Showing posts with label adventure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adventure. Show all posts

Sunday, 28 February 2016

New film review #22: The Revenant (8th Jan 2016 for US, 15th Jan 2016 for UK)

Image source: http://moviehole.net/201699850the-revenant

Ok so it should be obvious but I'm definitely not talking about that pile of shite of a 2009 vampire movie that also happens to be called The Revenant but am instead talking about a current, harrowing and relatable movie of survival and revenge revolving around the story of legendary early-1800s US frontiersman Hugh Glass played amicably by Leonardo DiCaprio.  I suppose that goes really without saying but despite how niche the 2009 film was I found out while researching for this review that it has something of a following that reviews it quite positively and I just couldn't figure out why considering how shite it is.

Fortunately, this current Alejandro González Iñárritu tour de force should make you realise that an action/adventure film can not only be thoughtful and delve into human emotions but also have a highly-relatable and sympathetic main character without too much dialogue.  Now there is a common theme in a lot of modern action and revenge films I hear about that many of them have too much discussion and generally not enough 'show don't tell'.  This I can certainly see being prevalent in a lot of modern films such as Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) or anything Steven Segal has made since the early-2000s with exception to Half Past Dead (2002) or Machete (2010) (although the former was shit and the latter starred him as a bit-part villain).  However, there is a time when some action, adventure and yes, even revenge films have to take just a short moment to talk back and fortunately The Revenant finds a good balance between speaking and action for the most part.

As for the plot; for those of you who may not know, Hugh Glass was a noted US frontiersman in the 1820s hunting for animal pelts while fighting for survival against the harshness of the US frontier, the American forestall winter, avenging bands of native American warriors and even his own fellow frontiersmen.  The events of The Revenant  circle around the life-changing event in 1823 when Hugh Glass was savagely mauled by a grizzly bear near the forks of the Grand River in modern-day South Dakota and was subsequently patched up before being abandoned by fellow frontiersmen Fitzgerald and Bridger and subsequently hunting them down through hundreds of miles of tundra and an abandoned fort on the Yellowstone River. 

Image source: http://teaser-trailer.com/the-revenant-movie-clip/

Now the film does fictionalise some events of Glass' adventure such as portraying Fort Henry as being still occupied when he hunts down Fitzgerald or how the actual journey down the Yellowstone River itself takes less time in the film than it did in real life where Glass had to crawl for several weeks in a row after healing from being mauled by the bear.  Admittedly, some of Glass' adventure is alleged and theorised but it is largely and for the most part based in reliable accounts which does make it a bit egregious to someone who actually studies history like myself that the film Hollywood's some of the real-life events and fictionalises some for thematic purposes.  However, this is sometimes inevitable when making an entertaining film as seen with epics such as Kingdom of Heaven (2005) or Valkyrie (2008).

One thing that definitely alleviates many of the grievances I might have about this issue though is definitely DiCaprio's stellar performance as Glass with DiCaprio at this point in life being roughly near the same age as Glass was when he was mauled by that bear.  This in part gives DiCaprio the extra weight needed in his performance to truly push home the feeling of desperation, determination, anger, revenge and survival wit that Glass was reputed for.  Without a doubt this is one of my favourite if not my very favourite DiCaprio performance yet of his career so far which is even more incredible considering that he barely speaks for the majority of the film with his lines probably taking up half a sheet of A4.  This relates back to the earlier point about 'show don't tell' in that most of the emotion and character development is conveyed through DiCaprio's acting and facial performance which considering how many big performances have been clangered by failing physical performances.  DiCaprio has always been one of my favourite actors and his ability to convey emotion and character development through his facial emotions and performance cannot be understated.  Every actor in this film does the same to the best of their abilities but DiCaprio easily blasts them out of the water with his rifle-musket and dominates the acting with probably his best performance yet.

This compliments the story which in turn is also somewhat minimal and focuses primarily on Glass' struggle for survival against all the odds.  Like Deadpool the simplicity of the story in The Revenant  is one of its main strengths and when applied to the powerful physical performance by DiCaprio is superb.  I won't say too much about the story in this regard as doing so would likely spoil it for some of you out there but I can definitely point out where the story fails and that has to be when it tries to be deep and symbolic.  There are a few moments throughout the film when the music and some really misplaced dream sequences where the film tries to sentimentalise you into feeling a certain way and really just doesn't work.  Thankfully this doesn't happen but when we get cheesy visions of Glass' fictional dead wife it really jars against the mood of the scene that you're watching.  For the most part though, this film conveys its themes and sense of emotion through the suffering of different characters which as mentioned before is done with great skill.

Image source: http://www.inquisitr.com/2646398/the-revenant-star-tom-hardy-talks-leaving-suicide-squad-i-hate-fking-losing-work/

There really isn't much I can say aside from all that I've set out above other than Tom Hardy gives an equally stellar performance as the despicable Fitzgerald, the small bits of action are superbly well done and despite the shoddy symbolism, the cinematography throughout the film is truly superb.  The film might be a bit of a drag for some it rewards the viewer with a truly rewarding ending and an overall superb story about survival and revenge.  Yes, the historical inaccuracies are plentiful and for me personally that was a bit of a piss take but overall the film is well made enough and has enough creativity in the cinematography to outweigh most of the film's misgivings.  I'd say don't see this if you don't like gruelling length-trips but even then I'd still give this an umbrella of recommendation because its easily one of the best historical films released in several years.

Until next time, have fun, don't do anything I wouldn't do and go see The Revenant.

Cinematography/camerawork: 9/10
Acting: 9/10
Story/plot/writing: 6.5/10
Action/set-pieces/key moments: 8.5/10
Direction, lighting and sound: 8/10

OVERALL RATING: Like a hepatitis B jab, this film is a bit gruelling at first and is a bit hard to get through but is ultimately very rewarding and the end result is more than beneficial and enjoyable and you at least get a can of sprite and a chuppa chup afterwards.

Wednesday, 12 November 2014

New Film Review #17: Interstellar

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

Saturday, 13 April 2013

Old film review #4: Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (2010)

Let me start off this review by saying one thing, I have no underwear o...oh wait that's the wrong script.  Hang on a moment...ah here we are, It's good to be back!  I know I haven't done a review for nearly a year now but I thought that now is as good a time as any to return to the world of critics, thus here I am!  And I thought it only appropriate that I return to this glorious position of magnificence by doing one of the earliest types of reviews that I ever did, a film review!

In particular, I've chosen a strange specimen of a film in the sense that I see it as both being old and yet relatively new, and at the same time under-appreciated but also somewhat pretty weak.  Now there are many films that fit this bill, but the one I have chosen is the 2010 adventure/action/comedy/mythology romp titled Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.

Like many such films mostly centred around action and adventure, we follow the rise to glory of an aspiring hero as they are flung out of the ordinary world and into a world where magic reigns, mythical creates represent challenges to the hero's weaknesses and where obnoxious and slightly irritating comedy relief characters hold reign over much of the side-plots   In this case we follow the case of Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) who discovers through being attacked at a museum by a 'fury' from the legends of Greek myth that he is a demigod; a son of a mortal woman and the Greek sea god Poseidon.  When he is attacked Percy discovers not only is he a demigod but also that his aforementioned, obnoxious comedy relief/best friend character Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) is a goat/man hybrid called a 'satyr' and that he himself is destined to be trained at a camp governed by the centaur Chiron (Pierce Brosnan) where demigods like himself spar in order to prepare for possible conflicts between the gods.  Unfortunately for Percy, he is sent to this camp just as such a civil-war of the Greek gods is about to start over who has stolen mighty Zeus's (Sean Bean) master lighting bolt, the start of which sees the underworld god Hades (Steve Coogan) kidnap his mother and blackmail him into bringing the lightning bolt to the underworld in the suspicion that Percy is in possession of it.  Naturally Percy is all for charging in to save his mother and the day but his superiors advise against it, however, he naturally disobeys them and thus sets out on an adventurous quest for clues to who the lightning thief is and how to get to the underworld with Grover and the demigod Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) in tow.

And thus begins a supposedly epic adventure quest to save the damsel (or in this case, redundant mother character)  in distress and save the world before it is literally ripped to shreds.  Now this might seem like a somewhat familiar and run-of-the-mill premise for a story as it has been done before in films such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963) or Clash of the Titans (the 1981 original, not the 2010 crappy-ass remake), but what really makes this particular telling of such a tried and tested formula is the characters and the way that they interact with tenets of Greek mythology along the daring road of their quest.  Percy Jackson in particular is played amusingly well by Lerman as he is shown to be your archetypal white, working-class pseudo-moody American teenager (at least how that demographic is shown by Hollywood movies) and yet is not awed by the fact that he is a demigod like so many movie heroes before him but is instead scared witless by the prospect of fighting in a mythical civil-war.  This in turn is compounded by the comical way in which Percy points out the logical reasons and counter-arguments as to why it is so weird that his best friend is half goat and that he is the son of the sea god.  On top of this, while Grover is most certainly annoying, he does provide some good comedy relief here and there by generally being both heroically loyal to Percy and a lecherous rouge with an addiction to the daughters of Aphrodite (the Greek goddess of love).  As for the references to Greek mythology, the main characters mainly go through these references by having to collect pearls in order to get out of the underworld which are in turn scattered throughout the lairs of Medusa (Uma Thurman), the mighty Hydra and the manipulative and mind-controlling lotus eaters.  Most entertaining of all the Greek gods and mythological legends however is the role of Hades played by Coogan who shows the god of the underworld not as the brooding and brimstone-like creature of darkness in traditional Greek mythology but as a heavy rock-loving, leather-wearing biker with the laziest attitude to his whole scheme of evil that you'd see from any villain of his calibre.

However, as amusing as the references to Greek mythology, Coogan's Hades and the Percy/Grover duo are, this film does have its weak points, and by the electrifying beard of Zeus are they jarring.  The foremost  of these barricades to the film's success is the fact that the story is so token and so run-of-the-mill that it is sometimes very hard for the story to be propped up alone by the dashing and comedic exploits of our heroes.  This perhaps would be a redundant problem were it not for the fact that Hades, Grover, Percy and the main and clunkily-revealed-at-the-last-minute main villain Luke (Jake Abel) are the only interesting and engaging characters who keep you drawn in to the story.  As it is, all the other pivotal characters, most notably Annabeth, Percy's mother, Poseidon and even Pierce Brosnan's Chiron, are either underplayed to the extent that they are notably uninteresting or are simply shown so little throughout the film that they become redundant themselves both in character and relevance to the story.  However, what is most personally grating to me is how badly the main villain,. Luke, is revealed to be the aforementioned lightning thief near to the end of the film in what has to be one of the most clunky, sudden and jarring character reveals  in recent movie history.  Just as Percy, Annabeth and Percy's mother escape from the underworld to deliver the master lightning bolt to Zeus, they are halted in their tracks atop the apex of the empire state building by Luke who has played the support character throughout the film by giving the main characters mythology-Intel and directions.  Being the son of Hermes (the flying/fleet-footed messenger of the Greek gods) Luke swoops in, swipes the lighting bolt and literally out of the blue, almost immediately says to Percy's face "I'm the lightning thief".  The fact that this is conveyed with so little build-up makes it one of the most underwhelming villain reveals I have seen in recent years and is further made worse by the fact that its done in the last (and uncomfortably-rushed) 15 minutes of the film.

Taking this all into account, it would be fair to say that Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is a poor excuse for an adventure film.  However, it still holds up to no small extent as an action film with comedy elements such as Grover's lewdness and the riveting battles against the Hydra and the fight between Percy and Luke at the film's climax.  Yet the cons of this film such as Percy's under-played ability to manipulate water and the slew of un-engaging side characters meant that when this film came out, it was generally under-appreciated in the sense that it had a more colourful main character than most films of its type in modern cinema and that it had some star actors such as Thurman, Brosnan and Coogan which were mostly ignored.

Yet I personally think that Chris Columbus's directing of Rick Riordan's novel of the same name is an admirable attempt to meld modern film-based pop culture with ancient and eternal mythology from a culture that spawned democracy.  In conclusion: see this film but don't expect to be awed by its approach to ancient mythology.

I hope you enjoyed this review and as mentioned before...

I
HAVE
RETURNED!!!