And, friends, we once again return to the town of blogville, blogsylvania, narrowing avoiding the unspoken tragedy that is "not updating your blog in a year" by "updating the blog the week before you haven't updated it in a year," or the Oh Crap I Knew I'd Forgotten Something method of blog writing.
A great deal has occurred since last we wrote. Or at least, since I wrote. You don't write. You just sit here and read everything I've written down, without taking the time to write back. Not even one letter at Christmas. You bastard. But that great deal is a story for another day. As a brief recap, I'm still working at the same office, having been kicked out of the project I was in, asked BACK into the project I was in, promoted, sidemoted, and then promoted again in a slightly different way.
I'm still working on games (though the hl2 project has been sidelined until we know more about how to make projects in hl2) and we are currently focusing on smaller scale project that is making great progress and nearing the completion of the pre-alpha stage. I don't know what you'd call that. Noughtpha or something.
I'm still single, though not the same single I was last time. C'est la vie, as you say. If you're French. I'm not French. So I don't say it. Except I did. Chew on that, paradoxes.
But I didn't come to talk to you about that, I came to talk to you about Cowboys shooting Space Ships with Ray Guns.
Allow me to elaborate.
A week ago I decided that I'd quite like to get into the habit of seeing a movie once a week as a nice little tradition for myself. Sure enough, one week later, I found myself at the cinema. My choices for the evening were a movie about aliens overthrowing humans that were cowboys, or a movie about apes overthrowing humans that were jerks. Cowboys and Aliens won because it was on first. Good odds on Rise of the Planet of the Apes next week.
Cowboys and Aliens is directed by Jon Favreau, a man I had never heard of until I rather excitedly saw his name in the credits for Iron Man, and then rather less excitedly saw his name in the credits for Iron Man 2, a film that proved that more of the same thing can be a bad thing. More of EXACTLY. THE SAME. THING.
Perhaps being rather embarrassed when he realised that he'd accidentally grabbed the wrong script on the way to the film shoot for Iron Man 2, Favreau decided to drop out of Iron Man 3 and instead make Cowboys and Aliens, a film that tries as hard as it possibly can to not be Iron Man. Here's a quick comparison:
Cowboys and Aliens (C&A): Gruff silent hero that can beat the crap out of anything with his bare hands.
Iron Man (IM): Wise cracking talkative hero that can beat the crap out of anything with his bare futuristic power suit covered hands.
So far so good.
C&A: YeOlde Western Type Times with horses and shotguns.
IM: Modern Times with fast cars and fast women (I've never understood that expression. Surely the women are considerably slower than even most reasonably priced cars. I mean, I saw a woman running pretty fast the other day, but she wasn't THAT fast...).
Still on track.
C&A: Evil Aliens.
IM: Evil Jeff Bridges.
Yup, we're on to something.
C&A: Vague under explained motives for villain with a convenient and somewhat contrived resolution.
IM: Vague under explained motives for villain with a convenient and somewhat... bugger.
One rather definitive point in Cowboys' favour is it undeniably gets the point. The film opens, Daniel Craig wakes up in a field with no memory and a strange device strapped to his arm. Then he shoots some cowboys. Then he gets arrested. Then aliens attack. All in the first 20 minutes. No time wasting exposition here!
Somewhat refreshingly, you go into Cowboys and Aliens and will see EXACTLY what you expect. There are cowboys, and there are aliens. They shoot each other a lot. And if that's all you're after, this film will serve you well. I don't think anyone is going to a film called Cowboys and Aliens and expecting Shakespeare. And if you were, which Shakespeare have you been reading, because I must have missed that one.
Great it is not, but Fun it is not isn't.
...wait, what?
Rating: 2.5 out 5.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Attack Of The Mini-Blog 2: Return Of The Killer Mini-Blog
An Ill Wind Is Blowing. And Sneezing.
I always get rather guilty when I get sick, much in the same way that other people get blocked noses. Ok, so I get those too, but I also get guilt.
Allow me to elaborate.
It can be argued that I am rather tougher on myself than I am on other people. A friend has kindly put this as "You hold yourself to a very high standard", which is much nicer than saying I do not esteem myself highly. Part of this materialises in a desire to not let other people down, which reflects in my day job just as much anything else. So whenever I'm sick, I start to worry (frequently as I'm busy coughing my lungs out) that possibly I'm just putting it on and I should really just get back to work, you slacker.
My doctor, bless his quite-possibly-although-I've-never-actually-examined-them-in-them-in-great-detail cotton socks, does his best to talk me out of this point of view, and when I took Monday off due to ill health and went to see him fully expecting to be told to get back to work and stop wasting his time (despite being sick for 4 days already) he subtly asked me if I could take a little time off work and when confirmed he leapt on the chance and told me to stay home for the rest of the week.
Though I was initially against the idea in the long run it's turned out to be a very good thing. I was reaching burn out point and this seems to have headed it off at the pass, meaning I am pretty much back at full energy. It also in some says feels like a fresh start, as work, writing, and my current self tutoring projects were all put on hold in favour of giving this whole rest thing a shot, and can now approach them with a fresh eye after the break.
Bring it on. Of course, bring it on-in-a-slighty-less-hectic-way-than-before, but the on shall nevertheless be brung. Or brought.
It's good to be back.
It's Important To Have The Heart Of A Child. I Keep It In A Jar.
Recently I attended a 21st birthday party that could be described as atypical in that it started reasonably early in the evening and didn't involve the consumption of alcohol. Instead it was filled with Pinatas, Junk Food, Board and Video Games, DVDs and Theatre Sports.
In a word, it was awesome. (That's actually three, but lets not mince words. It'd make a terrible mess) And it made me consider that many of the my preferred activities are probably atypical to conventional stereotypical adult society, to whit, I don't drink, don't do drugs, don't follow a football team, don't go out to pubs or parties, and instead prefer the company of small groups of friends, and spend my time with films, video games, and general hanging out.
This is, in fact, pretty much what I did as a child, and pretty much what I did in high school. To be honest, most of the typically "adult" activities don't interest me for the most part, and if I enjoyed the things I did when I was younger, I don't see much of a reason to stop them and start doing things I don't enjoy simply because I've passed the 21 year mark. There are certainly things, such as work, relationships and future long term plans, that are definately the focus of my adult life, just as "going to school" was my focus while I was going to school.
But my hobbies are unchanged, and are in all honesty unlikely to change. Because I'm an adult now.
You can't tell me what to do. Stop it. No you stop it. MUUUUUUUUUUUUUM!
A Short Review Of The Film Inception, By Sam Mellor.
Inception was INCREDIBLY AMAZING. See it.
Also, I like milo.
I always get rather guilty when I get sick, much in the same way that other people get blocked noses. Ok, so I get those too, but I also get guilt.
Allow me to elaborate.
It can be argued that I am rather tougher on myself than I am on other people. A friend has kindly put this as "You hold yourself to a very high standard", which is much nicer than saying I do not esteem myself highly. Part of this materialises in a desire to not let other people down, which reflects in my day job just as much anything else. So whenever I'm sick, I start to worry (frequently as I'm busy coughing my lungs out) that possibly I'm just putting it on and I should really just get back to work, you slacker.
My doctor, bless his quite-possibly-although-I've-never-actually-examined-them-in-them-in-great-detail cotton socks, does his best to talk me out of this point of view, and when I took Monday off due to ill health and went to see him fully expecting to be told to get back to work and stop wasting his time (despite being sick for 4 days already) he subtly asked me if I could take a little time off work and when confirmed he leapt on the chance and told me to stay home for the rest of the week.
Though I was initially against the idea in the long run it's turned out to be a very good thing. I was reaching burn out point and this seems to have headed it off at the pass, meaning I am pretty much back at full energy. It also in some says feels like a fresh start, as work, writing, and my current self tutoring projects were all put on hold in favour of giving this whole rest thing a shot, and can now approach them with a fresh eye after the break.
Bring it on. Of course, bring it on-in-a-slighty-less-hectic-way-than-before, but the on shall nevertheless be brung. Or brought.
It's good to be back.
It's Important To Have The Heart Of A Child. I Keep It In A Jar.
Recently I attended a 21st birthday party that could be described as atypical in that it started reasonably early in the evening and didn't involve the consumption of alcohol. Instead it was filled with Pinatas, Junk Food, Board and Video Games, DVDs and Theatre Sports.
In a word, it was awesome. (That's actually three, but lets not mince words. It'd make a terrible mess) And it made me consider that many of the my preferred activities are probably atypical to conventional stereotypical adult society, to whit, I don't drink, don't do drugs, don't follow a football team, don't go out to pubs or parties, and instead prefer the company of small groups of friends, and spend my time with films, video games, and general hanging out.
This is, in fact, pretty much what I did as a child, and pretty much what I did in high school. To be honest, most of the typically "adult" activities don't interest me for the most part, and if I enjoyed the things I did when I was younger, I don't see much of a reason to stop them and start doing things I don't enjoy simply because I've passed the 21 year mark. There are certainly things, such as work, relationships and future long term plans, that are definately the focus of my adult life, just as "going to school" was my focus while I was going to school.
But my hobbies are unchanged, and are in all honesty unlikely to change. Because I'm an adult now.
You can't tell me what to do. Stop it. No you stop it. MUUUUUUUUUUUUUM!
A Short Review Of The Film Inception, By Sam Mellor.
Inception was INCREDIBLY AMAZING. See it.
Also, I like milo.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 9: Toy Story 3
It has previously been established that I am somewhat of a Pixar fan. Indeed, while there are other films that I consider a must see at the cinema (Tim Burton still manages to get me interested in his movies, though with decreasing optimism as the years go by, and I'll be first in line for the Sherlock Holmes sequel), Pixar movies are really the only movies that I would feel genuinely disappointed if I missed.
Allow me to elaborate.
Toy Story 3 is of some significance as far as Pixar goes since it is a) the sequel to the film that shot them to stardom and b) 11 years since Toy Story 2. It's quite the trend to do sequels or 'reboots' of decades old movies these days, (TMNT, Indiana Jones, and Predator, I'm looking squarely at you) which I assume means kicking something while it's down, and the quality of most reboots would seem to bear this theory out. I can't help but feel pity for the marketing executive who puts his hand up in the meeting and says "You know, I think the world is ready for another Friday the 13th..." I suppose it's only a matter of time before we see Rebel Without A Cause: The Next Generation starring the son of James Dean's character going through an surprisingly similiar situation (but with better hair), and Gone With The Wind II: The Quickening, but in the mean time I hope they're a long way off.
Nonetheless I was very excited to hear that Pixar had taken over the development of Toy Story 3 from Disney. Let me summarise in this one act play: (for a less abysmal rendition, check out the excellent "Pixar Story" documentary on the Wall-E special edition dvd)
John Lasseter: Yo Disney!(1) this whole 3d animation thing is pretty cool. We should try it.
The CEO of Disney: Is it faster?
John: No.
Disney: Is it cheaper?
John: No.
Disney: Then you're fired.
John: Oh no! What will I do now?
Steve Jobs: Hey John, I'm interested in new technologies, want to come work for me?
John: Do I have use a mac?
Steve: ...maybe.
John: Well, I guess so. Hey while you're there, I've got this great idea for a portable music device that you can carry around with you, but doesn't require any tapes. (2)
Steve: Now that's just crazy talk John.
YEARS GO BY.
Disney: Hey John! That Toy Story thing you're working on looks pretty sweet. We always knew this 3d animation thing was going to be huge. Want us to market it?
John: Sure! All is forgiven. But hey, you seem to be churning out all of these sequels lately, and we're really proud of our characters. Would you mind if we handled the sequels for our characters?
Disney: Johnny. Would I do a thing like that? Of course you can do the sequels! To show you how genuine I am, lets not worry about contracts or anything like that. We'll call it... a gentleman's agreement. Would I break a gentleman's agreement Johnny?
John: Well, no, I guess you wouldn't. Ok, let's shake on it.
Disney: Johnny, buddy! Business partners don't shake.
John: Oh.
YEARS GO BY.
Disney: Hey John? It's Disney! Those movies are doing great. Toy Story 2 was great! You're great! That's why we're so proud that Toy Story 3 is being made.
John: Thanks! But, um... we're not making Toy Story 3...
Disney: I didn't say you were.
John: Oh. But you said...
Disney: Is there a contract?
John: No, but you said...
Disney: Did we shake on it?
John: No, but there was a gentleman's agreement...
Disney: That doesn't sound like something I'd say.
John: Oh. Well, I'm sorry, but we probably need to find someone else to market our films then.
Disney: That's fine, we're better off without you anyway. Oh, and we're shutting down our 2d animation unit and focussing on 3d from now on.
John: ...WHAT?
YEARS GO BY.
New Disney CEO: Hey, um, John, it's the new CEO of Disney. Yeah we fired the old one for being stupid. Listen, we're kind of in a bind here, all of our 3d films have done really badly, people are going to see Pixar films. They seem to prefer smart, clever, well written movies instead of, you know, bad ones. And I was wondering, you know, if I took you out to dinner, maybe go see a show, if, well, maybe we could patch things up again.
John: Of course, lets see what we can do. But can we have Toy Story 3 back?
Disney: Done.
John: And, sorry, but you gotta open up the 2d animation unit again. That was really stupid.
Disney: ...ok, done.
John: Come on, lets go to dinner. Oh, and Disney?
Disney: Yeah?
John: Bring your cheque book.
Anyway, Toy Story 3 was released last week. The family are getting around to go and see it, but I decided that I would go and see it myself in the meantime and hoped that it'd be good enough to see again with the family. Fortunately my hopes were not in vain.
When you do a sequel 11 years later you have two options. You can pretend that no time has passed at all and just explain away the quaver in the actor's voices as a bad cough, and the lines under their eyes as battle scars. Or you can take the "Cystal Skull" approach and just pretend that everyone took desk jobs for the last ten years and only now has something interesting happened. With animation it's tempting to do the former as you can draw the characters the same way you always have but Pixar rather interestingly chosen the latter, with the toy's owner Andy now 17 and heading to college and the toy's locked away in a toy chest fearing their future. Themes of fear, abandonment, and being outgrown have always run rife through the Toy Story franchise (and is responsible for some of it's darker moments) so the new time period works wonderfully. There is a certain sadness to hear the toys talk about those who are no longer with them, and their plans for the future.
The film maintains the charm of the previous films with the same antics and silly humour just as prevalent. What was more surprising was the genuinely dark moments that enter the story. Partially is due to the story itself, with the sense of lonliness and loss that drives the action. All the toys really want is to be played with one more time. There are moments of horror when seeming wonderlands reveal their darker undersides, and a surprising moment near the end when for once everything genuinely seems lost, and you forget for a moment you're watching a bunch of toys.
It's not quite perfect, the opening sequence is rifed with "mystical" line repititions (Pirates of the Carribean I am blaming you. "Why is the rym gone?" was an amusing line in the first film. The end. You did not need to ensure it was repeated in every single sequel with a kind of mystical significance. The same goes for those sea turtles.) that are a bit of a detraction from immersion, and there is one (but only one is pretty good by most films standards) solution to a problem that feels a bit cheap, but these are small concerns compared to an excellent story, great humour, and superb visuals.
What was almost as interesting as the film itself was the audience. I caught a 4:30 afternoon session in the school holidays, and the adults out numbered the kids by about ten to one. There were people ranging from parents to older citizens, from businessmen to cool and hip teenagers in hoods and far, far too low pants. Most of these people went on their own, or with a few friends of the same age. Most didn't bring children to this arguably kids film. They all clapped, they all laughed. On the way out of the cinema I passed a line of five people on their mobiles calling their friends and family to tell them how great it was and how they had to go see it.
I ruminated as I walked home, rugged up against the cold and rain in jacket, scarf and hat (and enjoying this immensely) that evidently the films had had a much larger impact that I had imagined. I love the Pixar films, but I had always assumed that they were widely regarded as kids films.
Evidently I was (happily) wrong.
Rating 5 out of 6.
(1) As far as I'm aware, John Lasseter has never in his life said "Yo."
(2) Also never happened.
Allow me to elaborate.
Toy Story 3 is of some significance as far as Pixar goes since it is a) the sequel to the film that shot them to stardom and b) 11 years since Toy Story 2. It's quite the trend to do sequels or 'reboots' of decades old movies these days, (TMNT, Indiana Jones, and Predator, I'm looking squarely at you) which I assume means kicking something while it's down, and the quality of most reboots would seem to bear this theory out. I can't help but feel pity for the marketing executive who puts his hand up in the meeting and says "You know, I think the world is ready for another Friday the 13th..." I suppose it's only a matter of time before we see Rebel Without A Cause: The Next Generation starring the son of James Dean's character going through an surprisingly similiar situation (but with better hair), and Gone With The Wind II: The Quickening, but in the mean time I hope they're a long way off.
Nonetheless I was very excited to hear that Pixar had taken over the development of Toy Story 3 from Disney. Let me summarise in this one act play: (for a less abysmal rendition, check out the excellent "Pixar Story" documentary on the Wall-E special edition dvd)
John Lasseter: Yo Disney!(1) this whole 3d animation thing is pretty cool. We should try it.
The CEO of Disney: Is it faster?
John: No.
Disney: Is it cheaper?
John: No.
Disney: Then you're fired.
John: Oh no! What will I do now?
Steve Jobs: Hey John, I'm interested in new technologies, want to come work for me?
John: Do I have use a mac?
Steve: ...maybe.
John: Well, I guess so. Hey while you're there, I've got this great idea for a portable music device that you can carry around with you, but doesn't require any tapes. (2)
Steve: Now that's just crazy talk John.
YEARS GO BY.
Disney: Hey John! That Toy Story thing you're working on looks pretty sweet. We always knew this 3d animation thing was going to be huge. Want us to market it?
John: Sure! All is forgiven. But hey, you seem to be churning out all of these sequels lately, and we're really proud of our characters. Would you mind if we handled the sequels for our characters?
Disney: Johnny. Would I do a thing like that? Of course you can do the sequels! To show you how genuine I am, lets not worry about contracts or anything like that. We'll call it... a gentleman's agreement. Would I break a gentleman's agreement Johnny?
John: Well, no, I guess you wouldn't. Ok, let's shake on it.
Disney: Johnny, buddy! Business partners don't shake.
John: Oh.
YEARS GO BY.
Disney: Hey John? It's Disney! Those movies are doing great. Toy Story 2 was great! You're great! That's why we're so proud that Toy Story 3 is being made.
John: Thanks! But, um... we're not making Toy Story 3...
Disney: I didn't say you were.
John: Oh. But you said...
Disney: Is there a contract?
John: No, but you said...
Disney: Did we shake on it?
John: No, but there was a gentleman's agreement...
Disney: That doesn't sound like something I'd say.
John: Oh. Well, I'm sorry, but we probably need to find someone else to market our films then.
Disney: That's fine, we're better off without you anyway. Oh, and we're shutting down our 2d animation unit and focussing on 3d from now on.
John: ...WHAT?
YEARS GO BY.
New Disney CEO: Hey, um, John, it's the new CEO of Disney. Yeah we fired the old one for being stupid. Listen, we're kind of in a bind here, all of our 3d films have done really badly, people are going to see Pixar films. They seem to prefer smart, clever, well written movies instead of, you know, bad ones. And I was wondering, you know, if I took you out to dinner, maybe go see a show, if, well, maybe we could patch things up again.
John: Of course, lets see what we can do. But can we have Toy Story 3 back?
Disney: Done.
John: And, sorry, but you gotta open up the 2d animation unit again. That was really stupid.
Disney: ...ok, done.
John: Come on, lets go to dinner. Oh, and Disney?
Disney: Yeah?
John: Bring your cheque book.
Anyway, Toy Story 3 was released last week. The family are getting around to go and see it, but I decided that I would go and see it myself in the meantime and hoped that it'd be good enough to see again with the family. Fortunately my hopes were not in vain.
When you do a sequel 11 years later you have two options. You can pretend that no time has passed at all and just explain away the quaver in the actor's voices as a bad cough, and the lines under their eyes as battle scars. Or you can take the "Cystal Skull" approach and just pretend that everyone took desk jobs for the last ten years and only now has something interesting happened. With animation it's tempting to do the former as you can draw the characters the same way you always have but Pixar rather interestingly chosen the latter, with the toy's owner Andy now 17 and heading to college and the toy's locked away in a toy chest fearing their future. Themes of fear, abandonment, and being outgrown have always run rife through the Toy Story franchise (and is responsible for some of it's darker moments) so the new time period works wonderfully. There is a certain sadness to hear the toys talk about those who are no longer with them, and their plans for the future.
The film maintains the charm of the previous films with the same antics and silly humour just as prevalent. What was more surprising was the genuinely dark moments that enter the story. Partially is due to the story itself, with the sense of lonliness and loss that drives the action. All the toys really want is to be played with one more time. There are moments of horror when seeming wonderlands reveal their darker undersides, and a surprising moment near the end when for once everything genuinely seems lost, and you forget for a moment you're watching a bunch of toys.
It's not quite perfect, the opening sequence is rifed with "mystical" line repititions (Pirates of the Carribean I am blaming you. "Why is the rym gone?" was an amusing line in the first film. The end. You did not need to ensure it was repeated in every single sequel with a kind of mystical significance. The same goes for those sea turtles.) that are a bit of a detraction from immersion, and there is one (but only one is pretty good by most films standards) solution to a problem that feels a bit cheap, but these are small concerns compared to an excellent story, great humour, and superb visuals.
What was almost as interesting as the film itself was the audience. I caught a 4:30 afternoon session in the school holidays, and the adults out numbered the kids by about ten to one. There were people ranging from parents to older citizens, from businessmen to cool and hip teenagers in hoods and far, far too low pants. Most of these people went on their own, or with a few friends of the same age. Most didn't bring children to this arguably kids film. They all clapped, they all laughed. On the way out of the cinema I passed a line of five people on their mobiles calling their friends and family to tell them how great it was and how they had to go see it.
I ruminated as I walked home, rugged up against the cold and rain in jacket, scarf and hat (and enjoying this immensely) that evidently the films had had a much larger impact that I had imagined. I love the Pixar films, but I had always assumed that they were widely regarded as kids films.
Evidently I was (happily) wrong.
Rating 5 out of 6.
(1) As far as I'm aware, John Lasseter has never in his life said "Yo."
(2) Also never happened.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 8: Alice In Wonderland
Alice in Wonderland is one of those books that I've always read. Most books I can remember a time when I had not read it, and remember encountering it for the first time. for Alice in Wonderland, I can't. Presumably this means I read it at a very young age, or I have selectively blanked the memory, possibly due to some kind of traumatic experience (I dunno, maybe it gave me a papercut or something), or maybe it just is not remembered with no greater significance or sense, a fact that sits rather well with the nature of the text itself.
Allow me to elaborate.
I do remember not reading 'real' books until quite late, instead focussing on younger texts and stories. My teachers were concerned that this showed a lack of intelligence or learning and eagerly tried to press older texts upon me, and felt sadly their suspicions confirmed when I showed little interest in them. What they failed to work out is that I was not reading the books for 'young readers' they offered me not because I was unable to understand them, but because they were poorly written, with plots that simply didn't interest me. Why would I want to read about a 10 year old girl going snowboarding when I could read about giants and dragons? Now that I'm older, I still ask myself the same question.
But I eventually stumbled accross a Terry Pratchett book (thanks to my stepmother) and read it in about two days. After that, I always had a book with me, and that's never changed. It was an englightening experience to discover that there were fantastic stories outside of the childrens books, and that I didn't have to read texts that bored me simply because people my age group were meant to read them.
In any case, at some point, I read Alice in Wonderland. Overall it amused me, and featured many inconic moments and characters that have entered into popular culture and usage. Everyone knows the Mad Hatter, and everyone knows about rabbits in waistcoats being late for things (It is unsure at this point whether the waistcoat contributed to its lateness). Which begs the question, if a text is so memorable and so well known, why on Earth would you mess with it?
Which brings me to the recent Alice in Wonderland film by Tim Burton.
I have a soft spot for Tim Burton films (or at least, up until 5 years ago I did) as he frequently includes for want of a better word a type of pleasant surrealism in his films that I find quite appealing. Many times throughout each of his films the strange, the fantastic, the peculiar will occur, not to unsettle or frighten but rather to add a sense of awe or wonder to the proceedings. Or at least, that used to be the case, but the more recent of Burtons films have moved from the charmingly bizarre, to the ocassionally amusing but mostly just kind of strange. In some ways, rather than a story with weird visuals in it, the films now seem to be weird visuals with a story in it.
Alice in Wonderland is no exception. Rather than a straight up film adaptation of the novel, it is instead set as a sequel, except due to a rather unfortunate desire to create a sequel but still include all the iconic moments from the book, it manages to feel rather familiar. The visual effects are a treat to behold, but I'd recommend not watching the film in 3d as even at the short running length my eyes were left quite sore at the end (Avatar on the other hand ran for about three hours and my eyes were fine throughout. The headache I got from THAT film was in no way due to the 3d technology.)
Similiar to other recent adaptations like the Lord of the Rings and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the film features a cast of excellent performers, and also similiar to those films their behaviour in no way resembles the original characters. Some the minor characters sound ok but Stephen Fry as the Chesire Cat loses the manic joy and replaces it with a solemn (or perhaps bored) air, a surprise as he's more than capable of insanity, and Johnny Depp perhaps misdefined 'Mad' and thought rather than crazy it meant angry, as he spends a lot of the film wandering around in what appears to be a barely controlled rage, before ocassionally remembering he's meant to be crazy.
All in all it results in a film that manages to feel both entirely too familiar and yet wildly different, culminated in an out of left field final battle that feels thrown in because they felt they needed some kind of big finish.
If you want pretty visuals, go right ahead and see Alice in Wonderland. But beyond that, I can find little to recommend. If you're after a proper sequel to Alice in Wonderland, read the actual sequel, and then play American McGee's Alice, which takes Wonderland to some dark places and actually manages to make it feel new.
Rating 2 out of 6. (1 out of 6 in 3D)
Allow me to elaborate.
I do remember not reading 'real' books until quite late, instead focussing on younger texts and stories. My teachers were concerned that this showed a lack of intelligence or learning and eagerly tried to press older texts upon me, and felt sadly their suspicions confirmed when I showed little interest in them. What they failed to work out is that I was not reading the books for 'young readers' they offered me not because I was unable to understand them, but because they were poorly written, with plots that simply didn't interest me. Why would I want to read about a 10 year old girl going snowboarding when I could read about giants and dragons? Now that I'm older, I still ask myself the same question.
But I eventually stumbled accross a Terry Pratchett book (thanks to my stepmother) and read it in about two days. After that, I always had a book with me, and that's never changed. It was an englightening experience to discover that there were fantastic stories outside of the childrens books, and that I didn't have to read texts that bored me simply because people my age group were meant to read them.
In any case, at some point, I read Alice in Wonderland. Overall it amused me, and featured many inconic moments and characters that have entered into popular culture and usage. Everyone knows the Mad Hatter, and everyone knows about rabbits in waistcoats being late for things (It is unsure at this point whether the waistcoat contributed to its lateness). Which begs the question, if a text is so memorable and so well known, why on Earth would you mess with it?
Which brings me to the recent Alice in Wonderland film by Tim Burton.
I have a soft spot for Tim Burton films (or at least, up until 5 years ago I did) as he frequently includes for want of a better word a type of pleasant surrealism in his films that I find quite appealing. Many times throughout each of his films the strange, the fantastic, the peculiar will occur, not to unsettle or frighten but rather to add a sense of awe or wonder to the proceedings. Or at least, that used to be the case, but the more recent of Burtons films have moved from the charmingly bizarre, to the ocassionally amusing but mostly just kind of strange. In some ways, rather than a story with weird visuals in it, the films now seem to be weird visuals with a story in it.
Alice in Wonderland is no exception. Rather than a straight up film adaptation of the novel, it is instead set as a sequel, except due to a rather unfortunate desire to create a sequel but still include all the iconic moments from the book, it manages to feel rather familiar. The visual effects are a treat to behold, but I'd recommend not watching the film in 3d as even at the short running length my eyes were left quite sore at the end (Avatar on the other hand ran for about three hours and my eyes were fine throughout. The headache I got from THAT film was in no way due to the 3d technology.)
Similiar to other recent adaptations like the Lord of the Rings and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the film features a cast of excellent performers, and also similiar to those films their behaviour in no way resembles the original characters. Some the minor characters sound ok but Stephen Fry as the Chesire Cat loses the manic joy and replaces it with a solemn (or perhaps bored) air, a surprise as he's more than capable of insanity, and Johnny Depp perhaps misdefined 'Mad' and thought rather than crazy it meant angry, as he spends a lot of the film wandering around in what appears to be a barely controlled rage, before ocassionally remembering he's meant to be crazy.
All in all it results in a film that manages to feel both entirely too familiar and yet wildly different, culminated in an out of left field final battle that feels thrown in because they felt they needed some kind of big finish.
If you want pretty visuals, go right ahead and see Alice in Wonderland. But beyond that, I can find little to recommend. If you're after a proper sequel to Alice in Wonderland, read the actual sequel, and then play American McGee's Alice, which takes Wonderland to some dark places and actually manages to make it feel new.
Rating 2 out of 6. (1 out of 6 in 3D)
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 7: Avatar
Every ten years or so there comes a film that stands out from other films. A film so unique, so driven, so ground breaking and challenging, that it makes it hard to go back. It doesn't just win the game, it changes the way the game is played.
Avatar is not that film.
Avatar is directed by James Cameron, who is hands down the best sequel director there is, at least until The Dark Knight was released. Allow me to explain. Most of Cameron's films have been a little less than impressive. Terminator, Titanic, The Abyss, these films both showcased impressive effects and were at the least an exciting premise, but failed in the overall narrative and final execution. The only exceptions have been his sequels, and 'True Lies', an entertainingly hilarious action film, and that was a remake of the French film 'La Totale!', so arguably a sequel in any case.
His sequels, however, have always succeeded in taking interesting but poorly developed science fiction films, and turning them into highly polished mindless action films. Terminator 2 and Aliens are among the fienst action films ever made, managing to combine a high level of special effects with a well thought out and engaging story.
By this logic, Avatar 2 should be really, really good.
I have rather mixed feelings about Avatar. On the one hand, the special effects were impressive, and the 3d was nice to look at, though it did turn to go rather blurry whenever something was moving fast (so it's a good thing we weren't watching an action film or anything like that). And I did go and see it with my family, followed by dinner out, so overall it was an absolutely lovely night that I highly enjoyed.
But I did spend the entire film rewriting the plot in my head.
It's not that Avatar doesn't have an interesting story, it's just that unfortunately so did three or four other films I could think of, and little has changed between them. The plot can be crudely stated as "good guy sets out to fight bad guys, due to totally unexpected turn of events gets captured by bad guys, bad guys turn out to be good guys and vice versa, lots of fighting, everybody goes home for tea and biscuits, so long as by home you mean various huts and caves in floating rocks, by tea you mean some kind of fruit, and by biscuits you mean the widespread and irreparable destruction of the surrounding woodlands which will leave thousands dead and homeless and cause lasting damage to the ecoystem.
The characters could charitably be described as simplified, and uncharitably described as cardboard caricatures. The hero is in it for revenge and personal gain until he realises there are bigger things like, um, trees and stuff. The main antagonist is a General who enjoys spouting one liners such as "let's finish this, I want to be home by dinner" and then looking around smugly, persumably to check if anyone had noticed that snappy one liner.
What annoys me the most about Avatar is that there actaully is a lot of promise in it. The plot itself is sound, but badly put together. The characters would be quite interesting if they were given a bit of depth, and the effects would be even better if they were given slightly less depth. It's a promising idea, it just needed more work. Mind you, since he reportedly took 14 years to make it, the questions remains, how much longer did he need?
But you never know. The sequel could be ok.
Rating: 2 out of 6.
Avatar is not that film.
Avatar is directed by James Cameron, who is hands down the best sequel director there is, at least until The Dark Knight was released. Allow me to explain. Most of Cameron's films have been a little less than impressive. Terminator, Titanic, The Abyss, these films both showcased impressive effects and were at the least an exciting premise, but failed in the overall narrative and final execution. The only exceptions have been his sequels, and 'True Lies', an entertainingly hilarious action film, and that was a remake of the French film 'La Totale!', so arguably a sequel in any case.
His sequels, however, have always succeeded in taking interesting but poorly developed science fiction films, and turning them into highly polished mindless action films. Terminator 2 and Aliens are among the fienst action films ever made, managing to combine a high level of special effects with a well thought out and engaging story.
By this logic, Avatar 2 should be really, really good.
I have rather mixed feelings about Avatar. On the one hand, the special effects were impressive, and the 3d was nice to look at, though it did turn to go rather blurry whenever something was moving fast (so it's a good thing we weren't watching an action film or anything like that). And I did go and see it with my family, followed by dinner out, so overall it was an absolutely lovely night that I highly enjoyed.
But I did spend the entire film rewriting the plot in my head.
It's not that Avatar doesn't have an interesting story, it's just that unfortunately so did three or four other films I could think of, and little has changed between them. The plot can be crudely stated as "good guy sets out to fight bad guys, due to totally unexpected turn of events gets captured by bad guys, bad guys turn out to be good guys and vice versa, lots of fighting, everybody goes home for tea and biscuits, so long as by home you mean various huts and caves in floating rocks, by tea you mean some kind of fruit, and by biscuits you mean the widespread and irreparable destruction of the surrounding woodlands which will leave thousands dead and homeless and cause lasting damage to the ecoystem.
The characters could charitably be described as simplified, and uncharitably described as cardboard caricatures. The hero is in it for revenge and personal gain until he realises there are bigger things like, um, trees and stuff. The main antagonist is a General who enjoys spouting one liners such as "let's finish this, I want to be home by dinner" and then looking around smugly, persumably to check if anyone had noticed that snappy one liner.
What annoys me the most about Avatar is that there actaully is a lot of promise in it. The plot itself is sound, but badly put together. The characters would be quite interesting if they were given a bit of depth, and the effects would be even better if they were given slightly less depth. It's a promising idea, it just needed more work. Mind you, since he reportedly took 14 years to make it, the questions remains, how much longer did he need?
But you never know. The sequel could be ok.
Rating: 2 out of 6.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 6: Up In The Air
Earlier this year a friend treated me to a birthday present by taking me out to Gold Class to see the new (at the time) George Clooney Film "Up In The Air." It was the follow up film of the director of the interesting but kind of weird film "Juno," and in admirably symmetry, Up In The Air can also be neatly summarised as interesting but kind of weird.
Gold Class was as it always is, very comfortable with excellent food but with the slight uncomfortable feeling that you've just spent waaaaaay too much to go see a film, even if your trio of mini hot dogs WAS delicious and you've another coffee and some ice cream on the way. A chief benefit is that the chairs actually do a lot to remove the discomfort my back feels at the cinema, but this hardly justifies the costs involved as a regular event. Still, it's a nice thing to do so long as it only happens once or twice a year.
The film tells the story of George Clooney (because one of the nicer things about George Clooney is he only ever plays himself) as he travels around the country firing people, in one of the more bizarre examples of outsourcing. He is joined by two women, one cynical, one not. The tale (such as it is) is a character based drama, meaning that there are some very interesting insights into the characters involved, and a genuine sense of change and growth for them throughout the film. On the other hand though you can't quite shake the thought that not a whole lot has happened in the last two hours, with an ending that believes that being vague and ambiguious somehow stands in for closure.
That being said though, the film has an undeniable intrigue to it, held together by Clooney's performance, that actually manages to make cynical firing guy believable. The plot is lacking but that's not to say there is not enjoyment to be had. Just be prepared to say "Well, that was weird" as the credits roll.
Rating 4 out of 6.
Gold Class was as it always is, very comfortable with excellent food but with the slight uncomfortable feeling that you've just spent waaaaaay too much to go see a film, even if your trio of mini hot dogs WAS delicious and you've another coffee and some ice cream on the way. A chief benefit is that the chairs actually do a lot to remove the discomfort my back feels at the cinema, but this hardly justifies the costs involved as a regular event. Still, it's a nice thing to do so long as it only happens once or twice a year.
The film tells the story of George Clooney (because one of the nicer things about George Clooney is he only ever plays himself) as he travels around the country firing people, in one of the more bizarre examples of outsourcing. He is joined by two women, one cynical, one not. The tale (such as it is) is a character based drama, meaning that there are some very interesting insights into the characters involved, and a genuine sense of change and growth for them throughout the film. On the other hand though you can't quite shake the thought that not a whole lot has happened in the last two hours, with an ending that believes that being vague and ambiguious somehow stands in for closure.
That being said though, the film has an undeniable intrigue to it, held together by Clooney's performance, that actually manages to make cynical firing guy believable. The plot is lacking but that's not to say there is not enjoyment to be had. Just be prepared to say "Well, that was weird" as the credits roll.
Rating 4 out of 6.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 5: Where The Wild Things Are
Since cinema began in the late ninteenth century, it has relied heavily on adapting existing media to the screen. It makes a great deal of sense, if you enjoyed a book it is hard not be excited when you hear that it is coming to the big screen (or - if you procrastinate too much and forget to go - the small screen). It's also arguably easier (but also arguably harder) than creating an original story, so the appeal is certainly there. This began with bringing plays and novels to celluloid, but has expanded over time (when a great product has come along, or the studios were feeling particularly lazy) to include television, toys, video games, comic books, songs, and bizarrely, theme park rides (I want to ask the person who thought that making Pirates of the Carribean into a movie was a good idea and ask them how they ever managed to convince a studio to do it, but he's probably too busy swimming in money to take my calls).
Adapting other mediums to film has always been a tricky affair. In many ways this is largely due to differences in length. A full length novel is sometimes too long, which can result in scenes being cut, characters being merged or dropped, or plot details changed due to timing requirements. On the other hand a short story can be far too short. The short story "The Killers" by Ernest Hemingway was adapted into a film in 1950 (funnily enough, called "The Killers") which opened with a word by word faithful translation of the short story, followed by an almost entirely unrelated film that they made up, adding a certain looseness to the term "adaptation". This was taken even further in the adaptation of the long running Mario Bros game series, which kept the names, and... actually that's about all they kept, in a plot that was otherwise unrelated, but with familiar titles from the series applied to unfamiliar objects.
Mind you, this works both ways, with novelisations of films getting fatter with newly added scenes that don't always flow well with the existing plot, (the main crime here is giving an internal monologue to characters that really didn't need one), and video games that contain a lot more shooting than was ever in the film (I don't recall Marty McFly doing quite so much jumping between floating platforms in Back to the Future part 2, but there you go).
Spike Jonze's adaptation of the children's picture book "Where The Wild Things Are" faces an issue because the source on which it is based is only 40 or so pages long, and only about 5-10 words on each page, meaning a near two hour film needs to be created out of only 400 words. Also, while it is undeniably a children's classic, it can't be denied that not a whole lot happens in it. It can be crudley summarised as "Boy gets sent to room, disappears on adventure (as you do), meets a whole lot of monsters and basically goes all British Empire on their arses, and then goes home and has dinner."
Now, there is far more to the story than this, and I have adored this story ever since I was five, but in terms of actual concrete events, this is about all that happens. So when adapting such a brief novel, the two choices appear to be "Make up a lot of extra stuff so more happens" or "do not much. Very, very slowly." So which did Where the Wild Things Are choose?
As it happens, both.
Where the Wild Things Are the film follows the basic premise of the story, but fleshes out a lot of the elements. Max (Our hero/strange kid) is now given a family and some reason for his behavior, and his encounter with the Wild Things expands to a full rise and fall of a kingdom. Each of the Wild Things has been given a separate personality and archetype, and now appear to embody certain characteristics of Max himself. There's the fun loving but easily enraged, the shy and low self esteem, the hard done by and put upon. All of Max's childlike facets are personified and expanded to alarming levels, until he is unable to cope with the results they produce.
However, there is still not a lot of plot to go around and many scenes cannot be given a clear and definitive action, instead only able to be summarised as "Max and the Wild Things run around a lot and have fun/are sad/are angry/tear each other's arms off, etc. etc." This means that the film is very slow at times, and in many cases functions more as a mood piece than as a traditional story. What it does do well, perhaps better than any other film, is capture the feeling and the logic of being a child. In the film, when things are good, things are very good, it's happy and everything goes well, with amazing plans and great adventures. But sometimes things happen. People get mad, and they get mad or angry for no other reason than that they do. There is a certain helplessness that comes accross, where the universe just doesn't go as planned, and there is nothing to be done.
It also features an ending that while satisfactory, is only so up to a point, but I suspect this is by design. It doesn't actually solve the problems presented in the story, these will still be there. But just for tonight, right now, everything is ok.
It's a thought provoking film, but in the end it doesn't quite succeed in telling a succinct and engaging story for the full duration, as its slow pace and brief plot leave long areas without substance.
Rating 3 out of 6.
- As a side note, I have changed the rating from out of 5 to out of 6, as with an odd number it is too easy to label every film as 3 out 5, neither good or bad. This way every film reviewed is either slightly good or slightly bad to lend a little more practicality to the proceedings.
Adapting other mediums to film has always been a tricky affair. In many ways this is largely due to differences in length. A full length novel is sometimes too long, which can result in scenes being cut, characters being merged or dropped, or plot details changed due to timing requirements. On the other hand a short story can be far too short. The short story "The Killers" by Ernest Hemingway was adapted into a film in 1950 (funnily enough, called "The Killers") which opened with a word by word faithful translation of the short story, followed by an almost entirely unrelated film that they made up, adding a certain looseness to the term "adaptation". This was taken even further in the adaptation of the long running Mario Bros game series, which kept the names, and... actually that's about all they kept, in a plot that was otherwise unrelated, but with familiar titles from the series applied to unfamiliar objects.
Mind you, this works both ways, with novelisations of films getting fatter with newly added scenes that don't always flow well with the existing plot, (the main crime here is giving an internal monologue to characters that really didn't need one), and video games that contain a lot more shooting than was ever in the film (I don't recall Marty McFly doing quite so much jumping between floating platforms in Back to the Future part 2, but there you go).
Spike Jonze's adaptation of the children's picture book "Where The Wild Things Are" faces an issue because the source on which it is based is only 40 or so pages long, and only about 5-10 words on each page, meaning a near two hour film needs to be created out of only 400 words. Also, while it is undeniably a children's classic, it can't be denied that not a whole lot happens in it. It can be crudley summarised as "Boy gets sent to room, disappears on adventure (as you do), meets a whole lot of monsters and basically goes all British Empire on their arses, and then goes home and has dinner."
Now, there is far more to the story than this, and I have adored this story ever since I was five, but in terms of actual concrete events, this is about all that happens. So when adapting such a brief novel, the two choices appear to be "Make up a lot of extra stuff so more happens" or "do not much. Very, very slowly." So which did Where the Wild Things Are choose?
As it happens, both.
Where the Wild Things Are the film follows the basic premise of the story, but fleshes out a lot of the elements. Max (Our hero/strange kid) is now given a family and some reason for his behavior, and his encounter with the Wild Things expands to a full rise and fall of a kingdom. Each of the Wild Things has been given a separate personality and archetype, and now appear to embody certain characteristics of Max himself. There's the fun loving but easily enraged, the shy and low self esteem, the hard done by and put upon. All of Max's childlike facets are personified and expanded to alarming levels, until he is unable to cope with the results they produce.
However, there is still not a lot of plot to go around and many scenes cannot be given a clear and definitive action, instead only able to be summarised as "Max and the Wild Things run around a lot and have fun/are sad/are angry/tear each other's arms off, etc. etc." This means that the film is very slow at times, and in many cases functions more as a mood piece than as a traditional story. What it does do well, perhaps better than any other film, is capture the feeling and the logic of being a child. In the film, when things are good, things are very good, it's happy and everything goes well, with amazing plans and great adventures. But sometimes things happen. People get mad, and they get mad or angry for no other reason than that they do. There is a certain helplessness that comes accross, where the universe just doesn't go as planned, and there is nothing to be done.
It also features an ending that while satisfactory, is only so up to a point, but I suspect this is by design. It doesn't actually solve the problems presented in the story, these will still be there. But just for tonight, right now, everything is ok.
It's a thought provoking film, but in the end it doesn't quite succeed in telling a succinct and engaging story for the full duration, as its slow pace and brief plot leave long areas without substance.
Rating 3 out of 6.
- As a side note, I have changed the rating from out of 5 to out of 6, as with an odd number it is too easy to label every film as 3 out 5, neither good or bad. This way every film reviewed is either slightly good or slightly bad to lend a little more practicality to the proceedings.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 4: Ponyo
Japanese Animation (or Anime if you're in the club) has always been a bit of a mixed bag, and I've always found the idea of declaring oneself to be a fan of Anime is about as silly as declaring yourself to be a fan of film, as the source material is simply too broad. When I say I adore watching films, I should clarify and say I adore watching good films. This is one of the reasons that genre as a study is a misleading topic. To like Westerns in general for example seems to imply that topic is more important than quality. To me, any topic is worth watching, so long as the film itself is good to watch, though it can't be denied that some topics are harder to produce quality with than others (I would watch a My Little Pony film if it was a great movie, but I find it quite unlikely that there will ever be a great My Little Pony film). The same applies to Anime. There are exceedingly good Anime that is up there with the finest of films (Neon Genesis, Cowboy Bebop, Teknoman, Ghost In the Shell), but there is also Anime that is badly written, poorly directed, and embarrasing to watch (Generally any anime film with a rating of 'R', you have to be seriously gruesome or explicit for a cartoon to reach these levels).
Anime has always been a niche market to Western audiences, and largely this is because there are certain stylistic differences between Anime and your stereotypical American/European movie. The first is the sense of humour. While there is definately humour that both cultures understand equally, we also have our own unique styles that each nation enjoys differently. The lines have been blurring between Australia, the UK, and the US, but Japan as a seperate nation with it's own language has remained a stronger sylistic identity.
The second, and slightly stranger difference is that the Japanese are a lot more comfortable with silence than we are. Music features far less prominently in Anime, and as a result many long, slightly uncomfortable silences are present in their films, lending a quiet, almost unearthly air to many of the anime I have seen (the big exception is Cowboy Bebop, which uses an abundance of music to amazing effect). From what I can work out, this isn't the case for Japanese audiences, this is simply how their films are made. English dubs have either preserved these silences as is or filled them with meaningless chatter, crickets, faint background music, general murmering, or unfortunately in the majority of occassions with loud breaths or odd little gasps from the main character, which if anything is more uncomfortable than actual silence.
But I must confess I do still enjoy many Anime, particularly the work of Hayao Miyazake and Studio Ghibli. Miyazake's most recent film Ponyo was released late last year onto dvd. It features all the usual Ghibli trademarks (Young protagonist, flying, general sense of wonder, strange giant floods and giant fish, you know), but where it lacks in originality it does make up for in charm and a general level of amusement. Visually the film is a treat, using an unusual watercolour effect producing a vibrant look that is sadly lacking from many other Anime films.
It does feature the usual long silences, and the humour is a little odd in places, but it still made me grin.
Rating: 5 out of 5 if you're an anime nut, 3.5 out of 5 for everyone else.
Anime has always been a niche market to Western audiences, and largely this is because there are certain stylistic differences between Anime and your stereotypical American/European movie. The first is the sense of humour. While there is definately humour that both cultures understand equally, we also have our own unique styles that each nation enjoys differently. The lines have been blurring between Australia, the UK, and the US, but Japan as a seperate nation with it's own language has remained a stronger sylistic identity.
The second, and slightly stranger difference is that the Japanese are a lot more comfortable with silence than we are. Music features far less prominently in Anime, and as a result many long, slightly uncomfortable silences are present in their films, lending a quiet, almost unearthly air to many of the anime I have seen (the big exception is Cowboy Bebop, which uses an abundance of music to amazing effect). From what I can work out, this isn't the case for Japanese audiences, this is simply how their films are made. English dubs have either preserved these silences as is or filled them with meaningless chatter, crickets, faint background music, general murmering, or unfortunately in the majority of occassions with loud breaths or odd little gasps from the main character, which if anything is more uncomfortable than actual silence.
But I must confess I do still enjoy many Anime, particularly the work of Hayao Miyazake and Studio Ghibli. Miyazake's most recent film Ponyo was released late last year onto dvd. It features all the usual Ghibli trademarks (Young protagonist, flying, general sense of wonder, strange giant floods and giant fish, you know), but where it lacks in originality it does make up for in charm and a general level of amusement. Visually the film is a treat, using an unusual watercolour effect producing a vibrant look that is sadly lacking from many other Anime films.
It does feature the usual long silences, and the humour is a little odd in places, but it still made me grin.
Rating: 5 out of 5 if you're an anime nut, 3.5 out of 5 for everyone else.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 3: Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince
I got into the whole Harry Potter thing a little bit later than most. The first I ever heard about it was from a news report showing how upset some small children were when the fourth Book (Goblet of Fire) was delayed.
"Idiots," I thought, and promptly forgot about it. Eventually though, someone pointed out that they were actually reasonably fun to read, and so I borrowed a copy of the first book and gave them a shot. There were indeed good harmless wizarding fun, so while I still thought the mass hysteria surrounding each release was a little bit mad, I did get each new book as they came out and read them cover to cover (Although as far as I'm aware, that's the only way you do read a book. I've never picked up a book and decided not to read pages 24-39 apart from an unfortunate printing error in my copy V for Vendetta where pages 24-39 had no so much fallen out as were just plain missing), and on the whole enjoyed myself.
Books 1-4 were pleasant adventure stories, getting darker in tone as they continued, but rollicking adventures nonetheless. Book 5 (The Order of the Pheonix), in contrast, was an eight hundred page long winge which took more than half the book for anything to happen. I was on the whole rather unimpressed with the fifth entry, so was very happy to find that Book 6 (The Half Blood Prince) would turn out to be the favourite in the series, and not only because Harry got his nose broken in the 2nd chapter (the whinging little git).
I was less impressed with the film translation. The first two entries, Directed by Christopher "Kids film, kids film, Aids film, kids film" Columbus, who if nothing else must be noted managed to make the story of these books both darker and also more sickeningly cute at the same time. The first film was fun if a tad forgettable. The second film could be described the same way, only there was more of it to forget. It's particuliar crime was the extra 20 minute "Let's all give everyone a hug" ending, if only because I was dying to go the bathroom by that stage, although I spose that's not necessarily the film's problem. I never got around to seeing the third of fourth films (although I'm told they improved matters considerably), but I did go and see the fifth film after being raved at by a friend who normally can't stand Harry Potter that it was actually pretty darn good.
And indeed it was. Thanks to the natural problems of trying to fit 800 pages into 140 minutes, vast tracts of the book had to be condensed or removed. The 400 pages of whinging was the first to go. Instead of "whinge, whinge, dementor, whinge, change of address, bigger whinge, HOGWARTS AT SODDING LAST, rest of story," the film runs with the much more sensible structure of "Dementor, tiny whinge, HOGWARTS, rest of story." So it was with high hopes that I went along to see Half Blood Prince, because if the director could make a book I was displeased with, how good was a book I really liked going to be?
It turns out it would be merely ok. The cuts that benefited the 5th film so strongly felt rushed in the 6th, as more engaging plot and story was being cut. Whereas the 5th film felt tightly constructed, the 6th felt like you were running the whole time and never really got to stop and consider what had occurred.
It was however, oddly funny in places, most notably due to Jim Broadbents excellent performance as Professor Slughorn, and Harry seeming oddly crazy at many times throughout the story.
All in all, it wasn't bad, but some reworking on the editing and a chance to slow down every now and again (even if it meant lengthening an already long film) would have helped considerably.
Rating 3 out of 5.
"Idiots," I thought, and promptly forgot about it. Eventually though, someone pointed out that they were actually reasonably fun to read, and so I borrowed a copy of the first book and gave them a shot. There were indeed good harmless wizarding fun, so while I still thought the mass hysteria surrounding each release was a little bit mad, I did get each new book as they came out and read them cover to cover (Although as far as I'm aware, that's the only way you do read a book. I've never picked up a book and decided not to read pages 24-39 apart from an unfortunate printing error in my copy V for Vendetta where pages 24-39 had no so much fallen out as were just plain missing), and on the whole enjoyed myself.
Books 1-4 were pleasant adventure stories, getting darker in tone as they continued, but rollicking adventures nonetheless. Book 5 (The Order of the Pheonix), in contrast, was an eight hundred page long winge which took more than half the book for anything to happen. I was on the whole rather unimpressed with the fifth entry, so was very happy to find that Book 6 (The Half Blood Prince) would turn out to be the favourite in the series, and not only because Harry got his nose broken in the 2nd chapter (the whinging little git).
I was less impressed with the film translation. The first two entries, Directed by Christopher "Kids film, kids film, Aids film, kids film" Columbus, who if nothing else must be noted managed to make the story of these books both darker and also more sickeningly cute at the same time. The first film was fun if a tad forgettable. The second film could be described the same way, only there was more of it to forget. It's particuliar crime was the extra 20 minute "Let's all give everyone a hug" ending, if only because I was dying to go the bathroom by that stage, although I spose that's not necessarily the film's problem. I never got around to seeing the third of fourth films (although I'm told they improved matters considerably), but I did go and see the fifth film after being raved at by a friend who normally can't stand Harry Potter that it was actually pretty darn good.
And indeed it was. Thanks to the natural problems of trying to fit 800 pages into 140 minutes, vast tracts of the book had to be condensed or removed. The 400 pages of whinging was the first to go. Instead of "whinge, whinge, dementor, whinge, change of address, bigger whinge, HOGWARTS AT SODDING LAST, rest of story," the film runs with the much more sensible structure of "Dementor, tiny whinge, HOGWARTS, rest of story." So it was with high hopes that I went along to see Half Blood Prince, because if the director could make a book I was displeased with, how good was a book I really liked going to be?
It turns out it would be merely ok. The cuts that benefited the 5th film so strongly felt rushed in the 6th, as more engaging plot and story was being cut. Whereas the 5th film felt tightly constructed, the 6th felt like you were running the whole time and never really got to stop and consider what had occurred.
It was however, oddly funny in places, most notably due to Jim Broadbents excellent performance as Professor Slughorn, and Harry seeming oddly crazy at many times throughout the story.
All in all, it wasn't bad, but some reworking on the editing and a chance to slow down every now and again (even if it meant lengthening an already long film) would have helped considerably.
Rating 3 out of 5.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 2: Up.
I am a self confessed pixar fan. I don't mean I'm a computer generated electrical appliance, I mean I'm an absolute Pixar nut. I don't mean I'm a digitally animated seed found in some plants, I mean I'm a total Pixar aficionado.
I don't mean I'm a rendered... forget it. I love Pixar films.
Avoiding them for many a year because of a self conceived notion that they were kiddy films (I was 15), I eventually saw the first Toy Story when on holidays with the Steps in Perth. And you know what? It was a kiddy film.
And it was awesome.
Pixar films hold a certain quality that I hold in very high regard, the kind of thing my parents say is in Play School (excep they're wrong. Play School sucks), but more appropriately you might find in the early series of the Simpsons. A product that for outward appearances appears to be aimed towards children, but carries a weight and depth that I as an adult find very appealing. Above all Pixar is about telling a good story, and what really else is there for a film to do? (Shut up Arthouse cinema.)
Their latest film to be released was Up, released in May around the world except for Australia where for some unfathomable reason (*cough*schoolholidays*cough*) we down in the land of kangaroos had to wait until September for our Pixary goodness. Ahem.
Up is a little different from most recent Pixar films because instead of being about Fish, or Monsters, or Cars, or Superheroes, Up is placed firmly in reality, assuming in your reality you allow for a fairly relaxed grasp of phsyics and the properties of helium.
It's also the most adult Pixar film yet, while still remaining oddly childish. I don't mean adult in the sex and violence way, although the film actually does deal indirectly with both. More that it covers some very heavy topics in a refreshingly mature and gentle way.
The opening of the film covers about 60 years in a very short space of time. I don't do plot spoilers, but I will say I'm a grown man and it makes me cry everytime I see it. It is an exceptionally well done opening, even if it does put you in far too a serious frame of mind for the relatively light hearted remainder of the movie.
The film's characters are an eclectic lot, ranging from the extremely silly to the quite thoughtful. In particuliar the boy scout Russel has a rather heavy back story that is all the more moving for the fact that it doesn't beat you over the head with it, and Carl is a walking embodiment of regret for most of the film.
With plenty of slapstick thrown in for good measure.
The ending of the film is extremely light hearted. Some would argue TOO light hearted but I for one enjoyed it. It was an adventure film in the style we no longer see, think the serials of the 30s and 40s, comparisons with Indiana Jones are not out of place, just replace Indiana Jones with a crochety old man (But better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skill), the Nazis with talking dogs, and the ark of the covenant with a bright colourful bird that likes chocolate.
No, really!
Rating 4 out of 5. Another film review coming Thursday.
I don't mean I'm a rendered... forget it. I love Pixar films.
Avoiding them for many a year because of a self conceived notion that they were kiddy films (I was 15), I eventually saw the first Toy Story when on holidays with the Steps in Perth. And you know what? It was a kiddy film.
And it was awesome.
Pixar films hold a certain quality that I hold in very high regard, the kind of thing my parents say is in Play School (excep they're wrong. Play School sucks), but more appropriately you might find in the early series of the Simpsons. A product that for outward appearances appears to be aimed towards children, but carries a weight and depth that I as an adult find very appealing. Above all Pixar is about telling a good story, and what really else is there for a film to do? (Shut up Arthouse cinema.)
Their latest film to be released was Up, released in May around the world except for Australia where for some unfathomable reason (*cough*schoolholidays*cough*) we down in the land of kangaroos had to wait until September for our Pixary goodness. Ahem.
Up is a little different from most recent Pixar films because instead of being about Fish, or Monsters, or Cars, or Superheroes, Up is placed firmly in reality, assuming in your reality you allow for a fairly relaxed grasp of phsyics and the properties of helium.
It's also the most adult Pixar film yet, while still remaining oddly childish. I don't mean adult in the sex and violence way, although the film actually does deal indirectly with both. More that it covers some very heavy topics in a refreshingly mature and gentle way.
The opening of the film covers about 60 years in a very short space of time. I don't do plot spoilers, but I will say I'm a grown man and it makes me cry everytime I see it. It is an exceptionally well done opening, even if it does put you in far too a serious frame of mind for the relatively light hearted remainder of the movie.
The film's characters are an eclectic lot, ranging from the extremely silly to the quite thoughtful. In particuliar the boy scout Russel has a rather heavy back story that is all the more moving for the fact that it doesn't beat you over the head with it, and Carl is a walking embodiment of regret for most of the film.
With plenty of slapstick thrown in for good measure.
The ending of the film is extremely light hearted. Some would argue TOO light hearted but I for one enjoyed it. It was an adventure film in the style we no longer see, think the serials of the 30s and 40s, comparisons with Indiana Jones are not out of place, just replace Indiana Jones with a crochety old man (But better than Kingdom of the Crystal Skill), the Nazis with talking dogs, and the ark of the covenant with a bright colourful bird that likes chocolate.
No, really!
Rating 4 out of 5. Another film review coming Thursday.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Movie Review Smorgasbord Round-up Extravaganza - The Complete Collection Part 1: Watchmen.
So I saw some films last year that I never got around to commenting on (apart from the ones I saw on planes, see the travel blog for more), and some of them were quite good. Some of them were also downright terrible. I'll let you guess which.
Watchmen - Based on the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel of the same name. Some would say the most famous Graphic Novel ever, which just goes to show the graphic novel medium is a sadly closed off industry, as I only heard about it when they announced the movie. This is a shame, because the comic is pretty damn good, and should be read by anyone interested in the comic medium. (But read some other ones first. Magnum Opuses are generally downright terrible introductions to a medium)
The film is an astonishingly faithful to the original work, at times a shot for shot, word for word translation, which from a design and a technical point of view is probably to be commended. Unfortunately, being entirely faithful is not necessarily a good thing.
If a film is to be a film, it should be designed as a film. (I'm just going to keep using the word film excessively in this film discussion. Film.) If I wanted a 100% accurate version of Watchmen, get this, I would read Watchmen. Funny that.
The film is not bad by any means, but it is about 40 minutes too long, drags in a few places, and is too violent by half. (Dear Zack Synder. Stop being violent. You're missing the point of these comics. You did it in 300 too. Amazing tragic story of the death of the Spartans, and you turned it into a random gorefest. Just stop it.) Certainly it looks fantastic, and showed off the imax screen we saw it on in fine style. But the reason a gritty violent comic can be more gruesome than a film is that it is a visual static medium. It's one frame, and then you can get on with the story, suitably affected. In a film you have movement, you have sound effects, and because this is Zack Synder, you also have awful, unnecessary slow motion. Thank you Zack, I needed to see someone's cheek being bitten off in slow motion. I understand the story so much better now.
One thing the movie does get right is the ending. Rightly realising that the ending of the graphic novel wouldn't quite fly with a 2000 modern audience who are cool and cynical, they changed one small but key point in the ending, which actually enhances things significantly. Kudos, scriptwriter (whichever one was responsible, there were several. One of them wrote X-men. Is that a good thing?)
I was getting a little excited about Watchmen before it's release (thanks to buying and reading the Graphic Novel) and even though I didn't like the film all that much, I did discover several new properties which I did. Zack Synder's previous film 300 is bad in all the same areas as Watchmen (Directorial vision isn't intrinsically good), but Frank Miller's comic that it is based on is one of the best I've ever read. Alan Moore also wrote the Graphic Novel V For Vendetta which is very good, and which was turned into a film by the Wachowski Brothers (as script writers and producers) which actually manages to be better.
From there I went to Speed Racer, and that's when things started to fall down a little.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5. Another film review coming on Sunday.
Watchmen - Based on the Alan Moore/Dave Gibbons graphic novel of the same name. Some would say the most famous Graphic Novel ever, which just goes to show the graphic novel medium is a sadly closed off industry, as I only heard about it when they announced the movie. This is a shame, because the comic is pretty damn good, and should be read by anyone interested in the comic medium. (But read some other ones first. Magnum Opuses are generally downright terrible introductions to a medium)
The film is an astonishingly faithful to the original work, at times a shot for shot, word for word translation, which from a design and a technical point of view is probably to be commended. Unfortunately, being entirely faithful is not necessarily a good thing.
If a film is to be a film, it should be designed as a film. (I'm just going to keep using the word film excessively in this film discussion. Film.) If I wanted a 100% accurate version of Watchmen, get this, I would read Watchmen. Funny that.
The film is not bad by any means, but it is about 40 minutes too long, drags in a few places, and is too violent by half. (Dear Zack Synder. Stop being violent. You're missing the point of these comics. You did it in 300 too. Amazing tragic story of the death of the Spartans, and you turned it into a random gorefest. Just stop it.) Certainly it looks fantastic, and showed off the imax screen we saw it on in fine style. But the reason a gritty violent comic can be more gruesome than a film is that it is a visual static medium. It's one frame, and then you can get on with the story, suitably affected. In a film you have movement, you have sound effects, and because this is Zack Synder, you also have awful, unnecessary slow motion. Thank you Zack, I needed to see someone's cheek being bitten off in slow motion. I understand the story so much better now.
One thing the movie does get right is the ending. Rightly realising that the ending of the graphic novel wouldn't quite fly with a 2000 modern audience who are cool and cynical, they changed one small but key point in the ending, which actually enhances things significantly. Kudos, scriptwriter (whichever one was responsible, there were several. One of them wrote X-men. Is that a good thing?)
I was getting a little excited about Watchmen before it's release (thanks to buying and reading the Graphic Novel) and even though I didn't like the film all that much, I did discover several new properties which I did. Zack Synder's previous film 300 is bad in all the same areas as Watchmen (Directorial vision isn't intrinsically good), but Frank Miller's comic that it is based on is one of the best I've ever read. Alan Moore also wrote the Graphic Novel V For Vendetta which is very good, and which was turned into a film by the Wachowski Brothers (as script writers and producers) which actually manages to be better.
From there I went to Speed Racer, and that's when things started to fall down a little.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5. Another film review coming on Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)