So, yes, The Avengers. It’s out over here, a week or so before North America for some reason, so we have it and I saw it. And what did I think? Well…
Opinions follow that may be mildly spoilery…
( Read more... )
A lot's been said about the financial failure of John Carter, but I went into the movie wanting to like it. On paper, it's the kind of story I love - I'm an avid consumer of pulp adventures. And a screenplay by Michael Chabon? Added bonus.
In reality, I couldn't love the movie, although I did enjoy it. Most of its flaws have been well reported - over long, bland villains, a lead that lacks star power - and those are probably true. Taylor Kitsch lacked the secret ingredient of charisma and the twinkle in his eye. Something that James Purefoy's performance had plenty of. Sadly Purefoy was on screen for maybe a few brief minutes. Kitsch was there through the whole movie. Purefoy was, however, for me, the only supporting character to stand out. In fact, thanks to the similarity of costume design between most of the supporting characters, armies and even CGIed characters, I had trouble telling any of them apart. It was like watching a Transformers movie.
John Carter had plenty of the ingredients I love, but the one vital ingredient it seemed to be missing was a sense of fun. The movie didn't need to try and be a comedy, by any means, but everything was so straight faced and earnest. I just felt that more buckles needed to be swashed in the process and the central character's reluctance to play the hero dragged. The aforementioned James Purefoy seems to have been the only one who was really relishing his role and had the playful rogueish element the movie could have done with more of, although Lynn Collins was also a strong Dejah Thoris.
But the elephant in the room was, perhaps, the biggest problem with the movie, in my eyes. The movie's lost a lot of money, yep. And it's lost a lot of money because a lot of money was thrown at it. The film has the reek of over-indulgence. The world-building is rich and detailed, but you can't help but feel that a much smaller budget would have led to a more thrifty screenplay. As it was, the movie was bloated with scenes that could easily have ended up on the cutting room floor and led to a more punchy, and enjoyable, movie.
But when all's said and done, John Carter wasn't a terrible movie by any means. A complete marketing failure, to be sure, but there's plenty I enjoyed about it. But it's not a movie I'll be rushing to pick up on DVD. Worth a look and, despite pulling for it because of the beating it's been getting, I enjoyed it just enough. But I couldn't necessarily recommend it.
A lot's been said about the financial failure of John Carter, but I went into the movie wanting to like it. On paper, it's the kind of story I love - I'm an avid consumer of pulp adventures. And a screenplay by Michael Chabon? Added bonus.
In reality, I couldn't love the movie, although I did enjoy it. Most of its flaws have been well reported - over long, bland villains, a lead that lacks star power - and those are probably true. Taylor Kitsch lacked the secret ingredient of charisma and the twinkle in his eye. Something that James Purefoy's performance had plenty of. Sadly Purefoy was on screen for maybe a few brief minutes. Kitsch was there through the whole movie. Purefoy was, however, for me, the only supporting character to stand out. In fact, thanks to the similarity of costume design between most of the supporting characters, armies and even CGIed characters, I had trouble telling any of them apart. It was like watching a Transformers movie.
John Carter had plenty of the ingredients I love, but the one vital ingredient it seemed to be missing was a sense of fun. The movie didn't need to try and be a comedy, by any means, but everything was so straight faced and earnest. I just felt that more buckles needed to be swashed in the process and the central character's reluctance to play the hero dragged. The aforementioned James Purefoy seems to have been the only one who was really relishing his role and had the playful rogueish element the movie could have done with more of, although Lynn Collins was also a strong Dejah Thoris.
But the elephant in the room was, perhaps, the biggest problem with the movie, in my eyes. The movie's lost a lot of money, yep. And it's lost a lot of money because a lot of money was thrown at it. The film has the reek of over-indulgence. The world-building is rich and detailed, but you can't help but feel that a much smaller budget would have led to a more thrifty screenplay. As it was, the movie was bloated with scenes that could easily have ended up on the cutting room floor and led to a more punchy, and enjoyable, movie.
But when all's said and done, John Carter wasn't a terrible movie by any means. A complete marketing failure, to be sure, but there's plenty I enjoyed about it. But it's not a movie I'll be rushing to pick up on DVD. Worth a look and, despite pulling for it because of the beating it's been getting, I enjoyed it just enough. But I couldn't necessarily recommend it.
A lot's been said about the financial failure of John Carter, but I went into the movie wanting to like it. On paper, it's the kind of story I love - I'm an avid consumer of pulp adventures. And a screenplay by Michael Chabon? Added bonus.
In reality, I couldn't love the movie, although I did enjoy it. Most of its flaws have been well reported - over long, bland villains, a lead that lacks star power - and those are probably true. Taylor Kitsch lacked the secret ingredient of charisma and the twinkle in his eye. Something that James Purefoy's performance had plenty of. Sadly Purefoy was on screen for maybe a few brief minutes. Kitsch was there through the whole movie. Purefoy was, however, for me, the only supporting character to stand out. In fact, thanks to the similarity of costume design between most of the supporting characters, armies and even CGIed characters, I had trouble telling any of them apart. It was like watching a Transformers movie.
John Carter had plenty of the ingredients I love, but the one vital ingredient it seemed to be missing was a sense of fun. The movie didn't need to try and be a comedy, by any means, but everything was so straight faced and earnest. I just felt that more buckles needed to be swashed in the process and the central character's reluctance to play the hero dragged. The aforementioned James Purefoy seems to have been the only one who was really relishing his role and had the playful rogueish element the movie could have done with more of, although Lynn Collins was also a strong Dejah Thoris.
But the elephant in the room was, perhaps, the biggest problem with the movie, in my eyes. The movie's lost a lot of money, yep. And it's lost a lot of money because a lot of money was thrown at it. The film has the reek of over-indulgence. The world-building is rich and detailed, but you can't help but feel that a much smaller budget would have led to a more thrifty screenplay. As it was, the movie was bloated with scenes that could easily have ended up on the cutting room floor and led to a more punchy, and enjoyable, movie.
But when all's said and done, John Carter wasn't a terrible movie by any means. A complete marketing failure, to be sure, but there's plenty I enjoyed about it. But it's not a movie I'll be rushing to pick up on DVD. Worth a look and, despite pulling for it because of the beating it's been getting, I enjoyed it just enough. But I couldn't necessarily recommend it.
The Guard (2011)
Written and directed by John Michael McDonagh
This movie doesn't sound that good on paper. The publicity throws around phrases like "fish-out-of-water comedy" and "buddy cop movie" like they're going out of fashion and it could very easily have been another unmemorable movie of the genre. Its posters describe it as "a raucous comedy", which totally missells it - it's much more In Bruges than Lethal Weapon, thanks to pitch-black deadpan script and direction from John Michael McDonagh, coincidentally (or not) the brother of Martin McDonagh, who wrote and directed the aforementioned In Bruges.
Both also star Brendan Gleeson, on top form again as Sergeant Gerry Boyle, managing to craft a character who could either be incredibly stupid, crass and oblivious or very very sharp, depending on your interpretation. It's Gleeson that is the backbone of the movie - it's not really a traditional buddy cop movie at all, despite Don Cheadle's presence as an FBI agent out to catch drug smugglers in Gleeson's quiet corner of western Ireland. Think Bad Lieutenant meets Father Ted and you'd have a closer definition of what the movie feels like. Cheadle's straight man is there as a bonus. The film is all Gleeson's, from the deadpan opening to the Spaghetti Western-esque final confrontation.
There's great support too in the form of Boyle’s cancer stricken mother (Fionnula Flanagan), the wife of his new partner (Katarina Kas) and a trio of drug smugglers (Liam Cunningham, David Wilmot and Mark Strong) who always seem to be bemoaning their lot and quoting philosophy. But it's Gleeson's movie and, despite the trailers trying to sell his character as a straightforward "eccentric comedy racist", he's far more complicated and compelling than that and the humor of the movie far more dry and subversive.
“Most people think of themselves as individuals. That there’s no-one on the planet like them. This thought motivates them to get out of bed, eat food, and walk around like nothing’s wrong. My name is Oliver Tate.”
So, last week, I made a shopping list of thing I wanted to see in the last Harry Potter movie. Things that weren't slavishly reproducing the last half of the book blow for blow, but variations that I hoped to see in the movie. Stuff like:
I didn't know quite what to expect when I booked my tickets to see Ringo Starr and the All Starr Band live. Ringo's had a tough couple of decades and fuss made over his refusal to sign anything else for fans and comments about Liverpool suggested that he'd become rather curmudgeonly since hitting 70.
What I didn't expect was the figure who bounded onstage tonight, full of boyish enthusiasm, slim and grinning and looking about 25 years younger than his 70 years, buoyed up by (seemingly) unforced glee at his latest tour.
And he was certainly in good company. The All Starr Band consisted of Edgar Winter, Rick Derringer, Gary Wright, Richard Page (of Mr Mister) and Wally Palmar (The Romantics).
Launching into It Don't Come Easy, Ringo seemed to be having a whale of a time and it was one of those gigs where it's hard to keep the grin off your face and where the enthusiasm of the performers rubs off onto the audience, even if almost every one of us remained glued to our seats, restricting out enthusiastic displays to polite rounds of applause. British reserve apparently seemed to be leading the way, although there was a good bit of banter between Ringo and the audience at some points, as he joked self-depreciatively between songs. Almost uncomfortably at one point, where he obviously thought an off-the-cuff remark about having his bedroom decorated with a picture of a cheering crowd on one wall fell a bit flat and he remarked, "I don't really. I just made that up. I thought it was funny. Apparently not." He looked so momentarily dejected I was surprised no-one jumped on stage to give him a big hug.
( Read more... )
First up, let me say that I've never worshiped at the altar of Bryan Singer's X-men. Oh, I liked them well enough, but they never really felt like the X-men to me, with a few exceptions for certain characters. So coming from that point of view, and recalling that Ratner's X-men: Last Stand used a script that barely differed from the one Matthew Vaughn and Bryan Singer had in place when they left the project, my hopes for this movie weren't high. So did they exceed expectations?
The answer is... kinda.
( Read more... )
Caught Thor tonight and it pleasingly exceeded my (admittedly not sky high) expectations. When Branagh talked about it being a character driven movie, he did put his money where his mouth was and even minor characters were given time to develop.
( Relatively spoiler free review under the cut. )
Did finally watch this movie over the holidays. And while I wasn't as enamoured of it as the majority of critics seem to be (trending 98% on Rotten Tomatoes to Toy Story 3's 99%), I did find it an enjoyable ride and certainly a huge step above the standard Dreamwidth's animation studios have usually been attaining in general.
The story wasn't groundbreaking and certainly not on a par with Toy Story 3 for making you feel the whole gamut of human emotion (I still consider TS3 the best movie of last year and one of the best movies of all time, animated or not) but the movie was definitely entertaining and endearing. And the animation was also a step above Dreamwork's norm (although the backgrounds and landscapes were so lovingly rendered in exquisite realistic detail than the more stylized central characters occasionally looked at odds with them). It's just a little bit of a shame that the supporting characters weren't so defined and, as seems to be commonplace in Dreamworks flicks, I walked away not actually remembering the names of any of the characters outside of Astrid, Toothless and Hiccup, whereas even with minor characters like Slink or Rex in the Toy Story movies, their names are reiterated enough to stick in the mind. A little thing, I know, but the little things make the difference between a good movie and a great one.
Anyway, good fun and definitely a good choice as a Christmas present for my nephew who was hooked on the whole thing.
I finished (re)watching Elizabeth R last night. It's always a pleasure to watch older British TV adaptations and dramatizations. They genuinely don't make them like that any more. Will there ever be a better Claudius than Derek Jacobi? A better Miss Marple than Joan Hickson? A better Sherlock Holmes than Jeremy Brett? It's doubtful.
So, in my mind, Dame Glenda Jackson will always be the definitive Elizabeth. She's picked up a couple of Academy Awards in her time, been a forthright politician, and was such a good match for the role of Elizabeth I she played her on the small screen in Elizabeth R and also on the big screen in Mary, Queen of Scots. She is, in brief, utterly, seemingly effortlessly, spellbindingly magnificent.
Elizabeth R is, of course, the BBC dramatization of the life of Elizabeth I. Six feature length episodes depict significant events in her life. Her ascension to the throne; her love affair with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester; her forays towards political marriage; the conspiracies and execution of Mary, Queen of Scots; the Spanish Armada; and her relationship with the Earl of Essex and death. Unlike the movies starring Cate Blanchett, (who was, admittedly, fantastic in the role too), Elizabeth R is rich in historical detail. The supporting cast equally bring other figures from Elizabeth's court to life - Robert Hardy's a playful, bullish Dudley, Ronald Hines and Stephen Murray impressive as Burghley and Walsingham.
It's Michael Williams as the Duc d'Alencon who I love the most, though. He's only in one episode, but he's such a lovable rogue, he perfectly depicts Elizabeth's happy "frog".
The production quality's a bit dated and it's notable that all the big battle scenes take place off-screen, but the costuming and sets still look rich and sumptuous and sometimes the relatively low budget's a strength rather than a weakness, meaning the characters are the focus, not the big events. There's a lovely moment, for example, where Elizabeth's rousing speech at Tilbury in preparation for invasion by the Armada ("I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too") is seen from the perspective of two of the common soldiery, with their commentary and asides.
If you've never seen it and are interested in the life and character of Elizabeth, I can't recommend it highly enough.
And it seems like the whole thing is up on Youtube. So, no excuses there.
A lot has been said about Scott Pilgrim. At times over the past few weeks it's seemed like there are more opinions being tossed around than people who have actually seen the damn film, and that's probably not far from the truth. So I figured I'd go and decide for myself.
The truth is, it's not a movie I was particularly looking forward to seeing. The good word of mouth and the pedigree of the people behind the film persuaded me to give it a try, but the trailer suggested a horrible "Dude, Where's My Car?"-esque experience to come. Thankfully the trailer was deceptive, but I suspect it probably had plenty to do with turning off people who had no clue about the source material. If I hadn't had a bunch of friends raving about it, you wouldn't have caught me dead going to this one. A movie where a slacker dick has to fight a bunch of evil exes in a video game style to win the alternative princess? No thanks.
And I would have missed out. Scott Pilgrim's a fun, funny and engaging experience. Is it a nerd film? Well, certainly it's a video game nerd film. I wouldn't have classed it as a particularly geeky movie otherwise. Scott Pilgrim in the movie's a slacker, but not a geek. He plays in a grunge band, has a girlfriend who worships the ground he walks on. Of course, Edgar Wright, the movie's director, is a huge geek, as Spaced proved, but the movie seems more clearly focussed towards the video game nerd than the indiscriminate approach of that show, although other influences creep in.
Not having read the comic book series it's based on, (I have the first two volumes but have yet to pick them up), I'm not entirely sure what to make of the central characters. Presumably they're a little more fleshed out in the comics, but as the movie opened I found Scott (Michael Cera) to be a self-pitying, slacker jerk with a Asian schoolgirl fetish and a basic lack in interest and respect for others. That opinion didn't really change throughout the movie. (Although Cera was actually more appealing than I expected.) Likewise, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) never seemed to be a character at all, just a trophy for Scott to attain. Deadpan and mysterious translated as bland and uninteresting for me. So, if the two paper-thin, souless central characters and the chemistry-less core relationship of the movie held no interest for me, what did?
Really, the main reason to see the movie is the supporting performers. There's not really a weak character in the bunch and everyone seems to be having enormous fun at what they do. A lot of column time seems to be going to Kieran Culkin as Wallace, and deservedly so. He has some great lines, puts in a wonderfully arch performance and it's refreshing to see the "gay best friend" trope presented without dropping into offensive stereotype or cliche territory. But by no means does Culkin steal the movie. Each of the ex's brings something wonderful to the show. Satya Bhabha is hillarious as Matthew Patel. Chris Evans totally steals the movie... for the ten minutes he's in it as film star Lucas Lee, until Brandon Routh skips in to play the evil vegan with special vegan powers. Jason Schwartzman is gloriously hammy and funny as all hell in his role as the final ex. Likewise, Alison Pill, Anna Kendrick, Mark Webber and others all pop up as well defined supporting characters you'll probably end up wanting to see more of. And special mention to Ellen Wong, who's kind of a revelation - brilliant and funny and touching as Knives Cho (Aged 17).
The plot itself is pretty slight, mostly a hook for the great characters and amazing visuals to hang on. In terms of style and direction, the movie excels, capturing the frenetic video game visuals and comic book panelling with great aplomb. The movie totally commits to that energetic style, whirlwind visuals and the genius is in the detail. There's so much humor in the direction, editing and look of the movie, as well as the performances. It's probably the closest Hollywood cinema will come to the slapstick genius of Stephen Chow. And you quickly realize you just have to go with the flow of the bizarre plot and have fun with it. And you do.
I left the cinema with a smile on my face. At the end of the experience, whether Ramona and Scott are characters I cared about doesn't matter. Because it's the ride that's the fun part and the people you meet along the way, not who's in the carriage with you.
So, The Expendables. What to say about this movie? Most of it people will already know. Sylvester Stallone stars, writes and directs and obviously called in a few favors from friends to join the cast.
Wesley Snipes, Jean Claude Van Damme, Steven Seagal and Danny Trejo sadly didn't make the party as was originally intended, but the cast still includes the bulgingest muscularist cast assembled, bursting with testosterone and machismo - Stallone himself, along with Jason Statham, Mickey Rourke, Terry Crews, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, David Zayas, 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin, Eric Roberts and Gary Daniels. And, of course, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger in cameo roles.
The screen's too small to contain all the bulging biceps, tattoos, gold teeth, cowboy hats, motorbikes, guns and fuck off, great big shiny knives. Yes, once the movie starts rolling, the only way they could convey sheer manliness any more is by Stallone waving his hairy bollocks in front of the camera.
( Read more... )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
