Continuing the extremely occasional 2012 movie reviews, this post considers some of the big budget offerings, plus a couple of movies based on books that pundits reckoned could not be filmed.
Big budget “blockbusters” are meant to be seen at the cinema; and we have caught three of them in the last year.
The Dark Knight Rises< - Obviously a shameless Christopher Nolan fanboy like myself would have to see this, but to be honest the first time I saw it I was a little disappointed. Perhaps nothing can top The Dark Knight, but this last film in the trilogy seemed a little flat. Then I went to see it again on an IMAX screen and was sufficiently blown away for my Nolan man-love to remain intact. There is nothing to match the appeal of Heath Ledger as the Joker; but Anne Hathaway has her own set of completely different attractions as Catwoman. The ending sets up nicely for a sequel; but it will be a brave man that follows Nolan.
Skyfall - Worth the price of admission to absorb Roger Deakins quite extraordinary cinematography for scenes set in a Shanghai skyscraper. But the rest of it is pretty good too. Solid entertainment from Sam Mendes which finally puts Bond on a modern footing and again sets up for a sequel. Perhaps they could get Nolan to direct it.
Hunger Games - Already moaned about it (in comparison to Battle Royale); but having just watched Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook, I think I will be back for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire; she really is a wonderful actress.
The only one that I regret catching at the cinema was The Avengers, partially because it received good reviews, but mainly because I love Robert Downey Jr.
Right, now what about books they couldn’t film; but did?
Life of Pi - The book describes a 227 day journey across an ocean by a boy in a boat with a Bengal tiger. Film that!
Well, Ang Lee did, and the result is beautiful. We saw it in 3D at the cinema and it is an experience best savoured in that way. There is the story of the boy’s life before he ends up on a boat with a tiger as company; and we see a little of what happens after he is rescued; but most of the time is spent with the boy (Pi) and the tiger (which is named Richard Parker, for reason I will not venture to explain) coexisting on a boat. It’s funny, tense and cinematically stunning. The tiger is almost always a CGI creation, but it is completely believable, the result of more than a year of craftsmanship which included fourteen artists dedicated to modelling the fur.
It’s hard to describe the plot because there is not much of one; just a couple of hours of beauty on the screen which you just let wash over you. Satisfying.
Cloud Atlas - The IMDB summary, presumably provided by the film studio, goes as follows: An exploration of how the actions of individual lives impact one another in the past, present and future, as one soul is shaped from a killer into a hero, and an act of kindness ripples across centuries to inspire a revolution.
No it bloody isn’t.
It’s six small stories stuck together into one film. The stories take place in different time periods, from the 1800’s to a time at some point in the future where everyone has forgotten to speak properly, which makes this story particularly difficult to follow. In some instances, a story will reference an earlier story, but not in any meaningful way. In an attempt to reinforce the souls across time motif; the same actors appear in different roles in different stories; provided you can recognise them under their makeup. You are also reminded of the deep philosophical meaning supposedly imbedded in the movie by the inclusion of regular deeply philosophical outpourings of bullshit in the script. “Fear, belief, love phenomena that determined the course of our lives. These forces begin long before we are born and continue after we perish.” Oh, fuck off.
The six stories range from what appears to be an homage to the Carry On films to a reasonably interesting sci-fi take on the future of the fast food industry. As we are constantly skipping between stories, presumably to ensure that we don’t have time to spot how weak each one is, and to keep us awake, the movie never has a chance to settle down and involve us. We only stay alert to try and keep track of what the hell is going on.
This turgid mess rattles on for almost three hours, and by the end I was surprised to discover that I had never been bored and had actually rather enjoyed it. But by the following day I felt I had been conned and wanted my money back (not that I had spent any because I downloaded it). Maybe I am too thick to appreciate its artistic and intellectual magnificence. After all, I enjoyed a Batman movie.
Comments 🔗
2013-02-01| genuinej saysI was not going to bother but, as there are no comments yet, I’ll point out the o missing from too thick.
2013-02-01| Spike saysThanks, you are to kind.
2013-02-01| Diddly Don saysSpike, is there no end to your talents? Photographs that would make David Bailey proud, a blog that people wait to read with the anticipation of a child on Christmas Eve and now a movie critique the like of which has not been heard since the glorious days of Barry Norman in Film ‘98. You are truly remarkable. Right that’s enough sycophancy for one night. Time to see if Siri on my new iPad will acknowledge my Clackmannanshire accent!!!
2013-02-01| Grant saysOK, what do you want…? Actually you’re dead right, he provides entertainment for intelligent people and that ain’t easy to do. It’s far easier to provide entertainment for the other sort, and the results of that clog the interweb to the gills, sadly. You neglected to mention his toweringly abrasive and evilly subtle British sense of humour and his complete inability to suffer fools of any stripe which, coupled with his total lack of ego and shy blushing self-effacement will now have him sicking into his boot at this wanton display of crawling joint sycophantic nonsense. Rivetted to hear how you get on teaching Scots to an ipad, do tell!
2013-02-02| Spike saysAwww, you guys…
Now, if you will excuse me, there is a bucket containing vomit that needs a wash.