DVD Review: Hellboy Animated: Sword Of Storms (Phil Weinstein, Tad Stones, 2006, USA).
Hellboy is not the most beloved of the comic book properties, not nearly as big as such titles as Spider-Man, Batman or Superman, but he is treated better than most. A labour of love for both writer/creator Mike Mignola and director Guillermo del Toro, the film was both a critical and commercial success and a sequel is currently in production. To stem the tide, we have this (and its sequel, Blood And Iron).
Hellboy (Ron Perlman), Liz Shermann (Selmar Blair) and Abe Sapien (Doug Jones) are sent to Japan to investigate the disappearance of a professor. The professornhad recently come into posession of the Sword Of Storms, something Hellboy finds and as soon as he does, he is transported into the mythological world of the Sword's origin. Liz and Abe try to find Hellboy while he tries to find a way out of this world before our world is consumed by the sword's power.
This animated feature captures the tone of the original film to the letter and is all the better for it. The dry humour, the fantastical elements, the relationships between the charcaters and all the other elements are transferred perfectly. This is due in no samll part to the prescence of Mignola scripting, del Toro executive producing, and the original players coming back (Jones played Sapien in the film, he just didn't voice him). This in itself is a joy. Unforutnately, other aspects are weaker.
The story is rather convoluted and is not really that engaging. While the creatures Hellboy faces are interesting, the reasons behind what is happening do not fit quite right, even into the world of Hellboy. This does feel like a stopgap inbetween films and yet the mood of the piece and the humour do shine through. It is also, not the longest film in the world. At around 80 minutes, it would have been nice to have some more action with Hellboy, Liz and Abe together. Also, what happens with Abe and Liz at one point seems rather random as the fil does not hint t anything between the two. The action in the film is very 12 rated, this is not for small children. Some of the foes are scay and the posession sequences are fairly intense. Basically, if your kid handled the movie you should be fine. All the cast are good though Jones sounds like he could try and make a bit more effort to replicate the Abe of the original movie. Hellboy is a joy and Liz brings the right amount of conflict to her ole which was seen in the film.
While I cannot recommend this to anyone who has not seen Hellboy, it is a very enetertaining way to spend an afternoon and I am very interested in seeing where Blood And Iron takes us.
Video & Audio: Fine, nothing amazing but perfectly adequate. DD 5.1 seems unecessary.
Didn't watch extras.
Good rent folks.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
DVD Review: Idiocracy
DVD Review: Idiocracy (Mike Judge, 2006, USA).
Mike Judge then. Creator of Beavis & Butthead probably the most zeitgeisty cartoon ever made and King Of The Hill, a show that some regard as better than The Simpsons. With such respect from those shows he made Office Space, a commercial bomb which later became a cult hit on video. When he tried to make another film, he must have had a sense of deja vu about the exeperience. It was dumped in a few cinemas in America then left to go to DVD, here it goes straight to DVD. The real issue is why is this the case. Why again, when this film is better than many of the comedies which have successful theatrical releases.
Joe Bauer (Luke Wilson) is an average Army librarian who is enlisted into an experiment with a prostitute, Rita (Maya Rudolph). This experiement sends them 500 years into the future where because less intelligent people have more children than smarter, society has become very very dumb. With the society on the brink of collapse, it is found that Joe is now the smartest man alive. While trying to help the world he has stubled into, Joe also enlists the help of Frito (Dax Shepard) who tells him of a "Time Musheen" which can get Joe back home.
Idiocracy is a strange beast of a film. The point it makes is smart and feels very plausible. The threat it paints feels like it can happen and the idea of the film sounds very appealing to anyone looking for smart satrical comedy. It makes us laugh at the idea of people laughing at TV programs like "Ow, My Balls" and a Predisdent elected solely because he was a popular wrestler. However, much of it feels like it is reaching for the lowest common donominator. A narrator is used to explain every single little plot point in the movie. Much of the film's laughs come from moronic idiots who most would feel sorry for if we saw them in society today.The film feels like it should be a high-brow satire but it is in actuality fairly low-brow. It is not hard to see why Fox dumped this film. Much of the audience it is pandering to, is the audience it is insulting. Whether this is a work of perverse genius by Judge or a result of sloppy re-editing by Fox is an interesting question but one I feel we won't ever get a true answer for.
This film is funny it has to be said however. Some of its targets are obvious but the laughs are made. However, the laughs are front-loaded. Once we are used to this world, they start to dry up. There is some good stuff towards the end but it feels like the point has been made within the first half hour but it still has another 50 minutes to go. Luke Wilson is the bland everyman he always is and does it just fine. Maya Rudolph is funny in a stereotypical prostitute way. Dax Shepard is annoying after his first 30 seconds and does not really seem to try. However, a very funny cameo from Justin Long steals the movie for me. His bizarre screaming sequence was very random, and welcome for it.
Mike Judge just can't seem to get a break. While this film sounds promising on paper, it never quite delivers. The ending feels unsatisactory, the editing is sloppy as all hell and the point it makes soon become laboured. And yet, it is still funnier tha most of the stuff we see in cinemas today. guy just can't seem to get a break. Very recommended rental.
Video: Just fine, no major problems.
Audio: Uninvolving DD 5.1 soundtrack. Not much use of anything beyond the front and no discernable bass. Can't say I'm suprised but it is disapointing.
Extras: Maybe 3 minutes of deleted scenes which are all pointless.
Good movie, poor disc. Rent it, don't blind buy as I nearly did.
Back soon with Hellboy Animated: Sword of Storms and 300
Mike Judge then. Creator of Beavis & Butthead probably the most zeitgeisty cartoon ever made and King Of The Hill, a show that some regard as better than The Simpsons. With such respect from those shows he made Office Space, a commercial bomb which later became a cult hit on video. When he tried to make another film, he must have had a sense of deja vu about the exeperience. It was dumped in a few cinemas in America then left to go to DVD, here it goes straight to DVD. The real issue is why is this the case. Why again, when this film is better than many of the comedies which have successful theatrical releases.
Joe Bauer (Luke Wilson) is an average Army librarian who is enlisted into an experiment with a prostitute, Rita (Maya Rudolph). This experiement sends them 500 years into the future where because less intelligent people have more children than smarter, society has become very very dumb. With the society on the brink of collapse, it is found that Joe is now the smartest man alive. While trying to help the world he has stubled into, Joe also enlists the help of Frito (Dax Shepard) who tells him of a "Time Musheen" which can get Joe back home.
Idiocracy is a strange beast of a film. The point it makes is smart and feels very plausible. The threat it paints feels like it can happen and the idea of the film sounds very appealing to anyone looking for smart satrical comedy. It makes us laugh at the idea of people laughing at TV programs like "Ow, My Balls" and a Predisdent elected solely because he was a popular wrestler. However, much of it feels like it is reaching for the lowest common donominator. A narrator is used to explain every single little plot point in the movie. Much of the film's laughs come from moronic idiots who most would feel sorry for if we saw them in society today.The film feels like it should be a high-brow satire but it is in actuality fairly low-brow. It is not hard to see why Fox dumped this film. Much of the audience it is pandering to, is the audience it is insulting. Whether this is a work of perverse genius by Judge or a result of sloppy re-editing by Fox is an interesting question but one I feel we won't ever get a true answer for.
This film is funny it has to be said however. Some of its targets are obvious but the laughs are made. However, the laughs are front-loaded. Once we are used to this world, they start to dry up. There is some good stuff towards the end but it feels like the point has been made within the first half hour but it still has another 50 minutes to go. Luke Wilson is the bland everyman he always is and does it just fine. Maya Rudolph is funny in a stereotypical prostitute way. Dax Shepard is annoying after his first 30 seconds and does not really seem to try. However, a very funny cameo from Justin Long steals the movie for me. His bizarre screaming sequence was very random, and welcome for it.
Mike Judge just can't seem to get a break. While this film sounds promising on paper, it never quite delivers. The ending feels unsatisactory, the editing is sloppy as all hell and the point it makes soon become laboured. And yet, it is still funnier tha most of the stuff we see in cinemas today. guy just can't seem to get a break. Very recommended rental.
Video: Just fine, no major problems.
Audio: Uninvolving DD 5.1 soundtrack. Not much use of anything beyond the front and no discernable bass. Can't say I'm suprised but it is disapointing.
Extras: Maybe 3 minutes of deleted scenes which are all pointless.
Good movie, poor disc. Rent it, don't blind buy as I nearly did.
Back soon with Hellboy Animated: Sword of Storms and 300
Friday, March 23, 2007
DVD Review: Marie-Antoinette
DVD Review: Marie-Antoinette (Sofia Coppola, 2006, USA).
To say Sofia Coppola has had an interesting life would seem to be an understatement. Daughter of 70's uber-director Francis Ford Coppola, her life was in the spotlight since literally infancy as she was first seen on screen as a baby in The Godfather. She then grew up and famously replaced Winonna Ryder at the last minute in The Godfather Part 3, the subsequent reaction to which pretty much made sure that whatever she did in her adult life, it probably wouldn't be in front of the camera. Indeed this turned out to be the case. Her direcotiral debut, The Virgin Suicides was quite the indie darling. It never truly broke through to the maistream but the whimiscal yet disturbing air of the film, and a memorable soundtrack by french band Air, made sure that she ws to be a hip one-to-watch. Her next film the very funny, very moving, yet wholly overrated Lost In Translation earned her the respect of everyone in Hollywood and marked the resurgance of Bill Murray. Quite the hot property then. For her next film, Coppola had it all. Studio backing, access to some of the greatest locations in Europe and a cast consisting of pretty much whoever she wanted. The film made was Marie-Antoinette. Booed at Cannes, derided for its light and fluffy look at the Queen of France and a bit of a bomb, it seems Coppola had dropped the ball. I, for one, disagree.
Marie-Antoinette is taken from her home in Austria to become a symbol of the Franco-Austrian alliance and to cement this by marrying the future king Louis XV (Jason Schwartzman) who is also only a teenager. As she adapts to this strange world, she has to try and perusade Louis to have sex with her to have a child who will keep the union strong. Unfulfilled, Marie turns to hedonisitic parties and other men to make her happy. But then things get bad...
You can see why this film was booed at Cannes. Gaining unparalelled access to Versailles, given wonderful costumes (which earned the film its only Oscar nomination), and being given the chance to tell the story of one of France's infamous figures, Coppola has turned her story into that of a coming-of-age story in which in many ways, no-one comes of age. A pop-art explosion starts the film with contemporary guitar music filling the speakers. This, one suspects, is something not expected. The start of the film detailing Marie's journey echoes that of any teenage girl. excitement, gossip and boredom. The procession of marraige and consummating the marriage that follows is strangely surreal and very ridiculous, again not expected. none of this film is expected. No one attempts any kind of real accent, apart from varying degrees of English and American (Even a New Yorker accent highlighted in Asia Argento's bizarre performance). No french accenting here. This is a Hollywood film made in France, about, France but only taking the more ridiculous aspects into account.
Marie as a character feels relateable to any 16-year old girl. Bored by most things around her, wanting to indulge in drinking and boys, sneaking out to go to parties at night, one gets the feeling that Coppola is not interested in her real story at all and instead seeks to make a connection between the then and now. For all the ceremony and the different setting, the teenage years seem the same then as it is now. The use of music, the style of editing, the at time-s hand held camerawork all blend together to create this story. If I was a proud Frenchman, I would be furious. As I am not, I was throughly pleased by it, something I am suprised about. One thing I would agree with most critics of this film is that the ending seems very rushed. We are never too clear what part Marie is playing in the downfall of French society and yet she is blamed for everything. We see her escaping Versailles but this is all we get. No cards explaining what happened next even, just the credits. While the film was foucsed on a specific aspect of her life, it would have been nice to have some sort of closure.
Kirsten Dunst can do this sort of role in her sleep. She's beautiful, can be childlike, and seems like a bit of a twat. All it needs to be. Jason Schwartzman is forgettable, never does anything with his role but it feels like he needs to be a bit of a blank. Rip Torn is funny in his brief role of Louis XIV, Asia Argento is bizarre, and Steve Coogan is Steve Coogan. Nice, eccentric casting is always something I respect.
I feel sorry for Sofia Coppola. All 3 of her films have dealt with very similar themes, of girls feeling isolated. This, I would argue is her strongest film to date. The film is throughly entertaining, funny and gorgeous to look at. And yet while lost In Translation is seen as one of the best films of 2004, Marie-Antoinette looks like it will be forgotten about very quickly. That is a real shame and I hope Coppola doesn't change her track because of the negative reaction.
Video: Clean transfer, perfectly good, no noticeable faults seen.
Audio: Disappointing, Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack. For a film with such an interesting use of soundtrack, it is sad that this is not as involving as I would like. OK use of surround for the music but no noticeable directional effects and no discernable use of bass at all. Sad.
Extras: Haven't seen them. Just wanted to get the review out.
OK, that's it. Back in the next couple of days with a review of Mike Judge's direct-to-DVD (over here) cult-in-the-making comedy Idiocracy. Also hopefully 300.
To say Sofia Coppola has had an interesting life would seem to be an understatement. Daughter of 70's uber-director Francis Ford Coppola, her life was in the spotlight since literally infancy as she was first seen on screen as a baby in The Godfather. She then grew up and famously replaced Winonna Ryder at the last minute in The Godfather Part 3, the subsequent reaction to which pretty much made sure that whatever she did in her adult life, it probably wouldn't be in front of the camera. Indeed this turned out to be the case. Her direcotiral debut, The Virgin Suicides was quite the indie darling. It never truly broke through to the maistream but the whimiscal yet disturbing air of the film, and a memorable soundtrack by french band Air, made sure that she ws to be a hip one-to-watch. Her next film the very funny, very moving, yet wholly overrated Lost In Translation earned her the respect of everyone in Hollywood and marked the resurgance of Bill Murray. Quite the hot property then. For her next film, Coppola had it all. Studio backing, access to some of the greatest locations in Europe and a cast consisting of pretty much whoever she wanted. The film made was Marie-Antoinette. Booed at Cannes, derided for its light and fluffy look at the Queen of France and a bit of a bomb, it seems Coppola had dropped the ball. I, for one, disagree.
Marie-Antoinette is taken from her home in Austria to become a symbol of the Franco-Austrian alliance and to cement this by marrying the future king Louis XV (Jason Schwartzman) who is also only a teenager. As she adapts to this strange world, she has to try and perusade Louis to have sex with her to have a child who will keep the union strong. Unfulfilled, Marie turns to hedonisitic parties and other men to make her happy. But then things get bad...
You can see why this film was booed at Cannes. Gaining unparalelled access to Versailles, given wonderful costumes (which earned the film its only Oscar nomination), and being given the chance to tell the story of one of France's infamous figures, Coppola has turned her story into that of a coming-of-age story in which in many ways, no-one comes of age. A pop-art explosion starts the film with contemporary guitar music filling the speakers. This, one suspects, is something not expected. The start of the film detailing Marie's journey echoes that of any teenage girl. excitement, gossip and boredom. The procession of marraige and consummating the marriage that follows is strangely surreal and very ridiculous, again not expected. none of this film is expected. No one attempts any kind of real accent, apart from varying degrees of English and American (Even a New Yorker accent highlighted in Asia Argento's bizarre performance). No french accenting here. This is a Hollywood film made in France, about, France but only taking the more ridiculous aspects into account.
Marie as a character feels relateable to any 16-year old girl. Bored by most things around her, wanting to indulge in drinking and boys, sneaking out to go to parties at night, one gets the feeling that Coppola is not interested in her real story at all and instead seeks to make a connection between the then and now. For all the ceremony and the different setting, the teenage years seem the same then as it is now. The use of music, the style of editing, the at time-s hand held camerawork all blend together to create this story. If I was a proud Frenchman, I would be furious. As I am not, I was throughly pleased by it, something I am suprised about. One thing I would agree with most critics of this film is that the ending seems very rushed. We are never too clear what part Marie is playing in the downfall of French society and yet she is blamed for everything. We see her escaping Versailles but this is all we get. No cards explaining what happened next even, just the credits. While the film was foucsed on a specific aspect of her life, it would have been nice to have some sort of closure.
Kirsten Dunst can do this sort of role in her sleep. She's beautiful, can be childlike, and seems like a bit of a twat. All it needs to be. Jason Schwartzman is forgettable, never does anything with his role but it feels like he needs to be a bit of a blank. Rip Torn is funny in his brief role of Louis XIV, Asia Argento is bizarre, and Steve Coogan is Steve Coogan. Nice, eccentric casting is always something I respect.
I feel sorry for Sofia Coppola. All 3 of her films have dealt with very similar themes, of girls feeling isolated. This, I would argue is her strongest film to date. The film is throughly entertaining, funny and gorgeous to look at. And yet while lost In Translation is seen as one of the best films of 2004, Marie-Antoinette looks like it will be forgotten about very quickly. That is a real shame and I hope Coppola doesn't change her track because of the negative reaction.
Video: Clean transfer, perfectly good, no noticeable faults seen.
Audio: Disappointing, Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack. For a film with such an interesting use of soundtrack, it is sad that this is not as involving as I would like. OK use of surround for the music but no noticeable directional effects and no discernable use of bass at all. Sad.
Extras: Haven't seen them. Just wanted to get the review out.
OK, that's it. Back in the next couple of days with a review of Mike Judge's direct-to-DVD (over here) cult-in-the-making comedy Idiocracy. Also hopefully 300.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
DVD Review: Casino Royale
The film? Look for my review in my November posts. I'll say this: I enjoyed it every bit as much this time round and it really didn't feel long to me. Honestly, genuinely great film. Which is more than can be said for the DVD...
Video: Great. As good as you can get on DVD. No features on the first disc so you would expect the film to look good and it really does. Want to see the Blu-Ray version soooooooo bad mind.
Audio: Really solid Dolby Digital 5.1 Soundtrack. Nice, involving, not too imposing, very good stuff.
Extras: The bad thing with the ever shortening cinema-to-DVD is that many companies have stopped trying with the first DVD release. The one for the mass consumer market who wants the film here and now, close to the cinema release while it is still in their minds, and will sell enough to give the companies plenty of revenue. Then later with the "double dip", they release the edition for the fans/edition plugging the sequel. One suspects the next edition fo Casino Royale on DVD will be a hybrid of both, following on from the "Ultimate Editions" of the previous films and coinciding (I think) with the release of the as-yet-untitled Bond 22. SO we are stuck with this....
Documentaries:
Becoming Bond - I thought this would focus on Daniel Craig's casting, and it does for about five minutes before focusing on the general making of the film. It's pretty interesting but cries out for more in-depth coverage. Decent made-for-TV effort.
James Bond: For Real- Again a fairly decent made-for-TV effort focusing on the stunts in the film which also deserve more in-depth coverage. Especially the free-running sequence, which was one of, if not the best action sequences of the year. Just not long enough.
Bond Girls Are Forever - Ridiculous and out-of-date TV special looking at the old-school Bond girls from Dr No - Die Another Day. Nothing much to do with Casino Royale, the key one being that Vesper Lynd represents a new kind of Bond Girl completely. One used to move the plot forward and represent a genuine emotional threat for Bond (I'll leave Diana Rigg from on Her Majesty's Secret Service out of this).
Great film, great AV, painfully rushed disc. Still though if you can get it for 7 quid from Asda like I did, go for it just for the film!
Video: Great. As good as you can get on DVD. No features on the first disc so you would expect the film to look good and it really does. Want to see the Blu-Ray version soooooooo bad mind.
Audio: Really solid Dolby Digital 5.1 Soundtrack. Nice, involving, not too imposing, very good stuff.
Extras: The bad thing with the ever shortening cinema-to-DVD is that many companies have stopped trying with the first DVD release. The one for the mass consumer market who wants the film here and now, close to the cinema release while it is still in their minds, and will sell enough to give the companies plenty of revenue. Then later with the "double dip", they release the edition for the fans/edition plugging the sequel. One suspects the next edition fo Casino Royale on DVD will be a hybrid of both, following on from the "Ultimate Editions" of the previous films and coinciding (I think) with the release of the as-yet-untitled Bond 22. SO we are stuck with this....
Documentaries:
Becoming Bond - I thought this would focus on Daniel Craig's casting, and it does for about five minutes before focusing on the general making of the film. It's pretty interesting but cries out for more in-depth coverage. Decent made-for-TV effort.
James Bond: For Real- Again a fairly decent made-for-TV effort focusing on the stunts in the film which also deserve more in-depth coverage. Especially the free-running sequence, which was one of, if not the best action sequences of the year. Just not long enough.
Bond Girls Are Forever - Ridiculous and out-of-date TV special looking at the old-school Bond girls from Dr No - Die Another Day. Nothing much to do with Casino Royale, the key one being that Vesper Lynd represents a new kind of Bond Girl completely. One used to move the plot forward and represent a genuine emotional threat for Bond (I'll leave Diana Rigg from on Her Majesty's Secret Service out of this).
Great film, great AV, painfully rushed disc. Still though if you can get it for 7 quid from Asda like I did, go for it just for the film!
Monday, March 19, 2007
A little advertisement....
Casino Royale is 7 quid in Asda until Sunday. By far the best price out there. Will have a review of the DVD up tomorrow. Great sound I will say now.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
DVD Review: The Prestige
DVD Review: The Prestige (Christopher Nolan, 2006, USA).
After a comic book film, what would you do if you were a director? Make more like Bryan Singer or Mark Steven Johnson? Or strike out and do something different like Ang Lee? Christopher Nolan, a guy who obviously doesn't want to be pegged down, opts for the latter with a twisty-turney puzzle of a film. Or should that be magic trick... (Lazy writing I know).
Two up-and-coming magicians Borden (Christian Bale) and Angier (Hugh Jackman) start off as friends working for a magician hoping to be the next big sensation. After a tragic accident kills Angier's wife, the two become bitter rivals stopping at nothing to out-do each other. After Borden comes up with the greatest magic trick ever seen, Angier becomes obsessed with finding out his secret.
That is all I really want to say about the plot because this film has a place in the ever more commpn place genre of films with big twists. While this film does certainly have twists along the way, what must be said about it is how amazingly well the script and direction work to make this film become the cinematic equivilant of a magic trick. The film shows you things which you believe are ordinary, adds a sense of mystery and then amazes you with something which when you know, seems obvious, but at the time, you just cannot figure out how it will play out. Opinion of the reveal has been mixed. Some have complained that it was too obvious or was too outlandish or ridiuclous to be satisfying. I would not agree. Having seen this film twice, I can say that it holds up very well. The components which make up the big trick(s) are set up clearly but to say that you figure it out first time would be bullshit, I would suggest. This also takes out feelings of it being too ridculous. The world created is so intricate and fully formed that what happens does not feel unreal, it feels true to the world of the film.
Having said all this, watching it the second time, knowing how it plays out, brings to light just how brilliant this film is. It is comletely gripping from beginning to end. It looks amazing, the cinematography by Wally Pfister was some of the best of any film last year, and the direction is brilliant from beginning to end. the story of just what the two magicians are capalbe of is also brogught to the fore. if you think about what each one is doing, the film takes on a wholly more disturbing edge. The editing too is also top notch. the film amy be confusing at times but that is all to do with the plot, the editing makes the film flow as freely and easily as it can but does not ever intrude or dare to make this a case of style over substance. The production and set design are also exemplary. It's just a classy looking movie.
So the perfomances. Hugh Jackman and Chirstian Bale as the rivals do some good work without ever really breaking out. They have played these types of roles before and will again. They are very good at them but its nothing you haven't seen before. Scarlett Johansson does OK in what is a really quite thankless role, one which does not require the actress to do anything other than look pretty. To be fair, she does that well. Rebecca Hall on the other hand, pulss off a really rather well written role as Borden's wife. The sense of frustration she feels is brought o the fore very nicely and her perfomance really is heartbreaking. My favourites though are the two more left-field perfomances in the film. Andy Serkis brings a light to touch to his role as Tesla's assistant. His enthusaiasm bonds well with Angier and also with my favourite charcter in the piece. DAVID BOWIE!!!! Not only does Bowie play Tesla but a. He uses one of the strangest accents I have ever heard on a film and b. His first apparance is through a field of electricity! His charcter is supposed to bee malevolent and mysterious and Bowie is the perfect choice for this part. The man is jut odd, but very cool as well and again, that is Bowie. it may not be a strech for him but I don't care.
So, a great film. Brillaint plot, looks incredible and the perfomances are solid. And it has Bowie in it. What's not to love?
Video: Very nice transfer, handles both light and dark very well. Tis a tasd murky at times but I think this is a stylistic choice and not the fault of the DVD mastering. Would love to see the Blu-Ray version hoever, as I have heard it is incredible.
Audio: Involving Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack. great surround where there needs to be, very nice use of bass when it has to be used (you will know), but it never overpowers the dialogue. Not exactly reference quality but a good job nonetheless.
DVD Extras:
The Director's Notebook: 20 minute long documentary, made up of several parts. Better than the majority of doumentaries on DVDs of this length as it talks about all sorts of aspects of the production and is not just full of platitudes directed at the cast and crew. We get talk of visual metaphors used in the film, and how certain shots were achieved. i wish it was longer to be honest as this film feels like it needs a good documentary.
Trailer: Really interesting trailer which perked my attention to the film up when I first saw it. Fits the mood and tone of the film very well.
Disapointing number of extras for a film which I very highly recommend as one of my favourites of last year.
I won't be reviewing Zidane as I didn't make it the whole way through. It's literally following Zidane for the whole time and it nearly put me to sleep. Great soundtrack though and the surround effects were used very well.
Bye!
After a comic book film, what would you do if you were a director? Make more like Bryan Singer or Mark Steven Johnson? Or strike out and do something different like Ang Lee? Christopher Nolan, a guy who obviously doesn't want to be pegged down, opts for the latter with a twisty-turney puzzle of a film. Or should that be magic trick... (Lazy writing I know).
Two up-and-coming magicians Borden (Christian Bale) and Angier (Hugh Jackman) start off as friends working for a magician hoping to be the next big sensation. After a tragic accident kills Angier's wife, the two become bitter rivals stopping at nothing to out-do each other. After Borden comes up with the greatest magic trick ever seen, Angier becomes obsessed with finding out his secret.
That is all I really want to say about the plot because this film has a place in the ever more commpn place genre of films with big twists. While this film does certainly have twists along the way, what must be said about it is how amazingly well the script and direction work to make this film become the cinematic equivilant of a magic trick. The film shows you things which you believe are ordinary, adds a sense of mystery and then amazes you with something which when you know, seems obvious, but at the time, you just cannot figure out how it will play out. Opinion of the reveal has been mixed. Some have complained that it was too obvious or was too outlandish or ridiuclous to be satisfying. I would not agree. Having seen this film twice, I can say that it holds up very well. The components which make up the big trick(s) are set up clearly but to say that you figure it out first time would be bullshit, I would suggest. This also takes out feelings of it being too ridculous. The world created is so intricate and fully formed that what happens does not feel unreal, it feels true to the world of the film.
Having said all this, watching it the second time, knowing how it plays out, brings to light just how brilliant this film is. It is comletely gripping from beginning to end. It looks amazing, the cinematography by Wally Pfister was some of the best of any film last year, and the direction is brilliant from beginning to end. the story of just what the two magicians are capalbe of is also brogught to the fore. if you think about what each one is doing, the film takes on a wholly more disturbing edge. The editing too is also top notch. the film amy be confusing at times but that is all to do with the plot, the editing makes the film flow as freely and easily as it can but does not ever intrude or dare to make this a case of style over substance. The production and set design are also exemplary. It's just a classy looking movie.
So the perfomances. Hugh Jackman and Chirstian Bale as the rivals do some good work without ever really breaking out. They have played these types of roles before and will again. They are very good at them but its nothing you haven't seen before. Scarlett Johansson does OK in what is a really quite thankless role, one which does not require the actress to do anything other than look pretty. To be fair, she does that well. Rebecca Hall on the other hand, pulss off a really rather well written role as Borden's wife. The sense of frustration she feels is brought o the fore very nicely and her perfomance really is heartbreaking. My favourites though are the two more left-field perfomances in the film. Andy Serkis brings a light to touch to his role as Tesla's assistant. His enthusaiasm bonds well with Angier and also with my favourite charcter in the piece. DAVID BOWIE!!!! Not only does Bowie play Tesla but a. He uses one of the strangest accents I have ever heard on a film and b. His first apparance is through a field of electricity! His charcter is supposed to bee malevolent and mysterious and Bowie is the perfect choice for this part. The man is jut odd, but very cool as well and again, that is Bowie. it may not be a strech for him but I don't care.
So, a great film. Brillaint plot, looks incredible and the perfomances are solid. And it has Bowie in it. What's not to love?
Video: Very nice transfer, handles both light and dark very well. Tis a tasd murky at times but I think this is a stylistic choice and not the fault of the DVD mastering. Would love to see the Blu-Ray version hoever, as I have heard it is incredible.
Audio: Involving Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack. great surround where there needs to be, very nice use of bass when it has to be used (you will know), but it never overpowers the dialogue. Not exactly reference quality but a good job nonetheless.
DVD Extras:
The Director's Notebook: 20 minute long documentary, made up of several parts. Better than the majority of doumentaries on DVDs of this length as it talks about all sorts of aspects of the production and is not just full of platitudes directed at the cast and crew. We get talk of visual metaphors used in the film, and how certain shots were achieved. i wish it was longer to be honest as this film feels like it needs a good documentary.
Trailer: Really interesting trailer which perked my attention to the film up when I first saw it. Fits the mood and tone of the film very well.
Disapointing number of extras for a film which I very highly recommend as one of my favourites of last year.
I won't be reviewing Zidane as I didn't make it the whole way through. It's literally following Zidane for the whole time and it nearly put me to sleep. Great soundtrack though and the surround effects were used very well.
Bye!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Wee little update....
OK first of all sorry to those who regularly read. Thank you soooooo much and I'm sorry I haven't been keeping up. Writing 2 screenplays and working in the high-octane world of retail management (JOKE) has left me with very little time for anything else recently. But, I am back and intend to be around a lot more. Thanks again.
Pan's Labyrinth DVD... The video is top class stuff, really great mastering and couldn't detect a fault. Nice, involving Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack which makes itself heard without being too distracting. One thing about the extras which bugs me and bugs me about a lot of 2 disc editions these days, THEY DO NOT NEED 2 DISCS!!! This film only has 3 soundtrack channels and about an hour and a hlaf of extras. These could easily fit onto one disc. As is though, its a pretty great effort. The commentary is very interesting and strikes a good balance between talking about the technical processess and ideas behind the film and being light-hearted enough so that it does not come off as too dry. Saying this waht you understand by watching all the features (and the features of his previous DVDs) is that Del Toro could not be dry if he tried. The guy is effortlessly entertaining and makes all the features worth a watch.
The lead feature is an interview with Del Toro filmed at the NFT in London. Not only is Del Toro on fine form for this half-hour session, but the interview is also conducted by my favourtie film critic Mark Kermode, a man whose enthusiasm for this film is almost boundless. Del Toro covers the genesis of the film, including childhood memories and talks in-depth about the shooting itself. The Power Of Myth looks specifically at the ideas Del Toro got from myths and fairy tales of old. At 15 minutes, it just about stays its welcome. The Director's Notebook is an interesting little piece showing us the sketches Del Toro has drawn over the last decade which were drawn together to create the film. Interesting stuff but a touch of repetition sets in in this and the other features. The UK trailer is interesting in looking at how it tries to make the film appeal to a broad audience. In all, a very good (but not truly great) disc for what was one of the best, if not the best, film(s) of 2006.
I'm going to have a review of The Host on DVD up soon. I have watched the features but have not watche dthe film (again) yet. I will also be posting a review of The Prestige at some point and I will also be reviewing something I have been looking forward too for a while, Zidane: A 21st Century Potrait. Cheers.
Pan's Labyrinth DVD... The video is top class stuff, really great mastering and couldn't detect a fault. Nice, involving Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack which makes itself heard without being too distracting. One thing about the extras which bugs me and bugs me about a lot of 2 disc editions these days, THEY DO NOT NEED 2 DISCS!!! This film only has 3 soundtrack channels and about an hour and a hlaf of extras. These could easily fit onto one disc. As is though, its a pretty great effort. The commentary is very interesting and strikes a good balance between talking about the technical processess and ideas behind the film and being light-hearted enough so that it does not come off as too dry. Saying this waht you understand by watching all the features (and the features of his previous DVDs) is that Del Toro could not be dry if he tried. The guy is effortlessly entertaining and makes all the features worth a watch.
The lead feature is an interview with Del Toro filmed at the NFT in London. Not only is Del Toro on fine form for this half-hour session, but the interview is also conducted by my favourtie film critic Mark Kermode, a man whose enthusiasm for this film is almost boundless. Del Toro covers the genesis of the film, including childhood memories and talks in-depth about the shooting itself. The Power Of Myth looks specifically at the ideas Del Toro got from myths and fairy tales of old. At 15 minutes, it just about stays its welcome. The Director's Notebook is an interesting little piece showing us the sketches Del Toro has drawn over the last decade which were drawn together to create the film. Interesting stuff but a touch of repetition sets in in this and the other features. The UK trailer is interesting in looking at how it tries to make the film appeal to a broad audience. In all, a very good (but not truly great) disc for what was one of the best, if not the best, film(s) of 2006.
I'm going to have a review of The Host on DVD up soon. I have watched the features but have not watche dthe film (again) yet. I will also be posting a review of The Prestige at some point and I will also be reviewing something I have been looking forward too for a while, Zidane: A 21st Century Potrait. Cheers.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Review: INLAND EMPIRE
Review: INLAND EMPIRE (David Lynch, 2006, USA).
Here are my notes written during my viewing...
1st 10 minutes - bewildering, a woman crying, 2 blurred figures. 1 takes her clothes off for some mysterious reason. Rabbits, a laugh track and a man wanting something. Sketchy conversation with neigbour seems normal in comparison.
The look is sometimes ghastly, mainly in scenes with high levels of contrast and in close-ups. Adds to otherworldness.
Neighbour. Fucking terrifying - wild eyes.
Goes on relatively coherently until the screwdriver scene.
There are consequences to one's actions, repeated.
Like somebody else's nightmare. A needle plays on a record player and a woman crying repeats.
The locomotion - Never could it be as unsettling as this, you would think.
That's as far as I got. I gave in and got sucked in by this world. And that's only about a third of the film.
Nikki Grace (Laura Dern) is an ageing actress living in Hollywood. One day she is visited by a "new neighbour" (Grace Zabreskie), who tells her that the part she will be getting (but has not got yet) is for a film not about lovers, but a "brutal fucking murder". Upon starting the film, she and co-star Devon (Justin Theroux) are informed by the director (Jeremy Irons) that the film "On High In Blue Tomorrows" is a remake of an unfinished Polish film which was stopped because everyone involved in it came to a sticky end. As well as this, Devon is warned off of persuing Nikki first by his entourage and then by her husband (Peter J. Lucas) who warns him that things will be done to ensure that the bonds of marriage remain. They end up sleeping together at which time Nikki says that she feels like she has been through it before but it was tomorrow. The next day, she is intrigued by a darkness towards the back of the film's set. Upon entering it, her personality fragments, she travels into different worlds, maybe the original Polish film, maybe of the people in the Polish film, may be the world of a curb crawler, maybe the life of a woman living with a Polish emigree who may kill her husband.
INLAND EMPIRE as Lynch would have us type it, seems to me like the great man's career has come full-circle and yet progressed further, like a spiral if you will, in that it feels like both a natural progression in his career, in terms of his use of narrative and subject matter and a spiritual return to the rawness of Eraserhead, his first feature. To write a review of it, almost seems like an insult to what Lynch has created with a cheap DV camera and no studio backing. This film will drive many crazy, the truest example of love it/hate it I think we have ever seen and to many my review will seem like prentious twaddle. I simply don't care. The images in this film are often truly mind-blowing. Lynch has always been known as a man who can create an atmosphere like no other but here, it feels like this is one area of his craft which he will never better. The film oozes menace, right from its first frame. The images are burnt into your head and really do stay with you. The sense of fractured time and world is represented so well that at one point I looked at my phone expecting 20 minutes to have passed, but 2 had! That's no lie either. Vagueness in this review is meant, to ruin any of the suprises which come from this film feels like a real shame. The lack of any cohesive narrative after that which I have told you, will be a problem for many and rightly so. Lynch has always been an aquired taste and I would not be suprised if he loses fans from this one, he surely won't be gaining any new ones either. This is a film preaching to the converted. And while it feels like a shame that he is not going to get the credit he desrves from more mainstream sources, I feel it would be right to say that Lynch wouldn't have it any other way. In fairness, much credit must be given to StudioCanal and Optimum Releasing for allowing this film to be shown as widely as it has been and it is reassuring that with a studio such as Optimum distributing this, it will certainly get a chance to shine on video.
Speaking of video... The look of the film. Lynch famously shot this on a Sony PD150 a pretty much consumer grade DV camera which used for its flexibility which in turn enabled Lynch to have more freedom with what he shot. The downside to this is that this film occasionally looks terrible. Even in what i am pretty sure was a digital presentation at the Watershed in Bristol (Feel free to correct me, I would be interested), the film does look amatuerish in parts, specifically, outdoors scenes. And yet, it adds to the mystery of the film. The actual camera itself feels like it is in on the gag, that it and Lynch are working together to create something which will eat away at you, in the INLAND EMPIRE of your imagination.
Laura Dern gives a bravura perfomance and holds the film up in her multiple roles, all with wildly different personalities and without an actress if her strength or even her particular look, the film does not feel like it would grab you as mich as it does. Supporting characters all do well in their own parts but do feel like objects in the background when compared to Dern and the images Lynch has created (Look out for the superimposition towards the end, truly haunting).
Bloody masterpiece.
Here are my notes written during my viewing...
1st 10 minutes - bewildering, a woman crying, 2 blurred figures. 1 takes her clothes off for some mysterious reason. Rabbits, a laugh track and a man wanting something. Sketchy conversation with neigbour seems normal in comparison.
The look is sometimes ghastly, mainly in scenes with high levels of contrast and in close-ups. Adds to otherworldness.
Neighbour. Fucking terrifying - wild eyes.
Goes on relatively coherently until the screwdriver scene.
There are consequences to one's actions, repeated.
Like somebody else's nightmare. A needle plays on a record player and a woman crying repeats.
The locomotion - Never could it be as unsettling as this, you would think.
That's as far as I got. I gave in and got sucked in by this world. And that's only about a third of the film.
Nikki Grace (Laura Dern) is an ageing actress living in Hollywood. One day she is visited by a "new neighbour" (Grace Zabreskie), who tells her that the part she will be getting (but has not got yet) is for a film not about lovers, but a "brutal fucking murder". Upon starting the film, she and co-star Devon (Justin Theroux) are informed by the director (Jeremy Irons) that the film "On High In Blue Tomorrows" is a remake of an unfinished Polish film which was stopped because everyone involved in it came to a sticky end. As well as this, Devon is warned off of persuing Nikki first by his entourage and then by her husband (Peter J. Lucas) who warns him that things will be done to ensure that the bonds of marriage remain. They end up sleeping together at which time Nikki says that she feels like she has been through it before but it was tomorrow. The next day, she is intrigued by a darkness towards the back of the film's set. Upon entering it, her personality fragments, she travels into different worlds, maybe the original Polish film, maybe of the people in the Polish film, may be the world of a curb crawler, maybe the life of a woman living with a Polish emigree who may kill her husband.
INLAND EMPIRE as Lynch would have us type it, seems to me like the great man's career has come full-circle and yet progressed further, like a spiral if you will, in that it feels like both a natural progression in his career, in terms of his use of narrative and subject matter and a spiritual return to the rawness of Eraserhead, his first feature. To write a review of it, almost seems like an insult to what Lynch has created with a cheap DV camera and no studio backing. This film will drive many crazy, the truest example of love it/hate it I think we have ever seen and to many my review will seem like prentious twaddle. I simply don't care. The images in this film are often truly mind-blowing. Lynch has always been known as a man who can create an atmosphere like no other but here, it feels like this is one area of his craft which he will never better. The film oozes menace, right from its first frame. The images are burnt into your head and really do stay with you. The sense of fractured time and world is represented so well that at one point I looked at my phone expecting 20 minutes to have passed, but 2 had! That's no lie either. Vagueness in this review is meant, to ruin any of the suprises which come from this film feels like a real shame. The lack of any cohesive narrative after that which I have told you, will be a problem for many and rightly so. Lynch has always been an aquired taste and I would not be suprised if he loses fans from this one, he surely won't be gaining any new ones either. This is a film preaching to the converted. And while it feels like a shame that he is not going to get the credit he desrves from more mainstream sources, I feel it would be right to say that Lynch wouldn't have it any other way. In fairness, much credit must be given to StudioCanal and Optimum Releasing for allowing this film to be shown as widely as it has been and it is reassuring that with a studio such as Optimum distributing this, it will certainly get a chance to shine on video.
Speaking of video... The look of the film. Lynch famously shot this on a Sony PD150 a pretty much consumer grade DV camera which used for its flexibility which in turn enabled Lynch to have more freedom with what he shot. The downside to this is that this film occasionally looks terrible. Even in what i am pretty sure was a digital presentation at the Watershed in Bristol (Feel free to correct me, I would be interested), the film does look amatuerish in parts, specifically, outdoors scenes. And yet, it adds to the mystery of the film. The actual camera itself feels like it is in on the gag, that it and Lynch are working together to create something which will eat away at you, in the INLAND EMPIRE of your imagination.
Laura Dern gives a bravura perfomance and holds the film up in her multiple roles, all with wildly different personalities and without an actress if her strength or even her particular look, the film does not feel like it would grab you as mich as it does. Supporting characters all do well in their own parts but do feel like objects in the background when compared to Dern and the images Lynch has created (Look out for the superimposition towards the end, truly haunting).
Bloody masterpiece.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Review: Ghost Rider
Review: Ghost Rider (Mark Steven Johnson, 2007, USA).
Nicholas Cage is an enigma. A man who seems drawn to a wide ramge of projects, a man you can never pin down. After the clusterfuck that was Neil LaBute's appaling remake of The Wicker Man, Cage is back with what seems like a far safer bet, a comic book movie.
Cage is Johnny Blaze a motorcycle stuntman who as a teen is offered the chance to have his father brought back from the brink of death by Mephisto (Peter Fonda). In exchange for this, Cage must act as Mephisto's Ghost Rider, essentially his own personal bounty hunter. He is called upon when Mephisto's son wants to take over the world by stealing a contract. Or something. And so, Blaze must contend with being the Rider, saving the world, and getting the girl, childhood sweetheart Roxanne.
File this under what the great Mark Kermode calls "the death of narrative cinema". This film makes barely any sense and is incoherent at times. I did not really get what the thrust of the plot was and I think this is down to the filmmakers more than myself! When a good hour of the less than 2 hour running time is pretty much dedicated to setting up the Ghost Rider legend, the rest of the plot is bound to suffer. Look at the first X-Men film. Magneto's plan was clear but not important at all, most time was spent setting up the X-Men. Fair enough, there are a lot of them and a lot of back story. But the Ghost Rider story is very simple. Dude sells soul to devil, dude gets fucked over, dude has flaming head. Done. It should not take an hour to set up. I can see this being for budgetary reasons also. More time setting up Ghost Rider, less they have to spend to bring the effect to life. Thinking about it, it is probably the cheapest looking $120 million budget blockbuster I have ever seen. The Rider himself looks incredible, and the scenes of him tearing up the town bnoth vertically and horizontally are enough to watch the film for alone. And yet, the rest of the film looks rushed, cheap and just not good enough. Its all very second-tier stuff, much like Daredevil, Mark Steven Johnson's previous effort.
The enemies are also poor, Mephisto burns with an undercurrent of intensity but he is there for exposition and to set up a sequel (in a very very obvious twist, which is ruined if you have seen any of the TV ads in the UK, if you think about it for one second). Blackheart (Wes Bentley) is a sad goth teen who can suck out peopes lives and his gang are so very bland. The romance is not even worth talking about, just there to tick the boxes.
Nicholas Cage. The film's saving grace. You can tell he wants it to be a success and he is the only reason to recommend it. He is funny yet understated and he plays the tortured soul oh so very well. And yet the 12 year olds who this is aimed at won't be able to wait for him to transform into Ghost Rider for some more bland action sequences which show off nothing but how comic book movies can go oh so wrong if too mich money and not enough ideas are thrown at them. Sorry for the uninspired review but it just doesn't make me want to say anything else.
Unlike, I suspect, my next review due tomorrow or Saturday. One of the greatest living director's is back with what is supposed to be his most left-field entry yet. Oh yes, David Lynch's Inland Empire. I for one, cannot fucking wait.
Nicholas Cage is an enigma. A man who seems drawn to a wide ramge of projects, a man you can never pin down. After the clusterfuck that was Neil LaBute's appaling remake of The Wicker Man, Cage is back with what seems like a far safer bet, a comic book movie.
Cage is Johnny Blaze a motorcycle stuntman who as a teen is offered the chance to have his father brought back from the brink of death by Mephisto (Peter Fonda). In exchange for this, Cage must act as Mephisto's Ghost Rider, essentially his own personal bounty hunter. He is called upon when Mephisto's son wants to take over the world by stealing a contract. Or something. And so, Blaze must contend with being the Rider, saving the world, and getting the girl, childhood sweetheart Roxanne.
File this under what the great Mark Kermode calls "the death of narrative cinema". This film makes barely any sense and is incoherent at times. I did not really get what the thrust of the plot was and I think this is down to the filmmakers more than myself! When a good hour of the less than 2 hour running time is pretty much dedicated to setting up the Ghost Rider legend, the rest of the plot is bound to suffer. Look at the first X-Men film. Magneto's plan was clear but not important at all, most time was spent setting up the X-Men. Fair enough, there are a lot of them and a lot of back story. But the Ghost Rider story is very simple. Dude sells soul to devil, dude gets fucked over, dude has flaming head. Done. It should not take an hour to set up. I can see this being for budgetary reasons also. More time setting up Ghost Rider, less they have to spend to bring the effect to life. Thinking about it, it is probably the cheapest looking $120 million budget blockbuster I have ever seen. The Rider himself looks incredible, and the scenes of him tearing up the town bnoth vertically and horizontally are enough to watch the film for alone. And yet, the rest of the film looks rushed, cheap and just not good enough. Its all very second-tier stuff, much like Daredevil, Mark Steven Johnson's previous effort.
The enemies are also poor, Mephisto burns with an undercurrent of intensity but he is there for exposition and to set up a sequel (in a very very obvious twist, which is ruined if you have seen any of the TV ads in the UK, if you think about it for one second). Blackheart (Wes Bentley) is a sad goth teen who can suck out peopes lives and his gang are so very bland. The romance is not even worth talking about, just there to tick the boxes.
Nicholas Cage. The film's saving grace. You can tell he wants it to be a success and he is the only reason to recommend it. He is funny yet understated and he plays the tortured soul oh so very well. And yet the 12 year olds who this is aimed at won't be able to wait for him to transform into Ghost Rider for some more bland action sequences which show off nothing but how comic book movies can go oh so wrong if too mich money and not enough ideas are thrown at them. Sorry for the uninspired review but it just doesn't make me want to say anything else.
Unlike, I suspect, my next review due tomorrow or Saturday. One of the greatest living director's is back with what is supposed to be his most left-field entry yet. Oh yes, David Lynch's Inland Empire. I for one, cannot fucking wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)