Prometheus 2D (2012) - Cinema Review (7.5/10)

Frustrating

Ahh, Prometheus... Probably my most anticipated film of 2012 along with John Carter. Directed by the near-legendary director Ridley Scott, Prometheus is a prequel to his own film, Alien, from 1969. For those of you who don't know (although I don't know what rock you've been hiding under if you don't), Alien went on to become one of the most highly considered and influential science fiction films of all time.

In terms of Prometheus' relation to Alien, I'll try and give a little background. In Alien, A derelict alien spacecraft is discovered on a distant world, by a cargo crew who intercept what they think at first is a distress signal. It contains a terrible creature that goes on to decimate the crew. Really, there were two major elements in the film. The beast itself, and the mysterious alien vessel and race that it originated from. The film hints, but never states, that the creature was potentially a biological weapon of the race to whom the derelict belonged.
As anyone who hasn't been in cryogenic freeze for the past forty odd years will know, it spawned a host of sequels and associated films that dealt only with the creature, yet strangely eschewed the mystery of its origin.
Ridley Scott has finally decided to pick up that unused thread of the story with Prometheus, almost completely separating it from the eponymous creature of the other films.

I've been a fan of Alien and its sequels for many years, but I always wanted to see someone make a film dealing with that mystery. So I was over the moon when Ridley decided to return to the franchise.

The question then becomes, how well did he succeed? This is where it becomes frustrating. Prometheus is both simultaneously excellent and disappointing at the same time. Often the flaws in these kind of films come about from destroying the mystery of what went before. Oddly enough, that isn't where Prometheus goes wrong. If anything, that's where it succeeds, only to be maddeningly undermined by the most basic of elements that should have been the easiest. I'll warn you now, in order to cover these my review will contain spoilers, so read no further if you don't want to ruin the film for yourself.

Prometheus is a film that relies very much in its earlier stages on that old horror movie stalwart; 'characters do something stupid to get them into a situation'. The worst example is when two characters get lost in a series of underground corridors, when one of them was in fact the individual responsible for knowing how to map the area in the first place. Then those two characters are not only conveniently forgotten by the ship's crew during an evacuation, but they seem to forget about contacting the ship themselves, until such time as they can be conveniently 'lost'. So once we get past that... where do those two characters go? Just the very location they chose to avoid earlier.

The reason they left the main party and got lost, was because they had the sense to decide to try and return to the main ship early, rather than progressing into an unknown area with the foolish and irresponsible scientists. So for no real reason they decide to hole up in that very area the scientists opened up, when they are stuck for the night in the abandoned underground chambers. Of course it doesn't end there. A character scared enough to not enter this room earlier, is now quite happy to try and interact with an alien beast displaying characteristics suspiciously close to that of a cobra. Of course this results in a rather unhappy conclusion for the poor fellow.

All the while this top-of-the-line absurdly expensive exploration mission leaves no-one monitoring events while two of their crew are stuck alone in an alien environment, so that their fates are not only missed but seemingly unrecorded in a situation where surely everything would be recorded.

Then of course we have the old 'The air is breathable so let's take our helmets off' situation, without testing it in some manner first.

We also have a character deliberately infected with something that could have potentially endangered everybody, despite the fact that such an act was clearly sanctioned by someone who also wants any opportunity to survive and live forever.

Later, one of the best scenes is also one of the most annoying. I'll try not to give too much away, suffice to say a character has to perform a self-inflicted operation in order to save themselves from a creature. It's tense, disgusting, nail-biting stuff. Unfortunately it is accompanied by some sheer idiocy. The character reaches this situation after escaping two others who seemingly forget her actions and then leave her to perform all of this without interruption. Not only that, but no-one else on board seems to be alerted to this drastic situation and the thing it leaves on board, except for a slightly unconcerned acknowledgement by the android character. Is any of this making sense?

We also have a selection of characters that are poorly introduced. The original Alien is a master-class in the introduction of varied and distinct characters, partly through script, partly through direction and editing and partly through excellent actors. Prometheus manages this with a small handful of the characters, while leaving others practically skimmed over but later used in such a way as to imply we should have known and cared for them.

Meanwhile the most interesting character in the whole film (with the possible exception of the android), is wasted. Meredith Vickers, played by Charlize Theron (Aeon Flux, Snow White and the Huntsman), is kept alive until the final reel where you hope something will happen, and then simply disposed of in an all-too-convenient way without any purpose. In fact there are a few elements like that in the film. Things with potential, that are just conveniently forgotten or discarded.

What is good, you may ask? As always, Ridley Scott can produce the most visually impressive films. There is little doubting that Prometheus looks superb, even if some of that is due to the ideas and designs that go all the way back to Alien. The soundtrack is also quite enjoyable, though I can't say particularly memorable. Ridley clearly wanted to distance himself from the 'horror movie/haunted house' feel of the original Alien soundtrack. In fact this distancing is a 'theme', if you can call it that, throughout the film. It does not have the expected trademark 'darkness' you would expect it to easily have. He has not tried to create a straight forward horror film atmosphere, which goes some way to making the film feel atmospherically less predictable than it unfortunately ends up being.

The overall themes and ideas involved are what save the film from being a complete mess. The somewhat unresolved mystery of the 'spacejockey' creatures (as the mummified spacecraft pilot of the original film came to be known) keeps things interesting. Enough is revealed (or at least confirmed for fans) to keep it satisfying, whilst keeping and even introducing new mysteries. The ending for the lead character Elizabeth Shaw, played by Noomi Rapace (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), is sufficiently different and fun (even if her character is one of the least interesting), whilst the very end sets up a nice lead into the original film, albeit perhaps being a little too on-the-nose.

If I was only thinking of the themes and general ideas in the story, I would say this was an excellent prequel to Alien. It's just a shame that it was let down by the otherwise more conventional aspects of the story that Ridley Scott has himself done so much better in the past.

Be prepared... For many, my next few comments will verge on sacrilegious. Oddly enough, the film's general themes have a lot in common with the much derided first Aliens versus Predator film. While Prometheus has a much more serious and refined feel, it surprisingly doesn't succeed as well in some areas. For example, Prometheus obligatory powerful billionaire character is in fact more stereotypical and less interesting than his own presumed ancestor in AVP. Likewise, while itself flawed in places, AVP suffers from fewer occasions of 'stupid person does stupid thing' to move the plot along. It's difficult to admit, but I think AVP also did a better job of introducing its characters and making us care about them.

I think Prometheus can be boiled down to three levels. Firstly, the main themes and ideas, secondly the overall script and characters, and lastly the visual feel, from the production design to the direction. The production design and direction are superb, at the top level. The main themes and ideas are excellent if not especially original or expanded. The script and characters veer between good to downright badly thought out, saved only by excellent actors and direction.

If I could sum up the whole film in one word, it would be 'frustrating'. What makes it so frustrating, is that the weaker parts were those that so easily should have been right, while the elements that could have easily gone wrong were actually quite successful. It could have been a great film and is instead more of a fascinating failure.

I'm still giving it a relatively high mark, because even as somewhat of a failure, Prometheus is an excellent film in comparison to most. It works on most levels, has some wonderful and thought provoking ideas (even if only in relation to its own universe), and looks superb. It's just a shame it fell flat with so many of the basics.

7.5/10

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

The Thing (Prequel - 2011) - Home Cinema Review (6.5/10)

Hey, Sweden!

Although the name has been left confusingly the same, this 2011 version of 'The Thing' is in fact a 'prequel' to the 1982 film 'The Thing'. Firstly, I'll state that I'm a big fan of the original. In fact, it's high in my top ten films of all time, equal to 'Alien'. When I first heard they were creating a prequel, I'll admit I was disappointed they weren't giving John Carpenter (Director of the original) a chance to create the sequel he'd always wanted to, but I wasn't averse to the idea of a prequel either.

Both films are set in 1982, Antarctica. A Norwegian research base has discovered an ancient spacecraft buried deep under the ice for as long as 100,000 years, along with the corpse of a creature that froze to death trying to escape the wreckage. They make the mistake of digging it up...

In the original film, the events at the Norwegian camp serve as off-screen back story. They enhance the mystery because the main characters see the results of what happened, without yet knowing why. The prequel tells the tale from the Norwegian camp, leading up to the original film.

Setting aside plot holes and contradictions and general film flaws for a moment, I found the biggest problem with the prequel is that it adds almost nothing to the story. Prequels by definition aren't necessary (since whatever story they're linked to obviously functioned before their existence), but if you're going to make them, you may as well truly add to the world they exist in. Regardless of what you think of the 'Star Wars' prequels, for example, there's no denying they add to the mythology of that universe. 'The Thing' is clearly not set in such an expansive realm, but there is more than enough room to grow the story. This film commits the sin of having that opportunity and not taking it. The only 'new' element is an interesting alternative to the 'blood test' scene from the original film. We do see inside the alien craft this time, but it is done in such a way as to add no information for the viewer, thus rendering it fun but pointless.

So what about the film in general? The acting is actually good. Unfortunately the script and direction gives the cast little to work with. The original film takes a team of several men, and over the course of the film each has a distinct and individual personality, partly through script, partly through direction, partly through picking a range of wonderful character actors. The prequel fails by not defining any of them in detail.

The lead character, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Die Hard 4.0, Final Destination 3) fares the best, but what little definition her character has, can be attributed to her acting and not the script. The film jumps into the 'horror' side of the story far too quickly, cutting out time to establish the other characters, with the possible exception of the lead scientist who plays a part reminiscent of his parallel in the first B&W version of the story, 'The Thing from Another World'.

All-in-all it feels like a film on fast forward. It lacks the atmosphere or tension of the original film precisely because it does not spend time setting up the horror moments. Instead they just 'happen', and we are expected to be scared because of 'gory creature'. The original film worked so well, because it was really about the fear of isolation and the paranoia of not knowing who you could trust. The horror, superb as it was, merely emphasised this. The prequel is robbed of any such moments. You never feel isolated and lonely, and you never have time to join the characters in worrying who is a creature and who isn't, before the next one is revealed.

The story never seems to know whether it wants to be a prequel, a homage or a remake. Sometimes things are introduced as if we should have the prior knowledge of the original (which alienates new viewers). Other moments are directly copied from the original in such a way as to imply a remake.

As for the creature effects themselves, we have another problem. The original is seen as a landmark in practical horror effects, that stand the test of time. They are beautiful and repulsive, created practically and filmed on-set. For the most part they feel utterly real, and even when they aren't perfect (though pretty damn close), they still work because the things were actual physical props dripping in fluids and tearing apart in front of our eyes.

The new film instead uses CGI effects, which while excellently done, stand out as CGI effects. This isn't a fault of the budget or the people who created them, it's simply a problem with modern CGI. It can do a great many things, but it still cannot recreate blood and gore and flesh as effectively as traditional effects. As a result, the creatures are never actually creepy or unnerving because the feeling in our gut tells us they aren't really there. It seems strange to think that in another twenty or thirty years, people will watch the original film and still feel that sick revulsion in their stomach at the realistic horror of the beast's transformations, while the modern big-budget film will look terribly fake.

Strangely enough, the sound is also a problem on the prequel. The original had screaming creature sounds that genuinely sent a shiver down the spine. The new film could have used the same sounds, but, apart from the occasional use, resorts to creating new ones that simply aren't as effective.

The musical soundtrack is also a disappointment. It's not bad, having been composed by Marco Beltrami, veteran of many a good film soundtrack (including a lot of horror films). Unfortunately the original film once again had an iconic and incredibly atmospheric score by veteran composer Ennio Morricone (Heavily influenced by the film's director, John Carpenter, who often creates his own scores), that Beltrami never matches. I don't like to criticise Beltrami, because I like a great deal of his other soundtracks, but I suspect he was told to create something different for the film, rather than emulate the original. It's just a shame that by doing so, it lacks the sombre and moody atmosphere it could have had.

Then we come to the continuity. This really is a head-scratcher. On the one hand we have a film that appears to go out of its way to carefully link itself to the original. For example, when the characters visit the burnt-out Norwegian camp in the original film, they find bodies and items in the camp that the prequel goes to great bother setting up. Then we have an absurd and glaring plot-hole. (Please stop reading if you want to avoid spoilers). The creature at the end of the prequel, escapes to the buried spaceship and by starting the engines, melts the ice above it. This creates two problems. One, the first film establishes with video footage that the Norwegian crew used Thermite charges to melt the ice above the buried craft, and reveal its surface. Two, if the crashed ship was still capable of flight, why did the creature not race to it earlier and why did it even leave the craft 100,000 years ago to freeze in the ice, instead of just taking off again? It makes no sense, especially in light of the efforts made to match continuity in other areas.

Finally, I shall comment on the direction. John Carpenter, director of the original film, had an unmistakeable style that suited the building of tension and atmosphere, having already made classic films such as the original 'Halloween' and 'Escape from New York'. The prequel, while functional, never gives us anything that stands out. There are moments in the original where just the composition of a shot can create a wonderful sense of foreboding, or character, or story. This new film seems to suffer from a problem symptomatic of many recent movies, where the directors and/or editors appear afraid to linger on any one shot. Unfortunately it is usually such carefully composed shots that create tangible atmosphere.

I've spent a lot of time outlining the problems with the film, so it may come as a surprise when I say I didn't hate it. In comparison to many recent horror movies it is surprisingly not bad, and even quite effective during its middle portion, between a rushed beginning and a muddled finale. Its problems occur when compared to the original, which still towers far above it. The new film has many, many problems, but when taken on its own, it is an enjoyable enough experience. Over all, I think it is not unlike 'Predators'. A film that takes so many of its best moments from its progenitor but adds so little, that it becomes ultimately pointless. It serves simply as a reminder of how great the original was and makes you want to go back and watch that. It's a shame, as it could have been so much more.

6.5/10

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

John Carter (2012) - Cinema Review (5/10)

What Could Have Been...

Where do I start? I have one major disadvantage in writing a review of 'John Carter'. I'm biased. 'John Carter' is based on the first of my favourite series of books, the 'Martian Tales' written by Edgar Rice Burroughs (Who is probably most famous for being the original author of Tarzan). The first book is called 'A Princess of Mars' (First published as 'Under the Moons of Mars' in 1912).

The wonderful thing about Burroughs' 'Martian Tales', is that although never before put to film, they have probably had far more influence on science fiction literature and cinema than anyone realises. Many of the greatest science fiction writers of the last century quote Burroughs' as a great inspiration, from Ray Bradbury to Arthur C. Clarke. A number of the most successful science fiction directors also cite them as major influence on their work, from George Lucas with the 'Star Wars' movies to James Cameron with 'Avatar'. 'Star Wars' especially stands out. Tatooine is where you can feel the most clear influences, alongside Geonosis in Attack of the Clones, with it's deadly amphitheatre games and wild creatures.

Having recently re-read the first three books, I can honestly say they have aged wonderfully. His writing style may not stand up to critical analysis, but which is more important, that people enjoy reading his stories or that critics can't pick any holes? I have seen interviews with teenage readers who have been shocked at how modern and exciting the books are in comparison to other famous novels half their age.

Personally, I always felt Burroughs' writing had a lyrical flow, almost poetic. It may be a hundred years old, but it is as easy and enjoyable to read as any modern book. They crack along at an incredible pace, full of adventure, excitement, romance and outlandish wonderful imagination. There are eleven Mars books overall.

To get back to the film... Book adaptations are always a tricky thing. Film and literature are two different mediums that require different methods to tell a story. I don't think anybody would expect a film maker to slavishly reproduce the exact story of a book whilst turning it into a film. On the other hand, change too much and you cease to be making a true adaptation.

Where does 'John Carter' stand? Personally, I found it an extremely loose adaptation and an otherwise mixed bag. Names of characters and places are the same, many individual scenes have their origins in the books, and the creatures and overall world are reasonably accurate. Unfortunately it sort of ends there. The story has been changed so much with Hollywood clichés that it only vaguely resembles the general thrust of the original novel. If you boil them both down to “Boy travels to alien world, boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy fights to save girl from forced marriage to evil villain.”, then yes, they do have the same overall plot. Go beyond that, and things start to systematically fall apart.

The worst of all, is the complete loss of the characters themselves. Names and general background may be the same, but they are otherwise often different. John Carter himself is utterly changed. In the novel, he is an individual clearly searching for meaning and purpose, never quite at home on Earth. When he ends up on Mars (Or Barsoom, depending on your preference), it is as though destiny has taken a hand. You always feel he and the Princess of the title (Dejah Thoris) were always meant to be together and that Barsoom is his true home even if not his literal one.

Carter is also a hero who loves the thrill of battle. Not that he goes out of his way to find it, but he does not shy from it either. If he must rush into battle to save the ones he loves or to fight for his principles, then he will wholeheartedly jump in against impossible odds. He is an ex-soldier of clear-cut principle and nothing will stop him rescuing his one true love.

John Carter of the film is a different creature altogether. He has become a cliché of the modern film world. The ex-soldier who has lost his family in some unknown tragedy and become cynical about life and humanity and fights for no-one. These are attempts to shoe-horn in some unnecessary 'emotional' back story, but in the process lose the core of the character. Give him a tragic past romance to overcome and you undermine the depth of the 'always meant for each other' romance. Give him a cynical lack of desire to fight for anything and you lose the sense of heroic and noble selflessness.

The writers and producers apparently wanted to give his character more of an arc, and turn his story into one of redemption. This is the first big mistake, in my eyes. It was already, in a subtle way, a tale of renewed life. John Carter found love and purpose on Mars that he lacked on Earth, but never in so typically contrived a way. I have no problems with the type of character described for the film, often perfect for many stories, but in this case it seems like a needless tacked on extra. Not to mention, in the world of modern cinema the literary John Carter is in fact a more original and rarely used heroic character, rather than the stereotypical brooding and grudging hero.

The director of 'John Carter' is Andrew Stanton, known for directing Disney's 'Finding Nemo' and 'Wall-E'. This is his first live action film, and unfortunately it shows. With real actors, you can't make the broad and general strokes that work with animation. Here things feel rushed for the action scenes, and it sorely required more time to establish the characters.

His portrayal of the lead character is also marred by going over-the-top. Yes, John Carter was meant to be incredibly powerful and capable of jumping great heights in the books, due to the lower gravity of Mars. However, in the film these elements are taken to absurd extremes. Carter is able to practically fly and can be thrown around with barely a scratch. It stretches the story from being about an incredibly skilled but very human hero with a few advantages that save him from time to time, into a bouncing superman.

Stanton is supposedly a huge fan of the novels, but you wouldn't know it from the film. He appears to be one of those film makers who believes they know better than an author who's work has been popular and loved for a hundred years. Some of his statements in interviews imply that because the novels weren't considered Pulitzer prize winning works of greatness, they are open for drastic alteration. Forget the fact that these novels have out-sold and out-lasted any number of prize winners for a hundred years, and also influenced many of the greatest science fiction authors and film makers of the past century.

I'll try and stop myself going off on a tangent about all of the alterations, suffice to say they lose much of the impact of the novels. There are two major points I will make, though. The first three books form a trilogy with two key themes. Race and Religion. These are not at the first book's core, but would become prominent if sequels were made.

Stanton has changed the Red Men of Mars to people with silly red tattoos (He claims, in an era where they can do practically anything with CGI, that the red make-up was too difficult). In the books, Mars has a variety of skin colours which all have their own agendas and beliefs. The Red Men are seen by John Carter to be, in many ways, the most noble and wonderful race of humanoid Martians because they are meant to be a mixture of all colours, exemplifying the greatness of the other races combined.

Then we have the Therns. The film has turned them into planet-hopping shape-shifting aliens, and as such they can no longer serve the purpose they had in the books. Not only did they contribute to the themes of race, but also religion. The Therns were worshipped by the Red Martians, but revealed by John Carter to be false gods and in fact merely another race of mortals. The changes not only negate these points, but negate another overall storyline involving a different race in the second and third books (Which is when the Therns were introduced anyway, not in book one).

So Stanton's changes have not only altered less important elements, but rendered the core themes either impossible or at the very least drastically limited their potential impact and meaning. As for the replacement-plot, removing the elements that were borrowed from Burroughs, it makes what should be straight forward feel contrived and vague.

What, you may ask, actually works? Woola, John Carter's faithful Martian hound, is probably the closest character to the original, such as he is (Though he should look less cuddly and cute). Tars Tarkas, the leader of the Green Martians isn't too far removed. Other than that, the characters are either quite unlike their originals, or get so little screen time that they have no chance to shine anyway.

Parts of the opening scenes, such as Edgar Rice Burroughs reading his uncle's journal and John Carter discovering the Thark (the Green Martians) hatchery are extremely good, and give a real inkling of how the film could have been.

The design work is excellent in places, often visually at least capturing the correct atmosphere. The acting is for the most part quite good, although the lead, Taylor Kitsch (X-Men Origins:Wolverine, The Covenant), is unfortunately the worst actor and rather uncharismatic. Lynn Collins (X-Men Origins:Wolverine) neither disappoints nor impresses as 'the greatest beauty of two worlds', Dejah Thoris.

The soundtrack by Michael Giacchino (The new Star Trek, Super 8) is functional but forgettable. He is not a bad soundtrack composer, but he is yet to create anything that I have found noteworthy, even for films like 'Super 8' that I greatly enjoyed. You certainly won't come away humming the theme tune.

The direction and script are serviceable for the most part but rarely capture the grandeur or epic sensibilities required. For all his perceived flaws, George Lucas could run circles around Andrew Stanton in these departments. It just goes to show that directing animated movies does not always translate into an ability to direct real people and real action.

Stanton has created not so much of an adaptation, as a film 'inspired by' the book, and it is all the weaker for it. Some critics have complained about the convoluted plot and strange names and species. I had not such problems, as there is nothing that complicated going on. Unfortunately, understanding the plot is not its biggest problem.

The most frustrating and disappointing thing about this film is not so much what it was, but what it could have been. I think that if I had never read the books, I would have enjoyed it more, without being especially impressed. Unfortunately I know how amazing this could have been. I suspect Stanton enjoyed the books when younger, but was one of those people who sits there thinking “If I'd written them, I'd have done this, and changed that...” That's fine if you go away and use that enthusiasm to write your own story. Stanton didn't.

I'm giving this a five, mainly for the sometimes excellent effects and design work and the hints of what could have been. For anyone interested, I would seriously advise reading the original book/s.
paperback
ebook

5/10

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

One Day (2011) – Cinema Review (4/10)

One Endless Day...

First let me say, I have not read the book. This review is based on the film, and the film alone. The premise is quite interesting. Take a couple of characters, and visit them on the same day over a number of years, to show how their lives progress at that same point annually. Unfortunately you can't help feeling that the premise is what prompted the author/script writer, David Nicholls, to create the story, while the characters and events were somewhat of an afterthought.

Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada, Becoming Jane, The Princess Diaries) stars as Emma, who straight from university, befriends Dex, played by Jim Sturgess (The Other Boleyn Girl). The film then charts their respective lives and friendship over the years.

It all feels rather aimless and random. Some might say that echoes real life, but at the same time this is a film that uses any number of tired clichés for emotional impact. There are really only four characters of consequence, two male, two female. Both male characters are shown to be fairly pathetic throughout most of the film. One is a typical 'geeky nerd' character, who is clearly played as the 'sad loser', and comes out with all the worst clichés that non-genre writers think define science fiction and fantasy fans. Meanwhile the male lead, Dex, is a drug addled, reprehensible, womanising drunk. On the flip side, there is Dex's mother, shown to be strong yet tragic, the emotional role model for her son. Finally we have Emma herself, the sturdy shoulder for the weak male to lean on, the one constant in his life. Strong enough to resist him until he's sorted himself out, but always there as another emotional crutch.

It is to Anne Hathaway's credit that she made an otherwise mediocre character vaguely interesting. Her performance has been criticised somewhat, most especially for her Northern English accent. Admittedly, her accent is hit and miss. For the most part, she does a straight forward and generic 'English' accent that works well, but her regional inflections are a mixed and occasionally out-of-place bag. However, it's not terrible by any means. Her performance in most other aspects, is excellent, and honestly the best thing in the film. Hathaway is quite adept at being able to play both slightly nerdy girl-next-door, as well as glamorous and beautiful within the same character in a believable way.

It's difficult to judge Jim Sturgess as Dex. The character is mostly unsympathetic, and by the time he supposedly redeems himself, you really don't care what happens to him. As such, Sturgess has either succeeded at playing the character as written, or failed to make him sympathetic when he should be. If the latter, it would still be difficult to blame him, given the material. Unfortunately there was nothing that stood out about his performance, unless you count acting drunk and/or drugged-up occasionally.

Given the lead character's friendship was in many ways the core of the film, there was very little, if anything, to explain why Emma stayed (or even became) such close friends with Dex in the first place. He was never shown to be particularly interested in her life, or helpful, or really even have anything in common with her. The best that could be said, is that he used her friendship as an emotional crutch, while she stayed friends with him because he was the unobtainable handsome 'bad-boy' that she wanted. So perhaps it would be better to say that there was no healthy reason for their lasting friendship. Which at the very least undermines the romantic aspect of the story.

Whilst trying to avoid any spoilers, the finale of the film is based around a manipulative emotional 'shock' moment. It is not only unnecessary for the story or characters, but executed in a contrived way that feels unrealistic for the sake of making the audience jump.

I can't honestly recommend 'One Day'. It's not a bad film as such. It keeps you watching, though much of that is down to Anne Hathaway's likeable portrayal of the potentially weak character of Emma. The romantic elements of the story, such as they are, keep things vaguely interesting in the latter third or quarter of the film, but there is little else to grab your attention alongside the lacklustre ending.

Fans of the book may enjoy the film, as they might see more within the scenes than other viewers. As for the rest, as you walk out of the cinema doors or switch off your TV, I think you'll find yourself shrugging forgettably. What score I have given it, is mainly for Hathaway's performance.

4/10

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

Super 8 - (2011) - Cinema Review (9.5/10)

Simply Super

It's been a while since I felt compelled to write a film review. There has been so much mediocrity in recent months, that I simply haven't felt the enthusiasm, but Super 8 has compelled me.

Set in the late 70s, Super 8 is helmed by writer and director J.J. Abrams, probably better known as the main force behind the series Lost, and the recent reboot of Star Trek. The film follows a group of pre-teen/teen kids as they make their own movie on 'super 8' film (For those who don't know, think of it as the handycam format of its day). In the process of filming a scene, they witness a terrible train crash. As it turns out, their camera filmed something mysterious in the wreckage. The military begin to take over the local area, looking for something that has escaped, whilst our young protagonists begin to solve the mystery themselves as increasingly strange things happen across their town.

The gang discuss the train crash

To put it simply, Super 8 is a nostalgic nod back to the days of E.T., Goonies, Explorers and a whole host of children's films from the late 70s and 80s. Films that captured the essence of childhood, mystery and adventure in a wonderful concoction of feel-good-fun. Bluntly, it has been far too long since someone made a film like Super 8. It is in a different league to even Harry Potter, reminding its viewers how children's films should be made.

Witnessing the super 8 film for the first time

I'll get the very minor flaws out of the way, first. The pivotal train crash of the movie is absurdly over-the-top. To the point where it feels out of place, given the setting and atmosphere of the rest of the movie. It felt like something Michael Bay would have looked at and said “Let's take this down a notch or two.” On top of that, essential characters, vehicles and equipment escape with barely a minor scratch, crack, or bit of dust. Secondly, the tired 'evil humans/military' plot device is overused. It is acceptable given the nostalgic setting and style, but that doesn't stop it being a cliché. Thirdly, J.J. Abrams has brought in his regular associate, Michael Giacchino, to compose the soundtrack. Unfortunately, whilst serviceable, Giacchino doesn't seem to be able to capture the grandeur of those he is following. With Star Trek, he was walking in the footsteps of Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner (at his peak). With Super 8, he is very much following in the footsteps of Goldsmith again, and especially John Williams. Unfortunately, Giacchino just hasn't reached those heights, and fails to embody the musical sense of wonder that could have accentuated events even more effectively. In fact, the music used in the trailer (By James Horner from the film Cocoon) exemplifies this, because the film's own music can't quite compare.

Strange cubes...

Having said all that, I have to stress these are minor flaws in an otherwise superb film. One element that truly helps the atmosphere, is its period setting (Which makes me feel extremely old!). It is a perfect time in which to capture a sense of wonder and enthusiasm, where you can still have pre-teen characters who are not as jaded as their modern counterparts would be. They still have a sense of innocence and lack any contemporary cynicism.

Watching the military clean-up of the train crash

Joel Courtney is excellent as the lead character, Joe Lamb. He looks and acts the part perfectly, not once feeling out of place in the late 70s world. However, the real stand out is perhaps Elle Fanning (Sister of Dakota Fanning) who nails the part of 'token girl in the group of boys', without feeling like a 'let's appeal to the girls too' addition. Sometimes in these kind of films, the romantic interest for the young male can often come over as excessively mature, or at the very least the archetypal 'inaccessible school beauty'. Although there is a hint of this in her first introduction, after that point she is simply one of the gang. The romance (such as it is for this type of film) feels completely natural and sweet.

The film as a whole builds its pace nicely, never rushing things for the sake of getting to the whiz-bang effects. Super 8 definitely puts its story and characters first, allowing them to pull us into its adventure and mystery all the deeper. The nods to its inspirations are often clear, but never blatant to the point of copying. For example, a family scene around a table with misbehaving children is reminiscent of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, there are echoes of Invaders from Mars, a character similar to the young lead of Critters, a shot overlooking the town at night that is clearly a wink to a shot in E.T., as well as numerous other films. However, these 'nods' work extremely well. They tread the fine line between drawing a smile of familiar nostalgia, without pulling you out of the film by being too obvious.

The standard by which many contemporary children's films are compared, tends to be Harry Potter. So with that in mind, I will say this. If someone told me they could only see the final Harry Potter film or Super 8, and asked which they should see, I would recommend Super 8 without a second's thought. There isn't even really a comparison. The unbridled enthusiasm and fun of the character's short film over the end credits, sums it up perfectly (Remember to stay in your seat and watch).

Watching in wonder

It is possible that modern youngsters may find Super 8 too slow or lacking in immediate special effects (Which could explain the over-enthusiastic train crash). However, I hope they give it a chance. This is the way children's films used to be, and there are no reasons why they can't be again. They embody a childhood sense of wonder, excitement, mystery, adventure and friendship that will entrance the young into dreaming of their own adventures, whilst whisking the old back to the best moments of their youth.

9.5/10

Image Credit: © 2011 Paramount Pictures


All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 - (2011) - Cinema Review (6.5/10)

Is it in B&W?

The Harry Potter franchise finally draws to a close, under the guiding hand of David Yates, who essentially took over directorship of the films since 'The Order of the Phoenix'. This time around, Hogwarts school of wizardry is under attack. In previous instalments we've seen a variety of locations. This time round, apart from a few early events, we're essentially treated to a siege movie.

The big question is, does it succeed at rounding off the story successfully? I'll say yes, but it's a tentative yes. This final film is a very mixed bag. Overall, the film structure feels like a series of ticked boxes. Step by step, covering exactly what needed covering, without any real passion or feeling. Don't get me wrong, the film is technically brilliant. It is slickly made, and highly polished. The acting is sometimes excellent and certainly never less than serviceable, even from the often criticized Daniel Radcliffe, but honestly, I don't know what else he could have been expected to do. Almost all of the characters you can think of, get their little moments, though in many cases they feel shoehorned in for the sake of completeness, without any real care for the characters or emotions involved.

Facing Voldemort

Unfortunately, the films no longer feel like children's films, even though that is their primary audience. Despite the subject matter, there is no 'magic' in Harry Potter any more. The content is dark and tough, but even that could have been managed in a less heavy handed and more nuanced way. You only need to see the way a film such as Super 8 deals with the difficult subject of a child tragically losing a parent in far more raw and realistic way than Harry Potter has ever done, but uses that to accentuate the film's themes and characters without losing its charm or child-like wonder. One scene in Harry Potter even treats its viewers to a bloody foetal figure in a setting reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey's finale.

A grey world

David Yates seems to have decided that the only way to cover the darker subject matter, is to quite literally make the film dark. The final instalment feels as though it could have been filmed in black and white with the projector bulb turned down. They have desaturated the colours and darkened the picture so mechanically, it feels less moody than simply eye-straining. There is a trend for giving modern films an overall tint, such as sepia or teal, which is fast reaching over-use. In this case, Yates has just decided to drain the life from the picture. One shot especially stood out for me. A dramatic panning shot across the embattled bridges of Hogwarts as magical forces faced off against one another. It should have been epic and awe inspiring, but I could hardly make out what was going on, it was so dark and monotone. In contrast, the most moody and sombre scenes in the Lord of the Rings films feel vibrantly colourful, yet those are adult fantasy films. Heck, classic horror films like The Thing, Alien, Halloween, The Shining, feel like they were made in bright day-glow paints in comparison.

Professor Snape

One character and scene stands out in the final film, which I will give it credit for. This deals with the fate of Professor Snape, played by Alan Rickman (Die Hard, Truly Madly Deeply, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves). Without spoiling it for those who don't know, his story is by far the most poignant and moving. In most cases, the demise or success of other characters is dealt with in an almost throwaway manner.

Nearly Forgotten

Another under-developed element was the 'romance'. It was obvious from the first film, that Harry would probably end up with Ginny, yet eight films later, we still have practically no development on that front. It simply 'happened' for plot convenience a film or two ago (I can't remember which one), without being given the screen time to justify it (I presume that the books may have given it more depth).

Under Siege

The ending of the film also feels somewhat rushed. To compare The Lord of the Rings again, those films have been criticized for having too many long endings. The final film covers every character's eventual fate in great detail, and takes plenty of time to do so. After eight films, Harry Potter gets a somewhat forgettable 'The Next Generation' scene.

I know the Harry Potter films were intended to become darker and grittier as time passed and its characters grew older, but there is no excuse for losing the vibrant sense of magical fun that permeated the first few films.

He Who Must Not Be Named
(Otherwise known as Voldemort)

All I can say, is that it is a serviceable film. It works on the most basic levels, even if it never reaches beyond those. If you have collected the series up till now, it makes for an acceptable if lacklustre conclusion. Nothing more, nothing less.

6.5/10

Image Credit: © 2011 Warner Bros. Pictures

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.

Battle: Los Angeles - (2011) - Cinema Review (5/10)

Unoriginal and Repetitive
The plot is pretty straight forward. Mix a primary dose of modern American war movie set in Iraq or Afghanistan, such as The Hurt Locker, then mix in a little Independence Day, Aliens and the original 'V', with a heavy dash of District 9, and voila, Battle: Los Angeles.

The star, Aaron Eckhart (The Core, The Dark Knight, Love Happens), plays a Staff Sergeant who is on the verge of retiring after the usual 'traumatic experience from his last battle'. The rest of the cast are a practically non-existent mix of one-dimensional stereotypes. We have the soldier about to get married, the soldier who's wife is pregnant, the soldier who is green and inexperienced, the soldier who's brother was killed in battle with the man now commanding him, the inexperienced Lieutenant who must rise to the call before a tragic end... All stereotypes. The problem is, they're stereotypes that go no further. We get to know and care for none of them, apart for the possible exception of the Sergeant. They are canon fodder in the most literal sense. So much so, that setting up their characters was itself pointless time-wasting.

Aaron Eckhart waiting for another shoot-out

Then there's the science fiction element of the film. This is merely an excuse for the 'story' and action. There is nothing original or even vaguely different about the aliens or their motivations. In fact, the invaders could be replaced with any human enemy and the story would be the same. I love science fiction, but this film only scrapes into the genre by having alien antagonists.

In fact, Battle: Los Angeles goes out of its way to avoid showing you the aliens in any real detail. It's as though they're afraid of showing them. The concept design for the creatures, their equipment and their vehicles appears to lack any theme or consistent aesthetic (not that we get to see much of them anyway). It's all very standard and unoriginal.

The alien invaders

The cast apparently went to 'boot camp' to go through professional training in readiness, but it seems to have made little difference in how the film was made. All too often they're busy shouting in situations where common sense would tell you to keep quiet, or standing around exposed when they should be staying low behind cover, or simply not moving when their position has clearly been spotted by an enemy.

Flying into battle

As for the way it was filmed, again, Battle: Los Angeles is an experiment in lack of originality. We are treated to yet another movie in which the camera sways and wobbles and zooms and swish-pans every which way it can. It's not as horribly intrusive as it could have been, but it's more than sufficient to be annoying, distracting and pointless. The style is supposed to provide that 'documentary feel'. When did you last watch a documentary in the depths of a war-zone, in which the camera constantly moves and cuts so you can't really get a good view of anything? The technique is supposed to increase the sense of 'realism' for the viewer, but is simply repetitive and distracting.

Once the action kicks in, the film is very much a couple of hours filled with the same thing again and again, with minor variations. Aliens approach, marines shoot back. The odds appear overwhelming, a few marines get killed, then they heroically triumph until the next engagement. Each of these scenes progress almost geometrically in scale until the climax.

Michelle Rodriguez clearly rebelling against stereotype

That's Battle: Los Angeles in a nut shell. There really isn't a lot else to it. It's well enough acted, though Eckhart comes over as his usual emotionless self, and the rest of the cast have little else to do than shout a lot. It's all entertaining fun, and it will just about keep you interested enough to watch, but within the first half hour of leaving the cinema, after the effects of the adrenaline pumping action have worn off, you suddenly realise something. Battle: Los Angeles is a well made film that says and does absolutely nothing. I've seen many films that are worse, but usually they've at least tried to be more than they were, even if they failed badly. Battle: Los Angeles tries nothing and ultimately is nothing. It just is. A noisy war movie with a collection of battle scenes, filmed in a modern style with a big budget.

5/10

All work is the © copyright of W.D.Lee and/or the respective companies, individuals or organisations to which the work is related. No infringement is intentional. No reproduction or copying is permitted without express permission.