jonno-ice Reviews

X: First Class (2011)

Turning a leaden franchise into box office gold

[8/10 · 19 June 2011]

X-men First Class is a film that just feels good.

It is by no means a perfect film, but the keys to its success are its good bits burning up the bad bits. In other words, I did not walk out of the theater remembering the unpleasant pieces of the film.

X-men First Class's plot line is given in the title, and the details are the origin of two types of mutant, those who are good and those who are bad. The set pieces of the film are based around the Cuban Missile crisis, and who can save the human race from its destruction, or create its destruction

Sound familiar?

Well, that's because it is, but the key aspect of the film is not this plot line, but the execution of this well worn storyline.

The ambiguity of the characters is vividly portrayed, and I believe it is at least one of the elements of the film that makes it so engrossing. For example, the character of Erik Lensherr, given as the super villain of the series, is hard to nail down as a simple villain. For every (supposedly?) evil act he commits in this film, there is a reason for that act. We understand why he is doing it, and we sympathize with him, even agree.

Deep character study and exposure is similarly exploited in Lensherr's ally and later opposite number, Charles Xavier. We also sympathize with him; he is a man with heart. This facet of the character is developed so well by the filmmakers, that when the character is 'wheelchaired' (I'm sure this is an obvious plot point even to the most naive viewer) I felt a genuine jolt of emotion surge through my body.

The special effects in this film are only used on top of the character development and storyline, like a layer of cheese on a particularly tasty pizza. This is also what sets the film out from other (so called) blockbusters in recent years. Effects are used only to polish off the human drama taking place on screen. And would you know it? The special effects and action sequences have a real weight. A certain scene at the end of the film involving some serious military hardware was eye popping, essentially because I was so invested in what was happening on screen.

Naturally, there are some faults with the film, the film score is a touch wooden and some of the younger cast have some poor acting moments. The issue of too many characters is rather obvious with this type of franchise, and despite the fact in cannot be helped, it does weigh the film some.

But as I said, the little bit of bad by no means outweighs the good, and the filmmakers have made a double investment with me – I will be returning for at least one more sequel.

Green Lantern (2011)

Green Lantern succeeds because it works hard at becoming what it really is.

[7/10 · 16 June 2011]

A comic book movie.

The painful truth for any filmmaker in the modern world trying to construct a much-loved comic book hero/venerably worshipped deity picture is the inevitable comparison to The Dark Knight.

But let's be frank here fellas, The Dark Knight is simply not a comic book movie, it never was from the day of its conception and certainly not from the day popular culture set their beady little eyes on it.

But still, the comparisons are what they are, and what they are, are desperate comparisons of the films with The Dark Knight. And because of that, this film, among others, will be deemed painful exercises in Special FX and shallow character development.

I think these accusations are largely unfair, and yes, I am probably going to rant in the majority of this review.

Let's get straight to the facts. That is, the negative ones first.

GL is a fairly unfamiliar superhero to most of us (I had no particular interest in him before the production started, and it is unlikely I will be buying a blow up doll of Ryan Reynolds in a green suit and hiding it in my locked wardrobe anytime in the future – wait. What?). Batman, Spiderman and Superman are the musclebound dogs we have so deeply ingrained in our personal view of the world's popular culture. So when we hear about a guy with a powered ring, we can't help but think 'the son of Sauron is a funny vomit green! YAY!' This is perhaps the primary marketing difficulty for the film.

The cast overall is not a problem, however, none of them are given a really significant period of time on screen. This makes sense however, when you consider the film has a runtime of only an hour-and-a-half or so. For a large scale character origin story, why wouldn't you use your standard allotted 120 minutes (that's about as much as the kiddies you've used as an excuse to go see it can handle) to throw in a few more bones for the older audience to chew on? I guess not. An extra five minutes screen time for Mega-head, the green guy, the yellow-monster- thingy, the brunette you can tell is really a blonde and the sunburnt guy played by the bloke off Kick-Ass? 3-5 minutes is an eternity in film and would have tempted this humble reviewer to mark out an early place in the year's top ten list. But alas, it wasn't to be.

The plot, as plots go in our dear, beloved, nihilistic Hollywood is on par, but is executed with confidence. Confidence that goes some distance in hiding its somewhat industrial manufacture.

Oh, and it's always good to keep in mind that if you want a truly frightening villain for the beloved hero to contend with, it's best to make him human (or humanoid at least). The horrors in my nightmares are either unseen until the last minute or human. A yellow computer generated thing with a bad dentist? – ah well.

Now the positives. The first positive is that the negatives did not weigh this film down. I walked into the theatre tired, grumpy and exhausted (It was a 10am showing. You get it.) and very determined to find a reason to viciously hate every bit of this film. I had fun, was surprised at some of the things on screen and most importantly, didn't feel like rioting at the concession stand afterwards for the return of my money.

Ryan Reynolds is good because he is just ordinary. Not ordinary in his acting, just ordinary in his characters representation. So far, the character is the one I've had the most ease in relating to. And this is what I mean - I am not a nerdy guy who can't get girls and then gets bitten by a hungry arachnid. And I am certainly not from Kryton (And contrary to popular belief, I was not born in a manger either). Neither is Reynolds character. He is just a guy who has made some bad decisions, has some nightscare issues and one day gets an enormous responsibility plopped right on his shoulders (or finger…whatever). Ain't that life in a nutshell?

Mark Strong is as usual a revelation in this film. He is both menacing and wise in his portrayal of Hal Jordan's mentor, amazing if you consider all the tomato sauce layered on his face (they call this makeup). Gossip Girl girl Blake Lively adds some touching elements to this film, and her relationship with Hal Jordan in this film is both moving and surprisingly, quite tragic. I enjoyed this aspect of the film, and would have liked to have seen more of it, even if that meant making it the 'heart' of the whole film. Peter Saarsgard seems to be playing the standard issue he brings out of all his films, but he is sufficiently creepy, and thankfully provides some comic relief.

The action sequences and effects are brisk and mercifully short. Martin Campbell seems more concerned with characters and supplementing them with action sequences, rather than the other way round, which is just what is needed. Campbell employed the same stroke with 'Casino Royale,' and the method proves useful through all situations. James Newton Howard's score is memorable if not stunning, and the production design is competent. I particularly liked the green suits, but stating that as belonging to production design may start new a galaxy wide war with the SFX department, so I won't go there.

Overall, GL is satisfying and memorable, while also being suitable for kids (shock/horror!).

Inception (2010)

Nolan's first soap opera

[8/10 · 6 August 2010]

Christopher Nolan in the past has established himself as one of the best directors working the circuit, equally able to balance the delicacy of smaller pictures and the sheer constructive size of summer blockbusters, making them equally engrossing as a viewing experience.

However, as even the best directors do, you have slam into a brick wall somewhere along the career path. Inception is Christopher Nolan's first brick wall, really.

In one of those weird complexes of stage and screen, Inception has far fewer flaws as a film than most summer blockbusters, yet is not anywhere near as engrossing as its compatriots trying to dominate the summer ticket aisles every year. The Dark Knight, Nolan's previous outing, was a very flawed film but had me and all of my fellow viewers staggering out of the cinema from the, well...awesomeness of it all.

However when I walked out of Inception, the exit doors acted as two erasers, wiping what had happened in the film and refocusing my attention on how I was going to spend the rest of my Friday night.

Here are my biggest problems with the film. Firstly the plot. The idea here is a very good one, and the first thirty minutes are the best in the film because it is time spent exploring the dream infiltration, its various levels and the implications of flogging off ideas to the highest bidder etc. etc. But then Nolan makes his biggest mistake of the film, using this high concept into the basis of a soap opera - albeit a soap opera with best visuals ever. This suspended my interested because with all his golden properties one thing Nolan is not good at is emotional storytelling. And so this means the film becomes a battle with trying to keep the plot intensity up and somehow squeezing some emotion out of the beast. In the end the emotional transfer on to the audience gets lost and the 'mega-cool' plot becomes horribly clichéd.

The dialogue isn't great either, and the only people who can drag something out of it are Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy, and only because they are mega-cool. MC DiCaprio and the rest of the cast are not, because they rely on emotional impact for their performances, as above mentioned something this film does not have.

Speaking of casting, it is on the majority fine. However Ellen Page is not treated with respect by the script and as a result I became annoyed by her rather than inspired by her. DiCaprio is once a again the workhorse, as he usually is in these films, but really does not suit ensemble casts. My biggest difficulty with casting is not who is cast but who Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and to a lesser extent Tom Hardy, are cast as. If I was doing this film I would have had the script rewritten and JGL cast as Cobb and TH cast as Arthur. I have absolutely no Problems with DiCaprio, but I can't shake the feeling that he just doesn't fit in this film, and JGL and TH are class acts.

So in the end a film with enormous potential doesn't quite make it is hailed the next big thing because of an excellent marketing campaign but is really quite mediocre.

The A-Team (2010)

The new generation will like it

[7/10 · 24 June 2010]

First things first, I am not a fan of the original A-team. Besides never really getting into it, I don't like 'camp' and found the few episodes I viewed well...stupid.

So, on a Friday afternoon after school I trotted of to the cinema with ten or so mates to a prearranged viewing of the new movie 'The A-Team.'

I liked it, quite a bit. And several key factors contributed to my opinion. Firstly, I wasn't forced to engage my brain for the entire two hour period. Secondly, the cast is really cool and crucially, the younger audience (and a good section of the older audience) will be familiar with them. Liam Neeson has got, like, the ultimate 'epic voice' and now when I look back on it he seems perfect for the role of Hannibal. As for Bradley Cooper people will be familiar with him through his role in The Hangover, and plays the womanizing twit in this film well. Good to see Sharlto Copley back again, and everybody I was sitting with appreciated his presence, because we all recognize him from the best film of 09 - District 9. And as for Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson, what would a skinny white boy writing a film review not love about a large, muscular, intimidating black guy?

The pacing is good, the story passable for what is really a TV cereal adapted to film and the acting revelatory for this reviewer. The action is over the top, the least of your expectations for an A-Team movie and altogether it makes up a welcome waste of $13.50 at the flicks.