Well guys, I'm back! I realise now that doing big reviews and then going on a hiatus for a few months is now the main thing that characterises this blog aside from my somtimes dry humour (hey I'm British give me a break!) and my obsession over comparing small parts of good movies to entire bad movies from the early 2000s and 1980s. However, I do have a good reason this time as I have moved into uni accomodation recently and thus for the last 2.5 months I have been settling into university life and haven't really had much time to get around to making long film reviews although I have been uploading videos onto my YouTube channel which you can check out here!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHmq7KX4Qc46VGhYzWqQfOg/videos. MMM! Delicious self-advertising!
But anyway, what film are we looking at today? Why an overrated, overly-pretentious (bit ironic coming from me I know), overly-cliche, over-expositioned sci-fi adventure film with failing concepts about the 5th dimension (which I'll get into why its so poorly conveyed in a bit), family love and the survival of the human species against what is actually quite a conceivable enviromental threat to our global crops and a really conveluded plot about inter-dimensional beings of imense creation. So yeah, I really do not like Interstellar. Don't get me wrong, the film looks great and all the main actors (Matthew McConaughey, Michael Caine, Anne Hatheway and MAAAAAAAAT DAAAAAAAMON) are excellently placed and do a great job but sadly for the stars and the much acclaimed director Christopher Nolan this film just does not work. And it really is quite sad to be honest, I do really think that Nolan is one of the greatest modern American filmakers of the new millenium and he has shown moments of shining brilliance in films like Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008). True, those two films were based upon the second most recognisable superhero of all time after superman but if there's someone who knows how to do dark adaptations of Batman and dark psychological thrillers (Inception (2010) duh...) its going to be good ol' Nolan. And true, the last time someone tried to do a dark, large-scale tale of space-travel, interdimensional discovery and beings with deep philosophical underpinnings, it was successfully realised by Kubrik's masterpiece 2001: A Space Oddessey (1968) which is now remembered today as the best movie of the 1960s and one of the best films of all time.
And in some sense, Interstellar does in fact have a similar plot to Odessey in some regards with particular note to be paid to the main character having an existential journey through time and space in which he sees time be congealed as a physical concept. A concept that while difficult to convey was done well in both films (albeit better in Odessey). However, whereas Odessey was moreso concentrating on the exploration part of the interstellar journey (HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHEEEEE) with some underpinnings of philosophical concepts all linked together by mind-bending visuals, Interstellar also tries to do all this while also informing us of every bit of scientific information that appears apparent to the plot (and I mean EVRY bit of scientific knowledge), fitting in a moral lesson about fathership and family and a strong message about enviromental disaster destroying humanity's last remaining global crop source (i.e. corn). Oh I know that the lesson about the enviroment is not what Nolan was going for necessarily but you'd better beleive you'll be aware of it by the time that we get to the overly-positive ending. In all honesty, that is perhaps what really cripples this film for me, the shitty and I mean REALLY shitty ending of the film. Perhaps the film is also crippled in a sense by its inscistence to pack so many themes besides philosophy about human discovery and interraction and interdimensional experiences but the ending is really what cinches it for me in regards to how badly I feel about this film.
So what's good about this film, quite a bit actually which is wierd...yeah. Considering I think that this is one of the worst films of the year so far it does actually have some great features and aspects that reallly show up Nolan's modern-neo-noire style of filmaking and features some absolutley stellar peformances (PHHHEEEE HEEE...sorry). Nolan's direction is perhaps closest to the same direction and asethetic that he showed on the set and in the creation of Inception and it shows in the mind-bending angles of the camera that are shown when humanity reaches a new way of colonisation wherein whole communities can be fitted into tube-shaped space colonies or when McConaughuey's astronaut captain Cooper attempts to dock his dropship with a space station spinning around ceaslesly as of a result of an explosion caused by a suprise villain. Speaking of which, there are a couple of twists that will turn this film on its head and you will not see them coming. Halfway through the film, Nolan presents us with a moral and practical dilemma that concerns not only the morals of the characters involved in the mission to rescue humanity but also the survival of the whole human species. The other big twist comes a bit nearer to the end of the film in a section of the movie which reviewers are calling a 'slog' (and which I respectfully say that they are wrong in that regard) which while messing up a previously strongly-rooted plot point did not upturn the film as a whole. Admittedly the twists were not as fast and frequent as say Odessey but still knocked me on my arse when I saw the film.
Aside from Cooper, there are multiple characters who are perfectly played. Anne Hatheway as doctor Brand, Michael Caine as Brand's father and MAAAAAAT DAAAAAAAMON as a suprise emotional counterpoint at what is possibly the finest moment in the film in a thematical and storytelling sense. However that's about it and aside from some cool visual concepts, the other attempts to visually conceive certain happenings in the film aside from space travel and travelling though a worm hole or a black hole, the film really doesn't leap out at you. Even though we focus on Hatheway and MaConaghuey for the majority of the film and sometimes leap back to Caine and DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMON we are also focusing on Ellen Burstyn's Murphy Cooper for a large chunk of the latter parts of the film who acts without much emotional clout or even basic body language and skill of emotional conveyance unlike MacConaghuey who just absolutley shines throughout the film. taking into accoutn this terrible narrative baggage and the fact that the other main supporting character of Romilly played by David Gyasi totally lacks any emotional depth whatsoever and only serves as a pointless exposition piece.
Oh yeah! Did I mention the fucking exposition!?!?!? Beleieve me, the science in this film is largley spot on with exception to points made at the end of the film about the 5th dimension but the characters go on and on and on and on and onandonandonandonandonaondaon about telling you EVRERY...FUCKING...THING about the damn journey! Sure! You can spend a large proportion of the movie expositioning to the audience about facts but you have to make it in some way interresting either thematically or in terms of its presentation! With the exception of Caine and sometimes MacConaghuey, no one explains any scientific knowledge or understanding in the film (especially Burstyn) with anything more than a blank, dry look in their eyes and with little other purpose than showing the filmakers did their homework. I've been told that this is a minor point and it really isn't, it takes away from the human and emotional suspense and development of the actual characters involved and refuses to let go even when we find ourselves and the movie in interesting situations such as a planet almost entirely made of water where one hour there equals 7 years on earth. The time-jumping between the narratives of MacConaghuey's and Burstyn's characters is well explained in an interesting manner to be fair and the idea of the 5th dimension and worm holes are fascinating things to consider but the film expositions the hell out of pretty much everything else without simplyfying it in any way for those who (like me) didn't pay attention in science class and want ot understand as much of the film as possible.
Furthermore, this ties into what I think is one of the most controversial points about Nolan's method of filmaking in that he is too dark, grim and stoic in his inter-story narratives, tone and philosophy. I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't see this in the Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012) or Man of Steel (2013) the latter of which I probably gave an overly-positive review to at the time. And while I'm usually indifferent to this form of filmaking and its general asethetic, I do think that Nolan tends to overuse it sometimes particularly in the case of Man of Steel and I am tired to a considerable degree of big action, superhero (with the exception of course being the marvel movies in that case) and in Interstellar's case, adventure films being grim and everything having a purpose and every word and moment being heavy and impactful. I'm not saying that you can't make a movie or even a good movie like that but we see it so often today that I sometimes get depressed and worn out when a big action/adventure piece like this comes out with a great cast and doesn't utilise their greater talents in favour of being dour the whole fucking time.
However, to some degree or another I can forgive all that. What's that Ted? Are you pussing out on us at the last stretch? No. Absolutley not and I still think that the flaws I mentioned above are painfully apparent in the film. However, what is unforgivable about this movie is the GOD...DANM...ENDING. Needless to say, the ending of this movie FUCKING SUCKS. Instead of giving us a deeper philosophical understanding of what is at play in the movie's narrative and how the adventure of Cooper to finding the problem solving formula needed to save humanity we're given a long-winded and conveluded explanaition about the 5th dimension (with very little linking to the 4th I might add), a really convinent and overly-sweet plot twist that means but fails to warm the heart and a collosall cop-out that tries so hard to show a happy ending to this otherwise grim tale. I'm sorry but that doesn't happen. Throughout the second half of the film we had this subplot about either two of the plans proposed to MacConaghuey and his team having the potentional to fail and this suprise twist plan we are presented with at the end just falls into our lap, convinetly explains a minor but already ridiculous plot point about a supposed 'ghost' (don't worry the film explains it, albeit stupidly). How then are we supposed to accept this ending that ties up all lose ends with no emotional baggage and more hopefulness for the advancement of the remaining characters who survived the ordeal? If Nolan had any idea how to make Interstellar's narrative consistent with the tone, he wouldn't have made the ending such an overly-sweet cop out and instead offered a positive outlook on humanity's future in the age of space travel but perhaps made it somewhat bittersweet on a character level. Instead we have one of the worst explanations of inter-dimensional beings I have ever heard to neatly tie up every point so the little darlings are not left feeling sad after the movie has ended.
So in conclusion? I fucking hate Interstellar. I really have absolutley no clue as to why people are giving it a fucking 9/10 on IMDB when its barely worth the 3/10 I rated it on there. It really upsets me that this film is so disappointing because all of the potentional therories and concepts and talent behind it is excellent. But the execution is poor, the narrative is amateurish and the conclusion PISSES ME OFF! It was bad enough that the film had a poorly-expositioned (although interesting) hook and twist but to be just straight up a bad sci-fi movie is alltogether something different. And Interstellar managed to pull off both. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE.
Plot/Storyline: 1.5/10
Acting: 5/10
Directing/Writing: 4/10
Action/Set pieces/Key moments: 5.5/10
Camerawork/SFX: 8.5/10
Overall rating: 24.5/50
Wednesday 12 November 2014
Tuesday 26 August 2014
New Film Review 16: The Expendables 3
You know what kind of movie I like best? The kind of movie that you can simply enjoy but that also gets you thinking about something either emotional, philosophical, political or ideological in any sense wether it be about the historical significance of certain events as in The Last Samurai (2003) or Joan of Arc (1999) or whether it be deeper and more psychological themes of contemplation such as in 2001: A Space Odessy (1968) or basically any film by the legendary animator Hayao Miyazaki. Now in the last two films I reviewed, this was a clear staple of those two films from the lighting to the dialouge and characters. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was essentially a post-apocaliptyc action survival thriller with in-built themes of tolerance, co-existence and ideas about who should lead who in a society that has fallen apart. Sin City: A Dame to Kill for didn't concentrate so much on deep themes like this but it did focus somewhat on political corruption, neo-noire gang violence and making outlaws into heroes (at least that's what the trailers say) while putting this all up against the backdrop of a highly stylised visual world. On the other hand, there are films that aren't really looking for any high-class intellectual recognition like a proverbial black forest gateu made by a 3-star michelin baker but are more like a junky and fun proverbial tub of Ben & Jerry's half baked ice cream. And the latter case is where Expendables 3 comes blazing in.
In fact, this is basically the whole premise and aim of the Expendables franchise so far; get together a wholly star-studded cast of action heroes and professional athletes and shoot up some hammy and memorable (albeit with that not being the case in the first film because the villain there was as memorable as a cucumber sandwich with nothing else on white bread) and shoot your way through legions of inept minions in a trashy and cheesy yet endearing and enjoyable throwback to similar action movies from the 1980s and early 1990s. Now some have said in the past that the second film in the franchise was the weakest by far with the least interesting plot and most uninteresting screenplay but I beg to differ. While the first film was undeniably fun, its story jumped all over the place, the vilains apart from 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin's muscle bound henchman were forgetable as all hell and there simply wasn't enough character drama or shots of Terry Crews ripping up bad guys with his rapid-fire shotgun. This was in part thanks to how the action of Expendables 2 was bigger, the story was bigger and while Jet Li was barely in it, that issue was more than made up for with Jean-Claude Van Damne's darkly enjoyable and badass villain uh...Vilain...seriously? Why not just call him 'Blatantly evil madman'?
But one sentiment that many reviewers and critics are passing around that I simply cannot disagree with is the argument and ideas put forth that point to this entry into the franchise being the best one yet and honestly?...I absolutley agree. Expendables 2 still has the best villain but Mel Gibson does well in this film as the vile and murderous Stonebanks but apart from that, Expendables 3 feels bigger in every way from the quality of the action to the lighting, character development, overall story, final battle and humour as well as the obvious threat that is implied about Gibson's diabolical arms dealer/mass-murderer Stonebanks. So what's the story? This time round, Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) kicks things off by taking his team to free fromer teamate and professional smooth-talker Doc (Wesley Snipes) to then go after a mysterious arms dealer. Unfortunatley for Ross and his team, they're sucker-punched by the sudden appearance of the arms dealer as former co-founder of the expendables team and professional murdering psychopath Conrad Stonebanks who in an enseuing battle wounds ever-lovable Caesar (Terry Crews) and prompts Ross to disband his team of seasoned old veterans and form a new team of young, spunky and highly skilled professionals with different skill sets.
This is perhaps the biggest selling point of the film in every conceivable way. Not only do we have the old guard of the previous installments inevitably return for an action-packed finale but the new young blood of Kellan Lutz, Victor Ortiz, Glen Powell and the beefy yet strikingly beautiful Ronda Rousey as well as some new veterans of old 1980s and 1990s action films in the form of the tough 'n' gruff Agent Drummer (Harrison Ford), the enigmatic Bonaparte (Kelsey Grammer) and the high-octane and energy Galgo (Antonio Banderas) who eats up every scene he's in with bizzare action stunts and crazed humour. And yet, despite how much I have to admit that I gushed over the casts of the last two films, the new entries into the cast both new and old, adds some fresh life into the already expansive and star-studded cast of the franchise. This is perhaps what sets apart the film the most from the previous two in that despite how expansive the last two film's casts were, they were nothing as golden and nostalgia-inspiring as the cast of this latest installment. Add to this the fact that the new, young actors like Rousey or Ortiz add some relatable freshness to the cast and the sheer coolness of adding legends like Ford, Snipes and Banderas into the mix and you have a potent mix that is sure to ensure that the next entries into the franchise will be equally fresh for the forseeable future.
As mentioned before, this means that the action is bigger and by that I also mean more varied. Oh sure we have a climax centring around a sprawling building complex with wave after wave of minions and tanks for our heroes to chew through and a bloody showdown between Stallone and the main villain. But Expendables 3, while still essentially being a cheesy thowback to 80s action flicks includes more than its share of precise computer-hacking, hand-to-hand rampages, vehicular slaughters and some stunts that intially seemed stupid, unrealistic and pointless (like Powell's Thorn juming up the side of an apartment block on a motorbike while blazing away with an MP5 sub-machine gun) which, while ultimatley silly, only serve to highlight the sheer enjoyability of the action segments.
Needless to say as is the case with throwback films to popcorn-munching action flicks from the Regan-era of popular culture, the action segments cover up most of the film's 126 minute run-time but despite that, you feel more invested in the struggles of the main characters this time round thanks to some genuinley shocking moments (in the visual sense) of how evil Gibson's character is, the emotional turmoil Stallone's Ross goes through throughout the film and the clear and stark if somewhat cliche tension between the new and young recruits and Stallone's old team. This elevates Expendables 3 from the status of 'enjoyable and cheesy' as was the case with the first two films to 'COME ON GUYS, LETS FIND THIS EVIL BASTARD AND MAKE HIM PAY!' pumped-up and almost wholly enjoyable in a trashy kind of way.
Now naturally, there are some issues and no film is perfect with exception to Citizen Kane (1941), The Godfather (1972), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and My Neighbour Totoro (1988). As in the last two films, the actors involved are kind of aware that they're making a series of cheesy action flicks and thus, in some places, the acting comes across as a little hammy, cliche or run-of-the-mill. On top of this, it's again disappointing that very little of the film features what are arguably the best actors in the franchise in the shape of Crews and Li. Furthermore, while the storyline is certainly more stable and adept at conveying meaning and enjoyment to the audience than in the first film, some sections of the story move way too quickly and lack any real, emotional and visceral depth as was the case with Liam Hemsworth's shocking death near the beginning of Expendables 2. However, the action, storytelling and development of the characters is certainly up at least a notch over the last two films so you'll definetly see some improvments.
As you guys can tell, I had a blast watching this movie. Not only is it the best entry into the franchise yet; it also includes interesting new and old actors fresh to the franchise, better camerawork, better action-coordination, better directing, superb base-level enjoyment and a story and motivation for the main characters that is suprisingly competent and compelling. I could go on and on about how good this film is and while I certainly wouldn't say that its in any way a groundbreaking or amazing film, I'd be more than confident in saying that its one of the best films of the year so far and worth your time if you're the type of person who'd want to go see this. If you don't, I don't blame you. However, as it is as a straightforward action flick?...I'd give it a thumbs up, a tip of the hat and a salutory puff on one of Stallone's cigars.
Plot/Storyline: 8/10
Acting: 7/10
Directing/Writing: 7.5/10
Action/Set pieces: 9/10
Camerawork/SFX: 7.5/10
Overall score: 39/50
In fact, this is basically the whole premise and aim of the Expendables franchise so far; get together a wholly star-studded cast of action heroes and professional athletes and shoot up some hammy and memorable (albeit with that not being the case in the first film because the villain there was as memorable as a cucumber sandwich with nothing else on white bread) and shoot your way through legions of inept minions in a trashy and cheesy yet endearing and enjoyable throwback to similar action movies from the 1980s and early 1990s. Now some have said in the past that the second film in the franchise was the weakest by far with the least interesting plot and most uninteresting screenplay but I beg to differ. While the first film was undeniably fun, its story jumped all over the place, the vilains apart from 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin's muscle bound henchman were forgetable as all hell and there simply wasn't enough character drama or shots of Terry Crews ripping up bad guys with his rapid-fire shotgun. This was in part thanks to how the action of Expendables 2 was bigger, the story was bigger and while Jet Li was barely in it, that issue was more than made up for with Jean-Claude Van Damne's darkly enjoyable and badass villain uh...Vilain...seriously? Why not just call him 'Blatantly evil madman'?
But one sentiment that many reviewers and critics are passing around that I simply cannot disagree with is the argument and ideas put forth that point to this entry into the franchise being the best one yet and honestly?...I absolutley agree. Expendables 2 still has the best villain but Mel Gibson does well in this film as the vile and murderous Stonebanks but apart from that, Expendables 3 feels bigger in every way from the quality of the action to the lighting, character development, overall story, final battle and humour as well as the obvious threat that is implied about Gibson's diabolical arms dealer/mass-murderer Stonebanks. So what's the story? This time round, Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) kicks things off by taking his team to free fromer teamate and professional smooth-talker Doc (Wesley Snipes) to then go after a mysterious arms dealer. Unfortunatley for Ross and his team, they're sucker-punched by the sudden appearance of the arms dealer as former co-founder of the expendables team and professional murdering psychopath Conrad Stonebanks who in an enseuing battle wounds ever-lovable Caesar (Terry Crews) and prompts Ross to disband his team of seasoned old veterans and form a new team of young, spunky and highly skilled professionals with different skill sets.
This is perhaps the biggest selling point of the film in every conceivable way. Not only do we have the old guard of the previous installments inevitably return for an action-packed finale but the new young blood of Kellan Lutz, Victor Ortiz, Glen Powell and the beefy yet strikingly beautiful Ronda Rousey as well as some new veterans of old 1980s and 1990s action films in the form of the tough 'n' gruff Agent Drummer (Harrison Ford), the enigmatic Bonaparte (Kelsey Grammer) and the high-octane and energy Galgo (Antonio Banderas) who eats up every scene he's in with bizzare action stunts and crazed humour. And yet, despite how much I have to admit that I gushed over the casts of the last two films, the new entries into the cast both new and old, adds some fresh life into the already expansive and star-studded cast of the franchise. This is perhaps what sets apart the film the most from the previous two in that despite how expansive the last two film's casts were, they were nothing as golden and nostalgia-inspiring as the cast of this latest installment. Add to this the fact that the new, young actors like Rousey or Ortiz add some relatable freshness to the cast and the sheer coolness of adding legends like Ford, Snipes and Banderas into the mix and you have a potent mix that is sure to ensure that the next entries into the franchise will be equally fresh for the forseeable future.
As mentioned before, this means that the action is bigger and by that I also mean more varied. Oh sure we have a climax centring around a sprawling building complex with wave after wave of minions and tanks for our heroes to chew through and a bloody showdown between Stallone and the main villain. But Expendables 3, while still essentially being a cheesy thowback to 80s action flicks includes more than its share of precise computer-hacking, hand-to-hand rampages, vehicular slaughters and some stunts that intially seemed stupid, unrealistic and pointless (like Powell's Thorn juming up the side of an apartment block on a motorbike while blazing away with an MP5 sub-machine gun) which, while ultimatley silly, only serve to highlight the sheer enjoyability of the action segments.
Needless to say as is the case with throwback films to popcorn-munching action flicks from the Regan-era of popular culture, the action segments cover up most of the film's 126 minute run-time but despite that, you feel more invested in the struggles of the main characters this time round thanks to some genuinley shocking moments (in the visual sense) of how evil Gibson's character is, the emotional turmoil Stallone's Ross goes through throughout the film and the clear and stark if somewhat cliche tension between the new and young recruits and Stallone's old team. This elevates Expendables 3 from the status of 'enjoyable and cheesy' as was the case with the first two films to 'COME ON GUYS, LETS FIND THIS EVIL BASTARD AND MAKE HIM PAY!' pumped-up and almost wholly enjoyable in a trashy kind of way.
Now naturally, there are some issues and no film is perfect with exception to Citizen Kane (1941), The Godfather (1972), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and My Neighbour Totoro (1988). As in the last two films, the actors involved are kind of aware that they're making a series of cheesy action flicks and thus, in some places, the acting comes across as a little hammy, cliche or run-of-the-mill. On top of this, it's again disappointing that very little of the film features what are arguably the best actors in the franchise in the shape of Crews and Li. Furthermore, while the storyline is certainly more stable and adept at conveying meaning and enjoyment to the audience than in the first film, some sections of the story move way too quickly and lack any real, emotional and visceral depth as was the case with Liam Hemsworth's shocking death near the beginning of Expendables 2. However, the action, storytelling and development of the characters is certainly up at least a notch over the last two films so you'll definetly see some improvments.
As you guys can tell, I had a blast watching this movie. Not only is it the best entry into the franchise yet; it also includes interesting new and old actors fresh to the franchise, better camerawork, better action-coordination, better directing, superb base-level enjoyment and a story and motivation for the main characters that is suprisingly competent and compelling. I could go on and on about how good this film is and while I certainly wouldn't say that its in any way a groundbreaking or amazing film, I'd be more than confident in saying that its one of the best films of the year so far and worth your time if you're the type of person who'd want to go see this. If you don't, I don't blame you. However, as it is as a straightforward action flick?...I'd give it a thumbs up, a tip of the hat and a salutory puff on one of Stallone's cigars.
Plot/Storyline: 8/10
Acting: 7/10
Directing/Writing: 7.5/10
Action/Set pieces: 9/10
Camerawork/SFX: 7.5/10
Overall score: 39/50
Monday 25 August 2014
New Film Review 15: Sin City: A Dame to Kill for
I think sometimes when we see something different in filmaking that we tend to overrate it quite a large amount. And no, I'm not saying that anything that fits into this category such as the Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy (2005-2012), Paranormal Activity (2007) which in particular was inventive at first and now has just turned into every other cash-cow horror franchise like SAW (2004-) or Final Destination (2000-) and yes...unfortunatley the highly stylised and praised Sin City (2005) is slightly overpraised. But was the first of the two movies based upon Frank Miller's popular graphic novels bad? OH HELL NAW! In fact, if I did make a long list of my favourite films I would likley put Robert Rodriguez's foray into the noire in 2005 somewhere between 30th and 25th place somewhere between Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams (2002) and Home Alone (1990).
Now is that to say that there are few flaws in Sin City? Well...for a noire, comic-book adaptation its near pitch perfect with the gratuitous comic-style violence and sex attributable to Mr Miller in his other works such as the 300 graphic novels all up in your face in that lovable mid-2000's underrated comic-book film-style offset by some great acting on the part of Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Owen Wilson, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro and even a little skit of intimidating brilliance from the now deceased Michael Clarke Duncan who despite lukewarm peformances in overly-hated films like Daredevil (2003, and no...that does not mean that I think Daredevil is a good film, it is in fact heavily flawed and quite shit), you really can't fault Sin City for both trying and succeeding. Take into account all this despite a disjointed plot (which I guess was the main intention of the film and comic anyway), mysoginistic representation of women (which was bizarrley fitting considering the nature of the environs in which the characters find themselves in) and you have a respectable study of noire literature and films that doubles up as an action film.
Its kind of heartbreaking then that not only does Sin City: A Dame to Kill for fail to live up to the somewhat overrated but admitedly somewhat well-deserved appraisal of the original film but on top of this, A Dame to Kill for simply doesn't work (albeit not completley) as a singular film. Not only does the film fail to live up to the multiple-storylines shctick of the first film by only having two somewhat similar and lukewarm storylines (the first of which is far less interesting and way too long) and not feature enought of Mickey Rourke's ever imposing and memorable Marv or Del Toro's downright evilness from the first film but bits and bobs of info from the film contradict small details in the first film while new characters that we are only introduced 20 mins into the movie take up much of the film's runtime. Take into account as well the tepid acting from Josh Brolin and Jessica Alba, the slow-moving first storyline, the way-too-short second one, jerky movement in the signature black and white shillouete action segments that made the first film so iconic and awesome and top that off with one of the most disappointing and suddenly anti-climatic finales in history and you have a film that is fundamentally disappointing from about 15 mins in to the end. I make that last point because the first 15 mins include the vast majority of Mickey Rourke's underrated stint as good old Marv, without a doubt my favourite character and actor in this film.
Speaking of which, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Marv is alive in both the first storyline which occurrs before the first film and the second one which ocurrs after? I know this was a theme in the movie that some parts occurred before and after the first film but this idea is conveyed so poorley and executed so poorley as well that it just outright seems like plot points from the first film don't matter anymore. Need I mention Manute's golden eye, Bruce Willis' character coming back as a ghost after dying to give some pointless exposition which has FUCKING NO IMPACT ON THE STORY WHATSOEVER or the odd issue of Clive Owen's character appearing noweher in the new film? I know this seems a little like nitpicking from someone who despite calling the first film overrated did really like it allot, but to be honest, there are so many points in the first film that I liked that this film pisses on (albeit in not as gratuitous a way as that) that I am compelled to just flat out dislike and hate the plot of A Dame to Kill for. Do note for fucks sake though that I am making a personal point here, for those of you who are caring more about the simple quality of this film, the last paragraph will mean squat to your viewing experience, I just wanted to vent a bit.
As mentioned cryptically before, the cast this time round is less impacting than in the last film. Before we had likeable peformances from the likes of Rourke and Willis and intimidating turns from Owen and Duncan as well as Toro's aforementioned despicable peformance as 'Jackey boy' but now a cast of lacklusture peformances even from actors from the first film like Jessica Alba make much of the more sombre moments of the film fall flat. Addmittedly there is one new peformance in the shape of the sublime and absolutley stunning Eva Green who as in the other film sequel to one of the adaptations of Frank Miller's works 300: Rise of an Empire (2014), eats up the screen and any scenes she inhabits like I do when I'm hungry to a piping hot lasange with great facial expression, composure and sizzling sex appeal. On top of Green's peformance, we now also have the far more expanded peformance this time round of Powers Boothe as Senator Roark who more than makes up for the lack of Del Toro brilliance this time round with a truly despicable and evil character peformance which he just flat out wasn't able to give enought time to in the first film. In a similar fashion to Del Toro, Boothe rips apart other characters emotionally and physically with brutal abandon and is a delight to watch.
A pity then that HE'S LIMITED TO THE SHORTEST PART OF THE FUCKIN MOVIE! I know that he features in the middle a bit with Joseph-Gordon Levitt but that particular storyline comes and goes and his final showdown with Alba's Nancy at the end of the film is nothing short of anti-climactic. Needless to say from that outburst, the ending of the film is what really kills it for me. Despite a great action sequence leading up to it featuring Alba wielding a pump-action crossbow and Rourke beating the shit out of countless guards, the end of the film ends with a moment that feels like a cliffhanger but thematically is supposed to signal the end of Nancy's storyark.
Folks...I could go on and on pointing out this film's issues. There are less interesting characters, the action isn't as good as in the first film, the first storyline with Josh Brolin and Eva Green drags on too long, Levitt isn't given enough time to truly shine and any of the truly great peformances like Boothe's, Rourke's and Christopher 'doc' Lloyd's severley understay their welcomes. Would I recommend this film though? If you're simply looking for a good night out with your other half I would recommend it certainly. If you're looking for a good folloup to a pretty good film? Just watch the first film or hell even watch something like Touch of Evil (1958)...you'll get allot more out of it.
Characters/acting: 4/10
Plot/writing: 5/10
Directing: 7/10
Action: 6/10
Camerawork/SFX: 5/10
Total: 27/50
Now is that to say that there are few flaws in Sin City? Well...for a noire, comic-book adaptation its near pitch perfect with the gratuitous comic-style violence and sex attributable to Mr Miller in his other works such as the 300 graphic novels all up in your face in that lovable mid-2000's underrated comic-book film-style offset by some great acting on the part of Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Owen Wilson, Rosario Dawson, Benicio Del Toro and even a little skit of intimidating brilliance from the now deceased Michael Clarke Duncan who despite lukewarm peformances in overly-hated films like Daredevil (2003, and no...that does not mean that I think Daredevil is a good film, it is in fact heavily flawed and quite shit), you really can't fault Sin City for both trying and succeeding. Take into account all this despite a disjointed plot (which I guess was the main intention of the film and comic anyway), mysoginistic representation of women (which was bizarrley fitting considering the nature of the environs in which the characters find themselves in) and you have a respectable study of noire literature and films that doubles up as an action film.
Its kind of heartbreaking then that not only does Sin City: A Dame to Kill for fail to live up to the somewhat overrated but admitedly somewhat well-deserved appraisal of the original film but on top of this, A Dame to Kill for simply doesn't work (albeit not completley) as a singular film. Not only does the film fail to live up to the multiple-storylines shctick of the first film by only having two somewhat similar and lukewarm storylines (the first of which is far less interesting and way too long) and not feature enought of Mickey Rourke's ever imposing and memorable Marv or Del Toro's downright evilness from the first film but bits and bobs of info from the film contradict small details in the first film while new characters that we are only introduced 20 mins into the movie take up much of the film's runtime. Take into account as well the tepid acting from Josh Brolin and Jessica Alba, the slow-moving first storyline, the way-too-short second one, jerky movement in the signature black and white shillouete action segments that made the first film so iconic and awesome and top that off with one of the most disappointing and suddenly anti-climatic finales in history and you have a film that is fundamentally disappointing from about 15 mins in to the end. I make that last point because the first 15 mins include the vast majority of Mickey Rourke's underrated stint as good old Marv, without a doubt my favourite character and actor in this film.
Speaking of which, doesn't it strike anyone as odd that Marv is alive in both the first storyline which occurrs before the first film and the second one which ocurrs after? I know this was a theme in the movie that some parts occurred before and after the first film but this idea is conveyed so poorley and executed so poorley as well that it just outright seems like plot points from the first film don't matter anymore. Need I mention Manute's golden eye, Bruce Willis' character coming back as a ghost after dying to give some pointless exposition which has FUCKING NO IMPACT ON THE STORY WHATSOEVER or the odd issue of Clive Owen's character appearing noweher in the new film? I know this seems a little like nitpicking from someone who despite calling the first film overrated did really like it allot, but to be honest, there are so many points in the first film that I liked that this film pisses on (albeit in not as gratuitous a way as that) that I am compelled to just flat out dislike and hate the plot of A Dame to Kill for. Do note for fucks sake though that I am making a personal point here, for those of you who are caring more about the simple quality of this film, the last paragraph will mean squat to your viewing experience, I just wanted to vent a bit.
As mentioned cryptically before, the cast this time round is less impacting than in the last film. Before we had likeable peformances from the likes of Rourke and Willis and intimidating turns from Owen and Duncan as well as Toro's aforementioned despicable peformance as 'Jackey boy' but now a cast of lacklusture peformances even from actors from the first film like Jessica Alba make much of the more sombre moments of the film fall flat. Addmittedly there is one new peformance in the shape of the sublime and absolutley stunning Eva Green who as in the other film sequel to one of the adaptations of Frank Miller's works 300: Rise of an Empire (2014), eats up the screen and any scenes she inhabits like I do when I'm hungry to a piping hot lasange with great facial expression, composure and sizzling sex appeal. On top of Green's peformance, we now also have the far more expanded peformance this time round of Powers Boothe as Senator Roark who more than makes up for the lack of Del Toro brilliance this time round with a truly despicable and evil character peformance which he just flat out wasn't able to give enought time to in the first film. In a similar fashion to Del Toro, Boothe rips apart other characters emotionally and physically with brutal abandon and is a delight to watch.
A pity then that HE'S LIMITED TO THE SHORTEST PART OF THE FUCKIN MOVIE! I know that he features in the middle a bit with Joseph-Gordon Levitt but that particular storyline comes and goes and his final showdown with Alba's Nancy at the end of the film is nothing short of anti-climactic. Needless to say from that outburst, the ending of the film is what really kills it for me. Despite a great action sequence leading up to it featuring Alba wielding a pump-action crossbow and Rourke beating the shit out of countless guards, the end of the film ends with a moment that feels like a cliffhanger but thematically is supposed to signal the end of Nancy's storyark.
Folks...I could go on and on pointing out this film's issues. There are less interesting characters, the action isn't as good as in the first film, the first storyline with Josh Brolin and Eva Green drags on too long, Levitt isn't given enough time to truly shine and any of the truly great peformances like Boothe's, Rourke's and Christopher 'doc' Lloyd's severley understay their welcomes. Would I recommend this film though? If you're simply looking for a good night out with your other half I would recommend it certainly. If you're looking for a good folloup to a pretty good film? Just watch the first film or hell even watch something like Touch of Evil (1958)...you'll get allot more out of it.
Characters/acting: 4/10
Plot/writing: 5/10
Directing: 7/10
Action: 6/10
Camerawork/SFX: 5/10
Total: 27/50
Thursday 21 August 2014
New Film Review 14: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Hmm...you know this film is interesting for a few reasons. Naturally you'd want me to go into how that is the case less than you actually want me to tell you what I think of the film but to be honest I really have to bring this one point up. Asethetically and in terms of characters, setting and background, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is considerably different to the 2011 prequel to the Planet of the Apes franchise Rise of the Planet of the Apes. However, in a large sense, there is another fundamental way in which this particular prequel is different from its 2011 predecesor in that it is quintisentially a different type of movie despite still largley focusing on the plight and moral as well as intellectual development of the apes such as Maurice, Koba and Caesar from the last film. what I'm essentially getting at here is that whereas the first film back in 2011 had an action packed finale centring around freedom of spirit and independence in regards to the quintisential apes of hte movie while the rest of the film focused on the dangers of modern science and hte politics therein, this new film focuses on struggling forces of survival throughout with a more indivudally emotional finale focusing on the personal motivations of hte film's characters with the last scence focused more on character development than sequel/prequel-building as was the case with Rise.
What this means is that while Dawn is inexricably linked to the 2011 film, both are comparativley and fundamentally different from one another on a very fundamental and both basic and philosophical level. Therefore I feel pleased at least in my own twisted, narcissistic and odd manner and personality that while I will have to compare the two films, they are both different in almost every way apart from characters, cast members and the truly astounding and noteworthy technology used to animate the apes in this film. Oh yeah, by the way, if you don't want to see this film for any discernable reason other than you have to, at least see this film for the amazing special effects making use of both actors, model animation and CGI. Seriously, I would say that its even worth seeing the film on that basis alone. Now naturally the film has been out for a while like say a week or so but seeing as how I haven't done a blog or review in a while since my review late last year of the severly underrated Gravity I thought that now would be as good a time to do a new film review as any.
So what do I think of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes? Not as good as the first film in a few areas but certainly good enough to be on par with the original 2011 prequel to the original 1968-1970's film series so much so that I would say that overall it is just as good in some areas and better in others. But first lets get into the bed of rice at the base of this delicious visionary film moussaka. The film picks up 10 or so years after the simian flu killed off most of earth's human population at the end of Rise and focuses on the struggles over a week or so between a colony of apes pining for peaceful and indipendent existence in the woods outside los angeles led by Ceasear the chimp played by Andy Serkis and a colony of militarised humans desperatley searching for a hydroenergy dam led by Dreyfus played by the ever-entertaining Gary Oldman. After the son of one of the apes, Rocket played by Terry Notary, is killed on the border between the ape and human colonies, the whole situation comes down to a tense and terse understanding and peace between Ceasar's camp and Dreyfus' colony as the humans attempt to opperate the vital dam located deep within Ceasar's land. However, while the intentions of the humans is simply to coexist with the apes and survive, Caesar's millitaristic and vengeful subordinate General Koba played by Toby Kebbel seeks to destroy as many humans as he can for being operated and tested on in a lab in the last film. After several mishaps involving the arming of the humans with a buried arsenal of weapons, Koba's facist hatred of humans and the token-human-im-an-asshole-so-naturally-I-have-no-real-reason-to-screw-up-the-treaty of Enrique Murciano's character part way through the film, we then are treated to a srawling and action-as-well-as-twist-filled finale.
All in all, this is kind of the same kind of set up in terms of overall story-structure as the 2011 film but perhaps the most important feature that one should take notice of is that despite the primive capabilities of their fighting forces, the apes are more than capable of defeating the humans this time round even though they had a good dust-up on the golden gate bridge at the end of the first film. I'm gonna admit that I was expecting the entire cast this time to suplement the story as well as was seen in the 2011 film but unfortunatley that just damn aint the case this time round. Whereas the human charsacters last time were film steryotypes that were well-acted and fitted into the story at appropriate points, the humans this time round are just film steryotypes with little to no purpose outside of Gary Oldman's character and the main human good-guy Malcolm played suprisingly one-note by usually-not-bad actor Jason Clarke who takes the place of James Franco this time round as the main, good and sympathetic human character. Naturally, seeing as how Franco's character likley died of the simian flu in the last film it was unlikley that he would come back but then one must also the consider the recent controversy of Franco himself texting an underage girl in less-than-appropriate ways was probably a big factor that his only role in the film is a flashback on a video-camera. However, that's another, more serious matter for another time perhaps maybe if I start doing news blogs again like I did that one time during the 2011 London Riots.
But on the note of the human characters, it must be noted that apart from Oldman's Dreyfus, there is a considerable lack of charisma in virtually every sense in comparison to the last film where actos like Franco or David Oyelowo ate up the screen with characteristical traits like understandable and misguided sympathy and downright deceptive corporate selfishnes respectivley. In general, the acting last time on the part of the actors playing the humans was just all round better which is in part thanks to the direction of Rupert Wyatt but seeing as how I mentioned earlier that Dawn is equally as good overall in part most likley thanks to this time director Matt Reeves, directorial issues are probably not the case. Admittedly we have seen good actors bomb spectacularly such as with George Clooney in Batman & Robin (1997) or Sir Ben Kingsley, Michael Manson and Billy Zane in Bloodrayne (2005) both films of which had terrible directors (addmittedly less so with Joel Schumacher on Batman and Robin). Therefore, it could just be down to mild inexpereince and the lack of any noteworthy actors in the human camp this time round besides Gary Oldman who has been consistently pleasing fiml audiences since the 1980s and particularly with 1990's hits like Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) or Leon the Professional (1994) and has shown recently that he can play likeable good guys with his turn as Commissioner Gordon in the recent Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy (2005, 2008 & 2012). Perhaps the worst actor this time round is Enrique Murciano who I'm sure isn't really a bad actor in anything else but here comes across as the most token and forgettable asshole-who-screws-everything-up-with-one-unexplained-act-of-idiocy. Needless to say, I think that the film could've done much better without him seeing as how the main source of initating an inevitable conflict between the apes and humans came from Toby Kebbell this time taking over as Koba from Christopher Gordon in the last film.
Needless to say, as in the last film, the ape characters kick FUCKING ASS! I seriously cannot go into enough depth as to how much I sympathised more with the apes more than the humans (with exception again to Oldman) and how much more so that I recognised them despite being made out of animation and models. Koba steals the scenes that he inhabits as Caesar's main hunter/general-type advocate hell-bent on destroying the humans for more than understandable reasons as seen in the last film where he was inhumanely experimented on with a drug aiming to cure alzehimers'. This means that throughout the film as we see the cooperation between apes and humans strengthen we also see Koba turn into a Hamlet/Alexander the great-suicidal-tradgedy of sorts when its clear that his hatred for humans has overtaken his love for Ceaesar and the other apes. Ceasar in particular this time round again played by Andy Serkis seems to share many of the characteristic similarities of his real-life historical namesake in that this time round he seems allot more weary of the world in an intellectually sympathetic way but is also far more strong and confident not to mention fierce and imposing. A necessary trait in a leader of such a large group as the apes in this film and even more so considering how we go into looking at Caesar's brilliantly acted teenage and baby sons and his mate. aside from this character development between films, we see Caesar develop throughout Dawn into a more ideologically realist individual ready to finally accept that he may have to step up to the mantle of being a millitary as well as sociologiccal leader with the prospect of an even more titanic clash with the human military in the inevitable sequel.
Oh yeah, there is definetly going to be a sequel. Admittedly, Rise did this allot more subtly at the end of the movie leading myself and a few people I know to assume that this was a one-off prequel which relativley and somewhat neatley explained the regular references to Caesar in the original 1960s series. This time round however, the sequel-bait-style ending is more in your face, resonating and dramatic which isn't necessarily bad but its just that we've seen it done so many times and with no impact or real promise of a seuquel as seen in The Last Airbender (2010) or Masters of the Universe (1987). Just on a side note actually, why doesn't anyone talk about how bizarre it is that Dolph Lundgren's characters in films like Masters of the Universe , The Punisher (1989) and The Expendable's franchise (2010-2014) are all startlingly the same and yet asethetically different in every way? Seriously, Masters is a spunky and upbeat adventure whereas 1989 The Punisher is by far the most asthetically dark and depressing comic book movie ever made. Sorry, I went off on a tangent again didn't I? Well considering my humour is generally shit I thought that you guys might appreciate the odd look into my short attention-span-based psyche. But anyway, I am definetly looking forwards to the inevitable sequel to this magnificent prequel of a film and for once I'm excited by sequilitis bait at the end of a movie outside anything related to Star Wars, Marvel films or late 1990's-early 2000's animes like Dragonball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokemon.
This makes me more excited to see the directorial work of someone as good at adapting this source material as Wyatt or Reeves because both have done a stellar job so far by making the best sci-fi films in years with both Rise and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and revitalising the franchise virtually to an beyond its original status in less than 3 years. On top of that, I'm fascinated in seeing where next they take the groundbreaking special effects and actor models used to project, act with and animate the apes as you are able to see the emotion on every ape's face from Maurice to Koba, Caesar and Caesar's son in this film and the last one meaning that you don't have to look confused as modern filmgoers do nowadays when looking back at the then-groundbreaking way of showcasing the humanoid apes in the original film and TV series. Oh yeah, they actually made a really weird but suprisingly endearing TV series out of the same basis as the orginal Charlton Heston film series. Oh and on another side note, if I hear any of you badmouth Heston, I will FIGHT YOU ON THE STREET!
So in conclusion, I would highly recommend going to see this film. It was the first time in months that I went to the cinema with my mum and she didn't fall asleep in the middle of the film meaning that you'll be more than entertianed and moved throghout by some excellent action, storytelling, facial acting, sequel-baiting and shocking moments and twist-turns. I won't ruin what twists come up at the end of act 2 in the film but trust me...you won't see it coming. So wether or not you're a new or old fan of the franchise, I would highly recommend this film, there is no telling what good this new extension of the franchise will do but even putting that aside, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a seriously good action film with some limited albeit punchy commentary about loyalty and social coexistence and discrimination put together by a stellar cast topped off by a good screenplay, special effects and director. However, if you're still not convinced by this review to go see this film I have six words for you...APES RIDING HORSES WIELDING ASSAULT RIFLES.
Plot: 8.75/10
Action: 9/10
Acting: 6/10
Direction: 8/10
Special effects/camerawork: 9/10
OVERALL: 40.75/50
What this means is that while Dawn is inexricably linked to the 2011 film, both are comparativley and fundamentally different from one another on a very fundamental and both basic and philosophical level. Therefore I feel pleased at least in my own twisted, narcissistic and odd manner and personality that while I will have to compare the two films, they are both different in almost every way apart from characters, cast members and the truly astounding and noteworthy technology used to animate the apes in this film. Oh yeah, by the way, if you don't want to see this film for any discernable reason other than you have to, at least see this film for the amazing special effects making use of both actors, model animation and CGI. Seriously, I would say that its even worth seeing the film on that basis alone. Now naturally the film has been out for a while like say a week or so but seeing as how I haven't done a blog or review in a while since my review late last year of the severly underrated Gravity I thought that now would be as good a time to do a new film review as any.
So what do I think of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes? Not as good as the first film in a few areas but certainly good enough to be on par with the original 2011 prequel to the original 1968-1970's film series so much so that I would say that overall it is just as good in some areas and better in others. But first lets get into the bed of rice at the base of this delicious visionary film moussaka. The film picks up 10 or so years after the simian flu killed off most of earth's human population at the end of Rise and focuses on the struggles over a week or so between a colony of apes pining for peaceful and indipendent existence in the woods outside los angeles led by Ceasear the chimp played by Andy Serkis and a colony of militarised humans desperatley searching for a hydroenergy dam led by Dreyfus played by the ever-entertaining Gary Oldman. After the son of one of the apes, Rocket played by Terry Notary, is killed on the border between the ape and human colonies, the whole situation comes down to a tense and terse understanding and peace between Ceasar's camp and Dreyfus' colony as the humans attempt to opperate the vital dam located deep within Ceasar's land. However, while the intentions of the humans is simply to coexist with the apes and survive, Caesar's millitaristic and vengeful subordinate General Koba played by Toby Kebbel seeks to destroy as many humans as he can for being operated and tested on in a lab in the last film. After several mishaps involving the arming of the humans with a buried arsenal of weapons, Koba's facist hatred of humans and the token-human-im-an-asshole-so-naturally-I-have-no-real-reason-to-screw-up-the-treaty of Enrique Murciano's character part way through the film, we then are treated to a srawling and action-as-well-as-twist-filled finale.
All in all, this is kind of the same kind of set up in terms of overall story-structure as the 2011 film but perhaps the most important feature that one should take notice of is that despite the primive capabilities of their fighting forces, the apes are more than capable of defeating the humans this time round even though they had a good dust-up on the golden gate bridge at the end of the first film. I'm gonna admit that I was expecting the entire cast this time to suplement the story as well as was seen in the 2011 film but unfortunatley that just damn aint the case this time round. Whereas the human charsacters last time were film steryotypes that were well-acted and fitted into the story at appropriate points, the humans this time round are just film steryotypes with little to no purpose outside of Gary Oldman's character and the main human good-guy Malcolm played suprisingly one-note by usually-not-bad actor Jason Clarke who takes the place of James Franco this time round as the main, good and sympathetic human character. Naturally, seeing as how Franco's character likley died of the simian flu in the last film it was unlikley that he would come back but then one must also the consider the recent controversy of Franco himself texting an underage girl in less-than-appropriate ways was probably a big factor that his only role in the film is a flashback on a video-camera. However, that's another, more serious matter for another time perhaps maybe if I start doing news blogs again like I did that one time during the 2011 London Riots.
But on the note of the human characters, it must be noted that apart from Oldman's Dreyfus, there is a considerable lack of charisma in virtually every sense in comparison to the last film where actos like Franco or David Oyelowo ate up the screen with characteristical traits like understandable and misguided sympathy and downright deceptive corporate selfishnes respectivley. In general, the acting last time on the part of the actors playing the humans was just all round better which is in part thanks to the direction of Rupert Wyatt but seeing as how I mentioned earlier that Dawn is equally as good overall in part most likley thanks to this time director Matt Reeves, directorial issues are probably not the case. Admittedly we have seen good actors bomb spectacularly such as with George Clooney in Batman & Robin (1997) or Sir Ben Kingsley, Michael Manson and Billy Zane in Bloodrayne (2005) both films of which had terrible directors (addmittedly less so with Joel Schumacher on Batman and Robin). Therefore, it could just be down to mild inexpereince and the lack of any noteworthy actors in the human camp this time round besides Gary Oldman who has been consistently pleasing fiml audiences since the 1980s and particularly with 1990's hits like Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) or Leon the Professional (1994) and has shown recently that he can play likeable good guys with his turn as Commissioner Gordon in the recent Christopher Nolan Dark Knight trilogy (2005, 2008 & 2012). Perhaps the worst actor this time round is Enrique Murciano who I'm sure isn't really a bad actor in anything else but here comes across as the most token and forgettable asshole-who-screws-everything-up-with-one-unexplained-act-of-idiocy. Needless to say, I think that the film could've done much better without him seeing as how the main source of initating an inevitable conflict between the apes and humans came from Toby Kebbell this time taking over as Koba from Christopher Gordon in the last film.
Needless to say, as in the last film, the ape characters kick FUCKING ASS! I seriously cannot go into enough depth as to how much I sympathised more with the apes more than the humans (with exception again to Oldman) and how much more so that I recognised them despite being made out of animation and models. Koba steals the scenes that he inhabits as Caesar's main hunter/general-type advocate hell-bent on destroying the humans for more than understandable reasons as seen in the last film where he was inhumanely experimented on with a drug aiming to cure alzehimers'. This means that throughout the film as we see the cooperation between apes and humans strengthen we also see Koba turn into a Hamlet/Alexander the great-suicidal-tradgedy of sorts when its clear that his hatred for humans has overtaken his love for Ceaesar and the other apes. Ceasar in particular this time round again played by Andy Serkis seems to share many of the characteristic similarities of his real-life historical namesake in that this time round he seems allot more weary of the world in an intellectually sympathetic way but is also far more strong and confident not to mention fierce and imposing. A necessary trait in a leader of such a large group as the apes in this film and even more so considering how we go into looking at Caesar's brilliantly acted teenage and baby sons and his mate. aside from this character development between films, we see Caesar develop throughout Dawn into a more ideologically realist individual ready to finally accept that he may have to step up to the mantle of being a millitary as well as sociologiccal leader with the prospect of an even more titanic clash with the human military in the inevitable sequel.
Oh yeah, there is definetly going to be a sequel. Admittedly, Rise did this allot more subtly at the end of the movie leading myself and a few people I know to assume that this was a one-off prequel which relativley and somewhat neatley explained the regular references to Caesar in the original 1960s series. This time round however, the sequel-bait-style ending is more in your face, resonating and dramatic which isn't necessarily bad but its just that we've seen it done so many times and with no impact or real promise of a seuquel as seen in The Last Airbender (2010) or Masters of the Universe (1987). Just on a side note actually, why doesn't anyone talk about how bizarre it is that Dolph Lundgren's characters in films like Masters of the Universe , The Punisher (1989) and The Expendable's franchise (2010-2014) are all startlingly the same and yet asethetically different in every way? Seriously, Masters is a spunky and upbeat adventure whereas 1989 The Punisher is by far the most asthetically dark and depressing comic book movie ever made. Sorry, I went off on a tangent again didn't I? Well considering my humour is generally shit I thought that you guys might appreciate the odd look into my short attention-span-based psyche. But anyway, I am definetly looking forwards to the inevitable sequel to this magnificent prequel of a film and for once I'm excited by sequilitis bait at the end of a movie outside anything related to Star Wars, Marvel films or late 1990's-early 2000's animes like Dragonball Z, Yu-Gi-Oh! or Pokemon.
This makes me more excited to see the directorial work of someone as good at adapting this source material as Wyatt or Reeves because both have done a stellar job so far by making the best sci-fi films in years with both Rise and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and revitalising the franchise virtually to an beyond its original status in less than 3 years. On top of that, I'm fascinated in seeing where next they take the groundbreaking special effects and actor models used to project, act with and animate the apes as you are able to see the emotion on every ape's face from Maurice to Koba, Caesar and Caesar's son in this film and the last one meaning that you don't have to look confused as modern filmgoers do nowadays when looking back at the then-groundbreaking way of showcasing the humanoid apes in the original film and TV series. Oh yeah, they actually made a really weird but suprisingly endearing TV series out of the same basis as the orginal Charlton Heston film series. Oh and on another side note, if I hear any of you badmouth Heston, I will FIGHT YOU ON THE STREET!
So in conclusion, I would highly recommend going to see this film. It was the first time in months that I went to the cinema with my mum and she didn't fall asleep in the middle of the film meaning that you'll be more than entertianed and moved throghout by some excellent action, storytelling, facial acting, sequel-baiting and shocking moments and twist-turns. I won't ruin what twists come up at the end of act 2 in the film but trust me...you won't see it coming. So wether or not you're a new or old fan of the franchise, I would highly recommend this film, there is no telling what good this new extension of the franchise will do but even putting that aside, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a seriously good action film with some limited albeit punchy commentary about loyalty and social coexistence and discrimination put together by a stellar cast topped off by a good screenplay, special effects and director. However, if you're still not convinced by this review to go see this film I have six words for you...APES RIDING HORSES WIELDING ASSAULT RIFLES.
Plot: 8.75/10
Action: 9/10
Acting: 6/10
Direction: 8/10
Special effects/camerawork: 9/10
OVERALL: 40.75/50
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)