Year: 2010
Director: Neil LaBute
Screenplay: Dean Craig
Starring: Chris Rock, Keith David, Loretta Devine, Peter Dinklage, Ron Glass, Danny Glover, Martin Lawrence, James Marsden, Tracy Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Luke Wilson, Columbus Short.
The plot is here
The fact I watched this film almost a week ago and have not been that bothered to finish the review until now (17/06/10) says quite a bit about how I feel about this film.
I have a friend who worked on the original version of the film. However, I unfortunately missed the blink and you'll miss it release of Frank Oz's 2007 Brit flick (Sorry Lisa!). The idea of it seemed very Ealing to me and the trailer didn't look too bad. Skip ahead 3 years and Hollywood have decided to remake the film. I was surprised because the original film isn't foreign (i.e non English language) and we all know how Da Wood LOVES playing around with subtitles (and other cultures).
Interestingly...this "dumbed" down version of DAAF is quite progressive. It's Obama's U.S people and LeBute's film is one where, despite having a mostly Afro-American cast with some medium profile white actors in-between, Race really isn't a big thing. LeBute's last film; Lakeview Terrace involved an angry black cop (Samuel L Jackson) very narked off at an interracial couple participating in some "jungle fever". In Death at a Funeral, the film is almost completely disinterested in race politics. While the scripts "changes" involved altering lines so that Tracy Morgan could yell "DAMN!" once or twice, it's also very refreshing to see a film in which Duncan (Glass) doesn't want his daughter Elaine (Salanda) dating a white man Oscar (Marsden), because of nothing else other than he just doesn't like him. It's a far cry from Jackson's cop character as Duncan wishes to match Elaine up with the slacker-type Derek (Wilson). It's one of the more poorly handled relationships in the film but it's still one step forward in the grand scheme of things.
But that's one of the problems I had with Death at a Funeral, I just didn't care in any real way. There's under-baked conflict between brothers (Rock and Lawrence are quite subdued), one note performances from experienced actors (Keith David and Danny Glover) and an unbalanced feel in tone and pacing that makes the the second half of the movie feel flat to me. At times the movie is funny. There's a nice line here and there and some of the physical comedy works well, with Masdern's doped up goofball garnering a few chortles. But why should we give a damn? None of these people garner any empathy or sympathy from this situation, and the film isn't really sure if it's a dark comedy or farce.
It made realize that love them or hate them, you know where you stand with characters in a Judd Apatow film. Even Funny People with it's mammoth length and dramatic second half switch, manages to draw more from it's players, despite it's lead being an absolute ass.
Death at a Funeral didn't give me what I want because I'm not sure what it wanted to give. At one point a plot moment comes out of nowhere to try and boost a response out of the audience...but it's not deserved and feels false. After the scatological jokes, and attempts at gallows humor a announcement is made to make us try and remember that these people aren't all bad. At least Observe and Report kept it's monsters as monsters. It travelled down the rabbit hole and didn't care how dirty it got. Death at a funeral hasn't got that drive and instead of being deliriously funny, ends up being DOA.
Monday, 14 June 2010
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Review: The Killer Inside Me
Year: 2010
Director: Micheal Winterbottom
Screenplay: John Curran
I feel that The Killer Inside Me is one of the best films I've seen this year. It features an award winning performance from Casey Affleck, powerful scenes executed with meticulous craft by Micheal Winterbottom (24 Hour Party People) and an absorbing story that kept me engaged for all of it's running time.With this all said, I feel I can never watch this movie again.
As a filmgoer whose DVD collection feature such disturbing watches as Irreversible, Benny's Video and Funny Games amongst others; I'm no stranger to "distressing" watches. I'm not a complete wimp and I've seen my fair share of violence on screen. Despite this, images within The Killer Inside Me have been seared into my brain. It's been two days since I watched the movie and I'm still thinking about it. I guess it's down to how unassuming the film appears to be at first. Winterbottom's film gives us a board view of small time America, a picturesque and peaceful town that could could be anywhere. A town that wouldn't know what to do with the word murder let alone an actual one. When the sparse but brutal violence takes place, it hits hard and reminds in the memory. These scenes puncture the landscape. So remorseless are the scenes and so tense the build up, we suddenly realize how we take violence for granted. Suddenly we are stained by the violence.
Much has been said about the time taken over the acts afflicted upon the women over the men. Cries of misogyny have been loud, but to me, it expertly shows how inhuman the man we are dealing with is. Your meant to be shook by what you see and I don't think you would get that if the violence towards the men was equally inflicted. By reacting so strongly, Winterbottom reminds us that we still have humanity. It reminds us where our morals lie.
Winterbottom then begins to complicate things even more, juxtaposing Affleck's soft spoken narration with the actual goings on within the scene. Affleck's Ford reigns emotion at every turn and with the film being told from his point of view, we can never be too sure what to believe. The camera however, never lies and Winterbottom wisely uses classical film techniques to highlight Ford guilt and true nature. Reverse shots display the distance between Ford and other characters, a trip to jail has Winterbottom frame Ford behind bars (see Psycho's mise en scene). The cinematography only help fully illustrate the portrait of the psychopath on show.
Affleck's disaffected performance builds upon the jaded jealous creature he created in The Assassination of Jesse James. His honey sweet southern drawl and baby face only hides the insanity for so long. It hurts to watch, as we see it madness seep through the cracks. His dead eyed stare sums up the complete amorality of the character. Every glance is like a calculation to a incomprehensible formula. There's no rhyme or reason to the actions we see, no emotion, the word love is mention continuous by the character but he see others only as objects. What made it so unnerving for me was watching this character perform brutal acts like a reflex, there's no difference between this men disfiguring a young women and putting his socks on. It's difficult to even describe the crawlspace that this character resides in let alone act it. Casey effortless display shows us where all the performing talent lies in the Affleck family.
I was very surprised how strong I found the main support in the film. Alba and Hudson aren't usually actresses I gravitate to, mostly because of the dreck they love to land roles in. Here however, Abla is a searing combination of sexuality and vulnerability. in a few short scenes she manages to load her character with an added layer of contradiction within the film, blurring the line between pleasure and pain, and highlighting Lou Ford's disturbing history and aggravating his murderous streak. Hudson adds a little balance to proceeds bringing warmth to the other female in Ford's life. Hudson's role is also sexual, but also provides enough care to a character to make a scene in the third act very difficult to watch. Support is neatly completed by small roles by Ned Beatty, Elias Koteas and Bill Pullman
2010 looks set to be a movie year about fractured mindscapes. Scorsese had his bombastic Shutter Island, while Christopher Nolan wishes to take over summer with Inception. Winterbottom's feature is an absorbing insight into the mind of a psychopath. Expertly showing the fragility with jump cut edits, perturbing flashbacks and laying the main characters hideous nature within techniques you'd expect to see in Hollywood's golden age. From it's unflinching and graphic portrayal of violence to it's characters of contradiction, I found The Killer Inside Me a truly engaging thriller. I liked the film...to say I enjoyed it however, may label me a sadist.
I was very surprised how strong I found the main support in the film. Alba and Hudson aren't usually actresses I gravitate to, mostly because of the dreck they love to land roles in. Here however, Abla is a searing combination of sexuality and vulnerability. in a few short scenes she manages to load her character with an added layer of contradiction within the film, blurring the line between pleasure and pain, and highlighting Lou Ford's disturbing history and aggravating his murderous streak. Hudson adds a little balance to proceeds bringing warmth to the other female in Ford's life. Hudson's role is also sexual, but also provides enough care to a character to make a scene in the third act very difficult to watch. Support is neatly completed by small roles by Ned Beatty, Elias Koteas and Bill Pullman
2010 looks set to be a movie year about fractured mindscapes. Scorsese had his bombastic Shutter Island, while Christopher Nolan wishes to take over summer with Inception. Winterbottom's feature is an absorbing insight into the mind of a psychopath. Expertly showing the fragility with jump cut edits, perturbing flashbacks and laying the main characters hideous nature within techniques you'd expect to see in Hollywood's golden age. From it's unflinching and graphic portrayal of violence to it's characters of contradiction, I found The Killer Inside Me a truly engaging thriller. I liked the film...to say I enjoyed it however, may label me a sadist.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
Review:The Brothers Bloom
Year: 2008 (Yeah seriously, we only get it now)
Director: Rian Johnson
Screenplay: Rian Johnson
Starring: Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz
The plot is here
After two years of limbo (despite a London Film Festival showing) the brothers bloom has finally made it to cinemas. I had been waiting patiently with anticipation for Rian Johnson's second feature, as a big fan of his debut Brick. To sit down and get the chance to watch this on the big screen is much more satisfying than having to pick the film up at Asda due to a direct to DVD release which sometimes happens with those quirky little films.
Worth the wait? For the most part yes. The Brothers Bloom features great performances for it's leads, wonderful visual flourishes, some choice settings that give the film a lovely continental vibe and a score so pretty I picked it up as soon as the movie finished. But why was I not fully contented? What was missing from this film that would had me dancing in the isles? The answer for me maybe hidden deep within the story.
The first two thirds of the Brothers Bloom is a frothy romp. The lead characters and their quirks are entertaining, and the films moments of humor have more than enough sparkle. It's all very light and breezy, but unfortunately that slowly becomes an issue in terms of plot.
I enjoy the con movie, and one of the reasons is the con itself. Smug it may be but when you get told that Danny Ocean is going to rob three Vegas casino's your mind starts churning. What's going to happen? How are they going to do it? You begin to drool. When you dig the con, you dig the movie. Johnson's con for me isn't that interesting. In fact it feels too slight at times. It doesn't help that the third act begins to run out of stream and I predicted the outcome too easily before hand. It all becomes a little too cute and falls together far too easily. You don't get that rug pulled feel that a con film can give you. You always feel your too ahead of a game and that's not the best thing to feel in a confidence movie.
This doesn't destroy the whole film, as the larger then life performances of Weisz, Brody and Ruffalo kept me interested. Ruffalo in particular whose smile and knowing looks gives his character the perfect amount of control. He also provides some superb damage control at the films climax.
However, I think The Brothers Bloom is a second watch movie. A second viewing will probably have me avoiding the superficial and tapping into the pathos tender moments the film holds. The rapport that the larger than life characters have with each other, is worth the price of the ticket alone. There's also a brief shot of Weisz' pert ass for those inclined.
The Brothers Bloom isn't as assured and complete as Brick, it does however hold the same amount of ambition. It is of course the difficult second feature, but is bubbly enough for an arse like me to forgive it's flaws.
Director: Rian Johnson
Screenplay: Rian Johnson
Starring: Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz
The plot is here
After two years of limbo (despite a London Film Festival showing) the brothers bloom has finally made it to cinemas. I had been waiting patiently with anticipation for Rian Johnson's second feature, as a big fan of his debut Brick. To sit down and get the chance to watch this on the big screen is much more satisfying than having to pick the film up at Asda due to a direct to DVD release which sometimes happens with those quirky little films.
Worth the wait? For the most part yes. The Brothers Bloom features great performances for it's leads, wonderful visual flourishes, some choice settings that give the film a lovely continental vibe and a score so pretty I picked it up as soon as the movie finished. But why was I not fully contented? What was missing from this film that would had me dancing in the isles? The answer for me maybe hidden deep within the story.
The first two thirds of the Brothers Bloom is a frothy romp. The lead characters and their quirks are entertaining, and the films moments of humor have more than enough sparkle. It's all very light and breezy, but unfortunately that slowly becomes an issue in terms of plot.
I enjoy the con movie, and one of the reasons is the con itself. Smug it may be but when you get told that Danny Ocean is going to rob three Vegas casino's your mind starts churning. What's going to happen? How are they going to do it? You begin to drool. When you dig the con, you dig the movie. Johnson's con for me isn't that interesting. In fact it feels too slight at times. It doesn't help that the third act begins to run out of stream and I predicted the outcome too easily before hand. It all becomes a little too cute and falls together far too easily. You don't get that rug pulled feel that a con film can give you. You always feel your too ahead of a game and that's not the best thing to feel in a confidence movie.
This doesn't destroy the whole film, as the larger then life performances of Weisz, Brody and Ruffalo kept me interested. Ruffalo in particular whose smile and knowing looks gives his character the perfect amount of control. He also provides some superb damage control at the films climax.
However, I think The Brothers Bloom is a second watch movie. A second viewing will probably have me avoiding the superficial and tapping into the pathos tender moments the film holds. The rapport that the larger than life characters have with each other, is worth the price of the ticket alone. There's also a brief shot of Weisz' pert ass for those inclined.
The Brothers Bloom isn't as assured and complete as Brick, it does however hold the same amount of ambition. It is of course the difficult second feature, but is bubbly enough for an arse like me to forgive it's flaws.
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Review: The Losers
Year: 2010
Director: Sylvain White
Screenplay: Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt
Starring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Edris Elba, Chris Evans, Jason Patric, Zoe Salanda
Director: Sylvain White
Screenplay: Peter Berg, James Vanderbilt
Starring: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Edris Elba, Chris Evans, Jason Patric, Zoe Salanda
The Plot is here.
Coming out in a year where the A Team, The Expendables and are throwing their A listed weight around like nobodies business, The Losers bunch of "lesser knowns" almost looks like it will come up short. However due to the hype and the pressure between the bigger films to bring about the spirit of the 80's action; The Losers may be able to score some formidable points if not win the whole things hands down for simple being a thick slice of fun.
While the other retro actioners will spend a lot of their time winking at the audience, with their pop-culture nods to their original shows or their creators; (case in point B.A Baracus whistling HIS OWN THEME SONG DURING THE A-TEAM TRAILER), The Losers has a small advantage in the fact that not that many people would have read the graphic novel it originally stems from. This is a good thing, because The Losers now has to stand up without the need for rose tinted nostalgia, and to be fair, I feel it does quite well.
The Losers is the kind of film that you could have easily imagined Sly or Arnie having a part in back in the day. It's a lean adventure without fills, but with enough thrills to remain entertaining. It's narrative may be simple, however it's a refreshing change from the overcomplicated plotting of recent summer blockbusters. It's an old dog and therefore has no new tricks, but the direction had enough of a division tactic that made sure I missed a plot twist I could have sniffed out in many other films of it's type. Cliche at times isn't that bad a thing if fun can be found.
A bright film (nice to see such a bold colour scheme as opposed to murky and/or bleached out) The Losers, interestingly enough feels like a video game. But unlike using this statement as a tired critical negative, Sylvain Whites use of over the shoulder visuals, point of view fight shots and one on one combat moments to his advantage trying to coax life out of a genre that sees it all. It doesn't all work but it does have an interesting feel to proceedings. The same goes for some of the more obvious scenes. We see the romantic leads fighting in a blazing hotel room, the music is sexy and many of the shots are slow....yes we're clearly looking at foreplay. But the films back to basics outlook reminds you it's not pretending to be something it's not. No morality issues, no gray areas, just stripped down nonsense. It's simple intentions serve it well. So much so that when the film reaches it's most outrageous moment, it almost feels taken from another film. Despite this it STILL works, and credit is deserved for it's most straight shooting style.
The films cast are also clearly under the films chilled influence. Funny when they want to be (most jokes stemming from the very game Chris Evans), cool when they need to be (with maybe a little too much help from the slow motion); the performances work mostly because there's no preconceptions of the actors. These are the faces of the D-list and character actors, chosen due to their screen presence and not star power, it shows. The interplay between Morgan and Elba is solid, Evans once again shows why he enjoys supporting roles and while Zoe Saldana is little more than eye candy, she is an actress that can do enough with a small amount and infuses the film with more than enough sex appeal. A nod of approval must also go to Columbus Short (Pooch) and Oscar Jaenada who get a lot of fun out of their admittedly one note characters. In an ensemble piece like this, they do well to not feel like also rans. However the best praise is saved for the highly amusing Jason Patric. An actor whose career has never really gone the way many thought it would, his villainous performance is one of old school Saturday morning cartoons. Gleefully evil and hilariously overconfident, it's not a display of mugging, but a performance of oil slick megalomania that had me grinning more than once. It's silly but not over done.
Coming out in a year where the A Team, The Expendables and are throwing their A listed weight around like nobodies business, The Losers bunch of "lesser knowns" almost looks like it will come up short. However due to the hype and the pressure between the bigger films to bring about the spirit of the 80's action; The Losers may be able to score some formidable points if not win the whole things hands down for simple being a thick slice of fun.
While the other retro actioners will spend a lot of their time winking at the audience, with their pop-culture nods to their original shows or their creators; (case in point B.A Baracus whistling HIS OWN THEME SONG DURING THE A-TEAM TRAILER), The Losers has a small advantage in the fact that not that many people would have read the graphic novel it originally stems from. This is a good thing, because The Losers now has to stand up without the need for rose tinted nostalgia, and to be fair, I feel it does quite well.
The Losers is the kind of film that you could have easily imagined Sly or Arnie having a part in back in the day. It's a lean adventure without fills, but with enough thrills to remain entertaining. It's narrative may be simple, however it's a refreshing change from the overcomplicated plotting of recent summer blockbusters. It's an old dog and therefore has no new tricks, but the direction had enough of a division tactic that made sure I missed a plot twist I could have sniffed out in many other films of it's type. Cliche at times isn't that bad a thing if fun can be found.
A bright film (nice to see such a bold colour scheme as opposed to murky and/or bleached out) The Losers, interestingly enough feels like a video game. But unlike using this statement as a tired critical negative, Sylvain Whites use of over the shoulder visuals, point of view fight shots and one on one combat moments to his advantage trying to coax life out of a genre that sees it all. It doesn't all work but it does have an interesting feel to proceedings. The same goes for some of the more obvious scenes. We see the romantic leads fighting in a blazing hotel room, the music is sexy and many of the shots are slow....yes we're clearly looking at foreplay. But the films back to basics outlook reminds you it's not pretending to be something it's not. No morality issues, no gray areas, just stripped down nonsense. It's simple intentions serve it well. So much so that when the film reaches it's most outrageous moment, it almost feels taken from another film. Despite this it STILL works, and credit is deserved for it's most straight shooting style.
The films cast are also clearly under the films chilled influence. Funny when they want to be (most jokes stemming from the very game Chris Evans), cool when they need to be (with maybe a little too much help from the slow motion); the performances work mostly because there's no preconceptions of the actors. These are the faces of the D-list and character actors, chosen due to their screen presence and not star power, it shows. The interplay between Morgan and Elba is solid, Evans once again shows why he enjoys supporting roles and while Zoe Saldana is little more than eye candy, she is an actress that can do enough with a small amount and infuses the film with more than enough sex appeal. A nod of approval must also go to Columbus Short (Pooch) and Oscar Jaenada who get a lot of fun out of their admittedly one note characters. In an ensemble piece like this, they do well to not feel like also rans. However the best praise is saved for the highly amusing Jason Patric. An actor whose career has never really gone the way many thought it would, his villainous performance is one of old school Saturday morning cartoons. Gleefully evil and hilariously overconfident, it's not a display of mugging, but a performance of oil slick megalomania that had me grinning more than once. It's silly but not over done.
But that's what I enjoyed about The Losers, it knows where it stands. It's a well done genre flick done well. Eschewing anything too over the top for simple pleasures. At first I was weary of where the film was going with the first act bringing up memories of Tony Scott's 00's over-stylised visuals/editing, however the film takes a step back and then goes at it's own pace. It doesn't want to bother anyone, it just wants to have a little fun. Can't argue with that.
*Note: It's clearly obvious that the casting for the up coming Kane and Lynch film is wrong and Jeffrey Dean Morgan is the right man to play Kane. Sorry Mr Willis!
Saturday, 22 May 2010
Review: Prince of Persia : The Sands of Time
Year: 2010
Director: Mike Newell
Screenplay: Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard, Boaz Yakin
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Tony Kebbell, Richard Coyle
Synopsis is here
Based on a video game produced by Ubisoft; Prince of Persia had something against it before it came out of the stocks. As soon as the words video game are uttered, the same old cliched comments are spouted, even by myself. As a gamer (not a great one) before I became a film fan, I also found the cinematic adaptations more than a little disappointing.
Unlike Comic Books and/or Graphic Novels, which have come from forgettable endeavors (Spawn, 1989 Punisher anyone?) to a rich commodity. Video Game movies however; have only ranged from shite (Street Fighter, Super Mario Bros) to just about watchable (Mortal Kombat's fight scenes). Like other adaptations; it's about time that someone tapped into the spirit of the medium and bring some real fun out of the movies produced. Does Mike Newell's blockbuster feature do this? Well....just about I guess.
First thing I'll say about the film is that, along with the other 2010 blockbusters (Robin Hood Iron Man 2) is quite plot heavy. In fact surprisingly so. However, while I enjoyed Robin Hood and Iron Man for the gradual build of narrative; mainly due to their solid lead characters (and actors) managing to carry the story during the "lower" moments, POP seems to be lacking in that area. It's not that I didn't care for the character, as the beefed up Jake Gyllenhaal (with nice British accent) manages to put a lot of energy into the role of Dastan. However, the personality just doesn't feel as rich.
It seems that the difference is that characters like Tony Stark and Robin Hood have deeper wells to draw from. Hood has his history, Stark is coming to terms with ego and mortality, Dastan is a character that feels like he's truly bound to the screenplay. He has personality (the chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Arterton brought many a sly grin to my face) but his actions don't feel as organic as his aforementioned contenders. POP not only feels like it could have been shorter, but also more focused. Like Ironman 2, the film has a lot of people battling for screentime, however while the former felt, to me, that it knew what it wanted to do with all it's players. POP tries to value everyone as equal importance.
The film is also quite obvious, the moment you meet characters, you know of their fate. Yes, it may be a blockbuster but you can tell from it's subtext (clear parallels to the Iraq war yet again) it's trying to encompass as much as possible and make accessible to as many people as possible.
Ambition is good and needed for these future video game adaptation but POP works best when it forgets all that and focuses on the battling and the banter. Getting that right will make it so much easier to expand.
But it's not all bitching and moaning; Mike Newell, a director capable of large projects and stars, delivers a film with some fun set pieces, while the screenplay has some pithy lines, despite not having the most engaging story. Newell's film also remembers it's origins and many moments feel like a Ubisoft game... It's a shame said game is Assassin's Creed and not Sands of Time however (although there's a nice two thrones feel to some of the film). From a performance point of view, everyone is enjoying themselves here. Once again it's hard to keep your eyes off Gemma Arterton due to her screen presence and not just her smoldering looks Molina and Kingsley clearly like working on projects like this in between more serious works, while Richard Coyle and Tony Kebbell are welcoming additions.
Prince of Persia is forgettable fluff which works best when things are kept simple. There's some genuine moments of amusement throughout and I'm sure many gamers (in particular the younger ones) will hopefully get their money's worth. Once again it's a video game adaptation that's not all I hoped for, but it's a step in the right direction.
Director: Mike Newell
Screenplay: Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard, Boaz Yakin
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Tony Kebbell, Richard Coyle
Synopsis is here
Based on a video game produced by Ubisoft; Prince of Persia had something against it before it came out of the stocks. As soon as the words video game are uttered, the same old cliched comments are spouted, even by myself. As a gamer (not a great one) before I became a film fan, I also found the cinematic adaptations more than a little disappointing.
Unlike Comic Books and/or Graphic Novels, which have come from forgettable endeavors (Spawn, 1989 Punisher anyone?) to a rich commodity. Video Game movies however; have only ranged from shite (Street Fighter, Super Mario Bros) to just about watchable (Mortal Kombat's fight scenes). Like other adaptations; it's about time that someone tapped into the spirit of the medium and bring some real fun out of the movies produced. Does Mike Newell's blockbuster feature do this? Well....just about I guess.
First thing I'll say about the film is that, along with the other 2010 blockbusters (Robin Hood Iron Man 2) is quite plot heavy. In fact surprisingly so. However, while I enjoyed Robin Hood and Iron Man for the gradual build of narrative; mainly due to their solid lead characters (and actors) managing to carry the story during the "lower" moments, POP seems to be lacking in that area. It's not that I didn't care for the character, as the beefed up Jake Gyllenhaal (with nice British accent) manages to put a lot of energy into the role of Dastan. However, the personality just doesn't feel as rich.
It seems that the difference is that characters like Tony Stark and Robin Hood have deeper wells to draw from. Hood has his history, Stark is coming to terms with ego and mortality, Dastan is a character that feels like he's truly bound to the screenplay. He has personality (the chemistry between Gyllenhaal and Arterton brought many a sly grin to my face) but his actions don't feel as organic as his aforementioned contenders. POP not only feels like it could have been shorter, but also more focused. Like Ironman 2, the film has a lot of people battling for screentime, however while the former felt, to me, that it knew what it wanted to do with all it's players. POP tries to value everyone as equal importance.
The film is also quite obvious, the moment you meet characters, you know of their fate. Yes, it may be a blockbuster but you can tell from it's subtext (clear parallels to the Iraq war yet again) it's trying to encompass as much as possible and make accessible to as many people as possible.
Ambition is good and needed for these future video game adaptation but POP works best when it forgets all that and focuses on the battling and the banter. Getting that right will make it so much easier to expand.
But it's not all bitching and moaning; Mike Newell, a director capable of large projects and stars, delivers a film with some fun set pieces, while the screenplay has some pithy lines, despite not having the most engaging story. Newell's film also remembers it's origins and many moments feel like a Ubisoft game... It's a shame said game is Assassin's Creed and not Sands of Time however (although there's a nice two thrones feel to some of the film). From a performance point of view, everyone is enjoying themselves here. Once again it's hard to keep your eyes off Gemma Arterton due to her screen presence and not just her smoldering looks Molina and Kingsley clearly like working on projects like this in between more serious works, while Richard Coyle and Tony Kebbell are welcoming additions.
Prince of Persia is forgettable fluff which works best when things are kept simple. There's some genuine moments of amusement throughout and I'm sure many gamers (in particular the younger ones) will hopefully get their money's worth. Once again it's a video game adaptation that's not all I hoped for, but it's a step in the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)