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!
After the Civil War in Spain, a young girl called Ofelia (Ivana Baquero) moves to a countryside mill with her pregnant mother Carmen (Ariadna Gil) to meet Captain Vidal (Sergi López) whom Carmen has recently married. Whilst there, Ofelia must cope with the constant threat of guerrila Replican rebels and Vidals cruel facist views as well as the three mystical tasks she must complete in order to take her place as Princess of a legendary kingdom.
Wow! My first subtitled review! Tempted to write it in Spanish, just to make a point…
Pan’s Labyrinth is a film which I feel was very much falsely advertised. I rented it thinking it was a fantasy film and nothing else, but was very wrong. Notice how in the description I don’t mention the fantasy element very much? That’s because most of the film is actually about the Vidal’s sadism and struggle to resist the rebels. But we’ll get to that in a little bit.
As ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ starts the telling of a fairytale is begun. It tells of a princess who is lost seemingly forever. And then we see Ofelia. Although Ofelia seems innocent, she also seems curious. Within minutes of the film, we have a few really interesting camera shots flying all over the place (one which looks incredible is basically following a CG insect as it crawls around a tree).
On meeting Captain Vidal, there is immediately a negative vibe. The man seems to be a perfectionist from the start, noting as a few cars pull up that they are 15 minutes late. When Ofelia, his step daughter offers to shake his hand, he grabs hold of it and makes sure she knows it’s the wrong one. It seems that Del Toro (the director) is trying to make it apparent that Carmen is not with Vidal out of love, but out of necessity for protection. This soon becomes apparent when he brutally murders two townspeople for simply speaking out against him. It is very evident before any notion of real fantasy enters the film that if this is a fairy tale, it is almost certainly for adults.
Soon, almost juxtaposing the disturbing murder, we’re treated to some trendy CG work as a bug somehow seamlessly morphs into a fairy. It’s not long after that we’re treated to the labyrinth and what seemed to be the marketing departments biggest centre point: the faun. The faun (played by Doug Jones) is an incredible creature. The way it moves is truly unique and it speaks with such emotion that it seems as if the creature were real. After fulfilling its purpose, and telling Ofelia of her supposed past, the faun backs away and descends into darkness in a completely simplistic and yet creepily effective way.
Back at the realistic side of life, as the film progresses we get to learn more of some characters. It seems early on in the film that the only person Vidal is particularly kind to is a maid called Mercedes (Maribel Verdú) with whom he frequently establishes bodily contact by placing his hand on her shoulder. Frequently, though really it is never established specifically and barely even hinted at, I found myself believing that the two had at some point prior to the films timeline engaged in some kind of affair, possibly even having something to do with Vidal raping her.
Although that may not be concrete, it seems that every new scene with Vidal is a scene where we learn something new about him. This is how movies really should be: learning about the characters.
Whether we learn that Vidal thinks he’s better than the guerrillas he is fighting or whether we learn that he thinks he’s better than his own wife, we always learn something. But something that is frequent throughout is that we slowly unravel the extent of his sadistic mind. One scene, in particular stands out whilst displaying this: After a beautifully shot shootout between the fascist army and the Republicans, Vidal offers their prisoner the opportunity to leave the mill he is being held at without torture or death if he can count to three, knowing full well that the prisoner cannot help but stutter. It seems to me that Vidal is nothing short of a psychologist’s wet dream.
Whenever CG is used within Pan’s Labyrinth, it is used wonderfully. Other than the fairies that frequent the screen, there is also the Book of Crossroads which, in a similar fashion to the Marauders Map of the Harry Potter films, has the ink slowly spread itself on the page only when necessary.
The only thing more beautiful than the CG is the sets which are absolutely incredible. The cavern beneath the labyrinth is a wonder to behold and the only thing more delicious within the entirety of the film is The Pale Man’s lair. This is essentially an old slightly gothic room with a long table full of food a crackling fire, which lightens up the entire room making it glister a warm golden and some spectacularly carved pillars.
Unfortunately, however when this scene in the film comes, you’ll be unable to admire the incredible sets because you will be absolutely terrified. The Pale Man himself is a horrifying creature to behold. Remarkably thin, (and obviously pale) this creature not only has no eyes, but has no place within his head for eyes. And yet, despite this he rests a pair of eyes on a plate in front of him as he sits calmly and does nothing. At first, I thought the eyes were on the plate in front of him because he had collected somebody else’s eyes, knowing he could never have his own. However, when he began moving, I realised he had eyes in front of him, not because there was nowhere within his head to put them but because he could slip them into his hands. When The Pale Man moves, he is not even remotely elegant and the way he moves is as if all his limbs and joints are all rusted. His body movements are only matched in horror by the noise that he makes. Quite frankly, The Pale Man chase is one of the scariest pieces of cinema ever made.
As Ofelia goes on her adventures, she meets the faun numerous times. Each time, their relationship deepens and strains. Guillermo del Toro truly founded a great and memorable creature when he gave this specific faun its personality. With every single meeting the faun gets more aggressive towards Ofelia, but also, quite creepily, more close to her. At least 3 points within the film, the faun displays signs, supposedly of affection, that seem disturbingly reminiscent of modern day paedophiles way of treating children.
Despite everything else, all the mysticism and confusion, all the war and hate, that Ofelia and the fauns relationship represents how easy it is to convince a child of something and to have them embrace you into their lives.
So if you haven’t already picked up, this is a dark film.
But just because it doesn’t offer a happy ever after to every character, doesn’t stop it from potentially being the greatest fairy tale of all time.
An incredible film that is dark, scary and fantastical. With solid performances all around, great use of CG and make up, solid direction and an ending far more mesmerising than any fairy tale up to this one, Pan’s Labyrinth is a must, not only to any fan of cinema, but to any adult who wants to get in touch with their inner child without being treated like one.
4.5/5
Saturday, 7 April 2007
I ♥ Huckabees (2004)
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!
What is a coincidence?A striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance or something that was linked, prearranged and supposed to happen?Well, in I ♥ Huckabees, that is exactly what Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) is trying to find out after having three chance meetings with an African Guy. To find out he visits a pair of ‘existential detectives’, Vivian & Bernard (Lily Tomlin & Dustin Hoffman) who assure him that given time, they can help Albert realise and understand the universe.
The most noticeable thing about I ♥ Huckabees is that it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Before you know it, there’s an entirely new language of philosophical psycho babble flying around left, right and centre. It just comes out so fast “Have you ever transcended space and time?”However, soon (thanks to Bernard’s trendy little blanket explanation) the audience, and Albert, understand that everything in the universe is interconnected. Nothing specifically connects everything because nothing is specific. Everything is the same, even if it’s different.Generally, this is where things get weird. So, I’ll try and take it one step at a time.The actors (particularly Dustin Hoffman) are superb. Every character is delightfully quirky in his or her own little way. In what could be seen as an inspired move, Jude Law is for once playing a character who could very realistically be seen as the films villain, if it had one that is. Also, it’s fun to see Naomi Watts as a promo girl, turned Amish nun. Generally, the film is just whacky and it’s fun seeing such serious actors break loose.
Although the films centrepiece (and title) revolves around the mega-corporation Huckabees, it really has little to do with the film. The company itself acts as the instigator for the entire film and other than that serves no purpose at all, really. It serves only to connect.Whilst watching Huckabees, there are many questions.What is infinite? What is existentialism? What the hell are they talking about?But as the film progresses, its themes (although portrayed light-heartedly) do get much darker. Trust, conflict, greed and morality are all explored. Hell, there’s even quite a thought provoking argument of god vs. petroleum usage between Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) and some Christian man who invited him to dinner that somehow is made to be absolutely bloody hilarious.
Throughout, Jon Brion’s soundtrack proves to as quirky as the film itself. A mixture of god knows how many instruments, usually with a clunk deep piano playing proves to be the perfect score for this. Not only is it so over the top, but at moments of complete silliness (Albert runs off with his bike and Tommy buys him time by signing both their bikes out and then throwing the form away) the low bashing of the keys seems to perfectly juxtapose the actions on screen.
Admittedly, the film doesn’t stay perfect all the way through. About ¾ of the way in, the focus is suddenly shifted from Albert to Brad (Jude Law) who up to that point felt like more of a supporting character. The scenes which focus on Brad are just as hilarious as any others but the sudden jump from one character to another one seems to be a little overwhelming. This could be used as a method from director David O. Russell to try and show the lack of clarity within the characters lives but generally, just feels like a sloppy way to shift the focus away from a character that isn’t doing anything at that moment in time.
All in all, human drama suffices as opposed to anything else.In the end, the final and most overwhelming humour within the film comes from realising the absurdity of human drama and the difference of psychological and physical states of being.That and muddy sex.
Whether you want a film to reflect on spiritually, or just to get lost in for a few hours, this is probably one of the best to be offered. Not quite as good as Garden State, but still absolutely hilarious.
4/5
What is a coincidence?A striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance or something that was linked, prearranged and supposed to happen?Well, in I ♥ Huckabees, that is exactly what Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman) is trying to find out after having three chance meetings with an African Guy. To find out he visits a pair of ‘existential detectives’, Vivian & Bernard (Lily Tomlin & Dustin Hoffman) who assure him that given time, they can help Albert realise and understand the universe.
The most noticeable thing about I ♥ Huckabees is that it doesn’t seem to make any sense at all. Before you know it, there’s an entirely new language of philosophical psycho babble flying around left, right and centre. It just comes out so fast “Have you ever transcended space and time?”However, soon (thanks to Bernard’s trendy little blanket explanation) the audience, and Albert, understand that everything in the universe is interconnected. Nothing specifically connects everything because nothing is specific. Everything is the same, even if it’s different.Generally, this is where things get weird. So, I’ll try and take it one step at a time.The actors (particularly Dustin Hoffman) are superb. Every character is delightfully quirky in his or her own little way. In what could be seen as an inspired move, Jude Law is for once playing a character who could very realistically be seen as the films villain, if it had one that is. Also, it’s fun to see Naomi Watts as a promo girl, turned Amish nun. Generally, the film is just whacky and it’s fun seeing such serious actors break loose.
Although the films centrepiece (and title) revolves around the mega-corporation Huckabees, it really has little to do with the film. The company itself acts as the instigator for the entire film and other than that serves no purpose at all, really. It serves only to connect.Whilst watching Huckabees, there are many questions.What is infinite? What is existentialism? What the hell are they talking about?But as the film progresses, its themes (although portrayed light-heartedly) do get much darker. Trust, conflict, greed and morality are all explored. Hell, there’s even quite a thought provoking argument of god vs. petroleum usage between Tommy (Mark Wahlberg) and some Christian man who invited him to dinner that somehow is made to be absolutely bloody hilarious.
Throughout, Jon Brion’s soundtrack proves to as quirky as the film itself. A mixture of god knows how many instruments, usually with a clunk deep piano playing proves to be the perfect score for this. Not only is it so over the top, but at moments of complete silliness (Albert runs off with his bike and Tommy buys him time by signing both their bikes out and then throwing the form away) the low bashing of the keys seems to perfectly juxtapose the actions on screen.
Admittedly, the film doesn’t stay perfect all the way through. About ¾ of the way in, the focus is suddenly shifted from Albert to Brad (Jude Law) who up to that point felt like more of a supporting character. The scenes which focus on Brad are just as hilarious as any others but the sudden jump from one character to another one seems to be a little overwhelming. This could be used as a method from director David O. Russell to try and show the lack of clarity within the characters lives but generally, just feels like a sloppy way to shift the focus away from a character that isn’t doing anything at that moment in time.
All in all, human drama suffices as opposed to anything else.In the end, the final and most overwhelming humour within the film comes from realising the absurdity of human drama and the difference of psychological and physical states of being.That and muddy sex.
Whether you want a film to reflect on spiritually, or just to get lost in for a few hours, this is probably one of the best to be offered. Not quite as good as Garden State, but still absolutely hilarious.
4/5
Friday, 6 April 2007
Garden State (2004)
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!
I was honestly expecting this review to be one of Se7en. I’ve watched it 3 times now and am still having trouble, so I’ve decided to postpone that one and work on a few others.
Garden State is an unconventional Romantic/Comedy/Drama that explores the life of Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman (Zach Braff), a depressed, pill popping one time actor on his return home following his mothers death where he finds old friends, new love and emotion he could barely conceive.
Generally, 90% of comedies all match the same studio requirements (similar to how 99% of statistics are made up on the spot) but Garden State breaks new ground. It’s a surreal, yet strangely realistic reminder of how sometimes feeling pain is better than feeling nothing. The surrealism in itself should condemn the film to production Hell, what with drugs, a knight, an argument in Klingon and a leg humping dog. But Braffs script (yep, he wrote and directed it as well) offers such a refreshingly honest view of the awkwardness of relationship that in the end, the entirety of the film feels so very normal. And it’s not just the characters who feel awkward around each other.
The first time Large and Sam (Natalie Portman) meet, there is generally much humour in the scene. But then as some tension grows between the characters, it also grows within the audience. Braffs direction and ability to handle these moments work as an incredibly original convention throughout the film, and the feeling does happen repeatedly, never more so when Large reveals a pivotal secret within his life, one that he’s held close for most of his life. Without ruining the film, I can’t quite stress the importance that the secret is believable. It’s nothing like Lost nowadays when secrets are usually remarkably absurd. Fear not the secrets.
One of the more terrific points about the film is the juxtaposition between the two leads. Whereas Large’s family and home is cold and distant, Sam’s are warm and close. Whereas Large is frequently trying to distance himself from his father and the sad bluntness that is all of which remains of what once may have been a relationship Sam has no trouble talking to her mother and embracing the joyous cosiness that she has grown up with.
The relationship between Large and Sam is a subtle one. It creeps up on you whilst you’re captivated by the reactions of different characters to different circumstances. It’s not until a specific point in the film that you’re likely to think “Oh, they’re getting/have gotten a lot closer!” and even then you’ll be unsure as to what should be expected next. Just as subtle are Larges emotions. Once again, it really is a case of them creeping up on you as the film progresses.
Finally, the film hits a really fantastic final scene. Natalie Portman gets to really show off her flair for acting at the end and is really fucking brilliant at it. One particular clever thing put into the end is the question that has been plaguing the film from the beginning. Large blatantly asks it twice, but thankfully we’re never answered, because like in Garden State realism is sometimes surreal, but regardless, not all questions are answered either.
If you’re looking for an example of JD for two hours, this might not be the best thing, but if you want a clever, compelling and very funny Rom-Com, then this is probably the best you’ll see around.
5/5
I was honestly expecting this review to be one of Se7en. I’ve watched it 3 times now and am still having trouble, so I’ve decided to postpone that one and work on a few others.
Garden State is an unconventional Romantic/Comedy/Drama that explores the life of Andrew ‘Large’ Largeman (Zach Braff), a depressed, pill popping one time actor on his return home following his mothers death where he finds old friends, new love and emotion he could barely conceive.
Generally, 90% of comedies all match the same studio requirements (similar to how 99% of statistics are made up on the spot) but Garden State breaks new ground. It’s a surreal, yet strangely realistic reminder of how sometimes feeling pain is better than feeling nothing. The surrealism in itself should condemn the film to production Hell, what with drugs, a knight, an argument in Klingon and a leg humping dog. But Braffs script (yep, he wrote and directed it as well) offers such a refreshingly honest view of the awkwardness of relationship that in the end, the entirety of the film feels so very normal. And it’s not just the characters who feel awkward around each other.
The first time Large and Sam (Natalie Portman) meet, there is generally much humour in the scene. But then as some tension grows between the characters, it also grows within the audience. Braffs direction and ability to handle these moments work as an incredibly original convention throughout the film, and the feeling does happen repeatedly, never more so when Large reveals a pivotal secret within his life, one that he’s held close for most of his life. Without ruining the film, I can’t quite stress the importance that the secret is believable. It’s nothing like Lost nowadays when secrets are usually remarkably absurd. Fear not the secrets.
One of the more terrific points about the film is the juxtaposition between the two leads. Whereas Large’s family and home is cold and distant, Sam’s are warm and close. Whereas Large is frequently trying to distance himself from his father and the sad bluntness that is all of which remains of what once may have been a relationship Sam has no trouble talking to her mother and embracing the joyous cosiness that she has grown up with.
The relationship between Large and Sam is a subtle one. It creeps up on you whilst you’re captivated by the reactions of different characters to different circumstances. It’s not until a specific point in the film that you’re likely to think “Oh, they’re getting/have gotten a lot closer!” and even then you’ll be unsure as to what should be expected next. Just as subtle are Larges emotions. Once again, it really is a case of them creeping up on you as the film progresses.
Finally, the film hits a really fantastic final scene. Natalie Portman gets to really show off her flair for acting at the end and is really fucking brilliant at it. One particular clever thing put into the end is the question that has been plaguing the film from the beginning. Large blatantly asks it twice, but thankfully we’re never answered, because like in Garden State realism is sometimes surreal, but regardless, not all questions are answered either.
If you’re looking for an example of JD for two hours, this might not be the best thing, but if you want a clever, compelling and very funny Rom-Com, then this is probably the best you’ll see around.
5/5
Thursday, 5 April 2007
Serenity (2005)
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
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
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)
