Year: 2010 (U.K Release date 2011)
Director: Tom Hooper
Screenplay: David Seidler
Starring: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush
Synopsis is here
I can't lie. Movies like this aren't my cup of tea. When I first heard about The Kings Speech I wasn't too impressed. Why? Period drama + overcoming disability+ Second World War = Oscar Bait. Add the fact that hardly any critic had anything negative to say about the feature and I found myself mucho worried. I shouldn't have such a bias but something that appears so suited for awards and loved by everyone always give me the feeling that I will be disappointed. One should always go into a film fresh, however everyone knows how easily swayed a person could be by everyone seemingly loving or hating a film. With all this considered; it is safe to say that to those still wondering if they should invest interest into a film like The Kings Speech, If you were to ask myself if you should watch The Kings Speech despite reservations, I would wholeheartedly say yes. I found much to enjoy in Tom Hooper's film; from it's wonderfully picked cast to it's charming wit, every aspect just seemed to fall in place for me. My hesitation was quickly brushed aside for it's lack of stuffiness and well drawn out themes.
The King's Speech is also the film that has made me stand up and truly recognise Colin Firth as an incredibly strong actor. Firth takes a role that in a lesser film would be considered goofy or pandering and infuses it with the humanity that many other "handicapped" roles forget. This isn't a caricature or charity case (metaphorically and literately for the latter) in any shape or form, but a truly troubled man trapped within a family that is loving but can't/won't show it and the ominous dark cloud of war encroaching. Prince (soon to be King) George is reluctant to be King because of his issue but frustrated by his seeming inability to change it. Such conflict becomes more engaging due to the advent of a changing media world. We take broadcasting in it's many forms for granted because it's everywhere. Yet in the thirties we are thrown back to a time in which Royalty just needed to be seen and not heard. It's strange to watch such a struggle of one of the earlier Royal broadcasters in an era where typing in William and Kate will bring up millions of search results of the next Royal wedding. We can avoid this hype if we please. In 1939, King George had the undivided attention of every man, woman and child on these isles. If one finds it hard to comprehended now, imagine this man at that time having to rally this nation as one. It's mind-numbing. Firth contains all this contention beautifully with this performance. With this in mind it's understandable to feel his outbursts. Firth managed to make me feel on this contained inner conflicts. It is wonderful to observe.
He is supported by a well picked cast. Helen Bonham Carter is an inspired choice for the fretful Queen Mother, while Geoffrey Rush who may often be remembered for his more scenery chewing aspects (I've said his name, I bet your thinking Barbossa) understates everything here. The best scenes in the film involve Rush's Lionel absorbing King George's rages, he provides Firth a great foil.
The film maybe an acting showcase (I will not be surprised if Firth wins an Oscar) but it's not without some choice direction from Hooper. Whose choice of visuals with cinematographer Danny Cohen (Dead Man's Shoes, This is England) capture the isolation felt by The King who is stuck within a class that to some is considered cold. This awareness of space within the film is nearly always considered from the dialogue ("I was told not to stand too close") to the images providing the vastness of the space this man must conquer in his own life before anything else. Hooper, whose last film The Dammed Utd, provided an entertaining insight into male relationships and football management, once again takes a look at the friendships of men. Like before this main connection is just as punchy. What I enjoyed the most out of the relationship is that it is one that defies class in ways. The timing of it's release is spot on (royal wedding with a commoner remember?) but what's more important is having these two people come together despite being seemingly worlds apart.
I was surprised by how much I enjoyed The Kings Speech. I was grabbed immediately by it's charms and was gladly welcomed it's unpretentious manner. As mentioned before, it's sometimes difficult to get your bias out the way, even when your not supposed to hold any. But The Kings Speech, with Firth's performance leading the way was a pleasant shock to the system.
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Wednesday, 5 January 2011
Review: 127 Hours
Year: 2011
Director: Danny Boyle
Screenplay:Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
Starring: James Franco
Synopsis is here
New Year, New Films. Let's go.
Aron Ralston has stated in one of his corporate speeches that he didn't lose his mind, but gained his life back. When I hear something like that, I'm not surprised that director Danny Boyle decided upon this story. Much like the Boyle's infamous Trainspotting, or award winning Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours is about choosing life. Boyle's strongest protagonists are the ones who dictate their own lives. They have (or gain) a large amount of control in their own hands, even if one of those hands is stuck under a large boulder. 127 Hours worked for me because I wa following someone who believes he has such control even when nature itself tries to say he hasn't.
Now in this film, Aron Ralston (Franco) is not a hero, in fact through the many flashbacks we get throughout the film we learn he's a little selfish and a bit of a dumbass (going rock climbing telling no one where he was going?). However, with this said, as the story pushes forward, Ralston displays traits that have been sorely missing from a few modern fictional cinema heroes. Ralston is charismatic, knowledgeable and industrious. When his predicament takes place, he also becomes analytical, as opposed to some of the recent passive protagonists (see something like Burton's Alice in wonderland or Tron: Legacy). Franco's Ralston seems to have a mind that isn't relying on the screenplay to tell him otherwise. Credit must go to Franco, as he brings his A game to the proceedings. Cocky, delusional, meditative and when the time comes forceful, like the film itself Franco's performance is one that lives in the moment and I felt I was with him for so much of the film.
Also with him is the vibrant digital cinematography from Anthony Dod Mantle who not only captures the beauty of the scenery but the immediacy and isolation of the situation. The camera gets in close with Franco and like Buried or The Descent if your not good with enclosed spaces you may be best to avoid this movie. In fact I think it is this element which probably helped tipped some people over the edge in some of the incidents that took place in the early screenings. Mantle's shot's remind us that Ralston cannot turn away from this situation was why should we?
Boyle finishing off quite a creative decade of his career, directs this like a sugar rush, the thumping music and hallucinations (reminiscent of Trainspotting) help keeps the tension going at the best of times. At times I found the MTV editing of the piece more than a little distracting. With visual moments that don't say much other than "hey we can do this". There's also something I found a little "off" with the films first half, which puts together the situation well enough but lacks the oomph of the films exhilarating last act. But what a last act. The films climax in which Ralston does the deed involving his arm was not as brutal as one had thought but is a scene that stuck me with an unbelievable amount of positivity once the "moment" ends. It's moments like this that Boyle does best, whether it's a skag addict going cold turkey or a slumdog jumping into a a vast of human feces, Boyle manages to capture not only the character "choosing life" and taking control of their situation but also that elevated rush and appreciation one can get by watching someone beating extraordinary odds.
So 2011 starts not with a whimper but a bang as 127 Hours reminds us that sometimes fact is not stranger but stronger than fiction and that the courageous doesn't have to be in our visual fantasies but within those who are willing to find it in themselves.
Director: Danny Boyle
Screenplay:Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
Starring: James Franco
Synopsis is here
New Year, New Films. Let's go.
Aron Ralston has stated in one of his corporate speeches that he didn't lose his mind, but gained his life back. When I hear something like that, I'm not surprised that director Danny Boyle decided upon this story. Much like the Boyle's infamous Trainspotting, or award winning Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours is about choosing life. Boyle's strongest protagonists are the ones who dictate their own lives. They have (or gain) a large amount of control in their own hands, even if one of those hands is stuck under a large boulder. 127 Hours worked for me because I wa following someone who believes he has such control even when nature itself tries to say he hasn't.
Now in this film, Aron Ralston (Franco) is not a hero, in fact through the many flashbacks we get throughout the film we learn he's a little selfish and a bit of a dumbass (going rock climbing telling no one where he was going?). However, with this said, as the story pushes forward, Ralston displays traits that have been sorely missing from a few modern fictional cinema heroes. Ralston is charismatic, knowledgeable and industrious. When his predicament takes place, he also becomes analytical, as opposed to some of the recent passive protagonists (see something like Burton's Alice in wonderland or Tron: Legacy). Franco's Ralston seems to have a mind that isn't relying on the screenplay to tell him otherwise. Credit must go to Franco, as he brings his A game to the proceedings. Cocky, delusional, meditative and when the time comes forceful, like the film itself Franco's performance is one that lives in the moment and I felt I was with him for so much of the film.
Also with him is the vibrant digital cinematography from Anthony Dod Mantle who not only captures the beauty of the scenery but the immediacy and isolation of the situation. The camera gets in close with Franco and like Buried or The Descent if your not good with enclosed spaces you may be best to avoid this movie. In fact I think it is this element which probably helped tipped some people over the edge in some of the incidents that took place in the early screenings. Mantle's shot's remind us that Ralston cannot turn away from this situation was why should we?
Boyle finishing off quite a creative decade of his career, directs this like a sugar rush, the thumping music and hallucinations (reminiscent of Trainspotting) help keeps the tension going at the best of times. At times I found the MTV editing of the piece more than a little distracting. With visual moments that don't say much other than "hey we can do this". There's also something I found a little "off" with the films first half, which puts together the situation well enough but lacks the oomph of the films exhilarating last act. But what a last act. The films climax in which Ralston does the deed involving his arm was not as brutal as one had thought but is a scene that stuck me with an unbelievable amount of positivity once the "moment" ends. It's moments like this that Boyle does best, whether it's a skag addict going cold turkey or a slumdog jumping into a a vast of human feces, Boyle manages to capture not only the character "choosing life" and taking control of their situation but also that elevated rush and appreciation one can get by watching someone beating extraordinary odds.
So 2011 starts not with a whimper but a bang as 127 Hours reminds us that sometimes fact is not stranger but stronger than fiction and that the courageous doesn't have to be in our visual fantasies but within those who are willing to find it in themselves.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
THE YEAR THAT WAS 2010
We have reached a point in mainstream American Cinema in which original thought is now more often than not being looked past for brand recognition. In over 100 years of cinema, there has always been remakes, adaptations, and sequels. However, times have changed and in order to make money (it's called show business for a reason) the Hollywood machine are now really playing it safe. Looking at the top ten grossing movies of this year you will find that only two (Inception and Despicable Me) are based on original ideas. Ten years ago there were five. The change is only slight but still speaks in volumes. I mean just ten years ago there was more of a chance of an original screenplay being put through the machine right?
Well the answer to me is an awkward yes and no. It is more likely for me to get a draft of a 3D, sequel of a reboot optioned in this day and age over say my roman gladiator in space idea. On the flip side of this, are that many people actually going to watch the original ideas that are managing to slip though the cracks? I mean this honestly because we see a lot of big talk on teh tinterwebz from faceless commentators bemoaning the state of movies today. Usually quick to crap on the news of the next remake. Fair enough they can get frustrating. However, it was a bizarre feeling going up to the cinema on a Saturday afternoon with my girlfriend, her friends and my podcast co-host (total of five people) going to watch Whip It and being the only people in the screen. Granted it's primary target market is a particular one but it still didn't stop the film from being one of my hidden gems of the year. It's not just Drew Barrymore debut getting shafted. Here in England there's always talk about how crap (enter u.s film here) but a good search around and you can also see that they didn't really give a shit about the UKFC being scraped either.
It's not as clear cut as the half-baked reasons I've just placed above. When certain films come out they dominate more than one screen, pushing smaller films out the way. Also marketing has a huge hand in the process. Don R Lewis tweeted this about Tron: "The greatest trick the Disney ever played was making you think you ever gave a sh*t about Tron". To point I agree as Tron: Legacy is based on a 28 year old modest hit/cult movie, has no discernible entry point for new viewer with a poor storyline to boot. However with it's $200 Million budget...it had to be everywhere as it's not allowed to be an expensive flop. There's also the hilarious factor that most films are being made and targeted at the age of "young uns". But that's another story.
With all this said it is still down to Joe Six-pack to make the choice on what they're going to watch and to me the choice of many is quite simple. When you want to be entertained, are you going to take a risk and increase the chance of disappointment? Or do you go with what you know? So yes while 2010 has brought the amount of remake/reboot/sequel titles to critical amount and we can bitch about the lack of ideas as much as we want, we do enjoy the safety of what we know. We're not waiting for Bond 23 for no reason are we?
Here is my Top Ten Favorite movies of the year which features four adaptations and one semi-remake. Interestingly enough the trends within the ten are ones of fractured mindscapes, unreliable narrators with a couple of anti-heroes thrown in. As with last year, these are personal favorite choices so telling me that I'm wrong is folly as I don't do "best of the year".
Rambling over. Here we go:
Before I saw Inception I considered that this was the finest acting I've seen from DiCaprio. Looking back I still think it is. He is dominant here and it's through his performance he takes us through the wringer. The breakdown of DiCaprio's Teddy is heightened by the gorgeous visuals, deceptive editing and bombastic classical soundtrack. But it's the graceful melding of these elements by Martin Scorsese and his ability to tell a story that did it for me.
An OTT, comical semi-remake of Abel Ferrara grim character study. A subversion of the police procedural which makes full use of its outlandish humor and hallucinogenic imagery. Cage's cartoonish performance becomes hypnotic as you watch to see how just how much of the barrel Lieutenant Terence will scape with his bare hands.
I love Chris Morris' work because he captures the absurdity of our moral panics so accurately. His Brass Eye pedophile special (and the hilarious angry commentators in its aftermath) craftily show how quickly we can take things out of context and propagate our own fears in a blink of an eye. Four Lions is a cinematic extension of this; taking the touchy subject of terrorism and displaying it as the confused and stupid thing it can can. Morris (with help from the peep show writers) not only taps into the alienation and misplaced anger (and not the religious heretic) that bestows many extremists but also reminds us that our fear-fueling world helps hide how truly random something like suicide bombing can be. It also helps that i found it constantly quotable and consistently funny.
Does it matter if Banksy's film takes you round the houses? It manages to say more about the state of art, be it graffiti, hip-hop or movies themselves than than it should. Toying with the idea of art as identity and how commerce and celebrity can distort such things. I found Banksy's "documentary" holds the same reckless spirit that his street art has.
It's lead performance is a stoic and selfless one from Jennifer Lawrence, who portrays a heroism that needs to be seen more often in female driven movies. The surroundings are barren and the family "community" within it almost make the Texas Chainsaw family look homely but Lawrence's Ree Dolly fights on no matter what the odds in this Ozark mountain based fable. The outcome is much like the films screenplay: sparse, uncomplicated but quietly touching.
I know it's cheating (it's released in the U.K next year) but I had to rebel a bit as this film gave me the most visceral impact this year. The techniques may hint towards the Wrestler but Arononfsky decides to direct things towards psychological horror. The naive performance; perfectly articulated by Natalie Portman leads us into a dark, claustrophobic tale of sexual awaking, social isolation and grueling routine. The early reviews have a touch of the marmite to them, but this film made it hard for me to stand up afterward.
Speaking of Marmite...Not everyone liked this clearly cult, hyper-active, sugar fueled, little upstart of a movie. Hell, it wasn't even caught at the cinema by most people! I however did manage to catch this on the big screen and fell in love with it instantly. Scott Pilgrim's rapid firing dialogue, dazzling visuals and bold ambition bowled me over, while it's game cast had me grinning like a loon without. As a teen comedy, I've seen nothing like it.
Playing out like an absurd, European Clockwork Orange, Dogtooth plays out like a mixture of Haneke and Palahniuk. Thing is...the weirder it got the more absorbing the film became. Hilariously deadpan with some provocative imagery, Dogtooth is one of those off the beaten track movies that I urge those who are into the films that are truly nuts should try and watch once.
The moment Trent Reznor's pulsating soundtrack kicks after an unflinching and brutal break-up, I knew the "facebook" movie wasn't going to be just a flash in the pan product. Fincher's Rashomon-like feature; plays out it's power plays and pride filled arguments with glee, but is ultimately tells the story of how one of the worlds most social web based program built it's foundations out of the blood, sweat and tears of other peoples fractured relationships. The ensemble cast are immense, the screenplay is zippy and the direction of story is as razor sharp as Fincher gets. It doesn't matter how much of it is true as it's damn fine fiction.
Well the answer to me is an awkward yes and no. It is more likely for me to get a draft of a 3D, sequel of a reboot optioned in this day and age over say my roman gladiator in space idea. On the flip side of this, are that many people actually going to watch the original ideas that are managing to slip though the cracks? I mean this honestly because we see a lot of big talk on teh tinterwebz from faceless commentators bemoaning the state of movies today. Usually quick to crap on the news of the next remake. Fair enough they can get frustrating. However, it was a bizarre feeling going up to the cinema on a Saturday afternoon with my girlfriend, her friends and my podcast co-host (total of five people) going to watch Whip It and being the only people in the screen. Granted it's primary target market is a particular one but it still didn't stop the film from being one of my hidden gems of the year. It's not just Drew Barrymore debut getting shafted. Here in England there's always talk about how crap (enter u.s film here) but a good search around and you can also see that they didn't really give a shit about the UKFC being scraped either.
It's not as clear cut as the half-baked reasons I've just placed above. When certain films come out they dominate more than one screen, pushing smaller films out the way. Also marketing has a huge hand in the process. Don R Lewis tweeted this about Tron: "The greatest trick the Disney ever played was making you think you ever gave a sh*t about Tron". To point I agree as Tron: Legacy is based on a 28 year old modest hit/cult movie, has no discernible entry point for new viewer with a poor storyline to boot. However with it's $200 Million budget...it had to be everywhere as it's not allowed to be an expensive flop. There's also the hilarious factor that most films are being made and targeted at the age of "young uns". But that's another story.
With all this said it is still down to Joe Six-pack to make the choice on what they're going to watch and to me the choice of many is quite simple. When you want to be entertained, are you going to take a risk and increase the chance of disappointment? Or do you go with what you know? So yes while 2010 has brought the amount of remake/reboot/sequel titles to critical amount and we can bitch about the lack of ideas as much as we want, we do enjoy the safety of what we know. We're not waiting for Bond 23 for no reason are we?
Here is my Top Ten Favorite movies of the year which features four adaptations and one semi-remake. Interestingly enough the trends within the ten are ones of fractured mindscapes, unreliable narrators with a couple of anti-heroes thrown in. As with last year, these are personal favorite choices so telling me that I'm wrong is folly as I don't do "best of the year".
Rambling over. Here we go:
So much has been said about this little film that it's worth keeping this as short as possible. I do wonder that in a another world where more original screenplays were given the backing and trust that Nolan gained, would we be ranting an raving over this one? I do believe that we would. It's not just the amount of ideas that flow through the movie that make it so interesting, but also the execution, the visual scope and the general thrill that I (and many others) felt when watching the movie. It's interesting that so much emphasis was placed on how complex the film is. It's not, but it's ability to take themes what could be considered as lofty and make them palatable and enjoyable for a general audience? That's a skill.
Damn Fine Honourable Mentions:
Toy Story 3
Damn Fine Honourable Mentions:
Toy Story 3
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Review: Tron: Legacy
Year: 2010
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Screenplay: Edward Kitsis, Adam Horowitz
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Michael Sheen
Synopsis is here
Tron: Legacy is a quite a vapid feature. One wrapped in it's 28 year old history and brand name to keep it warm. Oh yes there's certain people who will think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but unfortunately some of these people who shout the loudest may have that horrid nostalgia effect playing with their judgment/emotions. Case in point the amusingly biased review from Jay Maynard (A.K.A Tron Guy) whose laments film critics and their reading of the film but has spent 28 years of his programming life waiting for this sequel. I really do not mean to cause offense in any way, that's not my style. However, when a guy who made net fame by making a tron suit states that this movie almost brought him to tears then you know that judgment is tipped in the brands favor.
Brand is the best word to describe Tron: Legacy because that really is the only thing going for it in my point of view. It's a film that really relies on it's name and what you've known before in order to get the most out of it. This is true for many sequels but with a gap between films that is older than myself and with some wondering if Disney are doing their best to hide the original film, we're left at in a bizarre limbo. Tron: Legacy hasn't got much of an entry point for new viewers, with much of the film talking about past events and techno babble as if everyone is on the same page. Unfortunately this is not Harry Potter 7, but a sequel on what is considered a modest hit almost 30 years ago the achieved cult status with the most important word being cult. For a $200 million film looking to make it's money back I was very surprised on the route this movie decided to take.
It's clear that the visuals are the main aspect of Tron: Legacy and director Joseph Kosinski has not only replicated the original films settings, but bolstered it to the what can only be considered as the most definitive Tron look. Kosinski who has said he's looked toward architecture to bring about the visuals gives us very interesting scenery to view throughout Tron: Legacy. Areas of the grid have a certain charm and the advancements of CGI have helped give everything the gloss a big budget movie like this needs. The problem for me is I really didn't care enough. If Tron: Legacy had an interesting story with some narrative drive and characters with at least some depth then we'd be in business. Kosinski isn't really using the visuals to tell the story; as they are there to show how pretty everything is. No anything narrative based is down to it's dull screenplay which is full of very uninteresting talk. It doesn't help that most of the film is full of this talk, with less action than one would expect. The lightcycles and flying discs were not my favorite film moments of the year, but were fun enough to provide a much needed distraction from it's "lets go to A to do B" screenplay.
Hints of interesting themes crop up at points, a moment in Flynn's off-grid home suggests that as creator, Flynn is also God. Clu as the creation picks up a sliver apple and thus implicates the idea of him as Adam and obviously original sin. I also liked the idea of Clu as an unknowingly fascist leader programmed to provide perfection but missing the vital fact that imperfection makes us who we are. The idea of lightcycle/discgames being futuristic gladiator-esque arenas is also an interesting element. While all this may sound a tad heavy (read: over thinking it), if Tron fully integrated these aspects into the film properly, I would have found the whole exercise a far more appealing one.
However, Tron: Legacy doesn't have time for such things (despite being 127 minutes long) as it's struggling to find a way to make Sam Flynn (Hedlund) an interesting person. With many films like this if you believe in the character, his stake and his goals, you believe in the world. I had no interest in Sam Flynn, nor his flat relationship with Quorra (Olivia Wilde) which is a shame as this lack of appeal dulls The Grids neon city. It's not really the fault of the actors as they don't have much to work with, however when watching Jeff Bridges and Micheal Sheen in the film who give do their best to illuminate their performances, you do see the gap in talent and experience. Case in point: Sheen is only on screen for around ten minutes and is still more memorable than most things within the movie.
For me Tron: Legacy was quite a forgettable experience all around. Another film that is quick to push CGI and 3D but less willing to provide an interesting storyline, strong dramatic conflict or appealing characters. I have an increasing sense of worry that soon; every December, we will be given a tent-pole, expensive, pretty release which will be marketed to death as it cannot afford to fail. I fret that these features will be hyped as the greatest thing since the last best thing but with only a different colour scheme to provide any difference. The early box office numbers have stated that Tron: Legacy is "on target" in financial terms, but from a personal point of view all I saw was what I can only describe as: Avatar's New Clothing.
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Screenplay: Edward Kitsis, Adam Horowitz
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde, Michael Sheen
Synopsis is here
Tron: Legacy is a quite a vapid feature. One wrapped in it's 28 year old history and brand name to keep it warm. Oh yes there's certain people who will think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but unfortunately some of these people who shout the loudest may have that horrid nostalgia effect playing with their judgment/emotions. Case in point the amusingly biased review from Jay Maynard (A.K.A Tron Guy) whose laments film critics and their reading of the film but has spent 28 years of his programming life waiting for this sequel. I really do not mean to cause offense in any way, that's not my style. However, when a guy who made net fame by making a tron suit states that this movie almost brought him to tears then you know that judgment is tipped in the brands favor.
Brand is the best word to describe Tron: Legacy because that really is the only thing going for it in my point of view. It's a film that really relies on it's name and what you've known before in order to get the most out of it. This is true for many sequels but with a gap between films that is older than myself and with some wondering if Disney are doing their best to hide the original film, we're left at in a bizarre limbo. Tron: Legacy hasn't got much of an entry point for new viewers, with much of the film talking about past events and techno babble as if everyone is on the same page. Unfortunately this is not Harry Potter 7, but a sequel on what is considered a modest hit almost 30 years ago the achieved cult status with the most important word being cult. For a $200 million film looking to make it's money back I was very surprised on the route this movie decided to take.
It's clear that the visuals are the main aspect of Tron: Legacy and director Joseph Kosinski has not only replicated the original films settings, but bolstered it to the what can only be considered as the most definitive Tron look. Kosinski who has said he's looked toward architecture to bring about the visuals gives us very interesting scenery to view throughout Tron: Legacy. Areas of the grid have a certain charm and the advancements of CGI have helped give everything the gloss a big budget movie like this needs. The problem for me is I really didn't care enough. If Tron: Legacy had an interesting story with some narrative drive and characters with at least some depth then we'd be in business. Kosinski isn't really using the visuals to tell the story; as they are there to show how pretty everything is. No anything narrative based is down to it's dull screenplay which is full of very uninteresting talk. It doesn't help that most of the film is full of this talk, with less action than one would expect. The lightcycles and flying discs were not my favorite film moments of the year, but were fun enough to provide a much needed distraction from it's "lets go to A to do B" screenplay.
Hints of interesting themes crop up at points, a moment in Flynn's off-grid home suggests that as creator, Flynn is also God. Clu as the creation picks up a sliver apple and thus implicates the idea of him as Adam and obviously original sin. I also liked the idea of Clu as an unknowingly fascist leader programmed to provide perfection but missing the vital fact that imperfection makes us who we are. The idea of lightcycle/discgames being futuristic gladiator-esque arenas is also an interesting element. While all this may sound a tad heavy (read: over thinking it), if Tron fully integrated these aspects into the film properly, I would have found the whole exercise a far more appealing one.
However, Tron: Legacy doesn't have time for such things (despite being 127 minutes long) as it's struggling to find a way to make Sam Flynn (Hedlund) an interesting person. With many films like this if you believe in the character, his stake and his goals, you believe in the world. I had no interest in Sam Flynn, nor his flat relationship with Quorra (Olivia Wilde) which is a shame as this lack of appeal dulls The Grids neon city. It's not really the fault of the actors as they don't have much to work with, however when watching Jeff Bridges and Micheal Sheen in the film who give do their best to illuminate their performances, you do see the gap in talent and experience. Case in point: Sheen is only on screen for around ten minutes and is still more memorable than most things within the movie.
For me Tron: Legacy was quite a forgettable experience all around. Another film that is quick to push CGI and 3D but less willing to provide an interesting storyline, strong dramatic conflict or appealing characters. I have an increasing sense of worry that soon; every December, we will be given a tent-pole, expensive, pretty release which will be marketed to death as it cannot afford to fail. I fret that these features will be hyped as the greatest thing since the last best thing but with only a different colour scheme to provide any difference. The early box office numbers have stated that Tron: Legacy is "on target" in financial terms, but from a personal point of view all I saw was what I can only describe as: Avatar's New Clothing.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Review: Frozen
Year: 2010
Director: Adam Green
Screenplay: Adam Green
Starring: Shaun Ashmore, Emma Bell, Kevin Segers
Synopsis is here
Despite my interest in the genre, I haven't watched many horror films this year. Paranormal Activity 2? Could wait for the DVD. Saw 7? Stopped at Saw 5. A Serbian Film? Just came out in London and not spending that much on a ticket to see it. Despite coming with those half arsed excuses on why I haven't watched these movies; the main answer is clear: I just wasn't interested in that much this year. Some titles have aroused a certain amount of interest (The Ward, Human Centipede etc) but nothing really came out and grabbed me...Well, there was Black Swan but that's another story.
So distanced from the genre was I, that it was quite surprising I even bothered with Adam Green's Frozen. There wasn't anything in particular that made me want to see it other than it looks a bit different from the current slew of remakes and sequels baying for attention. It helps that Green himself appears to be an interesting horror director, with an affection to horror cinema that rivals one Eli Roth.
After the his debut slasher Hatchet, it seems that Green has decided to go in a very different direction for his next feature. A non-supernatural tale of survival horror; Frozen works on an very interesting premise. The idea of getting stuck on a sky-lift may not have crossed too many peoples minds for an idea for a horror film, however, Green pulls it off quite well with a generous amount of dread and likable characters to feel for. How everything comes off is far fetched, but still manages to give a certain amount of plausibility to it's universe.
One of the most interesting things I found about the movie is that; while here in England one of the biggest news stories going on is of course the student protests, Frozen reminded me of the kind of students I remember knowing and that I still see around town. One of the big themes here play on what we've seen before in many a slasher flick, in which know it all students with their casual deceits get more than they bargained for. It works a treat here. Our three leads have enjoyed not having to pay "top dollar" and getting a free ride, but the idea that human error and nature itself doesn't swing to these rules just gives this movie the right amount of cynicism to keep things ticking along. The idea that you shouldn't get anything for free runs not only through the films beginning, but also when the tension reaches peak (pun not intended) later on when pleasantries have turned into bitterness and then grief after the fate of one of the characters is ultimately decided.
Green keeps everything compact, keeping the action with these people and keeping the tension there with you. There's enough worry in the film that when the most outrageous element comes into play (Wolves) I generally wanted to know what would happen to these people. There's also pivotal moment that had me cringing with glee as it kept the stakes high enough.
I can't say the film stayed with me too long. As you can read, I have had a hard time writing about the feature. It's not something that I could even imagine many horror fans rushing out to watch again straight after their first viewing. But there's was enough in this to give the film a rent and possibly have a talk everything afterward. I enjoyed Ashmore's performance, liked Emma Bell enough and didn't disagree with Kevin Zegers too much. I also enjoyed the effects of the cold on these people as well as the banter (which turns into bitching). The visuals are fine and I can't say at any time I was bored. Full faith restored in horror films...still not seeing a lot on the horizon but with stuff like this coming out, I haven't lost loyalty completely.
Director: Adam Green
Screenplay: Adam Green
Starring: Shaun Ashmore, Emma Bell, Kevin Segers
Synopsis is here
Despite my interest in the genre, I haven't watched many horror films this year. Paranormal Activity 2? Could wait for the DVD. Saw 7? Stopped at Saw 5. A Serbian Film? Just came out in London and not spending that much on a ticket to see it. Despite coming with those half arsed excuses on why I haven't watched these movies; the main answer is clear: I just wasn't interested in that much this year. Some titles have aroused a certain amount of interest (The Ward, Human Centipede etc) but nothing really came out and grabbed me...Well, there was Black Swan but that's another story.
So distanced from the genre was I, that it was quite surprising I even bothered with Adam Green's Frozen. There wasn't anything in particular that made me want to see it other than it looks a bit different from the current slew of remakes and sequels baying for attention. It helps that Green himself appears to be an interesting horror director, with an affection to horror cinema that rivals one Eli Roth.
After the his debut slasher Hatchet, it seems that Green has decided to go in a very different direction for his next feature. A non-supernatural tale of survival horror; Frozen works on an very interesting premise. The idea of getting stuck on a sky-lift may not have crossed too many peoples minds for an idea for a horror film, however, Green pulls it off quite well with a generous amount of dread and likable characters to feel for. How everything comes off is far fetched, but still manages to give a certain amount of plausibility to it's universe.
One of the most interesting things I found about the movie is that; while here in England one of the biggest news stories going on is of course the student protests, Frozen reminded me of the kind of students I remember knowing and that I still see around town. One of the big themes here play on what we've seen before in many a slasher flick, in which know it all students with their casual deceits get more than they bargained for. It works a treat here. Our three leads have enjoyed not having to pay "top dollar" and getting a free ride, but the idea that human error and nature itself doesn't swing to these rules just gives this movie the right amount of cynicism to keep things ticking along. The idea that you shouldn't get anything for free runs not only through the films beginning, but also when the tension reaches peak (pun not intended) later on when pleasantries have turned into bitterness and then grief after the fate of one of the characters is ultimately decided.
Green keeps everything compact, keeping the action with these people and keeping the tension there with you. There's enough worry in the film that when the most outrageous element comes into play (Wolves) I generally wanted to know what would happen to these people. There's also pivotal moment that had me cringing with glee as it kept the stakes high enough.
I can't say the film stayed with me too long. As you can read, I have had a hard time writing about the feature. It's not something that I could even imagine many horror fans rushing out to watch again straight after their first viewing. But there's was enough in this to give the film a rent and possibly have a talk everything afterward. I enjoyed Ashmore's performance, liked Emma Bell enough and didn't disagree with Kevin Zegers too much. I also enjoyed the effects of the cold on these people as well as the banter (which turns into bitching). The visuals are fine and I can't say at any time I was bored. Full faith restored in horror films...still not seeing a lot on the horizon but with stuff like this coming out, I haven't lost loyalty completely.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)