Many times in the past when I have reviewed films they have either had a small amount of plot development (see Man of Steel), a medium amount of plot development and character interactions (see Iron Man 3) or a sense of interaction between the main characters and their relevance to the plot that shapes the film as a whole (see Philomena). What is refreshingly pleasing sometimes however is when a film comes along that proves that a film does not always have to possess s huge amount of inner context in order to be gripping and proves in turn to be not only gripping but also as enjoyable as a hot shepherds pie with a glass of mulled wine served to you on a starlit winter evening by Jennifer Connelly. As you might have guessed from my slightly pretentious opening there, Gravity is a good film, a really good film.
Now as you might have gleaned, this jewel in an increasingly formulaic film industry has a simple, almost non-existent plot. Weird right? It surely isn't that often that we get films such as this where it grips us with virtually no context. To give a synopsis (although you could recount the whole expanse of the plot broadly and it would still seem like a synopsis), Sandra Bullock plays the hard-working, strangely relateable and space-sick doctor Ryan Stone working on a NASA space shuttle as the chief medical officer of a mission led by the enigmatic and veteran astronaut commander Matt Kowalski (played in a humorous but compelling manner by George Cloony). However, despite their routine schedule, the NASA team soon falls foul of a cloud of debris caused by a Russian satellite crashing into a series of other satellites that then causes a chain reaction which in turn produces a huge cloud of debris to crash into the NASA shuttle utterly destroying it and leaving only Kowalski and Stone alive. The rest of the film then sees the two astronauts, with much of the action centred on Stone, cross from station to station through the use of improvised propulsion systems in the increasingly desperate, higher-stakes and nail-biting race to find a working space pod before the shrapnel storm turns them into space-frozen hamburger mince.
While the simplicity of the plot in a film can usually spell the death-knell of a film from the start as the title first appears on the screen, this film doesn't have that problem. For starters, the action is as amazing as the idea of M Night Shyamalan ever making another good film after The Sixth Sense (1999) and Unbreakable (2000). As the name would suggest, the driving force behind the action of the film's plot revolves around the tremendous force of gravity or a zero-gravity situation in space thereof and the dangers that can be found working in the great black sea above. Therefore, when we see Bullock's character hurtling through the deep of space, we can see that it is merely timing and a little bit of ingenuity that is either going to get here to the next space station or turn her into a human comet. Therefore, the action really makes you grip your seat and realise that there's a rim of seat on your seat when you stand up, as you and the main characters can clearly see that the smallest of errors in judgement of mathematics and timing could mean the difference between heroes being made, or the film ending early. This is all propelled along, literally and figuratively, by the ever present threat of the shrapnel storm created by the destroyed satellites and other stations as Dr Stone desperately tries to make her way along the desperate path to safety. The action might have some holes in it in terms of realism but regardless, the tension that it exhumes is very palpable and will compel you to have a whole bottle of spirits let alone a small glass in order to steady your nerves after the credits roll.
One other factor that drives the tensions to bone-chilling and back-sweating heights is the acting skills put on show by Sandra Bullock herself...wait...really? How is this possible? I thought Sandra Bullock's last several films were terrible and here acting skills in them were dreadful! (for examples see Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997), The Proposal (2009) or The Blind Side (2009, man that was just not her year)). Yet despite all the examples of Sandra Bullock putting on a lacklustre acting performance devoid of any real drive and believable emotion in many of her previous films (excluding the first Speed (1994)), her performance in this film is just about one of the most compelling, realistic and relateable showcases of human emotion and the limits thereof and of human psychological durability. It's really surprising that Bullock's acting therefore, is one of the centrepiece factors that made this film so gripping and made it so much so that I really felt like I was in the space suit of the main character, living out their experience with my own eyes.
On top of this there are other people that must be congratulated on their work besides Bullock on her own astronomically brilliant performance (pun-abso-fucking-leoutley intended). Firstly, Clooney himself makes the part of astronaut commander Kowalski really come to life and leap out of the screen by giving him a more enigmatic yet still believable performance as the film's joker and main centrepiece of can-do attitude when the aforementioned shrapnel storm strikes our main characters. On top of this, I feel it is only necessary to heap well-deserved praise onto director Alfonso Cuaron as his direction of the plot and action, actors and special effects is truly an exemplary performance in of itself and as an example of directing a film with little plot and still managing to make it still gripping and compelling and emotionally riveting as your first viewing of The Lion King (1994). Subsequently, an equal amount of praise must also be heaped upon the special effects department in this production as they too have absolutely done a beyond-brilliant job of making the deepness of space and the movement of the characters through the black void thereof seem more realistic than much CGI which has appeared in other such films over the last 20 years.
In conclusion, Gravity is one hell of a ride both visually, audibly and even psychologically. Not only is the acting, action and directing great, but the special effects really put you in the film and let you feel immersed in the experience. On top of this, Gravity is one of the few films that I will remember in time where it was necessary to be seen in cinemas in 3D. No really! It really works well when viewed in 3D and allows you an even more increased experience of feeling like you too are living out the events of the film alongside Bullock's intense bouts of panic as her character tries to survive, Clooney's odd search for vodka in space all culminating in what has to be the best thriller of the entire year. Let's hope then that Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues can also step up to the mark as one of this young decade's greatest films.
Plot: 8.5/10
Action/set pieces: 9/10
Directing/special effects/camera work: 8/10
Acting/characters: 9/10
Overall: 34.5/40
Thursday, 5 December 2013
Tuesday, 3 December 2013
Restaurant review #3: Efes turkish restaurant in Great Titchfield Street in London
Ah food reviews, haven't done one of these in a while. Kind of odd really seeing as how I like to eat out and I am notably obsessed with food but there have been so many films coming out since the last review I did of a restaurant or a cafe and then there was the big period when I did nothing on the blog that I guess I shouldn't feel surprised really that I' finally doing a restaurant review again. Like I said though, if there is one thing that holds a warmer enclave in my heart in terms of critiquing things more than films, it has to be food. every day I think what needs to be bought, how to cook it, how to season it and what it should be served with. Naturally, seeing as how a restaurant is providing you with a service, they will most likely take care of that for you (that is if you aren't eating at a chain like Zizzis' or Nando's or are eating from a fast-food chain like Wasabi, McDonalds or Pizza Express).
Today I'll be reviewing a restaurant chain known here in the UK for its expertise on good, tasty and simple Turkish food and its close association to the brewery company which makes the beer that shares the same name as this chain of restaurants, Efes. I'll admit actually, I'd never heard of the restaurant or even the chain itself before I went there recently for a friend's 23rd birthday party with a group that included me, the birthday girl and 14 other people. First off, you might think that the large number of our group would create problems for the restaurant staff to serve us in terms of speed and punctuation in terms of them serving our food on time, and HOLY SHIT, I could not be more right. Not only was the food slow but it was made all the more slow by the fact that while there were allot of us, the restaurant had this odd system of serving whereby they said that they would serve everyone in the party altogether. Now I know this type of service is practised in many restaurants, BUT IT DOES NOT WORK WITH LARGE GROUPS. I mean COME THE FUCK ON PEOPLE! Is it really the standards of some of the restaurants of one of the trading centres of the world that its restaurants serve the main course at least an hour and a half after ordering, AND COLD NO LESS?!?!? I mean this wasn't too bad of a problem because I was just pleased to see the food after waiting so long and it was tasty as hell, but when a few people in our party who arrived late finally got the the restaurant, the waiter told us that we had to wait longer so that they could be served alongside us as well.
Needless to say, this made us pretty pissed and angry, not to mention hungry as a horse, figuratively of course. On top of this, the waiter had the nerve to contradict us on several things, and not politely either! Firstly, after the first hour or so of waiting for the main course to arrive I asked the waiter who was serving us how long the main courses would be, upon asking he told me bluntly and with no tact that the order had only been taken in about twenty minutes ago and that the main course would be there soon. Needless to say, I was positive as I looked at my clock on my phone that it had been way more than around 20 minutes and due to the fact that we waited another 30 minutes or so for our food did not help my blood pressure any good at all either. Secondly, when the main course AT LAST came to our table, not only was it merely warm and not hot or at least between the two, but I'm pretty sure that some of the meals that were served particularly to people sitting next to me were different to those that they had originally ordered. This was made starkly clear to me as the guests sitting near me stated that they didn't care so much whether their order was wrong but were simply glad to finally eat. This too proves as another example of the restaurant's slow service.
What had to be one of the strangest criticisms I have to make of this particular branch of Efes however, was the fact that the etiquette of the waiter towards the birthday girl and another birthday girl when the restaurant put on music for them to dance to was really odd and embarrassing. As I looked at the birthday girl on my table and the other girl in the other birthday party, I saw that neither really looked like they felt inclined to or comfortable to dance to loud music in front of a filled-out restaurant mostly filled with people they don't know. This was made all the more uncomfortable by the fact that the waiter kept asking the two girls to dance which struck me as pretty odd behaviour from a waiter and, with all due respect to the Efes chain, not to mention, quite rude.
Now before you go away from the possibility of visiting one of the branches of this chain of restaurants I have to mention that the food was probably in part late thanks to the large size of our party, therefore it probably wasn't all the restaurant's fault. Admittedly the serving system was odd but I can see the reasoning behind it and besides, serving a table of 12-14 then 16 people by yourself is not easy task. So I really do have to give credit to the waiter who served my table for at least trying to get all of our food to us with efficiency and alacrity and making sure we were happy (although the dancing thing was weird as shit and kind of out of place and order unless the Girl's in question had agreed prior that they wanted to dance).
On top of this, as I mentioned earlier, the food was dee-freaking-licious. While I was hungry as an alleyway dog by the time the main arrived and that the starter was relatively small (although that may have been my fault considering I ordered a dish that was described as very simple), the food was well-seasoned and even more well-cooked. For starters I had garlic-butter-sautéed mushrooms in this broth-like sauce that was neither to mellow or extravagant in its use of seasoning (particularly the butter and garlic), and really infused the mushrooms with a little extra buttery flavour that went along nicely with how well-cooked the mushrooms themselves were. Secondly, for main course I ordered the grill combo of grilled kofte, lamb and chicken which came with a side of rice and simple salad of lettuce, tomato and cucumber. What was pleasing about the main course aside from its refreshing simplicity was the fact that it was all well cooked (naturally excluding the salad) as the meat was all perfectly tender and enabled me to really enjoy the harmonious contrasts between the texture and flavour of the meats and the rice as well as the surprisingly pleasing freshness of the simple salad.
Lastly, because it was a birthday party, the restaurant baked us an indulgently satisfying and guilty-pleasure style of chocolate cake that was light and pleasantly fluffy while also having layers of thankfully not too overpoweringly-sweet chocolate cream between the layers of cake topped off with chocolate sprinkles and a sparkler candle. All this food might have been simple as simple gets but its simplicity combined with the refreshing crash of the Efes beer on my taste buds made for a very tasty meal indeed
Furthermore to heap on more dollops of praise, while we did wait a long time for our food, the staff were quick in serving drinks and they kept our table well served with complementary olives and pita-bread served with tzatziki and devilishly hot chilli sauce. This managed, to an extent, to keep us tided over until our courses began to arrive which was good as it allowed me to have a more satisfying conversation with the other guests around me without having to concentrate on my grumbling gut too much. On top of this, it also allowed me to more greatly appreciate the decoration and layout of the restaurant which struck me as representing a good and balanced mash-up of Turkish traditional domestic architecture and decoration with a cross with modern British pubs and bars that made me feel immersed in the culture of the place but not at all uncomfortable or alienated. Well maybe except for the odd acts of our otherwise hard-working and commendable waiter.
In conclusion, the Efes branch in Great Titchfield Street near both the London Heart Hospital and the Oxford Circus train station is warranting of a mixed bag of both notable compliments as well as criticisms. While there are many criticisms to be made of this branch, I did enjoy the food, enjoyed the majority of the atmosphere and decoration while I was there, appreciated the alacrity with which the staff kept us going with drinks and pita-bread and dips and the simplicity of the food itself which was refreshing in a city where some (not all mind you however) have levels of either garish or disappointing seasoning and sauces that take away from the simplicity of food that sometimes must be acknowledged as shown by how well-cooked the food was from here. That and also the place does takeaways so I guess that's a double plus for anyone living near one of Efes' branches. Regardless of these compliments however, the criticisms that I made of this place have to be considered. The service was filled with slow speed and a notable sense of indifference from the staff and when the food arrived it tended to mostly only be warm or room-temperature which I felt was not really acceptable for a chain restaurant or really any restaurant for that matter. Call me unfair if you so wish and I know that some restaurants are swept off their feet from being so busy, but the slowness of the service at this restaurant and their inefficient serving system was just pure awfulness.
Decoration: 7.5/10
Atmosphere: 7/10
Service: 2/10
Price 4/10
Quality of food and drink: 8.5/10
Overall: 29/50
Today I'll be reviewing a restaurant chain known here in the UK for its expertise on good, tasty and simple Turkish food and its close association to the brewery company which makes the beer that shares the same name as this chain of restaurants, Efes. I'll admit actually, I'd never heard of the restaurant or even the chain itself before I went there recently for a friend's 23rd birthday party with a group that included me, the birthday girl and 14 other people. First off, you might think that the large number of our group would create problems for the restaurant staff to serve us in terms of speed and punctuation in terms of them serving our food on time, and HOLY SHIT, I could not be more right. Not only was the food slow but it was made all the more slow by the fact that while there were allot of us, the restaurant had this odd system of serving whereby they said that they would serve everyone in the party altogether. Now I know this type of service is practised in many restaurants, BUT IT DOES NOT WORK WITH LARGE GROUPS. I mean COME THE FUCK ON PEOPLE! Is it really the standards of some of the restaurants of one of the trading centres of the world that its restaurants serve the main course at least an hour and a half after ordering, AND COLD NO LESS?!?!? I mean this wasn't too bad of a problem because I was just pleased to see the food after waiting so long and it was tasty as hell, but when a few people in our party who arrived late finally got the the restaurant, the waiter told us that we had to wait longer so that they could be served alongside us as well.
Needless to say, this made us pretty pissed and angry, not to mention hungry as a horse, figuratively of course. On top of this, the waiter had the nerve to contradict us on several things, and not politely either! Firstly, after the first hour or so of waiting for the main course to arrive I asked the waiter who was serving us how long the main courses would be, upon asking he told me bluntly and with no tact that the order had only been taken in about twenty minutes ago and that the main course would be there soon. Needless to say, I was positive as I looked at my clock on my phone that it had been way more than around 20 minutes and due to the fact that we waited another 30 minutes or so for our food did not help my blood pressure any good at all either. Secondly, when the main course AT LAST came to our table, not only was it merely warm and not hot or at least between the two, but I'm pretty sure that some of the meals that were served particularly to people sitting next to me were different to those that they had originally ordered. This was made starkly clear to me as the guests sitting near me stated that they didn't care so much whether their order was wrong but were simply glad to finally eat. This too proves as another example of the restaurant's slow service.
What had to be one of the strangest criticisms I have to make of this particular branch of Efes however, was the fact that the etiquette of the waiter towards the birthday girl and another birthday girl when the restaurant put on music for them to dance to was really odd and embarrassing. As I looked at the birthday girl on my table and the other girl in the other birthday party, I saw that neither really looked like they felt inclined to or comfortable to dance to loud music in front of a filled-out restaurant mostly filled with people they don't know. This was made all the more uncomfortable by the fact that the waiter kept asking the two girls to dance which struck me as pretty odd behaviour from a waiter and, with all due respect to the Efes chain, not to mention, quite rude.
Now before you go away from the possibility of visiting one of the branches of this chain of restaurants I have to mention that the food was probably in part late thanks to the large size of our party, therefore it probably wasn't all the restaurant's fault. Admittedly the serving system was odd but I can see the reasoning behind it and besides, serving a table of 12-14 then 16 people by yourself is not easy task. So I really do have to give credit to the waiter who served my table for at least trying to get all of our food to us with efficiency and alacrity and making sure we were happy (although the dancing thing was weird as shit and kind of out of place and order unless the Girl's in question had agreed prior that they wanted to dance).
On top of this, as I mentioned earlier, the food was dee-freaking-licious. While I was hungry as an alleyway dog by the time the main arrived and that the starter was relatively small (although that may have been my fault considering I ordered a dish that was described as very simple), the food was well-seasoned and even more well-cooked. For starters I had garlic-butter-sautéed mushrooms in this broth-like sauce that was neither to mellow or extravagant in its use of seasoning (particularly the butter and garlic), and really infused the mushrooms with a little extra buttery flavour that went along nicely with how well-cooked the mushrooms themselves were. Secondly, for main course I ordered the grill combo of grilled kofte, lamb and chicken which came with a side of rice and simple salad of lettuce, tomato and cucumber. What was pleasing about the main course aside from its refreshing simplicity was the fact that it was all well cooked (naturally excluding the salad) as the meat was all perfectly tender and enabled me to really enjoy the harmonious contrasts between the texture and flavour of the meats and the rice as well as the surprisingly pleasing freshness of the simple salad.
Lastly, because it was a birthday party, the restaurant baked us an indulgently satisfying and guilty-pleasure style of chocolate cake that was light and pleasantly fluffy while also having layers of thankfully not too overpoweringly-sweet chocolate cream between the layers of cake topped off with chocolate sprinkles and a sparkler candle. All this food might have been simple as simple gets but its simplicity combined with the refreshing crash of the Efes beer on my taste buds made for a very tasty meal indeed
Furthermore to heap on more dollops of praise, while we did wait a long time for our food, the staff were quick in serving drinks and they kept our table well served with complementary olives and pita-bread served with tzatziki and devilishly hot chilli sauce. This managed, to an extent, to keep us tided over until our courses began to arrive which was good as it allowed me to have a more satisfying conversation with the other guests around me without having to concentrate on my grumbling gut too much. On top of this, it also allowed me to more greatly appreciate the decoration and layout of the restaurant which struck me as representing a good and balanced mash-up of Turkish traditional domestic architecture and decoration with a cross with modern British pubs and bars that made me feel immersed in the culture of the place but not at all uncomfortable or alienated. Well maybe except for the odd acts of our otherwise hard-working and commendable waiter.
In conclusion, the Efes branch in Great Titchfield Street near both the London Heart Hospital and the Oxford Circus train station is warranting of a mixed bag of both notable compliments as well as criticisms. While there are many criticisms to be made of this branch, I did enjoy the food, enjoyed the majority of the atmosphere and decoration while I was there, appreciated the alacrity with which the staff kept us going with drinks and pita-bread and dips and the simplicity of the food itself which was refreshing in a city where some (not all mind you however) have levels of either garish or disappointing seasoning and sauces that take away from the simplicity of food that sometimes must be acknowledged as shown by how well-cooked the food was from here. That and also the place does takeaways so I guess that's a double plus for anyone living near one of Efes' branches. Regardless of these compliments however, the criticisms that I made of this place have to be considered. The service was filled with slow speed and a notable sense of indifference from the staff and when the food arrived it tended to mostly only be warm or room-temperature which I felt was not really acceptable for a chain restaurant or really any restaurant for that matter. Call me unfair if you so wish and I know that some restaurants are swept off their feet from being so busy, but the slowness of the service at this restaurant and their inefficient serving system was just pure awfulness.
Decoration: 7.5/10
Atmosphere: 7/10
Service: 2/10
Price 4/10
Quality of food and drink: 8.5/10
Overall: 29/50
Monday, 25 November 2013
New film review #12: Philomena
Warning: this review contains some spoilers, read on at your discretion
OK, I'll'll say it up front, I apologise if any of you have never heard of this flick. I mean it is exclusively centred around the nature of British criticality and the simplicity of Irish Catholicism set against the backdrop of a real-life story that occurred between the 1950s and the early 2000s. Now before you think "Oh come on Ted, a small-time British niche film based upon a real-life story? That sounds boring as shit!". Now before you put down your mince pie and cup of coffee let me just correct you there. Real-life-based films can indeed be a right pile of steaming shit (see the likes of The Blind Side (2009)), some can turn into what I like to call unappreciated unsuccessful (E.g. Glory (1989), The Last Samurai (2003) and Valkyrie (2008)). And while I sadly feel that Philomena will fall under that category, I do still think it is a damn touching and well-done film that deserves success and respect for pointing out issues that some people are uncomfortable talking about and a story about determination, perseverance and sadness.
Basically the story of this film is as of such. Based on the real story behind the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee (2009) written by former BBC television and radio presenter Martin Sixsmith (although since the mid-2000s he has had a fortunate resurgence in career), the film follows Martin (played adeptly by Steve Coogan) helping an elderly Irish lady named Philomena (again played adeptly this time by Judi Dench) find her long-lost son Anthony who was born out of wedlock while Philomena was working at a nunnery in the 1950s. While Martin and Philomena go along their journey across Catholic Ireland and then the United States of America where her son was taken after he was separated from her by the nuns in a cruel money-making scheme where they sell Irish children to rich American travellers for large amounts of money, Martin helps Philomena see a bit more depth into her deep connection to Irish Catholicism and the events at the nunnery that seemingly scared her for much of her life until she was fortunately able to find out what happened to her son (who was renamed Michael when he arrived in the USA). Sadly as the film progresses we find out that Michael died in 1995 from AIDS after a long an prosperous career as a lawyer to the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations and a happy relationship with his partner Pete Olsson. This then prompts Philomena and Martin to go on a two-person crusade across a large part of the rest of the USA before finally returning to the nunnery in Ireland where this all started for a final clarification of the end of the story and potent criticism of the social injustices that can come about as a result of the misuse of religious authority and hegemony in a deeply religious society.
Now taking that into account, you have probably guessed that this film is not as action-packed as the last few films that I have reviewed on this blog, but really? I think that works in Philomena's favour. Not only is it a sad film with an important social message but its a stead-paced and largely peaceful film that while serving this social commentary up to you as bluntly as possible, also shows what a life of cynicism in the industry of journalism can do to a person's happiness and outlook on their own lives as well as the world indeed in general. The film achieves this latter point mainly by expressing the changes in character and the emotional mixtures within the characters via the marvellous portrayal of the real-life characters in the film such as Sixsmith by Coogan and Philomena herself by Dench. Probably the only other roles you might remember at all after this film is over is the surprisingly heart-warming and yet wordless portrayal of Michael/Anthony through a mixture of home-videos from decades ago juxtaposed against performances by Sean Mahon and the very young Harrison D'Ampney. The role of nun Hildegarde who is given the role of focal point of the criticisms aimed at the social impact of Irish Catholicism and in turn religion in general in this film is brilliantly portrayed as a cold, heartless and callous old witch both as a young nun in the 1950s by Kate Fleetwood and then as the aforementioned bitter, old nun in the early 2000s by Barbara Jefford.
This last role in the film in particular is given particular depth simply through her screen presence, the direction of Stephen Fears and the portrayal, of course, of the evil nun by Fleetwood and Jefford in turn. In all honesty, the scene showing the young Anthony being taken away to America, the eventual discovery that he died of AIDS and in turn the discovery about the administrative corruption of the nuns running the nunnery provides a solid background for the film's strong portrayal of the negative impacts of religion. But really, this is all given the focal point and true face of mean old sister Hildegarde who I can without hesitation, say is one of the most hateful movie villains that I have ever seen. Not that it isn't a pleasure to see such an interesting performance by both Fleetwood and Jefford in portraying the mean old lady and how cheer-worthily-entertaining it is to see the confrontation between the elderly nun and an incensed and sweary Martin at the end of the film over the injustices done against Philomena. Now while this will most definitely cause some raised eyebrows amongst supporters of or believers in Christianity, I believe that some criticism of the social impact of religion in intimate films such as Philomena is just what the doctor ordered.
To give a personal edge and spin onto this issue (which lets face it, is something I don't really do much of anyway), I used to be religious myself when I was younger as I used to believe in Judaism. However, some time after I had my Bar-Mitzvah when I was 13 I became disillusioned about believing in religion in general as I never felt as strong a connection to the religion as some of my more Jewish relatives might do so. I still go round my Grandmother's house now and again to celebrate events like passover, Jewish new-year and Channucka (I might have spelt that wrong) but I do so purely out of respect for my roots and to spend some quality time with the relatives on my mother's side of the family. So when I saw the extent to which Philomena followed Irish Catholicism to the extent that it actually emotionally distraught her for many years, I felt a strange and compelling emotional connection and kinship of sorts to the character both in terms of the real Philomena that the film was talking about and the character that Dench portrays through her excellent acting skills despite my current and stern belief in atheism. Therefore, while there isn't much heart-pounding action in this film whatsoever, the emotional and well-done acting and direction, fabulous storytelling and great social commentary was enough to keep me hooked.
The other main factor that helped to keep me hooked on this film throughout its running time however had to be the comedy which features not a great deal of laughs but laughs that nonetheless show how likeable the person Dench portrays is and the humorous clashes that occur when cynical atheism clashes with simple and conservative, semi-religious values in not so much an angry but more so accidental and innocent manner in the dialogue between Sixsmith and Philomena. Some of you who are not so familiar to British social comedy might want to brush up on the genre a little bit before watching the film so that you can truly appreciate these golden nuggets of laughter. But thank the lord! Uh...I mean thank goodness. Thank goodness that the comedy is there nonetheless as it adds even further depth to the film on top of the social commentary and the gloriously brilliant acting. Particularly, these comedic moments happen during Martin and Philomena's spats over the validity of basing your ethics on a religion, when Philomena shows how old-fashioned she is in her attitudes and sensibilities and when the two discuss books and what happened to them in the past. Now admittedly, that might initially seem a little bit boring in terms of the basis needed for good comedy but I assure you, in the same way that peanut butter and chocolate are a surprisingly good combination on toast, these comedic moments really shine out as being both funny and highlighting the emotional connection between Philomena and Martin as they make their, in turn, emotional journey to find truth.
In conclusion I would say that this film is a must-see if you like a good laugh while learning an important ethical and/or philosophical lesson (and don't contradict me, there is a difference between those two subjects). The direction is simple but well-done, the acting too is simple in showing relatively plain characters in modern British society with a paintwork of excellent acting skills by Judi Dench and good old Steve Coogan. As mentioned before, the social commentary about the social impact and power of religion might strike an uncomfortable chord with some viewers but I would still recommend the film as its message needs to be heard. As of now the film has won 11 awards and was nominated for 6 others so I don't really think that does anything less than speak of how much you should give this film the chance if you ever have the chance to do so in turn. Seriously, go watch this film.
Also before I give the rating I would like to give a shout-out to a fellow blogger I knew in college before I started my Gap year and she went off to study at Duhram university. Her name is Eliza and she offers a humorous and honest perception of student life starting off at university and raises some interesting points (so far the best one has been about living with the opposite gender and smoking) so I'd strongly recommend that you check her blog out: http://howtodoolittle.blogspot.co.uk/
Camera-work: 7.5/10
Characters/Acting: 10/10
Storyline/Plot/action: 8.75/10
Direction: 7.5/10
OVERALL RATING: 33.75/40
OK, I'll'll say it up front, I apologise if any of you have never heard of this flick. I mean it is exclusively centred around the nature of British criticality and the simplicity of Irish Catholicism set against the backdrop of a real-life story that occurred between the 1950s and the early 2000s. Now before you think "Oh come on Ted, a small-time British niche film based upon a real-life story? That sounds boring as shit!". Now before you put down your mince pie and cup of coffee let me just correct you there. Real-life-based films can indeed be a right pile of steaming shit (see the likes of The Blind Side (2009)), some can turn into what I like to call unappreciated unsuccessful (E.g. Glory (1989), The Last Samurai (2003) and Valkyrie (2008)). And while I sadly feel that Philomena will fall under that category, I do still think it is a damn touching and well-done film that deserves success and respect for pointing out issues that some people are uncomfortable talking about and a story about determination, perseverance and sadness.
Basically the story of this film is as of such. Based on the real story behind the book The Lost Child of Philomena Lee (2009) written by former BBC television and radio presenter Martin Sixsmith (although since the mid-2000s he has had a fortunate resurgence in career), the film follows Martin (played adeptly by Steve Coogan) helping an elderly Irish lady named Philomena (again played adeptly this time by Judi Dench) find her long-lost son Anthony who was born out of wedlock while Philomena was working at a nunnery in the 1950s. While Martin and Philomena go along their journey across Catholic Ireland and then the United States of America where her son was taken after he was separated from her by the nuns in a cruel money-making scheme where they sell Irish children to rich American travellers for large amounts of money, Martin helps Philomena see a bit more depth into her deep connection to Irish Catholicism and the events at the nunnery that seemingly scared her for much of her life until she was fortunately able to find out what happened to her son (who was renamed Michael when he arrived in the USA). Sadly as the film progresses we find out that Michael died in 1995 from AIDS after a long an prosperous career as a lawyer to the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations and a happy relationship with his partner Pete Olsson. This then prompts Philomena and Martin to go on a two-person crusade across a large part of the rest of the USA before finally returning to the nunnery in Ireland where this all started for a final clarification of the end of the story and potent criticism of the social injustices that can come about as a result of the misuse of religious authority and hegemony in a deeply religious society.
Now taking that into account, you have probably guessed that this film is not as action-packed as the last few films that I have reviewed on this blog, but really? I think that works in Philomena's favour. Not only is it a sad film with an important social message but its a stead-paced and largely peaceful film that while serving this social commentary up to you as bluntly as possible, also shows what a life of cynicism in the industry of journalism can do to a person's happiness and outlook on their own lives as well as the world indeed in general. The film achieves this latter point mainly by expressing the changes in character and the emotional mixtures within the characters via the marvellous portrayal of the real-life characters in the film such as Sixsmith by Coogan and Philomena herself by Dench. Probably the only other roles you might remember at all after this film is over is the surprisingly heart-warming and yet wordless portrayal of Michael/Anthony through a mixture of home-videos from decades ago juxtaposed against performances by Sean Mahon and the very young Harrison D'Ampney. The role of nun Hildegarde who is given the role of focal point of the criticisms aimed at the social impact of Irish Catholicism and in turn religion in general in this film is brilliantly portrayed as a cold, heartless and callous old witch both as a young nun in the 1950s by Kate Fleetwood and then as the aforementioned bitter, old nun in the early 2000s by Barbara Jefford.
This last role in the film in particular is given particular depth simply through her screen presence, the direction of Stephen Fears and the portrayal, of course, of the evil nun by Fleetwood and Jefford in turn. In all honesty, the scene showing the young Anthony being taken away to America, the eventual discovery that he died of AIDS and in turn the discovery about the administrative corruption of the nuns running the nunnery provides a solid background for the film's strong portrayal of the negative impacts of religion. But really, this is all given the focal point and true face of mean old sister Hildegarde who I can without hesitation, say is one of the most hateful movie villains that I have ever seen. Not that it isn't a pleasure to see such an interesting performance by both Fleetwood and Jefford in portraying the mean old lady and how cheer-worthily-entertaining it is to see the confrontation between the elderly nun and an incensed and sweary Martin at the end of the film over the injustices done against Philomena. Now while this will most definitely cause some raised eyebrows amongst supporters of or believers in Christianity, I believe that some criticism of the social impact of religion in intimate films such as Philomena is just what the doctor ordered.
To give a personal edge and spin onto this issue (which lets face it, is something I don't really do much of anyway), I used to be religious myself when I was younger as I used to believe in Judaism. However, some time after I had my Bar-Mitzvah when I was 13 I became disillusioned about believing in religion in general as I never felt as strong a connection to the religion as some of my more Jewish relatives might do so. I still go round my Grandmother's house now and again to celebrate events like passover, Jewish new-year and Channucka (I might have spelt that wrong) but I do so purely out of respect for my roots and to spend some quality time with the relatives on my mother's side of the family. So when I saw the extent to which Philomena followed Irish Catholicism to the extent that it actually emotionally distraught her for many years, I felt a strange and compelling emotional connection and kinship of sorts to the character both in terms of the real Philomena that the film was talking about and the character that Dench portrays through her excellent acting skills despite my current and stern belief in atheism. Therefore, while there isn't much heart-pounding action in this film whatsoever, the emotional and well-done acting and direction, fabulous storytelling and great social commentary was enough to keep me hooked.
The other main factor that helped to keep me hooked on this film throughout its running time however had to be the comedy which features not a great deal of laughs but laughs that nonetheless show how likeable the person Dench portrays is and the humorous clashes that occur when cynical atheism clashes with simple and conservative, semi-religious values in not so much an angry but more so accidental and innocent manner in the dialogue between Sixsmith and Philomena. Some of you who are not so familiar to British social comedy might want to brush up on the genre a little bit before watching the film so that you can truly appreciate these golden nuggets of laughter. But thank the lord! Uh...I mean thank goodness. Thank goodness that the comedy is there nonetheless as it adds even further depth to the film on top of the social commentary and the gloriously brilliant acting. Particularly, these comedic moments happen during Martin and Philomena's spats over the validity of basing your ethics on a religion, when Philomena shows how old-fashioned she is in her attitudes and sensibilities and when the two discuss books and what happened to them in the past. Now admittedly, that might initially seem a little bit boring in terms of the basis needed for good comedy but I assure you, in the same way that peanut butter and chocolate are a surprisingly good combination on toast, these comedic moments really shine out as being both funny and highlighting the emotional connection between Philomena and Martin as they make their, in turn, emotional journey to find truth.
In conclusion I would say that this film is a must-see if you like a good laugh while learning an important ethical and/or philosophical lesson (and don't contradict me, there is a difference between those two subjects). The direction is simple but well-done, the acting too is simple in showing relatively plain characters in modern British society with a paintwork of excellent acting skills by Judi Dench and good old Steve Coogan. As mentioned before, the social commentary about the social impact and power of religion might strike an uncomfortable chord with some viewers but I would still recommend the film as its message needs to be heard. As of now the film has won 11 awards and was nominated for 6 others so I don't really think that does anything less than speak of how much you should give this film the chance if you ever have the chance to do so in turn. Seriously, go watch this film.
Also before I give the rating I would like to give a shout-out to a fellow blogger I knew in college before I started my Gap year and she went off to study at Duhram university. Her name is Eliza and she offers a humorous and honest perception of student life starting off at university and raises some interesting points (so far the best one has been about living with the opposite gender and smoking) so I'd strongly recommend that you check her blog out: http://howtodoolittle.blogspot.co.uk/
Camera-work: 7.5/10
Characters/Acting: 10/10
Storyline/Plot/action: 8.75/10
Direction: 7.5/10
OVERALL RATING: 33.75/40
Wednesday, 20 November 2013
Ted's news reviews #2: The 2013 Philippines typhoon Haiyan disaster
Oh man. Last time I did a review on the news it was of the social, economic and administrative causes and results of the (as I see it) largely pointless London riots in 2011 which started off as a outcry of rage and then descended into a week-long chaos of looting and burning as London was temporarily torn up by the mobs of rioters (Basmati rice theifs included). Whereas this event however was more difficult to analyse in terms of its running course, causes and the resulting effects it would eventually have on British urban social welfare and society in general, the recent and terrible destruction that has been wrought in the islands-nation of the Philippines is arguably easier to analyse.
this does not mean however by any stretch of the word or meaning thereof that the events in the Philippines recently are more easy to stomach than the rage and fury of the London riots nearly more than 2 years ago. Whereas the last news review on this blog was on a crisis of social issues, this new crisis is one of natural, nationwide and far more devastating consequences. After all, what has more of an impact on the way the world sees itself and how we see the plight of others; the burning of parts of a city and the incarnation of frustration or the manifestation of nature's fury being unleashed on a developing and geographically divided nation?
To put this quickly into factual perspective, last week a typhoon of colossal proportions was coming across the Leyte gulf off the Eastern coasts of the Philippines with a house crushing force of up to 270 kilometres per hour as it carved a path of destruction across the central Filipino islands particularly hitting the islands of Cebu, Bohol and Leyte the hardest. In just a couple of days of destruction and death, approximately 670,000 people were displaced and many more left without access to clean water while the electricity to remaining houses in these areas were knocked out by the storm's apocalyptic fury. While tens of thousands to the Northern islands of the country were hit notably hard by the storm, the real epicentre of typhoon Haiyan's fury was unleashed on the central islands of the country where communication and transportation is as hard as anywhere else in the scattered collection of islands that make up the state of the Philippines.
This in turn means that as the huge aid programme that has gotten under-way is finally reaching the Philippines, it is still hard for aid organisations and the Filipino government to transport supplies effectively and efficiently. This means that not only are people in the epicentres of destruction being left without basic provisions, but because of the slowness with which it has finally taken aid to be distributed and transported, many people in the affected areas last week were forced into thieving food banks out of a sad and unfortunate state of necessity and desperation. This was probably the most terrible fact that saddened me about this recent crisis. While the complete and terrifying destruction of whole towns and the majority of many cities in the central islands is scary as hell and the 10,000 dead in Tacloban is a highly sorrowful and sobering thought, I was most saddened by the desperation I saw in the faces of the food-looters on the BBC world-news broadcast as I saw soaked Filipino fathers and mothers carrying weighty sacks of rice over their shoulders.
It might be because I was given a largely left-wing upbringing in large part by my mother when I was growing up that I believe there should be an efficient and equally capable ability to react to disasters anywhere in the Philippines and not just the provinces around the capital. More importantly than this however, when I saw the food-looters struggling though the wreckage of their once-proud city in Tacloban surrounded by dead bodies lined up in body-bags by the road and beleaguered Filipino soldiers at the checkpoints unwilling or unseeing to the food-theft happening on my television screen, I felt an instinctive sadness that the Filipino people could be reduced to so bad a state of poverty and desperation through what is simply the movement of local weather.
Many will argue that global warming is to blame in some part for the disaster that has recently befell the Filipino people, but I think that is an examination that should wait until a few years hence from now. for the immediate future, I think and believe strongly that the main focus of the efforts in the Philippines should not be researching where the typhoon came from or discussing what should've been done as looking at such a retrospective factor now will just be a waste of time. Instead what must be done in the immediate future is that we help the Filipino people from across the world by donating money towards the maintenance of electricity and clean water, supply of food and medicine and the provision of security and re-building and clearing up of the worst effected areas hit by typhoon Haiyan.
I'm not saying that the clear-up and recovery that faces the Philippines will be easy however, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and more have been left without electricity, water and medicine as well as shelter which for many more is now gone. The Philippines is not a naturally prosperous country and is still developing after it left the fold of American colonisation decades ago, so the fact that the country was hit by a typhoon of such ferocity as Haiyan makes the circumstances all the more terrible, saddening and desperate.
therefore, I am asking you all this time round to act with impunity, generosity and alacrity. The Philippines have received many millions of pounds and/or dollars in aid but if the Philippines, a developing nation as it is, is to recover fully in the coming years then it requires more aid and quickly. even if you were to donate a couple of week's worth of pocket money or a few hundred from your bank, I have no doubt in my mind that it would make a difference to the lives of the still-living victims of the typhoon Haiyan.
Remember this and take heart, after all, there isn't enough mutual helping around the world already as it is, but this is a start. Take care people, and spread the kindness and generosity that the people of the Philippines deserve.
this does not mean however by any stretch of the word or meaning thereof that the events in the Philippines recently are more easy to stomach than the rage and fury of the London riots nearly more than 2 years ago. Whereas the last news review on this blog was on a crisis of social issues, this new crisis is one of natural, nationwide and far more devastating consequences. After all, what has more of an impact on the way the world sees itself and how we see the plight of others; the burning of parts of a city and the incarnation of frustration or the manifestation of nature's fury being unleashed on a developing and geographically divided nation?
To put this quickly into factual perspective, last week a typhoon of colossal proportions was coming across the Leyte gulf off the Eastern coasts of the Philippines with a house crushing force of up to 270 kilometres per hour as it carved a path of destruction across the central Filipino islands particularly hitting the islands of Cebu, Bohol and Leyte the hardest. In just a couple of days of destruction and death, approximately 670,000 people were displaced and many more left without access to clean water while the electricity to remaining houses in these areas were knocked out by the storm's apocalyptic fury. While tens of thousands to the Northern islands of the country were hit notably hard by the storm, the real epicentre of typhoon Haiyan's fury was unleashed on the central islands of the country where communication and transportation is as hard as anywhere else in the scattered collection of islands that make up the state of the Philippines.
This in turn means that as the huge aid programme that has gotten under-way is finally reaching the Philippines, it is still hard for aid organisations and the Filipino government to transport supplies effectively and efficiently. This means that not only are people in the epicentres of destruction being left without basic provisions, but because of the slowness with which it has finally taken aid to be distributed and transported, many people in the affected areas last week were forced into thieving food banks out of a sad and unfortunate state of necessity and desperation. This was probably the most terrible fact that saddened me about this recent crisis. While the complete and terrifying destruction of whole towns and the majority of many cities in the central islands is scary as hell and the 10,000 dead in Tacloban is a highly sorrowful and sobering thought, I was most saddened by the desperation I saw in the faces of the food-looters on the BBC world-news broadcast as I saw soaked Filipino fathers and mothers carrying weighty sacks of rice over their shoulders.
It might be because I was given a largely left-wing upbringing in large part by my mother when I was growing up that I believe there should be an efficient and equally capable ability to react to disasters anywhere in the Philippines and not just the provinces around the capital. More importantly than this however, when I saw the food-looters struggling though the wreckage of their once-proud city in Tacloban surrounded by dead bodies lined up in body-bags by the road and beleaguered Filipino soldiers at the checkpoints unwilling or unseeing to the food-theft happening on my television screen, I felt an instinctive sadness that the Filipino people could be reduced to so bad a state of poverty and desperation through what is simply the movement of local weather.
Many will argue that global warming is to blame in some part for the disaster that has recently befell the Filipino people, but I think that is an examination that should wait until a few years hence from now. for the immediate future, I think and believe strongly that the main focus of the efforts in the Philippines should not be researching where the typhoon came from or discussing what should've been done as looking at such a retrospective factor now will just be a waste of time. Instead what must be done in the immediate future is that we help the Filipino people from across the world by donating money towards the maintenance of electricity and clean water, supply of food and medicine and the provision of security and re-building and clearing up of the worst effected areas hit by typhoon Haiyan.
I'm not saying that the clear-up and recovery that faces the Philippines will be easy however, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced and more have been left without electricity, water and medicine as well as shelter which for many more is now gone. The Philippines is not a naturally prosperous country and is still developing after it left the fold of American colonisation decades ago, so the fact that the country was hit by a typhoon of such ferocity as Haiyan makes the circumstances all the more terrible, saddening and desperate.
therefore, I am asking you all this time round to act with impunity, generosity and alacrity. The Philippines have received many millions of pounds and/or dollars in aid but if the Philippines, a developing nation as it is, is to recover fully in the coming years then it requires more aid and quickly. even if you were to donate a couple of week's worth of pocket money or a few hundred from your bank, I have no doubt in my mind that it would make a difference to the lives of the still-living victims of the typhoon Haiyan.
Remember this and take heart, after all, there isn't enough mutual helping around the world already as it is, but this is a start. Take care people, and spread the kindness and generosity that the people of the Philippines deserve.
Saturday, 9 November 2013
New film review #11: Thor: The Dark World
What is it with sequels? They seem so fickle about how good or bad they may be. At the very least there is a common consensus amongst film fans that remakes usually suck rat-poison-pellets, historical dramas are sentimental and formulaic but still moving and that some reboots such as The Amazing Spider Man (2012) are made far too soon to have either any real success or ground-breaking impact on the world of film and cinema. In contrast to these kinds of films and in much similarity to a former-child-star's moods and career prospects, sequels to films can either be improving on the first film in some way (E.g. Bad Boys II (2003) or Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982)) or (arguably in most cases) being nowhere near the greatness of the first film that the sequel was based off of (E.g. Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1999) or The Neverending Story III (1994)). Yet sometimes, and by 'sometimes' I mean 'A-reality-show-off-of-MTV-being-good' rare, there pops up a sequel to its original film that is just about as good. No doubt this should put some emphasis on how surprised I was that when I went to see the new Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe film, Thor: The Dark World I was surprised to find that it was neither better or worse than the first film but just about the same, I know right?
The first Thor film which was released in 2011, was good and a great box office hit for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was a hit particularly with young kids because the little ones always enjoy a bit of action mixed with humour and represented by shining knights in armour representing things like freedom, justice and other noble traits. Adults also made this film a success because they had kids like that or simply wanted to see it themselves for a simple bit of fun while teenagers pretty much went to see it on the same reasons. On top of this, the film itself was great as it had loads of well-filmed and done action, colourful characters, even more colourful sets and costumes, an easy-to-explain but also deep mythos and universe and of course, great acting by Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as the Norse god of mischief and evil Loki and Anthony Hopkins as the regal but wise Norse all-father god Odin.
Now the story isn't a huge deal different from the film that it is a sequel to so there is no real need to go into too much depth of its description. Thor must face an enemy attacking from the outside and within (this time its the murderous but wily dark elves) in order to prevent them from stealing some ancient maguffin of untold power (this time its a floating, reddish-black liquid called the aether) led by a foe unexpected by the Asgardian gods (Malekith the cursed played by an under-used Christopher Eccleston) and do this while having been cast out by his father Odin for a crime of disobedience (this time its disobeying his orders to wait for Malekith to return to Asgard after the first battle there).
There are a few differences in Dark World in terms of the story in particular though. Firstly, something I was particularly interested by was the exact reason why Thor was cast out of Asgard in this film in the sense that this time round, the reason for him being forced into temporary exile is less selfish and more noble than in the first Thor. In the first film, Thor was banished for going to the realm of the frost-giants and giving them a real good Mike Tyson-style beating despite the fact that Odin made it very clear that doing so was not needed and would only bring ruin to the doorstep of Asgard which indeed did happen. This made Thor's struggle to better himself in the film more compelling as he had a very real character trait that he needed to get rid of while redeeming himself for a really damn stupid crime. On the other hand Thor is thrown out of Asgard in Dark World for simply following an actually noble reason for vengeance and going against Asgardian tradition in order to save the lives of the men in the Asgardian army and his non-goddess-normal-nerdy-but-hot-human girlfriend Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). See the reasons why Thor this time flees from Asgard are noble ones as SPOILER ALERT Thor's mother Frigga (Rene Russo) is murdered by Malekith and his right-hand man Algrim, aka Kurze (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a piece of the aforementioned aether is just under the skin of Jane Foster who is brought to Asgard which in turn attracts Malekith to the god-city in order to what was once his most powerful weapon. These are noble reasons indeed and I just can't see why Thor is forced to flee from Asgard in order to achieve them, perhaps it is in part because he releases the already proven-untrustworthy and Disney-corporation-evil Loki from prison to help him achieve these goals.
This is probably the main gripe I had with Dark World apart from one, probably more important, factor that didn't bother me so much but did indeed niggle at the back of my mind like taking out a room-full of foes in Battlefield 3 (2011) and then realising you have plenty of ammo left but only one bullet left in your clip thus leaving you with the annoying choice of either shooting out a firing-slit in the wall or reloading. In the first film there was a definite reality and sense that we all as the viewers knew the mood of each scene and what to feel when watching each scene thereof. In Dark World there are definitely palpable moods to most of the scenes such as grief, desperation, determined valour (particularly in the final battle in the third act) or swashbuckling excitement. But one factor that definitely puts the first film above Dark World in terms of pacing and emotional setting is the fact that Dark World interchanges most of its big action-set-pieces or small skirmishes or even emotional scenes with moments of comedy. Now admittedly, while these moments of comedy were well-executed, the frequency with which they were dropped in between the more important moments of plot and character development made for some slightly jarring feelings I had like when one important character dies and I'm supposed to laugh almost immediately afterwards. It isn't really a big problem but it is quite irritating.
Despite this little rash on the film's otherwise good performance, it does one-up the first Thor on one very notable aspect of the story. In Dark World Thor is clearly shown to be up against far greater odds against a far greater threat with far greater stakes. In the first film, Loki was prepared to demolish a town in Texas to take over Asgard, but in Dark World Malekith clearly raises the stakes by not only forcing Thor to go on a forbidden crusade of vengeance but also threatens his Father, Brother, girlfriend, SPOILER ALERT AGAIN kills his mum, threatens to snuff out any semblance of light in the nine realms of Norse mythology, threatens the destruction of Asgard, threatens the destruction of Earth (or Midgard as the Norse gods refer to it) and threatens the literal existence of life as we know it throughout the nine realms altogether. This adds a greater sense of tension and suspense to Dark World than the first Thor had as Thor's sometimes desperate plans to defeat Malekith are truly justified as is his desperation, heroism and pseudo-reckless attitude towards battle. All this is emphasised even more so as Malekith himself is extremely powerful nearer towards the end and is ever backed up by his powerful forces of foot soldiers and badass, knife-like magical space ships. Yes that sounds dumb but MAN do they ever look cool.
As for the action, its pretty much the same quality as in the first film. In my personal opinion, whereas the fight before the finale in the last Thor that was most memorable had to be Thor's battle against the destroyer, in this one it has to be the clash during the battle of Asgard where Heimdall (Idris 'badass' Elba) takes on one of the dark elves ships with daggers LIKE A BAWS and blows it THE FUCK UP. In general the action is pretty much equal in both films with slight differences such as the action in the first film being driven more by Thor's strive for moral redemption while the action in Dark World is driven more by the character's frantic desperation to win the battle.
So while the action and plot is still as good as it was in the first film, I am glad to say that the rest of the film including acting, costumes and camera-work is still on par with the first film. There isn't much to say about the acting in the Thor films in particular as they both feature well-talented actors who seem to be more acting out their favourite Saturday cartoon characters and simply having fun, and boy does it work well for them. Unlike the other Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe films where the main character is either a slightly stereotypical characture of a country's patriotism (I.e. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)) or a confident but emotionally unstable embodiment of a common character trait (I.e. Iron Man (2008)) and this in turn reflects onto the other characters in those films, the main character in the Thor films seems to be somewhat aware of his own emotional, psychological and physical limitations which in turn radiates off onto the other characters. This means that the characters in the Thor films are given a bit more freedom to simply have fun acting as the main character is a bit more of a stronger emotional anchor for them to behave off of more so than in the other Marvel films in general (with possible exception to the very underrated first two Punisher films (2004 and 2008)).
Camera-work still is excellent as well. Particularly in the formulaic but nonetheless beautiful panning and far-landscape shots we are shown either the destruction being wrought by Malekith's dastardly schemes and evil forces or the majesty of the golden and shining city of Asgard. Equally shining in this film to the same extent that it was so in the first Thor are the costumes. In particular this time round, I very much myself liked the armour that Natalie Portman wears for a few scenes in the middle of the film (although it doesn't seem to serve a great deal of purpose) and the uniforms for Malekith's dark elf soldiers which definitely express their dark and evil nature and heritage.
One last compliment I must give to the film as well is the exposition it gives at the beginning of the film. Now exposition at the beginning of a film with a daring or epic universe and/or premise is a very difficult thing to do at times and has certainly been done wrong an innumerable amount of times (E.g. for good examples of bad exposition at the beginning of a film see films like Howard the Duck (1986) or Alone In The Dark (2005)). But Thor: The Dark World manages this very well by combining excellent narration at the beginning of the film by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, telling us how aeons ago the evil Malekith was defeated and forced into hiding by the fearsome and noble might of the Asgardians led by Odin's father Bor. With this great exposition coupled with a great opening action scene and very good special effects I guarantee you will be drawn into the drama of the film very quickly.
In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World IS FUCKIN' AWESOME WITH A SIDE OF GARLIC MASHED POTATO AND COLESLAW. The quality of action, acting, characters, plot, camera-work and direction is still the same as the first film which is always a plus if the first film in a franchise is as good as the first Thor. Perhaps this might come across as a bit disappointing to some people who were hoping for an even greater improvement on the first Thor but really, I don't think it matters so much. I would recommend watching the first Thor first if you're not familiar to the series but going into Dark World with an open mind wouldn't hurt to be honest. The only real criticisms I would have for Thor: The Dark World would be the fact that sometimes the emotional pacing and balance in certain scenes is not up to the same par as in the first film while the deaths of some main characters are pushed aside insultingly quickly. On top of this I wish the ending would've included a little more clarity than it did and also wish that Christopher Eccleston's turn as Malekith had gotten more screen-time. Regardless of this however, I would still say that Thor: The Dark World is a must see and mead-kegs worth of fun for the youngest children to the most noble of Asgardian gods.
Plot: 8.35/10
Action: 9/10
Characters/acting: 8.25/10
OVERALL RATING: 25.6/30
The first Thor film which was released in 2011, was good and a great box office hit for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was a hit particularly with young kids because the little ones always enjoy a bit of action mixed with humour and represented by shining knights in armour representing things like freedom, justice and other noble traits. Adults also made this film a success because they had kids like that or simply wanted to see it themselves for a simple bit of fun while teenagers pretty much went to see it on the same reasons. On top of this, the film itself was great as it had loads of well-filmed and done action, colourful characters, even more colourful sets and costumes, an easy-to-explain but also deep mythos and universe and of course, great acting by Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as the Norse god of mischief and evil Loki and Anthony Hopkins as the regal but wise Norse all-father god Odin.
Now the story isn't a huge deal different from the film that it is a sequel to so there is no real need to go into too much depth of its description. Thor must face an enemy attacking from the outside and within (this time its the murderous but wily dark elves) in order to prevent them from stealing some ancient maguffin of untold power (this time its a floating, reddish-black liquid called the aether) led by a foe unexpected by the Asgardian gods (Malekith the cursed played by an under-used Christopher Eccleston) and do this while having been cast out by his father Odin for a crime of disobedience (this time its disobeying his orders to wait for Malekith to return to Asgard after the first battle there).
There are a few differences in Dark World in terms of the story in particular though. Firstly, something I was particularly interested by was the exact reason why Thor was cast out of Asgard in this film in the sense that this time round, the reason for him being forced into temporary exile is less selfish and more noble than in the first Thor. In the first film, Thor was banished for going to the realm of the frost-giants and giving them a real good Mike Tyson-style beating despite the fact that Odin made it very clear that doing so was not needed and would only bring ruin to the doorstep of Asgard which indeed did happen. This made Thor's struggle to better himself in the film more compelling as he had a very real character trait that he needed to get rid of while redeeming himself for a really damn stupid crime. On the other hand Thor is thrown out of Asgard in Dark World for simply following an actually noble reason for vengeance and going against Asgardian tradition in order to save the lives of the men in the Asgardian army and his non-goddess-normal-nerdy-but-hot-human girlfriend Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). See the reasons why Thor this time flees from Asgard are noble ones as SPOILER ALERT Thor's mother Frigga (Rene Russo) is murdered by Malekith and his right-hand man Algrim, aka Kurze (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a piece of the aforementioned aether is just under the skin of Jane Foster who is brought to Asgard which in turn attracts Malekith to the god-city in order to what was once his most powerful weapon. These are noble reasons indeed and I just can't see why Thor is forced to flee from Asgard in order to achieve them, perhaps it is in part because he releases the already proven-untrustworthy and Disney-corporation-evil Loki from prison to help him achieve these goals.
This is probably the main gripe I had with Dark World apart from one, probably more important, factor that didn't bother me so much but did indeed niggle at the back of my mind like taking out a room-full of foes in Battlefield 3 (2011) and then realising you have plenty of ammo left but only one bullet left in your clip thus leaving you with the annoying choice of either shooting out a firing-slit in the wall or reloading. In the first film there was a definite reality and sense that we all as the viewers knew the mood of each scene and what to feel when watching each scene thereof. In Dark World there are definitely palpable moods to most of the scenes such as grief, desperation, determined valour (particularly in the final battle in the third act) or swashbuckling excitement. But one factor that definitely puts the first film above Dark World in terms of pacing and emotional setting is the fact that Dark World interchanges most of its big action-set-pieces or small skirmishes or even emotional scenes with moments of comedy. Now admittedly, while these moments of comedy were well-executed, the frequency with which they were dropped in between the more important moments of plot and character development made for some slightly jarring feelings I had like when one important character dies and I'm supposed to laugh almost immediately afterwards. It isn't really a big problem but it is quite irritating.
Despite this little rash on the film's otherwise good performance, it does one-up the first Thor on one very notable aspect of the story. In Dark World Thor is clearly shown to be up against far greater odds against a far greater threat with far greater stakes. In the first film, Loki was prepared to demolish a town in Texas to take over Asgard, but in Dark World Malekith clearly raises the stakes by not only forcing Thor to go on a forbidden crusade of vengeance but also threatens his Father, Brother, girlfriend, SPOILER ALERT AGAIN kills his mum, threatens to snuff out any semblance of light in the nine realms of Norse mythology, threatens the destruction of Asgard, threatens the destruction of Earth (or Midgard as the Norse gods refer to it) and threatens the literal existence of life as we know it throughout the nine realms altogether. This adds a greater sense of tension and suspense to Dark World than the first Thor had as Thor's sometimes desperate plans to defeat Malekith are truly justified as is his desperation, heroism and pseudo-reckless attitude towards battle. All this is emphasised even more so as Malekith himself is extremely powerful nearer towards the end and is ever backed up by his powerful forces of foot soldiers and badass, knife-like magical space ships. Yes that sounds dumb but MAN do they ever look cool.
As for the action, its pretty much the same quality as in the first film. In my personal opinion, whereas the fight before the finale in the last Thor that was most memorable had to be Thor's battle against the destroyer, in this one it has to be the clash during the battle of Asgard where Heimdall (Idris 'badass' Elba) takes on one of the dark elves ships with daggers LIKE A BAWS and blows it THE FUCK UP. In general the action is pretty much equal in both films with slight differences such as the action in the first film being driven more by Thor's strive for moral redemption while the action in Dark World is driven more by the character's frantic desperation to win the battle.
So while the action and plot is still as good as it was in the first film, I am glad to say that the rest of the film including acting, costumes and camera-work is still on par with the first film. There isn't much to say about the acting in the Thor films in particular as they both feature well-talented actors who seem to be more acting out their favourite Saturday cartoon characters and simply having fun, and boy does it work well for them. Unlike the other Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe films where the main character is either a slightly stereotypical characture of a country's patriotism (I.e. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)) or a confident but emotionally unstable embodiment of a common character trait (I.e. Iron Man (2008)) and this in turn reflects onto the other characters in those films, the main character in the Thor films seems to be somewhat aware of his own emotional, psychological and physical limitations which in turn radiates off onto the other characters. This means that the characters in the Thor films are given a bit more freedom to simply have fun acting as the main character is a bit more of a stronger emotional anchor for them to behave off of more so than in the other Marvel films in general (with possible exception to the very underrated first two Punisher films (2004 and 2008)).
Camera-work still is excellent as well. Particularly in the formulaic but nonetheless beautiful panning and far-landscape shots we are shown either the destruction being wrought by Malekith's dastardly schemes and evil forces or the majesty of the golden and shining city of Asgard. Equally shining in this film to the same extent that it was so in the first Thor are the costumes. In particular this time round, I very much myself liked the armour that Natalie Portman wears for a few scenes in the middle of the film (although it doesn't seem to serve a great deal of purpose) and the uniforms for Malekith's dark elf soldiers which definitely express their dark and evil nature and heritage.
One last compliment I must give to the film as well is the exposition it gives at the beginning of the film. Now exposition at the beginning of a film with a daring or epic universe and/or premise is a very difficult thing to do at times and has certainly been done wrong an innumerable amount of times (E.g. for good examples of bad exposition at the beginning of a film see films like Howard the Duck (1986) or Alone In The Dark (2005)). But Thor: The Dark World manages this very well by combining excellent narration at the beginning of the film by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, telling us how aeons ago the evil Malekith was defeated and forced into hiding by the fearsome and noble might of the Asgardians led by Odin's father Bor. With this great exposition coupled with a great opening action scene and very good special effects I guarantee you will be drawn into the drama of the film very quickly.
In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World IS FUCKIN' AWESOME WITH A SIDE OF GARLIC MASHED POTATO AND COLESLAW. The quality of action, acting, characters, plot, camera-work and direction is still the same as the first film which is always a plus if the first film in a franchise is as good as the first Thor. Perhaps this might come across as a bit disappointing to some people who were hoping for an even greater improvement on the first Thor but really, I don't think it matters so much. I would recommend watching the first Thor first if you're not familiar to the series but going into Dark World with an open mind wouldn't hurt to be honest. The only real criticisms I would have for Thor: The Dark World would be the fact that sometimes the emotional pacing and balance in certain scenes is not up to the same par as in the first film while the deaths of some main characters are pushed aside insultingly quickly. On top of this I wish the ending would've included a little more clarity than it did and also wish that Christopher Eccleston's turn as Malekith had gotten more screen-time. Regardless of this however, I would still say that Thor: The Dark World is a must see and mead-kegs worth of fun for the youngest children to the most noble of Asgardian gods.
Plot: 8.35/10
Action: 9/10
Characters/acting: 8.25/10
OVERALL RATING: 25.6/30
Monday, 14 October 2013
Old film review #5: Fantastic Four (2005)
Ah tis good to be back! Admittedly I wanted to do another few reviews while I was away volunteering in China and you guys are probably a bit exasperated with me by now seeing as how lax I can be with updating this blog but the Internet connection was so bad where I was staying that I could only mostly access my E-mails and some flash game websites. On top of that, the Chinese government banned the use of IMDB.com years ago and I'm not even sure if Blogger is allowed in China either.
Either way, I apologise for the long period of wait that you guys have been put through since my top ten lists for best selling music albums. So I thought that the best way to make up would be to rip on a terrifically bad superhero movie with a great cast, very little passionate acting, formulaic writing, even more formulaic storyline and plot and utterly forgettable action. So without further ado ladies and gentlemen; the legendary 2005 flop Fantastic Four!
Now I've decided on a quick revision of reviewing old films so that now I can only review them if they are more than 5 years old just to make things a bit more balanced. Now admittedly, the last 30 years or so have been a rough period for comic book heroes in films excluding four particular series namely; the Superman series starring Christopher Reeve (barring Superman IV), the Spider Man series starring Tobey Maguire, the Batman series starring Christian Bale (maybe barring the overrated Dark Night Rises) and the mega-giant marvel ultimate cinematic universe that came together last year with The Avengers. Aside from these series's (and maybe the Punisher movies) the superhero movies of the last 30 or so years have sucked balls. Particularly in the early 1990s-mid 2000s, the quality of this genre was at a low point as many if not most superhero films at the time had their original back-stories drowned in plot devices and basic-formula storytelling. This was so that, particularly with more obscure comic book films such as Steel (1997) and The Phantom (1996), the original source material of the comic book character in question could be told more quickly and simply as is deserving of the silver screen. This however made it so that many superhero films at the time had warped back-stories that straight up pissed off fans of the source material and overly-formulaic plots and characters that basically dissuaded anyone else from watching these dreadful shitfests.
Nowhere is this more apparent after 2000 than with the 2005 crash Fantastic Four which unlike many other superhero films in the 1990s and early-2000s, worked with source material based off of one of the most recognisable and popular superhero team franchises of the last several decades. Despite the back-story of the FF comic book team being popularly simple and enjoyable, director Tim Story and basically anyone else who worked alongside him on this doomed endeavour made the back story of the Fantastic Four even more simple than it already was and then dropped a thousand tonnes of over-simplification of original comic book plot points in to boot. This meant that what was supposed to be the milestone of comic book films to duet alongside the success of the excellent Spider Man and Spider Man 2 (2002 and 2004 respectively) and mark the true end of the 'dark ages' of superhero films instead became yet another overly-formulaic action romp with forgettable characters based on some of the most iconic comic book heroes ever.
Now naturally I can't really get into ripping into this pile of vile crap without laying out the storyline of the film which thankfully is very simple to outline. As the technology of the modern world advances, failing but skilled scientist Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) (accompanied by his good friend and former NASA pilot Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis)) approach technology and media mogul Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) with plans for an experiment to capture the energy of an oncoming solar storm that could power earth's energy needs for centuries to come cleanly and efficiently. However, even as Doom, Grimm, smoking hot scientist Susan Storm (Jessica Alba) and her hot-headed brother (Chris Evans) are assured by Richard's calculations that they are in no danger whatsoever. The solar storm arrives earlier than expected and hits the space station that our heroes are on while the station's shields are down thus incapacitating the heroes but also giving them latent super powers. As Richards, the Storm siblings and Grimm come to terms with the changes made to their lives by their powers, the already maniacal Von Doom realises that he can finally gain the unlimited power that he has always craved with the powers bestowed upon him by the freak accident. Putting aside their differences and bickering, the 'Fantastic Four' then take on Doom as he attempts to become a god among men and, sing it with me now, 'take over the world'.
Now that sounds simple right? Well it is, but that doesn't mean that the way the story is told has to be overly-simple and formulaic. And that is Fantastic Four's problem, it was marketed as being a benchmark in the history of superhero films but ended up being just as any other blockbuster release in 2005 was in terms of deep plot and characters. In fact allot more went wrong with this film. To say that it over-simplified the back-story of the FF is just the tip of the metaphorical shit-coloured-iceberg that is this film. To start with, the best superhero films have tended to be the ones that most closely followed the source material (i.e. see Spider Man (2002) and Iron Man (2008)) and while Fantastic Four does that to an extent, it takes out a few key features of the FF's back-story and also takes a notably long time (about 20-30 minutes if my memory serves me) to get to the point in the film when the super-powers manifest.
All the while we are waiting for said powers to manifest, we are bombarded with formulaic back-story to the individual characters that in truth had nothing to do with the original ones from the popular comic book series such as Susan and Reed already having been in a relationship before the film's plot-line begins. This is actually pretty common with films such as Fantastic Four which have classical source material to base the film off of but go over the top with the well-meaning modern spin that aims to give the film itself punch and grip with a modern audience. Unfortunately, with Fantastic Four and other films that go far too down the same road (i.e. see the live-action The Smurfs (2011)) end up just fluffing the storyline and plot so much so by doing this that by the time that we get to the iconic moments and the gripping action, we may have already lost interest in the deep meaning behind the plot and the individual characters
Unfortunately, once the action arrives, it is pretty freaking tame in terms of the level of action a super hero film should be aspiring to. Films such as Iron Man (2008), The Punisher (2004) and X-Men: First Class (2011) had pretty gripping action scenes with iconic moments such as a guy getting boiling soup thrown in his face in The Punisher and a man getting a coin pushed through his skull by the force of super-powered magnetism in X-Men: First Class. By this I mean that if you watch Fantastic Four solely on the basis of its action scenes, you'd likely think it was any old blockbuster based off of any old last-minute plot (see Lockout (2012)). On top of that, the main villain in the film, Dr Victor Von Doom, is very easily beaten in the film's climax by what is, admittedly, a notably interesting display of knowledge of physics for a common summer blockbuster movie. Furthermore, after the battle is won, there is this scene that straight out rips off the last scene from Raiders of The Lost Ark (1981) by showing that Doom is being shipped off to prison thus setting up the basis for the sequel (which later turned out to be worse than this festering pile of human torch poo).
As for the characters, I mentioned earlier that much of the film is smothered by generic plot-stuffing and modernising of the FF's original back-story and the characters themselves are no exception. Despite the fact that all the four main characters have clearly individual flaws, they all seem to be reading from the same acting sheet on how to show emotion because THEY ALL ACT THE BLOODY SAME. I wouldn't mind this so much if we were only working with a duet for our main characters (i.e. The Road (2009)) but I mean come on people! That shit just won't fly with a quartet of characters who are vastly different in the film's source material, will it?
Mind you though, I didn't really mind the main characters, despite all their blandness and occasional monotony. Chris Evans as Johnny Storm (aka The Human Torch) tries to show how much of a douchy, party-boy his character originally was, Jessica Alba is the most bland out of the main four but is still hot as hell, Michael Chiklis manages to show how tragic a situation his character (Ben Grimm aka The Thing) finds himself in socially after his transformation and Ioan Gruffudd manages to do at least a satisfactory job in the acting department with the less-than-noteworthy script he clearly had to deal with.
Yet while these guys are simply bland, the main bad guy Von Doom, played brilliantly over-the-top by Julian McMahon, is probably the sole factor with the most problems relating to it throughout the whole film. Firstly, McMahon plays his part so overly dramatically that I kept thinking he was going to magically turn into Ming the Merciless during one of his many scenes where he's sitting in a leather chair in a half-darkened room, stroking his chiselled chin with a bejewelled finger while you look at his smug face contemplating whether to kill or torture his enemies, to exploit or crush his rivals and whether to have orange juice just before or just after brushing his teeth. Furthermore, while the back-stories of the other characters were only changed a little bit, Von Doom's is almost wholly changed for a rather unnecessary reason.
In the original comics, Von Doom is portrayed as a tyrant in the fictional nation of Latveria who makes use of powerful technology mixed with even more powerful intellect and magic to make himself the FF's most dangerous adversary. In the film however, he's your stereotypical poster boy for the evils of corporate capitalism in the western world by being even more smug, sardonically evil and leering than he is in the original comics. On top of this, the powers that Doom has in the film pretty much just seem to extend to the absorption of energy and the firing of laser bolts which is about a hundredth of what the Doom from the comics can do in all his over-powered glory. On top of this, Doom is shown to be powerful in the film, but (SPOILER WARNING) why does he manage to survive a force-field-contained supernova that he's at the centre of when there are clear gaps in his armour and when there's no clear explanation of his durability.
Now I would usually recommend that you'd watch a bad film just to see one or two iconically or obscure great bits in a bad film but I'm not playing that magic card here. In all honesty, this film is all bad with an overly generic-modern take on the storyline of the original source material, good actors being wasted on a terrible script, tame action and a villain that might as well have been half of the blockbuster villains from action films in the 80s mixed together then mixed with crack cocaine. Hell not even Alba's hotness can save this disaster from ever being remembered as one of the worst superhero films...still...at least its not as bad as the sequel.
Plot: 5 /10
Characters: 4/10
Camerawork: 5/10
Action: 3 /10
Overall: 17/40
Either way, I apologise for the long period of wait that you guys have been put through since my top ten lists for best selling music albums. So I thought that the best way to make up would be to rip on a terrifically bad superhero movie with a great cast, very little passionate acting, formulaic writing, even more formulaic storyline and plot and utterly forgettable action. So without further ado ladies and gentlemen; the legendary 2005 flop Fantastic Four!
Now I've decided on a quick revision of reviewing old films so that now I can only review them if they are more than 5 years old just to make things a bit more balanced. Now admittedly, the last 30 years or so have been a rough period for comic book heroes in films excluding four particular series namely; the Superman series starring Christopher Reeve (barring Superman IV), the Spider Man series starring Tobey Maguire, the Batman series starring Christian Bale (maybe barring the overrated Dark Night Rises) and the mega-giant marvel ultimate cinematic universe that came together last year with The Avengers. Aside from these series's (and maybe the Punisher movies) the superhero movies of the last 30 or so years have sucked balls. Particularly in the early 1990s-mid 2000s, the quality of this genre was at a low point as many if not most superhero films at the time had their original back-stories drowned in plot devices and basic-formula storytelling. This was so that, particularly with more obscure comic book films such as Steel (1997) and The Phantom (1996), the original source material of the comic book character in question could be told more quickly and simply as is deserving of the silver screen. This however made it so that many superhero films at the time had warped back-stories that straight up pissed off fans of the source material and overly-formulaic plots and characters that basically dissuaded anyone else from watching these dreadful shitfests.
Nowhere is this more apparent after 2000 than with the 2005 crash Fantastic Four which unlike many other superhero films in the 1990s and early-2000s, worked with source material based off of one of the most recognisable and popular superhero team franchises of the last several decades. Despite the back-story of the FF comic book team being popularly simple and enjoyable, director Tim Story and basically anyone else who worked alongside him on this doomed endeavour made the back story of the Fantastic Four even more simple than it already was and then dropped a thousand tonnes of over-simplification of original comic book plot points in to boot. This meant that what was supposed to be the milestone of comic book films to duet alongside the success of the excellent Spider Man and Spider Man 2 (2002 and 2004 respectively) and mark the true end of the 'dark ages' of superhero films instead became yet another overly-formulaic action romp with forgettable characters based on some of the most iconic comic book heroes ever.
Now naturally I can't really get into ripping into this pile of vile crap without laying out the storyline of the film which thankfully is very simple to outline. As the technology of the modern world advances, failing but skilled scientist Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd) (accompanied by his good friend and former NASA pilot Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis)) approach technology and media mogul Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) with plans for an experiment to capture the energy of an oncoming solar storm that could power earth's energy needs for centuries to come cleanly and efficiently. However, even as Doom, Grimm, smoking hot scientist Susan Storm (Jessica Alba) and her hot-headed brother (Chris Evans) are assured by Richard's calculations that they are in no danger whatsoever. The solar storm arrives earlier than expected and hits the space station that our heroes are on while the station's shields are down thus incapacitating the heroes but also giving them latent super powers. As Richards, the Storm siblings and Grimm come to terms with the changes made to their lives by their powers, the already maniacal Von Doom realises that he can finally gain the unlimited power that he has always craved with the powers bestowed upon him by the freak accident. Putting aside their differences and bickering, the 'Fantastic Four' then take on Doom as he attempts to become a god among men and, sing it with me now, 'take over the world'.
Now that sounds simple right? Well it is, but that doesn't mean that the way the story is told has to be overly-simple and formulaic. And that is Fantastic Four's problem, it was marketed as being a benchmark in the history of superhero films but ended up being just as any other blockbuster release in 2005 was in terms of deep plot and characters. In fact allot more went wrong with this film. To say that it over-simplified the back-story of the FF is just the tip of the metaphorical shit-coloured-iceberg that is this film. To start with, the best superhero films have tended to be the ones that most closely followed the source material (i.e. see Spider Man (2002) and Iron Man (2008)) and while Fantastic Four does that to an extent, it takes out a few key features of the FF's back-story and also takes a notably long time (about 20-30 minutes if my memory serves me) to get to the point in the film when the super-powers manifest.
All the while we are waiting for said powers to manifest, we are bombarded with formulaic back-story to the individual characters that in truth had nothing to do with the original ones from the popular comic book series such as Susan and Reed already having been in a relationship before the film's plot-line begins. This is actually pretty common with films such as Fantastic Four which have classical source material to base the film off of but go over the top with the well-meaning modern spin that aims to give the film itself punch and grip with a modern audience. Unfortunately, with Fantastic Four and other films that go far too down the same road (i.e. see the live-action The Smurfs (2011)) end up just fluffing the storyline and plot so much so by doing this that by the time that we get to the iconic moments and the gripping action, we may have already lost interest in the deep meaning behind the plot and the individual characters
Unfortunately, once the action arrives, it is pretty freaking tame in terms of the level of action a super hero film should be aspiring to. Films such as Iron Man (2008), The Punisher (2004) and X-Men: First Class (2011) had pretty gripping action scenes with iconic moments such as a guy getting boiling soup thrown in his face in The Punisher and a man getting a coin pushed through his skull by the force of super-powered magnetism in X-Men: First Class. By this I mean that if you watch Fantastic Four solely on the basis of its action scenes, you'd likely think it was any old blockbuster based off of any old last-minute plot (see Lockout (2012)). On top of that, the main villain in the film, Dr Victor Von Doom, is very easily beaten in the film's climax by what is, admittedly, a notably interesting display of knowledge of physics for a common summer blockbuster movie. Furthermore, after the battle is won, there is this scene that straight out rips off the last scene from Raiders of The Lost Ark (1981) by showing that Doom is being shipped off to prison thus setting up the basis for the sequel (which later turned out to be worse than this festering pile of human torch poo).
As for the characters, I mentioned earlier that much of the film is smothered by generic plot-stuffing and modernising of the FF's original back-story and the characters themselves are no exception. Despite the fact that all the four main characters have clearly individual flaws, they all seem to be reading from the same acting sheet on how to show emotion because THEY ALL ACT THE BLOODY SAME. I wouldn't mind this so much if we were only working with a duet for our main characters (i.e. The Road (2009)) but I mean come on people! That shit just won't fly with a quartet of characters who are vastly different in the film's source material, will it?
Mind you though, I didn't really mind the main characters, despite all their blandness and occasional monotony. Chris Evans as Johnny Storm (aka The Human Torch) tries to show how much of a douchy, party-boy his character originally was, Jessica Alba is the most bland out of the main four but is still hot as hell, Michael Chiklis manages to show how tragic a situation his character (Ben Grimm aka The Thing) finds himself in socially after his transformation and Ioan Gruffudd manages to do at least a satisfactory job in the acting department with the less-than-noteworthy script he clearly had to deal with.
Yet while these guys are simply bland, the main bad guy Von Doom, played brilliantly over-the-top by Julian McMahon, is probably the sole factor with the most problems relating to it throughout the whole film. Firstly, McMahon plays his part so overly dramatically that I kept thinking he was going to magically turn into Ming the Merciless during one of his many scenes where he's sitting in a leather chair in a half-darkened room, stroking his chiselled chin with a bejewelled finger while you look at his smug face contemplating whether to kill or torture his enemies, to exploit or crush his rivals and whether to have orange juice just before or just after brushing his teeth. Furthermore, while the back-stories of the other characters were only changed a little bit, Von Doom's is almost wholly changed for a rather unnecessary reason.
In the original comics, Von Doom is portrayed as a tyrant in the fictional nation of Latveria who makes use of powerful technology mixed with even more powerful intellect and magic to make himself the FF's most dangerous adversary. In the film however, he's your stereotypical poster boy for the evils of corporate capitalism in the western world by being even more smug, sardonically evil and leering than he is in the original comics. On top of this, the powers that Doom has in the film pretty much just seem to extend to the absorption of energy and the firing of laser bolts which is about a hundredth of what the Doom from the comics can do in all his over-powered glory. On top of this, Doom is shown to be powerful in the film, but (SPOILER WARNING) why does he manage to survive a force-field-contained supernova that he's at the centre of when there are clear gaps in his armour and when there's no clear explanation of his durability.
Now I would usually recommend that you'd watch a bad film just to see one or two iconically or obscure great bits in a bad film but I'm not playing that magic card here. In all honesty, this film is all bad with an overly generic-modern take on the storyline of the original source material, good actors being wasted on a terrible script, tame action and a villain that might as well have been half of the blockbuster villains from action films in the 80s mixed together then mixed with crack cocaine. Hell not even Alba's hotness can save this disaster from ever being remembered as one of the worst superhero films...still...at least its not as bad as the sequel.
Plot: 5 /10
Characters: 4/10
Camerawork: 5/10
Action: 3 /10
Overall: 17/40
Monday, 2 September 2013
Ted R's top tens #4: Top ten best selling music albums (as of September 2013)
Now this isn't something I'm used to doing. You guys all know that my forte on this blog is to review either video games or movies or do top tens about those things and maybe historical facts and occasionally add in a food review or two. But in all honesty I've never really thought of doing a post about music and seeing as how its probably the most expansive celebrity profession in the modern world I thought to myself, 'ah sod it, if there are Youtubers reviewing songs then I may as well do something similar'. Thus, LO AND BEHOLD! Here cometh the top ten selling music albums of all time! (as of 28th August 2013).
Naturally everyone has their own tastes so some of the entries on this list may cause a few ruffled brows and mildly heightened blood pressures but even taking this into account, one cannot deny the popularity of an album or similar medium on the basis of how much it sells. Therefore I'm discounting popularity as something to measure these albums by and am instead basing their height on the list solely on the number of copies sold. Now without further ado, lets get down on the dance floor!
Naturally everyone has their own tastes so some of the entries on this list may cause a few ruffled brows and mildly heightened blood pressures but even taking this into account, one cannot deny the popularity of an album or similar medium on the basis of how much it sells. Therefore I'm discounting popularity as something to measure these albums by and am instead basing their height on the list solely on the number of copies sold. Now without further ado, lets get down on the dance floor!
#10: Bat out of Hell by Meat Loaf (released 1977, tracks-7, genre-progressive & hard rock, produced by-Todd Rundgren)
In all honesty I thought that the likes of a progressive & hard rock album might not have a chance of appearing on this top ten (no offence intended to Meat Loaf fans or fans of the genres in general) because I've always thought of the two genres of progressive and hard rock as not being mainstream enough to grant wholesale success in sales. But considering the cult following that artists like Meat Loaf have with their music and persona's to this day so many years after the golden years for hard rock in the later 20th century, perhaps this shouldn't appear as too much of a surprise to anyone with even limited knowledge of the genre.
In turn it seems that this most certainly translates into sales for Meat Loaf's best selling album of the 1970s which features the songs "Bat out of Hell", "You took the words right out of my mouth", "Heaven can wait", "All revved up with no place to go", "Two out of three ain't bad", the three part "Paradise by the dashboard light" and "For crying out loud". Oddly enough though, sales for the album were slow despite it reaching 34 million sales, 20.5 million of which were certified and yet since the lukewarm reaction to the album it has since become hugely popular in the UK, US and Australia and elsewhere while reaching such high positions on other lists such as 9th on Australia's top ten most popular albums and 38th on the top 100 heavy metal albums list in a 1989 edition of Kerrang! magazine.
Unfortunately, despite the popularity that the album has garnered for itself, those involved in its production and the good Mr Meat Loaf himself one of its most lasting aspects have been the legal conflicts between Cleveland International and Sony Records over branding featured on copies of the album between 1995 and 2007.
#9: Led Zeppelin IV by Led Zeppelin (released 1971, tracks-8, genre-hard rock & heavy metal, produced by-Jimmy Page)
Hmm, you know I just thought of something about music and film in the 70s. Perhaps the reason why there was such a big swing from softer forms of rock, swing and other slightly older fashioned genres of music in the 1970s is because of the broadening of social horizons and consciousness at this time due to events such as the cold war and Vietnam war which challenged thoughts in the minds of common citizens that supported pro-conventional/establishment sentiments. Perhaps that's the reason why bands like Led Zeppelin and artists like Meat Loaf were so huge not so long after the, in hindsight, lyrically tame phenomenons like Elvis and the Beatles in the 60s and 50s. Therefore it should be no surprise that this cultural swing in the early and mid-70s resulted in Led Zeppelin's best selling album of the 1970s reaching approximately 37 million sales in 1971, 29 million of which were certified.
Yet whereas like Bat out of Hell had a lukewarm initial appearance onto the scene of musical success, Led Zeppelin IV was a smash hit from the 'go' resulting in a smashing 23 million copies sold in the USA alone, generally good reception by critics upon release and high placement on popularity lists such as being placed 4th on the US Rock and Roll's hall of fame's '200 albums of all time'. Not only this, the album stayed longer on US charts than any other by the band since and was praised for being one of the best albums of the year of its release what with being titled as a 'masterpiece' of ground-breaking song writing thus making the album not only popular but also culturally ingrained in the minds of Led Zeppelin fans for decades to come.
#8: Come on over by Shania Twain (released 1997, tracks-12, genre-country/pop/rock, produced by-Robert Lange)
Sigh. I'm not going to lie, and I don't mean any offence to Ms Twain, her many fans and the other up and coming musicians who think that country is more credible against the other main current genres (i.e. pop, rap, rock and modern R&B/soul) but I don't think that country music is collectively all that good (I'm looking at you Taylor Swift, you bloody psycho-ex-girlfriend nut-case). Now there are some individual songs within the genre that I think are are as delicious as mature Brie with premium onion marmalade on a freshly baked baguette (i.e. "I feel like a woman" which is the best song on this album by far). But for the most part I'd have to say that most country songs just don't appeal to me on the basis of how I think that most country tracks sound mono-note and are devoid of much variety in theme and tune.
Still, none can deny the popularity of Ms Twain's smash hit album of the late 1990s which sold a smashing 39 million copies, nearly 30 million of which were certified and resulted in Twain becoming vastly more famous than she was before by the popularity of her songs placing the album in the US top ten for 151 weeks. Contrary to my earlier point about personal tastes though, the album was praised regardless for melding themes and parts of other genres such as rock into the usual fortes of country without diluting the traditional sense and themes of country music already present in the album's tracks.
#7: The Bodyguard: original soundtrack album by Whitney Houston and various others (released 1992, tracks-13, genre-pop & R&B, produced by-multiple persons including Houston herself)
You know its weird. I swear sometimes that the soundtrack of the legendarily mediocre film The Bodyguard (1992) is more famous. Then again, the dearly departed Ms Houston was more well known throughout her life for her musical talents and any film starring Kevin Costner as one of the main leads is bound to be pretty lukewarm (see Waterworld (1995)). And therein lies the appeal of the album for if any of its songs are featured in a film or show then said film or show will probably be well recognised at least for a short time afterwards.
Case in point, this seems not only to be the case due to the fact that Houston had a shining career studded with stellar popularity but also that the soundtrack for the film of the same name as the album was indeed the best thing about The Bodyguard as its tunes are still recognised today as some of the most recognisable in modern music. In turn it should appear as no surprise to anyone that the album sold around 40 million copies of which 27.4 million sales were certified making the album the best selling of the entire decade which in no doubt contributed to it reaching number one in the album charts in 17 countries. Oddly enough, despite the album's since popular following, The Bodyguard: original soundtrack album received lukewarm reviews upon release usually rating somewhere around the halfway mark thus leaving some to think that the album's success could be pinned on the fame attributed to the dearly departed Ms Houston herself.
Case in point, this seems not only to be the case due to the fact that Houston had a shining career studded with stellar popularity but also that the soundtrack for the film of the same name as the album was indeed the best thing about The Bodyguard as its tunes are still recognised today as some of the most recognisable in modern music. In turn it should appear as no surprise to anyone that the album sold around 40 million copies of which 27.4 million sales were certified making the album the best selling of the entire decade which in no doubt contributed to it reaching number one in the album charts in 17 countries. Oddly enough, despite the album's since popular following, The Bodyguard: original soundtrack album received lukewarm reviews upon release usually rating somewhere around the halfway mark thus leaving some to think that the album's success could be pinned on the fame attributed to the dearly departed Ms Houston herself.
#6: Rumors by Fleetwood Mac (released 1977, tracks-11, genre-soft rock, produced by-Fleetwood Mac, Kan Caillat and Richard Dashut)
Ok, now perhaps unlike the other bands/artists in the other entries in this list, I'm kind of mixed in my opinion towards how good Fleetwood Mac are. Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that the band has amassed considerable popularity and a cult following to rival that of the Clerks film franchise (1994-) but while I do like some of their songs like 'Dreams' I just don't find myself all that interested in their music perhaps simply because it just doesn't fit in with my tastes or that the lyrics of the band's songs don't connect with me much. Just be glad that they aren't as bad in that regard as say someone like Kesha (no I'm not using her stupid fucking stage spelling). Regardless of my film references and mixed feelings towards this band however, no one can deny that the 1977 album 'Rumors' was undeniably popular with a total of notably more than 40 million sales of the album upon its release of which 26.8 million sales were certified.
Fortunately for this popular soft-rock-with-occasional-hints-of-very-mild-techno band, the popularity of the album 'Rumors' is well warranted as unlike the soundtrack album for The Bodyguard this album received largely popular reviews from musical critics and magazines and has continued its popularity into the modern era along with the other works by Fleetwood Mac. In fact, the album was so popular and well received at the time that it received a 35th anniversary re-release and was praised by band member Mick Fleetwood as "The most important album we ever made..." on account of the popularity that the album raised for the band thus enabling it to continue for years to come.
Fortunately for this popular soft-rock-with-occasional-hints-of-very-mild-techno band, the popularity of the album 'Rumors' is well warranted as unlike the soundtrack album for The Bodyguard this album received largely popular reviews from musical critics and magazines and has continued its popularity into the modern era along with the other works by Fleetwood Mac. In fact, the album was so popular and well received at the time that it received a 35th anniversary re-release and was praised by band member Mick Fleetwood as "The most important album we ever made..." on account of the popularity that the album raised for the band thus enabling it to continue for years to come.
#5: Saturday Night Fever by the Bee Gees (released 1977, tracks-17, genre-disco, produced by-Bill Oakes)
THESE GUYS. Man, if the Bee Gees had broken out in an explosion of fame nowadays they'd probably be laughed at for being so high-pitched and being so out of place in how flamboyantly dressed they were in their glory days. Mind you, considering the freaking ridiculous costume wardrobes of artists these days like Nicki Minaj, Rhianna or Lady Gaga maybe they would probably fit right in. However, regardless of how easy it is to poke fun at these legends of disco music, I can't deny that I wholeheartedly enjoy the cheesiness of the band's collective persona and the rhythm of the Bee Gee's music.
Despite the fact that the late-1970s was fast becoming the era of genres like heavier forms of rock and punk rock in the western world, the Bee Gee's top-selling album of all time cannot be denied in its obvious popularity as it sold between 40-41 million copies upon its release, nearly 19 million of which were certified. What is peculiar about this album though, is that like The bodyguard: The original movie soundtrack album, Saturday Night Fever was also a soundtrack album to a film of the same (released in 1977 as well) name which in hindsight is most likely more popular for its soundtrack than its impact on cult popularity or the inclusion of a young John Travolta as the film's main star.
#4: Back in Black by AC/DC (released 1980, tracks-10, genre-hard rock/rock, produced by-Robert Lange)
Again with Mr Lange producing an album on this list? I mean come on people, Shiana Twain and AC/DC play mostly different music apart from a limited connection via both Ms Twain and the immensely popular rock band sometimes sharing the same genre of music in their works. Ah well its not like it matters anyway, after all I definitely prefer the iconically rocking tones of the works of AC/DC over country music in all its twangy and ear-grating anti-glory. Therefore its gratifying (for me personally at least) to know that AC/DC's top-selling album ranks among the top three best-selling rock albums so far in the history of music over a country rock album of sorts (again, I mean absoleutley no intended offence towards Ms Twain and her fans).
On top of this, I was even more gratified to learn that my favourite rock band had nearly 41 million copies of their best-selling album sold upon its release with a whopping 25.9 million of those sales being certified. To add to this, the album's popularity has proven so paramount over the decades that since 1980 it is believed that about 50 million copies of the album have been sold worldwide. Needless to say, the criticism that some might level at AC/DC for not being the most 'metal' heavy rock band may be a valid point in some cases of a few of their songs but the popularity of the band and the sheer popularity of Back in Black is a solid fact that cannot be ignored.
#3: Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975) by The Eagles (released 1976, tracks-15, genre-country rock/folk rock/soft rock/rock, produced by-Glyn Johns & Bill Szymczyk)
Ok now this'll probably piss a few people off but to be honest...don't really care much for The Eagles and their music. Again, I have to say that one's taste in music is wholly subjective from song to song and artist/band to artist/band. So I acknowledge that while I might not pay much attention to the pretentiously-titled top-seller of an album by the famed soft rock band, its position at number 3 on this list is perhaps well deserved because of its sheer popularity and the extended period of best hits of The Eagles that the album covers. Also, not to rag on The Eagles or anything, but the album cover for their greatest-selling album confuses me a little, seriously, what in the blazes is that thing on the cover and what is it sitting in, snow or sand?
But really, this is all fluff when considering the fact that the album sold a massive 42 million copies of which 32.2 million sales were certified upon its release 5 years after the album had begun production. This just goes to prove that even despite one's musical tastes, the popularity of a band is more so measured by the sales that said band makes rather than wider opinions towards said band and its albums. Unfortunately for the music industry this seems increasingly the case with artists who either have little talent (i.e. Souldja Boy or Lil' Wayne) or artists who set a poor example and role model to younger and more impressionable fans (i.e. Justin Beiber). Still, at least The Eagles based their success on a mixture of talent and respectable image (excluding the heated arguments during their 1980 break up). So at least I can praise them for something.
#2: The Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd (released 1973, tracks-10, genre-progressive rock, produced by-Pink Floyd)
Ah, now this is an interesting entry indeed. Not only is it the only entry by a British band/artist on the list, but it is also different to the previous 7 albums that had been released by Pink Floyd beforehand in the sense that it did not include extended instrumental excursions in its tracks. On top of this, the album is also iconic in technical and visual terms. Iconic in visual terms for having one of the most recognisable album covers of all time and also in technical terms for having the majority of the songs on the album based on technical and practical experiments to do with musical alteration and method. This in turns means that the band was more able to express the themes of conflict, greed, the passage of time, death and insanity in a varying and vibrant number of technical manners.
This in turn resulted in The Dark Side of the Moon being the top-selling album by any British band/artist to date in the music industry which is no doubt obvious from the album's staggering 45 million sales, 22.7 of which were certified upon its release. This in turn has translated into the album receiving such praise as being one of the most popular and important albums to musical culture in history so much so that it is a number of albums that has been selected for preservation in the US National Recording Registry of the Library of the US Congress.
#1: Thriller by Michael Jackson (released 1982, tracks-9, genre-post disco/pop/R&B/rock/funk, produced by-Michael Jackson & Quincy Jones)
Okay, lets be honest. everyone but the most ignorant reading this top ten will have seen this coming. Not only is the mighty and dearly deceased MJ regarded as the most popular music artist/personality of all time but his most famous song is the title of his best-selling album. Naturally this would be placed at number one right? I mean think about it, what if this list suddenly took a twist turn and we all of a sudden found out that the top spot was taken by a Bulgarian rural Christmas anthem from the 1970s. Hang on, forgot where I was going with that point.
In all honesty though, what do I really need to say about this entry that already has been said? Its songs are strikingly catchy, three of the most recognisable songs in western music are recorded on the album's roster of tunes, its the most popular album of the most popular artist and its cultural impact particularly on modern genres based on post-disco, pop and R&B are immense (perhaps more so for pop). In turn this means that the album's impact is just as huge as its popularity which translated into 51-65 million sales of the album upon its release, 42.4 million of which were certified.
Subsequently, this huge number of sales of the album have increased in multiple forms of music format even after Michael Jackson's untimely death in 2009 means that Thriller more than earns its place as the most popular and well-sold album of all time in musical history.
Now I hope you all enjoyed this top ten and just wanted to tell you all that I'll be going for a month to work on a panda conservation for a month in China on Friday which means that it may be a little more tricky for me to update with more frequent reviews, top tens and opinion blogs. Still, I have always appreciated the patience of you guys and will try to get one more post up before I go away and attempt to do some while I'm working in China.
In the meantime, take care, care for others around you and if you are angry at my sudden announcement don't blame it on me...blame it on the boogy.
Saturday, 24 August 2013
New film review #10: Only God Forgives
Once in a while there may be a film, game or book franchise that comes out that at first seems refreshingly unique like the UK constitution or either as dysfunctional as a plane hull held together with soggy duct tap. But after a short while tends to get a better recognition on the basis of more rounded and focused analysis by the wider public due to a greater amount of time with which to analyse said franchise. In regards to myself, one such franchise that I have had my views more rounded on over the years has been the Mass Effect series which over the years I have realised, tends to have some of the best storytelling of most game franchises of the last 20 years or so and colourful characters but also suffers from average (albeit testing) game play and a sour ending to the franchise itself. One such franchise or stand-alone instalment that I wholeheartedly know I can say without hesitation that I hate as much as Red Faction 2 is the recent crime-revenge-bloodbath flick Only God Forgives starring everyone's current male heartthrob Ryan Gosling.
Now just before I get into why I think that this film is as confusing as Inception if it was played backwards in German on acid and is about as upbeat and light-hearted as the ending to the anime series School Days (which if you don't know is pretty damn grim and violent) let me say that Ryan Gosling is an actor I have no ire towards. I mean he's about as colourful and emotionless as an ASDA home-brand cucumber and margarine sandwich on plain white bread in this film but he isn't necessarily a bad actor per-say in his other works. Still I can't stand his performance or that of anyone else in this god-forsaken (ba-dum-tish, BTW I'm an Atheist) mess of a film which follows our sternly handsome main character Julian as he attempts to find and reprimand 'crime-family-revenge' style the man in the local Thai community where he lives who killed his paedophillic pus-bag of a brother, Billy.
And that is pretty much the extent of the plot in Only God Forgives, there are twists revealed later in the film about how Julian himself is kind of evil like his brother (prepare for pseudo-incestual and murderous hints in regards to his family relations near the end of the film) and how Julian isn't really the one you would or should trust with avenging your death or protecting you against a corrupt Thai police chief who can seemingly pull a short-sword out of his braces when he wishes. As for the rest of the characters apart from Gosling's Julian, Julian and Billy's mum Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a selfish, egotistical and rude psycho who is just about prepared to let everyone else do all her actions for her in the film, Billy himself is a thoroughly unpleasant piece of greasy shit who introduces himself with his death and rape/murder of a 16-year-old girl in the first 15 mins of the film and the sword-wielding police chief Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm) is utterly alien and confusing in his motives much like Gosling's character is throughout the film.
Now you might have noticed as I mentioned earlier or as other people have said, this film is as bloody as a Nightmare on Elm St film on its menstruation working in a butchers shop with Oldboy (2003) as the shop owner. And sad to say, but unfortunately, the violence is the only real thing that God Only Forgives has going for it and when you build a film with allot of the good old human-flavour Kool-Aid in it albeit without much reason or development behind the gore to make it meaningful then the violence of said blood-letting tends to lose its impact on the viewer and story. Don't get me wrong though, the violence in this film does certainly show the visceral nature of the day-to-day lives that the characters live in as they all compete to see who can live the longest in this world of crime, bloodshed and corruption.
In turn, the way the bloodshed is shown and achieves its objective brings me onto the only other major pro in the film's favour, the cinematography is GORGEOUS. I'm not even kidding or exaggerating when I say that the mood that the shots set are some of the most compelling that I've seen in modern cinema for several years. While the acting is largely emotionless, the cinematography is so good that it actually manages to add some colour, warmth and grounded realism to the film despite the unrealism of how robotic the characters are portrayed as. So take this as a message, if you are ever in need of a film with excellent to settle an argument or possibly write a cinematography essay then use Only God Forgives as an example of cinematography that is as enjoyable as opening your Christmas stocking over a cup of hot chocolate on Christmas morning (a little cheesy I know, but that always sticks out in my mind as a pleasant memory).
So to conclude, this film is one hell of a downer and while that may not be always a bad thing, you at least have to make your film regardless of its mood interesting or at least catching and Only God Forgives fails pretty badly at this. While the cinematography is brilliant and the violence is strikingly reminiscent of some more famous gore-fest, south-east asian flicks the film tends to lose the impact of the grimness of the story and setting and the impact of said violence when the characters are shown to all be unlike-able with no redeeming qualities or likeable traits. On top of this, some of the torture scenes were really fucking hard for me to watch as they literally had me feeling physical pain as I watched them which wasn't helped by the lack of acting with any emotion in it. All in all, don't see this film as it is dull, confusing as hell and gets really freaking creepy towards the end like a paedophile's diary.
Summary: If you want to see something that's grim and has allot of blood and revenge themes in it, see something like Battle Royale (2000) or Oldboy (2003) and steer clear of Only God Forgives.
Characters: 3/10
Plot: 3.5/10
Action: 8/10
Overall: 14.5/30
Now just before I get into why I think that this film is as confusing as Inception if it was played backwards in German on acid and is about as upbeat and light-hearted as the ending to the anime series School Days (which if you don't know is pretty damn grim and violent) let me say that Ryan Gosling is an actor I have no ire towards. I mean he's about as colourful and emotionless as an ASDA home-brand cucumber and margarine sandwich on plain white bread in this film but he isn't necessarily a bad actor per-say in his other works. Still I can't stand his performance or that of anyone else in this god-forsaken (ba-dum-tish, BTW I'm an Atheist) mess of a film which follows our sternly handsome main character Julian as he attempts to find and reprimand 'crime-family-revenge' style the man in the local Thai community where he lives who killed his paedophillic pus-bag of a brother, Billy.
And that is pretty much the extent of the plot in Only God Forgives, there are twists revealed later in the film about how Julian himself is kind of evil like his brother (prepare for pseudo-incestual and murderous hints in regards to his family relations near the end of the film) and how Julian isn't really the one you would or should trust with avenging your death or protecting you against a corrupt Thai police chief who can seemingly pull a short-sword out of his braces when he wishes. As for the rest of the characters apart from Gosling's Julian, Julian and Billy's mum Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a selfish, egotistical and rude psycho who is just about prepared to let everyone else do all her actions for her in the film, Billy himself is a thoroughly unpleasant piece of greasy shit who introduces himself with his death and rape/murder of a 16-year-old girl in the first 15 mins of the film and the sword-wielding police chief Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm) is utterly alien and confusing in his motives much like Gosling's character is throughout the film.
Now you might have noticed as I mentioned earlier or as other people have said, this film is as bloody as a Nightmare on Elm St film on its menstruation working in a butchers shop with Oldboy (2003) as the shop owner. And sad to say, but unfortunately, the violence is the only real thing that God Only Forgives has going for it and when you build a film with allot of the good old human-flavour Kool-Aid in it albeit without much reason or development behind the gore to make it meaningful then the violence of said blood-letting tends to lose its impact on the viewer and story. Don't get me wrong though, the violence in this film does certainly show the visceral nature of the day-to-day lives that the characters live in as they all compete to see who can live the longest in this world of crime, bloodshed and corruption.
In turn, the way the bloodshed is shown and achieves its objective brings me onto the only other major pro in the film's favour, the cinematography is GORGEOUS. I'm not even kidding or exaggerating when I say that the mood that the shots set are some of the most compelling that I've seen in modern cinema for several years. While the acting is largely emotionless, the cinematography is so good that it actually manages to add some colour, warmth and grounded realism to the film despite the unrealism of how robotic the characters are portrayed as. So take this as a message, if you are ever in need of a film with excellent to settle an argument or possibly write a cinematography essay then use Only God Forgives as an example of cinematography that is as enjoyable as opening your Christmas stocking over a cup of hot chocolate on Christmas morning (a little cheesy I know, but that always sticks out in my mind as a pleasant memory).
So to conclude, this film is one hell of a downer and while that may not be always a bad thing, you at least have to make your film regardless of its mood interesting or at least catching and Only God Forgives fails pretty badly at this. While the cinematography is brilliant and the violence is strikingly reminiscent of some more famous gore-fest, south-east asian flicks the film tends to lose the impact of the grimness of the story and setting and the impact of said violence when the characters are shown to all be unlike-able with no redeeming qualities or likeable traits. On top of this, some of the torture scenes were really fucking hard for me to watch as they literally had me feeling physical pain as I watched them which wasn't helped by the lack of acting with any emotion in it. All in all, don't see this film as it is dull, confusing as hell and gets really freaking creepy towards the end like a paedophile's diary.
Summary: If you want to see something that's grim and has allot of blood and revenge themes in it, see something like Battle Royale (2000) or Oldboy (2003) and steer clear of Only God Forgives.
Characters: 3/10
Plot: 3.5/10
Action: 8/10
Overall: 14.5/30
Saturday, 10 August 2013
New film review #9: The Wolverine
Remember what I said a couple of posts ago in my review of Man of Steel that the longer a film franchise goes on then the more likely it is to have as many stinkers as well as golden nuggets? Well the X-men film franchise owned by Fox studios is an anomaly in this sense. When the X-men film franchise first started out way back in 2000 with X-Men (duh, what else?) the first few films of the franchise namely between X-Men and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) were generally a bit shit like Halle Berry's puns in the first film or the over-the-top twists and deaths in X-Men: The Last Stand (2006). But oddly enough, much like the Resident Evil film franchise, the X-Men film franchise seems to be slowly learning from its mistakes and becoming slowly better beginning with that one helicopter scene in Origins through X-Men: First Class (2011) and onwards to the recent release of the second film centred around Hugh Jackman's trademark Marvel comics character.
Now in comparison to the other X-Men films, does this one show as much moving forwards and improvement of the franchise as much as X-Men: First Class? Hell no. Seriously, this might be the best film of the franchise yet but that is purely based off of how well the film was made and acted. Unlike First Class, The Wolverine adds noticeably less new concepts in terms of character development to the film in regards to all of the characters. Don't get me wrong now boys and girls, there are a huge few concepts thrown into this film which have really fleshed out the film version of the character Wolverine and one after the credits which may have considerable implications for the rest of the X-Men film universe characters. But in sharp contrast, First Class fleshed out characters that covered a more diverse range of personalities than the characters in this flick with wider implications for the series in later instalments.
Fortunately in comparison to previous X-Men films though, this one has a plot that isn't unnecessarily long-winded or bogged down by too many token back-stories. Therefore, not only is the plot allot simpler but also allows for an action/adventure flick that is far easier to follow than say X2 (2003). As the film starts, we are introduced to Logan (AKA Wolverine or as I like to call him 'Mr Kebab stick hands') and a Japanese soldier named Yashida who is saved by our clawed, sweary and later-Batman-esque gruff Canadian soldier in the midst of the atomic explosion at Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War. Years later, Wolverine is a social and emotional outcast in rural mid-America after the events of X-Men: The Last Stand while Yashida has become the most well-recognised technology manufacturer in all of Japan. As Wolverine accepts one final request from his old comrade to say goodbye to Yashida before he dies Wolverine soon realises that Yashida is not resigned to death as he might expect but wants to do a two-way deal in which Yashida gets Wolverine's slowed-ageing while Wolverine will be able to live out the rest of his life at a normal pace. This soon all goes to pot however as Yashida is seemingly murdered and Wolverine is forced to go on the run with his emotionally fragile granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto) all the while running from a shady organisation that employs a mixture of ninjas, yakuza clansmen and a rather pointless side villain named Viper played by the adept Svetlana Khodchenkova (yeah I can't pronounce her name properly either). And from here on out we experience a set of events that bring our heroes to the action-packed climax with a surprising amount of formulaic plot-lining yet surprising amount of excitement as Wolverine once more pits himself against legions of overconfident foes albeit with a greater sense of vulnerability this time round.
Yes that is the one thing that surprised me about The Wolverine and that is like Pacific Rim, The Wolverine has a formulaic plot and set of events that lead to equally formulaic character development and an equally formulaic climax, yet is all surprisingly entertaining to watch when it all comes together in the end much like a fried breakfast that took you four hours to make yet tastes like it was made by the hands of Zeus, Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver combined. Perhaps this in accordance to the fact that as I mentioned earlier, Hugh Jackman has become so associated with the role of Wolverine in the film industry over the last 13 years that he now is not only able to show us how good an actor he is by playing a character that can simultaneously be an emotional drawing board and powerhouse but also show us how much he understands the characteristics of this iconic Marvel comics character. In turn, this is one of the film's main strengths in the sense that Jackman clearly knows how to play Wolverine so well and does so against the backdrop of a roster of characters that we have only just met and so have all the time in the world to get to know that creates a medley of character developments that go together like a grilled halloumi cheese salad and onion marmalade.
But whereas the storyline might not be as deliciously balanced between action and political/historical gravitas as X-Men: First Class, I personally think that the action has taken a notable improvement balancing between fast-paced, pitched battle and angry-Canadian-mutant VS giant-motherfucking-silver samurai-robot. On one hand, the one-on-one fights throughout the film convey a sense of ultimatum, usually happening as is the case with other films like this one, when two characters of both or either emotional or plot-line importance face off against each other in a clash to the end. This is interestingly smoothly contrasted against the clashes between Wolverine and legions of foes in fights where the now-vulnerable Wolverine must use wits and speed as well as his characteristic berserker rage to defeat the enemy whether it be at an old friend's funeral in the midst of hundreds of innocent people or atop a bullet train travelling at hundreds of miles an hour. The one exception to this is the disappointing clash between Wolverine and a clan of Ninjas in an urban tundra town that just screams of similarities to the final set in 13 Assassins (2010) which was given considerable gravitas in the film's trailers yet divulges into a moment of savage clarity where Wolverine takes down a single squad of baddies then runs away like a total idiot thus exposing himself to massed poisoned-arrow fire.
And much like this scene, the flaws of the film really stuck out in my throat like when I first played the space-faring-ship-flying shoot 'em' up game Freelancer (2003) and came across that forsaken and blood-vein-popping race level. For the most part, and thankfully unlike Man Of Steel, these flaws are not too striking and pretty much just apply to the continuity of the world of the X-Men film franchise. For example, Wolverine is clearly able to remember the events at Nagasaki that brought him and Yashida together but this is overshadowed by exposition in X2 that explains that Wolverine had his memory entirely taken from him when he was shot many years after WW2 with a bullet encased in the metal Adamantium in the head thus making the flashbacks to WW2 in The Wolverine a little bit niggling to the conscience of X-Men fans. As I also mentioned earlier, the side villain called Viper seems a little out of place and while she is played adeptly by Khodchenkova, proved to be a character that simply rubbed me up the wrong way as I never really enjoyed her presence on screen as I perhaps should have done. Also as mentioned earlier, the scene between Wolverine and the ninja clan near the end is just about as disappointing as the entire Michael Bay Transformers movie franchise (at least albeit without horrible sexualisation of women and wholly awful special effects).
But discounting this, the film on the whole is actually pretty damn good. It might not have the same level of maturity and historical reference in the plot as in X-Men: First Class or the same level of epic gravitas in the action as in X-Men: The Last Stand but at the very least, the action is most certainly the crowning glory of the film (especially the ball-grabingly awesome train fight scene) with its excellent juxtaposing while the plot is pleasantly easy to follow while including some twists at the end and after the credits (seriously, by now it should be a given that everyone stays after the credits at a Marvel comics film) that genuinely made me feel like doing a dramatic turn like I'm a character out of the American soap The Bold and the Beautiful (1987-present).
So in conclusion, I definitely think that this film, much like First Class before it, shows that the X-Men film franchise is most certainly heading in the right direction after the debacles of X-Men, X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (I know that many dislike X2 but bite me, I like it and I care less than I do about The Bold and the Beautiful). The action is well-paced with great juxtaposition which also applies to the plot which is as pleasantly simple yet enjoyable as a foot-long meatball sub sandwich with cheese and the twists at the end just at chocolate frosting that is the indulgent crème caramel that The Wolverine is. I will say one perhaps dark and prophetic last point though, is there much room for the franchise left to go? Because that seems increasingly the question on my mind.
Ratings:
Plot: 7/10
Characters: 8/10
Action: 9/10
Overall rating: 24/30
Now in comparison to the other X-Men films, does this one show as much moving forwards and improvement of the franchise as much as X-Men: First Class? Hell no. Seriously, this might be the best film of the franchise yet but that is purely based off of how well the film was made and acted. Unlike First Class, The Wolverine adds noticeably less new concepts in terms of character development to the film in regards to all of the characters. Don't get me wrong now boys and girls, there are a huge few concepts thrown into this film which have really fleshed out the film version of the character Wolverine and one after the credits which may have considerable implications for the rest of the X-Men film universe characters. But in sharp contrast, First Class fleshed out characters that covered a more diverse range of personalities than the characters in this flick with wider implications for the series in later instalments.
Fortunately in comparison to previous X-Men films though, this one has a plot that isn't unnecessarily long-winded or bogged down by too many token back-stories. Therefore, not only is the plot allot simpler but also allows for an action/adventure flick that is far easier to follow than say X2 (2003). As the film starts, we are introduced to Logan (AKA Wolverine or as I like to call him 'Mr Kebab stick hands') and a Japanese soldier named Yashida who is saved by our clawed, sweary and later-Batman-esque gruff Canadian soldier in the midst of the atomic explosion at Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War. Years later, Wolverine is a social and emotional outcast in rural mid-America after the events of X-Men: The Last Stand while Yashida has become the most well-recognised technology manufacturer in all of Japan. As Wolverine accepts one final request from his old comrade to say goodbye to Yashida before he dies Wolverine soon realises that Yashida is not resigned to death as he might expect but wants to do a two-way deal in which Yashida gets Wolverine's slowed-ageing while Wolverine will be able to live out the rest of his life at a normal pace. This soon all goes to pot however as Yashida is seemingly murdered and Wolverine is forced to go on the run with his emotionally fragile granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto) all the while running from a shady organisation that employs a mixture of ninjas, yakuza clansmen and a rather pointless side villain named Viper played by the adept Svetlana Khodchenkova (yeah I can't pronounce her name properly either). And from here on out we experience a set of events that bring our heroes to the action-packed climax with a surprising amount of formulaic plot-lining yet surprising amount of excitement as Wolverine once more pits himself against legions of overconfident foes albeit with a greater sense of vulnerability this time round.
Yes that is the one thing that surprised me about The Wolverine and that is like Pacific Rim, The Wolverine has a formulaic plot and set of events that lead to equally formulaic character development and an equally formulaic climax, yet is all surprisingly entertaining to watch when it all comes together in the end much like a fried breakfast that took you four hours to make yet tastes like it was made by the hands of Zeus, Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver combined. Perhaps this in accordance to the fact that as I mentioned earlier, Hugh Jackman has become so associated with the role of Wolverine in the film industry over the last 13 years that he now is not only able to show us how good an actor he is by playing a character that can simultaneously be an emotional drawing board and powerhouse but also show us how much he understands the characteristics of this iconic Marvel comics character. In turn, this is one of the film's main strengths in the sense that Jackman clearly knows how to play Wolverine so well and does so against the backdrop of a roster of characters that we have only just met and so have all the time in the world to get to know that creates a medley of character developments that go together like a grilled halloumi cheese salad and onion marmalade.
But whereas the storyline might not be as deliciously balanced between action and political/historical gravitas as X-Men: First Class, I personally think that the action has taken a notable improvement balancing between fast-paced, pitched battle and angry-Canadian-mutant VS giant-motherfucking-silver samurai-robot. On one hand, the one-on-one fights throughout the film convey a sense of ultimatum, usually happening as is the case with other films like this one, when two characters of both or either emotional or plot-line importance face off against each other in a clash to the end. This is interestingly smoothly contrasted against the clashes between Wolverine and legions of foes in fights where the now-vulnerable Wolverine must use wits and speed as well as his characteristic berserker rage to defeat the enemy whether it be at an old friend's funeral in the midst of hundreds of innocent people or atop a bullet train travelling at hundreds of miles an hour. The one exception to this is the disappointing clash between Wolverine and a clan of Ninjas in an urban tundra town that just screams of similarities to the final set in 13 Assassins (2010) which was given considerable gravitas in the film's trailers yet divulges into a moment of savage clarity where Wolverine takes down a single squad of baddies then runs away like a total idiot thus exposing himself to massed poisoned-arrow fire.
And much like this scene, the flaws of the film really stuck out in my throat like when I first played the space-faring-ship-flying shoot 'em' up game Freelancer (2003) and came across that forsaken and blood-vein-popping race level. For the most part, and thankfully unlike Man Of Steel, these flaws are not too striking and pretty much just apply to the continuity of the world of the X-Men film franchise. For example, Wolverine is clearly able to remember the events at Nagasaki that brought him and Yashida together but this is overshadowed by exposition in X2 that explains that Wolverine had his memory entirely taken from him when he was shot many years after WW2 with a bullet encased in the metal Adamantium in the head thus making the flashbacks to WW2 in The Wolverine a little bit niggling to the conscience of X-Men fans. As I also mentioned earlier, the side villain called Viper seems a little out of place and while she is played adeptly by Khodchenkova, proved to be a character that simply rubbed me up the wrong way as I never really enjoyed her presence on screen as I perhaps should have done. Also as mentioned earlier, the scene between Wolverine and the ninja clan near the end is just about as disappointing as the entire Michael Bay Transformers movie franchise (at least albeit without horrible sexualisation of women and wholly awful special effects).
But discounting this, the film on the whole is actually pretty damn good. It might not have the same level of maturity and historical reference in the plot as in X-Men: First Class or the same level of epic gravitas in the action as in X-Men: The Last Stand but at the very least, the action is most certainly the crowning glory of the film (especially the ball-grabingly awesome train fight scene) with its excellent juxtaposing while the plot is pleasantly easy to follow while including some twists at the end and after the credits (seriously, by now it should be a given that everyone stays after the credits at a Marvel comics film) that genuinely made me feel like doing a dramatic turn like I'm a character out of the American soap The Bold and the Beautiful (1987-present).
So in conclusion, I definitely think that this film, much like First Class before it, shows that the X-Men film franchise is most certainly heading in the right direction after the debacles of X-Men, X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (I know that many dislike X2 but bite me, I like it and I care less than I do about The Bold and the Beautiful). The action is well-paced with great juxtaposition which also applies to the plot which is as pleasantly simple yet enjoyable as a foot-long meatball sub sandwich with cheese and the twists at the end just at chocolate frosting that is the indulgent crème caramel that The Wolverine is. I will say one perhaps dark and prophetic last point though, is there much room for the franchise left to go? Because that seems increasingly the question on my mind.
Ratings:
Plot: 7/10
Characters: 8/10
Action: 9/10
Overall rating: 24/30
Thursday, 1 August 2013
New film review #8: Pacific Rim
With the rise of the vastly overrated Transformers franchise in recent years, it has only been inevitable that there has also come a slew of hopeful and futuristic tech-themed action romps that are clearly trying to overshadow the mega-giant that is Michael Bay's Transformers films. In some cases these films have turned out pretty badly (e.g. Transformers Dark of the Moon (2011), Atlantic Rim (2013) and After Earth (2013)), yet as with every genre of films, there are some golden nuggets for every few shit pellets. For this year it seems that the special sci-fi flick in question is Pacific Rim directed by Guillermo Del Torro (who you may also remember from his directing of the first two Hellboy films (2004 and 2008) and Pan's Labyrinth (2006)) which stars the talents of Charlie Hunnam as Raleigh Beckett (our hot-headed yet noble underdog), Idris Elba as Marshall Pentecost (the gruff and battle-hardened, pseudo-arrogant mentor of a commander) and Rinko Kikuchi as Mako Mori (the naturally unstable and attractive yet surprisingly fierce and deadly stereotyped love interest).
Now there is a chance that Pacific Rim may in turn be overshadowed by this year's other hopefully good sci-fi blockbuster Ender's Game but until that is proven otherwise, I at least, will personally hold Pacific Rim in high regards as the year's best sci-fi film so far. Now is t flawed? Totally with a capital 'T' while drinking a cup of Starbucks cappuccino and eating a Subway's foot-long turkey, ham and cheese melt in all its generic glory. Yes, Pacific Rim is generic to the extent that I should be calling it a bad flick but in all honesty? I actually liked it. Admittedly its not going to be remembered in as iconic a light in sci-fi/giant robot/action flicks as the first 20 mins of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) but regardless of its lack of a truly strong and well-told moral and plenitude of action blockbuster stereotypes (annoying scientist support characters notwithstanding) its at the very least, a fun film to watch. Think of it a film version of the experience of watching episodes of Ultimate Force (2002-) and Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares USA (2007-) while eating a Domino's large sized football meat special pizza with a 2 litre bottle of cherry coke. Its not intellectually engaging like the likes of Splice (2009) or Surrogates (2009) but like Real Steel (2011), its a sci-fi action romp with a hearty underdog hero and a proud charge to victory in the third act so predictable it makes you want to play Hulk Hogan's wrestling theme and wrap yourself in the American flag.
Naturally, the story is pretty generic as you may have gathered and doesn't try to do much outside of the usual comfort zone of these types of summertime blockbusters. When earth is invaded by inter-dimensional aliens named 'Kaiju' (Japanese for 'Monster' or 'Giant monster') that spew forth from a rift in reality in the pacific ocean near Hong Kong waters the earth's armies successfully take down the first few hulking monstrosities but only at a huge cost of a few hundred thousand lives. After a few years, the world's governments come up with enough resources to fund the 'Jager' (German for 'Sharpshooter' which is pretty much the opposite of what the heroes do in this film) programme which involves putting two-man teams into the heads of giant robots with varying weapon sets and capabilities in order to take down the monsters with maximum efficiency and minimum loss of life. 7 years after this war starts we get our predictable scene that proves the motivation for our heroic underdog Raleigh Beckett throughout the film as he and his brother Yancy (did their parents name them after bikes or what?) fight a Kaiju that rips their mech's arm off and kills Yancy in the process. Years later, the world leaders attempt to reverse the effects of heavy casualties amongst the Jagers by building giant walls across the shores of pacific nations that ultimately fail to keep the Kaiju out of human territory, the last few 'Jager-bots' (one each from Russia, China, America and Australia) are gathered in Hong Kong in order to tackle the Kaiju threat as closely to the aforementioned portal in the ocean as possible. While participating in this desperate endeavour, Raleigh and trainee pilot Mako Mori must prove that they are compatible enough to pilot their bot effectively, combat bad memories that literally threaten their combat effectiveness and prepare to face down a threat that could very well mean the apocalypse on earth as we know it.
And therein lies the main selling point of Del Torro's post-Transformers shit-storm sci-fi flick. It. Is. EPIC. The very theme of giant robots of varying nations and fighting styles fighting inter-dimensional aliens from the ocean deep for personal and national pride as well as the survival of the human race is in itself an alluring prospect for a film even taking into account the generic and predictable plot and character development that features throughout Pacific Rim. Now this definitely does contribute to the enjoyment of watching this flick. Such an idea of selling a film on epicness alone hasn't worked sometimes in the past but in cases such as this one, it can work quite admirably well. Aside from the epicness of the film's concept, the other main selling point is the action scenes which works actually quite well through some relatively-good CGI, Del Torro's direction and the work of audio specialist Scott Martin Gershin to convey said epicness of humanity's last struggle for survival against the apocalypse. In these scenes, the different fighting styles of the crews of the Jagers are clearly put to the test as the film tries its best to show that while the Jagers are strong, they individually and collectively have to pull out all the stops in order to defeat even just single Gaiju's that are in turn shown to be capable of adapting to the tactics of humanity's champions. Subsequently, even though it is short-lived, the bright-red Chinese Jager with a three-man crew with three arms that have circular saws on the ends and can use Chinese martial arts is FUCKING BADASS.
In turn the actors also fit their roles quite nicely which allows the personal drama between the pilots between the battles to blossom quite nicely and smoothly. Idris Elba who is clearly the best actor in the entire film (not least thanks to his recognisability due to playing Heimdall in Thor (2011)) kicks ass as the hard-as-nails Marshall Stacker Pentecost who is rigid in his unwaveringly tough approach to war but is ultimately a great strategist and respectably noble character who despite his hard nature and 'mentor' rather than 'main character' status is probably the most interesting character in the film as well. This isn't to say that the other actors are bad though as Hunnam plays the dashing underdog of a hero pretty well while Kikuchi plays the style of a character that is unstable but ultimately very powerful nicely while also looking damn fine in the form-fitting suits that the Jager pilots all must wear to connect with their bots. Some of the characters in this film however can perhaps be seen as either really annoying (i.e. Gottlieb played by Burn Gorman) or just a bit pointless and therefore a hindrance to the plot's advancement such as Hannibal Chau played by Ron Perlman who is undoubtedly unsuited to the role and film in general despite starring in epic flicks like the first two Hellboy films.
So in conclusion, some of the actors are a tad mis-cast (no offence intended to the good Mr Perlman and his many admirable performances) and the film in general is undoubtedly generic in the sense that most summer action blockbusters are. Yet despite its lack of an intellectual side (which to be fair, is not always necessary in sci-fi flicks like this) and some characters that I out-rightly hated, Pacific Rim was an enjoyable film to watch despite not necessarily being precisely on par with the hype it received from producers and film magazines and programmes before its release. Still, I would highly recommend you get yourself a nice big tub of warm and buttery popcorn with a bulging paper bag of pic 'n' mix and a large lemonade and sit back because this film is something to be enjoyed amongst the mostly (not entirely, see my review of Man of Steel) lacklustre film releases of the film so far.
Verdict: see to enjoy but don't expect to be blown away, this is strictly a popcorn flick albeit a truly enjoyable one at that.
Overall rating: 6.65/10
Now there is a chance that Pacific Rim may in turn be overshadowed by this year's other hopefully good sci-fi blockbuster Ender's Game but until that is proven otherwise, I at least, will personally hold Pacific Rim in high regards as the year's best sci-fi film so far. Now is t flawed? Totally with a capital 'T' while drinking a cup of Starbucks cappuccino and eating a Subway's foot-long turkey, ham and cheese melt in all its generic glory. Yes, Pacific Rim is generic to the extent that I should be calling it a bad flick but in all honesty? I actually liked it. Admittedly its not going to be remembered in as iconic a light in sci-fi/giant robot/action flicks as the first 20 mins of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) but regardless of its lack of a truly strong and well-told moral and plenitude of action blockbuster stereotypes (annoying scientist support characters notwithstanding) its at the very least, a fun film to watch. Think of it a film version of the experience of watching episodes of Ultimate Force (2002-) and Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares USA (2007-) while eating a Domino's large sized football meat special pizza with a 2 litre bottle of cherry coke. Its not intellectually engaging like the likes of Splice (2009) or Surrogates (2009) but like Real Steel (2011), its a sci-fi action romp with a hearty underdog hero and a proud charge to victory in the third act so predictable it makes you want to play Hulk Hogan's wrestling theme and wrap yourself in the American flag.
Naturally, the story is pretty generic as you may have gathered and doesn't try to do much outside of the usual comfort zone of these types of summertime blockbusters. When earth is invaded by inter-dimensional aliens named 'Kaiju' (Japanese for 'Monster' or 'Giant monster') that spew forth from a rift in reality in the pacific ocean near Hong Kong waters the earth's armies successfully take down the first few hulking monstrosities but only at a huge cost of a few hundred thousand lives. After a few years, the world's governments come up with enough resources to fund the 'Jager' (German for 'Sharpshooter' which is pretty much the opposite of what the heroes do in this film) programme which involves putting two-man teams into the heads of giant robots with varying weapon sets and capabilities in order to take down the monsters with maximum efficiency and minimum loss of life. 7 years after this war starts we get our predictable scene that proves the motivation for our heroic underdog Raleigh Beckett throughout the film as he and his brother Yancy (did their parents name them after bikes or what?) fight a Kaiju that rips their mech's arm off and kills Yancy in the process. Years later, the world leaders attempt to reverse the effects of heavy casualties amongst the Jagers by building giant walls across the shores of pacific nations that ultimately fail to keep the Kaiju out of human territory, the last few 'Jager-bots' (one each from Russia, China, America and Australia) are gathered in Hong Kong in order to tackle the Kaiju threat as closely to the aforementioned portal in the ocean as possible. While participating in this desperate endeavour, Raleigh and trainee pilot Mako Mori must prove that they are compatible enough to pilot their bot effectively, combat bad memories that literally threaten their combat effectiveness and prepare to face down a threat that could very well mean the apocalypse on earth as we know it.
And therein lies the main selling point of Del Torro's post-Transformers shit-storm sci-fi flick. It. Is. EPIC. The very theme of giant robots of varying nations and fighting styles fighting inter-dimensional aliens from the ocean deep for personal and national pride as well as the survival of the human race is in itself an alluring prospect for a film even taking into account the generic and predictable plot and character development that features throughout Pacific Rim. Now this definitely does contribute to the enjoyment of watching this flick. Such an idea of selling a film on epicness alone hasn't worked sometimes in the past but in cases such as this one, it can work quite admirably well. Aside from the epicness of the film's concept, the other main selling point is the action scenes which works actually quite well through some relatively-good CGI, Del Torro's direction and the work of audio specialist Scott Martin Gershin to convey said epicness of humanity's last struggle for survival against the apocalypse. In these scenes, the different fighting styles of the crews of the Jagers are clearly put to the test as the film tries its best to show that while the Jagers are strong, they individually and collectively have to pull out all the stops in order to defeat even just single Gaiju's that are in turn shown to be capable of adapting to the tactics of humanity's champions. Subsequently, even though it is short-lived, the bright-red Chinese Jager with a three-man crew with three arms that have circular saws on the ends and can use Chinese martial arts is FUCKING BADASS.
In turn the actors also fit their roles quite nicely which allows the personal drama between the pilots between the battles to blossom quite nicely and smoothly. Idris Elba who is clearly the best actor in the entire film (not least thanks to his recognisability due to playing Heimdall in Thor (2011)) kicks ass as the hard-as-nails Marshall Stacker Pentecost who is rigid in his unwaveringly tough approach to war but is ultimately a great strategist and respectably noble character who despite his hard nature and 'mentor' rather than 'main character' status is probably the most interesting character in the film as well. This isn't to say that the other actors are bad though as Hunnam plays the dashing underdog of a hero pretty well while Kikuchi plays the style of a character that is unstable but ultimately very powerful nicely while also looking damn fine in the form-fitting suits that the Jager pilots all must wear to connect with their bots. Some of the characters in this film however can perhaps be seen as either really annoying (i.e. Gottlieb played by Burn Gorman) or just a bit pointless and therefore a hindrance to the plot's advancement such as Hannibal Chau played by Ron Perlman who is undoubtedly unsuited to the role and film in general despite starring in epic flicks like the first two Hellboy films.
So in conclusion, some of the actors are a tad mis-cast (no offence intended to the good Mr Perlman and his many admirable performances) and the film in general is undoubtedly generic in the sense that most summer action blockbusters are. Yet despite its lack of an intellectual side (which to be fair, is not always necessary in sci-fi flicks like this) and some characters that I out-rightly hated, Pacific Rim was an enjoyable film to watch despite not necessarily being precisely on par with the hype it received from producers and film magazines and programmes before its release. Still, I would highly recommend you get yourself a nice big tub of warm and buttery popcorn with a bulging paper bag of pic 'n' mix and a large lemonade and sit back because this film is something to be enjoyed amongst the mostly (not entirely, see my review of Man of Steel) lacklustre film releases of the film so far.
Verdict: see to enjoy but don't expect to be blown away, this is strictly a popcorn flick albeit a truly enjoyable one at that.
Overall rating: 6.65/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)