What I Watched Last Month…

What I watched last… 
September 2012

The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy (On DVD)
I thought these were enjoyable to some extent, but I wasn't as blown away by them as I thought I'd be from all I'd heard about them. 
By the time I was watching Bourne 2 the handheld camera was getting to be too much. Much too much. That and all the fidgety little zooms. Why do I need to feel like I'm watching a documentary? Why draw attention to the fact this is captured n film? It's definitely not like there actually is somebody surreptitiously capturing all this action to deliver as documentary footage, and yet that's how the entire story is presented to me. I don't get it. 

And by Bourne 2 the whole cut cut cut style of editing was too much too. 
There's a parallel to this visual style in the dialogue of some scenes as well. It's full of what I call fluffy, hyper-frantic panicky jibba-jibba-jabba-jabba. 
All that being said, the strength of these two movies is obviously the character of Jason Bourne himself, and his unstoppable nature. Watching his indefatigable journey through these movies is half the thrill at least. 
In the end though, the bottom line is I don't think I'll be watching these movies again. 

Taken (On DVD)
Having a break from the Bourne films I snuck this one in and enjoyed it so much more. 
I like the solitary nature of Liam's journey through the movie with the singular purpose of his mission. I like his minimum reliance on high-tech gimmickry, instead using detective and physical skills, wits and total disregard for everything and everybody around him. Sure, a lot of Liam's breakthroughs and progression during his search were pretty convenient, but I was able to dismiss most of that as shorthand to be efficient in getting through lots of plot quickly. 
Taken's not a masterpiece or a stroke of genius, but it knew what it was and did its job very well. It was a good, tense, no-nonsense thriller, and I really enjoyed it. 

The Bourne Ultimatum (On DVD)
At best I was non-plussed by this conclusion to the trilogy. At worst I was again annoyed by all the things that annoyed me in the first two. 
Is this 'naturalistic' camera style supposed to counteract the 'on the nose', affected, over the top acting and frenetic cutting. It doesn't feel like I'm watching a movie but a news report documentary reenactment instead.  
Unfortunately the actual character of Jason Bourne becomes less and less likeable throughout the three films, as well as less compelling as he finds out most of what his back story is. The mystery of his past was his most interesting aspect, now mostly gone. As such I cared less and less to keep following him and his story. The plot this time was not terribly complex or hard to see through either. 
So what do we have left? We have the action and spectacle to keep us watching. With the hyper frenetic cutting, pseudo doco handheld camera, amateur looking mini punch zooms, it became an unwelcome chore to have to struggle through watching the action and spectacle. That doesn't leave much reason to watch. At this point this movie runs mostly runs on "Oooh, he's so amazing!" and that's not enough for me. 
Finally, it stupidly left a number of plot threads open. Why'd he join up in the first place? What didn't he actually remember about the girl? That first question is probably the most needing of an answer. Yet nothing. 

What I Watched Last Month…

What I watched in… 
August 2012

Paul (on DVD) 
I have a feeling this is not really my kind of humour. I found it disappointing really. It had some elements The Big Bang Theory, but on steroids, and while I don't mind that TV show, a film needs to do something more than what we see on TBBT. All in all there wasn't anything innovative in this. A little too predictable and silly for me too. A comedy has to really work harder to keep me enjoying it. 

The Descendants (on DVD) 
This was nice and reasonably enjoyable with good performances all around but I didn't find the story interesting enough, or compellingly enough told. 

The Amazing Spider-Man (at the movies) 
Because I had free tickets that I didn't want to see go to waste (and because my initial viewing was interrupted) I watched this a second time and I found it very hard going, only being saved by the performances of Garfield and Stone (as Parker and Stacey) and the action sequences. I certainly wasn't blown away the first time I watched it, but with this viewing the first half was really boring and tedious. I was also less impressed with the computer animation and effects seeing their failings a lot more clearly. My only hope is that now that they've got the obligatory origin story out of the way they might actually make an interesting and exciting movie for the inevitable sequel. 

What I Watched Last Month…

What I watched in… 
July 2012

Men in Black 3 (at the movies)
I quite liked MiB3, which is nice because I was afraid of being really disappointed like I was with MiB2. 
I thought a few things were a little undercooked, and the editing was embarrassingly shoddy in a few places, and with its time travel story there were a few too many coincidences for me. They did manage to side step the problem of an overly confusing plot which usually happens with time travel movies though, keeping it nice and simple for the most part. The story was nicely anchored in both J's and K's personal lives without leaning on that old crutch where it's a romance for one of the principals. 
I'd like to see an MiB4 — I think there's still a huge amount of scope in the concept and, to be honest, it's probably only being held back by the continuing use of the original stars Smith and Jones. 

The Amazing Spider-Man (in 3D at the movies)

I am really comfortable with this film's incarnation of Spider-Man in the form of Andrew Garfield. He looks and acts the part so well for me. I love the wise-cracking and the physique. His Peter Parker may be a little too cool for my liking though — not quite nerdy enough. The acting was really good from him and Emma Stone as well, with Martin Sheen and Sally Fields unfortunately not having enough to chew on to really make a great impact. 

The action and fighting style was also really great and felt very much like the way Spider-Man would actually fight. 
The script took a few too many story shortcuts for my liking, simply relying on the audience to know and/or accept advancements in plot without actually presenting them. 
The plot with The Lizard really felt secondary and possibly unnecessary. Unfortunately there needs for be a mandatory bad guy, but this felt mostly tacked on and obligatory, instead of being central to the overall story. Then again, the crux of the origin — Uncle Ben's murder — carried little emotional weight either. The focus didn't seem to be sharply trained on either aspect of the story, perhaps due to the inclusion of the mystery around Peter's parents' disappearance. 
The 3D added nothing to the experience. It wasn't distracting, but neither did it do much for thrills or storytelling, and so why even bother? 
All in all this was an entertaining film, with enough good work to want me to see the (obviously coming) sequel, hoping they will have a story with some bite the second time around. This first outing was pretty forgettable though and didn't hold much weight emotionally. 

Hugo (on DVD)
After watching this I wondered what all the fuss had been about while this was still in cinemas. It certainly looked beautiful, and the colour palette used was really arresting and pretty, but it felt like the story was missing a solid backbone and focus, especially emotionally. 
Maybe it requires a certain frame of mind to be in which I couldn't get into because I wasn't watching it in a cinema. 

Batman Begins (on DVD)
I watched the earlier two Nolan Batmans as a lead up to the third in the trilogy, as any self-respecting comic book nerd would, beginning of course with Batman Begins. 
This still stands as an interesting, logical and cold dissection of how a man could actually arrive at being The Batman. There's emotion there, in Bruce, Alfred and others, but it still has a mostly cold centre. 

I've always liked the contrast of this with Tim Burton's Batman — Nolan's version strains so hard to root itself in reality, even if it's an exaggerated one, while Burton happily twisted reality into a form that made Batman's existence acceptable. 

The Dark Knight (on DVD)
With a lot of comic book movies, once the origin's been told, it's very hard to make the hero still interesting and engaging in subsequent outings. Nolan avoids this here not only by having a very compelling foe but also by firmly laying out in the plot that this is not so much an eternal battle for Batman, but a planned obsolescence by Bruce — a route to retirement. 
Unfortunately there's two movie's worth of content here (both story and information), but I tell you what, it does make the whole thing all the more engaging and challenging. If it wasn't for the plot threads of Harvey Dent transforming into such a monster, perhaps this would have been too trivial and shallow to be so good a film. 

I think this, probably the third viewing of TDK for me, finally had me appreciating the things in this film I'd always complained about: namely the introduction of Two-Face so late in the film, which lengthens the running time so much, making it feel like it should have been in denouement when it wasn't, as well as the whole mobile phone sonar schtick, which never felt like it had earned its place before. 
Watching this certainly got me hot for the third Nolan Batman. 

Brave (at the movies)
I was disappointed with Brave, mostly because I came out feeling quite ambivalent. The production values were as high as ever for Pixar, but these films begin to feel less and less like animated movies and more like live action films. Sometimes I wonder if the constraints that were imposed on animated films due to their being hand drawn were part of what made them separate, unique and special. Certainly, beautiful as it is, Brave is another example of the super-photo-realism of backgrounds and environments that make me lament for some more stylised and artistic treatments of same. 
My biggest problem though was that I thought the story was thematically weak, all the way from the title onwards. I found the character arcs for the two main principals very unrewarding. It seems to me that it was the mother that did all the learning and changing while the daughter, who the film is really supposed to be about, very much got her way in the end (for right or wrong) with her only real growth being that she learned how to maturely present herself while doing so. 
It was structurally haphazard, with awkwardly introduced elements and plot points left hanging. To be honest, any movie that opens with a voice over immediately earns my suspicion for lack of confidence and conviction in its own storytelling. It just wasn't as seamless and magical in its story telling as most Pixar films are. 
In subsequent reading about the themes and story, especially in relation to the whole Disney princess thing, there's a lot of discussion trying to convince me that it was all a very subversive method of twisting that (Disney princess) trope on its head. If that's the case (and I'm not convinced) then it was so subversive so as to be practically totally obfuscated. In the end that was the most disappointing aspect of Brave: Pixar's finally falling to the conventions of Disney's formulas. 

The Dark Knight Rises (at the movies) 
This was a worthy finale to Nolan's Battrilogy, but I don't think it pays to think too hard about the intricacies of the plot. 
To me it had a real feel more like a James Bond film for most of it. That may be due to Nolan's eschewing the more gaudy aspects of a super-hero adaption, though I was really surprised by how much Nolan had decided to up the ante in the move away from reality towards his exaggerated version of it. 
I felt a little cross that DKR seemed more like a direct sequel to BB rather than the end of a trilogy. I know there were very important story elements of TDK played out here, but there was so much more of a connection to BB than TDK. 
The supporting characters were all tops: Catwoman, Blake, Gordon, Alfred, the villains, all. Again, it may be interesting to have such numerous characters, but it really did pull the focus so much away from Batman and made him seem more like a co-star in his own story. Batman/Bruce Wayne felt like he was hardly in it! Batman especially! 
There's some real tension in a lot of this, some 'ticking time bomb' suspense that may have been spun out too long, and it's really quite relentlessly grim and trying, but that is the universe that has been set up for this Batman, and the telling of that universe, wrapping up here, is done very well. 

What I Watched Last Month…

This is what I watched in Avengers month this year…
April 2012

As the lead up to The Avengers movie I made it a mission to re-view all the modern Marvel Studios movies featuring the Avengers characters. What a ball! What a great time to be a superhero comic fan. Especially one like me that doesn't have the time to read many superhero comics any more.  

Iron Man. (on DVD)
I think Iron Man is a great example of the quintessential superhero origin film. This, as an updating of the forty or fifty year old origin story, is quite convincing. Stark as the weaponeer seems as comfortably believable now as he was way back then. 
The movie looks amazing, with great production design, a believable Iron Man suit, great special effects, and exciting action sequences. 
More over, the characters are brilliantly, fabulously realised by the main three actors in Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeff Bridges. 
There's a couple of flaws of course. The first being the villain as the trusted family friend/surrogate father is a little too cliché, but probably necessary to keep the plot compact. The second being the terrible climatic fight scene. Superhero movies can often struggle to give the audience a payoff in the final battle, and IM did here. The metamorphosis of Obadiah Stane into an insane monster, when everything he had done up till that point had been underhanded and stealthy subterfuge, really grated. But, post battle, RDJr gives us a really killer post script. 
To be honest, this movie has only gotten better with this, my third viewing. 
I can't believe that in four short years we've come from this, Iron Man 1, had four other Avengers 'prequels' and that this year, 2012, it will culminate in an actual Avengers feature film! It's an astounding rise in popularity similar to what happened 40 odd years ago with the original comics from Marvel. 

Iron Man 2. (on DVD)
I really really like this as a continuation of Marvel Studio's Iron Man franchise. There's a suitably generous escalation in the deadliness of the fight scenes and protagonists, while still really continuing to keep it all close to Tony's heart, home and business, all of which are as integral to make up the character as the suit is. 
That being said, we now have two movies where the super-powered threat/s are basically warped versions of the Iron Man suit. In IM2 it made for some really great chase and fight scenes, which were quite weak in the climax of IM1, but I really don't want to see an IM3 where I'm watching Tony go up against more arc-reactor powered stolen/copied Stark technology. It was great to see some honest to goodness Iron Man action and fighting though, which in retrospect IM1 seemed kind of lacking, especially in light of IM2's huge finale fight sequences. 
There's no doubt the best part of this is still Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of the titular hero. This is best evidenced in the fact that the movie goes for a whopping 30 minutes before we finally get to a proper action/fight scene. He's getting this modern updated version of Tony Stark very right — keeping his playboy personality intact but still making him selfless and heroic. 
All the leading players are very good in fact; Paltrow and Cheadle both very good, as are Rourke and Rockwell. Rockwell seems to be channelling a little Rick Moranis for most of his time, until the very end where there's a glare he shoots at Paltrow's Potts that, in an instant, totally changes his character to something very sinister indeed. 
I do have some gripes though. 
I wish they hadn't made the suit's updated chest light a triangular/diamond shape. In comics iconographic shorthand, diamond = Superman — circular = Iron Man. Regardless of whether or not the comics did this first or not, it's a poor idea. 
I'm only two movies into this franchise and I'm already sick of seeing Iron Man versus a twisted or altered version of himself. I hope IM3 has an antagonist that gets his strength from something other than Stark himself. 
And yes, the inclusions of SHIELD and Natasha Romanoff were completely superfluous – only there for the set-up of the Marvel Movie Universe continuity. But you know what? For me, that makes them very worthy inclusions after all because, as this nearly 10 hour re-watch so ably demonstrates to me, it's not a series of movies we're now experiencing, but an expanding universe and continuity. Let's make sure we make it work. 

The Pirates! Band of Misfits. (at the movies, in beanbags)
This was a fun bit of fluffy adventure. I was in a bit of a tired and goofy mood when I settled into the beanbag for this (yes, the cinema was decked out with beanbags!) and I think that's pretty much the right mood for it. 
The one-liners are good and funny, the story's pretty obvious but with some funny twists, the character designs are nice and jolly, the animation's spot-on, and I laughed out loud on several occasions. 
Unfortunately there are several slow bits in the meat of the story, which only feel all the slower because of the goofy over-the-top-ness of other parts. It's understated in a lot of it, which may have worked against it from time to time, but overall, a good fun romp. 

The Incredible Hulk. (on DVD)
There's a lot to like in this, but ultimately not enough to get it to the same level as the other four Avengers prequels. 
I really like Bruce as a character in this new interpretation. I like how he's handling his plight (that is; being burdened with his alter ego) and trying to rectify that problem. His romance with Betty is really sweet and nicely handled too. I do think the hardest thing to get right with a screen adaption of The Hulk's whole mythology is the anger factor, and I don't think they quite got it right here either, in neither the anger's repressed state (Banner) or expressed state (Hulk). There just doesn't seem to be enough raw rage at the centre of The Incredible Hulk to ring true to the character/s. It shouldn't just be about heart rate, it's also about adrenalin brought on by emotion, most notably anger. It was an interesting twist they employed, but not quite right. Also, the Hulk persona was too clever and measured for my liking.
It seemed to me, as someone who watched The Incredible Hulk TV show, that this movie version, as well as looking to the comics for inspiration, channeled a little of the TV show's vibe, though there may have been a few too many in-jokes. 
I really loved the motivation of the antagonist Blonsky which eventually drives him to be The Abomination. Very well portrayed by Tim Roth. Although, as I said before, I do get annoyed that the super villains powers are again related directly to, bastardised from, misuse of, the hero's powers/origins. It's OK to go outside this! Similarly, I wish they hadn't included the references and ties to the super soldier serum/program. I do understand why it was done, as it harkens back to the whole building of a Marvel continuity, but this is not the best way to do so.
This movie was pretty good. As always it's really the alter ego and his dilemma that's ultimately the more interesting story. The punctuations of violence throughout the story are good and well done, though in themselves not all that interesting. 

Thor. (on DVD) 
Thor's a very likeable movie, with a likeable, easy humour, and likeable, amiable characters, but it's not without some flaws that still really irk me. 
I still find the romance between Thor and Jane totally unbelievable. 
I still find Loki's motivations muddled and unclear. 
I'm still disappointed with the final battle with The Destroyer. It feels so half-baked and underdone. I expected so much more from both with the warriors three and Thor himself. 
I still believe it was a horribly missed opportunity to not have Thor actually GO AND GET his hammer to prove himself. It's a very weak character turn around for Thor. I know he's willing to lay his life down for friends and strangers, but the lead up to that where he should be learning to be humble doesn't hold any weight whatsoever. Really, he's never been afraid to sacrifice his life for the greater good – that's been proven in Asgard many times — that's not a surprise. He's already brave, giving and loving, it's the fact that he's full off himself that needed to change, and I don't think it did. 
On this, my second viewing of Thor, one of the main positives that hit me was: geez it looks good! I love the design and look of it. It was nicely, slightly flamboyantly shot, although a lot the angled shots are a little annoying in their superfluousness. 
(My original review of Thor can be found here.)

Captain America: The First Avenger. (on DVD)
This was my third time watching CA:TFA and I still really enjoyed it. It really shows off the intrinsic strength of a lot of the Marvel heroes: Their humanity, even above their heroism.
(My original review of Captain America: The First Avenger can be found here.)

The Avengers. (at the movies) 
Wow. That was incredible. And overwhelming! So overwhelming in fact that I know I'm going to have to see it again very soon just to really get a grip on it. 
I've been pretty much waiting for this movie all my life. After a childhood and teenagehood of live action adaptions of comics that simply disappointed bitterly time and again, the existence of a movie like this, with basically eight super heroic or villainous characters (PLUS an invading alien armada) fully and expertly realised, just never seemed possible. In fact, I refused to believe it was actually genuine until the last frame of the credits rolled. And even then I thought that maybe it had all been a dream.  
This film really is built on the characters and their interplay. Well the non-action segments are at least. Then again, there's fabulous interplay between the characters during the action scenes too! It's a great ensemble piece with all of the mains getting a chance to shine, and most of the bit players too. The character scenes and interactions were spot on, revealing and enlightening. That being said, not everyone had an actual character arc. Really only Iron Man did, being the only one who seemed to have been set up with something to prove. Loki and Banner a little. Although I shouldn't mistake playing out one's motivation as a character arc in Loki's case, or the revelation of anger-management techniques in Banner's. 
As far as character surprises are concerned, I think Black Widow was the biggest. I don't know if it's Scarlett Johansson's acting ability, if she was directed by Whedon differently to the rest of the cast, or if it came from the script, but BW was the only character who looked like she was actually doing something truly heroic – pulling courage from inside her to do things she found physically draining and literally frightening. She was a great one to watch, humanising what may have otherwise been quite devoid of that fragility. 
The movie looked amazing. There was no pulling of any punches during fight scenes and action sequences, and there were plenty of them. Even with so many action and fight scenes each one was different and each one was bigger than the last. Finally! The technology and skill is really here, or just about here, to make a comicbook New York slugfest so close to believable. There was impact, speed, volume and scope. In my mind I'd have to go all the way back to 1980's Superman II to get the same feeling of a real fight happening in a real New York, or maybe 1984's Ghost Busters, and these didn't have the volume or quite the scope. 
I think one of the most important aspects of this movie, and one of the things that's helped it be so successful, is that it is so much in the style and personality of Marvel comics, and that it's not trying to be something else. That personality (mostly the characters and their relationships and interplay) is what made Marvel comics the hit they were in the 60s, and it's working a treat again here too. 
Are there flaws? Of course there are. The biggest one being Samuel L. Jackson's performance. He was lacklustre to the point of being embarrassing. Was he trying to be so cool and laid back that it came off as couldn't-be-bothered, or was it that he just couldn't be bothered?
Regardless, if you have any affection for superheroes you will love this movie, surely. The more I think about it the more I want to go and see it again really soon to relive the visceral experience of what amounts to a real live superhero battle, and more so, a world where superheroes actually exist. 
I said I'd been waiting to see this movie nearly all my life, and that I wouldn't believe it actually existed until I had seen the very last frame fade away. Well I saw it and it was so damn good I still don't believe it actually happened. 

The Avengers. (at the movies, again) 
Since writing the review above I've seen The Avengers for a second time. I know a lot of people are happily seeing it a third and even fourth, but I think I'm content now until I get to watch it again on DVD. To be honest I was slightly bored in the down time between action sequences. That's not to say that they're not as good as I first thought, but rather that they're oh-so-good the first time that they lose some of their impact and charm the second. 
I know I'm going to love watching this when it hits DVD, but until then, I'm happy. 

What I Watched Last Month…

What I watched last… 
March 2012

John Carter. (at the movies)
As I feared, this was disappointing.
Unsurprisingly, considering I've read the book, my biggest problem was the sweeping changes made to the story and characterisation, and the mind-boggling additional elements that in my opinion were not only unnecessary, but also contributed to complicating what is already quite a wide ranging story with a very large cast of characters.
There were some really great bits, but they were in low supply and quick to pass. It certainly looked good as far as production design goes and I honestly forgot for most of the time that the CG characters and other elements were in fact CG.
This should have been epic, raw, bold and savage, but we only got glimpses of that. The book was written by an untested amateur, while this movie was made by a seasoned professional, but I have to say the book was better.

What I Watched Last Month…

What I watched in… 
February 2012

Chronicle. (at the movies) 
I found this to be another really good crack at "what if some people really DID get super powers?" It was a little too slow and long in the take-off, but once it got going it was really engaging. A nice trio of main characters, an interesting and mostly believable exploration of the ramifications of what's happened to them, and a really exciting climax. 
I'm not entirely sold on having the entire movie 'chronicled' through various cameras. I don't know that we necessarily gain anything more from that than if we'd simply had it filmed in a traditional fashion. It's not really until the climax that it even becomes interesting, otherwise it's often just a strained gimmick. In direct comparison to Cloverfield (which Chronicle has a very similar vibe to, and not just because of the handheld camera style) Cloverfield at least had a definite reason for delivering the story to us the way it did, while Chronicle's reasoning is far more flimsy and hard to accept. 
I glibly described Chronicle as 'Cloverfield meets Heroes versus Kick-Ass' and I think that sums it up pretty well. I enjoyed Chronicle an awful lot, see it. 

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. (on DVD)
So I finally got around to the last movie in my Indiana Jones re-viewing. This is not so bad really. Not nearly as bad as I whinged and moaned and lamented upon seeing it in the cinema. Yes, there's some stupidity, and a lot more useless stuff than I'm used to in IJ movies, but for some reason I was able to forgive it more this time. 
The sci-fi angle (aliens, telepathy) was really grating on initial viewing, but it seems quite appropriate for the time period now, as does the swapping of Nazis for Reds as the cookie cutter bad guys with machine guns. 
Indy really seemed in character for most of his screen time, which was nice to see, like an old friend returning. I really liked his briefly outlined history since Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade – being a spy, helping the US government, etc. That, and his ability to really endure a lot of physical punishment, made him extremely reminiscent to me of Will Eisner's original comic book version of The Spirit, post World War II. 
LaBeouf had obviously been studying Ford's acting from the first three IJ movies and was aping that the best he could a lot of the time. He was a lot easier to ignore on this viewing too — he wasn't so annoying. Allen's acting was pretty woeful and vacuous though. The ongoing inclusion of the Mac character was completely perplexing once he had "admitted" to being a double agent — superfluous, confusing and should've been eaten by the ants. There were only a few times computer generated imagery was over used. To be honest, Lucas and Spielberg could be admired for their restraint there. 
Here's an observation apropos of nothing really… The opening scene with the kids in the hot rod near the nuclear bomb test site reminded me very much of the opening scene of The Hulk's origin story from the original comics. And then to see a general named General Ross turn up? Coincidence or homage? 
Lastly, I never had a problem with the fridge. Not originally, and not now. There, I said it. 

What I Watched Last Month…

Slowly catching up. Here is what I watched in…

November 2011

The Incredibles. (on DVD)

This is probably my favourite film ever. Why? Because it brings together all the stuff I love. Comics, animation, adventure, action, fun. It has a great look, design and style and it's wrapped in a story that really touches me: trying to be a good dad and husband while still being true to what has driven you since before those things came along and you fell in love with them.

One of the most impressive things about The Incredibles is how rich with amazing detail it is, lots of stuff that could easily have been cut for time and budgetary reasons but are there and enhance the experience and story so much. There's an amazing attention to detail for setting of scene, mood and place, an incredible sense of and importance placed on pacing and timing. A great and correct amount of time is taken to really convey what's going on, not only in the action, but emotionally as well. All this attention to detail is vitally important to audience's initial viewing but only becomes consciously apparent after watching numerous times.

I love this movie so much, and it's so close to perfect, that I'd kill for more, while at the same time desperately hoping they never make a sequel. I'm sure that it could never satisfy as well. You never know though, with Brad Bird at the helm again Pixar may be able to do what it did with Toy Story and make a superlative follow up.

The animation is amazing, the acting (both from the animators and the voice actors) is fabulous, full of subtlety when needed and great, clear, bold action when required.

I watch this about once a year, including a sit through of at least the Brad Bird commentary as well which is full of great insights into its making and storytelling.

I find it interesting that The Incredibles gets away with having two prologues, two climaxes, and one epilogue. That's pretty ballsie I think, showing a real confidence in the strength of the story and characters. Taking particular notice of these parts of the film this viewing, Bird certainly pulls it off without any question of how necessary these all are. Usually I scratch my head wondering at the need to have prologues particularly, or their clumsy employment for lazy exposition, but not here.

One gripe for The Incredibles? Well for sure it's not perfect, but in multiple viewings, this is the only thing that still really bugs me. The tale is beautifully heartwarming in the familial relationships and especially the marriage relationship, and in the main cast's personalities, but ironically very cold otherwise. There are very few "people" in the movie past the "golden years" prologue. Even in crowd scenes there's a sparsity of any other people. There's some, but not many or enough. To the point that it kind of sticks out as obvious when the man in the bleaches in the epilogue's scene with Dash competing at the track-meet. It seems almost weird that there's a bystander singled out for some acting.

Other than that it's hard to fault this movie.

The Iron Giant. (on DVD)

I certainly love great hand-drawn animation, and this is one of the greatest. This is probably the third time I've seen this and after having a steady diet of 3D animated movies lately it's so nice to see some old-fashioned painted backgrounds again, simplified but well-designed and constructed characters and sets, and excellent cartooned acting and action. (Yes, I know the giant himself is CG.) I very much enjoyed looking at the superb line drawings rather than realistically lit CG puppets, with rubbery, wet, finely textured lips and subsurface-scattered skin. This is a fine example of all the things that make a great hand-crafted animated motion picture.

The Iron Giant has fantastic acting, both from the animators as well as the voices. It was a huge surprise for me the first time I saw this that Jennifer Aniston plays the mom. She's so great here that I didn't even realise it was her! Her best role ever? The character played by Harry Connick Jnr. is superbly realised through the animation and voice also. Too cool!

Despite all the sci-fi trappings and action, this is a really nicely paced exploration for a number of the characters finding/deciding for themselves who they are, not who others want them to be or think they are. It's one of the few problems that I have with this film that the theme as described above is really quite obvious enough through the natural progression of the plot and dialogue of the characters that I found it unfortunate it was deemed necessary to actually have one of the characters state it outright at one point in the last act. There was no need to drop that anvil on our heads.

Regardless of that, this has aged incredibly well, and probably deserves annual viewing.

Immortals. (at the movies)

This is an interesting and somewhat original take on the ancient Greek myths that centre around Theseus. That new approach to the myths, for me at least, made for an extra layer of intriguing mystery that even the most extravagant retelling otherwise wouldn't have been able to muster. Other than that though, I found this a pretty forgettable film. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either.

Immortals had that staged and cold quality from being set in front of green screens too much. In fact some of it had that old, filmed on a stage, ready for a matte painting to be dropped in, feel: locked off camera, multiple shots from that same camera, and you can almost tell where the boundaries of the physical set were. Then again, maybe this was done on purpose as a stylistic decision to echo the feeling of those old mythological sword & sandal films where that sort of photography was necessary due to those very matte paintings and stop-motion animation shots being comped in.

That cold feeling remains throughout though even despite being heavily colour-graded into warmer bronzes. And of course it's going to get all the comparisons to 300 due to the heavy colour grading and green-screening. Why wouldn't it? It certainly feels to me to be cut from the same cloth.

The other very interesting stylistic choice in the art direction was a deliberate underplaying of the depiction of the Greek gods. Instead of opting for something that is much more elaborate, we were treated to very simple and stylish costuming. With the portrayal of their superhumanity, again a very simple technique was employed to nice and again understated effect.

Overall, I'm not sad I saw this movie, but I am glad I didn't have to pay for it, getting complimentary tickets instead.

Arthur Christmas. (in the cinema)

I really enjoyed this, and I think it's certainly a worthy addition to anybody's list of rewatchable Christmas movies. The story is funny, and it has quite a cast of very likeable and humorous characters all of whom have just enough flaw and history to make them well rounded and interesting as well. Design, animation and acting are all very good, though one of the few gripes I have is actually with one of the actors. I really felt that Hugh Laurie was miscast — he did a good job, but I don't think he was right for the part.

The story starts with what I believe to be a unique new take on the Father Christmas mythology which in itself is funny, engaging and quite necessary for a modern audience. It then carries through with the main plot, which is predictable from all the way out in the cinema foyer if you were to even glance at the movie posters. The great thing about this movie though, even considering the fact that the final outcome for our hero Arthur is so obvious and predictable, is that the journey to that predictable point is such fun and very charming. There's possibly one dead point near the end of the second act, and one superfluous and lightweight plot thread that should have been excised completely for both brevity and clarity, but otherwise it's a thoroughly enjoyable ride to Arthur's destiny. Do watch this next Christmas if you get the chance.

What I Watched Last Month…

In fact, what I watched in…

August 2011

Green Lantern. (at the movies)

This was bad. Really bad. What a hodgepodge, incoherent, boring mess. With other comics adaptions raising the bar so high — even some of the not so great ones — there really is no excuse for this sort of writing in such a big budget movie. I can't believe they were able to make something that should have been awesome, epic and with great heart so boring and tedious instead.

My biggest problem (and maybe I'm wrong, since I'm not the biggest GL scholar) is the getting of Hal Jordan's character so essentially wrong. In this movie Hal's a frightened man, letting his daddy issues get the better of him, while he does stupid, dangerous things, seemingly acting irresponsibly. My understanding of the character is not that he must use courage to overcome his petty fears, but that he's genuinely courageous without a second thought. And not in a foolhardy way like he is in this film, but in a thoughtful, smart, self-sacrificing way.

The writers here often fell into the trap of presenting exposition out of nowhere, very clumsily, including telling us a lot about characters instead of showing us. It would have been great for Sinestro's character's journey, for example, if we had seen more of his frustration with his lack of power, despair at losing Abin Sur, and desire to fix it, instead of being left with an empty husk of little-to-no discernible motivation. His changing to the evil protagonist for the sequel will bear little weight as a consequence.

The biggest downfall in this regard though, was the force-feeding of the audience the whole Green Lantern Corps lore before the opening credits, which felt awfully like the opening introduction of an eighties TV action show. Surely the audience and story would have been much better served learning these things more naturally through Hal's own journey of discovery. Instead this was boring, confusing, counter-productive, and emotionless.

I don't know what Geoff Johns' run on the GL comic is like, having never read it, but if I were him, I wouldn't be proud of putting my name on this as an executive producer.

What I Watched Last Month…

Since I'm still catching up, this is what I watched in…

July 2011

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1. (on DVD)

So I re-watched this one as a warm-up to HPatDHP2. I'd originally seen it at the theatre, and this was the first time I'd watched it on DVD since then. I found it much easier to watch and to just ease into and go with than when I saw it at the cinema, and so found it more enjoyable. Well, a lot less painful anyway. It is still merely a very long, and sometimes tedious prologue though, which probably could have been folded into one final movie instead of split from it.

I can see that they were trying very hard to create desperate and foreboding oppressive tone, which may be most visually obvious in the almost constant use of desaturated colours, as a set-up for how dire the circumstances are in the HP universe, but whether or not it was worth it is debatable.

The whole thing is very episodic in nature, but I guess that's what this sort of journey is all about: a long, long period on the run — gruelling and trying.

The plot and story still has too many holes and silliness for my liking. My biggest gripe though is the reality that if you really want to know what's going on you have to read the books. That means the movie makers haven't actually done their job sufficiently well, with HP fans always having to explain the why's & how's to the uninitiated too often.

The production design and look of the last few HPs, especially the depiction of magical battles, has been on a steady upward curve, creating an exciting, consistent but never stagnant look.

On a side note, I've come to really enjoy the portrayals of the characters by these child (now adult) actors. These guys have really made the characters their own. Radcliffe's portrayal of Harry is now inseparable from the screen character, regardless of how good or bad he actually is as an actor. His mannerisms, personality and physicality are Harry Potter on screen. He's got quite the recognisable silhouette too, in both stance and shape.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. (at the movies)

As I said, watching HPatDH1 on DVD was a warm up for this, which I watched. To be honest, I never got around to writing my thoughts down at the time, and too much time has passed since to give fair commentary. I do remember though audibly cheering when Neville Longbottom cut off the serpent monster's head. I loved that!

Captain America: The First Avenger. (at the cinema)

I enjoyed this movie so much that I saw it twice in the space of a week. Twice! Once in 3D (which only happened because the ticket was free) and then once in 2D. I'll get this out of the way first up and say that, while the 3D isn't bad, there is a lot of brilliance, colour and definition lost compared to the 2D screening.

I thought the origin was extremely well handled, very close to the comic book version (as I know it from the 60s retellings), simply cleaning it up and fattening it out in all the right places. Steve Rogers' personality was great, and this was the aspect that stopped CA:TFA from being the overly patriotic, jingoistic film many people were worried it was going to be. That and the fact the villainous forces were Hydra instead of Nazis, which amazingly also helped with the believability of the storyline, practically removing Captain America, et al from the war as it was actually historically happening.

The visual effects in the pre-super Rogers that created the scrawny version of the character were amazing. I totally forgot for most of the time that there was visual effects trickery going on. Brilliantly done.

The middle part of the film probably had the most leaps in logic, but once the costume was properly wrapped around the super-soldier, it all picked up wonderfully again.

My only real disappointment with this movie is the fact that Cap has only had one adventure in World War II. I would have loved seeing two more period films showing war action, The Howling Commandos, and the Red Skull's comeuppance with Bucky Barnes living through most of it.

What I Watched Last Month…

Or rather, what I watched…

June 2011

X-Men: First Class. (at the movies)

What an enormous let down! Best X-Men movie ever?!? Hardly!

I guess my biggest problem with the story is summed up by the word "motivation". Or lack thereof. Aside from Magneto, and Shaw, the main villain, I don't know of any mutant in the film who has the motivation to do what they do in this story. This is probably the reason why Eric (Magneto) is the most compelling and interesting character to be had here. I have great problems with the way his motivations have been retrofitted compared to X-Men and X-2 as well, where now it looks like he's really just taken on the teachings of the villain that's come before him, rather than being interesting enough to originate them himself. Disappointing.

Why does Charles, as he's taken directly from his graduation, never give a second thought to what ever he was planning to do with his life before that CIA agent appeared? I'm sure there could be thousands of reasons, but none are articulated in any way. The same goes for the crew of young mutants they round up — they're demonstratively in mortal danger, why haven't they run back home to safe anonymity? Never explained.

For that matter, why have Charles and Eric only managed to round up teenagers? They were obviously also looking at other mutants as well, as evidenced with the Logan cameo. Poorly written, plotted and executed. The audience, time after time, are simply asked to not question what is not shown or explained, and please accept it instead and move on. Lazy.

The movie looked fine, with high production values and good special effects, but nothing that broke any ground. The acting was all fine too.

In the end, I felt no connection to just about any of the characters except for Eric and maybe Mystique, as the rest were never presented as anything more than 2-dimensional scenery. Even Charles, whose personality we got to see more of than just about anyone else other than Eric, is underdeveloped and flat.

I'd love to know what everyone else was so impressed by, because for me it was very lacking.

Bridesmaids. (at the movies)

What a pleasant surprise this turned out to be! I was expecting low-grade, boring, chick-flick, rom-com, but it was so much better than that. I went with my wife, and she was expecting something like "Sandra Bullock starring in Hollywood-slick The Hangover Part 3 for chicks". Instead, what we got was something much more a near-indie, well acted, well cast, witty comedy with a good heart.

There are charming performances, with what seems to be some nicely under-rehearsed, more natural and/or ad-libbed scenes. Once again, not Hollywood-slick and so, for me anyway, more interesting, real and much more human.

It's not earth-shatteringly insightful, it's a little obvious and predictable in places, but definitely good fun. There's some good physical comedy, just enough cringe comedy, some good banter and even a touch of screwball comedy here and there. Amazingly all mixing well and all living happily side-by-side, scene-by-scene. Well worth watching.

Super 8. (at the movies)

It's hard to talk about Super 8 without giving too much away. It's a fabulous movie — great fun to watch, with brilliant performances from the cast of kids/teens, enormous heart and emotional content, great tension and suspense, wonderful frights and starts and a rollicking adventure. That being said, it's so unashamedly from the Spielberg mould of summer holiday, semi-coming of age, bunch of misfit kids, small American town, adventure films, as to be almost embarrassing. That is, if it weren't so incredibly well done, so slickly produced, and then turned up to 11. JJ Abrams certainly is mastering the same ability as Spielberg had in his 70s and 80s films to manipulate suspense and to deftly push emotional buttons, but as long as you leave all cynicism at the door to the cinema, this is one brilliant popcorn movie!

Kung Fu Panda. (on DVD)

This is the second time I've seen KFP, the first since the cinema release, and I did so in prepping for KFP2.

I loved it. Again. It's an extraordinarily well made animated movie, with nice, fun character design, likeable characters with interesting personalities, and absolutely fabulous production design and colour design.

The interesting thing about KFP is that it's really thin when it comes to the actual story. Sweet as it is, there's not a lot of depth or breadth to it, being quite straight forward in plot and execution. No matter though, it's presented so wonderfully and with such wit and fun that it's too good a ride to look for complexity or unnecessary cleverness.

One of the standout aspects of KFP for me are the exciting fight scenes and training scenes. They're very clearly presented, regardless of their amazing complexity and imagination. There's constant camera movement, numerous participants, and often many props and changing landscapes, and yet we're never lost as to where to look or what's going on. Very difficult to do but done brilliantly.

The other good thing about these action scenes is that there's plenty of them, and always done in such a way that they progress the story, never thrown in gratuitously.

Similarly, although it's a very funny movie, it's never at expense of the story, only ever in service of it. I laughed truthfully and often.

There's absolutely no boring sections, even in the quieter scenes. There's wit and charm and interest throughout.

I thought the acting was fabulous, especially from Hoffman and Black. This is Possibly Black's best, as he was actually a likable, sympathetic character!

A brilliant, fun movie! Loved it! I could only hope that KFP2 can be as good.

Kung Fu Panda 2. (at the movies)

This had a lot to live up to in my eyes, being the sequel to Kung Fu Panda, and unfortunately it doesn't make the cut.

It's weighed down with muddled story telling and theme (are we saving Kung-Fu? China? Finding out who Po is/where he comes from?). It had a rushed, awkward beginning to the story and was definitely less skilful in depicting the fight scenes, which this time are not so easy to follow. Nor were they as useful in progressing the story, this time feeling much more gratuitously placed because it was time for an action scene, rather than being a good and fun way to progress the story.

It was good to see some effort, in the right direction, to round out one of the Furious Five characters (Tigress). It would have been nice to have see even more.

Unfortunately KFP2 also had nowhere near as many laughs as KFP either, nor was it as memorable.

In the end, a disappointing sequel.