Friday 24 June 2011

Missed Movies: Rango


***COMING SOON*** 
A NEW WEBSITE CALLED 'THE EXPOSITIONIST'
BROUGHT TO YOU BY MYSELF AND THE FORMER OPTIMIST
***COMING SOON***




***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS.
 ***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***

I wish to kick off this review by stating that I absolutely hate it when people argue with a film critics review of any given movie. It is a film critics job to watch a film and then feed back a dialogue explaining their personal experiences of watching said film. The end result of this process is a review that can be ultimately defined as a speculative hypothesis and in no way a statement of fact. So why is it that in the comment box's for every well known and widely followed online review publication I find a plethora of mono syllabic diatribes complaining that the reviewer 'got it wrong' or 'doesn't know what their talking about'. By doing this you are portraying yourself as a person of very insignificant intelligence. Every review of anything is a correct review, because a review is a single individuals opinion of something. Its not a case of right or wrong, it's a case of agree or disagree. If you disagree with a critics film review then why not get out there and write a review of your own to counter act that critics opinion. Doing this is constructive and in the long run contributes to an ongoing dialogue about the topic at hand. With that being said and now fresh in our minds let me talk about ILM's first dip into the CG animated movie pool, Rango.

Rango is the story of a pet chameleon who becomes lost in the desert. After a few troublesome encounters our hero stumbles across a small town that goes by the name of Dirt. He becomes a hit with the locals and is soon promoted to be the towns sherif and is tasked with finding out what has happened to the towns dwindling water supply. Hilarity supposedly ensues.

Rango is for the most part a nod and a wink to the now classic films set in the American old west. It looks and feels like a Sergio Leone film. This is coupled with a story that pays homage to and lovingly references 1974's American neo-noir film Chinatown. This is not a bad thing, many of the best CG animated films ever have contained many a clever reference that will go way over the heads of their pre pubescent target audience. I think it should be a requirement of films like these to throw in the odd bit of content for the parents, especially seeing as they are going to be forced to watch the film with their ungrateful, drug addled spawn who are bound to be too young to experience a cinema alone. References aside the original content of Rango can be found within its script which while simple, is entertaining enough for the core audience members though, for me, an adult, it lacked weight and substance, something which Pixar have spoilt me with over the years. Despite this the story is there and the humour is consistent and services Rango rather well.

By far the most outstanding aspect of Rango is how it looks. ILM have produced, by far, the best looking CG animated film thus far. With Gore Verbinski at the helm and Roger Deakins lending his Cinematographic talents as an advisor on the production ILM have put out a film that could stand up to any modern 'real life' production from a visual standpoint. The textures are painstakingly detailed, the lighting is dramatic and realistic and the camera movements aid the story in such a way that its forgivable to forget that your watching what is essentially a cartoon. Even the Character designs are both interesting and memorable all the way from the main character down to the minor roles of 'Dirts' townfolk. Clearly ILM's history as a hollywood special effects house has taught them a fuck load about how films are made, something which Pixar are very close too understanding but aren't quite as savvy about at this moment in time. If your looking for a reason to watch Rango, this aspect of the film is impressive enough to warrant my recommendation. It's an early call, but I'd put good money on Rango being this years best looking CG animated movie.
     
Audibly Rango is a treat. Featuring a cast of many well known and respected actors including Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Alfred Molina, Stephen Root and Bill Nighy. Nighy in particular serves his character very well, pulling off both threatening and darkly comic like the true master that he is. Its a near perfect cast all things considered it is however a shame that they couldn't get Clint Eastwood to cameo in a role that was clearly meant for him, settling instead for Timothy Olyphantastic who is far from an acceptable replacement but lets not dwell on a slight blemish that barely rocks the foundation of Rango's solid cast. The cast are backed by a beautiful score brought to us by Hans Zimmer, a man who doesn't appear to have stopped working for the past six or seven years. This is all rather fantastic, but it doesn't add up to much if there is a lack of substance beneath it all.

As I eluded to back in the now world renowned third paragraph of this review, the script didn't really excite me much. Rango isn't and isn't trying to be a very original piece. I have no problems with a lack of originality provided that a film be entertaining. I myself have been critiqued for my explanations of why I found Avatar and Hangover Part 2 to be such catastrophic failures. The reason being that I mainly sight their lack of original thought as the reason for my destain when, in fact I disliked them mostly because not only were they unoriginal, but they also failed to entertain me, both bored me in actuality. I have similar issues with Rango. Rango is at its best when it dares to enter a world of surreal absurdism, the problem is it doesn't dare to do this very frequently and for me that is Rango's greatest downfall. An animated film can last 100 minutes and be entertaining throughout its entire run, but somehow Rango feels a little flabby. There are entire sections of the movie that could have been dropped in favour of advancing the story, but instead Rango lingers on these moments in order to depart a joke or two that, to be honest, could be left behind without being missed. Look out for a sequence held in an underground tunnel for an example of this.

Another issue I feel Rango has is within its tone. Rango is very dark for a 'kids' movie. There are a few scenes depicting and lingering on the death of a few minor characters and even one scene displaying a hanging of sorts. Now, to be fair, the hanging sequence is supposed to be a throw away joke, but for death to play such an important part in a film like Rango strikes me as a very odd choice. What confuses me even more is that these scenes are inserted between moments of expected humour, thus negating any relevance the deaths had in the first place. I won't look into this aspect any further seeing as I am not a child and do not know how they would react in these conditions, I just suspect that the younger members of the audience may find the overall feel of Rango a little threatening. Plus the stories main villain would have provoked tears from me as a runt, so parents may wish to check this out prior to unleashing it upon your kidlets.

So here we are, the be all and end all. Its the time in the review where I will pick a number between one and five in order to represent my feelings towards Rango. Once this has been done, the pointless and stupid critiquing of my critique will begin. I only hope that my readers have the sense and intelligence not to voice these critiques in the comment boxes bellow, but what am I thinking? We're talking about people who insist on writing 'first' if they are indeed the first to post any such comment. What a sad bunch of ingrates you really are...*sigh*.

Rango. It looks and sounds like bacon frying in a pan, but once its all cooked up it doesn't taste of anything and will leave you wishing you'd cooked up sausages.

Rango gets...

2.5 out of 5

Friday 17 June 2011

Green Lantern 3D


***COMING SOON*** 
A NEW WEBSITE CALLED 'THE EXPOSITIONIST'
BROUGHT TO YOU BY MYSELF AND THE FORMER OPTIMIST
***COMING SOON***







***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS.
 ***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***


This is a quote from my review of Sucker Punch:
     "It is usually at this point in the review where I give a summing up of a films good and bad points in order to give you (the readers) an idea as to whether the film is your cup of tea or not. I however have absolutely nothing good to say about Sucker Punch."

I now have something positive to say about it. Its 100% better than Green Lantern.

I have never in my life seen a film that is worse than Green Lantern. Every aspect of this cinematic abomination is broken and so covered in shit that it makes it hard to even think about. Nonetheless I am going to do my best to break this down for you.

I have enjoyed Ryan Reynolds in pretty much every film he has ever been in. Sure he's been in some stinkers, but much like Mark Wahlberg, Reynolds has always been entertaining to watch. His performance in last years Buried is way up in my top five favourite things to come out of hollywood in the past decade.  He however puts out such a terrible performance in this abysmally miscast monstrosity of a movie that I'm never going to be able to look at him in the  same way ever again. This is a piece of acting that could and maybe should break the mans career. Timothy Spall could have done a better job. Ryan doesn't seem to know what he's doing, he looses almost all human emotion in favour of looking dumbfounded and lost like some kind of misplaced dumpster baby for every minute of Green Lantern.

Other cast members include Mark Strong, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard and Tim Robbins. All of these actors can and have put out good work in the past, yet somehow manage to fall into the same trap as the rest of the film. Maybe its the lack of script or the haphazard, amateurish direction by Martin Campbell but there isn't honestly one decent performance contained within Green Hornets shit smeared breeches. And with THAT cast, I honestly don't understand how that happened. Oh, wait, yes I can ($$$$$).

The script is embarrassing. Imagine if you would, a piece of cheese. Now melt that cheese and water it down until it becomes clear, then blend in a big book full of the most stomach cringingly bad cliche's and continue to add water until even that becomes clear. Now add the mixture to source pan and boil the mixture until it evaporates into non existence. That is how bad this script is, its so bad that the film would actually be better off without one. There is zero character development, zero dramatic tension, zero pace, zero... well, anything. Its all one giant mess from start to finish.

Looks wise its completely perplexing. The estimated budget for this movie is $200 million, and I honestly have no idea where it was spent. Green Lantern is a special effects movie boasting the same amount of special effects as those god awful Star Wars prequels, only it looks a ton worse than they do. Not one single special effect is believable. It looks like somebody spent loads of money simply to create a CG animated film circa 1998. Think 'A Bugs Life' with ryan reynolds head badly comped on top of the action, that's what Green Lantern looks like. The costumes are disgusting, the sets look incomplete and lifeless and the multiple alien characters are worse than boring. Even the real life photography back on earth doesn't appear to have been shot anywhere that resembles the planet upon which we inhabit with every location shot looking like it was shot on a cardboard cut out  studio backlot. That kind of work requires a talent so "special" that even Hellen Keller wouldn't have been able to come close to approximating it.

In terms of action Green Lantern never gets going. There are a few moments where the film tries and fails to build tension and pace only to cut straight to a lengthy segment where Hal receives yet another pep talk from his babble of friends. There is almost a sequence where a large group of the Green Lantern Corp' move in to attack the big black cloud that serves as the movies major villain. It was enough to make me sit up in fact as I figured that the film was finally about to get going, sadly this sequence lasted approximately fifteen seconds before it cut back to Hal being mopey and useless, again.

So how do I wrap this mess up? I've just recently ranted about the state of the polished turds that Hollywood keeps squeezing out of its well tailored rectum, so I can't go don that route. I can't even go down the cash cow line seeing as Jack Sparrow's latest abortion took me there. I guess all I can really do is stress that this is THE worst film I've ever had the misfortune to have seen. Its worse than Transformers, Hangover Part 2, Sucker Punch, Reindeer Games, everything, everything, everything, everything, everything, everything, everything, everything, everything.

Green Lantern gets...

NO RATING 

BECAUSE ITS NOT EVEN WORTHY OF A 
BAD ONE.

FUCK GREEN LANTERN

Tuesday 7 June 2011

X-Men: First Class



***COMING SOON*** 
A NEW WEBSITE CALLED 'THE EXPOSITIONIST'
BROUGHT TO YOU BY MYSELF AND THE FORMER OPTIMIST
***COMING SOON***



***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS, MUCH LIKE CYANIDE, BUT DON'T LET ME OR ANYONE ELSE STOP YOU FROM TRYING IT...
 ***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***

Here it is, finally, the prequel to the X-Men trilogy and Wolverine. Hands up all of those who are excited about this... Brian Singer put your hand down... OK that leaves no excited people and I can fully understand why.

The X-Men trilogy got off to a very promising start. Brain Singer (like him or hate him) understood what to do with a film adaptation of the X-Men comic book. X-Men and X-Men 2 both focused primarily on the social outcast themes that make the comic book stand out from its brethren. Both films were exciting, interesting and very well made, its also worth noting that the first installment pretty much sparked off the current 'comic book movie' trend which we still reside in to this day. Part three was a step backwards, originally Matthew Vaughn was slated to direct it, then negotiations fell through and Rush Hours, Bret Ratner took the wheel. He then proceeded to drive the franchise into a ditch where it lay for a while until X-Men Origins: Wolverine came out and the franchise slipped from the ditch and into the sewer system. All hopes for the X-Men movie franchise were lost, or at least until Marvel would buy the property back and predictably reboot it.

This didn't happen though, instead Fox pushed forward, in fear of loosing a profitable franchise and set the wheels in motion to produce X-Men: First Class, a dubiously titled and foul smelling prequel. This time very much on board is Matthew Vaughn, a risky move seeing as his directorial career is still very much in the throws of acceptance but an acceptable risk in my opinion because, with X-Men: First Class, he kicked the franchises fucking arse like it was a one legged man in an arse kicking contest.

X-Men: First Class is a prequel to the first two X-Men movies only. It completely ignores the last two installments and rightly so. Based in the 1960's and in the mist of the Cuban missile crisis, we follow the stories of young Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr, detailing the time when they first meet and their inevitably doomed friendship. Together they are recruited by the CIA to form a team of mutants in order to take on the evil Hellfire Club.

Cast wise its a winner through and through. James McAvoy's portrayal of a young and naive Xavier is both entertaining and believable and quite a pleasure to take in. He's not a patch on Michael Fassbender though, who plays Lensherr as if he was the hero of the story, making it even more poignant when he turns to the darker side in the films climactic moments. Jennifer Lawrence makes for a very good Mystique, displaying both touching and dramatic nuances in her performance and carrying the emotional dilemma of her character with apparent ease. Kevin Bacon seems to enjoy the bad guy role and as a result is very entertaining. Even Vaughn's good luck charm Jason Flemyng does a decent job as the slightly creepy Azazel. The only negative point in terms of casting lies upon the stunning figure of January Jones who is visually flawless while lacking any real substance.

Direction wise Vaughn proves his worth once again. Performing all the tricks he's learned over the years since splitting with Guy Ritchie to put together one hell of an entertaining movie. The tone and the pacing is perfect. Instead of playing the film out in the comic book movie industry standard, Vaughn has gone for an early James Bond vibe. In fact tone wise it reminded me very much of the first few Sean Connery, Bond films from the 60's, the exact era when this film is set. Something which I'm sure in no coincidence. Vaughn's also shifted the focus back onto the social outcast theme again, something which X3 and Wolverine did away with and something which those movies both desperately needed. Its also worth noting that with its bright colour pallets and imaginative composition this is the first X-Men movie that actually looks like an X-Men movie, the other films being relatively dull and lifeless in comparison.

Script wise its a strong movie. The characters are all well realized and have rather good and interesting arcs. The time setting fits into the story perfectly and really grounds the action. Its not exactly a script worthy of any awards but when pitted against its comic book movie competition, it fares very well. Its more adult in its themes than the likes of Thor, has better structure than both Iron Man movies and doesn't try to outdo its competition in the same way Spiderman 3 did. The script is both serious and intelligent enough to be intriguing while being fun and respectable of where it came from. 

To sum up X-Men: First Class, is a game changing installment to this previously dead franchise. It takes all of the first two's best features and turns them up to eleven. The action sequences aren't too in your face and are all clever enough to keep you entertained. The film has retained the level of intelligence that the source material demands while embracing the films comic book origin a lot more that Brain Singers installments ever did. The film is 132 minutes long but it doesn't feel like it. When the closing credits started to roll I found myself wondering if the film had come in shorter than advertised and was indeed quite surprised to find out that I'd been sat in one place for over two hours without noticing that my arse had gone numb.

I know its really rather boring when I enjoy a film and write only good things about it but despite the title and January Jones's performance I really don't have a bad ting to say about First Class. As it stands I would rank this well up on my list of best Comic Book movies. Its not as good as Spider-man 2, but for my money its better than Dark Knight, a film that I personally hold in very high regard. Its true folks, X-Men: First Class is THAT good. Get the fuck off of my blog and see it.

X-Men: First Class gets...
4.5 out of 5

Friday 3 June 2011

Special Feature: TV Shows-Part Three: Reaper




***COMING SOON*** 
A NEW WEBSITE CALLED 'THE EXPOSITIONIST'
BROUGHT TO YOU BY MYSELF AND THE FORMER OPTIMIST
***COMING SOON***



***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS. LIKE ANAL. 
 ***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***

Instead of going ahead and actually reviewing one of the latest cinematic disasterpieces, I have once again decided to delve deep into the underbelly of our magical pictorial boxes. Now I do understand that this move will once again upset the masses of undeserved reprobates that form my weekly viewing figures. If that is the case then please be directed to the top of this page where you will find my beautiful visage not once, nor twice, but three times thus solidifying that I am the most important thing about this blog and therefor also its target audience. So sit back, shut up and allow me to dispel my wonderful words of wiseness about a fantastical show that could have been one of the greatest TV shows in TV history, Reaper.


Reaper was a show about Sam, a human failure with a dead end job and no apparent skills what so ever. That is until his 21st birthday when Sam discovers that his parents have sold his soul to the devil. The Devil then puts Sam to work as a bounty hunter for hell, ordered with the task of retrieving hells escaped souls and returning them to the hell from whence they came.


I know, it sounds pretty shit, right? It really isn't.


Reaper is a dramedy, defined by wikipedia as a mixture of comedy and drama (which is presented in that order would make it a 'coma', but i guess that has other connotations). Reaper is mostly settled on the comedic side of this dynamic pairing, focusing on the bizarre and entirely unfair circumstances that Sam and his friends find themselves in. From the opening sequence of the Pilot to the closing moments of its final episode Reaper was a joy to bestow, making it even more crushing when the show got cancelled after its second season thanks to low ratings and a stupid network decision.


Reaper featured an ensemble cast of characters all of which were pitch perfect for this show. Sam was the everyman, a slacker with a dream and little hope of making it reality. Bret Harrison was a wise piece of casting for the role which he embodied perfectly. Play the straight man in a comedy is not an easy thing to pull off, but he does it well and still manages to make the character funny. 


Sam's co worker and best friend is Sock, a man quiet happy with underachieving with a penchant for mockery and self preservation. Sock is the major comedic relief in the shows more dramatic moments. Its the typical sarcastic, best friend role but Tyler Labine takes it so much further. Its a character that could have gotten annoying, but Tyler's talent and timing forces the audience to love the character and sympathize with him, even when he's acting like a complete arse.  


There's also Ben, Sam and Socks other workmate who often unwittingly gets involved in the exploits and often suffers as a result. I'm not quite sure what the writers were aiming for with Ben. He has very little to do plot wise and would have been my first choice when it came to trimming out characters. Luckily show creators Michele Fazekas and Tara Butters are way smarter than me and opted to keep him and cast Rick Gonzalez in the role. The character represents the more philosophical side of the show, something which Reaper has a ton to talk about. Gonzalez's character is something this show needed, he's funny, engaging and gets hurt, a lot, without getting in the way.  


These three characters form the hero team that recapture the escaped souls on a weekly basis. The interplay between these characters is a major part in why Reaper was so enjoyable. Relationships would be pushed in all manor of dramatic directions but the comedic dialogue between them would always help ease the load and give you lovable characters to root for.


Another character to mention is Andi, the object of Sam's affections played by the rather pretty Missy Peregrym. She doesn't have much to do initially but by the shows untimely end she becomes a major player. Every show has to have a love interest and Andi is that in Reaper, but she grounds the show well and acts as the audiences representation throughout the show. It wouldn't work without her. 


Finally one of the best characters in the show is Ted, the manager of 'The Work Bench', the place of work for the main characters. He's stupid, full of self importance and hilariously funny. Every scene with Ted is guaranteed to make you laugh and if it wasn't for one final major player he would probably steal the entire show.


Ray Wise plays the Devil, the shows antagonist and flat out most enjoyable character. Ray was perfect for this role. Instead of going down the usual route and playing Satan as a flat out evil being, Wise instead plays him like a car showroom exec/business man, which in the long run, makes the character more threatening. Wise has many of Reapers better lines, steals every scene he's in and takes the show from good to fantastic. Their is amazing subtlety to Wise's performance, he underplays everything and puts out one of my favorite television performances ever. The menace of the character is very much in the background, but its there just enough to make its presence felt throughout the shows entirety. His bullshit smile, sharp suites and very proper way of talking adds a ton of class to he proceedings and is by far the main reason anyone should see this show. Plus his first words are "Sam, I'm not a car jacker. I'm the Devil."


Story wise Reaper is both hilarious and gripping. Every show is well written and there is barely a dud episode to be found. The Pilot episode is, and always will be one of the best show pilots ever produced. Its funny all the way through, dispenses exposition without becoming tiresome and sets the perfect tone for the rest of Reapers run. The pilot was directed by Kevin Smith, a man who I hold a lot of love for. It has been well documented that Smith didn't really enjoy the experience of directing Reaper, dealing with TV studios and being very undervalued considering how large his contribution was to the show. He's hardly the worlds most talented director but he puts out some of his best work in this pilot. Reaper very much lives in the same world that Kevin Smith inhabits and he was the correct choice for a pilot director. He fingerprints and style are all over the show and he's a big part of what Reaper became. If your a fan of Kevin's work, you should enjoy Reaper.


Thematically Reaper is pretty deep. It deals with abandonment, self improvement and friendship while exploring religious themes and ideas in a very non preachy way. You never feel that Reaper is trying to turn you towards its way of thinking, but it still makes you think. Its a testament to the shows awesome writing that it can be this entertaining and seemingly simple while delivering such profound insights into its subject matter. Its an aspect of the show that I dug in a big bad way and while I expect many people wont even notice the ideas that Reaper is putting out, I'd encourage everyone to watch out for what it has to say.


Reaper wound up being cancelled after its second season and was cut way short. The show could easily have continued without struggling for a couple more years than it got to. However due to the CW going bust and syfy deciding not to take it over Reaper died way before its prime. Its was loved by critics and audiences alike and was going to be relatively huge, but instead it will spend its afterlife as a cult classic.


I love this show, I've seen the entire thing through at least four times and it has never gotten old. Its a prime example of how good television can be and at the same time how difficult it is to make a TV show succeed. TV networks are fucktards and clearly don't understand what they have. Instead of continuing long lost shows such as Lost, room should be made for shows like Reaper that could have brought something fresh to the world. It was a smart, funny, thinking persons show that was easy for anyone to watch and enjoy.


Like Reaper was trying to say, sometimes life will be unkind. It will sometimes seem like everything is unfair and that everything is stacked against you. But be thankful for what you have and take regular stock of what goodness surrounds you. I'm glad that Reaper existed and feel privileged to have watched it. And you should too.  


Reaper gets...
5 out of 5

The ongoing look into our television world will continue with a look into the sexy world of Joss Whedon, British contributions and the shows that currently inhabit my wonderful world. I promise next time the ending wont be so, gay.