I did not like the first Hellboy film, for many different reasons. However, hearing that the new release was directed by the same genius responsible for Pan's Labyrinth, I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. I was even prepared to enjoy the film.
At first I was severely unimpressed. From the very beginning there was a huge juxtaposition between the monsters created by Guillermo del Toro and those that existed in the previous iteration. It was comic book horror meets epic fantasy; bright red heroes meet spectacularly designed villains, and to be honest it made me wince. A lot of the plot sequences struck me as extremely predictable, and it seemed that the first film's saving grace (the witty one liners) was also absent.
However, as the film progressed, I grew to like the new elements. There was a lot in the film that was beautiful and a lot that was very well-designed. The new monster creations were superb rubber-suited actors that looked real and either terrifying or wonderful, giving the other actors real cues to work from and making the scenes flow superbly. One such creature acted as the turning point for me; Johann Strauss the new character that joins Hellboy, Abe Sapiens and Liz on their team in the Department of Paranormal Research and Defence. He is an ectoplasmic matrix (ghost) in a suit, and a wonderful character. Additional bad-guy monsters, and the lead antagonist turned the film, for me, from a mediocre comic-book story to a reasonable fantasy film.
I still had a problem with this film. I loved the monsters, the animations were beautiful. There were some excellent action sequences, and the soundtrack was another wonderful work from Danny Elfman. Even the plot, once forgiven its more predictable elements, becomes a good story. However, all these good points aside, something kept dragging it back for me. The main characters not only stood out like a sore thumb against the stunningly crafted new creations from del Toro's odd imagination, they were actually unlikeable.
Hellboy himself is supposed to play the part of an evil being, 'twisted' to good, and occasionally haunted by his potential for evil. Instead, he comes across as a petulant ass who goes out of his way to annoy everyone around him. There is no tortured soul element at all, much as I wouldn't want it to be overplayed. He is just an irritating foil, who's only use is to hit things hard in the face. Liz is equally petulant and annoying... I just severely disliked her, especially in the face of the antagonists (portrayed by actually good actors). Even Abe, who I liked in the first film, plays the part of the stereotypical science nerd; his knowledge and wisdom is backed up by no physical strength whatsoever, except a passing familiarity with firearms.
Hellboy II is almost two films rolled into one. One of them, I liked... it had amazing visual effects and some excellent characters and creatures. The other one revolved around annoying characters who always seemed to be facing the wrong way when interesting developments were occurring, and who missed blatantly obvious leaps because they were selectively stupid, or because the director wanted to show off some new monster creation. As the film progressed, the first film took over and became the primary interest; it got better with time.
If you liked the characters in Hellboy, I am almost certain you will enjoy this film. The things added on top of the original are supremely good. However, if you did not like the original Hellboy, you may leave the film as I did, wondering whether you'd actually had a good time or not.
Monday, 25 August 2008
Monday, 11 August 2008
Review of the 2008 film ‘The Mummy III: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor'
Your enjoyment of this film will depend almost entirely on your attitude when you enter the cinema. If you want a classy action drama, or expect even a modicum of self-respect, you will be very disappointed. If you go in expecting a very silly but entertaining action film, you are likely to enjoy this film immensely.
I went to the cinema with the latter attitude. After seeing the first two films (albeit a while ago now), I expected a ridiculous, but amusing plot and lots of action. The film was no more far-fetched than the first two films, just as funny and just as action packed. I came out of the movie feeling suitably entertained. It wasn’t the best film of the century, but I think it achieved its aims, and I certainly enjoyed it.
Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) is the bored, retired hero, who can fight his way out of so many different scenarios. Evy (Maria Bello), his wife, is equally bored with their retirement, and is trying in vain to write a sequel to her two famously successful novels; the Mummy and the Mummy Returns. Meanwhile, Evy’s brother, Jonathan (John Hannah) has a night-club in Shanghai, and their son Alex (Luke Ford) is also in China, raising the mummy of the movie: the Chinese Emperor (who incidentally has superpowers), played by Jet Li. Isabella Leong also joins the cast as Lin, charged with protecting the Emperor’s tomb, her job later becomes to chase the Emperor with a cursed weapon: the only one that can kill the undead Emperor.
All these characters are superb, well acted creations that were believable in their roles without taking themselves too seriously. They made the witty one-liners with a straight face, but the characters seem to realise that they’re in a movie at the right moments, so that it doesn’t become melodramatic. The onscreen interaction between all the characters is seamless. While there was never any question of realism, the characters made it seem almost plausible. I also liked the fact that while Evy and Rick have been married for quite some time, they are still very much in love. They took their assignment because they were bored of mundane life, but the excitement wasn’t necessary for renewing their love. It was a nice touch.
The plot erred on the side of the predictable: at any point you can tell immediately the outcome of their current predicament, just by realising you’re not far enough into the film for them to win yet. However, you can still be emotionally invested enough in the fantastic characters to actually care what happens to them, and I was still engrossed in the action, wondering about exactly how they would get out of whatever scrape the plot had put them in.
The film moves too fast for you to really care that it doesn’t make that much sense. The characters and the constant action kept me entertained without getting too repetitive, and I didn’t mind the predictability; perhaps there was something behind Brendan Fraser’s eyes that let me know that the character also knew the plot was predictable. He didn’t care, in fact he seemed to be having a lot of fun… which made it more amusing to watch.
I would have preferred if the actress that played Evelyn in the first two films could have returned, although Maria Bello did do a great job, and she had very good onscreen chemistry with Brendan Fraser. I also found the special effects used when the Emperor was cursed hilarious: it looked something like a man made out of chocolate. These are my two main criticisms.
This film probably got bad reviews because the critics have been to so many action films that they realise they’re mostly the same. They are probably bored by any film that doesn’t cross lines into new areas of innovation and excitement. I’m not a professional critic: I’m just a normal moviegoer, with a love of silly movies. In a book, I might expect better… but I very much enjoyed the Mummy III. It was never meant to be taken seriously, and as such, it is a very entertaining film.
I went to the cinema with the latter attitude. After seeing the first two films (albeit a while ago now), I expected a ridiculous, but amusing plot and lots of action. The film was no more far-fetched than the first two films, just as funny and just as action packed. I came out of the movie feeling suitably entertained. It wasn’t the best film of the century, but I think it achieved its aims, and I certainly enjoyed it.
Rick O’Connell (Brendan Fraser) is the bored, retired hero, who can fight his way out of so many different scenarios. Evy (Maria Bello), his wife, is equally bored with their retirement, and is trying in vain to write a sequel to her two famously successful novels; the Mummy and the Mummy Returns. Meanwhile, Evy’s brother, Jonathan (John Hannah) has a night-club in Shanghai, and their son Alex (Luke Ford) is also in China, raising the mummy of the movie: the Chinese Emperor (who incidentally has superpowers), played by Jet Li. Isabella Leong also joins the cast as Lin, charged with protecting the Emperor’s tomb, her job later becomes to chase the Emperor with a cursed weapon: the only one that can kill the undead Emperor.
All these characters are superb, well acted creations that were believable in their roles without taking themselves too seriously. They made the witty one-liners with a straight face, but the characters seem to realise that they’re in a movie at the right moments, so that it doesn’t become melodramatic. The onscreen interaction between all the characters is seamless. While there was never any question of realism, the characters made it seem almost plausible. I also liked the fact that while Evy and Rick have been married for quite some time, they are still very much in love. They took their assignment because they were bored of mundane life, but the excitement wasn’t necessary for renewing their love. It was a nice touch.
The plot erred on the side of the predictable: at any point you can tell immediately the outcome of their current predicament, just by realising you’re not far enough into the film for them to win yet. However, you can still be emotionally invested enough in the fantastic characters to actually care what happens to them, and I was still engrossed in the action, wondering about exactly how they would get out of whatever scrape the plot had put them in.
The film moves too fast for you to really care that it doesn’t make that much sense. The characters and the constant action kept me entertained without getting too repetitive, and I didn’t mind the predictability; perhaps there was something behind Brendan Fraser’s eyes that let me know that the character also knew the plot was predictable. He didn’t care, in fact he seemed to be having a lot of fun… which made it more amusing to watch.
I would have preferred if the actress that played Evelyn in the first two films could have returned, although Maria Bello did do a great job, and she had very good onscreen chemistry with Brendan Fraser. I also found the special effects used when the Emperor was cursed hilarious: it looked something like a man made out of chocolate. These are my two main criticisms.
This film probably got bad reviews because the critics have been to so many action films that they realise they’re mostly the same. They are probably bored by any film that doesn’t cross lines into new areas of innovation and excitement. I’m not a professional critic: I’m just a normal moviegoer, with a love of silly movies. In a book, I might expect better… but I very much enjoyed the Mummy III. It was never meant to be taken seriously, and as such, it is a very entertaining film.
Friday, 1 August 2008
Review of the 2008 film ‘The Dark Knight’
The latest batman film follows on from the deeply broody gothic horror prequel ‘Batman Begins,’ leaving the old image of camp, flashy Batman movies far behind. Christian Bale plays the gravelly-voiced hero, and his more mellifluous alter ego, Bruce Wayne, as he battles his evil anarchist nemesis, The Joker (Heath Ledger).
I will immediately state the one thing I loved most about this film. Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker captures the insanity, psychopathy and genius of the role perfectly, and his anarchistic actions make for a disturbing, but highly skilled performance. The Joker has a shrewd mind and plenty of confidence, without cockiness. He always has a way out, which makes him a terrifying villain. The voice and facial expressions that Ledger gives to this character show an almost reptilian coldness, and his constant lip-smacking is disgusting, and perfect, all at the same time. Ledger’s Joker is one of the best antagonists I have seen in a very long while.
But Ledger is just the best of a brilliant bunch. Christian Bale acts rich jet setter and mysterious vigilante with equal competence, maintaining his acting standards from ‘Batman Begins’. Gary Oldman’s quiet, contemplative police officer, Gordon, says all that he needs to say, without needing to bully. Oldman brings across integrity, with Gordon’s understanding that while Batman’s vigilante justice is not pretty, it is sometimes necessary. Aaron Eckhart plays the honest good-guy, Harvey Dent; the prosecutor who’s determined to put the villains behind bars, and make sure that Gotham no longer need the vigilante. Harvey has some tough times in the film, and from start to finish, Eckhart’s performance is believable, strong and evocative.
Then there are the less major roles, played by equally leading actors. Michael Caine returns as faithful butler, Alfred. With steadfast loyalty and quirky (very British) humour, Alfred plays guide, conscience and aide. Even with limited screen time, Michael Caine has excellent screen presence. Then there’s Lucius Fox, played by Morgan Freeman, another fantastic actor playing a minor role. The intelligent manager acts as guiding hand and moral voice for Batman and Bruce Wayne, and I don’t ever recall seeing Morgan Freeman act anything less than brilliantly.
Unfortunately I have to say that the female actors in this film were either less inspiring or simply outclassed. I was not overly impressed by Maggie Gyllenhaal or Monique Curnen, although both gave competent performances… they were simply in a movie with too much male talent.
The characters of this film were good enough to make a slightly meandering plot highly watchable. But while the plot is occasionally haphazard, in a way it mirrors the Joker’s desire for anarchy as he causes havoc in Gotham. My major criticism of the plot is that there is little by way of an overriding arc, and the movie seems almost split in two by one scene. The borderline was slightly too abrupt, so that it seemed that the plot was over, but the movie showed no signs of finishing.
However, haphazard and chaotic as the overall plot was, the individual plot elements captured some incredible scenes of fear and tension. Many of these sequences would have made excellent shorts on their own. They also show people forced into making difficult choices. The Joker’s calculated scheming makes people show the horrible side of human nature, as well as the more hopeful one.
In terms of filming, many of the visuals in this film are stunning, if a little gratuitous. Also, much to my relief, the director rediscovered the steady-cam for fight scenes rather than the shaky camera-work that I found so annoying in ‘Batman Begins.’ The fistfights are short and punctuated, with ‘kapow’ ‘wop’ style effects, making them more realistic than protracted scenes that are common in other action dramas. The pyrotechnic effects are truly explosive (if you’ll pardon the pun)… I could argue this as a good point or a bad point, depending on personal tastes. For me, there was a little too much ‘boom.’ There are also some horrific injuries on display in this film, perhaps not for the squeamish. Frankly, I was slightly concerned that this film was dubbed ‘12A’ and not the ‘15’ or ‘18’ that would have been appropriate.
‘The Dark Knight’ doesn’t have the same broody gothic mood as ‘Batman Begins,’ and it could be argued that Heath Ledger’s performance carries the movie against improbable odds. It could also be argued that a more scissor-happy editor could have improved the film with no ill effects, or that the direction could have done with a little more consistency of atmosphere. However, all in all, The Dark Knight is an entertaining, if highly disturbing, action movie. The characters make it all worth watching, carrying a plot that would not carry itself. I wouldn’t recommend it for children, but if you enjoy the darker side of action movies, you will probably like The Dark Knight.
I will immediately state the one thing I loved most about this film. Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker captures the insanity, psychopathy and genius of the role perfectly, and his anarchistic actions make for a disturbing, but highly skilled performance. The Joker has a shrewd mind and plenty of confidence, without cockiness. He always has a way out, which makes him a terrifying villain. The voice and facial expressions that Ledger gives to this character show an almost reptilian coldness, and his constant lip-smacking is disgusting, and perfect, all at the same time. Ledger’s Joker is one of the best antagonists I have seen in a very long while.
But Ledger is just the best of a brilliant bunch. Christian Bale acts rich jet setter and mysterious vigilante with equal competence, maintaining his acting standards from ‘Batman Begins’. Gary Oldman’s quiet, contemplative police officer, Gordon, says all that he needs to say, without needing to bully. Oldman brings across integrity, with Gordon’s understanding that while Batman’s vigilante justice is not pretty, it is sometimes necessary. Aaron Eckhart plays the honest good-guy, Harvey Dent; the prosecutor who’s determined to put the villains behind bars, and make sure that Gotham no longer need the vigilante. Harvey has some tough times in the film, and from start to finish, Eckhart’s performance is believable, strong and evocative.
Then there are the less major roles, played by equally leading actors. Michael Caine returns as faithful butler, Alfred. With steadfast loyalty and quirky (very British) humour, Alfred plays guide, conscience and aide. Even with limited screen time, Michael Caine has excellent screen presence. Then there’s Lucius Fox, played by Morgan Freeman, another fantastic actor playing a minor role. The intelligent manager acts as guiding hand and moral voice for Batman and Bruce Wayne, and I don’t ever recall seeing Morgan Freeman act anything less than brilliantly.
Unfortunately I have to say that the female actors in this film were either less inspiring or simply outclassed. I was not overly impressed by Maggie Gyllenhaal or Monique Curnen, although both gave competent performances… they were simply in a movie with too much male talent.
The characters of this film were good enough to make a slightly meandering plot highly watchable. But while the plot is occasionally haphazard, in a way it mirrors the Joker’s desire for anarchy as he causes havoc in Gotham. My major criticism of the plot is that there is little by way of an overriding arc, and the movie seems almost split in two by one scene. The borderline was slightly too abrupt, so that it seemed that the plot was over, but the movie showed no signs of finishing.
However, haphazard and chaotic as the overall plot was, the individual plot elements captured some incredible scenes of fear and tension. Many of these sequences would have made excellent shorts on their own. They also show people forced into making difficult choices. The Joker’s calculated scheming makes people show the horrible side of human nature, as well as the more hopeful one.
In terms of filming, many of the visuals in this film are stunning, if a little gratuitous. Also, much to my relief, the director rediscovered the steady-cam for fight scenes rather than the shaky camera-work that I found so annoying in ‘Batman Begins.’ The fistfights are short and punctuated, with ‘kapow’ ‘wop’ style effects, making them more realistic than protracted scenes that are common in other action dramas. The pyrotechnic effects are truly explosive (if you’ll pardon the pun)… I could argue this as a good point or a bad point, depending on personal tastes. For me, there was a little too much ‘boom.’ There are also some horrific injuries on display in this film, perhaps not for the squeamish. Frankly, I was slightly concerned that this film was dubbed ‘12A’ and not the ‘15’ or ‘18’ that would have been appropriate.
‘The Dark Knight’ doesn’t have the same broody gothic mood as ‘Batman Begins,’ and it could be argued that Heath Ledger’s performance carries the movie against improbable odds. It could also be argued that a more scissor-happy editor could have improved the film with no ill effects, or that the direction could have done with a little more consistency of atmosphere. However, all in all, The Dark Knight is an entertaining, if highly disturbing, action movie. The characters make it all worth watching, carrying a plot that would not carry itself. I wouldn’t recommend it for children, but if you enjoy the darker side of action movies, you will probably like The Dark Knight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)