Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

aka 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

2013 #40
Tim Story | 88 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA, Germany & UK / English | PG / PG

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver SurferThe 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.

Holy Thames, Batman!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.

2 out of 5

Marvel One-Shot: Agent Carter (2013)

2013 #75b
Louis D’Esposito | 15 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12

Agent CarterA year after the end of Captain America, love interest Peggy Carter is working a desk job in New York, lacking any respect or acknowledgement from her superiors. But one night, when she’s left alone in the office, a mission comes her way…

Let’s cut to the chase: Agent Carter is easily the best Marvel One-Shot yet. The others have all been fun in their own, but they’re really quite slight and throwaway — if you miss them, never mind. This one, however, takes one of Captain America’s better characters and builds on her further — yes, character development in a 15-minute short. Not only do you get the sense that if Peggy returns in a Marvel feature the events of this short will have had an influence on how we see her, you also feel that anyone who hasn’t seen it will feel the need to go back and seek it out. In fact, this short just proves Agent Carter needs her own feature film. Considering these 15 minutes alone are better than the entirety of Captain America, I fully expect she could sustain it.

As the titular character, Hayley Atwell displays just the right mix of acting ability and action skill to carry such a part. In fact, see also last Christmas’ miniseries Restless, in which she played a similar role. You could even take that as a feature-length Carter adventure, if you wanted. Well, not quite, but close.

Action-packed, funny, character developing, and with some hilarious cameos at the end… You couldn’t ask for much more from a 15 minute superhero-universe short.

4 out of 5

Agent Carter is included on the Iron Man 3 Blu-ray, out now in the UK and from September 24th in the US.

Iron Man 3 (2013)

aka Iron Man Three

2013 #74
Shane Black | 131 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA & China / English | 12 / PG-13

Iron Man 3Some have described Iron Man 3 (or, as the onscreen title would have it, Iron Man Three) as “the best Iron Man yet”, even better than the exalted first movie. Others have described it as “at least better than Iron Man 2”, the derided first sequel. I thought the first one was a tad overrated and the second notably underrated, so where does this trilogy-forming instalment fall on my personal scale? Well, that depends what you want from an Iron Man film…

Following on from the events of Iron Man 2 and The Avengers, Tony Stark is a man with little purpose. The American government have a rebranded War Machine to do their bidding; Pepper is now running Stark Industries; who knows where S.H.I.E.L.D. are (dealing with the plot of Captain America 2, probably). Tony, meanwhile, is creating endless iterations of the Iron Man armour and suffering panic attacks from memories of when the suit failed him during the Battle of New York. For all his usual wisecracking, he’s a man who’s had his confidence undermined — and if there’s one thing Stark’s known for, it’s his self-confidence.

It’s not long before some events happen that push Stark, and his Iron Man alter ego (or is it an alter ego? But I’m getting ahead of myself), back into action. But those panic attacks remain, as does his overwhelming desire to protect his first stable relationship with Pepper. Here, then, is perhaps the film’s strongest element: the development of Tony Stark as a character. It’s not as if the first two films don’t have some degree of character development, but it wasn’t so fundamental. Tony starts Film 1 as a wisecracking show-off partying womanising arms manufacturer, Stuck in the middle with youand ends it as… a wisecracking show-off partying womanising superhero. Film 2 and even The Avengers don’t take him a great deal further, arguably, but here he’s pushed. He still behaves recklessly, because that’s what he’s used to doing, but then the consequences of that recklessness — when he has something he cares about — are brought home. Literally.

Despite outward appearances, the Iron Man movies have always been as much — or more — about the characters and the humour as they have been about action sequences. When you’ve got Robert Downey Jr being hilarious, you want to see more of that than a robot-like superhero punching things. With Shane Black on co-writing and directing duties here (a great choice that pays off), you want to see that as much as ever, and the film keeps it up. So while Stark struggles with the responsibilities of a relationship and with how he’s going to overcome his anxiety problems, he continues to be as snarky and fun to be around as ever. And the film continues to not feature that much in-suit action.

Indeed, for much of the film the suit is out of commission: after the all-out assault on the house you surely saw in the trailer and that I alluded to above, Tony is in hiding, relying more on his own wits and detective skills to piece together just what’s going on. I imagine some people found this to be slow and dull, wanting the punchy-punchy boomy-explodey stuff of every other action movie. But after the sheer scale of The Avengers, Marvel and co are right to find a different tack. You can’t out-do what The Avengers did, and if you try to it would become implausibleIron Man on his lonesome as to why S.H.I.E.L.D. and the super-friends aren’t sticking their noses in, so instead we have a problem on a grand scale, yes, but one for Stark/Iron Man to tackle on his lonesome.

That said, for the sake of the trailer and the adrenaline junkies, it just means the film is rear-loaded with action scenes — three climax-worthy sequences back to back, in fact. It’s a bit of a shame they’re so closely placed, because while each is well-executed individually, they’re also almost immediately overshadowed by what follows. You don’t have time to digest the Air Force One skydiving rescue before it’s off to the oil-rig for the Big Battle. The film takes a break from action by establishing where some characters are and shuffling pieces, sure, but it’s so much set up for the next sequence there’s no time to catch your breath. For me it’s a minor issue, one that will surely be less apparent on future viewings.

And future viewings are merited, because despite all the things that could be ever so depressing, the film has even more to commend it as entertainment. There’s Tony’s relationship with the small-town kid who helps him, for instance, which is suitably irreverent (“dads leave, no need to be a pussy about it”); there’s grace notes like the reluctant henchman (I’m not quoting his one line, it shouldn’t be spoiled); there’s the ’70s action series-style end credits (they brought a huge smile to my face, anyway); and there’s the film’s treatment of the Mandarin…

He's no GandhiAh, the Mandarin. He’s Iron Man’s big bad; the guy fans have been asking about since before the first film. I don’t know much about him, but I believe in the comics he’s some kind of magician — doesn’t sit well with the film series’ more sci-fi leanings, even after we’ve seen Iron Man meet the likes of Thor. Here, the Mandarin is reconfigured as a terrorist; a very powerful one, spreading his message by taking over US airwaves… and blowing things up as well, naturally. But there’s a twist to him, which I won’t discuss here; beyond to say that, even though I saw it coming (helped, I admit, by everyone saying “there’s a twist to the Mandarin!”), I thought it was quite brilliantly done. Ben Kingsley is magnificent.

It’ll also surprise no one when Stark’s business rival, Aldrich Killian, turns out to be a villain too. Bit of a rehash of the second film there, maybe, but — even though I liked that film — Iron Man 3 handles it better. Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer was perhaps a more memorable character, but Guy Pearce’s Killian fits the plot and themes nicely, and is more of a force to be reckoned with overall. My only disappointment came near the end (slight spoilers for the rest of the paragraph), when it’s revealed in a small aside of a scene that he can breathe fire. Come the big all-action climax and… he doesn’t do it again. Is it a little silly he can breathe fire? Maybe. But it does kinda work with the rest of the things we’ve learnt, and I presume it was a conscious reference to another Iron Man enemy, the giant dragon Fin Fang Foom, who Killian has tattooed on his chest. Even without that tattoo, they’ve established he has a special power, so why doesn’t he use it in the final battle? Surely that’s what it’s made for? Personally, I’d’ve deleted the earlier reference if I wasn’t going to use it at the climax.

Iron Man-lessIn the grand scheme of things, I still think that’s a minor complaint. Indeed, any issues I have with the film are minor complaints, including the slightly elongated first act and the Iron Man-less second one. I think it works for the style the film is aiming at — more of a military-ish spy-ish thriller than a bombastic beat-em-up superhero flick — and that works for me. And, not a complaint, but a minor point: the Actor’s Agent of the Week award goes to whoever represents Stephanie Szostak. I’ve never heard of her and her character’s only really in one sequence, but she’s billed right below the big-name lead cast and above henchman and 24 season three star James Badge Dale, amongst other recognisable names and faces. A Christmas bonus for that representative.

So, is Iron Man 3 the finest Iron Man film? Well, as ever, that’s a matter of perspective. I do think it completes the character’s personal arc, which has flown through not only the first two films but also The Avengers. I’m not the first to note the finalising tone of the film’s final minutes, and I believe the Bondian “Tony Stark will return” at the end is to reassure us he’ll be back in the Avengers sequel rather than imply we should look for an Iron Man 4. Despite marking out release dates through Summer 2017, Marvel have said they won’t be confirming any films of their 2016 or 2017 releases for at least another year. When the time comes, I don’t think an Iron Man sequel will be among them, keeping that particular big gun — and that particular big-name actor — for special occasions. I’m alright with that, because I think we’ve had three highly entertaining movies out of him, and even without an adaptation of the (in)famous Demon in a Bottle arc, I am Iron ManI don’t think there’s much left to do with the character right now. Plus, ending the film with the latest twist on the first movie’s renowned closing declaration is a nice way to round off a series… at least until the inevitable recasting one day.

So back to my question: is it the best Iron Man film? Well, that’s a matter of… oh, wait. Anyway, I refuse to commit. But it might be. It might well be.

4 out of 5

Iron Man 3 is out on DVD & Blu-ray in the UK today, and in the US on September 24th. Ha-ha.

Battleship (2012)

2013 #26
Peter Berg | 126 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

BattleshipBattleship never sounded like a good idea. An adaptation of a board game that in no plausible way resembles real life? At least Clue was aping a board game that aped Agatha Christie mysteries, and turned it into a farce at that; and a theme park ride adaptation like Pirates of the Caribbean could take the basics of the ride (which is really just a series of piratey tableaus) and thread them into a new story. And then someone mentioned Battleship was going to involve aliens, and it really all went to hell.

Unsurprisingly, Battleship the film is nothing like the game… except for one sequence where, for reasons I can’t remember in the slightest, the crew of the titular vessel have to try to shell the aliens without the usual modern gadgety shebang, and so it’s a bit like the board game. It’s shoehorned in but it’s still one of the more memorable bits.

Around this is a bunch of absolute codswallop that I don’t care to remember. It’s something to do with an alien invasion and they do it at sea and there’s only one ship that can stop them but the only person who can command it is the young loudmouth playboy recruit who has so much potential but never fully realises it… until now! Honestly, it’s that clichéd, and it would seem unashamedly so. Everything else about the film is Transformers-at-sea — huge robots, big punch-ups, shoot-outs, explosions, all the rest.

As if aware of how awful it is, the film attempts to make it wash with something sure to appeal to the American public and be uncriticisable: “aren’t veterans great!” Battleship fetishises the American armed forces in a way rarely seen — and that’s saying something. The ground resistance is led by an Iraq vet with no legs, still in physio, America, fuck yeah!hobbling up a mountain on prosthetics to realise he’s still worth something as he saves the day. America, fuck yeah! And when the main battleship is ruined, our plucky heroes have no choice but to co-opt the museum piece (literally) WWII ship; and because most of their crew is dead, the museum guides — all of them septuagenarian WWII vets — have to man their ship once again. To defeat those invading scum, just like before! AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

Ugh.

Oh, and Liam Neeson is in it. Barely. And he phones it in. And not a cool phone call like he’s famous for. All things considered, we can forgive that man some of his movie choices in the past few years, but this one must’ve been about the payday alone. Same goes for Rihanna. You’ve probably seen that article listing all her lines. As it suggests, she’s basically a glorified extra, and a poor one at that. Stick to getting your tits out in Irish fields, love.

You’ll notice I haven’t given Battleship the ignominy of a single star. Thing is, for all its awfulness, some of the action is OK, there are some (unearned) triumphant moments, and though the film’s veteran-worship is as transparent as its clear blue Hawaiian seas, it sometimes works. Kinda.

2 out of 5

Battleship featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2013, which can be read in full here.

Underdog (2007)

2013 #5
Frederik Du Chau | 74 mins | TV | 16:9 | USA / English | U / PG

UnderdogIn this big screen live-action version of some old US cartoon, a dog gets superpowers and, naturally, becomes a superhero. That’s pretty much it.

The film is widely disliked, it seems, with a very low rating on IMDb; but I thought it was actually good fun. It’s not Citizen Kane, but it’s not trying to be — it’s a kids’ comedy-adventure, and kids will get the most out of it, but it also has enough wit and charm to see it through for some older viewers.

And there’s Peter Dinklage as the raving villain — you know that’s got to be good.

3 out of 5

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.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

2013 #44
Marc Webb | 136 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

The Amazing Spider-ManAndrew Garfield dons the webbed onesie for an unwarranted reboot of the only-one-decade-old Spider-Man film franchise, retelling his origins… but with a twist! Cos, y’know, the last version was only out about 10 minutes ago.

Director Marc Webb’s only previous feature credit is hipster rom-com (500) Days of Summer. Presumably he was chosen, not for his surname, but because half of Amazing is a hipster rom-com. Peter Parker is no longer a socially inept geek, but a mumbling hipster who easily attracts the attention of his longed-for girl (and maybe one or two others) because he’s hipster-cool.

This is just the first of many mistakes. There’s the ditching of the famous “with great power” motto, just Because; and he does grow webbing naturally, as per the controversial decision in the Sam Raimi-helmed trilogy, but now he develops artificial wrist-based web-shooters too, because That’s In The Comic Goddammit; and then there’s some kind of conspiracy backstory with his parents because That’d Be Different.

Essentially, everything is geared towards making sure this isn’t just a rehash of the previous series-starting film, because, as we established, that only happened just a minute ago. In the process, various bits get bungled, rejigged and rearranged to try and convince viewers that you haven’t seen all of this origin story before, when really you have… and done better, too.

The film isn’t without merit. Some of the done-for-real web-swinging is nice; Garfield is good when not affectedly stuttering; love interest Emma Stone is pretty until she opens her mouth; Mask off, as per usualsome of the action sequences are alright. Mercifully, the much-trailed first-person segments are cut down to a minimum; kind of a “we made this so we ought to use it, but we’ve realised everyone was going to hate it”.

But supporting characters get short shrift. Denis Leary doesn’t turn up until halfway through and gets a half-arsed arc that jumps from one end to the other. Rhys Ifans gets off to a good start as sympathetic villain-to-be Dr. Curt Connors, but then his story too is jumped forward when someone clearly realised the running time was running away from them.

Spider-Man’s mask seems to come off every 10 seconds. Attempts at “aren’t New Yorkers all wonderful” patriotism come off as cheesy and literally laughable (the aligned cranes!), whereas in Raimi’s films they kinda felt good even though you knew you should find them horrid. Gone is the humour or colourfulness of those previous films. I know the latter wasn’t to everyone’s taste, but it nailed the intended tone of Spidey much better than this Nolan-inspired grim real-world style.

Someone mentioned Twilight in the run up to release. Disappointingly, they seem to have taken this to heart, focusing on the romance at least as much as the superhero antics. I don’t know how they divide up in terms of screen time, but it feels like the romance received more time and effort from the makers. Superheroes for TwihardsNot that it pays off — instead it just feels like the action scenes were bunged together because, hey, some of the fans want that stuff, right?

Plus, remember how everyone disliked Spider-Man 3 so it did less box office than either of its predecessors? This did even less again. While I’d like to say they’ve listened to fans for the sequel, I think it’s superficial: the suit’s had a major redesign to make it look even more like the comics than either previous version (bigger whiter eyes!), but it will feature at least two, probably three, and possibly four major villains. Such multiplicity was 3’s undoing, and as Webb & co couldn’t find the room to do even one villain properly in this film, I dread to think how they’ll handle several.

The Amazing Spider-Man isn’t a disaster — I’ve given it three stars for a reason — but Raimi got it right in his first two films, and by being different for the sake of it they’ve thrown away a lot of what worked and emphasised many of the things that didn’t. I’m sure there are plenty of single adjectives people would use to describe this iteration of Spider-Man, but “amazing” isn’t one of them.

3 out of 5

Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness (2012)

2013 #33
Gerry Lively | 86 mins | TV | 1.78:1 | UK / English | 15 / PG-13 *

Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile DarknessRemember the Dungeons & Dragons film from 2000? To say it went down badly is an understatement. Nonetheless, they made a sequel with some returning cast (which I’ve not seen), which I doubt fared any better and maybe went straight to DVD. This one is again low-budget, and possibly was made for TV, but it’s all-new; and though form hardly suggests it will be any good, I was on a bit of a fantasy binge and it was on TV, so…

And yes, it is rubbish… I suppose… Thing is, it sort of grew on me. For all I know they may’ve shot it in order, because it feels like the production grows in competency as it goes on. From a start that looks like a fan film shot in someone’s garden, by the time our hero teams up with a ragtag gang of evil-doers it begins to come together. Such is the plot: a band of adventurers do some adventuring. Proper D&D, I guess. In a neat twist on the usual formula, the gang we follow for most of the film are nearly all villains, the only exception being our hero who has infiltrated them. Are there even badder baddies who’ll make the (remaining) members of the gang turn out good after all? Well, of course.

Even though I ended up liking it, let’s be honest: The acting never gets good, though one chap, Barry Aird, delivers his handful of good lines with aplomb, even managing to make the ludicrously clichéd ones sound half decent. He’s easily the best thing in the film. The screenplay isn’t much cop, the story and dialogue both riddled with clichés and the like… though I think some of the dialogue is better than the actors can manage with it. And for all the laughable stuff, I’m sure some of it was meant to be humorous, like when Sexy Witch Lady pushes Random Strumpet aside and there’s an almighty crash. And there’s an undead kid who is properly creepy.

Her sex is on fire tooDirector Gerry Lively helmed the preceding D&D movie and some stuff you’ve never heard of, as well as serving as DoP on such auspicious-sounding films as Son of Darkness: To Die For II, Waxwork II: Lost in Time, Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth, Return of the Living Dead III, and Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest. Clearly cheap-sequels-no-one-wanted are his stomping ground. His direction is never more than television-y, although that’s an increasingly unfair description as more and more TV programmes become more and more movie-like; but as that’s still the high-end ones, I guess the derogatoriness holds for now. It’s not helped by editing that is occasionally bizarrely jumpy, as if someone thought it would be OK to skip a second or two just to speed things up.

One area I’m happy to flatly praise are the computer effects. Done by a Bulgarian company (which is where the film was shot), these are largely very good. No, we’re not talking Avatar level here, obviously, but for a direct-to-DVD/TV film they were pretty classy.

Despite its low-rent stylings across the board, The Book of Vile Darkness somehow won me round. It’s not going to compete for genre break-out status, never mind anything greater, but for anyone after a well-intentioned sword-and-sorcery movie, they could do worse.

3 out of 5

Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness is on Syfy UK (Sky 114; Virgin 135, HD 165) tonight at 12:10am, and again on Thursday at 11pm.


* IMDb says this is the US rating, but that seems improbable: they list it as direct to TV, which wouldn’t use the MPAA system; and even if it wasn’t, it contains breasts. Americans don’t seem to like their under-17s seeing breasts. ^

The Harry Potter Films of David Yates

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

Harry Potter and the
Order of the Phoenix

2013 #45a
Original review here.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

.
Harry Potter and the
Half-Blood Prince

2013 #47a
Original review here.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

.
Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows: Part 1

2013 #48a
Original review here.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

.
Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows: Part 2

2013 #52a
Original review here.


2007-2011 | 568 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | 12 / PG-13

When David Yates joined the Harry Potter series halfway through, as the director of its fifth instalment, his main prior experience was in TV — quite a change from the series’ track record, which had included acclaimed or successful movie directors. But he seemed a wise choice nonetheless: one of his stand-out works on TV was State of Play, a complex conspiracy series that suggested he’d be the right man to handle Order of the Phoenix for two reasons. Firstly, the novel includes a significant ‘resistance thriller’ aspect, similar to the edgy underground-investigation style of State of Play. Secondly, the lengthy novel was to be condensed into a single reasonable-length film, necessitating an ability to tell a story clearly and concisely. State of Play may not have been concise (it’s a six-hour story, after all), but it was complicated and it was clear.

The resulting film is, arguably, one of the series’ strongest because it is so different to the others. If the much-discussed ‘darkening’ of the films really kicked in with Goblet of Fire and the death of Cedric Diggory, Phoenix only cements this tone. Our heroes are persecuted throughout — and not just the lead kids, but Dumbledore and the rest of the Hogwarts establishment too, as a Ministry of Magic in denial about the return of Voldemort seeks to crush the dissenting voices of Harry and his headmaster.

Evil witchTheir main weapon is Dolores Umbridge, perhaps the series’ most despicable villain, because she is so horrendously plausible. She seems to be all sweetness and light, but it masks a dangerous streak that sees her eliminate any fun from the school and, in one of the most sadistic sequences in either the novels or the films, she has Harry write lines with a magic quill that cuts each one into the skin of his left hand. The Potter series actually has its share of nuanced villains, but Umbridge is thoroughly unlikeable. Though she’s defeated and carted off at the end of Phoenix, she resurfaces in Deathly Hallows. I don’t recall if her final fate is expounded upon, on page or screen, but I’d quite like to see her ripped to shreds.

In one of the numerous special features on the Harry Potter Blu-rays, producer David Heyman notes that most directors finish a film of Potter’s scope and want a rest, or at least a change of pace. It’s why Alfonso Cuarón and Mike Newell only have one each to their name; it’s why the Bond films haven’t had two back-to-back entries from the same director since the ’80s; and so on. Not so Yates, however, who ended Phoenix hungry for more. Or hungry to establish a film career, take your pick. And so he also took on the next film, Half-Blood Prince.

It’s easy to accuse Half-Blood Prince of being all prelude to the climactic events of Deathly Hallows; it certainly feels that way first time through. There’s considerably more to it than that, even if the titular mystery is barely a subplot — especially in the film version where, once again, the sheer length of the novel necessitates massive cuts to the source text. But perhaps the most remarkable thing is how funny the film is. Between the return of Voldemort, the suspicion cast on Harry, and a devastating final battle, Phoenix is an incredibly gloomy film; as things roll towards the climax, packed with more deaths and villain victories, Deathly Hallows is too; and sandwiched in between, with one of the saga’s most gut-wrenching finales, you’d think Half-Blood Prince would be more of the same.

Comedy romanceBut not so. Yates approached his follow-up with a stated aim of introducing more comedy, believing the three leads to be talented in that area but not having had a chance to show it in his dour first film. So here we get a whole subplot given over to Ron’s attempts to join the Quidditch team, as well as much focus on the trio’s romantic entanglements — teenage love always being a good topic for humour. The film is not without its dark side, but peppered liberally throughout are those comedic subplots and scenes that are liable to see the viewer laugh perhaps more than in any other Potter film. It’s easy to miss this element — the main plot is, as always, getting darker and more serious — but once it’s been highlighted (as the makers do in the film’s special features) I think it becomes very noticeable.

Perhaps the other most notable aspect of Half-Blood Prince is the cinematography. Like most of cinema throughout the ’00s, the Harry Potter series shows a gradual shift from a very filmic look, to digital intermediates, to (in some cases) a wholly digital output. This is where it becomes most notable, I feel, with many sequences (especially those involving extensive CGI, like the Quidditch) graded and smoothed to the point where they look almost like a concept art painting rather than a real-life sequence. This is especially obvious if you watch any clip-laden series-spanning documentary, where Half-Blood Prince clips rub shoulders with any previous film and stand out like a sore thumb; but even in the movie itself, without that outside context, it’s sometimes highly noticeable.

The other thing it is is dark — not the story, but the visuals. This reaches its nadir in Deathly Hallows (both parts), which include some shots so dark it looks like some light-black shapes may, perhaps, if you squint and strain, be moving over some dark-black shapes. It’s ridiculous. I have no idea if it functioned OK in the cinema, but on a TV at home it most definitely does not. This seems to be a growing trend in films, though the Potter finale contains some of the worst examples I’ve yet seen. I don’t know the reason, but I presume it’s a tech thing — cameras that can function better in low light; In search of a light-switchgrading the film in perfectly-calibrated conditions so they can really push it to extremes, not considering how most end-users will view it; and, much like fast-cut action scenes, an over-familiarity with the material that means the director/editor/grader can see what’s going on because they’ve watched it dozens (or hundreds) of times, which doesn’t work for a first-time viewer in the middle of the film. As you may be able to guess, I’m not a fan.

By the time of these final two films, it seems Yates has moved from being a TV director skilled in complex plotting, to one very much at home with big effects-driven set pieces. The Battle of Hogwarts, which consumes around 90 minutes of the final film, is an epic and often jaw-dropping affair, though still laced through with the final plot developments and the completion of various character arcs. That said, it’s far from perfect, undermined by a pair of apparently opposing sets of decisions: on the one hand, to flesh out fan-favourite moments to give them too much emphasis (Mrs Weasley’s duel with Bellatrix is over-played; Harry and Voldemort’s final confrontation is amped up to the point it loses the book’s emotion); on the other, slavish faithfulness leaving some moments without enough emphasis.

The biggest crime of the latter is the very end: the battle over, Harry, Ron and Hermione stand outside Hogwarts, survey some of the damage, have a little chat… and then it abruptly cuts to a couple of decades later for the epilogue. For me, it doesn’t feel as if there’s enough space there, enough time to breathe, to consider the impact on the series’ supporting cast — many of them favourite characters, as vitally important to the viewer as they are to the lead trio. How will the Weasleys cope with their losses? What about those others who have lost almost everyone they hold dear? Where have the Malfoys gone? There are nods to this in a montage around the Great Hall / makeshift mortuary, but it feels underplayed; like we need a scene of life-goes-on normality set a few weeks or months later, Epiloguenot a sudden smash-cut to a few decades on where we see how some characters’ lives have developed. I know some people complain about Lord of the Rings’ multitudinous endings but, one, they’re wrong, and two, Potter only has one and an epilogue — sure, the first completes the drive of the storyline and the second is a neat coda, but in between I feel we need more of a character-based resolution.

But hey-ho, it is what it is.

In the end, the TV director hired for a very specific filmmaking skill wound up in charge of exactly half the Harry Potter series. If there was a half to have a single voice in charge of, it’s this one, with one long narrative permeating the films in a way it doesn’t the first four. And yet, for that, each has a distinctive style and voice — well, apart from the two parts of Deathly Hallows, which are really one long film split into halves. Was it the right move, for the series? It clearly produced popular movies, but, thanks to the storyline, it’s already easy to regard the Potter series as four or five stories rather than seven, the last three books merging into one epic tale in three acts — a trilogy, if you will — rather than discrete stories, like the first four. By putting the same man behind the camera for them all, the films just emphasise this point. But maybe that doesn’t matter.


The Complete CollectionIt’s hard to offer a final summary of the Harry Potter series. Some people see them as mediocre and overblown; for others, they are their life. Personally, I think they develop from sometimes-uncertain roots in the early films, to a flourishing series of epic fantasy movies. There are often niggles of one kind or another, be it acting (I forgot to discuss Emma Watson’s eyebrows!), or cartoonish designs, or too-faithful adaptation, or abbreviated adaptation, or what have you — but none of these are ever-present. More importantly, every film offers something to enjoy, and the growing maturity — of not only the cast, but also the filmmaking — means their impact only increases when viewed as an entire eight-film saga.

One for the ages? Movie and genre fans of a certain age might say, “don’t be so daft”; but I wouldn’t be so certain.

Django Unchained (2012)

2013 #48
Quentin Tarantino | 165 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA / English | 18 / R

Django UnchainedQuentin Tarantino made his name in the ’90s with a series of dialogue-heavy gangster thrillers that provoked a storm of imitators. Since the turn of the millennium, however, he’s contented himself with a series of extravagant hyper-cinephilic genre homage/parodies. After tackling Japanese action movies in Kill Bill Vol.1, revenge thrillers in Kill Bill Vol.2, B-movie grindhouse fillers in Grindhouse/Death Proof, and World War 2 men-on-a-mission movies in Inglourious Basterds, here he sets his sights on a genre whose DNA is threaded through all his movies: the Spaghetti Western.

It’s 1858, two years before the American Civil War (which started in 1861 — a schoolboy error, a reference, or a Basterds-style flourish? Who knows), and a bounty hunter by the name of Dr. King Schultz (an Oscar-winning Christoph Waltz) acquires a slave by the name of Django (Jamie Foxx) to help him track down three wanted brothers. In return, he will grant Django his freedom.

But that’s not the end of it. This being post-millennial Tarantino, whose every movie is so long it has the potential to be split in two, Kill Bill style, that plot is just Act One. As Schultz and Django bond, the German learns about Django’s wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), who was sold to the infamous Candyland plantation. Being a good German and feeling he must help this real-life Siegfried, Schultz and Django concoct a plan to rescue her…

Django with a D, Schultz with a C and a T and a ZIt’s fair to say Django Unchained sprawls. But, unlike the chapterised character-flitting antics of Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds, it has a straight throughline it follows from beginning to end, with only a few asides. In terms of length and scope, it’s perhaps not too much of a reach to evoke The Good, the Bad and the Ugly rather than any other self-indulgent lengthy non-epics. Some have tired of the film’s length (compared to the masses who have elevated it to 46th on IMDb’s all-time top 250, not many), but the prospect of an extended cut (mooted by QT as something he might offer later) excites me. Of course, the Kill Bill single-film edit still hasn’t made it further than Cannes or the New Beverly, so I won’t be holding my breath.

I’m going to offer pretty unrelenting praise for Django Unchained, but it’s hard to know where to begin. With the cinematography and its extraordinary range? From icy cold mountains to orangey warm Southern interiors, from homaging crash zooms and blood-splattered blossom to new perspectives on action, the work of DP Robert Richardson consistently shines. And I don’t believe there was any teal-and-orange or other such clichéd digital manipulation either. Beautiful.

Action horseOr how about those action sequences? Months of work training real horses to do things never before seen pays off (and Tarantino proudly displays the “no animals were harmed” notice right at the top of the credits), while the blood-drenched Candyland shoot-out is arguably one of the best pure action scenes in years. Those are amongst myriad other sequences, from the small and transitory to the epic and vital.

Or there’s always QT’s renowned music choices? He’s as irreverent but perfect as ever here, encompassing the cheesy title song from the 1966 original, some classic rock, a new song by Ennio Morricone and Elisa, and even modern hip-hop. Some of it jars at first (particularly the latter), but it all works to the intended effect. The only QT soundtracks I’ve bothered with actually buying previously were the Kill Bills, but this may join them.

Or the performances? Tarantino has really gifted his actors with some special roles here. Foxx arguably gets the short straw, though as heroes go there’s actually a lot for him to play in Django. He keeps it subtle amidst an array of large performances, and that’s no bad thing. As his mentor, Waltz earnt a second Oscar for a Tarantino role. Some have accused this of being the same performance as he gave in Basterds, but that’s not quite fair. They’re both Tarantino characters speaking Tarantino dialogue played by the same actor — they’re always going to feel similar. But there are subtle differences, which make Basterds’ Col. Landa a likeable villain and Django’s Schultz a likeable good guy.

Four contenders for baddest-assed mofoStill, best served — and, perhaps, more deserving of the Supporting Actor nod — are villainous duo Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson. For starters, has Leo ever played a villain before? He’s on stonking form here as Southern gent Monsieur Candie (who can’t speak French), a sinisterly welcoming fellow with a dark side that’s on constant display. He’s all smiles and all lingering threat and menace. Indeed, scenes are often at their most tense when he’s at his nicest. I think there’s an argument for him to go down as one of the great screen villains — he even has the obligatory cool dispatch. “I couldn’t resist” indeed.

And as for Jackson… He’s a QT regular, and so you’d expect him to be a mofo so cool he was rivalling the titular hero for biggest badass status. But no: he’s a rickety old house slave, with a ring of grey hair and always hunched over his walking stick. He commands respect, but is subservient to Candie… though, who’s really in control? There are some nice scenes and moments questioning that. And he’s completely menacing, but in a more subtle and insidious way than Jackson’s usual Jules-from-Pulp-Fiction-moulded villains.

Aside from the leads, there’s a host of recognisable faces in supporting roles — or even dialogue-free one-shot cameos: someone you might recognise from TV plays The Daughter of the Son of a Gunfighter, seen staring out of a window as Django and Schultz pass by. The D is silentIt does make you wonder if some of these people had bigger roles that got cut… or maybe there are just other reasons. However, one remaining cameo features perhaps the most satisfying use of “I know” since The Empire Strikes Back. And QT himself is in it, briefly, doing an Australian accent (I think?) and affording himself a striking exit.

One thing that provoked some comment and controversy was the violence, and the juxtaposition of humour and violence. Personally, I think Tarantino nails it. There’s horrific stuff done to slaves, most of it by Candie and his acolytes — but, what, you thought the slave trade was cushtie? There’s no lingering on gore like you’d find in a Saw film — there are bits where he could have, if he’d wanted, but that’s not the point. Are the scenes still shocking? Yes, but that is the point. These are Very Bad Men who do Very Bad Things, which I can well imagine are historically accurate, and Tarantino exposes that and, through it, well earns the explosion of vengeance that forms the film’s multiple climaxes.

There are flashes of humour throughout, making for welcome contrast, but the one that provoked the most discussion is an extended sequence with a gaggle of proto-Klan members. I’m sure you read about it: they can’t see out of their hoods. Some decried it for being silliness involving a gang who were viciously cruel and shouldn’t be the subject of humour. The boy in blueTosh and piffle, I say. One of the best ways to skewer many an evil institution is to make them a laughing-stock, to take the piss out of them, and that’s exactly what Tarantino is doing. These aren’t likeable, funny people who are Klan members; they’re incompetent fools because they’re Klan members. The resulting scene is hilarious and deservedly one of the movie’s most memorable moments.

There’s a lot to say about Django Unchained, and a lot to praise about it — it is two-and-three-quarter hours long after all. But points of discussion are often the mark of a good film, and praise obviously is. As a marriage of homage and B-movie to historical comment and some satisfying justice, albeit only cinematic, Tarantino’s Spaghetti Western homage is an entertaining, occasionally thought-provoking, rewarding, and thoroughly cinematic experience.

5 out of 5

Django Unchained is available in the UK on DVD, Blu-ray, and via various on-demand services, from today.

It placed 2nd on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2013, which can be read in full here.