maandag 30 april 2012

Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, The



Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10


Second entry into the Narnia franchise thankfully tones down its religious overtones (the role of the Jesus lion Aslan is shortened quite a bit) and trades it for a grittier and darker overall feeling. The four Pevensie kids return to Narnia and find a great deal of time has passed since they left their own magic kingdom. The Telmarines, descendants of a band of pirate invaders, hold dominion over the realm and have greatly reduced the number of its original inhabitants (good thing too!), the various mythical creatures and annoying talking animals. Their rightful heir, prince Caspian (pretty boy Ben Barnes), finds himself victim of a foul plot by his uncle Miraz (renowned Italian actor Sergio Castellitto) who claims the throne for himself, leaving Caspian to run for his life, which brings him into contact with the Pevensies and their native Narnian allies who plan to bring down the genocidal Telmarine reign. Better acting (even the kids have picked up a few tricks it seems), less Christianity, more action and a more carefully crafted story make for a better Narnia film, which still isn't saying that much. In fact, I may be biased because I witnessed some of the filming while vacationing in beautiful Slovenia at the time. It must be said, Slovenia's natural beauty is used to great effect. Andrew Adamson redeems himself for his first Narnia flick somewhat, but the film still leaves a few things to be desired, including its obviously digital talking animals and an overall lack of humor to tell us not to take things to seriously here. The movie didn't do as well as hoped at the box office, making Disney sell the franchise rights to Fox. Good riddance!


Starring: Ben Barnes, Sergio Castellitto, Liam Neeson


Directed by Andrew Adamson


USA: Walt Disney Pictures, 2008

Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, The



Rating: **/*****, or 4/10


Obvious attempt by Disney to cash in on the sudden popularity of the fantasy genre in the wake of the fantastic Lord of the Rings movie trilogy. The trick seemed simple: take a book from a well known fantasy series and adapt it into a sweeping epic of a film, and build an easily exploitable franchise around it. Granted, this first Narnia film did pretty well at the box office, but remains maligned by critics the world over and is an altogether feeble movie based on the classic book by C.S. Lewis. During WW II, the four Pevensie children are sent to live at a big mansion on the English countryside, where they discover a wardrobe that turns out to be a doorway to the fantasy world of Narnia. However, this realm is in the grip of a severe ice age because the evil White Witch (Tilda Swinton doing a good job at playing a ruthless villain) rules the land. The coming of four human children means the dawn of a return to peace and prosperity under the benign rule of the lion god Aslan (voice by Liam Neeson), but the White Witch doesn't surrender her regime so easily and a grand battle for the freedom of Narnia erupts, with the Pevensies at the heart of it (fortunately Father Christmas equips them with the necessary deadly tools to kill their opponents: good job, giving weapons to kids!). Laced with extremely obnoxious Christian overtones (including the annoying parallels between a certain carpenter/magician and Aslan, who dies for the sins of another but is resurrected), this movie at many turns feels like it means to convert us to Christianity, while it's also a poorly acted - especially those pesky kids and a vast array of irritating digital talking animals - and humorless piece of work that takes its fantasy concepts a little too serious, which seems an odd move for director Adamson, who previously delivered two superb Shrek films. The audience, apart from Christian fanatics who obviously loved it, quickly grew tired of it as they demonstrated by making the sequel Prince Caspian do quite poorly at the box office, after which Disney swiftly abandoned the franchise, selling the rights to Fox, where its right wing religious overtones were more at home. Still, general interest in the franchise remains low.


Starring: Tilda Swinton, James McAvoy, Liam Neeson


Directed by Andrew Adamson


USA: Walt Disney Pictures, 2005

Children of Men




Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


Depressing and gritty picture regarding a dystopian world in the not too distant future where women have lost the ability to get pregnant and have babies, after which humanity has abandoned all hope to avoid its own demise and society has degenerated to the verge of total collapse. Clive Owen lends himself perfectly in the role of grim and cynical would-be hero Theo, who is asked by his activist ex-wife (Julianne Moore) to transport a young woman, miraculously pregnant, to a safe haven where she might help scientists to figure out a way to save mankind from its looming extinction. However, other factions, more nefarious in nature, mean to appropriate the girl for their own revolutionary purposes, so Theo has a hell of a job getting her out of England alive, guiding her across the leftovers of the once quaint English country side and through a nightmarish ghetto where human lives mean next to nothing. Taking elements from classic dystopian texts, including Orwell's 1984, as well as referencing to recent actuality (including Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay), Cuarón portrays a very depraved England in a society close to committing suicide, where the absence of children has seemingly made humanity lose the ability to care about anything, after which it really let itself go and totally messed up the world in a short space of time. Exact explanations as to why women can't get babies anymore and just how the girl got pregnant are notably left out altogether, since Cuarón is only interested in showing the results of such happenstances. However, the shock of seeing a dying mankind that has deteriorated into utter lawlessness and violence hits the viewer hard, underscored by interesting stylistic choices in editing and photography, including several extremely ambitious long takes, single shots (at least, they appear to be) that last for minutes and are filled with dozens of people and all-round chaos. A very intriguing but distressing film, the subject matter clearly not suitable for everybody.


Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine


Directed by Alfonso Cuarón


USA/UK: Universal Pictures, 2006

Chicken Run



 Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


First full length feature film from the much beloved and critically acclaimed British Aardman Animations studio, which specializes in traditional claymation and stop motion animation (though the studio has since also made a foray into digital animation, to lesser appeal). Applying an otherwise rather grim story concerning the horrors of the bio-industry with the much needed levity via typical British humor, as Aardman did to great success before on their various Wallace & Gromit shorts, Chicken Run is both an hommage to classic escape films like Stalag 17 and The Great Escape and a very fun family film all ages can easily enjoy. On Mrs. Tweedy's chicken farm, a brutal regime rules the lives of a group of chicks who desperately want out and keep coming up with one bizarre escape attempt after another. All of these fail, but things brighten up when an American rooster (voiced by Mel Gibson) from a circus crashes the place one day. However, the opportunist cock may not be the much desired ticket out of the chicks' dreadful confinement. Though Chicken Run won a fair amount of prizes it was sadly snubbed at the Academy Awards. Aardman made sure this blatant oversight was corrected when the even funnier Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit took home the much deserved trophy five years later.


Starring: Mel Gibson, Julia Sawalha, Miranda Richardson


Directed by Peter Lord and Nick Park


UK: Aardman Animations, 2000

Colossus: The Forbin Project



Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


Much neglected seminal science fiction film that needs more love, or at least more acknowledgment from science fiction aficionados. Dr. Charles Forbin (Eric Braeden) has designed a super computer called Colossus, which is put in charge of the American nuclear arsenal to prevent human error in case of a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. However, the Soviets have constructed a similar computer system nicknamed Guardian with the same purpose, and when the two computers merge on their own accord, they manage to conquer the world so they can fulfill their programming to their fullest extent by ruling the human race for its own good. Forbin himself is put under permanent house arrest by his own creation, and a race against time begins to stop the reign of the Forbin Project. Can the American and Soviet governments co-operate to bring Colossus down and liberate humanity? Spoilers! It turns out they cannot, and in full accordance with the grim look on science and the future in the depressing Seventies cinema of science fiction, of which this film was one of the kickstarters, the computer wins the day and enslaves humanity as its benevolent but uncompromising protector. A sequel involving the uprising of mankind against its new artificial overlord was once planned, but soon scrapped. Since few people seem to remember this intelligent and worthwhile (though overly slow paced) film, it might need a remake, though I dread the result present day Hollywood would deliver. Perhaps the movie doesn't actually need one, since it's surprisingly similar in narrative to I, Robot (2004) at times (though without robots) and also served as a possible inspiration for the Terminator franchise. However, if you get the opportunity to watch this flick sometime, you should definitely check it out.


Starring: Eric Braeden, Susan Clark, Gordon Pinsent


Directed by Joseph Sargent


USA: Universal Pictures, 1970

Clash of the Titans (2010)



Rating: ***/*****, or 6/10


Unnecessary and unwanted remake of the 1981 Ray Harryhausen classic. At least it acknowledges the charm of the original was based around the wonderful stop motion animation, which it predictably replaces with an abundance of digital effects, including several CGI monsters copied directly from its predecessor (though not necessarily present in the original Greek myth), including giant scorpions and a very snake like Medusa. The plot remains largely the same, though in this more modern look on mythology the gods are treated with much less respect, portrayed as interfering omnipotent beings leeching off of humanity's worship over them, which is rapidly diminishing, making Zeus (who else but Liam Neeson) angry enough to release the monstrous Kraken on mankind, though he still deems humanity worthy enough to allow his son Perseus (Sam Worthington displaying his usual poor acting skills) to successfully fight the terror. Meanwhile, Zeus himself is betrayed by his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes playing yet another effectively scary bad guy), God of Death – who by now is undoubtedly used to play the villain in Hollywood's contemporary view on mythology – so Perseus also needs to save his daddy despite not carrying much love for him. Though fairly entertaining, this movie simply features too much digital creature fights to make any of them memorable, except maybe for the final Kraken battle. The film is infamous for its horribly poor post-conversion 3-D effects, adding little depth at all but instead messing up many a shot. Though the movie covers most of the original film and actual myth, the amount of money it made warranted a sequel, Wrath of the Titans (2012), which ixnayed the story altogether and focused almost exclusively on people fighting digital monsters, to predictably disappointing results. Despite the failure, a third Clash is in the works. It remains unknown what Ray Harryhausen thinks of all this, but obviously Hollywood can't care less about the opinions of former masters of movie making magic.


Starring: Sam Worthington, Gemma Arterton, Liam Neeson


Directed by Louis Leterrier


USA: Warner Bros, 2010

Cloverfield



Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10


The 'found footage' style is applied to the age old monster movie routine, with surprising success. A bunch of New York kids throw a farewell party for a friend while one of them records the scene, but things turn awry when an unknown giant marine creature attacks the city, after which the army is brought in to fight it. Five of the youngsters decide to rescue one of their number's girlfriend caught in a ravaged part of town, and have to make their way evading the combat zone, as well as little parasitic monsters swarming the city. It soon seems likely none of them might make it out of NYC alive, but we don't mind as long as the camera keeps running and director Reeves keeps the tension, ranging from epic to claustrophobic but always dynamic, going. In typical producer J.J. Abrams fashion, the project was long kept a mystery with tidbits of information sporadically released so as to make the hype around it grow to humongous proportions, and naturally it failed to fully deliver on the anticipation it thus spawned, but it remains an enjoyable flick regardless, with good effects as we slowly see slightly more and more of the creature so as to keep interest mounting instead of giving too much away too soon. It also helped the 'found footage' take on genre films had not yet been done to death at this point in cinematic history: today this film would be significantly harder to sell to any audience in this regard.


Starring: Lizzy Caplan, T.J. Miller, Jessica Lucas


Directed by Matt Reeves


USA: Paramount Pictures, 2008

Clash of the Titans (1981)



Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


Final picture for which legendary stop motion master Ray Harryhausen would do the special effects work, though it still features some of his most memorable and highest quality animated scenes, including extraordinary characters like Medusa and the Kraken. Based on the Perseus myth of Greek mythology, Clash of the Titans tells of a conflict between gods fought via men and monsters, which pits the young hero Perseus (Harry Hamlin) against the demonic Calibos (performed by an actor in close-ups, but animated in long shots), both of them attempting to conquer the heart of the fair princess Andromeda (Judi Bowker, indeed quite a beauty). When the maiden is threatened to be offered to the monstrous Kraken in sacrifice to save her city, Perseus sets out on a quest to kill the serpentine Medusa and bring back her head since her gaze turns all living creatures to stone and might be the only weapon against the otherwise indestructible monster of the depths. Fortunately Perseus is aided by man and god alike, as well as the winged stallion Pegasus: good thing too, considering the host of gruesome monsters Calibos turns loose upon him. Undoubtedly the most star studded cast ever assembled for a Harryhausen picture – including Laurence Olivier, Ursula Andress, Maggie Smith and Burgess Meredith – it's still the fabulous stop motion puppets that fire the imagination the most in this excellent fantasy film. Ranks right up there with Harryhausen's other fantastic masterpieces The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958) and Jason and the Argonauts (1963).


Starring: Harry Hamlin, Laurence Olivier, Judi Bowker


Directed by Desmond Davis


USA: MGM, 1981

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs



Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


Delightful, often overlooked and underrated animated family film about young inventor Flint Lockwood (voiced by Bill Hader) who lives on a depressing island where everything revolves around sardines, until he invents a machine that when shot up in the sky can make it rain food. Soon the town lightens up and a food theme park is created, but due to the mayor's humongous greedy appetite, dark clouds of junk food soon loom over the horizon as a food hurricane forms and threatens to destroy the island, if not the world. Together with an intrepid female reporter (performed by Anna Faris), who he has a serious crush on, Flint must find a way to turn off his machine before the whole planet succumbs to severe food poisoning. Features a host of fun supporting characters, including a local spoiled ex-child celebrity, Flints stern and less than enthusiastic father (James Caan) who can't stop talking in fishing metaphors, an overprotective cop/father (Mr. T. with a reverse tomahawk hairdo) who constantly bugs Flint for disturbing the peace with his cracking contraptions, and a talking monkey (of sorts). Though the typical thematic values the movie deals with, mostly about not being afraid to be different (i.e., a nerd) and believing in yourself, the film's strength lies in its abundance of quick visual gags and witty jokes, making it a fun fest for kids and adults alike. The 3-D version also holds up pretty well compared to many other animated films released in the same format. The Dutch dubbed version is notable for its ingenious use of Flemish and regular Dutch dialects: the island inhabitants all speak Flemish, the rest of the world speaks plain Dutch.


Starring: Bill Hader, Anna Faris, James Caan


Directed by Phil Lord, Chris Miller


USA: Columbia Pictures, 2009


Clockwork Orange, A



Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


Nightmarish, highly stylized and plain bizarre, this remains one of the most controversial motion pictures of all time. Kubrick adapts Anthony Burgess' original novel with more visual flair than we're used to even from him, painting a ghoulish, depraved world in the not so distant future (at least, in 1971) where youth violence has run rampant. Malcolm McDowell, not one to turn down a shocking movie (like Caligula at the end of the decade), stars as the completely messed up sociopath gang leader Alex DeLarge whose various hobbies include hanging out at the local bar and taking illicit substances, classical music, raping women and just beating people for the fun of it. One night, he goes a little too far, which ends up in a trip to jail, where he volunteers for a scientific project designed to make offenders reject violence. After undergoing the experiments he is released and finds himself back on the streets, having to cope with the aftereffects of his actions when running into his old acquaintances, with not so nice results for his health, physically and mentally. The grotesque and haunting visual imagery aside, the film deals with the philosophical matter of freedom of will, as Alex is robbed of his in society's effort to keep kids like him in line, with dire consequences for the now peaceful subjects: are they really 'them' afterwards, being robbed of their choice to be violent or not? Of course most audiences ignored its thematic value and focused too much on Kubrick's portrayal of ruthless violence, which – despite his outrageous displays of 'Verfremdung' to make it easier on the soul – are still quite disturbing, ultimately leading to this film receiving X ratings around the globe and being withdrawn from UK circulation at Kubrick's insistence because it was said to inspire several violent incidents involving youths. It wasn't until Kubrick's death the film was finally allowed to be shown in British movie theaters.


Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Michael Bates


Directed by Stanley Kubrick


UK/USA: Warner Bros., 1971


Clan of the Cave Bear, The



Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10


Based on the huge book by Jean M. Auel, this surprisingly short film (barely over 90 minutes long), focuses on the life of the Cro-Magnon girl Ayla, who is raised by a group of Neanderthals, many of whom look at the tall blond girl with distrust and disdain. As a young adult, Ayla (Daryl Hannah), far braver and brighter than the other women of “her” tribe, has a hard time keeping her place in this Clan of the Cave Bear, when she keeps getting into conflict with the stubborn mindless brute Broud (Thomas G. Waites), who is destined to become clan leader. Rebelling against clan rules, it's clear Ayla's destiny lies beyond the tribe that raised her. Respecting the original book, though obviously having neglected a great portion of its contents, the Neanderthals only communicate with grunts and sign language, while much of the movie is narrated by an external source. This film was originally slated to have gotten a sequel to expand on Ayla's trials and tribulations, but it never happened, making this movie feel frustratingly incomplete to those who are familiar with the source material. Even worse is the fact most available DVDs of this film only feature a cropped 1:1.33 aspect ratio, while the movie was released in theaters in a 1:2.20 widescreen format, thus making the undoubtedly grand natural vistas of the film hard to enjoy because so much of them is missing. Otherwise, this is quite a decent film, though inferior to the thematically similar Quest for Fire (1981).


Starring: Daryl Hannah, James Remar, Thomas G. Waites


Directed by Michael Chapman


USA: Warner Bros., 1986

City of Ember



Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10


Underrated, enjoyable post-apocalyptic fantasy family flick. After a devastating world war, mankind retreated underground with the hopes of once returning to the surface. Hundreds of feet below ground, the City of Ember was constructed as a safe house to the last remnants of humanity, its lights kept running by huge machinery. However, after several generations had passed, the descendants of the original survivors forgot about their origin and the world above, while the technology keeping them alive slowly degraded, threatening to leave them in everlasting darkness. Superb child actress Saoirse Ronan (nominated for an Oscar for Atonement) stars as young Linda Mayfleet, a girl driven by curiosity and intelligence who wants to fight off the imminent undoing of her home town and the corruption of Ember's greedy Mayor (Bill Murray once more excels at playing a scumbag) and his sinister henchmen, but is confronted on the one hand by narrow minded doctrine stating Ember is all there is, and on the other by giant men-eating mole creatures (making this movie a tad too scary for younger kids). The film sports a tremendously exciting look, almost making Ember itself a living, breathing entity, but we get to explore this ingeniously crafted world less than we would want in exchange for a fairly typical coming-of-age story about kids fighting the older generation's strict rules that seek to keep them mentally chained, breaking loose in the worn out 'follow your heart' style. Still, the delightful fantasy tones of this oft neglected film make for a pleasant surprise to those who bother to check it out.


Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Bill Murray, Toby Jones


Directed by Gil Kenan


USA: Walden Media, 2008

Chronicles of Riddick, The



Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10


Overly bombastic and grandiose sequel to the much smaller scale Sci-Fi horror flick Pitch Black (2000), revealing director Twohy had near Star Warsian aspirations with the Riddick character, which despite the ambitious undertaking of this epic attempt never really materialized any further. Set some years after the events of Pitch Black, Chronicles of Riddick picks up with the continuing hunt for the dangerous anti-hero Riddick (Vin Diesel doing the only type of character he can pull off successfully: the grumpy, violent bullyboy with a heart of gold), though this time not so much for the bounty on his head, but more for the purpose of having him combat a new threat to the galaxy in the shape of the massive world-conquering army of Necromongers, who seek to convert all life to their semi-religious cause or kill it instead. Riddick has little interest in abandoning his quiet lonely life in the wilds, but hesitantly accepts, resulting in a fair amount of high adrenaline fight and chase sequences in a movie that looks terrific but is ultimately yet another haphazard play on the age-old 'good versus evil' routine. Though Riddick continues to be a fun character for his total lack of subtlety and cynical attitude, the rest of his universe is just a bit too weird to fully run along with. Also features Karl Urban (always a blast in this type of action film) as a Necromonger commander caught in a MacBeth type web of intrigue with his wife (Thandie Newton) out to persuade him to kill his dark overlord and take his place, as well as a small role for Judi Dench as an elemental spirit seeking to convince Riddick to be a force for good. Star Wars this is not, but if you take the silly names and bizarre characters with a grain of salt there's quite a few things to enjoy in this action flick. A third Riddick movie has been in the works for years and as of 2012 seems to be finally picking up some steam.


Starring: Vin Diesel, Karl Urban, Judi Dench


Directed by David Twohy


USA: Universal Pictures, 2004

zaterdag 28 april 2012

Assembly complete!



The Avengers: Rating ****/*****, or 8/10

When it comes to superhero movies (or just movies in general), Hollywood is rarely thinking more than a few years forward these days. When a superhero movie fails in some regard, the general decision is to either ignore it for a few years or reboot it, so as to give the franchise a fresh start (which almost always neccessitates to tell the character's origin story all over again). Recent examples to the latter include the Spider-Man and X-Men series, which after a successful initial run went in the opposite direction when failure – either to make sufficient money or to please the audience – was somehow involved. 20th Century-Fox studio executives therefore issued a semi-prequel for X-Men last year (the surprisingly fun X-Men: First Class) which both retold and contradicted its predecessors, while Spider-Man will return in a wholly new form next month after the disappointment that was Spider-Man 3. The former case showed that sometimes a new direction can spawn good results, while the latter has still to prove whether Sony Pictures' decision to simply abandon the former trilogy completely in favour of a new team of cast and crew retelling an already often told story was a good choice, when The Amazing Spider-Man hits theatres in June.


However, Marvel Studios, formerly in cooperation with Paramount, but now under control of the Walt Disney Pictures, does things differently, and shows some impressive long-term thinking for the various superhero characters they still own the movie rights to. Their strategy was simple, but effective: introduce various single characters in their own movies, then put them all together in one giant über-blockbuster the likes the audience has naught seen before. Of course, this planning proved cost-effective, since the public's interest in every character could be tested first with each film, before throwing them all in the same mix, which also gave the studio the opportunity to weed out any characters that proved disappointing at the box-office, as well as keeping open the option for sequels only to the films of certain superheroes that did prove popular, without pinning the hopes solely to the results of their group effort. And so in the last few years, we were treated to various very different superhero flicks: Iron Man (immediately proving to be the most enduring character of the bunch), The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Every one of these films contained various scenes and hints at the others and to the final Avengers product, so the studio could slowly but surely build up momentum, making the audience ever more interested and hyped for just what was in store for them. And now, after having waited and been teased for over four years, the Marvel Universe is fleshed out far more than would ever have been possible without this careful planning, due to the success of all these movies, resulting finally in the superhero-spectacle-to-end-all-superhero-spectacles, The Avengers.

And story wise, the best bit is we don't have to sit through all the characters' origin stories again, since that has all been done for us already, so we can just see the heroes we're already familiar with teaming up against a common foe. Warning: spoilers ahead! This foe, logically chosen, is of course Thor's semi-brother Loki (a wonderfully creepy and vile Tom Hiddleston), the only one of the characters' enemies to pack enough of a punch on a large scale to be a true menace to all mankind. After having fallen from the realm of Asgard, this bad guy disappeared out of the picture for a while, returning with a vengeance by teaming up with a mysterious alien race, hellbent on conquering Earth via the use of the Tesseract (a source of great energy first introduced in Captain America's private cinematic venture). This device has been in the hands of the S.H.I.E.L.D. secret service since the Thor movie, but Loki manages to infiltrate the research base and steal it, along with the minds of various base personnel, including their super archery agent Hawkeye (an agitated Jeremy Renner, so far only briefly spotted in Thor), much to the chagrin of Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, charismatic and ready for combat as always) and his other top agent Black Widow (beautiful bad girl Scarlett Johansson, who was previously seen watching Iron Man's ass in Iron Man 2), who had a personal relationship with Hawkeye. Realizing a nemesis has appeared that threatens the whole world, Fury re-recruits the various superhuman characters we've seen before. And thus Dr. Bruce Banner (newcomer Mark Ruffalo, taking over from Edward Norton and doing a good job at it, portraying the troubled doctor with both sympathy and irony) is tracked down in India, both for his knowledge as a brilliant scientist and his anger managemant problems that occassionally transform him into a huge green monster on a rampage called Hulk (never angrier); Steve Rogers is pulled out of his quiet life in Brooklyn to fight in yet another world war as Captain America, despite having been trapped in ice since 1945 and still adjusting to the strange new world of the early 21st century; rich playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr., once again with his energetic flair and nonchalance that made him so popular in his previous two films, but no drinking problems this time) is tempted into joining the team so his Iron Man armour can be made responsible use of for a change; and even Thor returns from the realm of the Nordic gods in search for his brother, who he still cares about, just to find the guy has gotten bad enough to warrant the wrath of his hammer. With the players now all on the board, they set out to defeat Loki and save the planet (and Hawkeye) from enslavement/destruction by the evil aliens, resulting in many an epic battle scene, each more grandiose and large scaled than the ones that came before.



Of course, action alone is not enough these days (eh, Battleship? Wrath of the Titans?), we need to care for these characters. It really helps having gotten to know most of them and their various traits and motivations already in their own entries into cinema, so little additional exposition is required. But the big question remained: how well do these characters play together? Do they have the necessary chemistry? The answer, thankfully, is positive. Despite the abundance of star power here assembled (how many Academy Award winners and nominees again?), all the actors are fully into this large group effort and none of them get in each other's way or display so much as hints of appropriating the movie for their own ego. The same can be said for their characters, though the plot does call for Hawkeye to be underexposed so we still don't know much about him (but at least we know enough), while the first Hulk transformation takes place well into the second hour of the film, and until that time Dr. Banner seems more aound for the techno babble, something which plays off very well against inventor Tony Stark as a fellow scientist, as well as to the simple grunt Captain America, who has no idea what both great minds are talking about.

As this scene illustrates, the strength of the characters is the way they complement each other: Tony Stark is the inventor, the loud mouth with the great ego, Banner the scientist who needs to restrain his ego, Steve Rogers is the soldier who follows Fury's orders but does a grand job himself leading the team into battle, Black Widow is the spy who offers both incredible martial arts prowess and infiltration techniques plus the obligatory feminine empowerment, while Thor offers knowledge of a mystical realm beyond comprehension of any of his team mates but necessary to defeat the villain, plus he adds the personal drama to the group since this villain happens to be his (adopted) brother. Iron Man represents technology (and a lot of money, which can also come in handy), Thor stands for supernatural power, Black Widow (and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye) offers intelligence and bodily flexibility, Captain America brings the leadership and combat experience, while the Hulk supplies the necessary raw power. And so we watch the team perform in action together, including great moments like the Captain and Iron Man fighting back to back, playing off each other's strengths like using Cap's shield to deflect Iron Man's rays to take out rows of bad guys, while Thor and the Hulk try to outdo each other in brute strength, the latter winning, when all enemies have been vanquished, by still knocking out his friend to show him just who has the bigger set of muscles.



It's safe to say it's not the action but the characters that make the movie work. Which is not surpring considering Joss Whedon has been placed into the director's chair: if anyone knows about characters, it's him, which he has proven on the small screen with his excellent ensemble casts in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and was once again shown to be the case in the recent fabulous horror pastiche The Cabin in the Woods, which he co-wrote. And Whedon being Whedon, we get his trademark humour thrown in for free. None of this huge display of comic book power in audiovisual form would do as well without some much needed levity, telling us we shouldn't take all of this too seriously, which only increases the film's overall sense of fun. Moments of great suspense are interwoven seemlessly with superbly timed jokes, submitted by all characters, even the antagonists. By mixing humour, action and drama alike, while all the way making us root for every heroic character, Whedon proves he's well up to the task of tackling such a monumental undertaking, despite his limit experience as a motion picture director (the fantastic Serenity so far was his only foray into cinematic directorial duty, but already proved just what the guy was capable of).

Which is not to say The Avengers is without flaws, but fortunately they are but few. The role of Loki's alien henchmen and their specific identity and origins remain underexplained, making them little more than cannon fodder. Visually they look fine (as does the whole film) but they lack a soul and clearly exposed motivations other than being just mere minions. Hawkeye's lack of a character set-up was already mentioned above, while the same can be said for Nick Fury, the man who assembles this team of heroes: we've seen him in almost all of the previous separate films, pulling strings and initiating the formation of the Avengers ever since the end credits of Iron Man first ended, but we still know little about the man himself. Sure, he's in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D. but just who does this organisation really answer to? This film shows him communicating with “the council” (whatever that is), a group of poorly lit, shady, nameless characters on monitors, but just who these people are and why Fury adheres to their commands remains secretive, so the audience too isn't sure what to make of Fury himself. This does add some mystery to this already mysterious man, but also feels like the writers either didn't really know or didn't care enough to explain it better. However, we may still get our answers, a Nick Fury film has already been acknowledged to be produced soon.

Fortunately for the general public, the good stuff in The Avengers far outweighs the not so good, and we are treated to 142 minutes of utter fun as we see great characters (possibly soo to be iconic) teaming up for equally great action, great comedy and great visuals, the latter ranging from enormous flying aircraft carriers to a devastated New York swarming with serpentine alien attack ships being taken down by Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Marvel Studios can sit back and relax: their four year gamble has payed off, made them billions of dollars (this movie alone is gonna break records for sure), garnered much acclaim from critics and fans alike, and paved the way for many more entries into this cinematic Marvel Universe, so we can enjoy Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and of course The Avengers 2 in the next couple of years, with other related Marvel projects also to have been confirmed to tie in to this quickly expanding canon. After the steadily rising levels of success witnessed so far, culminating in the world wide nerdgasm that is The Avengers, we can do nothing but look forward to more Marvels, hopefully for decades to come. Preferably with Whedon involved, but we'll take them without if needs be.


And watch the trailer here:


And the Avengers' troubles have only just begun... be sure to stick around for the mid-credits scene to find out why! Or simply watch the picture below for the identity of their new archenemy.


woensdag 25 april 2012

How to make a surprisingly good horror movie


1: Make good use of effectively creepy locations
Why change a winning formula? If a place is frightening, there's nothing that can be helped so you might as well use it to its full potential. Dark, shadowy places are preferred by far. The more isolated and backwards, the better, since there's little help for your poor protagonists in distress, and they have to make do with each other and their wits (if any) to survive their ordeal. This also creates opportunities to add some emotional dynamics for your group of characters, since tensions and personal issues between them will rise, meaning the danger can come from both inside and outside the group. A good example of an ever sinister location in this genre would be a spooky forest equipped with a minimum of human civilization, where the main cast can be pitted against their antagonists in peace and quiet with zero outside interference.


2: Create archetype characters
Assuming you use more than one protagonist (which the majority of horror movies does), make sure they're different enough from one another. There's little point in having five different characters if they all behave the same. Be sure to cast both male and female actors if the script allows for it. Make them dissimilar enough in nature so they each bring their own voice and input to whatever perilous situation they find themselves in. They all should have different traits to distinguish them from each other, making them react diversely to the dangers they'll face. You can have a nerd, a slut, a brave heroine, a coward, etc., but be sure they compliment each other. Make them mostly likeable (again, if your script calls for this) so we can root for them, even though we know we will see them killed off in horrible manners (that's why it's a horror film after all), which means their unavoidable deaths will have meaning. Most of all, make them archetypes, not stereotypes. It's a fine line, but it can make all the difference between a good horror flick and a bad one.


3: Apply postmodern context, surprise your audience
Let's face it: by now the horror genre has seen it all. So why not use that to your advantage? Don't insult your audience's intelligence by assuming you're the first one to come up with certain ideas, since that will very likely work aversely. Present your ideas knowing your viewers will be familiar with them and play with this notion to surprise them where ever you can. Don't be afraid to openly refer to other entries in the horror genre, it has been proven a trite and true ingredient of successful horror by now. Make use of established genre conventions, no matter how often they've seen to be applied before, and then turn them on their head so your audience will be utterly shocked. Of course there's the risk your viewers might not go with it if you surprise them in too bizarrely a fashion, but that's a risk you should be willing to take. In fact, if the risk pays off, your audience will thank you for having dared to take such chances.

4: Add some humour, but not too much
Don't cater only to the darker emotions like shock and disgust, but also lighten up the mood at times by adding some fun. It can take the audience off guard, playing with their expectations of what comes next, so the following shocks hit their mark hard. Don't overdo it though, unless you set out to make a comedy more than an actually scary film. Certain characters naturally lend themselves more to laughs than others (this includes the antagonists), but don't make the humour depend on any single character to avoid JarJarisms: nobody likes a single sidekick providing all the jokes and ruining the overall mood (those are the types of people we like to see brutally killed off the first), so you better distribute it somewhat evenly among your cast of characters. And don't be afraid to use some naughty language, a horror movie should aim at a more restricted rating anyway.

5: Be sure your movie is still scary enough
If you deliberately make a horror movie, the audience will expect frightening and/or sickening moments (or at least attempts at such), otherwise you're cheating your viewers. So make sure to add a sufficient amount of moments of unease, disgust or shock to your motion picture. A neatly crafted balance between gore and suspense is always preferred, but you can pick one over the other if it seems appropriate. Don't overdo it of course, horror movies shouldn't rely solely on dirty scenes filled with blood and guts, such moments should not drive the film, but be driven themselves by the overall plot. However, if you have good ideas to make your movie even more eerie, show no more restraint then needed.


6: End on a downer if it works in your film's favour
Some of the best horror movies end on a very downbeat ending, a closure devoid of hope or happiness for your characters (if any are still alive of course). When it makes the movie even stronger plot wise or shock the audience that much more, don't hesitate to use such endings. It usually also garners a fair amount of critical acclaim and that's never a bad thing, considering a lot of critics feel biased against horror movies that seem all too typical on first sight.


When all of these points have been adhered too successfully, this results in:



The Cabin in the Woods
Rating: ****/*****, or 9/10

Why not write an actual review of this film, you might ask? I could have done that, but The Cabin in the Woods is so loaded with plot twists it couldn't have been written without spoilers all over it, which would give away much of the movie's brilliant plot, and I so much want you to check out the movie instead of just reading a synopsis. Even for people who are not at all into horror, the way this film turns established horror conventions topsy-turvy makes it worth a watch, if you have the stomach for some occasional blood and gore. It proves yet again writer/producer Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly/Serenity and this week's newly released 'superhero spectacle to end all superhero spectacles' The Avengers) is at the very top of his game and fully deserves the large fanbase he has spawned over the last decades. As for director Drew Goddard, he redeems himself for those few bad episodes of Lost he wrote (though it must be stated he also wrote some good ones) and he turns out to be a very capable director with great love for the horror genre (something which was already evident to a lesser extent in Cloverfield which he also directed). Together Whedon and Goddard have produced one of the finest entries into the horror genre in decades, which hopefully won't be insatiably copied, sequeled/prequeled, remade or rebooted like too many of the scary movies it references.


And watch the trailer here (though it's bound to create wrong impressions, since, despite the titles claiming differently, this trailer seems fairly standard. But then, no trailer could ever do this film's plot justice without giving too much away):

zondag 22 april 2012

Pirate of the Year, Scientist of the Year, Animated Movie of the Year


Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

If Aardman Animation's most recent triumph The Pirates!: Band of Misfits in any way set out to make a point, its release couldn't have come at a more opportune moment. The current scandal involving the Spanish king Juan Carlos hunting African Elephants purely for the fun of it, despite his position as vice-president of the Spanish branch of the World Wildlife Fund, bears a striking resemblance to certain events portrayed in the film, namely the way the British Queen Victoria uses her influence with the London Royal Society to procure dinner in the shape of the most exotic animals possible for the annual meeting of a dining club of heads of state that simply exists for the sake of eating its way through the animal kingdom. Victoria's particular meal of choice this year (that is, 1837) is a dodo, the last of its kind. Problem is, this bird is the mascotte of a Pirate Captain and his merry crew of oddball pirates, and they're not gonna let their beloved pet get eaten without a fight. Add to this mix pirate and scientist competitions, Charles Darwin and his “talking” chimpanzee, and a vast array of increasingly colourful pirates and here you have yet another wonderful recipe for Aardman's traditional claymation (moving clay puppets a tiny little bit for each frame to achieve the illusion of motion) family entertainment, that will indeed manage to successfully entertain every age group of any family.



In the first half of the Nineteenth Century, a nameless Pirate Captain (voiced with audible pleasure by Hugh Grant) and his band of equally nameless scoundrels – ironically, the dodo is the only crew member with a real name: considering the fairly naive pirates think she's just a big boned parrot, it's Polly – , sail the Seven Seas in search of ships to plunder and shiny booty to collect. Unfortunately, this crew, which consists of characters like the Albino Pirate, the Pirate with Gout and the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate (i.e., a woman with a fake beard lowering her voice), is not particularly good at it, which their pesky pirate colleagues continue to remind them in many a tavern ashore. When the poor Captain makes his entry into the Pirate of the Year competition publicly known, he's met with ridicule by his fellow rogues, including a trio of dastardly successful pirates, that first appear in the movie with ever more absurd grand entrances, which climaxes when a huge sperm whale jumps out of the ocean, landing on a pier with its face against the local bar front door, opening his giant mouth to release a wave of golden booty with the third and final captain surfing down his tongue. With this kind of hilarious gags this early in the film, the audience knows it's never seen funnier pirates than the likes only Aardman could conceive.



His spirit untempered by the roaring laughter of his fellow criminal commanders, the Pirate Captain sets out on a wonderfully bizarre quest for anything of value to win him the Award, but fails to find rich merchant ships at sea, instead stumbling on increasingly silly vessels, such as naturist cruises, ghost ships and plague boats (the latter was called a 'leper boat' in the film's trailer, but this was apparently thought to be politically incorrect: the resulting joke is still the same, so the damage is luckily minimal when the leper's arm falls off). Just when all hope seems lost, the brigands run into Charles Darwin's ship, freshly returned from the Galapagos Isles with a cargo hold full of animal body parts (like Baboon's kidneys) and exotic live specimens (including a sad Baboon). For a pirate, such a collection is useless, but Darwin, portrayed as a wonderfully nerdy posh scientist with the typical condition of not being able to get a girlfriend (and voiced by David Tennant, who also sounds like he enjoys this role quite a lot), takes an unusual scientific interest in Polly, and in a funny plot parallel, convinces the Captain to co-attend the London Royal Society Scientist of the Year award ceremony (sneaking into the city disguised as a girl scout), under the pretense of winning a handsome fortune which would help his stature as a successful pirate. Unfortunately, this gets him under the radar of every pirate's nemesis, Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton adding yet another total bitch character to her repertoire, and obviously loving it all the way), who, for reasons mentioned above, also proves really fascinated by the poor dodo.



All the typical whacky ingredients of a good Aardman film, certain to appeal to almost every potential demographic in the audience, are present. As was the case with Chicken Run and the various Wallace & Gromit films (both long and short), only the most grumpy, tired and worn out negative nincompoops will not enjoy this flick with its full barrage of witty jokes, zany characters and silly situations. As a bonus, we get a fantastically detailed overall look to the film. Almost every scene is cramped with little details, all the way to the closing of the end credits, adding not only an authentic feel to the period part of the story (the film after all makes use of actual historical settings and characters, though bending them to its own comedic purposes), but making the movie seem that much more alive: it almost makes Aardman's previous movies look fairly bland by comparison. The trouble is, there's just so much to see it's impossible to take it all in, thus making a second viewing (preferably at home with the option of freeze framing the picture to facilitate a closer inspection) nigh obligatory, not that we would mind. The movie's 3D-effects, in themselves compulsory too for today's animated movies, never take away from the vast level of detailing, but even help making the whole setting feel that much more realistic (as they should, considering the actual use of three-dimensional puppets requires such realism more than computer animated environments do, since they're not really there to begin with). With regard to the look of the film, The Pirates!: Band of Misfits proves to be Aardman's most ambitious project yet, and the studio fully succeeds into making this film's world feel vibrant and compelling.

The Pirates!: Band of Misfits is only Aardman's fifth foray into the motion picture business, and the third to apply its trademark use of claymation. Most importantly, it's a return to form, and to Aardman's roots, since its previous two films, Flushed Away (2006) and last year's Arthur Christmas, used computer animation, the currently dominant style of animation. Though neither film was bad, both of them failed to really feel like Aardman productions, even though the computer generated characters much resembled the clay puppets that came before in overall look. Aardman now returns to their original style, which rightfully won the studio an Academy Award for the brilliant Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit in 2005. It proved the right choice, since the studio now clearly sets itself off against the other animation studios like Pixar and DreamWorks, which in recent years competed ever more aggressively for audience and critics' attention (Pixar still ruling supreme, certainly if the number of Oscars is taken into account) with their fully digitally animated movies, by maintaining a more traditional “old school” style of bringing life to inanimate characters (the use of digital backgrounds notwithstanding, since it's still the puppets that make the film come to life). It may very well win Aardman a second Academy Award, which at the moment certainly seems earned, though of course, in terms of animated films, the year has only just begun. However, it fully feels like a dinner starting with the tastiest course first. To stay in this metaphorical sense, let's hope this wonderful claymation piece doesn't prove a dodo itself: we could really use more ingenious alternatively animated movies like this one, instead of seeing it swallowed by the more standardly animated fare.

And watch the trailer here:

maandag 16 april 2012

Casablanca




Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


One of the greatest classics to come out of the Golden Age of Hollywood, though maybe not as brilliant as some would have you believe, and just a little too melodramatic. However, still stands tall as one of the most fondly remembered American movies of the WW II era. The nigh immortal Humphrey Bogart stars as Rick, the owner of his own cafe in WW II Casablanca, a city of scum and villainy balancing precariously between lawlessness and brutal Nazi oppression, the port from where many European refugees attempt to make the journey to the free United States, if Casablanca doesn't kill them first. Rick means to stay out of politics and make a decent buck out of his impartial liquor business, but when he meets a prominent freedom fighter (Paul Henreid) and his wife (the ever beautiful Ingrid Bergman), who happens to be his old lover, Rick must decide to either help them leave Casablanca, or stay huddled up in his own shady affairs and risk having them arrested by Nazi commandant Strasser (Conrad Veidt, ironically a German refugee himself). Tough call. A great ensemble cast (also including Claude Rains as a wonderfully corrupt local police captain and Peter Lorre as the usual creepy criminal character), great visual direction, a solid plot and a great number of unforgettable one-liners few people won't recognize, will have you play this war thriller again. And you'll have a hard time getting its main theme tune (based on the featured song 'As Time Goes By') out of your head for days: probably the reason Warner Bros. made it part of its present day logo tune.


Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Claude Rains


Directed by Michael Curtiz


USA: Warner Bros, 1942


 

Captain America: The First Avenger




Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10


The last of the single Avengers films, though ironically the 'Living Legend' is the oldest Marvel comic book character of the bunch. Applying a delicious comic-y retro visual style to the Second World War and the introduction of the super soldier, the adventures of the 'First Avenger' resemble their drawn counterparts the most, making for a very fun action film. Eager to sign up with the armed forces during WW II, brave but physically feeble Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, who previously played another Marvel character, the Human Torch, in Fox's Fantastic Four) continues to be rejected for service. However, his strength of will and general boldness eventually make him a good candidate for a secret super soldier project, which turns him into an almost superhuman character, physical and sensory abilities all functioning at peak efficiency. Dubbed Captain America, Steve is initially used only for propaganda performances, but after pulling off a heroic rescue mission deemed near suicide, allied command realizes he's of most use at the front lines, where he soon gets on the radar of the Red Skull (another great villain on Hugo Weaving's resumé), the leader of a covert Nazi organization called Hydra, which dabbles both in the scientific and the supernatural. Meanwhile, Steve also has a hard time finding time for romance with feisty army dame Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell). If you overlook the blatantly patriotic American overtones and you don't mind the fact Captain America's battles look nothing like the actual WW II due to their use of near steam punk levels of science (partially courtesy of the Thor influence, continuing to successfully set up a larger, shared Marvel cinematic universe) and the presence of the somewhat silly, overly politically correct, ethnically diverse Howling Commandos (Wah-Hooo!), you're in for one awesome rollercoaster of a semi-superhero action flick. Plus impressive visual effects, including making a tall, muscular man look short and skinny (yes, those were actually Chris Evans' real muscles, but he never looked like that whimpy little guy).


Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell


Directed by Joe Johnston


USA: Paramount Pictures, 2011

Capricorn One




Rating: ***/*****, or 7/10


Despite one of the most intriguing premises in movie history, to my mind at least, this science fiction thriller ultimately fails to deliver on its promised goods. However, it's still a good flick with a fairly solid plot. Still caught up in the space race, the planned NASA landing on Mars turns out a doomed project due to technical errors and financial problems, but to keep up national pride without making America lose face with the rest of the world, the US government secretly plays out and films the whole proposed landing in a studio (a popular conspiracy theory concerning the actual lunar landing in 1969, which some consider to have been a hoax), while still sending a rocket up into space and convincing the world it's manned. However, the covert plot backfires completely when the rocket disintegrates upon re-entry into the Earth atmosphere and everyone assumes the astronauts (played by James Brolin, Sam Waterston and O.J. Simpson; yes, that O.J.) have died with it. Soon, the three would-be space explorers need to run for their lives, hunted down by their own government who can't allow them to survive and thus expose the whole conspiracy. A damn brilliant set-up for a movie, but it focuses too much on the melodramatic family issues of the astronauts and a rather dull investigation by journalist Elliott Gould, and thus never gets going as the high adrenaline political thriller it could have been. A remake has been suggested on multiple occasions: though I'm usually opposed to the very notion, in this case I'll make an exception since there's still plenty to improve upon this otherwise fascinating premise.


Starring: Elliott Gould, James Brolin, O.J. Simpson


Directed by Peter Hyams


USA: ITC, 1978

Titans versus Gods: round two


Wrath of the Titans: **/*****, or 5/10

A classical education can be a real pain in the ass at times. Sure, it helps you get a basic understanding of most major European languages and supplies you with an ample fondness for the riches of Greek and Roman mythology, but it makes mindless action movies based on said myths that much harder to swallow. Case in point: Wrath of the Titans.

Two years ago, the remake of Ray Harryhausen's final masterpiece of stop motion photography Clash of the Titans unfortunately made some money. The reason for this is still unclear, since it wasn't a very good movie and remains one of the most textbook examples as to why 3-D post-conversion is a bad thing, considering the piss poor 3-D effects that made the hair of the protagonists seem to float around and the digital FX that much more obviously pixelized. At least it delivered a decent amount of man versus monster battle action, but that's where the enjoyment ended. At the end of the movie, the demi-god Perseus (Sam Worthington) finally defeated the terrifying Kraken and settled with his new lover Io (Gemma Arterton) for a peaceful life, declining an offer from his father Zeus (Liam Neeson) to join the gods at Mount Olympus. Seems like a fairly conclusive ending, but when there's a potential for more money to be made Hollywood usually overrules common sense and demands a sequel, regardless of whether people asked for one, or whether there's more stories to be told with the characters. Wrath of the Titans oh so cleverly avoids the latter obstacle by reducing the need for a plot to a minimum and focusing first and foremost on the creature action. Ignoring the orginal realm of Greek mythology completely, Hollywood now makes up a few more adventures for Perseus, taking elements from various other beloved classical myths and mixing them together in an awkward pastiche of largely action driven setpieces.



A decade has passed since the previous movie, and Perseus (still the overly butch Sam Worthington with his outrageously ill placed Aussie accent) now lives the simple life of a fisherman together with his son Helius (John Bell) after the death of his wife Io (Gemma Arterton undoubtedly did the right thing by not returning, though it makes the obnoxiously obligatory romance with Andromeda in this movie ever so convoluted). Of course this will not do for an action flick, so Zeus (Liam Neeson, still fairly regal, but definitely on auto-pilot), his estranged father, warns him trouble is stirring in Tartarus, the monster dungeon of the underworld: the Titans are breaking loose, and he would like his son to join him in vanquishing this evil (sounds familiar? It should, since both the recent Immortals and Disney's Hercules were centered around a suspiciously similar plot). Perseus once again tells him to sod off, having little interest in the affairs of the immortals with which he has little affinity despite his blood ties to them, so Zeus departs without him, accompanied only by his other son Ares (Edgar Ramirez), and his brothers Poseidon (Danny Huston) and Hades (the ever reliable choice of villainy Ralph Fiennes, whose heart, like Neeson's, doesn't really seem to be in all this), trying to keep their imprisoned father Kronos in check. The latter turns out to be a towering behemoth of molten rock and lava: apparently, this is the sort of thing to happen to gods locked away in hell for too long.
As is fully predictable, Hades again double-crosses Zeus, this time in league with Ares. For some reason, the god of war is utterly jealous of Zeus' relation with Perseus, even though it's blatantly obvious in this film and the last that Perseus has little love for his father and ignores his divine descent as much as possible: even in this film father and son have all too brief exchanges of dialogue, revealing that whatever relationship they have, it doesn't warrant jealousy at all. This makes Ares' motivations feel out of touch with reality and generally poorly conceived, but if there's a story need to make a bad guy out of an Olympian god, in the general contemporary mindset of oversimplified 'good versus evil' the god of war is the 'go-to guy' nevermind the reasons, as is Hades as the god of the afterlife. And so these two rogue gods capture the ruler of heaven and chain him in the depths of Tartarus, in such a way that his life essence flows to his enraged father Kronos with whom they have made a pact to regain their immortality after his plans to destroy the gods have been carried out. As if...

Now it's up to poor Perseus to rescue both his father and mankind from Kronos' imminent rampage that will wreak total havoc upon the world, and he is sent upon yet another quest to obtain items that will stop the big bad guy, along the way encountering various characters and computer generated creatures as he moves from setpiece to setpiece, with little a break inbetween since this movie runs for only 99 minutes and there's gotta be as much action as possible to detract attention from the fact the (supposed) writers simply regurgitated the previous' film overall plot to save money on cramping in as much pixels as possible. So we see Perseus and his ragtag band of warriors – including compulsory female empowerment in the presence of Queen Andromeda (this time around played by Rosamund Pike, since former queen Alexa Davalos, like Arterton, also felt she could spent her time in more useful ways) and unsuccessful comic relief supplied by Poseidon's lowlife son Agenor (Toby Kebbell) – face Chimaeras, a family of Cyclops, a Minotaur and Siamese twin Machai warriors in the build-up to the ultimate epic battle with the film's gargantuan antagonist Kronos (in essence, Perseus' grandfather; not that he seems to care for this fact).



The creatures are the film's most redeeming feature and provide for the film's only memorable scenes: in fact, it comes as no surprise the whole film feels constructed around a string of interchangeable fights with monsters randomly taken from every corner of Greek mythology. At least some effort was put into making sure the beasts look good on the big screen. They do, with the exception of the Minotaur, who's just a guy in a suit making ample use of shadowy lighting to hide the fact he looks like a guy in a suit. It's nice to see a break from CGI here, but this particular creature feels totally out of touch with the others and delivers a rather ridiculous performance in a fortunately short fight scene. Apparently a labyrinth, even an ingeniously designed specimen with moving corridors and an ever changing layout, always needs a man/bull hybrid to feel more authentic, even if the budget can't afford for him to look convincing or menacing. The other monsters fortunately fare better action wise, and make for some respectable eye candy to make up for the Minotaur fiasco. And after all of them have been subdued, it's time for Kronos to get his comeuppance in another grandiose climactic end battle, one that however fails to amaze as much as the Kraken fight that concluded Clash, considering Wrath simply exchanges a huge water monster for a huge lava monster. More could have been done with an ex-god, especially one related to the king of gods, who also happens to be the protagonist's grandfather, than make a big beastie out of him and having the hero simply kill him off.

And speaking of gods, what happend to the rest of them? Only five Olympian gods (Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Ares and Hephaestus (Bill Nighy) made it into this film, despite the presence of more of them in Clash of the Titans. One could say the story didn't allow for all of them to be incorporated in the final film, but it makes the movie feel incomplete. Zeus desperately asks Perseus for help against Kronos, but not the likes of Apollo or Athena? Surely a goddess of wisdom and battle tactics would have come in handy, plus it would have provided for more compelling female presence than armour clad Andromeda joining Perseus in his valiant quest but not adding worthwhile to it overall, except getting his tongue in her mouth for little apparent reason when the dust of battle has settled (zero chemistry here between Worthington and Pike). Adding other gods to the mix would have made sense, but they probably would have needed to much screen time, taking away from the monster acton Hollywood feels this movie is all about. Probably all for the better, considering the messed up relations of the gods we got are petty enough.


When you turn a blind eye to the monsters, Wrath of the Titans is basically nothing but a terribly soapy family squabble. Kronos was rejected by his sons Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, who afterward started arguing amongst themselves; Ares feels rejected by his father Zeus who himself is largely rejected by his own son Perseus; Ares and Hades team up with Kronos against their family but succumb to in-fighting too; with Ares eventually using Perseus' son Helius against his half brother. Oh, and Agenor rejects his father Poseidon too. Io did the right thing by dying before this movie started so as not to get involved in all this petty bickering. It's really tiresome to hear 'my father', 'my son' or 'my brother' after every line of dialogue, especially amidst battle scenes, just to make sure audiences will remember who's related to who.

And that's the main problem of this movie: it fails to anticipate audience intelligence and therefore relies solely on delivering fight scenes instead of fleshing the family arguments out into something less convoluted, as if Greek mythology was all about heroes dispatching monsters. That might be what people remember most about such myths, but it wasn't simply the single element driving them. Last year's Immortals made this perfectly clear by refraining from the use of creatures completely, instead centering the action around the differences between gods and humans directly, which still resulted in ample action and digital effects. Wrath of the Titans however doesn't feel the need to enrich itself by adding anything worthwhile to its simple action oriented take on classical mythology. If you've grown up with Greek myths like I have, you will undoubtedly leave the theatre with a profound sense of lacking: if you care only about seeing cool creatures running around killing people and being killed, this movie is made for you, since that's all it offers. And apparently this simpleminded approach sells like crazy, considering a third Clash is already in the works... are there any monsters from Greek mythology yet left for senseless slaughter?

And watch the trailer here: