Showing posts with label Time Travel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Time Travel. Show all posts
Monday, 2 June 2014
Review: X-men: Days of Future Past
Year: 2014
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenplay: Simon Kinberg
Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart
Synopsis is here:
The blockbusters are now in full flow, and despite the latest entry of the x-men franchise gaining healthy word of mouth both critically and commercially, I once again left the auditorium with feelings of fatigue. My enjoyment of the X-men series hit its peak with the brash knock around pleasure of X-2 (I did really enjoy 1st Class also) but the time hopping antics of Wolverine and company only allowed a cloud of malaise to fog my mind.
Not being a comic book fan (per se), I find that my enjoyment of many of these films stems from when they slightly stray from the frame. I found myself more entertained with these characters when Singer decidedly placed himself out the frame as opposed to following things panel to panel. I enjoyed his broad brush strokes of religion (Nightcrawler) and race (Malcolm X and Dr King parallels) slotting into generally fun and balanced ensemble pieces. Day of Future Past cuts things straight down the line, with little time to be distracted by things that aren't dictated by the plot. We're too far down the rabbit hole for those small character beats that some enjoy.
Days of Future Past has Wolverine as the de facto leading man once again in an alteration to the original that is understandable in terms of the story, but feels dull due to the volume of X-men films with Hugh Jackman setting the pace. Jackman is still solid in the role, but after situating Wolverine as the main poster boy for long now has the decision feeling stale. It did allow my audience to gawp and giggle at Jackman's bare ass. The hefty violence, however (which did cause one family walk out), didn't raise an eyebrow. As I considered how desensitised audiences can be to on-screen violence, I realised that while the film didn't stop for me to finish my contemplation (why should it?), it didn't have anything within it to make me stop my mind from drifting.
I found myself thinking about the texture that Singer had brought to X-men before. Having mutants such as Nightcrawler who didn't just feel like an amazing opening set piece, but a chance to introduce a mutant which had a certain amount of consideration to his character. Days of Future Past has an illuminating Quicksilver (A mutant with superhuman speed) sequence which had me grinning at the wit and cocksure attitude that Evan Peters brings to the role. However, he feels utilised only as a plot device rather than anything else. The use of Quicksilver doesn't feel as jarring as the motivations of Michael Fassbender's Magneto in the later stages. Writers who know their comic onions such as Devin Faraci have written entertaining pieces on why the film has no continuity errors, but a decision by Magneto feels more muddled than it ever should do. Had I no formal knowledge of the character, I would have been questioning the film even more. The film screenplay often clunks plot elements about heavily. Ask yourself: how often do we need Wolverine to explain to people on why he's in the past?
Here's where we are now in the comic franchise city. If you weren't around at the beginning and something confuses you, then tough cookies. It makes sense to the nerds and geeks, so you're not invited. Anything that may feel like a piece of badly communicated plot can be happily explained to you afterwards, but if that's the case, is it good filmmaking? Then again, even those who have enjoyed past entries may raise an eyebrow to other actors who get short-changed by the film's direction and its clunky narrative. Halle Berry and Anna Paquin could have had grounds to sue if they looked like they gave more of a damn.
Clearly I'm being facetious, but looking at how previous characters are treated in Days of Future Past reminds me of how empty the film made me feel. After watching it last week, I'm now struggling to remember anything other than the odd one or two moments that held my attention. Nixon caricatures and speeding Quicksilvers aside, Days of Future Past will (and has) impress those who revere the film's source material. For the likes of myself who remain on the periphery of this wave of geek pop culture, there's a good chance of being slightly stumped.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Review: Looper
Year: 2012
Director: Rian Johnson
Screenplay: Rian Johnson
Starring: Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels
Synopsis is here:
I've more than enjoyed the films of Rian Johnson in the past but always felt in the back of my mind, that he was a filmmaker who was very quick to show that he has smarts. Brick had its Filmore-equse high school noir plot and jargon, The Brothers Bloom was a breezy heist movie that almost felt too light on the con itself and that may have over done the quirk. To say his movies have limited appeal is incorrect, however, as much as I've taken pleasure from Johnson's movies, I've not been surprised that the fan base has been quite niche.
Looper is Johnson's most pleasurable film, and its interesting that it takes the twists and turns of sci-fi and time travel to supply his most emotionally satisfying tale. The film holds a clear understanding of genre, a well constructed world and a hearty grip of the mechanics. Johnson toys with the dynamic, but not enough to distance, and not lightly enough to make it feel gimmicky. All the elements of the story are utilised and it's focus on character create a thrilling and surprisingly affecting update to La jetee and 12 monkeys. Those who want all the detailed minutia to play out can watch Primer. Looper is more likened to Source Code, in that everything is built well enough to wrap the viewer up into the pace and bluster of it all.
Johnson still keeps his brow raised slightly, using a constant ticking clock motif and cyclical nature of the sci-fi at hand to create an engrossing backdrop that contrasts the three main character motivations. We have a young buck preoccupied by only his future goals, a hardened old man, blinded by the pain of his past and a juvenile right at the tipping point of his life. Johnson strategically plays these characters against age old themes of sacrifice and the ideal that our actions may help a greater good in deeper ways that we even know.
Bruce Willis is not at all new to what's playing out (see 12 Monkeys) and gives that that credible world weariness that we now know him for. Joseph Gordon Levitt has a more burdensome role, having to play a more intolarent version of the same character and as well as mimic Willis from a physical preceptive. He doesn't fully look the part but there're moments in which Levitt is doing more than an effective impression. Emily Blunt is the emotional anchor of the film and puts in a bankable performance, although elements of her relationship with Levitt could have been stronger on the screen. Piper Perabo, Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels provide solid support.
The film stumbles in it's middle act. We have quite a few characters and suddenly lumped with more background to get through and this all effects the main charge of it all. However, the film get itself in gear for a very impactful climax, which balances the scale of the implications with what we've learnt from the character during the story. Johnson's film has a great time travel hook,and a solidly believable world to place it in (I love the eye drop drugs and solar car ideas) but what makes Looper such an enjoyable watch is that Johnson keeps an eye on the human element, something that good sci-fi should nearly always do.
Director: Rian Johnson
Screenplay: Rian Johnson
Starring: Bruce Willis, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Emily Blunt, Jeff Daniels
Synopsis is here:
I've more than enjoyed the films of Rian Johnson in the past but always felt in the back of my mind, that he was a filmmaker who was very quick to show that he has smarts. Brick had its Filmore-equse high school noir plot and jargon, The Brothers Bloom was a breezy heist movie that almost felt too light on the con itself and that may have over done the quirk. To say his movies have limited appeal is incorrect, however, as much as I've taken pleasure from Johnson's movies, I've not been surprised that the fan base has been quite niche.
Looper is Johnson's most pleasurable film, and its interesting that it takes the twists and turns of sci-fi and time travel to supply his most emotionally satisfying tale. The film holds a clear understanding of genre, a well constructed world and a hearty grip of the mechanics. Johnson toys with the dynamic, but not enough to distance, and not lightly enough to make it feel gimmicky. All the elements of the story are utilised and it's focus on character create a thrilling and surprisingly affecting update to La jetee and 12 monkeys. Those who want all the detailed minutia to play out can watch Primer. Looper is more likened to Source Code, in that everything is built well enough to wrap the viewer up into the pace and bluster of it all.
Johnson still keeps his brow raised slightly, using a constant ticking clock motif and cyclical nature of the sci-fi at hand to create an engrossing backdrop that contrasts the three main character motivations. We have a young buck preoccupied by only his future goals, a hardened old man, blinded by the pain of his past and a juvenile right at the tipping point of his life. Johnson strategically plays these characters against age old themes of sacrifice and the ideal that our actions may help a greater good in deeper ways that we even know.
Bruce Willis is not at all new to what's playing out (see 12 Monkeys) and gives that that credible world weariness that we now know him for. Joseph Gordon Levitt has a more burdensome role, having to play a more intolarent version of the same character and as well as mimic Willis from a physical preceptive. He doesn't fully look the part but there're moments in which Levitt is doing more than an effective impression. Emily Blunt is the emotional anchor of the film and puts in a bankable performance, although elements of her relationship with Levitt could have been stronger on the screen. Piper Perabo, Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels provide solid support.
The film stumbles in it's middle act. We have quite a few characters and suddenly lumped with more background to get through and this all effects the main charge of it all. However, the film get itself in gear for a very impactful climax, which balances the scale of the implications with what we've learnt from the character during the story. Johnson's film has a great time travel hook,and a solidly believable world to place it in (I love the eye drop drugs and solar car ideas) but what makes Looper such an enjoyable watch is that Johnson keeps an eye on the human element, something that good sci-fi should nearly always do.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Review: Source Code
Year: 2011
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Ben Ripley
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffery Wright
Synopsis is here
Roger Ebert's review on Source Code states that the science within the film is preposterous. I don't disagree in the slightest. I dare all the budding Brian Cox's to try and get their head around it. Like Indiana Jones taking more liberties than time team would like to acknowledge, Source Code plays fast and loose with quantum physics with the clear knowledge that most of the audience will not be experts. This provides issues with the film particularly near the end which could leave people scratching their head and not in that musing, good way. However, the key to the film is conviction. There's something about Chris Bacon's lively and Hitchcockain score, Jeffery Wright's amusingly crotchety but forceful scientist and the whole explanation of the situation at hand that makes the unbelievable viable.
Checked the synopsis? Well yes the film does give illusion to Groundhog Day, however it's obvious from the films science and sly voice cameo that Jones is more interested in Quantum Leap than Bill Murray. The film also touches on themes that were nicely established in Jones' first feature Moon. The cyclical nature of the hero's journey and the wish to break from it, that the sacrifice of one benefits the many and the difficult relationship between employers and employees when one has found a way to take advantage of the other. Jones complies these themes well and tells it in a story that feels remarkably fresh. There's enough in the film to entertain throughout.
But we shouldn't give Jones all the credit. The direction of the pace of the material as well as the flow of information is well handled. However, much has to be said about Ben Ripley's screenplay which is constantly involving from many angles. We're not only interested in the idea of Source Code, but also the plight of the solider. How the hell did he get into such a position? Now that he's there; will he ever escape it? There's a love story forming within the film, with the knowledge that we now, how can it survive? The combination of Ripley's questions and Jones' energy put the stakes right into the forefront. Once we get more information on the situation (the twists drop in at just the right moments) there is the question on if it feeling slightly futile. However, the drive of the character and their right to be allowed to do what they wish (sorry if this sounds vague, trying to not lay the plot bare) is what keeps the risk alive and the film entertaining as a whole.
The acting here is solid. Nothing groundbreaking by any accounts but all good turns from likable actors. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan have a cute chemistry and bounce well off each other. Vera Farmiga's performance is a little bland. However, considering the part is merely a holding one, she does what is expected.
Source Code is a film which is full of fridge logic, however, like Limitless and the Adjustment Bureau before it, there's more than enough humanity and conviction in it's execution to enjoy what's on screen. I liked these people, was genuinely surprised with how they dealt with their situation at times and felt thoroughly satisfied (although a tad perplexed) with the outcome. Like a few recent films, the films final codec feels a little tacked on try and keep everyone sweet. However, when it's all said and done; Source Code is a enjoyable, sometimes thoughtful companion piece to Jones' first feature.
Director: Duncan Jones
Screenplay: Ben Ripley
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffery Wright
Synopsis is here
Roger Ebert's review on Source Code states that the science within the film is preposterous. I don't disagree in the slightest. I dare all the budding Brian Cox's to try and get their head around it. Like Indiana Jones taking more liberties than time team would like to acknowledge, Source Code plays fast and loose with quantum physics with the clear knowledge that most of the audience will not be experts. This provides issues with the film particularly near the end which could leave people scratching their head and not in that musing, good way. However, the key to the film is conviction. There's something about Chris Bacon's lively and Hitchcockain score, Jeffery Wright's amusingly crotchety but forceful scientist and the whole explanation of the situation at hand that makes the unbelievable viable.
Checked the synopsis? Well yes the film does give illusion to Groundhog Day, however it's obvious from the films science and sly voice cameo that Jones is more interested in Quantum Leap than Bill Murray. The film also touches on themes that were nicely established in Jones' first feature Moon. The cyclical nature of the hero's journey and the wish to break from it, that the sacrifice of one benefits the many and the difficult relationship between employers and employees when one has found a way to take advantage of the other. Jones complies these themes well and tells it in a story that feels remarkably fresh. There's enough in the film to entertain throughout.
But we shouldn't give Jones all the credit. The direction of the pace of the material as well as the flow of information is well handled. However, much has to be said about Ben Ripley's screenplay which is constantly involving from many angles. We're not only interested in the idea of Source Code, but also the plight of the solider. How the hell did he get into such a position? Now that he's there; will he ever escape it? There's a love story forming within the film, with the knowledge that we now, how can it survive? The combination of Ripley's questions and Jones' energy put the stakes right into the forefront. Once we get more information on the situation (the twists drop in at just the right moments) there is the question on if it feeling slightly futile. However, the drive of the character and their right to be allowed to do what they wish (sorry if this sounds vague, trying to not lay the plot bare) is what keeps the risk alive and the film entertaining as a whole.
The acting here is solid. Nothing groundbreaking by any accounts but all good turns from likable actors. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan have a cute chemistry and bounce well off each other. Vera Farmiga's performance is a little bland. However, considering the part is merely a holding one, she does what is expected.
Source Code is a film which is full of fridge logic, however, like Limitless and the Adjustment Bureau before it, there's more than enough humanity and conviction in it's execution to enjoy what's on screen. I liked these people, was genuinely surprised with how they dealt with their situation at times and felt thoroughly satisfied (although a tad perplexed) with the outcome. Like a few recent films, the films final codec feels a little tacked on try and keep everyone sweet. However, when it's all said and done; Source Code is a enjoyable, sometimes thoughtful companion piece to Jones' first feature.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)