Dawn of the Dead can be summarised in two words: Consumerism and Materialism. It can also be placed amongst the small group of sequels that are better than their predecessors which was quite a feat even back in 1979.
It's also a strange sequel as the only things that carry over from Night... is the premise. None of the characters from Night... or anyone related to them make so much as a references in Dawn... which not only means you can watch Dawn without worrying about dangling plot threads, but it also means that like Night..., no one is fully safe and anyone can die at any given time.
Set an undisclosed amount of time after the initial outbreak, the world is slowly going to hell, martial law has entered several American cities and the dead are still rising. Two SWAT members and a couple decide to flee the cities and end up hauled up in a mall.
From the offset, Dawn... is a much better film than its predecessor. All the dread and tension of the first is still there, but there's a much greater sense of urgency and the action is a lot more fast paced which is much easier on the eyes.
All four main characters are intensely likable this time around which also raises the audiences hope that they'll make it through an ever decreasing situation. Tom Savini (who was drafted to Vietnam and missed out on Night...) is on hand with the special effects which must have been mind blowing at the time. Even now in retrospective, there's a real beauty in his work (even with the bright red blood).
On the whole, Dawn... is not just a great zombie flick, its a great film, easily one of the best in the horror genre. Although again like Night..., it has aged, it has a certain unmistakable charm to it that even after repeated viewings, it doesn't wane or bore, it simply becomes more entertaining which after the initial scares, is something to be cherished in a horror film.
Social Commentary:
Materialism is the obvious one. Our heroes spend the majority of the film in a shopping mall which is full to the brim of items they need and don't need. But once the excitement disappears and they have everything, they become bored and desperately want to leave.
Consumerism is again tied to the shopping mall. Our group constantly race to different stores in order to get the things they need or luxaries. The zombies are stuck outside, sometimes even clawing at the glass desperately trying to enter (although not for the products, but more the people themselves).
Racism is touched upon at the start of the film with the apartment block with one SWAT member gradually going insane and wondering why they get to live in an apartment in the first place.
Sexism is briefly touched upon with Fran finding herself left out of the boys plans to be rid of the zombies and secure the mall. Eventually Fran is trained to fly the helicopter (which becomes crucial in the final moments of the film).
The ethics of death are also prominent. The initial attack on the apartment block is down to people not handing over their deceased loved-ones as Peter puts it "they still believe there's a respect in dying" with a reverend holding several zombies in the basement. When Roger is bitten, he suddenly finds himself in the same position as someone terminally ill and is also treated in the same manner.
There's also the prospect of bombing major cities with nuclear weapons as a means to be rid of the zombies. Dawn... was created during the middle of the Cold War where similar apocalyptic scenarios were a constant threat.
Zombie Evolution:
The zombies appear to congregate at the mall as "it was a special place to them" according to Stephen
There are several segments with people debating on television about the zombies. A Government doctor is keen to point out that the zombies attack only the living and thus their behaviour isn't cannibalism as cannibalism implies an inter species activity.
Whilst in Night..., the government believes the zombies may be the result of a satellite from Venus burning up in the Earth's atmosphere, Peter believes the outbreak might be more akin with a doomsday scenario. He chillingly references a warning his grandfather (a voodoo priest) gave him when he was younger referring to the dead walking.
The zombies show far less intelligence here than in Night... (almost to the point of comedy).
When Stephen returns as a zombie, he remembers where the others were hiding upstairs and possibly, inadvertently, leads a group of them to where Peter and Fran are hiding. Memories will become a massive feature in then next film of the franchise; Day of the Dead.
Sunday, 31 October 2010
Zombiethon '10: Night of the Living Dead
The grandaddy of them all and the only film on this list you can legally watch on Youtube, Night of the Living Dead is the first in Romero's Dead series and sets all prerequisites needed for the franchise including social satire, buckets of blood and gore (or in this case, chocolate syrup and roasted ham) and somewhat slow zombies.
On face level, Night... is a throwback to the fifties Saturday matineé horror movies; you have several damsels in distress, a level headed antagonist surrounded by people who should have died long ago from a severe lack of functioning brain cells and bizarre monsters.
On that same face level however, the film is notoriously gory and horrifying for something from the sixties. Radio broadcasts constantly update the group of characters (and us for that matter) on what exactly is going on beyond the farmhouse with each becoming more horrible than the last (with each update being recreated soon after).
There's a huge amount of tension and dread throughout the film. Our heroes (if you can call them that) are trapped in a somewhat haunted house, the ongoing threat outside is amassing and as time goes by, any chances of escaping deplete by the minute.
It's strange watching Night... now because like many older horror movies, it's difficult to watch due to it's age and the fact its in black and white. With time however, the film's horror has been replaced with a retrospective bleakness which does, in a strange sense, seem fresh and new.
On the whole however, it's an OK film. It does have some cheesy moments and a few bad editing choices but it's worth seeing, just to see where the modern day zombie shambled from.
...and just to show how fantastic of a sequel Dawn of the Dead is, which is thankfully coming up next.
Social commentary:
The Vietnam war for the ongoing broadcasts and updates against the antagonists.
Film historian Robin Wood believed the zombies represented a look at capitalism (with devouring other people being the obvious evolution of that, I guess).
The main protagonist (and easily the best character) Ben is black which was strange for the late sixties (even when you take into account Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were prominent during the sixties). He doesn't run into any direct racism but the ending of the film is sadly ironic.
By the end of the film, it shows the army and several rednecks seemingly gaining control of the situation by shooting everything on site. Remember folks, at the end of the world, grab your gun and your best hat!
Zombie Evolution:
Foundations are set folks; the recently deceased are somewhat slow (although the very first zombie gives off a pretty good chase to Barbra), can crudely use tools and eat living people (although one strangely eats maggots).
A bite from one to a living person will turn that person into a zombie. They have apparently no comprehension or memories of their previous lives and will attack anyone, family included.
Only severe trauma to the brain can stop a zombie or completely incapacitating it (in this case, lots of fire).
On face level, Night... is a throwback to the fifties Saturday matineé horror movies; you have several damsels in distress, a level headed antagonist surrounded by people who should have died long ago from a severe lack of functioning brain cells and bizarre monsters.
On that same face level however, the film is notoriously gory and horrifying for something from the sixties. Radio broadcasts constantly update the group of characters (and us for that matter) on what exactly is going on beyond the farmhouse with each becoming more horrible than the last (with each update being recreated soon after).
There's a huge amount of tension and dread throughout the film. Our heroes (if you can call them that) are trapped in a somewhat haunted house, the ongoing threat outside is amassing and as time goes by, any chances of escaping deplete by the minute.
It's strange watching Night... now because like many older horror movies, it's difficult to watch due to it's age and the fact its in black and white. With time however, the film's horror has been replaced with a retrospective bleakness which does, in a strange sense, seem fresh and new.
On the whole however, it's an OK film. It does have some cheesy moments and a few bad editing choices but it's worth seeing, just to see where the modern day zombie shambled from.
...and just to show how fantastic of a sequel Dawn of the Dead is, which is thankfully coming up next.
Social commentary:
The Vietnam war for the ongoing broadcasts and updates against the antagonists.
Film historian Robin Wood believed the zombies represented a look at capitalism (with devouring other people being the obvious evolution of that, I guess).
The main protagonist (and easily the best character) Ben is black which was strange for the late sixties (even when you take into account Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were prominent during the sixties). He doesn't run into any direct racism but the ending of the film is sadly ironic.
By the end of the film, it shows the army and several rednecks seemingly gaining control of the situation by shooting everything on site. Remember folks, at the end of the world, grab your gun and your best hat!
Zombie Evolution:
Foundations are set folks; the recently deceased are somewhat slow (although the very first zombie gives off a pretty good chase to Barbra), can crudely use tools and eat living people (although one strangely eats maggots).
A bite from one to a living person will turn that person into a zombie. They have apparently no comprehension or memories of their previous lives and will attack anyone, family included.
Only severe trauma to the brain can stop a zombie or completely incapacitating it (in this case, lots of fire).
Thursday, 28 October 2010
Zombiethon '10
In a break from discussing Nintendo games and Doctor Who, Halloween is almost upon us and this year, your dynamic duo at Retcon-Nation have taken it upon ourselves to scare/laugh ourselves stupid with a monstrous undertaking.
This year, we'll be watching all six of George A. Romero's Dead films, it's spoof Shaun of the Dead and British collumist Charlie Brooker's take on the zombie mythos Dead Set.
Seven films, one mini series, a thousand corpses and more social commentary than Wikipedia, join us all over the weekend for sporadic updates, reviews, thoughts and more in Retcon-Nation's Zombiethon!
This year, we'll be watching all six of George A. Romero's Dead films, it's spoof Shaun of the Dead and British collumist Charlie Brooker's take on the zombie mythos Dead Set.
Seven films, one mini series, a thousand corpses and more social commentary than Wikipedia, join us all over the weekend for sporadic updates, reviews, thoughts and more in Retcon-Nation's Zombiethon!
Saturday, 28 August 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Film review)
OK folks, confession time; I had never heard of Scott Pilgrim until earlier this year. Now I know a lot of you will be shocked and appalled by this development and realise that I have no journalistic integrity to review a movie based on a hugely successful comic franchise built upon decades of development with no knowledge of the source material but alas, work with me, I'm only human!
Translated from sarcasm:
Like you, I had never heard of Scott Pilgrim until Michael Cera and Edgar Wright's names appeared in the original teaser trailers several months ago but I was intrigued by the prospect and wanted to know more. Afterall, I'm one of only say, eight people who can still tolerate Cera playing the same character for the past five years and like many of you, I think Edgar Wright is an underrated genius for his previous definitions of cult classics Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.
So when I discovered the film was an adaptation on an American faux-manga which was pretty much a love letter to video-games (mainly from Nintendo and Sega's first two home consoles), well, I was engulfed in the hype. It looked and sounded amazing from the trailers and further advertisements of a faux-8bit console game based on the manga for the PS3 and Xbox 360 (with hopefully a review on that soonish).
So August has shown it's sunny face on the calendar year, the film tanked at the American box-office for having the balls to face off against The Expendables but I remained hyped as hell for this thing. Surely something has to give, only The Dark Knight has ever lived up to it's level of anticipation and that was The Godfather of comic book movies.
So, is it good? In a nutshell, yes.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is at it's core a rom-com. The story from which is six volumes long and has taken as many years to complete is the story of it's titular character, a twenty-two year old inhabitant of Toronto who is the very definition of no-hoper.
Scott (played by Michael Cera) has no real ambitions, no real job (minus being the bass player in garage band Sex Bob-omb) and lives with in a one bedroom apartment with his absolutely fantastic roommate Wallace Wells (played by Kieran Culkin).
After being brutally dumped by his girlfriend, he finds himself in a surreal relationship with seventeen year-old high schooler Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong) which his friends and bandmates object to. One day while dreaming, a purple hair girl catches his eye who eventually turns out to be a real person called Ramona Flowers (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstrad) an Amazon delivery girl who ends up being the figurative girl of his dreams.
However, Ramona comes with baggage in the form of seven evil ex's who Scott must defeat in video-game style fashion to stay alive long enough to keep dating her.
That's the film; there's twists, there's turns, there's small pop up boxes for extra character notes/lulz but again, in it's purest form, it's a boy meets girl story.
What makes Scott Pilgrim vs. The World a far more entertaining rom-com then say, anything Jennifer Aniston has starred in for the past decade is that the film is pure fun from start to finish. Despite the absolute insanity of guy having to physically destroy seven people in order to get to third base (or possibly 2nd & 1/2 base as Wallace advises), the film's universe and characters are a fantastic, memorable bunch and are all well developed.
You can mostly thank Bryan Lee O'Malley's original story for this but credit has to go to Wright and screenwriter Michael Bacall for condensing a six volume story into a two hour film. Yes for purists of the original story, things are obviously trimmed or omitted completely, but the main story remains.
One of my only gripes of the film is that the latter half of evil ex's seemed rushed compared to the first three but I put that down Wright and Bacall having more time to work on them as they were the older volumes but to be honest, Brandon Routh peaks as the best evil ex with Jason Schwartzman and Chris Evans behind, but minus the twins, they're all memorable villains.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World also holds the accolade of being the most quotable film of the year by far. A pre-warning, you might wanna get on IMDB after seeing this one, a few of the phrases are going to be popping up in conversations for years to come.
So, it sounds like a treat, but what about the look. Simply put I have never seen a picture like this. Sure, it's neon bright for the action sequences and picturesque for the more quieter scenes (like Scott and Ramona's first "date") and yes, after three television series and two films, everyone is used to Wright's frantic pace of cuts and cues but, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a close as any comic book based property will ever get to looking like a live action comic (without it being completely animated).
Visual puns, contradictory text boxes, narrations, exaggerations, the whole works is up on the big screen and it works a treat. Compared to our modern day fad of media being real and gritty, Scott Pilgrim's universe is the complete antithesis and it's an absolute gem because of it.
If you've ever listened to Beck or any form of garage rock regardless of how terrible it is, you'll be wanting to get the soundtrack afterwards too. Whereas the film looks colourful and vibrant, the music is stereotypically messy and at times, hilariously simplistic.
Beck's take of Ramona, Scott's song he wrote for...Ramona sounds like a b-side off of Sea Change for anyone who likes Beck but the rest of the music is slow acoustics for drama, chiptunes for battles and garage rock for band battles, which is fine for me.
So afterall all this, where does this leave Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? Earlier this year, it looked different, but in a good way. After being sucked into the hype and seeing the adventures of this twenty-two year old Canadian slacker and his crazy cast of friends and enemies, I can safely say;
If you grew up with video-games of the early ninities or want a zanny rom-com, it's the most fun you'll have in the cinema all year and I'm in lesbians with it.
9/10
H
Translated from sarcasm:
Like you, I had never heard of Scott Pilgrim until Michael Cera and Edgar Wright's names appeared in the original teaser trailers several months ago but I was intrigued by the prospect and wanted to know more. Afterall, I'm one of only say, eight people who can still tolerate Cera playing the same character for the past five years and like many of you, I think Edgar Wright is an underrated genius for his previous definitions of cult classics Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.
So when I discovered the film was an adaptation on an American faux-manga which was pretty much a love letter to video-games (mainly from Nintendo and Sega's first two home consoles), well, I was engulfed in the hype. It looked and sounded amazing from the trailers and further advertisements of a faux-8bit console game based on the manga for the PS3 and Xbox 360 (with hopefully a review on that soonish).
So August has shown it's sunny face on the calendar year, the film tanked at the American box-office for having the balls to face off against The Expendables but I remained hyped as hell for this thing. Surely something has to give, only The Dark Knight has ever lived up to it's level of anticipation and that was The Godfather of comic book movies.
So, is it good? In a nutshell, yes.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is at it's core a rom-com. The story from which is six volumes long and has taken as many years to complete is the story of it's titular character, a twenty-two year old inhabitant of Toronto who is the very definition of no-hoper.
Scott (played by Michael Cera) has no real ambitions, no real job (minus being the bass player in garage band Sex Bob-omb) and lives with in a one bedroom apartment with his absolutely fantastic roommate Wallace Wells (played by Kieran Culkin).
After being brutally dumped by his girlfriend, he finds himself in a surreal relationship with seventeen year-old high schooler Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong) which his friends and bandmates object to. One day while dreaming, a purple hair girl catches his eye who eventually turns out to be a real person called Ramona Flowers (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstrad) an Amazon delivery girl who ends up being the figurative girl of his dreams.
However, Ramona comes with baggage in the form of seven evil ex's who Scott must defeat in video-game style fashion to stay alive long enough to keep dating her.
That's the film; there's twists, there's turns, there's small pop up boxes for extra character notes/lulz but again, in it's purest form, it's a boy meets girl story.
What makes Scott Pilgrim vs. The World a far more entertaining rom-com then say, anything Jennifer Aniston has starred in for the past decade is that the film is pure fun from start to finish. Despite the absolute insanity of guy having to physically destroy seven people in order to get to third base (or possibly 2nd & 1/2 base as Wallace advises), the film's universe and characters are a fantastic, memorable bunch and are all well developed.
You can mostly thank Bryan Lee O'Malley's original story for this but credit has to go to Wright and screenwriter Michael Bacall for condensing a six volume story into a two hour film. Yes for purists of the original story, things are obviously trimmed or omitted completely, but the main story remains.
One of my only gripes of the film is that the latter half of evil ex's seemed rushed compared to the first three but I put that down Wright and Bacall having more time to work on them as they were the older volumes but to be honest, Brandon Routh peaks as the best evil ex with Jason Schwartzman and Chris Evans behind, but minus the twins, they're all memorable villains.
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World also holds the accolade of being the most quotable film of the year by far. A pre-warning, you might wanna get on IMDB after seeing this one, a few of the phrases are going to be popping up in conversations for years to come.
So, it sounds like a treat, but what about the look. Simply put I have never seen a picture like this. Sure, it's neon bright for the action sequences and picturesque for the more quieter scenes (like Scott and Ramona's first "date") and yes, after three television series and two films, everyone is used to Wright's frantic pace of cuts and cues but, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a close as any comic book based property will ever get to looking like a live action comic (without it being completely animated).
Visual puns, contradictory text boxes, narrations, exaggerations, the whole works is up on the big screen and it works a treat. Compared to our modern day fad of media being real and gritty, Scott Pilgrim's universe is the complete antithesis and it's an absolute gem because of it.
If you've ever listened to Beck or any form of garage rock regardless of how terrible it is, you'll be wanting to get the soundtrack afterwards too. Whereas the film looks colourful and vibrant, the music is stereotypically messy and at times, hilariously simplistic.
Beck's take of Ramona, Scott's song he wrote for...Ramona sounds like a b-side off of Sea Change for anyone who likes Beck but the rest of the music is slow acoustics for drama, chiptunes for battles and garage rock for band battles, which is fine for me.
So afterall all this, where does this leave Scott Pilgrim vs. The World? Earlier this year, it looked different, but in a good way. After being sucked into the hype and seeing the adventures of this twenty-two year old Canadian slacker and his crazy cast of friends and enemies, I can safely say;
If you grew up with video-games of the early ninities or want a zanny rom-com, it's the most fun you'll have in the cinema all year and I'm in lesbians with it.
9/10
H
Monday, 26 July 2010
Inception Review
The Mindfuck. It's a common phrase on the internet (so much so that it spawned it's own picture meme) but for the mainstream audience, there first encounter of this phenomenon would probably have been mentioned from Puff Diddy Daddy in Get Him to the Greek, where Puffy explains a certain version of it, although it's more of a combination of mindrape and reverse psychology.
For an acutual quick definition, it's a term of phrase to describe an event either part confusing, part awesome, part surreal or at least two of the above combined.
Why am I explaining this, because we're looking at Christopher Nolan's mindfuck of a summer blockbuster; Inception.
Yep, it seems Warner Brothers really wanted another Matrix (not my words, apparently Nolan's first job by Warner Bros. was to make something like The Matrix as it was the flavour of the month) and while a decade late to the party, it's a rather refreshing and intriguing little gem of a movie.
The plot is an absolute nightmare to describe in detail but the main point is this. Leonardo DiCaprio (famous for his roles in Titanic and Critters 3) and a small group have the ability to get into people's dreams to steal valuable information. A Japanese businessman (played by Ken Wantabe) wants the group to infiltrate a business rival's mind (Cillian Murphy) and implant an idea in the form of a dream so he can sell his business before it becomes a monopoly.
Now that is the main plot, however like any good story, Nolan craft's his characters and the universe they inhabit and despite being way over two hours in length, the time will fly by (anyone (ok, everyone) who saw The Dark Knight should be confident that Nolan can carry a long story without the boredom fairy ruining it (...boredom fairy?)).
So, in a nutshell, Inception is basically a strange mix of The Matrix meets Insomnia meets The Cell. Within the first hour, the film expositions all the details about entering the minds, the risks, the lulz etc and we get a healthy dose of character build-up.
DiCaprio's character Dom (dubbed the Extractor because he's the main idea thief) has the largest amount of character background. Although Dom is confident and seems fully in control of the worlds he inhabits, he hides a very dark secret which could destroy everything the group strives to work for.
Rounding up the team of Inceptors is the intensely likable Arthur (played by potential future Riddler Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Arthur is the Point Man (responsible for research into clients) and sadly spends the last half of the movie in a long battle for survival full of gravity defying stunts and snogging Ellen Page (who plays the Architect, someone who builds the world the Inceptors inhabit). Page is thankfully not in Juno mode but plays the viewpoint character (as she's just as new as this as we are).
Tom Hardy plays Eames, a character who can manifest himself as different characters to get the dreamer the reveal more information and Michael Caine plays Dom's father in law.
So enough about plot, there's roll on the with rest. First of all, the set-pieces, camerawork and editing are fantastic. For the first time in a Nolan film, there are large amounts of CGI but rather than use it as a basis for the story, the added effects give more depth to the dream world setting of the film and that's all. Your focus is entirely on the predicament of the characters and trying to absorb the knowledge given to you.
Slow-motion is prominent but actually has a purpose other than looking good. Location's are surprisingly vast and always changing (due to the erratic nature of dreaming) and by the end, you'll notice there's four events leading to the climax, each never losing it's interest and everything plays an important roll.
Hans Zimmer returns to score and while nothing is as memorable as Why So Serious? from The Dark Knight, the music has a very Ennio Morricone feel; guitars are prominent but not distracting and make a welcome change to the usual string and drum affair to soundtracks for big budget thrillers.
By the end of this two and half hour roller coaster, Inception will leave you head scratching. Not from the overly confusing plot, but rather, why does Hollywood not go for more features like this? It's an incredibly engrossing, smart movie with plenty of action, twists and turns, but never once does it sacrifice a drop of substance or intelligence for a cheap thrill.
If The Dark Knight hasn't cemented Christopher Nolan and his close team of producers, writers, composers and actors as one of the most powerful forces in Hollywood, Inception will. It's by far this summer's most intelligent and outright best action thriller, but also easily one of the films of 2010 and possibly, this entire decade.
Well, what are you waiting for you? Get to the cinema now!
9/10
H
For an acutual quick definition, it's a term of phrase to describe an event either part confusing, part awesome, part surreal or at least two of the above combined.
Why am I explaining this, because we're looking at Christopher Nolan's mindfuck of a summer blockbuster; Inception.
Yep, it seems Warner Brothers really wanted another Matrix (not my words, apparently Nolan's first job by Warner Bros. was to make something like The Matrix as it was the flavour of the month) and while a decade late to the party, it's a rather refreshing and intriguing little gem of a movie.
The plot is an absolute nightmare to describe in detail but the main point is this. Leonardo DiCaprio (famous for his roles in Titanic and Critters 3) and a small group have the ability to get into people's dreams to steal valuable information. A Japanese businessman (played by Ken Wantabe) wants the group to infiltrate a business rival's mind (Cillian Murphy) and implant an idea in the form of a dream so he can sell his business before it becomes a monopoly.
Now that is the main plot, however like any good story, Nolan craft's his characters and the universe they inhabit and despite being way over two hours in length, the time will fly by (anyone (ok, everyone) who saw The Dark Knight should be confident that Nolan can carry a long story without the boredom fairy ruining it (...boredom fairy?)).
So, in a nutshell, Inception is basically a strange mix of The Matrix meets Insomnia meets The Cell. Within the first hour, the film expositions all the details about entering the minds, the risks, the lulz etc and we get a healthy dose of character build-up.
DiCaprio's character Dom (dubbed the Extractor because he's the main idea thief) has the largest amount of character background. Although Dom is confident and seems fully in control of the worlds he inhabits, he hides a very dark secret which could destroy everything the group strives to work for.
Rounding up the team of Inceptors is the intensely likable Arthur (played by potential future Riddler Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Arthur is the Point Man (responsible for research into clients) and sadly spends the last half of the movie in a long battle for survival full of gravity defying stunts and snogging Ellen Page (who plays the Architect, someone who builds the world the Inceptors inhabit). Page is thankfully not in Juno mode but plays the viewpoint character (as she's just as new as this as we are).
Tom Hardy plays Eames, a character who can manifest himself as different characters to get the dreamer the reveal more information and Michael Caine plays Dom's father in law.
So enough about plot, there's roll on the with rest. First of all, the set-pieces, camerawork and editing are fantastic. For the first time in a Nolan film, there are large amounts of CGI but rather than use it as a basis for the story, the added effects give more depth to the dream world setting of the film and that's all. Your focus is entirely on the predicament of the characters and trying to absorb the knowledge given to you.
Slow-motion is prominent but actually has a purpose other than looking good. Location's are surprisingly vast and always changing (due to the erratic nature of dreaming) and by the end, you'll notice there's four events leading to the climax, each never losing it's interest and everything plays an important roll.
Hans Zimmer returns to score and while nothing is as memorable as Why So Serious? from The Dark Knight, the music has a very Ennio Morricone feel; guitars are prominent but not distracting and make a welcome change to the usual string and drum affair to soundtracks for big budget thrillers.
By the end of this two and half hour roller coaster, Inception will leave you head scratching. Not from the overly confusing plot, but rather, why does Hollywood not go for more features like this? It's an incredibly engrossing, smart movie with plenty of action, twists and turns, but never once does it sacrifice a drop of substance or intelligence for a cheap thrill.
If The Dark Knight hasn't cemented Christopher Nolan and his close team of producers, writers, composers and actors as one of the most powerful forces in Hollywood, Inception will. It's by far this summer's most intelligent and outright best action thriller, but also easily one of the films of 2010 and possibly, this entire decade.
Well, what are you waiting for you? Get to the cinema now!
9/10
H
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Toy Story 3 Review
Film trilogy's never work. There, I said it. You know it's true. Let's move on with our lives and try to forget why we always think that there will be three (count 'em, three!) great films of the same series, in a row.
I mean, let's think about, The Godfather trilogy is ruined by the third part being the runt of the litter (while by no means outright bad, it just happens to be tagged on to the near perfect first and second parts). The original Star Wars trilogy fell apart by having elite Stormtroopers defeated by an army of Teddy Bears in ROtJ and The Matrix...well I like it, everyone else seems to think it should have ended with number one.
So yes, trilogies always end in error usually by the third part. Whether its plot's are too outlandish (or a rehash on the first movie aka The Karate Kid), the character's can no longer be developed in coherent ways or we simply get bored of them, there has never been a consistently good film trilogy.
So, where does this leave Toy Story? You remember Toy Story right? It was that film released in the mid-nineties where toys apparently come to life when their owners aren't around? Is pretty much the Big Bang event to the CGI explosion of kid's films which happened after?
Of course you remember.
Toy Story was a masterpiece not just for little kids who were taken a back that their cartoons now look like their Playstation cutscenes but was filled with a child-like wonder, memorable characters and a concept that anyone who had ever felt an emotional attachment to a toy could relate to (including, SHOCK!Fully-Grown-Adults!!)
The story sees Andy (the owner of all the toys) receiving a Buzz Lightyear action figure (voiced by Tim Allen) who thinks he's a real space ranger. Eventually Buzz usurps Tom Hank's cowboy doll Woody as his favourite toy which leads to Woody growing mad with jealously but thanks to a sequence of events, leads the two teaming up to survive the terrors of the great outdoors.
A sequel arrived four years later (which is pretty early for Disney considering they finally answered that lost winter question for Bambi II, sixty-four years after the original) in Toy Story 2, which did the rare thing of somehow being equal/better than the original.
All the toys returned for a rip-roaring tale of the prospect of growing old. Woody is suddenly a rare commodity who gets Toy-Napped by an evil Dennis Knight (who reprises his role from Jurassic Park with a goatee) who wants to sell him to a Japanese Toy museum. So Buzz and the gang have to save Woody who realises his time is slowly coming to an end and wonder's about a life after Andy.
Like all sequels, it's bigger, has more characters but never loses the heart of the original. There's a particular song which could melt any stone heart but despite the looming doom, the character's remain optimistic at the end and we do too, even though for anyone who's owned a toy, where do they all end up in the end?
So over a decade later and after much behind the scenes fuck-ups, Toy Story 3 hits the big screen:
IN ADEQUATE AND ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE MAKING 3D.
In an unusual step, the film takes place an considerable amount of time after the second with Andy heading to college and the toys seemingly left abandoned in a toy chest. After a complicated series of events, the toys decide they're not wanted anymore and take a gamble on a trip to a daycare centre and I'll leave it at that.
So, how is Toy Story 3 without revealing spoilers I hear you ask?
Amazing, simply put.
Some of the wonderful characters from the previous two return (with others logically already gone) and again, the film ups the ante. It's a real sombre feel compared to the other two as you can't help but think throughout the entire film the toys are doomed to their fate due to father time.
You desperately want to see them through just like all the hard-ships beforehand, but the odds have never been higher and despite Woody and Buzz's optimism about a life in the attic in case Andy ever needs them, there's a sense of dread with all glimmers of hope being just that, glimmers.
The new characters are all pretty fantastic but none more so than Michael Keaton's Ken, whose feminine behaviour provides quite a few chuckles. The rest of the gang are still the same old, just a lot older and scared of the prospect of being thrown away.
Set pieces have expanded and are a tad more frequent but never lose they're unpredictability. The final one in particular will pound your heart into dust, mainly due to the emotional investment made with the characters over the past fifteen years. The animation and character models are all easy on the eye which makes it very easy to immerse yourself in the film's intriguing universe.
There's not a whole bunch to write about, so I'll leave it here. For those of us you grew up with these movies and want to see a satisfying and emotionally draining ending, it's perfect. For parents who want a popcorn flick to keep the kids semi-quiet for under two hours, it's perfect and for anyone who has ever owned and loved a toy, this is one for you too.
...and try to spot a certain antagonist from the first movie who makes a nice lil cameo. At least the writers decided not to make him a potential psychological train wreck after what happened and instead a tras...oops.
10/10
H
I mean, let's think about, The Godfather trilogy is ruined by the third part being the runt of the litter (while by no means outright bad, it just happens to be tagged on to the near perfect first and second parts). The original Star Wars trilogy fell apart by having elite Stormtroopers defeated by an army of Teddy Bears in ROtJ and The Matrix...well I like it, everyone else seems to think it should have ended with number one.
So yes, trilogies always end in error usually by the third part. Whether its plot's are too outlandish (or a rehash on the first movie aka The Karate Kid), the character's can no longer be developed in coherent ways or we simply get bored of them, there has never been a consistently good film trilogy.
So, where does this leave Toy Story? You remember Toy Story right? It was that film released in the mid-nineties where toys apparently come to life when their owners aren't around? Is pretty much the Big Bang event to the CGI explosion of kid's films which happened after?
Of course you remember.
Toy Story was a masterpiece not just for little kids who were taken a back that their cartoons now look like their Playstation cutscenes but was filled with a child-like wonder, memorable characters and a concept that anyone who had ever felt an emotional attachment to a toy could relate to (including, SHOCK!Fully-Grown-Adults!!)
The story sees Andy (the owner of all the toys) receiving a Buzz Lightyear action figure (voiced by Tim Allen) who thinks he's a real space ranger. Eventually Buzz usurps Tom Hank's cowboy doll Woody as his favourite toy which leads to Woody growing mad with jealously but thanks to a sequence of events, leads the two teaming up to survive the terrors of the great outdoors.
A sequel arrived four years later (which is pretty early for Disney considering they finally answered that lost winter question for Bambi II, sixty-four years after the original) in Toy Story 2, which did the rare thing of somehow being equal/better than the original.
All the toys returned for a rip-roaring tale of the prospect of growing old. Woody is suddenly a rare commodity who gets Toy-Napped by an evil Dennis Knight (who reprises his role from Jurassic Park with a goatee) who wants to sell him to a Japanese Toy museum. So Buzz and the gang have to save Woody who realises his time is slowly coming to an end and wonder's about a life after Andy.
Like all sequels, it's bigger, has more characters but never loses the heart of the original. There's a particular song which could melt any stone heart but despite the looming doom, the character's remain optimistic at the end and we do too, even though for anyone who's owned a toy, where do they all end up in the end?
So over a decade later and after much behind the scenes fuck-ups, Toy Story 3 hits the big screen:
IN ADEQUATE AND ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE MAKING 3D.
In an unusual step, the film takes place an considerable amount of time after the second with Andy heading to college and the toys seemingly left abandoned in a toy chest. After a complicated series of events, the toys decide they're not wanted anymore and take a gamble on a trip to a daycare centre and I'll leave it at that.
So, how is Toy Story 3 without revealing spoilers I hear you ask?
Amazing, simply put.
Some of the wonderful characters from the previous two return (with others logically already gone) and again, the film ups the ante. It's a real sombre feel compared to the other two as you can't help but think throughout the entire film the toys are doomed to their fate due to father time.
You desperately want to see them through just like all the hard-ships beforehand, but the odds have never been higher and despite Woody and Buzz's optimism about a life in the attic in case Andy ever needs them, there's a sense of dread with all glimmers of hope being just that, glimmers.
The new characters are all pretty fantastic but none more so than Michael Keaton's Ken, whose feminine behaviour provides quite a few chuckles. The rest of the gang are still the same old, just a lot older and scared of the prospect of being thrown away.
Set pieces have expanded and are a tad more frequent but never lose they're unpredictability. The final one in particular will pound your heart into dust, mainly due to the emotional investment made with the characters over the past fifteen years. The animation and character models are all easy on the eye which makes it very easy to immerse yourself in the film's intriguing universe.
There's not a whole bunch to write about, so I'll leave it here. For those of us you grew up with these movies and want to see a satisfying and emotionally draining ending, it's perfect. For parents who want a popcorn flick to keep the kids semi-quiet for under two hours, it's perfect and for anyone who has ever owned and loved a toy, this is one for you too.
...and try to spot a certain antagonist from the first movie who makes a nice lil cameo. At least the writers decided not to make him a potential psychological train wreck after what happened and instead a tras...oops.
10/10
H
Saturday, 15 May 2010
RIP Heroes 2006-2010
Some might say it was inevitable, others will speak joyously about it's demise, but for the small and somewhat annoyed, we'll wonder what if it just got one last poxy season?
But alas, NBC has cancelled Heroes. It appears that even Season Four's pretty damn good comeback (in my eyes anyway, check teh interwebs for the other side of the spectrum) wasn't enough to stop the show's ratings free falling and now NBC has pulled the plug to make room for more shows.
Of course this hasn't stopped the talk of their being a mini-series or a movie for wrapping things up but, seriously, Stargate has kept it's bloated corpse running on spin-offs for nigh on five years now, I'd like to think even Kring has some dignity to wrap it up quickly if given the chance.
Check back soon for the review to end all reviews on Volume Five's Redemption (lulz, irony). As for me, I best get saving for that Blu-Ray boxset that I've been putting off for two years.
I mean, who else is going to pay for Hayden Panettiere to save the dolphins?
H
But alas, NBC has cancelled Heroes. It appears that even Season Four's pretty damn good comeback (in my eyes anyway, check teh interwebs for the other side of the spectrum) wasn't enough to stop the show's ratings free falling and now NBC has pulled the plug to make room for more shows.
Of course this hasn't stopped the talk of their being a mini-series or a movie for wrapping things up but, seriously, Stargate has kept it's bloated corpse running on spin-offs for nigh on five years now, I'd like to think even Kring has some dignity to wrap it up quickly if given the chance.
Check back soon for the review to end all reviews on Volume Five's Redemption (lulz, irony). As for me, I best get saving for that Blu-Ray boxset that I've been putting off for two years.
I mean, who else is going to pay for Hayden Panettiere to save the dolphins?
H
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
