We've fallen a long way from simply boosting cars...
CIA agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) returns and asks aid of Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew in taking down a ex-military mercenary who plans to steal a microchip capable of ruining an entire country.
Following on from the previous installment Fast Five, director Justin Lin hasn't let up his intention to give this series some sort of conviction. Most of the characters return (the film even begins with a montage of all the previous films) yet for all of its efforts to make a malleable universe, we are still dealing with the most uninteresting, good-looking people.
For example, Tyrese Gibson just eats stuff and laughs, while my favourite character Han still just talks about "going to Tokyo", it is actually getting insulting now; these films only exist as prequels to the third film so they can include him yet his only characteristic is "I want to go to Tokyo".
Even Michelle Rodriguez returns (due to fan outcry) yet the writers couldn't think of any better excuse to bring her back than the tired "selective amnesia" fall back; she doesn't remember the love of her life, but she can still drive and tune a car. Don't even talk to me about the villain... I have no idea what his motivations really were, and he was never threatening when up against Diesel and Johnson...
The film does do some things right compared to the deplorable Fast Five. Some things. The chase sequences here are better, specifically the chase through London and a race between Dom and Letty. But for every good race there's a over-the-top, nonsensical scenario. The crew face off against a tank. Yes, a tank. Why? Because the villain needs the microchip that is (for no good reason) stored inside the tank, inside an armoured transport.
Or the final encounter that involves a carrier plane... and the longest runway in the world!
The film isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't good either. I have no idea why it is praised as highly as it is, but it can only be for the action sequences, fight sequences alone, which are at times impressively far-fetched. The dialogue is terrible too; all of Dwayne Johnson's lines are metaphorical nonsense: "To catch a wolf, you need wolves. Let's go hunting!"
The series is a nonsense now.
Oh David Cronenberg, how I don't understand you.
I enjoyed Cronenberg's 1999 film eXistenZ, and even his body horror films such as The Fly are memorable, but in recent years his films have done nothing but completely alienate me. Cosmopolis is absolutely no different.
Robert Pattinson (yes, I've now watched a film with him in it!) is a young, super wealthy individual who by choice lives locked away from public view, seen here from the perspective of inside his technologically brimming limousine. This is by necessity too though; riots are raging on the streets, the lower class are rebelling against the super rich, and Pattinson's Eric Parker must be permanently shielded as he... goes to get his hair cut?
There are people waving dead rats, disjointed conversations with random people associated with Parker who drop into his limo, random violence, random sex and inhuman dialogue. Yep, its Cronenberg back on his current trend!
Now I get the subtext of the film, or subtexts; since the film's many neo-noir, stilted dialogues address a multitude of social, economical and financial struggles that are running rampant outside of Pattinson's limo (and symbolically, addressing our own future and our sheltering from it). The film addresses all of these things as it proceeds slowly, getting Pattinson to talk to these different people who literally come and go with little or no context until after the fact. This makes the film incredibly hard to watch for many viewers, without doubt.
I usually like films that limit their scope to a singular perspective like this, leaving the world outside to the imagination and we see a clear representation of its effects on a few individuals... but here the dialogue is just so cumbersome and disjointed! One minute we are talking about hair cuts, then its rats, then its some philosophical unraveling of power struggles... followed by prostates.
I... I am sure there's more to be understood with subsequent viewings, but from what I can gather from just one is that I don't need to; it is fairly clear what the messages are, and they are valid and important ones... but I can't stand them being presented in such a bizarre, blunderbuss fashion. There's so many varied subtexts with every single encounter that the film lacks cohesion. Yet maybe even that stylistic choice is in itself a metaphor!
I can't recommend it to people, unless they are big Cronenberg fans already. If you are a Robert Pattinson fan for... reasons unspeakable... you should avoid it, but if you do watch it, prepare your brain for some scatter-gun storytelling without much payoff.
How much do you want to bet that a film titled "Epic" turns out to not live up to expectations?
Following a young girl's attempt to restore her relationship with her father after her mother passes away, but her father is a disorientated recluse in the forest, convinced he has found a miniaturised civilisation at war. Before you can say Fern Gully, Mary-Katherine, or M.K, is shrunk down and must join forces with the Leafmen, a militaristic legion in constant struggle with Mandrake, a creature that commands the very essence of death and decay.
The film is very, very easy to watch; it doesn't play up any possibility that M.K's father might be crazy as we see the leafmen in full action in the first five-ten minutes. There isn't even that much weight to her mother passing away.
A lot of the characters therefore are pretty one-dimensional. We have a fish-out-of-water heroine, a plucky young hero, a hardened mentor, and a villain who wants to kill things. Because he is eeeeeevil. They don't have personalities so much as plot devices making them do things, doubly so for secondary characters who virtually do nothing but act like plot devices; as such the only character I had any feeling for was Ronin, the veteran leafman, but that's because he was the cooler stereotype.
The visuals are... okay. They are creative at times, but as the film progresses there isn't much to see: dandelion plant people, hummingbirds, leafmen, more hummingbirds. It isn't a very long film but it certainly felt long.
So yeah, it didn't give me very much to chew on. The villain is half-baked and could have been a lot more threatening with a more "death is a necessity for life" angle rather than just wanting the world to rot (I didn't even notice he was voiced by Christoph Waltz!) the comedy falls flat almost all of the time (except for one part that involves static electricity, that was funny!) and because everyone is purely driven by plot convenience you will already see where the story is going and predict all of it.
For very young kids it should entertain for a while, but everyone else will probably get a little bored.
Epic is what you get if you mix Fern Gully, Spiderwick Chronicles and The Borrowers all in one, and proves to be something of a generic time waster.
A solid, chilling horror story that never goes too far.
An American family move into a new home because of their son's diminishing health, only to discover that it was previously a mortuary and host to supernatural events...
While I had my doubts initially, with the film beginning with the tried and tested "Based off a True Story" pretext and this brainless family thinking a spooky house is perfect for them and their troubled son Matt, the film actually has some unique ideas and a tone that is smartly downplayed compared to standard horror films.
The film starts out surprisingly bleak. Matt's medical condition is brutal and hangs over the entire family, and this mood controls the first act. The film uses this family trouble to slowly increase the tension nicely, allowing the characters some uncertainty; are these events real or could Matt be imagining them? The film isn't quite clever enough to make us doubt the possibility of supernatural goings on completely, since that's what we are expecting, but the build up and escalation of frights is decent.
What I liked most about it was how toned down it was. There are plenty of jump scares dotted throughout, but a lot of the unpleasant moments are eerie and ghostly visions rather than blunt, bludgeoning gore fests.
I don't know if its a particularly great film; it is your usual haunted house story with a family under attack by ghouls, but it had enough unique story beats for it to be interesting to watch. It was quite short too, making it feel like the plot for an old X-Files episode. I mean that in a good way!
Additional Marshmallows: I don't know if it was just my blu-ray player and/or the disc, but some early scenes and especially any onscreen credits looked pixelated, it was a little distracting.
Welcome to a new feature of Cinema Cocoa, where I make a little post about old and new trailers.
That's right, the double-edged sword of marketing where these days the studios whet our appetite yet almost always spoil the entire film at the same time. Remember the days when teaser trailers were exactly that? Remember when you went to see a movie without knowing the final scene?
These are the sorts of things I'll talk about in these special servings of Cinema Cocoa.
What inspired me to this? Why, the recent trailer for the new Riddick film.
If you don't know what Riddick is about, allow me to briefly recap. In the year 2000, Pitch Black was a cult science fiction film where our hero was not a dashing patriot but a sinister, brutal murderer. It catapulted Vin Diesel's career, but the success of the film was a mix of good tension building, subtly, and excellent gritty visuals.
Of course, Hollywood wanted to capitalise, and while I won't go into the animated feature or the video games based on the character of Riddick, but in 2004 we saw The Chronicles of Riddick release in cinemas. Designed, even in its title, to be the first part of three.
Yeah... That didn't happen.
Chronicles expanded upon the first film's shadowy, only mentioned universe, but for many of us it went completely overboard with an overuse of CGI, elaborate set and costume design, a massive amount of exposition, they even had Dame Dudi Dench in there. Suffice to say, the tone of the original film was totally forgotten about, and Riddick's subtle characteristics were lost.
It was quite a feat in missing the point.
Now we have Riddick, which has opted for the simplest titling method, which from the trailer is suggesting we forget everything that happened in Chronicles of Riddick. In fact, it looks almost like a remake of Pitch Black.
Huh...
Now, I don't mean to be cynical.... but I am.... but is it possible the studios are frantically back-pedaling from the financial flop of the second film while at the same time unimaginatively ripping off the cult favourite that perhaps less people have seen?
If you have seen Pitch Black you will see a lot of similarities. So many its almost comical. Are the studios turning the Riddick franchise into a sort of sci-fi Rambo? (the first Rambo, that is)
Don't get me wrong, I love Pitch Black and a sequel to it is good... but surely the damage is done after the very deliberate and bloated second film?? Can we really ignore everything that happened and just settle for an effective remake?
For starters, why not have this film set on a different planet, or at least a different theme of planet? Like a jungle world, or an ice world... or... anything that isn't a carbon copy of Pitch Black? (yes, yes, I'm sure there's a contrived reason why they are on the planet they are on...)
We will have to wait until September this year to see if I am completely overreacting. Between now and then, I will get reviews of Pitch Black and Chronicles out. I highly recommend watching Pitch Black though if you haven't already!
The sequel to the forgettable Marvel comic adaptation provides more juvenile absence of thought, albeit some funky set pieces.
Following on from the 2007 original Nicolas Cage plays Johnny Blaze, an ex-stunt bike rider who is cursed with the spirit of a demon many know as The Rider. Now he is wanting rid of the curse, and while protecting a young boy from a prophesied fate, he could get his wish.
I know little about Ghost Rider (and remember little about the first film) but in watching this I genuinely find the character quite interesting... An irregular Marvel character as he acts more like an anti-hero. After his transformation he will hunt down anyone who has done wrong, and kill anyone in between. The film tries to account for this clashing duality.... badly.
The film's tone is all over the place; going for comedy, then zany-but-is-this-actually-supposed-to-be-unsettling-comedy all the way to surprisingly dark visuals, with people getting shot, torn in half, even rotted into ash.
The story is quite glib too. We have a prophecy child who can save or destroy the world and the forces of darkness are out to claim him. Oddly, the forces of darkness are limited to human mercenary lackeys, unlike the first film and its horde of demons. We have got the plague-ridden antagonist Ray Carrigan, but asides a pretty funny Twinkle joke, he isn't anything more than a standard boogeyman. Johnny Blaze is a bit ambiguous too; his only motivation here is to have the curse lifted, and anyone could tell you that this means two things can happen, a: he doesn't get his wish, or b: he has it removed, only to get it back in time for the finale.
So is there anything good in the film? Well, asides the CGI effects taking a tumble from time to time (sometimes looking like storyboard or pre-rendered effects...) the visuals are pretty sweet. Ghost Rider's ability to turn any vehicle he drives into a flaming hell-engine is always fun (especially when its a giant earth-mover!) and the flaming skull can look impressive. Also, no mandatory romance! But I guess that's difficult even for Hollywood to pull off when your hero's face bursts into flames.
It is a shame because the character probably deserves a lot more than this... but it takes brave creative minds, minds that dare to make it less marketable but as dark as it should be, to allow it to have its own identity.
I can't say its worth watching, unless you want to know all the Marvel adaptations at the moment, and the possible future potential. But I'm almost hoping for a remake in this case...
Star Trek: Into Darkness does many things I love in its effort to extend a seemingly undying franchise!
After Starfleet has had enough of Captain Kirk's reckless and complacent actions they have him demoted and his ship taken away. But no sooner does a mysterious terrorist called John Harrison emerge from the shadows with the desire to destroy all of Starfleet. Only Kirk and his crew can stop him.
The reborn Star Trek series did one thing right, and fortunately it is continuing to reap the benefits of that decision. The 2009 remake made it clear that these new series of events are a new, divergent timeline and as a result the writers can do almost anything! Into Darkness plays a lot of cards that the Star Trek fans will get instantly, and better still they cannot technically cry foul of any references or changes.
It might sound like I am saying this is a remake. Not at all. Part of this new series strength lies in its ability to be completely different, yet have some historically significant events. Awesome for those of us who know our Trek, because we are left in suspense; wondering if what we think we know will happen or not...
I cannot spoil anything for you all (a testimony to film these days: I've had several reviews recently where I have had to cut short of the juicy details!) but I can talk about how the continuity of the first film is still here. The music is bombastic and victorious, the ships are great to look at, the characters are still as loveable as before, reminding us why we like them so much. They each get their time to shine, Simon Pegg's Scotty is great as ever.
However I still don't buy into the Uhura/Spock romance... it has been four years and I still think its stupid, and this film does little to validate its existence. Some of the dialogue is a little repetitive, boiling down to the old "Kirk/Spock logic-vs-emotion" chestnut frequently. The editing is insane at times, we are flung around with characters moving place to place rapidly (if you aren't awake you will slip up) and it does suffer from action sequences that are too fast (I saw this in 2D, I dread to think how this movement registers in the darker 3D.) I also found the addition of Alice Eve's character Carol Marcus a little... pointless? (trailer fodder?)
But that's all my negatives right there. Benedict Cumberbatch does not disappoint and steals every scene he is in without saying anything (and when he does speak, there's a ton of gravity in it!) he makes the rest of the cast look incredibly vulnerable. This film takes on board what I always believe is true: set up your heroes first (ie Star Trek 2009) then hit them hard with a relentless villain.
The film is fast paced; you won't feel the two hours pass by. And yes, there are still plenty of JJ Abrams lens flares. There are some little things that bother me, and it might be better on a second viewing, but it is still Star Trek, and that means it is a fun, exciting and entertaining science fiction adventure!
Additional Marshmallows: If you have already looked this up on IMDB these days, then a major element of the film has already been spoiled for you... I was lucky enough to not have this happen, and I strongly advise you do not look at the page until after you've seen the film!
