It's not until you really give it some proper thought, but Tom Cruise really has been relatively prolific in the Sci-Fi department over the last decade. Spielberg had him twice in the noughties, the excellent Minority Report and then The War of the Worlds, slightly underrated at the time but I think it's darkness was simply ten years ahead of it's time, the bleak tone is now a common theme in the post-Nolan era of the blockbuster. The recent Oblivion was two thirds of an interesting film, only losing courage towards the end as it turned into a chase-and-explosion fest. Now we have The Edge of Tomorrow, originally entitled (rather better in my view) after the Japanese novel it's based on, All You Need is Kill.
It's a set up that isn't exactly boldly going where no one has gone before. Earth and Humankind has come under threat from an alien menace and we are losing the war. Badly. Europe has been taken over and our last stronghold is good old Great Britain (including some quite inventive and cool alterations of Trafalgar Square and Heathrow Airport).
First off, it's easy, and lazy, to say that it's a little bit derivative. It obviously has a touch of Source Code about it, people have said that the beasties are a rip off of Starship Troopers which I don't agree with, if you are going compare them to anything, it's probably a cross between Venom and the sentinels in The Matrix sequels. The human's armoury is also straight from James Cameron's costume cupboard and one of the key scenes does owe a bit to one of Spielberg's war films.
Interestingly though, I haven't seen anyone compare it to The War of The Worlds. Although Edge isn't quite as defeatist and nihilistic, it does share the same absence of hope. This isn't a glossy Michael Bay action romp, we, humans, are taking one hell of a beating. The opening battle scene, very reminiscent of the start of Saving Private Ryan, is brutal. Thist really is a war, people are dying all over the place. It's not like sequences in Marvel films where widespread destruction seems to result in no human loss whatsoever.
Also, like War of The Worlds, Tom Cruise doesn't start the film as an All-American hero. In War he was flawed, in Edge he is veritably loathsome. He is brilliant as the cowardly PR, spin doctor colonel and it is something we just aren't that used to seeing from him. I really wanted him to snuff it. However, it's also a performance with some depth. It wasn't long before I was feeling sorry for him as he shifts from being obnoxious to outright terrified as he is thrown into a battle completely untrained. As the film rockets along he does start to get back to the standard Cruise we all know, the hero, but he does manage to keep it interesting with a bit of heart as the relationship with the other hero of the piece, Emliy Blunt, develops.
It'a fair to say that before seeing the film, Emily Blunt didn't really strike me as the action hero type. What do I know eh? Who is Ellen Ripley? Blunt is superb. She is the fully trained, kick-ass marine. Think Vasquez from Aliens with longer hair, without the 80's one liners and a massive sword-like weapon instead of a huge gun. Like Cruise's character she doesn't start out particularly likeable, in all honesty she doesn't say much, she simply looks hard as nails. However, as Cruise returns to his more familiar ground, so does Blunt, she softens. It's a pair of well drawn character curves and it's nice to see them develop alongside one another.
The story itself just about hangs together, there are a couple of exposition scenes that spell things out in sci-fi jargon that just about fall on the right side of credible. During which, there is that one line of dialogue which is a signpost (lit of in neon, under floodlights, with giant arrows pointing) for a plot point later in the film. It looks great, the effects and action have a solid and authentic feel. The combat scenes are violent and physical, it has weight and heft, you can tell that the director (Doug Liman) was behind the first Bourne film (which arguably gave birth to our current Bond).
As with some time travel / time loop films (yes Looper, I'm looking at you), if you think about it too much it will quickly unravel and fall to pieces, but while you're in it, it flies along at a frantic pace, is exciting, at times terrifying (not in horror way but in a war is intensely frightening way), it has an ending that satisfyingly delivers and doesn't cop out. Plus it has Tom Cruise dying a lot and Bill Paxton. Yes Bill Paxton.
Not classic, but very good Saturday night sci-fi blockbuster entertainment. Instead of infinite Transformers sequels, Studios should be making and the public should be watching stuff like this.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Saturday, 20 July 2013
DARK SHADOWS (2012 - Cert 12A)
Tim Burton's first film after the glossy but bland and instantly forgettable adaptation of Alice in Wonderland was apparently a TV series in the late sixties. Clearly I'm not old enough to remember it the first time around but I hadn't actually heard of it either, at least not until the publicity march began up to the release of Dark Shadows film. Having said that a quick scour of the 'pedias' and it's clear that Burton isn't the only one who is a fan of the 'Gothic soap opera' (I know, sounds good already doesn't it?).
It's essentially a family drama, all be it with a quirky and blackly comic sensibility, centring on the Collins family in 1972 Collinsport, the town named after them as it was built on a successful ancestral family fishing business in the 16th century. They're a classic rich family with classic rich family problems, knocking about in a huge old gothic mansion, with far more rooms than inhabitants. Michelle Pfeiffer is the matriarch, Johnny Lee Miller is her brother, the weird uncle hanging on for the perks and wealth, Jackie Earle Haley is his troubled 10 year old son and Chloe Grace Moretz as the stroppy rebellious teenager. Other residents are Jackie Earle Haley, the creepy caretaker (think Filch from Harry Potter with marginally better personal hygiene) and Burton regular (and wife) Helena Bonham Carter as a live-in psychiatrist there to deal with the 10 year old boy and his belief in ghosts.
So I won't be telling you whether it's a faithful adaptation or a complete reworking, because I have no idea. Instead I'll be doing what you should arguably always do, regardless of where a film's origins lie, judge it on it's own merits.
It's essentially a family drama, all be it with a quirky and blackly comic sensibility, centring on the Collins family in 1972 Collinsport, the town named after them as it was built on a successful ancestral family fishing business in the 16th century. They're a classic rich family with classic rich family problems, knocking about in a huge old gothic mansion, with far more rooms than inhabitants. Michelle Pfeiffer is the matriarch, Johnny Lee Miller is her brother, the weird uncle hanging on for the perks and wealth, Jackie Earle Haley is his troubled 10 year old son and Chloe Grace Moretz as the stroppy rebellious teenager. Other residents are Jackie Earle Haley, the creepy caretaker (think Filch from Harry Potter with marginally better personal hygiene) and Burton regular (and wife) Helena Bonham Carter as a live-in psychiatrist there to deal with the 10 year old boy and his belief in ghosts.
So just a normal family set up eh?
That is until a long lost relative crops up, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp playing a role he has apparently always wanted to play - yes, just like Robbie Keane was always a Spurs fan, that is until he signed for Celtic and Liverpool respectively). Not so strange you think, until you realise that Barnabas has been in a coffin for the best part of two centuries after being cursed and turned into a vampire.
Now we are firmly into Burton territory. Barnabas heads straight back to the family home and integrates himself back into Collins family life. He also decides he wants to get back involved in the now failing family business, suffering at the hands of Eva Green's rival company. In the process of doing this he discovers that Green has a link to his past.....
So, there's a number of things going on and I think Burton deliberately doesn't quite hang it all together in a traditional way. You have the comedy of a 200 year old vampire waking up in the 70's (think California Man or Crocodile Dundee fish out of water stuff), there's a bit of unexpected horror and gore (we are dealing with vampires here) and black comedy, humorous and downright bonkers family exchanges, destructive sex scenes, a tale of corporate rivalry and more than a touch of the supernatural. And that's not even giving away any of the big plot developments. Perhaps, after the financial success of Alice in Wonderland, the studio gave Burton a bit more of a free reign and this is Burton going the opposite way from a big special effects fest, not wanting to get bogged down with traditional narrative and studio film conventions. He's chucking a hell of a lot at the canvas, some of it sticks some of slides off and ends up in a mess on the floor. However, for those moments that do work, it immediately made me think of Beetlejuice and the great off beat parts of Sleepy Hollow and Mars Attacks. This is Burton recapturing some of those joyous quirky triumphs, banishing the memories (mine, but perhaps his as well) of Planet of the Apes, Alice and Wonderland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
He's helped by an excellence cast, all of which are great and keep the film pushing along, allowing you to forgive when it misses the target. It's great seeing Depp doing something other than Jack Sparrow, reminded that he is a fine actor and can carry any film. It's brilliant to have Pfeiffer back, Bonham Carter is as ever one of the best things about the film, despite her small amount of screen time, Eva Green is having the time of her life and is seductively chilling as the villain of the piece, Johnny Lee Miller looks like he was born to play a creepy, pervy uncle and Chloe Grace Moretz is definitely going places - bring on Kick Ass 2.
It's a funny film. I don't mean funny ha ha, although there is good comedy in there (not quite laugh out loud, sniggers, chuckles and chortles are the order of the day), funny as in odd. It starts in one way, you think you've got a handle on where it's going, only for it go in the complete opposite direction. Then you think it will romp along, only for Burton to slow things right down and focus on something right in left field, Burton relishes not letting the viewer ease into a comfort zone, it meanders, it plods, it plays knock down ginger with you, until it reaches a climax that is part Twilight, part Death Becomes Her, infused with Beetlejuice and a bit of Sweeney Todd.
Am I recommending it? I am, it's well worth a watch, not a classic by any stretch, but there's more than enough in there to enjoy and there's a joy in having a film maker kick off the shackles and be given the freedom to just do something a bit different. And is there anyone better at doing 'different' than Tim Burton.
Monday, 15 July 2013
PACIFIC RIM (2013 - Cert 12A)
Going to see this film was more out of curiosity than excitement. I also decided to see it at lunchtime on the 5th day of the first Ashes test, but that's another story and a decision which I won't ever stop regretting. Anyway, curiosity, yes. I've only seen the first Transformers, and hated it. I couldn't then bring myself to see the next instalments, I couldn't bear the thought of loud robots smashing into each other or Shia Labeouf trying to make himself appear vaguely interesting or talented. You may have also seen that my main gripe with Man of Steel was the last forty minutes which was essentially two immovable objects colliding with each other and consequently destroying an entire city. Very loudly. So with that in mind, Pacific Rim, a film about robots the size of skyscrapers fighting aliens the size of skyscrapers, might seem an odd choice for me to splash out on a ticket. The reason I took the plunge was Guillermo del Toro. Being a massive fan of his back catalogue, I was curious to see whether he could pull off something of this scale whilst still keeping it interesting and not eardrum banteringly dull. If Guillermo can't do it, no one can.
First things first, you have to go in with an open mind, perhaps even tap into the teenager still inside of you (come on, they're in there somewhere), because this film is silly. Silly on a gargantuan scale. In a lengthy and huge prologue, we are told that in the bottom of the Pacific Ocean there is a 'breach' which is a gateway to another world/dimension. Through that breach, Kaijus appear, huge monsters that look a bit like lizardy dinosaurs (yes think Godzilla). They flatten cities, within 45 seconds San Francisco and a couple of others have been destroyed. Conventional warfare doesn't make a dent in these beasts so the Jaeger Programme is deployed. Jaegers are enormous robots, 25 storeys high (yes think Transformers), piloted by two humans. They even have bombs, yes Jaeger Bombs (although that term isn't uttered in the film - a missed opportunity in my view). That is the set up in a nutshell, Godzilla v Transformers. Only it's not quite as shallow and straightforward as that. It's Del Toro's love letter to two much older genres, the Kaiju and Mecha genres, both a firm part of Popular Japanese culture. An homage but also an attempt to show a new generation what's it all about.
The advantage of having the prologue of this scale, including a battle between a Jaeger and a Kaiju, is that we get the big reveal out of the way early. There is no need to build up to the big climax to whet people's appetites. We've all gone to see a film about giant monsters fighting robots, why wait until the very last sequence to see it. Get it in there early. This gives del Toro and the film a chance to concentrate on other things. Characters. One of the (silly) plot points is how the Jaegers are piloted. The two pilots need to engage in a 'neural handshake' in order to pilot effectively together. This means they both 'drift' which is basically joining their brains together and sharing memories. Yes, as I type it I realise it sounds completely ridiculous, and it is, but it does give a good excuse for character development. Our heroes, the two pilots we follow the most, are played by Brit Charlie Hunnam and Rinko Kikuchi, admittedly in a creaky, and at times wooden, manner. They must learn to trust each other and fight back against their memories (both have suffered losses at the hands of the Kaiju). This all happens at base as they train and prepare for battle. This part of the film plays out a bit like Top Gun (Robert Kazinsky plays the Val Kilmer role) or the middle section of Starship Troopers. Idris Elba is the commanding officer of the Jaeger programme and he walks about gruffly in nice suits dispelling wisdom and shouting rousing speeches. In all honesty, he's great. Then we have the comic relief, Charlie Day and the superbly named Burn Gorman as scientists tasked with trying to understand the Kaiju, one a bit rock n roll, the latter a straight laced Brit with a cane. They bicker and talk about predictions and theories in a jovial and comedic way, nothing hilarious, just a snigger here and there. Part of Day's mission takes him into the criminal underworld where we meet Del Toro stalwart Ron Perlman, superbly playing Hannibal Chau (I won't ruin the gag about how he got his name). He's obviously not the most talented actor in the world, but you forget just how much you enjoy being in his company until he's on screen.
So you have the stuff going on at base, bit of romance, bit of male rival chest beating, the scientists scampering about, Ron Perlman being Ron Perlman, before you know it, an hour has gone by and we've had no action, no big monsters, we only see the robots in the garage being spruced up. Not only has an hour gone by, but I wasn't bored for one second. Furthermore, I had realised that I actually had developed a bit of a connection with all these characters. It's not exactly an art house character piece, not by any stretch of the imagination, there's some dodgy delivery of some hokey dialogue, but it all amounts to more characterisation that you would expect from this type of film. It also veers away from being too cliche heavy, for example the female lead isn't wearing tight shorts and flirting her way via wet t shirts to become pilot of a Jaeger. In fact, Kikuchi's story is what gives the film it's heart. Again, not exactly a heartbreaking masterpiece, but it's got enough depth to add some substance.
Then the action ramps up again for two enormous battle sequences, the impact of which heightened because of the previous 60 minutes of adding flesh to these characters. A masterstroke by del Toro and superbly executed.
I've got to mention the action, because it is incredible. It looks absolutely superb and you can tell it's del Toro behind it. A lot of it reminded me of the Hellboy films, the monsters looking out of this world but very real at the same time, and the mechanical devices, including the robots have a slightly old look to them, they aren't sleek, well designed machines, there's a touch of the steampunk about them. The thing that really comes across is the scale. I believed in the size of these things, they had weight and heft, each blow had impact. Very impressive indeed.
So, it's silly, very silly, but if you get past that and accept it for what it is, a monster v robot film, then you'll be surprised at the existence of some depth to go along with the very impressive visuals. It's a good old fashioned family popcorn film, pitched at the right level with humour, camaraderie, a bit of peril and loads of spectacle.
Hopefully, the lovers of Transformers will see this and realise that there's a different way of doing things, a better way.
The advantage of having the prologue of this scale, including a battle between a Jaeger and a Kaiju, is that we get the big reveal out of the way early. There is no need to build up to the big climax to whet people's appetites. We've all gone to see a film about giant monsters fighting robots, why wait until the very last sequence to see it. Get it in there early. This gives del Toro and the film a chance to concentrate on other things. Characters. One of the (silly) plot points is how the Jaegers are piloted. The two pilots need to engage in a 'neural handshake' in order to pilot effectively together. This means they both 'drift' which is basically joining their brains together and sharing memories. Yes, as I type it I realise it sounds completely ridiculous, and it is, but it does give a good excuse for character development. Our heroes, the two pilots we follow the most, are played by Brit Charlie Hunnam and Rinko Kikuchi, admittedly in a creaky, and at times wooden, manner. They must learn to trust each other and fight back against their memories (both have suffered losses at the hands of the Kaiju). This all happens at base as they train and prepare for battle. This part of the film plays out a bit like Top Gun (Robert Kazinsky plays the Val Kilmer role) or the middle section of Starship Troopers. Idris Elba is the commanding officer of the Jaeger programme and he walks about gruffly in nice suits dispelling wisdom and shouting rousing speeches. In all honesty, he's great. Then we have the comic relief, Charlie Day and the superbly named Burn Gorman as scientists tasked with trying to understand the Kaiju, one a bit rock n roll, the latter a straight laced Brit with a cane. They bicker and talk about predictions and theories in a jovial and comedic way, nothing hilarious, just a snigger here and there. Part of Day's mission takes him into the criminal underworld where we meet Del Toro stalwart Ron Perlman, superbly playing Hannibal Chau (I won't ruin the gag about how he got his name). He's obviously not the most talented actor in the world, but you forget just how much you enjoy being in his company until he's on screen.
So you have the stuff going on at base, bit of romance, bit of male rival chest beating, the scientists scampering about, Ron Perlman being Ron Perlman, before you know it, an hour has gone by and we've had no action, no big monsters, we only see the robots in the garage being spruced up. Not only has an hour gone by, but I wasn't bored for one second. Furthermore, I had realised that I actually had developed a bit of a connection with all these characters. It's not exactly an art house character piece, not by any stretch of the imagination, there's some dodgy delivery of some hokey dialogue, but it all amounts to more characterisation that you would expect from this type of film. It also veers away from being too cliche heavy, for example the female lead isn't wearing tight shorts and flirting her way via wet t shirts to become pilot of a Jaeger. In fact, Kikuchi's story is what gives the film it's heart. Again, not exactly a heartbreaking masterpiece, but it's got enough depth to add some substance.
Then the action ramps up again for two enormous battle sequences, the impact of which heightened because of the previous 60 minutes of adding flesh to these characters. A masterstroke by del Toro and superbly executed.
I've got to mention the action, because it is incredible. It looks absolutely superb and you can tell it's del Toro behind it. A lot of it reminded me of the Hellboy films, the monsters looking out of this world but very real at the same time, and the mechanical devices, including the robots have a slightly old look to them, they aren't sleek, well designed machines, there's a touch of the steampunk about them. The thing that really comes across is the scale. I believed in the size of these things, they had weight and heft, each blow had impact. Very impressive indeed.
So, it's silly, very silly, but if you get past that and accept it for what it is, a monster v robot film, then you'll be surprised at the existence of some depth to go along with the very impressive visuals. It's a good old fashioned family popcorn film, pitched at the right level with humour, camaraderie, a bit of peril and loads of spectacle.
Hopefully, the lovers of Transformers will see this and realise that there's a different way of doing things, a better way.
Saturday, 13 July 2013
THE CAMPAIGN (2012 - Cert 15)
I didn't have high particularly expectations for this film. It hadn't had good reviews on release and it didn't take anything close to a respectable figure at the box office, but after a Friday off work, a wine drenched lunch followed by a spell in a beer garden, I needed to watch something that wasn't going to be taxing but was going to be funny, I wanted to laugh but I also fancied not having to use my brain particularly. Surely Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis and a race for congress would fit the bill.
Well it certainly was intellectually challenging, but it also wasn't particularly funny either.
Ferrell is Cam Brady, about to enter his fifth term as congressman of North Carolina, the only reason he's managed such a successful stint is the lack of any actual challengers, which is a good job because it's immediately clear that he is useless. One plot contrivance later, and two wealthy brothers are putting their support behind someone to oppose him - in steps Galfianakis as Marty Huggins. Neither of these characters feel fresh or new creations, Ferrell is channeling Ron Burgundy with a different accent and without facial hair and Galfianakis is a weirdo again, a slightly camper weirdo than we are used to, but a weirdo nonetheless. It's also worth nothing that parts of Huggins also appear to be a carbon copy of another comic creation, Ned Flanders from The Simpsons. The similarities aren't subtle either. If you are going to rip off one of the most successful comedy series ever, maybe be a little bit clever about it.
The film is essentially the campaign trail of these two as they go head to head, making a hash out of everything they do, from punching babies and dogs (yes punching babies and dogs), to inappropriate TV ads and interference with each others families. I appreciate that story and narrative aren't going to be top of the list of priorities in this type of film, but as the campaign trail develops, the polls chop and change between the two, seemingly having nothing to do with that they are actually doing. This could be a satirical look at the polls and the political system, but I strongly doubt that. That might require someone involved in making this film actually having to use their brain.
There is an interesting, funny and smart film to be made out of the political process, oh hang on, it has - In The Loop. The American political system is so ripe for taking the mickey out of, The Campaign had a wealth of material with which to play with, but just didn't bother. It instead chose to put together a load of different sketches which could have been slotted into many other comedies, none having anything to do with politics. A rushed, wasted opportunity. Even more irritating when you see that one of the writers was also involved in Spin City (Chris Henchy) and it's directed by Jay Roach (Austin Powers 1 & 2 and Meet The Parents).
There's not really much more for me to say, in fact I only saw it 12 hours ago and it's already slipping from my consciousness (I'll accept that a small percentage of that may be down to the excesses of yesterday afternoon).
Don't bother. Any film that makes an 81 minute running time feel in excess of two hours is clearing not doing something (or anything) right.
Well it certainly was intellectually challenging, but it also wasn't particularly funny either.
Ferrell is Cam Brady, about to enter his fifth term as congressman of North Carolina, the only reason he's managed such a successful stint is the lack of any actual challengers, which is a good job because it's immediately clear that he is useless. One plot contrivance later, and two wealthy brothers are putting their support behind someone to oppose him - in steps Galfianakis as Marty Huggins. Neither of these characters feel fresh or new creations, Ferrell is channeling Ron Burgundy with a different accent and without facial hair and Galfianakis is a weirdo again, a slightly camper weirdo than we are used to, but a weirdo nonetheless. It's also worth nothing that parts of Huggins also appear to be a carbon copy of another comic creation, Ned Flanders from The Simpsons. The similarities aren't subtle either. If you are going to rip off one of the most successful comedy series ever, maybe be a little bit clever about it.
The film is essentially the campaign trail of these two as they go head to head, making a hash out of everything they do, from punching babies and dogs (yes punching babies and dogs), to inappropriate TV ads and interference with each others families. I appreciate that story and narrative aren't going to be top of the list of priorities in this type of film, but as the campaign trail develops, the polls chop and change between the two, seemingly having nothing to do with that they are actually doing. This could be a satirical look at the polls and the political system, but I strongly doubt that. That might require someone involved in making this film actually having to use their brain.
There is an interesting, funny and smart film to be made out of the political process, oh hang on, it has - In The Loop. The American political system is so ripe for taking the mickey out of, The Campaign had a wealth of material with which to play with, but just didn't bother. It instead chose to put together a load of different sketches which could have been slotted into many other comedies, none having anything to do with politics. A rushed, wasted opportunity. Even more irritating when you see that one of the writers was also involved in Spin City (Chris Henchy) and it's directed by Jay Roach (Austin Powers 1 & 2 and Meet The Parents).
There's not really much more for me to say, in fact I only saw it 12 hours ago and it's already slipping from my consciousness (I'll accept that a small percentage of that may be down to the excesses of yesterday afternoon).
Don't bother. Any film that makes an 81 minute running time feel in excess of two hours is clearing not doing something (or anything) right.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
MAN OF STEEL (2013 - Cert 12A)
Now this was a superhero reboot that I'd been looking forward to. Not like last year's perfectly decent but unremarkable and pointless The Amazing Spiderman. Surely it wouldn't have done any harm to try to do something a bit different with Peter Parker? Perhaps that was the problem with Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. I actually really liked that film, and many people claim to still do so now, but perhaps it's desire to channel the spirit of the Donner originals meant that it just wasn't different enough and ultimately didn't connect with audiences at the time and that the numbers didn't really add up.
Cue Christopher Nolan. Not satisfied with his incredible vision for Batman becoming the template for art house blockbusters and making the studios realise that it is possible and acceptable for a big budget summer event movie to be both intelligent and succesful, he wanted to take on DC Comics' other big name. Enlisting his regular Batman collaborator David S Goyer to flesh out the story into a screenplay, this was to be the thinking man's Superman. Donner and Singer's versions were never exactly stupid, but we all hoped that this was going to a step up, something grown up....
Then the cast was announced. Aside from the relatively unknown, but perfectly suited, Henry Cavill as Kal El, we had a veritable smorgasbord of big names, proper actors with some real thespian clout. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Superman's Earth parents, Russell Crowe as his Krypton dad, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Laurence Fishburne as the editor of the Daily Planet and Michael Shannon as General Zod.
It's all there in place for this to be the darkly perfect, broodingly cerebral Superman for our generation, and then you see that Zach Snyder is directing.....excitement turns to anxiety....
To be fair, his Dawn of the Dead remake (in my view his best film) was very good and it marked him out as one to watch. 300 has a bit of a cult following but even it's biggest supporters will probably admit that although it looks good, it's about as deep as a Saharan puddle. Watchmen wasn't exactly the film that I wanted from such an incredible book, but after a couple of viewings it's a much better film and adaptation than I first gave it credit for. Again there was potential. Then the unforgivably awful, nonsensical, idiocy that was Sucker Punch. I've tried to watch it again but I just hate it more than anything (yes, even The Holiday).
Snyder's career actually reflects Man of Steel perfectly. Frustrating.
Some of it is excellent. In fact most of it is excellent, the first two thirds certainly are. The first thing that struck me is that it's much closer to a full on science fiction film rather than the usual superhero fare. The opening on Krypton is huge, something George Lucas would have been proud of, perhaps what John Carter might have looked like had it not been Disneyfied to within an inch of it's life. Spaceships, droids, holograms, Russell Crowe in a space suit riding a flying dragon to evade spacecrafts, Man of Steel has clearly not forgotten that the roots of this story lie in a galaxy, far, far away.
Even when the action shifts to Earth, there's plenty of space ships, Codexes and a 'World Engine'. Also, in a neat rethink, Superman's Fortress of Solitude is a giant spacecraft buried under the ice. Man of Steel is closer to Star Trek than Batman.
This continues thematically too: one of the most interesting parts of the story focuses on Superman being an alien and how people would react to that fact. I'm sure that we wouldn't immediately embrace him just because he can fly and see through walls, we would greet him with suspicion and fear. When the villain, General Zod, (more on him later) addresses the people of Planet Earth, he starts by telling them 'You are not alone'. A really nice touch I thought, using the question that is constantly asked when considering extra terrestrial life.
The quandary of whether we are ready to accept an Alien is asked of the characters too, notably Clarke Kent, his Earth parents and Lois Lane during an interesting middle section that replaces the usual origin tale we've seen before in previous films and Smallville. We jump between flashbacks and the modern day as Lois Lane, an investigative reporter, tries to track down a mysterious man with superhuman strength who can't keep himself a secret because he just can't resist saving people's lives. We see a young Kent at school, saving his classmates, (even the bully), as their school bus crashes into a river, a slightly older Kent rescuing people from a burning oil rig. The best elements of this section are when his dad (Kevin Costner in arguably his best role to date) is trying to explain that staying a secret is more important than helping people. It's a real moral tussle that Henry Cavill really manages to pull off, culminating in the film's most, and probably only, heartbreaking and heartfelt moment.
Then General Zod finds Superman and it all really kicks off. First things first, Shannon's Zod is a good villain, not a classic by any stretch, this isn't the Joker, it isn't even Bane. But there is some depth and intrigue there. His motivations and borne out of his love of his home, he really believes what he's doing is right. Plus he is played with intensity by Shannon (as I'm sure you would expect), but his steely determination and anger, although good for getting the job of being a baddie done, only really make enough for a two dimensional character.
Anyway, once he turns up and transmits his message to the whole planet, it reminded me a bit of the way The Joker hijacked TV channels, and even slightly of Bane's speech at the football stadium. That is where the subtleties and similarities end though, because when Zod gets angry, Man of Steel becomes big, very big and incredibly destructive. This is where the film lost it's way for me. It all becomes a little boring. Superman has a fight with a couple of Zod's mates, but in order to make it more interesting, Snyder and co have decided that every time a punch lands, the recipient has to fly backwards and destroy a building or blow up a petrol station. It is a bit of a spectacle the first time you see it, then after blow after blow, it all becomes a bit much,
Then the World Engine starts up and an entire city is destroyed within minutes. Thousands, if not millions, of people would have died, except not once are we meant to worry about that. We do see the staff of the Daily Planet trying to get out, as long as they are ok, that's the important thing. Big special effects are fine, but they must have a context, it's boring just to smash things up for the sake of it, these things become exciting when there is some peril involved, an emotional attachment to it.
Once that all comes to an end, it feels like the film should stop there. It was a big enough finish to have got away with it. But no, it felt the need for one more big ruck, between Zod and our hero. Punch, Zod flies into a skyscraper and out the other side, glass smashed, top of building collapses, Zod gets one into Superman's chops, into a petrol tanker, huge explosion. Apart from the strange fact that they managed to find a clean couple of square miles of buildings that weren't destroyed or even touched by the World Engine, it becomes a needless 20 minutes of crashing, banging and walloping. To be fair, the moment when Superman saves the day (that isn't a spoiler, don't pretend you expected Zod to win) is another moral crossroads handled well by Cavill, but it's the thudding nonsense before that which makes it more of a relief than an emotional end to the story.
Except that isn't the end again, there's another bit that sets the film up for a sequel (again, no one will be surprised that there is going to be more of these). The problem with all of this is, when I left the cinema, all I could think about was the skull hammering last third, I had forgotten about all that went before that. I had been pummelled into submission. Which is a massive shame, because up until the point it became like Transformers or the end of Iron Man 2 and 3, it was interesting, it was doing something different, it was sci-fi and superheroes, it was asking interesting questions. It had Kevin Costner being brilliant, Amy Adams being perfectly fine, Russell Crowe being a bit Obi Wan (Alec Guiness, not Ewan McGregor). Then the film decides that the best way to answer a question is to bludgeon someone or blow something up. Lots and lots of times. Then do it all again.
Still it is worth seeing, but brace yourself for that finale, it's loud, long and just won't give in.
Cue Christopher Nolan. Not satisfied with his incredible vision for Batman becoming the template for art house blockbusters and making the studios realise that it is possible and acceptable for a big budget summer event movie to be both intelligent and succesful, he wanted to take on DC Comics' other big name. Enlisting his regular Batman collaborator David S Goyer to flesh out the story into a screenplay, this was to be the thinking man's Superman. Donner and Singer's versions were never exactly stupid, but we all hoped that this was going to a step up, something grown up....
Then the cast was announced. Aside from the relatively unknown, but perfectly suited, Henry Cavill as Kal El, we had a veritable smorgasbord of big names, proper actors with some real thespian clout. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Superman's Earth parents, Russell Crowe as his Krypton dad, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Laurence Fishburne as the editor of the Daily Planet and Michael Shannon as General Zod.
It's all there in place for this to be the darkly perfect, broodingly cerebral Superman for our generation, and then you see that Zach Snyder is directing.....excitement turns to anxiety....
To be fair, his Dawn of the Dead remake (in my view his best film) was very good and it marked him out as one to watch. 300 has a bit of a cult following but even it's biggest supporters will probably admit that although it looks good, it's about as deep as a Saharan puddle. Watchmen wasn't exactly the film that I wanted from such an incredible book, but after a couple of viewings it's a much better film and adaptation than I first gave it credit for. Again there was potential. Then the unforgivably awful, nonsensical, idiocy that was Sucker Punch. I've tried to watch it again but I just hate it more than anything (yes, even The Holiday).
Snyder's career actually reflects Man of Steel perfectly. Frustrating.
Some of it is excellent. In fact most of it is excellent, the first two thirds certainly are. The first thing that struck me is that it's much closer to a full on science fiction film rather than the usual superhero fare. The opening on Krypton is huge, something George Lucas would have been proud of, perhaps what John Carter might have looked like had it not been Disneyfied to within an inch of it's life. Spaceships, droids, holograms, Russell Crowe in a space suit riding a flying dragon to evade spacecrafts, Man of Steel has clearly not forgotten that the roots of this story lie in a galaxy, far, far away.
Even when the action shifts to Earth, there's plenty of space ships, Codexes and a 'World Engine'. Also, in a neat rethink, Superman's Fortress of Solitude is a giant spacecraft buried under the ice. Man of Steel is closer to Star Trek than Batman.
This continues thematically too: one of the most interesting parts of the story focuses on Superman being an alien and how people would react to that fact. I'm sure that we wouldn't immediately embrace him just because he can fly and see through walls, we would greet him with suspicion and fear. When the villain, General Zod, (more on him later) addresses the people of Planet Earth, he starts by telling them 'You are not alone'. A really nice touch I thought, using the question that is constantly asked when considering extra terrestrial life.
The quandary of whether we are ready to accept an Alien is asked of the characters too, notably Clarke Kent, his Earth parents and Lois Lane during an interesting middle section that replaces the usual origin tale we've seen before in previous films and Smallville. We jump between flashbacks and the modern day as Lois Lane, an investigative reporter, tries to track down a mysterious man with superhuman strength who can't keep himself a secret because he just can't resist saving people's lives. We see a young Kent at school, saving his classmates, (even the bully), as their school bus crashes into a river, a slightly older Kent rescuing people from a burning oil rig. The best elements of this section are when his dad (Kevin Costner in arguably his best role to date) is trying to explain that staying a secret is more important than helping people. It's a real moral tussle that Henry Cavill really manages to pull off, culminating in the film's most, and probably only, heartbreaking and heartfelt moment.
Then General Zod finds Superman and it all really kicks off. First things first, Shannon's Zod is a good villain, not a classic by any stretch, this isn't the Joker, it isn't even Bane. But there is some depth and intrigue there. His motivations and borne out of his love of his home, he really believes what he's doing is right. Plus he is played with intensity by Shannon (as I'm sure you would expect), but his steely determination and anger, although good for getting the job of being a baddie done, only really make enough for a two dimensional character.
Anyway, once he turns up and transmits his message to the whole planet, it reminded me a bit of the way The Joker hijacked TV channels, and even slightly of Bane's speech at the football stadium. That is where the subtleties and similarities end though, because when Zod gets angry, Man of Steel becomes big, very big and incredibly destructive. This is where the film lost it's way for me. It all becomes a little boring. Superman has a fight with a couple of Zod's mates, but in order to make it more interesting, Snyder and co have decided that every time a punch lands, the recipient has to fly backwards and destroy a building or blow up a petrol station. It is a bit of a spectacle the first time you see it, then after blow after blow, it all becomes a bit much,
Then the World Engine starts up and an entire city is destroyed within minutes. Thousands, if not millions, of people would have died, except not once are we meant to worry about that. We do see the staff of the Daily Planet trying to get out, as long as they are ok, that's the important thing. Big special effects are fine, but they must have a context, it's boring just to smash things up for the sake of it, these things become exciting when there is some peril involved, an emotional attachment to it.
Once that all comes to an end, it feels like the film should stop there. It was a big enough finish to have got away with it. But no, it felt the need for one more big ruck, between Zod and our hero. Punch, Zod flies into a skyscraper and out the other side, glass smashed, top of building collapses, Zod gets one into Superman's chops, into a petrol tanker, huge explosion. Apart from the strange fact that they managed to find a clean couple of square miles of buildings that weren't destroyed or even touched by the World Engine, it becomes a needless 20 minutes of crashing, banging and walloping. To be fair, the moment when Superman saves the day (that isn't a spoiler, don't pretend you expected Zod to win) is another moral crossroads handled well by Cavill, but it's the thudding nonsense before that which makes it more of a relief than an emotional end to the story.
Except that isn't the end again, there's another bit that sets the film up for a sequel (again, no one will be surprised that there is going to be more of these). The problem with all of this is, when I left the cinema, all I could think about was the skull hammering last third, I had forgotten about all that went before that. I had been pummelled into submission. Which is a massive shame, because up until the point it became like Transformers or the end of Iron Man 2 and 3, it was interesting, it was doing something different, it was sci-fi and superheroes, it was asking interesting questions. It had Kevin Costner being brilliant, Amy Adams being perfectly fine, Russell Crowe being a bit Obi Wan (Alec Guiness, not Ewan McGregor). Then the film decides that the best way to answer a question is to bludgeon someone or blow something up. Lots and lots of times. Then do it all again.
Still it is worth seeing, but brace yourself for that finale, it's loud, long and just won't give in.
Saturday, 29 June 2013
WORLD WAR Z (2013 - Cert 15)
Right, let's get it out of the way - I am a huge fan of the book my Max Brooks. And I do mean huge. So much so, that when I first saw the trailer for the big screen adaptation, I resolved to vote with my feet and boycott the film completely. This was perhaps a slightly childish decision at it was based pretty much completely on the fact that Marc Foster (Quantum of Solace) had opted for fast Zombies (think 28 Days Later) rather than the shuffling, rotting undead corpses of the book (Think Romero or Sean of the Dead). Then as the delayed release date approached (it was initially due come out in December 2012) rumours surfaced of extensive reshoots, a third act that had to be completely rewritten, first by Damon Lindelof and then he didn't have time to finish it, so Drew Goddard had to step in. So all things pointed to an absolute turkey and a wasted opportunity for taking the Zombie genre into new territory.
Then reviews started to indicate that it wasn't dreadful, that it was actually decent. Some reviews claimed it was fantastic and there were even a few 4 star accolades being dished out. So I decided to attempt to be mature (anyone who knows me will know that this is quite a challenge) and go to see it, surely I could watch a film and take it on it's own merits and not be concerned by how it compares to the source material.....
Well, as it goes, I didn't have to try very hard because the film bears absolutely no resemblance to the book whatsoever, the only things in common being the title and the fact that the action takes place in more than one country. Admittedly, the book doesn't really have a narrative structure (it's made up of interviews and reports from different people who lived through the Zombie War), so I accept that something had to give in that regard. Brad Pitt is Gerry Lane, a retired UN operative who, after the outbreak of the plague, is forced (in a very laboured and unbelievable plot development) to find Patient Zero, find the source, you may find a way of stopping this thing. This takes Pitt around the world, well, just to South Korea, Israel and Wales in what feels like a cross between Outbreak and a James Bond film. Action, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different place, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different location, repeat to fade. So there's the formula and I suppose it's one that has worked before and it has to be said that it does generally work here, it pushes the film along at a good pace, not pausing to give you a chance to think 'hang on, surely it takes longer than 30 seconds to fill a fuel tank on a plane' and 'why have they stopped to let Brad Pitt on and not the other people with him?'.
The film's main selling point is the action set pieces. They are very good and look lovely. It has to be said that there is a lot of pleasure to be taken from seeing Zombie's on this scale. The vast majority of the films in the genre focus on small groups of people (partly because budgets impose certain restraints) and the clashes with the undead are in confined, claustrophobic spaces which of course is part of the scare. World War Z's reported budget of $190m has given Marc Foster the opportunity to open everything up, the Israel sequence in particular stands out visually, sweeping long range camera shots of a Zombie onslaught. This hasn't been done before with Zombies. Having said that, it all looks too CGI. The opening scene where the outbreak starts, is a lot more effective as the effects are more tactile, cars crashing are real, people running are real people not CGI ants, the Zombies themselves are real until they leap on a victim and they get a little bit of extra zip with some CGI. It still doesn't have the same sense of panic and peril as the opening of Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake or even of the opening of the new PS3 game, The Last of Us. It felt a bit flat.....
Having said all of that about the budget and the scale, the parts of the film that are scary are when the action is scaled down and put in a confined space, such as the section on the passenger plane and the closing sequence in the World Health Organisation building. Those are the moments that you feel tense, when your palms start to sweat. Maybe Zombie's don't need a big budget....
The film has a 15 certificate but I can remember absolutely no gore whatsoever. Perhaps it's a bit churlish of me to expect a bit of splatter and claret in a zombie film, some may feel it's not a necessity, but it did detract from the experience for me. It was really noticeable when the camera shied away from the things that a genre film wouldn't normally shy away from, a hand being chopped off by a knife for example, the camera was so keen to look away that it actually wasn't clear what was meant to have happened for a couple of seconds. The same applies when Pitt takes a Zombie down with a crowbar to the skull, only to have the weapon get stuck in the skull. Panic ensues as another corpse approaches, but the camera stays on Pitt's face, you can't even really see that he is trying to free up his crowbar. It's a minor thing I admit, but it really stood out to me. Shaun of the Dead was a 15 and I definitely remember Dylan Moran's intestines being ripped out and the camera not even flinching.
A major part of the book's appeal is the political aspect, it asked how would each country and religion react to a Zombie plague. For example the Chinese tried to cover it all up and censor any information that was released, the Catholic Church retreating to a town in Ireland where it's holiest place is. There are one or two moments where it seems that there was a script at some point, before the committees got involved, that tried to use some of these ideas, although it couldn't obviously criticise the Chinese, that's a good market to sell a film (See the recent Red Dawn remake). There is a interesting line about the North Koreans and the Israel exposition conversation has one or two interesting ideas, but that is pretty much the full extent of it.
It's also obvious that the third act was a complete rewrite, it feels like it's from a different film, although not necessarily in a completely negative way. It contains quite a novel idea on how to fight the Zombies, which you can tell probably comes from one of the writers of Lost, and has a tense stealthy action sequence. It also has Peter Capaldi which is a joy, although he doesn't swear which is a waste as far as I'm concerned. It also contains a wry little nod to slow Zombies which I quite liked (perhaps a Drew Goddard gag?). However, the fact that it is so different in tone from the rest of the film pretty much sums the whole film up.
It's a mess.
As the first real big budget zombie film, there's enough in there to enjoy, but there's also more than enough to leave you scratching your head and sighing with disappointment. Essentially, more through luck than judgment, they have thrown a lot of ideas at the canvas, so much so that some of it had to stick. Essentially, it's a decent enough action film that happens to have Zombies in it. Does it need to be seen at the cinema? Probably not, DVD will suffice (if anyone still watches those). It's very much left open for a sequel, and it has since been confirmed that there will be one as the figures on opening weekend were good, hopefully the second instalment will be a bit more intelligent and will at least attempt to channel the spirit of the source.
It seems that the makers of this film have taken the Zombie folklore too literally by destroying the brain.
If there is one lesson to be learnt by this, everyone should read the book. Did you hear that? Everyone should read the book.
Then reviews started to indicate that it wasn't dreadful, that it was actually decent. Some reviews claimed it was fantastic and there were even a few 4 star accolades being dished out. So I decided to attempt to be mature (anyone who knows me will know that this is quite a challenge) and go to see it, surely I could watch a film and take it on it's own merits and not be concerned by how it compares to the source material.....
Well, as it goes, I didn't have to try very hard because the film bears absolutely no resemblance to the book whatsoever, the only things in common being the title and the fact that the action takes place in more than one country. Admittedly, the book doesn't really have a narrative structure (it's made up of interviews and reports from different people who lived through the Zombie War), so I accept that something had to give in that regard. Brad Pitt is Gerry Lane, a retired UN operative who, after the outbreak of the plague, is forced (in a very laboured and unbelievable plot development) to find Patient Zero, find the source, you may find a way of stopping this thing. This takes Pitt around the world, well, just to South Korea, Israel and Wales in what feels like a cross between Outbreak and a James Bond film. Action, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different place, exposition by someone dispensable and a clue, action in a different location, repeat to fade. So there's the formula and I suppose it's one that has worked before and it has to be said that it does generally work here, it pushes the film along at a good pace, not pausing to give you a chance to think 'hang on, surely it takes longer than 30 seconds to fill a fuel tank on a plane' and 'why have they stopped to let Brad Pitt on and not the other people with him?'.
The film's main selling point is the action set pieces. They are very good and look lovely. It has to be said that there is a lot of pleasure to be taken from seeing Zombie's on this scale. The vast majority of the films in the genre focus on small groups of people (partly because budgets impose certain restraints) and the clashes with the undead are in confined, claustrophobic spaces which of course is part of the scare. World War Z's reported budget of $190m has given Marc Foster the opportunity to open everything up, the Israel sequence in particular stands out visually, sweeping long range camera shots of a Zombie onslaught. This hasn't been done before with Zombies. Having said that, it all looks too CGI. The opening scene where the outbreak starts, is a lot more effective as the effects are more tactile, cars crashing are real, people running are real people not CGI ants, the Zombies themselves are real until they leap on a victim and they get a little bit of extra zip with some CGI. It still doesn't have the same sense of panic and peril as the opening of Zach Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake or even of the opening of the new PS3 game, The Last of Us. It felt a bit flat.....
Having said all of that about the budget and the scale, the parts of the film that are scary are when the action is scaled down and put in a confined space, such as the section on the passenger plane and the closing sequence in the World Health Organisation building. Those are the moments that you feel tense, when your palms start to sweat. Maybe Zombie's don't need a big budget....
The film has a 15 certificate but I can remember absolutely no gore whatsoever. Perhaps it's a bit churlish of me to expect a bit of splatter and claret in a zombie film, some may feel it's not a necessity, but it did detract from the experience for me. It was really noticeable when the camera shied away from the things that a genre film wouldn't normally shy away from, a hand being chopped off by a knife for example, the camera was so keen to look away that it actually wasn't clear what was meant to have happened for a couple of seconds. The same applies when Pitt takes a Zombie down with a crowbar to the skull, only to have the weapon get stuck in the skull. Panic ensues as another corpse approaches, but the camera stays on Pitt's face, you can't even really see that he is trying to free up his crowbar. It's a minor thing I admit, but it really stood out to me. Shaun of the Dead was a 15 and I definitely remember Dylan Moran's intestines being ripped out and the camera not even flinching.
A major part of the book's appeal is the political aspect, it asked how would each country and religion react to a Zombie plague. For example the Chinese tried to cover it all up and censor any information that was released, the Catholic Church retreating to a town in Ireland where it's holiest place is. There are one or two moments where it seems that there was a script at some point, before the committees got involved, that tried to use some of these ideas, although it couldn't obviously criticise the Chinese, that's a good market to sell a film (See the recent Red Dawn remake). There is a interesting line about the North Koreans and the Israel exposition conversation has one or two interesting ideas, but that is pretty much the full extent of it.
It's also obvious that the third act was a complete rewrite, it feels like it's from a different film, although not necessarily in a completely negative way. It contains quite a novel idea on how to fight the Zombies, which you can tell probably comes from one of the writers of Lost, and has a tense stealthy action sequence. It also has Peter Capaldi which is a joy, although he doesn't swear which is a waste as far as I'm concerned. It also contains a wry little nod to slow Zombies which I quite liked (perhaps a Drew Goddard gag?). However, the fact that it is so different in tone from the rest of the film pretty much sums the whole film up.
It's a mess.
As the first real big budget zombie film, there's enough in there to enjoy, but there's also more than enough to leave you scratching your head and sighing with disappointment. Essentially, more through luck than judgment, they have thrown a lot of ideas at the canvas, so much so that some of it had to stick. Essentially, it's a decent enough action film that happens to have Zombies in it. Does it need to be seen at the cinema? Probably not, DVD will suffice (if anyone still watches those). It's very much left open for a sequel, and it has since been confirmed that there will be one as the figures on opening weekend were good, hopefully the second instalment will be a bit more intelligent and will at least attempt to channel the spirit of the source.
It seems that the makers of this film have taken the Zombie folklore too literally by destroying the brain.
If there is one lesson to be learnt by this, everyone should read the book. Did you hear that? Everyone should read the book.
Tuesday, 3 July 2012
ABRAHAM LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER (2012 - Cert 15)
It's clear from the title that this film is probably only going to really appeal to a certain portion of the cinema population. It's in the 'Ronseal' sub-folder along with Cowboys v Aliens and Snakes on a Plane, although if truth be told there is a lot more substance to Abe Lincoln than most films that crop up in this genre. The trouble is there should have been even more depth than is actually on show.
I've read the source material, a book (part of the 'mash-up'genre) by Seth Grahame-Smith (the chap who also gave us Pride, Prejudice and Zombies). I recall reading it (in proper book form, paper and everything, before the Kindle entered my life), on the train in the morning people would peer over the top of their Steig Larsson or their Penguin Classic and sneer at my choice of literature. Clearly I was an idiot who could only absorb historical material if it's diulted with creatures of the night. What they didn't realise, because they would never think to actually read the blurb of the book, is that Grahame-Smith managed to take the incredible life of one of history's most celebrated men and apply vampirism to it, tackling important issues like slavery, the Civil War, revenge and loss. It also took real life events and gave them a different and very interesting spin, the battle of Gettysburg, the death of Edgar Allen Poe. It wasn't cheap thrills, genre, b-movie lit, this was a well researched, intelligent epic that packed an emotional punch. Perfect for a film you might think.
The first name I heard attached to it was Tim Burton. Perfect director, I thought, a nice gothically, historical touch. Safe hands for something that is obviously a bit left field. Then it transpires that he was buying the rights along with Timur Bekmambetov, director of Day Watch, Night Watch and Wanted. Not quiet so appealing...the concern of style over substance ominously creeping over me.
So what do we get? An interesting Burton-esque oddity, cleverly taking us through the life of Lincoln, or a flashy, CGI-laden piece cherry-picking the showreel action sequences from the book, patchworking them together with exposition? The truth it's, ironically, it's a bit of a mash-up.
We meet Lincoln for the first time as a young lad during the obligatory scene-setting flashback (after a nicely polished Washington monument gradually going back in time), before you know it you've had a bit of slavery thrown in your face and a relative of his cops it at the hands of a set of fangs. Fast forward and we see Lincoln in his adult form (Benjamin Walker), he's still not happy with the murder of a loved one and is still hell bent on revenge. Dominic Cooper's Henry Sturgess pops up to help him and to help us with a bit of background as to how vampires have come to inhabit the USA. Crucially, the character of Sturgess also sums up the problem with the film. In the book he was comfortably one of the most interesting characters and really drove the narrative along. In the film, he is restricted to a paper thin element of the plot that doesn't really seem to serve that much purpose. His origins in the book were a vital part to the origins of vampires in the story and a huge influence over Lincoln's decisions on his career. In the film however, the backstory is limited to something much more formulaic, stunted and unfortunately predictable. This diluting has spread throughout the film, some of the more appealing elements have not made it on to the screen. Abe's political career gets next to no coverage, the Civil War becomes an excuse for an action scene, Slavery is touched upon before we are taken off on a rampaging chase scene. The 'issues' seem to be like a hot potato to Bekmambetov, he just can't seem to dwell on it long enough to make it count.
That little splurt of negativity isn't the whole story though, because there is plenty here to enjoy. Walker's casting is an interesting one, at first he comes across as far from prominent in the role but as the film pushes along it feels as though he really grows in to it. It could be argued that it's fine acting, it's not Walker that's growing, it's his character and his performance should be applauded. However, it could be that Walker is just like the film, inconsistent. He is supported nicely by Dominic Cooper and Mary Elizabeth Wanstead as the love interest and Rufus Sewell continues the fine British evil tradition with a nasty pantomime turn that looks alarmingly like a young Roger Daltrey.
If there is one thing Bekmambetov knows how to do, it's action. He pulls it off again here. It has his customary digital glean that doesn't smack of realism but it tick the box for entertainment, although it's nothing we've not really seen before. The train scene deserves praise in particular.
It also has moments of subtlety, which only make the cack-handedness found elsewhere all the more frustrating. The film isn't afraid off killing someone off and these moments do have an emotional touch to them. A nice scene on a Civil War battlefield has a quiet sombreness to it and Abe's death (not a spoiler, you all know what happens to him in the end) gets a curt nod with a wry smile. Nicely done.
So, a mixed bag, but worth a watch, probably on DVD in all honesty. Plus I can't help wondering whether had I not read the book I would have enjoyed it a lot more. It's a shame that you can't erase all prior knowledge and pre-conceptions from your noggin when you go into a cinema, the world would be a much better place with plenty more surprises.
I've read the source material, a book (part of the 'mash-up'genre) by Seth Grahame-Smith (the chap who also gave us Pride, Prejudice and Zombies). I recall reading it (in proper book form, paper and everything, before the Kindle entered my life), on the train in the morning people would peer over the top of their Steig Larsson or their Penguin Classic and sneer at my choice of literature. Clearly I was an idiot who could only absorb historical material if it's diulted with creatures of the night. What they didn't realise, because they would never think to actually read the blurb of the book, is that Grahame-Smith managed to take the incredible life of one of history's most celebrated men and apply vampirism to it, tackling important issues like slavery, the Civil War, revenge and loss. It also took real life events and gave them a different and very interesting spin, the battle of Gettysburg, the death of Edgar Allen Poe. It wasn't cheap thrills, genre, b-movie lit, this was a well researched, intelligent epic that packed an emotional punch. Perfect for a film you might think.
The first name I heard attached to it was Tim Burton. Perfect director, I thought, a nice gothically, historical touch. Safe hands for something that is obviously a bit left field. Then it transpires that he was buying the rights along with Timur Bekmambetov, director of Day Watch, Night Watch and Wanted. Not quiet so appealing...the concern of style over substance ominously creeping over me.
So what do we get? An interesting Burton-esque oddity, cleverly taking us through the life of Lincoln, or a flashy, CGI-laden piece cherry-picking the showreel action sequences from the book, patchworking them together with exposition? The truth it's, ironically, it's a bit of a mash-up.
We meet Lincoln for the first time as a young lad during the obligatory scene-setting flashback (after a nicely polished Washington monument gradually going back in time), before you know it you've had a bit of slavery thrown in your face and a relative of his cops it at the hands of a set of fangs. Fast forward and we see Lincoln in his adult form (Benjamin Walker), he's still not happy with the murder of a loved one and is still hell bent on revenge. Dominic Cooper's Henry Sturgess pops up to help him and to help us with a bit of background as to how vampires have come to inhabit the USA. Crucially, the character of Sturgess also sums up the problem with the film. In the book he was comfortably one of the most interesting characters and really drove the narrative along. In the film, he is restricted to a paper thin element of the plot that doesn't really seem to serve that much purpose. His origins in the book were a vital part to the origins of vampires in the story and a huge influence over Lincoln's decisions on his career. In the film however, the backstory is limited to something much more formulaic, stunted and unfortunately predictable. This diluting has spread throughout the film, some of the more appealing elements have not made it on to the screen. Abe's political career gets next to no coverage, the Civil War becomes an excuse for an action scene, Slavery is touched upon before we are taken off on a rampaging chase scene. The 'issues' seem to be like a hot potato to Bekmambetov, he just can't seem to dwell on it long enough to make it count.
That little splurt of negativity isn't the whole story though, because there is plenty here to enjoy. Walker's casting is an interesting one, at first he comes across as far from prominent in the role but as the film pushes along it feels as though he really grows in to it. It could be argued that it's fine acting, it's not Walker that's growing, it's his character and his performance should be applauded. However, it could be that Walker is just like the film, inconsistent. He is supported nicely by Dominic Cooper and Mary Elizabeth Wanstead as the love interest and Rufus Sewell continues the fine British evil tradition with a nasty pantomime turn that looks alarmingly like a young Roger Daltrey.
If there is one thing Bekmambetov knows how to do, it's action. He pulls it off again here. It has his customary digital glean that doesn't smack of realism but it tick the box for entertainment, although it's nothing we've not really seen before. The train scene deserves praise in particular.
It also has moments of subtlety, which only make the cack-handedness found elsewhere all the more frustrating. The film isn't afraid off killing someone off and these moments do have an emotional touch to them. A nice scene on a Civil War battlefield has a quiet sombreness to it and Abe's death (not a spoiler, you all know what happens to him in the end) gets a curt nod with a wry smile. Nicely done.
So, a mixed bag, but worth a watch, probably on DVD in all honesty. Plus I can't help wondering whether had I not read the book I would have enjoyed it a lot more. It's a shame that you can't erase all prior knowledge and pre-conceptions from your noggin when you go into a cinema, the world would be a much better place with plenty more surprises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)