SevenStitches Reviews

The Incredibles (2004)

Smart film, animation or otherwise

[9/10 · 30 June 2008]

This is possibly the most intelligently made animated film I've ever seen, along with been one of the most down to earth entertaining ones to boot.

Viewing the life of superheroes in a previously unexplored fashion, "The Incredibles" functions as not just a self aware parody on regular superhero clichés but also as a genuinely thought provoking study on how the constraints of mediocrity in society can sometimes oppress those who wish to excel and reach higher heights deserving of their potential. That and the jealousy that can emerge from those that look on these individuals with envious eyes. On top of all that you have a wonderful comedy dealing with the obstacles of middle aged superheroes past their prime and handling normal family life. All of this is exceptionally covered without any dilution, with all the right questions explored and all the right funny bones tickled with witty dialogue, fantastic vocal performances, wonderfully developed characters and an engaging story line. It truly is a film for all ages.

I haven't even mentioned the unbelievable animation, Pixar's best at the time (and still a marvel three films later) that allowed them to render impressively varied vistas, beautifully expressive characters and spectacular action sequences that rival the best of the live action superhero genre.

Director Brad Bird would go on to direct Pixar's "Ratatouille" (2007) with a far more subdued hand but nevertheless retaining a lot of the wit that he showcased as a writer here. However by a very small thread I'd tip this to be his best work out of the three films he's directed (his first was the excellent "The Iron Giant" (1999)) and it's also probably Pixar's greatest achievement too. Now lets see if Andrew Stanton's "WALL-E" can top it.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

Doesn't touch its immediate predecessor, but nice try anyway.

[6/10 · 10 May 2007]

"Spider-Man 2" eclipsed my expectations of what to expect from the mega-popular superhero franchise. Not only did it ramp up the quality of the action set pieces and visual effects considerably from its predecessor (the entirety of what most action blockbuster sequels encompass) but it also tracked and maintained the natural progression of all the characters involved, based on what was left after the first film. It wasn't afraid to further explore the emotional weight that comes with been a teenage superhero, nor to flesh out a villain that was sympathetic and not entirely malevolent. This, along with the perfect interplay of comedy and dazzling action made SM2 in my opinion the perfect comic-book movie. No surprise then that I had high hopes for this second sequel (as if no one else did!). From what had already passed and with a considerably bigger budget ($250 million +, the trailers prove that alone), Sam Raimi and co. were looking to once again up the stakes in all areas. But surely no one can beat the "perfect" comic-book movie?

All is rosy and right with our friendly neighbourhood Spiderman at the outset of his latest adventure. In stark contrast to what began the first sequel, the man sized creepy crawly is the toast of the city, now balanced perfectly with alter ego Peter Parker's straight A student life and blooming Broadway beau Mary Jane Watson, who is now aware of Peter's secret. However, not all is serene under the screen. Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn, is still seeking revenge for his father's death and now that he knows who's behind the mask of his adversary, he can finally squish the bug from the source by continuing is father's legacy as the New Goblin.

Enough for the latest episode you say? Well barely half an hour in, at least three more plots surface; during a night under the stars for Peter and MJ, a meteor strikes covertly close by, subsequently releasing a writhing, crawling black ooze that manages to hitch hike home with Peter that same night; a rival photographer in the form of Eddy Brock (Topher Grace) is slithering his way into the Daily Bugle as Spiderman's new photographer, much to Pete's disdain; Flint Marco (Thomas Hayden Church) is a runaway criminal and allegedly the real killer of Peter's Uncle Ben (a major plot motivation) who ends up accidentally trapped in an elaborate experimentation chamber that turns him into a disintegrating sand monster, aka the Sandman.

So after two paragraphs I've basically described almost the entire setup act. This is nothing we haven't seen in the trailers and even more is yet to come. There's the case of Spidey's black suit, Gwen Stacey (Bryce Dallas Howard) as the rival love interest, Venom and not to mention how all this affects Peter and MJ's relationship. People who are familiar with the comics or have seen the trailers will be aware of most of these plot points so I'm not going to elaborate, and for those who aren't aware, well, I don't have the space.

Yes, Spider-Man 3 is stuffed when it comes to content. The filmmakers have clearly seen this as possibly the capper on the trilogy so they decided to add in as many popular characters, villains and stories as possible while settling a number of plot lines started in the first two films. What results is at times an immensely entertaining film with action set pieces and special effects that out do its predecessors, trademark moments of zany and self aware comedy (Spidey empties his boots of sand after a long bout with the Sandman, asking himself "Where do these guys come from?") and our favourite characters portrayed perfectly by skilled actors. But by the end there's a distinct sense that everything else that the other films nailed could have gone smoother had they reduced the content.

This movie has enough to span at least two and to be honest that's probably what should have happened. While the black suited Spiderman is partly the result of the Sandman's existence, due to Peter's thirst for revenge for his uncle's true killer (feeding the black clinging symbiote), it could have been left for another film, leaving Peter to deal with the Sandman, Harry and MJ here. That's more than enough to engage for 2 hours. As much as I loved Peter's new attitude with the black suit and all the comedy that ensued, the development needed more time to illicit the sense of struggle in the character (Black Spidey is hardly seen in action nor are the symbiote's origins thoroughly explained).

Venom is another example. Probably the most infamous villain in the comic books, he's given nothing more than 20 minutes of screen time here, making him seem like a complete after thought, just shoehorned in for popularity's sake. He looks cool and his eventual appearance sticks to the source, but it's too little of too much too late. Along with the black suit, Venom should have been reserved for another film. New villains, especially of this ilk, need that time to develop. Venom and Sandman each deserved a full length feature at least.

Despite these annoying flaws, there's no denying Spider-Man 3 is still a very entertaining comic-book film due its incredible action (New Goblin vs Peter can take the prize for that), gorgeous special effects (Sandman's first appearance is a short film in and of itself due to its beauty alone) and show stopping comedy (Bruce Campbell once again has a hilarious cameo). It's never boring despite the length and the pacing is fairly consistent. It's also the most fun you'll have at the movies thus far this year, so I recommend it for that alone. But as an entry in the superior Spider-Man saga, it falls behind number 2's stunning all round quality and even number 1's tight plotting. In the end, they really couldn't improve on the perfect comic-book movie. Go figure!

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Okay, so i liked it, kill me!

[6/10 · 17 April 2007]

Roland Emmerich's Godzilla remake is an old enough film now to have a solid consensus on its quality laid upon it. Common knowledge would say that it was a very bad film. And yes, technically speaking it's not the best by any means. The plot's like swiss cheese, acting on most fronts is perfunctory, which compliments the script's quality nicely (if unintentionally) and the whole thing borrows and cannibalises many, many monster/sci-fi genre conventions. And you know what, ever since i first saw it on the big screen, i still enjoy it. Maybe that's because i was so young at the time that i couldn't care less about the finer qualities of cinema (i was, and still am to a limit, a self proclaimed monster movie nut) and have seen it so many times from then onto the present that i haven't had time to mature to its faults in between viewings. I'm not saying its a great movie by any extent. In fact there are moments where I admit it is very poor. But it does enough things right to stay afloat.

Staying pretty close to the fundamental concept of the original Japanese "Gojira", "Godzilla" is all about a phenomenally massive, radioactively mutated reptile, causing mayhem and destruction to the nearest mass populated metropolis. It's up to the local scientists and militia to find out where this thing came from, why its here and how to stop it. That's not the most concise version of the plot, but it's not too bad either. Lets elaborate on the new stuff.

Changes have been made to Americanize the story, two of which are obvious; the lizard wasn't a result of the Horoshima fallout but of French Pacific Island nuclear testing; the city under siege is Manhattan, not Tokyo. Attempts at modernising the tale for a contemporary, more environmentally conscious audience have resulted in turning the monster into a fish eating, asexual, egg laying creature just trying to find a suitable nesting site, thus he (why is it called a he if it's pregnant?) isn't just destroying stuff because it's a nifty past time. The person who finds this out is a biologist Nick Tatopolis (Matthew Broderick), who's dragged out from his study of Trenoble earthworms to deal with this slightly bigger specimen. Him, along with the US Army led by Colonel Hicks (Kevin Dunn), track the beast from early sightings and boat attacks on nearby island chains up to the big apple itself. They aren't alone. A French secret service group led by Philippe Roache (Jean Reno) is on the same trail to clean up the mess his nation indirectly caused. On top of all this we have Nick's college sweetie Audrey Timmonds (Maria Pitillo) in the city pursuing a news reporter career, with help from cameraman Victor 'Animal' Palotti (Hank Azaria) and his wife Lucy (Arabelle Field), with a chauvinistic anchorman Charles Caiman (Harry Shearer) getting in the way. (You can choose to ignore the last plot strand if you wish)

So that's Godzilla without the big 'plot twists' that take place at various points, but will no doubt be anticipated by any conscious individual watching. The main story and characterisations have never been the monster/action/disaster flick genre's main attraction and that's no more true than it is here. All the players are caricatures and genre stereotypes and any attempts at depth (Nick and Audrey get back together after a long hiatus) are dealt with very poorly, but thankfully its not enough to sink the whole ship. Its left to the actors to carry all the scenes that don't feature the titular monster (too few) and most of them do the best they can with a script that does nobody any favours. Shearer, Azaria and of course Reno have good comic moments and seem to take the script as the preferable but unintentional tongue in cheek variety, Reno especially, hamming it up as the dude who knows the score and goes through the whole ordeal with a knowing confidence and swagger. No one else makes an impression. Broderick is adequate for the lead but nothing more. Pitillo, despite looking gorgeous, comes off kind of annoying as the love interest, playing it in semi-dumb blond mode (still, that girl is hot!).

The movie is successful in two areas, the first been Emmerich's once again not very subtle but still amusing political satire on America, from their gun ho culture in neutralising threats, the scathing media, to the mispronunciation of Gojira that becomes Godzilla. Genre movies are also parodied (although that could be kind talk for outright plagiarism) from the likes of Dino DeLaurenti's "King Kong" to "Jurassic Park" (featured in a horrendous chapter containing Baby Godzillas), plus the Mayor of New York, Mayor Ebert, is a caricature of the real movie critic Roger Ebert.

The monster itself is the second and most noteworthy success. A concoction of both the original Godzilla and modern day reptilian design, it's a marvel to look at. Yes, the fact that it's a CGI creation is unmistakable, but it transcends the dated technology with a soulful performance, present mostly due to the way it's animated, with a lot of naturalistic detail in its behaviour, instilling feelings of intimidation, awe and endearment (its phenomenal size adds to the intimidation factor). The action scenes are directed and choreographed with Emmerich's nack for large scale destruction and special effects, and both are therefore top draw. There are some stand out sequences, the most memorable been when Godzilla first takes a stroll through Manhattan which is both awe inspiring and exciting.

Godzilla is no masterpiece, not even a good film in some areas and as far as remakes go it doesn't rank highly. But it's an enjoyable piece of fluff that overcomes its glaring faults by been occasionally funny (sometimes unintentionally), satirical and containing a handful of well orchestrated action sequences featuring one of the best movie monsters in recent film history.

The Little Matchgirl (2006)

A rare glimpse of the post 2000 Disney at their creative best.

[9/10 · 18 November 2006]

I first saw this film streamed on youtube.com and had no idea that it was a Disney short. Sure it had Disney's beautifully fluid animation (in 2D no doubt, just like old times), but unlike Disney of late, it told a deeply emotional tale with inventive visuals and no compromises in its themes. Its based on the Hans Christian Anderson fable of a small Russian girl selling matchsticks on a harsh winter's evening, when no one seems to care less. Alone and without shelter, she rides out the night lighting her matchsticks for warmth in a street corner, allowing herself to be transported to hospitable, warmer places of fantasy.

By the end, i was deeply moved by what i'd seen, but as the credits rolled, i was astonished; directed by Roger Allers; executive produced by Roy E. Disney?! Who would've thought that the company currently responsible for such tat as "The Wild" and "Chicken Little" are still capable of such profound work as this? I thought that this kind of animation only existed in Japan. Apparently, Disney is still alive somewhere under all that commercialism. In a western culture that thrives on bland, generic animated comedies (fot the most part), in short and feature length, seeing this, and from the company that seems to have finally submitted its guard to that culture, is a breath of fresh air (to use a well worn cliché).

Get "The Little Mermaid" Platinum DVD release and give it a glimpse, the only place your likely to see this in an acceptable format. This is an improvement from Disney, hands down, not just on their most recent stuff, but from all their modern works. While the majority of the 90's showcased impressive and at times classic examples of Disney's animated division working at their best, no other film from their modern catalogue tackles such real ventures in human desperation and suffering. True, this is mostly due to the source text. But several of Disney's other adaptations of literature containing disturbing and tragic content have all but washed out those elements, so while the result was still universally great entertainment in an innocent way, it definitely missed out on the more emotionally rich possibilities that Japanese animation mines frequently, and Disney itself used to acquire from time to time in their earlier classics (Dumbo and Pinocchio to name a few). Not so here, Disney seems to have acknowledged this revelation from the east. In fact "The Little Matchgirl" is actually comparable to the profoundly depressing Studio Ghibli war time anime, Isao Takahata's "Grave of the Fireflies", in its sophistication, while also remaining fairly inexplicit to appeal to all but the youngest audience. Stuff like this has very rarely found its way into western animation, and pretty much never in the ones released as mainstream features. This may be only a short, but if Disney can somehow stick to this path of much more sophisticated and imaginative movie-making and implant that thinking into their feature output, we may well see their next Golden Age in animation sooner than planned. Fingers crossed.

Pocahontas (I) (1995)

Definitely a film that distinguishes itself from other films outside the company, if not within it.

[6/10 · 29 May 2006]

Disney was arguably at the top of their game in the early to mid-nineties, maybe even rivalling their original Golden Age back in the beginning. The secret to this was a somewhat new, but still rather basic template that most of their greats embraced: an array of catchy and moving songs, sweeping score, beautiful animation, engaging story, a mixture of lively and sympathetic characters and a diverse sense of humour that spreads across a broad age range. An ominous thing to follow up, which is exactly what Disney did with this, their first animated feature based on documented history, that of Pocahontas, the American Indian Princess romanced by the soldier John Smith, part of a crew of early European settlers trying to purge the New World. Their love is one that births in the midst of a conflict between the ever consuming and greedy settlers and the peaceful but weary Powhatan Indians. Can their love spawn a realisation that both sides can teach each other so much more than they can destroy?

I won't pretend to know anything substantial about the history of the New World, or what really did happen between Pocahontas and John Smith, and even if I did, I'd still base my opinion more broadly on the quality of film presented and the story that it's trying to tell, even if it might be far from established truth, which Disney is no stranger in. Saying this however, "Pocahontas" does represent a very sanitised version of the relationship between the European conqueror's and the Powhatan Indians. The main gist of what was happening at the time is present, but it hardly reeks of authenticity. However, Disney went to great strengths to give an accurate portrayal of the Native Indians in their film (due to oversensitive PC disputes over their previous films' cultural portrayals) and they do a commendable job as most of the attire and cultural behaviour looks to be quite authentic and raw.

"Pocahontas" contains most of the commendable traits previously outlined, only this time it downplays the playful elements. This is a serious tale of tragic love, racial tolerance and a slightly overused conservationist theme. Some of the establishing characteristics of the Indians are a bit over done. The Powhatans seem to have a Utopian life, typically in tune with nature and with each other, which is good and all, but comes off as a little forced. However this is only glaringly apparent in brief moments. Plus some of the lessons to be learnt throughout the film can sometimes seem heavy handed, too obviously amplified for the kids' benefit. And my last gripe, the resolution at the end seemed lazy and convenient, plus the language barriers encountered by the two races, while handled in an outrageously but suitably intriguing way early in the film, become inconsistent and implausible later on.

But "Pocahontas" does have undeniable positives. The animation is a change in style that harks back to the angular, stained glass look to "Sleeping Beauty". It works beautifully and gives the West Virginian forests a grand majesty, along with the characters who also look great. Colours are vibrant and often reflect the mood of the more intense scenes. CGI is used sparingly but most prominently in the character Grandmother Willow, a standout in this film for artistic and technical prowess. We also have three cute sidekicks, all of which are silent for a change. We have Pocahontas' Meeko the raccoon, Flit the hummingbird and General Radcliffe's Percy, a smug pug. The physical antics of these guys reflect the main conflict in the story, which is a nice touch. Their lack of dialogue also lends a far more endearing quality to them.

The romance is handled well and does generate a sense of tragedy. The conflict between the races, while sanitized historically, is still very well done, with both sides having negative and positive traits that are rightfully juxtaposed throughout the film. But overall the narrative seems simplistic and heavy handed at times when representing racial equality amidst the conflict and its spiritual vibe towards peaceful living with nature.

Voice work is as always with Disney quite flawless, with regular David Ogden Stiers giving a level of pompousness and greed to the villain General Radcliffe; Mel Gibson fits his role as John Smith to a T (with a surprisingly good singing voice too); Irene Badard also gives strength and life to Pocahontas; Linda Hunt does a grand job with Grandmother Willow (sorry), and last but not least, Native American activist Russell Means gives authority to Chief Powhatan.

What I found to be the greatest asset of this film is its astonishing music. Disney regular at this time Alan Menken composed the score while together with Steven Schwartz wrote the lyrics to the songs. They were deservedly rewarded two Academy Awards for Best Song ("Colours of the Wind") and Best Original Score. The songs are at times lively and beautifully sombre (including the Special Edition's "If I Never Knew You", adding a lot more depth to the romance), the stand out been "Colours of the Wind", a powerful tribute to nature's misunderstood beauty and providing one of the film's most rousing musical sequences. The score itself once again fuses all of the major songs into a fantastic tour de force that at times erupts with emotional potency (particularly at the end). Really a musical highlight for the Disney formula.

"Pocahontas" is a step down from "The Lion King", along with all of the renaissance offerings, suffering not necessarily from its historical inaccuracy (although that was and still is pitted against it) but from a few niggles and sloppy ends in the screenplay. The fact that it's a jarring change of pace from the previous films' more lightly handled methods of story telling could have also lead to the general lack of popularity. Nevertheless, this is a commendable achievement with Disney's trademark outstanding music, beautiful animation, strong voice work and great characters.

Hercules (1997)

Great Entertainment, but not by Disney's standards.

[6/10 · 21 May 2006]

"Hercules" was a return by the Disney directing team of Ron Clements and John Musker (of "Aladdin" and "The Little Mermaid" fame) to the animated feature after two very sombre entries in the Disney canon, "Pocahontas" and "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", and they pretty much continued from where they left off with the aforementioned "Aladdin". Both of these films share common traits; both are extremely loose adaptations of established legend; they have an obvious contemporary feel, peppered with pop references (not saturated like Dreamwork's, or for that matter, many resent animated movies); both have an aspiring male protagonist and finally, both films have at least one immaculate, albeit hilarious voice acting performance. Plus the animation is given a stylish and very caricaturist form to it.

Similarities aside then, "Hercules" was the first venture for Disney into Greek myth, providing a retelling of the story about the titular hero of how he was born a God, stolen and turned mortal by Hades Lord of the Underworld (to get him out of the way for a hostile take over of Mount Olympus which Herc is destined to intervene with) and the hero, after been told by daddy Zeus that, to get back, he must prove himself a true hero on Earth.

A far cry from what was established in the myths to a lot of you in the know on these things, although Disney's always had a gift for making this work despite. And as it turned out accuracy wasn't a problem here either (to some). The story's pretty standard, like "Aladdin", and the main protagonist, while a little more layered than the former with subtexts of discrimination for his clumsiness and strength, is still on the boring side. Once again though, it's the supporting roles, the animation and the music that steal the show. Alan Menken once again saddled up for the score and together with David Zippel produced the songs, which take on a Greek chorus delivered by the quintet of Muses in a Gospel choir style. This makes for a few rousing tunes and a good intro, plus it ties in with the whole soulful, hero story they got going down. The Oscar nominee this time was an aspiring hero ballad of hopes and dreams, typically sappy stuff and does the job. The score itself melds all these tunes together here and there, plus goes other places too, but overall is not up to the stellar work of the past. Still fun though.

Animation is once again of the top draw sort. Gerald Scarfe was the artistic adviser on this one, a political cartoonist of the UK and he brings a unique style to the Disney art. It's still very colourful, using a lot of luminescent colours, but the characters are all very sharp edged and heavily caricatured to resemble Greek art. There's also a fantastic sense of scale at times in the settings, especially in the city of Thebes with its towering Marbelesque architecture and an abundance of other beautiful Greek art. It's a nice move and another example of Disney's ever curious endeavours in cultural variety at the time. CGI is used widely for one particularly great action sequence, plus for some intriguing morphing techniques utilised in Olympus.

Voice acting is of uniform good quality here with all actors acquitting themselves well with their role, especially Danny De Vito as Herc's trainer satyr Phil and Susan Egan as a very curvaceous and very tough Damsel named Megara (friends call her Meg). But the aforementioned show stealer is James Woods' Hades, who comes across as the slimiest, most charismatic movie producer slash real estate salesman type you've ever seen, motoring his mouth all over the script with ad libs aplenty. Doesn't topple William's Genie for pure comic madness, but he makes it his own character and revels in it to our fortune.

This movie is as much a comedy as "Aladdin" was, meaning that it's lighting fast with a sharp edge on the cultural references and on the Greek myths themselves. Most of the comedy comes courtesy of Hades and Phil, who get great lines, but also comes from some serious hits taken at Disney's own patented merchandising routine, used here for Herc's sake. It's well implemented and makes for good satire at times. But other than comedy, the film does the romantic angle too, plus the main moral of knowing what it really takes to be a true hero. Once again, like the former movie, it's the weaker element. Actually for most of the midsection of the film (the most entertaining part) the romance is quite touching, but eventually it gets rushed and doesn't feel as genuine. The main message isn't hammered into us and is a good one, but still isn't anything to swoon over. While comedy's a strong suite for both "Hercules" and "Aladdin", the latter had itself backed with a slightly more magical feel to it's dramatic subtext, leaving "Hercules" a little shallow.

One final point before i clean up. While the movie is a mere shadow of the myth in terms of story, it has an abundance of homages to Greek myth, including Hercules himself. I counted references to about 7 of Hercules' 12 labours (one been very prominent), plus a twist of a similar situation Hercules had with a River Guardian Centaur and his girl. Actually, the more you know about Greek myth, the more you'll find and it actually turns out to be quite a nice touch, even though none of it coheres in the order originally wrote.

"Hercules" is fine entertainment for all ages, as in the good Disney tradition. But this time, away from that tradition, it lacks a little something that Disney seemed to have mastered before and almost reacquainted itself with a few times more afterwards before sinking below the depths. Just as well, this is better animated entertainment you'll get than most non-Disney, non-Pixar and non-anime companies produce regularly.

Dinosaur (2000)

Could have been the best. As it is, its the prettiest.

[7/10 · 16 May 2006]

When i heard that the original screenplay o this film planned no dialogue at all for the characters, i became even more disappointed at the end result. While a very good film Dinosaur certainly is, it could have been incredible. The visual effects alone are a sight to behold, never more so than in the opening sequence. This is probably the best stretch in the whole film for me; it's unsanitised by talking animals and genuinely feels like a prehistoric world (ignoring the multitude of historical inaccuracies like grass in the Mesozoic era, particular dinosaurs living side by side). Once the animals start to talk the film is bogged down by the shortcomings of the script, which is idealistic and morally exposition heavy, for the sake of the target audience. It also detracts from the illusion the film so effortlessly produces on the screen at the start; it all just becomes so standard an routine when it seemed to be so much more. With a weak script, the visuals no longer arrest like they did before and would have done had nobody talked. Without the amazing cgi, this could have almost been straight to video.

I say almost because despite the shortcomings Dinosaur is a good movie; it's at times thrilling, exhilarating, touching and surprisingly intense, for a movie with a such a routine story. Had it had a better script it could have been great. Had it had no dialogue at all it could have been a classic and perhaps one of Disney's finest. The era of risk taking and inventiveness for the company seems to be at an end, or at least under suppression. Damn you Eisner! They were onto something this time.

Aladdin (1992)

Disney, where have you gone?

[8/10 · 12 May 2006]

This really is something special. As a kid, this was an amazing film; hilarious, thrilling, engaging and definitely on par with Disney's best. Coming back to it after so long and little has changed. However, there were a few things that detracted my present experience from that of my childhood. The first half of the film is overall a little on the boring side. Other than the unveiling of Robin Williams' show stopping Genie, the music, visuals and Jafar, the rest of characters weren't as compelling as i remember. The main protagonists and their romantic endeavour isn't the most magical in Disney's history (compared to say "Lady and the Tramp" it's desperately shallow), which is a shame since they take up most of the plot. Jasmine is still gorgeous with a fiery personality trying to break free of a restrained life, but Aladdin is quite a standard underdog, his plight not really drawing great sympathy, despite the fact he's a swell guy and all with a heart of gold. So really, Jasmine's attraction to him comes of quite "same old trick" sort of thing, both individuals having the same "trapped" feeling in life that brings them together.

Saying that, "A Whole New World" is still a breathtaking number, and that entire scene at least gives the romantic plot a more than satisfactory feeling. And that's Aladdin's key. It's last half is fabulous. From the transformation of Aladdin into Prince Ali to the very end, it's hard to find a glaring fault. For some reason everything just comes together. You care for the protagonists, Jafar just keeps getting more evil, and the animation is the definition of top draw (always is). In the end you just know you've seen something great and you don't care how it happened but your glad it did, like you've really been in a whole new world for an hour and a half (almost). The slowish first half just dissolves into memory, until you watch it again (you will), and once again, the second half will drag you back into it all and you'll love it even more.

It's also worth noting that the one absolute constant in all of this is the Genie. Once he appears with the classic "Friend Like Me", every scene he's in comes alive due to Williams' blinding comic momentum, plus the animators' endlessly imaginative play. He's definitely the most engaging, sympathetic character in the film and you really feel for him and his own wish to be free of the lamp.

Aladdin is, and always will be, a Disney classic in my books. It's difficult to pinpoint how it does it, but it just does. A shining testament of what the company was and still is capable of when they really put their soul and time into something they really want to do, instead of something they think they need to do, which sadly seems to be to keep the company on it's feet so they can make even more money. There was a time when art, entertainment and dreams trumped everything else, the reason why "Disney's Folly" as it was dismissively called so long ago, became the pioneer in one of cinema's most magical medias. That was the idea that gave birth to films like this and a whole lot of others they did themselves (right up to as recently as Tarzan and Lilo & Stitch), plus the gems that everyone else have achieved. Lets hope the company gets through this dry spell and returns for another go round. They did it before, they can do it again.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Could have been longer

[7/10 · 2 August 2005]

Steven Spielberg has always surprised me every time i witness one of his films, because his direction is one that no one else has been able to mimic. No matter what kind of film it is, there's always that touch of his magic in every shot, in the behaviour of the camera all the time and most of all his method in story telling. This is Spielberg's take on the alien invasion movie and he's made it like none other, which is impressive seeing as these movies have been around for years. Instead of concentrating on the action in it's entirety, he only ventures within a confined area around the central characters, so we see it as they see it. The camera is almost never still, always on the move, trying to hide from the action, like the family hiding from the aliens. That's not to say you don't see the E.Ts, we get some dazzling shots of them, which are, throughout the film, phenomenally frightening and imposing. But the film always focuses on the main characters' field of view. This is a huge departure from Roland Emmerich's "ID4", where the destruction was charted throughout the USA (but no where else funnily enough) thus never getting the real dirt in the face as it were from the threat of the aliens from a personal level like this film does. However, on the flip side, "ID4" succeeds in it's style by giving a better sense of epic devastation on a global scale, while here it's more confined so while we know it, we never really feel that something bigger is happening here. Plus the lack of exposition on any of the background or development to this whole event makes things a bit hollow in terms of story, yet this is also a reciprocation of Spielberg's choice of filming, since it's all from the civilian eye witness, so none of that stuff ever really seems to matter to the plot. Saying that, i accepted the sacrifices taken to fulfil what's been made, which is still a damn good film. If it weren't for the abrupt ending, it would have been perfect.

Obvious influence from the director's earlier credits (Jurassic Park, Close Encounters to name a few) are all here to push things along, mostly on the action and thrill front. Some people have shunned this retread, but I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The techniques still work, and old Steve does em the best. The father children emotional backup to this is also a bonus to something that could have so easily gone cold. Some of the most frightening scenes in the film weren't from the aliens, but from the startling reaction of human society on the events. SPOILER: The entire scene with the car, containing our family, mowing through a hoard of rabid civilians desperate to jack the transportation was one of the scariest and saddest sequences i've ever laid eyes on in film. Spielberg again displays his expertise in handling disturbing material, and another example of the camera focusing on the main characters' journey, not only the aliens themselves. SPOILER ENDED.

Lets talk special effects and art. Steven Spielberg, along with James Cameron, were the pioneering directors to utilise CGI technology in film for the first time with "Jurassic Park", "The Abyss" and "Terminator 2", all within four years. Since then, they've both handled the technology with great finesse and artistic touch, although Spielberg has been at it more frequently then Cameron, whose last big special effects film was "Titanic". While other directors have jumped into CGI like kids in a playground, playing with whatever they can, no matter how terrible the outcome, Steve has handled it with the same expertise as he did way back in '93, mostly because he chooses the best people, ILM for that matter. But they have been producing a lot of unfocused tripe too, only under Spielberg's eye do they fall in line. And they do it again here, with another completely convincing array of how CGI can aid film making when handled correctly. I keep talking about CGI because that's what all the creatures are made from. Stan Winston doesn't seem to be present with live action aliens, as they're all digital. This would normally look really bad as it recently has done, but here it looks so convincing, mostly due to astonishing practical effects to show the interaction with the live action world and characters and Spielberg's relentless camera work that rarely leaves the documentary like hand-held appearance, so everything seems to belong in every scene, nothing really sticks out as been fake. The aliens, tripods especially, have been made with a great design and are always amazing to look at because they're like nothing I'd seen before. The way they move, sound, the things they do have all been well conceived, so even though it's not always obvious as to what they're up to, it's always amazing to look at.

I wanted this movie to carry on, as it's protagonists and aliens were so intriguing, i wanted to see more of them, especially the aliens, who are given hardly any exposition as to what they're really up to. But as it is, "War of the Worlds" is still one of the best films I've seen on the big screen in recent times, and the best alien invasion movie ever.

Batman Begins (2005)

Suprsingly Un-Comic Book Movie

[8/10 · 27 July 2005]

After many years, the Dark Knight finally gets a descent movie to his name. This film is unlike any comic book movie i have ever seen, which in a way is why it's not as great as it should be. It's just too realistic. The classic Batman comic book feel of the past is gone, and what's left is just too familiar in terms of the way the world of the comic book is presented. I loved the fictitious look of the previous batman films, with looming skyscrapers full of quirky and ancient Greek like architecture, and the exaggerated cinematography that made this fantastical world stand out. Now the various locales like Gotham city and the Bat cave seem like places that you'd see every day, which you would, since Gotham is based on Chicago, and the bat cave is based on a real cave. Because of this, the film might have been about Batman, but it wasn't really a Batman like movie for me.

Having said that however, this was a great film none the less and brings batman into the 21st century, and into the new range of more gritty and tasteful comic book films. Like i said, not like any other comic based movie i've ever seen, as it bases everything in reality, including Bruce Wayne's transition into the legendary vigilante. It tells the story of Bruce's past, his training to be able to combat crime and assert fear into those who prey on the fearful, and why he wants to do all of this in the first place. It even covers the reason for his bat identity, plus the origin of the gadgets, the car and why he needs them. Yep, for 2h:30min, you get a full tutorial into how to become a Batman, providing you have a fear in bats and have a traumatising childhood. This is the most thorough exploration into a comic book character ever, and you'll believe and understand all of it. Just as well, as Batman is the only super hero without super human powers, making the need for a realistic and down to earth tone more urgent. While other super hero films immediately settled into a familiar comic book tone due to the endowment of powers, Batman needs a lot more work to become something just as reasonable in terms of a man dressed up in a bat suit fighting crime, coz otherwise it just seems silly, the mistake the previous films fell subject to. Now we actually have a believable, functional and emotionally viable Batman that is easy to sympathise with and easy not to laugh at.

On top of all that, "Batman Begins" still manages to fit a slew of villains to give Bruce a good warm up. There are three main ones, who all work together in the same dastardly plot and all of which are not given as much exposition as Batman, but are still believable in their actions and motivations. A good place to be in an origin story i think, since there will be plenty of time to juice up these guys in the sequels.

And sequels i hope there will be. Above all else, this film's success is setting up the new batman franchise beautifully, spending this films exclusively explaining how "Batman Begins" essentially, and leaving the rest for later. Sure this film didn't have the familiar batman/comic book feel we expect, nor a single fully developed villain, but it sets up the foundations for all of that to appear in the proceeding films outstandingly, setting up the origins of such a crime ridden Gotham, so many psycho's prepared to take up an occupation in raving crime lord and more importantly, a bat suited vigilante. Ladies and Gentlemen, the Dark Knight is on his way back to the top, and this film knows it.

Hulk (2003)

A Comic Book film with more brains than brawn.

[6/10 · 23 June 2005]

It's been a while since i saw this film, way back when it first came out. I'm sure if i see it now my opinion might change. But two years isn't that long so i think i'll invest in this review.

First off, marketing killed this film. I guess it was inevitable since how can you herald the big screen translation of the big green smashing machine without annunciating the action, which this film does have. But people missed a far bigger point integral to enjoying this film. The hulk is not a hero. He's more like marvel's King Kong, a magnificent beast that's misunderstood and taken advantage of by mankind. He's also the enraged alter ego of Bruce Banner, a nuclear scientist with a traumatised past dominated by his father who past on mutated genes to his son after an illegal experiment conducted by himself on himself. He murdered his wife (I think) and since then disappeared, until now, working as a janitor in Bruce's institute. Bruce gets exposed to a heavy dose of radiation after some gutsy heroics to save his comrade after an experiment goes wrong. The radiation has now triggered the mutated gene, causing him to turn a bit green when angry. Now the army want's him for his unique genes, as the hulk goes on the rampage.

It's Bruce's troubled past and his relationship with his father that really puts oomph to the drama here, and sets up a truly harrowing final battle at the climax, which i'll leave you to enjoy. The rest of the film works too, with great special effects, good acting and action sequences. People have really been unfair to this movie's look, especially the hulk. I think he was great, considering the alternatives. Are there any? Guy in suit; limited mobility. Animatronics; yeah right! And we can't complain since who's really supposed to know what a super-sized green man beast is supposed to look like? I think this is the best hulk they could have possibly made and while not perfect (special effects almost never are), it was good enough for me. Spider-Man had the same problems, but people got through that.

I also loved the film's comic book panel split screen work, which really made the scenes far more dynamic and allows you to see a scene from multiple perspectives.

This film only has a handful of action set pieces, but all are fantastic and well paced. CGI fight scenes are usually a bit too synthetic, but they do good here, and since anger's the motivation it makes them that much more enjoyable.

There are flaws however. Eric Bana is good as the mentally restrained Bruce, but seems a bit too suppressed and doesn't always succeed in selling the scenes. The first transformation into the hulk was supposed to look quite ominous and confused with it's dark setting, reflecting Bruce's confusion, but you see too much of him, which kinda makes it less ominous. But the next transformation makes up for it though, which becomes the first time you see the transformation properly. Finally there's a truly confused section just before the final fight, and just after the previous action set piece before it. It just stops the film in it's tracks for around 10 minutes, making me think it was going to end it was so solemn. I was prepared to be really disappointed, wanting the hulk to come back once again, or for at least some of the film's plot line to be resolved. This all came true in the end, but this section made it so inconsistent. But it did end well in the end though, so i looked past it.

An underrated film that deserves a look from anyone who can keep an open mind. Hold your expectations back, just go with the flow. You might be pleasantly surprised.

The film's poor box office success shouldn't retract from a more action packed sequel. It needs and deserves one. Don't't let us down universal!

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Exercise in concept and technology over heart.

[6/10 · 21 May 2005]

I'm not a die hard star wars fan, but i did enjoy the original trilogy very much, three films that birthed the most original and focused concepts to grace a sci-fi film, and they still impress today after almost 30 years. So been what i am, i didn't have the huge expectations that some had for what this film should be, but i was intrigued to find out the origin story and witness the birth of all those great characters.

The story of Phantom Menace bases itself in politics, an alien race called the trade federation harassing the planet of Naboo, which itself must find unity between it's two separate civilisations to combat this oncoming force.

This creates the basic background for the real action. The trade federation is been driven on by the malevolent Sith Lords, the sect resembling the dark side of the force, using them to gain a threshold in the galaxy for further development. Jedi ambassadors, the good side of the force, Quoi Gon Gin and Obi Won Kanobi, are sent to induce peace and a setting down of arms between the TF and Naboo. The Sith struggle to assassinate these Jedi, who find refuge in the disputed planet, where they befriend a Gungan native, Jar Jar Binks, and proceed to try and save the captured Queen of Naboo Amidala and seek safer grounds. This just so happens to be the desert planet of Tatooine, where the Jedi meet an intriguing young boy, Anakin Skywalker, a slave to the wily tradesman of the Tatooine Space Port, and part of a far larger slave population, including his family. Quoi Gon senses a great affinity of the force with this boy, and is certain he is destined for greater things.

So ensues the rest of the film; space battles, a pod race, epic ground battles, light sabre duels, the eventual compromise to the political sub plot and absolutely astonishing special effects and art work from ILM to fully realise for the first time George Lucas's imaginative creation the way he wanted it, the reason he collaborated an expert team of technicians so long ago, after many Oscars, to get it to where it is now. Yep, i am a fan of the special effects, even though some have dismissed it as been overkill. This is epic stuff, and extraordinary stuff, to see such magnificent creations of a focused vision brought to life with so many different techniques, many pioneering,used for this soul purpose, plus other cosmetic touches like stunts and extras. It's this practical use of special effects that always impresses for any film that tries it, including the original trilogy. This is the crucial difference that means an Oscar nomination or not for special effects. Obviously this got one.

That's 5 of the 6 out of ten. It could have been 7 of the 8, but this is why it isn't. The lack of joy, heart or commitment in most of the actors playing their roles. It really bogs this film down and it's a huge shame. The reason behind it could be the fact that the script itself doesn't hold any wit, funny humour or character. There are points when it tries, but these are artificial and basic, nothing colourful. But it's the acting that really isn't up there. A script can be the best piece of writing since Shakespeare, but if you don't have the actors to bring it to life, it's wasted. Then again, a script can be awful, but the acting can adapt to fit it, so you get melodrama and hamming, making it fun. Here, we have a script that's bland but not the worst, definitely salvageable with the right acting. That's what we don't have. Deliverance is monotonous for the most part, with occasional emotional backing at the most intense times. That's not enough to believe in these characters. In the original trilogy, all the actors seemed to thoroughly enjoy what they were doing, giving it their all and making the characters likable and breathing life into them, even when the script got extra cheesy. Here, all we get are plot pushing lines. No one seems to be enjoying or putting any effort into their work, and that reflects big time in the performances, which drains the life out of the drama and the film. Jake Loyd seems to be the only one trying, but his limited skill with young age and the script prevent him from getting any further than anyone else does. It's a huge shame because this is a talented cast that could have worked and it makes what should have been the great moments in the film fall flat. Lucas found what he was looking for in the technology, but unfortunately overlooked his actors. He improved in number II, and it looks like he has in III also, but i think this episode was important and he ruined it.

It's hard to like a movie based solely on special effects and action, which seems to be everyone's argument for this film to be a success, a sheer thrill ride of action and awe. Yeah, i dug all that big time, but the originals had that and more. Heart, soul and warmth in the script and committed actors that wanted to succeed and did. This movie didn't have that and whenever it tried it either became too immature (Jar Jar Binks) or too stagnant (Some "witty outbursts" from the Jedis like "I've got a bad feeling about this." delivered in the same tone as every other line). Overall, an extra mark for a 6 because it was cool to see the events taking place that would influence the known future, plus it's got star wars written all over the production design and action and that'll keep me comin back to the sequels, whether or not i enjoy them in the end.