way to the gates of Erebor and even has a score to settle against dwarven prince Thorin. He leads the orc army in the Battle of the Five Armies, and even seems to reside in the evil, abandoned fortress of Dol Guldur.

Azog died 150 years before the events of The Hobbit. 
He was killed in the Battle of Azanulbizar (the same battle showing him paradoxically victorious in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey) by none other than Dain Ironfoot, he being the dwarf played by Billy Connelly in Battle of the Five Armies film. Dain had been seeking revenge on Azog for slaying the Dwarf King Thror in events prior.

Still with me?

In short: Thorin never killed Azog, Azog never featured in the story.

Bolg and Beorn

Now Bolg, the handsome chap with the metal in his body. Bolg is Azog's son, and was the sole leader of the orcs during the Battle of the Five Armies. Perhaps seeking vengeance for Azog's death.
Perhaps just for kicks.

Bolg was not killed by Legolas, as shown in the film, since Legolas wasn't there. In the book, Bolg in fact was killed by Beorn, the shape-shifting wildman who was in the second film The Desolation of Smaug. Beorn is shown air-dropping into the battle via Eagles in the third film... but little else after that.  

Why wasn't Bolg the sole leader for the orcs? You probably know Jackson's reasoning. And why not keep Beorn killing him? Beorn being the defender of the woodland realm as in the text its says: 

"He came alone, and in bear's shape; and he seemed to have grown almost to giant-size in his wrath."

He even recovers the dying prince Thorin!

Galadriel, Elrond, the Necromancer, Gandalf, the Ringwraiths and a lot of nonsense

I honestly found myself surprised at how much venom I have built up over this particular scene. I guess it is because I felt this subplot with The Necromancer was the reason for The Hobbit to be expanded into three films and yet... this is all we get? A pointless stand off between undying Ringwraiths (who correctly did inhabit Dol Guldur at first) and a host of fan-service returning characters: Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond... all who obviously don't die.

The sheer lack of threat in this scenario is mind-boggling and does very little to give us more than what was already told earlier. 
Gandalf's capture is false (so the trio's rescue was not required) though he did single-handedly discover that The Necromancer was in fact Sauron. Dol Guldur was not "dealt with" until the War of the Ring much later. There's no evidence that the three other extremely powerful characters were involved at all...   

Smaug's Demise

The film's interpretation of this scene greatly frustrated me, mostly because it lacked harmony with the film trilogy's own made-up concepts and lacked the book's poetry and simplicity.

See the picture above? That is close to what happens in the book. Bard is regarded as one of the best bowmen in the land, hence his title: Bard the Bowman. Bard faces off alone against the terrible dragon and with all his arrows spent he has one last attempt with his oldest and most worn arrow, his black arrow. With the aid of a thrush that had overheard Bilbo and Smaug's conversation in Erebor (don't you snigger, the thrush even featured in the first film An Unexpected Journey!) he knew of the dragon's weak spot and that faithful arrow found its mark and ended Smaug.

"Arrow! Black Arrow! I have saved you to the last. You have never failed me and always I have recovered you. I had you from my father and he from of old. If ever you came from the forges of the true king under the mountain, go now and speed well!"

Poetry.


However.
In the second film, The Desolation of Smaug, it establishes Black Arrows as giant iron arrows designed specifically to pierce dragon hide... Okay... We see the last remaining Black Arrow upon the roof of The Master of Laketown's house, loaded into some sort of catapult... Okay...

The lead up to Smaug's final scene in The Battle of the Five Armies we have Bard initially firing his arrows at Smaug, accurate to the book, we even have him fire a blackened, withered old arrow last, but it fails also.
But then his son appears with the huge iron arrow. Smaug destroys Bard's bow, tearing it in half. So Bard, surreally, stakes both ends of his bow into the solid wooden beams of a bell tower so that the string stretches between them, he then rests the huge iron Black Arrow on his own son's shoulder to aim at the approaching Smaug.

What...
What??

To me that change, and so early in the third film too, proves everything wrong with this project of Peter Jackon's, the idea of pulling a children's book into a eight hour epic. Why did that have to be so hilariously stupefying to see? Why couldn't Bard simply be a damn good archer? Why have the black arrow reinvented as some Dragon-Slaying Arrows when Smaug has a weakness to exploit already!? 

Honestly these are only some of the huge errors that feature, especially if you consider the entire trilogy! I've not spoken about how the barrel scenario in the book was turned from a quiet, stealthy and shadowy escape into a lengthy daytime cartoon action sequence befitting of a rollercoaster resort in The Desolation of Smaug.
Or how the Rock Giants in An Unexpected Journey was a huge action sequence that risked the lives of the entire cast, whereas in the book it is literally just a passing statement:

"When he peeped out in the lightning flashes, he saw that across the valley the stone-giants were out, and were hurling rocks at one another for a game."   

Sounds like the producers of the films were making a game out of it all! A game with my patience!

Review: The Imitation Game

A compelling piece of history and a story worth telling, Cumberbatch is excellent but I felt the experience was let down by a very "convenient" screenplay.

Based off the book "Alan Turing: The Enigma" based off the true story of the mathematician who broke the infamous Nazi cypher machine known as The Enigma Machine in World War 2. Benedict Cumberbatch in  the leading role and Keira Knightley and Charles Dance co-starring.

The knowledge of Turing's involvement, the existence of his code-cracking machine and its pivotal role in the success against the Nazis were kept secret for fifty years, making both the film and the book it is based upon incredibly insightful and important. 
The title refers to Turing's complex machine, the first ever computer, and his desire to create an imitation of a human's brain, a thought provoking piece of history in today's heavily computerised society.

But the film isn't all about computers and code breakers, it is more about Turing himself, and Cumberbatch brings everything to the performance and creates a very complex and convincing character. Turing is an awkward yet vastly intelligent, egotistical to a point, and frail man who has constant battles of will with everyone between him and his own goals. He and Charles Dance have a great aggression going on here, Dance as the military commander Denniston and much like a unrelenting schoolmaster with the younger mathematicians under his sway. Convincing anyone to believe in his machine is only half of Turing's battle, his homosexuality in 1940s society ready to ruin his life and career should anyone discover it.

The Imitation Game is a good historical drama and a great biopic, but I wouldn't say it was a successful "thriller" or as complex as it maybe should have been. The story being told in flashback isn't a problem, in fact I welcomed it as it kept the pacing fluid, but the screenplay itself felt very shorthand. Characters sometimes have wild changes of heart between scenes, especially Matthew Goode's character Hugh who acts as Turing's rival code breaker at first but for little reason suddenly backs him at the crisis point, along with everyone else, "I am Spartacus" style.

But it did what good historical dramas can do, it taught me something and was compelling enough to not become laborious. It starts off quite awkwardly (oh look, it is Tywin Lannister arguing with Sherlock Holmes) and continues to be a little familiar, but it takes to the skies in the third act with the real themes of the movie coming to fruition. All of my mild cynicism had melted away by the film's conclusion.

Well worth a watch, maybe not cinema-worthy but definitely a rental; very well acted, well paced and it is an important story to be sure. Just forgive some debatable characterisation and shorthand script work here and there.

Review: The Babadook

An independent Australian production, the critics appear to be raving about The Babadook, but honestly I thought it was hopeless.

Single mother Amelia struggles to cope with her six year old son named Samuel who appears to have violent, antisocial behavior. When a book called "Mister Babadook" mysteriously comes into their possession, things go from bad to worse as an unseen entity haunts them. Is it all in their imagination?

I went into The Babadook with absolutely no idea what it was or what it was about. A five-star rating from Empire certainly made me invested in seeing it.
The film is a slow boil. If the audience is looking for the next Insidious or even a new Woman in Black, they will be sorely mistaken and will quickly become restless. But this isn't where the film lost me. The Babadook does well in setting up two characters who are both unhappy and deeply troubled, our actors Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman are great at invoking unease and bringing a lot of physical acting into their roles. Also the best, best part of this film is surely the "Mister Babadook" book itself, a creepy, demented children's pop-up book which is wonderfully designed. There's little wrong with the setup of this film, even if it does feel at times like an episode of Kids say the Darndest Things.

But things quickly go downhill after the first forty minutes or so. The story is only ninety minutes long but it feels like an eternity by the time the third act swings around. While Noah Wiseman's Samuel is believably weird, after so much screaming and yelling you become apathetic to him, and when things finally begin to happen the film immediately cheapens itself. Our wait through domestic troubles and the alienation from our characters' friends is rewarded with some of the most cliche horror beats and unintentionally funny and awkwardly paced scenes. I'd say it was all intentionally funny if it weren't for the volume of critics and audiences claiming it is genuinely terrifying...

The Babadook is an independent film, as I said, and I appreciate that, but they ignored a far more terrifying end to this story (an ending more likely within their budget too) and chose a more straight-forward, cliche, horror movie finale. I was never frightened or on the edge of my seat throughout this movie, and the pay-off was completely absurd and laughable after the inexorably long build up.

The best I can say about it at the end of the day is: great acting, good potential in the story and a unique creature. Just a shame it was so badly implemented.

     
Additional Marshmallows: I just like saying the word Babadook.
Babadook.
Babadook. Babadook.Babadook-dook-dook...
Uh oh...

Review: Gone Girl

A twisting thriller with fantastic performances from the two leads, reminds a lot of old thrillers from the late eighties and early nineties.

Isn't marriage wonderful...!
...

Nick and Amy are happily married and live together as writers. He is a simple but handsome and likeable soul while she is pragmatic, beautiful and slightly aloof. But when one day Nick returns home to find Amy missing and the house becomes the scene of a crime, he finds himself under scrutiny in a police investigation and mystery that quickly grips the nation. What happened to Amy?

It is very hard to talk about Gone Girl without spoiling most if not all of the film, so I will endeavour to restrain myself. Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike have never been better than in this film, especially Pike who might very well be onto a career defining role here.
The characters aren't the only well defined element here, but the depiction of the media and how it affects the masses, showing people en masse as a fickle mob that will lash out at whoever they are told to. One example, no spoilers, is best shown early on when Affleck's Nick, dazed and bewildered by his predictament, absently smiles once during press photographs. This one moment is seen blown out of proportion as a media frenzy calls it proof that he murdered his wife! Whether he did or not, the sudden backlash over such a small detail is very well implemented here.

The film starts out strong, running two stories parallel with Nick's current predicament and Amy's diary leading up to her disappearance. The police investigation is spearheaded by Kim Dickens as Detective Rhonda Boney, and her cool calculated start to the case both comforts and threatens Nick in equal measure.
I would say the film loses its integrity a little in the third act, not to give anything away, though the audience has to give the film a little benefit of the doubt. I saw what was being done, but the implementation felt a little rushed towards the end.
I might also say that... it was a little predictable. Not to say that it wasn't incredibly suspenseful! It certainly was, and the characters were all so well portrayed that I scarcely noticed the one-hundred and fifty minute runtime pass! But even a little reading between the lines will probably show you what's really going on.

I wish I could say more, Gone Girl is packed with suspense and thrills (and even some nice humour) it is bleak at times, sexually charged in others, and overall a very rewarding piece of drama.

Review: Before I Go to Sleep

Amnesia! The writer's best friend comes back to haunt Nicole Kidman in her newest thriller. While the premise has been done before, I still found the film engaging and an overall success.

Kidman plays Christine, a woman who every day wakes up with no memory of the last twenty years due to an accident. Her husband Ben, played by Colin Firth, is conflicted and struggling to cope with her condition, reminding her daily about who she is.

But when a doctor calls her and instructs her to find a camera he had her use to keep a video diary to help reconstruct her memory things aren't all that they seem.

The film had me interested immediately with its small cast, Nicole Kidman, Colin Firth and Mark Strong (as Doctor Nash) there is something appealing about film's that focus so intently on characters, especially with thrillers.

It is also extremely hard to talk about this film and not spoil anything. Consider that your warning. Sufficed to say I enjoyed it a great deal.

The meat of the film comes directly from Colin Firth's character Ben. Initially the audience is extremely skeptical of his character, considering we are as in the dark as Kidman's character is and Ben is clearly holding things back during the first act.

However, the story twists and pulls at your expectations just enough to change even my cynical mind at times, Firth's performance is very engaging and creates a complex character and probably makes the film. If this wasn't as strong, it would have been terribly transparent. Kidman and Strong also work very well together, making a lot of the clue drops and investigation scenes compelling.

It is a little forgettable, excuse the pun, but only because of the amnesia storyline and perhaps being somewhat predictable. But the lengths it goes to to convince you otherwise and throw you off the scent of what may or may not be happening is to be commended!

I enjoyed it, a classic thriller drama that kept me guessing in all the right ways and revealing new information in tantalizingly slow doses.

Remake Rumble: The Great Gatsby

Welcome to a new review section of Cinema Cocoa, Remake Rumble, where I review a film that has been remade. That's right, two films for the price of one on Cinema Cocoa!

The Baz Luhrmann adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel "The Great Gatsby" was something I was keen to review, but I wanted to see the 1974 original first. So bafflingly curious was I that I went ahead and read the original book beforehand as well!

Unfortunately the Luhrmann film hasn't been given a release on Lovefilm or Netflix, so its been a long time coming before I could actually watch these for comparison sake! What better excuse is there then to start remake reviews.
  

The Great Gatsby (1974)

Starring Robert Redford in the titular role, I wasn't even aware of this films existence until the new film released, and apart from some dated cinematography, this film by Jack Clayton came very close to how I felt the book was told.

Seen from the perspective of everyday man Nick Carraway (Sam Waterston) visiting his cousin Daisy Buchanan, we are exposed to a lifestyle of American bliss, riches, ignorance and selfishness. Jay Gatsby, a mysterious man who hates social interaction, hosts parties at his mansion every week for anyone to attend. But he personally invites Nick, seemingly out of the blue, as his confidant and soon Nick discovers that recluse and shadowy Gatsby has feelings for the married Daisy.

The book is a quick read; it barrels along because it does one thing only and does it well, it explores the sickness that comes with riches and the often two-faced nature of human beings for both good and ill reasons. Daisy is the embodiment of blissful ignorance; on the surface she is a damsel, she says all women can only be "beautiful little fools", but deep down she has an unpleasantness all her own. Every character has this dark trouble inside of them, apart from Carraway, who behaves here much as he does in the book; as an audience surrogate. The betrayal, misdeeds and affairs that run through the other characters can be clearly shown from the eyes of an outsider.

Jack Clayton's film captures the look and feel of the book excellently; from Gatsby's mansion to Wilson's garage, from the cars to the ominous billboard that watches over our characters with unblinking eyes. With a run time of over two hours, everything is explored in detail and the script is the dialogue lifted from the source material. Most of the iconic lines are left intact, and delivered with conviction.

However towards the end of the story I wasn't sure if all the characters' darkest motivations were given their fullest attention. I didn't feel Daisy was represented as selfish or as destructive as she could have been, for me the tables radically turn on all of the characters throughout the book. The same goes for Gatsby himself, but his character is more up to personal interpretation (by the end of the book, I didn't care for Gatsby)

A final note on Redford's Gatsby, he is good in the role as he pulls off the shady and introverted one moment and the noble soldier in the next with authenticity. He looks like he could have been a soldier a lifetime ago.

That is what seems best about this film; its honest appearance and integrity to the book. It just might seem a bit drab, I'm not sure it captures quite how truly weak and corrupted each of the characters truly were. 

The Great Gatsby (2013)

With director Baz Luhrmann comes a great deal of flamboyance and embellishment, something I usually dislike with his work, but with The Great Gatsby not only does he have a requirement to mellow out, it actually benefits from his gaudy cinematography.

Unlike the 1974 version, the film is from Nick Carraway (Toby Maguire)'s perspective after the book's events as he speaks to a psychiatrist after his experiences. This feels inconsistent with the book as there was no real suggestion Carraway was so badly traumatised, and feels like an excuse to differentiate from the previous film.
Like it or hate it, this does lift Carraway out of the rut of audience surrogate; I did feel as though I were watching a character and not a story device.

Admittedly all of the characters in Luhrmann's version feel more lively than in the Clayton film. Coupled with the cinematography the actors burst and beam with all the encouragement and shallowness that the book suggested. While Carey Mulligan's Daisy doesn't have the same clingy ignorance that Mia Farrow gave the character, the portrayal of both her husband Tom and Gatsby himself feel more genuine. A lot of the conflict is between these two characters, and Joel Edgerton and Leonardo DiCaprio carry this off with great ferocity!
A lot of time is given to Gatsby and his mystery. This is an improvement on the original film as we see a lot more of the gossip and chatter about him before we meet him (his reveal is also exact to the novel this time, very well underplayed) and there a lot more to understand about his recluse nature and about his need to put Daisy on the proverbial plinth and how shallow and misguided he really is.
But, with all the time dedicated to this, some elements are missed out. Possibly the worst scene missing is Gatsby's discovery that Tom and Daisy were with child. Its omission (until an offhanded reference later) makes Gatsby seem more forgivable in his actions overall. This and the relationship between Tom and Wilson is lacking; indeed Wilson and Myrtle are pushed to one side, as secondary as they are, they are still critical to the conclusion to the main characters! Jay Gatsby ultimately comes out of this film lighter still than the 1974 film, despite Luhrmann's excellent attempt at showing every character's weakness.

Lurhmann's desire to have popular music mixed through the scores of his films feels even more out of place here. This is the 1920s, Baz, they didn't have beat boxing and rap or modern songs. It isn't overriding by any stretch, in fact for Luhrmann it is positively made as undertones, but simply removing it would have improved my immersion greatly! I can partly forgive this though, as Luhrmann's cinematography and lavish colour palette does give the story so much life and creativity to the proceedings.

I was impressed by the portrayal of the characters in this interpretation; they all have their moments to shine and to be dragged through the gutter, despite a couple of strange oversights. If you can see past Luhrmann's excess, you should find something here that even the 1974 version didn't cover.

Additional Marshmallows: Random kudos to Luhrmann for not simply titling his interpretation as Gatsby like every movie does nowadays.

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!

 
 

Review: The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug (HFR 3D)

The second part of the embellished Hobbit trilogy continues, and my opinion hasn't changed from part one... except to say that this film makes An Unexpected Journey look completely unnecessary.

While still being pursued by the orc horde, Biblo Baggins and the dwarf company are led by Thorin Oakenshield and Gandalf through the region of Mirkwood and finally to the Lonely Mountain, lair of Smaug the Dragon. Along the way they meet many foes and challenges and only a few to help them.

Well here's a thing: An Unexpected Journey took perhaps twenty pages of the original text and inexplicably stretched it over three hours, yet The Desolation of Smaug probably covers a massive eighty percent of the story!
I'm serious, most of (if not all) my favourite scenes are in this one film, and if I wanted I could just close my eyes and imagine the beginning and end on my own. (It would save me six hours!) We have the barrels, the wood elves, the Mirkwood spiders, Lake Town, Bard, Beorn and of course Smaug the Magnificent! I honestly can't remember anything of comparable substance in the first film, and I cannot fathom the third film having any more material to work with.
Sounds good right? Well naturally the film looks great too; one cannot criticise its looks any more than previous films (although the indulgent use of CG is still there...) The action sequences here are actually better than in the first film, they feel more natural and without the "surfing on wooden bridges down chasms" problems. The barrel sequence is not the same as the book, it too is an action sequence, with orcs attacking and a dwarf being propelled out of the water, rolling across the cliffs and knocking them down! Very imaginative and creative additions.
But like all good artists producing more of the same, familiar imagery, we can only pick at the imperfections.

Tauriel.
I said it already, and I'll say it again. I have no problem with strong female characters, but I do have a problem with a character entirely made up by the film makers to force a pointless love triangle that only snares up the film's exciting climax with needless cutaways. If I may indulge (heck, the film makers do!) The Hobbit is set in earlier times; the elves and dwarves do not like each other. Legolas features in the film, and though he was never in the book I didn't mind his inclusion: he exaggerates the disharmony between the two races (...despite the fact that the Wood Elf King does this fine on his own...) but Tauriel has a romance triangle with Legolas and............ Kili.
Utterly absurd, and I know exactly where this is going in part three, and it is as throwaway as Tauriel herself. She doesn't override the film, but her scenes just take me out of what I want: The Hobbit as a film.

Right, with that out of my system. The subplot that tethers The Hobbit to the Rings trilogy is much stronger here than in the previous film. Gandalf does indeed leave the company in the book to do other "important tasks", these are shown as the film deviates from Bilbo's perspective. It is welcome, if you survived An Unexpected Journey this stuff is more than appreciated by now.

But the same old problem surfaces while watching the film, and as this trilogy goes on, I fear for its longevity. The Hobbit book is not the same as Lord of the Rings, and this is not a good adaptation of it. I dare say this singular film is the best-worst adaptation I've seen. The Hobbit is about Bilbo and his very small perspective of a vast world. It is a children's story. Embellish, but never forget what the focus of a story is...

I still feel there is a better Hobbit adaptation to be made. That Guillermo Del Toro film that was never to be? This outing actually crushes its predecessor into dust, boasting all of the book's finest moments through the wonderful lense of the films' creative team. But, there are still unnecessary additions, and I know that they are chess pieces to make the final film more exciting... But are they literally just pawns in an epic that was never meant to be?

Additional Marshmallows: The HFR (high frame rate) 3D was more familiar to me this time, and took a lot less getting used to.
And the winner of "most unnecessary and indulgent director's cameo" goes to... Peter Jackson! Fabricating an entire opening scene that has little to no purpose other than to get him in there.

... if you are also wondering, is it worth watching only for the dragon?
...
Heck yes!    

Review: The Hunger Games - Catching Fire

This sequel makes up for a lot of its predecessor's glaring faults, yet somehow continues to paint its theme in the same unbelievable and contrived fashion.

Having survived the Hunger Games, a gladiatorial arena fashioned by a tyrannical society called The Capitol, heroes Katniss and Peeta must deal with their limelight fame from those they despise, and the relationship they pretended to have to escape death. The Capitol's president however doesn't approve how every survivor can give the repressed people hope, and creates a new Hunger Games where only seasoned survivors compete to the death. 

I didn't like 2012's Hunger Games. I went into this sequel with trepidation, but I have to admit the first hour or so got me very interested! We have the Capitol actually flexing its muscles and giving our heroes and lower classes a hard time, they are actually competent villains for once. There are real consequences to the aftermath of the first Games, troopers raid towns, people are executed, even our heroine is shaken and brittle from the experience! The idea of Katniss and Peeta being thrown into a last-man-standing death match (for real this time) with seasoned veterans who hate them, all commanded by newcomer (and slimier than ever) Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I was pretty excited!

But then the Hunger Games event began... and everything fell apart. Our combatants are unique, but about two thirds of them die off screen, and the real problem of fighting to the last man is dropped immediately. The Capitol again have no teeth, no guts and their Hunger Games as a concept continues to be completely redundant.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. The Capitol are still incompetent villains at the end of the day, and it infuriates me! I like the idea that they are weak due to their overconfidence and complacency, but it has never been shown that the Hunger Games even works as a deterrent, it only seems to be a massive invitation for uprising and war. It makes no sense!  

There's also a twist at the end, I cannot say what it is, but it only compounds this complete inability by The Capitol, and actually undermines most of the threat that you initially felt earlier. I cannot comprehend watching this again... it would be even less convincing.

(it also still irritates me that most of the actual killing in the Hunger Games happens off screen, although it is true this film has a little more brutality)

This film does have a very good beginning, I like The Capitol's citizens, I like the heavy subtext of television control and celebrity worship that dominates the first hour. Jennifer Lawrence is still great as Katniss, the action is actually directed better here (less shaky-cam and rapid cuts) and for two hours and thirty, it didn't feel long.
But god does it still wound me with its lackluster execution and its unbelievably not-threatening tyrants, and it all fell apart at the end.

Additional Marshmallows: Oh, and the third installment, two films. I... I hate. All of the hate. These films are slow enough, giving one story FIVE hours will be the most boring experience ever!

Review: Filth

"Sick, twisted, demented, bizarre" are some of the words used to describe Filth in its sledgehammer trailer, and it certainly indulges itself in all manner of things, but I would say I was surprised at its equally compelling lead character.

Based off the novel by Irvine Welsh (Trainspotting) Filth is set in Scotland during the Christmas season and follows a drug abusing, sex mad police officer with a superiority complex who goes on a rampage against his fellow officers so he can land a promotion. The promotion, he believes, will win back the hearts and minds of his wife and daughter.

Filth is a great film, and certainly stands tall beside Trainspotting (though it is a very different story) and while I've not read the book I can say the film carries the multitude of characters well.

Casing point is James McAvoy, who continues his big screen storm with yet another deeply unhinged character (see this year's Trance) and he is utterly engrossing here as a plotting, immoral monster. The meat of the film is his terrorism of his peers, mostly through ruining their relationships and destroying their professionalism, elevating himself in the eyes of his superiors in the process. Begin a loud, angry procession of drugs, drinking and sex, all from McAvoy's Bruce Robertson's perspective.
Of course, it doesn't stop there. Trainspotting had its own level of surrealism, and Filth certainly maintains that as it develops. We see our lead character slowly unravel and experience intense fever dreams, and the plot itself deliberately collapses along with him. Underneath this growing pile of human depravity, the film lands a surprisingly deep twist to take the entire audience by surprise (I don't want to spoil it for those like me who haven't read the book!)
It also sports a great sense of humour, executed frequently with McAvoy's sly expressions, a lot of it comes from Scotland's own personality (Bruce's inner monologue about the Scottish people is great)

It is a certificate 18, hard R film, it isn't a film I would re-watch over and over, but it is something to behold at least once in your life. I could argue further that the film (for how loaded it is) could have been a bit longer; as we see more of Bruce's past the more it becomes fleeting glances, I would have liked just a little more of it. But then that may have lessened the film's cleverness.

If you can stomach a lot of drug-use, sex and jarringly strange visuals at times, give it a try! I guarantee you haven't seen anything like it.

 

  

Review: The Wizard of Oz

Having seen Oz the Great and Powerful I was inspired to go back and re-watch the two other films based off L. Frank Baum's books, the famous 1939 MGM classic and the underrated Disney sort-of-sequel from the 1980s!

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

An eternally timeless classic, forever referenced and loved. Personally, I have some problems with it.

Dorothy, a girl in Kansas find herself swept up by a tornado and deposited in the colourful, magical Land of Oz where she is directed to find The Wizard of Oz to get help in returning home. Along the way she will meet other unfortunate characters, and will be terrorised by the Wicked Witch!

The sepia toned Kansas and the technicolor Land of Oz is a wonderful transition, the simple but effective method of Dorothy opening the door of her wrecked house is a great start to the proceedings. The film's family fun comes from a jolly sense of theatre; characters are bright and colourful and for young children the Wicked Witch and the film's darker scenes really can be scary.

My one problem with it... and I realise now why the film never grew on me... the songs. Now I know The Wizard of Oz is a musical at heart, but... god, that Munchkin Song, I mean what even was that?? It went on, and on... and on, I think I cracked at the "We represent the Lollipop Guild" segment. Why was all of that in there??
There are great points of character development that aren't in song. There aren't many... but outside the doors of the Wizard's throne room the Lion gives a great speech that says so much about him and it didn't need to be sung!

But regardless, it is a simple but great story about an innocent soul learning, being brave, and being honest and good. It may have aged in production, but the direction is so honestly made that it clearly as nothing to hide.

If you can stomach some overlong and repetitive songs, it is a recommended family film.

       

Return to Oz (1985)

Compared to the original 1939 classic... this film is deeply disturbed! But in that weird and wonderful way of 1980s fantasy, it has a great mesmerizing darkness and physical effects.

The film starts six months after the first film, Dorothy is back in Kansas but cannot sleep because of memories of Oz. She is taken to a mental hospital but is rescued after a power outage, escaping into a storm, she wakes up once more in the Land of Oz. Dorothy finds the land under the rule of The Nome King and the sinister Mombi, who have destroyed Emerald City and imprisoned her friends! Can she set things right?

Being based off stories from two of L. Frank Baum's books many consider Return to Oz as the most faithful adaptation in the trilogy. But that's as may be, Return to Oz is a surreal trip! Not only are we in a perpetually dark and forboding place; from an old mental ward with leering staff, to empty ruins filled with statues of petrified people. We've not even gone into the villains of the film! The infamous Wheelers, and Mombi's cabinets of living heads (easily what I found most terrifying as a child) the imagery is surely creative, but only goes between dark and surreal. The Gump, what even is it??

But if one character can sum up the film's great physicality with effects, it would be Tik-Tok, the clockwork soldier who defends Dorothy regularly. He is a joy to watch and a feat of design and engineering. Nowadays he would be completely CGI!

If you can get over the surreal story (that includes a chicken being the enemies' Kryptonite!) and understand that this is a lot darker than Wizard of Oz, you will find it a magical and highly creative ride.

Additional Marshmallows: Did you know that director Walter Murch invited his friend George Lucas to the film's sound stages, where Lucas would meet Rick McCallum... He and McCallum would later go on to work on the Star Wars prequels.