• The anthropomorphisation of wild animals to a level which almost completely disassembles any educational value the film is supposed to have.
• A mortifyingly clunkly present-day framing device, which I'm guessing is the easiest £25 Karl Urban has ever earned, although still probably not the most embarrassing.
• One of the worst film titles in cinematic history, irrespective of the producers' wish to tie it in with the existing TV series, presumably decided upon by a range of names being attached to a dartboard and 'chosen' after an afternoon in the pub whereby the dart landed on an option which wasn't good enough to be pinned to the board and was in fact just a memo lying on someone's desk from a studio exec who had little to no interest in the project.
…then you'll probably enjoy WWD:T3DM*1 on some level. The animation is, for the very most part*2, outstanding, the 3D adds a nice depth, and the pop songs inserted into the orchestral score aren't too jarring. However, the film does seem torn between wanting to be a factually accurate introduction to basic palaeontology, and a family-friendly adventure flick. And let's be honest here: you can't do both (this is a very, very blood-free Cretaceous period*3).
The thing is, the film does have a decent stab at covering all the bases. In isolation the story about Patchi growing from the runt of the litter into the leader of the herd is well told, and the chain of events is more believable in itself than the voiceover and narration work would suggest. But, the continued breaking of the fourth wall will prevent all but the youngest of viewers from becoming emotionally involved. Because the four speaking characters have their dialogue overlaid and aren't lipsynched*4, there's a feeling that the film could work without the voiceovers and a sporadic third-person narration, but even then the narrative would seem dumbed-down, and you'd be wondering why the dinosaurs, or the Pachyrhinosaurs at least, are exhibiting very human behaviour. The voicework, in and of itself, is well performed, but seems more suited to a more cartoon-based format, than photorealistic CGI. I guess, in all honesty, I expected a trailer like the one above to translate into a real emotional-button-pushing tear-jerker, and it isn't really. The BBFC card's "Contains mild threat" tells you all you need to know.
Of course, I say all this as if an animated, U-rated, dinosaur film wasn't aimed at young children, but the points still stand. Fantastic for what it is, Walking With Dinosaurs: The 3D Movie is a great achievement, but it could have been an amazing film. I should have loved it because I think that trailer looks fantastic, but only ended up quite liking it. I mean this in no way as an insult, but WWD:T3DM is really aimed at a young, undemanding audience.
Come for the dinosaurs; stay for the animation.
Pretty much.
Sometimes, when the film wasn't trying to outsmart itself.
If you're under eight years old, yes. And no, that's not meant disparagingly.
Animation geeks will want to check it out at the cinema, everyone else can get away with the BluRay, I reckon.
Nah.
With the best will in the world, I shouldn't imagine so.
There isn't.
Did anyone else think that the film's final shot of hundreds of terrified dinosaurs gawping at the sky as an asteroid burned through the Earth's atmosphere towards them was a little too much for a young audience?
*1 Yes, WWD:T3DMis what all the cool kids are calling it. I've checked.
*2 I don't want to piss on anyone's cornflakes, especially after my gripe-list at the start, but I noticed that (occasionally) not all of the dinosaurs were leaving footprints in the loose ground they were on. I know, 'what the hell do I know about CGI', you're right, but it does help in 'weighting' the animals unless we're meant to believe that they were huge because of their gas-bladders. Look, it's just a small thing. Forget I said anything. Seriously.
*3 And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the blog's first ever menstruation joke! (albeit unintentional and only noticed just before publishing). Well okay, it'd work better if it a) didn't include the word Cretacious, and b) was actually a joke, but since that'd make no sense, you're stuck with it. Be sure to tip your waitress, I'll be here all week.
*4Yeah, I'm talking about Karl Urban... BOOM!
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (3D)
Cert: 12A / 161 mins / Dir. Peter Jackson
Despite what I'm about to say, I did enjoy the second installment of The Hobbit. I just wish I'd really enjoyed it. The film (indeed, series) has all the makings of an intense, sprawling epic, and all the mannerisms too, but I can't seem to invest on an emotional level. No matter how earnestly the characters frown, scold and rage, I'm just not buying it. The chase-scenes are dramatic and fraught, but since there's no question of Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage or Aidan Turner dying in the second film*1, I just don't feel the danger. I know this is an issue with most multi-film storytelling, but you've got to sell me the jeopardy (There's also the fact that I don't really care of one of fourteen protagonists carks it, but that more or less goes back to the first movie, to be fair).
Poor old Ian McKellen gets rather shortchanged this time around, too. At an early stage he's Sent Off To Be In The B-Plot, and spends the rest of his scenes booming out the most mundane dialogue as if it contains the meaning of life (in scenes which I've been informed have remarkably little to do with the source-text anyway). That said, he gets his own slice of the action in the third act, but it's not that entertaining to watch an army of orcs beating up an old man. Considering how the last movie shoehorned in Blanchett*2, Weaving and Lee*3 to accompany him, they're conspicuous by their absence in TH:TDOS*4
And my final gripe would be Laketown. Just when the pace has picked up and we've got elves, dwarves and orcs all slugging it out, the action switches to a set which looks like a thawed out Muppets Christmas Carol, ruled over by Stephen Fry playing Stephen Fry™. In all honesty, Peter Jackson may as well have just called him General Melchett and been done with it. Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen Fry, but his appearances completely pulled me out of Middle Earth and invoked a sort of Potter-esque star-spotting.
But… it's great to see the elves in action once more*5, and Evangeline Lilly and Orlando Bloom bring an interesting dynamic to the mix (in that they have conflicted feelings about what they want, rather than being told what they want by a manipulative old man). The waterfall/river chase was the highlight of the action for me, even though the lion's share of the effects work clearly went on the film's climactic scenes with Smaug*6. The titular dragon, incidentally, looks every bit as fantastic as you'd hope, although he was perhaps a little too… conversational for my tastes. Although I did enjoy Thorin's victorious flourish of "And I have you now, right when I pull… this… LEVER! …if you wouldn't mind just waiting there for 45 seconds or so, that'd be great, thanks. Any second now. Any second. Oh, HERE we go! YEAH!"
As much as I piss and moan, at least we don't spend ten minutes watching someone do the washing up. The Desolation Of Smaug is an entertaining if overly-long film, and a move in the right direction. I'm really looking forward to see what, and who, Jackson pulls out of the bag for next year's conclusion. If you're going to see this, see it on the big screen, although the 3D's not a deal-breaker.
Oh, and if you've got a thing about spiders, That Part Of The Film is going to feel like it's going on forever. fyi*7.
Well, the trailer's a lot… snappier?
Mostly.
…Mostly.
It looks nice on a big screen.
No.
At some point, but I doubt it'll be at the cinema.
I didn't hear one this time around.
In the bit in the river: how do those barrels stay upright for the duration? That wouldn't happen, would it?
*1 A sort of reverse-spoiler, there. For those of you who think there's actually a chance that the principle characters could be killed off so early.
*2 That shot of Blanchett which has clearly been lifted from the Lord Of The Rings era doesn't count.
*3Blanchett, Weaving & Lee would be a good name for a Middle-Earth themed solicitors or architects firm. You can have that one.
*4 That's what all the cool kids are calling it, right? TH:TDOS?
*5 I know Legolas isn't supposed to be in the Hobbit. I don't care about that, I just want an engaging movie.
*6 How do you pronounce his name, Smaug or Smaug? I always pronounced it Smaug.
*7 Thanks for reading all of these footnotes, I appreciate it. This actually is how my mind works.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, it took its time, but it's finally happened. This week's 'take two' screening at my local was a one that they didn't show when it was first released. Ah well, better late than never, right?
Er, right. So the Jackass team have given us what is essentially a hidden-camera show with a plot. And if that sounds like it shouldn't quite work, you'll be relieved to hear that it doesn't; certainly not for an hour and a half, at any rate. The story follows Irving Zisman (Johnny Knoxville) as he drives his 8yr old grandson Billy (Jackson Nicoll) across the US to meet with the boy's estranged father. Meticulously staged pranks are fired out in rapid succession, and linked by in-character banter between the two leads. Jaws drop, as do trousers, and hilarity ensues.
Now… some of the pranks are very funny, whereas the gradual majority of them are merely 'okay'. They have their moment, but seem to be played out for slightly too long, and the sketch ends shortly after you stop laughing/chuckling/smirking. The worst-case example of this is the Cherry Pie stunt from the trailer. In the context of the promo it's a lot snappier, but the build-up of the movie-version's drawn out to the point where you're willing it to crack the joke and move on. It's also the one piece of the film which feels like genuine satire, and while this would normally be a good thing, the thought-provoking humour seems at odds with the scene where an 86yr old man sprays his own excrement across the wall of a busy restaurant*1. In addition to this, the vast majority of the skits don't really have an end, because at some point the director has to come in and tell everyone they've been set up for a movie before waving release forms around (we see some of this behind the end credits). So before this happens, the camera lingers for slightly too long on no-one saying anything, and then cuts to a dialogue scene in the car between Irving and Billy…
…which is my other bugbear. No-one in the audience actually believes the narrative that's playing out on any level, so the conversations between the boy and his grandfather are largely pointless, especially as they're mostly alone for these and performing only to each other and the camera. The thing that really sells the film is the reactions of people who aren't acting, so when you remove them from the equation, you're left with two poker-faced actors and an age-gap that makes most of their dialogue creepily inappropriate. The final scene is also redundant, as there are seemingly no members of the public around to witness the audacious stunt/calback, and the dialogue rounds off a story which you weren't following anyway.
But, Bad Grandpa does have some incredibly amusing gags (and in the bar-scene, an incredibly brave cast). It's worth watching, but when it's on the TV, and with a few beers on the go.
The bottom line is, "it's not a film". But maybe I'm just examining it too closely?
I suppose it is, yes.
Sometimes yes, often no.
Probably. That's the worst part.
Telly.
No.
Doubtful.
No, but there is a boot-shot.
Did Catherine Keener still get paid in full, considering all of her speaking-scenes (which we see in out-takes behind the credits) were cut? That looks like a lot of footage to lose.
*1 I've got to be honest with you, that one did make me guffaw.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
It's always nice when I can get three cinematic reviews of the same movie spread over three calendar months; if only because it shows that it's enjoying a good run*1. So tonight was the last showing of the The Dark World at my local, and as I was there for the first, I figured I'd see it off in brighter-than-I'm-used-to 2D, to shorten the gap until I can start devouring the extras on the BluRay. I also managed to drag along my brother-in-law tonight, who hadn't gotten round to watching it, so that I can compare his first reactions with my seasoned ones. This is why I'm a geek.
Watching the movie now, it actually holds up slightly better than it did when it had my fresh expectations burdening its shoulders. My gripes about the chief-villain aside, it's a very entertaining offshoot movie, showing us 'the stuff which happens between Avengers films'. I'm still of the feeling that the story itself lends itself more to a comic arc or novel, but there's no doubt that I'm getting more out of it on repeat viewings than I did for its predecessor. Maybe its because Thor spent most of its time introducing characters, whereas with TDW its welcome-reel is inserted (okay, clumsily) into the first twenty minutes. I don't think it's a better film, but in many ways it is more watchable; although I'm still hoping Kenneth Brannagh will return for a future Marvelverse installment.
Considering how outside-the-box The Dark World is compared to the rest of the Avengers canon, I can't wait to see audience reaction to Guardians of the Galaxy, next August…
For the record, bro-in-law thoroughly enjoyed it. More than I thought he would, actually. Although he was a bit put off by Greenwich being turned into a smoking pile of rubble. Which is fair enough.
I'd say so.
Mostly.
Not as much as I'd have liked..?
You're pretty much stuck with DVD/BRD now, which isn't the worst thing in the world.
No.
Yes.
Three times now, and I have to concede that I can't hear one. Bugger..
*1 Or just that it was released strategically towards the end of a month. Well okay, that.
Oh, and apparently I can (one for the people who saw the 'search description' field under the link on the way in).
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
