Finally, Warner Brothers have realised that they have in their possession one of the most anticipated blockbusters of the year inthe shape of Man of Steel.
After a teasing, softly softly approach of countdowns to website launches and so on, there were a smattering of trailers but now the marketing campaign has been turned up.
Firstly, there is a midly underwhelming viral video of General Zod, played by Michael Shannon. The video's primary purpose so we can hear the General speak (because you can't really see him). The main happy surprise, according to the responces, is that at least he doesn't sound like The Joker.
So far, so blurry. However, there is also a new trailer out (trailer no. 3 if I'm not mistaken) which gives loads of new footage and a better idea of the general tone and feel of the film, building on top of the previous trailers.
Well this trailer is pretty damn hot. And once again, like in a previous trailer, it seems like Kevin Costner as Johnathan Kent seems to steal the show. His non-Russell Crowe father figure to Clark seems to be a genuinly honest, but realistic character. He is far removed from the faintly smug Russell Crowe (who also has a larger appearance in the trailer here).
So yeah, UK release date is currently set as being 14th June. Perfect time for a summer blockbuster.
Olympic opening ceremony director and balding national sweetheart Danny Boyle has had an illustrious twenty year career that has successfully spanned several genres. From his crime debut, Shallow Grave, he has made films involving zombies (28 Days Later), sci-fi (Sunshine), depressing drugs sagas (Trainspotting), biographies (127 Hours) and drama (Slumdog Millionaire). Now he turns his talents towards dream related thrillers with his latest effort, Trance.
Starring the ever watchable James McAvoy, Rosario Dawson (Boyle's girlfriend) and the fantastic Vincent Cassel, Trance is (as you would expect) and twisty, turny, nothing-is-what-it seems-y type film with hugely rich visuals. However, being this kind of film, it is super hard trying to reveal just what makes it good without giving anything away.
So with start elsewhere.
The film drips with colour, bright, vivid colours. Many of the angles and shots used are just beautiful. Boyle has a real talent for making the everyday seem otherworldly. There is a dreamlike feel to the whole proceedings which suits the content of the film. Whilst films about dream-like states would draw comparisons with Nolan's Inception, there are many differences at work which operate to Trance's advantage. Firstly, Boyle's film is much smaller in scale, not operating within dreams means that there are no super-natural goings on, rather, the trance-like states operate as character fulfilling fantasies, themselves giving fascinating insight into the characters on the screen.
Secondly, this film is also pretty gritty, easily earning its 15 rating in the UK (R in the States). Some scenes had the audience wriggling in their seats. Again, it's hard to go into any more detail without possibly spoiling plot points, which I'm trying not to do.
So, the characters are very ably portrayed by their various actors and actresses. Each one fleshes out a complex character with vivid backstories and motives. However, one criticism of the film is there aren't any likeable characters, Boyle (along with screenwriters Joe Ahearne and John Hodge) have written unpleasant characters with moments of goodness rather than a genuine 'good' person.
However, with a script of this nature, you are expecting twists and turns a-plenty. However, the progression of the film is still a genuine surprise. It is also a strong sign of the film's strength when you start to suspect everyone on the screen, by turns you suspect one character, then the next, as information is steadily drip-fed to you throughout. There are very few quiet moment in the film. Every scene has its value among the greater tapestry, there is very little wasted time.
All in all, a surprisingly good film which shows a director utterly in control of the screen and seeps the film with colour and imagery. The cast are all top notch and the film works really well as a twisty thriller.
There is no avoiding this film, I swear. After literally being bukkaked with praise from reviewers, and the Academy (best film @ Oscar's), I finally got around to watching the film once the review juice had dried, and I shall be going no further with this comparison.
To those who claim historical inaccuracies, the film is certainly a dramatic piece rather than a hard historical replica, however, to me, the film makes amply clear the incredibly impressive role the Canadians had in making the plan work.
The film is a super-tense, quite funny, enjoyable film which plays sometimes fast and loose with the facts but because of that, you get a film where the tension is incredibly high. The film's first surprising move for me was to point out the circumstances surrounding the storming of the embassy and making it obvious the level of hatred (with pretty good reason) that the Iranians had for storming the embassy. Speaking of which, the opening scene in the film draws you RIGHT in, a brilliant set up and opening few scenes.
Once the situation has been set up, it is where the Hollywood-lite satire about the film industry kicks in and this part is only really carried off by John Goodman and Alan Arkin, who are just brilliant at making this part of the film work. Affleck and Cranston take a back seat more so in this part before the plan gets implemented and the tension comes to a fore again.
Certainly never having really been a fan of Ben Affleck, preferring instead his extremely talented brother, Casey Affleck, Argo proves that he has found his form behind the camera instead. Certainly his previously directed films, The Town and Gone Baby Gone are both exceptional and perhaps being so much more involved the films beyond simply acting means that he pours himself much further into his acting roles than in much of his filmography. Certainly, his acting in Argo is some of his best.
Simply put, the film is maybe not quite a deserving of the accolades as you'd be lead to believe (certainly the political nature of the film has helped with that), Argo is without a doubt a really, really good film. Certainly worth a watch.
Directed by the awesome Andrew Dominik, teaming up with his favourite actor Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly is a visually stunning, tiny little nasty crime story wrapped up in a political message that's about as subtle as a punch to the gut.
Based on the little known crime novel, Cogan's Trade, the story revolves around stupid, desperate people thinking they are smarter than they actually are and then actually having a capable person sorting everything out. It reminded me a little of Get Carter (Michael Caine's version, btw), with it's depiction of poverty, desperation and grotty little people doing criminal activities.
Of course, Killing Them Softly is not a revenge film. Instead, the story is nicely contained within the quite short run time of the film. There isn't a huge amount of action here either, like the novel, the film pretty much consists of scenes of characters talking, the dialogue working well, sometimes tragic, sometimes comic. There are flashes of action and violence which are sudden, shocking, brutal and beautiful.
Indeed, the whole film has a rich visual style which mirrors the sheer beauty of Dominik's previous film, The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, the locales in the film are quite ordinary in many respects, but given beauty through talented direction and cinematography.
Brad Pitt is as involving as he's ever been, his character seemingly one of the few to be good at what he does and his cynical points about contemporary american life are delivered with a barely contained snarl. He moves, talks, looks and sounds so involving that every scene he is in is a highlight of the film. The other two main cast which impress are Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn as the two robbers at the centerpoint of the film. They are a mix of comic stupidity and desperation which doesn't go too far one way or another enough to distract. The one weak point of the film is probably Ray Liotta, who has little to do in the role.
The story isn't huge, in fact, the events of the film are portrayed as a microcosm of American life as a whole and as such, given the political overtones about the economy and so on, it is pretty bleak. However, the film is good.
Trailer:
Wreck It Ralph
I am not over exaggerating when I say that this is the best non-Pixar animated film I have seen since Shrek. No lie! It's not a 'laugh out laugh' hilarious as you'd expect but about two thirds of the way through the film, once Ralph has met Vanellope in the Sugar Rush game, that it is a sweetest, nicest film you'll have seen for ages.
First of all, setting the film within computer games meants that the animators can have SO much fun with the look of the film. For instance, the characters in Fix It Felix Jr's game move like old school animations. It's a small touch but it goes so far. The different worlds are vivid and colourful, bright and full of sounds, the only weakness being that apart from the Sugar Rush world, the others get skiped over pretty quickly to progress the storyline of the film.
And the storyline is quite simple but it works well, the idea of Ralph not wanting to be overlooked for his achievements just because he's the bad guy sends him to Hero's Duty, where Jane Lynch is just amazing and there is a great sequence playing with the idea of a 1st Person Shooter. From there the film moves onto Sugar Rush and introduces most of the cast.
There is also great fun playing a 'who's who' of video game characters, from Sonic and Dr. Robotnik, the Zangief, Bowser, Street Fighter characters, a wonderfully clever play on the Pac-Man universe and a whole host of familiar sounds from other games. However, even if you're not someone who fondly remembers a lot of the games, the film never relies on them to bring in the audience, they're certainly peripheral but not the focal point of the film.
And the cast do really well, John C. Reilly is everything the Ralph needs to be to win us over and Alan Tudyk as King Candy is pretty horrible and certainly the bad guy. Sarah Silverman takes a little time to get used to just because she plays someone so hyperactive and talkative, but after a while, you settle right in to it.
It's a great fun film that certainly is a success for Disney.
Trailer:
Ted
If you like Family Guy and the sense of humour it displays in the more recent seasons, then you'll enjoy Ted. The story of a talking teddy bear, the best friend of Mark Wahlberg and his random goings on.
To be honest, I half wanted this film to be brilliant and hilarious and whilst it does have funny scenes and some killer lines in the film, it was just a bit of a let down. Something that Family Guy has also been never able to balance is the drama alongside the comedy and this film is guilty of that, so when the film actually decides to move along the narrative, the dramatic moments die badly and there's no comedy to back it up.
Mark Wahlberg is usually very watchable and he is here also, his character is drawn between his best friend and his girlfriend and he makes it real, it's quite a nice character. Mila Kunis is good too, trying to fit her relationship in around Ted, the problem is that all you hear during the film is Meg, the character she voices from Family Guy, and it distracts.
So does Seth MacFarlane, the voice of Ted, who is just Peter Griffin in a teddy bear, yes the film makes that point, but that doesn't mean it won't bug you a lot. Add on top of this the usual pop culture references as a source of humour and some of the comedy just isn't funny. However, the cameo role from Sam J Jones (Flash Gordon) is really quite funny but it is overused a little.
Giovanni Ribisi is actually a very good actor, but his villainous turn is underused and completely at odds with the tone of the rest of the film.
The film isn't bad, but it's not as funny as you'd hope and the dramatic elements suck so hard.
After the last entry highlighted a TINY amount of films coming out which grab my interest, it makes sense to finish the job and to do the same thing for the latter half of the year.
However, as you will soon be able to deduce yourselves, the second half of the year is fairly guilty of sequel-itis.
The first Despicable Me was a charming and funny animated film that almost completely bypassed my usual cynicism. Gru's minions are hilarious and whilst the focus of the advertising of the second film almost exclusively focuses on them, here's hoping the film will be another light hearted and amusing film.
Hugh Jackson is always at the very least watchable but the X-Men Origins film dealing with Wolverine was underwhelming. It is reassuring to see a rather drastic change of locale as the film takes the character to Japan. I'm hoping there'll also be some cool Samurai/Ronin themes going on as well.
The long awaiting end to the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy, Edgar Wright's previous two entries, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were both amazing. Featuring both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, there are high hopes that this film will be as of as high quality as the previous two films. Doing for science fiction what SotD did for zombies and Hot Fuzz did for action.
Riddick (released 06/09/2013)
Vin Diesel's other franchise has him playing shiny lensed gravel voiced prisoner, Richard B. Riddick. Once again, after Pitch Black and The Chronicles of Riddick, David Twohy is writing and directing and hopefully tightened up a bit after the good ideas but scattered implementation of the second film.
Elysium (released 20/09/2013)
Neil Blomkamp's second feature film after the fantastic District 9 is another science fiction piece starring Matt Damon, Jodie Foster and District 9 alum Sharlto Copley. Dealing with two classes of people and the struggles between them, this film could be trying to match the intensity of his first film.
Finally. The neo-noir super stylish Sin City is back. Complete with insane cast inc. Jessica Alba, Clive Owen, Eva Green, Josh Brolin, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Ray Liotta, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis etc etc etc.
Again, another animated film that I had no expectations of which turned out to be amazingly good fun. And here's a sequel! Following on from the first film but ignoring the sequel to the book the first film is based on may turn out to be a bad choice but I'm certainly interested in this one.
Thor: The Dark World (released 30/10/2013)
Same as Iron Man 3 coming out earlier this year, I'm dying to see the Marvel machine move the Avengers into phase 2 and see how the characters deal with being on their own again after their ensemble moment. I like Chris Hemsworth as Thor and as long as Tom Hiddleston appears as Loki, I'll be happy.
Before film goodness begins, I just wanted to shout out that this is my 100th blog entry! Woo! It's only taken 402 days. Thanks for all your ongoing support and interest.
On with the show!
As we reach the end of the first month of 2013, we've already had a spiffing Tarantino film (Django Unchained) and a piffting Schwarzenegger film (The Last Stand). What other films are coming out this year which raise the pulse (or the eyebrows)?
Awkward title aside, I'm quite looking forward to this film. The previous films have ranged from being awesome to silly-but-enjoyable and either way, the promotional material have suggested that this will be a worthy edition to the series. Word is that Bruce Willis is looking to do this film and Die Hard part 6 and then call it a day.
Park Chan-wook's debut english language film looks like a terrifying psychological feature completely with Nicole Kidman on solid icy setting. Given the style of film in Chan-wook's back catalogue and you can expect a horrifyingly involving and twisted film and the 18 rating the film has been given would attest to that.
Evil Dead (released 19/04/2013)
The facts that elevates this film from simple remake status are the involvement of Sam Raimi (as co-writer and producer) and the producer of the original film, Roger Tapert. This looks like a hugely violent take on the horror classic. Add to this the other fact that the film's first cut to the MPAA was rated NC 17 and you have what looks to be the gory highlight of the year (hopefully).
Iron Man 3 (released 26/04/2013)
Considering that both Iron Man 1 and 2 AND The Avengers were all awesome, there is no reason to believe that they'll drop the ball with this film. Include writer/director Shane Black is taking over from John Favreau and considering the promotional material so far, the film looks like a deeper, darker look at the character post-Avengers.
Star Trek Into Darkness (released 17/05/2013)
The first Star Trek film showed off the quality casting and scripting and made the first film a great piece of entertainment although the plot left something to be desired. This time around, the film looks to be going darker and deeper (again) and the addition of Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain could be a masterstroke.
The Fast And The Furious franchise enters its twelfth year and ever since 2009's Fast and Furious, the series has progressively dropped its single minded car-porn mind set and instead focused more on character and stunning action. The series has gone from strength to strength and 2011's Fast Five was great fun. Here's hoping it goes on in that fashion.
Man of Steel (released 14/06/2013)
Looks to be an action packed and beautifully shot realistic take on the most famous Superhero of them all. Hopefully they can bypass the innate character flaws that he is distant and impossible to relate to. Impressive cast and talent on display and it all looks like this film will stand shoulder to shoulder with the classic Christopher Reeve films.
World War Z (released 21/06/2013)
CGI heavy zombie film that looks truly apocalyptic in scale. Brad Pitt is usually watchable even when on autopilot so and this looks like a challenging role. Based on the cult book of the same name, this film elevates the scale of an invasion to worldwide and the trailers are trying very hard to sell the scope of the film and hopefully the film will satisfy.
That's all for now. Next time, July - December 2013.
Oh hello Tim Burton film with Johnny Depp. The modern classic combination have worked together to produce fine pieces of work before but Sleepy Hollow certainly ranks up there with my favourite.
Now, being honest, the film is little more than a very gothic slasher film. Luckily, With Burton on deck, the gothic elements are fantastic. Eerie settings are exquisitely shot, the peripheral weather and music all help to ratchet up not only the tension but the gothic elements of the film. The town of Sleepy Hollow itself is almost a character, creaking floorboards and doors, an old wooden bridge, old, gnarled trees and warped glass in windows.
The slasher elements also work well, the deaths are graphic, tense and unexpected and whilst the origins of the horseman isn't quite explored as well as you'd hope, watching the horseman ride about the place is terrifying. Indeed the plot isn't the film's strong point, it is much more a film for the senses than the mind.
All in all though, the film is great (and sometimes gory) fun and well worth a watch.
Trailer:
And the reason for the short-ish entry?
Superbowl motherfuckers!!!! Apart from congratulations to the Baltimore Ravens, there are trailers.
Quentin Tarantino's last few films have paid homage to several genres, martial arts films in Kill Bill Vol.1 for instance but the conventions of the western were only touched upon in Kill Bill Vol. 2. Django Unchained is a proper, full on western. Large expanses of inhospitable land, stock bounty hunters with their trusty horses, gangs of bandits and lawlessness. However, as with any Tarantino film, there is more than that.
Set deep against the back drop of slavery, the title character is Django, no doubt named after similar genre film Django (1966). Anyway, Django is played by Jamie Foxx who is really good, he is cool and emotive when necessary and gets to say/do some awesome things. The man who finds him is German dentist King Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz. Now, I was a huge fan of Waltz as Hans Landa in Tarantino's previous Inglorious Basterds but he is better in this film. He is funny, witty, articulate and the character is a really nice one, one of Tarantino's best.
Now we move onto Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie, I just wonder why DiCaprio doesn't take more villainous roles because he is really, really good in this. A true southern gentleman who just happens to be a horrible racist and a sadist. A great villainous character at his best when trading words with King Schultz in several tense and extended conversations. Samuel L. Jackson is also chilling as Steven, Jackson being at his best for years and years and years. His character is part uncomfortably exaggerated stereotype but his quick eyes and slight tremor give him a true intelligence and an edge you wouldn't expect from his first scene.
And, perhaps like many of the most famous western films, there are little or no strong female characters in the film, Kerry Washington is well spoken and intelligent but she is mostly the drive for Django and not much more. It is a very male dominated world and she (and other females) certainly aren't center stage much at all.
Indeed, good dialogue is something you expect from a Tarantino film and whilst no individual scene has the sheer power of the opening scene from Inglorious Basterds, the overall quality of the film is fantastic. There are a few scenes with are straight from Blazing Saddles with their absurdist humour and they are very funny. The film feels like two films in tone, but not too dramatically. The second part is much more out and out revenge film than the first part.
The film is a long one, several scenes perhaps go on for longer than needed but the film doesn't drag at all. The film looks gorgeous, incredible. The palette of colours is much more vivid than you'd expect and many of the shots are simply stunning to view. Again, the soundtrack is impressive as you'd come to expect.
So really, it's a really good Tarantino film. There are several things you'd expect from a film from the director and to be honest, Tarantino's cameo role shows that he's not a good actor. The nature of a film set in this period also creates some very uncomfortable scenes, the visuals of which will shock you but you end up desensitised to the language used.
But for all the violence and language, you end up with a compelling, cool and funny revenge flick which surpasses Inglorious Basterds and maybe even Kill Bill. Well worth a watch.
Good day ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the first Film Flare's Film Diary of 2013 (not counting my delayed last 2012 entry).
This week, I will also be starting my countdown of the 5 best films that I saw last year. Starting, rather sensibly, with number 5. Keep your peepers peeled for that in the coming days.
But for now, on with the show/diary/blog/thing.
Chernobyl Diaries (released 2012)
Some late night Wednesday viewing here.
In all fairness, this is a tense, atmospheric film with TONS of potential that the unique setting and ideas infuse the film with but in the end it ends up being a little disappointing.
The cast starts out pretty standard, the pretty girls and boys who almost always end up being nothing more than practise for the horrors of the villain. But after twenty or thirty minutes, despite the acting, you end up caring about them. This is a positive, it infuses the characters with emotion and makes you care about them. There are cliches abound with the characters, the one who is looking to marry his girlfriend when (if) they get to Moscow, the fiesty female survivor and the dodgy ex-army Russian guide. So far, so standard. But, the characters are good enough to make the film watchable and certainly what happens to them is....unpleasant enough that you end up caring about them.
The film uses it's unique setting to strong effect and the first hour or so of the film ends up being honestly tense and atmospheric. The film loses steam however, as so often happens in horror films, when the villains appear. They are not as scary on screen as their implication is and yet they can't help but show them more and more as the film goes on. Even with quick editing and dark lighting, they remove a large amount of the scares from the strong first two thirds of the film. The overall back story for the monsters is pretty weak too and it is just a shame that the film ends with a whimper.
However, the film starts strongly and it isn't a bad film, by any stretch, it's just that the large amount of promise at the start whittles away towards the end and it's not as satisfying as you'd hope.
Trailer:
Oh, speaking of horror, here is a very, VERY red band trailer for the promising remake of The Evil Dead.
There were many things that made me dubious about this film. Firstly, the decision to split a modest novel over three films seemed silly. There was also a lot of focus on the 48 frames per second filming speed instead of the usual 24 fps which was supposed to give the film a 'cheap' appearance. The running time and the side by side comparison with the excellent Lord of the Rings films also meant that the reviews in general were mixed, not as impressive as people had hoped.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a great film which provided a lot of entertainment. I must admit to watching the film in 2D and the increased frame rate had no obvious impact on the film's look or feel. Certainly the sets, props and effects looked fantastic. Similar in tone and scope to The Fellowship of the Ring, the film certainly seems smaller than the epic scale battles of the last two LoTR films but everything looked fantastic.
The tone of the film is lighter than the LoTR films (because the stories had different tones too) so this is a much more light hearted film with the occasional song (not too many thankfully) and silly scene but overall there is still the hearty combat and fantasy violence you would expect from Middle Earth. Despite the difference in tone, the film remains emotionally powerful and filled with well drawn characters but lacks the immediate scenes of pure emotion such as the death of Boromir on LoTR: Fellowship.
Certainly it is a joy seeing all the returning actors in their various roles, Sir Ian McKellen as Gandalf always being watchable and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White is fantastic, as his character differs greatly from the LoTR films. Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett are always entertaining as elves and Andy Serkis remains as mesmerising as ever as Gollum. The new characters are equally as well cast: Martin Freeman has a helplessly endearing quality which really suits young Bilbo Baggins and the dwarves tend to blend into each other but certainly their leader, played by Richard Armitage, gives a performance which makes you believe in their plight.
Now, the film is certainly long, there is no doubt about that. However, the film never felt like it was dragging, even with the extensive opening in the Shire before the party sets off on their quest. Well fleshed out backstories betray the film's desire to stretch the material as far as possible but at no point during watching the film was I bored. In fact, the scenes in the Shire are the charming and the adventure is gripping, all the various characters which have been fleshed out via back story have important and well placed roles in the film.
All in all, the initial fears I had about the film were inflated by the mixed variety of the reviews but I am pleased to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the film and look forward to the next instalment.
Martin McDonagh's first feature length film In Bruges is a cult classic which mixes genuine emotion with great characters and pitch black humour. Seven Pyschopaths, McDonagh's second feature length film has many similarities to this and is as good as In Bruges.
First of all, whilst the film is called Seven Psychopaths, the main three the film focuses on are played by Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken. I'm going to mention each one individually in more detail as all three are fantastic.
Colin Farrell. I've only really been impressed with his acting in Phone Booth and In Bruges and I can only assume that McDonagh is able to bring out of the best of Farrell's talent because he's really, really good. He is the least crazy of the characters and is the 'normal' man looking at the mad situations and as such, he is the entry point for the audience. However, his growing attachments to the characters around him is fantastic to watch and as the film moves on, his screenwriting character has some of the best moments of the film.
Sam Rockwell. Big fan of Sam's and have been for a while (even though I've not yet seen Moon). Rockwell's performance here is brilliant. As the best friend, Billy, the character is the most surprising and odd but he really drives the narrative forward. The performance is almost over the top but within the confines of the film, it makes perfect sense and is just restained enough.
Christopher Walken. Love. Love. LOVE THIS GUY. Always remembered best for his peripheral roles in films like Pulp Fiction and True Romance, Walken here is at his very best. Deadpan, perfectly times utterances means that he is the funniest person on the screen almost all of the time and most of the film's best moments involve Walken. He is also the emotional heart of the film, a treat to watch.
Woody Harrelson. Decided to mention Harrelson because he is perfect. Per-fect as the dangerous and slightly unhinged gangster, Charlie Costello. He is able to switch from 'too-far parody' to 'unhinged but genuinly dangerous' in a heartbeat.
The script crackles along at a fair old pace and even when the plotting slows briefly as it sets up the final act, the characters and script are top notch. The film is pretty violent in places but the overall tone is similar to the self-aware Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and whilst that film is steeped in noir, Seven Psychopaths is far more clever in its portrayal and undermining of tropes and cliches of film in general.