Thursday, August 28, 2008
Film review: Get Smart
Get Smart @ IMDB
Now, I don't know about anyone else but I actually remember watching this TV show. Not when it originally aired in the 60s, mind you, despite what the Wife says about my age.
Now, I don't know about anyone else but I actually remember watching this TV show. Not when it originally aired in the 60s, mind you, despite what the Wife says about my age.
No, you see Channel 4 when I was growing up used to show cheap US TV shows in the afternoon after school. They didn't have a children's department like CBBC or CITV to make their own shows. So they'd show old episodes of The Munsters or Batman or Mork & Mindy. And, Get Smart.
Not that I remember it that much. All I really remember is the title sequence. And that it's about a bumbling secret agent fighting villainous criminal organisations.
Does this make it an ideal series to reinterpret for the big screen? Yes and No. No, because it' not that well remembered outside of the US so there's no in-built audience. Yes, because of the fact it's not that well remembered you can take some liberties without the fan base going crazy.
So, we have Steve Carell as Maxell Smart, an analyst who dreams of becoming a full agent for CONTROL. Let's hope that CONTROL's nemesis, KAOS, isn't hatching a plot to expose the identities of all the CONTROL agents so they can hold the US government to ransom and the only way the plan can be foiled is if newly promoted Agents are sent out into the field.
Oh, wait.
To be honest, I should have been more worried about seeing this film. The last big budget Steve Carell comedy died very publicly on it's ass. But he has a very engaging screen presence that makes you laugh and can carry the comedic and emotional burden of the film.
It's not great. The plot is a little scatter shot but you can't get too picky because it is very enjoyable. You get some great little character comedy, especially with Alan Arkin as the Chief of CONTROL. It also works in that they don't make Maxwell Smart a complete incompetent. He's an idiot, like most of us are, but it's not ridiculously over the top. Anne Hathaway as Agent 99 doesn't let the side down and The Rock needs to be cast in a decent film soon as he has great comedic potential.
Is it better than the original TV show? That's not the point. The film can pretty much stand on it's own two feet and whilst it's not breaking any boundaries, it's a good piece of fun.
In a word? Hoot.
Warning, Controversy Ahead
This is pretty impressive. But, frankly, the researchers should ignore the disabled and get to work on building my robuit suit. It'll be just like Appleseed!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Because THAT'S a good idea.
So, we're all pretty much agreed that Superman Returns didn't quite hit the mark.
But does it really need to be re-booted as a dark version of Superman? Really?
That's not what Superman is about. It should be about wonder and heroics. The best Superman story in the last ten years is Grant Morrison's All Star Superman and that doesn't have to rely on the tired grim and gritty approach to Superheroes. All it does rely on are the core Superman concepts and good writing.
So none of this gritty nonsense please. That's what we have Frank Miller for.
But does it really need to be re-booted as a dark version of Superman? Really?
That's not what Superman is about. It should be about wonder and heroics. The best Superman story in the last ten years is Grant Morrison's All Star Superman and that doesn't have to rely on the tired grim and gritty approach to Superheroes. All it does rely on are the core Superman concepts and good writing.
So none of this gritty nonsense please. That's what we have Frank Miller for.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Film review: Underdog
Underdog @ IMDB
My tour of the current state of kids films continues unabated, now we venture back into the live action talking animal genre. Considering the last time we wandered down this surprisingly dark alley it was for Alvin and The Chipmunks, also starring Jason Lee, we should probably be concerned.
This time, rather than being cast as an actual human, he's the voice of the eponymous Underdog. An ex-police dog gifted with super-powers following a lab accident, can Underdog protect the city and find a new family?
Of course he can. This is a kids film. But it's no where near as bad as The Chipmunks. I'm not really sure why.
It's not like the nostalgia factor works outside of the US. This film falls into a strange sub-genre of live action cartoon re-makes, specifically US cartoons from the 50s and 60s. This isn't a great sub-genre as other films in it include Rocky & Bullwinkle and George of The Jungle. The only Underdog cartoon I've ever seen was the highlights in the opening credits.
Perhaps it's because Underdog isn't as annoying as the Chipmunks. Lee's usual laconic drawl works quite well in canine form and the special effects are quite good. The human cast, however, is the usual sketched in roles that don't really go anywhere.
The casting itself is, however, a bit interesting. You've got James Belushi cast as the Father of the family so right there you've got a reference to K-9. The main bad guy is great. He's previously been in several indie films but here he really goes for it as the villain. He's chewing scenery as fast as they can build it and he's almost worth the price of entry alone.
So, we seem to be on a sliding scale. Each week gets a bit better and whilst Underdog is no Wall-E it's still an enjoyable film. The main moral to take away from this film is probably only watch Jason Lee in a kid's film if he's the voice of an animal rather than one of the human cast.
In a word? Barking.
Sorry.
My tour of the current state of kids films continues unabated, now we venture back into the live action talking animal genre. Considering the last time we wandered down this surprisingly dark alley it was for Alvin and The Chipmunks, also starring Jason Lee, we should probably be concerned.
This time, rather than being cast as an actual human, he's the voice of the eponymous Underdog. An ex-police dog gifted with super-powers following a lab accident, can Underdog protect the city and find a new family?
Of course he can. This is a kids film. But it's no where near as bad as The Chipmunks. I'm not really sure why.
It's not like the nostalgia factor works outside of the US. This film falls into a strange sub-genre of live action cartoon re-makes, specifically US cartoons from the 50s and 60s. This isn't a great sub-genre as other films in it include Rocky & Bullwinkle and George of The Jungle. The only Underdog cartoon I've ever seen was the highlights in the opening credits.
Perhaps it's because Underdog isn't as annoying as the Chipmunks. Lee's usual laconic drawl works quite well in canine form and the special effects are quite good. The human cast, however, is the usual sketched in roles that don't really go anywhere.
The casting itself is, however, a bit interesting. You've got James Belushi cast as the Father of the family so right there you've got a reference to K-9. The main bad guy is great. He's previously been in several indie films but here he really goes for it as the villain. He's chewing scenery as fast as they can build it and he's almost worth the price of entry alone.
So, we seem to be on a sliding scale. Each week gets a bit better and whilst Underdog is no Wall-E it's still an enjoyable film. The main moral to take away from this film is probably only watch Jason Lee in a kid's film if he's the voice of an animal rather than one of the human cast.
In a word? Barking.
Sorry.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Film review: Horton Hears a Who
Horton Hears a Who @ IMDB
Now, when I was a kid, hand drawn animation was king
Well, to be fair, Disney was all but dead on it's feet, cartoons on TV were being shopped out to cheap Far East animation houses to churn out 30 minute toy adverts and hardly anyone was putting out any animated feature films.
Then a couple of things happened: The Little Mermaid (which revitalized Disney and animated features in general) and Toy Story (which proved that 3D animation could work in the cinema).
So had a lot of studios looking at the success Disney was having with Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King etc and set up their own animation houses but when Toy Story came along heads were turned again. It was a combination of animated kids films being again critically and (more importantly) commercially successful plus a new medium that wasn't as labour intensive as hand drawn animation.
This short recap is why we have had the glut of 3D films over the last few years which brings us to Horton Hears a Who.
Based on the story by Dr Seuss, it is about Horton the elephant who finds a spec upon which is an entire world, lived in the Whos.
Dr Seuss hasn't had a great time of it in recent times in the cinema. We've had the two live action adaptations, How The Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in The Hat. Both far from ideal. Why?
Simple. The worlds created in the films looked...flat. The artwork is the Suess stories is wildly surreal which is never quite carried off in the previous films.
This film, however, nails the look of the books perfect. It is for reasons like this that 3D animation proves why it has grown to dominate the animated world. The scope of movement and design is fantastic. But, the problem with all these 3D animated films is that they just don't try. Whilst Pixar is out there really pushing what you can do in an animated film for kids, most just don't bother. They get the cute animals, a few throwaway references for the adults watching, wrap it up in a mice moral package and there you go.
Which is what Horton suffers from. It's not bad: it bounds along, some of the set pieces are funny, it looks great, the message is delivered nicely (if repeatedly) but it just doesn't get to the heights of a Pixar film.
But again, this is not aimed at me and my son loved it. And the monkeys were really funny but then monkeys always are.
In a word? Pleasant.
Now, when I was a kid, hand drawn animation was king
Well, to be fair, Disney was all but dead on it's feet, cartoons on TV were being shopped out to cheap Far East animation houses to churn out 30 minute toy adverts and hardly anyone was putting out any animated feature films.
Then a couple of things happened: The Little Mermaid (which revitalized Disney and animated features in general) and Toy Story (which proved that 3D animation could work in the cinema).
So had a lot of studios looking at the success Disney was having with Mermaid, Aladdin, Lion King etc and set up their own animation houses but when Toy Story came along heads were turned again. It was a combination of animated kids films being again critically and (more importantly) commercially successful plus a new medium that wasn't as labour intensive as hand drawn animation.
This short recap is why we have had the glut of 3D films over the last few years which brings us to Horton Hears a Who.
Based on the story by Dr Seuss, it is about Horton the elephant who finds a spec upon which is an entire world, lived in the Whos.
Dr Seuss hasn't had a great time of it in recent times in the cinema. We've had the two live action adaptations, How The Grinch Stole Christmas and The Cat in The Hat. Both far from ideal. Why?
Simple. The worlds created in the films looked...flat. The artwork is the Suess stories is wildly surreal which is never quite carried off in the previous films.
This film, however, nails the look of the books perfect. It is for reasons like this that 3D animation proves why it has grown to dominate the animated world. The scope of movement and design is fantastic. But, the problem with all these 3D animated films is that they just don't try. Whilst Pixar is out there really pushing what you can do in an animated film for kids, most just don't bother. They get the cute animals, a few throwaway references for the adults watching, wrap it up in a mice moral package and there you go.
Which is what Horton suffers from. It's not bad: it bounds along, some of the set pieces are funny, it looks great, the message is delivered nicely (if repeatedly) but it just doesn't get to the heights of a Pixar film.
But again, this is not aimed at me and my son loved it. And the monkeys were really funny but then monkeys always are.
In a word? Pleasant.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Film review: Alvin and The Chipmunks
Alvin and The Chipmunks @ IMDB
My son likes going to the cinema. And I like taking him, not only because he should enjoy going to the cinema but also because my nearest cinema shows kids films on a Saturday morning for £1 a ticket.
The problem is this: not every kids film is made by Pixar. Case in point: Alvin and The Chipmunks.
It's just so...meh. It's so meh I can't be bothered to repeat the plot, what little there is. I remember some singing chipmunks getting into some hi-jinks with people talking in between. I think.
It's not that it's bad, there's just no ambition. I think it's trying to make a statement about the treadmill like nature of the modern music industry using the Chipmunks as a metaphor for the young talents sucked into the materialistic, money obssesed mainstream pop machine.
Tries to. All you really get is the aforementioned hi-jinks and the talking and that's about it.
Basically, it's a by the book kids film so it's not aimed at me. My son however loved it. So there you go, like in every Spielberg film you should ignore the adult and listen to the children.
Just let it be known that you were warned.
In a word? Yawn.
My son likes going to the cinema. And I like taking him, not only because he should enjoy going to the cinema but also because my nearest cinema shows kids films on a Saturday morning for £1 a ticket.
The problem is this: not every kids film is made by Pixar. Case in point: Alvin and The Chipmunks.
It's just so...meh. It's so meh I can't be bothered to repeat the plot, what little there is. I remember some singing chipmunks getting into some hi-jinks with people talking in between. I think.
It's not that it's bad, there's just no ambition. I think it's trying to make a statement about the treadmill like nature of the modern music industry using the Chipmunks as a metaphor for the young talents sucked into the materialistic, money obssesed mainstream pop machine.
Tries to. All you really get is the aforementioned hi-jinks and the talking and that's about it.
Basically, it's a by the book kids film so it's not aimed at me. My son however loved it. So there you go, like in every Spielberg film you should ignore the adult and listen to the children.
Just let it be known that you were warned.
In a word? Yawn.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Wa-hoo!
Happy with that. It is a great game but does look a bit bobbins these days. Hopefully the PS3 will make it so that buildings don't randomly appear when you're three feet away from them.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Film review: The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight @ IMDB
We've had a lot of Comic Book films this year and most have been really good. But all of the review have had a little caveat at the end, normally along the lines of "this film is really good and is the best comic film but The Dark Knight is out later this year".
It's fair to say that the hype for this film has been immense. The reboot of the Batman franchise was a critical success so that was creating a lot of expectations anyway. The viral marketing campaign was drawing them in then you have Heath Ledger's death and everything seems to have gone through the roof.
It's an awful lot of weight to put on one film and when this happens they usually collapse: see Star Wars Prequels, Matrix sequels, Superman Returns, etc.
Luckily, this film has some very broad shoulders.
So, we have Batman continuing his battle against the Gotham Criminal Underworld now helped by the new District Attorney Harvey Dent. Perhaps Harvey can take over the fight and Batman can retire?
Not if The Joker has anything to say about it.
We'll get it out of the way first: Heath Ledger is really good. Really good.
So is everyone else. The returning cast seem very comfortable in their roles and the new members don't let the side down. Aaron Eckhart* as Harvey Dent is great, Maggie Gyllenhall should have been cast in the first film and Heath Ledger is, again, really good.
But it's no point having a great cast if the film itself is rubbish and, thankfully, that is not the case here. Christopher Nolan has crafted a complex, deep film about heroism and what it means and what happens when heroes fall. It is a meaty film with the running time to match. That's not a bad thing because it give the film room to breathe. It's a very measured film, it doesn't have a breakneck pace but it doesn't need to.
So, we have great performances, an excellent story, an amazing score. Perfect film? Pretty much. There is a Bat-Gadget introduced at the end that very nearly destroys the air of realism built over the two films. Some may flinch at the running time. It's still a guy dressed as a bat beating people up so if you don't buy into that then the film doesn't work.
In a word? Dynamic.
* He's not a household name but we like Aaron Eckhart films in the Doyle Household. Well, it's only really The Core, one of the most scientifically incorrect (allegedly) films ever made but great fun.
We've had a lot of Comic Book films this year and most have been really good. But all of the review have had a little caveat at the end, normally along the lines of "this film is really good and is the best comic film but The Dark Knight is out later this year".
It's fair to say that the hype for this film has been immense. The reboot of the Batman franchise was a critical success so that was creating a lot of expectations anyway. The viral marketing campaign was drawing them in then you have Heath Ledger's death and everything seems to have gone through the roof.
It's an awful lot of weight to put on one film and when this happens they usually collapse: see Star Wars Prequels, Matrix sequels, Superman Returns, etc.
Luckily, this film has some very broad shoulders.
So, we have Batman continuing his battle against the Gotham Criminal Underworld now helped by the new District Attorney Harvey Dent. Perhaps Harvey can take over the fight and Batman can retire?
Not if The Joker has anything to say about it.
We'll get it out of the way first: Heath Ledger is really good. Really good.
So is everyone else. The returning cast seem very comfortable in their roles and the new members don't let the side down. Aaron Eckhart* as Harvey Dent is great, Maggie Gyllenhall should have been cast in the first film and Heath Ledger is, again, really good.
But it's no point having a great cast if the film itself is rubbish and, thankfully, that is not the case here. Christopher Nolan has crafted a complex, deep film about heroism and what it means and what happens when heroes fall. It is a meaty film with the running time to match. That's not a bad thing because it give the film room to breathe. It's a very measured film, it doesn't have a breakneck pace but it doesn't need to.
So, we have great performances, an excellent story, an amazing score. Perfect film? Pretty much. There is a Bat-Gadget introduced at the end that very nearly destroys the air of realism built over the two films. Some may flinch at the running time. It's still a guy dressed as a bat beating people up so if you don't buy into that then the film doesn't work.
In a word? Dynamic.
* He's not a household name but we like Aaron Eckhart films in the Doyle Household. Well, it's only really The Core, one of the most scientifically incorrect (allegedly) films ever made but great fun.
Holy Bat-Curse!
Let's examine the facts:
1) Heath Ledger dies.
2) Christian Bale beats up several family members
3) Morgan Freeman gets himself into a car crash.
The first and third one do look a bit curse-ish but you can't really justify opening a can of whoop-ass on your Mum by saying you were cursed.
Can you?
1) Heath Ledger dies.
2) Christian Bale beats up several family members
3) Morgan Freeman gets himself into a car crash.
The first and third one do look a bit curse-ish but you can't really justify opening a can of whoop-ass on your Mum by saying you were cursed.
Can you?
Friday, August 01, 2008
Film review: Wall-E
Wall-E @ IMDB
I think we can all agree at this point that Pixar make really really good films. Has there ever been a bad Pixar film? Even the worst Pixar film is better than the majority of animated dross that gets thrown at us.
So when I say that the new Pixar film is one of, if not the best Pixar film then it's pretty damn good.
Wall-E is a robot that has been left alone cleaning Earth for 700 years. His best friend is a cockroach and he spends his evening watching Hello Dolly and waiting for...something. Then another robot named EVE arrives and Wall-E< falls in love.
Toy Story changed cinema when it was released but comparing it to Wall-E is like comparing a cave painting to a Van Gough. It looks amazing. Previous Pixar films have made various leaps in 3D technology; the hair in Monster's Inc, the water in Finding Nemo, the food in Ratatouille. What Wall-E really advances is the 3D camera itself. It looks like it was filmed. The depth of field and movement is astoundingly realistic. Couple that with the overall design, including Wall-E himself and you have one amazing looking film.
And it's so different as well. You get the feeling this is Pixar really flexing their creative freedom. How many other merchandising juggernauts have no words spoken for the first 40 minutes? There's live action footage thrown in there as well. It's so different than the usual kids films like Madagascar or Ice Age.
One might argue that the story gets reigned in once Wall-E gets into space and meets the Humans but that's not a problem. You get so drawn into the relationship between the two robot leads that you get swept along.
It's simply a great film. And my son, not yet four years old, sat through the whole film entranced. That's all you need to know really.
Two final points: the end credits are amazing. Before the film starts there is the traditional Pixar short film and this one is a corker. Absolutely hilarious.
In a word? Astounding.
I think we can all agree at this point that Pixar make really really good films. Has there ever been a bad Pixar film? Even the worst Pixar film is better than the majority of animated dross that gets thrown at us.
So when I say that the new Pixar film is one of, if not the best Pixar film then it's pretty damn good.
Wall-E is a robot that has been left alone cleaning Earth for 700 years. His best friend is a cockroach and he spends his evening watching Hello Dolly and waiting for...something. Then another robot named EVE arrives and Wall-E< falls in love.
Toy Story changed cinema when it was released but comparing it to Wall-E is like comparing a cave painting to a Van Gough. It looks amazing. Previous Pixar films have made various leaps in 3D technology; the hair in Monster's Inc, the water in Finding Nemo, the food in Ratatouille. What Wall-E really advances is the 3D camera itself. It looks like it was filmed. The depth of field and movement is astoundingly realistic. Couple that with the overall design, including Wall-E himself and you have one amazing looking film.
And it's so different as well. You get the feeling this is Pixar really flexing their creative freedom. How many other merchandising juggernauts have no words spoken for the first 40 minutes? There's live action footage thrown in there as well. It's so different than the usual kids films like Madagascar or Ice Age.
One might argue that the story gets reigned in once Wall-E gets into space and meets the Humans but that's not a problem. You get so drawn into the relationship between the two robot leads that you get swept along.
It's simply a great film. And my son, not yet four years old, sat through the whole film entranced. That's all you need to know really.
Two final points: the end credits are amazing. Before the film starts there is the traditional Pixar short film and this one is a corker. Absolutely hilarious.
In a word? Astounding.
Top Down Cloverfield? I'm There
Wow. This looks ace.
I saw a trailer for this a while ago and assumed it would only come out on Japan but the trailer is now up on the European PlayStation Store which is a good sign.
Basically, the game uses hi-res Google Maps of various cities. You have to guide a group of people through the streets whilst avoiding monsters trying to eat them.
I like monsters. Sounds way fun.
I saw a trailer for this a while ago and assumed it would only come out on Japan but the trailer is now up on the European PlayStation Store which is a good sign.
Basically, the game uses hi-res Google Maps of various cities. You have to guide a group of people through the streets whilst avoiding monsters trying to eat them.
I like monsters. Sounds way fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
PS3 ID
