~Movies~
Amelia:
Swank is pretty good/
Otherwise safe biopic/
Textbook Oscar bait.
Paranormal Activity:
Nice to see old-school/
Scares over bloody sadism/
Will give you nightmares.
Disney's A Christmas Carol:
Cynical attempt/
To pair Dickens with 3-D/
Carrey fails as Scrooge.
The Box:
Surprisingly good/
Like a twist on 'Earth Stood Still'/
Serling would approve.
~Video Games~
Demon's Souls:
Quite atmospheric/
But hard and unforgiving/
A worthy challenge.
Borderlands:
A fun co-op game/
Solid shooter gameplay with/
Slick art direction.
Aaand with that I'm pretty much caught up on stuff for now; full reviews coming later. Sorry for getting so behind, but between playing... well, a lot of time-eating games, actually writing about them's getting hard to do.
Showing posts with label film review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film review. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Astro Boy review
Y'know, not so long ago in the introductory post that kickstarted this little blog, I mentioned that I was a big animation buff and that when a release came out, I'd more often than not be inclined to see/talk about it more than most other releases, especially in the event of a low crop. And while-- getting as close to the winter Academy Awards push as we are-- things are certainly not slow, it's still that time. So gird your loins and get ready kiddies: Today we're going to talk about "Astro Boy."
Admittedly, my interest in this film stems less from any sort of fandom associated with the original manga or the animated series that remains fondly remembered even today-- I never saw the cartoon, and I'm only marginally familiar with the original comic-- as much as an anthropolgical/cultural one. This was confirmed for me after doing a little digging into the film's production and finding that my suspicions were confirmed-- it was being created by an AMERICAN company, specifically by David Bowers, who previously associated with Claymation-Gods-On-Earth Aardman on the not-bad-but-not-particularly-memorable "Flushed Away" a few years back.
(Truth be told, I figured this was the case since, well, the CGI actually looked pretty good, and for all that anime can do on paper with the admitted exception of Square Enix most anime-CGI ends up looking like... well, this. Yeeeaaaaahhh.)
But seriously, by having the "Astro Boy" movie made by Americans during a sort of revival of the character, we're essentially watching him return to his distant cultural roots-- a Western vision of a beloved anime series based on a beloved manga series written itself by a man who shamelessly adored Western animation (in particular Walt Disney) along with its science-fiction, and fashioned his characters in a decidedly similar style. You don't need to look TOO hard to see the resemblance between Astro Boy and, say, classic Mickey Mouse if you think about it.
But ehh, enough rambling, onto the film itself. The only problem there is... ehh, there isn't really a lot to SAY about "Astro Boy," because LIKE "Flushed Away" it's really... just not that great. Not bad, not painful and certainly not offensively stupid like 'kiddie' cartoons can often be nowadays, but there's just something about the production that feels... not rushed, but kind of disjointed.
The biggest problem with "Astro Boy" is that it suffers from a case of Trying Too Hard. The original "Astro Boy" was, for all its inherent weirdness and mayhem, essentially a lighthearted superhero yarn in the thread of the original "Superman" comics-- never too dark, always with a happy ending, you get the idea. Bowers, clearly making an effort to deepen his endeavor, opted to add more depth and a bit of cynicism to the story, along with hints of just about every other classic Animated Film of the last decade, from "The Iron Giant" to "WALL-E."
Now I'm not saying that Bowers SHOULDN'T have attempted this-- it certainly worked for the underrated "Metropolis" from waaaayy back in 2004 (itself a prettified update of a classic Osamu Tezuka work), taking an already decidedly grim take on Tezuka's theme of robots as a metaphor for segregation/racism/ethnic disparity and transforming it into a brilliant noir-ish detective-story-cum-mysterious-girl narrative complete with-- I kid you not-- THE GREATEST AND MOST INVENTIVE USE OF A RAY CHARLES SONG EVER PUT TO THE SCREEN-- but bear in mind that "Metropolis" borrowed from a wide array of seemingly unlike
parts to craft something wholly unique and original, whereas "Astro Boy" just feels a bit... derivative. Oh sure, there are bits where this approach works-- Astro's status as a robot in a society that largely denegrates them works well to illustrate the unshakable feeling of 'difference' that most of us (especially kids) feel most (all) of the time, but often it just comes off as a bit overbearing.
The rest of the film is a mixed bag, essentially. The action sequences are often fun and inventive, but the humor falls flat on its face more often than not (even a potentially clever running gag involving a robot guerilla resistance and their underwhelming efforts to free their 'brothers' comes off less funny than filler). The writing never feels like it's really TRYING to shove a moral down your throat (something more manga/anime creators need to get a handle on) and is surprisingly understated, but the voice acting runs the gamut from good to Freddie-Highmore-faking-a-Zac-Efron-esque-American-Accent obnoxious (with an against-all-odds-dare-I-say-it almost slightly lucid Nicolas Cage running somewhere in between).
In the end is something ultimately average and not exactly memorable, but even so I'd say that you could certainly do far worse. Sure, it's rather cluttered as a movie, but it's at least TRYING to bring some deeper themes to a kids' movie, not to mention that there's definitely been some effort put into this production, something which is ultimately too rare in this genre and ultimately makes me confident that this is as good as anime adaptations are ever going to get (at least until Guilliermo Del Toro greenlights a "Claymore" movie).
It's certainly not the best children's movie of the year (the correct answer is "Where the Wild Things Are") and as far as smart animated sci-fi goes "Coraline" and "9" have nothing to worry about, but it's a decent diversion and certainly won't leave you calling for the Suicide Hotline.
That's what "The Spy Next Door" is for.
Admittedly, my interest in this film stems less from any sort of fandom associated with the original manga or the animated series that remains fondly remembered even today-- I never saw the cartoon, and I'm only marginally familiar with the original comic-- as much as an anthropolgical/cultural one. This was confirmed for me after doing a little digging into the film's production and finding that my suspicions were confirmed-- it was being created by an AMERICAN company, specifically by David Bowers, who previously associated with Claymation-Gods-On-Earth Aardman on the not-bad-but-not-particularly-memorable "Flushed Away" a few years back.
(Truth be told, I figured this was the case since, well, the CGI actually looked pretty good, and for all that anime can do on paper with the admitted exception of Square Enix most anime-CGI ends up looking like... well, this. Yeeeaaaaahhh.)
But seriously, by having the "Astro Boy" movie made by Americans during a sort of revival of the character, we're essentially watching him return to his distant cultural roots-- a Western vision of a beloved anime series based on a beloved manga series written itself by a man who shamelessly adored Western animation (in particular Walt Disney) along with its science-fiction, and fashioned his characters in a decidedly similar style. You don't need to look TOO hard to see the resemblance between Astro Boy and, say, classic Mickey Mouse if you think about it.
But ehh, enough rambling, onto the film itself. The only problem there is... ehh, there isn't really a lot to SAY about "Astro Boy," because LIKE "Flushed Away" it's really... just not that great. Not bad, not painful and certainly not offensively stupid like 'kiddie' cartoons can often be nowadays, but there's just something about the production that feels... not rushed, but kind of disjointed.
The biggest problem with "Astro Boy" is that it suffers from a case of Trying Too Hard. The original "Astro Boy" was, for all its inherent weirdness and mayhem, essentially a lighthearted superhero yarn in the thread of the original "Superman" comics-- never too dark, always with a happy ending, you get the idea. Bowers, clearly making an effort to deepen his endeavor, opted to add more depth and a bit of cynicism to the story, along with hints of just about every other classic Animated Film of the last decade, from "The Iron Giant" to "WALL-E."
Now I'm not saying that Bowers SHOULDN'T have attempted this-- it certainly worked for the underrated "Metropolis" from waaaayy back in 2004 (itself a prettified update of a classic Osamu Tezuka work), taking an already decidedly grim take on Tezuka's theme of robots as a metaphor for segregation/racism/ethnic disparity and transforming it into a brilliant noir-ish detective-story-cum-mysterious-girl narrative complete with-- I kid you not-- THE GREATEST AND MOST INVENTIVE USE OF A RAY CHARLES SONG EVER PUT TO THE SCREEN-- but bear in mind that "Metropolis" borrowed from a wide array of seemingly unlike
parts to craft something wholly unique and original, whereas "Astro Boy" just feels a bit... derivative. Oh sure, there are bits where this approach works-- Astro's status as a robot in a society that largely denegrates them works well to illustrate the unshakable feeling of 'difference' that most of us (especially kids) feel most (all) of the time, but often it just comes off as a bit overbearing.
The rest of the film is a mixed bag, essentially. The action sequences are often fun and inventive, but the humor falls flat on its face more often than not (even a potentially clever running gag involving a robot guerilla resistance and their underwhelming efforts to free their 'brothers' comes off less funny than filler). The writing never feels like it's really TRYING to shove a moral down your throat (something more manga/anime creators need to get a handle on) and is surprisingly understated, but the voice acting runs the gamut from good to Freddie-Highmore-faking-a-Zac-Efron-esque-American-Accent obnoxious (with an against-all-odds-dare-I-say-it almost slightly lucid Nicolas Cage running somewhere in between).
In the end is something ultimately average and not exactly memorable, but even so I'd say that you could certainly do far worse. Sure, it's rather cluttered as a movie, but it's at least TRYING to bring some deeper themes to a kids' movie, not to mention that there's definitely been some effort put into this production, something which is ultimately too rare in this genre and ultimately makes me confident that this is as good as anime adaptations are ever going to get (at least until Guilliermo Del Toro greenlights a "Claymore" movie).
It's certainly not the best children's movie of the year (the correct answer is "Where the Wild Things Are") and as far as smart animated sci-fi goes "Coraline" and "9" have nothing to worry about, but it's a decent diversion and certainly won't leave you calling for the Suicide Hotline.
That's what "The Spy Next Door" is for.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Where The Wild Things Are review
Well, fuck. The first 100% brand-new review I'll be doing here at the Freelancer, and I... well, I really can't think of anything professional to say about Spike Jonze's "Where the Wild Things Are." Or at least, nothing I can say that would presume the air of objective detachment that a critic should have when bringing something up for formal consideration. But then, I suppose something like that's next-to-impossible when dealing with something as profoundly and near-universally central to several generations of children-turned-adults as Maurice Sendak's original book-- this is probably why, say, even the Nostalgia Critic found himself incapable of bile when attempting to tear Sesame Street a new one.
But it's no exaggeration to say that nearly everyone you've met has read this book, had it read to them, or even read it to their own children at some point. And when a movie as closely loved and important as this one gets adapted to film, it's more likely than not to get a lot of flak no matter what it does. Too close to the original, it's lazy. Takes too many liberties, it's not the same thing. Too long, too short, right/wrong actors/music/visuals... there's a lot that can go wrong, and it's nearly impossible to keep everyone happy.
Which is why I'm going to tell you to ignore the legions of critics who've written this off as 'not fun enough/too dark/too involved/too whatever' and go see it. Whatever it's kept from the original, it's become a remarkably intelligent, surprisingly tender meditation on childhood and growing up itself, which in some ways might be closer to Maurice Sendak's book than you might be inclined to think.
A surprising majority of critics have complained that "Where the Wild Things Are" isn't 'as fun as the book,' but considering author Sendak described it as a kind of 'personal exorcism', a way of dealing with a lot of things in his childhood, perhaps it was never SUPPOSED to be just a lighthearted romp. I mean, that's certainly present in the film for a large majority of it, but the psychological underpinnings of the story are really brought front-and-center here, in such a way that the Wild Things themselves definitely have more personality, but said personalities are considerably more sobering (and at times, downright frightening) than you might expect, but in some ways it wouldn't work as well otherwise.
As much as there is going on here in terms of action, there's even more bubbling psychologically under the surface, and "Wild Things" is surprisingly keen on mining and examining this aspect of the original work, especially considering it's ostensibly a children's fantasy film. Max here becomes a clearly isolated individual gnawed at by the increasing awareness of his own vanishing childhood, and the Wild Things are-- for all intents and purposes-- really just gigantic monstrous children, with all the insecurities, sudden mood swings and anarchic energy that implies. But for all its thrilling sequences and shifts into darker (but subdued) contemplation, there's something very genuine and heartfelt about it... indeed, something few films period ever manage to achieve.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is the rare children's film that treats its audience with respect, that doesn't dumb things down but rather makes the rare decision to challenge instead. Of course, if that sort of thing isn't for you, don't worry-- I'm sure the Jim Carrey version of "Grinch" is readily available at your nearest Blockbuster.
But it's no exaggeration to say that nearly everyone you've met has read this book, had it read to them, or even read it to their own children at some point. And when a movie as closely loved and important as this one gets adapted to film, it's more likely than not to get a lot of flak no matter what it does. Too close to the original, it's lazy. Takes too many liberties, it's not the same thing. Too long, too short, right/wrong actors/music/visuals... there's a lot that can go wrong, and it's nearly impossible to keep everyone happy.
Which is why I'm going to tell you to ignore the legions of critics who've written this off as 'not fun enough/too dark/too involved/too whatever' and go see it. Whatever it's kept from the original, it's become a remarkably intelligent, surprisingly tender meditation on childhood and growing up itself, which in some ways might be closer to Maurice Sendak's book than you might be inclined to think.
A surprising majority of critics have complained that "Where the Wild Things Are" isn't 'as fun as the book,' but considering author Sendak described it as a kind of 'personal exorcism', a way of dealing with a lot of things in his childhood, perhaps it was never SUPPOSED to be just a lighthearted romp. I mean, that's certainly present in the film for a large majority of it, but the psychological underpinnings of the story are really brought front-and-center here, in such a way that the Wild Things themselves definitely have more personality, but said personalities are considerably more sobering (and at times, downright frightening) than you might expect, but in some ways it wouldn't work as well otherwise.
As much as there is going on here in terms of action, there's even more bubbling psychologically under the surface, and "Wild Things" is surprisingly keen on mining and examining this aspect of the original work, especially considering it's ostensibly a children's fantasy film. Max here becomes a clearly isolated individual gnawed at by the increasing awareness of his own vanishing childhood, and the Wild Things are-- for all intents and purposes-- really just gigantic monstrous children, with all the insecurities, sudden mood swings and anarchic energy that implies. But for all its thrilling sequences and shifts into darker (but subdued) contemplation, there's something very genuine and heartfelt about it... indeed, something few films period ever manage to achieve.
"Where the Wild Things Are" is the rare children's film that treats its audience with respect, that doesn't dumb things down but rather makes the rare decision to challenge instead. Of course, if that sort of thing isn't for you, don't worry-- I'm sure the Jim Carrey version of "Grinch" is readily available at your nearest Blockbuster.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Backlog-- Watchmen Review (writing sample 1 of 3)
Let me start off by saying that, like many people who will see this movie on opening weekend, I went in with a love for the graphic novel and as such had an understanding that reasonably has influenced how I received it. That said, I've made an effort-- partly because of this fact-- to be as objective as possible in this review, to try and view Zack Snyder's adaptation for what it is rather than what the fan community as a whole would want it to be. But since it could have been directed by Ridley Scott and written by Roman Polanski and people STILL would have found something to bitch about because of how deeply loved and analyzed this book has been over the last quarter-century, individual opinions will of course vary.
Okay, cards on the table time: in the end, Snyder's "Watchmen" has not usurped the graphic novel. It's still as essential, intelligent and heartbreaking as it ever was, and reading it will always be a much richer experience. What Snyder HAS done, however, is to create an action film adaptation, but the kicker is that it's that rare action film that manages to be both entertaining and smart in equal parts, bolstered by top-notch art direction and generally solid casting. It retains the heart and weight of the original while creating something generally accessible to the uninitiated and does it all in just shy of 3 hours, a feat in itself considering the raw density of information that has to be filtered through.
Speaking of which, considering just HOW much had to be cut, it still feels remarkably complete and focused. Everything is edited together excellently, and from a purely technical persepective "Watchmen" is practically flawless. Despite so many details being ripped straight from the panels of the comic there's nothing really cartoony about the sets or the little touches or the muted color palatte that imitates rather nicely the scheme of Moore and Gibbon's art style. This alternate New York City feels intriguing and alien, yet still believable enough that it could well have been our own.
For the most part, I have nothing but good things to say about the cast itself. From Patrick Wilson's excellent portrayal of Dan Dreiberg to Billy Crudup's gentle-voiced, remote Dr. Manhattan and Rorshach (absolutely NAILED by Jackie Earle Haley), there's some great performances here, and the actors seem intent on evoking the humanity of the characters and bringing it across without overacting. Malin Ackerman, while still a very good Laurie, seems a little bit more (is 'docile' the right word?) calm than she was in the novel, where she was a fascinating bundle of insecurities and vague resentments, and Matthew Goode doesn't quite have the charm and quiet charisma that made Adrian Veidt such a fascinating character. He kind of just comes off as a creep, not to say that he wasn't in the original but at least he was an empathetic creep.
In fact, my only real issues with the film are admittedly minor, and partly only exist BECAUSE I was familiar with the graphic novel first. In the interest of making it a little more commerical (and because, if "300" was any indication, Snyder's into that stuff), the sex and violence has been considerably ramped up (though fortunately Snyder manages to keep the speed-ramping of his previous film to a minimum). This isn't to say that "Watchmen" didn't have those elements in it already (it certainly did), but whereas Moore and Gibbons knew when to insinuate and use less overtly violent but no less haunting imagery, Snyder revels in it, opting for much bloodier, gorier solutions to familiar situations. And other than an extended sex scene that ends up being unintentionally giggle-inducing, this stuff doesn't really drag the film down. And speaking of changes, the ending is considerably different than in the novel, though to its credit it's a bit better established throughout the course of the film and it still retains the moral ambiguity and unsettling qualities that made the original ending as effective as it was.
Ultimately, "Watchmen" isn't perfect. But for all its minor faults, it's still one of the best and most visually unique superhero films of all time, and manages to stand well enough on its own merits. Hell, once I'm done writing this I'm going to see it again, and that's pretty unprecedented. Go see it yourself, then go read the graphic novel. Either way, you'll definitely be entertained.
Okay, cards on the table time: in the end, Snyder's "Watchmen" has not usurped the graphic novel. It's still as essential, intelligent and heartbreaking as it ever was, and reading it will always be a much richer experience. What Snyder HAS done, however, is to create an action film adaptation, but the kicker is that it's that rare action film that manages to be both entertaining and smart in equal parts, bolstered by top-notch art direction and generally solid casting. It retains the heart and weight of the original while creating something generally accessible to the uninitiated and does it all in just shy of 3 hours, a feat in itself considering the raw density of information that has to be filtered through.
Speaking of which, considering just HOW much had to be cut, it still feels remarkably complete and focused. Everything is edited together excellently, and from a purely technical persepective "Watchmen" is practically flawless. Despite so many details being ripped straight from the panels of the comic there's nothing really cartoony about the sets or the little touches or the muted color palatte that imitates rather nicely the scheme of Moore and Gibbon's art style. This alternate New York City feels intriguing and alien, yet still believable enough that it could well have been our own.
For the most part, I have nothing but good things to say about the cast itself. From Patrick Wilson's excellent portrayal of Dan Dreiberg to Billy Crudup's gentle-voiced, remote Dr. Manhattan and Rorshach (absolutely NAILED by Jackie Earle Haley), there's some great performances here, and the actors seem intent on evoking the humanity of the characters and bringing it across without overacting. Malin Ackerman, while still a very good Laurie, seems a little bit more (is 'docile' the right word?) calm than she was in the novel, where she was a fascinating bundle of insecurities and vague resentments, and Matthew Goode doesn't quite have the charm and quiet charisma that made Adrian Veidt such a fascinating character. He kind of just comes off as a creep, not to say that he wasn't in the original but at least he was an empathetic creep.
In fact, my only real issues with the film are admittedly minor, and partly only exist BECAUSE I was familiar with the graphic novel first. In the interest of making it a little more commerical (and because, if "300" was any indication, Snyder's into that stuff), the sex and violence has been considerably ramped up (though fortunately Snyder manages to keep the speed-ramping of his previous film to a minimum). This isn't to say that "Watchmen" didn't have those elements in it already (it certainly did), but whereas Moore and Gibbons knew when to insinuate and use less overtly violent but no less haunting imagery, Snyder revels in it, opting for much bloodier, gorier solutions to familiar situations. And other than an extended sex scene that ends up being unintentionally giggle-inducing, this stuff doesn't really drag the film down. And speaking of changes, the ending is considerably different than in the novel, though to its credit it's a bit better established throughout the course of the film and it still retains the moral ambiguity and unsettling qualities that made the original ending as effective as it was.
Ultimately, "Watchmen" isn't perfect. But for all its minor faults, it's still one of the best and most visually unique superhero films of all time, and manages to stand well enough on its own merits. Hell, once I'm done writing this I'm going to see it again, and that's pretty unprecedented. Go see it yourself, then go read the graphic novel. Either way, you'll definitely be entertained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)