The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson's The Hobbit is finally here! Epic-ness overload!!!
Like really, way too much.

The Hobbit is one of my favourite books from childhood. I tried to get into Lord Of The Rings, but found it too dense. The Hobbit was a shorter story, on a smaller scale. A straightforward adventure with a tight band of characters. The book indicated links to a larger world and a broader story, but it was really an intimate tale of humble beginnings that built to an epic - but still relatively small - climax.

I feel like the films have gotten this mixed up.

Coriolanus

Shakespeare's elegant verse translates beautifully into this tale of modern warfare... As long as you have the patience for it.

Up until last year, Shakespeare's Coriolanus has never been adapted to film. Is that not astonishing?

Ok, there was a BBC series from the 80s, and it had some decent actors and direction behind it. I watched a little; it's a pretty much your standard BBC Shakespeare. This film is very different.

Coriolanus is tells the tragic tale of a Roman general, Caius Martius (played in the film by director Ralph Fiennes), who wins glory in battle and runs for consulship (similar to presidency) of Rome, urged on by his ambitious mother. The play is about patriotism, rivalry, jealousy, ambition and pride. There's a fair bit of Freudian psychology involved too, but since that wasn't invented when Shakespeare wrote it's a testament to his grasp on human nature that he hits on themes that will fascinate humanity for centuries to come.

Skyfall

Despite lagging a little behind in action movie trends, the newest Bond pulls them off flawlessly, delivering a fantastic spectacle, and reigniting the franchise's potential.

Like my little blog that lags behind schedule, and reviews films after they've been in theatres for a month, James Bond returns with all the action movie tropes you've seen in other films over the past few years, complete with the motorcycle chase from The Bourne Legacy. That's not to say the Brit's are lacking in originality; Bourne didn't hijack a caterpillar on a flatbed, and use it to rip a hole in a train carriage in order for him to board. Bourne just kind of ended.

There's a lot in Skyfall that riffs off recent action films. There's also a lot that riffs off the rich history of the character in the past 50 years. For Christmas I received the Bond 50 collection, and as I work my way through them I'll be posting reviews for each. So while I had to look up a few of the references in this film, I expect over time I will grow to appreciate it more.

And please hear me: I really, really enjoyed this movie.

Ted

The humour relies completely on vulgarity and shock value to succeed. But this movie is so vile, and so shocking, its almost brilliant. It's also got a warm heart, I guess.

I get Seth Rogan and Seth Macfarlane confused. I'm sure some would consider that a crime, but I this that's just my taste in comedy. I've seen a little Family Guy, and laughed at it for a bit, but I don't think I've ever found anything with Macfarlane in it compelling enough to seek out. Robot Chicken, American Dad, Drawn Together, his Star Wars parodies (Robot Chicken and Family Guy); all quite funny, but I haven't really watched any of them. I'm so out of touch that when I heard Ted was Macfarlane's first big picture, I thought "But what about Paul, just last year"? To add to my confusion, Seth Green does the voice of Joker in Mass Effect 2, and I found myself racking my brain to remember if this was the Seth from Family Guy or the Seth from Austin Powers or the Seth from Pineapple Express...

My current theory is that the three are in fact one dude, with pseudonyms for each voice he puts on.

All this is to say: I wasn't sure exactly what to expect going into Ted. I guess you could say I wasn't disappointed?

The movie opens with an old-timey narrator telling the story of once upon a time on a magical Christmas day where our story begins. The narrator doesn't stay long, but sets the tone for the rest of the film by occasionally diverting from his bedtime story voice to crack racist jokes, talk about Apache helicopters, and other such things.

On this magical night, a young boy named John Bennett wishes his Teddy bear was really real. When he wakes up the next morning, the bear comes to life! What happens next is perhaps completely plausible in todays celebrity culture: 'Ted' becomes an overnight sensation, appears on talkshows, signs autographs, and all the other things.

Cut to 20 years later: the life of a has-been celebrity.

John and Ted are living together in a messy looking middle class house, smoking pot and watching spongebob. There are lots of pop culture references, many surrounding the campy 1980 film Flash Gordon. The best scene in the film involves the original star, Sam Jones, showing up to one of Ted's parties. The scene is bombastic, vulgar, racist, flippant, trippy, wisecracking, self-reflexive, and at times hilarious; it pretty much encapsulates the whole film.

There's something of an action/thriller plot involving a creepy father stalking Ted on behalf of his creepy son. There's also a bit of romance/drama between John and his girlfriend, who wants him to stop playing with his teddy bear and take responsibility for his life. This stuff is actually played almost entirely straight, and works really well. The chemistry between Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis is strong, and makes for a believable relationship that grounds the film.

Given the absurdity of the premise, and the vulgarity of the humour, it's surprising to see such a solid romantic subplot. Because of it, though, Ted is elevated to something more than a mediocre shock humour film. I watched it twice, and enjoyed it still. Despite its foul mouth, this is ultimately a feel-good film with a warm heart.

(Update: I am now aware that Robot Chicken is made by Seth Green, not Seth Macfarlane. I think this just emphasises how confused I am.)

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Apart from a few really clever surprises, Twilight is mediocre on every level. This is no Harry Potter finale.

Yes, it's nice to know that The Twilight Saga has finally drawn to a close. Despite its occasional hilarity, its importance in popular culture today is somewhat disturbing to me.

I'll start with the good.

The opening credits in Breaking Dawn Part 2 are really pretty. All those close ups of snow and roses freezing and melting... great stuff.

Plot-wise there are a couple of moments that stand out; when Edward makes a rousing 5 second speech, all the vampires from around the room pledge to join him in the fight. One vampire turns to another and says "That was easy." My thoughts exactly. Billy Burke gets one good scene in which he watches Taylor Lautner strip - It's intentionally very funny. The best jokes in the film are the ones with an air of self-referential mockery about them, and the the film doesn't suffer for them.

What I don't think was intentionally funny was when the Cullen's give Edward and Bella a house as a gift. "It's perfect" says Bella, having barely had time to glance at the thing.

Paris, Texas

The pace is slow going at first, but the drama is dynamite.An ultimately uplifting story of a man's quest to restore his broken family.

Oh, it says heartbreaker on that poster. There's a few ways you could read it, I guess.

You can also get it in formats other than videocassette nowadays.

Enough stalling, here's what this movie is about: a man is wandering through the desert in Texas, and runs out of water. When he makes it to a salon he manages to swallow a mouthful of ice before collapsing.

The mans name is Travis, we learn when Walt, his brother, comes to pick him up. Travis has been missing for four years, and has an 8 year old son now in the care of Walt and his wife Anne. Travis has amnesia, but slowly begins to remember his life before he went missing (though exactly where he went and what he did remains a mystery). He begins to develop a fresh relationship with his son, Hunter, a bright kid with an adorable charisma about him. Hunter's plans are equal parts childish and silly, and mature and useful. He functions as a kind of therapy for Travis, drawing him back to sanity after his bizarre long absence. Slowly, Travis becomes more and more fatherly to his own son.

Eventually, Travis decides that he needs to search out his wife, Jane. Walt and Anne still don't know what happened between Travis and Jane, or why the pair both went missing separately. I don't want to spoil the second half of the movie, because it's brilliant. Although the first half can drag at times, it builds to a powerful sequence in Houston, Texas, and a thouroughly satisfying conclusion.

The title; Paris, Texas, is a running 'joke' of the film. Inverted commas, because for Travis it's much more serious than a joke. His mother was from a town called Paris in the state of Texas, and his father would always hesitate before the word Texas; allowing them temporarily to believe his wife was French. It speaks to a broader motif of the film; of imagery, facades and deception. Walt's business is billboard construction, his wife is actually French, and the most apparently perfect character in the film. The town itself is never visited, only shown in a photograph... of an empty block.

It's a deeply layered film, its message delivered in the subtleties of the film making. It's beautifully shot, with characters who are well acted, but more noticeably well fleshed out. Every person in the film seems to act entirely within reason, and you can fully comprehend exactly why they act the way they do. None of this Hollywood villain crap; just real people, with real issues.

Alright, there are some pretty crazy issues, but they all seem to be in the past. What I took away from the film is the impression of a man who has made mistakes, and is trying to bring his family back together. To do so he must break the facades - or run away from them if necessary. His love for his son is evident in the lengths he goes to deliver him a good life; I found their relationship sweet and invigorating to watch (despite some sad moments).

Paris, Texas takes its time, but delivers with some extraordinary answers to its plaguing mysteries. There's a lot you could take away from it, but by the end of it, I was happy.



Seen Paris, Texas? Want to? Won't?
Leave a comment, start a discussion :)

Anonymous

The story of the truth about the greatest poet who ever lived... is dragged down by bad writing. The irony?

Well, it's about time I reviewed a film I flat out didn't like. Most of what I watch I choose because I expect it to be good - or because my class work demands it. Once in a while, though, it's fun to go into a film with no idea what to expect beyond the poster and the premise.

So... was Shakespeare were a fraud?

That's the question this film boldly dares to ask. And its a really nice idea. One that's surprisingly passed over in the world of film, considering the popularity of the speculation (although most scholars agree that Shakespeare was indeed Shakespeare). Shakespeare's work has been adapted hundreds of times over, dating way back into the silent era of film. Can you imagine watching Romeo and Juliet without sound? I can't, but they did it. But the historic figure of Shakespeare himself, has that ever been tackled? I can only think of Shakespeare In Love, which I haven't seen, but apparently is a very effective story about Shakespeare... well, falling in love.

Anonymous, though, asks the question: was he a fraud? It then answers "Yes", and proceeds to tell an unrelated story of medieval intrigue. I'll start with what I liked the least: the character of Shakespeare. I guess I should have expected this going in, but Will Shakespeare in this film did not write any of the work that is credited to him. In fact, he's kind of a jerk.

Anybody who's familiar with Shakespeare's work will probably like Shakespeare - at very least respect his brilliance. He's the golden standard by which all English writing is judged after all. This film characterises Shakespeare as an illiterate actor; bursting with charisma and energy and ego and apathy. He's not even supposed to be in on this con, he just shows up and attaches his names to things. Every time I looked at the character I thought he seemed more like Jack Sparrow, minus the ability to act, or the charming humour, than anybody who could even pretend to have written the works of Shakespeare. The other problem is that he's hardly present in the picture. The film is less about him and how he pulls off this con, and more about these bizarre connections within the royal family, and how the plays are somehow connected to control of the throne.

But that's just a story choice I disagree with, I probably wouldn't have minded the place of the Shakespeare character if it weren't for two other more damning gripes: firstly, the film is confusing.

The movie jumps back and forth in time; I guess I can deal with that. The first scene is a modern day theatre in New York, where none other than Derek Jacobi is narrating a performance of the film we're about to watch. There is then a clever transition from the stage performance 'Anonymous' into the Elizabethan era, and the film proper. Ok, so far so good, I'm intrigued.

We see a character we don't know running from the law, into the iconic Rose theatre in London. He hides some papers in a box, and is arrested as the soldiers torch the building. Cut to five years earlier, with a helpful little title card. From there we are introduced to some of the main characters, including Elizabeth the First... who has a flashback to 40 years earlier. These flashbacks are given by many characters throughout the film.

Ok, so the movie is weaving about four different time periods in parallel  Other films have done this quite successfully, but somehow this film fails miserably. I think it's because so many of the characters look very similar, and the film doesn't work hard enough to connect young people to their older selves. Those handy title cards disappear after the first instance, and there is little differentiation between the Elizabethan past and 'present'. Sometimes the only way I could tell what year a given scene occurred in was by the age of the queen, but she doesn't appear in every scene.

So I was confused, but as the film dragged on I began to piece things together, reconsider what I thought was happening, and work out what I think went on.

Did I say dragged?

My second point: this movie is boring. The mystery of who wrote Shakespeare's plays is cleared up very quickly, and after that there's not much else to get invested in. There is the matter of who the crown of England goes to, and a lot of screen time is devoted to that, but the film is so confusing that by the time you figure out who's who and what they want, you'll have no time wonder, and no time left to care.

I guess the most frustrating thing about this movie is that there are so many good ideas in here. It's trying to be a grand tribute to Shakespeare's writing, imbuing it with the power to move people, shift nations. Sometimes, it seems to do that, especially when it deals with the character of...

Edward de Vere

... Sorry, I had to look up his name, because after watching the movie I had no friggin clue.

Edward de Vere is the nobleman who, on some historical theories, wrote the complete works of Shakespeare. And he was my favourite part of this movie. His characterization is great - from a talented (although disturbingly ambitious) young boy to an adult who flouts his responsibilities, and hears voices that urge him to write. We see parts of his life that directly reflect ideas in Shakespeare - like when, as a young man, he stabs a spying servant through a curtain. We see him use his wit and verse to seduce women; we see that wit crushed under the pressures of responsibility, and we see the wonder in his eyes as he watches his writings come to life, albeit with Will taking the credit.

It's a little disconcerting that nobody in the medieval world talks like Shakespeare - with his 'wherefore's and 'shalt's. I guess if they actually had the actors speak Middle English it would be too confusing for a modern audience. It does also mean that when Edward speaks he produces marvellous effect, but I couldn't help but notice that the writing in this film just isn't on par with real-life Shakespeare.There is a neat little third-act twist which takes after another classic play, which I found quite brilliant, although it didn't seem to affect any of the characters in any way, except that it ushered in the films conclusion.

There are lots of little references to Shakespeare and other theatre, as well as to historical figures and events.

The biggest flaw in this film is not the writing; I think it's the direction and editing. The film feels unfocussed, and confusing. I didn't think of Shakespeare as a fraud, I though of Will as Captain Jack, and Edward as Shakespeare. For all the dilly-dallying about the crown of England, I didn't care, I just wanted to see more of Edward, and understand what the film was on about.