Driver. Cop. Killer. Those are the actual character names given to Dwayne Johnson,Billy Bob Thorton and Oliver Jackson-Cohen's respective roles in 'Faster,' a revenge film from 'Soul Food' director George Tillman Jr. that is rotten with placeholders. A cynic could say it's because Tony and Joe Gayton's script is a little half-baked, but the more likely explanation is that the two Gaytons thought themselves particularly clever for cutting to the chase of what people expect from an action flick about a recently liberated man (Johnson) who intends to be the judge, jury and executioner of the men who killed his bank-robbing brother.
They are not particularly clever, though they are however reliable when it does come to delivering what people expect. If you've seen even a few revenge films in your time, you'll know every beat of 'Faster' before it arrives on screen. You'll grasp concepts and key plot points well in advance of when Tillman Jr. decides to spell it out for everyone-- and spell it out he will, for 'Faster' boasts an almost commendable lack of subtlety throughout. And yet, even though this is a highly derivative thriller that telegraphs its moves, it's not quite a waste of time. There's a reason Dwayne Johnson has successfully transitioned from being a primetime wrestler to a legitimate movie star, and it's the same reason this otherwise forgettable film is tolerable: charisma.
There are few actors in the business who can sooth a broad array of audience members the same way Johnson can, but there's just something about his presence that makes it possible. Tillman Jr. is well aware of this, which is why 'Faster' is a surprisingly wholesome man-on-a-warpath flick. Sure, the film is rated R and Johnson's Driver is filled with bloodlust, but don't take those as indicators that a bloodbath is in store. The violence here is, relative to the genre niche, is actually quiet timid. There are no lingering looks at gnarly exit wounds or excessive shows of force. Instead, 'Faster' is all about Driver crossing a name off his bucket list and moving onto the next one as quickly as possible.
In theory, at least. In practice, 'Faster' opens with a pedal-to-the-floor mindset but doesn't take long before it eases on the brakes to deliver clunky and often redundant exposition explaining its various characters' backstories and personalities. It's as though the film isn't confident in its ability to keep everyone up to speed naturally, so it has to go out of its way to make everything as clear as possible. The regrettable part is that it does just fine without having to parrot back information or character quirks, which makes this behavior particularly grating. If your screenplay isn't going to bother to give its core characters proper names; if it's going to pretend like it's a lean, mean body built for quick and dirty revenge, isn't anything that gets in the way of that going to be counterintuitive? One would think so.
Yet even with all of the slow patches and billboards broadcasting plot from the side of the road, 'Faster' more or less works. On the more side, it's got a charismatic cast capable of overcoming all of the script issues (with particular kudos going to Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje for playing against the stoic, enigmatic persona he cultivated on 'Oz' and 'Lost') and an obvious set of good intentions. On the less side, however, Tillman Jr.'s film is creatively unambitious (even Clint Mansell's score is a wasted opportunity), a little too by-the-numbers (the only unique character is Jackson-Cohen's eccentric Killer, and even he takes a while to warm to) and shies away from making bold decisions that would satisfy those of us hoping for something new or refreshing in the revenge niche.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
At the end of the last Harry Potter film, this series began to succumb to a bad case of what the industry calls the "Matrix Revolutions". This is suffered by films that owe their existence purely to a marketing franchise momentum that has long since outlived the original creative excitement. The chief symptom is a mythically elaborate, spectacular, apocalyptic and fantastically dull confrontation between good and evil, about whose representatives there is nothing substantial left to learn. The Harry Potter brand was evidently set to run a grim headless-chicken marathon right through its two remaining films to the bitter end.
But it has to be said that now there are weird and, for me, rather unexpected signs of life. Simply by not being set in Hogwarts, this movie feels looser, freer. Just by not imposing on the viewer the endless routine of coming back for a new term, witnessing those cute moving portraits in the wood panelling and encountering one new British character actor in the gallery of familiar British character actors on the teaching staff – all of which had become a tiring tradition in the opening 20 minutes of a Harry Potter film – this one can breathe more easily. It saves it, just a little, from the feeling of deja vu.
DH1, as no one with the smallest self-respect is calling it, is still weighed down with the usual fidelity to the fanbase. There are some impenetrable plot quirks, and it carries the usual mythical baggage, but more nimbly than usual. As a non-fan, I found myself carrying out a thought experiment: what if you had never seen any of the previous films and knew little or nothing about them? Might you not be intrigued by the bizarre story of three teenagers, precariously possessed of magical powers, suddenly disappearing and reappearing in different landscapes, who are making a desperate attempt at survival, and who are anxiously coming to terms with the status rivalry and sexual tension between them? The answer is yes, sort of.
The film begins with an entertaining "conference of evil" chaired by the nasally-challenged Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), discussing how and where to snatch our hero, in which Voldemort's scornful gaze alights on the uneasy Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs), depriving him of his wand, making this implement's Freudian implications more obvious than ever: later Hermione (Emma Watson) damages Harry's and he crossly asks to use hers. Voldemort does everything but press a Dr Evil-style button for Lucius to fall through an open trapdoor.
Potter, played by Daniel Radcliffe – once as moon-faced and round as his specs, now rangy and wiry – must make what amounts to an escape across open country, accompanied by Hermione and Ron (Rupert Grint). Watson's Hermione is still very girlish and solemn, but Grint's Ron now looks adult, slightly grizzled and bucolic. Grint's very grownup air of resignation to his second-in-command status is interesting. It is a long way from the silly face he was always having to pull in the first film.
Almost devoid of allies and weapons, the trio now have to destroy the Horcruxes, which enforce Voldemort's terrible power, and they must uncover the secret of the Deathly Hallows, a term the audience must wait until the end of the film to understand. Looking up "hallow" as a noun in the dictionary won't help.
Just as before, there is a good 90-minute story visible inside this highly decorated circus elephant of a film. An experimental, low-budget version of Harry Potter (and what unthinkable commercial heresy that would be) might feature only Harry, Ron and Hermione roaming in various Beckettian wildernesses, seedy urban bars and deserted Orwellian ministerial corridors, arguing ceaselessly among themselves. And yet it is only when these three are on their own that this film comes to life: especially in the eerie Forest of Dean or a gloomy Shaftesbury Avenue cafe in central London where they have a magic-wand shootout with two assassins.
The most striking moment comes when Ron is tormented by a paranoid, jealous fantasy of Hermione's passionate desire for Harry. It is quite a gamey scene. Something human and real is happening there, a sense of coming to the dramatic point, at last. Does Ron suspect in his heart that Hermione would prefer to play something other than Quidditch?
Well, after Lord of the Rings, we're used to the epic that ends over and over again, and when this series finally does, at the end of the next film, some retrospective shape and meaning may be conferred on all that has gone before. I have become resigned to the Harry Potter movies having only as much interest and power as one of the rides in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter theme park. They will be efficiently made, interesting-looking entertainment. Anything more would be magic.
But it has to be said that now there are weird and, for me, rather unexpected signs of life. Simply by not being set in Hogwarts, this movie feels looser, freer. Just by not imposing on the viewer the endless routine of coming back for a new term, witnessing those cute moving portraits in the wood panelling and encountering one new British character actor in the gallery of familiar British character actors on the teaching staff – all of which had become a tiring tradition in the opening 20 minutes of a Harry Potter film – this one can breathe more easily. It saves it, just a little, from the feeling of deja vu.
DH1, as no one with the smallest self-respect is calling it, is still weighed down with the usual fidelity to the fanbase. There are some impenetrable plot quirks, and it carries the usual mythical baggage, but more nimbly than usual. As a non-fan, I found myself carrying out a thought experiment: what if you had never seen any of the previous films and knew little or nothing about them? Might you not be intrigued by the bizarre story of three teenagers, precariously possessed of magical powers, suddenly disappearing and reappearing in different landscapes, who are making a desperate attempt at survival, and who are anxiously coming to terms with the status rivalry and sexual tension between them? The answer is yes, sort of.
The film begins with an entertaining "conference of evil" chaired by the nasally-challenged Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), discussing how and where to snatch our hero, in which Voldemort's scornful gaze alights on the uneasy Lucius Malfoy (Jason Isaacs), depriving him of his wand, making this implement's Freudian implications more obvious than ever: later Hermione (Emma Watson) damages Harry's and he crossly asks to use hers. Voldemort does everything but press a Dr Evil-style button for Lucius to fall through an open trapdoor.
Potter, played by Daniel Radcliffe – once as moon-faced and round as his specs, now rangy and wiry – must make what amounts to an escape across open country, accompanied by Hermione and Ron (Rupert Grint). Watson's Hermione is still very girlish and solemn, but Grint's Ron now looks adult, slightly grizzled and bucolic. Grint's very grownup air of resignation to his second-in-command status is interesting. It is a long way from the silly face he was always having to pull in the first film.
Almost devoid of allies and weapons, the trio now have to destroy the Horcruxes, which enforce Voldemort's terrible power, and they must uncover the secret of the Deathly Hallows, a term the audience must wait until the end of the film to understand. Looking up "hallow" as a noun in the dictionary won't help.
Just as before, there is a good 90-minute story visible inside this highly decorated circus elephant of a film. An experimental, low-budget version of Harry Potter (and what unthinkable commercial heresy that would be) might feature only Harry, Ron and Hermione roaming in various Beckettian wildernesses, seedy urban bars and deserted Orwellian ministerial corridors, arguing ceaselessly among themselves. And yet it is only when these three are on their own that this film comes to life: especially in the eerie Forest of Dean or a gloomy Shaftesbury Avenue cafe in central London where they have a magic-wand shootout with two assassins.
The most striking moment comes when Ron is tormented by a paranoid, jealous fantasy of Hermione's passionate desire for Harry. It is quite a gamey scene. Something human and real is happening there, a sense of coming to the dramatic point, at last. Does Ron suspect in his heart that Hermione would prefer to play something other than Quidditch?
Well, after Lord of the Rings, we're used to the epic that ends over and over again, and when this series finally does, at the end of the next film, some retrospective shape and meaning may be conferred on all that has gone before. I have become resigned to the Harry Potter movies having only as much interest and power as one of the rides in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter theme park. They will be efficiently made, interesting-looking entertainment. Anything more would be magic.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A Christmas Carol (2009)
A Christmas Carol is a slight step back from Robert Zemeckis’ 2007′s previous mo-cap spectacle Beowulf, but it’s also unquestionably far superior to his other christmas tale, The Polar Express. Express was Zemeckis’ first outing in the mo-cap world, and while it was an admirable effort, it was a fairly dull and lifeless experiment. A Christmas Carol, unlike Express, has much more of a satisfying heart and compelling journey at its core. It may not reach the level of entertainment that Zemeckis achieved with Beowulf, but there’s still here plenty to admire and enjoy.
The story is more or less the same: Scrooge is visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve to teach him a life lesson. Through this journey he will learn to appreciate family, life, and the true importance of Christmas. Scrooge will revisit his upbringing, the present time, and the future that awaits for him if he continues his life of isolation and cruelness.
From the set-up to the resolution, Zemeckis is faithful to everyone’s idea of what Charles Dickens‘ A Christmas Carol is all about. Zemeckis never strays far from the classic tale and hits every plot-point you expect. Even with making a fairly standard retelling, Zemeckis succeeds in crafting a refreshing and enjoyable take. There’s a major (and burdening) preconception with this tale: you know by the end Scrooge will inevitably turn to the jolly side, and Zemeckis manages to make you forget that throughout the entire run-time.
Where Zemeckis ultimately falters are the moments he strays away from his moody atmosphere and divulges into pure kid fluff. Why there needed to be a mini-Scrooge with a squeaky voice being chased by spiritual horses is a mystery I’ll never be understand. This sequence runs for, at the most, ten minutes, and it throws the film off balance. It isn’t cohesive with the tone Zemeckis wonderfully established early on and it just feels completely out of place. It’s a distraction that is tonally inconsistent and narratively useless. There’s a few theme park-esque moments like this, and they come off like studio notes clamoring for kids’ fun.
As for Zemeckis mo-cap, it’s still advancing. More minor details flourish in the design and (certain) characters are more thoroughly designed. Scrooge looks terrific in nearly every shot, and Jim Carrey‘s excellent performance makes Scrooge feel truly alive. Where the tech still falters is when it comes to women and children, who lack any distinguishable traits. They’re blank, inexpressive faces. Tiny Tim is not someone you end up caring about because he looks too cartoony and unworldly. This only applies to minor characters, but Tiny Tim and plenty of other characters aren’t up to the par that Zemeckis and his effects team masterfully achieved with Scrooge.
This isn’t exactly a Christmas classic, and it will most likely never be one. There’s superior tellings of A Christmas Carol, without a doubt, but that doesn’t make Zemeckis’ retelling is completely useless. When Zemeckis doesn’t have annoying theme park ride sequences on display, the film doesn’t stray too far from being something truly memorable. This may not have lived up to its fullest potential or its more notable moments, but A Christmas Carol is still a pleasant and enjoyable film that gets one nicely in the mood and spirit of Christmas.
Film:
Video: Similar to Beowulf and A Polar Express, A Christmas Carol looks beautiful on Blu-ray. All the colors pop lavishly and minor background details are even more apparent. Despite the film being mostly moody and dark, textures still standout. Scrooge’s wrinkles and movements are much more realistic and refined looking. If there’s any problem with the stunning images, it makes a few of the film’s less accomplished technical aspects more apparent. The lesser defined characters’ blandness are now a further distraction. But that’s a minor quibble in an overall excellent transfer.
Audio: The audio, like the the impeccable transfer, is top-notch. From the creeks in the floor boards to the bombastic blaring of ringing bells, it’s crisp and clear. Little noises, such as the floor boards, are perfectly handled. All the moments of dialog from the whispering to the yelling is flawless. You may find yourself of turning the volume down in the more louder moments of the film, but that’s just a sign of how solid the audio is
Special Features: Sadly, this is a bit of a barebones type of release. All the features here are very EPK-esque, outside of Zemeckis’ commentary track with a picture in picture behind-the-scenes video. If you know nothing about the process of motion-capture, you’ll find it informative and interesting to see the actors in action on set, but it’s a pretty standard commentary that’s not too detail oriented. The “Capturing A Christmas Carol” and “On Set with Sammy” is the pure fluff of the set. The deleted scenes are scarce, and as usual, not very interesting to watch; Zemeckis never explains why they were cut either. Bet on a double-dip down the line with far more extensive features.
The story is more or less the same: Scrooge is visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve to teach him a life lesson. Through this journey he will learn to appreciate family, life, and the true importance of Christmas. Scrooge will revisit his upbringing, the present time, and the future that awaits for him if he continues his life of isolation and cruelness.
From the set-up to the resolution, Zemeckis is faithful to everyone’s idea of what Charles Dickens‘ A Christmas Carol is all about. Zemeckis never strays far from the classic tale and hits every plot-point you expect. Even with making a fairly standard retelling, Zemeckis succeeds in crafting a refreshing and enjoyable take. There’s a major (and burdening) preconception with this tale: you know by the end Scrooge will inevitably turn to the jolly side, and Zemeckis manages to make you forget that throughout the entire run-time.
Where Zemeckis ultimately falters are the moments he strays away from his moody atmosphere and divulges into pure kid fluff. Why there needed to be a mini-Scrooge with a squeaky voice being chased by spiritual horses is a mystery I’ll never be understand. This sequence runs for, at the most, ten minutes, and it throws the film off balance. It isn’t cohesive with the tone Zemeckis wonderfully established early on and it just feels completely out of place. It’s a distraction that is tonally inconsistent and narratively useless. There’s a few theme park-esque moments like this, and they come off like studio notes clamoring for kids’ fun.
As for Zemeckis mo-cap, it’s still advancing. More minor details flourish in the design and (certain) characters are more thoroughly designed. Scrooge looks terrific in nearly every shot, and Jim Carrey‘s excellent performance makes Scrooge feel truly alive. Where the tech still falters is when it comes to women and children, who lack any distinguishable traits. They’re blank, inexpressive faces. Tiny Tim is not someone you end up caring about because he looks too cartoony and unworldly. This only applies to minor characters, but Tiny Tim and plenty of other characters aren’t up to the par that Zemeckis and his effects team masterfully achieved with Scrooge.
This isn’t exactly a Christmas classic, and it will most likely never be one. There’s superior tellings of A Christmas Carol, without a doubt, but that doesn’t make Zemeckis’ retelling is completely useless. When Zemeckis doesn’t have annoying theme park ride sequences on display, the film doesn’t stray too far from being something truly memorable. This may not have lived up to its fullest potential or its more notable moments, but A Christmas Carol is still a pleasant and enjoyable film that gets one nicely in the mood and spirit of Christmas.
Film:
Video: Similar to Beowulf and A Polar Express, A Christmas Carol looks beautiful on Blu-ray. All the colors pop lavishly and minor background details are even more apparent. Despite the film being mostly moody and dark, textures still standout. Scrooge’s wrinkles and movements are much more realistic and refined looking. If there’s any problem with the stunning images, it makes a few of the film’s less accomplished technical aspects more apparent. The lesser defined characters’ blandness are now a further distraction. But that’s a minor quibble in an overall excellent transfer.
Audio: The audio, like the the impeccable transfer, is top-notch. From the creeks in the floor boards to the bombastic blaring of ringing bells, it’s crisp and clear. Little noises, such as the floor boards, are perfectly handled. All the moments of dialog from the whispering to the yelling is flawless. You may find yourself of turning the volume down in the more louder moments of the film, but that’s just a sign of how solid the audio is
Special Features: Sadly, this is a bit of a barebones type of release. All the features here are very EPK-esque, outside of Zemeckis’ commentary track with a picture in picture behind-the-scenes video. If you know nothing about the process of motion-capture, you’ll find it informative and interesting to see the actors in action on set, but it’s a pretty standard commentary that’s not too detail oriented. The “Capturing A Christmas Carol” and “On Set with Sammy” is the pure fluff of the set. The deleted scenes are scarce, and as usual, not very interesting to watch; Zemeckis never explains why they were cut either. Bet on a double-dip down the line with far more extensive features.
The Last Airbender
Overall
The Film
Video Quality
Audio Quality
Supplemental Materials
The Film
It baffles me why they keep allowing M. Night Shyamalan to make films. This latest snoozer, The Last Airbender, is the writer/director’s live-action take on the successful Nickelodeon network animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender. It’s the story of a young boy named Aang (Noah Ringer) who is the latest in a long line of what are known as Avatars — these are beings who reincarnate when they die. They are the only ones in this world of nations divided among the elements, Air, Water, Fire, and Earth, who can bend all four of the elements to their will.
Asleep under the sea in a ball of ice for many years as a young child, the avatar never had the opportunity to learn to control all the other elements, only the air — all avatars must be airbenders. He has now come into a world where the Fire nation has begun to conquer and enslave all other nations and suppress the benders of other elements. With the help of a young, inexperienced waterbender, Katara (Nicola Peltz) and her brother Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), young Aang must fend off the Fire nation, learn his true power and return peace to the world.
It all sounds much more exciting than it actually is, because Shyamalan’s direction and awful script make The Last Airbender an unnecessarily laborious and downright pointless film. The fun and adventure that have made Avatar: The Last Airbender a successful animated series are absent here and replaced by some sort of attempt at high drama that fails miserably with clumsy dialogue and awful acting.
Video Quality
The AVC/MPEG-4 1080p encoding of The Last Airbender is superb, just as one would expect. Detail is crisp, the source is clean, flesh tones have a natural hue and blacks ore obsidian. There is a nice layer of grain that give the image a marked, film-like apperence despite all the high tech effects.
Audio Quality
The English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 soundtrack is an aggressive one with heavy use of the surround channels and deep, resounding low frequencies. Sounds whip around the room, voices drip with ambience and the dynamics are incredibly wide. Dialogue is clean and highs sound good.
Supplemental Materials
Supplements aren’t necessarily a windfall, but it is nice to see everything provided in 1080p and a decent picture-in-picture mode as well. The featurettes are on the lighthearted side, but they do offer up some good information on the film’s production and the background of the Avatar franchise.
The supplements provided with this release are:
Overall:
The Film
Video Quality
Audio Quality
Supplemental Materials
The Film
It baffles me why they keep allowing M. Night Shyamalan to make films. This latest snoozer, The Last Airbender, is the writer/director’s live-action take on the successful Nickelodeon network animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender. It’s the story of a young boy named Aang (Noah Ringer) who is the latest in a long line of what are known as Avatars — these are beings who reincarnate when they die. They are the only ones in this world of nations divided among the elements, Air, Water, Fire, and Earth, who can bend all four of the elements to their will.
Asleep under the sea in a ball of ice for many years as a young child, the avatar never had the opportunity to learn to control all the other elements, only the air — all avatars must be airbenders. He has now come into a world where the Fire nation has begun to conquer and enslave all other nations and suppress the benders of other elements. With the help of a young, inexperienced waterbender, Katara (Nicola Peltz) and her brother Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), young Aang must fend off the Fire nation, learn his true power and return peace to the world.
It all sounds much more exciting than it actually is, because Shyamalan’s direction and awful script make The Last Airbender an unnecessarily laborious and downright pointless film. The fun and adventure that have made Avatar: The Last Airbender a successful animated series are absent here and replaced by some sort of attempt at high drama that fails miserably with clumsy dialogue and awful acting.
Video Quality
The AVC/MPEG-4 1080p encoding of The Last Airbender is superb, just as one would expect. Detail is crisp, the source is clean, flesh tones have a natural hue and blacks ore obsidian. There is a nice layer of grain that give the image a marked, film-like apperence despite all the high tech effects.
Audio Quality
The English DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 soundtrack is an aggressive one with heavy use of the surround channels and deep, resounding low frequencies. Sounds whip around the room, voices drip with ambience and the dynamics are incredibly wide. Dialogue is clean and highs sound good.
Supplemental Materials
Supplements aren’t necessarily a windfall, but it is nice to see everything provided in 1080p and a decent picture-in-picture mode as well. The featurettes are on the lighthearted side, but they do offer up some good information on the film’s production and the background of the Avatar franchise.
The supplements provided with this release are:
- Avatar Annotations — View the film with picture-in-picture interviews and behind the scenes footage over selected scenes in the movie.
- Discovering The Last Airbender (1.78:1; 1080p/24)
- Siege of the North (1.78:1; 1080p/24; 0:18.32) — The filmmakers discuss working on the film’s big siege of the Northern Water City.
- Origins of the Avatar (1.78:1; 1080p/24; 0:07.18) — The creators of Avatar: The Last Airbender animated series discuss their inspirations for creating the show.
- Katara for a Day (1.78:1; 1080p/24; 0:05.37) –The young actress, Nicola Peltz, is shown behind the scenes going about her day.
- Deleted Scenes (2.35:1; 1080p/24):
- Talk to the Dead
- Water Teaches Us Emotion
- Water tribe Battle
- Field Ablaze
- Gag Reel (1.78:1; 1080p/24; 0:04.29)
- DVD
- Digital Copy
Overall:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)