Film Review: 'District 9' directed by Neill Blomkamp
It takes three months after an alien spacecraft hovers over Johannesburg for the South African military to decide the best option is to cut their way through. Inside they discover almost two million malnourished aliens, later known in the film by the derogatory term ‘shrimp’ on account of their appearance and references to them being the lowest of the low,. These aliens find asylum in a large township in Johannesburg known as District 9.
The director Neill Blomkamp sets out his intent from the word go. “Now to everyone’s surprise the ship didn’t come to a stop over Manhattan, Washington or Chicago, but instead it coasted to a halt over the city of Johannesburg”. This multi stylized feature combines documentary, hollywood and video game style action. Blomkamp uses ‘shrimp’ for the rather unsubtle reference to a nation’s tortuous political history. With no alien’s allowed signs spread all over the city and imminent evictions from District 9, the stage is set for a human versus alien showdown.
The star of the show is the stage. Having the action in a township, much less anywhere other than Manhattan, London or Paris, lends a uniqueness. We will not see this often and for this alone it is worth viewing. I do have to critique the use of multiple style, for the viewing feels muddled. It is a brave attempt, but makes it difficult as a viewer to connect. This being said, they have attempted something a little different here and I for one enjoyed it. This film feels like a raw experiment and it is no surprise that as a result some things work and others do not, but it is an experiment worth the watch.
Showing posts with label Film Review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film Review. Show all posts
Monday, 25 January 2010
Sunday, 17 January 2010
Review: 'Transformers 2: Revenge of the fallen', 2008
A review of the film: Transformers 2: Revenge of the fallen, directed by Michael Bay, 2008.
The Transformer franchise has been with us since the mid 80’s and strides forwards with continued success. With this in mind there is a target audience stretching 25 years worth of ‘boys’. I have no doubt that the majority of the audience will be watching the film for the following reasons: 1.Nostalgia. 2. Visual effects 3. The entertainment and adventure. 4. Perhaps a little bit of Megan Fox.
To touch on nostalgia. The effects are too good to give us 90’s kids a sense of nostalgia. For every minute the team has spent on CGI, the harder it has become to connect. Nostalgia has heart, this movie does not. Perhaps I am being too harsh, hoping for a bit of heart from a feature of robots. In adventure and entertainment value, it does not quite cut it. Megan Fox sticks her perfectly formed behind in the air and pouts her bulbous glossy lips oh so well, but that is the entirety of her contribution. I should mention that Shia La Boeuf tries his admirable best with what is a torrid storyline.
This film is a triumph for visual effects, although be careful because it really is an experience for the cinema. I watched this on a 27inch widescreen and the effects were lost on me. Perhaps this is why so many of the fighting action scenes were instilled with slow motion sequences? (Come on Michael Bay and your CGI team, you’re just showing off!) If you missed it at the cinema like me, then find a friend with a projector.
We are filled visual effects, explosions and sequences, but this cannot disguise the utter emptiness of heart and storyline that eaks it’s way all throughout the excessive 2hours and 30 minutes. I am sorry to say that this is well and truly inferior to the first installment. Perhaps the (inevitable) third should dumb down the action sequences a little and give us some heart, even if it is one made of metal.
The Transformer franchise has been with us since the mid 80’s and strides forwards with continued success. With this in mind there is a target audience stretching 25 years worth of ‘boys’. I have no doubt that the majority of the audience will be watching the film for the following reasons: 1.Nostalgia. 2. Visual effects 3. The entertainment and adventure. 4. Perhaps a little bit of Megan Fox.
To touch on nostalgia. The effects are too good to give us 90’s kids a sense of nostalgia. For every minute the team has spent on CGI, the harder it has become to connect. Nostalgia has heart, this movie does not. Perhaps I am being too harsh, hoping for a bit of heart from a feature of robots. In adventure and entertainment value, it does not quite cut it. Megan Fox sticks her perfectly formed behind in the air and pouts her bulbous glossy lips oh so well, but that is the entirety of her contribution. I should mention that Shia La Boeuf tries his admirable best with what is a torrid storyline.
This film is a triumph for visual effects, although be careful because it really is an experience for the cinema. I watched this on a 27inch widescreen and the effects were lost on me. Perhaps this is why so many of the fighting action scenes were instilled with slow motion sequences? (Come on Michael Bay and your CGI team, you’re just showing off!) If you missed it at the cinema like me, then find a friend with a projector.
We are filled visual effects, explosions and sequences, but this cannot disguise the utter emptiness of heart and storyline that eaks it’s way all throughout the excessive 2hours and 30 minutes. I am sorry to say that this is well and truly inferior to the first installment. Perhaps the (inevitable) third should dumb down the action sequences a little and give us some heart, even if it is one made of metal.
Review: 'The Hurt Locker', 2008
Review of the film: 'The Hurt Locker', directed by Kathryn Bigelow, 2008
Review title: Reality made real.
Strip away every ‘Holywoodism’ you can imagine in the war film genre and you are left with ‘The Hurt Locker’. Being drawn in so deeply from start to finish along the relentless mission of the Camp Victory platoon, it is only in the final seconds of this tense, earthy and raw feature, when the music of the final credits kicks in, do we feel the release of its grip.
Firstly to comment on the camerawork. It is reminiscent of Paul Greengrass' direction in 'The Bourne Supremacy'. It's shaky, it's edgy, it gets you in on the action. You can connect with what is happening, because it is how you would see and feel the action played out before you. It may not be to the taste of everyone as I found out from the mixed response of my viewing company, but if you would like a steady camera, clean cut experience then perhaps a war movie is not what you should be watching.
The acting is never overplayed. Despite the overtly bravado character of the lead, he maintains control of his performance. Upon his return home in the film I was expecting him to trash the aisles of cereal in the supermarket, but was pleased that we were spared the cliched overdramatic angst to his old, privileged surroundings. The dialogue is often so ordinary that as for watching a film goes, leaves with a slight taste of disappointment, but this is only a temporary madness for one remembers this is its very appeal.
The scenes are created and filmed so effectively, and the dialogue and sequences acted out so well, that it has no need and does not use any music to enhance the mood. I can only think of about 5 seconds after the sniper sequence that has sounds. There is an overriding air of tension as we follow each bomb disposed, each enemy slain. The film has left you gasping the question ‘How do you do it?’ long before Sergeant JT Sandborn (Anthony Mackie) asks that very question to his Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) referring to disposing of the bombs.
This morning the radio tells me a British soldier in a bomb disposal unit has been killed in action. I came away from my viewing feeling like I had tasted the very air and dust and blood of the conflict, and today confilcts rage ever on. This film is the Reality Made Real.
Review title: Reality made real.
Strip away every ‘Holywoodism’ you can imagine in the war film genre and you are left with ‘The Hurt Locker’. Being drawn in so deeply from start to finish along the relentless mission of the Camp Victory platoon, it is only in the final seconds of this tense, earthy and raw feature, when the music of the final credits kicks in, do we feel the release of its grip.
Firstly to comment on the camerawork. It is reminiscent of Paul Greengrass' direction in 'The Bourne Supremacy'. It's shaky, it's edgy, it gets you in on the action. You can connect with what is happening, because it is how you would see and feel the action played out before you. It may not be to the taste of everyone as I found out from the mixed response of my viewing company, but if you would like a steady camera, clean cut experience then perhaps a war movie is not what you should be watching.
The acting is never overplayed. Despite the overtly bravado character of the lead, he maintains control of his performance. Upon his return home in the film I was expecting him to trash the aisles of cereal in the supermarket, but was pleased that we were spared the cliched overdramatic angst to his old, privileged surroundings. The dialogue is often so ordinary that as for watching a film goes, leaves with a slight taste of disappointment, but this is only a temporary madness for one remembers this is its very appeal.
The scenes are created and filmed so effectively, and the dialogue and sequences acted out so well, that it has no need and does not use any music to enhance the mood. I can only think of about 5 seconds after the sniper sequence that has sounds. There is an overriding air of tension as we follow each bomb disposed, each enemy slain. The film has left you gasping the question ‘How do you do it?’ long before Sergeant JT Sandborn (Anthony Mackie) asks that very question to his Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) referring to disposing of the bombs.
This morning the radio tells me a British soldier in a bomb disposal unit has been killed in action. I came away from my viewing feeling like I had tasted the very air and dust and blood of the conflict, and today confilcts rage ever on. This film is the Reality Made Real.
Review: 'Up in the Air', 2009
A REVIEW OF THE FILM 'UP IN THE AIR' directed by Jason Reitman, 2009.
REVIEW TITLE: A HEAVY BAG PLEASE.
Ryan (Clooney) works for a company that is hired to fire. He travels across the U.S frequently by plane to various offices to bring the bad news to terminated employees. Along the way he meets Alex (Famiga), another frequent flyer and is then accompanied by Natalie (Kendrick), the bright spark with great ideas to save the company money, but little real experience for which her ideas are targeted.
As with the film ‘Juno’ Jason Reitman gives us a razor sharp dialogue, a great cast and a soundtrack that could define your listening for the next couple of months (he’s becoming a good way to find out about new artists).
The chemistry between Ryan, Alex and Natalie (Kendrick) is thoroughly compelling viewing and there are plenty of laugh out loud moments as the cinema walls would testify. Yet Reitman does not fall in the trap of ticking all the feel good boxes. This is a sober study that is best described in Ryan’s inspirational lecture that he delivers between termination jobs. His lecture is titled ‘How much does your life weigh?’. He encourages people to pack the bag of life light, as in his own example. Do not be weighed down by material possession and the even heavier weight of relationships. Yet at what cost?
The director leaves this an open thought and I suspect the answer to this question will depend on the viewer. The director’s view becomes clear with the occasional over-sentimental sequences (that push this into romcom viewing) at the wedding of Ryan’s sister, when he falls well and truly for Alex, but furthermore when he gives a pep talk to his future brother-in-law. Where the film is more successful is in the sombre, slow paced moments. These moments show a confident composure of a director that does not need to fill every moment with a joke or lecture us with a message. Like a powerful orator, these pauses add to the message.
This is a very entertaining, yet sober romcom and I fully recommend it.
REVIEW TITLE: A HEAVY BAG PLEASE.
Ryan (Clooney) works for a company that is hired to fire. He travels across the U.S frequently by plane to various offices to bring the bad news to terminated employees. Along the way he meets Alex (Famiga), another frequent flyer and is then accompanied by Natalie (Kendrick), the bright spark with great ideas to save the company money, but little real experience for which her ideas are targeted.
As with the film ‘Juno’ Jason Reitman gives us a razor sharp dialogue, a great cast and a soundtrack that could define your listening for the next couple of months (he’s becoming a good way to find out about new artists).
The chemistry between Ryan, Alex and Natalie (Kendrick) is thoroughly compelling viewing and there are plenty of laugh out loud moments as the cinema walls would testify. Yet Reitman does not fall in the trap of ticking all the feel good boxes. This is a sober study that is best described in Ryan’s inspirational lecture that he delivers between termination jobs. His lecture is titled ‘How much does your life weigh?’. He encourages people to pack the bag of life light, as in his own example. Do not be weighed down by material possession and the even heavier weight of relationships. Yet at what cost?
The director leaves this an open thought and I suspect the answer to this question will depend on the viewer. The director’s view becomes clear with the occasional over-sentimental sequences (that push this into romcom viewing) at the wedding of Ryan’s sister, when he falls well and truly for Alex, but furthermore when he gives a pep talk to his future brother-in-law. Where the film is more successful is in the sombre, slow paced moments. These moments show a confident composure of a director that does not need to fill every moment with a joke or lecture us with a message. Like a powerful orator, these pauses add to the message.
This is a very entertaining, yet sober romcom and I fully recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)