Rango: Extended Cut (2011)

Posted on August 7, 2012 by badblokebob

There seem to be an increasing number of live-action directors sticking their oar into animated films; and not just lending their ideas and name, as Tim Burton did with Nightmare Before Christmas, but properly directing them. Robert Zemeckis’ mo-cap obsession has given us that Christmas one, that other Christmas one, and Beowulf; Tim Burton supervised the stop-motion himself in Corpse Bride; then there’s Zack Snyder (Legend of the Guardians*), Steven Spielberg (Tintin), Peter Jackson (Tintin 2), and, here, first-three-Pirates helmer Gore Verbinski.

Perhaps this is because the increasing prevalence of CGI in big-budget movies (which all of these directors have also been responsible for) means the transition to 100% animation is easier — indeed, as I’ve said before, Avatar is classed as live-action but is basically a motion-captured animated film with a few live-action bits. This theory has added weight when you look behind the scenes at Rango: rather than teaming up with an established animation producer like Pixar or Dreamworks, Verbinski assembled his own team of pre-production creatives, wrote and designed the entire film independently for 16 months, then took it to ILM — who had never done an animated movie before — to do the heavy lifting. (The story of how the film was made is pretty much as interesting as the film itself, with Verbinski and ILM bringing their live-action-honed methods and sensibilities to bear on the production of a fully computer animated (not mo-capped) film. I heartily recommend the two documentaries on the Blu-ray. If you’re interested but don’t have the BD, you could do worse than read this article.)

Indeed, perhaps the most striking thing about Rango is ILM’s hallmark, the extraordinary realism. Though some of the characters are rendered cartoonishly (just look at Rango’s face) and all are of course anthropomorphised, the textures and lighting are as true-to-life as any of their work in live-action movies. They consciously went for a photographic look, as if it had been shot with real cameras, including consultation with Oscar-winning cinematographer Roger Deakins, and it paid off because the whole thing looks incredible. I know I only just recommended it in the last paragraph, but the making-ofs are really great for an insight into why the film looks and feels so different to most current computer-animated films. The sequences of them recording performance reference are incredible — they essentially shot some scenes in full, with the entire cast, in costume, with full props, some sets, blocking, marks, camera angles, improvisation… (The only thing lacking on the Blu-ray is a Sin City-style full-length version of the movie using that footage.) Even though it’s not mo-capped (Depp refers to their performance-reference recordings as “emotion capture”), they used a mo-cap studio with virtual sets so Verbinski could find angles and so on — all the tools he’d have on a live-action set.

Is it cheating to make an animated film this way? Some people object to motion-capture; is this as bad, or worse? Some will say so; personally, I don’t care — it’s the final product that matters, not how you got there. Though how you got there can make for a damn fine story. (Watch the making-ofs.)

Back to the film itself. I know it’s less interesting, and it is far too slow at the start, but when it eventually gets underway it becomes very entertaining. Somewhere in the middle there’s a five-minute wagon/bat chase that’s a properly exciting action sequence, excellently realised. It was so good I watched it again immediately afterwards. It’s got a clever use of Wagner too, as well as some regular Hans Zimmer action scoring. Zimmer’s score throughout is top quality, referencing Morricone and all the other staples of Westerns.

There’s the quite dark, twisted, alternative designs for characters and locations — not too much (it’s still kid-friendly), but it’s different to what Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks are doing (after early attempts at realism, they seem to be really amping up the cartoonishness now). The cast are great, though there’s much fun to be had spotting voices: some are obvious (Depp, Ray Winstone), others not so much (Isla Fisher, Alfred Molina; Bill Nighy!). There’s a good John Huston impression by Ned Beatty, and Timothy Olyphant’s Clint is so spot on I checked it wasn’t actually him.

For the cinephile viewer, Rango plays as one big homage. The obvious is its deployment of all the cliches and tropes of a Western, including a relatively subtle nod to The Man With No Name (the lead character identifies himself as Rango, but his real name? We never learn). I’ve seen some commentators berate it for this, but it’s clearly paying tribute to the genre, not being a shameful attempt at it. The plot, however, is clearly borrowed from Chinatown, but it plays out differently and there’s a clear acknowledgement of the similarities in its portrayal of the Mayor. Again, it’s homage, not rip-off. It does enough under it’s own steam on both fronts to avoid accusations of plagiarism, in my opinion.

On the down side, some of the ‘humour’ is a bit too mucky for my taste. The number of toilet-related gags goes way beyond necessary, and it’s slightly depressing that at least as many are aimed at adults as children. This is where a lot of the extended cut’s four-and-a-half-minutes comes in, incidentally, as this comparison shows. In their opinion, while the extended version’s jokes are still PG-level, they may have been cut to make sure it was absolutely family-friendly. (If you have access to the Blu-ray and want to see the added material without trying to spot it in the film itself, try the deleted scenes section — pretty sure that’s just the stuff from the extended cut.) Aside from muck, there’s an extended ending, though I’m not sure what I think of it. There’s a bit about a final sunset shot which is quite good, but I like the theatrical ending’s mirroring of the opening with the mariachi birds. All things considered, the coda was probably a wise excision in cinemas.

With its detailed references to other films and real-world visual aesthetic, Rango may be more likely to find appreciation among grown-ups than the children who are the typical target for English-language feature animation. Then again, there’s that immature humour I mentioned. A ‘family’ film indeed. Either way, it’s an entertaining addition to — and alternative from — American animation’s usual offerings.

* which has nothing to do with Rise of the Guardians, even though that crazed mash-up looks like a Snyder film. ^

Cars 2 (2011)

Posted on August 4, 2012 by badblokebob

Pixar, oh exalted studio of wondrous excellence, who produce naught but critically-acclaimed and audience-beloved films that may as well just be given the Best Animated Feature Oscar without the need for fellow nominees, dropped the ball with Cars. So why did it become only the second Pixar movie to earn a sequel? As most people know, because of the merchandise. Little boys love toy cars (and grown men too, apparently) and the things sold like hot cakes, and continued to do so for years afterwards. Running out of ways to milk the first movie’s characters, the only solution was to make some new ones — and that involves making a new film.

For what is essentially a near-two-hour toy commercial, Cars 2 fares quite well — it’s better than Batman & Robin anyway. Well, it’s less offensive to one’s sensibilities. Not ruining a great character and a once-great franchise helps. And, despite its lowly Rotten Tomatoes rating (which is flat out appalling, and doubly so for a Pixar movie), there’s a solid argument to be made that it’s better than the first Cars.

The plot is just as predictable though: character arcs are so well-trodden they only seem to bother including them because they push the story along; surely everyone will guess who the ‘surprise’ villain is as soon as he/she/it shows up earlier in the film; and so on. But instead of the stock “slick city guy finds his true self in the country” tale told first time round, here we get an international spy movie — much more fun. The espionage stuff is clearly inspired by Bond (the primary secret service is British, for starters), and the opening eight minutes — an action sequence starring the film’s Michael Caine-voiced Bond analogy — is probably the best stuff in either Cars movie. Actors like Caine and Emily Mortimer lend the whole affair some much-needed class.

Mater, voiced by Some Idiot (I believe Larry the Cable Guy is actually his ‘name’) was a mildly irritating character in the first film, but at least there was less of him than the marketing suggested. Clearly he clicked with someone — the pre-pre-teen toy-buying audience, I suppose — and so his role is massively bumped up here. In fact, I don’t think anyone would disagree that he’s the main character, with Owen Wilson’s McQueen relegated to a supporting role. Mater isn’t the most irritatingly stupid animated character ever conceived, but he’s not a huge amount of fun either. Like so much else, his whole schtick is tiresomely predictable fullstop, and depressingly familiar from first time round — and it was barely amusing in the first place.

McQueen, then, may still be front-and-centre in the marketing, but his story — the racing aspect of the movie — gets quickly relegated to a subplot. It’s kind of ironic, as the first film was all about races on boring NASCAR loops, whereas here we getting exciting European street circuits and we barely see them. On the bright side, we all know how race movies pan out — the back-and-forth battling, the last-minute surge, etc etc — so it’s not really any loss.

There are a raft of cameos — more than the first film, I think — the most obvious being Lewis Hamilton as a black racing car. He’s joined in a sort-of-double-act by some American voice who I presume is also a racing driver. This is the role picked for localisation, getting region-specific racing drivers in France, Germany, Spain, Australia, Russia, Sweden, Latin America and Brazil. I’d wager at least half of those voices would be infinitely more recognisable to a British audience than that yankee bloke they do have in there — I don’t follow racing and I’ve heard of Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel and Jacques Villeneuve, but I’ve not got the first clue who Jeff Gordon is.

One much-criticised aspect of the first film was its world (who built these cars? where are the humans? etc). It was possible to gloss over it, just about, when the film was doing other things to hold your attention. Here, it’s almost like they don’t want you to forget. It’s plenty exciting and fast-paced enough to leave behind concerns about what’s going on, but then throws in all sorts of unnecessary snatches of dialogue or small details in set design that slap you with a brief remembrance that this world doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense. One I didn’t even notice until I was collating pictures for this review: why is the police car wearing a giant hat?!

The technical faults don’t stop there: despite its pedigree, direction is strangely amateurish much of the time. The action sequences occasionally sing, but not always, while the entirety of the dialogue scenes are flatly shot, showing a repetitive choice of boring angles. It doesn’t help that they don’t contain much engaging material, especially the instances when they seem to be literally trotting out all the first film’s characters to deliver a single line each in not-that-quick succession. At times it verges on painful.

The Cars films are really aimed at kids no older than about six. They won’t be familiar enough with movies to see the tired plot points, they won’t question the film’s bizarre world, they’ll probably be enamoured of Mater, they’ll certainly be suckered in by the talking cars and the glossy action sequences… It’s their very lack of familiarity or critical faculties that makes the film easily entertaining. And then they’ll want all the toys, which is why this movie exists.

And one of the reasons people heavily criticise the Cars films in spite of that increasingly obvious fact is because they’re made by Pixar. In themselves, these two films are fine — but that’s all they are. When Pixar can make so many innovative, exciting, emotional, entertaining films, how can they also produce something so uninspired?

Cars 2 still suffers from many of the first film’s faults, being lacklustre in vital departments like character, humour and storyline. But it’s shorter, faster-paced and more exciting, which for my money makes it the lesser of two evils.

The Dark Knight Rises: Initial Thoughts

Posted on July 20, 2012 by badblokebob

Everyone and their mother will be writing about The Dark Knight Rises over the next few days — I’m sure there’s already been an explosion in articles, blog posts and comments on both, not to mention various related terms trending on twitter almost constantly for most of the week already — so I figured I may as well add my voice to all the thousands shouting into the dark. But rather than a full review (which I’ll save for when things have quietened down a little, and perhaps there’s some kind of consensus or even just other reactions to respond too), here’s a couple of stray thoughts and paragraphs that immediately struck me.

Naturally, this is all spoiler free.

Christopher Nolan’s film is properly epic, and a proper trilogy-closer too. We’re so used to superhero stories that never end that even when he said this would be an ending I half expected something spectacularly open-ended. But no, this is as much a fullstop as we’re ever likely to see on a big-screen superhero… unless it proves really popular and they all start doing it, of course. It feels really weird, but only because it’s not something we’re used to.

The epic part has its pros and its cons. It creates a grand close to the trilogy, but it’s a very busy film and arguably the makers bit off more than they could chew. There’s probably enough story and characters for two whole films here, and maybe they should have pulled back a bit on some threads. Equally, that sense of scale creates the uniquely epic sensation, and maybe it will reward repeated viewings and more leisurely contemplation, each apparently-short moment loaded with information. Or perhaps not — it is literally something only time can tell.

There’s been some backlash already, and though I’ve only skimmed it the feeling I get is mostly one of mismanaged expectations, rather than flaws of the film itself. It’s definitely more comic book-y than The Dark Knight, but only about as much so as Batman Begins. That has clearly disappointed some, but may delight others, and not bother others still. The marketing is part of the problem: the final trailer’s slow, measured, elegiacal style suggested Superhero Movie As Art, whereas Nolan has instead delivered a proper summer blockbuster — albeit one with a more measured pace and less frenetic action than usual. It’s more ‘traditional’ in that respect — I’d wager the pacing is similar to a blockbuster of 20 years ago, rather than the non-stop-bombast we get today.

I also think it might have benefited from a title change — the fan-mooted Gotham City seems ever so apt. Perhaps that would have aligned some expectations in the right direction. Ultimately, you see, this isn’t A Batman Film for the people who want that — it’s The Conclusion Of Christopher Nolan’s Bruce Wayne Story. And I think that’s fine, but perhaps you need to expect that, or at least be open to it as a possibility.

Stray thoughts:

On BD I may watch it with subtitles, not just for Bane (one review I read noted that some of Gordon’s lines “seem to get lost in his moustache”, which is an amusing way of putting the fact that half the cast offer muffled lines at some point; could just be cinema sound systems though).

Criticism of Nolan’s action direction, which has gone on since Begins, is increasingly unwarranted. Some may feel there isn’t enough action, or that what we get doesn’t go on in enough detail, but that’s the style of these films — they’re story movies with action sequences, not Action Movies. The previous two were the same. But the actual shooting and cutting of the action we do get is never less than fine.

Related to the epic-ness, I’ve seen numerous complaints of poor pacing or a slow middle. I didn’t feel that once. Similarly, this epic-ness may be why it can feel certain cast members are underused. The one that surprises me is Matthew Modine — is he really a big enough name for his supporting role here to be labelled “underused”? I didn’t think so. The stand out for me was Michael Caine, who may bring a tear to your eye, but there are several other noteworthy performances.

This is why I’m going to write a full review later, though this has already turned out a tad long.

The big question on everyone’s lips has always been, can it equal or better The Dark Knight? I don’t think it does. I didn’t ever really think it could, so perhaps I just correctly managed my expectations in that regard. But it not being as good as one of the greatest action-thrillers ever made doesn’t mean it isn’t a fantastic film in its own right, and it has a tone and a feel that’s both connected to the previous two Nolan Bat-pics and distinctly its own.

I think it’s wonderful stuff.

My ‘official’ drabble-length review can now be read here.

Devil (2010)

Posted on July 11, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #19
John Erick Dowdle | 77 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / PG-13

Remember when M. Night Shyamalan was the wunderkind of Hollywood? Seems so long ago, doesn’t it? But clearly someone somewhere is still invested in him — or he’s managed to limp on well enough that stuff he works on seems worth a punt — because a couple of years ago he was able to launch a series of films dubbed “The Night Chronicles”. I don’t remember the details and they’re not worth looking up, but as I recall the idea is they were a series of low-key/low-budget horror-thrillers conceived by Shyamalan (he has a Story and Producer credit here) but helmed by others. Devil is the first of these. I don’t recall a second turning up yet.

Funny thing is, this is better than anything Shyamalan has done in a long time. At least since Signs, and I quite liked The Village (except the final act) and Lady in the Water (need to rewatch that, because it seems everyone else hated it). Without meaning to ruin the first act (which does take a little while to reach the point; but it sets up all the characters, so it works), the story concerns a bunch of people stuck in an elevator, one of which is an evil supernatural force… but which?

I like these small-group-of-people-in-one-small-room thriller/horrors — see also the exceptional Cube and the very good Exam. This is a solid addition to the sub-genre — not the best, but with enough action, intrigue and twists to fill its (admittedly very brief) running time. It comes to a head with a pretty good twist/reveal. Again, it’s kind of ironic that it’s the best twist in a Shyamalan film for years, but it comes in a movie he neither wrote nor directed. Maybe he should take another look at the kind of films he’s choosing to make. (I say “maybe”…)

The film impressed on a couple of technical fronts. The main titles, for starters (pun intended): they play out over upside-down aerial shots of a city. Sounds like a silly idea, perhaps, but it actually feels Wrong and terribly unsettling. It’s a highly effective start to a horror movie. Then there’s exceptional creepy sound design whenever the elevator’s lights go out. The filmmakers don’t overdo it, with (say) screams or possessed voices or goodness knows what else, and that’s why it works: the fact it’s quite understated, that you can’t tell what’s happening from the sounds — it’s just breathing, rustling, bumping, that kind of thing — is what makes it all the more realistic and therefore creepier.

As an aside, in my occasional run of Comments Paying Too Much Attention To Certificates, it’s funny what Americans allow at what age rating. Here we have neck stabbing, hanging, creepy devil stuff… Seems a bit much for a PG-13, to me. The UK’s 15 is much more appropriate.

I wasn’t expecting a great deal from Devil. As a Shyamalan film it starts off with, if anything, a negative perception; and as one he didn’t even want to direct himself, you have to wonder how dreadful it’s going to turn out to be. But John Erick Dowdle (previously only responsible for the US remake of [REC] and a couple of things no one’s heard of) does a solid job, creating an effective little horror-thriller that delivers a fair number of chills and a decent serving of mystery. That’s more than can be said of Shyamalan’s work this decade.

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (2010)

Posted on July 6, 2012 by badblokebob

aka Di Renjie: Tong tian di guo

This year’s 52nd film is, in many ways, thanks to DC’s The New 52 (the comic book initiative/publicity stunt that saw DC relaunch their entire universe across a series of 52 new #1 issues, for those who don’t do comics): it got me back into reading regular comics, and featured in multiple titles for several months was a cool-looking advert for the US release of Detective Dee, complete with the attractive review quote, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon meets Sherlock Holmes, only a lot more fun”. A little research finds it highly recommended in other arenas too: there’s a host of awards nominations and wins, from the Venice Film Festival to the Hong Kong Film Awards; an 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes; Blu-ray.com furnished the UK BD release with a glowing write-up; Time ranked it the third best film for the whole of 2011 (behind The Artist and Hugo). Even the unreliable film section of the Radio Times saw fit to give it four stars.

All of which hopefully establishes how I found it to be a massive disappointment.

Days before the coronation of China’s first Empress, a high-ranked man is mysteriously burnt alive from the inside out. Then the man charged with investigating the case suffers the same fate. On advice (from who or what I shall mention later), the Empress assigns the case to Detective Dee — who has been in prison for eight years for rebelling against the Empress. Sounds like a good setup, eh? A super detective, at conflict with his employer, looking into supernaturally-tinged murders; and it’s a Hong Kong movie so you know there’s going to be some impressive action sequences.

To take Time’s opinion as a starting point, I have to wonder if they would rank Detective Dee so highly if it had been an American-produced film with actors speaking English. I don’t mean if the film was Americanised, but exactly the same, just an American production. In that instance, I think it would very much be viewed as a summer blockbuster, because that’s definitely what it strikes me as. It’s one with lots of talky bits and an over-complicated story, certainly, but then it’s not unheard of for US blockbusters to confuddle the viewer with an under-written over-developed plot (less so these days, I grant you).

Apparently it makes commentary on the economic and political situation in modern China. It must be done quite subtly, then. That’s a good thing I suppose, but I imagine you’re only going to notice it if you already have a familiarity with what’s going on. I don’t. Best I can tell, the film’s message is, “even if you think your ruler’s a bad person who’s done bad things, they’re your ruler and you should let them get on with it and not rebel”. I could have misread it, of course, but that’s what I got from the ending. Not a position I’d personally agree with.

Naturally there are plenty of action sequences (choreographed by Sammo Hung), several of them tacked on for the sake of it. Personally I wasn’t impressed. They’re all clearly shot on digital video (the whole film was, but the smeary fights really show it up), several are under-lit, there’s too much Hollywood-style choppy editing, it felt like some had bits missing, others are stop-start in a way that adds up to not very much… Many of them left me confused about what was meant to be going on, not in awe of the performer’s abilities or entertained. One of them features the hero fighting a gaggle of cheap CGI deer. Yes, deer. Why?

Detective Dee is a film of moments. There are some pretty shots, occasionally even sequences; the fight in the Phantom Bazaar, an underground river network, is guilty of some of my criticisms but also pulls off a few nice bits. The CGI is what you’d expect from a mid-range US miniseries, but (with exceptions such as the fighting deer) it works well enough, even creating some dramatic vistas, particularly of the 200-foot tall Buddha statue that’s central to the plot. Some of the sets are also incredibly impressive — again, the interior of the Buddha. Occasionally I was frustrated reading the subtitles (which fly by at a rate of knots, it felt to me) because I wanted to look at the detailed, busy production design.

I mention the fast subtitles because the film feels like it’s moving at quite a lick. There’s little room to get to know the characters, or the situation, or their relationships, or their political machinations, before it’s racing on to the next plot point. And yet despite that it feels incredibly slow as a whole — I was clock-watching before the hour mark.

Perhaps one of the things that suffers for this is the film’s relationship with the supernatural. It’s at first supposed that the deaths are some kind of divine intervention, but then this is kicked away — what a silly idea by some foolish characters! But then everyone’s more than happy to accept a talking magic deer (seriously; and they happily take its advice (see second paragraph)), a fighter whose arms fly off and turn into… something else (choppy editing means I’m not sure), facial transfiguration (imagine Mission: Impossible’s masks with face-churning magic instead of masks), and so on and so forth. Some of it ultimately has a rational explanation, but why is “divine intervention” so much less believable than “magic”? And why do you have to explain the talking deer and flying arms when the face-churning-thing is left untouched? I can take people flying unrealistically through the air — that’s the style of the genre, much like regular folk breaking out into perfectly-pitched musically-accompanied song is the style of the musical — but not internal inconsistency in other areas.

I’ve avoided the comparison so far, but Detective Dee is like a Chinese version of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, only a less inventive and comprehensible one. And it’s certainly not “a lot more fun”. Dee is a great deducer, a la Holmes, though the film gives him no opportunities to significantly show that off. The plot concerns a series of apparently-supernatural murders that actually have a rational explanation, and are ultimately all about taking control of the country. It stars a period detective who’s been reconfigured as younger and a man of action. But whereas Holmes kept things clear-cut and fast-moving, Dee (as I’ve noted) fudges and obscures motivation and plot and feels tediously long.

There are actually quite a few little things to like about Dee, and maybe there are a few big things too, but I feel like it’s making you work for them — you could enjoy the characters, or the political machinations, but only if you take time to study them slowly and work out what was going on for yourself, because the film’s in too much of a rush to explain it to you. There’s something to be said for entertainment not spelling everything out — it’s often a highly-praised element of anything that achieves it — but Dee doesn’t do that, it rushes headlong past things that could do with more clarity. (One thing I should do is listen to Bey Logan’s commentary — there’s a fair chance he’ll have insights that illuminate me. But in a moment you’ll see why I haven’t done that before posting this.)

Believe it or not, I didn’t hate Detective Dee… but I didn’t exactly enjoy it either. Not fully. I started this review by saying it and I think it’s my key feeling: after getting a little hyped up about something I’d previously ignored the UK release of, I found it to be disappointing. Your mileage may vary.

The UK TV premiere of Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame is on Film4 and Film4 HD tonight, Friday 6th July, at 11:10pm.

The A-Team: Explosive Extended Edition (2010)

Posted on June 10, 2012 by badblokebob

I’m a bit young to have experienced seminal ’80s TV series The A-Team first time round, though I swear I caught some repeats when I was young — enough that I know the basic premise but can’t specifically recall ever seeing any of it. Which means I approach this big screen update with perhaps a different mindset to someone who has a distinct opinion (be that good or bad) on the original.

As it’s presented here, The A-Team is an origin story. A double origin story, in fact: a long pre-titles sequence (technically a title sequence) shows us how the four guys originally met each other, before the main plot expands on the famous opening voice over — the whole “a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn’t commit” bit. The film is set today, unsurprisingly, with Vietnam switched for the Middle East. The action roams around the globe a bit, not that it really matters where it occurs. The lead cast seem to gel well, which is good for the humour quotient. There’s not enough use of the cool theme tune for my liking — they don’t use it on the title card or to kick off the end credits. What?

As it’s presented here, The A-Team is a lighthearted action movie. We’re in broadly the same vein as RED and Knight and Day, both of which were released the same year — clearly there was something in the water. You might also make a comparison to Shoot ‘Em Up, or even the Rush Hour films. All films that are primarily about action (well, maybe not Knight and Day) but done with a wink or a nudge, and certainly not po-faced seriousness. As much as I like serious action, I enjoy this kind of film too. I gave RED four stars; Shoot ‘Em Up the same. You may see where this is going. I am, once again, probably being too generous.

As it’s presented here, The A-Team is a bit silly. If you’ve seen the trailer you know there’s a bit where they fall out of a plane in a tank. Then they battle with fighter jets from this free-falling tank. Clearly no one is meant to think this is actually possible. At least, I hope they’re not; I didn’t read it as the filmmakers trying to sell it as plausible. Carnahan and co are not shooting for a Bourne vibe here. As I see it, your reaction to that tank bit in the trailer will dictate your reaction to the whole film: if you thought it looked bloody stupid, extrapolate; if you thought it looked frickin’ cool, extrapolate; if you thought, like me, that it looked enjoyably far-fetched, extrapolate.

As it’s presented here, The A-Team is an “Explosive Extended Edition”, which is a funny name for it because nearly all the additions are dialogue — no explosions, barely any new action, mostly just people talking for one reason or another. It totals just under 15 minutes longer (I don’t think there are any cuts involved in that, just extensions or alternate takes). If you enjoy the film’s humorous side and the banter between the leads, this version would seem to be superior; if that doesn’t or didn’t interest you, there’s no need for it. That said, one scene is apparently “big and puts some drama and emotion into the movie, maybe a bit too much for a PG rating”. (In the UK, both cuts are rated 12, despite some additional bad language and the fact the theatrical version was cut for language to get said 12. Ah, the BBFC.) There’s a full list of changes here, if you’re interested.

The A-Team is not going to be everyone’s cup of tea. I know some people only like their action po-faced; others just won’t think it clicks at what it’s trying to do; I don’t know if it measures up for fans of the original (nearly two years after its theatrical release, I imagine they know by now anyway). It didn’t go down well enough to earn a sequel, and that disappoints me a little — it was everything I expected from the trailer and I enjoyed it as much as I hoped I would. Can’t say fairer than that.

The Book of Eli (2010)

Posted on June 4, 2012 by badblokebob

After last week’s reviews of Priest and Legion, here’s another disappointingly religious action blockbuster…

The directors of From Hell (what did they do for nine years? Struggle to find work perhaps) helm the tale of Denzel Washington being a sunglasses-wearing loner mofo in a post-apocalyptic America. I really enjoyed it… for maybe 50 minutes, before it gradually slid away, ultimately degenerating to a Christianity circle jerk ending.

I warn you now, this review contains spoilers, because I don’t care if I ruin the crap bits for you. Indeed, I’d say less “ruin” and more “prepare”.

Much like the film, let’s start with the good stuff. It has a slow, almost elegiac pace early on, punctuated by bursts of violence and action. This section is very good. Then it begins to slip into more typical action blockbuster territory. A fake-single-take shoot-out might’ve seemed virtuoso filmmaking in the right film, but here it seems like director willy-waggling in preference to serving the mood and tone thus far created. Same goes for other independently cool things that follow, like the explosive destruction of a truck.

Ironically, one of the earlier good action sequences (a bar brawl… to sell it short!) is included in a beautifully-choreographed single-take form in the deleted & alternate scenes. That should’ve been left in the film. The final version isn’t bad — the Hughes brothers use a variety of static and wide shots to lens all the film’s fights in a way that reminds you that all handheld close-up shaky-jumpy super-fast-cut modern action sequences are inferior to an old-style well-staged, well-shot sequence — but if they’d had the restraint not to intercut some sequence-extending close-ups they would have had a massively more memorable sequence.

The music is by Atticus Ross, which was interesting because I’d thought it was reminiscent of The Social Network. So that’s nice.

There are nice, subtle CG effects (I presume) for much of the film, making the world brown-grey and bleak with green-tinged clouds… but all that is ditched for the digitally stitched together ‘single take’ gunfight and, even more so, a vision of a desolate San Francisco during the closing minutes. It’s decent enough in itself — I’ve seen worse — but like, say, the ‘vampires’ in I Am Legend, it’s jarring and awkward because it doesn’t fit with the tone and style established elsewhere.

A bit like Mila Kunis, who is kinda fine but also an acting weak link. Washington and Gary Oldman (especially) are as great as ever. After years of Harry Potter, Batman and recently Tinker Tailor, it’s quite nice to see Oldman back as a villain! He knows how to pitch it perfectly, and while the lack of out-and-out crazy means this one isn’t as memorable as Leon’s Stansfield (well, who is?), it fits the film like a glove. It can’t withstand the blockbusterised let’s-go-get-’em second half, but then not much can. Certainly not the directors’ skills. The oft-underrated Ray Stevenson even offers a cut-above-average lead henchman figure. But there’s something about Kunis… something too present-day and preppy for someone who’s supposed to have been born and raised in a deeply post-apocalyptic back-of-beyond world. She’s nowhere near rough enough.

Late on the film pulls out surprise appearances from Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour. Their roles aren’t even close to needing thesps of such calibre though — they appear fleetingly, the actors underused. Particularly Gambon, who really has nothing to do except fire a gun. I know it’s usually a joke to comment that a usually-better cast member must have needed the money, but that’s the only reason I can imagine he’s here.

Worst of all is a pat ending, which doesn’t make a lot of sense in various ways. They really destroyed every Bible? He really memorised all of it? He wasn’t blind all along, surely? Because you assume he is and then no one says so you think maybe you’ve read it wrong but then it’s meant to be a twist that he’s blind — what?! Why is that facility on Alcatraz? Why have they just been collecting for 30 years? For 30 years?! I could go on.

As well as being religiousified to extremes, these attempts at giving surprising twists just don’t wash. To quote Kim Newman in Empire,

Given that the leather-bound tome Eli treasures is embossed with a crucifix, it’s not much of a surprise when we find out what it is…

Eli’s literary devotion is more giggly than inspirational. Frankly, it would be more affecting if humanity’s last hope rested in almost any other book than the one chosen here – Tristram Shandy, David Copperfield, the Empire Movie Almanac.

So, so true. This must be why American reviewers seem to have loved the film, but our more secular nature sees it as Just Daft. Thank God for that.

Newman concludes that “you can’t help feel you were invited to a party with fizzy pop and cream cake and got suckered into a sermon instead.” I couldn’t have put it better. Eli starts off with the potential for an arty 5; slips slightly to a solid 4 when the standard post-apocalyptic trope of a gang fighting for local power comes in to play; unsteadies that 4 with an increasingly atonal second half; and quite frankly borders a 1 with its sickening ending.

I land on a generous 3, because anything less would be unfair to the good stuff it achieves early on. What a shame it couldn’t continue in that vein.

The Book of Eli featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2012, which can be read in full here.

Priest (2011)

Posted on May 28, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #15
Scott Stewart | 84 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

In a dystopian church-ruled future (could there be any other kind of church-ruled world), in which a war between men and vampires raged for centuries but has recently been settled (in man’s favour), no-longer-needed warrior-priest Paul Bettany is called upon to go against his vows and leave the city to rescue his niece after her parents are murdered and she is kidnapped in a vampire attack. I could go on, but it’s the kind of plot that sounds far more complicated in a short summary than it is to watch on screen.

This marks Bettany’s third turn as a Christian killer, after an albino monk in The Da Vinci Code and a deliberately fallen angel in Legion. One’s a villain, one’s the hero; here he’s the good guy again, tipping the balance towards Bettany’s filmography being in favour of Christians Who Kill For A Cause. Legion was also directed by Scott Stewart, so perhaps they share a penchant for kinda-Christian action movies? God knows why.

It begins with a contextless, pointless 90-second ‘flashback’ action sequence. Then there’s a bloodily violent animation re-shaping history’s major wars (Crusades, WW1, more) as one long fight against vampires. Quite good, that bit. It’s designed by Genndy Tartakovsky, creator of Dexter’s Laboratory, Samurai Jack and the 2D Star Wars: Clone Wars series. Then there’s another pre-titles-style bit. For a film under 90 minutes long, it takes its time to get going.

And after all that meandering, the story is a bit rushed. It tries to generate character and tension, but hasn’t spent enough time building them to earn it. There’s lots of awful dialogue, flooded with clichés… as is a lot of the plot, and the stock dystopian future setting, and the overuse of slow-mo. There’s some ideas with promise, but they’re largely shunted aside in favour of something from The Big Book of Standard Character Arcs. And I say “promising” — you know exactly how they’d play if the filmmakers had bothered to make more out of them.

Plus there’s a blatant “end of Part One” ending — the story isn’t even close to resolved. It flopped though, so there’s no chance of it being sequelised. And the world doesn’t make complete sense: if “everyone” lives in big cities, why do so many people live in Old West-styled townships in the wasteland? Why are there vampire reservations, why not just kill them all? Etc.

It’s like someone thought of lots of Cool Bits and strung them together irrespective of world or story. And, in fairness, some of the cool bits achieve their aim, in a largely derivative way. And the story’s not that badly constructed — I’ve seen plots that hang together much less well.

None of this is helped by weak acting, which considering the largely quality cast is probably down to the script and direction. How unlikely is Paul Bettany as an action leading man, eh? I thought Jason Statham was odd enough… And if you want a preview of Karl Urban as Judge Dredd, I imagine his early scenes — face in shadow, gravelly voiced — will be a fair indication.

Visually, I don’t know what’s going on with the lenses used — people’s faces are occasionally noticeably stretched. I at first wondered if my chosen viewing method (Sky Movies Anytime via Virgin Media On Demand — potentially less reliable than a DVD or BD) had for some reason squished or stretched the film, but in most shots things look fine. Maybe I was imagining it, who knows. And while he was getting his lenses muddled, it seems the DoP forgot to bring any lights for most of the shooting. The climax takes place in daylight, but a lot of the rest of it…

I dread to think how it fared in 3D. It’s perhaps telling that most of the action sequences are staged either outdoors or in previously-dark locations that somehow gain a bit of a glow; or, to put it more bluntly, “here’s where you’ll want to see the 3D so we’ve made it brighter”. And 3D is so essential to the film that I didn’t remember it had been released that way until the mysteriously bright cave fight over halfway through. It was post-converted too, so I doubt it looked great.

Priest isn’t bad per se — well, depending on your tolerance levels. It’s no Max Payne, put it that way. And it’s better than Legion. If you can withstand a clichéd plot, laughable dialogue and sorely underdeveloped characters in order to get your fix of brain-in-neutral action, this is a quick (under 80 mins sans credits) and moderately satisfying way to go about it.

Legion (2010)

Posted on May 26, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #21
Scott Stewart | 96 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 15 / R

The first of two Christian-themed action movies directed by former visual effects man Scott Stewart (this his first feature as director) and starring British thesp Paul Bettany (here he plays a gun-toting angel, next time it’s a warrior monk) — I don’t know if that’s a conscious theological choice of some kind (there’s no Book of Eli-style heavy-handed God-bothering in either film) or just an almighty coincidence. Even if not, the quality of the pair is consistent, for better or worse.

In the first of the Stewart-Bettany diptych, we find that for some reason it’s the end of days, and for some reason there’s a diner in the middle of nowhere, and a deliberately fallen angel turns up to defend the inhabitants of said diner from the celestial forces that are for some reason gathering to kill them. Something like that, anyway.

It doesn’t really matter, it’s all rubbish. It’s penned by writers who think speechmaking equates to character. All of the dialogue is appalling; even Big Lines — just before a heroic death, that kind of thing — are irredeemably bad. It’s performed by actors who aren’t even capable of delivering that tosh. They all overact in one way or another, especially a gurning turn from Dennis Quaid. Later on it aims for some kind of epic fantasy stuff, but it manages to be both underdeveloped and overplayed. The ending shoots for a ‘the story continues’ vibe, though goodness knows where anyone thought the story had to go.

Even the action sequences not up to much, just guns firing and things exploding in the dark with almost no choreography. As an action movie you might forgive it some of the plot and character points if it could manage that, but it can’t.

Also, there’s a character called Jeep… who’s a mechanic! Oh come on.

There are some scraps of good bits. The beginning is moderately cool, if a bit of a rip from the Terminator franchise. There’s some good creepy villains — to say how or who would ruin some of the film’s rare good bits, should you for some reason decide to watch it. Which you shouldn’t.

Legion is disappointing on pretty much every level. There’s some potential in the basic idea, but it’s not even close to being realised. Even the siege-based rendering of it they’ve gone for feels half baked.

Avoid.

Legion featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2012, which can be read in full here.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Posted on May 14, 2012 by badblokebob

If 2009’s Sherlock Holmes was Batman Begins — a re-introduction to a well-known hero and his entourage of secondary characters as they tackle a (second-string/unheard-of) menace in their home city — then A Game of Shadows is The Dark Knight: a globe-trotting epic against the famous, formidable nemesis attempting to drive the world to destruction. Unfortunately, the analogy doesn’t extend to the film’s extraordinary step-up in quality.

Before the first film’s release, accusations flew that Ritchie’s take on Holmes wasn’t faithful enough. Some of these persist, but as I noted in my original review I think they’re pish: yes, this series gives a blockbuster action/comedy spin on the character, but it remained a Sherlock Holmes tale. This is less true of the sequel. There’s still some detective work, but it comes in brief flashes here and there. The big denouement does pick up on scattered (deliberately-)easily-missed clues from throughout the film, but only to provide a standard Explain The Villain’s Grand Plan scene. A ballroom scene where Sherlock looks around the room, seeing “everything” through a series of quick-pan fast glimpses of stuff, highlights an inferiority to other current versions — where those certain others let us in on what Holmes is learning from his quick glances, here we just see some stuff. In short, it’s not Sherlocky enough.

Most of the other elements that made the first film a success are present and correct though. The banter between Robert Downey Jr.’s Holmes and Jude Law’s Watson zings as well as it did first time, though perhaps not always as memorably, and Ritchie crafts an array of interesting action sequences. Some still accuse it of being a sub-Matrix rip-off, which I personally think shows a lack of attention or imagination on the part of those viewers — there’s more to what’s going on here than that. There’s a wit The Matrix films never had, for one thing, and more twists on the format. The trick of having Holmes explain what he plans to do as we see it in slow-mo, before executing it at full blistering speed, is repeated but also subverted in multiple ways.

Plus the action is just finely staged full-stop — there’s a fun alleyway fight to open proceedings, a sprawling brawl around a London gentlemen’s club, a fun duel around a moving train (much seen in the trailers), and a stunningly unusual race through some woods away from a German munitions factory (coincidentally (I imagine) a bit like Captain America, but with better CGI; and also much seen in trailers). Those are the big numbers, but smaller-scale sequences come and go throughout. In many ways it pings from one action scene to another, a plot cropping up occasionally to provide a link between them.

Yet for all that, that climax is a game of chess: Sherlock and Moriarty come face to face while in the room next door Watson and gypsy Simza try to spot an assassin. It’s one of a couple of scenes where Downey Jr.’s hero comes face to face with his nemesis, played by Jared Harris, and these scenes are definitely some of the film’s high points. Harris makes a perfect addition to the cast, the only disappointment being that we don’t get to see even more of him. Downey Jr.’s become such a Movie Star recently that it’s easy to forget he’s a multiple Oscar-nominee, and he and Harris give as good a hero-villain act-off as you’re likely to find in a blockbuster.

Other big-ticket cast additions include The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo herself, Noomi Rapace, seriously underused as the aforementioned gypsy fortune-teller Simza, who turns out to be central to the plot. The size and scope of her role actually fits the story, pretty much, and it wouldn’t have mattered if they’d cast a European ‘unknown’, but by making a fuss of casting That Acclaimed Actress From Those Acclaimed European Films and giving her third billing attention is drawn to how little she has to do.

Better served is Stephen Fry as Mycroft, a role normally rendered as a brief cameo. And indeed it’s little more than that, but there’s more of him than I was expecting (certainly so in one (pointless aside of a) scene that I’m sure you’ve heard about), and Fry of course excels — it’s the kind of role he was made for. Meanwhile the award for best agent goes to Eddie Marsan’s: Lestrade appears late on for all of two shots, but Marsan is still billed high enough to be on the poster, above most of the cast.

A quick mention also for Hans Zimmer’s score. I enjoyed his work on the first film and he delivers again here. Zimmer’s one of those big Hollywood blockbuster composers whose work can all sound the same (I watched The Lion King just the other day and could definitely hear Piratical elements in there), but here he injects a bit more variety into his oeuvre. It’s not just the departure from his usual style that works, it’s that there’s a mixture of styles within the movie itself, each well suited to their own sequence while still blending as a whole.

A Game of Shadows comes out as a fun ride with several stand-out moments, but not as a particularly exceptional version of Sherlock Holmes. It’s very enjoyable as a comedy-action movie with amusing characters and entertainingly-staged action sequences, but while my affection for the first has grown to make it one of my favourite movies, this is just an entertaining follow-up.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is out on DVD and Blu-ray in the UK from today, and in the US from June 12th. Ha-ha.

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: 2010s