The Debt (2011)

Posted on October 8, 2013 by badblokebob

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

2013 #37
John Madden | 109 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA, UK & Hungary / English, German & Russian | 15 / R

Screenwriting partnership Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn vacate their usual milieu (see Stardust, Kick-Ass, etc.) for this Israeli spy thriller remake.

In a dual-pronged narrative, a team of Mossad agents are hailed as heroes following a high-value mission, only to face serious repercussions decades later. A cast led by Oscar winner Helen Mirren and nominees Jessica Chastain and Tom Wilkinson help affirm this as serious-minded Cold War drama, miles away from the Bondian world Goldman & Vaughn will next enter for Mark Millar adaptation The Secret Service.

Perhaps a little stodgy in places, it’s nonetheless an engrossingly plausible espionage drama.

The Debt is the latest in an ever-growing number of films where the internet can’t agree on its ‘year’: IMDb go with 2010, but sites like Wikipedia and Rotten Tomatoes go with 2011. On the old methodology of Google searches, “The Debt 2010 film” produces 107 million results, while “The Debt 2011 film” gives 146 million.

Tintin and the Mystery of the Golden Fleece (1961)

Posted on October 7, 2013 by badblokebob

aka Tintin et le mystère de la Toison d’Or

2013 #46
Jean-Jacques Vierne | 97 mins | TV | 1.66:1 | France & Belgium / English | PG

Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson weren’t the first to bring Hergé’s journalist-adventurer to the big screen, oh no… though you have to go quite far back — and much more obscure — to find the previous efforts.

The Mystery of the Golden Fleece was the first of two live-action Tintin movies made by the French in the ’60s. It seems quite a low-budget affair, but that might just be applying modern tastes to an era of more simple means. For all the flat direction and pound-store costumes, there’s still a globetrotting plot involving sunken ships, numerous chases, helicopters, and that kind of thing. Some bits drag a smidgen for a modern viewer, but mostly it moves at a decent enough lick, as Tintin and co trot around Greece, Turkey and the like in pursuit of / being pursued by a gang of criminals who are interested in the boat Captain Haddock has just inherited, the titular la Toison d’Or. This isn’t quite a Bondian adventure, though its child-audience aims lend a certain charm and innocence that will certainly appeal to the right audience.

Indeed, this is exactly the kind of film I can see gaining a cult following, if it doesn’t have one already. Even for the occasional points of clunkiness, it offers some genuine humour and some old-fashioned derring-do that’s never less than good fun. Plus there’s the bizarre sight of seeing characters costumed and made-up to faithfully recreate their comic-book counterparts plonked in the middle of the very-real world. If you’ve ever been to a Disney theme park, imagine some of the characters they have scattered around wandering out onto the streets. There’s a double bonus for English-language viewers, thanks to a stereotypically iffy English dub that only adds to the fun. (I don’t know if the BFI DVD includes the original French, Turkish and Greek soundtrack, but on TV it was entirely dubbed into English. There’s a French Blu-ray, but it doesn’t look to be English friendly.)

And then there’s Snowy. Regular readers will know I can go a bit soppy for a great dog in a film, and Golden Fleece offers a Snowy who should be up there with the likes of Uggie in the annals of movie-dog history. He steals most scenes he’s in, and of course he’s in it a fair bit.

I wouldn’t say Tintin and the Mystery of the Golden Fleece is a bad movie by any means, but it’s not going to work for everyone. Some would find it dated and twee and, if forced to watch it, would despise every moment of the experience. I really enjoyed it, however; in a slightly ironic way, I suppose, looking back on simpler times of cut-price production design and funny dubbing; but also as a well-intentioned adventure movie, in the old-fashioned meaning of that genre that doesn’t involve a millions-of-dollars action sequence every seven minutes.

If it isn’t a cult favourite yet, I may just have to start that cult. And I think we’d probably give it an extra star, but in the interests of broad consumer advice:

Safe House (2012)

Posted on October 6, 2013 by badblokebob

2013 #20
Daniel Espinosa | 110 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA & South Africa / English | 15 / R

Denzel Washington is a fugitive, Ryan Reynolds is the CIA rookie who ends up looking after him — and later, chasing him — after Something Goes Wrong at the titular abode in this workmanlike thriller.

Washington can deliver a quality anti-hero in his sleep now, and the same can be said of the actors lined up as villains and questionable-types in the supporting cast: Brendan Gleeson, Sam Shepard, Robert Patrick, Liam Cunningham. Reynolds makes for a likeable if bland leading man, while the storyline and action sequences offer sub-Bourne thrills.

Nothing new, then, but those after a straightforward action-thriller could do worse.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. One day I may update with a longer piece, but at least there’s something here for posterity.

For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

On TV 4/10/2013

Posted on October 4, 2013 by badblokebob

As I don’t have a review of Argo, this week’s big new film on Sky Movies / NOW TV, here are three archive reviews of other films on UK TV tonight…

Film4, 7pm

Movie Mix, 9pm

Movie Mix, 11:05pm

Movie Mix is on Freeview, but I believe on Sky it’s called something like More>Movies. It’s not on Virgin Media. Just FYI.

Never let it be said I don’t provide a public service.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns – Deluxe Edition (2013)

Posted on October 3, 2013 by badblokebob

Warner Premiere’s $7 million animated adaptation of one of the seminal graphic novels is here rejigged from its original two–part release into a single two-and-a-half-hour experience. To persuade those who didn’t make the purchases first time around — and to lure back those who did — the Deluxe Edition Blu-ray also includes a new cast & crew audio commentary and a 79-minute documentary about Frank Miller’s original novel, as well as all the old special features. I don’t normally review editions on here, but in this case it’s relevant.

But before all that, what of the new cut itself? Personally, I felt it worked better as two movies.

Thing is, Miller’s original wasn’t just released as four issues, it’s very much a four-parter: sure, there’s an overarching plot, but each issue/chapter works as a finite unit. In making the transition to the screen, director Jay Oliva and screenwriter Bob Goodman did a great job of adapting two issues at a time to create two complete-feeling films: Part 1 tells the tale of Batman vs the mutants, building to a cliffhanger; Part 2 deals with the fallout of said cliffhanger.

As one long film, it fades to black halfway through and then resumes again. Whole new plot threads suddenly appear that, were this conceived as a single 2½-hour movie, should have been introduced earlier in the running time. The pace goes skwiffy, because it was designed to flow naturally as two distinct movies — action sequences butt up against each other in the middle of the film, one of which is basically a climax before the halfway mark. Considering Miller’s original structure, that arguably leaves the film with a good three or four climaxes scattered throughout.

I suppose you could count these as nothing more than niggles. Given the choice, I think this adaptation functions better in its original, intended, two-part version; but the single-film version is not fundamentally different to double-billing its constituent parts. (If you want more detailed thoughts on the film itself, you can find my original review of Part 1 here and Part 2 here.)

Though there are aesthetic reasons for choosing to watch The Dark Knight Returns as two separate features, there are several unavoidable reasons why picking up the Deluxe Edition is preferable. For starters, it’s potentially a heckuva lot cheaper. I don’t know how much Parts 1&2 are available for now, but the Deluxe Edition is only slightly more expensive than just one of those halves was when new. That said, from a UK perspective, importing it will cost in the region of £18, whereas Part 1 has already made its way into 2-for-£10 offers, and I’m sure Part 2 can’t be far behind.

Cost aside, the disc — or, rather, discs (two Blu-rays and a feature-only DVD) — themselves present a couple of incentives. Exactly two, in fact, because that’s the number of new special features. Oh, but they’re hefty ones: a feature-length audio commentary by director Jay Oliva, screenwriter Bob Goodman, and voice director Andrea Romano (for some reason the latter doesn’t merit a credit on either the box or the disc’s menu, but she is there); and a feature-length documentary all about the original graphic novel, Masterpiece: Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. (I’ll review the latter separately at some point. If you like we can debate the line that distinguishes films from TV programmes/DVD special features/etc, but Masterpiece is almost 80 minutes long and begins with the full Warner Bros and DC Comics logos, just like A Proper Film, so I’m goin’ there.)

For the completist, all the original special features are also ported over. That’s five featurettes totalling almost two hours, delving into: the character of Carrie Kelly (aka Robin), the Joker, the film’s depiction of Superman vs Batman, the story of Batman’s creator Bob Kane, and a lengthy exploration of the adaptation and animation process with director Oliva, in a kind of Maximum Movie Mode style (though for 43½ minutes rather than the entire film — though that’s not to be sniffed at, is it?) There’s also five additional animation episodes from the archives (four from the classic Batman: The Animated Series and one from the more recent Batman: The Brave and the Bold). The only stuff that’s gone walkabouts are the Sneak Peek promos, though as they’re all for now-released titles that’s hardly a major loss (though as they constitute mini-featurettes rather than pure trailers, some completists may feel a mild tang of disappointment). All-in, you’re looking at 7½ hours of special features to complement your 2½-hour film, something even the most hardened whinge-happy fanboy would struggle to complain about.

While I’ll continue to champion viewing the two halves of The Dark Knight Returns as separate movies, this single-film version is far from a travesty. If you’ve already got the separate releases, it definitely isn’t worth picking this up just for the film; so a purchase depends on how much value you place on the commentary and Masterpiece documentary (oh, and four art cards found in the box, which I’ve used to illustrate this review). If you don’t own the existing releases then whichever way works out as most cost-effective (bearing in mind which extras can be found where, of course) is the way to go.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns – Deluxe Edition is currently available in the US on DVD and Blu-ray as a Best Buy exclusive, but goes on wide release from next Tuesday, 8th October.

* Technically the BBFC haven’t classified this single-film version, but the two halves each received a 15. ^

September 2013 + 5 Great Shakespeare Films

Posted on October 1, 2013 by badblokebob

Bah-da-bah-da (bah-da-bah-da) bah-da-bah-da-daaa!

For most of the month I’ve been playing, virtually on loop, the Iron Man 3 main titles, Can You Dig It.

Turns out, yes I can.

What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…?

There’s no doubting that WDYMYHS has been a success in terms of making sure I see more films I’ve long been meaning to see (I may not have watched one every month as intended, but I’ve still seen 7 of the 12, with 3 months to go), but it’s been less satisfying in terms of my enjoyment. City Lights and Dr. Strangelove were comedies that left me fairly cold; Bicycle Thieves and The Seventh Seal are films that surely helped define our cliches of Arthouse Cinema; and though I was suitably awed by both Once Upon a Time in America and Touch of Evil, for neither would my watchword be “enjoyed”.

That changes this month, however, with a film that was pure enjoyment from start to finish: Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest. Unsurprisingly it’s my favourite WDYMYHS film to date, and it’s up there with the Welles and the Leone in terms of sheer filmmaking quality too.

Also this month, my review of Dr. Strangelove, trying to fathom what I didn’t see that so many other people do.

September’s films

#72 Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
#73 The Tempest (2010)
#74 Iron Man 3 (2013)
#75 LEGO Batman: The Movie – DC Super Heroes Unite (2013)
#75a Marvel One-Shot: Item 47 (2012)
#75b Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter (2013)
#76 The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (1991)
#77 The Falcon in Mexico (1944)
#78 Real Steel (2011)
#79 Macbeth (1948)
#80 Wolf (1994)
#81 North by Northwest (1959)
#82 The Falcon in Hollywood (1944)
#82a Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (Deluxe Edition) (2013)
#83 Flight (2012)
#84 The Falcon in San Francisco (1945)

Analysis

You might not think it, but September is a surprisingly key month in my annual drive to 100 films: the only two times I’ve beaten 100, I reached the titular goal in September. That being said, in other years its use as an indicator is minimal: the past two years were both at #81 by now, but on one of those I made it to 100 and the other I failed. (In fairness, I did get to 97 — a margin of 3% isn’t that bad.) In 2008 I made it to 100 off a 64 in September, and in 2009 I only reached 94 off September’s 54.

Having reached #84 in 2013, then, it looks like I’m pretty well set going into the year’s final quarter. It won’t be a record-breaking year (unless I average over 15 films per month from here on out — to put that in perspective, my best month ever was 17 films; my average for the year to date is just over 9), but I have fair hopes of at least making it to 100. Hey, that’s the title, and always feels doubly important when I failed the year before.

Before now, I’ve noted that the first six years of this blog have followed a pattern: a year where I reach 120-something films, a year of exactly 100 films, a year of failure, repeat. What also happened is that both the 120-something years reached the titular goal in September, while both the 100-exactly years only got there on December 31st. This being the seventh year, I should be on 120 films and getting to 100 in September. Obviously, I haven’t. Something about humans always seeing patterns that aren’t there and all that, eh…

Viewed in other contexts, however, this has been a very good September. It’s the second-best month of 2013, behind March’s stupendous 17; and in terms of Septembers past, 2013 is one for the ages. I watched 13 brand-new films, making it my most prolific September to date (previous best was 11 in 2010). The past two years I’ve watched four and eight films respectively, so this year is a marked improvement. Though somehow I doubt next September will continue the pattern by reaching 19 films. But you never know — I’ve done 19 in a month (once) before…

Summer 2013 update

I mentioned last month that my Summer 2013 was kicking off now, as the big films made their way to Blu-ray and I finally started to see them. I wasn’t necessarily convinced of my own prediction — the list of films I have accessible to me but still haven’t watched from the summers of 2011 and 2012 is too long to go in to here — but, lo and behold, look what’s up there: both Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3.

Only two films, I know, but this month’s other big release was Fast & Furious 6 and I’ve not seen 4 or 5 yet. All the other high-profile releases are still to come, and, looking at the release calendar, there’s not much of particular interest until November. October can only offer After Earth and World War Z, both of which I intend to see, but neither are day-one purchases for me. Looks like summer will be going on until at least Christmas.

5 Great Shakespeare Film Adaptations

There are an awful lot of Shakespeare screen adaptations. I’ve not seen most of them. But nonetheless, inspired by this month’s viewing of Orson Welles’ Macbeth, here are a fantastic five:

Throne of Blood
Kurosawa abandons Shakespeare’s setting, some of his characters, and, most contentiously, all of his dialogue in this nonetheless extremely faithful rendering of Macbeth. Dripping atmosphere from every frame and gorgeously staged throughout, this both illuminates and transcends the Bard’s work. I bet it’d look great on Blu-ray. Why isn’t there a Blu-ray?

Romeo + Juliet (1996)
As if using teen heartthrob Leonardo DiCaprio to bring Shakespeare to a whole new generation wasn’t admirable enough, Baz Luhrmann also produces a remarkable rendition of Will’s most famous play. The entire film is a feast of invention (who can forget the swords-as-guns thing?) and fabulously cinematic.

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)
The ’90s offer us a veritable banquet of Shakespeare adaptations, and the man involved with a good many of them was Kenneth Branagh. Here he takes one of Shakespeare’s most accessible works and, while retaining period costumes and a classical directorial style, still produces a movie capable of entertaining any modern audience.

The Lion King
Apparently Disney now deny this is an adaption of Hamlet, but tosh and piffle, the similarities are numerous — too numerous to go into here. There are more faithful adaptations of Hamlet out there (loads of them), but I’d wager few are as purely entertaining as (and none less depressing than) this indisputable masterpiece.

Looking for Richard
Not strictly an adaptation, though chunks of the play are performed, in this documentary/adaptation Al Pacino looks into “Shakespeare’s significance and relevance to the modern world”. If that sounds dry, it’s actually quite engrossing. Also, much better than that dappy horribly-mid-’90s poster might suggest.

And one I disliked…

The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France

Henry V

my review

Want to tell me how wrong I am about Romeo + Juliet, The Lion King, and Henry V? Or just tell me which adaptations I’ve missed and really ought to check out? That’s what the comment section is for.

Next month on 100 Films in a Year…

Just 16 films remain this year!

Probably not one month’s work, but October could dictate whether I reach #100 in November, or December, or not at all…

Les Misérables (2012)

Posted on September 30, 2013 by badblokebob

27 years after its West End debut, the long-running smash-hit musical finally makes the leap to the big screen. Such a beloved work paired with a recently Oscar-winning director and an all-star cast was pretty much a dead cert for big-name awards nominations, and so it was to be; but critical reaction was more mixed: I’ve seen people who love the film unreservedly, and others who despise it with a passion.

Let’s begin with the obvious: Les Mis* is a two-hour-forty-minute musical — some people are never going to be on board with that. “Why are they siiingiiiiing?!”, etc. Such complaints must be ignored. After that, more valid complaints do arise: the quality of said singing; the necessity of such length; whether said Oscar winning director is overrated and should he have won the Oscar in the first place; and so forth.

Les Mis is an epic tale: it spans decades, albeit in three distinct chunks. It begins when Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), freed from years of hard labour as punishment for stealing a loaf of bread, breaks his parole and disappears. Years later, we find him a wealthy man, manager of his own company and the mayor or something to boot. But his former prison guard, Javert (Russell Crowe), finds him too — oh no! Indebted to a young woman he wronged (Anne Hathaway), Valjean takes her child for a better life in Paris, where, more years later, they end up embroiled in one of the capital’s failed revolutions.

Despite its running time, Les Mis is quite brisk for much of that plot (which, sorry if you’ve never seen it, I have described a fair old chunk of). There’s no interval in the film, but on stage it doesn’t come until well into the Paris section of the tale. Such a break must help the pacing, because while I remember enjoying it all on stage (where, I might add, it’s even longer), on screen I felt the middle portion began to drag. So yes, an epic running time for an epic, but it actually moves quickly through the parts that make it an epic before slowing for a bit of a forced romance and that kind of palaver.

I noted that it’s longer on stage, which is because here some songs have been trimmed. That’s partly for time, partly for re-staging (is it “hot as hell” in a spray-drenched dock pulling in wrecked galleons? No, apparently not), and partly to squeeze in a new song so it could get an Oscar nod. That’s Suddenly, which did get its awards nom but of course lost to Skyfall. It doesn’t fit too badly into the film, as it turns out, but in and of itself is a bit insipid. How much other trims bother you will depend on whether you’re a fan or not, of course. Some of the very best numbers are left to play in full, while tonally-awkward reprises (a comedy song after the climactic massacre) are cut back to literally a couple of lines.

Much talk around Les Mis focused on the performances, with three in particular attracting discussion. As honourable wronged-man Valjean, Jackman is the star of the show, and brings his musical theatre background to bear on a clearly-sung but emotive performance. He was unlucky to be in the same awards year as Daniel Day-Lewis’ all-conquering turn in Lincoln, because otherwise those gongs might well have been his. Opposite him in the film’s central rivalry is driven letter-of-the-law lawman Javert, divisively sung by Crowe. I think the best criticism I read was that his vocal style seems at odds with the rest of the cast — whereas they’re musical theatre, he’s got a gruffer, perhaps rockier, tone. I didn’t think he was all that bad, a few moments aside, which I suppose is the advantage of hearing so much negativity in advance.

And then there’s Anne Hathaway, as much of a sure thing during awards season as Day-Lewis. To be honest, I think Jackman comes out of the film better. I can never quite escape Hathaway’s earnestness; a sense of, “look, I’m singing! And isn’t this role important and meaningful!” Her delivery of I Dreamed a Dream, so over-used in the film’s trailers, is pretty flawless, realised (if I remember rightly, which I might not) in a single shot, a soul-crushing close-up on her face. Otherwise, while she’s good really, I felt she’d stolen some of the attention that should be on Jackman.

The rest of the cast is an assortment from the can-sing (Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried) to the comedic-so-it-doesn’t-matter (Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter). The best voice of the lot belongs to Samantha Barks as Eponine. No surprise, really, as she was poached from the West End… where she’d found herself via one of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s BBC talent shows, so I imagine he feels thoroughly vindicated now (as if he didn’t before).

Famously, they’re all singing live. As a viewer, this is more appreciable as a technical accomplishment than something that makes any difference to what we see on screen. It brings some extra emotion (read: odd breathing points and half-achieved notes) at times, and a knowledge of authenticity always has a way of adding authenticity, but otherwise…

There was much surprise when Tom Hooper wasn’t rewarded with a Best Director nomination at the Oscars — much of it originating from within the Les Mis camp, I felt, whereas no one else was particularly fussed. Hooper has improved a bit as a director (finally, close-ups are framed properly!) but, to be honest, I don’t particularly rate him on the whole. For every good decision (going for a grimy real-world style rather than something typically musical-y) there’s an awkward one (the decision to represent Paris almost entirely with one slightly-stagey set). For every well-staged song (realising Lovely Ladies as a montage to show Fantine’s fall over time) there’s one that’s lacking (we don’t see any empty chairs at empty tables until the song’s half over). Hooper does an above-average job on the whole, but the lack of awards nods shouldn’t be so surprising.

After so long on the stage, a film adaptation can feel redundant or insufferably inferior. Despite the negative reaction from some quarters, I think it’s fair to say the team behind Les Mis have managed to render something that is neither of those, even if I had a nagging feeling it could’ve been even better still.

* Why Americans insist on using a ‘zee’ there I don’t know — do they think it says “miss”? How do they say the word “miss”? “Misssss”? Anyway: ^

Dr. Strangelove (1964)

Posted on September 29, 2013 by badblokebob

aka Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

There are few things as weird (or, at least, weird in quite the same way) as watching an acclaimed and beloved classic film and… just not getting it. Here’s a paragon of moviemaking; a film that is not only exalted but, crucially, has remained in people’s affections against the forces of age; a thing that has truly stood the test of time… and yet… meh.

As you might have guessed, Dr. Strangelove was such a film for me. It’s not that I thought it was bad, it just didn’t click. I was expecting a comedy, but it took a good 20 to 30 minutes to get going humour-wise. Not sure there are any laughs in that period. Maybe one. After that it was funny in parts, but intermittently and unpredictably. Most of the best bits are quite subtle, though occasionally it explodes into a style that’s quite broad, especially the titular doctor and his final speech. I’m sure this is sacrilege, but I felt like it needed 15 to 20 minutes (or more) cutting out just to get on with things.

At times I wondered if the film might just want to be a straight thriller, but that Kubrick couldn’t escape what he saw as the inherent ludicrousness of the situation. Even if you wanted to try reading the film from that angle, the silly bits are too silly to take the rest seriously. I can’t help but feel this plot was better executed when it was called Fail-Safe. (Though, confession: I’ve not seen that. But I have seen this, and I preferred it.)

On the bright side, it’s beautifully shot, especially anything in the War Room or Ripper’s office, so it looks great on Blu-ray. There’s also sets by Ken Adam, which aren’t as outlandish as his famous Bond work but can be equally as striking, especially (again) the famous War Room.

In the end, I felt like I just didn’t get it. Not that I was watching something bad and I couldn’t fathom why so many people loved it, but that I just didn’t understand what it was I was meant to be seeing. Which is perhaps the same thing. I mean, I can see Kubrick was making an anti-war point at least as much as he was trying to make people laugh, but what do turgid sequences of people reading out numbers and flicking switches contribute to either of those aims? Perhaps the joke is meant to be in how long it goes on for? Like Family Guy. Has anyone ever said Dr. Strangelove and Family Guy are alike before, I wonder? Except I laugh more regularly during Family Guy.

Please don’t judge me.

Dr. Strangelove was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 12 for 2013 project, which you can read more about here.

The Dinosaur Project (2012)

Posted on September 25, 2013 by badblokebob

Found footage movies, eh? You either love them or hate them. Well, plenty of people hate them. I don’t mind them — it’s fast becoming an unoriginal idea (“existing genre + found footage = exciting new idea” is a sum that stopped working a couple of years ago), but if it’s done well, of course it still works.

The Dinosaur Project is a low-budget entry in a genre which you’d think would be awash with low-budget entries, and perhaps it is, but I’ve not encountered many of them. That said, it was shot in South Africa and has some impressive CGI, so it actually looks the part of a pricier endeavour. OK, you’re not going to confuse it with a Cloverfield-level experience, but nor does it look like something a few YouTubers knocked up down the park on a Sunday afternoon.

The story concerns a group of present-day explorers heading into the jungle to find dinosaurs. Lead explorer-man’s son tags along for various contrived reasons, and because he is Young and Hip he brings a bunch of cameras that he’s constantly recording from, hence the found footage thing. And the footage is “found” rather than “returned” because, of course, Things Go Wrong. What things I won’t say, but it will surprise no one that they do indeed uncover some dinosaurs.

Essentially, then, it’s a cut-price Jurassic Park, offering the same kind of “run away from the monsters!” thrills in a Modern way. And I don’t think it does it badly at all. If you hate the found footage phenomenon then this is going to do nothing to convert you, but if you don’t mind it, I think there’s a solid piece of entertainment in here. And if you actively like it then perhaps this is one of the better entries. It certainly has plenty of incident, which is more than can be said for some of them.

Plus, if you want to marvel at technical wizardy, the CGI and how it interacts with the real world is actually quite well done, especially bearing in mind the budget. I suppose we don’t notice such things in big-budget movies any more, because we know they can do it, but it does stand out in these low budget efforts. Which it shouldn’t. And doesn’t, unless you’re looking. Anyway.

The Dinosaur Project isn’t going to blow anyone’s mind, but as an adventure/horror-with-dinosaurs movie it’s a solid little thriller. It only runs for a brisk 83 minutes, too.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

Posted on September 23, 2013 by badblokebob

aka 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

The Fantastic Four are the kind of superhero team that people in comics think are a big deal but the wider world aren’t so fussed about, as proven by the lack of success of their two film outings versus the likes of X-Men and The Avengers, not to mention all the other non-team heroes.

That said, the quality of the films themselves doesn’t help much. The first was a woeful wannabe blockbuster, an expensive cheap-looking effort that lacked either entertainment or polish. Somehow it earnt this follow-up. It’s better than the first, though that’s really not saying much.

The plot is nothing to do with the increasing prevalence of geriatric web users (though, to be frank, that might’ve been more interesting), but instead sees a metallic-hued alien surfer (the kind of thing that washes in comics but is a bit “wtf?” when just plonked into the cinema) arriving on Earth and starting to make holes in the planet. He’s the herald for a giant gas cloud thing that’s going to come and eat our world. So that’s not good. One way or another, the titular family get involved in trying to stop this disaster.

For a film with world-ending consequences, it all feels a little slight and lacking in scale. I’d say it feels “of its era” — a slightly indefinable feeling based on not only the quality of its CGI but also the cinematography, the choice of locations, the tone and pace… — but it’s less of its era, more a few (or more) years earlier. It’s six years old now, but it feels more. That’s something I noted about the first film too, interestingly.

It’s also the kind of film where the US military have jurisdiction Everywhere In The World, which is again the kind of thing that used to just slide but doesn’t seem appropriate any more. Apparently the General character was originally meant to be Nick Fury — if it had been S.H.I.E.L.D., rather than the US military, at least that part might’ve made sense.

Although this is an improvement on the near-meritless first movie, it’s still not any great shakes. Hopefully the reboot coming in 18 months won’t be so disappointing.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: 2013