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: 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: 300: Rise of an Empire

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

300: Rise of an Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

300 (2006)

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

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

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

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

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

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