Film Reviews Thread
Scroll to see replies
The Happening (2008)
M. Night Shyamalan’s film career thus far is as erratic as any working filmmaker in Hollywood today – his first three features, The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were received to considerable acclaim, whilst his most recent pictures, The Village and The Lady in the Water, received less than stellar responses. As Shyamalan’s latest film hits screens, The Happening, which dictates a world in crisis following a global natural disaster, he strives to break the unfortunate rut he seems to have run himself into.
The Happening certainly begins promisingly, as a suicide epidemic begins sweeping northeast America, with droves of humans hurtling themselves from the roofs of buildings, and shooting themselves in the streets. Unfortunately, from the outset, the acting and script are an utter mess, and are responsible for numerous moments of unintentional hilarity throughout, as opposed to genuine terror. Mark Wahlberg has faced scathing criticism for his performance, but it is more Shyamalan’s script that fails the actors than anything. Wahlberg is strong-armed into delivering dire lines from start to finish, and is accompanied by a plethora of actors who evidently must be in the film only to complete the final payment on their new house, most of all the horrendously miscast John Leguizamo as a Maths teacher.
The film is at its best for the brief moments in which it leaves the audience (as well as the film’s subjects) in a confused frenzy. As the stunned observers attempt to gather their marbles, it is theorised that the suicide en masse is the cause of a terrorist gas attack, whilst news networks attempt to provide scientific explanations for the atrocity occurring. The accompanying slew of violent suicides aids in ratcheting the tension up, although Shyamalan rarely capitalises upon the film’s “R” rating enough to exclaim this tension.
The cut-and-dry explanation for what is happening is revealed a mere 20 minutes into the film, although you would be forgiven for missing it, given that it is followed by a wealth of dialogue-driven scenes which range from idiosyncratic to simply inane. From a man discussing the merit of hot dogs (claiming “hot dogs get a bad rap”
, to Leguizamo’s character asking a panicked woman maths questions to calm her down, Shyamalan has evidently lost whatever knack he had for compelling, or even tolerable dialogue.
Shyamalan’s film even fails in depicting realistic human behaviour - his characters frequently leave their cars despite the fact that it is both unnecessary and potentially fatal (given the air-borne nature of the infection, combined with curious prevailing winds all over the northeast). Throw in a strange love story with so many angles that you never know quite what’s going on, and you have a laundry list of just a few of the film’s irredeemable missteps.
If you’re still not dissuaded from seeing The Happening, the deal-breaker is inevitably the laughably preposterous scene in which the protagonists attempt to outrun a large torrent of wind, a scene as horribly misguided as the escape from the killer ice in The Day After Tomorrow (a marginally better film, one hastens to add).
It can invariably be argued that Shyamalan has simply given up, or rather, he just wanted to have fun with the film, because there are at least two scenes of intentional (albeit cringe-worthy) comedy, namely one instance in which Wahlberg’s character speaks to a plant, which he discovers to be plastic, and continues to talk to. This is one of the few unqualified treats of the film, but The Happening is too smothered in pseudo-sexual tension and idiotic character choices to even lend the film a tangible campy quality.
The film’s final act is, in typical Shyamalan fashion, a tonal shift and a real curiosity. Shyamalan manages to justify his R rating in one instance, yet quickly throws us into the arms of a character who serves as little more than an eye-rollingly lazy metaphor for mother nature, sternly declaring “don’t touch what isn’t yours!”, among other choice sound bytes.
The climax has the potential to pull things together (as The Sixth Sense certainly did), yet when the film’s only viable antagonist is a large wall of air (as well as another 30-second danger which appears and acts as though plucked from a sub-standard computer game), there is little possible to salvage.
Try as Shyamalan might to deliver an uplifting, yet dichotomously sombre ending, his failure to develop his characters beyond the film’s litany of clichés results in a close that is muddled and saccharine in its flagrant idealism. The Happening may be regarded by some as a guilty pleasure, and whilst it is not without its head-scratching charms, it is a pleasure guilty enough to indict.
Rating: 4/10
M. Night Shyamalan’s film career thus far is as erratic as any working filmmaker in Hollywood today – his first three features, The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable and Signs were received to considerable acclaim, whilst his most recent pictures, The Village and The Lady in the Water, received less than stellar responses. As Shyamalan’s latest film hits screens, The Happening, which dictates a world in crisis following a global natural disaster, he strives to break the unfortunate rut he seems to have run himself into.
The Happening certainly begins promisingly, as a suicide epidemic begins sweeping northeast America, with droves of humans hurtling themselves from the roofs of buildings, and shooting themselves in the streets. Unfortunately, from the outset, the acting and script are an utter mess, and are responsible for numerous moments of unintentional hilarity throughout, as opposed to genuine terror. Mark Wahlberg has faced scathing criticism for his performance, but it is more Shyamalan’s script that fails the actors than anything. Wahlberg is strong-armed into delivering dire lines from start to finish, and is accompanied by a plethora of actors who evidently must be in the film only to complete the final payment on their new house, most of all the horrendously miscast John Leguizamo as a Maths teacher.
The film is at its best for the brief moments in which it leaves the audience (as well as the film’s subjects) in a confused frenzy. As the stunned observers attempt to gather their marbles, it is theorised that the suicide en masse is the cause of a terrorist gas attack, whilst news networks attempt to provide scientific explanations for the atrocity occurring. The accompanying slew of violent suicides aids in ratcheting the tension up, although Shyamalan rarely capitalises upon the film’s “R” rating enough to exclaim this tension.
The cut-and-dry explanation for what is happening is revealed a mere 20 minutes into the film, although you would be forgiven for missing it, given that it is followed by a wealth of dialogue-driven scenes which range from idiosyncratic to simply inane. From a man discussing the merit of hot dogs (claiming “hot dogs get a bad rap”
, to Leguizamo’s character asking a panicked woman maths questions to calm her down, Shyamalan has evidently lost whatever knack he had for compelling, or even tolerable dialogue.Shyamalan’s film even fails in depicting realistic human behaviour - his characters frequently leave their cars despite the fact that it is both unnecessary and potentially fatal (given the air-borne nature of the infection, combined with curious prevailing winds all over the northeast). Throw in a strange love story with so many angles that you never know quite what’s going on, and you have a laundry list of just a few of the film’s irredeemable missteps.
If you’re still not dissuaded from seeing The Happening, the deal-breaker is inevitably the laughably preposterous scene in which the protagonists attempt to outrun a large torrent of wind, a scene as horribly misguided as the escape from the killer ice in The Day After Tomorrow (a marginally better film, one hastens to add).
It can invariably be argued that Shyamalan has simply given up, or rather, he just wanted to have fun with the film, because there are at least two scenes of intentional (albeit cringe-worthy) comedy, namely one instance in which Wahlberg’s character speaks to a plant, which he discovers to be plastic, and continues to talk to. This is one of the few unqualified treats of the film, but The Happening is too smothered in pseudo-sexual tension and idiotic character choices to even lend the film a tangible campy quality.
The film’s final act is, in typical Shyamalan fashion, a tonal shift and a real curiosity. Shyamalan manages to justify his R rating in one instance, yet quickly throws us into the arms of a character who serves as little more than an eye-rollingly lazy metaphor for mother nature, sternly declaring “don’t touch what isn’t yours!”, among other choice sound bytes.
The climax has the potential to pull things together (as The Sixth Sense certainly did), yet when the film’s only viable antagonist is a large wall of air (as well as another 30-second danger which appears and acts as though plucked from a sub-standard computer game), there is little possible to salvage.
Try as Shyamalan might to deliver an uplifting, yet dichotomously sombre ending, his failure to develop his characters beyond the film’s litany of clichés results in a close that is muddled and saccharine in its flagrant idealism. The Happening may be regarded by some as a guilty pleasure, and whilst it is not without its head-scratching charms, it is a pleasure guilty enough to indict.
Rating: 4/10
Name of Film: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008, Andrew Adamson)
So! Narnia 2.0 has trotted onto our screens, and I'll readily admit that I rather enjoyed the first one - so was more or less looking forward to being regaled with another tale of Narnia. Unfortunately, I came out of the cinema completely underwhelmed.
So, a year has passed for the Pevensie children - being, as they are, adults now trapped in human bodies - but in Narnia, more than 1,300 years have gone by, and a race of humans known as the Telmarines have invaded Narnia, and hunted the native inhabitants more or less to extinction. The titular Caspian, a Telmarine prince, has been driven from his home thanks to a plot by his uncle Miraz to over throw the Royal line, and so Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy must rally behind him to retake Narnia.
I'll get this out the way first - Prince Caspian annoyed me. Not the movie itself, but the character - Ben Barnes may well be a very fine actor, but when you saddle even a ridiculously fine actor with an absolutely horrifically annoying accent, you're going to rile some folk up. To be quite honest, I struggled to empathise with his - or indeed that of the rest of the Telmarines - plight, simply because I couldn't figure out where their accent was supposed to be from. Quite what was wrong with just letting them speak in a natural-sounding accent is beyond me.
This isn't the only problem when it comes to actors - two, possibly even three of the central actors are turning out to be rather poor choices for their roles. William Moseley comes out the worst of the bunch - he certainly possesses the physical chops to pull off an action-heavy role like Peter, but lacks the necessary acting prowess to pull off some of the more emotional moments. He also tries his very hardest to give something vaguely fearsome in his battle cry, but I've been more terrified by sloths on Valium. Then there's Anna Poppawell as Susan, who now seems content to turn up and look pouty, only she's not exactly Scarlett Johansson, and so she successfully brings nothing to the role bar a stale reading of the lines.
Georgie Henley is perhaps the biggest disappointment. After the mischievous glint present in her eyes in the first movie, she's now just another competent child actor that - whilst better than the two eldest of the four kids - is still merely solid and nothing more. It's perhaps surprising, then, that Skandar Keynes as Edmund comes off with the most kudos - he's somehow managed to naturally extend the spoiled, arrogant brat in the first film to a world-weary teenager with a ready wit and a wicked edge to his grin. To say that he underplays it to great effect is something of an understatement.
The quality of the actors playing humans is particularly disappointing, given the array of brilliance that infuses the CGI characters. Eddie Izzard provides a charming - albeit rather prototypical - portrayal of Reepicheep; the only disappointment being that there's so very little of him. Peter Dinklage puts in a rather fantastically grumpy performance as the dwarf Trumpkin, along with some understated performances by the CGI-enhanced centaurs and satyrs.
It's also a huge pity that the fight sequences - in the first half of the film at least - are completely bloodless. Not just literally - this is a PG movie, after all - but also figuratively; there's just not the spark of energy and excitement that the battles in the first film had. Fortunately, they pick up after the half-way point, culminating in an absolutely terrific final confrontation that starts with a man-on-man duel and ends with a full-scale battle completely with collapsible ground. It does decided to devolve into deus ex machina, and whilst it's explained and developed properly in the source novel, here it just feels tacked on.
In all honestly, it falls down to Andrew Adamson's direction. Having come in fresh from the Shrek movies, he seems only able to competently direct things that don't have grounds in reality! It's unfortunate, really, because this did have the potential to be a thoroughly entertaining film. It is instead merely an average one - technically a better achievement than the first one, but somehow worse for the experience. Worth it if you're a fan of Narnia and you're able to work past Ben Barnes' ludicrous accent, but missable if you occupy the space outside that particular intersection of oddballs.
Rating Out of 10: 6
So! Narnia 2.0 has trotted onto our screens, and I'll readily admit that I rather enjoyed the first one - so was more or less looking forward to being regaled with another tale of Narnia. Unfortunately, I came out of the cinema completely underwhelmed.
So, a year has passed for the Pevensie children - being, as they are, adults now trapped in human bodies - but in Narnia, more than 1,300 years have gone by, and a race of humans known as the Telmarines have invaded Narnia, and hunted the native inhabitants more or less to extinction. The titular Caspian, a Telmarine prince, has been driven from his home thanks to a plot by his uncle Miraz to over throw the Royal line, and so Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy must rally behind him to retake Narnia.
I'll get this out the way first - Prince Caspian annoyed me. Not the movie itself, but the character - Ben Barnes may well be a very fine actor, but when you saddle even a ridiculously fine actor with an absolutely horrifically annoying accent, you're going to rile some folk up. To be quite honest, I struggled to empathise with his - or indeed that of the rest of the Telmarines - plight, simply because I couldn't figure out where their accent was supposed to be from. Quite what was wrong with just letting them speak in a natural-sounding accent is beyond me.
This isn't the only problem when it comes to actors - two, possibly even three of the central actors are turning out to be rather poor choices for their roles. William Moseley comes out the worst of the bunch - he certainly possesses the physical chops to pull off an action-heavy role like Peter, but lacks the necessary acting prowess to pull off some of the more emotional moments. He also tries his very hardest to give something vaguely fearsome in his battle cry, but I've been more terrified by sloths on Valium. Then there's Anna Poppawell as Susan, who now seems content to turn up and look pouty, only she's not exactly Scarlett Johansson, and so she successfully brings nothing to the role bar a stale reading of the lines.
Georgie Henley is perhaps the biggest disappointment. After the mischievous glint present in her eyes in the first movie, she's now just another competent child actor that - whilst better than the two eldest of the four kids - is still merely solid and nothing more. It's perhaps surprising, then, that Skandar Keynes as Edmund comes off with the most kudos - he's somehow managed to naturally extend the spoiled, arrogant brat in the first film to a world-weary teenager with a ready wit and a wicked edge to his grin. To say that he underplays it to great effect is something of an understatement.
The quality of the actors playing humans is particularly disappointing, given the array of brilliance that infuses the CGI characters. Eddie Izzard provides a charming - albeit rather prototypical - portrayal of Reepicheep; the only disappointment being that there's so very little of him. Peter Dinklage puts in a rather fantastically grumpy performance as the dwarf Trumpkin, along with some understated performances by the CGI-enhanced centaurs and satyrs.
It's also a huge pity that the fight sequences - in the first half of the film at least - are completely bloodless. Not just literally - this is a PG movie, after all - but also figuratively; there's just not the spark of energy and excitement that the battles in the first film had. Fortunately, they pick up after the half-way point, culminating in an absolutely terrific final confrontation that starts with a man-on-man duel and ends with a full-scale battle completely with collapsible ground. It does decided to devolve into deus ex machina, and whilst it's explained and developed properly in the source novel, here it just feels tacked on.
In all honestly, it falls down to Andrew Adamson's direction. Having come in fresh from the Shrek movies, he seems only able to competently direct things that don't have grounds in reality! It's unfortunate, really, because this did have the potential to be a thoroughly entertaining film. It is instead merely an average one - technically a better achievement than the first one, but somehow worse for the experience. Worth it if you're a fan of Narnia and you're able to work past Ben Barnes' ludicrous accent, but missable if you occupy the space outside that particular intersection of oddballs.
Rating Out of 10: 6
Name of Film: Kung Fu Panda (2008, Mark Osborne and John Stevenson)
Dreamworks Animation SKG are a quirky bunch - when they're not milking the Shrek the Cow, they do come up with some original films, and whilst they never reach the heights of the other animation behemoth Pixar's outings, they're usually entertaining but forgettable affairs.
Not so with Kung Fu Panda - which is perhaps a sign of things to come that maybe, just maybe, Pixar need keep closer guard of their Animation Kings crown.
The story goes that panda named Po - voiced with zeal by Jack Black - is selected by Master Oogway to be the next Dragon Warrior in what can only be described as a freak accident. The Dragon Warrior is a chosen one, destined to defend the land against the dastardly Snow Leopard and kung fu master Tai Lung. There's a hitch, though - Po is a little fat, a little lazy and far too enthusiastic for his lack of skill, and the fact that he's been chosen as the Dragon Warrior does nothing but anger the Furious Five - a crane, viper, mantis, tigress and monkey, all kung fu masters of their respective styles - and their mentor Master Shifu.
Anyone familiar with Kung Fu movies will recognise the formula - young guy, crap at kung fu, must defeat old grand master to achieve respect from those he covets. So no points for originality - but it more than makes up for it in the execution. Featuring a beautiful design ethic that is a magnificent throwback to the over-saturated days of Bruce Lee movies, it looks absolutely incredible. But where it really shines is in the execution of the kung fu sequences. From an energetic and breathless escape sequence where Tai Lung breaks free from his own personal hellhole prison, to a hugely inventive and entertaining piece of chop-socky on a slowly and inevitably collapsing rope-bridge, they're positively brimming with invention, and more importantly, it presents us with what computer animation is truly capable of within this context.
That's not to say that it isn't funny - it is, although not as laugh-a-minute as one might expect from the studio that brought us Over the Hedge. Interestingly, Kung Fu Panda completely sidesteps the trend of animation these days of throwing in gags for parents only amid the jokes aimed squarely at the kids. Instead, it favours a more broad approach - a shotgun to Shrek's dual handguns style, if you will. It's more broad, but the effect is the same - the audience is still laughing, but here the kids and the adults are laughing together, which is a brilliant achievement for the screenwriters and the directors both. That these laughs come from both physical and verbal comedy makes the achievement all the more striking.
If there are criticisms of the movie to be voiced, they are three-fold. The moral of the story is a little too on the nose for my liking ('beeeee yourseeeeeeelf, pleeeeeeease!'), but then again it is a kids' movie, and subtlety isn't exactly your average nose-picking 10-year-old's strong point - but it is, at least, delivered with some finesse, which raises it above the run-of-the-mill childrens' fair.
The second is perhaps that it's maybe a little flabby to begin with - the excellent, shadow-puppet/anime style dream-sequence aside - giving a real false impression of itself by issuing lukewarm gags and little-to-none of the inventiveness displayed later on in the movie.
Finally, there is a gamut of voice talent that is absolutely wasted - with Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman's Shifu and Ian MacShane's Tai Lung being the only performances that'll stick in your head. There are other, really quite major Hollywood stars lending their lungs here, but you'll be hard-pressed to identify them unless you snuck a peek at the IMDb page before you went in. It's a shame, but this - and all my other quibbles, for that matter - are minor even in the worst of lights.
What's here is very entertaining, and possibly Dreamwork's best outing since Shrek II paved the road for the its franchise to go all tits up. It could even be mentioned in the same breath as Pixar's lesser outings - a fine sign that a studio who was spending far too long wallowing in its own thick, green arrogance has finally pulled the finger out. Definitely worth a look.
Rating Out of 10: 7
Dreamworks Animation SKG are a quirky bunch - when they're not milking the Shrek the Cow, they do come up with some original films, and whilst they never reach the heights of the other animation behemoth Pixar's outings, they're usually entertaining but forgettable affairs.
Not so with Kung Fu Panda - which is perhaps a sign of things to come that maybe, just maybe, Pixar need keep closer guard of their Animation Kings crown.
The story goes that panda named Po - voiced with zeal by Jack Black - is selected by Master Oogway to be the next Dragon Warrior in what can only be described as a freak accident. The Dragon Warrior is a chosen one, destined to defend the land against the dastardly Snow Leopard and kung fu master Tai Lung. There's a hitch, though - Po is a little fat, a little lazy and far too enthusiastic for his lack of skill, and the fact that he's been chosen as the Dragon Warrior does nothing but anger the Furious Five - a crane, viper, mantis, tigress and monkey, all kung fu masters of their respective styles - and their mentor Master Shifu.
Anyone familiar with Kung Fu movies will recognise the formula - young guy, crap at kung fu, must defeat old grand master to achieve respect from those he covets. So no points for originality - but it more than makes up for it in the execution. Featuring a beautiful design ethic that is a magnificent throwback to the over-saturated days of Bruce Lee movies, it looks absolutely incredible. But where it really shines is in the execution of the kung fu sequences. From an energetic and breathless escape sequence where Tai Lung breaks free from his own personal hellhole prison, to a hugely inventive and entertaining piece of chop-socky on a slowly and inevitably collapsing rope-bridge, they're positively brimming with invention, and more importantly, it presents us with what computer animation is truly capable of within this context.
That's not to say that it isn't funny - it is, although not as laugh-a-minute as one might expect from the studio that brought us Over the Hedge. Interestingly, Kung Fu Panda completely sidesteps the trend of animation these days of throwing in gags for parents only amid the jokes aimed squarely at the kids. Instead, it favours a more broad approach - a shotgun to Shrek's dual handguns style, if you will. It's more broad, but the effect is the same - the audience is still laughing, but here the kids and the adults are laughing together, which is a brilliant achievement for the screenwriters and the directors both. That these laughs come from both physical and verbal comedy makes the achievement all the more striking.
If there are criticisms of the movie to be voiced, they are three-fold. The moral of the story is a little too on the nose for my liking ('beeeee yourseeeeeeelf, pleeeeeeease!'), but then again it is a kids' movie, and subtlety isn't exactly your average nose-picking 10-year-old's strong point - but it is, at least, delivered with some finesse, which raises it above the run-of-the-mill childrens' fair.
The second is perhaps that it's maybe a little flabby to begin with - the excellent, shadow-puppet/anime style dream-sequence aside - giving a real false impression of itself by issuing lukewarm gags and little-to-none of the inventiveness displayed later on in the movie.
Finally, there is a gamut of voice talent that is absolutely wasted - with Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman's Shifu and Ian MacShane's Tai Lung being the only performances that'll stick in your head. There are other, really quite major Hollywood stars lending their lungs here, but you'll be hard-pressed to identify them unless you snuck a peek at the IMDb page before you went in. It's a shame, but this - and all my other quibbles, for that matter - are minor even in the worst of lights.
What's here is very entertaining, and possibly Dreamwork's best outing since Shrek II paved the road for the its franchise to go all tits up. It could even be mentioned in the same breath as Pixar's lesser outings - a fine sign that a studio who was spending far too long wallowing in its own thick, green arrogance has finally pulled the finger out. Definitely worth a look.
Rating Out of 10: 7
An oldish film to write my first review for this thread about, and also perhaps not the way I'd like to start things off.. it's not exactly positive.
21 Grams (2003)
I found the DVD of this film still in it's plastic wrapping in the back of a friend's car. I did what some film enthusiasts might not agree with, and read the blurb, and decided I really had to see this film - the concept of the 21 grams sounded good. So I stuck it in the DVD player, and settled myself down.
The opening scenes were a little bit disconcerting.. I recognised the overly-dramatic snapshots of each of the characters' lives with everyone moving in a way that reminds me of Enrique Iglesias in the rain (that's not a good thing: Enrique moves as if there's something tasty on a plate next to the camera, and he's not had sugar in months - a sort of zombie look).
Put simply, the characters don't look like they're being tortured with the sheer weight of living, as Iñárritu wants them to, they just look like they're swimming in syrup.
I recognised this type of acting straight away, along with the camera shots - jerky, clumsy hand-held filming that gave me motion sickness rather than causing me to empathise with and feel like I'm in the same room as the poor, poor people(!) - and knew that this unfortunate, wasted, concept had been subjected to the same thing as that of Babel (Iñárritu's 'masterpiece' of 2006).
Babel, I could NOT stand. And the stupidity of the opening scenes of this film gave me the impression that I'd end up thinking the same. So I turned to my friend, asked if he was as bored as I was, and we switched it off, 15 minutes in.
Rating out of 10: It's not fair to rate something I didn't finish watching.. though I can imagine I wouldn't have liked it.
21 Grams (2003)
I found the DVD of this film still in it's plastic wrapping in the back of a friend's car. I did what some film enthusiasts might not agree with, and read the blurb, and decided I really had to see this film - the concept of the 21 grams sounded good. So I stuck it in the DVD player, and settled myself down.
The opening scenes were a little bit disconcerting.. I recognised the overly-dramatic snapshots of each of the characters' lives with everyone moving in a way that reminds me of Enrique Iglesias in the rain (that's not a good thing: Enrique moves as if there's something tasty on a plate next to the camera, and he's not had sugar in months - a sort of zombie look).
Put simply, the characters don't look like they're being tortured with the sheer weight of living, as Iñárritu wants them to, they just look like they're swimming in syrup.
I recognised this type of acting straight away, along with the camera shots - jerky, clumsy hand-held filming that gave me motion sickness rather than causing me to empathise with and feel like I'm in the same room as the poor, poor people(!) - and knew that this unfortunate, wasted, concept had been subjected to the same thing as that of Babel (Iñárritu's 'masterpiece' of 2006).
Babel, I could NOT stand. And the stupidity of the opening scenes of this film gave me the impression that I'd end up thinking the same. So I turned to my friend, asked if he was as bored as I was, and we switched it off, 15 minutes in.
Rating out of 10: It's not fair to rate something I didn't finish watching.. though I can imagine I wouldn't have liked it.
heheh, you guys are hardcore I've met some people in my time (mad about film), two German travellers recently for instance, one a wannabe film director (who is involved in directing but isn't big on the scene), the other (his gf) involved in theatre production and mad about films... who were insane about films and didn't stop talking about films for a period of 4-5 hours when i was away travelling and eating dinner with them. I wonder if they post like this on a website or other They were complete film snobs mind you and seemed to enjoy using the words 'horrible' and 'disgusting' in describing various films (very funny) - whilst smoking away in a rather arrogant, film-dismissing fashion Interesting, putting some of you in a room with them - there will be blood 
Both in their mid to late twenties.
au revoir - thought i'd come and have a look in here but i'm not hardcore enough I'll leave you to it...
I've met some people in my time (mad about film), two German travellers recently for instance, one a wannabe film director (who is involved in directing but isn't big on the scene), the other (his gf) involved in theatre production and mad about films... who were insane about films and didn't stop talking about films for a period of 4-5 hours when i was away travelling and eating dinner with them. I wonder if they post like this on a website or other They were complete film snobs mind you and seemed to enjoy using the words 'horrible' and 'disgusting' in describing various films (very funny) - whilst smoking away in a rather arrogant, film-dismissing fashion Interesting, putting some of you in a room with them - there will be blood Both in their mid to late twenties. au revoir - thought i'd come and have a look in here but i'm not hardcore enough
I'll leave you to it...white_haired_wizard
au revoir - thought i'd come and have a look in here but i'm not hardcore enough I'll leave you to it...
au revoir - thought i'd come and have a look in here but i'm not hardcore enough
I'll leave you to it...Surely there shouldn't have to be that kind of impression! I agree with you, these guys are hardcore, but it's a society, damn it..
Besides, we can learn from these guys..
white_haired_wizard
heheh, you guys are hardcore I've met some people in my time (mad about film), two German travellers recently for instance, one a wannabe film director (who is involved in directing but isn't big on the scene), the other (his gf) involved in theatre production and mad about films... who were insane about films and didn't stop talking about films for a period of 4-5 hours when i was away travelling and eating dinner with them. I wonder if they post like this on a website or other They were complete film snobs mind you and seemed to enjoy using the words 'horrible' and 'disgusting' in describing various films (very funny) - whilst smoking away in a rather arrogant, film-dismissing fashion Interesting, putting some of you in a room with them - there will be blood Both in their mid to late twenties.
au revoir - thought i'd come and have a look in here but i'm not hardcore enough I'll leave you to it...
I've met some people in my time (mad about film), two German travellers recently for instance, one a wannabe film director (who is involved in directing but isn't big on the scene), the other (his gf) involved in theatre production and mad about films... who were insane about films and didn't stop talking about films for a period of 4-5 hours when i was away travelling and eating dinner with them. I wonder if they post like this on a website or other They were complete film snobs mind you and seemed to enjoy using the words 'horrible' and 'disgusting' in describing various films (very funny) - whilst smoking away in a rather arrogant, film-dismissing fashion Interesting, putting some of you in a room with them - there will be blood Both in their mid to late twenties. au revoir - thought i'd come and have a look in here but i'm not hardcore enough
I'll leave you to it...Harsh! I just look at it as our TSR's own version of Empire or Total Film. There're the 'hardcore' reviews from the likes of Asdata and myself; then there's ones like this which are also perfectly decent reviews! It's basically just what us (ex-)students think about movies, and if some of us choose to wax lyrical...well, just pity us for wasting our time
what thell **** i just spend ages writing a review on Heat and i posted it , and i cant see it 
Would any like to criticize my new short?
(Links below if you are terminally blind.)
Don't be overly harsh on it, it was a first attempt, all filmed in a school, NO BUDGET, horrible sound quality, etc.
Would really just love to hear some opinions on how to improve!
Yours,
TK
(Links below if you are terminally blind.)
Don't be overly harsh on it, it was a first attempt, all filmed in a school, NO BUDGET, horrible sound quality, etc.
Would really just love to hear some opinions on how to improve!
Yours,
TK
The Dark Knight (2008, Christopher Nolan)
The Dark Knight is certainly the most hyped film of 2008 – regardless of typical summer blockbuster buzz, Christopher Nolan’s sequel to the superb 2005 Batman Begins has garnered both critical and audience acclaim, even managing to sweep the #1 spot on IMDB’s Top 250 for the time being (although many question whether such is simply a gauge of timely popularity rather than traditional film quality).
Is The Dark Knight the best film ever made? No. However, having seen the film on two consecutive evenings, I would attest that it is not only the finest comic book film of the year, but the most entertaining and intelligent worldwide 2008 release thus far, and on its own terms, is packed to the brim with Academy Award-worthy material.
The Dark Knight opens as The Joker pulls off an ingenious bank heist, a scene all too familiar from the likes of Michael Mann’s Heat, although Nolan unabashedly admits this to be one of the film’s influences. What the film’s opening scene makes clear is that, yes, this is a comic book film, complete with all the overblown histrionics that this entails, yet it is also a meticulously constructed labour of love from its director, finely preened to near-perfection.
Alas, The Dark Knight is not without its fair share of contrivances and curiosities, yet the interminable lengths to which Christopher Nolan challenges our expectations of the comic book and action genres seemingly mitigates the film’s minor flaws. Unlike virtually every comic book film that has preceded it (other than its own predecessor), The Dark Knight is not a simplistic A-to-B story – the narrative is multi-facetted and takes all involved to the darkest recesses that this medium has ever travelled. It is therefore astounding what Nolan has managed to achieve with a 12A rating – the sheer terror induced by The Joker character alone is more horrifying than the goriest slasher film, and ironically, doesn’t spill a drop of on-screen blood. Even the moments in which The Dark Knight explores Batman’s curious romantic mores are accompanied by a deal of moral complexity, and never manage to overstuff an already long picture.
The majority of the hype surrounding The Dark Knight evidently stems from the late Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, and although his appearances throughout the film are fairly sparse, Ledger, in almost chameleonic fashion, entirely entrenches himself within the role of this demented, sadistic clown. Far from Jack Nicholson’s campy iteration of the Caped Crusader’s most famed enemy, Ledger creates one of the most memorable screen villains of the last two decades. Ledger’s Joker is darkly comic, chaotic and violent with a twisted sense of logic (not far removed from No Country for Old Men’s Anton Chigurh), and strangely enough, infectiously charming (as you will doubtless gather from the Joker’s sit-down meeting with the mob). Ledger is certain to garner himself a posthumous “Best Supporting Actor” nomination next February, and if he wins, it will be with a heavy heart that we mourn the loss of an actor gone before his prime, rather than assume a victory through maudlin sentiment or sympathy.
Perhaps the unsung hero of The Dark Knight is Aaron Eckhart’s District Attorney Harvey Dent, the “White Knight” of Gotham City, who seeks to once and for all clean the city’s streets. Unlike Batman, he does not hide behind a mask, and thus puts a recognizable name and face to justice and righteousness, something Batman can never do. Alas, Batman himself even champions Dent as Gotham’s true savior, and it is to this effect that Dent’s story arc is the most engrossing and poignant of the film’s lengthy runtime. Dent evokes the film’s genuine sense of pathos, thanks in large part to Eckhart – his chiseled-jaw and dapper appearance aid in painting him as Gotham’s final ray of light in the war against crime, and one struggles to imagine an actor who could better espouse these values. Although not as flashy as Ledger’s astounding turn, Eckhart’s Dent represents Gotham’s noble heart and soul in a way that Batman never can, and deserves more recognition than he is ever likely to receive.
Although it is Ledger and Eckhart’s performances that stand above the crowd, this is an exceptional ensemble piece, relying on the collective acting talents of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Christian Bale (all returning from Batman Begins), and Maggie Gyllenhaal (making her first appearance as a slight upgrade from Katie Holmes in the previous film). The former actors slide comfortably into their roles once again, and it is perhaps for similar reasons that first-timer Gyllenhaal simply coasts through the material, although it is only fair to state that her character (Bruce and Harvey’s love interest, Rachel) is given little to do throughout, other than to arbitrarily drive the narrative forward. That is to say, Gyllenhaal makes the best of a tough spot, given the role’s lack of zest.
Nolan’s film is in constant flux between equilibrium and disequilibrium, never allowing the audience to sit comfortably, yet providing enough light relief so as not to exhaust. Ultimately, like the majority of action films, the dialogue is a means to an end, a way-station to car chases and large explosions, yet unlike most, it never appears desperate or too eager to hurl police cars across the screen. Nolan, as evidenced by the film’s 152-minute running time, expects his audience to be patient, and thus rewards them with a picture that is both thematically rich and textured, and packed with enough overblown set pieces to please both those seeking intelligent narrative and eye-popping action.
It is wholly apparent that Nolan has improved considerably as a director since the release of Batman Begins. Begins, whilst stunning in its own right, was edited at a pace too frenetic for the eye, making it difficult to discern who was hitting who. Fortunately, Nolan’s confidence behind the camera has blossomed, lingering more on the film’s plentiful visual feasts, captured by superb cinematographer Wally Pfister. Moreover, Nolan’s preference for organic action, enhanced where necessary by CGI, is retained – some of the film’s manned stunts (such as an 18-wheeler flipping end-on-end) are astounding to behold, and a welcome rarity in contemporary cinema.
Returning following their superb rendition of the Batman Begins soundtrack, Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard craft a perfectly-rounded soundscape, ranging from loud and intense during action scenes, to simmering and poetic in moments of poignance. Particularly in the film’s latter scenes (and especially its coda sequence), Zimmer and Howard’s score arouses the sort of adrenaline rush usually expected in throwaway Summer blockbusters. I guarantee, however, that this is one time that you’ll be proud to deem yourself an “adrenaline junkie”. It is important to note, however, that the score is often too bombastic for its own good – the score has evidently been amped too high in post-production, because it occasionally drowns the dialogue out to the point where it is inaudible.
Is The Dark Knight perfect? No – it truncates a few storylines that could either have been omitted entirely, or simply saved for a future film, yet given the cumbersome scope of Nolan’s vision, such concessions are largely acceptable and detract in no meaningful way from this stellar film. There are a few goofy quirks throughout that will either leave you laughing or slightly miffed (such as the Batpod being able to flip from walls), and some of the film’s twists and turns will be ruined by those who have seen the trailers enough. Again, though, these gripes are insubstantial in context of the film as a cohesive whole, and are mostly minor gripes in a hugely successful picture.
Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is an astounding achievement, melding the fantastical world of paperback with the gritty reality of modern crime-noir classics such as Heat or The Departed. Moreover, the film is packed to the brim with Academy-worthy material, from the performances, to the soundtrack, to the direction and even the coveted “Best Picture” award itself. Nolan confidently directs a lengthy film that manages to remain concise and thoroughly gripping from start-to-finish thanks to an expert understanding of peak-and-trough narrative form. This film will undoubtedly be remembered as a dirge for the late Heath Ledger, a talent tragically taken from us decades too early, yet it is poignant in a sense that his rendition of the Joker shall be remembered for decades, and is certainly the most powerful performance of his all-too brief career. The Dark Knight does justice to a medium too-frequently derided for its simplicity, and sets a towering benchmark that will be difficult to topple. More Greek tragedy than pop-culture pastiche, Christopher Nolan demonstrates that blockbusters, and moreover, action films, can maintain integrity and intelligence.
Rating: 10/10
The Dark Knight is certainly the most hyped film of 2008 – regardless of typical summer blockbuster buzz, Christopher Nolan’s sequel to the superb 2005 Batman Begins has garnered both critical and audience acclaim, even managing to sweep the #1 spot on IMDB’s Top 250 for the time being (although many question whether such is simply a gauge of timely popularity rather than traditional film quality).
Is The Dark Knight the best film ever made? No. However, having seen the film on two consecutive evenings, I would attest that it is not only the finest comic book film of the year, but the most entertaining and intelligent worldwide 2008 release thus far, and on its own terms, is packed to the brim with Academy Award-worthy material.
The Dark Knight opens as The Joker pulls off an ingenious bank heist, a scene all too familiar from the likes of Michael Mann’s Heat, although Nolan unabashedly admits this to be one of the film’s influences. What the film’s opening scene makes clear is that, yes, this is a comic book film, complete with all the overblown histrionics that this entails, yet it is also a meticulously constructed labour of love from its director, finely preened to near-perfection.
Alas, The Dark Knight is not without its fair share of contrivances and curiosities, yet the interminable lengths to which Christopher Nolan challenges our expectations of the comic book and action genres seemingly mitigates the film’s minor flaws. Unlike virtually every comic book film that has preceded it (other than its own predecessor), The Dark Knight is not a simplistic A-to-B story – the narrative is multi-facetted and takes all involved to the darkest recesses that this medium has ever travelled. It is therefore astounding what Nolan has managed to achieve with a 12A rating – the sheer terror induced by The Joker character alone is more horrifying than the goriest slasher film, and ironically, doesn’t spill a drop of on-screen blood. Even the moments in which The Dark Knight explores Batman’s curious romantic mores are accompanied by a deal of moral complexity, and never manage to overstuff an already long picture.
The majority of the hype surrounding The Dark Knight evidently stems from the late Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, and although his appearances throughout the film are fairly sparse, Ledger, in almost chameleonic fashion, entirely entrenches himself within the role of this demented, sadistic clown. Far from Jack Nicholson’s campy iteration of the Caped Crusader’s most famed enemy, Ledger creates one of the most memorable screen villains of the last two decades. Ledger’s Joker is darkly comic, chaotic and violent with a twisted sense of logic (not far removed from No Country for Old Men’s Anton Chigurh), and strangely enough, infectiously charming (as you will doubtless gather from the Joker’s sit-down meeting with the mob). Ledger is certain to garner himself a posthumous “Best Supporting Actor” nomination next February, and if he wins, it will be with a heavy heart that we mourn the loss of an actor gone before his prime, rather than assume a victory through maudlin sentiment or sympathy.
Perhaps the unsung hero of The Dark Knight is Aaron Eckhart’s District Attorney Harvey Dent, the “White Knight” of Gotham City, who seeks to once and for all clean the city’s streets. Unlike Batman, he does not hide behind a mask, and thus puts a recognizable name and face to justice and righteousness, something Batman can never do. Alas, Batman himself even champions Dent as Gotham’s true savior, and it is to this effect that Dent’s story arc is the most engrossing and poignant of the film’s lengthy runtime. Dent evokes the film’s genuine sense of pathos, thanks in large part to Eckhart – his chiseled-jaw and dapper appearance aid in painting him as Gotham’s final ray of light in the war against crime, and one struggles to imagine an actor who could better espouse these values. Although not as flashy as Ledger’s astounding turn, Eckhart’s Dent represents Gotham’s noble heart and soul in a way that Batman never can, and deserves more recognition than he is ever likely to receive.
Although it is Ledger and Eckhart’s performances that stand above the crowd, this is an exceptional ensemble piece, relying on the collective acting talents of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Christian Bale (all returning from Batman Begins), and Maggie Gyllenhaal (making her first appearance as a slight upgrade from Katie Holmes in the previous film). The former actors slide comfortably into their roles once again, and it is perhaps for similar reasons that first-timer Gyllenhaal simply coasts through the material, although it is only fair to state that her character (Bruce and Harvey’s love interest, Rachel) is given little to do throughout, other than to arbitrarily drive the narrative forward. That is to say, Gyllenhaal makes the best of a tough spot, given the role’s lack of zest.
Nolan’s film is in constant flux between equilibrium and disequilibrium, never allowing the audience to sit comfortably, yet providing enough light relief so as not to exhaust. Ultimately, like the majority of action films, the dialogue is a means to an end, a way-station to car chases and large explosions, yet unlike most, it never appears desperate or too eager to hurl police cars across the screen. Nolan, as evidenced by the film’s 152-minute running time, expects his audience to be patient, and thus rewards them with a picture that is both thematically rich and textured, and packed with enough overblown set pieces to please both those seeking intelligent narrative and eye-popping action.
It is wholly apparent that Nolan has improved considerably as a director since the release of Batman Begins. Begins, whilst stunning in its own right, was edited at a pace too frenetic for the eye, making it difficult to discern who was hitting who. Fortunately, Nolan’s confidence behind the camera has blossomed, lingering more on the film’s plentiful visual feasts, captured by superb cinematographer Wally Pfister. Moreover, Nolan’s preference for organic action, enhanced where necessary by CGI, is retained – some of the film’s manned stunts (such as an 18-wheeler flipping end-on-end) are astounding to behold, and a welcome rarity in contemporary cinema.
Returning following their superb rendition of the Batman Begins soundtrack, Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard craft a perfectly-rounded soundscape, ranging from loud and intense during action scenes, to simmering and poetic in moments of poignance. Particularly in the film’s latter scenes (and especially its coda sequence), Zimmer and Howard’s score arouses the sort of adrenaline rush usually expected in throwaway Summer blockbusters. I guarantee, however, that this is one time that you’ll be proud to deem yourself an “adrenaline junkie”. It is important to note, however, that the score is often too bombastic for its own good – the score has evidently been amped too high in post-production, because it occasionally drowns the dialogue out to the point where it is inaudible.
Is The Dark Knight perfect? No – it truncates a few storylines that could either have been omitted entirely, or simply saved for a future film, yet given the cumbersome scope of Nolan’s vision, such concessions are largely acceptable and detract in no meaningful way from this stellar film. There are a few goofy quirks throughout that will either leave you laughing or slightly miffed (such as the Batpod being able to flip from walls), and some of the film’s twists and turns will be ruined by those who have seen the trailers enough. Again, though, these gripes are insubstantial in context of the film as a cohesive whole, and are mostly minor gripes in a hugely successful picture.
Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight is an astounding achievement, melding the fantastical world of paperback with the gritty reality of modern crime-noir classics such as Heat or The Departed. Moreover, the film is packed to the brim with Academy-worthy material, from the performances, to the soundtrack, to the direction and even the coveted “Best Picture” award itself. Nolan confidently directs a lengthy film that manages to remain concise and thoroughly gripping from start-to-finish thanks to an expert understanding of peak-and-trough narrative form. This film will undoubtedly be remembered as a dirge for the late Heath Ledger, a talent tragically taken from us decades too early, yet it is poignant in a sense that his rendition of the Joker shall be remembered for decades, and is certainly the most powerful performance of his all-too brief career. The Dark Knight does justice to a medium too-frequently derided for its simplicity, and sets a towering benchmark that will be difficult to topple. More Greek tragedy than pop-culture pastiche, Christopher Nolan demonstrates that blockbusters, and moreover, action films, can maintain integrity and intelligence.
Rating: 10/10
My first ever review...gulp!
Name of the Film: Mamma Mia
You've heard the songs, seen the musical, worshiped the band and BOOM, the Mamma Mia film is released! However, this film did not live up to my high expectations. It had moments of laughter and excitement, however I believe the acting was poor and the producers had an amazing script- but did not do it justice.
Firstly, lets look at the cast and plot. A cast with relatively NO singing/musical background. Meryl Steep plays Donna, who is the mother of Amanda Seyfried who plays Sophie. Sophie is getting married to Sky (played by Dominic Cooper.) These three are by far the most talented singers, however it can be said that "Lay all your love on me" was sung so seductively that the scene is similar to that of an erotic movie!
Sophie reads her mothers diary and figures out that three men may be her father. Having never met her father, she invites all three to stay on the island whilst she decides who is her father. Her mother also invites two close friends, however their role is insignificant and the film would have been better without them. Her fathers are all by far hollywood superstars- Stellan Skarsgård, Colin Firth and Mr.(ex) Bond Pierce Brosnan. Credit to all three for being amazing actors, however singers they are not. Pierce Brosnan was flat as a pancake and it was extremely tough to see James Bond singing ABBA!
So Sophie sets out to figure out her father, through a series and events and tests. However, tensions between her and Sky increase as it becomes apparent Sky does not wish to get married. The ending is fairly rushed and once again filled with great ABBA hits! Sophie decides that all her "fathers" are special, and that she wishes to have 3 fathers. Her mother gives her away however Sophie then cancels the wedding to go away and travel with Sky. Her mother, who is very sceptical about weddings marries Sam (Pierce Brosnan) and everybody is happy. Despite there being ZERO PERCENT sexual chemistry or romance between them in the film.
On a plus note- the script was amazing, and the ABBA songs (although most of them not sung in tune) fit in very well. I would say if you are a true ABBA fan then don't waste your money watching this film, as it is a huge letdown. However, if you are looking for a bit of harmless fun and a lot of laughs- this is the film for you.
Regardless of how good it is, I can guarentee the whole cinema will be singing along!!
Rating: 4/10
Name of the Film: Mamma Mia
You've heard the songs, seen the musical, worshiped the band and BOOM, the Mamma Mia film is released! However, this film did not live up to my high expectations. It had moments of laughter and excitement, however I believe the acting was poor and the producers had an amazing script- but did not do it justice.
Firstly, lets look at the cast and plot. A cast with relatively NO singing/musical background. Meryl Steep plays Donna, who is the mother of Amanda Seyfried who plays Sophie. Sophie is getting married to Sky (played by Dominic Cooper.) These three are by far the most talented singers, however it can be said that "Lay all your love on me" was sung so seductively that the scene is similar to that of an erotic movie!
Sophie reads her mothers diary and figures out that three men may be her father. Having never met her father, she invites all three to stay on the island whilst she decides who is her father. Her mother also invites two close friends, however their role is insignificant and the film would have been better without them. Her fathers are all by far hollywood superstars- Stellan Skarsgård, Colin Firth and Mr.(ex) Bond Pierce Brosnan. Credit to all three for being amazing actors, however singers they are not. Pierce Brosnan was flat as a pancake and it was extremely tough to see James Bond singing ABBA!
So Sophie sets out to figure out her father, through a series and events and tests. However, tensions between her and Sky increase as it becomes apparent Sky does not wish to get married. The ending is fairly rushed and once again filled with great ABBA hits! Sophie decides that all her "fathers" are special, and that she wishes to have 3 fathers. Her mother gives her away however Sophie then cancels the wedding to go away and travel with Sky. Her mother, who is very sceptical about weddings marries Sam (Pierce Brosnan) and everybody is happy. Despite there being ZERO PERCENT sexual chemistry or romance between them in the film.
On a plus note- the script was amazing, and the ABBA songs (although most of them not sung in tune) fit in very well. I would say if you are a true ABBA fan then don't waste your money watching this film, as it is a huge letdown. However, if you are looking for a bit of harmless fun and a lot of laughs- this is the film for you.
Regardless of how good it is, I can guarentee the whole cinema will be singing along!!
Rating: 4/10
First review in a good long while. Damn my idleness!
Name of Film: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (2008, Guillermo Del Toro)
The original Hellboy has sat in the ‘guilty pleasures’ section of my DVD collection since its release back in 2004. It was a massively flawed, but somehow thoroughly entertaining piece of film-making. This was mostly thanks to a decent story, a sharp, witty script and some energetically directed action sequences. And these, in turn, were thanks to an over-weight Central American man named Guillermo del Toro.
One hugely improved director’s cut and a ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ later, it has proven to be the very tip of del Toro’s imagination iceberg. So now, thanks to a strong showing on DVD from the extended cut, Universal have seen fit to unleash the Mexican Movie Magician (yes, I just coined that moniker) on a major summer blockbuster…and bloody hell, what a sight it is to behold.
This is a director at the top of his game, constrained by neither his budget, nor by studio officials insisting he reign it in for the summer audiences – and as you might have guess, the visuals are absolutely stunning. From the creature design to the costumes to the set design – all are immaculately conceived; surviving the escape from del Toro’s brain to be captured by DoP Guillermo Navarro, his camera giving them an ethereal radiance that is somehow familiar yet, at the same time, strangely other-worldly.
Notably, the use of CGI has been scaled back for this outing – with del Toro favouring on-set creations over anything pixelated. This not only serves to ground the film in its own little meta-reality, but also makes the creatures boggling – seeing as these days anyone and their dog can create CGI creature, but actually creating physical creatures? That’s both incredibly old school and ridiculously impressive – especially in the whizz-bang world of the modern blockbuster. What CGI is present is occasionally a touch on the bad side of ‘not that great’, but once the final battle with the eponymous Golden Army – the film’s most CGI-heavy sequence – is rollicking over your corneas; you’ll probably not care thanks to the sheer imagination on display in every single pixel.
But it is with this boldness of vision that one of the films downfalls rears its ugly, moss-covered head – the pacing. It’s absolutely all over the place – the film feels overlong and occasionally over-wrought, and this is almost certainly a malefic side-effect of M3 not having anyone to reign him in. To wit, not even creatures that are on-screen for less than a minute, with del Toro – and his Pan’s Labyrinth editor Bernat Vilaplana – not willing to let any of the creatures filmed escape the final cut, and this imbues the film with the reek of ‘pet project’. It’s a shame, because with a tighter edit, this could well have been the film of the summer.
The story seems almost peripheral to the visual style, but what’s there is solid and well-scripted, with a big bucket of humour thrown in for good measure.
Performance-wise, there’s a lot to like. Ron Pearlman continues to shine in the red makeup of Hellboy, tossing about quips and ‘aww crap’s with a strange grandeur – think Ian McKellen born in the Bronx with horns, and you're some of the way there. It’s perfectly fitted to the character, and – I presume – honed from the first movie into a fully-formed half-man/half-demon thing that you can’t help but love. Selma Blair earns the Most Improved Actress in this team, with her role significantly beefed up from ‘damaged firestarter’ to ‘sassy female sidekick-come-firestarter-come-love-interest’, and she admirably steps into the latter and up from the former to produce a far more interesting character than the previous movie. John Hurt also makes a particularly welcome, albeit brief return, as Professor Bruttenholm.
Deserving of particularly special mention are Doug Jones and Brian Steele – Jones portraying the strange, telepathic fish-man Abe Sapien, as well as two other minor creature roles, and Brian Steel in the big, cumbersome suit of Mr Wink. Both do incredible work, with Jones in particular – now saddled with voicing Abe as well as providing the physical performance – producing a memorable and emphatic piece of creature acting. In short, he pisses all over Andy Serkis and his Gollum – this guy doesn’t need computers to be an incredible creature actor.
There’re a couple of bum notes: Jeffrey Tambor’s DPRD chief feeling completely unnecessary, and doesn’t Tambor know it – aside from a couple of solid laughs, his performance might as well not be there for all the good he brings to the screen. Luke Goss does his best but still can’t bring anything except a physical finesse to the main villain, Prince Nuada.
Inevitably, however, the bad is supremely outweighed by the good – the only way you can’t be impressed with this movie is if you’re a keen supporter of the Dogme 95 movement. Catering to both fans of fantasy and action adventure, this is the second comic book movie – along with The Dark Knight – this summer that somehow becomes more than what it should be. The Dark Knight became a dark, powerful examination of justice and the fragility of human tenacity; Hellboy 2 has decided to become a small, visually sumptuous art-house movie. Well, they can’t all go in the same direction…
Rating Out of 10: 8
Name of Film: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (2008, Guillermo Del Toro)
The original Hellboy has sat in the ‘guilty pleasures’ section of my DVD collection since its release back in 2004. It was a massively flawed, but somehow thoroughly entertaining piece of film-making. This was mostly thanks to a decent story, a sharp, witty script and some energetically directed action sequences. And these, in turn, were thanks to an over-weight Central American man named Guillermo del Toro.
One hugely improved director’s cut and a ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ later, it has proven to be the very tip of del Toro’s imagination iceberg. So now, thanks to a strong showing on DVD from the extended cut, Universal have seen fit to unleash the Mexican Movie Magician (yes, I just coined that moniker) on a major summer blockbuster…and bloody hell, what a sight it is to behold.
This is a director at the top of his game, constrained by neither his budget, nor by studio officials insisting he reign it in for the summer audiences – and as you might have guess, the visuals are absolutely stunning. From the creature design to the costumes to the set design – all are immaculately conceived; surviving the escape from del Toro’s brain to be captured by DoP Guillermo Navarro, his camera giving them an ethereal radiance that is somehow familiar yet, at the same time, strangely other-worldly.
Notably, the use of CGI has been scaled back for this outing – with del Toro favouring on-set creations over anything pixelated. This not only serves to ground the film in its own little meta-reality, but also makes the creatures boggling – seeing as these days anyone and their dog can create CGI creature, but actually creating physical creatures? That’s both incredibly old school and ridiculously impressive – especially in the whizz-bang world of the modern blockbuster. What CGI is present is occasionally a touch on the bad side of ‘not that great’, but once the final battle with the eponymous Golden Army – the film’s most CGI-heavy sequence – is rollicking over your corneas; you’ll probably not care thanks to the sheer imagination on display in every single pixel.
But it is with this boldness of vision that one of the films downfalls rears its ugly, moss-covered head – the pacing. It’s absolutely all over the place – the film feels overlong and occasionally over-wrought, and this is almost certainly a malefic side-effect of M3 not having anyone to reign him in. To wit, not even creatures that are on-screen for less than a minute, with del Toro – and his Pan’s Labyrinth editor Bernat Vilaplana – not willing to let any of the creatures filmed escape the final cut, and this imbues the film with the reek of ‘pet project’. It’s a shame, because with a tighter edit, this could well have been the film of the summer.
The story seems almost peripheral to the visual style, but what’s there is solid and well-scripted, with a big bucket of humour thrown in for good measure.
Performance-wise, there’s a lot to like. Ron Pearlman continues to shine in the red makeup of Hellboy, tossing about quips and ‘aww crap’s with a strange grandeur – think Ian McKellen born in the Bronx with horns, and you're some of the way there. It’s perfectly fitted to the character, and – I presume – honed from the first movie into a fully-formed half-man/half-demon thing that you can’t help but love. Selma Blair earns the Most Improved Actress in this team, with her role significantly beefed up from ‘damaged firestarter’ to ‘sassy female sidekick-come-firestarter-come-love-interest’, and she admirably steps into the latter and up from the former to produce a far more interesting character than the previous movie. John Hurt also makes a particularly welcome, albeit brief return, as Professor Bruttenholm.
Deserving of particularly special mention are Doug Jones and Brian Steele – Jones portraying the strange, telepathic fish-man Abe Sapien, as well as two other minor creature roles, and Brian Steel in the big, cumbersome suit of Mr Wink. Both do incredible work, with Jones in particular – now saddled with voicing Abe as well as providing the physical performance – producing a memorable and emphatic piece of creature acting. In short, he pisses all over Andy Serkis and his Gollum – this guy doesn’t need computers to be an incredible creature actor.
There’re a couple of bum notes: Jeffrey Tambor’s DPRD chief feeling completely unnecessary, and doesn’t Tambor know it – aside from a couple of solid laughs, his performance might as well not be there for all the good he brings to the screen. Luke Goss does his best but still can’t bring anything except a physical finesse to the main villain, Prince Nuada.
Inevitably, however, the bad is supremely outweighed by the good – the only way you can’t be impressed with this movie is if you’re a keen supporter of the Dogme 95 movement. Catering to both fans of fantasy and action adventure, this is the second comic book movie – along with The Dark Knight – this summer that somehow becomes more than what it should be. The Dark Knight became a dark, powerful examination of justice and the fragility of human tenacity; Hellboy 2 has decided to become a small, visually sumptuous art-house movie. Well, they can’t all go in the same direction…
Rating Out of 10: 8
Someone do Wall-E, I want to see it! He's so cute!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Ask an AUB graduate anything
- Best movies
- Personal Statement help for English at University
- Official Arts University Bournemouth 2023 Applicant Thread
- Higher English - The Cheviot, the Stag, and the Black, Black Oil
- Upcoming Films Trailer thread
- What are your hobbies?
- Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes film review thread
- Film studies ( hopefully specialising in Screenwriting) degree?
- Should I hide my true taste in film in order to not raise alarms or anything?
- Applying to study Film Production
- Is UEL as bad as everyone says?
- What is your least favourite film?
- Bournemouth University or MetFilm School (Leeds) for MA Cinematography
- TSR Big Fat Quiz of the Year 2023!
- Most accredited Uni for Creative Writing (Film) in Bristol?
- WJEC GCSE English Language 3rd June 2014 Official Thread
- University of Warwick Film Studies Essay Submission
- Looking for a Film Production course?
- People who study film/tv, what are your plans?
Latest
Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 16 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 17 minutes ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsLast reply 22 minutes ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 23 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
857
Last reply 25 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 27 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 27 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 29 minutes ago
What are your thoughts on poverty eradication programs in the worldLast reply 36 minutes ago
UAL Bsc Fashion Management and fashion marketingLast reply 37 minutes ago
Choosing Subjects for S5 to study Software engineering in the UkLast reply 38 minutes ago
R u 18-25 & studying in a England Uni, spare a few mins to fill my survey. 1 wk left.
