Posted : 2 months, 2 weeks ago on 3 February 2014 07:35
(A review of Frozen
When looking back at the fifty-two previous feature films from Walt Disney Animations, the vast majority would perhaps refer their favourites to be during the Renaissance era in the 1990s and those made during the early days of Disney. Their latest, and fifty-third, animation Frozen
continues perhaps the second Disney Renaissance and implements the true, enchanting magic of Disney that we have not seen for a long time. Based on a Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, whose other work has been adapted by Disney before - The Little Mermaid
possesses the identical traits to the greatest eras of Disney animations. In fact, excluding Pixar, it has become easily the greatest animated Disney feature that has practically everything we would expect of it: heartwarming characters, beautiful story, breath-taking visual effects, energetic songs and most importantly - heart that leaves an important, moral message.
The main aims of Disney animated films over the years have been to not only showing magic, but emotionally experience it. Frozen
implements the fantastical, fairy tale-like enchantment that we have not seen from Disney in a long time. To a certain extent, the film not only revives traditional Disney magic but pays homage to it. For example, the castle of Arendelle resembles the actual Disney castle in Florida. The enchantment centres from there and its surroundings enhance it. In addition, Frozen
may be for a different generation, it possessed the same type of energetic songs that have been so successful for Disney over the years, especially “Let It Go” which is perhaps the greatest song in Disney animation since “You’ll Be In My Heart” in Tarzan
. Similarly, Frozen
was filmed in 3D animation, opposite to the majority of past Disney animations. The effects enhanced the magic with its sublime detail of particularly snow, ice and water. On a technical level, if there’s anything that Frozen
has taught us, it’s that Disney magic still lives with perhaps the opposing style of animation - 3D.
Other aspects of Frozen
which has made it a superb Disney classic is the heartwarming characters, who each resemble characteristics to those from the past. Anna is a traditional Disney Princess, particularly like Belle with her energetic passion and loyalty to her family as well as Ariel, with her instant romantic connection to Hans. Anna’s older sister Elsa, the Snow Queen, takes a slightly little adjustment to supporting characters within Disney narratives. Her unique ability of creating ice and snow with her hands was the audience’s first impression of what the film was going to be about and yet, it is that which brings the two sisters together. Possessing power is normally a Disney antagonist’s passion but in Frozen
it shifts away from that and becomes something different by going more personal. Furthermore, Olaf the Snowman is a humorous and delightfully original supporting character. It became an interesting concept of a snowman’s desire to live in the summer, and the creativity of that side of the plot worked. Olaf resembles those characters, particularly in the Disney Renaissance era who became side-kick material to the protagonist, such as Genie in Aladdin
, Timon & Pumbaa in The Lion King
, Mushu in Mulan
, Phil in Hercules
. In that sense, Olaf provides a new meaning to certain Disney supporting characters with his personal ambitions yet pays homage to them.
Although we have seen delightful Disney animations in recent years, none of them compare to the true Disney magic that Frozen
possessed. All of the greatest classics have left the audience with important messages and Frozen
certainly does that - love is the ultimate healer and the best way to defeat hate is to love. In that sense, it is a heart-melting treasure for both adults and children. Nevertheless, Frozen
is the type of film that even Pixar need at this moment and it could be the first Disney animation (excluding Pixar) to win the Academy Award for Best Animated Picture.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 3 months ago on 21 January 2014 10:35
(A review of 12 Years a Slave
Having the ability to cinematically re-tell a chapter of history has expanded rapidly in this generation. The majority of bio-pics and historical-dramas feature a story with oppressive contents; however, there are the odd few true stories which depict a touch of hope within humanity. 12 Years A Slave
tells a story of pre-Civil War America that represents the brutality of slavery whilst within it, introduces Solomon Northup’s extraordinary and touching tale during enslavement. Following in similar footsteps to Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List
and Roman Polanski’s The Pianist
, 12 Years A Slave
certainly does provide enough visual persuasion of 1800s American slavery whilst also becoming a fantastic bio-pic filled with sublime performances from its ensemble cast and breath-taking mise-en-scéne.
Although slavery in America occurred in the 19th century, for Hollywood to illustrate and promote an oppressive piece of their history may have been difficult. Still, the aim was to interpret American slavery as it was at the time. Last year we saw Django Unchained
, a slight historical twist of slavery in the US but 12 Years A Slave
more realistically portrays a brutal reflection, especially the attention to detail in moments of violence and abuse. Furthermore, slavery in 12 Years A Slave
is centred primarily on Northup’s personal experience in which the whole concept becomes both disturbing and inspiring. Similar to the representation of the Holocaust in Schindler’s List
and Nazi-invaded Poland in The Pianist
, Northup’s 12-year odyssey of enslavement exposed inner faith, which is the key to a bio-pic told within a hostile environment.
Prior to directing 12 Years A Slave
, Steve McQueen had only made two features - Shame
, both of which are low-budget, British independent films. In their own ways, both have been sadistic projects from the perspective of its protagonist. In that sense, 12 Years A Slave
and its contents became prominent to McQueen’s directorial style and subject choice. 12 Years A Slave
became less independent than McQueen’s previous works and had consequently become a high-standard film, with a higher budget and more Hollywood-y touch to it. At the same time, it still maintained the perspective of Northup within the dark and raw surroundings. Similarly, while the subject is oppressive, the actual production of 12 Years A Slave
was beautiful, particularly Sean Bobbit’s cinematography who occasionally highlights the natural landscapes; therefore, enhancing the realistic touch of 1800s America.
Throughout his career up until now, Chiwetel Ejiofor has been ‘that actor’ who made regular supporting appearances behind central stars. However, Ejiofor leads the pack in this historical-drama with a superb breakthrough performance. Similar to Adrien Brody’s performance in The Pianist
, Ejiofor reflects Northup’s clear family-minded, sensitive nature whilst exhibiting the horrors of slavery. We observe many African-Americans in 12 Years A Slave
but Northup becomes the
black male slave as his journey of torture, pain and sorrow illustrates a clear understanding to viewers from just one man’s viewpoint. Nevertheless, Ejiofor has finally had his breakthrough role and deserves to be an Oscar contender. Meanwhile, Lupita Nyong’o makes her acting debut in an outstanding performance as female slave Petsey. Like Ejiofor, Nyong’o’s performance is a representation of gender within American slavery and her role impressively interpreted the vulnerability and innocence of women during enslavement as well as the pain, cries and pure fright.
Michael Fassbender returns for the third consecutive time with Steve McQueen. Following his previous critically acclaimed performance in Shame
, Fassbender shines once again as the sadistic plantation owner Edwin Epps. Fassbender has portrayed cold, bitter characters in the past and this became advantageous to his role in 12 Years A Slave
. He superbly reflected the cold-hearted, sinister mannerism of Epps; therefore, honestly depicting the cruelty of Caucasian plantation owners towards their slaves. In addition, Benedict Cumberbatch makes a decent appearance as William Ford, another plantation owner but more benevolent than Epps. Paul Dano also gets some screen time as Ford’s abusive and incredibly racist carpenter. Being arguably the most racist character in the entire film, Paul Dano brilliantly enhanced further realism among their treatment of black people during that period. As a result, it has become his greatest performance since There Will Be Blood
or even Little Miss Sunshine
Whether based on real-life events or an original screenplay, the cinematic representation of slavery is bound to raise curiosity and occasional controversy, especially when there’s slavery involved. 12 Years A Slave
marvellously depicts to viewers how America was in the South during that period, which was enhanced further by McQueen’s superb directing, excellent performances from particularly Ejiofor, Fassbender and Nyong’o. McQueen’s latest is as energetic, drama-wise, and is not far among Schindler’s List
and The Pianist
in terms of expressing human drama through historical facts. Nevertheless, 12 Years A Slave
may be a stomach-turning film but there is no doubt it is one of the most powerful bio-pics of this generation and will be a strong contender for Best Picture.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 4 months, 1 week ago on 16 December 2013 02:41
(A review of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
After waiting for almost a decade, The Hobbit
prequels to Lord Of The Rings
began with the impressive yet somewhat poorly-paced and stretched predecessor An Unexpected Journey
last year. Some could argue that it became a disappointment to Tolkien fans for stretching approximately one hundred pages of writing into an almost three-hour film. However, the second installment The Desolation Of Smaug
is a much stronger, exciting and thrilling adventure. This sequel is in a dangerous position because its execution could go either way - whether it’ll provide central concepts to the plot that’ll lead to the finale or that it’ll be an inaccurate, weaker follow-up. Although Jackson implemented certain features in The Desolation Of Smaug
that were not in Tolkien’s book, it is an impressive sequel that somewhat redeems An Unexpected Journey
and ends with a superb cliffhanger leaving the audience to eagerly await for There And Back Again
The main issue with this entire Hobbit
trilogy is how Jackson is stretching the contents of a single 361-page book into three lengthy films. An Unexpected Journey
’s pacing was rather weak and filled approximately half of the novel into almost three hours. However, The Desolation Of Smaug
gets straight to the point by filling in multiple plot concepts in the middle of the book whilst still providing enough narrative space and time for viewers to enjoy. While the main plot is of Bilbo, Thorin and companies’ continuous quest to the Lonely Mountain, the sequel has many subplots - Gandalf’s search of Necromancer and the love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel and Kili. The latter may have been a ridiculous shoe-in for Jackson to initiate longer running time but it somehow does not ruin the film. Besides, Tolkien told multiple sub-plots in Lord Of The Rings
, much like Jackson did in the films. In fact, Jackson is almost spot on with pacing this time. Also, the plot is full of multiple locations and new characters who weren’t in An Unexpected Journey
(yes, even Smaug). Still, although we witnessed a weak opening sequence with no meaning of what happens in The Desolation Of Smaug
(it becomes more of a reminder), Jackson has really picked up the pace.
Of course, Tolkien fans have been expecting The Hobbit
film adaptations to appear as epic and realistic, visually, compared to Lord Of The Rings
. However, the difference is that not only is there a ten-year gap between the trilogies but Lord Of The Rings
is a trilogy primarily for a teenager and adult audience whereas The Hobbit
has been described as a gem of children’s literature. So, quite frankly, the visuals are going to be different. At the same time, audiences would expect them to be identical seeing as The Desolation Of Smaug
is part of a prequel trilogy and for it to feel connected to Lord Of The Rings
. This sequel is not only darker, narrative wise, than its predecessor but it is visually darker and provides a more serious tone to the trilogy. Similarly, the 3D format is actually worth the money in this sequel, particularly the barrel sequence and of course, to finally see the dragon in the flesh.
Martin Freeman proved himself to be a fantastic choice for the role of Bilbo Baggins in An Unexpected Journey
and once again, he maintains that in The Desolation Of Smaug
. Bilbo’s true character was exposed in this second prequel as he faced a great deal of danger which required bravery and courage. Freeman’s subtle execution of Bilbo became success as we saw him become more vulnerable at the same time slowly begins to be under the manipulation of the Ring. Ian McKellen delivers a great performance once again as Gandalf the Grey. While he was undoubtedly the best actor in Lord Of The Rings
, his performance has not changed and it was great to see him back. Richard Armitage still does not entirely impress as Thorin Oakenshield. Yes, he possessed that bitter, cold attitude but his desperation to reclaim Erebor and signs of courage were lacking in this sequel. Hopefully, he can improvise one final time in There And Back Again
Undoubtedly the highlighted character in The Desolation Of Smaug
is Smaug himself, beautifully voiced and performed via motion-capture by Benedict Cumberbatch. In Tolkien’s novel and prior to fully witnessing Smaug, he has been known as a terrible, powerful dragon and Jackson’s interpretation of the character was jaw-dropping. Dragons have always been portrayed as dominant species of special magnificence and Smaug ultimately fulfills that. Still, Cumberbatch’s role was absolutely fantastic and perhaps runs up towards the brilliance of Andy Serkis as Gollum. Perhaps Cumberbatch’s key quality as Smaug was his booming voice which served as a personal quality and was beautifully applied with the dragon’s visual image. Therefore in the cinema world, Smaug has ultimately become the beast of all beasts and Tolkien would be proud. Cumberbatch’s portrayal of The Necromancer is also worth noting too as he provided a sinister performance through voice which leads to the return of a certain villain in Lord Of The Rings
On a similar note, the return of certain Lord Of The Rings
characters who are not in the original Hobbit
novel has been another big issue for fans. For example, Orlando Bloom reprises his role as Legolas. While he was great in Lord Of The Rings
his involvement was not necessarily required. His physical appearance looked rather strange, particularly eye contact lenses. It looked too comical and did not entirely look like the Legolas who we saw in Lord Of The Rings
. However, that does not necessarily mean that his general appearance was not terrible. No, Legolas was not mentioned in the original book, but Bilbo and the Dwarves’ encounter with the Elves in Mirkwood would be another way for Jackson to provide slightly original ideas whilst still flowing along with Tolkien’s original story.
Although The Desolation Of Smaug
had a few minor issues with sub-plot and implementation of characters, it is a vast improvement on An Unexpected Journey
. The second prequel has provided more adventure, Tolkien’s literature trademark, and more action that has enhanced a more refreshing return to Middle-Earth. This Hobbit
series perhaps was not going to be the exact same Middle-Earth that Jackson entered into with Lord Of The Rings
trilogy but this second prequel really is not far. Nevertheless, The Desolation Of Smaug
is an entertaining and intense film that has left us to enhance our excitement for the long-awaited finale in this trilogy.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 5 months, 1 week ago on 10 November 2013 05:07
(A review of Gravity
In this day and age, it is not often we experience cinema as a spectacle event. Films of this type usually provide the combination of powerful human drama with a new supply of technological features, particularly in 3D. In that sense, they have often stood out against typical Hollywood films and have something new to offer. Alfonso Cuarón’s Gravity
is another addition to that list among spectacle films, such as Avatar, Hugo
and Life Of Pi
, as its visual representation becomes an equally substantial achievement to the plot and characters. Alfonso Cuarón returns to filmmaking for the first time since Children Of Men
in 2006 and provides us with a truly intense, eye-gauging and stunning space-drama.
Those who are familiar with Cuarón’s work will identify that two of his auteurist styles of filmmaking are his excessive use of long takes and tracking shots. In the past, these techniques have allowed the audience to literally become the camera and vice versa that leaves us to follow the characters and examine the narrative flow. In Gravity
, we witness unbelievable direction from Cuarón through multiple long takes, such as the film’s first thirteen minutes. These long takes suggest Cuarón’s talent as a director of immaculate quality, ability to direct the actors in ways which maintain the audience’s attention. Cuarón’s central focus in Gravity
is the naturalistic portrayal of outer space and his direction is portrayed similar to a discovery channel, which becomes an observation exercise for viewers. Through sound effects, we often hear only the sound of breathing and throughout most of the film; there is a limited supply of music. This additionally stands away from other Hollywood films as it becomes a spectacle film filled with nature. Cuarón’s sci-fi hit adds a sense of realism and truth.
In many ways, Gravity
is a typical survival film that we have seen time and time again. The film itself is basically two astronauts stranded in outer space after a mission goes wrong and try to get back to Earth. That is the story and due to this, the plot is thin and occasionally lacked depth. We did get a few incidents in which protagonist Ryan Stone talks about her daughter but the aim of Gravity
is to experience hers and Matt Kowalsky’s situation and pray that they find solutions to return home. So, in a sense, the plot is exactly the same as the story. The audience still experience space as it is but Gravity
still had the potential to go beyond those borders and provide us with further ambiguous structure. The 3D experience arguably has not been more exhilarating and breath-taking since Avatar
in 2009. It goes to show that it only works if a film is purely made for it and has been done properly and patiently. 3D almost literally dragged us into outer space but the beauty of Gravity
is that it would still be a marvelous experience without it.
While we witness a truthful depiction of outer space and its natural beauty, it is entirely depicted through the dangerous and intense journey of Dr Ryan Stone and Lieutenant Matt Kowalsky. Sandra Bullock took on the role of Stone with a superb performance. Bullock has often been criticized for her acting and while she has been a bland actress throughout her career, her role in Gravity
is arguably her greatest yet. We experience everything with her and whilst in her situation, she envies pure human spirit and a firm connection with the audience.
Some have argued that Stone and Kowalsky, portrayed by George Clooney, were underdeveloped as characters. However, they are not like your traditional Hollywood characters with acknowledged backgrounds and motives. It is their independence that allows them to drive themselves out of the circumstances. In fact, the development of particularly Ryan Stone is told through her struggles to return to Earth. It becomes a revelation for the audience as the courage and bravery is who she really is. On the other hand, Matt Kowalsky was almost irrelevant to the film as he was seriously underdeveloped, even as a supporting character. George Clooney was basically playing George Clooney. In a sense, it worked because he was symbolizing the average man in space and Bullock the average woman, but of what we see of Clooney, his appearance was rather bland and had nothing compared to Bullock’s performance.
has been compared to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey
through similar visual representations of space. Cuarón’s sci-fi hit certainly does achieve a spectacular, naturalistic experience of space along with 3D but it could and should have been a true landmark if it perhaps enhanced a deeper plot. Despite this, Gravity
is still an unforgettable experience that makes its mark among Avatar, Hugo
and Life Of Pi
as a film of pure visual magnificence. Be prepared for an jaw-dropping 90-minute ride in space.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 5 months, 2 weeks ago on 3 November 2013 11:38
(A review of Captain Phillips
In recent years, we have witnessed the release of multiple biography-dramas. While they are re-telling certain events in the magical world of cinema, there are not many out there which clench the emotional drama or intensity during its time setting, especially if it is from the perspective of an individual character. Paul Greengrass already blew our minds with his unbelievably realistic, stomach-turning 9/11 drama-thriller United 93
, and seven years later, he has achieved that once more with Captain Phillips
, which revisits Captain Richard Phillips’ experience of the Maersk Alabama hijacking in 2009. Greengrass has been known for his auteurist style for depicting real-life dramatized events with his unique camera style and approach to Captain Phillips
ultimately paid off. Here we have another masterpiece from Greengrass that will leave you off the edge of your seat and is a strong Best Picture contender.
Paul Greengrass has always been a director of documentary-like technicality. His most notable attribute as an auteur has been his effective use of shaky camera. This is sometimes a huge gamble as its continuously wobbly movement could confuse the audience as to what is happening in a scene. Greengrass is the master of this technique because it is perhaps as close as a film can get to grasp a sense of reality, in a similar style to documentary. With all of the thrills, action and suspense that Captain Phillips
possesses, the implication of Greengrass’ wobbly filming style worked beautifully. If anything, it got the audience even more involved as a realistic drama but it still worked tremendously as an escapist film.
Another substantial quality in Captain Phillips
is the nail-biting suspense. Admittedly, the film begins like it is an ordinary day but the appearance of the Somali pirates and the hijacking picks up the pace. From this point, the suspense gets higher, the surroundings get more claustrophobic and the audience’s uncomfortable predicament gets tighter. Greengrass progressively tightens and zooms on the suspense through his technical style and narrative flow which we, the spectators, are almost reaching out of our seats and begin to find it more difficult to endure. Nevertheless, the amount of stomach-turning tension that Captain Phillips
bestowed perhaps could not have got any higher than Greengrass’ shaky-camera techniques and of course, Tom Hanks in the leading role.
Particularly in his most famous roles, Tom Hanks has delivered performances as characters either in search of a unique adventure or are forced into one. His appearance in Captain Phillips
is in some ways a typecast because it is once again, a film that features Hanks practically on his own in which the plot’s central focus is on the circumstances of his on-screen character, similar to Cast Away
. In Captain Phillips
, especially in the film’s second act, the audience are there with Phillips every step of the way and Hanks’ portrayal of a terrified yet brave and noble man really shines. It is perhaps his greatest performance in a long time and he is undoubtedly a contender for Best Leading Actor. While Hanks’ is leading the cast like he almost always does, a stand-out performance in Captain Phillips
is newcomer Barkhad Abdi as pirate leader Muse. In his first ever acting role, Abdi reaches up to the hype and formed a superb chemistry with Hanks. Muse is a complex character as he, like Phillips, wants to do what is right for his country, current situation but does it in a wrong but rather desperate way which demoralizes his objective and perhaps the poor Somalia people. Nevertheless, Abdi’s first on-screen appearance is an inspiration to amateur actors and he deserves an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
is a gifted thriller which possesses the ability to maintain exhilarating suspense and emotional exhaustion upon the audience. The fact it was based on a true story, one that occurred only in 2009, depicts further historical involvement and Greengrass’ technical documentary-like style practically seals that. At the same time, it is rather unpredictable for a bio-pic as narrative events, characters and camera shots are thrown around everywhere examining and tightening the circumstances. Thus, Captain Phillips
gives Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty
a run for its money and it could become Greengrass’ greatest opportunity yet at Oscar glory as well as for Tom Hanks to claim his third Academy Award win.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 7 months, 2 weeks ago on 10 September 2013 12:27
(A review of Taxi Driver
was released in a period when American Hollywood was going through a series of alterations. The film served as a crucial example that illustrated how Hollywood has changed from the classic era, particularly through its independent filmmaking techniques and the implementation of more oppressive themes. Taxi Driver
also became a crucial feature in the career of Martin Scorsese as it introduced his own techniques of violence and crime in America, which progressively became his directorial style. For these reasons, Taxi Driver
is one of Martin Scorsese’s masterpieces as well as an important benchmark in the crime genre.
Martin Scorsese has become widely recognized as the kingpin director of mafia and criminal-based films. However before gaining this reputation, Taxi Driver
became arguably the benchmark that began it all; in fact, it was his first masterpiece. Before audiences see a character turn criminal, it is important to first witness psychological background and the motives, which is what we see in Taxi Driver
. Even after many films that Scorsese has directed over the past 40+ years, we have rarely seen central characters expressing psychological issues as opposed to their criminal lives. In fact, we perhaps have not seen a better thought-provoking and more personal Scorsese feature since. His direction in displaying these conditions as well as the oppressive atmosphere in New York connected beautifully and has consequently left us with a landmark of the crime-drama sub-genre.
has negativity and depression written all over it but not which is tear-jerking. The majority of the film appears natural with traditional landscapes of Manhattan, New York. However, it is Taxi Driver
’s time-setting and circumstances that portrays The Big Apple rather darkly and somewhat horrifying. While Taxi Driver
introduces psychoanalysis, it also illustrates how economically and socially low the United States of America, even in New York City, has become following their withdrawal and defeat in the Vietnam War. In addition, we witness individuals in a society who are associated with either forms of prostitution or violence. Seeing as it was filmed in 1976 and the Vietnam War ended in 1975, audiences actually do witness America at that present time.
Although the legendary Robert De Niro’s rise to fame began with his Oscar-winning performance in The Godfather: Part II
, we hadn’t yet seen his breakthrough in a leading role. Re-uniting with Scorsese again after Mean Streets
, De Niro delivers a ground-breaking performance, arguably his greatest of all time, as the eccentric and lonesome Travis Bickle. This character symbolizes the consequences of both witnessing and experiencing trauma in a social and personal environment. Travis is a good man but is beaten down by loneliness and obsession to sink lower and complete his pathway to insanity. De Niro’s simplicity and politeness as Travis pulled off marvellously as did his portrayal of the character whilst in his criminal state.
Furthermore, hats go off to the supporting cast in Taxi Driver
. At only 12 years old, Jodie Foster goes the distance in her portrayal of child-prostitute Iris. Her performance is absolutely wonderful but how we feel about the character is a mixed bag. It is shocking to see one so young appear and act so sexually explicit but Foster portrays this in a mesmerizing manner. In fact, Iris’ appearance and her nature add a further oppressive tone to what New York City and its citizens have become. Foster’s chemistry with De Niro is unique but superb and her role is among the greatest child-star performances of all time. Finally, we witness appearances from Harvey Keitel, Cybill Shepherd and Albert Brooks and they each deliver solid performances.
is powerful American filmmaking displaying America practically in the gutter. This adds a rather uniquely creative value behind it as the film examined the brutal manipulation of the mind, something not so popular during that production period. Only Martin Scorsese could have pulled it off and his approach and execution to psychological depth has never gone any higher. Nevertheless, this psychological-drama is arguably the greatest achievement in Martin Scorsese’s directorial career, features iconic performances from De Niro and Foster and, finally, makes its mark as a benchmark of the New Hollywood era.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 8 months ago on 22 August 2013 03:43
(A review of 2001: A Space Odyssey
Throughout the past 40 years, we have witnessed some of the most memorable science fiction films of all time by use of impressive effects and extraordinary characters within such imaginative worlds. But what became the birth of this and, therefore, became a breakthrough and opened a new generation of science fiction was Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey
. At the time, there had never been anything like it before and, quite frankly, there has been nothing compared to it ever since, not even the 1984 sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact
. Nevertheless, 2001: A Space Odyssey
is truly one of the most important films ever and is an eerie that embarks us into the unknown world of space but is also beautiful to watch and ultimately defined cinema as a form of art.
Originally 2001: A Space Odyssey
had shockingly been met with a mixed critical reception and had not become a financial success, but it did take home one out of four Academy Awards that it was nominated for. Stanley Kubrick always gave us his vintage style of filming but with the majority of his films, especially 2001: A Space Odyssey
, he wanted to illustrate new meanings for the audience. Kubrick added the essence of natural beauty on Earth and in space and attempts to not so much make the film as entertainment but to provide a thought-provoking feeling to it. It analyses from the beginning of mankind; hence the ‘Dawn Of Man’ sequence, to how we have intelligently and technologically advanced. During this process, 2001: A Space Odyssey
contained certain elements about the Universe and philosophy; not only in the ‘Dawn Of Man’ sequence but in almost every act of the film.
Kubrick’s sci-fi is slow in terms of pacing. This could frustrate specific viewers and words like ‘boring’ could immediately come into play. However, due to 2001
’s central theme being nature, Kubrick’s eerie and occasionally haunting portrayal of outer space, the Universe and mankind is simply for audiences to observe and reflect on for themselves. It is not to entertain an audience but it is to provide a clearer and more realistic understanding of our world and others beyond it. 2001: A Space Odyssey
could have been a traditional sci-fi for its time with less advanced technological features, but it was the slow, observant tone and stunning visuals which highlighted the film as a benchmark of the genre as it bridged between classic and modern science-fiction. In fact, the visual effects as well as Kubrick’s directorial approach is arguably the greatest among any other science-fiction film today.
Films that are considered the greatest of all time usually feature notable actors among Hollywood. However, Stanley Kubrick went even more original as he cast unknown performers as 2001
’s central characters. Admittedly, the characters were second-best due to the visual and natural representation of life that the film reflected on but these actors still had impressive roles. Some may argue that these characters were underused but we managed to stick along with Dave and his crew along their odyssey through space. Keir Dullea gave a solid performance as protagonist Dave as did Gary Lockwood and William Sylvester as Dave’s fellow crew members. Furthermore, although this is only a voice-acting role, the stand-out performer was Douglas Rain as HAL 9000. Rain’s calm, relaxed voice worked beautifully as HAL as it sounded exactly like a computer but his portrayal added a sense of humanity to the character, particularly in the iconic "Daisy Bell" sequence.
While 2001: A Space Odyssey
does not have a specific target audience, it does require a specific audience to fully appreciate it. Its slow pacing enables viewers to understand the way of outer space and the Universe more naturally than most science-fiction films. This became highly important upon 2001
’s release in 1968 and became the ‘New Hollywood’ within the science-fiction genre. Nevertheless, Kubrick’s glistening yet surreal contribution on this phenomenon became the greatest achievement of his career and deserves its place among the greatest and most important films in cinema history.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 8 months, 1 week ago on 16 August 2013 11:26
(A review of Pacific Rim
is a different blockbuster compared to many that audiences will see in 2013. Considering the fact that it served as Guillermo Del Toro’s first directorial feature in five years, it is also a film that is not a new franchise installment, a remake nor adaptation. The film’s director Guillermo Del Toro has always been a director of dark, visionary style to which he applied in his original fantasy and horror films as well as in adapted, mainstream Hollywood. Pacific Rim
could arguably be his most prominent picture to date as it mixes his own roots with the grand, visual scale of Hollywood. It may have taken many narrative concepts from various monster films but Del Toro’s creativity and flexibility as a director enabled him to produce a feature film that was mind-blowing and an exhilarating thrill ride.
is quite literally a combination of Transformers
. So, on a visual scale and with visionary director Del Toro, Pacific Rim
had the potential to be nothing more than an epic experience. However, films similar to Del Toro’s latest have often been critically demolished due to a high supply of visuals and lack plot and character creativity. Pacific Rim
may still contain elements from other past films but the combination provided us with something unusually original. The majority of monster movies are incredibly corny but surprisingly, Pacific Rim
was more realistic than expected. For example, Del Toro’s darker tone with striking cinematography, identical to Blade Runner
, captured a surreal tone of science-fiction and seeing gigantic creatures called Kaijas from a dark world breaching and attacking ours would leave audiences emotionally threatened and drawn into the story. Del Toro has been impressive with capturing realism of dark fantasy and science-fiction cinema. So, he does another impressive job with Pacific Rim
On the other hand, Pacific Rim
was a grand visual spectacle. In some ways, it has a similar pictorial representation to James Cameron’s Avatar
where the effects in Pacific Rim
are the presentation with the plot serving as a background feature. The most stunning visuals were of the human-shaped Jagers, the ‘species’ of gigantic robots, fighting the aliens. It provided a touch of masculinity which we do not see often anymore in Hollywood. Supported by the dark tone, cinematography and that most of the cast are male, Del Toro highlights the Jagers as strong forces, ones more powerful than mankind, and the action sequences become very physical through intense sound effects. However at unexpected, strange occasions, there are incidents of attempted humour thrown in and because it is a dark, serious sci-fi, the humour just did not work.
To make Pacific Rim
more original and perhaps different to other Hollywood blockbusters, Del Toro selected an ensemble cast of unknown actors. In the leading role was Charlie Hunnam as Raleigh Becket, a former Jager pilot who comes out of retirement to help take down the Kaijus. While Pacific Rim
works on a scale of direction, visual effects and plot, it is the character development that became the biggest letdown. The protagonist must engage audiences from beginning to end as we are following him in this story but Becket not only had a thin personality but was severly underdeveloped and at times, underused. Rinko Kikuchi was pretty bland as Mako Mori as there was very little partnership or romantic connection between her and Becket. Meanwhile, it is Idris Elba, Charlie Day, Robert Kazinsky and Ron Perlman who make convincing appearances in Pacific Rim
with decent performances.
If there is anything that Pacific Rim
has shown, it is how breath-taking a visual experience in a cinema can be yet must have strong characters, performances in order to fulfill that. Guillermo Del Toro’s approach to dark fantasy and science-fiction worked in Pacific Rim
but the characters and screenplay are what prevented it from being a crucial visual spectacle. Was it worth Del Toro leaving as director and co-writer of The Hobbit
series to make Pacific Rim
? On a visual level, yes, but financially and to retrieve more fans, no. If you are looking for a film to entertain you and to leave you thinking ‘wow’, then Pacific Rim
is a solid candidate.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 8 months, 1 week ago on 16 August 2013 04:13
(A review of Kick-Ass 2
The first film in what now appears to be Kick-Ass
franchise surprised us all. It looked like a complete parody spoof of superhero films but the key to its success was its originality within plot and characters as well as creative and somewhat artistic visual style. It was entertainment at the highest standard and like many which achieve this, a sequel is irresistible to abandon. Judging from this sequel’s title, audiences were expecting exactly it suggests – superheroes kicking ass for a second time. Kick-Ass 2
proves itself to be just that and become a very enjoyable, hilarious and fun sequel. However, its biggest faults were that it lacks the smooth originality and tone which worked so impressively in the predecessor.
The majority of central crew members from Kick-Ass
returned for this sequel but this time, we witnessed a new director’s angle on Mark Millar’s work. Matthew Vaughn crafted a simple yet visually artistic comic book adaptation with Kick-Ass
in 2010. Jeff Wadlow, on the other hand becomes a convincing replacement as director of Kick-Ass 2
. He individually wrote the sequel’s screenplay and successfully maintained the same hilarious, witty one-liners as well as further creativity within character and plot development. His screenplay was top-notch and as director, he fulfilled more traditional comic-book trends with more action and violence. On a similar note, it may have been extremely repetitive from its predecessor but that does not matter. It the sequel was less exciting, gruesome and funny, it would defeat the aim of the title and overall intention the film brings. In addition, its pacing and tone seemed somewhat unique at times as sequences kept jumping and further stories kept expanding. It appeared unusual to begin with but as the film continued, the pieces fitted.
The plot in Kick-Ass 2
becomes more serious than in its predecessor. Vaughn never aimed for the original film to appear emotional or tear-jerking but the implication of further dramatic concepts in Kick-Ass 2
added a sense of realism with morals behind them. This has often been the case with superhero sequels, such as The Dark Knight
and Spider-Man 2
. Still, on a more emotional level, Kick-Ass 2
is a story of self-discovery as it focuses on the meaning of superheroes, differences between their ordinary selves and their alter egos, the consequences of becoming a superhero and learning about who they really are. Audiences have got to know the characters and we have witnessed them fulfilling their destinies as superheroes but now we’ve seen that, it goes more in depth. Therefore, director Wadlow provides a different angle to Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl etc and Kick-Ass 2
becomes more of a traditional superhero film than a parody.
Even after three years since the first Kick-Ass
film, Aaron Taylor-Johnson still appears the same as Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass. As opposed to being a teenage geek in the first film, we see a Bruce Wayne/Peter Parker like Dave/Kick-Ass in this sequel. As previously stated, we follow Dave’s journey of self-discovery and once again, Taylor-Johnson delivers a great performance. Furthermore, after stealing the first film with her fantastic role as the foul-mouthed and badass Mindy Macready/Hit-Girl, Chloe Grace Moretz succeeds in this sequel. However, this time we see both a different Moretz and a different Hit-Girl. In between the two films, she has transformed from a little girl to a hormonal teenager. Hit-Girl was a controversial character in the first Kick-Ass
but now she’s growing up, the character and actress has not gone to that extreme level and has perhaps become a joint protagonist.
Christopher Mintz-Plasse is just perfect for the role of Chris D’Amico as he goes from a nerdy Red Mist to the supervillain The Mother F***er. This re-invention is the perfect spoof towards supervillains as he aims to cause chaos and get revenge but the path to achieve it is pure laughter. Finally, Jim Carrey makes a cool appearance as Colonel Stars And Stripes. Similar to Nicolas Cage in the predecessor, Carrey stands out in Kick-Ass 2
as the Colonel was his coolest character in years. However, at times his character felt somewhat underused and he could have become someone so much more.
is a kick-ass sequel to a kick-ass predecessor. It may have had pacing issues and a slight lack of originality but it still delivered as a film of pure entertainment. The humour and violence were still the same and was not any more or any less funnier or gruesome than its predecessor. Jeff Wadlow perhaps was not going to portray the more creative and artistic form of Mark Millar’s comic book like Matthew Vaughn did, but his work was still impressive. Finally, now that Mark Millar has released the comic book of Kick-Ass 3
, it will only be a matter of time before that film adaptation comes around. Until then and after two impressive instalments thus far, excitement for the third and perhaps final addition to the Kick-Ass
series will be even higher.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Posted : 8 months, 1 week ago on 14 August 2013 06:57
(A review of Kick-Ass
The aim of most superhero adaptations is to fulfill the excitement and expectations of comic book nerds in the breath-taking visual experience of cinema. Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass
takes a uniquely creative detour as its story is told from the perspective of teenage characters inspired by comic books. However, due to this the film provides a brutal, violent, more realistic and thematically darker tone that opens a new style within the superhero genre. Mark Miller’s Kick-Ass
comic book is different in general compared to, for example, MARVEL and DC Comics but amazingly, the Kick-Ass
film adaptation becomes both a straightforward, exciting superhero film and a parody.
In many ways, Kick-Ass
has parody and spoof all over it. Indeed, it is about ordinary, super-powerless people becoming superheroes but it often pokes fun at the whole superhero genre. It does this through its humour within key moments that jeopardize the invincibility of a superhero. For example, Spider-Man takes giant leaps across buildings but Kick-Ass, inspired by Spider-Man, almost attempts this but suddenly retaliates and gets terrified. While Kick-Ass
still parodies from other superhero comics and films, it does get serious in its own unique way. It does not contain any dramatic concepts seeing as the humour and violence dominate, but the development and execution of the characters and plot initiate ‘ridiculous drama’. In addition, Kick-Ass
get serious in terms of the violence and vulgar dialogue it bestows, particularly through the Hit-Girl character. It is nothing bad but the film prevails in being afraid or forced to take it to that extreme level. In fact, the mood Kick-Ass
has makes all the extreme and arguably controversial incidents humorous. The characters have no powers and to have no violence would seal it as a spoof but the extreme violence redeems the superpowers that these character do not possess.
While Mark Millar's original comic-book and this Kick-Ass
film adaptation is dark, the visual style is somewhat unique. Director Matthew Vaughn’s choice to give the film an ordinary colourful tone blends with the general aim - to transform ordinary people into superheroes within the real world. It works but at the same time, it is daft because its fictional, science-fiction style opposes the traditional visual representation of comic books. However, the film becomes focused on ordinary citizens but when we are introduced to all of them as their alter-ego, it becomes more comical while still using the same cinematography. In fact, Kick-Ass
follows identical action, comical trends of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill
, particularly filming style, editing and visual effects.
While we saw a re-invention of comic book adaptations in Kick-Ass
, we also witnessed the uprising of new young stars. First, Aaron Taylor-Johnson delivers his breakthrough performance in the role of Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass. Dave is an ordinary comic-book nerd who becomes influenced by superheroes to become one. Like most superheroes, we see Taylor-Johnson playing practically two characters and he shines as both a teenage geek and as a superhero fighting crime. Furthermore, Chloe Moretz’s role as Mindy Macready/Hit-Girl is a total show-stealer. At 12 years of age, she went to the extreme through explicit language which highlights her early stardom status. Meanwhile, Christopher Mintz-Plasse is hilarious as Chris D’Amico/Red Mist, the geeky son of mob leader Frank D’Amico. On a similar note, Mark Strong is badass as Frank, a Guy Ritchie-like villain with a sinister but darkly funny nature and Nicolas Cage surprisingly shines and stars in his best role in years as Damon Macready/Big Daddy.
Initial expectations for Kick-Ass
were mixed but its originality, character development and humour made it a surprisingly impressive success. The plot and characters serve as homage to superheroes through specific references yet the humour creatively parodies that. Kick-Ass
is non-stop entertainment and exemplifies that it is often the simple, original films that become the greatest. It’s high supply of entertainment values worked at the highest level alongside its impressive visual and technical style, which occasionally signified it as a film of art. Nevertheless, Kick-Ass
delivers the exact ambition of its title and leading character – to kick ass.
0 comments, Reply to this entry