The trailer for this most recent film version of Ben-Hur was just awful. CGI mess showing us what’s wrong with Hollywood. Time to see whether my fears were justified.
Ben-Hur is the classic tale of revenge and chariot racing in the Roman world originally brought to us in a novel by Lew Wallace. Judah Ben-Hur is a Jewish aristocrat in Jerusalem at the time of Christ who is betrayed and placed into slavery by rubbing friend of his. Come to think of it, it really is a lot like that Ridley Scott film. You know, Blade Runner.
Seriously, why is it that certain actors just feel unmemorable?
The story was most famously adapted in 1959 into a movie directed by William Wyler. That version 1 a record 11 Oscars (like that ever meant anything) and included the single most impressive action scene ever committed to film, a glorious chariot race.
While the link is one of them must see sword and sandal pictures, it is actually the first film version of the story. Before it to silent versions existed which were apparently very good.
So maybe a remake in 2016 is that sacrilegious.
In some regards, in fact, this movie is an improvement on the 50s version.
While I’d or slow pace in some epics, I understand that the 1959 Ben-Hur’s near four-hour runtime is hard to stomach for some. This iteration is more manageable for modern audiences in terms of the speed of events.
Connected to this is the film structure which allows for an opening action sequence to get the crowd pumped rather than a long close-up of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the old version. CGI is all around, but at least there is some inciting violence.
What they really mean an upgrade on was the real relationship between Ben-Hur and Masala, the Roman who betrays him. We now care about the latter and really believe that there is a loss for both sides. This idea of love and enemies is a much better connection to the Christian centre of this film.
Yes, this film is Christian. In this movie Jesus does appear. I have no sympathy with people who will be offended by this. There is however a substantial difference in the betrayals of Christ in both versions.
50s Jesus is always shown with his back to the camera and with no lines providing with a sense of gravitas moving with the times, the 2016 Jesus seems more human and shown in full as a man. Both versions are great and show different sides of the Messiah will stop its up to who you prefer.
There are a couple of good editing months to. Not much to say on it, but it is another positive.
So a good Ben-Hur? Well, I don’t know…
The action does get quite exciting in the way’s shot, but it is hampered by truly terrible computer-generated imagery. Stuff that would make 2000s TV shake its head.
The majority of this film’s problems are in its aesthetics. The digital photography is so clean that looks like we are watching people play Romans rather than Romans being Romans.
Charlton Heston played the title character in the old version and that man, for all his flaws, could do unbridled charisma. Whoever it is in this movie, I can’t remember who it is, just count. Nobody except Morgan Freeman in a supporting role (giving completely unnecessary narration occasionally) seems to have the look and gravitas to feature in an epic.
There are other problems I Get into without going into spoiler territory. Suffice to say though, Ben-Hur ends with a pop song over the CGI closing credits in 2016!
Recommended Scenario: If you think you can put up with what is described in that last paragraph, this movie may be for you.
Laika is yet another animation studio which has been producing an output of brilliant films for years, apparently, and I am only now watching one of them. Sometimes it feels efficient, self a critic!
Kubo and the Two Strings tells the story of a boy, Kubo, who uses his guitar to summon spells and samurai era Japan. He is forced to go on a journey to find his father’s armour and sword, so you might protect himself from his Grandfather, the evil Moon King.
Goodness this movie is beautiful!
Everyone’s been going on about how is the best film of the year. They say it’s the most perfectly executed movie ever made. I think such criticism with a grain of salt. I’m of the feeling that many, when they come across a great film, an animated film particularly, overemphasise their opinions for two reasons. One because they want to convince the uninitiated animation is not just kids’ stuff. To because of the stouter for when they would only watch animated films.
The mean these people are wrong. I often being among them. This reaction is paired often with one of the magnificent Studio Ghibli Animes and yes, some of their work is among the greatest cinema ever created.
So is this?
First of all, Laika specialises in puppet stop motion animation. They are bloody good at it! Every motion, every colour, every character bursts forth with furious and extraordinary life.
Next is those characters. All of them are brilliantly created. All have personalities I can relate to. Heck, even Kubo who a lesser movie would come across as some sort of generic, wonder-bread protagonist, is a joy to behold here.
The world’s characters inhabit is akin to the world of Ghibli. Not only is set in mediaeval Japan and contains a great deal of magic, but the people in this world feel like they live, work and died here they are part of the setting and the setting remains part of them. A key trait in at Studio Ghibli film.
In the first two-thirds of the film, I was floored by the animation, entranced by the setup and thrilled with the adventuring characters!
Then the third act happened. The third act is a tricky thing to pull off in most films, particularly in Ghibli films which this is clearly emulating. However, the reveal of some of the twists in this film’s closing third is so obvious and emotionally uninvolving that it makes the cryptic and technically brilliant final moments of the movie lack potency.
Nadine this is one of those movies I have to watch twice to fully get. That was something I expected considering how hiked up this film was. If anything, though, it approves the film.
It means I can watch it again.
Recommended Scenario: If you love beautiful animation and a great adventure with an ending which makes you think.
Wanna hear something crazy? One of the best actors of all time (and one of my icons), Viggo Mortensen, has not been in a film I’ve seen in a cinema since 2003 and The Return of the King. Well the King has returned once more!
Captain Fantastic is a dramatic comedy written & directed by Matt Ross. Viggo is Ben Cash, a man with a head full of philosophical unconventionality who raises his children in the forest them rationalism and survival skills. Things get complicated when the children’s mother dies and they are forced by a duty to their philosophy to stop her funeral.
I don’t care how hipster you are, a gas mask is scary!
In every aspect of this film’s construction, something sublime can be found. The direction is smooth and crisp. The comedy is truly hilarious. The young actors playing the children are fantastic without exception. On top of that we get a near career-best performance from Mortensen.
With that said, a film is more than the sum of its parts.
This is a fascinating character study of someone whose philosophy is well-read, rejecting society for its many flaws. In several scenes he is proved to be right when we see how bright and athletic his kids are, particularly when compared to other kids.
However, what stops Captain Fantastic from going into pretentious territory deriding parents for the way they raise their children, is the clear admission that this form of living does raise significant problems. These kids have nothing to work with when they grow up and rejoin the imperfect world the Captain protected them from.
Overall, a quirky, moving and thought-provoking little hipster drama.
Recommended Scenario: If you want a more overt version of Little Miss Sunshine with the always brilliant Mr Viggo.
Nearly two years on this job and I am only now reviewing a Woody Allen film? Also this review is very, very late. Sorry.
Café Society is Allen’s take on a love story between a young man and woman in late 1930s Hollywood. The only hitch? The woman is in love with the man’s big-shot Uncle!
Breaking kind of a rule of mine by showing a BTS shot from the movie rather than a still. I don’t know why. Maybe cause one day we won’t have movies directed by the guy on the right.
Quick Question: How many films of a certain filmmaker does it take to see before someone can legitimately call themselves a fan of the filmmaker?
There’s always a certain group in any fan-base who act as gatekeepers, to make sure you have to be “this tall to ride” with the “real” fans.
How big a fan of Woody Allen can I say I am? How do you measure my legitimacy in devotion? Is it quantitative? Have I seen enough of his extensive filmography? I’ve seen 3 of his 47 directorial efforts, including this one. Is it qualitative? Have I seen the Allen classics? I’ve seen good ones, but they’re not on anyone’s list of influential films. Have I seen a good variety of what he’s capable of? The films I’ve seen all came from after 2010. Am I a fan? Technically no.
I do love those two other movies, though. I like Allen’s style for all the little I’ve seen of his annually increasing filmography.
This film is no exception in its skill to delight me.
Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart are the couple of this piece and, like in their surprisingly brilliant performances in the underwhelming American Ultra, their chemistry is electric. Allen’s dialogue bounces between them like a playful rubber ball thrown to pugs. I love it.
The rest of the supporting cast are excellent as they fill their parts. Steve Carrell as Eisenberg’s Uncle is of course hilarious and brilliant as is Ken Stott in a shining small role as Jesse’s father. There’s a lot of banter, film references and the old New York Jewish humour which Allen appears to specialise in. Woody even cameos as the narrator to this film which is structured in a similar way to a novel for further comedic impact.
I’ve said before that it is easier to write reviews for films that don’t work than films that do. This film just works.
Recommended Scenario: If you’re in the mood for a genuinely funny and lovely 30’s romantic comedy.
This is my 100th review on this blog. To mark this occasion, I’m going to do something a little different. A retrospective on a popular film franchise.
I find that this is almost a lost art in film criticism. Deadlines and many movies a week force professional versions of me to review each instalment of a franchise, as I do, while not allowing for a separate article some time after the final instalment to review the series as a whole.
This I feel is a tremendously important thing that is often being missed out by critics, save a few lines in their review of the last part in the trilogy, quadrilogy, pentalogy, hexalogy, octaligy etc. amounting to “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” which in all cases should go without saying.
So I’m going to retrospectively review (almost a tautology) one of the biggest film series of all time, that has after a short year and a half been pretty much forgotten. The Hobbit Trilogy.
After the gargantuan success of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy a live-action adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien’s earlier, more kid-friendly novel The Hobbit was near inevitable. Following many production problems, a director change and an expansion of one movie to two and then to three, Rings director Peter Jackson gave us another trip into Middle Earth, every Christmas between 2012 and 2014.
Reviews at the time were mixed, for all parts of the series. Some saw it as a fun return to a fantasy realm they had forgotten how much they missed. A number saw it as too long, over-bloated by plot-lines invented by the screenwriters and just not the right feel. Some in fact felt it was an improvement on LOTR.
Because of the timing of the releases, I only was able to review Part 3 when it came out and I am willing to admit my writing was not as good as it is now. On top of that, my opinion has had time to settle.
To complete my collection of Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth films, I recently got my hands on the Extended Editions of all 3 films. It is these that I shall be reviewing in detail here.
SPOILER WARNING!!!
That’s a lot of discs!
THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
“In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit.” The famous opening sentence to the beloved classic novel The Hobbit. It sets the scene of that book.
In the film, however, no sooner are we back in Bag-End mere hours before The Fellowship of the Ring starts, that we are whisked back some 100 years earlier as we get a Rings style prologue showing the moment Smaug the Dragon destroyed much of and hence became the sole resident of the once mighty dwarf Kingdom of Erebor in the Lonely Mountain.
This sets the scene for what I feel is the major difference between the way Tolkien and Jackson tells the former’s original stories. While Old Bilbo (played again by Sir Ian Holm) bookends the trilogy, implying the entire film is in his voice, the tale feels far more objective than the Book.
In his Books, Tolkien appears to have to have translated Bilbo’s red book he writes in (which Frodo and then Sam continued to write in) telling the story with his eyes, only finding out crucial backstory when it is told to him. In Jackson’s version, we see all through his God-like lens sometimes departing Bilbo entirely to follow another character or group of characters when they are doing something more exciting.
This is a Dwarf story. While Bilbo is the protagonist, he is Nick Caraway to our Jay Gatsby. He tags along and helps when he can.
Speaking of Dwarves (that’s how you spell the plural), at the whim of Gandalf the Grey, thirteen of them arrive at Bilbo’s residence many years after the taking of their home by Smaug and still 60 years before the events of LOTR.
I genuinely love these dwarves. Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Nori, Ori, Dori and yes I do remember all of their names. While I understand the concern some had over being unable to tell them apart, if you cannot tell those apart that have less screen-time I feel that’s part of the joke, but if you do, you find that each of these little characters have got personalities better developed than in the book.
The Company which is in need of a burglar.
After a raucous party, the details of the planned quest to take back the Lonely Mountain from Smaug and following some well-written, acted and directed deliberation, Bilbo joins the company of Thorin Oakenshield, King Under the Mountain.
Thorin is played by Richard Armitage. I did have my reservations at an actor so young playing the part of the leader of these Dwarves, but his performance throughout this trilogy cannot be faulted. For all the jokes one can make about him playing Aragorn 2.0, his is possibly the most complex character in the entire Middle Earth Saga since Gollum.
I won’t discuss at length the scene with the three trolls, since it impacts the plot little and deviates little in the fundamentals from the book more than providing Bilbo with a better chance to prove himself by deceiving the three and Gandalf taking their very presence as a sign something in Middle Earth might be off.
Soon after this, the company encounter Radagast the Brown. He is a wizard like Gandalf, though is not at all present in The Hobbit book, though he does in LOTR in the books.
I used to not care for Radagast in The Hobbit. He is an effective story device, setting up Gandalf’s story in this trilogy by providing anecdotal evidence of a Dark Power’s return to Middle Earth. However, I found him just a bit too weird and somewhat out of place.
He has grown on me since then, but some of his humour still does not leave me laughing. Unfortunately, that was not the last time in this film series.
This then is followed by a chase across many fields, the Dwarves trying to get away from an Orc pack riding Gundebad Wargs while Radagast tries to divert them.
This seemingly random Orc Pack, which attacks the Dwarves suspiciously close to the borders of Rivendell, it turns out is under the command of Azog the Defiler. He is a giant pale Orc with a thirst for blood of anyone in Thorin’s family.
He did appear in the book, though his role is greatly expanded for the movie. While I have problems with the design of this field (I shall come back to my issues in the Art Department later) and his motivation is vague, even for an orc, I do like his included story. It provides a stick for the journey of Thorin & Co. when otherwise there was only the carrot of their mountain.
The Orcs are dispatched by some Elves and the Company escape through a hidden path toward Rivendell.
Properly pretty!
Once they arrive, Thorin, with the aid of Lord Elrond (played thankfully again by Hugo Weaving) discovers from a map belonging to his father, that they must get to the secret entrance to the mountain by the last light of Durin’s Day, supposedly a Dwarvish Bank Holiday. Now they have a time limit in which to complete their quest. Ooh drama.
Elrond, concerned about the Dwarves’ quest to enter Erebor, invites Gandalf to the “White Council”. This is another committee of which Gandalf is a member along with Elrond, Lady Galadriel (played again by Cate Blanchett, the most beautiful woman in the world) and Saruman the White (played again by the coolest actor of all time, the late Sir Christopher Lee).
This scene, another addition to the movie from the four screenwriters, sets up the side-plot Gandalf follows for the rest of the trilogy. He must investigate a Necromancer who has taken residence in Dol Guldur, an apparently abandoned fortress in Mirkwood.
This was a story Tolkien wrote down and hoped to be included in the never published third edition of The Hobbit and was included in the Appendices of LOTR. It was meant to tie together the two stories.
I have heard quite a few critics saying that this is proof that Jackson cannot understand the fun romp nature of The Hobbit, a story written J.R.R for his children. I believe that the inclusion of Galadriel, Saruman and the plot their presence creates is proof that Jackson understands Tolkien better that most. He knows that the author liked things to connect. He wanted LOTR the book to connect to his earlier work and since circumstances forced Jackson to film the sequel novel first, he could not allow Gandalf, one of cinema’s most beloved characters in recent memory, just wander out of the story and then come back, seemingly for no reason, as he does in the text.
If I had a problem with this scene it would be that for all the talk in it, Elrond and Saruman never explicitly state why they are so opposed to Thorin’s Quest. All it would have taken was one line: “If the Dragon still sleeps on that treasure, disturbing him could lead to terrible damage upon the men who live nearby”. Put this into the mouth of the then good Saruman and all would be well-explained.
Nevertheless, the following private exchange between Galadriel and Mithrandir (Elvish for Gandalf) is writing considerable skill.
Galadriel asks Gandalf the obvious yet easily missed question: “Why the Halfling?” – referring of course to Bilbo.
Gandalf replies (here I paraphrase) that he does not know, but that he finds ordinary folk in their everyday lives “keep the darkness at bay”. Bilbo, he says, gives him courage.
This is brilliant writing. We don’t often give credit to the writers of The Middle Earth Saga for their skill in not only adapting these complex, often un-cinematic books into screenplays. Here we get the heart of Tolkien’s entire oeuvre in some fleeting, beautifully spoken by Sir Ian McKellen, the most perfectly cast actor I can remember.
One of the best scenes in the trilogy.
Thorin’s Company at this time have gone out of Rivendell and have begun trekking through “the wild” allowing for glorious helicopter shots of New Zealand, a highlight in any Middle Earth Movie, set to an orchestral version of the “Misty Mountains” song composed by the genius Howard Shore.
After a run-in with some stone giants, Bilbo considers abandoning his Dwarvish friends. Before he and Bofur, a highly sympathetic Dwarf, have a chance to part ways, the floor under them in the mountain cave in which they find themselves caves away for an enormous drop into which all 14 members of the company fall.
Of course, this drop which all the Dwarves and Bilbo survive should have killed them leading to the criticism I’ve heard from many that there is simply no tension in the action in this movie.
I would argue that in the majority of action movies, LOTR for some parts included, there is already a systemic problem in the movies that there is not enough tension in the action. This of course does not excuse a further violation of the rule that tension and action should go hand in hand, but it does show that The Hobbit is not alone in this boat.
The Dwarves are taken by some CGI Goblins (I shall comment further on the use of CGI later) who take them to the Goblin King.
I did not like this character in the cinema, but, as with Radagast, he grew tolerable, the more I thought about him. He’s not a funny or scary villain, but he is a large enough obstacle for our heroes.
Unfortunately, the Extended Edition of this scene includes a song at the beginning which, quite frankly, is insufferable. Say what you will about the numerous songs in Tolkien’s books, the 2 or 3 songs already sung in this movie, but at least none of them were some rock ballad which fitted just as well as an Austin Powers reference in Schindler’s List. I’m not kidding folks. The Middle Earth Saga up to this particular point, as much as I adore it, had its dumb and sometimes genuinely bad moments, but this moment is the only one which makes me question whether to pause and skip a scene. 14 hours of movie with no break and this scene does it to me.
All of this is practically amended when we cut back to Bilbo who has been separated from the company and has fallen (again) down a great pit.
It here we find Gollum. This is when Riddles in the Dark, THE SCENE we have been waiting over 10 years to be performed in full, is delivered.
Gollum will show Bilbo the way out of the caves he finds himself in if Bilbo can best him in a game of Riddles. If “Bagginses” loses, he is to be eaten Gollum.
Not the best thing to see above you in a cave.
Not a lot needs to happen in a scene for it to be dramatic. All you need are two characters with competing objectives and get them to go at one another.
This is everyone’s favourite chapter in The Hobbit and the writers know it. In the “Making Of” Documentaries, the two actors present here said it felt like theatre and does play like excellently written, funny, tense theatre, drenched in character.
In this scene we have the immortally brilliant Andy Serkis, playing once again the role that changed his life and it is just as wonderful a reunion as you could have hoped for. This man IS Gollum. If them Oscars won’t acknowledge him, I certainly will.
The chaps at Weta Digital also have given an excellent performance. Gollum still looks the way he does in LOTR but just that bit better. It’s wonderful.
The stand-out in all of this is not even Gollum, though. It’s the new boy Martin Freeman.
I haven’t mentioned up to this point Freeman’s performance. It is flawless. Nobody could play Bilbo better than Martin. The man is a Hobbit, with all the homeliness, subtle British with and ticks which come with it.
These two riddle it out in one of the best scenes in the whole M.E.S (Middle Earth Saga). Gollum figures out that his “Precious” is in Bilbo’s possession and chases after him. Bilbo slips the Precious (ring) on his ring finger (an interesting change to form) and he discovers that he is invisible.
Meanwhile, the Goblin King is about to have the Dwarves executed when Gandalf appears in an explosion of magic and awesomeness. They fight their way out in CGI filled comically OTT fashion. Possibly not what Tolkien had in mind when he wrote this vague chapter, but authorial intention be damned, it’s cool and the Goblin King is dead.
A gentle good riddance to your singing jowell!
The Dwarves and the Wizard escape, leaving Bilbo with Gollum who cannot see him, with a chance to end the poor creature’s life and be free.
This is when we finally see that “Pity of Bilbo” which Gandalf described in Fellowship of the Ring so beautifully. With the unmistakable music of that scene playing, Bilbo Baggins leaps over Gollum and out of the cave, leaving him in want of the mysterious ring.
The Dwarves stop running under some trees. When Gandalf inquires as to the location of Bilbo, Thorin rants on the hobbit’s cowardice before Bilbo appears from behind a tree.
At this moment to stop for breath, Bilbo explores very clearly his motivation for keeping with the company. He has a home. The Dwarves do not. He wants to help. Simple, but heroic. Exactly what Gandalf wanted. More than just a bored Hobbit in need of a mission, but one who is doing what he is doing out of courage and kindness.
Taking aside the fact that Bilbo has no choice, but forward at this point, this is some fine writing.
Soon it turns out that the company is “Out of the Frying Pan & Into the Fire” (the name of this chapter in the book and a quote in the movie from Thorin & Gandalf) as a pack of Wargs attacked them.
In the novel this is a freak occurrence forcing them into the trees which are burnt by Goblins which have caught up to them under the rising darkness of night.
In the movie, however, this is one coordinated attack by Azog the Defiler who had picked up the tail of his Dwarvish pray after a letter from The Goblin King.
The pale Orc appears, surprising Thorin who had assumed he was dead. As the trees collapse (they had indeed gone up the trees as in the novel) Thorin summons his might and charges for Azog. It doesn’t matter that he is struck down as quickly as he gets to him, he looked cool doing it.
One thing I have not yet mentioned in regarding the Pale Orc and other orcs in these movies is that they are altogether slightly different from those in LOTR. Not only do they look a little different (a forgivable change) they also noticeably more digital.
Of course CGI was used in LOTR more so than in any movie prior. What I will say in regards to it in this film is that there was a little more balance in those days. Practical effects were often used in conjunction and there was altogether more make-up.
The CGI is definitely better than it was decade ago, but I have to admit that, at least in some areas (including Azog) the spell is slightly broken.
A Pale Orc astride a White Warg
Another difference in these orcs is in their lingo. It seems that in the 60 years between The Hobbit and LOTR that Saruman and Sauron found it important to make “The Common Tongue” (a language which to us moviegoer and readers of Tolkien’s work sounds and reads like the Queen’s English) their language of choice. In this movie, David Salo and the other Tolkien linguists involved in the production had their work cut out for them as every single line of dialogue uttered by the Orcs (not the Goblins which are unaffiliated with any other allegiance and are just different) is in Black Speech, the language of the Baddies.
This decision does add some depth to these (depth which otherwise is lacking) and the script never calls upon them to switch languages upon a whim like in many films, including these ones. However, one could argue it puts the drama an unnecessary distance from the audience.
Regardless, Azog decides that he himself does not need to kill Thorin (he flip flops on what level of involvement he should have) who is now barely conscious and seemingly hopeless and orders another orc to kill him.
At this point young Bilbo surprises everyone by leaping and killing this orc. This is Bilbo’s first shows of courage to the Dwarves and his first intentional kill.
Just as hope seems lost for the Hobbit and the rest of the group, the Eagles arrive rescuing them from the Jaws of Death with their talons of freedom.
They take the 13 dwarves, Gandalf and Bilbo over to a great rock in the middle of a valley, once again showing some beautiful shots of New Zealand.
Thorin is revived by one of Gandalf’s Deus Ex Machina spells. He gets up and advances on Bilbo.
He embraces his Burglar. A respect as been formed. The audience tears up a little.
They turn and see some ways off, a solitary peak. This, Gandalf explains, is Erebor, the place their quest shall end.
“I do believe the worst is behind us.” Bilbo says.
The audience laughs a little as the camera follows a thrush from them to the mountain where it begins to crack the shell of a snail.
In the mountain, all is quiet save for the knocking of the thrush. The gold pile of the Dwarves is still.
Suddenly, the pile explodes as if something underneath as just exhaled. Smaug stirs in his golden bed. He opens an eye at us. Cut to Black.
THOUGHTS: I like this film. It’s not perfect. There are moments in it that don’t quite work and there are a couple of moments that are downright awful. It’s not as a good as LOTR, and it didn’t need to be. We needed a filmic introduction to Thorin’s quest and a re-introduction to Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth and we got it.
The additions to the book’s story DO AID the film’s story. I cannot think of a means to effectively adapt The Hobbit without using Tolkien’s other Apocryphal work to fill in the many gaps in a fun, yet incomplete book. (If you think that is heresy, the author would have agreed with me.)
The Extended Edition of this particular instalment is only 17 minutes longer, adding some nice scenes which are generally worth their time to give a little more depth to the story while also giving many, many hours of Behind the Scenes extras. All is good apart from the extra song for the Goblin King, which is just abysmal.
This is my favourite part of The Hobbit Trilogy.
But wait. If the Dwarves are stuck on that rock, why don’t the Eagles take them all the way to their destination? As The Dude in The Big Lebowski would say: “I hate The F***ing Eagles, man!”
I shall explore this and many more things in Part Two, when I shall review The Desolation of Smaug.
I had intended to release this entire review in one part, but as Tolkien said and I’m sure Jackson would agree, “This is a tale which grew in the telling”.
The trailer for Sausage Party was one of those advertisements which shall define a good part of the internet landscape when we look back on 2016, or at least the happy internet. It’s a clever trailer, even though it actually does what internet sketch videos have been doing for ages. The only difference being these guys actually MADE F-D Up Toy Story!
Sausage Party runs under the premise that all food items are sentient and anthropomorphic. In a Supermarket, food lives under the assumption that people take it home to “The Great Beyond”. In actuality, of course, we eat them! What follows is a raunchy, gory, sexually perverse comedy from the eyes of produce.
How does the bun speak? Where are the arms of the sausage coming from? How does the Bagel breathe? And why is the pancake thing sporting a beard?
The most fascinating thing I find about Sausage Party now that I’ve seen it is that this well-written, clever comedy has all its best humour in the lowest common denominator kind of humour. I’ve seen some pretty screwed up stuff in movies, but this might have the most hard-to-watch imagery I’ve seen in a long time. And somehow it works and is hilarious.
This is this year’s The Lego Movie. An animated film which looks so one-note and low-brow upon initial inspection but through sheer force of will, translates the extremes of its vision into a smart, dumb comedy.
Smart dumb comedy is a bizarre phenomenon when it is only through lowering the bar to which humour can aspire and sticking with it so hard with such intelligence that something awesome comes out.
As with a lot of Seth Rogen’s comedies, the crux of the clever satire wise on religion. The theological statements presented by Sausage Party (boy is that sensors you don’t hear every day) are not the most subtle or layered. There are also not the most well founded as some of the allegories just don’t work with the modern world, but upon reflection there are two things which make this film sat out a cut above others of its kind.
For one, is incorporated into the narrative rather well when the main sausage shout about God not being real (God in their world being the people buying them) it works, since his lack of subtlety matches the movie’s lack. Look at the Simon Pegg and Nick Frost film Paul also co-starring Seth Rogen. Without film went into anti-religion mode it felt out of place and mean.
Secondly, the movie presents rationalism not atheism. There is nothing wrong with promotion of atheism when using rationalism, but at times filmmakers become like the way Bob Dylan saw his past self in as masterwork My Back Pages, immature lay screaming about things they don’t fully understand.
This review might seem a little serious for a film with Edward Norton playing a Woody Allen style bisexual bagel, but you know what, f**k it!
Recommended Scenario: Anyone can see this film as long as you’re an adult and appreciated dumb genius. But the watch with your kids or your mum.
Before I begin this review, I must warn you that my experience in the cinema was soured much by having to sit 3 rows from the screen. I know some of the cinema going public love being that close, but my policy ever since watching movies six feet above me when it was “movie0time” in Primary School has been always to sit Centre-Centre.
Hell or High Water is a West Texas set bank heist drama directed by David Mackenzie. We simultaneously follow two bank-robbing brothers and two cops who are after them.
Chris Pine is genuinely great in this film! I know right?!
In all truth, this movie seems very similar to Ben Affleck’s terrific film The Town. It focuses on a theme of brotherhood in harsh circumstances, one of the bank heisting brothers is a loose cannon and both are more interested in the drama between heists than heists themselves.
This film surpasses The Town though, by a big margin.
Chris Pine and Ben Foster play the two brothers. My problem with Pine in the past has been that his characters are pretty much always either too egotistical and obnoxious or they put across a hero charm that is not earned by his performances. This is the first time I’ve seen him act in a role which had more than one layer to it.
Ben Foster plays a kind of Joe Pesci character and is pretty good at it.
What stands out here is the relationship between Jeff Bridges as a retiring State Trooper and his partner, a half-Native American, half-Mexican played by Gil Birmingham. Their scenes together are genuinely hilarious at times. The entire theatre was laughing more during this film than in Bad Moms, which I promise you is not a bad comedy.
I wouldn’t call this a comedy, though, in the same vain of Fargo or other Coen Brothers movies. That’s what’s strange about dark comedy. Some films like the fantastic Slow West is less funny than Hell or High Water yet I would still consider that a comedy in its construction.
This film is more mature than The Town which for all its technical excellence felt like a lesser version of Mean Streets (I’m name-dropping like crazy). The thesis of Hell or High Water is not quite the bleak absurdism of No Country for Old Men though it does come close at times. This film is a little more specific in its target, blaming the hardships of the Deep South on Big Banks.
However what elevates this film above some other films with this level of “fight the power” in them is that for all the philosophizing about the modern age being no different from the past (cycles of violence being another theme in No Country) the events of the movie are pointed out to be the fault of bad people’s actions, not just the bankers, but to a greater extent our heroic bank-robbers.
David Mackenzie has made a truly excellent modern western. Well-directed, superbly written and acted, if this film doesn’t go on my top 10 films of the year list, this has been a great film year.
Recommend Scenario: If you want No Country meets The Town. That’s a good cocktail.
Finally, I can have a look at a film so divisive that some called for the takedown of my old enemy, Rotten Tomatoes!
Suicide Squad is a DC Superhero Movie focusing on a band of bad guys from the DC roster who are recruited by the U.S Government to be superheroes.
No comment. Actually, yeah I’ll give a comment, what the HELL are you wearing?!
Going into this film so late in its theatrical run may have been a mistake. I’ve already, by osmosis, been exposed to competing, strong opinions on both sides of criticism of this film. People seem to range in opinion between, “piece of fun” and “this is insufferable garbage”. Now its time to give notes on what I thought about it.
I’m going to start, as I do as a kind human being in most scenarios, by talking about what worked well. Mainly the casting. Will Smith as deadly assassin Deadshot, Margot Robbie as the Joker’s girlfriend Harley Quinn and all the others seem to have been born to play their respective roles and I genuinely see a lot of effort being put into capturing their interpretations of their colourful characters.
On top of that, these colourful characters interact in a premise straight out of a western or an 80s TV show. This should be a lot of fun! Right?
I’m going to start small with my complaints. My first is with Jared Leto as the Joker. Like I said, nobody in the film delivers a truly bad performance and Leto is no exception. I just wish he had more time to do threatening stuff. On top of that, I’m sorry, I know there would trying something new which is always welcome but he just looks awful! He’s got these silly, silly tattoos all over and a ridiculous gangster grill and he appears to be 18. It’s not a good look.
Okay, almost a back complaint was superficial. I need a complaint that really makes me mad!
What are the fact that the people controlling the suicide squad are all morons! Every single action (and not including the formation of the squad itself, which the actually explain okay, considering) that these people perform is idiotic with a capital “J”. I know “idiotic” begins with an “I”, but these people’s decisions I think have made me dumber!
I can’t go into too much detail as to in what way these people are idiots, but involves an uncontrollable “controlled” Witch in the Squad. This witch also is a relationship with the guy the government put in the squad to keep them in check, which may have given drama to the situation if they were, say, married or siblings before she became cursed. Now he’s just a moron.
I’m sorry if this review is too fast-paced and makes no sense because that’s like the movie. Much has been talked about DC’s problem with their editing and is no more evident than here. I will remove several members of the suicide squad just so we could focus more on the genuinely interesting developed characters.
This film had all sorts of trouble in the editing room, but I say the problem is script level. There just isn’t a consistent tone at all in this piece. I suppose the studio wanted it to become lighter to combat the 911 feel of their other works, but it really feels forced.
I really think that the concept of a superhero film from the perspective of the villains is an absolutely brilliant one. Even with the whole Ghostbusters style finale and villain, if this film had more focus and more laughs it could have been cool. What there was a movie like the Arkham Asylum game? Wouldn’t that be badass?
If you remember I gave a mixed, but overall slightly positive review of Batman v Superman earlier this year. I later re-watched set film and discovered that I had been the victim of what I shall now call “surface cool”. This is when a terrible work of art tries to hide its lack of substance or style with stuff that is just really cool, like Ben Affleck as Batman or Wonder Woman.
I can’t lie to you and say that Suicide Squad is worse than BvS. Squad, for all its flaws, is not a dishonourable failure. It tries for something and failed without being pretentious or insulting (except for a bizarre scene in which Batman kisses Harley Quinn for no damn reason). Also, I can say I was bored.
Recommended Scenario: I can’t recommend this a set so that aspiring filmmakers can learn what not to do when writing or editing.
P.S. This film was written and directed by David Ayer. Fury is SO much better. You should watch that.
When I saw the trailer for this movie, a funny thing happened. I laughed a little.
Bad Moms follows Mila Kunis a mother of two kids stressed due to the huge amount of work they make her do. She decides to act she decides to try not to be the “Perfect Mom”. She decides to be a BAD MOM.
That’s pretty messy.
The comedy dynamic of three best friends is so tried and tested that I could see where this movie was going from a mile away. This going to be a party scene, is going to be a villain who’s stuck up and snooty, is going to be a speech hammering in whatever message the film is making etc.
What’s quite cool about Bad Moms is that there are no elements to the story or theme which made me wholly uncomfortable. It’s actually got a pretty good message about motherhood. Compare that to Horrible Bosses and Jennifer Aniston’s ha-ha-rape-is-funny-when-a-woman-does-it-to-a-man character. I’m not one of those PC police guys read it, one has to acknowledge when the movie’s message is damaging and not in a smart way.
Another nice thing about bad mums is it actors. Kunis in the lead and while she does do that thing where she lives on screen at her fellow cast members clearly improvise lines a bit too much, she does at least have good chemistry with them and they do get good laughs. That and a rather good villain performance by Victoria Applegate makes for a really well-rounded cast.
Overall though what’s important is that this film did make me laugh on a few occasions. I’m not going to be quoting this movie in a few years from now, but it is at least good for a chuckle.
I apologise for the formulaic and short form of this review, but I suppose that’s kind of what movie. It’s good, or at least okay and it says a solid chick flick way above the insulting standards of many of those. I will admit though that while the recommend it to the sort of general audience this film aims for, this like many others following the formula, might not be worth more than a Netflix showing.
Recommended Scenario: If you want a pretty decent comedy on Netflix.
“Life isn’t about endings. It’s a series of moments.” These words were said by Tim, Martin Freeman’s character on what we must now call The UK Office. This the mantra of The Office when it works at its best. And since life has no endings, (except for the final one) it might seem quite fitting for the story of the former boss of Wernam Hogg to continue.
David Brent – Life on the Road is another mockumentary following the titular near mythic creation of Ricky Gervais. This time it is 2016 and Brent is trying to go on tour as a musician with his band “Forgone Conclusion”.
David Brent, King of Cringe.
I am a huge fan of The UK Office. It is a landmark TV show in several ways. Not only did it revamp the mockumentary and sitcom simultaneously, but Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant wrote a TV show that was funny, poignant, cringey and commented on aspects of the human condition and the modern world we hadn’t really seen before.
Note, I’ve not seen much of the US office or any of the other Britons you can find around the world. From what I’ve seen of the US one, it’s fine. I’ve no intention of watching every episode of that show any time soon. Nine seasons is a better commitment. I feel like I can recommend the UK office to anyone though. But some don’t like the level of cringe we get to in the Brit version, it does at least cut the chase on the various storylines in its two series and double Christmas special (which I’d say is the best Christmas special ever made).
A big part of what made the show a work of genius was the character David Brent. He was the boss of the small team in Slough working for paper merchants Wernam Hogg. He is a man with a pathological desire to be liked. In his attempts to be Mr popular he tries to be funny and fails he tries dancing and fails even makes friends with some of the most revolting people I’ve seen portrayed on TV and somehow succeeds there.
Regardless of what you might think of record surveys, is acting in this role is simply Oscar worthy. He shows of all the pathetic nature of such a man and is able to shake as the core when we see moments of honesty as Brent a side of cool and funny fall apart and it becomes a human being. The scene where he begs not to be made redundant still makes me cry.
Fast forward over a decade later and David is a salesman at another company. He still trying to be a life of the party and is still after the dream of being a rockstar.
Within a few moments, I was already laughing. This is an excellent comedy.
Watching Brent drive his band, made up of session musicians and a wrapper played brilliantly by comedian Doc Brown is a pleasure of cringe.
Rent obsession with getting accepted has made him write utterly terrible songs that he over explains every time to avoid people getting offended. These include such classics as “Equality Street”, “Native American” and “Slough” which should all get into the charts.
And yet what marks out this film is its exploration into Brent’s mind. Now that he is the undisputed front and centre of the runtime, one would think that without characters like Tim and Dawn we would easily fatigue of David. Which of these does with this extended time with this character whom, if you knew him in reality you might want to smack, is given release ability without pulling the jokes.
We are all David Brent sometimes. I know I am.
Recommended Scenario: If you’re a fan of The UK Office. Otherwise go watch that show, become a fan and watch this.
