2011 as a movie year

'twas all right.

I can't help but be underwhelmed by a year that didn't supply anything to my list of favourite films of all time. 2009 gave me The Princess and the Frog and 2010 introduced me to Scott Pilgrim. This year didn't really have a definite stand-out best film for my tastes.

As far as drama goes, Drive and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were the best that I saw, representing the opposite virtues of minimalism and... blockbuster-ism.

In action, Tintin was the best. Captain America gets a honourable mention for managing to do well worldwide, while apparently North America couldn't care less for Tintin.

Even my more optimistic movienut friend was willing to admit that this was a poor year for comedy. Paul was the best that comes to mind, and though it's a pretty good film, the general level of humour was low. Midnight in Paris gets the honourable mention for Adrien Brody as Salvador Dalí, the best one-scene performance of the year by far.

Immortals was the shittiest film I saw. Transformers 3 was really bad too, but somehow I can't really get emotional about a Transformers movie being bad anymore at this point.

I don't really care that much for Oscars, myself, so no comments about my guesses or bets regarding the nominations and victories there.

Well, that's it for 2011. Let's see what 2012 has in store! Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hobbit and Prometheus seem to hold a lot of promise.

PS. 13 Assassins was left unmentioned in this post because it saw its original Japanese release in 2010. If it was a 2011 movie, it'd be the best one.

Attack the Block

This is going to be a short review. I saw this movie a few days back, and honestly it didn't raise enough thoughts in my to make a full-length review, which is why I've been considering skipping it entirely. I'll just say what little I have to say.

Attack the Block is a British comedy film about a bunch of teenaged South London gansta-wannabies. It's Guy Fawkes Night, and the kids' robbery of a bypasser is interrupted by an alien invasion. The movie balances between developing the characters, having them chased around by monsters and having them deliver pretty well-written humour.

The film's greatest triumph is that it takes character types who are normally very, very, very annoying and makes the audience like them. Or at least the attempt worked on me. The accents, the attitudes, the actions, all of it is the sort of stuff I normally loathe in a film. At first, the boys seem like they've escaped out of Michael Bay's secret Transformers In London project, but in the end they earn their status as protagonists. The performances aren't anything too special, but they're fine. Nick Frost appears as a drug dealer, but honestly he's not that special without his best buddy Simon Pegg to play off of.

The aliens are designed interestingly, with a very minimalistic look aside from one visual detail that is used effectively in the cinematography. The action scenes get a bit too hectic at times, but for the most part they're fine. The climax of the movie is surprisingly tense, if a bit pretentious in its attempt to ethically redeem the main gangmember.

I liked it okay. It's an above-average alien-invasion spoof. Unfortunately, the distribution for it is kinda screwed up, so at some markets it may already have passed. Give it a watch if you've got the chance.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

For those who missed it, 2009's Sherlock Holmes ended with a cliffhanger wherein Irene Adler's mysterious employer Professor Moriarty, who was only seen in shadow, stole a radio-trasmitter from the chemical weapon of that film's main villain. Holmes concluded that this enigmatic Moriarty must be planning something big indeed!

So, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows picks up from that by having Moriarty be a well-known scientist of many fields as well as a politician, and having him show his face every five minutes on screen. What's more, his sinister plans never use the radio-transmitter sequelbait.

I dunno, something about this weird disconnect between the setup and the film that it spawned just bothers me.

But anyways, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law return as Holmes and Watson in A Game of Shadows, which is a very, very, very loose adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle's The Final Problem, also known as "the story Doyle wrote to kill off Sherlock Holmes, since he was tired of writing him", or "the one with Moriarty". It mostly treads on familiar territory, though with every aspect (character quirks, comic relief, action) supercharged. It's very reminiscent of Pirates 2 at times, actually; Jack Sparrow was turned into a human shishkabob, while Sherlock Holmes dresses as a prostitute. You can get a pretty good impression of what the movie is like from its trailers, though the trailers also spoil a lot of the jokes, so I'd advice not watching them.

And speaking of the jokes, most of them missed me. I guess I must either be turning into a grump or developing actual taste, but I don't find the sort of humour most of this film went for funny. The girls one row behind me were rolling on their seats from the hilarity of it, but I'd prefer for the comedy to focus on the characters of Holmes and Watson. Watching Downey and Law play off each other is very satisfying, which just serves to make it more grating when the film goes for lowest-common-denominator humour like the above-mentioned crossdressing and other such things.

The performances on the main leads are as good as in the 2009 picture, which is the main thing that saved the sequel to me. However, I found Jared Harris as Moriarty very dull. He's kind of wicked, but not on the same caricature level of ridiculousness as the rest of the movie, and thus feels out of place. A cartoonish, hammy villain would have worked in the film's advantage, like it did with Davy Jones in Pirates. Also, Stephen Fry plays Mycroft Holmes as an exaggerated version of himself.

The action scenes are pretty good, most of the time. I really liked the use of "Sherlock-vision", though the climax of the film proves that you can take even that too far. The scene ends up being really unintentionally hilarious, and basically turns Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty into Cameron Vale and Darryl Revok. Aside from that time, though, the action is well planned and executed.

The plot... is just there. It's thin and kind of hole-y, but none of the plot holes are really glaring enough to get in the way of enjoying the film. Don't expect a detective story or mystery out of a movie about the world's greatest detective (outside of Batman, of course), though.

Overall, it's fine. It's a hypercharged version of the first one. If you're into that sort of thing, go see it.

This just in

The Adventures of Tintin lost to Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked in the US Box Office on its opening day.

...

I'll let George Takei speak for me on this:

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I don't think this movie should have been made. The only reason it exists is because North-Americans are too lazy to read subtitles, and need an English-spoken remake of a (reputedly) perfectly serviceable Swedish movie. HOWEVER, I will not count that against The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Just like I reviewed Conan by its own merits, I'll review this movie as a stand-alone work.

Based on the Stieg Larsson book Män som hatar kvinnor ("Men Who Hate Women"), David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo ("Unnecessary Retitle") is a mystery/detective/drama film about Mikael Blomkvist, played by Daniel Craig, a journalist who has been found guilty for libel and witnesses his career falling apart around himself. To his surprise, he receives an invitation from reclusive ex-CEO Henrik Vanger, played by Christopher effing Plummer, along with a job proposal: Vanger wants Blomkvist to investigate his family and find out who killed his great-niece Harriet in the sixties.

Meanwhile, young deliquent Lisbeth Salander, played by Rooney Mara, who was hired to do the background check on Blomkvist before he got the job, goes through trouble with the social services, and strives to survive in a society that she has a hard time fitting into. At first her subplot seems needless, but it ends up uniting with the main story halfway through the movie... which is a bit too late for my tastes.

The setting of the movie is a delicate matter, but I am happy to report that Dragon Tattoo manages to feel like it's set in Sweden, rather than being obviously American. The street signs, the candy wrappers, the nature... it never broke my suspension of disbelief. The langauge is an interesting thing: the actors speak English with very slight Swedish accents, which reinforce the feeling perfectly. The one exception is a TV-host heard early and late in the film, who goes for the most exaggerated Swedish accent ever, and made me giggle out loud both times she spoke.

The performances are top-notch. Plummer shines especially, but Stellan Skarsgård as Vanger's great-nephew Martin manages to also be extremely convincing and kind of impressive in his big scenes. Daniel Craig, whom I've always been ambivalent toward in the past, makes a really good everyman protagonist. Rooney Mara is kind of weird: the character she plays is so obviously messed up that at times it's hard to tell if the actress is doing a bad job or if it's all a part of the movie.

David Fincher's touch is felt throughout the project: the weather is used effectively to establish atmosphere, the camera angles are really impressive without being distracting... the different elements are all sewn together with expertese.

The movie suffers from those old, well-known pacing issues that are almost inevitable when adapting a book into a motion picture. As mentioned above, the two plotlines seem really inconsequential toward each other for most of the movie, and the movie takes way too long to wrap itself up at the end. The final scene is great, but the five or so scenes before that could have been cut with almost no impact.

The weird thing about Dragon Tattoo is that it inherits certain elements from the source material, which make it at times feel like a European detective story in the trappings of a Hollywood blockbuster. This is especially visible in the research montage: it's exactly the sort of thing that is used to drive the plot forward in The Old Fox and other German detective shows my parents used to watch, but it's edited and shot in such an exciting and efficient way, it almost becomes a music video at times. So yeah, best research montage ever.

I recommend this movie to everyone, and especially people who like detective stories. It's not too American for Europeans, and it definitely isn't too European for Americans. I still have two weeks left to make up my mind, but this may be my "movie of the year".

The Unknown Soldier (1955)

Happy Finnish independence day! I have mentioned in the past that I'm not big into nationalism, but I'm taking this occasion to review the cornerstone of Finnish cinema, Edvin Laine's The Unknown Soldier, which is shown on TV every year on the sixth of December. It is the most viewed film in Finnish cinema history, though the Finnish film with the most views internationally is Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning (thank you, internet).

Based on the 1954 Väinö Linna novel by the same name, The Unknown Soldier is a about the Continuation War between Finland and the Soviet Union, taking place in the years 1941 to 1944. For a brief summary of the historic background of the events, Stalin had invaded Finland two years prior (around the same time as he did the Baltic countries), but the Red Army was blocked off in the 100-day-long Winter War. Afterwards, the Finnish government signed a pact with Nazi Germany to receive equipment for the next war, which they felt was inevitable, and in June of -41, mobilised its army to invade the Soviet Union and reclaim lost territories. Finns tend to be very defensive about all of this, and it's easy to offend them by saying Finland was a part of the Axis. In the movie itself, when the soldiers cross the old border onto territory that was never Finnish, one of them points out they're all robbers and thieves now, and they later discuss who is the blame for the war with some Russian civilians.

The film is about a machine gun regiment full of soldiers from different backgrounds, as they fight their way to Petrozavodsk and retreat from the Soviet counterattack. Its led by three lieutenants, each of which represents a different method of wartime leadership, but the soldiers are the true protagonists. There's the merry comedian with a funny accent, the straight-laced socialist who hates the officers due to class differences, the always-cool Karelian farmer whose hometown fell to Soviet rule after the last war, the theatrical would-be inventor, the young and naivé recruit who refuses to listen to advice from his elders, and so forth. A lot of emphasis is put on outlining their different world views and personalities... but unfortunately, their names are very rarely used and many of them look alike. I know I have a bad facial memory, but this is my greatest criticism to the movie: I can't tell most of the characters apart from each other. It takes the drama out of a lot of the scenes when I can't tell whether the person who is getting shot has a name or not.

The actors are actually pretty good most of the time, aside from some of the cringe-inducingly bad bit players, who only get a death scene. There's one soldier who gets shot and asks an officer to pray for him, and if this movie wasn't fifty-six years old, I'd swear he's doing a really bad William Shatner impression. All the main actors are good, though. I especially like Tarmo Manni as Private Honkajoki. He doesn't get nearly as much screen time as the other actors, but he manages to steal every scene he's in.

The action scenes are kind of hit-and-miss: most of them consist of the characters lying in brushes and firing machine guns at some unseen enemy. The Russians are rarely seen at all, and most of the time the opposition's only mark on-screen is a constant artillery barrage. I think that the pyrotechnics used to achieve the shelling are really impressive, even today, and have a real impact. Personally, I would have preferred for the enemy to have more of a presence in the film, but other than that, the actual war in this war movie is pretty good.

Another problem I have with this movie is the script and editing. You can really tell it's a novel adaptation because the pacing and narrative cohesion are really poor. In a book, you can tell the readers via narration about how the war is going, and thus just show the important scenes between the characters. In the movie, there's no narration. It's replaced by minute-long montages of extras in uniforms marching. Thus, it's hard to keep track of how the war is going and where the protagonists' unit is moving to next. There are also many stand-alone scenes that don't really contribute much to the film overall, and are most likely just remnants of subplots in the book that were mostly cut for the movie.

The cinematography and score are unremarkable, except for the opening scene, from which the novel and film get their name. The unit carries the corpse of a soldier whose face is never shown and buries him, leaving a pine-branch as his tombstone and walking away, while Jean Sibelius' Finlandia plays in the background. The camera angles, the music and the lack of dialogue are a winning combination. Another standout scene is the one where Corporal Lehto and two privates are ordered to stand in attention for two hours in punishment for accepting munitions for civilians, and choose to remain still even when the Russians start bombing the field they're in. The editing between the stock footage of bomber planes and shots of the actors is done really well, and the explosions on the set have a real feel of danger.

Overall, I can see why The Unknown Soldier is a classic, but there are several noticeable flaws, and it shows its age in negative ways as well as positive. It's worth seeing... but it gets a bit boring at times. Maybe next year I'll review the 1985 remake, and see if it's superior, as some people told me it is.

In Time

"For a few to be immortal, many must die."

In a dystopic future, aging has been cured. When people turn 25, they stop getting any older. However, to stop overpopulation everyone has an artificial limit to their lifespans. Everyone has a green, glowy counter tattooed to their wrist, allowing them to see their life tick away before their eyes. When someone runs out of time, they fall over, dead. Time can be exchanged, and has replaced money as the effective currency of the world. Working-class people have to earn time every day just to keep themselves alive. Beggars walk the street, asking people for a minute. Robbers, referred to as "minutemen", literally steal people's lives in back alleys. In the rich parts of town, the privileged gamble away decades, have been 25 for hundreds of years, and have the same biological age as their own grandchildren.

If that isn't an awesome premise for a film, I have no idea what is! This is exactly what science fiction is supposed to be: talking about issues with our own world by using fantastic allegories. In this case, the subject is the increasing income gap. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer, and in this allegory, the poor have to literally give away their lives to pay the rent, or put food on the table.

In Time stars Justin Timberlake (who's actually a good actor, if you can be adult enough to not hate him because he was in a boy band) as Will Salas, a young manual labourer with a chip on his shoulder. Amanda Seyfried plays Sylvia Weis, the daughter of an immensely rich banker, bored with a life of dull safety. Cillian Murhpy is Reymond Leon, a zealous policeman tasked with making sure the time-system remains intact. However, the real star of the movie is the setting; real effort was put into communicating the sense of urgency people live in, and trying to change even the little details to fit the difference their ways of thinking and doing. Poor people do things fast, and mostly run from place to place, while the rich have time to spare. Likewise, those who are low on time tend to wear clothes that make it convenient to check their wrists almost twice a minute, while those who don't need to worry keep their arms covered. My favourite little touch is that killing someone by stealing away all their time is referred to as "cleaning their clock".

The actual plot is not quite as good as the premise would promise, however. In Time is all about raging for this very real issue, but at times it gets dangerously close to becoming a power fantasy: "Will Salas is the man who can fix everything, because he knows what's right and he's got the balls to do it!" The protagonist's solutions are actually pretty simple, but we're left to assume nobody else has ever tried them before. The film does question whether one man can change anything several times, but in the end seems to ignore all that. It's not quite as extreme as Surrogates (which was about people living out their lives with robotic bodies so they never have to leave their rooms), where the end had Bruce Willis shut everything down and the implication is that everything worked out fine, but I could have used a more subtle resolution nonetheless.

Though In Time is an action movie, its action mostly focuses on chases, whether they be on foot or in cars. Most of it is well-executed, except for one really fake-looking CGI car in a crash scene. It may bug you that nobody uses any future-weaponry, or has a flying car, but in truth such details would only have distracted from the main gimmick of the setting.

I don't have much else to say. Mostly, In Time is just a pretty good movie with pretty good acting, pretty good action and a pretty good script. To me, it's the imaginative premise that elevates it to something special. It's a fine way to spend 100 minutes of your precious time, if you've got any to spare, but becomes a must-see if you're into that sort of thing. Director/writer Andrew Niccol already had my approval from his masterpiece Lord of War, and I now look forward to seeing his future projects as well.

People in the Movie Industry I'm a Fan of #2

Vincent Price (1911-1993) - Film, stage, television and voice actor

Live-action roles: House of Wax (1953 version, Professor Henry Jarrod), The Fly (1958 version, François Delambre), The Last Man on Earth (Dr. Robert Morgan), The Abominable Dr. Phibes (Dr. Anton Phibes), Edward Scissorhands (The Inventor)
Voice roles: Michael Jackson's Thriller (The Narrator), Tim Burton's Vincent (The Narrator), The Great Mouse Detective (Professor Ratigan), The Thief and the Cobbler (Zig-Zag)

Vincent Price! What can I say, other than that he was one of the most charismatic men to ever appear in a motion picture? He was a bridging gap between the horror actors of the Universal Era and the Hammer Age, and remained in the business for almost fifty years. He had a unique voice, and the way he pronounced words was just delicious (he spends most of The Great Mouse Detective baby-talking, but it never gets annoying).

Price never did have a really iconic role that even the most ignorant layman should know, which is probably why he's best known as Vincent Price, undefined by a single fictional character. He did, however, tend to get cast in certain kinds of roles, which are best summed up by Vincent, Tim Burton's excellent stop-motion tribute, narrated by the man himself. Price considered the short film "the most gratifying thing that ever happened".

In his free time, Price was a collector of art; in 1951 he donated ninety paintings from his own collection to a community college for teaching purposes, making them the first public school in the US to own a teaching art collection. He never let fame get into his head either: he considered appearing in The Muppet Show a tremondous honour.

Random facts: He and Christopher Lee (who were friends) were both born on the 27th of May. Price played both Abraham Lincoln and Oscar Wilde on stage. His final line of dialogue in a film was "this is the end".

Instead of presenting a quote of choice, I'll embed the song "Goodbye, So Soon" from The Great Mouse Detective.

Clancy Brown - Voice and film actor
Live-action roles: Highlander (The Kurgan), The Shawshank Redemption (Guard Captain Hadley), Starship Troopers (Drill Sergeant Zim)
Voice roles: Gargoyles (Hakon, Wolf), The Spectacular Spider-Man (Rhino, Captain Stacy), Jackie Chan Adventures (Captain Black, Ratso), Sponge Bob Square Pants (Mr. Krabs), Crash Bandicoot (most of the games as Dr. Neo Cortex and Uka Uka), Lex Luthor in basically every DC cartoon to feature the character

"That dude with the smooth voice". Ironic, since his rise to fame was as The Kurgan, a role in which he growled all his dialogue. As far as fame goes, Brown may pale before Price, but unlike poor Vincent, Brown did appear in Shawshank, and thus has the license to add "I was in one of the best movies ever made" to his tombstone.

He's best known among geek circles for being the longest-standing single actor to ever play Superman's archnemesis Lex Luthor. He started in the role in Superman: The Animated Series in 1996, and he's reprised it as recently as 2009 in Superman/Batman: Public Enemies. In Batman: The Brave and the Bold, he actually stepped down on playing Luthor, only to play an alien counterpart called Rohtul (get it?). His other voice work tends to focus on the villain side, too, which is really a shame because his silky voice can work on a supporting good guy, and he makes a pretty good straight man for comedy scenes as witnessed in that Jackie Chan cartoon.

Also, is it just me or does he kind of look like Ron Perlman?

Quote of choice: "President? Do you know how much power I'd have to give to be president?"

Wright (sceptical), Frost (confused) and Pegg (aggressive)

The Cornetto Trio (Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost)
Movies: Shaun of the Dead (Wright directed, Wright and Pegg wrote, Pegg and Frost starred), Hot Fuzz (same credits as Shaun), Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (Wright directed, co-produced and co-wrote), Paul (Pegg and Frost starred and wrote), The Adventures of Tintin (Wright co-wrote, Pegg and Frost appeared as Dupont and Dupond)

It's quite simple: these three dudes make great movies. Now, honestly I think Shaun of the Dead is a tad overrated (a word I dislike using): it doesn't really hold up for more than one view and some of the acting is a bit shoddy. It's got a great script, though, and it lay the foundations for what I hope to be one of the best group of careers Hollywood will see during our lives.

Hot Fuzz is one of the most tightly-written films ever: no word is ever spoken, or an object shown on screen, which isn't later brought up for a gag or a plot point. It and Scott Pilgrim also cemented Edgar Wright's trademark directing method: absolutely everything is puntuated with rapid fire editing to create mock drama. Dramatic paperwork. Dramatic ice cream shopping. Dramatic shoe lace tying. I can't wait to see Wright return to the director's chair to see whether he can keep the gag fresh in the future too.

In general, reminding myself of Wright, Pegg and Frost is a good way for me to get excited. For all the great movie stars and makers of the past, it's wonderful to know that talented people exist today, and I'm going to get to see first-hand all the stuff they make here on out. If that isn't fanning, I don't know what is.

Quote of choice: "I dunno... pub?"

Immortals

A few years back, the Clash of the Titans remake shook the world with its blandness and predictability. Now, a suspiciously similar film titled Immortals has arrived in the cinema near you. Do you dare risk it and go see this movie? Could it actually be better than Clash was?

As far as I'm concerned, it's not. Not only is it shit, but it's shit that tries to be something really epic, and looks doubly bad due to reaching for the skies.

Immortals is about Theseus (no relation to the Greek mythic character), played by Henry Cavill, who'll be Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel film. He's a bastard borne of rape, brought up by his mother and taught combat and ethics by the only really good thing about the film, John Hurt. Why does John Hurt teach him combat and ethics? Well, because he's Zeus (no relation to the Greek pagan god) in disguise and wants a mortal warrior who can save humanity from itself. So why does Theseus' mother let John Hurt teach her son? Theseus very aggressively declines an invitation to join the army early on in the movie, so why is he learning how to fight? I have no idea! I guess it's not important to know the basic premise of the plot very well.

Meanwhile, King Hyperion (no relation to the Greek mythic character), played by Mickey Rourke, is conquering the world, set on releasing the mythic Titans and thus reigning supreme over god and man alike. You see, when gods discovered they could kill each other, they started killing each other, and the losers were locked away in a little cage underground. Hyperion wants to free these imprisoned gods because... uhh... umm... then he'll have dozens of gods running around, killing everyone, instead of like five of them sitting in Olympus and staying out of humanity's way?

These aren't even spoilers. All these plot holes happen in the first twenty minutes of the movie.

So yeah, it's stupid and nonsensical, but is it entertaining? Yes and no. The performances are okay, the action scenes are good (really good when gods are involved), the special effects aren't half bad, and even the 3D is pretty cool when it's noticeable, but somehow the story and pacing manage to kill all of this. I was entertained for more than half of the movie's running time, but I still left out feeling disappointed (which is saying something, considering I was expecting this film to blow), because all it adds up to is nonsense. The Three Musketeers may have been dumb, but at least it never shied away from having fun. This film tries to be serious and meaningful, in denial about its own nature.

Immortals is made with a certain aesthetic vibe to it, an artistic cinematography, costuming and directing which at times gives it a feeling of otherworldly beauty. However, most of the time it just looks ridiculous. I might look at the gods' ridiculous outfits without sniggering if their "dramatic" dialogue wasn't overblown and melodramatic. I might not roll my eyes at the bright red robes and veils of the oracles if they had an actual reason for wearing those things they never wear in any other scene. I'll admit that the locations are pretty cool most of the time, but I'd have preferred to get a good look of that big city near the end, instead of just seeing it in the horizon.

By the way, if you saw the trailer for this and thought: "That magic bow looks really cool! I bet this movie will do all kinds of cool stuff with it", DO NOT BE FOOLED. Every single scene where anyone fires the magic bow is in the trailer. It's not the hero's signature weapon. It's a MacGuffin.

I can't recommend this movie for anyone. It's just no worth seeing. Simple as that.

The Adventures of Tintin

Hey! Finland got a cameo in this picture.

AT LAST! Us Europeans get a movie almost two months before the North Americans do! I feel so vindicated for having to wait half a year for Princess and the Frog to come out. I guess it figures. After all, The Adventures of Tintin is based on an European comic. In fact, this film redeems Franco-Belgian comics in Hollywood from the wake of the lame live-action Asterix films. Let us never bring those things up again.

Tintin is a reporter of ambiguous nationality who has a tendency to get into an adventure pretty much any time he opens his front door. While browsing a flea market, he buys the miniature of an old wooden ship. This causes him and his helpful dog Milou (I refuse to use translated names for these characters, by the way) to be dragged into danger's way. He eventually teams up with Captain Archibald Haddock in a race to find all the clues to a fabulous treasure before the bad guys do.

I was at first pretty sceptical about this movie. Not because it's CG (though a cartoon movie could have worked better), but because I thought they might try to alter the premise to sell it better to audiences who are used to "comic book movies" like The Dark Knight. However, I should have put my trust on Steven Spielberg; Tintin is perfectly in tune with its adventurous roots, and captures the feeling of a children's comic book almost spot-on. And as for those who are sceptical of the CGI, I think that the film looks pretty good. The characters' skins are a bit too unsmooth and blemished for my liking, but it wasn't really distacting. As far as stylished CGI goes, I prefer Tangled, but this is a not-so-close second.

There are so many big names attached to this picture, and most of their individual little touches can be felt throughout. Tintin is a Spielberg producation throughout, complete with music by John Williams. I might be bold enough to call it Indiana Jones 5. Peter Jackson is the producer, will direct the sequel if one is made, and brought along Andy Serkis (Gollum from The Lord of the Rings trilogy) to play Haddock. Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) co-wrote the script, and his BFFs Simon Pegg and Nick Frost voice bumbling detectives Dupont and Dupond. I can't help but get this funny image of Spielberg inviting people to the pre-production table and yelling: "And bring your friends too!"

The action scenes in Tintin are great, with really imaginative scenarios and a damn good balance of serious and silly to them. They get a little cluttered at times, but never descend to incomprehensibility. I think that near the end, the action focuses too much on Haddock and too little on Tintin, but it's all well and good because Haddock is damn entertaining. He's like that character we've all seen a million times, the one who always screws everything up, but he still manages to be endearing and funny when he messes around. However, one thing that I really didn't expect to amuse me so much as the slapstick. I don't think I've ever seen such well-executed physical humour in a motion picture. This isn't your Disney movie where for every punchline the comedy foil says he also has to get hit in the head once, so that audience members with no sense of humour can also find something to laugh at. Here, the slapstick is an end to itself, and the hurt is set up and handled with excellence.

I'm not going to criticise Tintin for having an overly convoluted plot and contrived action scenes. It's an adventure story: people in these things can't file taxes without having to solve five riddles. fight off eight henchmen and escape three death traps. What I am going to criticise it for is having a weak pacing. This is probably a result of the comic adaptation, but that's not an excuse. There's too little rest between action scenes, and at times the plot is unveiled too quick for my taste. At one hour and fifty minutes, this is already a pretty long animated movie, but I think the script needed some work to make it more balanced and less exhausting.

That's... pretty much it. It's a solid adventure film with good humour, and lots of talented people behind the scenes. I didn't really read Tintin as a kid, but I read Uncle Scrooge comics, and the feeling of adventure in this movie makes me tingle with nostalgia.

People in the movie indstury I'm a fan of #1

Tintin premiered today in Finland. I'm seeing it soon with my dad, who's a fan of Franco-Belgian comics in general (and Lucky Luke in particular). I'm going to pretend the short delay is a big deal. Have a non-review post to hold you over!

I was going to make a list of ten movie people I'm a fan of, but when I started writing I realised that the finished article would be uncomfortably long. I decided to stop a little less than halfway through, and see if people like it before writing more. I may make this a continuing sub-series here at Imamobi.

I'm trying to focus on people who aren't exactly household names. Bruce Willis is definitely awesome, and a great actor too, but I think he's gotten enough lauds without my humble blog joining in on the choir too.

Without further ado, I give you...

People in the movie industry I'm a fan of, part 1:

If eyebrows could kill...

Michael Ironside - Film and voice actor
Live-action roles: Total Recall (Richter), Scanners (Darryl Revok), Starship Troopers (Lieutenant Rasczak), Highlander II: The Quickening (General Katana)
Voice roles: Splinter Cell (Sam Fisher), Superman: the Animated Series and Justice League (Darkseid)

Michael Ironside was born to play villains. His distinctive, vicious-looking face and his deep, growly voice make him perfect for any director's B-actor needs. In Scanners, his character uses telepathy to blow up another man's head five minutes into the movie. That's pretty much all you need to know, but I'm going to keep going anyhow.

Aside from his villain roles, Ironside has played military officers in like fifty films. Check out his filmography on IMDB some time, and you'll see at least half his characters have names along the lines of General Badass or Lieutenant Mofo. Heck, he was in both Terminator Salvation and X-Men: First Class as a random navy officer with no personality, just because by this poiny Hollywood knows him as "that guy who looks really authorative in a uniform".

The dude's a decent actor too, aside from his general awesomeness. Watch Scanners some time, and check out how convincing his rage at being compared to his father is.

Quote of choice: I am many things, Kal-El, but here... I am God.


David Cronenberg - Director and writer

His appearance fits his filmography.

Movies: The Fly (1986 version, director and co-writer), Scanners (director and writer), Naked Lunch (director and co-writer), Dead Ringers (director and co-writer), Spider (director and producer), Eastern Promises (director)

And speaking of Scanners! David Cronenberg. The undisputed master of body horror in cinema. That scene where Michael Ironside blows up a man's head? That was my first impression of The Terror of Toronto. I was something like ten when I saw that film. Good times.

Cronenberg's 70s and 80s production is a testament to two things: he knows creepy, and he wants to share creepy with you. The Fly is all about making Jeff Goldblum even uglier than he normally is. The effects for that movie are still phenomenal today, and the resraint shown in utilising them is damn near ingenius.

When he isn't doing something that involves a person physically becoming a monster, Cronenberg does a break by making a movie about someone becoming a monster in their mind. Dead Ringers and Spider are great psychological thrillers and character studies, and the lead performances by Jeremy Irons and Ralph Fiennes respectively are damn near perfect.

Nowadays Cronenberg has moved to a more artsy medium, starting with Spider. I've yet to check out most of his 2000s production, but I'm sure to get to it when I've got the time.

While checking the wikipedia article for Cronenberg during the writing of this article, I discovered that he was at one point directing a sequel to Total Recall. I bet it would have starred Michael Ironside as an armless zombie-Richter with psychic powers.


Jeremy Irons - Film, TV, stage and voice actor

Live-action roles: Dead Ringers (Beverly and Elliot Mantle), Lolita (1997 version, Humbert Humbert), Reversal of Fortune (Claus von Bürlow, Oscar for Best Actor), The Kingdom of Heaven (Tiberias), Die Hard 3 (Simon Gruber)
Voice roles: The Lion King (Scar)

So yeah, once again I find myself mentioning the next item on the list in the previous entry. Jeremy Irons' portrayal of the identical Mantle twins in Cronenberg's Dead Ringers was insanely good. Not only do the fantastic special effects make it hard to remember that Irons doesn't have a real-life dobbelgänger, but he plays them as fundamentally different people in a very convincing way. A big point of the film is that Elliot and Beverly sometimes switch places and act as each other, and Irons manages to play Elliot who's playing Beverly, and vice versa, without it being obvious or too unnoticeable.

Most people of my generation will know Irons as Scar from The Liong King, though. Such irony in casting a Shakespearean actor in a cartoon adaptation of Hamlet. Aside from being a honestly good dramatic actor, he makes a helluva good hammy villain. Scar is such a complete and utter drama queen, and belongs to that list of classic villains. I don't have much to say about that particular role, but I do have on Die Hard With a Vengeance.

Die Hard 3 (or as I like to call it: Jeremy Irons acts like the smarmiest, most self-satisfied asshole Brit ever for two hours) is my personal favourite in the franchise. Aside from Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson having great chemistry with each other, Jeremy Irons plays one of the best villains ever as Simon Gruber. Die Hard 1 started the craze with intelligent, suave villains, but in my opinion Die Hard 3 perfected it. Simon perfectly balances the elements of being really smart and manipulative, but too sure of himself and underestimating of his enemies. Charismatic, but evil.

I'm seriously considering checking out the fairly recent TV series The Borgias, where Jeremy Irons plays the freaking pope.

Quote of choice: Go back to your room and never... NEVER come back until I call you!


Keith David - Actor and voice actor

Nice suit.

Live-action roles: John Carpenter's The Thing (Childs), They Live! (Frank Armitage), Platoon (King), Men at Work (Louis Fedders)
Voice roles: Gargoyles (Goliath, Thailog), Coraline (the cat), The Princess and the Frog (Dr. Facilier), Dissidia: Final Fantasy (Chaos), Mass Effect (Captain Anderson)

The man with the second-deepest voice I've ever heard (number one on that regard may yet feature in a future installment of this listing), Keith David sounds like the most badass motherfucker you've ever heard. He mostly works as a voice actor in video games and cartoons nowadays, but being in two John Carpenter movies definitely qualifies him as a Hollywood personality worth knowing of.

They Live! is a movie which is only really memorable for two things. One is the hilarious, adlibbed catch phrase "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum." The other is a scene where the main hero (Roddy Piper), wants his friend Frank (Keith David), to put on a special pair of sunglasses. Frank doesn't want to put them on, so the two end up fighting. The original script called for a brawl of one to two minutes, but Piper and David coreographed five minutes of fighting on their own and acted it out. The scene that ended up in the film is insanely hilarious due to its many fake endings and completely unnecessary premise. These two guys are beating the shit out of each other, never giving up, because they disagree about whether Frank should try the sunglasses or not.

David's most notable voice role was his starring role in Disney's animted series Gargoyles (one of my favourite children's cartoons ever, despite the fact that I first heard of it when I was eighteen), which gained a huge cult following and made him a nerd cult icon. For a guy in his fifties, he seems to be a real sport about a bunch of sweaty teenagers worshipping him for voicing a blue adonis, since he has attended Gargoyles conventions and mingled with the fans.

My favourite role by David is definitely in The Princess and the Frog, though. Not only does he play a slimy, conniving witch doctor really well, but he sings "Friends on the Other Side", one of the best villain songs out there. The short featurette Disney released shows how David's physical performance while recording was used for his character's facial moves. They totally copied the gap between his teeth too.

Yeah, he can sing. Can he ever sing!

Quote of choice: "There are several sacred things in this world that you don't ever mess with. One of them happens to be another man's fries. Now you remember that, and you'll live a long and healthy life."
 

--


Leave a comment, tell me what you thought of the experimentation. I rather liked writing it, and I'll add more people to my list if I get positive feedback.

The Three Musketeers

Is it me or do they look like vampires?

It baffles me to think that of all the Pirates of the Caribbean rip-offs and cash-ins of the past few years, Pirates 4 has been the least good. Oh well...

So yeah, Paul W. S. Anderson's The Three Musketeers is an action-adventure movie with snarky characters set in a historical period, vaguely based on some previously existing intellectual property (I think there will be seen as their own genre when we look back twenty years from now). The work being loosely adapted this time is Alexandre Dumas' novel by the same name.

Not having (yet) read the book, I can't say how faithful the movie is to it, though the Wikipedia summary of the novel's plot does look vaguely familiar. I was going to keep a mental count on all the anachronisms, but I gave up ten minutes into the movie. It wasn't the underwater crossbows and 17th century scuba gear that broke me, though. You see, the opening action scene is set in Venice, where the heroes are sent to steal the archives of Leonardo da Vinci. If you, dear reader, ever decide to involve da Vinci in your story in some way, please note that he lived in Florence. Italy has more cities than Rome and Venice, you see.

Most of the plot revolves around political intrigue between King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox), Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz), Queen Anne (Juno Temple) and The Count of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Richelieu and Buckingham want to take over France (even though Richelieu rules in all but name, as he did in real history) and chew scenery, and keep scheming against each other and the French royal couple to accomplish that. They employ the director's wife a seductive spy and agent called Milady (Milla Jovovich, who is much hotter here than in The Fifth Element) to accomplish their tasks.

Did you notice that I didn't mention the main characters in that last paragraph? There's a reason for that. The Three Musketeers (and d'Artagnan) themselves are just pawns for the plot, and are basically bribed to take part in it at all. In the second act of the story, they're cast out of their own movie for half an hour so the important characters can advance the story for a change. I'd list the actors for the four, but they honestly left so little impression on me I might as well not. Most of the time, the characters aren't even given much to do, and don't partake in almost any character development. In fact, d'Artagnan is the only one to get an arc, and it doesn't really go anywhere. He starts out as a hot-headed, cocky asshole, bound to get himself killed if he doesn't grow up, and he just kind of... becomes a dashing hero in the finale for no reason.

The other actors are great, though, and the funniest moments of the movie come from performances rather than writing. Freddie Fox manages to be ridiculous, and yet very sympathetic and honest, as the bumbling King. Jovovich oozes charisma and wittiness. And the villains... how do I put this? Orlando Bloom is a more entertaining villain than Christoph Waltz. That's right. Legolas just beat Hans Landa. You see, Bloom's previous resumé is filled with boring, straight-laced, nullodramatic heroes. Now we have him playing the cackling, villainous foreigner with a wacky accent and an even wackier mustache. It's gloriously amusing. Waltz is good as well, though he doesn't ham it up as much as a movie of this... campiness, would justify.

The action is so over-the-top I don't blame the guy two seats right from me for giggling like a lunatic for most of the film. Now, the sword-fights are actually well coreographed and shot, and look pretty restrained as far as swordfights in action-adventure movies go. The other action scenes are basically whatever the writers could think up at any given moment. There's scenes where Jovovich is basically redoing her fights from the Resident Evil films, except now she's wearing a dress, and near the end the movie turns into a rip-off of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I'm not even making that up.

Ridiculous, dumb, simplistic, hyperactive, anachronistic, shallow... yeah, this is a blockbuster, all right. I liked it, though I have this itch its charm won't persist on a second viewing. They're obviously setting up a sequel, and they can count me in.

Oh yeah, and this movie was this 3D. Wait, it was? I could hardly tell...

Drive

Drive is a movie about the Driver (Ryan Gosling), a man without a name or a past. He works as a stuntman in Hollywood films, a mechanic in a garage and a getaway driver for mobsters and robbers. By coincidence, the Driver happens to befriend the girl next door and her young son, and is motivated to pull off a gig to help them out in a tight spot. One thing leads to another, and he finds himself in deep shit, being chased after by hitmen and gangsters aplenty.

I want to stress something out for you: This is not an action movie. There are chase scenes in cars, and gory executions outside them, but they are not the focus of the plot, and if you're only going in to see cars and violence, you'll be let down. In fact, I'd be willing to say that the second-biggest problem with the film is that it does many things well, but doesn't focus on any one aspect of itself well enough. It doesn't go "all the way" with the action, the drama, the crime plot or the characterisations, but feels like all the different subplots were intentionally left half-finished.

Here are the things that Drive has going for it: the Driver is a well-crafted enigma, whose true nature will be up to debate for years to come (my money's on him being autistic); the cinematography, directing and editing are top-notch, and manage to really imprint emotion into scenes and shots where almost nothing is happening; the setting somehow manages to be triumphantly eighties while actually setting place in the modern day; the driving and violence, while short-lived, is fantastically executed (no pun intended); and finally, the soundtrack is really good, though most of the music genres presented aren't really my bag.

Aside from the great main performance, the actors are kind of hit-and-miss. Carey Mulligan as the love interest is very underplayed and ordinary, which is kind of the point, but I don't think her character just has chemistry with the Driver because he's underplayed for completely different, better, reasons. Ron Perlman is the world's most bitter 59-year-old mobster, who's trying very hard to act like a twenty-something gangsta. It is glorious. Albert Brooks (who played the villain in The Simpsons Movie) is the straight-laced businessman gangster, who won't lose his cool until it's really effective to do so. I swear I've seen the exact same character somewhere, but I can't tell where...

To give my main criticism for Drive, I'm going to have to break my own rule and go into spoiler territory. Therefore, SLIGHT NON PLOT-RELATED SPOILER-ISH MATERIAL EXISTS BEYOND THIS SENTENCE. The film doesn't have a climax. It kind of slows down for the final twenty minutes, and then stops. End credits. There was no way to actually fit it into the plot, but I really could have used another chase scene somewhere in there...

SPOILERS END HERE.

I can't really give a definite "go see this" or "don't" about this movie. It depends so much on what you're in the mood for, and whether you can tolerate a little slower and more atmospheric moviemaking. If you can actually enjoy how a movie is shot and edited... this'll be a treat! It's the closest thing to a Grand Theft Auto: Vice City movie we'll ever see.

13 Assassins

These guys? You don't want to fuck with these guys.

Takashi Miike's 13 Assassins is what 300 should have been. It's a violent, historical action movie about the few facing impossible odds, but still has personal drama and character arcs to it. It uses shocking imagery and gore to great effect, instead of just splattering it around to appear edgy. It's made by people from the country it takes place in, so it doesn't neuter the setting to make it more relatable to modern (Yank) audiences.

And I was expecting this movie to be really bad, because I'm still bitter about Ninja Assassin sucking balls. There aren't even any ninja in this movie.

13 Assassins is set in 1844, during Japan's Shogunate period, and the last days of the samurai. Lord Matsudaira Naritsugu is a shogun's younger brother, and will soon ascend to being shogun himself, which doesn't sit well with his subjects-to-be. This is mostly because he's an almost comically heinous monster who uses his high position as an excuse to rape, murder and torture people left and right. The shogun's advisors decide that something must be done, and hire Shimada Shinzaemon, a veteran samurai, to assassinate him. Shinzeamon recruits a ragtag group of warriors to achieve the task, knowing full well that even if they succeed at their task, they will have to give up their former lives for good after having assassinated the shogun's brother.

Now, as much as I like to laud any movie for not treating its viewers like idiots, I have to admit that there is such a thing as expecting too much of them. The early parts of the movie are filled with exposition about the current situation, and you're expected to remember a lot of names and faces to keep up with who's doing what and what their relations to the others in the room are. After about a third of the movie has gone, the planning stage starts, and the pacing gets better. I don't want to spoil anything about the action climax, but let me just say... they're going to have to rename that rule "The Inverse Samurai Law", now.

Aside from the pacing issues and some really shoddy editing, the movie succeeds at being exactly what it wants to be: a shocking, grim action drama where a lot of people get cut up with katana, and the essence of bushido is inspected and questioned.

I saw this movie at the Helsinki International Film Festival, a Finnish event where non-mainstream movies are shown in big cinemas. It premiered in Japan about a year ago, so I don't know if it's running in the cinema near you. If it is, I highly recommend it.

I wish Takashi Miike the best of luck with his next project: The Phoenix Wright film adaptation. (I'm not making this up.)

Midnight in Paris

The best movie poster yet on this blog.

Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is an indecisive, gibbering Hollywood screenwriter, and a hopeless romantic. While visiting Paris with his fiancée Inez (Rachel McAdams) and the in-laws, he realises that he's in love with the city, its rich culture and history. This annoys his missus-to-be, as she's planning on moving to Malibu. When taking a walk on the streets at nighttime to escape Inez's annoying acquintances, he stumbles upon an antique car that takes him to 1920s Paree, where everyone is famous and restaurants serve free champagne to bohemian artists and authors. Gil embarks on a journey of reflection and discovery, and has to come to realise how what he sees in the past applies to his own life.

Midnight in Paris is the first Woody Allen film I've ever seen. Despite having this hole in my filmbuff-cred, I'm aware of Allen's style. The character of Gil is obviously written to be played by the director's younger self, and Owen Wilson was only hired as a stand-in. Wilson himself hasn't been in a single good movie before this that I'm aware of, but he's not that bad an actor. I love his body and facial acting, but the character can get a bit grating over time due to the neurotic tics and stuttering Allen is famous for.

The real showpieces of the movie are the music, the costuming, the supporting actors and Paris itself. The way the city is shot is like a really well done ad for tourism, and I won't blame anyone for wanting to visit Paris after seeing the film. The scenes taking place in the 1920s really have a sense of energy and a lust for life to them, and all the actors playing famous people from the past are magnificent. Corey Stoll as Ernest Hemingway will make you to ask: "Who is this actor and why isn't he in more movies?" Adrien Brody gets a one-scene part as Salvador Dalí, and he's by far one of the most memorable and hilarious things I've seen in a film in some time.

I know that all this talk about early 20th century culture may make some people nod their heads politely and start looking for another movie, but this film isn't really snobby or pretentious, per se. It's about a pretentious snob, to an extent, but I never felt like it was trying to distance itself from the laymen among the audience. In order to enjoy the movie, you don't really need to know more of Hemingway, Dalí, Zelda Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso than that they existed, and were artists.

It's a mood movie, all about imparting the right emotions upon the viewers, but alas, it seems to take that as an excuse to neglect its story and characters. For a film that does a great bit of gushing over how great the artists of the -20s were, and honestly admiring the depth their works held, Midnight in Paris is a very straightforward movie. There is almost no ambiguity or subtlety about it. The main theme of the story is outright stated ten minutes before the credits, and the resolution is quite predictable. I dunno, maybe putting Hemingway in your movie makes me expect too much out of it, but I was kinda left asking: "That's it?"

So, to sum up, I liked the film. I can see why others would find it boring or annoying, but I still recommend giving it a chance if you think there's a chance you'll find it entertaining. As far as romantic comedies go, one could definitely do worse.

Conan the Barbarian

Foreword: I will consciously avoid comparing Conan to its 1982 predacessor in this review. I have seen a few reviews complain about how this movie isn't like the Schwarzenegger picture (ignoring that both of them are loosely based on Robert E. Howard novels), but I think each movie is a product of the contemporary Hollywood culture surrounding it. The question with this newer one shouldn't be "is it better than the old one?", but rather "is it worth seeing?"

Conan is a torn movie. It can't quite decide if it wants to be a dark fantasy revenge flick about a barbarian who is hellbent on taking bloody vengeance to the murderers of his father one by one, or a sword-and-sorcerery quest movie about a barbarian teamed up with a nun trying to save the world from an evil overlord. I'm probably wrong about this, but I feel that the latter element was forced into the script by executives who realised that the teens who made Pirates of the Caribbean big are now young adults. The result is a film that dares to take more chances than Sherlock Holmes did, but ends up being just a tad too formulaic and conventional toward the end to be really ground-breaking or memorable in the long term.

You know that age-old cliché about the rough, manly action hero who has to escort a snarky princess or other higher-class girl, and ends up falling in love with her despite the fact that she spends half her time telling him what to do and the other half bitching? Well, when the aforementioned nun is introduced into the plot and starts complaning to Conan about how important it is to put her safety above his goals, he tells her to shut up and stuffs a rag in her mouth. In Conan, the "princess" has to learn to take on the ways of the man, instead of the other way around, which is one of the chief examples of it not being another cookie-cutter adventure movie. It's a shame that near the end of the movie, the subplot goes way too near to chivalric save-the-damsel territories for my liking.

The action is a mixed bag. Early in the movie, the outdoors battles are well shot and coreographed, but all the action indoors is made up of jumbled, quick edits and confusing camera angles. Later, the action settles somewhere in the middle, though the swordfighting remains very well acted throughout. There's a big action scene right before the action climax which I think was really annoying and unentertaining. It was like the scriptwriters were told to add in something that'll make a cool boss fight in the video game adaptation. Luckily, it was made up by the real emotion that the final confrontation has.

The look Conan should have had.

And that leads us to acting. Let me tell you something: Jason Momoa freaking owns this movie. From the trailers, I was afraid he'd just look weirdly girly and spin around with his sword like a ballerina for the whole movie, but I was proven 100% wrong. Momoa doesn't just do a good job: he sells the role, and the whole movie. I never got the feeling of acting from him. The only time he loses his credibility at all is when he's doing "love scenes", but luckily those are few and far between. Ron Perlman as Conan's father is good enough, but I know he could do better. He looks oddly confused most of the time, like he wasn't quite sure what he was doing. Stephen Lang as the main villain is pretty basic, but he manages to be menacing and gives the simplistic character a good shot.

This is another one of those movies where Finland doesn't get a 2D showing. Not only is the 3D in Conan pointless, but the movie has those dark scenes where it's hard to tell what's happening due to the 3D, and in one sweeping shot of a city, both me and my brother noticed the buildings moving at different paces, looking like cardboard cutouts being moved poorly across the screen. I'm tired of having to write a paragraph saying: "the 3D is pointless, see it in 2D", but that's the sad truth again. I have nothing against 3D, but I wish I was at least given a choice to spare my money and not have to get it.

With that out of my system, the sum-up: I recommend this one, I really do. At points it may feel a bit too much like a remake of The Scorpion King, but it's got its heart at the right place, and it's not entirely without balls. The sets and costumes are great, as should be expected from any movie that tries to sell its world to you this bad. It's fun, pure and simple.

It's just a shame that they wrecked the Phantom's hideout. Where will the Ghost Who Walks stay now?

Captain America: The First Avenger

"I've knocked out Hitler two hundred times."

I can't believe it took a month for this movie to come out in Finland after its so-called "world premiere". I don't mind the cold weather or high taxes here, but the movie release dates suck. At least this didn't take as long as the Disney movies do...

Captain America: The First Avenger is the fifth installment of the Marvel Movieverse, but takes place before any of the others. Aside from framing scenes at the beginning and end, the movie details the history of the eponymous superhero during the early 1940s. Steve Rogers (played by Chris Evans) is a frail but idealistic Brooklynite youngster who is denied recruitment to the U.S. army time and time again due to his asthma. During one of his attempts at recruiting he is overheard by Dr. Erskine, the leader of a supersoldier program. Rogers is recruited to become the prototype of a new generation of soldiers, but ends up being the only one of the bunch.

Stuck with a single supersoldier with no combat experience, the army decides to do what any sensible organisation would. They make him a mascot for their propaganda machine. Rogers in discontent with dancing and singing, though, and strives to get to real heroics. Meanwhile a grim Nazi mystic named Johann Schmidt, or Red Skull (played by Hugo Weaving), who has a connection with Rogers, uncovers an object you might have seen in Marvel's earlier summer release and uses it for his own ends.

Now let's get something out of the way: I personally have almost no patience for nationalism in movies, and even less so for Yank nationalism. It should be an indicator of something when I say that this movie never made me groan or roll my eyes. Braveheart was more overbearingly American than Captain America is, and Braveheart was supposed to take place in freaking Scotland. So to my fellow Europeans or what have we, I implore you: give this movie a chance. It never tells us the importance of liberty and freedom and the apple pie. It's written for everyone, not just for Yanks.

With that said, I liked this movie. It wasn't perfect, but it was probably my favourite superhero movie thus far. Like with Thor, the structure of the plot is its weakest component. The time in between Cap's first mission and the final battle is too short. The movie could have been ten minutes longer, with the time used to either add in some slightly more subtle action or a scene with Rogers visiting his neighbourhood and reminiscing about old times or something. As it is, the movie's speed keeps picking up after the superpower injection, and it suffers from not slowing down enough before the third act

The performances are good more often than not. Chris Evans manages to be idealistic and righteous without being arrogant or holier-than-thou, and he emotes really well. I'm not sure (and am too lazy to check) how they accomplished the differences between his appearance before and after the injections, but whatever the effect, it's really convincing. I kinda wanted him to pull out a skateboard at some point, though. Hugo Weaving could be a bit hammier for increased enjoyability, but I think it would have just turned Red Skull into Agent Smith, which would have been distracting. Hayley Atwell plays the British love interest well enough, though I found the character a bit bland. Tommy Lee Jones does his usual thing as Colonel Totally-Not-Patton, finally redeeming himself for agreeing to do Men In Black 2. Dominic Cooper tries to measure up to Robert Downey Jr. as Howard Stark, but he's kind of forgettable.

The action is great, and there's a wide variety of it. We get sneaking around, fist fights, shield-throwing, gunfights and chase scenes. Some of the bigger action scenes are a bit confusingly written, though, such as a scene where the bad guys' lair isn't in alert while the good guys are swarming around and blowing shit up until Red Skull himself notices it, or when the allied army forsakes all contemporary military tactics and does a WW1-style charge toward the enemy.

I recommend Cap to anyone who likes superhero films or action films. It's a movie about the little guy getting a chance to do big heroics, and despite the name and the setting, it's applicable to all nationalities (yes, even Germans). If you've never seen or read Captain America before, then this is a great way to introduce yourself to him. Don't miss the film.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

The staring contest of the century.

This is one of those movies where I have to identify my relationship with the series in order to establish where I'm coming from when I talk of this film. I'm a part of the Potter generation; I started reading the books when I was eleven and the last book came out when I was seventeen (significant ages, if you know anything about Harry Potter). I've seen all the movies in the cinema (here's a picture of my tickets), but I'm not really a fan of them. In fact, when I went to see the fourth, fifth and sixth films, I told everyone "I'm seeing then just so I can judge them". It's been a while since I saw the older ones, but as far as I remember, they only started being good in the sixth movie, and even that one had a really rushed climax.

But enough about movies one through seven. How's the eight and final one? It's really good. I was surprised to find that a film based solely on the third act of a single book is almost entirely devoid of pacing issues. The screenwriters cut some corners with the story, and added a little luff to make it work better in the cinematic medium. Some of the changes worked greatly, but I was disappointed that Dumbledore's backstory was removed, aside from a brief allusion. In contrast, Snape's flashbacks get presented at full length, but I can't help but not feel touched due to how limited the character's involvement in the movies has been. I'd sum up the story for those who haven't seen the films or read the books, but since the movie doesn't feel the need for that, I might as well not.

Now here's something I want to warn everyone of: Do not see this film in 3D. Unless you're a huge fan of 3D visuals like flying shards of glass on the foreground of a character in freefall, do not do it. This movie is seriously dark, and since 3D makes everything even darker, there were several scenes where I couldn't see anything except maybe some outlines (and I have good vision). This is most evident in the middle of the film, with establishing shots of the Hogwarts castle. Luckily, the action scenes have bright spells flying around and the very final battle is held during daytime, rather than night.

Aside from that problem the visuals are great, and HP8 (or is that HP7-2?) manages to balance out the different elements of the script with good directing and editing. Despite the movie almost entirely consisting of three extended action scenes, it never grows stagnant. Some of the dialogue is rather badly handled, but luckily it doesn't drag on for too much. While the previous two movies had too abrupt and rushed endings, this one feels natural and didn't leave me unsatisfied.

A special commendation must be given to Ralph Fiennes, who plays Lord Voldemort, as well as whoever was in charge of the character's aesthetic. In a departure from the books, Voldemort starts to physically and mentally decay as his magical immortality thingie-majiccers are destroyed. Not only does this show up visually, with his skin drying up and starting to flake, but Fiennes portrays the growing insanity perfectly. He previously played the villain in Red Dragon (my favourite Hannibal Lecter movie), and you can see a bit of the same maniac glee in his performance here. It is as if he realised that this is his final chance to play an evil magical overlord, so he decided to play the shit out of the role when he still has the chance.

Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is a damn good movie. Almost all of its flaws come from the incomplete nature of the adaptation process, so the original things to come out of it are imaginative and well-exeucted. Don't see it in 3D, and don't see it before you've seen the previous film (they might be worth seeing back-to-back), but do go see it if you care even a little about Harry Potter, or if you want to see really great fantasy action scenes.

Oh, and in case you care about that sort of thing, in this version of the story, Luna and Neville end up together, further proving that the screenwriters have been reading too much fanfiction as inspiration for the films.

Welcome to Imagines Mobiles

So, what is this blog about?

Ever since I started collecting movies about a year ago, I've felt like my opinions about films have become more and more pronounced. Most of the time, when I watch a movie, I end up giving my friends a short summary of what I think of it, and it's hard to just watch a film without feeling any impact.

As seen on the blog posts before this, I've started writing reviews recently. However, the site I used to write them on is limited to 500 words per review, which feels really restrictive. I'll continue writing reviews of most movies I see in the cinema here, right after I get home from the theatre.

In addition to brand-new films (judging whether it's worth to go see them and trying to avoid any too obvious spoilers), I'll be reviewing classics I never saw until now (evaluating whether they are worth the hype) and old, interesting cases (just telling what they're about for entertainment's sake).

Please leave a comment, but try to be at least as constructive as I'm being toward the movie I review. I love feedback, since it means I know where I still need to improve.

Welcome to Imagines Mobiles, and I hope you enjoy your stay.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon - "This movie was FANTASTIC!"

(Originally written 4.7.2011 for TV tropes.)
At least that's what the guy who sat behind me in the cinema said when he stood up to leave, in between loudly singing along with the lyrics of the Linkin Park song in the credits. His behavior reminded me of MovieBob saying that Michael Bay makes movies "by douchebags, for douchebags".

So, how's Transformers 3 in my opinion? It's the same old shit as the two first ones. Maybe a little better than either of those, but only because the studio twisted Bay's arm and made him remove the most controversial elements. No more rutting dogs, no more robo-testicles and no more blackface-bots. Instead, as if it was some sort of game, Bay has fit in new annoyances to piss off his haters, such as a "wacky" scene where Sam gets sexually assaulted by a co-worker and his boss thinks they're having bathroom sex, and a subplot where he gets a competitor for his new girlfriend's affections.

The first act of the movie plays like it's two entirely different films spliced together. It takes forever for the robot plot and Sam's plot to meet at all, and even then, it's like the script keeps inventing excuses to keep Sam locked out of the main plot of his own movie.

The climax is much better than Revenge's horrific clusterfuck. Instead of having a backdrop-battle with the characters running through it, the action flows from scene to scene, with new locations and enemies distinct from each other. The cinematography in action scenes is still confusing and hectic, but I guess I've gotten used to it by now, since it didn't piss me off much.

The story makes no sense, and the villains' motivations don't match in any way to the previous movies. It's kinda funny in a sad way, especially since I kept coming up with new plot holes for hours after exiting the cinema.

Leonard Nimoy as Sentinel Prime has a refreshing feel of class in a lowbrow movie like this, though the lines he's given are mostly clichéd and boring. Likewise, John Malkovich as Sam's new boss is funny in a crazy kind of way, though his character is written as an annoying dickhead.

I probably won't see this movie ever again. It was worth seeing once, I guess, and I'll admit I was entertained for roughly two thirds of the film. As is the case in all but two films I've ever seen, the 3D is worthless and you're better off saving that money and spending it on something else.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - The Blockbuster You'd Expect

(Originally written 20.5.2011 for TV tropes.)
Pirates 4 was good. Not great, but good.

I had two main problems with it: The first was the script. The story is really cluttered and awkward (though not as much as the third one), and there are huge plot holes to it (why didn't the Spanish destroy the plot coupon when they got it, instead of taking it to the Fountain?). Most of the dialogue is exposition, and instead of establishing character motivations and relationships through actions, we are told of them.

The Spaniards are presented as one of the driving forces of the story (the only reason that half the characters are going to the Fountain is that they don't want the Spanish to get there first), but at the end they are only used as a cheap plot device and leave without any real resolution. In fact, I bet most people don't know there are Spaniards in this movie, going into it. Well, the reason they aren't in any of the trailers is because they don't have almost any scenes, and they don't do or say anything interesting when they are on-screen.

The other main problem is the cinematography. By Bob, it's horrific. Every action scene switches angles five times in a second, and it's impossible to tell who's winning, what's happening and who is who in any given shot. Half the dialogue scenes, on the other hand, are shot in such bad lighting that it's hard to see anything at all. It really shows that they switched directors.

The good things? The score is fantastic. In fact, probably better than in the first three movies. The sets and costumes are great. The acting is entertaining and memorable (aside from Ian McShane as Blackbeard, who's just playing a stock villain and doesn't leave any impression). The non-exposition dialogue is funny, as usual for this series. When the action isn't hampered by the camerawork, it's fun and thrilling.

If you wanna go see a Pirates movie, go see this. You'll get your fix of Pirates. If you wanna go see an action-filled blockbuster... I suggest you pick something else or wait for another movie to come out.

The 3D is worthless, and I've heard it actually makes the movie worse, though I can't attest to that myself. If you can pick 2D (which I couldn't), do that.

Thor - A fun flick, even if not for the reason's you'd think

(Originally written 11.5.2011 for TV tropes).
Thor isn't really a superhero movie, at least any more than Disney's Hercules was. The movie is about a god having to prove himself worthy of his powers, rather than a regular person receiving superpowers by chance and having to decide how to use them. Even the film's use of the three act structure is uncommon for its type, since the second act is the slowest and most character-oriented, while the others are the loudest and most bombastic.

The movie is a good introduction of the comic-Thor to new audiences. I don't know if it's actually loyal to he comics, but whether it is or isn't, it's a great stand-alone production for those who have no preconception about the story and characters. The only thing from the comics which is never explained is the concept of "Odin-sleep", which comes out of nowhere and seems like a cheap plot device.

The beginning is really weirdly paced, and over all, badly handled. After a cold open on Earth, there's a twenty-minute flashback to Thor's life on Asgard. The fact that there is a flashback at all, especially one so needless, was really distracting to me. The opening infodump isn't helped any by the fact that Sir Anthony Hopkins (as Odin) refuses to act, and sounds utterly uninterested in what he's narrating about. Hint for moviemakers: Get someone who cares to introduce the audience to your setting.

The movie picks up in the second act, when Thor arrives on Earth. There's some genuinely funny comic relief and interesting character moments. The human sidecast is mostly likeable, and the love interest manages to come off as a real person, even if she does fall for Thor all too quickly. The sideplot in Asgard is a bit wonky, but luckily it doesn't drag on for too long. The third act is surprisingly minimalistic, with focus on personal drama and special effects rather than minion-smashing.

Loki's character annoyed me. Everyone who knows anything about the comics knows he'll be a bad guy, and all the newbies recognise his archetype the moment they see him. The movie manages to play with the audience for just a bit about whether Loki is actually a bad guy, but in the end they forsake all ambiguity. Would have been great to make him more tragic, rather than just whiny.

Overall, Thor is a good movie. Worth seeing for the second act. The 3D effects were badly applied. See it without them, if you can.