Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows(2011)
“We’re back, your black and I’m mad.” Well, not quite, but probably the fact that a youthful joy of the buddy cop movie structure is more in keeping with Guy Richie’s Sherlock films than the twisting mystery of the source materials, has Holmes purists exclaiming that they’d have to be dragged to the theatre first, or if they saw the first movie two years ago, for the sequel, like The Who, “ they won’t get fooled again.” This is a shame, as A Game of Shadows is several steps up from the fun but clunky original. For a start, the plot is a lot better( no more bad Doctor Who episode feeling about supernatural happenings)- this time it’s Moriarty trying to start the First World War, also, thankfully someone gave Mark Strong the day off as having to be the villain in every film(also, he was killed in the first one), so we get the refreshingly underplaying(but then wouldn’t anyone have to underplay opposite Downey Jr’s histrionics) of Jared Harris as the scheming Professor. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. have genuine chemistry and capture their bromance perfectly while Stephen Fry and his butler add further comedy about those daft English, to some already snappy lines from the main players. Brits will chuckle at Downey Jr. saying “ponce” among other things. It’s pithy, funny, action packed, really doesn’t pause for breath and links up nicely again with the books at it’s conclusion. Against it, Noomi Rapace is of course totally squandered by Hollywood as a pretty Gypsy, the slow motion can get a little wearing and how much more powerful would an open teaser of an ending have been, although it does make sense of an early plot setup. Indeed, everything slots together like a well oiled machine but like the nasty scene where Holmes is put on a hook, a few more of these unsignposted moments would have gone a long way. Great fun though, and for a change, not just for the cast. 9/10
Friday, December 30, 2011
Mel's Waterloo
The Beaver(2010)
“I took a long, hard look at Jodie Foster’s Beaver, and I liked it,” or “I saw Jodie Foster’s Beaver close up and….” These jokes will run and run, as indeed they already have, possibly giving an intelligent film it’s only real talking point. Postponed from last year due to Mel Gibson’s domestic and personal problems, The Beaver is one of those films that seems to eerily imitate what is happening in life. Whether Gibson was attracted to the script because it reflected a similar inner turmoil or just because it provided a great acting opportunity, who can say? Either way though, can you actually like The Beaver? Playing like a less audience friendly American Beauty(1999). Mel certainly shows his acting chops and reminds us of how good he can be outside of action movies. Infact, with this and last year’s Edge of Darkness, ironically, like so many before him, now that his box office is slipping, he is producing some of his best work. If you don’t appreciate Gibson, just imagine what horrible things Robin Williams would have done with the same material. The rest of the performances are uniformly great and Foster has a sure hand as a director. Sadly, at least in Austin, The Beaver lasted a week at one theatre, albeit on two screens, showing that Gibson probably needs to return to action to reengage with an audience- still time for one last Lethal Weapon or Mad Max. Sometimes people just want escapism and not to be reminded of their hero’s foibles, not a film that bravely ignores the inherent comedy and a feel good ending. 9/10
“I took a long, hard look at Jodie Foster’s Beaver, and I liked it,” or “I saw Jodie Foster’s Beaver close up and….” These jokes will run and run, as indeed they already have, possibly giving an intelligent film it’s only real talking point. Postponed from last year due to Mel Gibson’s domestic and personal problems, The Beaver is one of those films that seems to eerily imitate what is happening in life. Whether Gibson was attracted to the script because it reflected a similar inner turmoil or just because it provided a great acting opportunity, who can say? Either way though, can you actually like The Beaver? Playing like a less audience friendly American Beauty(1999). Mel certainly shows his acting chops and reminds us of how good he can be outside of action movies. Infact, with this and last year’s Edge of Darkness, ironically, like so many before him, now that his box office is slipping, he is producing some of his best work. If you don’t appreciate Gibson, just imagine what horrible things Robin Williams would have done with the same material. The rest of the performances are uniformly great and Foster has a sure hand as a director. Sadly, at least in Austin, The Beaver lasted a week at one theatre, albeit on two screens, showing that Gibson probably needs to return to action to reengage with an audience- still time for one last Lethal Weapon or Mad Max. Sometimes people just want escapism and not to be reminded of their hero’s foibles, not a film that bravely ignores the inherent comedy and a feel good ending. 9/10
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Thor(2011)
Hammer Time.
Going into Thor, I admit all I knew about the character was he was kind of a Viking, had a big hammer and would often get into fights with the Hulk because they both had anger issues. He also was one of the worst dressed superheroes. If you thought the fuss over changing the X-Men’s costumes was overblown, Branagh deserves credit for pulling off a futuristic Viking look that isn’t totally embarrassing or makes you giggle. The armor in this is actually very cool but the film still allows the audience to poke fun when Thor’s companions land on Earth and a watching Fed wonders whether a Renaissance Festival is in town. It will be interesting to see how the film does, on the one hand IMDB are posting great figures with some people(whisper it), saying it’s better than Iron Man(2008) or Spiderman(2002). It isn’t, but it is better than Iron Man 2(2010) and possibly Spiderman 3(2007), on the other hand, the character is a lot less known by the mainstream. Kenneth Branagh, who ten years ago might have made a pretty good Thor himself, directs a very solid if not totally exceptional comic book adaptation. It’s like a slightly dotty mix of the first Superman movie( especially the scenes on Krypton), Flash Gordon(1980)(everyone has very silly costumes and take themselves dreadfully seriously) and of course Shakespeare. It’s actually a great tone to adopt and it the cause of much comedy when Thor is relegated to Earth. The acting and indeed actors chosen are all very good too. Chris Hemsworth makes a great Thor, his bravado and arrogance giving way to thoughtful contemplation and regret as the film proceeds, but still always up for a punch-up. Hopkins carries on breaking off big chunks of the scenery and chewing it as he’s been doing since The Wolf Man(2009), or even as far back as Dracula(1992) if we want to be honest, but sadly spends most of the film in a coma. Rene Russo hangs around in the background and wins the‘Danny Huston in the Remake of Clash of the Titans’ award for ‘I was in this film honest, but they cut all my parts out.’ Portman makes a good love interest although this feels a bit sketched compared to the ones in Superman and Spiderman, and indeed, Portman has now officially become a big money maker because since Black Swan and noticeably in this, like so many other actresses, the higher her box office, the thinner she gets, and she is very thin in this. In the deficit corner, the film suffers from the usual first part need to set things up, the action scenes lack real ‘wow’ factor and I felt no real sense of menace or jeopardy. Partly, I think this was due to there being no real villain, but in a similar weakness to the Superman movies, once Thor has his hammer(which is most of the film), he’s invincible, which is why we really need a General Zod equal to give him a proper run for his money. Also, compared to the vicious fight at the end of Spiderman(much complained about by parents) , Thor also seemed a little too kid friendly, no blood, no on camera deaths which didn’t help. There is also, probably the least effective so far, teaser for The Avengers at the end of the film( if for some reason they don’t make this now, audiences could sue under the trade descriptions act). Thor then was very good in every department, but was never great. 8/10
Going into Thor, I admit all I knew about the character was he was kind of a Viking, had a big hammer and would often get into fights with the Hulk because they both had anger issues. He also was one of the worst dressed superheroes. If you thought the fuss over changing the X-Men’s costumes was overblown, Branagh deserves credit for pulling off a futuristic Viking look that isn’t totally embarrassing or makes you giggle. The armor in this is actually very cool but the film still allows the audience to poke fun when Thor’s companions land on Earth and a watching Fed wonders whether a Renaissance Festival is in town. It will be interesting to see how the film does, on the one hand IMDB are posting great figures with some people(whisper it), saying it’s better than Iron Man(2008) or Spiderman(2002). It isn’t, but it is better than Iron Man 2(2010) and possibly Spiderman 3(2007), on the other hand, the character is a lot less known by the mainstream. Kenneth Branagh, who ten years ago might have made a pretty good Thor himself, directs a very solid if not totally exceptional comic book adaptation. It’s like a slightly dotty mix of the first Superman movie( especially the scenes on Krypton), Flash Gordon(1980)(everyone has very silly costumes and take themselves dreadfully seriously) and of course Shakespeare. It’s actually a great tone to adopt and it the cause of much comedy when Thor is relegated to Earth. The acting and indeed actors chosen are all very good too. Chris Hemsworth makes a great Thor, his bravado and arrogance giving way to thoughtful contemplation and regret as the film proceeds, but still always up for a punch-up. Hopkins carries on breaking off big chunks of the scenery and chewing it as he’s been doing since The Wolf Man(2009), or even as far back as Dracula(1992) if we want to be honest, but sadly spends most of the film in a coma. Rene Russo hangs around in the background and wins the‘Danny Huston in the Remake of Clash of the Titans’ award for ‘I was in this film honest, but they cut all my parts out.’ Portman makes a good love interest although this feels a bit sketched compared to the ones in Superman and Spiderman, and indeed, Portman has now officially become a big money maker because since Black Swan and noticeably in this, like so many other actresses, the higher her box office, the thinner she gets, and she is very thin in this. In the deficit corner, the film suffers from the usual first part need to set things up, the action scenes lack real ‘wow’ factor and I felt no real sense of menace or jeopardy. Partly, I think this was due to there being no real villain, but in a similar weakness to the Superman movies, once Thor has his hammer(which is most of the film), he’s invincible, which is why we really need a General Zod equal to give him a proper run for his money. Also, compared to the vicious fight at the end of Spiderman(much complained about by parents) , Thor also seemed a little too kid friendly, no blood, no on camera deaths which didn’t help. There is also, probably the least effective so far, teaser for The Avengers at the end of the film( if for some reason they don’t make this now, audiences could sue under the trade descriptions act). Thor then was very good in every department, but was never great. 8/10
Arthur(2010)
ReBranded
The remake of Arthur neither trends a brand new path, or sticks to the original’s script verbatim. It’s actually a weird mix of the same story with minor tweeks, but with new dialogue, peppered with the classic lines of the original. Sadly missing is my favorite from the original. Prostitute to Arthur-“My mother died when I was 5, my father raped me when I was 10,” Arthur(drunk as usual), “So you had a relatively good 5 years.” The fact that such a great line is missing kind of sums up the new movie. It’s rudder, as in it has more swearing, yet it is also a lot more scared of offending anyone. You’ve probably heard that in this version Arthur actually does attend an AA meeting, although to Brand’s credit he gets a big laugh out of it by saying, “this is depressing stuff, I need a drink.” Later however the movie caves and we are told that Arthur has dried out. If I’m not exactly selling you on the film, don’t dismay though. The film is very funny, I laughed out loud several times which for me, these days, is a very good sign in a comedy where often I sit stony faced with the odd lip twitch. Brand holds the film together sometimes through sheer willpower, luckily coming across like Dudley Moore’s ruder, younger brother, which is a great compliment, and he also feels like a leading man in this rather than the stunt casting of Sarah Marshall(2008), or secret weapon in Get Him to the Greek(2010). You can tell Brand probably improvised a lot of his lines and while some miss, and some may be more Brand than Arthur, when they hit, they really work. One of the best lines is when Arthur says, “not if I keep them moist,” in response to Jennifer Garner saying her father will cut his balls off. This is a great punchline to an unfunny scene set up way, way before. In the theatre the audience I was with actually paused to remember the set up but then laughed all the harder. If Brand works wonders(and I’m only a recent convert to him myself, I used to not understand his appeal at all, especially the sexual frenzy of women for him), the rest of the cast is ill served by the lines the script gives them. Garner actually shows good comic muscles but doesn’t feel like a real person, Guzman as Bitterman is just the idiot foil in a role that could have really worked very well, as he is basically the audiences eyes, Nolte- the stunt casting here is wasted, and seemed ill or on drugs to me, also he’s unfortunate to be part of the most uncomfortable and unfunny scene in the film with the table saw- although it does lead to that great line later. Surprisingly the biggest disappointment is Mirren, not because of anything she does but again by the script. Strangely enough one of the biggest fumbles is in her reading of Gielgud’s lines such as “if I die, take back my library books,” which are totally mishandled and sadly have nothing new of the same power to replace them. In the place of comedy and sarcasm is sentiment and Hobson does get two speeches, one in the AA meeting where she talks for Arthur about his problems, and one about why she didn’t leave him when she fell in love as a younger woman. These do work well, but give me Gielgud saying “do you need me to wash you dick for you, you little shit,” any day. Also, interestingly, whereas in the original we had a beautiful scene of Moore closing the door to Hobson’s room and locking it, after he had died, here we have Brand finding Mirren in bed and trying to rouse her- it shows us more but gives us less, which to me sums up the new version. So Arthur is not as good as the original, which frankly no one expected it to be, and it feels more like a succession of sketches than an organic film but it is a funny romantic comedy with a very rude and British slant, and for that speaking as an Englishman, we should be very greatful. 8/10
The remake of Arthur neither trends a brand new path, or sticks to the original’s script verbatim. It’s actually a weird mix of the same story with minor tweeks, but with new dialogue, peppered with the classic lines of the original. Sadly missing is my favorite from the original. Prostitute to Arthur-“My mother died when I was 5, my father raped me when I was 10,” Arthur(drunk as usual), “So you had a relatively good 5 years.” The fact that such a great line is missing kind of sums up the new movie. It’s rudder, as in it has more swearing, yet it is also a lot more scared of offending anyone. You’ve probably heard that in this version Arthur actually does attend an AA meeting, although to Brand’s credit he gets a big laugh out of it by saying, “this is depressing stuff, I need a drink.” Later however the movie caves and we are told that Arthur has dried out. If I’m not exactly selling you on the film, don’t dismay though. The film is very funny, I laughed out loud several times which for me, these days, is a very good sign in a comedy where often I sit stony faced with the odd lip twitch. Brand holds the film together sometimes through sheer willpower, luckily coming across like Dudley Moore’s ruder, younger brother, which is a great compliment, and he also feels like a leading man in this rather than the stunt casting of Sarah Marshall(2008), or secret weapon in Get Him to the Greek(2010). You can tell Brand probably improvised a lot of his lines and while some miss, and some may be more Brand than Arthur, when they hit, they really work. One of the best lines is when Arthur says, “not if I keep them moist,” in response to Jennifer Garner saying her father will cut his balls off. This is a great punchline to an unfunny scene set up way, way before. In the theatre the audience I was with actually paused to remember the set up but then laughed all the harder. If Brand works wonders(and I’m only a recent convert to him myself, I used to not understand his appeal at all, especially the sexual frenzy of women for him), the rest of the cast is ill served by the lines the script gives them. Garner actually shows good comic muscles but doesn’t feel like a real person, Guzman as Bitterman is just the idiot foil in a role that could have really worked very well, as he is basically the audiences eyes, Nolte- the stunt casting here is wasted, and seemed ill or on drugs to me, also he’s unfortunate to be part of the most uncomfortable and unfunny scene in the film with the table saw- although it does lead to that great line later. Surprisingly the biggest disappointment is Mirren, not because of anything she does but again by the script. Strangely enough one of the biggest fumbles is in her reading of Gielgud’s lines such as “if I die, take back my library books,” which are totally mishandled and sadly have nothing new of the same power to replace them. In the place of comedy and sarcasm is sentiment and Hobson does get two speeches, one in the AA meeting where she talks for Arthur about his problems, and one about why she didn’t leave him when she fell in love as a younger woman. These do work well, but give me Gielgud saying “do you need me to wash you dick for you, you little shit,” any day. Also, interestingly, whereas in the original we had a beautiful scene of Moore closing the door to Hobson’s room and locking it, after he had died, here we have Brand finding Mirren in bed and trying to rouse her- it shows us more but gives us less, which to me sums up the new version. So Arthur is not as good as the original, which frankly no one expected it to be, and it feels more like a succession of sketches than an organic film but it is a funny romantic comedy with a very rude and British slant, and for that speaking as an Englishman, we should be very greatful. 8/10
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers(1988)
You can see why some people love Halloween 4, and going to the Alamo’s sixth year showing, in a room with Owen Edgerton giving a good defense, and a crowd full of fans, it would be easy to be swayed. Halloween 4 also made a lot of money, and brought back Michael Myers again, putting him, like Halloween 1, 2 and H20, in a secure position to survive as a franchise through some less than stellar installments- Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers(1995) anyone? I hated Halloween 4 when I first saw it on video, but a couple of theatrical experiences later, I can see its limited charms, it does try hard to plug any holes from Halloween 2(1981), and continue the story with as few bumps as possible, some shots are very good, the characters are not as annoying or as thinly drawn as they later became, and of course Donald Pleasence is still fantastic value( although for my money, he’s the only thing that actually improved between this and Halloween 5:The Revenge of Michael Myers(1989), where he roughs up a child and beats Michael Myers while screaming at him, with a four by four- the Inspector Dreyfus of the Horror world, Halloween 5 is his Curse of the Pink Panther(1976). Even how 80s it looks, which originally used to irk me, now gives it a period charm. Against this though, sorry Owen, but you must be on crack to think this is better than Carpenter’s original, the kills seem toned down and tame compared to Part 2, the hunters are very annoying, as are nearly all of the characters with the exception of the Jaime and Rachel- making you not really care who gets killed, and Michael himself looks slightly off. Here is the first mask that looks wrong to me- a problem that caused reshoots on Halloween H20(1998). The climax also seems strangely anti-climatic after the great endings of the first two installments(Halloween 3:Season of the Witch(1983) was of course a totally different story), or even later sequels, like H20. In the history of the franchise, Halloween 4 deserves recognition for keeping it, like Michael himself, alive and kicking, but not much else. 6/10
You can see why some people love Halloween 4, and going to the Alamo’s sixth year showing, in a room with Owen Edgerton giving a good defense, and a crowd full of fans, it would be easy to be swayed. Halloween 4 also made a lot of money, and brought back Michael Myers again, putting him, like Halloween 1, 2 and H20, in a secure position to survive as a franchise through some less than stellar installments- Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers(1995) anyone? I hated Halloween 4 when I first saw it on video, but a couple of theatrical experiences later, I can see its limited charms, it does try hard to plug any holes from Halloween 2(1981), and continue the story with as few bumps as possible, some shots are very good, the characters are not as annoying or as thinly drawn as they later became, and of course Donald Pleasence is still fantastic value( although for my money, he’s the only thing that actually improved between this and Halloween 5:The Revenge of Michael Myers(1989), where he roughs up a child and beats Michael Myers while screaming at him, with a four by four- the Inspector Dreyfus of the Horror world, Halloween 5 is his Curse of the Pink Panther(1976). Even how 80s it looks, which originally used to irk me, now gives it a period charm. Against this though, sorry Owen, but you must be on crack to think this is better than Carpenter’s original, the kills seem toned down and tame compared to Part 2, the hunters are very annoying, as are nearly all of the characters with the exception of the Jaime and Rachel- making you not really care who gets killed, and Michael himself looks slightly off. Here is the first mask that looks wrong to me- a problem that caused reshoots on Halloween H20(1998). The climax also seems strangely anti-climatic after the great endings of the first two installments(Halloween 3:Season of the Witch(1983) was of course a totally different story), or even later sequels, like H20. In the history of the franchise, Halloween 4 deserves recognition for keeping it, like Michael himself, alive and kicking, but not much else. 6/10
Far from Brain Dead
Dead Alive, Braindead(UK)(1992)
This is the movie that made me fall in love with Peter Jackson. It was love at first sight as I rented the video to tide me over a damp, cold, early Christmas holiday in my deserted student house. I got this and Map of the Human Heart(1993), simply on the strength of good reviews, I hadn’t seen Bad Taste(1987) or Meet the Feebles(1990) yet, so had no idea of the anarchy to expect. Five minutes in, I was smitten, by the end I was ready to search out or go and see any film Jackson had made. Some people are snooty that Braindead is played more for laughs and gore than genuine horror, but even they have to respect the sheer invention on display here. Jackson, armed with a love of slapstick and horror movies, unleashes his imagination on a mock-up 50s New Zealand- Brits in particular will love the references, to The Archers, the Queen and custard- “no pudding,” as Lionel and his mother try to keep up appearances while literally falling apart, and being attacked by zombies. Like Monsters, which I saw the same weekend, both contain love stories at their centers, although while Monsters is awkwardly realistic, Braindead is the usual cheesy Hollywood romance, sweetly innocent when not hacking up bodies. Also, it has a Freudian angle second only to Pink Floyd’s The Wall when it comes to suffocating and literally monstrous mothers. Very quotable, very funny and I would guess still unsurpassed in the amount of body limbs and blood used. 10/10
This is the movie that made me fall in love with Peter Jackson. It was love at first sight as I rented the video to tide me over a damp, cold, early Christmas holiday in my deserted student house. I got this and Map of the Human Heart(1993), simply on the strength of good reviews, I hadn’t seen Bad Taste(1987) or Meet the Feebles(1990) yet, so had no idea of the anarchy to expect. Five minutes in, I was smitten, by the end I was ready to search out or go and see any film Jackson had made. Some people are snooty that Braindead is played more for laughs and gore than genuine horror, but even they have to respect the sheer invention on display here. Jackson, armed with a love of slapstick and horror movies, unleashes his imagination on a mock-up 50s New Zealand- Brits in particular will love the references, to The Archers, the Queen and custard- “no pudding,” as Lionel and his mother try to keep up appearances while literally falling apart, and being attacked by zombies. Like Monsters, which I saw the same weekend, both contain love stories at their centers, although while Monsters is awkwardly realistic, Braindead is the usual cheesy Hollywood romance, sweetly innocent when not hacking up bodies. Also, it has a Freudian angle second only to Pink Floyd’s The Wall when it comes to suffocating and literally monstrous mothers. Very quotable, very funny and I would guess still unsurpassed in the amount of body limbs and blood used. 10/10
Who are the real Monsters?
Monsters(2010)
Described by many critics as an artier Cloverfield(2008), or Before Sunrise(1995) with special effects, Monsters gets along way on its premise, and certainly manages a lot of bang for its buck on a small budget, however, ultimately not enough seems to really happen, horror and action junkies may feel short changed while drama fans might baulk at the silly creatures. I personally must admit that this wasn’t the film I was hoping or expecting, but once I had readjusted my expectations, I did enjoy it and was impressed at the very realistic genre mix. Worth supporting and a good alternative date movie. 7/10
Described by many critics as an artier Cloverfield(2008), or Before Sunrise(1995) with special effects, Monsters gets along way on its premise, and certainly manages a lot of bang for its buck on a small budget, however, ultimately not enough seems to really happen, horror and action junkies may feel short changed while drama fans might baulk at the silly creatures. I personally must admit that this wasn’t the film I was hoping or expecting, but once I had readjusted my expectations, I did enjoy it and was impressed at the very realistic genre mix. Worth supporting and a good alternative date movie. 7/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
