Me har allereie hatt dobbel-norsk i lagsprint under ski-VM, kan me i natt få enda ein dobbel-norsk under Academy Awards? Mest sannsynleg ikkje.
Årets største kveld for ei viss gruppe filmfans er her, og tusenvis av filmfolk samlar seg over heile verda for å sjå fisefine amerikanare gå ned den raude løparen og få tildelt gullstatuer med namna sine på. Men kva for nokon av dei rundt 40 nominerte spelefilmane kjem til å få heder og ære i form av ein liten mann? Eg har sett berre 24 av dei nominerte filmane, men dei aller fleste i dei store kategoriane, og skal prøve så godt som eg kan å forutsjå kven som blir dei store vinnarne og dei store taparene når morgonen gryr.
Me startar med manuskategoriane. For beste adaptert manus har me "American Sniper", "The Imitation Game", "Inherent Vice", "The Theory of Everything", og "Whiplash". Kall meg gjerne galen, men dette trur eg faktisk kan bli norskregisserte "The Imitation Game" sin storpris. Filmen er det perfekte oscarbait, og få av dei andre filmane står fram som typiske vinnare av denne prisen. Viss det ikkje blir "The Imitation Game", blir det nok "The Theory of Everything".
For originalt manus har me "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)", "Boyhood", "Foxcatcher", "The Grand Budapest Hotel", og "Nightcrawler". Her er nok "The Grand Budapest Hotel" den soleklare vinneren. Wes Anderson sine lekne manus er favorittar sjølv hjå det ganske tradisjonelle akademiet, han har allereie fleire nominasjoner så dette blir nok året han vinn. Nokon spekulerer i at "Boyhood" kjem til å ta denne prisen, men det blir nok for tynt sjølv for ein så elska film.
Visuelle effekter er det liten tvil går til "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes", dog eg gjerne ville sett den gå til "Interstellar" som faktisk endte opp å bevise ny vitskap med sine effektar. Når effektshuset Double Negative samarbeida med forskaren Kip Thorne oppdaga dei at svarte hól ikkje såg ut som me egenleg trudde. Men eg fryktar at "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" sine meir in-your-face-effektar tar prisen som altfor ofte kor til effektspektaklar i staden for dei fantastiske usynlege effektane me ser i filmar som "The Wolf of Wall Street" og "Lincoln".
Teknisk ljod har som vanleg to kategoriar, ein for miks og ein for klipp. Her tippar eg "Birdman" tar for klipp og "Whiplash" for miks. Eg har aldri hatt roen på koss desse kategoriane blir bedømt, men for meg er desse dei mest openbare. "Birdman" har bra klipp som lar filmen sitt one-shot-bilete verke meir som eit faktisk one-shot, og "Whiplash" klarer nesten perfekt å mikse ljoden til trommene på slik ein måte at ein føler ein nesten lev i trommane.
Produksjonsdesign går nok her til "The Grand Budapest Hotel". Filmen er den einaste som verkeleg står ut blant dei nominerte, og ingen av dei andre er noko betre enn normalen på produksjonsdesign. Viss eg måtte ha valt ein til, så er det nok "Mr. Turner" som selger England i gamle dagar veldig godt sjølv om me har sett det hundrevis av gonger før på båe fjernsyn og film.
Musikk har óg to kategoriar, ein for komponert musikk, og ein for original sang. Eg har nevnt før at eg meiner "The Theory of Everything" er god på musikkvala sine, og trur dermed at den kjem til å ta prisen for komponert musikk til tross for at komponist Alexandre Desplat faktisk er nominert to gonger for to forskjellege prisar i same kategori. For sang er eg egenleg ikkje like sikker, men håpar den går til "Everything is Awesome" frå "The LEGO Movie" som bli fråstjålet sin nominasjon for animert film.
"Ida" er heilt klart den som vinn for utenlandsk film. Utenlandsk film som er nominert i meir enn ein kategori vinn meir eller mindre alltid kategorien for utenlandsk film, og eg tvilar på at "Ida" blir noko annleis. "Ida" er nemleg óg nominert for kinematografi, dog eg håpar og trur at den prisen kjem til å gå til "Birdman".
Animert film tippar eg går til "The Boxtrolls", men dette er ei veldig splitta gruppe. For min del kunne prisen gått til båe "How to Train Your Dragon 2" og "Big Hero 6" og eg hadde vore nøgd, men med to filmar til som eg ikkje har fått sett enda så blir det ikkje lett å forutsjå. "Big Hero 6" hadde eg stemt på om eg hadde stemme.
Og då går me avgarde til dei store prisane. Fyrst tar med birollar. Mange har snakka om at Meryl Streep kjem til å få pris for sin rolle i "Into the Woods", men eg klarer ikkje å få hovudet mitt rundt at ho skal bli vinne for å spele ei heks i ein slik film. Denne prisen går nok til Patricia Arquette for "Boyhood". Ho speler bra over alle tolv åra i filmen, og er heilt klart ein av dei betre delane av heile opplevelsen. Viss ho ikkje vinn så går kanskje prisen til Emma Stone for "Birdman".
Mannleg birolle går nok til JK Simmons for "Whiplash". Det må den berre gjere, noko anna blir for dumt. Det er klart mange flotte forestillingar som er nominert, spesielt Mark Ruffalo for "Foxcatcher" og Ethan Hawke for "Boyhood", men JK Simmons blir nok for god for dei alle. Eg legg den ballen død allereie no.
Kvinneleg hovudrolle er litt spesielt. Alle dei mannelege hovudrollepresentasjonane er frå filmar som óg er nominert til beste film, mens blant dei kvinnelege er berre ein frå ein beste film-nominert film. Her har eg berre fått sett to av dei nominerte presentasjonane, men trur at Julianne Moore vinn for sin i "Still Alice". Er har ikkje fått sett denne enda, den hadde premiere no førre fredag, men eg har høyrt utruleg mykje bra om den. Det blir nesten rart om ein anna vinn.
For mannleg hovudrolle er eg meget skeptisk. Fyrst og fremst forstår eg ikkje kvifor Steve Carell er nominert for sin under gjennomsnittet bra presentasjon i "Foxcatcher". Resten er nokså gode presentasjonar, men ingen som står fram som ein soleklar vinnar. Eg ville gitt prisen til Michael Keaton for "Birdman" blant dei nominerte, men eg trur faktisk at Eddie Redmayne kjem til å få den for "The Theory of Everything". Han er langt frå dårleg i rolla, utruleg god faktisk, men personleg tykkjar eg at Michael Keaton tar det litt lengre og er litt betre. Blir dog ikkje irritert om Redmayne vinn denne.
For regi har me faktisk ein nordmann blant dei nominerte! Det er nok lenge til noko slikt skjer att så me får berre godte oss mens me kan. Her er Alejandro G. Iñárritu ("Birdman"), Richard Linklater ("Boyhood"), Bennett Miller ("Foxcatcher"), Wes Anderson ("The Grand Budapest Hotel"), og Morten Tydlum ("The Imitation Game") nominert. Eg trur ikkje i det heile tatt på at Morten Tydlum kjem til å vinne dette, men det er fantastisk gøy berre at han er nominert. Hadde du fortalt meg for nokre år sida at han som regisserte "Buddy" med Aksel Hennie og Nicolai Cleve Broch kom til å bli Oscar-nominert så hadde eg lurt på kva faen du snakka om. Nei, denne prisen trur eg nok går til Linklater for "Boyhood". Forten han den er ein anna sak, men eg trur han kjem til å få den. Eg ville sjølv likt å sjå den gå til Iñárritu for "Birdman" eller til og med Anderson for "The Grand Budapest Hotel", men me kan ikkje få alt me vil her i livet.
Så for beste film. "American Sniper", "Birdman", "Boyhood", "The Grand Budapest Hotel", "The Imitation Game", "Selma", "The Theory of Everything", og "Whiplash". Her har eg sett alle utanom "Selma" som enda ikkje har hatt premiere i Noreg. Sjølv om eg tykkjar det er filmen som minst forten prisen så trur eg at "Boyhood" får denne. Eg tykkjar "Boyhood" var for lang, og for keisam, og at det einaste som gjorde den interessant var gimmicken med å spela inn filmen med dei same folka over eit tiår. Eg ville mykje heller gitt prisen til "Whiplash" eller "Birdman". Dog skal eg ikkje seia at eg er hundre prosent sikker på at "Boyhood" får prisen, eg trur nemleg at "The Grand Budapest Hotel" er ganske høgt oppe der óg. Filmen har gjort det veldig bra no i prisseongen, og det hadde ikkje overraksa meg om den no slår til med eit smell og tar den gjevaste prisen på Oscars óg. Me får berre vente og glede oss til dei tidlege morgontimane for å finne det ut.
Og heilt til slutt kategorien med den andre nordmannen i, beste animerte kortfilm. Her har eg berre sett to av dei nominerte. Den norsk-canadiske "Me and My Moulton" og Disney sin "Feast". Eg har dog høyrt mykje lovord om den semi-Pixar-laga kortfilmen "The Dam Keeper" og trur den kjem til å vinne. Dei store studioane pleier ikkje nødvendigvis å vinne denne prisen, og "The Dam Keeper" held seg litt utanføre med å berre fått hjelp frå Pixar til å laga filmen, og er ikkje ein faktisk Pixar-produsksjon sjølv. Eg håpar dog på norsk sigar her med "Me and My Moulton".
Så ja, ingen norske priser er min forutsjåing. Ein pris til ein norskregissert film, ja, men ingen til ein faktisk nordmann. Men det går nok bra, det er utruleg at det i det heile tatt er så mykje norsk som er nominert. Åtte nominasjar til "The Imitation Game" og ein til "Me and My Moulton". Det er eit bra år for norske filmfans.
Viss du vil sjå alle mine forutsjåingar kan du sjå dei her. Og viss du vil lese alle mine bloggpostar om nominerte filmar for Oscars 2015 kan du følgje denne lenka.
Showing posts with label Oscar nominated 2015. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscar nominated 2015. Show all posts
Sunday, 22 February 2015
Saturday, 7 February 2015
The Theory of Everything - A Too Breif History of Hawking
The first time I watched the trailer for "The Theory of Everything" I almost thought it was a joke. Some shitty pretentious biography the likes of "Jobs" with Ashton Kutcher. It just didn't look particularly good. It was almost like the kind of trailer you see for fake films in mediocre sitcoms. Needless to say I was floored when all the raving reviews came in, and even more so when the nominations started flowing. Today was finally mine turn to see what this was about.
It was far from as bad as I had imagined. In fact, it's quite enjoyable. But I can neither say that it's as good as everyone seems to think. The acting done by Eddie Redmayne is marvelous, yes, but the rest is really quite average for a film of this caliber. This is exactly the kind of film that the awards in the US tend to favour, a biopic about a struggling legend who manages to do what few others could. With that in mind, this isn't as good as I feel this genre expects. It is a very broken up story, trying to tell most of Hawking's adult life in two hours. It can be hard at times to keep track up what has been done and what is still to come.
The best parts of this entire thing are Redmayne's performance, and the music. Redmayne is so good as Hawking, that there are parts where I genuinely forget I am watching an actor. This could also owe its fair share to costume, make-up, and casting, but Redmayne could have easily screwed up and handed in a weak performance despite the physical similarities. The music also stands out as something fantastic. It never fails to convey the mood of the film, but is never too invasive, telling you what to think and what to feel at any given time. It just complements the feelings already there, as any good score ought to do.
Overall, this isn't really a film you have to watch, but I think you would enjoy it if you ever end up doing it. If nothing else it helps you sympathise with Hawking, and what it is exactly that he has had to go through to get where he is today.
It was far from as bad as I had imagined. In fact, it's quite enjoyable. But I can neither say that it's as good as everyone seems to think. The acting done by Eddie Redmayne is marvelous, yes, but the rest is really quite average for a film of this caliber. This is exactly the kind of film that the awards in the US tend to favour, a biopic about a struggling legend who manages to do what few others could. With that in mind, this isn't as good as I feel this genre expects. It is a very broken up story, trying to tell most of Hawking's adult life in two hours. It can be hard at times to keep track up what has been done and what is still to come.
The best parts of this entire thing are Redmayne's performance, and the music. Redmayne is so good as Hawking, that there are parts where I genuinely forget I am watching an actor. This could also owe its fair share to costume, make-up, and casting, but Redmayne could have easily screwed up and handed in a weak performance despite the physical similarities. The music also stands out as something fantastic. It never fails to convey the mood of the film, but is never too invasive, telling you what to think and what to feel at any given time. It just complements the feelings already there, as any good score ought to do.
Overall, this isn't really a film you have to watch, but I think you would enjoy it if you ever end up doing it. If nothing else it helps you sympathise with Hawking, and what it is exactly that he has had to go through to get where he is today.
Friday, 6 February 2015
Birdman - Calvin and Riggan
"Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" has been talked about a lot ever since it first premiered. People have been praising it up and down, raving about every little detail of it. Saying it's a masterpiece. Because of this I've been rather skeptical, rarely can I go into a film that is so hyped up without being at least a little bit disappointed. Today was not like that.
"Birdman" follows Riggan Thomson, a former big-shot actor who is credited by bringing life to the superhero as a film genre. He is setting up a play on Broadway which he is both writing, directing, and starring it. He's putting everything on the line to be viewed as something more than just a filmstar, more than just Birdman.
The entirety of this film is a perfect balancing act of crazy indie-picture, and mainstream Oscar-bait. It's about a filmstar and his view of the film business, which is something the Academy just loves. Time and time again we see these "meta" films about the business itself being nominated, not necessarily because they're the best, but because the voters identify with them more. At the same time we have an artsy and barrier-breaking film which manages to fool the audience into thinking that this is an extremely small film, almost student level. It all takes place at the theatre, never leaving unless they absolutely have to, and even then they go to limited sets. It's almost as if the film itself is a play.
The cinematography in this film is some of the best I've seen in years, and if it doesn't win that award at the Oscars something is wrong. It is clearly better than the rest of the nominees, and in a way that is easily accessible for everyone. Often cinematography can be hard to judge for the average filmgoer, it's just a frame you see things through. But the way the camera is used in this film can clearly be noticed. Almost the entire film is one "continuous" shot, all the cuts are hidden with either clever transitioning shots or VFX shots. This has limited the use of the camera, as you can't just cut to a closeup, then cut to a wideshot, then see something that happens on the other side of the world. You move with the camera throughout the film, it's almost like you are a character in it. Again, it's like a play.
The acting is also some of the best, and everyone in it who is nominated for Oscars have deserved it. They are all in on the game that this is a pseudo indie picture, they manage to act in a way that resembles amateurish that is in actuality great. It's like Calvin's drawings in "Calvin and Hobbes". Bill Watterson draws them in such a way that they look exactly like a child's drawings, but they are in fact amazing drawings that perfectly represents what they are supposed to. You can't simplify something to such a degree unless you really understand it to begin with, and it looks like everyone in this film understood what they were doing.
As a closing remark, this film is amazing. If it is still in theatres where ever you are right now, go watch it. Even if you already have. This won't be as magical and as special experienced through the glow of a laptop screen, or on your Nokia in your hand. Treat yourself to the real experience this time. It's worth it.
"Birdman" follows Riggan Thomson, a former big-shot actor who is credited by bringing life to the superhero as a film genre. He is setting up a play on Broadway which he is both writing, directing, and starring it. He's putting everything on the line to be viewed as something more than just a filmstar, more than just Birdman.
The entirety of this film is a perfect balancing act of crazy indie-picture, and mainstream Oscar-bait. It's about a filmstar and his view of the film business, which is something the Academy just loves. Time and time again we see these "meta" films about the business itself being nominated, not necessarily because they're the best, but because the voters identify with them more. At the same time we have an artsy and barrier-breaking film which manages to fool the audience into thinking that this is an extremely small film, almost student level. It all takes place at the theatre, never leaving unless they absolutely have to, and even then they go to limited sets. It's almost as if the film itself is a play.
The cinematography in this film is some of the best I've seen in years, and if it doesn't win that award at the Oscars something is wrong. It is clearly better than the rest of the nominees, and in a way that is easily accessible for everyone. Often cinematography can be hard to judge for the average filmgoer, it's just a frame you see things through. But the way the camera is used in this film can clearly be noticed. Almost the entire film is one "continuous" shot, all the cuts are hidden with either clever transitioning shots or VFX shots. This has limited the use of the camera, as you can't just cut to a closeup, then cut to a wideshot, then see something that happens on the other side of the world. You move with the camera throughout the film, it's almost like you are a character in it. Again, it's like a play.
The acting is also some of the best, and everyone in it who is nominated for Oscars have deserved it. They are all in on the game that this is a pseudo indie picture, they manage to act in a way that resembles amateurish that is in actuality great. It's like Calvin's drawings in "Calvin and Hobbes". Bill Watterson draws them in such a way that they look exactly like a child's drawings, but they are in fact amazing drawings that perfectly represents what they are supposed to. You can't simplify something to such a degree unless you really understand it to begin with, and it looks like everyone in this film understood what they were doing.
As a closing remark, this film is amazing. If it is still in theatres where ever you are right now, go watch it. Even if you already have. This won't be as magical and as special experienced through the glow of a laptop screen, or on your Nokia in your hand. Treat yourself to the real experience this time. It's worth it.
Thursday, 5 February 2015
Unbroken - Not Very Jolly
"Unbroken" is one of the more silent and unkown Oscar nominees this year. It's actually up for three awards, one for cinematography, and for both sound mixing and sound editing. It doesn't really have any star power to it, except for the fact that Angelina Jolie directed it. But not too many people go into a film because Jolie directed it. Still, it's done okay enough at the boxoffice, and well enough with the critics. Now it's my turn to talk about it.
"Unbroken" follows Louis Zamperini, an Olympic runner who ends up fighting in the second world war against the Japanese. The first part of the film focuses on his childhood, him finding his dream and going to the Olympics in Nazi Germany before suddenly being thrown into the middle of a war. The main plot of the film starts after Louis' bomber crew crashes into the ocean on a rescue mission, they are stranded in the ocean until they're picked up by a Japanese ship and are then put into Japanese prisoner camps.
The film has gotten generally luke warm reviews, people say it's been done before, better. And I have to agree to an extent. We have seen all of the elements of this film before, but I can't say that I have seen them put together like this. Does it work? Not all the time. Sometimes it just drags on because they decide to spend too much time on one aspect of the film, while other times it goes to fast, you barely get to understand what's going on before it's over. The acting is nothing to write home about. It's just there, it gets the job done, but you won't be left with any lasting impressions of it. The biggest surprise there was how well Domhnall Gleeson pulled off an American accent.
All in all, this isn't something you need to spend two plus hours of your life on, unless you're really big on war films. You won't regret watching it, but you definitely won't remember it fondly even a week after. It will just be another thing that happened in your life, and you won't even remember it again until that one time you happen to zap by it on cable and spend a few moments trying to remember why it feels to familiar.
"Unbroken" follows Louis Zamperini, an Olympic runner who ends up fighting in the second world war against the Japanese. The first part of the film focuses on his childhood, him finding his dream and going to the Olympics in Nazi Germany before suddenly being thrown into the middle of a war. The main plot of the film starts after Louis' bomber crew crashes into the ocean on a rescue mission, they are stranded in the ocean until they're picked up by a Japanese ship and are then put into Japanese prisoner camps.
The film has gotten generally luke warm reviews, people say it's been done before, better. And I have to agree to an extent. We have seen all of the elements of this film before, but I can't say that I have seen them put together like this. Does it work? Not all the time. Sometimes it just drags on because they decide to spend too much time on one aspect of the film, while other times it goes to fast, you barely get to understand what's going on before it's over. The acting is nothing to write home about. It's just there, it gets the job done, but you won't be left with any lasting impressions of it. The biggest surprise there was how well Domhnall Gleeson pulled off an American accent.
All in all, this isn't something you need to spend two plus hours of your life on, unless you're really big on war films. You won't regret watching it, but you definitely won't remember it fondly even a week after. It will just be another thing that happened in your life, and you won't even remember it again until that one time you happen to zap by it on cable and spend a few moments trying to remember why it feels to familiar.
Wednesday, 4 February 2015
Nightcrawler - Not *That* Nightcrawler
No, it's another X-Men film that you somehow missed. Trust me, I checked. This "Nightcrawler" stars Jake Gyllenhaal as Louis Bloom. A jack of all trades who takes a sudden interest in filming news stories for the highest bidder.
"Nightcrawler" has been talked about and praised for quite some time now, but it wasn't until last weekend that it finally made its way to little Norway. It more or less only made it here in the first place because of all of its nominations and wins during the on-going awards season. And I am so very glad that it did. This is by far the film that will define Jake Gyllenhaal's career for years to come. He has been known for quite some time as "that gay cowboy" from "Brockback Mountain", sometimes even as distantly as just Maggie Gyllenhaal's brother, this may still hold true for the more casual moviegoers, but it definitely won't for the more avid film buffs.
"Nightcrawler" follows Louis Bloom and his associate Rick while they crawl the nights of Los Angeles looking for the best news stories to sell to the news stations. Lou gains a sudden advantage in the field by really not holding back. He gets closer than anyone, and subsequently is the one whose clips are sold the most. Gyllenhaal offer some of the best acting of 2014 in this film, some of the best of the decade so far. Showing a range of emotion and being seen far too rarely these days. Clocking in at just under two hours I was fearing that it might feel too long, but Gyllenhaal's presence really keeps you in the moment. Always wondering what is going to happen next, what will he do now? The two hours just flew by, and it ended at more or less the perfect time. Not dragging it too long, and not cutting it too soon.
Overall this is just an amazing film, definitely one of the bests of recent years. I would even go so far as to say that this is a film that will be remembered. Maybe not the so much the plot and meaning of it, but the character Louis Bloom and Gyllenhaal's portrayal of him. It will be one the films that my generation will curse the generations after them for not watching because of how outdated it is (which I do think the plot will become in not too long). I'm just saying, those darn kids better get off my lawn.
"Nightcrawler" has been talked about and praised for quite some time now, but it wasn't until last weekend that it finally made its way to little Norway. It more or less only made it here in the first place because of all of its nominations and wins during the on-going awards season. And I am so very glad that it did. This is by far the film that will define Jake Gyllenhaal's career for years to come. He has been known for quite some time as "that gay cowboy" from "Brockback Mountain", sometimes even as distantly as just Maggie Gyllenhaal's brother, this may still hold true for the more casual moviegoers, but it definitely won't for the more avid film buffs.
"Nightcrawler" follows Louis Bloom and his associate Rick while they crawl the nights of Los Angeles looking for the best news stories to sell to the news stations. Lou gains a sudden advantage in the field by really not holding back. He gets closer than anyone, and subsequently is the one whose clips are sold the most. Gyllenhaal offer some of the best acting of 2014 in this film, some of the best of the decade so far. Showing a range of emotion and being seen far too rarely these days. Clocking in at just under two hours I was fearing that it might feel too long, but Gyllenhaal's presence really keeps you in the moment. Always wondering what is going to happen next, what will he do now? The two hours just flew by, and it ended at more or less the perfect time. Not dragging it too long, and not cutting it too soon.
Overall this is just an amazing film, definitely one of the bests of recent years. I would even go so far as to say that this is a film that will be remembered. Maybe not the so much the plot and meaning of it, but the character Louis Bloom and Gyllenhaal's portrayal of him. It will be one the films that my generation will curse the generations after them for not watching because of how outdated it is (which I do think the plot will become in not too long). I'm just saying, those darn kids better get off my lawn.
Sunday, 25 January 2015
American Sniper - Good but Forgettable
"American Sniper" surprised everyone when it went on to absolutely shatter previous January wide openings. It earned close to 90 million USD in its opening weekend, more than twice that of the previous record holder. It's currently tracking upwards of 300 million in the US alone, something only two films managed in 2014. Both of which ("Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Mokingjay Pt. 1") opened in the second half of the year. "American Sniper" is also nominated for Best picture at this year's Academy Awards. With all this success, how good is it?
It's above average, but that's the furthest I can stretch. It's not fantastic, but it's more than good. We follow Chris Kyle on his journey from a bachelor wannabe-cowboy in Texas to becoming the most lethal sniper in American history. We get to see several sides to the story, contrary to what many on the internet will lead you to believe. Kyle himself may be solid in his believes of what he did was for the best, for the overall good, but that isn't necessarily the film's message. We get to see the Kyle deal with having to kill so many, and we get to see Kyle deal with having so many of his friends killed. There are also detours set around his family, where we see how much it tears them too apart.
But I would still agree that they do lean a bit too much towards the "America best, foreigners evil" trope. I mean, I expected it, and I understand it. It's a film by Clint Eastwood called "American Sniper" after all. But it's still horrible to see how much every foreigner is treated as a terrorist until proven otherwise. However, that only adds to the story's emotional connection. I didn't just connect with Kyle and how he felt with what he had to do, I also connected with the Iraqis who live in an occupied country, caught in the middle of a war many of them want no part of.
Overall this film is more than decent. I doubt anyone will remember it in a few years' time, but even though it feels a little out-of-date it still strikes the right chords. The acting is the best part of the film, and I fully understand Bradley Cooper getting a nod for Best male lead. Whether he deserves to win it or not is something we can discuss when the Academy Awards ceremony is a bit closer.
It's above average, but that's the furthest I can stretch. It's not fantastic, but it's more than good. We follow Chris Kyle on his journey from a bachelor wannabe-cowboy in Texas to becoming the most lethal sniper in American history. We get to see several sides to the story, contrary to what many on the internet will lead you to believe. Kyle himself may be solid in his believes of what he did was for the best, for the overall good, but that isn't necessarily the film's message. We get to see the Kyle deal with having to kill so many, and we get to see Kyle deal with having so many of his friends killed. There are also detours set around his family, where we see how much it tears them too apart.
But I would still agree that they do lean a bit too much towards the "America best, foreigners evil" trope. I mean, I expected it, and I understand it. It's a film by Clint Eastwood called "American Sniper" after all. But it's still horrible to see how much every foreigner is treated as a terrorist until proven otherwise. However, that only adds to the story's emotional connection. I didn't just connect with Kyle and how he felt with what he had to do, I also connected with the Iraqis who live in an occupied country, caught in the middle of a war many of them want no part of.
Overall this film is more than decent. I doubt anyone will remember it in a few years' time, but even though it feels a little out-of-date it still strikes the right chords. The acting is the best part of the film, and I fully understand Bradley Cooper getting a nod for Best male lead. Whether he deserves to win it or not is something we can discuss when the Academy Awards ceremony is a bit closer.
Saturday, 24 January 2015
Big Hero 6 - Disney Is King
"Big Hero 6" is Walt Disney Animation Studios' first dive into Marvel's superhero universe after their parent company, The Walt Disney Company, acquired Marvel Entertainment. Despite being based on a Marvel superhero comic, it has nothing to do with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is a standalone picture, not even Marvel Animation's films have anything to do with this.
"Big Hero 6" mainly follows the 14 year old boy genius Hiro and his older brother's robot nurse Baymax. Hiro spends a lot of his time building bots that he uses to hustle big-time bot-fighters around the city. His brother, Tadashi, feels he is wasting his talent and tries to convince him to join San Fransokyo Institute of Technology where he himself is part of a team of tech developers. Hiro goes to present an invention of his own in hopes of being accepted into class, but a lot goes wrong. The rest of the film we follow Hiro trying to fix his mistakes, and Baymax aiding him however he is asked.
"Big Hero 6" has all what you have come to expect from Walt Disney Animation Studios over the last couple of years. If you enjoyed "Bolt", "Tangled", "Wreck-It Ralph", and "Frozen" chances are you will enjoy this as well. If you happen to also enjoy superhero films in general, you are in for a treat. This isn't just a good animation film, this is a good superhero film period. No, it doesn't have the same tones as most live-action superhero films these days, but that shouldn't matter. It has traded the more serious and intense drama for delightful and wonderful adventure. It reminds me of the best parts of both "Astroboy" (2009) and "The Incredibles", and is yet more proof that Walt Disney Animation Studios have reclaimed their throne from Pixar whose success has been their own slightlydownfall.
This is the first film in a while where I was left wanting more, not because I felt that there were things left untold, but because there was so much amazing happening that I just wanted to see more of it. It is packed full from start to end, never wasting too much time with exposition. Why does it appear that we are in a weird blend of Japan and the USA? We don't know, we just are, and we don't really care because that's the way it is. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this film gets mentioned again on this blog next January first.
"Big Hero 6" mainly follows the 14 year old boy genius Hiro and his older brother's robot nurse Baymax. Hiro spends a lot of his time building bots that he uses to hustle big-time bot-fighters around the city. His brother, Tadashi, feels he is wasting his talent and tries to convince him to join San Fransokyo Institute of Technology where he himself is part of a team of tech developers. Hiro goes to present an invention of his own in hopes of being accepted into class, but a lot goes wrong. The rest of the film we follow Hiro trying to fix his mistakes, and Baymax aiding him however he is asked.
"Big Hero 6" has all what you have come to expect from Walt Disney Animation Studios over the last couple of years. If you enjoyed "Bolt", "Tangled", "Wreck-It Ralph", and "Frozen" chances are you will enjoy this as well. If you happen to also enjoy superhero films in general, you are in for a treat. This isn't just a good animation film, this is a good superhero film period. No, it doesn't have the same tones as most live-action superhero films these days, but that shouldn't matter. It has traded the more serious and intense drama for delightful and wonderful adventure. It reminds me of the best parts of both "Astroboy" (2009) and "The Incredibles", and is yet more proof that Walt Disney Animation Studios have reclaimed their throne from Pixar whose success has been their own slightlydownfall.
This is the first film in a while where I was left wanting more, not because I felt that there were things left untold, but because there was so much amazing happening that I just wanted to see more of it. It is packed full from start to end, never wasting too much time with exposition. Why does it appear that we are in a weird blend of Japan and the USA? We don't know, we just are, and we don't really care because that's the way it is. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this film gets mentioned again on this blog next January first.
Thursday, 22 January 2015
Mr. Turner - Turn Down For What?
"Mr. Turner" is one of those typical "pretty looking films" that get nominated for all the traditional visual categories at the Oscars. Cinematography, costume design, and production design. And even one for original score. A British film with such a great cast set in Victorian era England (at least mostly) is almost always guaranteed to get a costume design or production design nod. But how was the actual film?
The first time I saw the trailer for "Mr. Turner" I thought it looked mind-numbingly dull. Yet another typical old-timey film about gloomy characters in Britain of yesteryear. But, as I do, the moment I saw it received nominations at the Academy Awards I wrote it down on my list of films to watch. And I do not regret it. Despite its long 150-minute run time (I only watched six films longer than that in 2014) and lack of any significant action it managed to hold my interest throughout its entirety. Just watching Timothy Spall, who did a better job here than Steve Carell did in "Foxcatcher", was worth the trip on its own. And if you don't think that might be enough to keep you entertained for 150 minutes, you might not want to watch this.
Because there is no real plot to speak of in this film. It is truly a slice of life picture. We go through the waves, as it were, of the last 25 years of Mr. Turner's life. Whatever happens happens. At times it can feel more like a miniseries than a film. The characters are so well-established, and so quickly, that it feels like you've been watching them for several installments not even halfway into the film. The characters are what keep it interesting. Seeing how they react, what they do, and most importantly how they interact. There is a clear progression from start to end. Characters can show up at various points of the film, and even though you feel like Mr. Turner hasn't changed much as you've watched him, you suddenly realise he has when you see him deal with the same characters in a different manner than before. It's like life itself, you never really notice yourself changing until you look back at how you once were.
It does drag on a tad towards the end, however. It's not so much that we know how it's going to end for quite some time, but more that they don't portray it rather interestingly. The film stops up, it changes directions in how it tells it. In one way it's fitting, as it shows how life slows down when you get older, and you have a different perspective on things. But no film is long enough for something like that to have the desired effect, instead you notice the difference rather quickly, and if it's not done well it can throw you off. It's not so bad that it renders the film worse, but it's bad enough that you wish it was better just for the sake of a more satisfying impression.
The first time I saw the trailer for "Mr. Turner" I thought it looked mind-numbingly dull. Yet another typical old-timey film about gloomy characters in Britain of yesteryear. But, as I do, the moment I saw it received nominations at the Academy Awards I wrote it down on my list of films to watch. And I do not regret it. Despite its long 150-minute run time (I only watched six films longer than that in 2014) and lack of any significant action it managed to hold my interest throughout its entirety. Just watching Timothy Spall, who did a better job here than Steve Carell did in "Foxcatcher", was worth the trip on its own. And if you don't think that might be enough to keep you entertained for 150 minutes, you might not want to watch this.
Because there is no real plot to speak of in this film. It is truly a slice of life picture. We go through the waves, as it were, of the last 25 years of Mr. Turner's life. Whatever happens happens. At times it can feel more like a miniseries than a film. The characters are so well-established, and so quickly, that it feels like you've been watching them for several installments not even halfway into the film. The characters are what keep it interesting. Seeing how they react, what they do, and most importantly how they interact. There is a clear progression from start to end. Characters can show up at various points of the film, and even though you feel like Mr. Turner hasn't changed much as you've watched him, you suddenly realise he has when you see him deal with the same characters in a different manner than before. It's like life itself, you never really notice yourself changing until you look back at how you once were.
It does drag on a tad towards the end, however. It's not so much that we know how it's going to end for quite some time, but more that they don't portray it rather interestingly. The film stops up, it changes directions in how it tells it. In one way it's fitting, as it shows how life slows down when you get older, and you have a different perspective on things. But no film is long enough for something like that to have the desired effect, instead you notice the difference rather quickly, and if it's not done well it can throw you off. It's not so bad that it renders the film worse, but it's bad enough that you wish it was better just for the sake of a more satisfying impression.
Wednesday, 21 January 2015
Timbuktu - The Familiarity of the Unfamiliar
"Timbuktu" is one of the five films nominated for an Academy Award for "Foreign Language Film" this year. The official entry of Mauritania, it is in truth as much, if not more, French than Mauritanian. But how good is it?
Nominees for foreign language film can be hit or miss. People often forget how different cultures can be, and how different perceptions of good and bad can be from place to place. This, for me, feels a lot more familiar than even some South Korean films. Even if on the surface a Norwegian and Korean appears to live more similar lives than a Norwegian and a Mauritanian. However it's not so much because our lives are alike, it's more because it's about concepts and people I hear about a lot. People I don't necessarily know, but people I know of. I think this made the film a little less interesting than it could be.
The film has an interesting concept. It's set in the Malian city of Timbuktu during an occupation by Ansar Dine, an Islamic based militant organisation. We mainly follow a family of three and their lives on the outskirts of the city. All of their neighbours have left, but they remain to herd their cattle and mind their own business. The first downfall of this film is that it doesn't exclusively follow this family. We also look at other people and groups, see what they do. It appears as if it tries to be a film about the titular city, but throughout the story it's made clear that it cares the most about the small family. The stories of other smaller characters just fade away as we focus more and more on the family. They don't do much, and the film doesn't help make it seem more interesting than it is. It has its upside, it makes the whole city seem really everyday and normal, even in a situation as it is in. But it also just makes it plain uninteresting.
The acting is rarely any good. The mother in the small family is particularly bad. I may not know the languages they speak, but they don't seem very natural in what they're doing. They look like they're acting. There are a few notable exception. A French-speaking kid who used to be a rapper does a good job portraying a boy scared out of his mind. Not entirely sure what he has gotten himself into. But all in all it falls rather flat. It's well crafted, it looks nice, it sounds nice, but there's nothing to really hold on to. Nothing to grasp. Sometimes it works, but this time it didn't.
Nominees for foreign language film can be hit or miss. People often forget how different cultures can be, and how different perceptions of good and bad can be from place to place. This, for me, feels a lot more familiar than even some South Korean films. Even if on the surface a Norwegian and Korean appears to live more similar lives than a Norwegian and a Mauritanian. However it's not so much because our lives are alike, it's more because it's about concepts and people I hear about a lot. People I don't necessarily know, but people I know of. I think this made the film a little less interesting than it could be.
The film has an interesting concept. It's set in the Malian city of Timbuktu during an occupation by Ansar Dine, an Islamic based militant organisation. We mainly follow a family of three and their lives on the outskirts of the city. All of their neighbours have left, but they remain to herd their cattle and mind their own business. The first downfall of this film is that it doesn't exclusively follow this family. We also look at other people and groups, see what they do. It appears as if it tries to be a film about the titular city, but throughout the story it's made clear that it cares the most about the small family. The stories of other smaller characters just fade away as we focus more and more on the family. They don't do much, and the film doesn't help make it seem more interesting than it is. It has its upside, it makes the whole city seem really everyday and normal, even in a situation as it is in. But it also just makes it plain uninteresting.
The acting is rarely any good. The mother in the small family is particularly bad. I may not know the languages they speak, but they don't seem very natural in what they're doing. They look like they're acting. There are a few notable exception. A French-speaking kid who used to be a rapper does a good job portraying a boy scared out of his mind. Not entirely sure what he has gotten himself into. But all in all it falls rather flat. It's well crafted, it looks nice, it sounds nice, but there's nothing to really hold on to. Nothing to grasp. Sometimes it works, but this time it didn't.
Friday, 16 January 2015
Foxcatcher - Weird and Imbalanced
"Foxcatcher" is already one of the big winners at this year's Academy Awards with five nominations. With two for male acting (lead and supporting), one for directing, one for writing, and one for make-up it's managed get in on four of the biggest categories of the evening. But does it deserve it?
I didn't know what to make of it the first time I saw the trailer for "Foxcatcher". I thought it looked like one of those films you'd see characters in other films watch on television. It seemed bizarre, odd, weird, and extremely American. Perhaps that is what put me off the most, maybe it is so American that I don't quite have a handle on the references and cultural acknowledgements that the film presumes I have. Because honestly, I did not think this film really deserved any of its nominations, it shouldn't even be a film worth mentioning in those contexts.
Maybe I was a bit harsh there, I do think Mark Ruffalo did a great job, I can see why he is nominated for supporting actor. And the makeup and hairstyling is pretty on-point as well. But nominations for Carell for lead actor? Was he even the lead actor in this film? I sure don't think so. He did a mediocre job at best portraying a weird and off-putting character, I felt Channing Tatum did a better job with what he was given than Carell, but he's not amazing either.
The film, as many others lately, is also too long. With a run time of 134 minutes you'd expect either a lot of fast paced action, or a lot of interesting character work. We get neither. The first 90-ish minutes go by pretty fast, but then you learn that all of that was basically just the set-up for a slow paced last forty minutes. There is nothing wrong with having a film last a hundred minutes or less, even for biopics and character pieces.
The story itself I feel there's little to comment on. I understand it's "based on true events", how much is true and what is fiction I do not know, but I don't think all of it works. The premise is certainly interesting. I have a soft spot for sport films that showcase sports that don't normally get films made about them. And having the characters be weird can be an added bonus, but only if you play it off well.
This film could have been a great Wes Anderson-esque picture, but instead it falls flat with little inspiration. It struggles to figure out just how comedic it is, and just how dramatic it is, never managing to find that sweet spot. It's almost a make-your-own-genre type of film. If you think it's a comedy it suddenly seems rather funny, if you think it's a drama it seems kind of scary and emotional. But it's not quite well crafted enough to fully be either.
I didn't know what to make of it the first time I saw the trailer for "Foxcatcher". I thought it looked like one of those films you'd see characters in other films watch on television. It seemed bizarre, odd, weird, and extremely American. Perhaps that is what put me off the most, maybe it is so American that I don't quite have a handle on the references and cultural acknowledgements that the film presumes I have. Because honestly, I did not think this film really deserved any of its nominations, it shouldn't even be a film worth mentioning in those contexts.
Maybe I was a bit harsh there, I do think Mark Ruffalo did a great job, I can see why he is nominated for supporting actor. And the makeup and hairstyling is pretty on-point as well. But nominations for Carell for lead actor? Was he even the lead actor in this film? I sure don't think so. He did a mediocre job at best portraying a weird and off-putting character, I felt Channing Tatum did a better job with what he was given than Carell, but he's not amazing either.
The film, as many others lately, is also too long. With a run time of 134 minutes you'd expect either a lot of fast paced action, or a lot of interesting character work. We get neither. The first 90-ish minutes go by pretty fast, but then you learn that all of that was basically just the set-up for a slow paced last forty minutes. There is nothing wrong with having a film last a hundred minutes or less, even for biopics and character pieces.
The story itself I feel there's little to comment on. I understand it's "based on true events", how much is true and what is fiction I do not know, but I don't think all of it works. The premise is certainly interesting. I have a soft spot for sport films that showcase sports that don't normally get films made about them. And having the characters be weird can be an added bonus, but only if you play it off well.
This film could have been a great Wes Anderson-esque picture, but instead it falls flat with little inspiration. It struggles to figure out just how comedic it is, and just how dramatic it is, never managing to find that sweet spot. It's almost a make-your-own-genre type of film. If you think it's a comedy it suddenly seems rather funny, if you think it's a drama it seems kind of scary and emotional. But it's not quite well crafted enough to fully be either.
Monday, 12 January 2015
Whiplash - One of 2015's Bests
I was dismissive when I first saw the trailer for "Whiplash". I actually thought it looked stupid. Pretentious, overzealous, absurd, bizarre, but it got great reviews all around. People started giving it awards. So when it finally came to Norwegian theatres I gave it a go.
I would be surprised if this film doesn't show up again in a post on the first of January, 2016. It may only be the twelfth of January, 2015, but I am sure this will be one of the best films I see all year. It's masterful, it's magnificent, it drags out a bit towards the end, but it makes up for all of it.
The acting is really what is at the centre of this piece. JK Simmons and Miles Teller are absolutely excellent in what they do. It's rare for me to feel so much with and for on screen characters, but they came to life absolutely. It was as if I had known them for years, every mannerism, every speech pattern, every stance, they were perfect. They really know how to play off of each other, give each other exactly what is needed. Before this film I was mostly indifferent to Simmons' acting ability, and leaned more towards the negative side for Teller, this changed everything. Simmons isn't James Jonah Jameson Jr. anymore, Tiller isn't that one guy from "That Awkward Moment". They fully are Fletcher and Neiman.
The only thing that drags this film down even a little is part from around the three fifths mark to the four fifths mark. Quite a few times it feels as if the film is getting ready to end, and on a good note, but it keeps going for a while. It took me too long to realise that it was actually going to go on for a little while longer, and it made me kind of resent the film. Almost made me bored at parts, especially as these parts are a bit slower than the rest. It could have used some tightening to really make the film pop all throughout. But in the end it does all come together, it does become worth it. It's just a shame that you have to wait until the end to be able to appreciate the middle parts.
I would be surprised if this film doesn't show up again in a post on the first of January, 2016. It may only be the twelfth of January, 2015, but I am sure this will be one of the best films I see all year. It's masterful, it's magnificent, it drags out a bit towards the end, but it makes up for all of it.
The acting is really what is at the centre of this piece. JK Simmons and Miles Teller are absolutely excellent in what they do. It's rare for me to feel so much with and for on screen characters, but they came to life absolutely. It was as if I had known them for years, every mannerism, every speech pattern, every stance, they were perfect. They really know how to play off of each other, give each other exactly what is needed. Before this film I was mostly indifferent to Simmons' acting ability, and leaned more towards the negative side for Teller, this changed everything. Simmons isn't James Jonah Jameson Jr. anymore, Tiller isn't that one guy from "That Awkward Moment". They fully are Fletcher and Neiman.
The only thing that drags this film down even a little is part from around the three fifths mark to the four fifths mark. Quite a few times it feels as if the film is getting ready to end, and on a good note, but it keeps going for a while. It took me too long to realise that it was actually going to go on for a little while longer, and it made me kind of resent the film. Almost made me bored at parts, especially as these parts are a bit slower than the rest. It could have used some tightening to really make the film pop all throughout. But in the end it does all come together, it does become worth it. It's just a shame that you have to wait until the end to be able to appreciate the middle parts.
Sunday, 28 September 2014
Gone Girl - Disturbingly Dazzling
"Gone Girl" is David Fincher's latest adventure in film making. It's one of the films of 2014 I had the weakest vibe on beforehand, never really hearing too much about it except from the occasional film blog. And I'm glad I got to learn so little about it.
"Gone Girl" is a dramatic crime thriller starring Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike and Carrie Coon in the most prevalent roles. It tells the story of a husband, Ben Affleck, left lost after he comes home to find his home in shatters and his wife, Rosamund Pike, missing. Through a series of flashbacks and character-on-character interactions we stand witness to them doing their best to solve the case of the Gone Girl.
Pure visually this is one of the most beautiful films I've seen this year, which isn't all too surprising considering it's directed by David Fincher who's again brought with him cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth. Cronenweth has worked on such films as "Fight Club", "One Hour Photo", and "The Social Network". Every frame in "Gone Girl" seems to have a perfect place in the story, and there's a symbiosis between the cinematographer and editor that you rarely see. It's the kind of film any film lover should watch if only for the technical aspect of it. Even if you happen to not be entertained by the narrative, I believe you would be by the sheer effort that has been put into adapting it to the screen.
The acting can be a bit up and down, I'll admit. Some times it is very good, on the level where you wouldn't be too surprised by it being on the short list for awards, but at other times it's almost as if they're not trying at all. The acting falls short almost intentionally and uses the the narrative and visuals as a crutch to keep going. Don't get me wrong, the acting is not god awful, I'm not talking "Kraa! The Sea Monster" level here, it's just an occasional, but noticeable, dip in an otherwise very well put together film. Those are the moments where I start to see the film for the film, the moments where I lose touch with it as a whole, and it's a shame.
Luckily almost everything else makes it worth watching, and worth a lot of praise. Carrie Coon is one of the few who doesn't suffer from the occasional downfall in acting, and I would be more surprised if she didn't get some nod for supporting actress than if she did. It's also refreshing to see Tyler Perry in a role like this. He's a man who's mostly been associated with low-brow, low-hanging films that are designed just to please the masses and make a good profit. There's nothing wrong with that as a business model, but it's always nice to see those kind of people have a lot of talent and dare to show it off in work that's completely different from what they normally do.
Overall this film is very good. It's not quite in my top 10 of the year, but it's close. It's definitely one of the better "serious" films I've seen this year. I don't quite like to differentiate between "serious" and "non-serious" films, but there should be some distinction. I would feel bad to judge something like "47 Ronin" on the same grounds as "Dallas Buyers Club", or a film like "Ida" to a film like "Maleficent". It's just not fair, mostly to the serious films actually, as I tend to enjoy a film purely designed to entertain more often than a film designed to intrigue. There's a lot more that can go wrong with intrigue than can with joy.
"Gone Girl" is a dramatic crime thriller starring Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike and Carrie Coon in the most prevalent roles. It tells the story of a husband, Ben Affleck, left lost after he comes home to find his home in shatters and his wife, Rosamund Pike, missing. Through a series of flashbacks and character-on-character interactions we stand witness to them doing their best to solve the case of the Gone Girl.
Pure visually this is one of the most beautiful films I've seen this year, which isn't all too surprising considering it's directed by David Fincher who's again brought with him cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth. Cronenweth has worked on such films as "Fight Club", "One Hour Photo", and "The Social Network". Every frame in "Gone Girl" seems to have a perfect place in the story, and there's a symbiosis between the cinematographer and editor that you rarely see. It's the kind of film any film lover should watch if only for the technical aspect of it. Even if you happen to not be entertained by the narrative, I believe you would be by the sheer effort that has been put into adapting it to the screen.
The acting can be a bit up and down, I'll admit. Some times it is very good, on the level where you wouldn't be too surprised by it being on the short list for awards, but at other times it's almost as if they're not trying at all. The acting falls short almost intentionally and uses the the narrative and visuals as a crutch to keep going. Don't get me wrong, the acting is not god awful, I'm not talking "Kraa! The Sea Monster" level here, it's just an occasional, but noticeable, dip in an otherwise very well put together film. Those are the moments where I start to see the film for the film, the moments where I lose touch with it as a whole, and it's a shame.
Luckily almost everything else makes it worth watching, and worth a lot of praise. Carrie Coon is one of the few who doesn't suffer from the occasional downfall in acting, and I would be more surprised if she didn't get some nod for supporting actress than if she did. It's also refreshing to see Tyler Perry in a role like this. He's a man who's mostly been associated with low-brow, low-hanging films that are designed just to please the masses and make a good profit. There's nothing wrong with that as a business model, but it's always nice to see those kind of people have a lot of talent and dare to show it off in work that's completely different from what they normally do.
Overall this film is very good. It's not quite in my top 10 of the year, but it's close. It's definitely one of the better "serious" films I've seen this year. I don't quite like to differentiate between "serious" and "non-serious" films, but there should be some distinction. I would feel bad to judge something like "47 Ronin" on the same grounds as "Dallas Buyers Club", or a film like "Ida" to a film like "Maleficent". It's just not fair, mostly to the serious films actually, as I tend to enjoy a film purely designed to entertain more often than a film designed to intrigue. There's a lot more that can go wrong with intrigue than can with joy.
Friday, 1 August 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy - Hell Yeah!
I knew little about Marvel outside of X-Men and Spider-Man when the Marvel Cinematic Universe started up. I had never heard about Iron Man, and Captain America and Thor I'd only heard about in passing. But after I watched Thor, and then Captain America, and started to get really into the MCU I looked for all the information I could find. I watched all the cartoons, read the wiki articles, watched the live-action films of course, I even read some of the comic books (although, to this day, I just can't get into them for some reason). Whenever a new film was going to come out I knew almost everything about it beforehand. That all changed with Guardians of the Galaxy.
To my credit, this really was Marvel Studios throwing everyone for a spin. A film about a raccoon, a walking tree, a human kidnapped from the '80s, and all set in outer space with no other humans? It was as different as it got for the MCU. Every film in the franchise so far was grounded in humanity. Stark struggled with the burden of saving people while still being only a human, Banner tried his best to hold onto his humanity, Rogers is the most man man you can find, and Thor was all about him learning humility through humans. Then comes the space flick where the most talked-about character is a raccoon in space.
Don't get me wrong, it's not like Guardians of the Galaxy is about how stupid humans are, and how awesome being baddies is. It just doesn't have that same groundedness the prior films did. Everything is awesome from the get-go, everything is magical and amazing. There's no struggle in being only human, they're all "just people". That's what makes this film so different, and therefore so great. I never knew what to expect around the corner. Even though I hadn't actively steered away from new info and trailers, more so I tried to get all the information I could up front, I was still surprised. Still I was left in wonder at what was happening. It was all just so crazy.
That's maybe what frightens me most about this film, as well. That it's so crazy and different. I'm not suggesting that people don't like different and crazy things, but people have come to expect a certain standard from Marvel and superhero films in general. And this is very different from that. I find it hard to even call it a superhero film. It's a film about heroes, and most of them are physically superior to ordinary humans, but it's no more a superhero film than Star Wars, Avatar, or the Matrix. It's an adventure film at its heart, it's easier to compare it to Indiana Jones than to Iron Man, and maybe the audience isn't expecting that. I am however glad that Marvel is willing to take that risk. Its Thursday night opening was the biggest of 2014 so far in the USA, so the fans are at least turning up in the beginning. And if this goes out and makes the same kind of money as the other MCU films, that is going to spark a new type of film, both from Marvel and others. This will be just the beginning of Marvel playing around in the so-called "cosmic Marvel" and "magical Marvel" worlds. People will see that once and for all that "superhero" films aren't just about people in tights and capes flying around saving damsels in distress, they can be nearly anything. They can be political spy thrillers, comedic heist pictures, magical fantasies, or crazy space operas. The only limit is on what people actually are willing to watch.
Guardians of the Galaxy rekindled my love for Marvel Studios. It brought me nothing but joy from the second it started to the second it finished. I'm just hoping people are willing to take that leap again and again for Marvel. Next year's Ant-Man might be even more different, at least in terms of superhero films. It's going to stretch our definition of on-screen superheros to the limits. And if Doctor Strange comes after that, then it will be stretched again. Even farther. Marvel isn't slowing down the least, they've only just begun. They've given us the "standard" superhero films. They've given us the brutes and brainiacs who fight for the good of mankind. Now they're giving us the oddballs who aren't necessarily as guided and centred. They're going to keep on expanding and expanding their universe until it encompasses all of it, all at once. And I can't wait until they've done so.
Epilogue:
Do you want proof of how crazy Marvel is willing to get? Do you really want to know? You can either watch the best MCU film there is, Guardians of the Galaxy, or you can click below to read a sentence that might just change the course of your life.
To my credit, this really was Marvel Studios throwing everyone for a spin. A film about a raccoon, a walking tree, a human kidnapped from the '80s, and all set in outer space with no other humans? It was as different as it got for the MCU. Every film in the franchise so far was grounded in humanity. Stark struggled with the burden of saving people while still being only a human, Banner tried his best to hold onto his humanity, Rogers is the most man man you can find, and Thor was all about him learning humility through humans. Then comes the space flick where the most talked-about character is a raccoon in space.
Don't get me wrong, it's not like Guardians of the Galaxy is about how stupid humans are, and how awesome being baddies is. It just doesn't have that same groundedness the prior films did. Everything is awesome from the get-go, everything is magical and amazing. There's no struggle in being only human, they're all "just people". That's what makes this film so different, and therefore so great. I never knew what to expect around the corner. Even though I hadn't actively steered away from new info and trailers, more so I tried to get all the information I could up front, I was still surprised. Still I was left in wonder at what was happening. It was all just so crazy.
That's maybe what frightens me most about this film, as well. That it's so crazy and different. I'm not suggesting that people don't like different and crazy things, but people have come to expect a certain standard from Marvel and superhero films in general. And this is very different from that. I find it hard to even call it a superhero film. It's a film about heroes, and most of them are physically superior to ordinary humans, but it's no more a superhero film than Star Wars, Avatar, or the Matrix. It's an adventure film at its heart, it's easier to compare it to Indiana Jones than to Iron Man, and maybe the audience isn't expecting that. I am however glad that Marvel is willing to take that risk. Its Thursday night opening was the biggest of 2014 so far in the USA, so the fans are at least turning up in the beginning. And if this goes out and makes the same kind of money as the other MCU films, that is going to spark a new type of film, both from Marvel and others. This will be just the beginning of Marvel playing around in the so-called "cosmic Marvel" and "magical Marvel" worlds. People will see that once and for all that "superhero" films aren't just about people in tights and capes flying around saving damsels in distress, they can be nearly anything. They can be political spy thrillers, comedic heist pictures, magical fantasies, or crazy space operas. The only limit is on what people actually are willing to watch.
Guardians of the Galaxy rekindled my love for Marvel Studios. It brought me nothing but joy from the second it started to the second it finished. I'm just hoping people are willing to take that leap again and again for Marvel. Next year's Ant-Man might be even more different, at least in terms of superhero films. It's going to stretch our definition of on-screen superheros to the limits. And if Doctor Strange comes after that, then it will be stretched again. Even farther. Marvel isn't slowing down the least, they've only just begun. They've given us the "standard" superhero films. They've given us the brutes and brainiacs who fight for the good of mankind. Now they're giving us the oddballs who aren't necessarily as guided and centred. They're going to keep on expanding and expanding their universe until it encompasses all of it, all at once. And I can't wait until they've done so.
Epilogue:
Do you want proof of how crazy Marvel is willing to get? Do you really want to know? You can either watch the best MCU film there is, Guardians of the Galaxy, or you can click below to read a sentence that might just change the course of your life.
Click the button ->:
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - Review of the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes of the Of The
"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" got generally good reviews from critics and audience alike. It made almost half a billion dollars at the box office for under a hundred million dollars. And it was filled with impressive CG that made people talk. Of course a sequel was announced almost right away with a budget featuring an extra 77 million dollars. "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes".
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (I'm just going to refer to it as "Dawn of the Apes" henceforth) is set ten years after the events of "Rise of the Apes". Humanity is dwindling away following a global outbreak of the virus seen engineered in the first film, the apes have built their own community in the woods. It's been three years since they last saw any humans, but they aren't exactly upset about it. Caesar is still the leader of the group, and under his rule they've built a makeshift village with a school, housing, communal area, front door, more or less everything you'd expect from a human village. We see them communicating mostly through sign language, but there's also English writing at the school implying a grasp of the human language they've grown up around. Caesar now has a wife and a son, and though most of the apes still stand behind him there are some who are more hesitant.
When Caesar's son, Blue Eyes, and a friend are scouting the woods they come across a twitchy human. The friend is shot and the sound of the gun shot immediately attracts both the rest of the human group and the entirety of the ape village. Blah blah blah, story stuff, apes are pitted against humans and both sides must figure out what to do with the situation at hand. The remainder of the film takes a different route than what perhaps most blockbusters of this caliber might have taken. It's not about giant wars and fights, it's about the two main families - one human family and one ape family - and how they're living through it. It's a nice slower pace, a break from the films like Trans4mers, Godzilla, and the like where there's almost no sequence without some sort of giant action or character reveal. Most of "Dawn of the Apes" is about the characters, ape and human alike, how they think the world should work, how they feel about outsiders, and general interspecies politics. I would say, don't watch this if you're expecting a giant spectacle of a film. Because although there are spectacles in it, those are far from the main focus, and you might find yourself bored between them.
Before I watched this film I kept getting reviews through my feeds about how fantastic Andy Serkis was in it, how amazing the CG was, and the debate about giving acting Oscars to captured performances (a debate for another post) heated up again. I have to say, I disagree almost wholeheartedly. Serkis' performance was perhaps one of the weaker ones in the film, at least on the ape side. It may have been deliberate because he was amongst the first apes to get to such a high level of function, but he seems so much more human than the other apes. Toby Kebbell who portrayed Koba, Caesar's second in command, was much more impressive to me. He felt like an ape that was just slightly off. He felt more ape than human, more like an ape that that was transitioning to higher functioning rather than already being there. There were some apes that felt maybe a little too ape like again, like Maurice (the orangutan) who I sometimes actually forgot was supposed to be a near-equal to humans in brain capacity. But overall I felt that Serkis performance is far from worthy its praise.
Bottom line: If you liked "Rise of the Apes" you'll probably like "Dawn of the Apes". It neatly follows the story from the previous film without being overly reliant on it (could've possibly worked as a stand-alone with some minor rewrites). And if you didn't like "Rise of the Apes" you'll probably want to steer clear of this one. Like I said, it's more of the same. It's differently done, but it's still generally the same type of film.
"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (I'm just going to refer to it as "Dawn of the Apes" henceforth) is set ten years after the events of "Rise of the Apes". Humanity is dwindling away following a global outbreak of the virus seen engineered in the first film, the apes have built their own community in the woods. It's been three years since they last saw any humans, but they aren't exactly upset about it. Caesar is still the leader of the group, and under his rule they've built a makeshift village with a school, housing, communal area, front door, more or less everything you'd expect from a human village. We see them communicating mostly through sign language, but there's also English writing at the school implying a grasp of the human language they've grown up around. Caesar now has a wife and a son, and though most of the apes still stand behind him there are some who are more hesitant.
When Caesar's son, Blue Eyes, and a friend are scouting the woods they come across a twitchy human. The friend is shot and the sound of the gun shot immediately attracts both the rest of the human group and the entirety of the ape village. Blah blah blah, story stuff, apes are pitted against humans and both sides must figure out what to do with the situation at hand. The remainder of the film takes a different route than what perhaps most blockbusters of this caliber might have taken. It's not about giant wars and fights, it's about the two main families - one human family and one ape family - and how they're living through it. It's a nice slower pace, a break from the films like Trans4mers, Godzilla, and the like where there's almost no sequence without some sort of giant action or character reveal. Most of "Dawn of the Apes" is about the characters, ape and human alike, how they think the world should work, how they feel about outsiders, and general interspecies politics. I would say, don't watch this if you're expecting a giant spectacle of a film. Because although there are spectacles in it, those are far from the main focus, and you might find yourself bored between them.
Before I watched this film I kept getting reviews through my feeds about how fantastic Andy Serkis was in it, how amazing the CG was, and the debate about giving acting Oscars to captured performances (a debate for another post) heated up again. I have to say, I disagree almost wholeheartedly. Serkis' performance was perhaps one of the weaker ones in the film, at least on the ape side. It may have been deliberate because he was amongst the first apes to get to such a high level of function, but he seems so much more human than the other apes. Toby Kebbell who portrayed Koba, Caesar's second in command, was much more impressive to me. He felt like an ape that was just slightly off. He felt more ape than human, more like an ape that that was transitioning to higher functioning rather than already being there. There were some apes that felt maybe a little too ape like again, like Maurice (the orangutan) who I sometimes actually forgot was supposed to be a near-equal to humans in brain capacity. But overall I felt that Serkis performance is far from worthy its praise.
Bottom line: If you liked "Rise of the Apes" you'll probably like "Dawn of the Apes". It neatly follows the story from the previous film without being overly reliant on it (could've possibly worked as a stand-alone with some minor rewrites). And if you didn't like "Rise of the Apes" you'll probably want to steer clear of this one. Like I said, it's more of the same. It's differently done, but it's still generally the same type of film.
Sunday, 6 July 2014
How to Train Your Dragon 2 - Now you can learn how to train your dragon too
"How to Train Your Dragon" was one of the first animated films in a long while to surprise and impress me when I first watched it. When it first was released all I associated with Dreamworks Animation were some mediocre Shrek sequels, some animals in Africa, and a kung fu fighting panda people had told me was actually pretty good. "How to Train Your Dragon" was the first Dreamworks film that made me go "okay, maybe they really can get to Pixar's level" (this, of course, was before Cars 2).
Even though I fell in love with "How to Train Your Dragon", or perhaps because I fell in love with it, I wasn't very pleased when I first heard words of a sequel. Not only a sequel, but a television series as well. I can't speak much for the series (I've seen but one episode, and it was completely okay), but that told me that this was just another cash cow for Dreamworks to milk dry like Shrek and Madagascar before it. Even after I learned that the film was in fact based on a book series which had eight installments at the time (twelve now), so clearly it was never intended to be a one-off to begin with. But that's just how it goes for me with animation, if I hear news of a sequel, I prepare for the worst.
Because of this I didn't really pay any attention to the building of the franchise as the years past by. The TV series came and went without me even noticing it, and all of a sudden the first teasers and trailer dropped for the film's sequel. I watched a few of them, but nothing really sparked within me, they were just reminders that made me go "oh yeah, this is a thing that's happening". The film premiered, and I didn't go. Normally when I want to go watch a film I watch it in the opening weekend, but I didn't feel the slightest urge to do so for this. It wasn't until a week later, when I was itching to just see something at the cinema, that I decided that this would have to do. As I'd already watched all the ones I really wanted to watch. It was animation after all, and I like to keep up with animation, and I had at some point really liked the first film. Maybe this would at least be decent? Boy am I glad I decided to go.
This is one of the better sequels I have watched, at least in relation to the first film. Empire Strikes Back, Toy Story 3, Back to the Future Part II, it's in that kind of league. The core of this film is both familiar from the first film, and totally new. Instead of watching Hiccup deal with being the shame of his father and town, not being able to do any good, we see him deal with being the pride of his father and town, not being able to do any wrong. Five years have passed since the original installment, and in that time Hiccup has proven himself as one of the best dragon riders there is, and capable of great leadership and courage. The main drive of the plot this time 'round is much the same as for the last one as well. Exploring the unknown. In the first film Hiccup catches and studies Toothless, a dragon never really seen before, and learns more about dragon kind than anyone ever has before him. In this sequel he keeps up that exploration, only a tad more literal. He spends his days flying in all directions from his home island, looking for more land, dragons, and people. It's in this search that he suddenly finds himself at the centre of the plot.
Just in general the world expansion is some of the better I've seen. They are careful not to add too much at once. They ease us in, letting us remember the world, let us recognise it, and then they add the new stuff they've learned since last time. Nothing of it seems particularly weird, or unexpected, but it isn't completely predictable either. It just convincingly sells us a bigger world, and that Berk (the town) fits perfectly well within it. It feels like the first film set up the shot, and this film sent it on its way.
If I had to come up with a complaint it is that the film may be a bit on the short side. Some things feel like they go a bit fast, and it can feel bumpy and uneasy. As if your sat on the back of some kind of flying, wild beast. But it wasn't something that put me off in the middle of the experience. It was more of an afterthought while trying to string together my thoughts for the film. Pauses were few and far between, there was never a dull moment, and maybe it would have benefited from one.
All in all I have to say, as you expect, that I really liked this film. It makes me excited for the third one which I'm hoping will show you just how well "How to Train Your Dragon 2" actually hit that shot.
Saturday, 21 June 2014
Maleficent - A Not So Jolly Tale
Maleficent has been out for some time in several territories, but I just had the chance to see it, and I have words to write.
When I first heard of Maleficent some years ago I didn't think much of it. We were in the middle of a fairy tale wave of blockbusters. Hansel and Gretel, Red Riding Hood, Snow White, and Cinderella were all set to get big-budget busters of their own, and Maleficent just fell into the cracks of my attention span. Stuck there till Disney's aggressive marketing plan brought it back into my attention.
Still it wasn't anything I was overly eager about. The trailers made it seem like most live-action fairy tale films of recent years, and I had never been particularly into Sleeping Beauty as a child - I was more of a Lion King and Aladdin kind of boy - meaning that I didn't really know who Maleficent was. I recognised her from her cartoon form, sure, but I didn't really know who she was apart from "evil, magic queen". I honestly expected it to do fairly poorly in the box office, I never heard anyone really talk about it, or express any interest in watching it.
People did go and watch it, however. It easily won its premiere weekend with $50 million+ more than its only other real premiering competition that weekend. And $30 million+ over the second place which went to the giant hit X-Men: Days of Future Past which was only on its second weekend at the time. By the end of the week it had earned half its budget back in the US alone, with the foreign market easily securing it a profit. Disney knew what they were doing all along, and a film based on a familiar tale was all people really wanted that weekend. They knew the story, they knew Angelina Jolie, and that was good enough. Critics went out in droves telling the public "eh, it's alright, I guess", and that was good enough.
The film itself, I have to say, was indeed alright. The premise and characters were a lot more interesting than I thought they would be. The way they portray magic is particularly fascinating and actually kind of cool. It's all very casual and matter-of-fact, the way you could expect it to be for people who live with magic all their lives. There's no intense stares, or loud shouting, every time a magical act is performed. It just gets done.
Maleficent herself starts of feeling kind of distant and two-dimensional, but as the film develops she does too. Making her more relatable and fleshed-out as times goes on. Even during her inevitable time as a rather cold and evil queen you can relate to her. You never question why she feels the way she does, or even really why she does what she does. Even though you won't agree with her on everything she does, it makes sense given what has happened to her. It doesn't really matter whether she's good or evil, she is a person.
Due to the nature of the story some things feel rather odd, however. The entirety of the story takes course over several decades. Spanning from Maleficent's childhood, all the way until the child of her childhood sweetheart reaches the same age Maleficent was at the beginning. Cramming all those years into just above 90 minutes makes it feel a lot like a really long and oddly cut montage sequence. Times and locations changes frequently, but the characters mostly always look the same, making you question whether or not it is actually a different time. Towards the end they manage to keep it all within a relative short time-span, but it's too late to be saved. It's almost like hitting a wall when a montage suddenly stops after an hour, you start wondering how long ago some events were and how long it is till others events will happen. It becomes a mess, unfortunately.
Fortunately the acting was strong on Jolie's part. She managed to make the different eras of Maleficent to feel slightly different, though it was far from enough. It didn't feel like I was watching Jolie at all, she felt like Maleficent throughout the film. Which was, honestly, a bit surprising. Angelina Jolie is a solid actress, but I did not expect her to bring any real acting chops to a film of this caliber. I was fully prepared for a decent-enough performance, just enough to make it feel like a film, but she really did put effort into it. Fanning, however, was less good. Which was also surprising to me. She's been rather good in the past, especially in Super 8 and We Bought a Zoo. Being an up and coming young actress I expected her to bring the best she had in one of the bigger films she's been in, but no. I felt like I was watching Fanning being a character. She felt lost and misplaced in the time and place of the film, not really fitting in with the universe at all. And that wasn't because of costume design, make-up, or anything like that. She just didn't act like she belonged. Maybe it was intentional, what do I know, but it didn't work.
All in all the film is an astounding "alright". It's not something worth watching at the cinema, at best it's the type of film you wait for to hit Netflix so you can watch it at no extra cost.
Perfectly fine entertainment. Some great parts, some good parts, some parts that just doesn't fit.
Still it wasn't anything I was overly eager about. The trailers made it seem like most live-action fairy tale films of recent years, and I had never been particularly into Sleeping Beauty as a child - I was more of a Lion King and Aladdin kind of boy - meaning that I didn't really know who Maleficent was. I recognised her from her cartoon form, sure, but I didn't really know who she was apart from "evil, magic queen". I honestly expected it to do fairly poorly in the box office, I never heard anyone really talk about it, or express any interest in watching it.
People did go and watch it, however. It easily won its premiere weekend with $50 million+ more than its only other real premiering competition that weekend. And $30 million+ over the second place which went to the giant hit X-Men: Days of Future Past which was only on its second weekend at the time. By the end of the week it had earned half its budget back in the US alone, with the foreign market easily securing it a profit. Disney knew what they were doing all along, and a film based on a familiar tale was all people really wanted that weekend. They knew the story, they knew Angelina Jolie, and that was good enough. Critics went out in droves telling the public "eh, it's alright, I guess", and that was good enough.
The film itself, I have to say, was indeed alright. The premise and characters were a lot more interesting than I thought they would be. The way they portray magic is particularly fascinating and actually kind of cool. It's all very casual and matter-of-fact, the way you could expect it to be for people who live with magic all their lives. There's no intense stares, or loud shouting, every time a magical act is performed. It just gets done.
Maleficent herself starts of feeling kind of distant and two-dimensional, but as the film develops she does too. Making her more relatable and fleshed-out as times goes on. Even during her inevitable time as a rather cold and evil queen you can relate to her. You never question why she feels the way she does, or even really why she does what she does. Even though you won't agree with her on everything she does, it makes sense given what has happened to her. It doesn't really matter whether she's good or evil, she is a person.
Due to the nature of the story some things feel rather odd, however. The entirety of the story takes course over several decades. Spanning from Maleficent's childhood, all the way until the child of her childhood sweetheart reaches the same age Maleficent was at the beginning. Cramming all those years into just above 90 minutes makes it feel a lot like a really long and oddly cut montage sequence. Times and locations changes frequently, but the characters mostly always look the same, making you question whether or not it is actually a different time. Towards the end they manage to keep it all within a relative short time-span, but it's too late to be saved. It's almost like hitting a wall when a montage suddenly stops after an hour, you start wondering how long ago some events were and how long it is till others events will happen. It becomes a mess, unfortunately.
Fortunately the acting was strong on Jolie's part. She managed to make the different eras of Maleficent to feel slightly different, though it was far from enough. It didn't feel like I was watching Jolie at all, she felt like Maleficent throughout the film. Which was, honestly, a bit surprising. Angelina Jolie is a solid actress, but I did not expect her to bring any real acting chops to a film of this caliber. I was fully prepared for a decent-enough performance, just enough to make it feel like a film, but she really did put effort into it. Fanning, however, was less good. Which was also surprising to me. She's been rather good in the past, especially in Super 8 and We Bought a Zoo. Being an up and coming young actress I expected her to bring the best she had in one of the bigger films she's been in, but no. I felt like I was watching Fanning being a character. She felt lost and misplaced in the time and place of the film, not really fitting in with the universe at all. And that wasn't because of costume design, make-up, or anything like that. She just didn't act like she belonged. Maybe it was intentional, what do I know, but it didn't work.
All in all the film is an astounding "alright". It's not something worth watching at the cinema, at best it's the type of film you wait for to hit Netflix so you can watch it at no extra cost.
Perfectly fine entertainment. Some great parts, some good parts, some parts that just doesn't fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)