I thought I had seen all the Underworld films. Then I started watching Underworld: Awakening and it didn't seem familiar at all. Oh, good, a new one.
Except that eventually I did start to recognise scenes. So I have seen it before. Maybe I missed the beginning for some reason? It wasn't that long ago, but I just don't remember.
For me, the character of Selene is just brilliant. And not least because of how great Kate Beckinsale looks in the shiny black outfit!!! I know I was disappointed that she wasn't in the third film (which was a prequel set before her time).
Anyway, back to Underworld: Awakening. Selene is once again a main character. And like the other films the writers play fast and loose with history to conjure up an unlikely story that doesn't stand up to close inspection.
If you enjoy the action and like the idea of vampires battling werewolves then you will like this film as much as its predecessors. The action and effects are brilliant again; but I sensed a cutting back in the scale of things which suggests the budget was a bit tight this time.
Once again we have the promise of a hybrid, who is supposed to be "more powerful than any of us" but actually isn't. I think this is the hardest weakness to ignore in all the Underworld films: the hybrid is always supposed to be super special but always gets captured easily by the bad guys!
So, like the other sequels, this film isn't as good as Underworld, but is still quite entertaining.
Sunday 31 August 2014
Saturday 30 August 2014
The Silence
German film The Silence (from 2010) is a mixture of thriller and drama.
It's not really a murder mystery, because you see the initial crime. I didn't really like that part; it was too graphic and the accidental element didn't seem to fit well. Possibly the film would have worked better if there had been at least an element of uncertainty about what had happened in the flashback to 1986.
Having said that, I thought the present day scenes (2009) were excellent. There is a lot going on between the characters, all of which have pretty major problems. There's a real build up of frustration in the viewer that people just can't see what is right in front of them because they are too busy fighting their own demons. On several occasions you think "Right, he's going to confess now." or "Now they've got him." but you are wrong.
The second murder almost becomes inconsequential (to the dismay of the child's parents) because the authority figures are so determined to believe that the same killer committed both crimes; and the police are convinced they know what happened.
It really is quite painful at times to see people failing to do the right thing. But then, I guess that is real life. In the end we are left with a group of people who have all been devastated by the horrible crimes that have been committed. Even the police are left damaged, despite feeling for the most part that they got their man.
One thing I couldn't decide was what the title refers to. Is it the silence of the people who could have spoken out but didn't, or is it the silence left behind when a loved-one dies?
It's not really a murder mystery, because you see the initial crime. I didn't really like that part; it was too graphic and the accidental element didn't seem to fit well. Possibly the film would have worked better if there had been at least an element of uncertainty about what had happened in the flashback to 1986.
Having said that, I thought the present day scenes (2009) were excellent. There is a lot going on between the characters, all of which have pretty major problems. There's a real build up of frustration in the viewer that people just can't see what is right in front of them because they are too busy fighting their own demons. On several occasions you think "Right, he's going to confess now." or "Now they've got him." but you are wrong.
The second murder almost becomes inconsequential (to the dismay of the child's parents) because the authority figures are so determined to believe that the same killer committed both crimes; and the police are convinced they know what happened.
It really is quite painful at times to see people failing to do the right thing. But then, I guess that is real life. In the end we are left with a group of people who have all been devastated by the horrible crimes that have been committed. Even the police are left damaged, despite feeling for the most part that they got their man.
One thing I couldn't decide was what the title refers to. Is it the silence of the people who could have spoken out but didn't, or is it the silence left behind when a loved-one dies?
Tuesday 26 August 2014
Together
Together is a Swedish comedy drama directed by Lukas Moodysson.
Made in 2000, the film looks in every way like it was made in 1975. In fact, at the start I found myself checking that I had the right DVD because initially it looks like it might be a terrible 70's B-movie.
But that's just a clever trick to draw you in and move the setting to a commune called Tillsammans (Swedish for Together). This is where everything kicks off. You quickly see that this isn't a glorification of the commune: the film isn't trying to make you feel bad about owning a car, or a TV, or for having a shower every day. Instead it pokes fun at the commune by simply highlighting why communes don't work; because people are ultimately selfish at some level.
There is also a great contrast between the commune and the people who live next door. They think they are so different (and presumably better) but of course they have exactly the same characteristics.
This is a comedy where you laugh somewhat nervously at your own faults, enacted by the characters in the film. Anyone who has ever shared a house with people who weren't members of your own family will recall squabbles like those in Together. It's great fun. You just know things are going to go wrong; which just makes it even more amusing when they do.
The soundtrack is great too; and I liked the uplifting conclusion. Nice!
Made in 2000, the film looks in every way like it was made in 1975. In fact, at the start I found myself checking that I had the right DVD because initially it looks like it might be a terrible 70's B-movie.
But that's just a clever trick to draw you in and move the setting to a commune called Tillsammans (Swedish for Together). This is where everything kicks off. You quickly see that this isn't a glorification of the commune: the film isn't trying to make you feel bad about owning a car, or a TV, or for having a shower every day. Instead it pokes fun at the commune by simply highlighting why communes don't work; because people are ultimately selfish at some level.
There is also a great contrast between the commune and the people who live next door. They think they are so different (and presumably better) but of course they have exactly the same characteristics.
This is a comedy where you laugh somewhat nervously at your own faults, enacted by the characters in the film. Anyone who has ever shared a house with people who weren't members of your own family will recall squabbles like those in Together. It's great fun. You just know things are going to go wrong; which just makes it even more amusing when they do.
The soundtrack is great too; and I liked the uplifting conclusion. Nice!
Planet of Snail
What is the film Planet of Snail about? After watching the first 1/3 I don't know. I don't even know the names of the two main characters. Call me impatient if you like, but that's not a start which is likely to keep me watching.
The main guy is blind. I think he is also deaf; but can't be sure, because I thought the main girl was talking to him at one point. She also does this unusual thing where she looks like she's playing piano on his fingers... which I guess means he is deaf.
She is very short. I can't tell if that is the only unusual thing about her. Is she his friend, sister, wife, girlfriend or a professional carer? Again, I don't know because the film moves at a snail's pace and makes no concessions to people who want to know what is going on.
Is that the point? This guy's life moves at a snails pace?
Just before I gave up on it, I sat through ten minutes of this couple trying to replace a light-bulb. OK, so it was an unusually complicated light-bulb... she can't reach, he can't see... they get there in the end.
I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be celebrating their independence or mocking them. I hope the former, but it was really hard to tell.
Sorry, but I just didn't get into this at all. Boring.
The main guy is blind. I think he is also deaf; but can't be sure, because I thought the main girl was talking to him at one point. She also does this unusual thing where she looks like she's playing piano on his fingers... which I guess means he is deaf.
She is very short. I can't tell if that is the only unusual thing about her. Is she his friend, sister, wife, girlfriend or a professional carer? Again, I don't know because the film moves at a snail's pace and makes no concessions to people who want to know what is going on.
Is that the point? This guy's life moves at a snails pace?
Just before I gave up on it, I sat through ten minutes of this couple trying to replace a light-bulb. OK, so it was an unusually complicated light-bulb... she can't reach, he can't see... they get there in the end.
I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be celebrating their independence or mocking them. I hope the former, but it was really hard to tell.
Sorry, but I just didn't get into this at all. Boring.
Monday 18 August 2014
The Selfish Giant
This is a British film loosely inspired by the Oscar Wilde short story of the same name (part of The Happy Prince and Other Tales).
It tells the story of two boys Arbor and Swifty in Bradford. I've never heard the name Arbor before; and thought he was being called Arthur... but it didn't sound quite right. I think it is a tree reference to the original story which has gone over my head. Also, director Clio Barnard's previous film was a documentary called The Arbor.
Anyway, the film is a classic end-of-innocence story, in the loosest sense... since the boys are hardly innocent at the beginning, unsurprisingly, given the environment they are growing up in. The boys are both involved with theft of metals, under the cover of legitimate scrap-metal dealing. They get in deeper as the film goes on, and you know things are going to end badly for someone.
The characters of the two boys are brilliantly constructed and played by child actors Conner Chapman and Shaun Thomas. Their similarities and differences are enthralling as their powerful friendship is tested to breaking point by events.
Ultimately this is a film about that terrible moment when you realise that your actions have consequences for other people. Consequences which, like it or not, you have to take responsibility for, one way or another.
Very well made film. Well worth a watch.
It tells the story of two boys Arbor and Swifty in Bradford. I've never heard the name Arbor before; and thought he was being called Arthur... but it didn't sound quite right. I think it is a tree reference to the original story which has gone over my head. Also, director Clio Barnard's previous film was a documentary called The Arbor.
Anyway, the film is a classic end-of-innocence story, in the loosest sense... since the boys are hardly innocent at the beginning, unsurprisingly, given the environment they are growing up in. The boys are both involved with theft of metals, under the cover of legitimate scrap-metal dealing. They get in deeper as the film goes on, and you know things are going to end badly for someone.
The characters of the two boys are brilliantly constructed and played by child actors Conner Chapman and Shaun Thomas. Their similarities and differences are enthralling as their powerful friendship is tested to breaking point by events.
Ultimately this is a film about that terrible moment when you realise that your actions have consequences for other people. Consequences which, like it or not, you have to take responsibility for, one way or another.
Very well made film. Well worth a watch.
Saturday 16 August 2014
The Desolation of Smaug
Part 2 of the Hobbit is just as long as part 1, but much more tedious.
I was sceptical when I found out that one book was being spun out into three long films. But part 1 did a pretty good job of winning me over: there was a lot of character development, and plenty of action, to go with the stunning visuals you expect from Peter Jackson. I think that film worked.
Unfortunately The Desolation of Smaug just seems like filler. Yes the visuals are still stunning, and there are bits of action, but the film takes nearly two and a half hours to get going... and then just stops!
I actually felt really fed up at the end. Like I'd been teased with a treat which was just snatched away. All the good parts leading up to that were largely forgotten. What a rubbish trick.
Does it make me eager for part 3? No. I haven't read the book but I think I know pretty much what is going to happen now. I can certainly wait another year to rent the third movie without needing to see it at the cinema. I will watch it, for completeness, but wont be paying out again.
Peter Jackson made a shed-load of money for some people with The Lord of the Rings. That was an epic story that needed three epic films to tell it. Those people obviously thought that PJ could magic another shed-load of money by turning a much shorter story into another three epic films. They were wrong. This franchise looks increasingly like a vanity project backed by greedy fools, preying on genuine J. R. R. Tolkien fans.
It is sad that The Hobbit wasn't made as a single epic film with the same actors as The Lord of the Rings. Together those films would have made a very nice set.
I was sceptical when I found out that one book was being spun out into three long films. But part 1 did a pretty good job of winning me over: there was a lot of character development, and plenty of action, to go with the stunning visuals you expect from Peter Jackson. I think that film worked.
Unfortunately The Desolation of Smaug just seems like filler. Yes the visuals are still stunning, and there are bits of action, but the film takes nearly two and a half hours to get going... and then just stops!
I actually felt really fed up at the end. Like I'd been teased with a treat which was just snatched away. All the good parts leading up to that were largely forgotten. What a rubbish trick.
Does it make me eager for part 3? No. I haven't read the book but I think I know pretty much what is going to happen now. I can certainly wait another year to rent the third movie without needing to see it at the cinema. I will watch it, for completeness, but wont be paying out again.
Peter Jackson made a shed-load of money for some people with The Lord of the Rings. That was an epic story that needed three epic films to tell it. Those people obviously thought that PJ could magic another shed-load of money by turning a much shorter story into another three epic films. They were wrong. This franchise looks increasingly like a vanity project backed by greedy fools, preying on genuine J. R. R. Tolkien fans.
It is sad that The Hobbit wasn't made as a single epic film with the same actors as The Lord of the Rings. Together those films would have made a very nice set.
Saturday 9 August 2014
False Trail
This is a 2011 sequel to the 1996 Swedish film The Hunters. As far as I can tell, the only common character between the films is Erik, played by the amazing Rolf Lassgård.
So False Trail is a pretty loose sequel. There doesn't seem to be a very good reason why Erik should be called back to his old home town from Stockholm, against his will; and the writers invent an additional reason for his reluctance to return, as if he didn't have reason enough after the events of the first film.
This could easily be a Wallander story. In fact I had to remind myself a couple of times that it wasn't; being a big fan of Rolf in that role.
There isn't much that you can't guess early on in the case. So this isn't much of a mystery. Clearly there is a fall guy and people laying a false trail to him... the clue is in the title after all.
So, like many of Lassgard's films, this is mostly about the characters. And unlike some of his weaker films, he isn't the only great character. Peter Stormare also has a great character in Torsten who also seems to be a good-cop and bad-cop rolled into one. The scenes between Erik and Torsten are all very tense, as they scope each other out.
This isn't a brilliant film, because the plot is a bit predictable, but it is still a good watch.
So False Trail is a pretty loose sequel. There doesn't seem to be a very good reason why Erik should be called back to his old home town from Stockholm, against his will; and the writers invent an additional reason for his reluctance to return, as if he didn't have reason enough after the events of the first film.
This could easily be a Wallander story. In fact I had to remind myself a couple of times that it wasn't; being a big fan of Rolf in that role.
There isn't much that you can't guess early on in the case. So this isn't much of a mystery. Clearly there is a fall guy and people laying a false trail to him... the clue is in the title after all.
So, like many of Lassgard's films, this is mostly about the characters. And unlike some of his weaker films, he isn't the only great character. Peter Stormare also has a great character in Torsten who also seems to be a good-cop and bad-cop rolled into one. The scenes between Erik and Torsten are all very tense, as they scope each other out.
This isn't a brilliant film, because the plot is a bit predictable, but it is still a good watch.
Tuesday 5 August 2014
Guardians of the Galaxy
Even as a long-time Marvel fan the only thing I knew about the Guardians of the Galaxy before watching the film were the character names from finding them in the Lego Marvel Superheroes game.
Which is no problem. This is an origins film; it explains everything as it goes along. Not that there's a lot to explain. There's no complicated plot, not much by the way of twists; everyone does what you expect them to do, pretty much all of the time. And yet it is a very enjoyable film.
There is a wacky array of characters: a white man, a green woman, a raccoon coloured raccoon, a tree and a heavily tattooed bald man. And that's just the main characters; the supporting creatures are (literally) just as colourful.
The dialogue is very tongue-in-cheek with humour for a range of ages. Several times, as an adult, I found myself thinking "did they really say that?". Be careful what you laugh at if you watch with kids... you might get some tricky questions.
As you'd expect, the effects are brilliant. How far things have come since the horror that was Jar Jar Binks: now we have amazing digital characters like Rocket and Groot who are so brilliant that you'll just believe they are real.
I think all the actors were great, the writing and directing is awesome.
Marvel continue to expand their movie Universe very nicely... with characters from post-credits teasers cropping up here: The Collector from Thor 2 and Thanos from The Avengers.
Which is no problem. This is an origins film; it explains everything as it goes along. Not that there's a lot to explain. There's no complicated plot, not much by the way of twists; everyone does what you expect them to do, pretty much all of the time. And yet it is a very enjoyable film.
There is a wacky array of characters: a white man, a green woman, a raccoon coloured raccoon, a tree and a heavily tattooed bald man. And that's just the main characters; the supporting creatures are (literally) just as colourful.
The dialogue is very tongue-in-cheek with humour for a range of ages. Several times, as an adult, I found myself thinking "did they really say that?". Be careful what you laugh at if you watch with kids... you might get some tricky questions.
As you'd expect, the effects are brilliant. How far things have come since the horror that was Jar Jar Binks: now we have amazing digital characters like Rocket and Groot who are so brilliant that you'll just believe they are real.
I think all the actors were great, the writing and directing is awesome.
Marvel continue to expand their movie Universe very nicely... with characters from post-credits teasers cropping up here: The Collector from Thor 2 and Thanos from The Avengers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)