Year: 2010
Director: George A Romero
Screenplay: George A Romero
Starring: Alan Van Sprang, Kenneth Welsh, Kathleen Munroe, Devon Bostick
Synopsis is here
His "modern" trio of movies are difficult to place not just in continuity (Land feels like a true continuation, Diary a modern day offshoot, Survival even more removed) but also in tone and feel. Romero seems like he still has an axe to grind socially, but the world has changed, and with the almost constant slew of zombie movies being churned out, many share similar or even more interesting commentary on the world since. Nowadays Romero can construct a dead head explosion (despite using more CGI) but when many entries like Pontypool*, 28 Days later*, Rec and others have entered the genre pool and played in the waters in recent time (with extremely interesting results, there's a feeling that the master of them all should hang up his boomsticks and look at pastures new.
It's hard for many to see their idols fall, which is why when I heard some of the terrible reviews placed on George A Romero and his latest feature, Survival of the Dead I feared the worst. Many hating it's amateur feel, lack of atmosphere and general not-being-as-good-as-his-first-three-ness. Unfortunately I too, feel the same about the film. It is nowhere close to replicating the same amount of tension and fear set the original trilogy. Most of this stems from the fact that Romero doesn't feel the need to give us interesting people to follow anymore. Many lamented the drab teens of Diary but compared to the bland army men and farm folk of this entry, it makes the Diary guys look more animated than Woody and Buzz. Romero's idea of characterization for a lesbian army soldier is merely to have a shot of her touching herself and pepper her dialogue with "tough-speak". This is the most effort placed on any of the characters, and if you found those traits a little tired, you may not stand for some of the other "personalities" on display.
What's more disturbing is the complete lack of a meaty social commentary to get to grips with. So while Rec blended faux-documentary (a very go to thing these days) with hints of religion and science, and Pontypool utilize the very use of language against us (with a nice amount of skill) Survival goes over the well trodden theme of zombies gaining memory back, and a poorly executed idea of two bickering families with differing zombie ideologies. In all honest it was done so much better in 78 when Romero hint at these aspects before in Dawn.
Instead of working on making these ideas appealing, we are given very board humor (with none of the satirical edge seen in past films, a distinct lack of conflict (these warring families spend much of the movie apart.) and oddball dialogue. All this with a nagging feeling throughout that Romero probably wants to do something else with his filmmaking.
Romero gets it's hard because of his standing in horror. he pretty much laid the grounding. so now with this his sixth dead it's frustrating to see a talent bring up something so plain. There's not much to say about this sixth offering, other than there's a lot of headshots and this is the weakest of the dead films. I remember listening to the creative screenwriting podcast and listening to Romero talk about an horror idea involving lucid dreaming. It featured no zombies and the idea sounded great. Let's hope it comes to fruition.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Review: Piranha 3-D
Year: 2010
Director: Alexandre Aja
Screenplay: Alexandre Aja, Pete Goldfinger, Josh Stolberg
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott, Jerry O'Connell, Ving Rhames, Dina Meyer, Jessica Szohr, Steven R. McQueen, Christopher Lloyd,
In a recent interview, James Cameron has taken Piranha 3D to task over it's use of well... the 3D. The comments may feel slight but not only did it hit some of the makers a bit hard but it also comes across as a little hard to swallow considering the 3-D medium is nearly almost being reserved for animated movies with celebrity voices. It is true that certain directors with more pedigree are looking utilizing the idea of 3-D, Cameron's views come out during a re-release (less than a year after) of Avatar. So despite being the biggest selling movie in the world (with inflation etc.) Cameron wants you back in the cinemas (in 3-D) once more, after you've already brought the DVD (not 3-D) of his epic.
Cameron's words feel sillier to me still because there's still a lot of people out there who couldn't care less about 3-D. Not critics or wanker bloggers like me, but those who go to the flicks once very so often just to watch a flick. The hiked prices, the fussy glasses and the fact that to some, the effect just dosen't do that much, puts them off. "The best films are being made in 3-D" says the director, however, I do feel that films like Toy Story 3 could have done alright without needing to be in 3-D.
This in a around about way brings me to Piranha 3-D a shlocky affair with it an eye on it's target audience and tongue so firmly in it's cheek you'd need some flares, a mobile and some gas to dislodge it. Director Alexander Aja utilities the effect like Pixar do with their short film before the aforementioned Toy Story 3, as an amusing distraction, more than anything else. That train of thought may hurt someone like Cameron, but for a movie like this with it's cheeky references to Jaws and Girls gone Wild alike, it appears to catch the post-modern wave quite well. Quite simply, much like 3-D, the film is a guilty pleasure.
Piranha 3-D starts off with more build up than I expect, and while the fishy foe do make the odd appearance, Aja still saves enough time to give me some thin but fun characters who tuck into the goofy material enough to keep me going. The Expendables clearly wanted to capture this silly little bubble, but for me Piranha is not only more coherent, but also less full of it's self for my liking. Yes, better known stars like Elizabeth Shue and Ving Rhames are in this. They are however taking bites out of the scenery, but it doesn't feel like a grasp at relevance, more like a chance to let their hair down a bit. To be honest, all of the cast are in on the joke so to speak with adequate displays throughout. Yes. even Kelly Brook who is clearly used more for her coke bottle figure over any thespian talents is watchable here.
Also letting it all hang out is the film's director. Aja's film is no-way as intense as his earlier features (Switchblade Romance, The Hills have eyes remake), but this in no way hampers his inventive execution of set pieces. Some feel well known (the two kids on an island waiting for help), while others feel very fresh. The films centerpiece (the destruction of the Lake Victoria beach) has some creative comic death moments, showing the filmmaker at their most playful. With this said Piranha still manages to give off a certain level of threat (although no real full on scares) with some of it's many underwater scenes giving off just enough tension to remain interesting.
Piranha 3-D is a loving hark back to an eighties vibe of horror film-making, mixing the gore drenched splatter features of that era with an extra added Porky's vibe to it. Interestingly with all the gratuitous female features on display, Aja's film still manages to make the characters we're meant to be watching likable enough to forget about the boobs (depending on who you are). A fun, disposable flick with enough gore and laughs for genre fans, Piranha isn't going to make massive waves in the great horror circle, but manages to be a nice nibble for it's 88 minutes.
Director: Alexandre Aja
Screenplay: Alexandre Aja, Pete Goldfinger, Josh Stolberg
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott, Jerry O'Connell, Ving Rhames, Dina Meyer, Jessica Szohr, Steven R. McQueen, Christopher Lloyd,
In a recent interview, James Cameron has taken Piranha 3D to task over it's use of well... the 3D. The comments may feel slight but not only did it hit some of the makers a bit hard but it also comes across as a little hard to swallow considering the 3-D medium is nearly almost being reserved for animated movies with celebrity voices. It is true that certain directors with more pedigree are looking utilizing the idea of 3-D, Cameron's views come out during a re-release (less than a year after) of Avatar. So despite being the biggest selling movie in the world (with inflation etc.) Cameron wants you back in the cinemas (in 3-D) once more, after you've already brought the DVD (not 3-D) of his epic.
Cameron's words feel sillier to me still because there's still a lot of people out there who couldn't care less about 3-D. Not critics or wanker bloggers like me, but those who go to the flicks once very so often just to watch a flick. The hiked prices, the fussy glasses and the fact that to some, the effect just dosen't do that much, puts them off. "The best films are being made in 3-D" says the director, however, I do feel that films like Toy Story 3 could have done alright without needing to be in 3-D.
This in a around about way brings me to Piranha 3-D a shlocky affair with it an eye on it's target audience and tongue so firmly in it's cheek you'd need some flares, a mobile and some gas to dislodge it. Director Alexander Aja utilities the effect like Pixar do with their short film before the aforementioned Toy Story 3, as an amusing distraction, more than anything else. That train of thought may hurt someone like Cameron, but for a movie like this with it's cheeky references to Jaws and Girls gone Wild alike, it appears to catch the post-modern wave quite well. Quite simply, much like 3-D, the film is a guilty pleasure.
Piranha 3-D starts off with more build up than I expect, and while the fishy foe do make the odd appearance, Aja still saves enough time to give me some thin but fun characters who tuck into the goofy material enough to keep me going. The Expendables clearly wanted to capture this silly little bubble, but for me Piranha is not only more coherent, but also less full of it's self for my liking. Yes, better known stars like Elizabeth Shue and Ving Rhames are in this. They are however taking bites out of the scenery, but it doesn't feel like a grasp at relevance, more like a chance to let their hair down a bit. To be honest, all of the cast are in on the joke so to speak with adequate displays throughout. Yes. even Kelly Brook who is clearly used more for her coke bottle figure over any thespian talents is watchable here.
Also letting it all hang out is the film's director. Aja's film is no-way as intense as his earlier features (Switchblade Romance, The Hills have eyes remake), but this in no way hampers his inventive execution of set pieces. Some feel well known (the two kids on an island waiting for help), while others feel very fresh. The films centerpiece (the destruction of the Lake Victoria beach) has some creative comic death moments, showing the filmmaker at their most playful. With this said Piranha still manages to give off a certain level of threat (although no real full on scares) with some of it's many underwater scenes giving off just enough tension to remain interesting.
Piranha 3-D is a loving hark back to an eighties vibe of horror film-making, mixing the gore drenched splatter features of that era with an extra added Porky's vibe to it. Interestingly with all the gratuitous female features on display, Aja's film still manages to make the characters we're meant to be watching likable enough to forget about the boobs (depending on who you are). A fun, disposable flick with enough gore and laughs for genre fans, Piranha isn't going to make massive waves in the great horror circle, but manages to be a nice nibble for it's 88 minutes.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
Year: 2010
Director: Edgar Wright
Screenplay: Michael Bacall, Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, Jason Schwartzman, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons, Aubrey Plaza, Satya Bhabha, Chris Evans, Brie Larson, Roxy Richter, Brandon Routh, Keita Saitou, Shota Saito
It is now almost cliche for a film critic to comment on a film as "like a video game". It's a usual complaint from a reviewer (who is usually a non-gamer) to downgrade a modern film, which is mostly fueled by it's overtly flashy visuals, hack-slash editing, paper-thin characters and a liner plot. As movies have become more aggressively aimed towards the teenage male market (and all that disposable income), they have slowly started to take the form of their computer counter-parts.
So while games have been doing their best to become more intricate in the telling of their stories and building as well as expanding their visual world. It seems to some that many mainstream films are becoming more and more like Daikatana, clumsy, awkward, ambling creatures which will only provide a quick fix than anything lasting.
However, it seems that there might be an generation of films that is doing it's best to try and combine film and game elements together. The over the shoulder visuals that were seen in such films as The Losers and Knight and Day (in between the extreme close ups) feel much like the third person shooters of Gears of war and Resident Evil 4/5, while I likened Paul Greengrass' Green Zone to Modern Warfare 2 earlier this year. There was also the case of Inception in which Patrick Goldstein's article in the Los Angles Times felt that Nolan's multi-leveled narrative feels much more at home with the younger audiences with their x-boxes and playstations than the older crowd.
And so, with Roger Ebert yelling that video games can never be art and reviewers such as the classy guys at filmspotting despising (or growing out of) gaming (with their balanced but dismissive review of this film) it's seems that Edgar Wright has took it on himself to make his "difficult third album" a crowning achievement of video game as part of the cinematic aesthetic.
I can say very easily this...I can see why it didn't blow the box office apart. Most films can usually be separated from their source material. Not here. This is a film which is so entrenched in it's sources, that it's almost impossible to split them. You might not have read the graphic novel the film is based on. But the Manga, the video games, the leisurely references to Canada? It's sown into the very fabric of the film, making sure Scott Pilgrim fits neatly into the pocket of niche.
Despite being the box office's bitch, Scott Pilgrim won me over in spades. Not only was I in love with it's ambition, but totally bowled over by it's execution. At every turn I was dazzled by it's visual style, offbeat rhythm and quick witted dialogue. This is Spaced goes Canadian, not only utilizing the same transitions that made Edgar Wrights sitcom so eye catching, but nabbing a whole range of ideas from other areas and films to make an astonishing slacker comedy pastiche. It's narrative is structured like a video game, it's fight sequences build and are almost executed like an musical while many of the transitions owe a debt to The Wachowskis' Speed Racer. This mixture shouldn't work and to some it really won't, but for me I found myself constantly grinning to myself.
It wasn't just because I got the references or found myself amusing by the 60's batman like words springing up like pop-art. But it was because how Wright manages to make sure that the film's humor and characters feel so unique to me. Not following the regular beats of a usual feature, Scott Pilgrim remixes the feel of the ordinary with the hyper-abstract, nabbing from a huge pop culture sandbox and rolling at a furious pace but still maintaining a wonderful coherence despite it's ridiculous (but playful) asides. Instead of talking down to you it merely asks you to keep up with it. Some have found some of this hipster pandering, only speaking to an ADD crowd. However, to me Wright's film is more layered than that, using this bold visual style and wry screenplay to ask us to suspend our belief for a selfish young man (difficult to do in film at the best of times) who must not take the easy way out in order achieve the ultimate goal.
Moments of the film do have a feeling of self-indulgence but this feels more because the film is set all in the main characters head most of the time rather than pompous posturing. What we get is a teen eye view of inner baggage and infatuation, and while it may feel alien to some, there is an endearment to be found within these characters. Ramona (A very sexy Mary Elizabeth Winstead) may seems aloof and bitchy, but the reasons why are very plausible. The same goes for the odd looking Micheal Cera whose pitch perfect comic timing once again becomes key into unlocking a girls heart and getting us on his side to root for him.
Even the secondary characters are great to watch even if a little one note at times. But then again, the supporting cast is a Daria-esque Alison Pill, a very game Chris Evans, an equally game Brandon Routh and yet another great performance from Kieran Culkin (See Igby goes down) whose gay roommate got a fair share of laughs from myself.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World has not set the world alight money wise, but then again, how can you market something that is so destined for cult? We should be too quick to judge comic-con reaction as real-life everyone reaction. However I must say (despite not really explaining in my review) I loved this movie. Not only I admired the ambition, as a teen comedy...there isn't anything like it, but because of it's audacity. Scott Pilgrim wears it's bizarre feel on it's shoulders and not giving a damn like it's love interest. The references? they are there and they're quite light. As I'm not a Manga fan I can't say I got them all (expect Routh's 3rd Ex going super sayian) and as a gamer(of sorts) I didn't feel they overloaded the movie. Dynamic visuals, fun characters, a great fantasy world with an interesting structure and characters I dug hanging out with. For or against? I'm Camp Pilgrim
Director: Edgar Wright
Screenplay: Michael Bacall, Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, Jason Schwartzman, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons, Aubrey Plaza, Satya Bhabha, Chris Evans, Brie Larson, Roxy Richter, Brandon Routh, Keita Saitou, Shota Saito
It is now almost cliche for a film critic to comment on a film as "like a video game". It's a usual complaint from a reviewer (who is usually a non-gamer) to downgrade a modern film, which is mostly fueled by it's overtly flashy visuals, hack-slash editing, paper-thin characters and a liner plot. As movies have become more aggressively aimed towards the teenage male market (and all that disposable income), they have slowly started to take the form of their computer counter-parts.
So while games have been doing their best to become more intricate in the telling of their stories and building as well as expanding their visual world. It seems to some that many mainstream films are becoming more and more like Daikatana, clumsy, awkward, ambling creatures which will only provide a quick fix than anything lasting.
However, it seems that there might be an generation of films that is doing it's best to try and combine film and game elements together. The over the shoulder visuals that were seen in such films as The Losers and Knight and Day (in between the extreme close ups) feel much like the third person shooters of Gears of war and Resident Evil 4/5, while I likened Paul Greengrass' Green Zone to Modern Warfare 2 earlier this year. There was also the case of Inception in which Patrick Goldstein's article in the Los Angles Times felt that Nolan's multi-leveled narrative feels much more at home with the younger audiences with their x-boxes and playstations than the older crowd.
And so, with Roger Ebert yelling that video games can never be art and reviewers such as the classy guys at filmspotting despising (or growing out of) gaming (with their balanced but dismissive review of this film) it's seems that Edgar Wright has took it on himself to make his "difficult third album" a crowning achievement of video game as part of the cinematic aesthetic.
I can say very easily this...I can see why it didn't blow the box office apart. Most films can usually be separated from their source material. Not here. This is a film which is so entrenched in it's sources, that it's almost impossible to split them. You might not have read the graphic novel the film is based on. But the Manga, the video games, the leisurely references to Canada? It's sown into the very fabric of the film, making sure Scott Pilgrim fits neatly into the pocket of niche.
Despite being the box office's bitch, Scott Pilgrim won me over in spades. Not only was I in love with it's ambition, but totally bowled over by it's execution. At every turn I was dazzled by it's visual style, offbeat rhythm and quick witted dialogue. This is Spaced goes Canadian, not only utilizing the same transitions that made Edgar Wrights sitcom so eye catching, but nabbing a whole range of ideas from other areas and films to make an astonishing slacker comedy pastiche. It's narrative is structured like a video game, it's fight sequences build and are almost executed like an musical while many of the transitions owe a debt to The Wachowskis' Speed Racer. This mixture shouldn't work and to some it really won't, but for me I found myself constantly grinning to myself.
It wasn't just because I got the references or found myself amusing by the 60's batman like words springing up like pop-art. But it was because how Wright manages to make sure that the film's humor and characters feel so unique to me. Not following the regular beats of a usual feature, Scott Pilgrim remixes the feel of the ordinary with the hyper-abstract, nabbing from a huge pop culture sandbox and rolling at a furious pace but still maintaining a wonderful coherence despite it's ridiculous (but playful) asides. Instead of talking down to you it merely asks you to keep up with it. Some have found some of this hipster pandering, only speaking to an ADD crowd. However, to me Wright's film is more layered than that, using this bold visual style and wry screenplay to ask us to suspend our belief for a selfish young man (difficult to do in film at the best of times) who must not take the easy way out in order achieve the ultimate goal.
Moments of the film do have a feeling of self-indulgence but this feels more because the film is set all in the main characters head most of the time rather than pompous posturing. What we get is a teen eye view of inner baggage and infatuation, and while it may feel alien to some, there is an endearment to be found within these characters. Ramona (A very sexy Mary Elizabeth Winstead) may seems aloof and bitchy, but the reasons why are very plausible. The same goes for the odd looking Micheal Cera whose pitch perfect comic timing once again becomes key into unlocking a girls heart and getting us on his side to root for him.
Even the secondary characters are great to watch even if a little one note at times. But then again, the supporting cast is a Daria-esque Alison Pill, a very game Chris Evans, an equally game Brandon Routh and yet another great performance from Kieran Culkin (See Igby goes down) whose gay roommate got a fair share of laughs from myself.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World has not set the world alight money wise, but then again, how can you market something that is so destined for cult? We should be too quick to judge comic-con reaction as real-life everyone reaction. However I must say (despite not really explaining in my review) I loved this movie. Not only I admired the ambition, as a teen comedy...there isn't anything like it, but because of it's audacity. Scott Pilgrim wears it's bizarre feel on it's shoulders and not giving a damn like it's love interest. The references? they are there and they're quite light. As I'm not a Manga fan I can't say I got them all (expect Routh's 3rd Ex going super sayian) and as a gamer(of sorts) I didn't feel they overloaded the movie. Dynamic visuals, fun characters, a great fantasy world with an interesting structure and characters I dug hanging out with. For or against? I'm Camp Pilgrim
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Review: Salt
Year: 201o
Director: Phillip Noyce
Screenplay: Kurt Wimmer
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor
Synopsis is here
Salt is a relatively enjoyable flick. It's less disjointed than the A-Teams, Expendables and Knight and Day's of the world. This seems to be because Phillip Noyce (director of the brilliant Rabbit Proof Fence) really wants to make a coherent movie. For the most part, he does fine. There's a sprinkling of Bourne here, a dab of Total Recall there, some spy gunk from the shoe of Pierce Brosnan's Bonds. It mixes well enough for an hour and then bang the third act smacks you in the face like a jilted ex.
The film holds no big surprises. All the cliches are there. I was well aware of the inevitable turns that a feature like this would bring, and for the most part I was fine with it. As an action film, it throws some solid punches and I was more than happy to roll with them. I really enjoyed the fact that the fight sequences took notice that Salt is more agile than strong. Considering that Tom Cruise was meant to take the role of Salt before he passed, it's the kind of thing that can easily slip a filmmakers mind.
Noyce's direction of the action and pacing of the story is more than competent, but suddenly like a flicking of a light switch, Kurt Wimmer's screenplay takes a detour into the town ludicrous and the mayor is Chris Bridges.
Salt was doing fine, even with it's hilarious Kennedy conspiracy theory near the beginning, but suddenly the film falls down on itself, and Noyce's direction could not cover up the crazy of the films climax. The film's "fridge logic" is all a little too clear and instead of asking certain questions during a midnight snack, your asking them IN THE MOVIE. This is never a good sign, and it played havoc with my general enjoyment of the movie.
I wondered if this is why so many people say you need to "switch your brain off" when watching a movie such as Salt. Maybe they know they'll get plagued with such questions and suddenly the illusion is ruined. Maybe the only questions they like asking is whether Angelina is better as a brunette or a blonde. Maybe merely sitting and glaring at average performances Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor (character actors now somnambulists it seems) helps stop those questions from setting in for others. Not me.
No for me Salt falls a little short at the last hurdle. The action sequences with an actual sense of place, the strong presence of Jolie as a female action star, the subtly (for a blockbuster) placed theme of identity melts away for a punchline that is a tad too overdone to feel fully satisfying. Salt isn't a junk food film of the highest order but like the title, too much of it (i.e a sequel) will not be good for you.
Director: Phillip Noyce
Screenplay: Kurt Wimmer
Starring: Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor
Synopsis is here
Salt is a relatively enjoyable flick. It's less disjointed than the A-Teams, Expendables and Knight and Day's of the world. This seems to be because Phillip Noyce (director of the brilliant Rabbit Proof Fence) really wants to make a coherent movie. For the most part, he does fine. There's a sprinkling of Bourne here, a dab of Total Recall there, some spy gunk from the shoe of Pierce Brosnan's Bonds. It mixes well enough for an hour and then bang the third act smacks you in the face like a jilted ex.
The film holds no big surprises. All the cliches are there. I was well aware of the inevitable turns that a feature like this would bring, and for the most part I was fine with it. As an action film, it throws some solid punches and I was more than happy to roll with them. I really enjoyed the fact that the fight sequences took notice that Salt is more agile than strong. Considering that Tom Cruise was meant to take the role of Salt before he passed, it's the kind of thing that can easily slip a filmmakers mind.
Noyce's direction of the action and pacing of the story is more than competent, but suddenly like a flicking of a light switch, Kurt Wimmer's screenplay takes a detour into the town ludicrous and the mayor is Chris Bridges.
Salt was doing fine, even with it's hilarious Kennedy conspiracy theory near the beginning, but suddenly the film falls down on itself, and Noyce's direction could not cover up the crazy of the films climax. The film's "fridge logic" is all a little too clear and instead of asking certain questions during a midnight snack, your asking them IN THE MOVIE. This is never a good sign, and it played havoc with my general enjoyment of the movie.
I wondered if this is why so many people say you need to "switch your brain off" when watching a movie such as Salt. Maybe they know they'll get plagued with such questions and suddenly the illusion is ruined. Maybe the only questions they like asking is whether Angelina is better as a brunette or a blonde. Maybe merely sitting and glaring at average performances Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor (character actors now somnambulists it seems) helps stop those questions from setting in for others. Not me.
No for me Salt falls a little short at the last hurdle. The action sequences with an actual sense of place, the strong presence of Jolie as a female action star, the subtly (for a blockbuster) placed theme of identity melts away for a punchline that is a tad too overdone to feel fully satisfying. Salt isn't a junk food film of the highest order but like the title, too much of it (i.e a sequel) will not be good for you.
Monday, 16 August 2010
Review: The Last Airbender
Year: 2010
Director: M Night Shyamalan
Screenplay: M Night Shyamalan
Starring: Noah Ringer, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone
Synopsis is here.
Ok. It's got a bad name. There's people in the film called benders, we can stop the giggling and what not. The Wackness (2008) had an awful name, but it was pretty good and I still find Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies to be an awful title for a movie. The Last Airbender is an unfortunate name but imagine a re-release of "Let us be gay" for a minute. Right. We done now?
M Night Shyamalan for me produced one of the most interesting "comic book" movies in Unbreakable. A film which caught the mood of where actual comic books films where going. All you young Dark Knight fans, you may do well to check out Shyamalan's somber effort. I still think it's his strongest movie with all the pieces coming together slowly but beautifully. That was ten years ago and since then his output has slowly become weaker and weaker. I could go through the titles but I'm sure other blogs/websites have done the same and better.
Which brings me to The Last Airbender, a film based on a T.V that my younger brother enjoys and I know nothing about. If the film was a good one, then I probably would have given more of a damn about Avatar: The Last Airbender, However, Shyamalan's film is a total mess of a movie. I'm not saying this to have a go at a director because it's the "in" thing, I'm saying this because this really feels like a fall from grace. Where shall I start?
Well lets start by saying TLA as the kind of story in which characters of certain importance will be bypassed constantly so we can be introduced more characters who eat up precious screentime. Instead of any real building of characters within this world, we get dull montages, irritating narration and just lackadaisical storytelling in general. At no point in time does the screenplay (or direction) truly invite us into this world. At no point do you engage with these people, what they do, what they believe in, anything. There's no atmosphere to draw us in, nor does the film give us a reason to care, assaulting the viewer with truckloads of trite story and hollow dialogue but never anything of real investment.
I suppose Shyamalan was counting on the brand name and the films effects alone to make the film interesting. Not a great idea as while the computer effects aren't as bad was what many have stated, they do have to contend with the worst (I repeat THE WORST) 3D going. I cannot stress to you enough that the 3-D in this is terrible. If Hollywood are determined to make every film use this stupid gimmick I strongly urge they sort out pricing, particularly if it's rotoscoped as badly as this. I'm happy I didn't pay for this movie. If I did I would have been paying more money just to watch the film with glasses on. The 3-D does nothing. Zip. Nada. I repeat once more (sorry) THE 3-D IS BRUTAL AND BORDERLINE NON-EXISTENT. The combination of the films ok effects and terrible 3-D is one of the most frustrating things about the movie. But I haven't got to the acting.
Now before I get on to the acting I will have to mention the films casting which was (and still is) being attacked with accusations of racism. Now racism is a strong word which seems to be constantly misused. To say it's racist would also say it's truly hateful, no the casting is simply ignorant when it comes to race in the frame. I cannot tell you to the stupidity of having these three white kids stick out like a sore thumb against all the eastern aspects of the film. Seriously watching this "avatar" being the only Caucasian airbender against rows of Asian kids looks very dumb. There's also some "interesting" issues involving the Earthbenders (lol) all Asian, poor and sidelined while The Waterbenders are of course white, wealthy and highly knowledgeable.
But it's hard to take these racial issues with any seriousness when the acting is so laughably bad. It's bad enough that the script has them re-alliterating plot points needlessly (seriously the dialogue sounds childishly written) but it would help that the film actually picked strong actors for the leads. The performances are terrible, blank faced affairs which are so painfully awkward it becomes a little sad at times. The only person that seems to escape this is Dev Patel is does well but not only needs more to work with (annoyingly he has the most interesting character) he is very miscast. The less we say about the adult performances the better.
The Last Airbender is the worst entry I've seen from M Night Shyamalan. Even in The Happening or Lady in the Water had interesting scenes. I don't even see what the aim was here. Many who enjoy the show have appeared to distanced themselves from it and those who are new to Avatar: The Last Airbender won't batter an eyelid. Commercially, the film looks set to do what it needs to do (the 3-D money must have helped) but there's a reason why the critics blew this out of the water.
Director: M Night Shyamalan
Screenplay: M Night Shyamalan
Starring: Noah Ringer, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone
Synopsis is here.
Ok. It's got a bad name. There's people in the film called benders, we can stop the giggling and what not. The Wackness (2008) had an awful name, but it was pretty good and I still find Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies to be an awful title for a movie. The Last Airbender is an unfortunate name but imagine a re-release of "Let us be gay" for a minute. Right. We done now?
M Night Shyamalan for me produced one of the most interesting "comic book" movies in Unbreakable. A film which caught the mood of where actual comic books films where going. All you young Dark Knight fans, you may do well to check out Shyamalan's somber effort. I still think it's his strongest movie with all the pieces coming together slowly but beautifully. That was ten years ago and since then his output has slowly become weaker and weaker. I could go through the titles but I'm sure other blogs/websites have done the same and better.
Which brings me to The Last Airbender, a film based on a T.V that my younger brother enjoys and I know nothing about. If the film was a good one, then I probably would have given more of a damn about Avatar: The Last Airbender, However, Shyamalan's film is a total mess of a movie. I'm not saying this to have a go at a director because it's the "in" thing, I'm saying this because this really feels like a fall from grace. Where shall I start?
Well lets start by saying TLA as the kind of story in which characters of certain importance will be bypassed constantly so we can be introduced more characters who eat up precious screentime. Instead of any real building of characters within this world, we get dull montages, irritating narration and just lackadaisical storytelling in general. At no point in time does the screenplay (or direction) truly invite us into this world. At no point do you engage with these people, what they do, what they believe in, anything. There's no atmosphere to draw us in, nor does the film give us a reason to care, assaulting the viewer with truckloads of trite story and hollow dialogue but never anything of real investment.
I suppose Shyamalan was counting on the brand name and the films effects alone to make the film interesting. Not a great idea as while the computer effects aren't as bad was what many have stated, they do have to contend with the worst (I repeat THE WORST) 3D going. I cannot stress to you enough that the 3-D in this is terrible. If Hollywood are determined to make every film use this stupid gimmick I strongly urge they sort out pricing, particularly if it's rotoscoped as badly as this. I'm happy I didn't pay for this movie. If I did I would have been paying more money just to watch the film with glasses on. The 3-D does nothing. Zip. Nada. I repeat once more (sorry) THE 3-D IS BRUTAL AND BORDERLINE NON-EXISTENT. The combination of the films ok effects and terrible 3-D is one of the most frustrating things about the movie. But I haven't got to the acting.
Now before I get on to the acting I will have to mention the films casting which was (and still is) being attacked with accusations of racism. Now racism is a strong word which seems to be constantly misused. To say it's racist would also say it's truly hateful, no the casting is simply ignorant when it comes to race in the frame. I cannot tell you to the stupidity of having these three white kids stick out like a sore thumb against all the eastern aspects of the film. Seriously watching this "avatar" being the only Caucasian airbender against rows of Asian kids looks very dumb. There's also some "interesting" issues involving the Earthbenders (lol) all Asian, poor and sidelined while The Waterbenders are of course white, wealthy and highly knowledgeable.
But it's hard to take these racial issues with any seriousness when the acting is so laughably bad. It's bad enough that the script has them re-alliterating plot points needlessly (seriously the dialogue sounds childishly written) but it would help that the film actually picked strong actors for the leads. The performances are terrible, blank faced affairs which are so painfully awkward it becomes a little sad at times. The only person that seems to escape this is Dev Patel is does well but not only needs more to work with (annoyingly he has the most interesting character) he is very miscast. The less we say about the adult performances the better.
The Last Airbender is the worst entry I've seen from M Night Shyamalan. Even in The Happening or Lady in the Water had interesting scenes. I don't even see what the aim was here. Many who enjoy the show have appeared to distanced themselves from it and those who are new to Avatar: The Last Airbender won't batter an eyelid. Commercially, the film looks set to do what it needs to do (the 3-D money must have helped) but there's a reason why the critics blew this out of the water.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)