As a film in its own right Riddick is a fun enough sci-fi romp. Vin Diesel's archetypal anti-hero fights against everyone, makes some almost-friends and just about survives... as you expect.
So, if I hadn't already enjoyed Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick, then I would probably be quite happy with Riddick. But whereas those two films were very different, this one doesn't add anything: we briefly see Riddick not liking being "King of The Necros" (again as expected) and then we are given a film which is quite like Pitch Black, but not as good.
Afterwards I found myself imagining the scriptwriter's thought process as - Right, we need another Riddick story... OK, the fans really liked PB and quite liked TCOR so... how about Riddick gets stranded on a planet with monsters and mercs???
Argh. More imagination needed. Film fans don't know what they want; they just tell you what they liked before. This is how we end up in a cloud of sequels, remakes and reboots.
Saturday, 18 January 2014
Friday, 17 January 2014
Drug War
I was disappointed with the Chinese film Drug War. There are a few interesting moments; but for the majority of the film it just plods along (no pun intended) a single track. It needs more depth to keep you watching until everything kicks off at the end. I almost bailed out several times, but did stick with it until the end. It wasn't really worth it... the ending isn't very good either.
Tuesday, 14 January 2014
Daredevil (extended)
I think I was one of the few Daredevil fans who didn't think the 2003 film was completely terrible. It was far from perfect, but I don't think it deserved the panning it got. Daredevil is always going to be a hard character to portray because (like Batman) he has varied over the years from just tough to almost insane and very dark.
I've known for a while that there was a so-called director's cut of the film which many fans thought was a big improvement. But I'm not a fan of special editions; mainly because the few I've seen have just been too long and didn't improve the film at all (except for Blade Runner obviously).
But I noticed recently that the Blu-ray version of Daredevil is 124 minutes long (the DVD is 99 minutes) and it isn't labelled as a special edition. So what's going on? As far as the Blu-ray release is concerned, the longer version is the only version.
That intrigued me. So after 10 years I thought I'd watch it.
It certainly is an improvement on the theatrical release. The edits are quite major and change the whole tone of many parts of the film. There are extra scenes which develop the characters better and many more subtle changes, such as removing unnecessary narration, which help too.
It's still not perfect. The special effects still look poor compared to later films with bigger budgets and Colin Farrell is still annoying as Bullseye. But the atmosphere and tone of the film are very good. This definitely should be the only version of this film.
I've known for a while that there was a so-called director's cut of the film which many fans thought was a big improvement. But I'm not a fan of special editions; mainly because the few I've seen have just been too long and didn't improve the film at all (except for Blade Runner obviously).
But I noticed recently that the Blu-ray version of Daredevil is 124 minutes long (the DVD is 99 minutes) and it isn't labelled as a special edition. So what's going on? As far as the Blu-ray release is concerned, the longer version is the only version.
That intrigued me. So after 10 years I thought I'd watch it.
It certainly is an improvement on the theatrical release. The edits are quite major and change the whole tone of many parts of the film. There are extra scenes which develop the characters better and many more subtle changes, such as removing unnecessary narration, which help too.
It's still not perfect. The special effects still look poor compared to later films with bigger budgets and Colin Farrell is still annoying as Bullseye. But the atmosphere and tone of the film are very good. This definitely should be the only version of this film.
Monday, 13 January 2014
Jack Reacher
I was put off watching Jack Reacher by a friend who is a fan of the Lee Child novels and told me that Tom Cruise is nothing like the Reacher he imagined. I also disliked the Mission Impossible films so I wasn't willing to give Cruise the benefit of the doubt.
On the other hand, I did really like other Cruise films like Vanilla Sky and Minority Report so eventually I thought I'd give it a go. Knowing nothing about the books I just watched it as a stand-alone film.
I liked the character of Jack Reacher. He's tough and almost impregnable. He has some good one-liners and the action scenes are exciting. Sort of like a Schwarzenegger character but more intelligent and more agile.
In retrospect Reacher's invulnerability could have made the film predictable, but it doesn't. The plot is clever, but not too complicated, and provides enough contrasts to maintain interest.
There are some gripes. Rosamund Pike's character is shallow; a pointless token female. Some of the bad guys don't stack up either, but I can't go into detail there without throwing in spoilers.
Overall I was pleasantly surprised. An enjoyable film.
On the other hand, I did really like other Cruise films like Vanilla Sky and Minority Report so eventually I thought I'd give it a go. Knowing nothing about the books I just watched it as a stand-alone film.
I liked the character of Jack Reacher. He's tough and almost impregnable. He has some good one-liners and the action scenes are exciting. Sort of like a Schwarzenegger character but more intelligent and more agile.
In retrospect Reacher's invulnerability could have made the film predictable, but it doesn't. The plot is clever, but not too complicated, and provides enough contrasts to maintain interest.
There are some gripes. Rosamund Pike's character is shallow; a pointless token female. Some of the bad guys don't stack up either, but I can't go into detail there without throwing in spoilers.
Overall I was pleasantly surprised. An enjoyable film.
Saturday, 11 January 2014
The Iceman
For a fleeting moment, when I saw that Chris Evans was in The Iceman, I thought "What? He's done The Human Torch and Captain America and now Iceman?"
But this 2012 movie isn't a Marvel story. It is based on the true story of Polish-American hit-man Richard Kuklinski; who is played beautifully by Michael Shannon.
The film film doesn't overly dwell on the murders committed by Kuklinski. Instead it tries to depict the apparent paradox of a notoriously cold-hearted killer who is also a family man. His wife is played by Winona Ryder who does a good job with a character clearly living in denial.
Whether the balance in the film is true or not is questionable. We see Kuklinski killing and disposing of people one minute then playing the loving father at a birthday party the next. Only on a couple of occasions does he show any compassion to his victims, or display any violence to his wife and daughters.
Evans is a bit of a distraction, serving mostly to highlight the outstanding performance of Shannon. Kuklinski always looks impassive but sometimes a brief ripple of emotion bubbles to the surface.
Not perfect, but interesting, with some great performances.
But this 2012 movie isn't a Marvel story. It is based on the true story of Polish-American hit-man Richard Kuklinski; who is played beautifully by Michael Shannon.
The film film doesn't overly dwell on the murders committed by Kuklinski. Instead it tries to depict the apparent paradox of a notoriously cold-hearted killer who is also a family man. His wife is played by Winona Ryder who does a good job with a character clearly living in denial.
Whether the balance in the film is true or not is questionable. We see Kuklinski killing and disposing of people one minute then playing the loving father at a birthday party the next. Only on a couple of occasions does he show any compassion to his victims, or display any violence to his wife and daughters.
Evans is a bit of a distraction, serving mostly to highlight the outstanding performance of Shannon. Kuklinski always looks impassive but sometimes a brief ripple of emotion bubbles to the surface.
Not perfect, but interesting, with some great performances.
Thursday, 9 January 2014
Cloud Atlas
You get a clue that Cloud Atlas is a hugely ambitious film when you see that it is 160 minutes long. The length itself isn't a problem; the problem is that there is too much going on to take in. So you'd need to watch this a few times to figure out what is going on ... at which point the length then becomes a problem ... who wants to watch a 160 minute film 3 times to figure out what's going on?
There are basically 6 interwoven stories here. Interwoven in the edit and (I think) in cause-and-effect. I say I think so, because I'm assuming that the same actor represents the same soul in each thread. That might sound obvious, but in some cases the actor is so heavily made up that it is hard to tell. Very impressive on the make-up front, but another flaw for me: it is hard enough to track the connections across 6 threads without having to speculate whether A equals B as well.
What happened when I watched this may or may not be typical. I found myself focussing hard on 3 of the stories and the other 3 became an irritation. The young lawyer, the composer and the clone all managed to grab my attention. Possibly because Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw and Doona Bae all give excellent performances.
In a novel this level of complexity works because you can set your own pace and go back to previous chapters to check details if you want. In a film it doesn't work. The connections are missed, or lost, and you are left feeling like you are trying to watch several films at the same time.
There are basically 6 interwoven stories here. Interwoven in the edit and (I think) in cause-and-effect. I say I think so, because I'm assuming that the same actor represents the same soul in each thread. That might sound obvious, but in some cases the actor is so heavily made up that it is hard to tell. Very impressive on the make-up front, but another flaw for me: it is hard enough to track the connections across 6 threads without having to speculate whether A equals B as well.
What happened when I watched this may or may not be typical. I found myself focussing hard on 3 of the stories and the other 3 became an irritation. The young lawyer, the composer and the clone all managed to grab my attention. Possibly because Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw and Doona Bae all give excellent performances.
In a novel this level of complexity works because you can set your own pace and go back to previous chapters to check details if you want. In a film it doesn't work. The connections are missed, or lost, and you are left feeling like you are trying to watch several films at the same time.
Friday, 3 January 2014
9
The film 9 is based on an earlier short film (of the same name) also directed by Shane Acker, that I haven't seen.
It is beautifully animated with a much more life-like style than other Tim Burton movies (he co-produces with Timur Bekmambetov).
The story is well told. Everything is mysterious at first. Gradually we find out what has happened to the world and who the curious little creatures are that we find ourselves rooting for.
There are moments of excitement and some of sadness. But this is generally a light and ultimately optimistic film. I think the joy is probably all in the first viewing, while everything is new and unknown.
Original and fun.
It is beautifully animated with a much more life-like style than other Tim Burton movies (he co-produces with Timur Bekmambetov).
The story is well told. Everything is mysterious at first. Gradually we find out what has happened to the world and who the curious little creatures are that we find ourselves rooting for.
There are moments of excitement and some of sadness. But this is generally a light and ultimately optimistic film. I think the joy is probably all in the first viewing, while everything is new and unknown.
Original and fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)