Year: 2009 (U.K release 2012)
Director: Drew Goddard
Screenplay: Joss Whedon
Starring: Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth and Anna Hutchison
Synopsis ruins it.
WARNING: I do not wish to spoil this film for anyone. There's a good chance that other films I reference within this review may say too much even if it doesn't appear to. To be honest, other reviews out there have correctly mentioned that the trailer says more than it should. Warned you have been.
Horror is a section of cinema; which as of late, has been overloaded with found footage, overdone remakes and so called torture porn. Search the right sites, and the hardcore fans still find their fix. However for a viewer such as myself whose tastes dips in and out of the genre, horror films and their ongoing trends (ANOTHER Zombie movie?) have left my interests flagging.
Delayed for two years due to squabbles over 3D and studio bankupacy, comes The Cabin in the Woods, a "loving hate letter" to the horror genre. A film which carries all the traits, tropes and otherwise on it's sleeve, ready to remix and redistribute. Yes, it's post-modern and meta (a bug bear for some). However, Drew Goddards début feature is one made by genre fans (co written by one Joss Whedon) for genre fans. Much like Scream all those years before it, the film feels like it's soaked up all it can from the likes of Sam Rami, Sean Cunningham and the like and rearranged with a fresh and topical eye.
Cabin in the Woods is a deceptive beast. It's wafer thin story could be written on a napkin but it's secrets visuals and playful design are what make the film what it is. Like Drag me to Hell or Evil Dead (the films set design owes a lot to the latter), the film evokes the same devilish desire of the to see what happens next to these poor, clearly-too-old-to-be-teens when they creep around a corner. However, for the first time in ages, we're given a slasher film in which the characters we follow not only have a certain degree of intelligence to them (mostly due to the scripts streetwise smarts towards the proceedings), but we also like them, giving what happens an extra wicked kick.
These characters are slenderly drafted yet more than appealing enough and that's the point. Cabin needs us to be somewhat invested in these characters as the film constantly plays on our knowledge what we know about characters in movies.We are give just enough to whet the appetite before the devices that are in place, tug and tease at the seems. What exactly happens I will not say exactly, however fans of Buffy should smile, as well will many fans of various horror movies that the film happily riffs on, even lesser seen one such as My Little Eye. Credit is due to the cast who infuse the film with a particular charm and remind us of the Bruce Campbells and Shemps that littered those early Raimi films. The stand outs being Fran Kranz and Richard Jenkins, who steal scenes like their going out of business. The film toys with the actors as archetypes and us as spectators and does so with a crackling energy that doesn't falter even during it's outrageous third act, which is so fun that it doesn't lose tread despite some of it's wayward aspects.
I've tried to review the film as best as I can without ruining too much but it really is best to go in as blind as possible. Cabin in the woods is a boisterous meta-slasher, which boldly plays on the idea of expectation and free will. All this while being a lovable homage to a genre that often loses it's way. It doesn't have the fear factor of the classics it mimics, but it gleefully subverts the material we think we know so much about and cheerfully gives us something new to play with. I'm sure I missed a good chunk of the movie, but that was only because I was laughing so hard.
Saturday, 14 April 2012
Monday, 9 April 2012
Review: Headhunters
Year: 2011 (U.K release 2012)
Director: Morten Tyldum
Screenplay: Lars Gudmestad, Ulf Ryberg
Starring: Aksel Hennie, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Synnøve Macody Lund, Julie R. Ølgaard
Synopsis is here
Headhunters appears to be gleefully taking advantage of a small-scale Scandinavian invasion; that looks like it kicked off with the likes of Let the Right One In (2008) and The Killing, but actually goes back further with the likes of Christopher Nolan's Insomnia (2002) and David S Goyer's The Invisible (2006) being remakes lifted from Scandinavian counterparts (1997 and 2002) respectively). As I sat watching the film I already had myself wondering who would be cast in a tamer Hollywood retelling* (Steve Buscemi, Diane Kruger and Arron Eckheart). But before the cash claws of California begin to dig in, the original is sitting in cinemas trying to benefit from counter programming, sitting in-between the likes of The Hunger Games and Mirror Mirror.
Those's looking for a more po-faced thriller; the likes of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, may be slightly disappointed. Headhunters is in no way as serious and dark as some the aforementioned titles. Far from it, in fact, as it titters from mild mannered Ocean's affair (the slightly intrusive score evoking David Holmes) to graphic but mostly ludicrous violence. The perfect litmus test; is how a viewer feels about a protagonist finding himself nestling in a faeces filled toilet, using a loo roll tube as a breathing apparatus (and piece of camouflage).
The film descends from light hearted caper to droll cat and mouse chase as the Macguffin is quickly forgotten and the unorthodox looking Aksel Hennie panics franticly from absurd set piece to the next. The film delights in abusing it's lead to near Evil Dead levels. Bodies pile up, dogs are skewered, the aforementioned "poo dip" and the reason behind everything is all very silly. Despite being a leading Headhunter for a large company, the oddly named Roger Brown, wishes earn more money stealing art to keep up an ridiculous lifestyle and his impossibly good looking wife happy.
The set up doesn't sound too out of the ordinary considering, however, what makes the film interesting is not only the mere fact that Brown has to literally shave his head in order to physically keep it, but that the film uses it's oddball mixture of big business recruitment and art nabbing hijinks as a metaphor for grandiose dick swinging and bruised masculinity. Such aspects do go against the Hollywood grain. The film display its hero as a flawed individual who is physically wanting also. As our anti-hero is slung from pillar to post we soon realised he is being punished for his status claiming and lack of humility. The idea of such a character getting battered about due to his compensation for his small man syndrome, you can't help but giggle slightly. One of the films strongest and most telling scenes involves Roger meeting the antagonist Clus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) at an art gallery opening (how droll). Clus' model good looks and easy charm are used as in sharp contrast to Roger.
Strangely this is where the film left me. While I found myself absorbed in the movie as it revelled in it's madness, when the film has to explain itself in the third act, it doesn't stand up as well. Reasoning and motivations flounder and become hazy while the pay off, though fine thematically, is played out as typically as the American films it managed to eschew for the most part. I'm sure most people won't mind and go along for the ride. However for me, the film nearly stopped dead in it's tracks for me.
Despite it's weaker third act, Headhunters utilizes it morbid sense of humour to it's fullest and manages to play out it's thrills far more effectively than the likes of such nonsense like The Tourist. Headhunter is slick and snappy entertainment, which is well cast and tightly put together. One could say for the most part the film got its head screwed on...sorry.
*Note: Upon writing this post, I found out that the remake rights have been brought by Hollywood already (before this film even came out).
Director: Morten Tyldum
Screenplay: Lars Gudmestad, Ulf Ryberg
Starring: Aksel Hennie, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Synnøve Macody Lund, Julie R. Ølgaard
Synopsis is here
Headhunters appears to be gleefully taking advantage of a small-scale Scandinavian invasion; that looks like it kicked off with the likes of Let the Right One In (2008) and The Killing, but actually goes back further with the likes of Christopher Nolan's Insomnia (2002) and David S Goyer's The Invisible (2006) being remakes lifted from Scandinavian counterparts (1997 and 2002) respectively). As I sat watching the film I already had myself wondering who would be cast in a tamer Hollywood retelling* (Steve Buscemi, Diane Kruger and Arron Eckheart). But before the cash claws of California begin to dig in, the original is sitting in cinemas trying to benefit from counter programming, sitting in-between the likes of The Hunger Games and Mirror Mirror.
Those's looking for a more po-faced thriller; the likes of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, may be slightly disappointed. Headhunters is in no way as serious and dark as some the aforementioned titles. Far from it, in fact, as it titters from mild mannered Ocean's affair (the slightly intrusive score evoking David Holmes) to graphic but mostly ludicrous violence. The perfect litmus test; is how a viewer feels about a protagonist finding himself nestling in a faeces filled toilet, using a loo roll tube as a breathing apparatus (and piece of camouflage).
The film descends from light hearted caper to droll cat and mouse chase as the Macguffin is quickly forgotten and the unorthodox looking Aksel Hennie panics franticly from absurd set piece to the next. The film delights in abusing it's lead to near Evil Dead levels. Bodies pile up, dogs are skewered, the aforementioned "poo dip" and the reason behind everything is all very silly. Despite being a leading Headhunter for a large company, the oddly named Roger Brown, wishes earn more money stealing art to keep up an ridiculous lifestyle and his impossibly good looking wife happy.
The set up doesn't sound too out of the ordinary considering, however, what makes the film interesting is not only the mere fact that Brown has to literally shave his head in order to physically keep it, but that the film uses it's oddball mixture of big business recruitment and art nabbing hijinks as a metaphor for grandiose dick swinging and bruised masculinity. Such aspects do go against the Hollywood grain. The film display its hero as a flawed individual who is physically wanting also. As our anti-hero is slung from pillar to post we soon realised he is being punished for his status claiming and lack of humility. The idea of such a character getting battered about due to his compensation for his small man syndrome, you can't help but giggle slightly. One of the films strongest and most telling scenes involves Roger meeting the antagonist Clus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) at an art gallery opening (how droll). Clus' model good looks and easy charm are used as in sharp contrast to Roger.
Strangely this is where the film left me. While I found myself absorbed in the movie as it revelled in it's madness, when the film has to explain itself in the third act, it doesn't stand up as well. Reasoning and motivations flounder and become hazy while the pay off, though fine thematically, is played out as typically as the American films it managed to eschew for the most part. I'm sure most people won't mind and go along for the ride. However for me, the film nearly stopped dead in it's tracks for me.
Despite it's weaker third act, Headhunters utilizes it morbid sense of humour to it's fullest and manages to play out it's thrills far more effectively than the likes of such nonsense like The Tourist. Headhunter is slick and snappy entertainment, which is well cast and tightly put together. One could say for the most part the film got its head screwed on...sorry.
*Note: Upon writing this post, I found out that the remake rights have been brought by Hollywood already (before this film even came out).
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Review: The Hunger Games
Year: 2012
Director: Gary Ross
Screenplay: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Stanley Tucci, Josh Hutchinson, Liam Hemworth
Synopsis is here
*WARNING: There is a slight spoiler in my review but come on...who hasn't seen it yet?*
By the time I had my ticket to the hunger games, half the western world had seen it.
Yes; the biggest problem for a film blogger, who is also a paying patron, is that with work related issues and life getting in the way, you'll often be talking about a film that many have already seen and forgot about. My reviews on movies have never really been about telling people exactly what to watch although it's great if someone takes my view and enjoys a flick. However, it is nice to try and get your writing out with the big guns before the money rolls in.
From the view of The Hunger Games however, it's particularly interesting to observe the reaction of a film after the opening weekend. As much as we go on about cinema as an artform (and it can be), mainstream cinema always has and always will be dictated on cash. How a film uses it's money and how it makes it back is the bottom line of everything, period.
Case in point, it's fascinating to watch how (regardless of your view on quality) The Hunger Games lapped up the board audience and big bucks that John Carter missed previously. Scott Mendelson gives us decent reasoning as to why John Carter had such a fall from grace. Strangely enough, The Hunger Games appears to have done the complete opposite in all regards and reaped the rewards.
While one of the main reason behind the films attraction is of course the clear fact that the film is aimed at the "young adult" crowd. The film clearly has universal appeal. It's director; Gary Ross, had his writing talents involved in films such as Big (1988) and Pleasentville (1998). Simple features with board appeal and to this blogger, more than enough entertainment value. As writer and director here, Ross makes sure that the basic translation is solid (although it's clear that plot strands have been streamlined), and those who know the material well will probably be happy with what transpires.
Those who have brought the book on their kindle, and are still reading the life and death of Don Simpson, will see that the films story and themes, tender to various audiences. There is something for most within the material.Played out like Lord of the files meets The Running Man (with a sprinkle of Orwell), the films politics, the action and the female lead all come out well enough, yet doesn't feel like they've been picked by committee. You do get that true escapist feel of the world situated. I'm sure that this is evident with the book (I'll brush the dust off my kindle soon) but Ross does his best cinematically to give the film a certain amount of scope.
Jennifer Lawrence is as convincing here as the world that is built. This is mostly because she brings to the role the same quiet steeliness that she graced Winter's Bone with. Striking her role with the right balance of vulnerably and aggression. Whether it's bouncing off the ever reliable Woody Harrelson, or fighting through the foliage during the games themselves, Lawrence carries the film as comfortably here as she did in the Ozarks.
The film has it's faults. Due to it's 12-A rating and modern action filmmaking in general, it's blink and you miss it editing makes some of the set pieces feel awkward. Meanwhile; a streamlined relationship between Katniss and a fellow hunger gamer Rue, feels reminiscent of the Ripley/Newt but feels lacking in screen time. Such aspects could do with a bit of breathing space. However, the films lengthy running time reminds us that we should be happy that the film manages to place as much in as it can. In fact, contrary to the racists tweets from ignorant alleged fans who clearly can't read well, one of the films changes from the book involving a revolt in one of the districts after a certain event, works surprisingly well because of the aspects of race. Consider the films talk of districts uniting and revolting together. Surely such a mixture of races uniting as one voice makes the theme stronger than a typical white on white view. But then, maybe I'm wrong with such idealism.
Dubious race readings aside, the film works well when it has other sci-fi in its sights. Many have made the comparison to one Battle Royale, and while it's true that the film's main conceit has similarities, Much of the film seems to owe itself to Orwell's seminal 1984 (don't they all). An early moment within the film involving Katniss and her District boyfriend feels much like the neutral space that Winston and Julia share halfway through the novel. The constant manipulation of the media and containment of hope and emotion evoke the same Ministry of Love meddling that took place in Oceania (and of course the aformentioned Running Man).
Some of the films politics are clearly dated for where we are now. Ideas of celebrity being not only an importance but life affirming (as well as life giving). The dolling up our young and utilizing them for political gain and distraction is a difficult and complex element that the film does well to explore. The complexities aren't there, but for such a mainstream film to even think about such things is surprising. In comparison to Battle Royale*, The Hunger Games lacks the explicitness found within certain areas of that feature. In fact its straight laced nature of the film means that it lacks the absurdity observed within it's so called Japanese counterpart. The severe bloodletting is of course missing, but then so is the extreme adolescent behaviours that take place. Said enhanced immaturity helped highlight the senselessness of the situation. The Hunger Games doesn't appear to strive for anything too similar, focusing on a typical Hollywood arc, in which the kids grow up fast and quickly, one step already into womenhood and heroics.
This isn't a negative per say. More of an observation between two films that share similarities, yet are from two very different cultures. The Hunger Games works well as an entertaining piece of Hollywood affair. One willing to engage in lofter and darker themes than one would usually expect. For a film that found itself being touted as "the next twilight", this gives us a heroine who eschews the passive nature of Bella and hints at a romantic triangle which looks set to be more complex than the wolfs and the vamps. What happens next should be quite compelling. For now, I need to make do with checking out the book, as I'm more behind with that than the movie.
*Note: I know, I know EVERYONE has referenced it.
Director: Gary Ross
Screenplay: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Stanley Tucci, Josh Hutchinson, Liam Hemworth
Synopsis is here
*WARNING: There is a slight spoiler in my review but come on...who hasn't seen it yet?*
By the time I had my ticket to the hunger games, half the western world had seen it.
Yes; the biggest problem for a film blogger, who is also a paying patron, is that with work related issues and life getting in the way, you'll often be talking about a film that many have already seen and forgot about. My reviews on movies have never really been about telling people exactly what to watch although it's great if someone takes my view and enjoys a flick. However, it is nice to try and get your writing out with the big guns before the money rolls in.
From the view of The Hunger Games however, it's particularly interesting to observe the reaction of a film after the opening weekend. As much as we go on about cinema as an artform (and it can be), mainstream cinema always has and always will be dictated on cash. How a film uses it's money and how it makes it back is the bottom line of everything, period.
Case in point, it's fascinating to watch how (regardless of your view on quality) The Hunger Games lapped up the board audience and big bucks that John Carter missed previously. Scott Mendelson gives us decent reasoning as to why John Carter had such a fall from grace. Strangely enough, The Hunger Games appears to have done the complete opposite in all regards and reaped the rewards.
While one of the main reason behind the films attraction is of course the clear fact that the film is aimed at the "young adult" crowd. The film clearly has universal appeal. It's director; Gary Ross, had his writing talents involved in films such as Big (1988) and Pleasentville (1998). Simple features with board appeal and to this blogger, more than enough entertainment value. As writer and director here, Ross makes sure that the basic translation is solid (although it's clear that plot strands have been streamlined), and those who know the material well will probably be happy with what transpires.
Those who have brought the book on their kindle, and are still reading the life and death of Don Simpson, will see that the films story and themes, tender to various audiences. There is something for most within the material.Played out like Lord of the files meets The Running Man (with a sprinkle of Orwell), the films politics, the action and the female lead all come out well enough, yet doesn't feel like they've been picked by committee. You do get that true escapist feel of the world situated. I'm sure that this is evident with the book (I'll brush the dust off my kindle soon) but Ross does his best cinematically to give the film a certain amount of scope.
Jennifer Lawrence is as convincing here as the world that is built. This is mostly because she brings to the role the same quiet steeliness that she graced Winter's Bone with. Striking her role with the right balance of vulnerably and aggression. Whether it's bouncing off the ever reliable Woody Harrelson, or fighting through the foliage during the games themselves, Lawrence carries the film as comfortably here as she did in the Ozarks.
The film has it's faults. Due to it's 12-A rating and modern action filmmaking in general, it's blink and you miss it editing makes some of the set pieces feel awkward. Meanwhile; a streamlined relationship between Katniss and a fellow hunger gamer Rue, feels reminiscent of the Ripley/Newt but feels lacking in screen time. Such aspects could do with a bit of breathing space. However, the films lengthy running time reminds us that we should be happy that the film manages to place as much in as it can. In fact, contrary to the racists tweets from ignorant alleged fans who clearly can't read well, one of the films changes from the book involving a revolt in one of the districts after a certain event, works surprisingly well because of the aspects of race. Consider the films talk of districts uniting and revolting together. Surely such a mixture of races uniting as one voice makes the theme stronger than a typical white on white view. But then, maybe I'm wrong with such idealism.
Dubious race readings aside, the film works well when it has other sci-fi in its sights. Many have made the comparison to one Battle Royale, and while it's true that the film's main conceit has similarities, Much of the film seems to owe itself to Orwell's seminal 1984 (don't they all). An early moment within the film involving Katniss and her District boyfriend feels much like the neutral space that Winston and Julia share halfway through the novel. The constant manipulation of the media and containment of hope and emotion evoke the same Ministry of Love meddling that took place in Oceania (and of course the aformentioned Running Man).
Some of the films politics are clearly dated for where we are now. Ideas of celebrity being not only an importance but life affirming (as well as life giving). The dolling up our young and utilizing them for political gain and distraction is a difficult and complex element that the film does well to explore. The complexities aren't there, but for such a mainstream film to even think about such things is surprising. In comparison to Battle Royale*, The Hunger Games lacks the explicitness found within certain areas of that feature. In fact its straight laced nature of the film means that it lacks the absurdity observed within it's so called Japanese counterpart. The severe bloodletting is of course missing, but then so is the extreme adolescent behaviours that take place. Said enhanced immaturity helped highlight the senselessness of the situation. The Hunger Games doesn't appear to strive for anything too similar, focusing on a typical Hollywood arc, in which the kids grow up fast and quickly, one step already into womenhood and heroics.
This isn't a negative per say. More of an observation between two films that share similarities, yet are from two very different cultures. The Hunger Games works well as an entertaining piece of Hollywood affair. One willing to engage in lofter and darker themes than one would usually expect. For a film that found itself being touted as "the next twilight", this gives us a heroine who eschews the passive nature of Bella and hints at a romantic triangle which looks set to be more complex than the wolfs and the vamps. What happens next should be quite compelling. For now, I need to make do with checking out the book, as I'm more behind with that than the movie.
*Note: I know, I know EVERYONE has referenced it.
Sunday, 18 March 2012
Review: 21 Jump Street
Year: 2012
Directors: Phil Lord, Chris Miller
Screenplay: Michael Bacall
Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube
Synopsis is here:
All I know about the original 21 Jump Street is that; the original series, made Johnny Depp a teen idol. This was something he rejected, but it is what spring boarded him into the public concious. More so than his Nightmare on Elm Street role.
The idea behind the 21 Jump Street TV series is one of those streams of pop culture that someone like myself find surprising. It's not that I find it unbelievable, as a quick Google search can provide some interesting results. For me, it's that a show like that went on for so damn long. I may not know too much about it, but they mined this idea enough for 5 seasons? Fair enough. Then again I'm the kind of guy that gave up on Lost after two.
The film 21 Jump Street is a silly movie, yet it knows just how ridiculous it is. Early on, a police chief slyly denounces not only just the exercise of the film itself being made, but the current Hollywood trend of rehashing "old 80's shit and pretending that no one will notice". It's a typical wink to the camera gag that we've seen often before but it works well enough here. A problem comes however, when all the post modern gags and references fly in, and the young audience don't notice. It came to no surprise; that like the recent Apatow comedies, 21 Jump Street often fires jokes that will fly over the heads to anyone born after 1990, or isn't invested in pop culture. This isn't too much of a an issue, as there's other elements that may tickle the funny bone.
I have to admit, by the time Icecube appears as the Angry Black Captain telling our two dunderheaded heroes to "embrace your stereotypes", I was won over. While not as subversive as expected, 21 Jump Street runs with what's got and manages to keep up a decent amount of comedic stream. Be it the effects of synthetic drugs working it's way through the body of these two "brothers", or the Galaxy High switcheroo the film plays between the leads, the film mines decent laughs out the absurd nature of the plot (they really don't look like teenagers).
For me it works, because Jonah Hill is an amusing motormouthed talent, while Channing Tatum lets loose and plays good looking dumb jock way better than I expected. Tatum has never really been a favourite of mine in terms of presence. Yet here, showing his comedic chops, he brings his best performance, wonderfully enthusiastic and at times sweet.
This could be said of much of the film, which captures some inbetweener style laughs and brings about a wonderfully charming double act to the furore. When the film misses the mark, it's with gross out gags that aren't so much disgusting, but badly placed. The film, like so many comedies, fumbles with it's pace in the later half and tries desperately to get back up to speed (may I suggest more of the wonderfully cute Ellie Kemper sticking out her tush?). The negatives in no way overshadows the positives. It's a film which has gigglesome moments in the duos bumbling antics and delayed explosions. It does so with a cheeky nod and a wink. It knows it's silly and allows you in on the joke.
Directors: Phil Lord, Chris Miller
Screenplay: Michael Bacall
Starring: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Ice Cube
Synopsis is here:
All I know about the original 21 Jump Street is that; the original series, made Johnny Depp a teen idol. This was something he rejected, but it is what spring boarded him into the public concious. More so than his Nightmare on Elm Street role.
The idea behind the 21 Jump Street TV series is one of those streams of pop culture that someone like myself find surprising. It's not that I find it unbelievable, as a quick Google search can provide some interesting results. For me, it's that a show like that went on for so damn long. I may not know too much about it, but they mined this idea enough for 5 seasons? Fair enough. Then again I'm the kind of guy that gave up on Lost after two.
The film 21 Jump Street is a silly movie, yet it knows just how ridiculous it is. Early on, a police chief slyly denounces not only just the exercise of the film itself being made, but the current Hollywood trend of rehashing "old 80's shit and pretending that no one will notice". It's a typical wink to the camera gag that we've seen often before but it works well enough here. A problem comes however, when all the post modern gags and references fly in, and the young audience don't notice. It came to no surprise; that like the recent Apatow comedies, 21 Jump Street often fires jokes that will fly over the heads to anyone born after 1990, or isn't invested in pop culture. This isn't too much of a an issue, as there's other elements that may tickle the funny bone.
I have to admit, by the time Icecube appears as the Angry Black Captain telling our two dunderheaded heroes to "embrace your stereotypes", I was won over. While not as subversive as expected, 21 Jump Street runs with what's got and manages to keep up a decent amount of comedic stream. Be it the effects of synthetic drugs working it's way through the body of these two "brothers", or the Galaxy High switcheroo the film plays between the leads, the film mines decent laughs out the absurd nature of the plot (they really don't look like teenagers).
For me it works, because Jonah Hill is an amusing motormouthed talent, while Channing Tatum lets loose and plays good looking dumb jock way better than I expected. Tatum has never really been a favourite of mine in terms of presence. Yet here, showing his comedic chops, he brings his best performance, wonderfully enthusiastic and at times sweet.
This could be said of much of the film, which captures some inbetweener style laughs and brings about a wonderfully charming double act to the furore. When the film misses the mark, it's with gross out gags that aren't so much disgusting, but badly placed. The film, like so many comedies, fumbles with it's pace in the later half and tries desperately to get back up to speed (may I suggest more of the wonderfully cute Ellie Kemper sticking out her tush?). The negatives in no way overshadows the positives. It's a film which has gigglesome moments in the duos bumbling antics and delayed explosions. It does so with a cheeky nod and a wink. It knows it's silly and allows you in on the joke.
Friday, 16 March 2012
Review: John Carter
Year: 2012
Director: Andrew Stanton
Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, Michael Chabon
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins and Willem Dafoe
Synopsis is here:
The goings on behind John Carter, remind me much of situations that have happened in places where I've worked. Here, we have an expensive product (reportedly over $250 million) that has a uncertainly in it's success, despite similar commodities having large amounts of achievement. A bunch of cooks (executives, marketing and the like) who are all chopping and changing the recipe, despite appearing to hold their own reservations to the broth itself. There's is a braying, foaming at the mouth mob (we call them the consumer), seemingly waiting to rip the product to sheds. And at the end of all this, there is a director who honestly wants to do the best job he can.
John Carter (formerly of Mars) has so many disparaging factors attacking it from all sides that one was never really surprised at it's revenue stream. Many are debating the films financial success, but all in all, it's save to say that the film hasn't impressed as hoped. But then again how could it? With all the name altering, release shifting and weak marketing, Carter had seemingly lost it's voice before it even began. Let's not lie to ourselves. Despite the original story being a foundation of so much the fanboys hold dear, this attempt, with it's lack of known names and third world debt busting budget, was always going to be a tall order. But with so much nonsense surrounding it, at no point did any of the elements look to combine to create one true vision. All this and I've not yet got on to the bloody film itself.
John Carter (of Mars, Barsoom, whatever) is a film which is as flawed as it is entertaining and as earnest as it is erratic. For every character moment which sparked interest in me, there was juncture based on quite weak motivation. It's ambition clearly shows throughout, and yet it still feels slashed to try and fit everything in. With this said, the film still feels lengthy and yet you're never quite sure why it does. Sub-plots appear streamlined for a sequel not yet green lighted for a sequel Disney have not yet entered on to the franchise farm. However; if a sequel were to appear, I'd happily pay money to see it.
The thing is; while everything doesn't hang together as gracefully as you would hope, (American Civil War! Now MARS! Now Roman style Colosseum antics! An eternally lengthy Royal Wedding!) John Carter didn't bore me, as it jumped haphazardly from point to point. And why would it? Stanton's film; gives us a lead character who has enough heroism and appeal to keep investment. True, the first time Taylor Kitsch opens his mouth, his gravelly voice is more than a little gigglesome, and much of his reasoning behind his actions are muddled and murky at best. Despite this, Kitsch gives his performance his all and it clearly shows. As does the turn from Lynn Collins, whose display will remind many of Princess Leia, like so many characters of such an archetype.
Everyone in the film are so engaged in the situation, you just wish everything could be a bit more clear. We have three different tribes, all fighting, but for reasons that the audience are merely asked to bypass. The films antagonist (Brit villain for hire Mark Strong), is the type of heartless, immoral bastard that you you will love to hate. However, the film underplays the nefarious nature of the events that occur, much like the reasons for Carter to join the war that is taking place. When reasoning arises, it comes across mealy mouthed and unimportant. It just doesn't match the energy of the characters.
This brings frustration as when the film hits the mark, it strikes strong. A wonderful set piece involving Carter fighting for his life, intercut with his own personal back story is a moment I found emotionally overwhelming (all of the set pieces I enjoyed). It's old fashioned style towards everything is also welcoming. There is no pandering to modern trends; and this alone, gives the film a strange freshness about it despite the story itself being technically older than the films that have come before this movie (if that even makes sense). The films humour is also quite charming.
It's a shame we've been spoilt visually in the past however, as Avatar looms large over Stanton's industrious effort. The film is good looking and stylish in it's own right (despite that bloody orange/teal colour palette), but it just cannot match the efforts that take place in James Cameron's beautifully realised vision. It is; however, much more of a match, in its story. Despite both featuring the same archetypes within them, John Carter's various tribes, space travel and mixture of sci-fi and period history appears to be much more dense and enjoyable than Cameron's grunts on Pandora. There is a richness in between the lines that could have been further unlocked were it not for all the mitigating factors that the film clearly had issues with. The development hell faced, along with the need to be a franchise can clearly be seen within John Carter.
I can say however, I was never bored with John Carter. I always wanted to know what came next, enjoyed its sense for adventure and its banter. Carter didn't reach the truly epic scale I had hoped, but by no means did it truly disappoint itself. It's a damn shame that all the pottering about the money, the release date, the marketing and everything in-between, have not allowed the film to breathe. John Carter isn't perfect but wear its flaws, like its heart, on its sleeve and goes down fighting.
NOTE: I'm not in Marketing. If I was I would have simply gone down this route: "Before avatar, before star wars route, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo) takes you to Mars!" I don't know how that would work. But like I said, I'm not in marketing.
Director: Andrew Stanton
Screenplay: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, Michael Chabon
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins and Willem Dafoe
Synopsis is here:
The goings on behind John Carter, remind me much of situations that have happened in places where I've worked. Here, we have an expensive product (reportedly over $250 million) that has a uncertainly in it's success, despite similar commodities having large amounts of achievement. A bunch of cooks (executives, marketing and the like) who are all chopping and changing the recipe, despite appearing to hold their own reservations to the broth itself. There's is a braying, foaming at the mouth mob (we call them the consumer), seemingly waiting to rip the product to sheds. And at the end of all this, there is a director who honestly wants to do the best job he can.
John Carter (formerly of Mars) has so many disparaging factors attacking it from all sides that one was never really surprised at it's revenue stream. Many are debating the films financial success, but all in all, it's save to say that the film hasn't impressed as hoped. But then again how could it? With all the name altering, release shifting and weak marketing, Carter had seemingly lost it's voice before it even began. Let's not lie to ourselves. Despite the original story being a foundation of so much the fanboys hold dear, this attempt, with it's lack of known names and third world debt busting budget, was always going to be a tall order. But with so much nonsense surrounding it, at no point did any of the elements look to combine to create one true vision. All this and I've not yet got on to the bloody film itself.
John Carter (of Mars, Barsoom, whatever) is a film which is as flawed as it is entertaining and as earnest as it is erratic. For every character moment which sparked interest in me, there was juncture based on quite weak motivation. It's ambition clearly shows throughout, and yet it still feels slashed to try and fit everything in. With this said, the film still feels lengthy and yet you're never quite sure why it does. Sub-plots appear streamlined for a sequel not yet green lighted for a sequel Disney have not yet entered on to the franchise farm. However; if a sequel were to appear, I'd happily pay money to see it.
The thing is; while everything doesn't hang together as gracefully as you would hope, (American Civil War! Now MARS! Now Roman style Colosseum antics! An eternally lengthy Royal Wedding!) John Carter didn't bore me, as it jumped haphazardly from point to point. And why would it? Stanton's film; gives us a lead character who has enough heroism and appeal to keep investment. True, the first time Taylor Kitsch opens his mouth, his gravelly voice is more than a little gigglesome, and much of his reasoning behind his actions are muddled and murky at best. Despite this, Kitsch gives his performance his all and it clearly shows. As does the turn from Lynn Collins, whose display will remind many of Princess Leia, like so many characters of such an archetype.
Everyone in the film are so engaged in the situation, you just wish everything could be a bit more clear. We have three different tribes, all fighting, but for reasons that the audience are merely asked to bypass. The films antagonist (Brit villain for hire Mark Strong), is the type of heartless, immoral bastard that you you will love to hate. However, the film underplays the nefarious nature of the events that occur, much like the reasons for Carter to join the war that is taking place. When reasoning arises, it comes across mealy mouthed and unimportant. It just doesn't match the energy of the characters.
This brings frustration as when the film hits the mark, it strikes strong. A wonderful set piece involving Carter fighting for his life, intercut with his own personal back story is a moment I found emotionally overwhelming (all of the set pieces I enjoyed). It's old fashioned style towards everything is also welcoming. There is no pandering to modern trends; and this alone, gives the film a strange freshness about it despite the story itself being technically older than the films that have come before this movie (if that even makes sense). The films humour is also quite charming.
It's a shame we've been spoilt visually in the past however, as Avatar looms large over Stanton's industrious effort. The film is good looking and stylish in it's own right (despite that bloody orange/teal colour palette), but it just cannot match the efforts that take place in James Cameron's beautifully realised vision. It is; however, much more of a match, in its story. Despite both featuring the same archetypes within them, John Carter's various tribes, space travel and mixture of sci-fi and period history appears to be much more dense and enjoyable than Cameron's grunts on Pandora. There is a richness in between the lines that could have been further unlocked were it not for all the mitigating factors that the film clearly had issues with. The development hell faced, along with the need to be a franchise can clearly be seen within John Carter.
I can say however, I was never bored with John Carter. I always wanted to know what came next, enjoyed its sense for adventure and its banter. Carter didn't reach the truly epic scale I had hoped, but by no means did it truly disappoint itself. It's a damn shame that all the pottering about the money, the release date, the marketing and everything in-between, have not allowed the film to breathe. John Carter isn't perfect but wear its flaws, like its heart, on its sleeve and goes down fighting.
NOTE: I'm not in Marketing. If I was I would have simply gone down this route: "Before avatar, before star wars route, Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo) takes you to Mars!" I don't know how that would work. But like I said, I'm not in marketing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)