This is the conceptual picture of the year, a monumental logistic achievement to film an independent narrative feature film within the confines of Walt Disney World, undercover of the notoriously watchful eyes of its brand police, and actually have it distributed. While spotty in execution and performance the films hits a bull’s-eye as a parable to the soul sucking sensation of parenting.
Showing posts with label Fantasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fantasy. Show all posts
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
Thursday, 27 December 2012
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
The critical tepidness to this picture is astounding to me, the newest Hobbit film a natural extension to The Lord of the Rings trilogy is in fact a better film than any of the three original, critically acclaimed, and Oscar winning films. Peter Jackson miraculously manages to find the same pulse of the original series but hangs his startling visuals and impeccable fantasy action filmmaking skills onto a stronger and more accessible story as well as casting his characters with stronger actors./
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Beasts of the Southern Wild
A magnificent debut from Behn Zeitlin (already showered with awards at Sundance and Cannes) and an immensely moving coming-of-age story (of sorts). 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' is a father/daughter survival story (of sorts) set in the fringes of civilization in Southern Louisiana in the most environmentally vulnerable place in the region. Wink and his daughter, Hushpuppy, live a hand-to-mouth existence in abject poverty yet live a life of inspiring freedom and verve. This is an experiential film about youth, stylized with the same kind of dreamy realism as the more accessible and admittedly on-the-nose 'The Tree of Life'.
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012) dir. Behn Zeitlin
Starring: Quvenzhané Wallis, Dwight Henry, Levy Easterly, Lowell Landes
By Alan Bacchus
The term magic realism gets thrown around a lot when describing a mixture of fantasy within realistic situations. I never really got the expression, but if anything this picture is the epitome of the term. For one, Zeitlin achieves remarkable freshness and authenticity in his world using a company of completely new, non-professional actors, all of whom perform on camera with the utmost of naturalism.
Beasts rarely gives the audience a chance to rest, as it's fuelled with the cinematic momentum of an action film. The opening scene kick-starts us by injecting us into the lifestyle of a group of people we’ve never seen before on film – a half-dozen families (black and white) living in the area of Southern New Orleans called ‘the Bathtub’. It's just below the levees that protect the city, thus an area prone to flooding and the worst of the hurricanes the area has to offer. Living on a small island without electricity or any semblance of civilization, the group live a salt-of-the-earth life, vagabonds perhaps but with a strong sense of home and community. Their commitment to their home is so strong that when an unnamed but powerful storm strikes, their island is left flooded and they are forced to improvise and survive and avoid the evils of society, including people that would condemn them and their lifestyle.
All of this is told from the point of view of a young child named Hushpuppy, a sprite six-year-old who knows no other way of the world but through the unconventional education of her father, Wink, who through action and observance learns discipline and survival. At first, watching Hushpuppy operate a gas stove with a blowtorch, run around half naked while spraying fireworks into the air or eat fried cat food for a meal is terrifying to watch, especially as a parent. But Zeitlin is clear not to judge his characters. Hushpuppy accepts her existence and lives her life with as much passion, excitement, awe and wonder as anyone else.
The relationship between her and her temperamental father is just as terrifying. Wink often leaves his daughter on her own in their rundown shanty home for days at a time, a plotting element that pays off with startling emotional impact in the third act. But the paternal bond between the two is as powerful as any father-daughter relationship ever put to film.
However unconventional Zeitlin’s cinematic style, his storytelling is as classic and accessible as it comes. Zeitlin sends a laser to our emotional core with such precision, the film ends with a finale so powerful, satisfying and inspiring it sends the film into the cinematic stratosphere. So, after all the magic realism and seemingly 'experimental' filmmaking, Beasts reveals itself as a surprisingly conventional film. It's heart-on-the-sleeve filmmaking at its best.
****
Beasts of the Southern Wild opens Friday in selected cities in Canada from EOne Films.
Monday, 4 June 2012
Snow White and the Huntsman
After a decade of attempted franchise-starters capitalizing on the success of The Lord of the Rings, Rupert Sanders’ so-called re-imagined fairy tale could have been one of the best of the bunch. Sanders’ slick commercial style makes his expertly designed medieval fantasy world look as dark, mysterious and luscious as anything in the LOTR realm. Unfortunately, the film is let down by its biggest gamble, the brooding Kristin Stewart as Snow White, who sucks the energy out of the film when it should be rousing fun entertainment.
After a decade of attempted franchise-starters capitalizing on the success of The Lord of the Rings, Rupert Sanders’ so-called re-imagined fairy tale could have been one of the best of the bunch. Sanders’ slick commercial style makes his expertly designed medieval fantasy world look as dark, mysterious and luscious as anything in the LOTR realm. Unfortunately, the film is let down by its biggest gamble, the brooding Kristin Stewart as Snow White, who sucks the energy out of the film when it should be rousing fun entertainment.
Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) dir. Rupert Sanders
Starring: Kristin Stewart, Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Caflin, Ian McShane
By Alan Bacchus
To save us a 2.5-hour running time Sanders opens with an elaborate prologue getting us up to speed on the background of this fairy tale world, the origin story of the Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron), who, after having her family killed by the war-mongering ravages of evil men, takes over the kingdom of a widowered King and imprisons his gorgeous daughter, Snow White, in their castle. Through the familiar mirror on the wall we learn that the Queen achieves her power by stealing the youth of women more beautiful than her. When Snow White escapes her prison, the Queen needs to find her and her heart in order to solidify all her desires for power.
Enter the ‘Huntsman’, played by the new hunky Brad Pitt-like star Chris Hemsworth, who is charged with finding Snow White. Of course, he kind of falls for her and teams up to fight back against the encroaching despotism of the Queen. It wouldn’t be Snow White without some dwarves, and just at a point when the film plateaus and threatens to wallow in its self-seriousness we’re introduced to those seven gold miners expertly realized with a combination of CG and terrific casting and performances from a well-put together group of British character actors, including Toby Jones, Nick Frost, Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins, Brian Gleeson and Johnny Harris.
In between the textbook mythological journey plotting are a half-dozen great medieval fight scenes, not too bloody to make an R-rating but choreographed in concert with the distinct visual design and flare of Sanders’ overall fairy tale/sword/sandal hybrid, which is the real star of this film.
Sanders is the latest filmmaker in a 30-year trend of commercial directors making a large leap directly into tent pole filmmaking. Like Tron's Joseph Kosinski, IMDB shows that Sanders doesn’t have a single credit to his name other than this film. But Hollywood has been graduating the coolest, slickest spot-makers for years, going to back to the famed ‘British Invasion’ of the '70s (Tony Scott, Ridley Scott, Adrian Lyne, Alan Parker). And it’s this visual freshness which elevates what could have been a humdrum fantasy vehicle to something inspired.
That said, Sanders can’t escape the disastrous casting of the American mistress of glum, Kristin Stewart, presumably given the role because of teenaged girls’ fascination with Twilight. As Snow White, Stewart extends us yet another brooding, partly sleepy and dull heroine. Hemsworth, nor his male competitor Sam Caflin (playing William, White’s childhood love interest), can prop up a non-existent romance. Ms. Theron, whose aging makeup transitions go from gorgeous to somewhat less gorgeous, chews the scenery as best as she can given her uber-devious role as a fairy tale baddie.
***
Friday, 24 February 2012
Hugo
Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen
***
By Alan Bacchus
Yes, it's true. I'm not as enamoured with Martin Scorsese's ‘kids’ film and multiple Oscar nominee as most others. Firstly, it's not really a kids film at all. It’s a warm-hearted whimsical fantasy for sure, but it’s something more directly related to the Jean-Pierre Jeunet/Terry Gilliam/Baz Luhrmann adult magic realism.
While there's a strong emotional core to this picture, that being the reclamation of spirit of turn-of-the-century filmmaker Georges Méliès through the journey of its young hero Hugo Cabret, the film is also overloaded with visual paraphernalia, which actually feels more derivative (of said filmmakers above) than fresh or unique to Scorsese.
The opening act seems to show off the production design and special effects. Unfortunately, the frames are too busy for the film’s own good. The CGI-enhanced compositions are overloaded with wide-angle imagery, leaving everything in focus and confusing our eye. I'm also put off by the 'three-strip colour process' visual design of Robert Richardson's lighting (the same look as The Aviator), which means everything seems to have a distracting teal coloured tint.
But this is all surface gloss. The guts of the story are fascinating. However, it really doesn't kick in until the halfway mark with a brilliant mid-point turn (admirably hidden to audiences in its marketing push), which sends the film in a whole new direction. In fact, it’s essentially a two-act film, cleaved in half by the reveal of Ben Kingsley’s character as the real-life Georges Méliès.
This moment occurs when Hugo (Butterfield) and his investigative partner, Isabelle (Moretz), use the heart-shaped key to turn on the automaton robot, which sketches out a scene from A Trip to the Moon. It's a great moment connecting all the key characters in the film, including Hugo, Isabelle, Hugo's father and, of course, Georges. It plunks the film down in something real and tangible rather than the overly processed 3D retro fantasy world. This is when Hugo gets interesting. The rest of the film plays out like an hour-long third act with Hugo and Isabelle plotting to get Georges to acknowledge his place in cinema history.
I don't know if children would appreciate the significance of this switch or the real identity of Georges, the grumpy train station vendor. This is magic for adults, the Spielberg kind of magic, and the omniscient hand of God or fate guiding our characters to fulfill their dreams.
Scorsese's direction is functional but certainly not of the auteur quality we expect of him. He's a great talent, and thus he's comfortable wearing the skin of a Jeunet or Spielberg. But it's still a disguise for Marty, and it just doesn't feel like his movie. Thus, it’s not a masterpiece.
Hugo is available on Blu-ray from Paramount Home Entertainment.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Star Wars Episode 2: Attack of the Clones
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman, Christopher Lee, Samuel L. Jackson
*½
By Alan Bacchus
I can’t think of a worse piece of dreck foisted upon the pop culture annals with bigger hype and anticipation than Attack of the Clones, George Lucas’s second (or 5th depending on how you number these things) chapter in the Star Wars saga. A teenaged Anakin Skywalker struts his stuff as a Jedi-in-training caught up in a political power struggle in the galaxy far, far away, with strings pulled by some nefarious clandestine omni-being.
To give it credit, the story is plotted out sharply. Lucas’s desire to create a nebulous cloud of evil, pulling the strings on both the galactic Senate and the business-oriented Trade Federation, deepens the big picture world of Star Wars more than the first series ever did. In the first three pictures we knew only a few planets and only a few characters. And the movements of the characters themselves occupied a very short time span and were in contained spaces. Here, characters move and make decisions all around the galaxy involving complex plotting that surprisingly holds itself together.
With that said, Lucas’s tin ear for dialogue was never more off key. Everyone seems to be sleeping through this picture, especially Ewan McGregor, who looks exhausted at playing the increasingly useless character Obi Wan Kenobi. Take the opening dialogue scene introducing an older Anakin Skywalker to the audience. They’re riding an elevator up to Senator Amidala’s quarters bantering about their past battles with 'humorous' lines like, “I haven't felt you this tense since we fell into that nest of gundarks.” Unfortunately, McGregor just can’t fake the ridiculousness of the attempted comic exchange.
It’s also an uneventful debut for Hayden Christensen, who speaks in a whiney cadence from the back of his mouth and with a Marlon Brando mumble. The romantic exchanges offer the most laughable moments in the entire series, specifically Anakin’s lakeside confessions expressing his love for the softness of Padme’s skin. And the groundwork of Anakin’s future conversion to the Dark Side is laid with the grace of a jack hammer.
It was a bold move by Mr. Lucas to shoot the film digitally, one of the first major mainstream films to do so. For the most part it’s indistinguishable from film, offering us some remarkably pristine and robust imagery. That said, Lucas further demonstrated his disdain (or laziness) with physical production by shooting almost everything on a soundstage in front of a green screen. His hubris in thinking that his other baby, ILM, could render special effects, background landscape and everything else in the frame with a computer and pass it off as real is completely off base.
For example, there’s a shot early on during a running chase between Anakin and a mysterious assassin who tried to kill Amidala. We see Hayden Christensen running across the neon streaking cityscape dodging pedestrians in order to keep up with his assailant. Unfortunately, the crop lines around the actor’s body and the awkward and inconsistent motion of the actors within the space tell us this is not a real space, but a puzzle of separately shot elements cropped together on a computer. In the original films Lucas used motion controlled cameras to link elements together, an effect that still looks realistic today because he used real tangible objects shot with his camera.
Without the anchor of real objects in the frame (other than the actors), most of the action in this film is a swash of colours and light, which fails to stimulate us or at least move us emotionally. The final act, featuring the Jedi battle in the arena, is incomprehensible and over-produced. The only two scenes to keep from this entire film are Obi Wan’s fight with Jango Fett in the rain and the final double-Jedi match against Count Dooku. Both scenes are exciting because of the simplicity of the choreography in the Dooku battle and the real-life rain falling on the actors in the Obi Wan/Fett scene. Again, these are physical effects that the audience can innately feel are real.
I don’t think I’m off base to say it’s the tangibility of this new Star Wars world that is the greatest loss of the series.
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale
Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (2010) dir. Jalmari Helander
Starring: Onni Tommila, Jorma Tommila
***½
By Greg Klymkiw
While it is an indisputable truth that Jesus is the reason for the season. the eventual commercialization of Christmas inevitably yielded the fantasy figure of Santa Claus, the jolly, porcine dispenser of toys to children. Living with his equally corpulent wife, Mrs. Claus, a passel of dwarves and a herd of reindeer at the North Pole, Santa purportedly toils away in his workshop for the one day of the year when he can distribute the fruits of his labour into the greedy palms of children the world over. Is it any wonder how we all forget that Christmastime is to celebrate the birth of Our Lord Baby Jesus H. Christ?
In the movies, however, we have had numerous dramatic renderings of the true spirit of Christmas - tales of redemption and forgiveness like the Alistair Sim version of A Christmas Carol, Frank Capra's immortal It's a Wonderful Life and Phillip Borsos's One Magic Christmas, but fewer and far between are the Christmas movies that address the malevolence of the season celebrating Christ's Birth. There's the brilliant Joan Collins segment in the Amicus production of Tales From the Crypt, the Silent Night Deadly Night franchise and, perhaps greatest of all, that magnificent Canadian movie Black Christmas from Bob (Porky's) Clark.
And now, add Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale to your perennial Baby-Jesus-Worship viewings! This creepy, terrifying, darkly hilarious and dazzlingly directed bauble of Yuletide perversity takes us on a myth-infused journey to the northern border between Finland and Lapland where a crazed archeologist and an evil corporation have discovered and unearthed the resting place of the REAL Santa Claus. When Santa is finally freed from the purgatorial tomb, he runs amuck and indulges himself in a crazed killing spree - devouring all the local livestock before feeding upon both adults and children who do not subscribe to the basic tenet of Santa's philosophy of: "You better be Good!" A motley crew of local hunters and farmers, having lost their livelihood, embark upon an obsessive hunt for Santa. They capture him alive and hold him ransom to score a huge settlement from the Rare Exports corporation who, in turn, have nefarious plans of their own for world wide consumer domination. How can you go wrong if you control the REAL Santa?
There's always, however, a spanner in the works, and it soon appears that thousands of Claus-ian clones emerge from the icy pit in Lapland and embark upon a desperate hunt for their leader. These vicious creatures are powerful, ravenous and naked. Yes, naked! Thousands of old men with white beards traverse across the tundras of Finland with their saggy buttocks and floppy genitalia exposed to the bitter northern winds. For some, this might even be the ultimate wet dream, but I'll try not to think too hard about who they might be.
All cultures, of course, have their own indigenous versions of everyone's favourite gift-giver and this eventually led to the contemporary rendering of the Santa Claus we're all familiar with. Finland, however, absorbed in considerable wintery darkness for much of the year, insanely overflowing with rampant alcoholism and being the birthplace of the brilliant Kaurismäki filmmaking brothers, is one delightfully twisted country. It's no surprise, then, that the Finns' version of jolly old Saint Nick is utterly malevolent. As presented in this bizarre and supremely entertaining movie, Santa is one demonic mo-fo!!!
Directed with panache by the young Finnish director Jalmari Helander (and based on his truly insane short films), Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is one unique treat. It's a Christmas movie with scares, carnage and loads of laughs. Helander renders spectacular images in scene after scene and his filmmaking vocabulary is sophisticated as all get-out. In fact, some of his shots out-Spielberg Spielberg, and unlike the woeful, tin-eyed JJ Abrams (he of the loathsome Super-8), I'd put money on Helander eventually becoming the true heir apparent to the Steven Spielberg torch. Helander's imaginative mise-en-scène is especially brilliant as he stretches a modest budget (using stunning Norwegian locations) and renders a movie with all the glorious production value of a bonafide studio blockbuster. The difference here, is that it's not stupid, but blessed with intelligence and imagination.
While the movie is not suitable for very young children, it actually makes for superb family viewing if the kiddies are at least 10-years-old (and/or not whining sissy-pants). Anyone expecting a traditional splatter-fest will be disappointed, but I suspect even they will find merit in the movie. Most of all, Moms, Dads and their brave progeny can all delight in this dazzling, thrilling Christmas thriller filled with plenty of jolts, laughs, adventure and yes, even a sentimental streak that rivals that of the master of all things darkly wholesome, Steven Spielberg.
You have hereby been warned:
You better watch out,Or in the words of Tiny Tim: "God Bless us, everyone."
you better not cry,
you better not pout,
I'm telling you why,
Santa Claus is coming to town,
with razor-sharp big teeth,
a taste for human flesh,
he knows if you've been bad or good,
and he likes to eat kids fresh. Hey!
"Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale" is currently available in a superb Bluray and DVD from the Oscilloscope Pictures (and distributed in Canada via the visionary company VSC). I normally have little use for extra features, but this release is one of the few exceptions. It includes Helander's brilliant shorts and some truly informative and entertaining making-of docs.This is truly worth owning and cherishing - again and again!
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman
***½
By Alan Bacchus
I was a naysayer of this series in several of my Potter reviews citing the dullness of the three leads and their lack of character development. The plotting seemed to ramp up in the last four movies, which created confusion for those who didn’t care to keep up. This, of course, is my fault. But this time I watched all the previous films over the course of a couple of weeks before completing the franchise. Miraculously, in the final episode, Potter pulls out its best film by connecting the dots from the course of the series resulting in a truly satisfying and emotional conclusion.
When we last left Potter and his pals they were looking for the ‘horcruxes’, trinkets through which Voldemort had transformed his soul during that historic battle with Harry’s mother and father and left Potter with the lightning bolt scar. These horcruxes become the mission du jour, the destruction of which will eventually defeat the dark lord.
Meanwhile, Voldemort has found the 'elder wand', which is all-powerful and certainly no match for Potter. As Voldemort assembles his army, the wizards at Hogwarts are fortifying the castle with a force field of sorts, ready for the eventual siege.
The siege on Hogwarts is exciting, rendered with creative and well designed special effects. And while the action is fast and furious, Harry’s search for the final horcrux located in Hogwarts forces him to finally come face to face with his destiny.
The dramatic guts of the entire series lay in a remarkable and revelatory sequence, which traces the connection of Severus Snape, Dumbledore and Potter himself. It’s a 20-year journey that affects the decisions of Potter in the present. This is the stuff of great epic storytelling and David Yates and company execute these key reveals with maximum dramatic impact.
A secret is revealed, which admittedly I guessed in the last film. However, the best twists are not the sudden or arbitrary reversals of fortune but rather the reactions of the characters to these twists of fate.
With that said, the filmmakers also commit a diabolical CHEAT.
SPOILER ALERT…As implied above, we come to learn that Harry himself is a horcrux. In the back of our minds (and Harry’s) we expected this. And when this information is revealed it is still a shocker, as Harry must die to save the world. What a dramatic decision to make. And indeed Harry makes that decision and sacrifices his life.
Yet when Harry’s death is revealed to Hermione and the other Hogwarts wizards, he comes back to life. WHAT? I’m sure there was a magical explanation for this somewhere, but it’s a cheap bait-and-switch tactic that betrays the build-up before it.
It’s a blip that prevents this film from becoming great and marking itself with cinematic perfection. Oh, how close the filmmakers came to that. Nonetheless, it’s still the most successful franchise in the history of cinema, so no one other than me seems to care.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is available on Blu-ray from Warner Home Entertainment.
Friday, 22 July 2011
Legend
Starring: Tom Cruise, Mia Sara, Tim Curry
**
By Alan Bacchus
Poor Ridley Scott. After the torturous efforts to film Blade Runner, not excluding the fight for editorial rights of the final picture, his next film, Legend, was even more in conflict.
The idea of Legend began from Ridley Scott himself and his desire to film a fairy tale with traditional themes of mythology and fantasy. The result of his collaboration with author William Hjortsberg was a rather simple screenplay about a boy thrust into a journey to save his girl from the clutches of a beastly form of devil incarnate. Elves, unicorns, trolls and other beasts contribute to the familiar fairy tale quality that Scott visualized.
When it came time to film, Scott’s detailed and demanding directorial style foiled his own movie. After 10 days of filming, the entire UK Pinewood set burned to the ground, and it was over a year of shooting before the end of principal photography. In post-production, Jerry Goldsmith’s original classical score was mostly discarded in favour of the electronic synthesized music of Tangerine Dream, and of course the running time was cut down from 113 minutes to 90 minutes. Previous DVD releases, as well as the current Blu-ray release, have all of this reinstated as best as possible.
Unfortunately, both films are failures. It’s not because of the score or the running time. And it’s not about what was cut out or left in. Simply put, the problem was Mr. Scott’s overindulgences with his visual palette related to character, story, tone and all the other storytelling elements.
Tom Cruise is sorely miscast as Jack, a humble forest boy smitten with the lovely virginal Princess Lily (Mia Sara). As told in the opening prologue, good and evil are kept in balance by the magic of the unicorns. The evil lord (Curry) who wants a world of darkness instead of light plots to capture and dehorn the unicorns. When Lily is caught in the way of the goblin Pix’s plans, she becomes the Dark Lord’s prisoner, thus sending Jack on his quest to find Lily and save the world from perpetual darkness.
It’s a sparsely detailed narrative at best, buoyed by Ridley Scott’s sumptuous art direction and cinematography. The film is impossibly beautiful. The entire movie was shot inside a studio, with all of the exterior forest scenes recreated indoors for maximum visual control. And it’s all on the screen and pristine on Blu-ray. I can’t even imagine the painstaking efforts it took to shoot those slow-motion shots of the unicorns galloping through the forest and through the lightly descending flower spores in the air. In moments like these, the film is spectacularly breathtaking and arguably one of the most beautiful films ever made.
That said, there is such thing as too much of a good thing. And Scott’s verisimilitude for visual texture severely overwhelms and bogs down his narrative. Even at 90 minutes, it’s a slow crawl. The actors seem more like furniture to the lovely spores or drops of water from the cave stalactites. Tim Curry is completely imprisoned in his gargantuan and gothic devil’s headdress makeup effects by Rob Bottin. Again, the red devil is an impressive technical design, but it furthers the rigidness and stunted feeling of the narrative.
Legend typifies the frustration with many of Scott's films, commercially-driven movies aimed at the mainstream but overly consumed by their own visual texture. As a result, they’re often emotionally vacant, hallow and inert.
Legend is available on Blu-ray from Universal Home Entertainment.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
I Am Number Four
Starring: Alex Pettyfer, Diana Agron, Timothy Olyphant, Teresa Palmer, Callan McAuliffe
**1/2
By Alan Bacchus
An ancient war between alien races makes its way to earth in a cozy rural American Midwestern town where a handsome and cool ‘chosen one’ experiences the social conflicts of high school before battling disgusting malevolent baddies to death for the sake of mankind. This is the one-liner for this quickie, but not all that forgettable, attempt to create a new Twilight franchise from the young adult sci-fi novel of the same name.
John Smith (Pettyfer) is the new boy in town, an elusive loner trying to keep to himself while hiding in exile from his war-torn planet from afar. Along with his mentor, Henri (Olyphant), John has settled in this non-descript American township, but he’s always looking over his shoulder. Somehow he gets put into high school and as is customary, he immediately gets targeted by the local bullies for some hazing. Unfortunately for the bullies, John has extraterrestrial telekinetic powers like ‘the Force’ and thus kicks ass all over the place.
Meanwhile, the former girlfriend of bully #1, Sarah (Agron), has taken a liking to John and flirts up a storm. At the same time, the alien baddies are on John’s trail. These bald, tattooed giants wearing Matrix-style trench coats find their way to town to confront John, Henri and his new friends.
With Michael Bay attached, whether it’s as producer or director, we are certain that a) there will be lots of beautiful people, b) lots of palatable family-friendly destruction and c) slick candy-coloured visuals.
The slickness of this picture is not lost on us. Director D.J. Caruso takes this familiar place and story and injects a strong visual style and keen eye for action. The fights, whether they involve local cops who get in the way, the bullies or the truly grotesque evil aliens, are well choreographed and visually inventive.
The familiarity of everything in I Am Number Four results in a fluffy, disposable quality to this aspiring franchise. There’s an allusion to a lengthy and complex back story and an unresolved ending, which could result in some kind of trilogy or multi-sequel/prequel series. But without the strong fan base of a Twilight, the literary credibility of a Narnia/LOTR or even an established star on which to piggyback, this will likely be a one-off fantasy flick.
This doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy some sappy romantic plotting, laser fights and the Star Wars-style mythic journey plotting. Just don’t get too attached to the material.
I Am Number Four is available on Blu-ray and DVD from Walt Disney Home Entertainment.
Wednesday, 27 April 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes
**1/2
By Alan Bacchus
Frequent visitors to this blog might be familiar with my continued frustration with this series. It might be my fault for not paying attention very closely. But with each successive film after the third episode of the series, the narrative plotting, character motivations and general themes have been like a car spinning its wheels.
It’s been six films now and 10 years, and yet I feel no emotional movement or stake in the jeopardy of these characters. In fact, the most surprising disappointment is the lack of character development for the three leads. I mean, hell, we’ve seen them grow up as kids into teenagers, and other than some minor arguments, cat fights and sullen sulking, these characters are as dull and boring as their child counterparts from The Philosopher’s Stone.
But let’s concentrate on this latest film. Lord Voldemort and his ‘Death Eaters’ have asserted their dominance and control over Hogwarts and placed a dark cloud over the entire world (Earth, I guess? Or just London? Or Britain?). Potter, who is still considered the ‘chosen one’ even though he exhibits nary an ounce of ingenuity, inspiration, or even leadership, has fled to safety using a potion that creates multiple identical versions of himself. While in hiding, a wedding takes place, which alerts Voldemort. This causes Harry, Hermione and Ron to flee to London, where they discover more secrets about the maguffin-like Horcruxes.
The Horcruxes have to be destroyed for some reason, which sends Harry, Hermione and Ron on a Tolkien-like quest across rural England. This leads to the Deathly Hallows, another maguffin-like trio of symbols (a wand, a stone and a cloak), which have to be found before Voldemort discovers them.
Of course, this is a silly summary of the plot, but having been confused by the previous films, it’s the only way to write it. In watching these films now, it’s too late to go back and try to understand who knows what and why, where everyone is and why, and who has what potion or instrument of magic required to kill Voldemort or Harry, so it’s best just to enjoy the eye candy.
Deathly Hallows Part I certainly has the best action of the bunch. In fact, we’re never in the stodgy old Hogwarts Castle (indeed that location has certainly run its course). Instead, we’re treated to some car chases and some gun/wand fights. We never really get a good hand-to-hand fight sequence, but I guess the magic of the wand replaces the need for fisticuffs.
The Potter/Hermione/Ron trio is still boring and dull, and the same goes for Voldemort and the baddies. As an aside, why doesn’t Voldemort have a nose? It’s truly grotesque to look at, and not like a cool bad-guy facial scar or other nasty disfigurement. It’s just plain ugly. As such, Voldemort has never been a bad guy to quietly root for or identify with.
SPOILER alert – there is a genuinely sad moment at the end when Dobby, the little troll-like house elf, dies. He's perhaps my favourite character in the whole series. Tear.
Apologies to all Harry Potter fans for this extremely cheeky review. I’m genuinely glad I’m the only one who doesn’t really get it.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I is available on Blu-ray and DVD from Warner Home Entertainment.
Monday, 7 March 2011
Excalibur
Starring: Nigel Terry, Nicol Williamson, Helen Mirren, Nicholas Clay, Paul Geoffrey, Cherie Lunghi
***1/2
By Alan Bacchus
Excalibur is both supremely awful and inspired at the time, arguably the most passionate, intense, gory and gothic romantic version of the legendary story of King Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, Perceval, the Holy Grail and the Sword in the Stone ‘Excalibur’. This is John Boorman's adaptation with help from his creative collaborator Rospo Pallenberg and as per the credits, adapted directly from the Thomas Mallory writings on the legend.
I still marvel at the grandeloquent mix of operatic melodrama, supremely gory bloodshed and sexual activity, set to the best-ever use of Richard Wagner on film (yes, even better than Apocalypse Now). It’s also acted with subtly of a wart, featuring performances so wooden and atrocious, it’s no wonder we’ve never heard of any of these actors, save for Helen Mirren and small early appearances by Liam Neeson, Gabriel Byrne, and Patrick Stewart.
Boorman begins with the story of Uther Pendragon, father of Arthur who uses the sword Excalibur to defeat his enemies and become King of England. Unfortunately his carnal desire for his best friend's wife overcomes him and he uses Merlin's magic to deguise himself and rape the woman Igraine (played by Boorman's own wife, ew!). Eventually Uther is killed, embeds the sword into the stone, years later to be unleashed by his own bastard son, Arthur. Using Excalibur's power Arthur unites the scattered knights of England forming the 'round table of Camelot'.
Peace doesn't last long when Arthur's #1 knight Lancelot, betray his own moral conscience and succombs to his lust of King Arthur's wife Guenevere. Meanwhile, Arthur's half sister Morgana plots revenge against Arthur by encouraging the conflict with Lancelot and eventually manipulating Merlin into disguising herself as Guenevere, man-raping Arthur and giving birth to Mordrid, his half-Nephew/son/heir to the throne and thus his soon to be mortal enemy.
Visually, it’s a stunning work of art, John Boorman’s ability to protray the rich pathos of this fantasy medieval period with glorious cinematography and perfect compositions. Stylistically Boorman employs the same soft hazy lighting scheme popular in the 1970’s and used to fine effect in Boorman’s own films, ‘Point Blank’ and ‘Deliverance’, and to lesser effect in bombs, ‘Zardoz’ and ‘Exorcist II: The Heretic’. The psychedelic embellishments rides a fine line between on laughable unintentional comedy and the right supernatural elements contained in the mythology.
Alex Thomson finds a unique visual design which blends the rich medieval period details with the pure storybook fantasy elements. Watch carefully the scenes in which the Excalibur sword is featured, Thomson subtly shines a cool green glow in the background or on the actor’s faces to remind us of the mysterious quality of the sword. And the wondrous lady of the lake moments seem to be pulled directly out of that awesome final shot of Boorman's own Deliverance.
As mentioned the immaculately designed armour worn by the knights gleam magnificently under Thomson’s lighting, especially in the wedding scene. It’s a distinctly glamour 80’s look, just stopping short of using a star filter to accent the reflections. I doubt that ever came up as an option, but it’s distinct to the decade in the best way possible nonetheless.
The finale is especially grandiose and operatic violent. The confrontation of Arthur and Mordrid, father and son who climax their oedipal relationship by stabbing each other through their plates of armour, spewing blood over their chests is so bloody grotesque and phallic. As preposterous and extravagant the scene is played, it fits like a glove to Wagner’s music. Well, that’s obvious because the bookending music is actually Parsifal, music from Wagner’s opera about the Arthurian legend.
If you understand and appreciate the connection to the opera and the tonal extremity where this film needs to reside in order achieve spiritual heights that is does, then you can look past the atrocious performances and the general silliness which critics and detractors oppose. Nigel Terry in particular as King Arthur, whom we see first as a meek squire and then grow to become King of England and die in that bloodbath ending is mostly unmemorable. Nicol Williamson’s Merlin could be seen a nasily sportscaster reciting faux Shakespearan dialogue, yet to me his giddy performance is representative of the tone of the entire movie and glues everything together. If you can't accept Nicol Williamson as Merlin, then you'll find yourself on the other side of that fine line between appreciation and repugnance.
Excalibur is available on Blu-Ray from Warner Home Entertainment
Monday, 22 November 2010
The Last Airbender
Starring: Noah Ringer, Jackson Rathbone, Dev Patel, Nicola Peltz, Cliff Curtis
**
By Alan Bacchus
The unanimous critical speedbagging of this film astounds me. It stands at 6% on Rotten Tomato Meter, out of 162 reviews. It’s really not that bad. Of course, it’s not great either, and I can’t help but defend a film I’m completely indifferent about only because I seem to be the only one who doesn’t think it’s the worst film of the year.
Reading some of the high profile reviews, three factors not related to the actual storytelling/filmmaking involved seemed to be the main stumbling blocks. 1) The retrofitting 3D onto what was shot as a 2D picture. 2) The recasting of some of the roles, originally written as Asian, for white actors 3) comparing the filmed version to the original TV series.
I personally think 3D is BS and no one should have reviewed the 3D version of this film. In fact, I’m surprised the producers even allowed a 3D press screening. As the track record of retrofitted 3D films go, they instantly shot themselves in the foot. And as for points 2 and 3, I’m surprised critics had even heard of the original source material, Nickelodeon’s Avatar: The Last Airbender, let alone watched it, or knew it well enough to make such detailed analysis between the two. Maybe I’m the nave?
This is probably a reviewer’s faux pas, but what the hell, this seems like a special case. Two of the more obtuse reactions I have contentions with included:
“Its special effects are atrocious.” – Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times. I’m not sure what the big screen 3D version looked like, but ILM's work on the film was the best thing going for it, quite strong and dramatic. The bending sequences, water, fire, air and earth admirably exercised some restraint and kept the motion and design of this fancy-schmancy weaponry as realistic as possible.
“Poorly staged and edited action sequences” – Lou Lemenick, New York Post. If anything, I’m confident to say his action scenes were quite marvellously staged, showing grace and showmanship with this type of fantasy action stuff. Take extra special care to notice the fact that there's very little editing at all in these scenes. Most of the major set pieces are directed in long one or two shot takes, in some breathtaking wideangle shots. This admirably harkens back to the old Fred Astaire demands of showing his dancing sequences in a full shot, with minimal editing. Same with much of the best Asian kung fu films.
But we shouldn’t lean so heavily on these headscratcher reactions, because really The Last Airbender sits right next to the glut of failed post-Potter/LOTR kids’ fantasy series starters, ‘The Golden Compass”, “Bridge to Terebithia”, “Stardust”, “The Seeker”, “The Spiderwick Chronicles” etc. Airbender suffers most from the near incomprehensibly plotting, which reminds me of the effect of watching David Lynch’s Dune for the first time (before father time and the other films of Lynch’s career allowed us to appreciate it on different level). Not five minutes goes by before we’re completely lost in this new world. Nothing ever really sinks in, we never find the drama in their quest, and thus we're never really sure what our heroes need, want or desire.
Dev Patel, Cliff Curtis, Jackson Rathbone are all passable bodies saying passable fantasy dialogue. That said, the poor young actor, Noah Ringer, has some great tai chi and Shaolin moves, but should never have been allowed to open his mouth.
So have some pity on The Last Airbender, and unlike the words of James Berardinelli this is not the ‘death knell of his (Shyamalan's) career’. When great filmmakers fail, they fail badly. This is a bad failure, but I’ll still go and see his next picture.
PS Apologies to all critics I’ve quoted in my review
“The Last Airbender” is available on DVD and Blu-Ray from Paramount Pictures Home Entertainment
Sunday, 26 September 2010
The Wizard of Oz
Starring: Judy Garland, Bert Lahr, Frank Morgan, Ray Bolger, Jack Haley, Margaret Hamilton, Billie Burke
****
By Alan Bacchus
If someone were to ask me what the most widely seen movies ever made. Not just based on box office figures but on TV and DVD I’d probably only put ‘Star Wars’ and ‘The Wizard of Oz’ on top that list with much space to the next one down. Both movies transcend time and are invisible to their age.
Like 'Gone With the Wind', ‘The Wizard of Oz’ is a producer’s picture, not a director’s picture. In fact there were four directors all of whom left or got fired for one reason or another. Including the only credited man, Victor Fleming, would also go on to direct portions of Selnick’s picture and get sole credit as well.
The opening Kansas sequence, shot famously in black & white and timed for sepia tone, evokes a cinematic period before 1939. By 1939, black & white was so sophisticated, cinematographers could manipulate light and shadows to do anything. So the sepia tone and obviously stagey studio set opening is meant to bring us back to a simpler time even before the relatively simple times of 1939 cinema. Perhaps the anachronistic opening was meant to enhance the great transition to Technicolor which announces itself so grandly when Dorothy exits her tornado-transported home and into Munchkinland.
Rare for its time “Oz” seems to have an awareness of itself.
As a strictly studio picture, ‘The Wizard of Oz’ is not much more than a theatrically staged telling of the Frank L. Baum story. Some might describe the choreography as stagey, as there’s an awareness of the interior studio setting at all times. The painted backdrops looks like, well, painted backdrops. The flowers look fake. The colours are overly saturated and unrealistic. The edges and falseness the costumes and makeup worn by the Scarecrow, Tin Man, Lion are made visible by the bright, unsympathetic lighting. Like a the front row patrons of a Broadway show, there's very little hidden from the audience in Oz.
Even within the constraints of the studio iconic imagery is everywhere. The mere sight of Dorothy and her three costumed companions skipping down the yellow brick road toward the Emerald City is as grand a composition as there ever was in the movies. The foursome framed at the bottom of the screen, with the converging lines of the road creating the sense of depth and the deco design of the castle at the top of the frame is a brilliantly fantastical work of art.
'The Wizard of Oz' is a work of pure and inspiring fantasy. The classical structure of the fairytale hits every beat so precisely in hindsight it’s a template for all fantasy cinema made after. Dorothy’s journey is not unlike Frodo’s in 'Lord of the Rings' or Alice in Wonderland, so innocent and fragile, dainty in her pretty dress and her constant follower, Toto. Even her empty basket which she refuses to put down even in the most dangerous of situations stays on her arm. Dorothy as a farm girl, doesn’t know it but her congeniality and resourcefulness is about to save the world from the tyranny of the wicked witches. Well, Glinda knows it. We can see it on her face when she first introduces herself in Munchkinland, she will be the saviour.
The late second act action sequence in Wicked Witch’s castle is frightening. Not just Margaret Hamilton’s snarling performance as the Witch, but her army of Russian Army-coat wearing minions and flying demon monkeys. The grey and gothic tones of these scenes provoke a truly dark and threatening hazard in Dorothy’s journey.
My favourite performance, no doubt, is Bert Lahr’s Lion – a character of vaudevillian extremes, with an exaggerated New York accent which, of Dorothy’s three sidekicks, best represents the trio’s slapstick comedy.
“The Wizard of Oz” is invisible to it age because, if the film were made now – or perhaps before the age of CG – under a producer as smart as Mervyn LeRoy would likely (or should) look exactly the same. Look at the 1971 version of ‘Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory’ for instance, a film made 32 years after Oz but with the same visual and tonal sensibilities. No wonder that film is also a timeless classic.
The 70th Anniversary of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ is available on DVD and Blu-Ray from Warner Bros. Home Video. The special features on the two-disc set are adequate, but mostly older featurettes which unfortunately show their age – especially the Angela Lansbury-hosted 1990 feature, ‘The Wonderful Wizard of Oz: The Making of a Movie Classic’ urggh.
Find Wizard of Oz Collectables Here
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Alice in Wonderland
Starring; Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover
**
By Alan Bacchus
I have a pretty good intuition about the movies I watch and I certainly had expectations about Alice in Wonderland after seeing the trailer earlier in the year. And so, despite the presence of Tim Burton on this picture, I decided not to see it. Then the movie made mondo bucks at the box offfice, was a big hit and with some decent reviews, and good recommendations from some people I know.
And so on Blu-Ray I just had to check it out – completely forgetting what my initial reservations were. And yes, low and behold, the film fit neatly into my very low expectations.
Why?
Alice in Wonderland is a treasured book so ingrained in our collective pop culture consciousness. Hell, I even played the King of Hearts in my grade four school play. But Tim Burton’s treatment of the story is one of the laziest, uninspired adaptations of classic literature I’ve ever seen.
Unfortunately this has mostly to do with the technical aspects of the film, which I hate to single out over the story, but is indeed the cause of my displeasure.
Despite Burton’s unique artistic gifts, he chose to put Wonderland on a big circular green screen with only a handful of real people to populate this largely computer generated world. Sure, computer graphics are 20 years old now, and part of the regular vocabulary of cinema, but when overused with such veracity we lose all sense of depth, texture and thus ‘wonder’ of Wonderland. In fact, I was reading an interview with Christopher Nolan about the use of CG, and his opinion sums my thoughts up perfectly, "..however sophisticated a process of animation is, the audience can always, on some level, tell the difference between something that has been photographed and something that has been animated by an artist.”
Burton’s story diverges from Lewis Carroll’s original book slightly, which is ok. In this version Alice is 20 years old, living in a stuffy upper class British estate and promised to marry a foppish boob. After rejecting his proposal she runs off to follow a peculiar march hare dressed in a waist coat, only to fall into the now-famous rabbit hole which takes her to Wonderland – a colourful, but claustrophobic and flaccid green screen Wonderland.
She’s identified as not the right Alice, as the creatures that inhabit this world seem to expect another girl named Alice who has been there before. The evil Queen of Hearts is expecting this Alice, who is prophesized to defeat her gargantuan beast the Jabberwocky and usurp her authority over the land. Thus she is her bitter enemy. Alice eventually teams up with the Mad Hatter and the White Queen to defeat the Red Queen and fulfil her destiny as saviour of Wonderland.
In addition to laziness of using almost exclusively computer generated character, backdrops, props, costume etc, Burton’s designs feel like another recycling of his other films – a pasty-skinned blondie as his leading lady, big eyed monsters, with big mouths full of sharp pointy teeth, ornate gothic looking trees with branches snake around themselves etc etc.
And of course without the visible texture of either stop motion clay figures as in ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ or just plain old tangible objects we never feel like Alice’s world is real, nor a tangible fantasy. Instead it all feels like a forgettable cartoon, like Shrek or Madagascar. This is what I thought this picture would feel like after seeing the trailer, and sadly I was right.
‘Alice in Wonderland’ is available Blu-Ray from Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, David Wenham, Sean Astin, Andy Serkis
***
By Alan Bacchus
Despite linking up in real time moments after the ending of the previous ‘Fellowship of the Ring’, Peter Jackson manages to give the 'Two Towers' enough of a distinctive tonal shift to differentiate it as its own film.
We’re introduced to a whole new bunch of characters in this second part. After the hillside fight with the Orcs which saw the death of the Boromir, the Fellowship finds themselves split up. Frodo and Sam have taken off by themselves with the ring to Mordor, the other hobbits, Merri and Pippin become captured by the Orcs to be taken to Isengard and the evil Saruman, and Aragon, Gandalf, Legolas and Gimli find themselves chasing after Merri and Pippin and fighting the larger battle of middle earth which is encroaching on the lands of men.
The most significant advancement in story is the inclusion of Gollum (Andy Serkis), that grotesquely deformed and malnourished creature which had been following the gang through the Mines of Moria. Gollum’s presence is a physical manifestation of the stakes that burden Frodo. As a former Hobbit himself, his transformation into Gollum the demon, is one possible future for Frodo if he doesn’t complete his task. As played by Andy Serkis, Gollum is still a phenomenal achievement – an advancement in performance-based special effects which leap-frogged over anything in George Lucas’s world of CG creatures and still looks believeable 8 years later. The full effect of Serkis’ performance on the character is seen in the special features where we see the physical strenuousness it took to make Gollum flesh and blood.
Unfortunately the same can’t be said of the Ent sequence which features Pippin and Merri being carried through the Fangorn Forest by a talking tree for half the picture. It’s the weakest special effects in the series by far, a rudimentary large scale model + blue screen backdrop + some CGI which looked bad then and even worse now. These sequences interspersed with the actions of Frodo and his gang, Aragon, and Gandalf stop the film dead.
Stylistically, the tonal shift is complimented with an aesthetic change in colour palette. Gone are the lush greens of the shire and the blue glow of Galadriel’s forest world, instead favouring the dull grey Gollum’s diseased skin and indistinct browns of the depressed environment of Rohan. And we no longer get the cinematic pauses to admire the scenery, the romanticism of the land and creatures giving way to a greater sense of danger and urgency.
Jackson admirably ramps up the spectacle of the climax in the ‘Two Towers’ above The Fellowship of the Ring’. I remember originally questioning why Jackson’s climax was so restrained. By the end of the entire trilogy Jackson’s escalation of epic scale was the right move. And so, the final Helm’s Deep battle in TT, it makes for the Army vs. Army battle we never really saw in FOTR. That said, the best part of that scene is the build up, the suspense rung out by Jackson during the preparations. Arguably Jackson’s execution of the fight is more adequate than glorious. As a director of ‘action’ there’s a certain panache missing from his mise-en-scene, a panache which say, Mel Gibson exhibited in “Braveheart”.
In the final chapter action and emotion would be brought to an even higher level and grandeur, arguably at the expense of the fantastical sense of wonder from the first film and less so with this second one, but more on that later...
“The Lord of the Rings” is available on Blu-Ray from Alliance Films in Canada
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Lord of the Rings (1978)
Voices by: Christopher Guard, William Squire, Michael Scholes, John Hurt, Simon Chandler, Anthony Daniels
***
By Alan Bacchus
Timed well with the Blu-Ray release of the Peter Jackson version of ‘Lord of the Rings’ is the first screen incarnation of the story, the Ralph Bakshi animated version. It runs 132mins, which is less running time than any one of Jackson’s Rings movies, and sure it ends on an unsolved cliffhanger, and sure it condenses much of the dense text of Tolkien, but for non-Tolkien devotees for such as I, it makes for a surprisingly well told ‘abridged’ (though aesthetically-dated) version of the story.
Bakshi's version represents 'Fellowship of the Ring' and 'The Two Towers' books, with the misfortune of having an unsolved cliff-hanger ending. The film was not a success and thus, the sequel and final chapter of the story was never completed.
Ralph Bakshi's unmistakable animation style, for the most part, creates a unique mood and tone for the story. And looking back at the time period when serious sci-fi and fantasy were non-existent, Bakshi’s (time-constrained) reverence to the material and his commitment to telling an adult fantasy picture is a remarkable achievement and decades ahead of his time.
To create a sense of serious realism Bakshi used rotoscoping techniques to animate his characters. Rotoscoping is a rarely used cinematic art form which involves hand drawing over top of live action footage, frame by frame. The result is a fluidity in motion difficult to achieve through traditional handdrawn cell animation. Of course, this meant that Bakshi had to film the entire movie with real actors, sets, locations, props, horses etc before animating the film. Again, a remarkable achievement.
Bakshi’s film is actually enhanced by the presence of Peter Jackson’s film. For those who haven't read the novels, we get to use Jackson’s near full text adaptation as a reference point to Bakshi’s abridged version. And so as the film clips along with a sharp pace, plot wise, we realize how little Bakshi’s version differs from Jackson’s. Credit to writers Chris Conkling and Peter Beadle who manage to squeeze in all the major set pieces of the books, and getting in and out of each scene at the right time to conserve precious running time, arguably at the expense of the ‘breathing room’ and internal reflection of the characters.
The film opens with the same voiceovered preamble to the rings forged for Men, Elves, Dwarves and of course, the one ring to rule them all. Then there’s the introduction to the Shire, Bilbo, Gandalf and Frodo. The one major difference involves the timeline of Frodo’s possession of the ring. In Bakshi’s version Bilbo gives Frodo the ring, which he holds for 17 years before Gandalf returns to send him on his way to Rivendale. Jackson’s condensing of Tolkien’s timeline creates a greater sense of urgency and instinctual action which benefits these scenes better.
Once on his way the events which befall Frodo are scene for scene exact to Jackson’s version, save for the elimination of the Arwen character who brings Frodo to Rivendale. The midpoint of the film is the Rivendale sequence and thus, the second half condenses the second half of 'Fellowship of the Ring' AND 'The Two Towers' into just over an hour of screen time. Bakshi even manages to trump the emotional gravitas of Boromir’s death. While Jackson’s overloaded this scene with exaggerated music and melodrama, Bakshi’s is arguably the more elegant and genuine of the two.
While there’s innovation in Bakshi’s style of animation, it’s also inconsistent aesthetically, and for lack of a better word dated. The characters are a mix of comic strip simplicity and the rotoscoped realism. Legolas for instance looks like he's pulled from TV Fun House, or an episode of He-Man, while the Aragon is drawn like the brooding hero he should be. What we miss most from Bakshi’s style is the details of landscape and the environment which seem glossed over likely for budgetary purposes. As such the characters often seem to be moving through matted backdrops instead of a fully realized alternate world.
Regardless of your opinion of this version, Bakshi’s cultural importance in cinematic animation is never questioned. The Blu-Ray contains a decent half hour documentary looking back at Bakshi’s bold career which up to him creating ‘Lord of the Rings’ – a rebellious career which bucked all traditions of the genre.
'Lord of the Rings' is available on Blu-Ray from Warner Home Video
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortonsen, Ian McKellan, Sean Astin, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchet, Hugo Weaving, Liv Tyler
***
By Alan Bacchus
The experience of watching the entire ‘Lord of the Rings’ saga is one of supreme admiration, 3 x 3hrs overloaded with every possible emotion, so many wondrous creatures and lands, so many sweeping epic landscapes trying really hard to take our breath away.
Everything to do with the film points to it as a phenomenal achievement. The challenge of adapting the dense Tolkien material for the big screen, making it visual and not literary and rendering it palatable to both Tolkienites and lay audiences is miraculous. The cinematic achievements made these films the high bar of technical cinema of its day –special effects which used a mixture of modern CGI and old fashioned in camera sleight of hand is clever and near seamless (though less so now). The consistency of tone, pace, and visual design over these three films which from pre-production of the first film to post of the last film spanned 5 years is remarkable. Hell, shooting three movie back-to-back-to-back was unheard of.
So why am I left unmoved by any of these pictures?
For good and bad Peter Jackson and his team, for sake of satisfying the broadest possible audience has given everybody a little of everything they want to see, he and so will inevitably alienate and dissatisfy some.
As for the first film, to bring people into the world of Tolkien, FOTR is by far the most baroque of the three. It doesn’t long to introduce the world and the characters. The opening sequence tells us of the forging of a number of rings for the purpose of keeping order in the world (though it’s consciously oblique with the details of exactly how rings can do this). We’re then told of the ONE ring forged in ‘secret' to rule all other rings. Again, the physics/mechanics or even logic of this statement we’re not supposed to question. And so this becomes literature’s, and now cinema’s, biggest ever maguffin, the impetus to send us on Jackson’s epic journey.
The opening moments in the Hobbit Shire introducing Bilbo Baggins passing the ring off to Frodo are perhaps the best moments in the entire series. Ian Holm’s frightful and twitchy performance realizes a huge backstory of pain and suffering by the ring (a backstory which, of course, will be fleshed out by Guillermo Del Toro’s version of ‘The Hobbit”). In fact, the entire first half of Fellowship is spectacular. The horse riding ringwraiths, who resemble the evil ghosts in ‘The Frighteners’, is the scariest creatures in the whole series, but whom we unfortunately rarely get to see in the latter half of the first and rest of the other two films. Weighting the film down is the lengthy Galadriel forest sequence which is full of visual CG wonder, and foreshadowing but a slow uneventful section which adds to the running time.
The second half shows the Fellowship united and fighting off the beasts in the Mines of Moria and the Orcs on the hillside in the film’s climax, and the eventual demise of Boromir who succumbs to the lure of the ring. On first viewing I questioned the lack of scope in the final battle, but after seeing the escalation of action in the second and third films, Jackson’s instinct not to blow his wad early was a good one. In hindsight the contained forest battle to end FOTR is perhaps the best action sequence in series. Free of the grossly exaggerated CG multiplication of huge armies which now looks so awfully unreal, the use of real creatures and actors with real make-up makes the fight that much more violent and intense.
Looking back, Wood and Astin make a good team as the Hobbit leaders mixing drama and humour well. Unfortunately Billy Boyd is a Jar-Jar worthy waste of space, and most of the time excruciating to watch. Dominic Monaghan is barely noticeable which is probably a good thing (as an actor, he would be challenged much more in 'Lost'). Orlando Bloom’s silent but stoic presence is also barely noticeable, but when he’s fighting and launching arrows with speed and accuracy at the Orcs during the action sequence there's no one better. John Rhys-Davies is disguised well as a 3 foot dwarf, but the camera tricks required to make the tall actor into a short character prevents us from seeing the character fight in all his full glory. His tight close-ups thus have to be used over and over again to avoid recognizing the size differences and thus becomes a visual handicap.
Perhaps the most irksome quality of this film and much of the trilogy as a whole is Jackson’s inability (at least to this viewer) to make me believe in the emotions of his characters. In ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ in particular Jackson's emotional histrionics are hit so hard he’s forcing us to feel his characters’ pain harder than he needs to. Just look how hard Jackson wrings out the tears shed by the death of Gandalf. After the magnificent Mines of Moria sequence which has the Grey Wizard sacrificing himself against the impressive Balrog monster, Jackson lingers heavily on the Hobbits excruciating pain, and in slow motion and with Howard Shore’s melodramatic swooning. We get this same feeling during Samwise Gamgee’s fitful attempt to chase down Frodo who has floated away in a boat. Frodo’s dramatic rescue of Sam feels like Jackson again not trusting the investment we have already made in the characters and pulling too hard for emotion where force is not required.
Then again even as I write this it feels odd to critique so finely a film, which as mentioned I admire so much. But then again we can’t just settle to admire a film. To be moved by a film is to have the amalgam of its scenes, sequences, characters, music, special effects and combine to be greater than the sum of its parts. There’s so much in ‘Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring’ that in fits and starts the moments of greatness, but as a whole, it’s just an admirable film.
The entire “Lord of the Rings” saga is now available on Blu-Ray from Alliance Films in Canada. Look out for more extensive examination of the new Blu-Ray set in the subsequent analysis of the next two films later this week. As for the question of the 'Extened Edition', while I enjoyed watching the near three and a half hour version for curiosity sake, the theatrical edition is still my preferred version to watch. Thankfully the Blu-Ray set contains all the comprehensive special features which appeared on the Extended Edition DVDs released back in the day.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Clash of the Titans
Starring: Sam Worthington, Mads Mikkelson, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arteton, Jason Flemyng
***1/2
By Alan Bacchus
Rotten Tomato meter, Metacritic score and all critics be damned ‘Clash of the Titans’ is a great picture! Some of the negative responses thus far refer to the 3D presentation of the film. But let it be known that director Louis Leterrier shot the film for 2D, NOT 3D, and even in some interviews diplomatically disapproves of the 3D version. The fact is, in good old fashioned two dimensions, Louis Leterrier has managed to capture the sense of fun adventure of the Harryhausen sword and sandals pictures (its main influence 1981’s ‘Clash of the Titans’ as well as ‘Jason and the Argonauts’ and host of other b-movie adventures with refreshing restraint.
Leterrier plays it all so very humble – it runs a scant one hour and forty minutes, not including credits, a welcomed minimalist philosophy which he seems to have extended into his creative rendering strategy.
While more comparable and more respected genre fantasies like ‘Avatar’ and ‘Lord of the Rings’ wallow in sometimes overwrought super-seriousness ‘Clash of the Titans’ serves only to give its audience a good time, not to shower them with engorged special effects or convoluted plotting, or even overly designed sets, locations, monsters and like his main influence Ray Harryhausen, he keeps it simple stupid.
The Greek myth of Perseus provides the story for this adventure tale – though I haven’t brushed up on my Greek mythology, the original ‘Clash of the Titans’ is the real starting point for Leterrier. In flashback we meet a young Perseus, who is found by a humble working class fisherman, floating in a coffin with her dead mother. The fisherman raises Perseus to respect the Gods, but when Hades (God of the underworld) rears his evil head to destroy the populous city of Argos and kills his father in the process, Perseus becomes anti-religious and hell bent on revenge against Hades.
Perseus is taken in by the remaining Argos military and is recruited to help fight Hades and save the city from total destruction by the monstrous Kraken. Why not just kill everyone all at once? It’s part of the diabolical plan of Zeus to reestablish fear among the masses, fear of the Gods, and thus reclaim the order of world. Perseus’ quest has him fighting off giant scorpions, Medusa, his vengeful mutated stepfather Carabos, the Kraken and eventually Hades himself.
Leterrier’s version of the story departs significantly in a number of places for the better. Chiefly he discards the romantic angle of Perseus’ love for Andromeda, who in both films, must be sacrificed to appease the Kraken. Too many disposable blockbuster movies force feed us romantic subplots to increase the personal stakes of its hero, and giving us hyperbole like, 'it's not really action film, it's a love story'. Instead Perseus’s goals are refreshingly egalitarian, saviour of humanity, and on a personal level to avenge the death of father by the Gods.
The action scenes are conceived and choreographed in what seems consciously reactionary to the trend of overly-produced special effects extravaganzas of today. The giant scorpion battle for instance is a simple man vs. scorpion battle something which would have easily been conceived by Harryhausen himself. And there’s no need to mutate the scorpions or anything, they are just really big b-movie monster which as rendered expertly by CGI look as real as any human in the picture.
The Olympus scenes are dramatized with wonderful campness. When we first glimpse the set and costume design of the heavenly Olympus we’re reminded of a couple other Titans-era fantasy classics – Richard Donner’s “Superman: The Movie” and John Boorman’s ‘Excalibur”. The glowing armour worn by Liam Neeson, Danny Huston, Alexander Siddig and the rest of the actors playing the Gods pay fun homage to the design of Marlon Brando’ costume in ‘Superman’ or the shiny armour in ‘Excalibur’ or even the neon glow of ‘Tron.’
Neeson’s banter with fellow Schindler’s List-alum Ralph Fiennes is fun and free of the complicated dialogue of say the Harry Potter of LOTR films, which feels so desperately reverent to its source material. Sam Worthington is not great, but decent and is a good non-brooding alternative to big heads like Russell Crowe. Mads Mikkelson, the unsung Dane, emerges as the most sympathetic and the hero we silently cheer for. Thus his unworthy and uneventful death is a disappointment. The estrogen is supplied not by the sacrificed heroine Andromeda, but Gemma Arterton playing the helpful Lo, a hero cursed with everlasting life (also look out for her as the title character in a J Blakeson's awesome three-hander noir 'The Disappearance of Alice Creed'). Her girl-next-door demureness and silky pasty white skin which is surprisingly covered up with toga cloth, is a great tease. She’s one of the boys for most of the picture, until a genuine and understated attraction emerges with Perseus. Thankfully Letterier doesn’t betray us and force feed us that the romance he chose to avoid.
“Clash of the Titans” need only be reverent to the sense of adventure of the great fantasy pictures of the late 70’s early 80’s. Louis Leterrier has admirably made a reactionary film to ‘Avatar’, respecting the audience and the genre enough not to compete with James Cameron, but to do a picture justice what someone like Stephen Somers would have fucked up beyond belief.
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Jason and the Argonauts
Starring: Todd Armstrong, Niall MacGinnis, Jack Gwillim, Nancy Kovack
**
By Alan Bacchus
It’s difficult to enjoy ‘Jason and the Argonauts’ beyond its influence on some of today’s action/sci-fi/horror filmmakers. I can appreciate a good b-movie, but even within this pastiche context it’s a pretty awful film.
The famous Greek myth of Jason hero who intrepidly leads an army of warriors in search of the Golden fleece serves only to showcase the special effect of the great stop motion artist Ray Harryhausen and for most its running time we have to wait labouriously for these glorious moments.
Unfortunately Harryhausen’s matting and blue-screen process effects extend longer than his reach and look just plain awful, especially under super crisp high definition. But its his legendary stop motion creatures which are the showcase of this film and still awe-inspiring to this day,
Take for instance the giant statue set piece at the top of the film. As Jason and his bunch land at the beach on the isle of Bronze, one of his soldiers steals a scared pin and unleashes a statue who suddenly becomes animate. The attack of the statue on the Argonauts is choreographed and composed with truly awesome epic value and scope. The statue’s attack on the Argo ship straddling to edges of a channel is a glorious moment.
There's also the rock landslide scene, which has Jason's ship saved by the merman who provides a barrier to the rocks which allows it to pass. There’s also Jason’s toil with the multi-headed hydro snake which guards the fleece; and for cinephiles, the key set piece we sit and wait for, the film’s most famous scene, the skeleton sword fight at the end – a scene Sam Raimi famously reworked into ‘Army of Darkness’.
Like Harryhausen's last film 'Clash of the Titans’, as the heroes on earth battle the beasts the Gods in the clouds watch below and control the action like chess pieces on a board. Zeus in this film is played unmemorably by Niall MacGinnis, Dr. No Bond villain Honor ("Pussy Galore") Blackman shows up on Olympus though as the lovely Hera.
Somehow the producers had a relationship with the great Bernard Herrman who along with composing some of the greatest scores ever in the 50’s and 60’s for Hitchcock, did a number of these b-action monster movies. Scour through Herrman’s filmography and you’ll see a scattering of high profile hits and disposable b-movies. Unfortunately Herrman’s score can only bring the picture up a notch or so, as it’s a largely unmemorable music and not his best work.
So, unfortunately 'Jason and the Argonauts' hasn’t aged well, the acting atrocious and most of the process effects glaringly poor, but Ray Harryhausen’s set pieces still reign supreme and is at least worthy of fast-forwarding to.
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)