Movieblaze

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon

Director: Peter Jackson

Writer(s): Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens

Cinemtography: Andrew Lesnie 

Original Score: Brian Eno

Running Time: 135 Mins.

Many novels are deemed unfilmable, and with good reason, there is something about some ideas the written word, and fundamentally your imagination, that cannot transfer to film even with the most skilled group of film-makers behind, and in front of, the lens. Hell if Peter Jackson crafted a masterpiece of a trilogy from The Lord of the Rings surely Alice Seybold’s The Lovely Bones, a story of a young girl, Susie Salmon (Ronan), murdered and left stuck in the “in-between” watching over her grieving parents (Weisz and Wahlberg), would be a piece of cake to both adapt, for Ring’s screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, and to bring vividly to life for Jackson himself. Especially given it has echoes of his earlier work in Heavenly Creatures and, in the depiction of the in-between, material ripe for Jackson’s fantastical eye for visuals. Add to this an affecting score by Brian Eno and a cast chock full of potentially great actors, Weisz, Ronan, Sarandon, Tucci and yes even Mark Wahlberg is capable of greatness, to which begs the question … where did it all go wrong?

It is hard to know where to begin, because The Lovely Bones is NOT an awful film, I don’t think Peter Jackson is capable of such a film, more it is a confused and rather messy selection of films, one that aims high but falls all the harder for it upon its failings. Independent scenes are directed with the usual elegance, the camera already in motion as we cut to the action meaning Jackson uses the camera in his usual and accomplished way. Great performances are evoked from many, some unsurprising like Tucci, suitably unnerving in a non-pantomime way, and Ronan,  showing her role in Atonement was no fluke, while others are more surprising, Wahlberg most notably gives the film its much-needed heart and shows he is able to act with subtlety and refrain from talking to plants, his portrait of a grieving father is as moving as any.

Sadly for as many good performances there are some equally poor ones, this is something that stems from the films overall lack of focus, unable to decide whether it is a murder mystery, teen romance, family drama, or portrait of the afterlife The Lovely Bones sits between stalls both tonally and structurally. This means that many characters are left paddling water with little to no character development, and while those that are good do what they can with limited screen time ,the weaker cast members are not so much bad, as badly served, by some of the worst editing I have ever witnessed in a big budget film.

We cut from night to day, bedroom to street, conversation to action with no sense of time or place, the physical problem of place could be forgiven if the tone weren’t so unsure which means we go from grieving father who has lost his 15-year-old daughter to a murderous paedophile to a ridiculous comedy montage with Sarandon as the drunken chain-smoking grandmother ateempting to look after the remaining Salmon children that wouldn’t be out-of-place in Mrs. Doubtfire, to a tense sequence of cat and mouse in the house of the murderer (Tucci), and once again all this without the horribly realised fantasy sequences set in the “in-between” where Ronan’s Susie Salmon spends the majority of the film.

Anyone’s idea of how to bring these sequences to life from the description given in the book was always going to be, shall we say, unique, the problem with unique is that it either tends to be uniquely good or uniquely bad, sadly in this case there is a serious misfires, there is a certain ethereal quality to one of two of the ideas and those scenes where Susie slips into the “real” world do work suggesting that were Jackson to have focused more on this aspect the film could have been both more focused and therefore satisfying. Visual flourishes like those on display here seem at odds with the subtlety of the emotion that the story is crying out for, never at any point did I feel my heart-strings tugged at, or a tear in my eye, these kind of emotions should be a given in a film that is dealing with child murder and grief on this scale!

What is most disappointing though is that there is an overwhelming sense that Jackson is as good a director as ever and within the lovely bones are two, maybe three great films that have been edited to within an inch of their life, starring some actors at the top of their game, sadly all these films have been inexplicably hacked together along with some of the poorest cut and paste CGI this side of The Mummy Returns, it is in this lack of focus that King Kong, Jackson’s last film, suffered. A little more discipline next time please Peter!

VERDICT

The Lovely Bones feels like a selection of films, some great, some awful, that have been so poorly hacked together you will be tearing your hair out at how a great director has misfired so badly, not unwatchable so much as deeply frustrating at its inconsistency!

Starring: Logan Lerman, Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman, Sean Bean, Steve Coogan, Rosario Dawson

Director: Chris Columbus

Writer: Craig Titley, Rick Riordan (Novel)

Cinematography: Stephen Goldblatt

Original Score: Christophe Beck

Running Time: 118 Mins.

With a repertoire that includes Bicentennial Man, I Love You Beth Cooper, Rent and Nine Months it’s safe to say that I never really have high hopes upon approaching a new Chris Columbus film, so given that Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is the latest attempt at a franchise to fill the soon to be empty Harry Potter void it is unsurprising to find the film is not so much lacking but nigh on redundant, and left me begging the question as to why it was made at all, beyond the obvious reason of cold hard cash!

What is less surprising is that Columbus was also the man responsible for the two first, and by far worst, Harry Potter films, in fact losing Columbus from the franchise is probably the finest thing Warner’s ever did, something which makes the choice to have hired him to make Percy Jackson both financially sound while at once being the worst creative decision ever. Meaning not only are comparisons to the more recent, and largely excellent, Potter films bound be unfavourably drawn but also you are kick starting yet another franchise which the kind of paint by numbers slap-dash approach at direction that plagued Columbus’ Potter efforts.

As with all the pretenders to the Potter throne before it, The Golden Compass, The Vampires Assistant and Eragon, among tens of others, Percy Jackson can’t help but feel a simple rehash albeit in a different mythical world, so here we have the Olympians, Zeus, Hades, Poseidon et al bickering among themselves about a stolen lightning bolt, something which sets the demigod sons of said Olympians off on a quest. Hopping from one set piece to another, this is lazy film-making at its worst, star names pop up in cameo-roles shrouded, usually, in beards and fake looking armour or CGI snakes or a horses arse. Thankfully the big names give a little respite from the lacklustre acting of Lerman and the rest of the youngsters, all of whom fall into either bad acting or poor stereotype categories and can’t convey any kind of emotion or feeling leaving any hope of empathy stilted from the off. 

Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman, Sean Bean, Steve Coogan to name but a few of the big names appear looking either embarrassed or spouting the script, which takes itself far too seriously for this kind of subject matter, as if it were Shakespearean prose (Sean Bean, guilty as charged!) and when you hire Steve Coogan to play Hades, Lord of the Underworld no less!, why don’t you use him, I don’t think I have seen a more cringe-worthy performance all year! Thankfully they are wise enough not to stick around for more than five minutes apiece and leave the bulk of the film for us to “enjoy” as many CGI beasties wreak havoc, normally to very little avail, though at least the CGI is more capably realised than the costumes throwing hydras, hell hounds and minotaurs at the screen to at least engage your eyes a little!

It’s a shame that there seems to be such a problem in recapturing the magical and more importantly good tone that Harry Potter has set the precedent for, following the weak early efforts, but when Chris Columbus keeps getting handed the reigns, what do you expect. Though all the blame cannot be layed at his door, the script is equally as risible which means any hope of good performances was all but lost meaning the best time spent during the film is to spot the similarity to a certain boy-wizard, pfft camp half-blood indeed, though if you’re craving some Olympian God action save yourself for April, Clash of the Titans HAS to be better than this!

VERDICT

The search for the next Harry Potter continues because thanks once again to Chris Columbus and his cack-handedness, among a great many other problems, Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief is NOT it!

Starring: Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving

Director: Joe Johnston

Writer(s): Andrew Kevin Walker, David Self

Cinematography: Shelly Johnson

Original Score: Paul Haslinger

Running Time: 102 Mins.

The troubled history of The Wolfman from script-to-screen is as infamous as they get, seeking to reboot their Universal Monster stable the studio hired director Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo), then amidst pre-production Romanek fled citing that all-encompassing reason “creative differences”, onboard came Joe Johnston (Jurassic Park III, Jumanji) and having shot the film then returned for re-shoots (rarely a good sign) that meant the film was delayed a number of times. All in all not the potent mix that would usually lead to a successful, and more importantly, good film.

And alas, as I feared, all the shunting around of dates and change of director makes for a hugely uneven film, and while The Wolfman is far from a total disaster its problems far outweigh what good can be gleamed from the overall mess, it’s hard to know where to start when breaking down a messy film, for there are good parts within the bad and vice versa, the clashing and uneven tone are largely The Wolfman’s overarching problem with both the original director (and scripts) vision jarring against what Johnston seems intent on doing, especially given his slapdash approach at direction that is hampered by some poor editing.

This two-sided approach filters through every aspect, the score ebbs and flows between Danny Elfman-esque gothicism (original composer, also left mid-shoot), and more subdued atmospheric tracks that feel at odds with what is onscreen, a problem that the cast also seem to be afflicted with. Del Toro was evidently brought in when the film was intended as a character piece, yet is now reduced to looking confused and mumbling, while Blunt is quite simply (and uncharacteristically) bland as the love interest, and the less said about their blossoming romance over skimming stones, the better.

Hopkins and Weaving fare much better, hamming it up enough and showing great gusto amidst the films cheesier moments (and they are many!) suggesting that the studio veered from something more serious and decided to settle for parody of their old classic’s, something which would have worked if the film had the intention to carry it throughout. Between the limp attempts at character development are the action sequences, and while they have a certain spark at times and do teeter on the edge of exciting they seem far too glossy and CGI-ed to convince on any level, with the wolfman lopping off heads and arms in comic Monty Python style, any potential scare factor is lost and the blood and guts a little too low-key to likely please even the gore-hounds.

Much has been made of The Wolfman being Rick Baker’s (American Werewolf in London, Wolf) return to werewolf make-up effects, and while a great deal of time and money has been spent attempting to meld the CGI and practical effects together seamlessly it is a very hit and miss affair, the CGI is fantastic when called for in the man-to-wolf changes yet the make-up itself all too often resembles just that, make up, and there is little question as to which wolfman is scarier, this one or that of  American Werewolf in London’s, something which goes to show that all the money in Hollywood cant buy you an atmospheric, scary, or fundamentally good film !

VERDICT

It is a shame that so little of The Wolfman satisfies, or succeeds, as all the elements are there, sometimes to be clearly seen onscreen. In fact, if we had a character piece starring Del Toro and Blunt with a companion piece that harked back to Universal’s classic monster movie, we may well have had the perfect pair up, as it is, combined as one, the result is just a disappointing mess.

Starring(the voices of): Anika Noni Rose, Bruno Campos, Keith David, Terence Howard, John Goodman, Oprah Winfrey

Director(s): Ron Clements, John Musker

Writer(s): Ron Clements, John Musker

Cinemtography: Ian Gooding

Original Music: Randy Newman

Running Time: 97 Mins.

To be mentioned in the same breath as The Little Mermaid, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast, this is an accolade any director of an animated feature would be proud of, that Ron Clements and John Musker are the men behind two of these three films from Disney’s heyday is quite something, the word animated masterpiece doesn’t really begin to cover how good Disney were, when at the top of their game at producing hand drawn animated films. Since the early 90′s when Toy Story ushered in two new major developments in animated features for better or for worse. CGI and the staple “buddy picture” story that has now, for whatever reason, taken precedence of the fairytale’s of old.

There is no denying that in Pixar animation found a new life amidst the doldrums of weaker Disney animations, Pocahontas, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, to name but a few were lacking in classic Disney quality, and has now become the byword on quality animated films, and with producing films with the consistant quality as they are doing we can’t really complain. But alas it is a sad fact that no matter how good Toy Story, Up or Wall-E are, they lack that…if nothing else (to use a cheesy phrase) magic that Disney and it’s hand drawn features could at their very best.

Something which it would seem that head of Pixar recognised upon taking over as head of Disney, promptly rebooting the production of the long dead hand-drawn Walt Disney Classics, Lasseter’s intention is clear, there is a place for fairytales as much as there is for CGI  buddy pics, and it would be a great shame to see generations grow up without their own era of genre defining fairytales. Which is where Clement’s and Musker come in, rebooting and adapting classic fairytale The Frog Prince, repleat with everything that made Aladdin, The Little Mermaid et al as good as they were.

As with any film in any genre you could go through with a checklist, though this is not a bad thing if the elements work so well, why change a brilliant and successful formula, which means that we have a princess, a villain, a dashing prince and those uniquely Disney-fic elements, the songs, the comedy animal sidekicks and a happily ever after. Each of these elements are present and correct but the script is peppered with more than enough to give The Princess and the Frog the up-to-date twist’s needed to engage even the most rest-less child (or inner child!).

There is, quite simply put, no fault to be found and watching the film and I found myself transported to a place that I had not been since seeing The Lion King at the cinema many years ago, it is to the credit of all that The Princess and the Frog is such a success, the direction acts as h’omage at times yet also acts as its own entity, fresh and new yet harking back to the masterpiece’s of old. In terms of updating things there is a setting, New Orleans, that lends the film a bright and almost modern look while retaining its tradition and this fit means the music follows suit as all the numbers are Jazz inspired, and I can safely say some of the tunes will go down as classics, or certainly should.

What stood out for me the most was the use of villain Dr. Facilier, the Shadowman, maybe a little scary for the very young he struck a note of real menace, brilliant enough to rank alongside Malificent, Shere Khan and Ursula as a memorable brilliant Disney villain, truly creepy yet original, it is in the animation of Facilier, and everybody else, that the film is won, as Facilier’s shadow acts as a separate entity it displays the ingenious quality that imbues the whole film.

Much has been made of Tiana (our “princess”) being the first black Disney princess, it is a shame as you would have thought we have moved beyond these kind of distinctions but regardless of colour, Tiana is thoroughly convincing and a strong female lead avoiding the pitfalls of cliché while still becoming the Disney princess that you would quite rightly expect come the film’s final act. But if this sounds predictable enough, the journey there isn’t, taking in many great characters who all get their time to shine, and as with the rest of the production, subverting expectation enough to make The Princess and the Frog both classic in its storytelling and ingredients, but fresh and, dare is say, modern in its execution, a modern classic then as it were!

VERDICT

Walt Disney Classic The Princess and the Frog, the moniker says it all, Walt Disney animation studios are back with a bang.

Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon, Tony Kgoroge, Julian Lewis Jones, Marguerite Wheatley

Director: Clint Eastwood

Writer: Anthony Peckham, John Carlin (novel)

Cinematography: Tom Stern 

Original Score: Kyle Eastwood, Michael Stevens

Running Time: 133 Mins.

There are very few directors working today that can tackle any subject, and have unrivalled success, both critically and financially,  within any genre as Clint Eastwood. In the last 5 years alone, with In Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, Changeling, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby and now Invictus, to his name Eastwood has built himself up as one of the key auteur’s of our time, imprinting each film with his mark of quality and master senses of story-telling, and at the age of 80 shows no sign of slowing down, with his next feature set to be the supernatural thriller Hereafter, now thats what I call diversity.

Even when working with a narrative that seems relatively straightforward, here is a director who can turn a story on its head taking something that starts out as a drama piece, Changeling, turning it into a dark and disturbing murder thriller, or starting out with an inspirational sports tale and turning it into a heart wrenching film about euthanasia, so with this in mind upon hearing that Eastwood was to tackle the story of Nelson Mandela it would be prudent to expect something a little more than your average, run-of-the-mill, biopic.

Starting with Mandela’s release from his 27 year prison stretch, we are thrust headfirst into his campaign to end apartheid and unite the countries black and white races, evidently not an easy task, what Mandela sought to do was unite his people through that most inspirational of past-times, sport. With the help of their captain, Francois Pienaar, Mandela pushes the countries (at the time) failing Rugby team towards World Cup victory in the hope that the sport that was viewed as largely a white man’s game and turn inspiration from it into something more multicultural.

Other than the talent behind the camera, the coup of Invictus is in its casting, Morgan Freeman can play character’s of the kind of quiet dignity that Mandela is a mark of, in his sleep, having taken the part of God twice (in comedies no less!), only a fool would doubt his ability to convey anything less than a similarity to Mandela himself in capturing the man’s likeness and mannerisms. But, as with all great biopic’s, it is in more than mere imitation that the character is won, having yearned to play Mandela for many years and failing to get a full-blown biopic in front of the camera, Freeman approached Eastwood to direct Invictus, it was a wise move, and in focusing on one chapter in Mandela’s life we get a more intimate picture of the man, sharing in his quiet moments and relationship with a select few in his life.

Some may see this as problematic, there is little mention of his wife and we see only the briefest snippets of his family life, with the man himself painted largely as a saint, neglecting to mention why he was imprisoned in the first place, though these can be viewed as both help and hindrance, with the feeling that tackling the man in a much broader a  to b way would have robbed the character of much of his heart, and therein Freeman would have simply ended up a mere imitation.

Much like Million Dollar Baby and Changeling’s about-turns in narrative at the midpoint so to does Invictus, and while the earlier scenes in the film give us a feel for what it was Mandela aimed to do and how the latter half of the film turns its focus to the rugby itself, and it is here the Matt Damon very nearly steals the film from Freeman. There is a reason both men have been oscar nominated and Damon, as Pienaar, exudes both the physicality to make you believe in him as a Rugby player but more importantly underplays Pienaar to perfection, there is a dignity in Damon’s role that shadows Freeman, both actors complimenting each other perfectly.

There are faults to be found though and much like he did in Gran Torino Eastwood has surrounded his stars with a cast of largely unknowns, something which, at times, draws attention to the fact we are watching Damon and Freeman acting rather than two characters, something which is hard to avoid at the best of times when up against actors this capable. It also means that the acting when Freeman and Damon are not onscreen feels somewhat amateur, especially in the parallel sub-plot whereby Mandela attempts to integrate both blacks and white into his security detail.

However the films sporting final blow comes in with the depiction of the rugby itself, as assured as ever with the camera Eastwood glides effortlessly in and out of the rucks, taking us where we would never see in a game usually, something which adds a great air of authenticity, and as the players thunder down the pitch we follow gliding along giving a game that is often seen as nothing more than brute force and lacking in subtleties an elegant and worthy viewpoint, much like the film itself, finding its heart in some key moments.

VERDICT

Invictus is not perfect, but you would be hard pushed to find a more focused and convincing bio-pic/sports film, as ever Clint Eastwood, the director, succeeds at being the master story-teller he is…with more than a little help from Damon and Freeman’s quietly convincing turns.