Review: Everest (3D)

Following true events of two teams of mountaineers making the climb up to the peak only for events to go terribly wrong, Everest is a great visual and emotional spectacle.

Since the first few teams conquered the life-or-death climb to the peak of Everest, modern climbers have established tours to train up adventurous spirits so they too can experience the thrill. But when several teams are jockeying for the safest time to climb, the time between fierce storms striking the mountain narrows too far, and the teams risk getting caught in the maelstrom.

First of all it has to be said that this film, directed by Baltasar Kormakur (director of such action thrillers as 2 Guns and Contraband) has a powerful cast at its behest: Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, Jake Gyllenhaal, Kiera Knightley and Emily Watson, even the secondary characters deliver excellent work throughout.
And for Everest's advantage, the first half of the film is dedicated to establishing as many of these people's character as possible, their lives and their reasons for going on the adventure. Jason Clarke is centre stage as Rob; the expedition leader for his company "Adventure Consultants", Jake Gyllenhaal is a competitive team leader, and Josh Brolin is a man determined to climb the mountain. There are many characters in need of backstory, some with more to lose than others.
Yes, while this is a true story of course (and criticising it feels undesirable) there are the typical foreshadowing points as: He has a baby on the way and he's excited to come home or; he's tried many times to climb the mountain and has everything to prove. But while cynics will see this as a disadvantage, I felt the film was honest enough to be still thrilling. Perhaps even more backstory for other characters would have blurred the foreshadowing even further.

Visually Everest is stunning. I watched it on a regular 3D cinema screen but I can imagine an IMAX 3D showing would have been extraordinary. There are several shots early on that deliberately show off the dizzying heights involved with the characters' journey; watching people walk over extraordinarily high bridges, or traversing rickety makeshift walkways over icy chasms. These moments alone are worthy of admission. The sense of cold and horrendous freezing temperatures become unbearable towards the end, some moments feeling morbidly graphic and brutally real. 

There isn't much else to say about Everest. It is a straight-forward experience: men climb icy mountain and struggle to find their way down again. But I often say less is more, and the film enjoys setting up its characters, at least the ones that are deemed important enough (Sam Worthington's character Guy arrives too little too late) the rest of them do tend to blur into one another when the storm hits and identifying them becomes a struggle.

It is a visual spectacle with a decent human story behind it. I enjoyed it on the big screen (and in 3D!), though I'm unsure if I need to watch it again.

    
Additional Marshmallows: I was entertained to discover that Josh Brolin's character Beck's wife Peach was played by Robin Wright. I recognised her, but I didn't realise I recognised her from the 1987 classic The Princess Bride! 

Review: The Hunger Games

I'm afraid to say it, but The Hunger Games left me starved of intrigue and commitment.


Jumping on the Lord of the Rings > Harry Potter > Twilight bandwagon, the film is based off a series of popular books (that I hadn't heard of until the film arrived) and follows a young girl sent into an arena of death against other children for the entertainment of a tyrannical, self-obsessed higher society.
Sounds pretty grim right? Unfortunately The Hunger Games feels terribly insecure, lacking self confidence in what it can and cannot show to a 12A / PG-13 audience, and decides to meander around and waste excessive amounts of time.
This is not the worst crime however, since it was expected, the worst flaw with the film is its lack of confidence in explaining itself. The plot literally makes stuff up continuously, like a child improvising a story: "Oh, oh, now we have fireballs that appear out of nowhere! Now they make these huge monsters appear with magic! Now they get help from the outside cos they're the main characters!" What the heck is any of this?? I didn't understand how it was happening as none of it was explained, great plot-holes loomed constantly, and with a run time of two hours and twenty, you'd think they would get around to some exposition!

The film also has some of the stupidest villains I've seen in a long time. We are talking 1980s cartoon villains. Not so much how they look, I dug that (even though The Fifth Element's designs by Jean-Paul Gaultier did it so much better) but how their entire society was hinged on a massive flaw i.e. The Hunger Games. Gladiatorial combat is no new concept, but it is particularly stupid when the dominant masters train up the helpless, angry majority. A majority prone to riots. Not just that, but thinking giving these poor people "hope" is a good idea? Hm, let's see: hope + training + wilderness survival (thanks to being shunned and native to the wilderness) + hero worship via Hunger Games = bad, stupid, retarded idea. Not to mention our heroes in this story trump them at their own game in such a ridiculously easy fashion, means they are completely useless as antagonists!


Anyway, I've gone on about the flaws... since there are a lot... The pros, well, I do like the concept (despite it being terribly implemented here) and the "Capitol" high society characters had some funny lines from time to time, and leading star Jennifer Lawrence was convincing as a young but strong female role model.

I'm sorry, but The Hunger Games strikes me as a "for the fans" production, I was disorientated by the insane camera work in the fight scenes (it made Transformers and Batman Begins feel like cruise holidays) and disconnected by the shallow explanations.