2012 (2009)

--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including the one below for 2012. You can of course continue reading this article here though. **--


I haven't actually seen many Roland Emmerich movies... well ok, looking through his IMDb I've seen Stargate, Independence Day and 10,000BC but I didn't know he did Stargate so... anyway... The point is I haven't seen The Day After Tomorrow. Though, I've seen bits of here and there and it looks an awful lot like 2012. I guess he has a type, he goes for a epic story... and he has a slight fondness for the epic disaster. That's cool, I like a good epic film as much as the next person. I haven't actually seen that many disaster movies though and they're not know for being great films though so I didn't want to expect to much out of this one.

Then again, I loved Armageddon; and Independence Day; and Deep Impact... So maybe I never really had anything to worry about with 2012. It's a big, silly, cheesy, funny epic disaster movie. I laughed a lot, I might even have shed a little tear or two; what more do you want! It is as cheesy as quattro formaggi pizza, but like Armageddon, you just have to go with it, this isn't high art here...

The best thing about it really are the action sequences, when things start exploding and flying through the air you kind of forget that they had just spent half an hour or so trying to tell you when and why this was going to happen. It doesn't matter anyway. Though, for what it's worth, the plot exposition at the start wasn't particularly painful. It was kind of interesting. Looking back though, I couldn't really tell you what excuse they gave for this particular armageddon... it had something to do with solar flares, mutant neutrinos and bubbling magma (I don't think they actually used the word magma though. That might involve having a character explaining what magma is). Anyway whatever, like I said, it doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that it leads to some amazing, fantastic special effects sequences. I saw this in one of the biggest cinema screens in Ireland and I wished it was bigger, and louder. I guess I should have just sat closer...

In case you don't know, 2012 actually has a great cast as well. John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson and Danny Glover, all great actors who perform ably in this. Woody Harrelson in particular is excellent. In fact I do think that with a lesser cast this could have been awful. As it is, it gets away with it. I'm sure it wasn't a particularly taxing role for any of them but a script like that requires some skill to not make it not sound horrific...

Let me make this clear though. This is not a good film. Don't blame me if you go see it and you think it's the stupidest film you've ever seen. I never said it wasn't stupid. The stuff that happens in it is actually outrageous. Really ridiculous. But it's also an enjoyable, hilarious film and honestly, I've never seen the likes of those effects before. Well, not on that kind of scale. I mean really, they're amazing. Amazing and funny. I do recommend that if you don't mind your movies served with cheese you should go see this. See it now.

8/10

Oh actually, I do have one criticism. At 158 mins it is a bit long. I was fine because I knew it was going to be long but I know some won't be up for that. They could have shaved 15-20 mins off it easy. We don't really need the monk stuff, and the boat stuff is a bit unnecessary. Ok, it was a bit emotional and I like that but there was already plenty of space for that kind of thing with the rest of the characters. So that's the reason it's getting an 8 not a 9 or 10.

Share

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus (2009)

--** This blog has moved to www.averagefilmreviews.com, so if you like what you read then please come over and have a look! You can read all the old reviews over there including the one below for The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. You can, of course, continue reading this article here though. **--


Looking over Terry Gilliam's filmography on IMDb, I notice that I've actually seen 9 of his 14 films... so you'd think I'd have an idea by now of what to expect. But the fact is that you just can't know what to expect with him. Except that it's going to be odd.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is odd. To be honest, I don't know if I liked it. It was interesting but it wasn't particularly satisfying. It looked good but I don't know... I thought it would look amazing, that it would be set in this fantastical whimsical land and it wasn't. But at the same time I don't know why I really expected that... jumping to conclusions... I guess the word Imaginarium conjures up, for me, a carnival kind of atmosphere and that's kind of backdrop we'd have on the story. But it wasn't. Which is fine, it just wasn't what I expected.

What it was, was a loose modern-day old style cautionary tale. Or at least that's the best way I can describe it. My problem with it was that the story was... clouded. Or not clouded enough, they could have gone either way and like so many films, they just didn't really decide which way to go. I suppose my opinion has to come in here as well... I like a good reveal and it kept looking like there was going to be one but in the end it was split. There was a reveal but there was a drip feed as well and I just don't know if the timing really worked. There wasn't really that convergence that you need with if you're doing both.

There is, of course, the inevitable question. How much of an effect did Heath Ledger's death have on the film? I don't think the effect is particularly apparent but how can I know? Terry Gilliam's films are such personal works that it's hard to imagine that it wasn't affected in some way. I do think the transitions are seamless though, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell can be proud of their work. They really do uphold Heath Ledger's legacy, they completed his last work while in no way treading on it. The faces changed but the character continued on.

Quick mentions as well, I thought Lily Cole was very good. I look forward to seeing her in more films. Andrew Garfield (who played Anton) on the other hand was crap, he almost spoiled the film on the me to be honest. What surprises me is that I've read other reviews where people really like him. I don't know why he was in the film at all... either get a better actor to bump up the character or write a role for him that is *ahem* better suited to his talent. Actually it's annoying me thinking about him... I'll forget him now.

So, what more can I say? It's a strange film. I would recommend it because I definitely think it's worth a watch, it's extremely imaginative... In fact the more I think about it the more I liked it, maybe I should watch it again. But the problem remains, I just didn't think it was that fulfilling... though it did remind me... if you play with fire...

7.5/10

N.B. You know what, I'm not actually sure what the Imaginarium was in the end... was it the mirror, the show or the imagining?

Share

Fantastic Mr. Fox

This is one of those situations where I can't really review this film as an average person. Fantastic Mr. Fox is Wes Anderson's new film. I love Wes Anderson's films. I can't help it, there's something about his films that just work for me. So I can only really review the film as a Wes Anderson fan, but I'll try my best to think of how other people might see it... I can't promise anything though!

To start. Fantastic Mr. Fox is based on a Roald Dahl novel, he of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The Witches fame. Well, he's more than that really he's a true cult novelist and he really is one of those people whose stories have touched millions (he sold over 100 million books) and when he died in 1990 the world really lost a unique talent. That said, I don't think I've read Fantastic Mr. Fox. I'm not sure because some parts of it did seems familiar, but I really don't remember... Actually I haven't read that many of his books at all but I appreciate the ones I have read and in particular the impact he's had on our culture.

But this isn't Roald Dahl appreciation hour... back to the film. Wes Anderson's style is all over this, of course he wrote the screenplay (with Noah Baumbach, his collaborator on The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou) so it was always going to be in his voice, as it were. But they aren't his characters or his story so it's a bit different from his other films. It isn't as quietly sad as some of them, but it is touching nonetheless. There are the charming, quirky characters that you'd expect and there are the beautiful set scenes that you could frame and put on your wall. Actually I wondering if I could get one framed... hmm... will have to look into that.

When I think about it, Wes Anderson was probably a great choice to direct this film. I had been sceptical as I wasn't sure what he was going to do with a children's story. Watching it, I remembered that Roald Dahl wasn't really a children's novelist in the traditional sense of the phrase. He didn't write stories about sweetness and light, he wrote stories to scare, disguist but also delight children. They were funny but they were dark, just like Wes Anderson's films...

So if you like Wes Anderson then you should definitely go to the film. If you don't know his films but you like Roald Dahl then you should definitely go to, I think it's a worthwhile adaptation.

If you're not familiar with either then I can't be sure... it's an interesting story and it's beautifully told but it's not entirely a kids film. The palette is somewhat muted so I don't know if it will necessarily be that engaging for younger children. It would probably be better for kids who would read Roald Dahl novels in the first place - so more for 9-14 year olds.

It'll be interesting to hear what adults think of the film... rottentomatoes.com reviews have all been positive so far, however there have only been 5 of them so hard to draw conclusions there. One thing they have been saying is that it's nostalgic and elegent. I find all Wes Anderson films like that but I suppose it's worth mention if you're not familiar with him.

Another thing worth mentioning is that it's filmed in stop-motion animation. I'm very accepting I guess, I don't mind if a film is full disney style animation, photorealistic animation, cel-shaded animation, live action, stop motion, combination... whatever, I just like films and the stories they tell. I have seen some comments though, from people who don't like the animation in Fantastic Mr. Fox. I think that's a bit sad in the sense that someone would dislike a film just because of that... but then again each to their own. I don't like watching dubbed films, so I guess that's a hang up I have. Fortunately I can just watch the subtitles... Personally though, I thought the animation looked great, the detail was incredible, that's another thing you get with a Wes Anderson film ;-)

Anyway, I really liked it and I hope you will too. I'm particularly interested in hearing from anyone who's not familiar with Wes Anderson or Roald Dahl. Let me know what you think of it.

8/10

Couples Retreat (2009)

I tend to go into films with low expectations. I don't like being disappointed so it's easier to just not expect very much, that way there's a better chance of being pleasantly surprised...

With Couples Retreat I wasn't pleasantly surprised. It was pretty much as I expected. A bit of seriousness, a bit of talking and a few laughs here and there... a reasonable way to spend 2 hours or so.

I suppose you can't help but think of Favreau and Vaughn's 1996 film about relationships - Swingers. The set up for this is kind of like it could be a Swingers 2... 13 years on and those young, free and single guys are married... however their relationships are getting a bit stale, things need to be shaken up, apparently. That's kind of where it leaves Swingers though. In the end this is really just an ok romantic comedy set on an amazing looking island paradise. It really does look fantastic.

The problem with this film is really that I think a lot of critics wanted it to be, for want of a better title, Swingers 2. I wanted it to be Swingers 2. I'd love to believe that Favreau (and Vaughn) are still as sharp as they were back than. In fact I do kind believe that they are. The problem is that they could never really make Swingers 2 now. Not unless they just spend their own money and make it as a pet project. They really are too famous now. Swingers 2 would never be a big blockbuster film, and any film that these guys would star in today has to be a blockbuster... otherwise it would be considered a failure. There were a few scenes in this film that I thought were really good and that were insightful, but it just didn't seem to be what they were going for overall. That was a bit frustrating though, that there was a glimmer here or there of a better film... alas it was not to be.

I don't know if Couples Retreat is going to be a blockbuster but I certainly think it's going to take in a decent amount of cash. It's not half as bad as some are making it out to be. I mean, if you take it as just a normal romantic comedy then it does try to get a bit heavy for a while. And I do think there are too many couples in it, they could have dropped one and had more time to tell more of the stories for the remaining three, but there are some good, funny scenes in it that I think a lot of people would laugh at.

It's not a classic and no-one will be talking about it in 13 years time, but if you have nothing better to see over the weekend and you just want a bit of a date movie then you could do worse.

6/10