Film
DVD selection
26 Nov 2005
We've been catching up on films we missed at the
cinema recently, and the last week saw us through
three on the list – War of the
Worlds, Kingdom of Heaven,
and Charlie and the Chocolate
Factory.
We kicked off with H.G.Wells' classic, redone for the present-day by Spielberg. The effects were brilliant, and action steady, but somehow it just didn't do it for me. Now, part of the reason for that may be the legacy of Jeff Wayne's musical version, which was a big influence on me when I was barely into my teens. Morgan Freeman's introductory narrative jarred, because it just wasn't Richard Burton.
Into the film, and we see Tom Cruise playing a variation of the arseh*le character that he made his career with. A divorced father of two, he looks as if he is what the characters in Top Gun and Days of Thunder would have become when their arrogance finally led to a real fall. I found it hard to be sympathetic to him until later in the film when his impotence against the alien invaders became apparent, and his fear of loosing his family took over. One sensible change was that the aliens were no longer 'Martians' – it would have been hard to justify after the amount of exploration missions to Mars that as the setting is the current day.
The arrival of aliens was dramatic – not the capsules of the original book and films, but a very dramatic lightning storm and a personal capsule for the invader. It was pretty impressive, as was the CGI when the war machines emerged from the ground. But therein lies another issue for me. The claim was that the war machines had been there all along, buried, waiting for the invasion. This just didn't seem right to me, so I'd like to propose an alternative; the invading forces actually drop a penetrating device with a nano-tech programmed building device to create a war machine. The dramatic lightning was power to initiate the seed's growth. The humans assume that the war machines were buried because the technology is so far ahead of their current usage. Works for me!
So War of the Worlds is worth it for a wet and rainy night in, but it isn't on my list of DVDs to buy. Next up was Kingdom of Heaven, Ridley Scott's new epic film. I love Scott's direction and photographic style. The way he uses light and dark has always impressed me, and I own a fair few of his films so I really wanted to see this. In addition, my recent purchase of Crusader Rex re-ignited my love of the period.
I was pleasantly surprised by the film. As I expected, it looked gorgeous. It did have the whole epic film feel, but it didn't manage to achieve the same emotional engagement that Gladiator did. I think it suffered from two things; firstly, the theme of Balian (Orlando Bloom's character) seeking redemption never really comes out clearly enough in the story to make you feel bothered for the character. Secondly, the whole film feels very truncated. Watching the additional 'Pilgrim's Way' subtitles that link the decision behind the film to historical reality makes it clear how complicated the real-politick that was going on was. There are hints of this in the film, but it never seems to be developed properly, probably because it would need too much screen time. This leaves an enjoyable, but flawed film. I could see myself watching this again, but I may wait and see if a director's cut comes out that has some more of the politics in before I buy it.
The final film of the three was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This was Tim Burton's re-imagining of Roald Dahl's masterpiece. I never much liked the Gene Wilder version, and hoped that Burton's dark and weird approach would really reflect the book better. And, I think it did. The imagery, the whole attitude and style was brilliant. It was pretty faithful to the original and Johnny Depp was fantastic! I only surprised that Michael Jackson hasn't sued!
Wholeheartedly recommended. I will be buying it, but probably once it drops from the initial launch price. What's the point of paying £15 to £17 when you can get it for £7-8 four or five months later?
We kicked off with H.G.Wells' classic, redone for the present-day by Spielberg. The effects were brilliant, and action steady, but somehow it just didn't do it for me. Now, part of the reason for that may be the legacy of Jeff Wayne's musical version, which was a big influence on me when I was barely into my teens. Morgan Freeman's introductory narrative jarred, because it just wasn't Richard Burton.
Into the film, and we see Tom Cruise playing a variation of the arseh*le character that he made his career with. A divorced father of two, he looks as if he is what the characters in Top Gun and Days of Thunder would have become when their arrogance finally led to a real fall. I found it hard to be sympathetic to him until later in the film when his impotence against the alien invaders became apparent, and his fear of loosing his family took over. One sensible change was that the aliens were no longer 'Martians' – it would have been hard to justify after the amount of exploration missions to Mars that as the setting is the current day.
The arrival of aliens was dramatic – not the capsules of the original book and films, but a very dramatic lightning storm and a personal capsule for the invader. It was pretty impressive, as was the CGI when the war machines emerged from the ground. But therein lies another issue for me. The claim was that the war machines had been there all along, buried, waiting for the invasion. This just didn't seem right to me, so I'd like to propose an alternative; the invading forces actually drop a penetrating device with a nano-tech programmed building device to create a war machine. The dramatic lightning was power to initiate the seed's growth. The humans assume that the war machines were buried because the technology is so far ahead of their current usage. Works for me!
So War of the Worlds is worth it for a wet and rainy night in, but it isn't on my list of DVDs to buy. Next up was Kingdom of Heaven, Ridley Scott's new epic film. I love Scott's direction and photographic style. The way he uses light and dark has always impressed me, and I own a fair few of his films so I really wanted to see this. In addition, my recent purchase of Crusader Rex re-ignited my love of the period.
I was pleasantly surprised by the film. As I expected, it looked gorgeous. It did have the whole epic film feel, but it didn't manage to achieve the same emotional engagement that Gladiator did. I think it suffered from two things; firstly, the theme of Balian (Orlando Bloom's character) seeking redemption never really comes out clearly enough in the story to make you feel bothered for the character. Secondly, the whole film feels very truncated. Watching the additional 'Pilgrim's Way' subtitles that link the decision behind the film to historical reality makes it clear how complicated the real-politick that was going on was. There are hints of this in the film, but it never seems to be developed properly, probably because it would need too much screen time. This leaves an enjoyable, but flawed film. I could see myself watching this again, but I may wait and see if a director's cut comes out that has some more of the politics in before I buy it.
The final film of the three was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. This was Tim Burton's re-imagining of Roald Dahl's masterpiece. I never much liked the Gene Wilder version, and hoped that Burton's dark and weird approach would really reflect the book better. And, I think it did. The imagery, the whole attitude and style was brilliant. It was pretty faithful to the original and Johnny Depp was fantastic! I only surprised that Michael Jackson hasn't sued!
Wholeheartedly recommended. I will be buying it, but probably once it drops from the initial launch price. What's the point of paying £15 to £17 when you can get it for £7-8 four or five months later?
Two very different films
13 Oct 2005
The last two weekends we've been to the cinema to see
films with friends and family. The first of these was
Working Title's new cinema adaptation of Jane
Austin's Pride and Prejudice. This
was always going to be a brave film to make,
especially after the BBC TV version had become the
definitive version for many people, even to the
extent that Colin Firth almost reprised the role in
Bridget Jones' Diary.
Now, I wasn't a big fan of the BBC version – possibly influenced by the many times that I had been forced to read it when doing my English Literature GCSE back at the end of the eighties – but Jill was, and we both had different reactions to the film. I really enjoyed it, especially Donald Sutherland's fantastic performance as Mr Bennett. The look of the film was far closer to how I imagined it when I read the novel than the more opulent BBC version was. Jill had two main objections; firstly, that Kiera Knightley was not as good at portraying a strong character with a passionate spirit as the actress in the TV series was, and secondly that Mr Darcy wasn't played by Colin Firth. Now, I could argue that the former didn't seem to be an issue to me, and the latter was a positive advantage, but I think that I'd lose!
The second film we went to see was Serenity, Joss Whedon's Sci-Fi film. Whedon is justifiably respected as a scriptwriter for his more recent TV shows - Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, which captured the hearts of a wide range of the teens to thirties market in a similar way that Chris Carter's X Files did at the start of the nineties. As the two shows wound down, Whedon was working with Fox on a new Sci-Fi show called Firefly. This was set out on the frontier, an ensemble piece about the crew of a free trading merchant ship 'Serenity'. The core of the crew are survivors from the losing side of the civil war between the frontier and core worlds. Much like Buffy, and the earlier SF series Babylon 5, the storyline had an ongoing plot arc and was character driven. There was a dark, but delicate, humour to the whole show. But it tanked in the US, and was pulled after only 11 episodes were made.
Now, Fox themselves demonstrated an ineptitude that is near unbelievable. They skipped the pilot, and showed the series at varying times and out of sequence. Is there any surprise that the show tanked? Anyway, Whedon – and Firefly's – fan based agitated hard and managed to get the whole show released on DVD. All of a sudden, it was a big seller, and Fox looked somewhat silly. Whedon still had the movie rights, and a deal was signed with Universal. The result is Serenity.
Serenity follows up the story from where the series ended, winding up some of the plots, but leaving others to resolve in the future. It's been very cleverly written to ensure that you don't have to have seen the series, as most of the key background facts are revealed without resort to a character driven info-dump. The background of the Tam twins (unjustly fugitive siblings from the core worlds) is probably the most complex part of the back-story, and that is carefully revealed along with one of the movies' villains. The whole story is action filled, but character driven, building to a satisfying end which I won't reveal here. We both really enjoyed this (and even my mum did!), so try and see this if you can!
Now, I wasn't a big fan of the BBC version – possibly influenced by the many times that I had been forced to read it when doing my English Literature GCSE back at the end of the eighties – but Jill was, and we both had different reactions to the film. I really enjoyed it, especially Donald Sutherland's fantastic performance as Mr Bennett. The look of the film was far closer to how I imagined it when I read the novel than the more opulent BBC version was. Jill had two main objections; firstly, that Kiera Knightley was not as good at portraying a strong character with a passionate spirit as the actress in the TV series was, and secondly that Mr Darcy wasn't played by Colin Firth. Now, I could argue that the former didn't seem to be an issue to me, and the latter was a positive advantage, but I think that I'd lose!
The second film we went to see was Serenity, Joss Whedon's Sci-Fi film. Whedon is justifiably respected as a scriptwriter for his more recent TV shows - Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, which captured the hearts of a wide range of the teens to thirties market in a similar way that Chris Carter's X Files did at the start of the nineties. As the two shows wound down, Whedon was working with Fox on a new Sci-Fi show called Firefly. This was set out on the frontier, an ensemble piece about the crew of a free trading merchant ship 'Serenity'. The core of the crew are survivors from the losing side of the civil war between the frontier and core worlds. Much like Buffy, and the earlier SF series Babylon 5, the storyline had an ongoing plot arc and was character driven. There was a dark, but delicate, humour to the whole show. But it tanked in the US, and was pulled after only 11 episodes were made.
Now, Fox themselves demonstrated an ineptitude that is near unbelievable. They skipped the pilot, and showed the series at varying times and out of sequence. Is there any surprise that the show tanked? Anyway, Whedon – and Firefly's – fan based agitated hard and managed to get the whole show released on DVD. All of a sudden, it was a big seller, and Fox looked somewhat silly. Whedon still had the movie rights, and a deal was signed with Universal. The result is Serenity.
Serenity follows up the story from where the series ended, winding up some of the plots, but leaving others to resolve in the future. It's been very cleverly written to ensure that you don't have to have seen the series, as most of the key background facts are revealed without resort to a character driven info-dump. The background of the Tam twins (unjustly fugitive siblings from the core worlds) is probably the most complex part of the back-story, and that is carefully revealed along with one of the movies' villains. The whole story is action filled, but character driven, building to a satisfying end which I won't reveal here. We both really enjoyed this (and even my mum did!), so try and see this if you can!
Saturday Night In
02 Oct 2005
Last night, we were planning to see some friends, but
they cancelled, so we took the opportunity to watch
two – very different – films. Sin
City and The Breakfast
Club.
Sin City was stylistically fantastic, feeling very much like a comic book (or graphic novel, if you're feeling posh). Shot mainly in black and white, colour is used for emphasis, much like the girl in the red coat was used by Spielberg in Schindler's List. The story itself is very dark, and the heroes – themselves always almost flawed – seem to be doomed against the uncaring bleakness of the city. I'm not sure how true it is to Frank Miller's original, but it was very good, possibly one to buy.
I haven't watched 'the Breakfast Club' for perhaps ten to fifteen years, but I bought it yesterday because I saw it in the local store. My better half had been looking for it for a while, but it's only just come out on DVD. It was as enjoyable as I remember, possibly because it was giving me flashbacks of being a teenager at the same time as the film. I'm glad we got this.
It also made me realise how much rubbish we see out of Hollywood these days. CGI and explosions don't beat plot and character development. Something George Lucas should have realised, especially when you see what was cut out of Attack of the Clones if you watch the deleted scenes. All the character development and rounding out that the original films had!
Sin City was stylistically fantastic, feeling very much like a comic book (or graphic novel, if you're feeling posh). Shot mainly in black and white, colour is used for emphasis, much like the girl in the red coat was used by Spielberg in Schindler's List. The story itself is very dark, and the heroes – themselves always almost flawed – seem to be doomed against the uncaring bleakness of the city. I'm not sure how true it is to Frank Miller's original, but it was very good, possibly one to buy.
I haven't watched 'the Breakfast Club' for perhaps ten to fifteen years, but I bought it yesterday because I saw it in the local store. My better half had been looking for it for a while, but it's only just come out on DVD. It was as enjoyable as I remember, possibly because it was giving me flashbacks of being a teenager at the same time as the film. I'm glad we got this.
It also made me realise how much rubbish we see out of Hollywood these days. CGI and explosions don't beat plot and character development. Something George Lucas should have realised, especially when you see what was cut out of Attack of the Clones if you watch the deleted scenes. All the character development and rounding out that the original films had!