Transformers (2007)

Posted on May 30, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #34
Michael Bay | 138 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

As I’m sure you know, Transformers is a live action adaptation of the ’80s cartoon inspired by a toy line, which managed to become the highest grossing non-sequel of 2007 (though, of course, it’s still very much part of a franchise. But taking that into account places it 5th, which doesn’t sound as impressive. If anyone’s interested, the highest-grossing non-franchise movie was Ratatouille… though you could argue that’s basically in the Pixar franchise, so the honour would then slide to I Am Legend… which you could argue is in the Will Smith franchise, but that would be pushing it).

Firstly, I have to admit that I’m inadvertently something of a Michael Bay fan; or, at least, a fan of his films. He’s hardly the world’s greatest director — certainly not in an award-winning sense — but his movies set out to be big and fun and, more often than not, they achieve it. I always think I’ve seen very few of them, but I’ve actually been fairly comprehensive: Bad Boys and, especially, The Rock are both entertaining action flicks; Armageddon I half-watched once and it seemed a bit crap; the only bits of Pearl Harbor I’ve happened across have been even more laughable than reviews led me to believe; Bad Boys II was overlong and overrated, but had its moments; conversely, The Island was cruelly slated — I could write a whole review of my thoughts on that, but this isn’t the place. So I’ve actually taken in all of his films (one way or another), bar this latest — another huge-budgeted, action-packed, CGI-heavy extravaganza. Same old same old?

Not quite. Thanks to its kid-friendly basis, and in spite of much slaughter and gags about masturbation, Transformers is probably Bay’s most family-friendly offering. That said, it’s still very much a Boys’ Film, packed with soldiers, fights, explosions, and female characters who are either hot teens with a surprising knowledge of mechanics or hot twenty-somethings with a surprising knowledge of computers. Or comedy mothers. But most of all, there’s a serious technology fetish — the film nearly bursts with so many cars, planes, guns, army vehicles… Of course, if there’s one film where a tech fetish is acceptable, it has to be one about giant robots who can reshape themselves into everyday items. In these moments the CGI is frequently astounding, as thousands of parts move and rearrange to change a plane/car/hi-fi into a robot being. It happens so fast that, unbelievably, it’s rarely even the focus of the scene. It’s also mostly photo-real, though it becomes hard to judge just how real because the physical impossibility means the viewer reasons it has to be CGI. That doesn’t stand in the way of the achievement though, and how the effects team lost out to The Golden Compass at the Oscars is beyond me (to be fair, I haven’t seen that Pullman adaptation, but the CGI looked decidedly under-impressive in the trailers).

It’s not all so good. The music is indistinguishable from that in every other Bay film, which means it usually serves its purpose but is beginning to sound a tad tired. The opening is a little dry, with too much focus on faceless soldiers and not enough on the infinitely more entertaining story of Sam Witwicky, who’s played with charm by Shia LaBeouf, rising (risen?) star du jour. Once the Autobots (they’re the good robots) turn up en masse halfway through the film really hits its stride, suddenly becoming funny, exciting, and even stirring on occasion. The finale’s a bit of a muddle however, with no clear idea of which robot is which and who’s fighting who, or what the strategy/point actually is. It’s disappointingly anticlimactic in some respects, especially the duel between Optimus Prime (head Autobot) and Megatron (head Decepticon — they’re the bad robots), which amounts to little more than a couple of clashes. Why can no one seem to manage a good final battle these days? Megatron is underused in the film as a whole, only coming to life very late on and affording Hugo Weaving about five lines. It seems a waste.

Despite these flaws, I really enjoyed Transformers, certainly more than I expected to. It may be clichéd in places, with too much of a tech fetish, shallow female characters, too many faceless soldiers, bouts of weak dialogue, a muddled climax… But it’s still fun, with enough likeable moments and characters to carry it through. Hopefully they can focus in on what worked — or, at least, maintain the same level of quality — in next year’s sequel.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Posted on May 27, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #32
Steven Spielberg | 122 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

This review contains major spoilers.
For a spoiler-free view, see my initial thoughts.

I’ve grown up with Indiana Jones around. Not in the way Harry Knowles may have (apparently if you weren’t old enough to see the original trilogy in the cinema, at precisely the right age, then this film isn’t for you), but they’ve always been there. I was so young when I first saw Last Crusade (on video) that, even though it can only have been two years old at most, it was a film that had Always Existed as far as I was concerned (much like Ghostbusters and Back to the Future, or so many other ’80s movies that I love). I remember directing a recreation of Last Crusade in the playground (with me as Indy, of course, and one of my best friends hating me for days because he’d been Brody and I’d melted him at the end, my 6-year-old memory having confused the character with Donovan); loving Young Indiana Jones whenever they showed it on BBC Two; visiting the absolutely fantastic stunt show at DisneyWorld Florida; churning through a couple of the tie-in novels (carefully selected from the gift shop based on their blurbs); having the Raiders poster on my door for at least a decade; running around with my Indy hat and Nazi cap gun (wow, we must’ve bought a lot in that gift shop); wishing there were action figures for me to play with (and appropriating an Alan Grant from Jurassic Park for the task, because he had a vaguely similar hat)… There are many more Indy memories locked away in my head, but I think those examples will more than suffice.

And so, about 17 years or so since I first encountered Dr Henry Jones Jr, I finally get to see him in the cinema. I don’t think I’m one to be easily suckered in by that thrill factor, however. I wasn’t one of the people who came out of Phantom Menace extolling it’s virtues only to later realise how disappointing it was; heck, I came out of Two Towers not with the feeling that after a whole year (wow!) of waiting Lord of the Rings was back and wasn’t it great — I thought it dragged for at least the first half and found Helm’s Deep somehow anticlimactic. I say this in defence of the fact that I enjoyed Crystal Skull and think it’s a good film, an opinion that seems oddly rare at the minute. I suspect this will change with time.

That’s not to say the film isn’t flawed, mind. The opening’s a bit slow for my liking, there are few lines that are as funny or as quotable as in the other films, and some moments push things a bit too far — I’m thinking specifically of Indy escaping a nuclear test in a lead-lined fridge. It’s not as bad as Bond surfing the wave from a melting ice shelf in Die Another Day, but it’s not really in-keeping either. Another oft-cited problem is the amount of material the film awards to some of its starry cast members. Actors of the calibre of John Hurt, Jim Broadbent and… well, most people say Ray Winstone, but I think he’s overrated as an actor… still, they don’t get a great deal to do. The problem here is that they’re John Hurt, Jim Broadbent and Ray Winstone — replace them with unknowns and far fewer people would whinge about the size and point of their roles. Quite why an actor like John Hurt would accept such a small, almost one-note role (while there may be more depth to the character, it’s all revealed in Mutt’s memories rather than Hurt’s performance) is a different issue, but he does play the part well.

The rest of the cast fare better: Shia LaBeouf continues to be a star on the rise, here blessed with a teen rebel who isn’t also incredibly irritating. Mutt has a heart, and we don’t have to suffer a two-hour ‘emotional journey’ to find it. He pairs well with Harrison Ford too, and one can see why George Lucas suggests a future for the franchise that emulates the father-son dynamic from Last Crusade. That said, Ford gets his best partner in Karen Allen’s Marion. She was always the best ‘Indy girl’, and while her return may be as surprising as Indy wearing that hat and carrying a whip (not just because we’ve seen her in all the trailers, but who else is it going to be when Mutt first mentions a Marion in the diner?) she plays a vital role in injecting some verbal humour and banter into proceedings. The only other noteworthy female cast member is Cate Blanchett as a villainous Russian psychic (maybe). She’s clearly having bags of fun with the part, and is rewarded primarily with a death scene that is pleasingly in line with those in the rest of the series. This is another moment some reviewers have whined about, saying we’ve seen it before, but personally I’d’ve been disappointed with anything less from an Indy film.

Of course, this is all without really mentioning the man himself. Make no mistake, Harrison Ford is still Indiana Jones. The hair may be grey, the face covered in more lines, but the attitude and humour is still there. This is an older Indy, of course — he’s not only aged nearly two decades since we last encountered him, he’s also lived through the Second World War. The snippets of dialogue that explain what he’s been up to since we last saw him are all very nice for fans too, I think, but are pleasingly not dwelt upon for too long — this is a film that will work just fine for anyone who somehow hasn’t seen the first three. Ford can still hold his own in the action stakes too, running, swinging and punching his way through a variety of thrilling sequences. The screenplay could have used his age as a crutch, leaving him with some comedy running away while the much younger Mutt got stuck in; this isn’t the case, and that’s great.

As for those action sequences, they’re a lot of fun. The best by far is an extended chase through the jungle, including a fantastically conceived sword fight on the back of two moving vehicles. There’s a good deal of silliness in it — Mutt’s Tarzan-like vine swinging, or Marion’s use of a handily-placed tree to get their car into a river — but this is a franchise explicitly inspired by the B-movie thrills of the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s, in which context these things are more than acceptable. It’s a little daft, but it’s all such fun that if you’re worrying about the realism you’re not entering into the spirit of things. More disappointing is some lacklustre CGI, which is used far more often than Spielberg might have liked us to believe. There’s also a bit with some large ants that may be a little too close to the use of beetles in The Mummy, but as that’s basically an Indiana Jones rip-off it seems only fair to return the favour.

Finally, there’s the MacGuffin: the eponymous Crystal Skull (the “Kingdom of the” prefix isn’t really needed). It’s alien, as long-rumoured, which has undoubtedly angered some fans. Personally, I don’t find it any sillier than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, equally unreal items (in fact, less real — maybe the aliens are too likely to be true for some viewers?) with equally fantastical powers. It also fits with the mid-50s setting, post-Roswell and heading into the Space Race. The design of the aliens and their saucer is pleasingly retro, though obviously achieved with CGI, and it does tie to theories that ancient monuments and civilisations had contact with aliens (again, true or not, they’re no worse than the religious artefacts of the other films). Like everything else about the film, the MacGuffin may not be quite as good as the equivalent elements in Raiders and Last Crusade, but it pushes close enough.

Speaking of which, it’s worth quickly mentioning the UK rating. For some reason, Crystal Skull is a 12A while Raiders and Last Crusade are both only PG. I swear there’s nothing worse in this film than those; in fact, I’m sure there’s nothing here that’s as likely to be traumatising for youngsters as Donovan melting at the end of the third film. I expect it says more about our variable rating system than it does about the films themselves, but in the unlikely event anyone reading this is wondering about its suitability for a younger audience, there’s my thoughts.

As I mentioned earlier, reaction to the film, both from critics and the general viewing audience, has been somewhat mixed. It seems plenty of fans have left their rose-tinted glasses with their DVD box set and viewed Crystal Skull with the all-too-critical eye of one who isn’t aware they don said goggles to watch the older films. Crystal Skull is a suitable return to the Indiana Jones series — full of fun and excitement, and a good chance to be reacquainted with old friends. It can’t beat Raiders because that came first, automatically embedding itself as the best in the minds of many; and it can’t beat Last Crusade, partly because it lacks the wonderful dynamic between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, and partly because I just love that film. But, crucially, it is in the same league as them, and that’s fine by me.

My initial reactions to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull can be read here.

Iron Man (2008)

Posted on May 25, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #31
Jon Favreau | 126 mins | cinema | 12A / PG-13

This review contains spoilers.

“Iron Man, Iron Man, does whatever an iron can. Flattens clothes, nice and smooth; burns a hole if he doesn’t move. Look out! Here comes the Iron Man!”

OK, maybe not…

Irritating ‘humorous’ review intros aside, Iron Man has never been at the forefront of my comics experience. X-Men and Batman, yes yes yes; a few of Alan Moore’s, of course; a solid stab at getting through Preacher; occasional diversions into Spider-Man or Ghost Rider… But never Iron Man (or a slew of others, but they don’t have a surprisingly successful movie currently in cinemas). Whilst he’s obviously a popular character with fans, the film’s phenomenal success — both financially and critically — has rather taken me by surprise, and consequently dragged me to the cinema for the first time in over 10 months.

Tony Stark is, perhaps, Marvel’s answer to Bruce Wayne: the billionaire playboy CEO of a huge technology company who uses his technological know-how to become a superhero in the wake of personal tragedy — but in Stark’s case the company is an amoral weapons manufacturer and the playboy lifestyle isn’t just a front. What this means for the viewer is that, in the title role, Robert Downey Jr gets to shine. He has all the best lines and comedic moments (of which there are plenty) and a couple of cool action bits too (of which there are few). As he’s the hero this would seem just, but you only have to look at earlier entries in the Batman franchise to see how the hero can be sidelined for the villain. Elsewhere in the cast, Gwyneth Paltrow brings humanity to proceedings as the improbably named Pepper Potts, whose biggest flaw is that the filmmakers refuse to have anyone make a joke about her name. Not even one! Jeff Bridges gives a suitably dastardly performance as the eventual villain, but the plot woefully underuses him.

Because this is an origin story, you see, and sadly falls into most of the typical origin story traps: the ‘major’ villain exists only to provide a final act punch-up while the rest of the film explores how Ordinary Man (or Ordinary Rich Man in this case) gained Super Powers (or Built Super Suit) and went on to Save Mankind (or Save Some Foreigners, but I’ll leave deeper debates over the film’s dubious international perspective to others). It used to be the case that superheroes arrived on the screen ready to go — look at Burton’s original Batman, for example — but since the genre’s ’00s revival it’s all about the origins. What this typically means is a decent-enough first film that serves only to introduce the characters for the sake of a fully-formed second entry. One can only hope this will be the case with Iron Man.

The primary exception to this rule is Batman Begins, which succeeds because it’s less about the origin story and more an exploration of Batman’s psychology in general, something only vaguely alluded to in preceding efforts. Where Iron Man falters on this score is in completing Stark’s move from uncaring weapons manufacturer to socially conscious hero relatively early on, from which point he spends ages building his suit and battling, not an evil villain, but off-screen corporate machinations. The final fight, when it arrives, lacks punch (literally) and is over too soon. The amount of time, depth and humour awarded to the characters is to be applauded, but it comes at the expense of some excitement. At least it makes a change, as it’s thoroughly unusual to find the balance skewed that way.

To touch on an exceedingly minor element, the fan-pleasing post-credits scene with Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is quite disappointing. While it’s cool to see Jackson as Fury, and a nice lead for the now-confirmed Avengers movie (which will come after Iron Man 2, so you have to wonder why the scene is at the end of this film), it’s too brief. When Fury informs Stark he’s not the only superhero in the world it provides a mixed reaction: on the one hand, we’re all too aware that from the Marvel Universe we’ve had three X-Mens, three Spider-Mans, a Daredevil, an Elektra, a Hulk (and soon another), a Punisher, and even a Ghost Rider — if they all take place in the same filmic universe then Stark ought to have noticed at least a couple of them on the news! And if they’re not in the same universe, one wonders if the cast of The Avengers movie will be padded with second-string heroes who barely warrant their own film. But that’s a debate for another review (one in three years’ time, in fact).

This may all sound a tad harsh on Iron Man, but when a film receives near unrelenting praise from most quarters it’s hard not to spy the faults when coming to it late. What it most resembles is a great TV pilot: at the end you enjoyed what you just saw, but your thoughts lie with what’s to come — “that’s the setup, now what will they do?” Hopefully Iron Man 2, due in two years, can take the many positive elements and run with them.

Indy 4: Initial Thoughts (no spoilers)

Posted on May 22, 2008 by badblokebob

I couldn’t make it to the local midnight showing of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, so instead I plumped for the next one on the largest local screen (which is also the cheapest student rate locally — hurrah!) A whole 11 hours extra waiting…

The film has now been out in the UK for just over 14 hours, and goodness knows how long elsewhere, not to mention last Sunday’s premiere at Cannes, so the ‘net is already packed with thousands of opinions and full-bodied reviews (almost 3,000 people have already rated it on IMDb, unsurprisingly placing it in the Top 250). Hundreds of thousands more will follow in the ensuing hours, days, weeks and years — I’m sure discussion of Indy isn’t going away soon. Nonetheless, I’m throwing out my thoughts onto my little plot of webspace, just in case anyone cares. I’ll post a proper review another time, but these are a quick handful of reactions having finished the film less than an hour ago. They are, as the title notes, spoiler-free.

From the first shot it’s clear that a playful, entertaining spirit will pervade the film. It’s a bit of a slow open after that, but once it kicks into gear it’s excitement all the way. There are several exciting sequences, most notably the much-trailed jungle chase, so there’s no disappointment there. It also has the best idea for a sword fight since Pirates of the Caribbean 2. The MacGuffin is decent enough — not as iconic as the Ark or the Holy Grail, perhaps, but it more than serves its purpose. There are fewer quotable lines than you might hope, but the dialogue is still witty. It’s occasionally a bit silly too, but most of it’s in-keeping with the near-B-movie spirit of the franchise.

Indy’s age is playfully acknowledged, but it doesn’t become an excuse — he still gets plenty of action and drives the story. There are nice references to his earlier adventures (including the TV series) and what he’s been doing for the last 20 years. Most fans will appreciate that, I think. One might argue (and some reviews have) that a few actors are underused in their supporting roles, but this is Ford’s film and they’re no worse than, say, Sallah in Raiders and Last Crusade — I doubt they cast John Hurt, for example, and then wrote him a relatively small part. As with the opening image, Spielberg ends the film with another playful beat aimed primarily at fans.

To rank Crystal Skull in relation to the original trilogy, it’s the third best — but that’s behind Raiders, a certified classic, and Last Crusade, one of the first films I ever saw and which I love dearly. Aside from those, it stands head and shoulders above many other action/adventure films. Will it hold up as well as Raiders has in 27 years’ time? Who can say. But right now, it’s damn fine entertainment.

A proper review of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will appear as #32 in the next few days, following my review of Iron Man.

Vantage Point (2008)

Posted on May 14, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #27
Pete Travis | 86 mins | download | 12A / PG-13

Vantage Point is nothing like Rashomon.

I don’t imagine you’ve missed the endless comparisons — every review seems to have them, IMDb’s single-line plot description mentions it, the film itself certainly pretends to be like it, and I imagine even the pitch to the studio went, “well, it’s like this Japanese film…”. But, in fact, it’s nothing like it, and here’s why: Rashomon is about four people who tell completely different versions of the same events, some or all of which are therefore untrue; Vantage Point repeatedly shows the same events from different angles, revealing a sliver of new information each time. There are no lies and no real misdirection; none of the characters interpret what they see, we’re just shown it from where they were standing. Nonetheless, it’s a potentially interesting way to construct a thriller, but Vantage Point doesn’t exploit the concept’s full potential.

And then, halfway through, it gives up on it.

At first it seems like the filmmakers have simply lumped the gang of terrorists together as one character for the purpose of their perspective, an example of typically uninsightful American action-thriller ideology. But it soon becomes clear that, instead of continuing the perspective-shifting high concept of the first half, the rest of the story is going to play out like a normal thriller. And suddenly it’s a lot more entertaining, freed of pointless repetition and an irritating tendency to stop each story at an appropriately cliffhanging moment. If only the whole film had been constructed this way! Yes, it would have lost out on the odd mystery and some revelations wouldn’t have been so spread out, but continually retelling the story to pull this off seems a cheap trick anyway. Not that it matters, as most of the twists are blatantly obvious, and possibly the biggest of all was blown in the trailer — and is glossed over in the film as if they expected you to have seen it there.

Of course, the already slim running time would be reduced to the length of an American TV episode if they edited it chronologically, because there are plentiful repeated shots of speeches, explosions and crowds running, as well as the over-egged ‘rewind’ sequence each time the chronology is reset, a trick that’s as pandered to an inattentive brain-dead audience as ever you’ve seen. Another reason for employing this disjointed wannabe-Rashomon style is that the timelines probably don’t add up: some characters seem to squeeze an awful lot into a couple of minutes before their plot has to sync with someone else’s, while others presumably stand around doing nothing now and then.

Ultimately it’s the much-reported attempt to be ‘Rashomon-like’ that really scuppered Vantage Point for me. It only manages the multiple perspectives trick until halfway through, and even then it’s not especially well executed. The style has clearly been foisted upon it to mask a story that isn’t that original — the plot is a bit like half a season of 24 on speed — but it could have made passable enough entertainment for 90 minutes, especially as there are a couple of half decent action sequences. As a straightforward thriller it might not have been a great deal better, but it would have been less disappointing.

Beowulf: Director’s Cut (2007)

Posted on April 19, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #19
Robert Zemeckis | 110 mins | DVD | 12

Back to catching up on last year’s films that I missed, this time with Beowulf in its Director’s Cut form — which, much to my amusement at the time, prominently featured a BBFC 18 icon on its initial cover art but only received a 12 when classified. Clearly the BBFC didn’t feel the “bolder, never-before-seen images” were any more unsuitable for kiddies than the originals. Personally, I’m not so sure. This version of the film is bloody violent (literally); more so than Lord of the Rings, which is the comparison the BBFC make. I’m not a parent and I’m not pro-censorship (far from it), but this feels more like a 15 to me.

Anyway, that’s not the point. What of the film itself? Well, let’s stick with the violence for a moment. It’s bloody and brutal… and completely undermined by the quality of the animation. I like animated films; I have absolutely no problem with animated films for adults; but the issue here is that most of the characters (especially the ‘extras’) seem of about the same quality as humans in Shrek. So while the battle scenes are often very violent, it becomes hard to take them seriously because it’s all too cartoony. Perhaps this is where classifying became problematic. But it’s not just the violence — the animation is awkward throughout. It’s not lifelike enough to be confused with reality, but not ‘animated’ enough to accept on that level. The characters move stiffly, are mostly too smooth (things do improve with aged characters in the final act), and are ‘dead behind the eyes’. The creatures are largely less realistic CGI than you’d see in a live action film. There are even times when things aren’t far above the graphics from a high-end computer game.

It’s not all bad. Anthony Hopkins is entertaining (and sounding more Welsh than ever), and I enjoyed Alan Silvestri’s score. The screenplay plays fast and loose with the original poem, but Gaiman and Avery have justified this and it’s mostly pretty good. While the third act initially slows the film’s pace to a crawl, the tiredness of an older Beowulf and an exciting duel with a dragon make it the best bit, despite the occasional lack of internal logic (why doesn’t the dragon’s fire burn his heart?) It goes someway to making up for the Beowulf-Grendel battle earlier on. In a rare attempt at genuine faithfulness, Beowulf strips naked for the fight so as to be on equal terms with Grendel. Understandably, the filmmakers don’t want his CGI manhood flying around, so he’s always shot with something helpfully blocking his groin. Problem is, the lengths and tricks involved in achieving this are too reminiscent of similar bits in Austin Powers, turning what should be a big heroic action sequence into a comedic exercise (though, it must be said, not an especially amusing one).

I wanted to like Beowulf. All those people on IMDb who whined that it was animated and you couldn’t do an animated action movie for adults annoyed me something rotten, and I really wanted them to be proved wrong. Plus I like many of Zemeckis’ other films, I like the poem, and there’s a lot of potential for a good adaptation. But the weak CGI, sometimes leaden dialogue (I forgot to mention the 300-wannabe “I am Beowulf” and comedically repetitive “I’ve come to kill your monster”), and uncertain level of violence all get in the way. For the majority of its running time, Beowulf left me with a sadly inescapable feeling of disappointment.

There seem to be a couple of conflicting reports on how different the two cuts are. A comparison lists 90 seconds of new material, but shows the running times to be four-and-a-half minutes different (without credits). On the other hand, the BBFC list the director’s cut as being just 30 seconds longer. However much is completely new, there’s definitely added blood in existing scenes and some shots have been replaced with more graphic versions.

Troy: Director’s Cut (2004/2007)

Posted on April 16, 2008 by badblokebob

2008 #18
Wolfgang Petersen | 188 mins | DVD | 15 / R

A lot of people didn’t like Wolfgang Petersen’s big budget version of The Iliad. I can’t remember the specific criticisms any more, other than that some friends who’d read the poem found this to be simply laughable. Personally, I quite enjoyed it — it may not be classic art like its source, but the theatrical cut of Troy was a more than passable example of swords-and-sandals entertainment. If not an epic, despite its running time, it was quite fun.

This director’s cut adds almost half an hour of new material, which is about a 15% increase in length — enough to justify a new number here, I feel. That said, I can’t spot most of what’s new, undoubtedly because the last time I saw Troy was in the cinema almost four years ago. Rose Byrne’s character seems to get more screen time, which in turn helps flesh out Achilles; and, based on what it says in IMDb’s trivia section, Trevor Eve’s role has also increased. He’s still a minor character, but as an advisor to King Priam the reinstating of his scenes means there’s more politics on screen. And I believe there’s some extra nudity too — quite why that couldn’t be in the R-rated theatrical cut is beyond me, but there you have it.

What this reveals is that, on the whole, Troy hasn’t changed much. If you know it well enough to spot the differences then you surely already like it, in which case I expect you’ll like this cut too. Despite the length and additions (which, in some extended cuts, can throw things out of kilter) it feels well paced, taking time to build character and plot in between the action sequences. Some of the characters have (relatively speaking) complex motives and actions — I expect we have Homer to thank for that — while several of the action scenes are fairly impressive — due more to the Hollywood production team.

If you didn’t like Troy first time round, I doubt you’ll be swayed now. Some of the script is very clunky, dragging the performances down with it, and if you didn’t like its level of faithfulness then that hasn’t improved either. Mind you, compared to the 1997 TV version of The Odyssey, which opens with a twenty minute version of this tale, Troy seems like high art.

This score is one higher than I gave the theatrical cut (not reviewed here). I’d attribute this more to generosity and lowered expectations than the added material.

UPDATE (7/7/2014)

I recently re-watched the theatrical version on TV by ‘accident’, and was considerably underwhelmed — though, as noted above, I rated that one lower before, so technically nothing’s changed. Anyway, a few of my thoughts from that re-watch can be read here.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)

Posted on December 31, 2007 by badblokebob

2007 #127
Paul Greengrass | 110 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

This final instalment in the action-thriller trilogy was recently announced as Empire magazine’s film of the year, following wide praise on release that dubbed it the best action movie in a long time. Unfortunately, I fear it may’ve become a victim of its own hype.

It’s certainly a good film for many reasons: its appropriately unrelenting momentum, even in dialogue scenes; several stunning action sequences; a mostly decent plot. But it’s also flawed: despite the globe-hopping, complex plot, it feels somehow slight; several villains and plot devices seem tacked on to create an over-arching plan for the trilogy, when Bourne had really dealt with all these matters in the first two.

Ultimately, it simply didn’t feel as entertaining as the first two instalments, though I had an odd sense that I should be liking it more. Perhaps future re-viewings will aid my appreciation.

Hellboy: Director’s Cut (2004)

Posted on December 4, 2007 by badblokebob

2007 #120
Guillermo del Toro | 127 mins | DVD | 12 / PG-13

A surprise hit on release, this live action adaptation of the cult comic book is an exciting and entertaining, though flawed, mix of pulp fantasy, gothic style and action.

Surprisingly, it spends more time focused on the characters than the plot; while this is nice, and those scenes are expertly played, they do seem to throw the pacing off kilter somewhat. And, in an amusing reversal of the usual action movie cliche, while the character bits are great the action scenes are a tad underwritten! The score is also pretty lacklustre: it sounds like a typical, appropriate SF/F action score, but one where the cues have all been incorrectly placed.

But these flaws are easily overlooked when the characters are such fun, the dramatic moments suitably poignant, and the action passable enough. Hopefully the forthcoming sequel can see to the faults and be even better.

I haven’t seen the theatrical cut of Hellboy, hence why this is numbered.

Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion (1997)

Posted on October 22, 2007 by badblokebob

aka Shin seiki Evangelion Gekijô-ban: Air/Magokoro wo, kimi ni

2007 #107
Hideaki Anno & Kazuya Tsurumaki | 90 mins | DVD | 15

Eight weeks and sixteen films later than I’d’ve liked, I can finally complete the Evangelion story! (For my review of the first film, look here.)

First off, don’t even attempt this if you haven’t seen all of the (excellent) TV series — it won’t even vaguelly make sense. Sadly, if you have seen the series, it’s a disappointing climax. Promising a clearer ending than the original arty philosophical one, it winds up delivering something that’s almost as bad. It’s somewhat redeemed by what leads up to this final confusing half hour: some proper story, resolutions for some outstanding plot threads, and a few instances of decent action too. As a conclusion it’s far from satisfying, though.

One can only hope the new four-film remake of the whole story (the first of which was recently released in Japan), which promises another fresh conclusion, can come up with something more comprehensible. I wouldn’t count on it.

100Films.co.uk

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

Category Archives: Action