Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
Ok...Just a warning. This is kind of my favourite film, so you may find the following opinions to be extremely biased. But in my defence, it's not my favourite film for nothing...
In 2002 a TV show called Firefly was released to the world. It was a monumentous failure. Some feel it was Fox's fault. Some feel it wasn't advertised well. But many thought it was a great show. Firefly had lot of mysteries never explained and in an attempt to solve these mysteries, Joss Whedon (Firefly creator) has bought us Serenity.
Let's look at what Serenity is. It's a sci-fi film. First, let me start with a lecture. If you don't want to read, just skip this paragraph.
Science Fiction is such a popular subject because it's the biggest genre going. There is no such film as just Science Fiction. For example: Star Wars? Sci-Fi/Fantasy. Blade Runner? Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller.Serenity? Sci-Fi/Action/Adventure/Thriller with elements of comedy.
See the pattern? Sci-Fi is broad and I personally think that Serenity is a perfect example of this.
Because nowadays CG is a big problem in Hollywood, I'm going to address it first. Many people believe it's used far too much. Given the most recent films considered by the public to be Science-Fiction, the computer animation within Serenity is surprisingly kept to a minimum. CG is used only where it is going to be helpful towards the plot, as opposed to remarkably pointless scenes that show off the tech. Hell, there's even a scene that uses models but it looks great. Generally the entirety of the film is remarkably pretty. Not only is the CG used well but the cinematography is absolutely superb. The lighting delivers something that not even the greatest porno on earth could deliver (and that's good). All in all: this is a pretty film.
The plot in itself isn't really anything particularly new. Generally it's a continuation of the Firefly plot. But don't let that put you off. It's generally explained to you through the characters conversations (a really good plot device. within Serenity).
Adding to that is something I love about this flick. The way characters talk. You have to realise that Serenity is set 500 years in the future and so people speak differently. This different way of speaking means that there are many simple yet endlessly quotable lines throughout the whole film ("We might experience some slight turbulence and then...explode.")
But as I was saying about the plot. Not overtly original but the way that the plot fits into the 'verse is an incredible thing to watch. It's not totally dissimilar to how J.R.R Tolkein made sure that every aspect of The Lord of the Rings fit into the grand scheme of Middle Earth.
Much of the film feels very old, but it almost seems as if this is the point. Serenity (the ship within the film) is an old heap of junk that should be collapsing and so it seems like Serenity (the film itself) should fall apart at any minute. It's strange to realise that nothing within the film feels new because it isn't supposed to.
Just a final few words before I come to my quick snappy synopsis, if you don't like Serenity the first time, I advise you watch it again. At first I wasn't a big fan but now it's one of my favourite films. Just give i a couple of viewings and see if anything sticks.
Oh and don't forget to watch Firefly, the show Serenity is based on and is a sequel to.
So, final message? Serenity is a funny, depressing, action packed, space drama that deserves a few viewings before a final judgement is passed. Check it out. And Firefly, too.
5/5
Thursday 5 April 2007
Wild Hogs (2007)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
John Travoltas latest vehicle, (yeah, I know...not funny) Wild Hogs appears from the off to be a stupid silly film that is going to try and teach us something at the end. A modern day parable if you will. Truthfully, it pretty much is. But that doesn't mean it can't be fun along the way.
Let's start with the cast. Wild Hogs is surprisingly more of an ensemble cast than you would have imagined. Quite frankly, if I had to pick out one of the four leads (John Travolta, William H. Macy, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence) who was on screen the least it would probably have to be Travolta. He seems to be the target of the advertising campaign but it's nice to see the other leads have a good deal of screen time.
William H. Macy is personally one of my favourite actors. He's usually a supporting actor and excels at any role he takes on. But unfortunately, short of Fargo I cannot think of a film he's led that has been particularly successful. In Wild Hogs it's fun to see him stretch his legs and have a little bit of fun. Although his character, Dudley is quite the clichéd science geek, it's just fun to see such a serious actor let his hair down.
Tim Allen is certainly an actor who it seems is on his way out. The Santa Clause movies are getting worse every time Disney calls on another instalment and he seems to have lost all his past popularity, but finally he seems to have accepted a role that's closer to who he is than not. As a middle aged man, you can see Tim is pretty much drawing from his own experiences of losing his 'coolness' and as such Tim gives out an unusually raw performance for an actor of his calibre. He's still a complete clown but you get a strange vibe when watching him as if he knows what he's on about.
Martin Lawrence...I was sceptical about this film due to Lawrence. I can't think of a good film he's been in since Bad Boys. But for once, Martin actually puts in a worthy performance and seems to enjoy playing around. There's not much else to add. He’s not exceptional. But he's better than usual.
John is just cool, as ever. And as a character that has a habit of f--cking up, he shows a good goofball side that I've never seen before. It's not like it's down to an art as such but it's just nice to see Travolta stray from his 'cool character' persona that he usually adorns.
Now generally, I've not been following this film much but after a little research I'm struggling to see what's with all the criticism. The cinematography in this film is standard and the music fits the mood. The script is admittedly, sub par but the actors manage to bring all that together. Also, it's sad to admit it but there doesn't feel like there is actually any direction going on at all I get the vibe that the cast and crew all know what they're doing and that Walt Becker is just there to say "Action" and "Cut". Generally, I think that the film is fun because I saw it with an open mind. It's got a very used, cliché idea but the actors and a few hilarious points do well at holding it together. It's nothing great, but it's fun.
Generally, see the film with an open mind. It's not original but some great performances make it worth seeing. Don't expect a new Monty Python troup, but just try and enjoy.
3/5
John Travoltas latest vehicle, (yeah, I know...not funny) Wild Hogs appears from the off to be a stupid silly film that is going to try and teach us something at the end. A modern day parable if you will. Truthfully, it pretty much is. But that doesn't mean it can't be fun along the way.
Let's start with the cast. Wild Hogs is surprisingly more of an ensemble cast than you would have imagined. Quite frankly, if I had to pick out one of the four leads (John Travolta, William H. Macy, Tim Allen, Martin Lawrence) who was on screen the least it would probably have to be Travolta. He seems to be the target of the advertising campaign but it's nice to see the other leads have a good deal of screen time.
William H. Macy is personally one of my favourite actors. He's usually a supporting actor and excels at any role he takes on. But unfortunately, short of Fargo I cannot think of a film he's led that has been particularly successful. In Wild Hogs it's fun to see him stretch his legs and have a little bit of fun. Although his character, Dudley is quite the clichéd science geek, it's just fun to see such a serious actor let his hair down.
Tim Allen is certainly an actor who it seems is on his way out. The Santa Clause movies are getting worse every time Disney calls on another instalment and he seems to have lost all his past popularity, but finally he seems to have accepted a role that's closer to who he is than not. As a middle aged man, you can see Tim is pretty much drawing from his own experiences of losing his 'coolness' and as such Tim gives out an unusually raw performance for an actor of his calibre. He's still a complete clown but you get a strange vibe when watching him as if he knows what he's on about.
Martin Lawrence...I was sceptical about this film due to Lawrence. I can't think of a good film he's been in since Bad Boys. But for once, Martin actually puts in a worthy performance and seems to enjoy playing around. There's not much else to add. He’s not exceptional. But he's better than usual.
John is just cool, as ever. And as a character that has a habit of f--cking up, he shows a good goofball side that I've never seen before. It's not like it's down to an art as such but it's just nice to see Travolta stray from his 'cool character' persona that he usually adorns.
Now generally, I've not been following this film much but after a little research I'm struggling to see what's with all the criticism. The cinematography in this film is standard and the music fits the mood. The script is admittedly, sub par but the actors manage to bring all that together. Also, it's sad to admit it but there doesn't feel like there is actually any direction going on at all I get the vibe that the cast and crew all know what they're doing and that Walt Becker is just there to say "Action" and "Cut". Generally, I think that the film is fun because I saw it with an open mind. It's got a very used, cliché idea but the actors and a few hilarious points do well at holding it together. It's nothing great, but it's fun.
Generally, see the film with an open mind. It's not original but some great performances make it worth seeing. Don't expect a new Monty Python troup, but just try and enjoy.
3/5
300 (2007)
Alright, here's how it is. Main review takes up a huge chunk of the blog. However, if you're looking for a quick synopsis of what I think, the bottom paragraph and mark out of 5 should suffice. Enjoy the review, or better yet: go see the film and enjoy that!
When you see a Warner Brothers film, 99% of the time, you know how you feel about the film within about 20 seconds. Warner Brothers just about always change the logo's colour design depending on the film. 20 seconds into 300, I was ecstatic. The logo, in front of the dirty, cloudy sky looked beautiful.
20 seconds later, an old man stands holding a baby. He looks like the kind of guy who should be playing Moses. A gravely (yet distinct) voice begins talking about Spartan rituals. Basically, you have to be a really hard bastard from the point you're born. Or you're thrown from a cliff. As a baby.
Suddenly, the camera drops about 30 feet and you see the ground below the cliff is littered with skulls. Very small skulls. This really is a film that isn't afraid to cause controversy.
From this point in, we follow the growing up of future King of Sparta, Leonidas. Not once does the film drop its pace. Whether beating the living shite out of another warrior trainee or fighting a wolf, this film knows how to keep you on the edge.
Just when you think the film really can't get much cooler, it starts introducing characters that will not only stay with you until the end of the film, but as long as you remain a lover of ultra-violence.
Other than King Leonidas, you have Queen Gorgol, his wife. Very wise and happens to be the only speaking female character within the film.
Dilios; the narrator is very passionate about fighting. Other than narrating, he does very little for the first half of the film but has a crucial role towards the end.
Ephialtes; This deformed Spartan outcast is a hunchback and an example of what inspires 'beautiful disgust' which I'll come onto in a moment.
King Xerxes; In short, he's the baddie but he considers himself to be more of a deity than a king and tries to use his powers to tempt people.
Throughout the film, just about all the background is CG'd in. I'm not a massive fan of CG but like Sin City, 300 makes perfect use of it. The backgrounds are never anything short of astounding and throughout, I found myself wondering whether I should admire the action or the background.
Similarly, because the film plays about with mythology a lot, there are some great horrendous beasts in 300. But unlike films such as Harry Potter or Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 300 manages to create these great horrific creatures, but still make them seem absolutely beautiful to watch. There is not a moment in this film that is dull or ugly. Everything looks perfect.
Finally...the fighting.
What can one say?
It's a huge let down...
...
Just kidding. The violence in this is absolutely spectacular. Remember thinking Kill Bill was crazy? Then this is the film for you! The action is immense. Perfectly rehearsed and choreographed violence, mixed with great acting to make it seem as if it's unexpected make the action scenes in this film some of the best ever!
The editing takes a very unorthodox style that works uniquely. As King Leonidas runs through battle the action has been slowed down to basically make everything seem really cool. Then suddenly, as an opponent comes into view, the action speeds up really fast. Rather than draw back, slice, blood splatter, carry on running...it's all a case of running, death, running, death, running, death.
A 45 second steadicam shot following a soldier suddenly becomes a 3 minute blend of hyper violence and gore.
Throughout this film, very little real fake blood was used. It's mostly all CG'd in. It creates an effect similar to that in Sin City: the blood is obviously fake but looks remarkably pretty. In comparison to the obese amount of death, the amount of CG'd blood is just about right. The editors weren't generous. Nobody said "This will be the goriest film ever". They made it the most violent, but not the goriest. And for that reason, it seems 300 stands above other films that seem to attract teen audiences because of the obscene amounts of violence. 300 retains it's dignity, because it has no problem mixing fact with fiction, mixing depth with stupidity, and mixing fun with utter drama.
...
Screw it, if you're reading this review, you don't really care about any of this.
If you want to see sex, violence and humour, check it out!
5/5
When you see a Warner Brothers film, 99% of the time, you know how you feel about the film within about 20 seconds. Warner Brothers just about always change the logo's colour design depending on the film. 20 seconds into 300, I was ecstatic. The logo, in front of the dirty, cloudy sky looked beautiful.
20 seconds later, an old man stands holding a baby. He looks like the kind of guy who should be playing Moses. A gravely (yet distinct) voice begins talking about Spartan rituals. Basically, you have to be a really hard bastard from the point you're born. Or you're thrown from a cliff. As a baby.
Suddenly, the camera drops about 30 feet and you see the ground below the cliff is littered with skulls. Very small skulls. This really is a film that isn't afraid to cause controversy.
From this point in, we follow the growing up of future King of Sparta, Leonidas. Not once does the film drop its pace. Whether beating the living shite out of another warrior trainee or fighting a wolf, this film knows how to keep you on the edge.
Just when you think the film really can't get much cooler, it starts introducing characters that will not only stay with you until the end of the film, but as long as you remain a lover of ultra-violence.
Other than King Leonidas, you have Queen Gorgol, his wife. Very wise and happens to be the only speaking female character within the film.
Dilios; the narrator is very passionate about fighting. Other than narrating, he does very little for the first half of the film but has a crucial role towards the end.
Ephialtes; This deformed Spartan outcast is a hunchback and an example of what inspires 'beautiful disgust' which I'll come onto in a moment.
King Xerxes; In short, he's the baddie but he considers himself to be more of a deity than a king and tries to use his powers to tempt people.
Throughout the film, just about all the background is CG'd in. I'm not a massive fan of CG but like Sin City, 300 makes perfect use of it. The backgrounds are never anything short of astounding and throughout, I found myself wondering whether I should admire the action or the background.
Similarly, because the film plays about with mythology a lot, there are some great horrendous beasts in 300. But unlike films such as Harry Potter or Pirates of the Caribbean 2, 300 manages to create these great horrific creatures, but still make them seem absolutely beautiful to watch. There is not a moment in this film that is dull or ugly. Everything looks perfect.
Finally...the fighting.
What can one say?
It's a huge let down...
...
Just kidding. The violence in this is absolutely spectacular. Remember thinking Kill Bill was crazy? Then this is the film for you! The action is immense. Perfectly rehearsed and choreographed violence, mixed with great acting to make it seem as if it's unexpected make the action scenes in this film some of the best ever!
The editing takes a very unorthodox style that works uniquely. As King Leonidas runs through battle the action has been slowed down to basically make everything seem really cool. Then suddenly, as an opponent comes into view, the action speeds up really fast. Rather than draw back, slice, blood splatter, carry on running...it's all a case of running, death, running, death, running, death.
A 45 second steadicam shot following a soldier suddenly becomes a 3 minute blend of hyper violence and gore.
Throughout this film, very little real fake blood was used. It's mostly all CG'd in. It creates an effect similar to that in Sin City: the blood is obviously fake but looks remarkably pretty. In comparison to the obese amount of death, the amount of CG'd blood is just about right. The editors weren't generous. Nobody said "This will be the goriest film ever". They made it the most violent, but not the goriest. And for that reason, it seems 300 stands above other films that seem to attract teen audiences because of the obscene amounts of violence. 300 retains it's dignity, because it has no problem mixing fact with fiction, mixing depth with stupidity, and mixing fun with utter drama.
...
Screw it, if you're reading this review, you don't really care about any of this.
If you want to see sex, violence and humour, check it out!
5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
