Saturday, 18 February 2017

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Well here we are with the ninth movie in this franchise, if you include 2016's 'Deadpool', and with a tenth on the way! So many plots, sequels, prequels, different actors playing the same characters, alternate timelines which may or may not count anymore...Jesus Christ! I'm not a fanboy of this franchise (or the comics) and I'm probably in the minority here but...what the hell is going on in this franchises timeline?? I have no clue anymore. I can't remember the older films and I can't be bothered to rewatch them all in order to keep up with this one (because they're mostly boring and repetitive). And that's the main problem with this movie series, you kinda gotta know stuff from the previous movies.

Anyway so we're still following the timeline that started in 'X-Men: First Class' which was a prequel/reboot to the entire franchise (ugh!). This time we are first whisked back to ancient Egypt where the first mutant ever rules supreme. His name is En Sabar Nur, more commonly known as Apocalypse. So old Apocalypto is betrayed by his followers and gets buried alive beneath a pyramid (I think). Back in the present of 1983 dusty old Apocalypto gets discovered by locals and is awakened, or re-energised or brought back to life, whatever. Surveying the new world before him, the big purple one decides that he does not like the modern age of 1983 and all those damn Cabbage Patch Kids. So off he goes to recruit some other mutants (his four horsemen, or whatever) and destroy the world so he can build a better one. The X-Men have to stop him...and that's it.

OK right off the bat, what the literal fuck was that makeup job on Oscar Isaac for Apocalypse?? I heard and read the rumours all about his visual appearance being somewhat kooky and rather reminiscent of some kids flick villain, but I didn't really think much into it. What I saw was shocking, absolutely shocking...and hilarious. Now up to this point these movies have been relatively solid visually, not great but they have tried to give these comicbook characters a realistic look which has worked OK, apart from one or two. Considering this is a new movie in 2016 I simply could not believe how poor Isaac looked in his baddie outfit. For a start it looks nothing like Apocalypse, not even close. His entire bodysuit looks terribly rubbery and squishy, no weight to it at all. Isaac isn't a particularly large person and you can also tell here, Apocalypse is way too short and has nowhere near enough bulk to him. And finally we have the makeup job on his face, Jesus Christ! Please explain to me what went wrong! what were they thinking?! Its awful, plain and simple, you can almost see the joins, the lines, it looks fake and rubbery, and again it looks nothing like Apocalypse. In short he looks like a big purple dildo from a kids flick or TV show.

But wait there's more terrible outfits, the cartoonish garbage keeps going. The four horsemen that Apocalypse recruits look almost as dumb as he does, well three of them. First up we have Psylocke, a sexy brunette with a skimpy costume that actually looks like something straight outta 'Mortal Kombat: Annihilation', or a tacky Halloween costume. Next its Angel and his big CGI wings that Apoc transforms into metal which somehow fires metal shards? He never wears a shirt it seems, he's kinda chunky, bit too much timber, and just looks plain idiotic. In this flick Storm is a villainess and looks more like yet another Mortal Kombat character, no the mohawk doesn't look 'cool'. Magneto is the final errr...horseman I guess. Of course its Michael Fassbender again but we all know he is one of the better factors in these films, and he looks good in his suit too.

On the goodie side of things its the usual story, same actors, same characters, same look. Nicholas Hoult is Beast and again just looks like a bad makeup job. They haven't yet managed to equal or better the look used on Kelsey Grammer in 'X-Men: The Last Stand' in my opinion. Evan Peters as Peter Maximoff might be a popular character right now but Quicksilver also looks ridiculous with his silver outfit if you ask me, and he just does the same shit as before (obviously). Nightcrawler literally just looks like a regular skinny teen with blue face paint on, possibly for Halloween again. I mean I know that's kinda the idea but it just looks so bland and cheap. And lastly the Godawful Jennifer Lawrence is back as Mystique, although you wouldn't think it because she's hardly seen in her famous blue visage. Obviously she didn't like the process or thinks she's too big to be hidden away behind so much makeup or whatever. All the rest are fine, nothing special, usual stuff, they don't look like clowns in other words.

Lets take a look at what we see. Apocalypse is supposedly a super powerful mutant of the ages....right? Yet he really doesn't come across like that, hell he doesn't even look intimidating. At one point he decapitates some local Egyptians with...sand? Yes the deadly terror that is sand, its coarse, it gets everywhere and it can apparently cut human heads off. He then merges some other local into a wall or something, eh? He does this again later with another X-Men character (can't recall). Tries to like...meld them with a wall, because that's a thing apparently, that's one of his mutant powers, wall melding. He can also turn people into dust or sand, I dunno. But he only does this here and there, like why doesn't he just turn all the X-Men into dust? (or sand).

At one point the big purple one wants to send a message to every human, so he requires Professor X. But surely he's powerful enough to do that himself no? I don't know all the facts about these characters but I just got the impression a mutant like Apocalypse would be able to do things like that himself. In fact I must question why he even needs any assistance from the mutants he recruited, they're all pretty useless anyway. I'm sure the shirtless dude with metal wings will be a big help to you.

We see Magneto lose yet another family, ugh! Yep we gotta sit through a whole load of schmaltz with the metal powered one and another faceless family that is obviously just there to be killed off and make him angry. So when these communist Polish militia accidentally kill Erik's wife and child, he kills them with...a necklace? Oh, his wife and child get killed accidentally by a fatal arrow shot. But this arrow must be damn big because it manages to penetrate his wife, and into the child (they were holding each other).

The entire Wolverine/Weapon X cameo sequence was another laughable waste of time. Apart from being completely pointless and of no use to the plot, its obviously just crowbarred in there to appease the fanboys who probably all spaffed in their pants over it. Wolverine, in his kegs, with a load of wires and crap all over him, killing faceless soldiers in a rage. Twas in the comics and thusly recreated here to appease and possibly gauge the reaction for a violent R rated flick.  I mean lets be honest here, that's all we've damn well heard about for so long now, 'I wanna see Wolverine kill people in an R rated movie' whine whine whine. And that's why we have the new tenth instalment 'Logan', because people just wanna see Wolverine kill people with graphic violence.

In the end everything is tied up with a nice little predictable bow that we've all seen before now. One big cliched battle at the end where various bad guys are defeated but not killed off so they can become good guys later on. Professor X has mind battles with Apocalypse because that's all Professor X can do in these films. Magneto was a villain here, but switches back to the good guys...again. Jean Grey unleashes her full Phoenix Force powers (I'm guessing it was) to defeat Apocalypse, she did very little else up till that point. Various X-Men use their various specific mutant powers for this and that, its all very convenient with shittonnes of deus ex machina moments. And finally the X-mansion gets obliterated...but is completely rebuilt perfectly in the end by Magneto and Jean Grey. How very safe and convenient.

This movie in general is so so poor in almost every way, its literally as if Singer and co took a large step backwards. I feel like this movie might have done way better had it come out prior to the very first X-Men movie, way back in 2000. Its virtually on par with 'X-Men: The Last Stand', 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine' and 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' in terms of an overall substandard product or offering. This movie feels totally jokey, a absolute sin in terms of modern comicbook flicks, its incredible how this got by without any warning lights (or were there?). At this point I really can't see where you can go with this franchise and these characters, this all felt so cliched, mundane and repetitious. Its been done, the moment has past.


Monday, 13 February 2017

Plastic Galaxy: The Story of Star Wars Toys (2014)

I came across this documentary purely out of the blue whilst minding my own business online one merry day. I saw an image, I clicked the link, it took me to some site which then informed me all about said doc. I instantly knew I had to see this, mainly out of pure morbid curiosity if anything. I mean really, how interesting could a documentary about action figures really be?? (even though those figures are Star Wars figures).

So at the time I write this review I am currently 38 years of age, pushing 39. So basically I'm a middle aged man to all the young hipsters and hepcats out there with their newfangled technology and whatnot (the f*ck is all this iCloud business?? whatever). Anyway, I am of the generation that lived through the original releases of 'The Empire Strikes Back' and 'Return of the Jedi' (although I only recall RotJ), and consequently I grew up during the main period of the original Kenner Star Wars toy line. So to someone of my age who is or was a fanboy (or girl) of George Lucas' space opera, this documentary will probably be a glorious trip down memory lane, or not, kinda depends dunnit.

So what does this doc do other than show you nice shots of loads of vintage Star Wars toys and their packaging. Well firstly and most obviously we meet a group of people, mainly blokes, who are in their mid 30's and have impressive collections of the now vintage toy line. Each person describes how they got into the franchise, how it changed their life forever and of course how the toys were the centre of their lives throughout their childhoods. Each person generally sits behind a glorious glass cabinet display of figures, ships, action sets, original complete packaging, posters, trinkets, tat etc...the full monty so to speak. These guys know their shit, they know all about the toys and they treat them like chunks of rock from Mars, probably even better than that.

From there we move into the real gritty stuff, the Kenner company and how they came to be the centre of the toy world. Basically before Star Wars there was no real licensing for merchandise based off movies, no one had ever really tapped into that cash cow because no one ever really thought it would/could do anything. Kenner (based on Kenner Street in Cincinnati, Ohio) was originally part of a soap company in 1947 and came up with a toy gun that fired bubbles. This simple idea sold over a million units and got Kenner on the right track for children's toys. Fast forward a bit to 1975 and Kenner starts to have success with toys based off TV shows like 'The Six Million Dollar Man'. Then in 1979 along came 'Star Wars' and everything changed. Gone was the nice clean polished look and feel of science fiction, sci-fi was now dirty, grimy, damaged, worn in, weathered etc...The doc introduces us to various people who worked for Kenner at the time and they explain how the Star Wars movie presented a whole new world to them, a new challenge, basically entering new territory both for their work and film in general.

The guys (who range from the designers to managers) talk about how they all saw the movie to see what they were up against. They discuss how the movie blew them away, whilst at the same time how it got them excited due to the sheer wealth of imagination on display. They then had to go away and translate this explosive new movie into a new toy range with little time and not enough resources. This leads into talks about the surprisingly successful 'Early Bird' set of figures which was basically an empty cardboard box with a gift certificate for the actual figures when they were released. They discuss which characters were originally used and why, they show early figure concepts, early designs for spacecraft and vehicles, ideas for retractable weapon sections on some figures etc...In other words a whole lot of chat about toy prototypes with the final results.

There is generally a lot of talk with old Kenner designers and how they turned the movies now legendary spacecraft into highly popular toys. The ships were pretty straight forward obviously but seeing original models and designs for the Ewok village playset was neat. We also see various sketches of unused designs, most of which were for vehicles that weren't actually in the film. Some of these actually got made which I'm sure people will recall (they looked crap and were so obviously not from the real Star Wars universe), but we do see lots of designs for land vehicles, droids and whatnot that didn't get the green light. Ironically many of them do actually look pretty sketches anyway. One toy that got the green light that wasn't in the movies was the troop transport, a shitty excuse for a toy which looked way better in the design stage. Oddly it was Joe Johnston and Lucasfilm that didn't like the original design, they revised it and, in my opinion, made it look crap. One of the biggest unused designs was for a large toy of the now famous Rebel blockade runner, the Tantive IV. This was really disappointing to discover as the Tantive IV is such a badass ship, fantastic design and it probably would of been a sweet toy. Hard to judge of course but the early design  sketches looked great. The figures were cool but the original Kenner Star Wars spacecraft were always a big deal, easily some of the best toys ever created (check the Imperial Shuttle toy, best and biggest toy ever!).

One segment featured a chat with the original photographer of the toys for the original packaging. Now I know this might sound completely naff but it was actually really cool. The original Kenner packaging is just as famous and collectable as the toys they contained. Why you ask? well because they were so bright and colourful, they had that classic 70's/80's vibe (naturally), and the images used were simple but highly effective in capturing your imagination (at the time). Obviously there is a large prescription of rose tinted specs going on here but believe it or not, those images on the packaging are virtually seen as collectable art now. Hell even to this day that Kenner packaging design still evokes strong emotions and memories for me. The design truly was that powerful and influential, both now and back in the day. The packaging and some of the toys even had a certain smell about them. Whether or not smelling those toys was a good idea health wise I dunno, but the aroma was strong with some of those toys (especially the black TIE fighter pilot figure for some reason).

Towards the end the doc looks into various Star Wars toys from other countries. Most of these being genuine items that just had different packaging and languages obviously, such as the European figure packaging with French, English and Spanish on them (always hated how that looked). Twas interesting to see various changes and alterations to some toys in different countries such as Mexico for example. But then there was also the unlicensed stuff that either went under the radar or got shut down. Its incredible to see just how much garbage has been flogged with the Star Wars brand on it. From there the doc starts to explore the newer range of Star Wars merchandise, mainly figures and spacecraft. This is where it becomes uninteresting as the newer toys look shit compared to the classic stuff, so tacky and overblown, just makes you feel sorry for kids these days really.

Overall it was a shame that they didn't delve deeper into specific character figures (for the classic range). I was kinda hoping there might be some cool insights into some of the alien characters and why they didn't make figures for many background characters. Probably because they were background characters I guess but I always thought some of the choices for figures were odd. Like how some background characters were used and other more prominent background characters weren't. For example, why did they make a figures for Yak-Face, Amanaman, Prune Face and Snaggletooth when these guys are hardly seen in the movies. Why were there no figures for the Devaronian, Biggs, Wedge, the Bith cantina band, Mon Mothma and various others from Jabba's palace?

As I said originally, this is essentially for people of a certain age who remember this stuff, who actually grew up playing with it. I certainly recommend it to any Star Wars fan of course as it is an interesting little documentary. But lets not beat around the bush here, this is simply toy porn, in your face toy porn for guys who never really grew up. That's not a bad thing! I myself still have various Kenner Star War toys from back in the day, including a couple ships, I include myself in this. But I still can't lie, just seeing all those shots of rows upon rows of classic Kenner Star Wars figures, rows of all the ships and vehicles, every single piece. All the ones you wanted back in the day but never got, just sitting there in massive wall to wall displays. toy porn, but oh so good.


Friday, 10 February 2017

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (UK/US, 2005)

Ah Mr Douglas Adams and his legendary cosmic comedy, dare I say his unfilmable legendary cosmic comedy?

Much like Monty Python or Fawlty Towers or many many other classic British comedies, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is the absolute epitome of our humour. The story of how hapless Arthur Dent is saved from the destruction of planet Earth by his alien friend and whisked across the universe on a bizarre adventure that even to this day I'm not entirely sure what's its all about. It involves meeting various aliens species, robots, venturing onto other worlds, learning about alien cultures, the meaning of life, and generally how to survive in the universe as long as you've got your towel.

What started out as a simple radio broadcast back in 1978 on radio 4, quickly turned into a successful small series of five books from 1979 onwards. Douglas Adams simplistic radio broadcast which simple involved people talking against sound effects, took the comedy sci-fi world by storm. Since then there have been audiobooks, computer games, stage shows and of course the now legendary 1981 BBC television series. It was this small successful series that really brought the franchise home (so to speak) for many people including myself. This was the main format that originally grabbed the attention of many younger people (now middle aged) that may not have been aware of the book, mainly because of its visuals and sheer lunacy. Back in the day this show was quite a challenge, a real feat of craftsmanship and ingenuity. Sure these days it looks like complete crap in places but its that all important charm factor that still endures.

So onto the 2005 movie adaptation, was this another feat of craftsmanship and ingenuity? Hmmm. Well firstly this movie isn't an exact adaptation from the original novels. I believe almost every different format of Adams work is slightly different because Adams liked to change things up (although I could be wrong here). Between the radio, TV and novel adaptations various bits of material were either left out or changed by Adams, and this is no different in the movie. We get the basics, the groundwork, but much has been left out (probably due to time restraints) and some has been tweaked, updated or is new. The first clue to the new material is the rather pointless song in the opening credits and some pointless backstory for Dent and Trillian ( I think).

So onto the cast. Well how can I put this, Hitchhikers is an all British affair, the comedy is very British, its all from a very (dated) British point of view, much like Fawlty Towers (or whatever). To this degree I personally think the casting in this movie was bad, a terrible case of miscasting to appeal to a worldwide audience (never a good move with something so niche). On the Brit side, Martin Freeman is a solid choice here but unfortunately merely comes across as his previous and well known 'Office' character of Tim Canterbury. It just kinda feels like you're watching a crossover. After the events of 'The Office' Canterbury goes into space. Bill Nighy does make an acceptable Slartibartfast but comes across as too weak and feeble really, I'm not sure why he played the character so ineffectually.

On the American side we had Mos Def as Ford Prefect (oh Christ!). This is where I feel the people behind this flick really didn't understand the material, they just didn't get it. Besides the most obvious case of simply trying to encourage a wider multicultural audience (which was never going to work here), they chose someone who couldn't even act! Mos Def (an African American rapper) is so so SO far from what the character of Ford should be its literally cringeworthy. You only have to read the book and watch the original TV series to get it, but essentially that means being British and of a certain age so...Clues come from his attire and name, but think of him as a Doctor Who-esque type fellow. Anyway Def was tragically bad in this role, not funny, couldn't act and oddly very quite too, can hardly hear the guy.  Then you had Zooey Deschanel playing Trillian...ugh! Look there was nothing wrong with trying to mix things up a bit (I'm sure Adams might have approved considering he did the same), but they could of at least cast people who could act in comedies.

The only person from the US that actually did fit their character was Sam Rockwell as Zaphod Beeblebrox, incredible I know. With this news (at the time) many fanboys/girls of the Adams universe were probably holding their head in their hands by this point I'm sure. But amazingly Rockwell's performance is spot on, in fact its possibly better than Mark Wing-Davey's original TV offering. Rockwell absolutely nails this ultra vain, narcissistic, overly flashy space cowboy type pretty boy with ease. The long flowing blonde hair, perfect gleaming white smile, dapper attire, trendy facial hair and that brash American attitude. It all fits together perfectly to create this young dumb full of cum, space bound Elvis-esque, legend in his own mind type. Rockwell not only nails the look, but he nails the quips, the poses, the failed action hero moves and his comedy timing.

One major issue I had with this character update, his two heads. In the original TV series Beeblebrox has two heads on his shoulders, one being Wing-Davey's, one being a really bad motionless but hilarious puppet. In the movie, for some reason they decide to have Beeblebrox's second head beneath his main head, presumably sitting in his throat. Now I imagine this was probably down to making the character easier to play for Rockwell and easier in the long run because they wouldn't have to stick a CGI head on him in every shot. But I think it was a bad decision really because they took away the characters main hook, his two heads.
Plus I really think it would have worked wonders with Rockwell's good performance, seeing these two narcissistic heads snap at each other. They could of done it, it might have been a pain and it might have looked a bit ropy but that's all part of the Hitchhikers charm (or it should be). But the way they took it was pretty shit if you ask me, made no sense either, how does his main head stay attached when the second head pops up? What causes the head to pop up? And how exactly did Humma Kavula (John Malkovich) remove Zaphod's second head without killing or decapitating him??

So onto effects. This where this movie does tend to shine because this universe REALLY benefited from some modern day special effects. It was genuinely a real joy to actually see some of Adams creations come to life properly for the first time. Naturally being a 2005 movie the CGI is not up to scratch these days, its not terrible or anything but it does have that typical plastic look that a lot of early CGI displayed back in the day. But its not the CGI that grabs you, its the wonderful use of real puppetry, costumes, sets and props that help sell this bizarre cosmos.

Twas the highly skilled craftsman and women of the Henson Creature Shop that supplied the Vogon alien race and by golly how beautiful they were. Fantastic full sized alien suits with actor inside, along with fully animated prosthetic faces bring the Vogon's to the big screen with A grade results. Along with the Vogon's we also see various other quirky real time alien suits with animated features (I liked the big white furry thing with teeth) and a small cameo from the original robot suit used for Marvin. Speaking of Marvin, this time the depressed robot is a rather tubby full sized suit complete with a huge planet sized head. Warwick Davis is the performer inside the suit whilst Alan Rickman provides the voice in a typically deadpan manner.

Speaking of CGI, this also gave the material a real boost for the guide sequences. The famous animated segments from the guide (or the book) that explain all the unusual things within the universe for a beginner (humans). Basically how to survive when travelling around the universe. Originally the TV series effects were simple animated wire-frame-like coloured images with text and narration from the book (Peter Jones), they were actually the highlight of the series and looked great. For the movie CGI was incorporated and the coloured images were obviously way more advanced. Even though I do prefer the original wire-frame images because they actually look more realistic in a way, the new CGI animations were still nicely done and looked sharp. Stephen Fry provided the voice for the guide and he was the perfect choice to do so with his well spoken dulcet tones. My only quibble would be there simply wasn't enough of the guide in the movie. In the original TV series there were lots of small segments which provided tones of exposition, backstory, flashbacks etc...Obviously the movie couldn't incorporate as much so alas we don't get so much, you can tell because they cram a load in the end credits.

So onto my final all important thoughts that you've all been waiting for with bated breath. The film is visually pleasing and does include some lovely touches of imagination that bring Adams creations up to date whilst also expanding on them. There are some good looking set pieces amongst some solid  sets, nice costumes and even the odd new bits of added material work well, such as John Malkovich's creepy alien character of Humma Kavula. But here's the problem, the film just isn't particularly funny nor is it particularly special. Now I'm not saying that all films must be 'special', but with something like this, a rich cult with an large historic fanbase, frankly you just expect more.

Instead we get a very average, run of the mill sci-fi flick that is clearly trying to be its own unique thing but simply can't escape the gravitational pull of the ever menacing Hollywood tractor beam (the casting didn't help this). They just couldn't really decide if they wanted to make a quaint British flick or a quaint British flick with heavy Hollywood influences. Looking back it just kinda felt like they saw the opportunity to wheel out another movie adaptation and try to spin it into another sequel spewing cash cow. Can I say that now? Well yes I can because the movie failed to succeed and has since been lost in the dark abyss of crap movie oblivion with so many others of the same ilk. Who the hell talks about this flick now?? no one! because it was yet another bland production rolled off the highly mediocre modern movie conveyor belt at a time when CGI was the be all and end all. So in the end it was a disappointment and a wasted opportunity, mainly because I doubt we'll be seeing any more movies based on Adams famous sci-fi universe, because of this.


Friday, 3 February 2017

The Bounty (UK, 1984)

So for those who might be unaware, this movie recounts the actual events of the HMS Bounty and its crew in the year 1789. The movie is actually told in flashbacks from the perspective of William Bligh (Anthony Hopkins), the Commanding Lieutenant of the ship, during his court martial in England.

History tells us that in 1787 the HMS Bounty set sail from England, destination Tahiti, with Bligh in command. The mission to collect breadfruit pods for transplantation in the Caribbean. During the course of the voyage everything is generally fine and dandy on-board, all shipshape and Bristol fashion. The Bounty reaches Tahiti in 1788 and is welcomed by the natives with open arms. The crew spend five months on the island (more than intended) and slowly became infatuated with the freedom and general carefree lifestyle the natives and their home offered. During this time Master's Mate Fletcher Christian falls in love and marries a native girl. When the time came to leave the island many crew members simply did not wish to, including Christian, which lead to obvious massive problems. Under a lot of pressure Bligh managed to whip the crew back into shape to continue their mission. Alas it wasn't long before Christian cracked and along with 18 crew members they took the ship and set Bligh adrift with his loyal supporters.

The film follows the story in stages which are interspersed with small segments of Bligh's trial. Whilst watching I was actually surprised at how fast the plot moved. There is little to no time in England prior to the voyage, and then before you know it the ship has reached Tahiti with very little time at sea. Now this isn't a bad thing per say, the main crux of the film surrounds what happens on Tahiti and of course what follows so the film does skip along to those points. The only main bit of plot for the outgoing voyage is the attempt at rounding the Cape (Cape Horn), which fails due to the treacherous weather conditions.

What we see for the first stage of the movie is essentially short bursts of character driven sections to show us who we are dealing with. Bligh is clearly a good fair man, a moral man who does actually care about his crews welfare. He simply wants nothing more than to successfully complete his mission and a personal goal of circumnavigating the globe, is that too much to ask? Fletcher Christian (Mel Gibson) is a family friend of Bligh. He appears to be an up and coming young naval officer in the making. Devoted to his role, his Lieutenant, well spoken and again fair and moral. Sailing Master John Fryer (Daniel Day-Lewis) is another young up and coming naval officer in the making. Much like Christian he is devoted to his work and superior, but is clearly more stern and happy to dish out punishments.

Down below you had the usual rabble of able seamen that varied in personality and movie stereotype. Churchill (Liam Neeson) is the ship's Corporal, a brutish thug of a man that seemed quite happy to start a fight over very little. William Cole (Bernard Hill) the ship's Boatswain, very loyal to Bligh, could be seen as overly keen, a company man type fellow. John Smith (John Sessions) the meek ship's steward. Ned Young (Phil Davis, the British Gary Busey), the quite calm Midshipman and weird Sting-esque looking fellow. Add various background sailor characters played by other British names such as Neil Morrissey and Dexter Fletcher.

Of course visually the film is epic in scope, there's no question about that. The ship is shot from various angles throughout that are truly beautiful, sunsets on the skyline, approaching Tahiti , leaving Tahiti, cruising the ocean waves etc...Real locations used in French Polynesia along with New Zealand add authenticity along with the already authentic general look of the film as a whole. Yes this film most definitely offers a realistic and gritty-esque look at life on the high seas in the late 1700's. Yet at the same time somewhat overly romantic and sumptuous.

Essentially this version of the classic incident offers more insight into the relationship between Bligh and Christian. Relatively close family friends at the start, Bligh offering Christian a good position on the voyage at his side, then promoting him midway. Its very interesting to watch Hopkins play this father figure of sorts to Gibson's Christian. Bligh clearly wants to help Christian go far in his career and shows on numerous times he is willing to hand out lighter punishments that might normally be far more serious. He would scold instead of flog, flog instead of hang. Its also interesting to watch Bligh observing his men in Tahiti as they frolic with the natives. One could assume he was jealous, and that could be a reason. But its far more logical to think he was concerned about how he would get his men back into the right frame of mind when it was time to leave. Its obvious to see that all the topless native women, sandy beaches, sunshine and apparent lack of work and discipline would be cause enough to keep Bligh up at night.

At the same time Gibson's Christian is almost a bit of a non-entity in the movie. Obviously this is because the story is told from Bligh's perspective but its clear Gibson is merely added in to look pretty on the beach and in a uniform (which he does). Whilst Bligh has always been seen as a possible tyrannical monster in the history books, Christian was portrayed as a more heroic character breaking free to live his life. Dare I say a bit of a Romeo and Juliet situation. Well that is not what you see here. Gibson's Christian is a good man for sure, but young and easily influenced. Like some of the crew, having found a woman to bonk endlessly, getting tattooed, getting a tan etc...Its all too much for the impressionable young man. He rebels against his father figure, his position and basically goes off the deep end in a bit of a tantrum really. You can see it hurts Bligh deeply to see this, he tries to stop Christian by offering leniency when things go too far, he does try! But Christian had already made his mind up.

Obviously its hard to know what really happened and what triggered all this. The film takes a certain direction and it does seem the most logical, we're all only human. Would an older, more experienced seaman be able to handle to temptations and look at the situation more sensibly? After all it was only Christian from the top ranks that mutinied, or got it all going. The lower ranking men had more of a reason seeing as they were treated like crap all the time.

Its definitely Hopkins movie for the most part, his performance is big, bold and commanding (fancy that). We get the whole range from Hopkins, the softly spoken gentleman, the stoic leader, the angry father figure and now amusingly, the Hannibal Lecter grin complete with lots of glistening sweat at one point. As already said Gibson is pretty but not much else, he is totally outclassed by Hopkins at every stage. His one moment of real acting sees him kinda blow it frankly. When Christian takes the Bounty and holds a sword to Bligh, the overblown rants just come across as cringeworthy more than anything. You can see quite clearly, here is a man, a Hollywood star, who basically can't really act too well...unless its in some one-liner filled action flick. In the end Gibson's Christian comes across more like a spoilt schoolboy who sulks when he doesn't get his way. I mean come on, we all have those moments when you just wanna quit everything and run away to some idyllic location. But most of us are able to calm down and think rationally, put things into perspective.

For a British production back in 1984 this is certainly a massive achievement, I didn't even know it was a British movie. The entire movie really has a glorious Hollywood feel to it, in a good way, but at the same time it can't escape cliches and stereotypes. Take a look at the native women on Tahiti, they all appear to be rather cute don't they. Long flowing dark hair, perky breasts, full lips, nice and slim, and apparently perfectly happy to have sex with all the sailors. The thing is most of these guys aren't much to look at and considering they've all been at sea for so long, I'd guess very dirty, smelly and unhealthy. But who cares! sex party on the beach everyone! The film also shows life on Tahiti as pretty absurdly sweet frankly. All Christian does all day is bonk, get tattooed and get lavished upon by his new bird. Its like no one on Tahiti does any work or anything. Plus none of the sailors ever appear ill or skinny or anything, you'd think they would be rather malnourished. Don't even go there with Gibson's Christian, the man is an Adonis at all times, the journey has zero affects on him.

I must mention the score by the legendary Vangelis, of electronic orchestral musical fame ('Blade Runner', 'Chariots of Fire'). Even without knowing who composed the score you can tell straight off the bat its a Vangelis score. Those recognisable electronic chimes and haunting ethereal melodies that seem to touch your inner spirit. Now I will admit that at first I didn't like it, my reasons? well I just didn't think it fit the film. Firstly the score is very very similar to Vangelis' work on 'Blade Runner' I think. Secondly, because of its similarity to that particular futuristic score, it kinda felt out of place in an 18th century setting and a bit samey. However, after going back to the film to rewatch and listen, I can confirm that the score has indeed grown on me.

'The Bounty' is on one hand a bit special, the film is actually pretty darn accurate as far as I'm aware, bar the odd snippet. It goes by a version of events as recorded from Bligh's perspective, and does so very well. Whether or not that account is accurate or not, we will never know. However, far be it for me to take sides in the argument, what we see and what you can research does seem entirely likely. On the other hand (there's always another hand), the film is very much of its time (that being the 80's) with regard to certain stereotypes, the usage of pretty boy Gibson and the portrayal of the natives and their homeland. The film is completely engaging but at times a tad slow and very very obviously over romanticised, to the point of corny. Nevertheless this British movie is highly enjoyable from start to finish with relatively gritty realistic visuals, big performances and a sweeping tale of love and freedom.


Sunday, 29 January 2017

Pete's Dragon (2016)

Oh boy! another live action remake/reboot type scenario from Disney, because that's what we want and need (ugh!). Well at least they took an old forgotten movie which wasn't really too good, because at least that makes some sense (glances at the movies in the queue awaiting their turn...I feel your pain, I really do).

So the original 1977 movie was a musical with a classic cast and is commonly known to be Disney's attempt at riding on the coattails of its earlier success 'Mary Poppins'. Its at this point I will admit that I have never actually seen the 1977 movie of Peter and his dragon, so I cannot compare. Essentially I'm going into this franchise remake/reboot blind which makes a change, primarily because I can't rip this new version apart compared to the original (bugger).

So the story goes like this. A young boy is orphaned when his family are involved in a car crash whilst driving though the forest, somewhere in the pacific north west I believe. Its at this point that the young Peter accidentally meets a mysterious dragon who decides to take Peter in and care for him, for some reason. Six years later and Peter is found by Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard), a park ranger, her boyfriend Jack (Wes Bentley), Natalie (Oona Laurence), Jack's daughter, and Gavin (Karl Urban), Jack's brother. They take Peter in and try to care for him but naturally Peter has difficulties coping without Elliot (Peter named the dragon Elliot after a character in his favourite book). Eventually Elliot the dragon is discovered and captured by Gavin and his work colleges (after tricking Grace). So Grace, Natalie and Pete must help Elliot escape the authorities, long story short.

So this movie isn't an original premise, in fact you could look at it as a complete rip-off of a few other genres and ideas. Firstly, this could so easily have been a Steven Spielberg movie, its basically 'E.T.' for Pete's sake (ahem). A young boy finds a mysterious creature, they make friends, they get discovered and the boy must help the creature evade the authorities. Not only that but this movie is set in the 80's, coincidence? The entire set up of this movie is your standard emotional ride with all the familiar beats that we've seen a million times before (usually with animals, aliens or whatever). Kid finds a family, unique friend is an added extra.

Then you have the Tarzan aspect of the film, yes that's right, Tarzan. The young Pete lives in the forest with Elliot the dragon. He runs around in just some ripped pants, no top, no socks, no shoes, long hair, barefoot, very grubby. Both he and Elliot leap, bound and fly around the forest without a care in the world. At no point do either of them ever get seen, even when flying through the skies in broad daylight and the fact there's a lumberjack work crew not so far away, but whatever. When young Pete comes across a young Natalie it might as well be a young Tarzan meeting a young Jane, literally. Its also weird how Pete has seemingly never ever thought about finding help after the car accident. Just ran off into the woods with a large mythical creature, who cares about my folks right.

The funny thing is Elliot the dragon isn't really in the film all that much. He's there at the start when we get the Tarzan sequences and he's there for the climatic finale of course. But for much of the middle section Elliot is not around because we are dealing with Pete and his new family (Grace and Jack who find him). Is that a problem? no, it shouldn't be, but alas here I do think we needed to see more hijinks with Pete and Elliot. More actual fun happy moments of tomfoolery perhaps.

The film looks great with its woody setting, small American as apple pie town (with 80's visage), and the cast act well, but again there are problems. There are too many big names here methinks. Bryce Dallas Howard is perfect as Grace the caring mother type. Wes Bentley is fine as the bearded outdoors father type. Oona Laurence is maybe too good as the daughter who befriends Pete because she simply doesn't act like a child. Dunno if Laurence is like this is reality but its like a mature woman trapped in a child's body, weird. Then you have Karl Urban as the brother who initially seems fine, then becomes the bad guy, but is then forgiven for everything it seems. Urban is too bigger name for this role if you ask me. Maybe they should have swapped Bentley and Urban around, have Urban as the father and Bentley as the brother/baddie (he has that look). But then on top of all that you have Robert Redford shoehorned in as Grace's father, the old man who knows about the dragon but no one believes (couldn't get more cliched if you tried).

Bottom line there are too many characters and the movie can't decide which character you should be following. Considering the movies title is 'Pete's Dragon' you'd think it would focus completely on Pete, well no, no it doesn't. But that might be a good thing because the kid playing Pete (Oakes Fegley...Oakes??) isn't that good. His performance just isn't very compelling. He's always looking miserable, always pulling a scowling face and looks stupid with the wig. I never really got any kind of fun vibes from him.

Elliot the dragon isn't the best looking dragon I've ever seen to be frank, but it does the job. Obviously the movie is supposed to be a serious take but at times it doesn't look that way with a daft looking, big green furry dragon that can become invisible. The plot is as old as the hills, its not exactly a fun filled film, its a tad dull, not enough dragon action and there are too many protagonists. OK OK look, this film is fine, its your standard emotional, heart-string tugger with lashings of your standard CGI fluff. Its completely and utterly as safe as houses for the family to watch, no doubt about that. I just think its too safe, literally paint by numbers.


Wednesday, 25 January 2017

The BFG (2016)

Now to a British person around my age (30 +), Roald Dahl will mean a great deal. Back in the UK during the 80's Roald Dahl was huge, probably the most well known and loved children's story teller around at the time. His stories were virtually legendary for all kids. We read them in school, we read them at home (no internet or much on the home videogame front back then) and we saw them read on TV courtesy of Jackanory on CBBC.  'The BFG' was arguably Dahl's most glorious achievement in this field, but to be blunt, they were all fantastic.

The story is all about a little 10 year old orphan girl (named Sophie) living in London. One night she accidentally sees a giant as he goes about his business. The giant notices the girl and basically kidnaps her, bundling her away to giant country (to protect his existence). In giant country Sophie learns that the BFG catches dreams (in dream country) which allows him to control children's dreams, making them nice or nightmares. This why the BFG goes into the human realm every night, to give children dreams. Sophie also learns about the bad giants that eat people, a real threat to all humans. The main crux revolves around Sophie and the BFG convincing the Queen to help them capture all the bad giants before they can eat anymore people.

So here we have the big screen adaptation of the beloved classic. The big Hollywood adaptation with flashy effects and A-list stars. We have already been blessed with the Jackanory reading of the story back in 1983 by Bill Oddie which blended narration with still hand drawn imagery perfectly. So did we really need a movie? More to the point, was a live action approach the right approach?

The first thing that hit me with this movie was how weak the CGI was, at least at first. Its a strange thing but the movie looks like something made for TV for quite some time. Now baring in mind this IS a Steven Spielberg flick I did find that really quite surprising. For around the first 30 minutes or so there is nothing of interest going on both story wise or effects wise, in fact the greenscreen effects are bad in my humble opinion. Its only when you start to see the BFG's face up close do you fully appreciate the CGI quality on display. So yes as things progress the effects do start to look much better, oddly, although don't go expecting a visual treat of colour and wonder.

What was impressive, as said, was the detail on the BFG's face, and other giants. I think they really captured the look of the BFG from the original drawings by Quentin Blake, perfectly. They have nailed the giants scrawny, ragged, wrinkly physical appearance whilst also getting his country bumpkin-esque face right too. That might sound odd but it could of been very easy to get the face wrong, the wrong type of face. It seems they actually modelled the giants face on the actor who voices the BFG, Mark Rylance, I think. You can clearly see a resemblance if you ask me and this shows both good casting and decision making. Using Rylance's actual face will have clearly helped tremendously in giving the giants face such a realistic, original and quirky appearance, more like a caricature. I noticed they also got the mouth movements/speech pattern of the BFG spot on too. The CGI creation actually looked like it was speaking the dialog whilst Rylance's vocal tones and accent were also spot on too.

So the visual effects were a mixed bag really, stunning close up details on giant faces but overall its a rather glum looking flick. Not even the sequences in dream country look overly marvellous, but I suppose it does all fit in with the book. Had everything been set in a vomit inducing CGI world much like the recent 'Alice in Wonderland' flicks...well that would have been very bad.

Of course the story is now dated so it kinda seems a bit shallow really, at least compared to some kids stuff these days. The bad giants eat people, but do they do this a lot? often? We don't actually get much insight into why Sophie decides to try and capture all the giants, other than they are bad and are rumoured to eat people. Sure they ate a previous child that the BFG was friends with but there isn't really any evidence of much else. Its also very cutesy how the duo are able to get close to Buckingham Palace and the Queens window (a giant not getting seen??). All the typical British character stereotypes such as the stuffy military officers, the cliched British kinks and quirks such as what they eat with the Queen, attire and accents. But again its all part of the book, the time it was written is obviously a big part of the story thusly things are out of time.

I think the movie is pretty faithful to the original book and it does well in bringing everything across to be fair. Although overall the movie has clearly been lightened up somewhat because believe it or not but Dahl's stories are actually pretty dark. This is why they were always so popular with kids, the fact that his stories were a bit gruesome and twisted (a modern equivalent of the Grimm fairy tales perhaps). Interestingly Spielberg did feel the need to include the tragic backstory for the BFG which surrounded the previous child that got eaten. This is not in the book but is actually just as dark as other bits of content, so it does question why some things were lightened up whilst this was added. The entire notion of different humans from different parts of the world tasting differently is totally gone. I can see how that might have triggered some types in this modern age (groan!!). Also the ending has been changed quite a bit from the book, although, I do actually feel the movies conclusion for the bad giants is actually better than the book. Quite frankly the books ending for the giants is ridiculous.

So despite this being an all American affair I do believe they did capture the olde worlde, whimsical British atmosphere to a tee. I think the casting was very good (Ruby Barnhill as the chirpy Sophie especially), the voice work was very good and the effects were good in part. I think the general problem here was the stories lack of bite because they watered it down, plus the fact it generally didn't really feel all that thrilling. Maybe its because I know the tale and I'm an adult, I'm sure kids will enjoy this...I would think, but I could be wrong. In all honesty when watching this classic Dahl story as a full movie you do notice how light on plot the story actually is. Its very basic (obviously as it was for kids) and relies heavily on the quaintness of merry old England (in the 80's), the movie that is not the book.

All in all I was kinda expecting a timeless journey of wonder and excitement...but it just felt lacklustre, a bit drab. I'm not a fan of all things being CGI even though it might look very good (in part). I dunno, I just get the feeling this could of looked and felt so much more fantabulous had it been created with stop motion animation (think 'James and the Giant Peach'), or maybe hand drawn animation. You really can lose that special magical spark with something like this and CGI if you ask me, not always of course. Anyway, 'tis a fine family adventure for sure, but I think it could/should of been better.


Friday, 20 January 2017

David Brent: Life on the Road (UK, 2016)

The man, the legend, is back! Yes for all 'The Office' fans (possibly both from the US as well as the UK) this could be the greatest news ever, maybe the greatest film no going too far. Good old controversial Ricky Gervais is back doing what he does best in his monumental creation...being controversial. For those in the know (should be everyone) that will be music to your ears, for those not in the know or simply not a fan, you probably should just pass this by, unless intrigued.

So as I'm sure most will know (ahem! see what I said above), this movie is based on the smash hit satirical UK comedy series 'The Office'. The show is a mockumentary that focuses on the employees of a small fictitious paper company based in Slough, UK. The idea is quite simply, a TV camera crew is making a documentary about this small firm, filming the day to day goings on and how the company operates. What is captured is actually the cringeworthy, embarrassing, facepalming shenanigans of the companies general manager of this particular branch, Mr David Brent. While most of the companies employees try to do their work, Brent mugs, shows-off and generally attempts to make himself look good or cool for the cameras. What we see is a hideous display of generally offensive behaviour that Brent regularly doles out to all, but for the most part, blissfully unaware of what he's actually doing (and the damage).

This fantastic TV show was short lived with two series (go out on a high, take note America) and an hour long Christmas special. The show was also taken on and remade in the US (no shit). After a rocky start the US equivalent finally got going and ended up being pretty good too, if completely milked dry of laughs and ideas by the end. This movie follows on from where the UK series and Xmas special left off. Following Brent after he was sacked from Wernham Hogg, his short lived career as a travelling sales rep, and his even shorter lived career attempt at fame and fortune.

Brent is now a sales rep for a bathroom company called Lavichem. He is desperate to try his hand at a music career again so he decides to take a month unpaid leave to follow his dream. The movie kicks off on familiar ground with a similar set up that we saw from the original series. Brent is back in an office and acting the tit, generally unawares. Most of his fellow work colleges find him obnoxious, one or two seem to like him but keep it to themselves, and Brent has yet another sidekick to play off. So essentially its back to what you know, basically recreating it, a remake of sorts. Does it work? hmmm no not really. When the film starts and you see these familiar sights it does excite you no doubt (if you'r a fan). But as quick as it excites you, it disappoints you with flat unfunny dialog. Most of the office characters are pretty much the same types we got in the original show and Brent's sidekick is really quite annoying, but for real this time.

So the film doesn't really start off well if you ask me, but luckily we're not spending too much time in this office as Brent is off rampaging with his quest. We meet his so called rapper friend, a mixed race man...who raps, and watch as he hires a crew of musicians and tech guys. Basically none of them are really interested but Brent foolishly offers them good money thinking his success is a foregone conclusion, ironically the name of new band. And thus the tour begins! A tour of venues across Berkshire.

For the most part we follow the band as they travel from gig to gig, obviously. We see them at their hotels, practising, setting up for gigs, after gigs, talkin' bout money deals, having drinks in the hotel bars, jammin' and generally having a bit of a laugh. Then we see Brent tagging along behind (see what I did there? huh? huh??), trying to get in with the guys, trying to be liked, trying to be accepted, trying to be the cool lead singer of a band and generally playing up and showing off to the camera. So nothing to new then to be honest. The amusing part of all this, is the fact that Brent's the person who set up this whole series of events, he created the band, he's paying the wages, its his baby. But he's treated like a fifth wheel, as if he's part of the clean up crew or something. The other band members are only there for the money and to bum around while Brent sees this as a genuine push for glory. Heck Brent even ends up paying them to sit and have a drink with him after gigs!

To make matters even worse for Brent is the fact that his 'best friend' the rapper is actually a very gifted rapper. The guy has skills and could go places, maybe Brent could manage his career? Maybe they could work on a double act? But naturally when Brent discovers this his jealousy gets the better of him. Cue an obvious scene where Brent is looking pissed into the camera as he finds out his best mate is really good, better than him, and is going down a storm at a gig just after he's performed.

As the disastrous tour continues Brent ends up shelling out more and more to promote his band. It all comes to a point where even his crew see his floundering into ruination and tell him to stop. Spoiler alert but everything doesn't really work out for poor old David and he ends up going back to his sales rep job without a record deal. But luckily one of the staff members that kinda secretly liked him comes out and shows it (a lady). So once again David manages to end up with a shoulder to cry on and possibly (this time?) a long term partner.

So in the end is this any good or as good as the classic original series? Its a firm no from me I'm afraid, not even close. The main brutally obvious, slapping you in the face problem here is the simple fact that this movie just isn't very funny. Sure there are tonnes of gags, visual gags, the usual crushing satire, innuendos etc...but most of it falls flat every time. Obviously there are some good chuckles in there, Brent trying to get a tattoo is good (probably the best), seeing him hook up with some middle aged ladies out on the razz is another...I'm straining here. You can see what they're going for but its just not very funny, extremely basic humour at best. What's worse is you can see it all coming a mile off, there are no real belly laughs, no surprises, no cringeworthy shocks, or any shocks, and no real emotions to get you going. Sure you feel sorry for Brent towards the end, I really felt myself wanting this guy to win for once, but its all so tame and predictable. The ending is so painfully soft and forgettable.

I guess in the end I have to ask, why exactly would a film crew still be following David Brent around? In what world would any production company think that it would bring in good viewing figures to show this universally unlikable guy doing more of what everyone seems to hate him for. I guess you could say morbid curiosity, but at this point in this fictitious world Brent is literally someone who had fifteen minutes of fame, over fifteen years ago on a documentary, and now he's a complete nobody. The original production was a moment in time that worked, but now the whole idea would seem  an odd decision. A bit out of time or too late in the day. A bit like this movie really.