The expectations for Kick-Ass were not held high, it seemed to be a half-arsed attempt at taking the superhero genre to a new height of wit, without success. However, it was much more enjoyable than first anticipated.
The screen was filled with saturated colour and ultra-violent action, pushing forward a teenage-superhero movie, overflowing action and black comedy.
Even after seeing the trailers, it seemed unbelievable that Aaron Johnson pulled off the effortlessly cool aura of John Lennon in Nowhere Boy, however, with a quivering American accent and “nerdy”, anxious demeanour, John Lennon and Dave Lizewski (a.k.a. Kick-Ass), are worlds apart, and equally believable. The creation of Kick-Ass as a superhero and character is laughable (in a good way), with a green and yellow lined scuba suit and Timberland boots, he seems a joke parading the streets of New York in the hope of helping the needy. His intentions are heroic (in the typical superhero sense), yet he quickly finds himself in too deep whilst attempting to aid his love interest, Katie Deauxma (Lyndsy Fonseca). Although the revenge-action narrative that is stumbled upon is predictable; it is easy to get caught up in the action and forget about how mentally unchallenging the storyline is, and just be taken along for the ride.
The energetic, action-packed, highly violent sequences are choreographed and edited at a fast-paced; they are pleasurable and entertaining to watch, even though the action that takes place is murder, and most of which is carried out by the 11-year-old Mindy Macready (Chloë Moretz), or Hit Girl, as her superhero alter ego prefers to go by, it is enthralling. At times her dialogue was slightly cringe-worthy, particularly her overconfident attitude during dialogue that contained the ‘C’ word. It felt like the uncomfortable dialogue of a Diablo Cody screenplay. Regardless, her youthful, girlish charm shone through, and sympathy was adequately applied to her character’s circumstances. Nicolas Cage, dressed in dowdy ‘dad’ attire throughout and with a superhero alter ego – Big Daddy – with an uncanny resemblance to Batman, was surprisingly, less awkward and his dead-pan acting style was used brilliantly for comic effect, which was successful (even I never thought I would enjoy a performance by The Cage).
Gangsters, comic book ‘geeks’, vigilantly superheroes, witty high school humour, teenage love, revenge and misdemeanour. With a style that incorporates its graphic novel influence (original comic series written by Mark Millar and illustrated by John Romita, Jr.), it is hard to consider that anyone will not enjoy an element of this film that sets a new, black comic twist upon the superhero genre.
Although, initially it is stylish homicide disguised as ‘superhero’ antics, in a film that seems to take its influences from similar superhero movies and the aesthetics of Tarantino films (namely, Kill Bill); the comments it could make on the corruptible nature of the Criminal Justice system, the birth and creation of internet celebrities in today’s media obsessed society, it is somewhat witty & fun. It is one to see again for some ‘switch-off-and-enjoy’, ‘roll with the punches’ entertainment.
Thursday 1 April 2010
Friday 8 January 2010
The Road (John Hillcoat, 2009)
After hearing very promising things about ‘The Road’ as a novel (by acclaimed author of ‘No Country For Old Men’, Cormac MacCarthy) I had high expectations for the film as I thoroughly enjoyed the latter, unfortunately, my expectations were not met.
The Road follows a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they strive to stay alive travelling south towards the coast, whilst being faced with the threat of cannibalism and starvation. Years and years have passed since an unknown apocalyptic event has taken place. It has shaped the world and humanity left within it, and the means of survival become more scarce, forcing “the bad guys” to find alternative ways of preventing the inevitable, death.
I do champion the narrative for never enclosing the details that were involved in the apocalyptic event; however, this did limit my connection with the characters. Without any hint of hope throughout the duration of the film, I found it difficult to be optimistic about their survival knowing their demise was highly probable, given the circumstances. To further lessen my connection with the character’s situation, Kodi Smit-McPhee’s performance as the son irritated me. His unwillingness to listen or learn and his whiny performance severed any emotion I could have felt towards his character.
It seemed as though the film tried too hard to pull on the heart-strings, so much so that it was lost on me, and I didn’t buy into it. It was too simple; a flashback of his wife (Charlize Theron) playing the piano and then the man stumbles upon a piano and cries. I felt as though I was being spoon fed the emotion I was supposed to be feeling, yet never quite reacting to it. I am hoping the book will help me connect to the emotion of the story were the film failed to do so – particularly the father/son relationship. I’m not claiming that the relationship was void of emotion, I personally felt as though the father would have been better alone. They stand in as the contemporary pairing of the same relationship seen in The Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948) – The man’s actions display the true nature of selfish survival within a diminished society, while the son is a constant (and somewhat annoying) voice of morality that has been lost on the older generation who remember a forgotten world.
The cinematography of Javier Aguirresarobe was outstanding. The dystopian road and landscape was thought provoking. It was easy to imagine the landscape in such disarray even without the events of an apocalypse. It is devastatingly elegant.
I wasn’t balled over by The Road; the pace, the events, the emotion left me disengaged from the characters, and therefore the narrative itself. However, if a slow-paced, post-apocalyptic, “heart wrenching” film is what you’re looking for, then look no further.
The Road follows a man (Viggo Mortensen) and his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they strive to stay alive travelling south towards the coast, whilst being faced with the threat of cannibalism and starvation. Years and years have passed since an unknown apocalyptic event has taken place. It has shaped the world and humanity left within it, and the means of survival become more scarce, forcing “the bad guys” to find alternative ways of preventing the inevitable, death.
I do champion the narrative for never enclosing the details that were involved in the apocalyptic event; however, this did limit my connection with the characters. Without any hint of hope throughout the duration of the film, I found it difficult to be optimistic about their survival knowing their demise was highly probable, given the circumstances. To further lessen my connection with the character’s situation, Kodi Smit-McPhee’s performance as the son irritated me. His unwillingness to listen or learn and his whiny performance severed any emotion I could have felt towards his character.
It seemed as though the film tried too hard to pull on the heart-strings, so much so that it was lost on me, and I didn’t buy into it. It was too simple; a flashback of his wife (Charlize Theron) playing the piano and then the man stumbles upon a piano and cries. I felt as though I was being spoon fed the emotion I was supposed to be feeling, yet never quite reacting to it. I am hoping the book will help me connect to the emotion of the story were the film failed to do so – particularly the father/son relationship. I’m not claiming that the relationship was void of emotion, I personally felt as though the father would have been better alone. They stand in as the contemporary pairing of the same relationship seen in The Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio De Sica, 1948) – The man’s actions display the true nature of selfish survival within a diminished society, while the son is a constant (and somewhat annoying) voice of morality that has been lost on the older generation who remember a forgotten world.
The cinematography of Javier Aguirresarobe was outstanding. The dystopian road and landscape was thought provoking. It was easy to imagine the landscape in such disarray even without the events of an apocalypse. It is devastatingly elegant.
I wasn’t balled over by The Road; the pace, the events, the emotion left me disengaged from the characters, and therefore the narrative itself. However, if a slow-paced, post-apocalyptic, “heart wrenching” film is what you’re looking for, then look no further.
Saturday 19 December 2009
Avatar (James Cameron, 2009)
The lead up to the release of this film was insane. I tried to keep a small distance from the hype, as I have been previously let down by hype.
I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D, having already experienced IMAX I knew I was in for a high quality experience. However, nothing could have prepared me for how overwhelmingly accomplished this film is.
To make a titanic statement (excuse the pun): 3D was created for this film. 3D was made to bring this film to life. It was invented to make this film possible. James Cameron has pioneered the future of 3D and I will forever be grateful of that from this moment on.
I still cannot believe that every living creature on Pandora was computer generated. The images were so complete, meticulously detailed. I’ll forever be impressed by their mouths.
The narrative is basic and therefore easy to follow. A more intricate storyline would have been too demanding given the visual banquet laid out on screen. Boy meets girl, learns girl’s way of life, boy and girl fall in love, a misunderstanding pulls them apart, boy is redeemed, world is (somewhat) saved, victory for the underdogs. It is a narrative that has been repeated throughout cinema history, so it is easy to follow and relate to. That narrative schema is switched on from the beginning. Yet again, the story needs to be something familiar, because the world of Pandora is so new and unfamiliar. The Na’vi (the indigenous people of Pandora), although yes, they are blue, still have familiar features, which are easily relatable to a member of the human race. It is not difficult to suture yourself into the narrative and emotionally move along with it and its characters’ plight.
Sam Worthington was exceptional as Jake Sully. As a relatively unknown (besides his starring role in Terminator Salvation) Avatar is going to propel him to super-stardom, much like Titanic did to DiCaprio. I will be incredibly surprised if it doesn’t. Along with his co-star Zoe Saldana – who is entirely computer generated throughout. Other stars, such as, Sigourney Weaver (as Dr. Grace Augustine), Giovanni Ribisi (as Parker Selfridge) and Stephen Lang (as Colonel Miles Quaritch), are on top form, playing distinguishable stereotypes, the passionate, fiery scientist, the ruthless business man and the hard-nosed, archetypal Marine. More complex personality traits to categorise the human cast may have taken too much concentration to understand them as well as having to become familiar with a whole another world of people, who do not share our basic needs or way of life.
With a duration time of almost three hours long, I thought the film would be drawn out and I would be wishing for it to end. I was not, and I could have continued to watch Avatar for hours and hours on end.
Someone described their experience of seeing Avatar as equivalent to those of the older generation who remembers seeing Star Wars for the very first time on the big screen. I have to agree. This film will change cinema visually from now on, I hope. 3D abuse will – HOPEFULLY – be left in the past. And I also hope that other filmmakers realise the extent to which 3D can be used to enhance the diegetic world and not used to the discomfort the audience. Space and depth perception makes the screen come alive. I have experienced this with other recent 3D films (Coraline, for example), but not to the same degree as with Avatar.
I haven’t yet seen Avatar in 2D, but I will, after another 3D experience. I do already have my next cinema trip lined-up!
I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D, having already experienced IMAX I knew I was in for a high quality experience. However, nothing could have prepared me for how overwhelmingly accomplished this film is.
To make a titanic statement (excuse the pun): 3D was created for this film. 3D was made to bring this film to life. It was invented to make this film possible. James Cameron has pioneered the future of 3D and I will forever be grateful of that from this moment on.
I still cannot believe that every living creature on Pandora was computer generated. The images were so complete, meticulously detailed. I’ll forever be impressed by their mouths.
The narrative is basic and therefore easy to follow. A more intricate storyline would have been too demanding given the visual banquet laid out on screen. Boy meets girl, learns girl’s way of life, boy and girl fall in love, a misunderstanding pulls them apart, boy is redeemed, world is (somewhat) saved, victory for the underdogs. It is a narrative that has been repeated throughout cinema history, so it is easy to follow and relate to. That narrative schema is switched on from the beginning. Yet again, the story needs to be something familiar, because the world of Pandora is so new and unfamiliar. The Na’vi (the indigenous people of Pandora), although yes, they are blue, still have familiar features, which are easily relatable to a member of the human race. It is not difficult to suture yourself into the narrative and emotionally move along with it and its characters’ plight.
Sam Worthington was exceptional as Jake Sully. As a relatively unknown (besides his starring role in Terminator Salvation) Avatar is going to propel him to super-stardom, much like Titanic did to DiCaprio. I will be incredibly surprised if it doesn’t. Along with his co-star Zoe Saldana – who is entirely computer generated throughout. Other stars, such as, Sigourney Weaver (as Dr. Grace Augustine), Giovanni Ribisi (as Parker Selfridge) and Stephen Lang (as Colonel Miles Quaritch), are on top form, playing distinguishable stereotypes, the passionate, fiery scientist, the ruthless business man and the hard-nosed, archetypal Marine. More complex personality traits to categorise the human cast may have taken too much concentration to understand them as well as having to become familiar with a whole another world of people, who do not share our basic needs or way of life.
With a duration time of almost three hours long, I thought the film would be drawn out and I would be wishing for it to end. I was not, and I could have continued to watch Avatar for hours and hours on end.
Someone described their experience of seeing Avatar as equivalent to those of the older generation who remembers seeing Star Wars for the very first time on the big screen. I have to agree. This film will change cinema visually from now on, I hope. 3D abuse will – HOPEFULLY – be left in the past. And I also hope that other filmmakers realise the extent to which 3D can be used to enhance the diegetic world and not used to the discomfort the audience. Space and depth perception makes the screen come alive. I have experienced this with other recent 3D films (Coraline, for example), but not to the same degree as with Avatar.
I haven’t yet seen Avatar in 2D, but I will, after another 3D experience. I do already have my next cinema trip lined-up!
Wednesday 9 December 2009
The Fourth Kind (Olatunde Osunsanmi, 2009)
Yet again, another film that claims to be fact-based and in cooperation with true events.
This film in no way tries to hide this, as the opening dialogue is presented by Milla Jovovich, speaking straight into camera, directly to the members of the audience explaining the construction of the film and the role she will play (Dr. Abigail Tyler). It has been widely discussed on various websites and such, about the validity of such a person. I do believe her to be a fabricated for entertainment purpose (and not necessarily “good” entertainment).
Throughout the duration of the film “real” footage is shot alongside reconstructed events by well known (or recognisably professional) actors – Milla Jovovich, Will Patton, Hakeem Kae-Kazim, Elias Koteas, for instance. I do not know if this juxtaposition of “real” events and reconstruction was supposed to strengthen their argument for ‘truth’, and if this is so, it was not successful. Although a lot of the images were impressive, the sheer force that was thrust upon the viewers into believing that these events did in fact take place was far too much.
The director, Olatunde Osunsanmi, interviews the “real” Dr. Abigail Tyler in a made-up studio setting, they drive the narrative forward by explaining the events and her subsequent reactions to them, this seemingly solidifies the legitimacy of truth. The absence of the actor’s real identity from websites such as IMDb is something that has been done before, with The Blair Witch Project (1999), were the actors from the film were claimed to be deceased, until, of course, it was confirmed that all footage was fictitious.
The subject matter, alien abduction, is left open and continuously questions the phenomenon that many thousands, if not millions, of people have claimed to have experienced. For those who have knowledge, or interest, in this topic may find this film slightly simplistic, as it in now way alludes to anything the public cannot have learnt from films such as, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Spielberg, 1977), Fire in the Sky (Lieberman, 1993) or even TV Series, “Taken” (2002).
Like Paranormal Activity (and lets be honest, most films), the marketing and promotion of The Fourth Kind only sets you up for a fall, and leads your expectations awry. Disappointing.
This film in no way tries to hide this, as the opening dialogue is presented by Milla Jovovich, speaking straight into camera, directly to the members of the audience explaining the construction of the film and the role she will play (Dr. Abigail Tyler). It has been widely discussed on various websites and such, about the validity of such a person. I do believe her to be a fabricated for entertainment purpose (and not necessarily “good” entertainment).
Throughout the duration of the film “real” footage is shot alongside reconstructed events by well known (or recognisably professional) actors – Milla Jovovich, Will Patton, Hakeem Kae-Kazim, Elias Koteas, for instance. I do not know if this juxtaposition of “real” events and reconstruction was supposed to strengthen their argument for ‘truth’, and if this is so, it was not successful. Although a lot of the images were impressive, the sheer force that was thrust upon the viewers into believing that these events did in fact take place was far too much.
The director, Olatunde Osunsanmi, interviews the “real” Dr. Abigail Tyler in a made-up studio setting, they drive the narrative forward by explaining the events and her subsequent reactions to them, this seemingly solidifies the legitimacy of truth. The absence of the actor’s real identity from websites such as IMDb is something that has been done before, with The Blair Witch Project (1999), were the actors from the film were claimed to be deceased, until, of course, it was confirmed that all footage was fictitious.
The subject matter, alien abduction, is left open and continuously questions the phenomenon that many thousands, if not millions, of people have claimed to have experienced. For those who have knowledge, or interest, in this topic may find this film slightly simplistic, as it in now way alludes to anything the public cannot have learnt from films such as, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Spielberg, 1977), Fire in the Sky (Lieberman, 1993) or even TV Series, “Taken” (2002).
Like Paranormal Activity (and lets be honest, most films), the marketing and promotion of The Fourth Kind only sets you up for a fall, and leads your expectations awry. Disappointing.
Monday 30 November 2009
I'd like to welcome myself to this realm of multimedia.
Welcome.
I have decided to start a blog, throwing my opinions out there about the films I have the pleasure - and, sometimes, the displeasure - of seeing.
I believe this to be a brilliant idea, as I do seem to have A LOT of opinions (many would say I have TOO many).
People may - and will- disagree with me at times. By all means, feel free.
So here goes...
I have decided to start a blog, throwing my opinions out there about the films I have the pleasure - and, sometimes, the displeasure - of seeing.
I believe this to be a brilliant idea, as I do seem to have A LOT of opinions (many would say I have TOO many).
People may - and will- disagree with me at times. By all means, feel free.
So here goes...
Sunday 29 November 2009
Paranormal Activity
Right...
The marketing of this film did not prepare me for the huge letdown I gradually and more aggressively felt as the film rolled on. If this film is to win any awards it should be for exactly that, the marketing strategy. That is how it has been SO successful at the box office (also, by somehow getting Steven Spielberg to comment on how he had to wait until the day to finish watching the end - erm... why?).
I went along to the cinema hoping to be scared shitless (for lack of a better term). I had heard promising comments from people who had seen the film, saying they had to sleep with the light on afterwards and for the days that followed, that it was the scariest film they'd ever seen. These people did not help. This effect was completely lost on me. I can't help but compare it to other films from within found footage genre, most notably, The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, 1999). Not only did this film shock and scare me 10 years ago, but I am still unable to watch this film alone today.
I really wanted to be scared, but it just never happened.
The narrative of Paranormal Activity is mundane, at best. The insert of Katie's back story to in some way strength the presence of "evil" was not very well executed, whether this was due to the unrealistic acting of the female protagonist or whether it, simply, just felt forced and full of cliques.
To go back to the acting; I feel the use of amateur actors was a bad move, not only was the acting not believable, it was also very annoyingly just that, amateur. I did not relate to them, I did not feel sympathy for them, in fact I hoped for their demise. The filmmaker probably wanted unknowns (not only to keep the budget as low as possible - each actor reportedly being paid $500 each) to play the couple in the hope that it felt more realistic, as thought the footage being viewed was in fact real (for instance, Michael Haneke's Funny Games (1997) in which this was very successful - please don't mention the US 2007 remake to me! Grrr). This failed, it only highlighted their acting "ability". Yes, "ability".
The only success, I felt, was the bedroom shot, whilst the video camera is static whilst the couple sleep. Keeping all doors open and in complete darkness was a brilliantly eerie notion, it's a shame the rest of the film in it's entirety wasn't as thrilling.
If anyone does want to see a film that lives up to it's hype, it's not Paranormal Activity you're after.
The marketing of this film did not prepare me for the huge letdown I gradually and more aggressively felt as the film rolled on. If this film is to win any awards it should be for exactly that, the marketing strategy. That is how it has been SO successful at the box office (also, by somehow getting Steven Spielberg to comment on how he had to wait until the day to finish watching the end - erm... why?).
I went along to the cinema hoping to be scared shitless (for lack of a better term). I had heard promising comments from people who had seen the film, saying they had to sleep with the light on afterwards and for the days that followed, that it was the scariest film they'd ever seen. These people did not help. This effect was completely lost on me. I can't help but compare it to other films from within found footage genre, most notably, The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, 1999). Not only did this film shock and scare me 10 years ago, but I am still unable to watch this film alone today.
I really wanted to be scared, but it just never happened.
The narrative of Paranormal Activity is mundane, at best. The insert of Katie's back story to in some way strength the presence of "evil" was not very well executed, whether this was due to the unrealistic acting of the female protagonist or whether it, simply, just felt forced and full of cliques.
To go back to the acting; I feel the use of amateur actors was a bad move, not only was the acting not believable, it was also very annoyingly just that, amateur. I did not relate to them, I did not feel sympathy for them, in fact I hoped for their demise. The filmmaker probably wanted unknowns (not only to keep the budget as low as possible - each actor reportedly being paid $500 each) to play the couple in the hope that it felt more realistic, as thought the footage being viewed was in fact real (for instance, Michael Haneke's Funny Games (1997) in which this was very successful - please don't mention the US 2007 remake to me! Grrr). This failed, it only highlighted their acting "ability". Yes, "ability".
The only success, I felt, was the bedroom shot, whilst the video camera is static whilst the couple sleep. Keeping all doors open and in complete darkness was a brilliantly eerie notion, it's a shame the rest of the film in it's entirety wasn't as thrilling.
If anyone does want to see a film that lives up to it's hype, it's not Paranormal Activity you're after.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
