Transformers (2007) August 28, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 3 commentsDirected by: Michael Bay
The movie-toy tie-in is a lucrative part of Hollywood and one which can often end up generating a large proportion of the back-end revenue. There’s almost no doubt that movies are produced, green lighted, even conceived because of the potential money to be made from the seemingly loose pockets of parents with whining children. It’s an age-old process now, and one which we’re even seeing turned on its head by movies such as Bratz (a popular toy line, now turned into a live action kid’s movie). But girly dolls aside, surely there’s a whole raft of popular toy material with potential for a big-screen outing?
Enter Transformers – a highly successful range of toys from Hasbro, which spawned equally successful animated television series and Marvel comic books during the 80’s, as well as occupying the floors of children’s bedrooms around the globe. It’s taken twenty years to evolve into the live action form seen here, mainly due to the enormity of the challenge in producing the kind of wildly over-the-top action sequences that fans would demand. Luckily, Hollywood already has a go-to guy for wildly over-the-top action: big budget maestro, Michael Bay.
The story opens with Sam Witwicky eagerly going out to buy his first car – a decision which turns out to be much bigger than he bargained for. The car he ends up with seems to have a life of its own, but as Sam quickly finds out, that’s because it actually does have a life of its own. His car is a transforming robot named Bumblebee - part of a team of robots from a distant planet called the Autobots. They are on earth looking for the All-spark, an alien cube with infinite power to give life to inanimate objects. Unfortunately for the Autobots, their fierce enemies the Decpeticons have arrived on earth too, lead by the evil Megatron. Now the Autobots (and Sam) are caught in a race to find the All-spark first, or else face the possibility of Megatron using its power for the ultimate evil.
The plot is there, but as is often the case with summer blockbuster action flicks, it only serves as a device to put people in gunfights, car chases and, in this instance, amidst the long-standing war between two robotic races. Quality of acting is another area the big budget action-er will sometimes forgo in favour of filling the screen with explosions. This movie is helped by a strong central performance from Shia LaBeouf who doesn’t have to express much in the way of emotion, but does provide a witty aside from the frenzied pacing of the narrative.
In fact, if there’s one aspect of the film that really surprised me, it was how much focus there was on the humour. Not that Michael Bay is averse to throwing banter into his movies (see: the Bad Boys series, for example), but while I knew actors like Anthony Anderson would be in there solely to provide humorous folly, I didn’t expect the robots themselves to be as sarcastic or conversational as they are. Only Optimus Prime sticks to the ‘robotic’ dialect, delivering his trademark phrases with no hint of irony: “Autobots, roll out!”.
Given the current state of CG technology, it feels as if Transformers couldn’t have been made any earlier (in a live-action form at least) and it’s true that the effects are astounding, with the simple snap-and-click technology of the toys being replaced by the most elaborate transforming mechanisms ever seen. There is almost endless detail in the robot designs, but maybe more importantly, they stand-up well next to the human characters and real-life settings.
Of course, any film that makes a play for this genre is setting itself up for a fall from over-observant viewers who will question the logic of every decision or action. Transformers deals with a unique sense of scale – a car turns into a 4-storey robot – as well as numerous other examples of typical ridiculousness (the cube’s ‘travel mode’ gives a whole new meaning to compactness). It’s mindless entertainment though, so you’ve got to be prepared to go along with it. My main problem was with the way a youthful cast was shoehorned in, not really through LaBeouf who is legitimately involved, but certainly the signal analyst and computer hacker characters of Rachael Taylor and Anthony Anderson, who would never have been allowed to work on such a high-security Government assignment.
Taking into account the amount of concern that was expressed at Bay’s hiring, I can only hope that people reassess their knee-jerk reactions after the seeing the final product. This film was never going to be a piece of deep emotional material – it works so much better as a loud, brash, rip-roaring action spectacular. And it certainly lives up to that. Give it the leeway it requires and this movie will provide you with a guaranteed visual spectacle and some suitably pitched humour. It’s the very definition of a big-screen movie, so if you can stand the running time (an admittedly overlong 144 minutes), then get yourself to a cinema and enjoy some giant robots knocking ten bells out of each other. Because how often do you get to see that?
Flushed Away (2006) August 25, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , 1 comment so farDirected by: David Bowers & Sam Fell
The third and final feature outing from a collaboration between DreamWorks and Aardman animation, Flushed Away proved to be not quite enough of a success to keep the American studio happy, leaving no choice but for the companies to go their separate ways. Realistically, the two had different interests from the outset; DreamWorks wanting to produce more wholly CG animated flicks, while Aardman wished to maintain their stop-motion clay sensibility. It was these conflicting ideals that finally meshed into this story of rats, toads and adventure, all set in the sewers of London.
Our protagonist is Roddy, an upper class pet mouse whose world is turned upside-down when he is flushed down the toilet by a squatting wild rat named Sid. Determined to find a way back to his home and his comfortable way of life, Roddy elicits the help of Rita, an outgoing scavenger who lives in the sewers with her large, bustling family. But Rita’s help doesn’t come free, and Roddy soon finds himself mixed up in a rivalry between his new friend and the villainous Toad, who wishes to wipe out the rat population and claim ownership of the sewers for himself.
The first interesting point to note is the mix of styles used to create this movie. While previous features Chicken Run and Wallace & Gromit had incorporated elements of CG, this is the first Aardman animation to be created entirely in the digital world, although they haven’t entirely succumbed to the limitlessness of the medium. Instead, the classic clay character design has remained, which means plenty of big eyes, curled-over brows and wide mouths populate this world of creatures. Generally, it works quite well, even if there is a distinct difference between doing something in computers and shooting it using real models, you quickly stop thinking about the tools behind the picture.
The reason for making this film in CG was apparently down to the amount of water the story was required to use – a very difficult element to produce in stop-motion. The background and set design, including water, does benefit greatly from the choice of production method and there’s plenty of fine detail that may have been lost on crafting actual models.
Voice acting, a big part of any animated film, is done very well by a cast of mainly British stars including Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen, Bill Nighy and Andy Serkis. I’m glad Aardman didn’t bow to pressure to include a whole raft of Americans since the film works very well in its London setting, and the voices are chosen perfectly to fit the characters.
The film is also quite funny in parts, which is something that this particular genre often thinks it does very well, without actually achieving it. Sure, it still has its fair share of dud jokes, or gags that are a bit too ‘Simpsons’ in nature, but I found myself enjoying this movie much more than many of its recent US counterparts (Happy Feet [review], Ice Age 2 [review], Shrek 3 [review]) which all failed in the humour department. I really hate to say that the success of this script is down to ‘a British sense of humour’, but unfortunately there’s no denying that this is what makes it rise above the rest. Only when it loses sight of this strength does the movie slip into relying on typical US animated TV-style jokes or stereotypes.
Which, unfortunately, also leads to the film’s biggest drawback: its inherent Britishness. I’m not saying that British productions can’t have success outside of our shores, but Flushed Away contains quite a few jokes and themes (lots of football stuff, for example) that might fall flat on a non-UK audience, if not alienate them slightly from the film. It shouldn’t be a problem, but judging by its box office performance, it obviously is.
For me, this film was quite a pleasant surprise. I’m not keen on the almost overwhelming number of CG animated kids movies that get released these days, plus it’s a market dominated by US productions, with the odd entry such as Valiant (a UK production) proving to be very disappointing. This, on the other hand, is an amusing and exciting tale, told with flair through good direction and decent voice acting. But with DreamWorks going home to their comfortable Shrek franchise, and Aardman set on returning to stop-motion features, it looks as if Flushed Away will forever remain the ugly duckling in a genre full of great-looking, but ultimately vapid, swans.
Crank (2006) August 22, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
Some would say that action movies have gone soft in recent years, but the financial pressure to appeal to a mass audience (usually teenagers) means studios are often more concerned with securing an age-appropriate certificate. Look at the furore over the recent PG-13 rated Die Hard 4.0 (Live Free or Die Hard) – since when did John McClane need censoring? But every so often we get a filmmaker (or two) willing to buck the trend and fill a much needed gap in modern cinema: the 18-rated action flick.
In this story, Jason Statham plays Chev Chelios, a professional assassin who’s thinking about giving up the life of killing and retiring to normality with his current girlfriend, Eve (Amy Smart). But before he can, rival gang member Verona injects him with ‘the Beijing Cocktail’: a vicious poison that gradually slows your heart rate down until you die. Under advice from a doctor friend, Chev is forced to go to any length to keep his heart rate up and his adrenalin pumping, while he hunts down those who have sentenced him, and violently enacts his revenge.
Crank is no work of high art, but it never professes to be as it spends its compact 87-minute running time speeding through the streets of New York, dodging bullets, crashing cars, and getting into numerous bloody fist-fights. It’s the literal translation of ‘adrenaline-fuelled’, as Chev races around doing any amount of drugs and leaving a giant path of destruction in his wake.
The film works hard to keep its energy up and while fast-cutting, blur effects and music video influenced editing and may seem like obvious techniques to use in a relentless action piece such as this, they actually have real meaning here; giving the audience a chance to experience how Chev is feeling. The cinematography can be a little jarring at first, with the constant ‘skipping’ effects and hand-held camera work, but you quickly settle into it and go along for the ride. Meanwhile, the whole adventure is set to a near-constant rock soundtrack which acts as a blaring background to a movie that is already pretty in-your-face.
Directors Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor also wrote the film, although their script isn’t going to win any awards – a mixture of swearing and “I’m gonna get you” dialogue – it certainly fits the bill of mindless entertainment. Same goes for the performances: where bad guys act nasty, girls act clueless and Jason Statham acts tough which, let’s face it, is the reason you hire Jason Statham in the first place.
There’s an unabashed side to this movie whereby it knows exactly what it is and what it’s here to do. Just like Joe Carnahan’s Smokin’ Aces [review], as long as the audience escape into the film’s ridiculous concepts and over the top action sequences, then it has done its job. And maybe that’s something to commend rather than condemn – the explicit mixture of drugs, violence and shouting that cumulates in the hard 18 rating. As long as you’re aware of the content, then there’s no reason why you can’t enjoy it. After all, it’s only a movie.
The Simpsons Movie (2007) August 19, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , 2 commentsDirected by: David Silverman
There’s no denying the influence that The Simpsons has in modern culture. They are an unavoidable force of celebrity and you’d be hard pushed to find anyone who didn’t recognise the unique design of the characters. With 18 seasons under its belt, the show no doubt deserves its unrivalled success, but after almost two decades of reigning the small screen, the world’s most famous family have made the leap to theatres – the only question: is it too late?
Announcement of the long-awaited Simpsons movie brought with it a mixed reaction from fans. Many felt that the show had run its course years ago, with recent seasons merely a pale imitation of those that came before. While others noted the fact that, by this point, there is surely no story that the show hasn’t touched, making it decidedly difficult to come up with a tale significant enough to warrant a theatrical outing. All their concerns were valid and even if you don’t agree with them on all points, there’s certainly something to be said for this movie being 10 years too late.
Despite the apprehension, there is a solid plotline to the film. When Homer gains a new pet pig, a series of events leads to him turning Springfield into an ecological danger zone by dumping waste in the local lake. The town suddenly finds itself contained under a giant dome by the government, while the Simpson’s escape to make a new life in Alaska. But when they learn of plans to have their hometown wiped off the map, the family must overcome their differences to save their old friends in Springfield.
The story does contain some flashes of originality as well as a beneath-the-surface comment about modern society’s attitudes toward the environment. Ultimately however, it hits all the familiar bases: Bart renounces Homer as a bad father, Marge questions her marriage and Lisa is infatuated by a perfect crush. Hardly breaking new ground. The only Simpson who really gets to breathe is Maggie – her transition from needy baby who falls down a lot in the early seasons, to the confident, sarcastic character of today, is fantastic.
Anyone who saw the trailers may well have seen Moe proudly presenting the Simpsons movie as “in 2D!” while that famous movie voice-over called it a film that “dared to be ugly”. In fact, the finished product is neither of these things. The vibrant colour palate of the Simpson’s universe plays nicely on the big screen, while the heavy use of 3D modelling effects like those seen in Matt Groening’s other animated production, Futurama, give some sequences a distinctly 3D feel.
It’s almost needless to say that the voice acting is spot on, as all members of the main cast (Dan Castellaneta, Harry Shearer, Hank Azaria, Nancy Cartwright, Julie Kavner and Yeardley Smith) have been performing these characters for years. It doesn’t resort to leaning on a needless amount of celebrity cameos either, with only a couple from punk outfit Green Day and Oscar winner Tom Hanks making brief appearances.
More important than all of this though, is the humour. And the film certainly contains that, managing to sustain an impressive joke per minute ratio that equals that of the series. However, and it may just be my comedy taste, but I actually found myself disliking the big set-piece gags and instead enjoying the slightly smaller dialogue jokes that fill the spaces. One such scene – Homer vs. the wrecking ball – is followed by a really nice line from one of the truck drivers, which was no doubt lost to opening weekend audiences under a fit of howls from a sequence that everyone saw in the trailer anyway.
And that’s really the film’s biggest problem: a lack of outstandingly funny moments. There are plenty of sly gags and self-referential material (including Homer berating a cinema audience in a move that seems almost too easy for The Simpsons), but nowhere near enough stand-out classic moments – no, not even the ‘Spider-Pig’ material, which has lost a lot in its over-exposure. Some of its funniest moments come from gags that might be considered too adult for TV, but ironically, in the UK at least, the certificate of the film is the same as the TV show: a family-friendly PG.
So here’s the deal: it is funny. Far funnier than most animated movies probably. But what it doesn’t quite manage to do is to live up to the reputation the show sets for itself, while sticking too heavily to the ‘safe’ format of the series to try and ensure success. For me, the reason the South Park movie works is because they used the opportunity to take the series one step further than they could on the small screen. Here, we get what has been all-too-often described as an extended episode. But fear not Simpsons die-hards, the film is not the horrible mess prophesised on its announcement. A little late coming? Maybe. Too late? Never.
Flightplan (2005) August 15, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Recently Viewed , add a commentDirected by: Robert Schwentke
.jpg)
This airborne thriller stars Jodie Foster as a mother who may, or may not, have lost her 6-year-old girl on board a flight from Germany to New York. After recently losing her husband, Kyle Pratt is flying the body back to the United States for burial, but things quickly get out of hand when Kyle’s daughter Julia suddenly disappears. With nobody on board having any recollection of even seeing the girl, Kyle’s story, and sanity, are called into question as she becomes increasingly distressed. Put under the guard of air marshal Carson (Peter Sarsgaard), she must convince him that her daughter exists, or risk losing the only family she has left.
I’ll admit that it sounds a little stupid, ridiculous even, but it’s worth pointing out that the plot set-up is not this film’s problem. First of all, let’s deal with the positives. The performances from a central cast consisting of Jodie Foster, Peter Sarsgaard and Sean Bean are all perfectly fine, if straying into slightly melodramatic territory at times, while the dialogue plays perfectly naturally from each character. Director Robert Schwentke works hard to keep the claustrophobia effect on the plane high, but in reality it’s actually a very big plane, made even larger by the various service and maintenance areas we get to see. Things never feel too tight, but the cinematography itself is interesting enough considering the limited number of locations.
While the plot summary here is not giving anything away that isn’t in the trailer, there’s obviously slightly more to it than first meets the eye – which is, expectedly, the reason someone would choose to watch this movie in the first place. Given that information, it’s interesting that the film takes so long to reach the point that you know is coming. Then, when the story finally reveals its primary twist, the story completely changes focus and everything quickly falls apart.
It’s a real shame. For a short time I was actually quite enjoying the way things were going; with Foster’s character having to go to increasing risk in order to prove that she isn’t as delusional as she appears. If the movie could’ve continued on down this psychological route, where the audience is kept in the dark, then maybe this film would be a whole lot better. As it is, the main reason for watching this movie is also its biggest failing. Plus, to add insult to injury, there are also some horribly handled scenes (including a number involving two Arab men on the plane) which are never properly explained.
Flightplan is a film that manages to tread the line between being completely awful and intriguingly entertaining. It leans to the former, but never falls into either bracket categorically, while there’s certainly an element of each to the narrative which contains some interesting set-up in the early stages, only to ruin its good intentions later by throwing more conveniences and unlikely coincidences at a plot than I think I’ve ever seen. If you don’t expect too much, and you’ve got a good tolerance for Hollywood-licence, then it’s not all bad. If you’re the picky type on the other hand, stay well away – you’ll be tearing holes in this one.
