Posts tonen met het label Liam Neeson. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Liam Neeson. Alle posts tonen

maandag 6 oktober 2014

Today's News: falling behind



I can still find time to post news on MovieScene, but not enough additionally to comment on it here. Which doesn't stop me from trying, but it makes some of these news items older than usual, a situation which will stay that way if I can't find a balance again soon.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157391/william_shatner_benaderd_voor_rol_star_trek_3

Well, this is just a bad idea. If they wanted to have Shatner and Nimoy return as a pair, they should have done it years ago in that first dreadful Star Trek reboot vehicle. Now Shatner is just late for the party and would feel even more like a gratuitous addition/story cop-out than Nimoy's appearance in the previous two installments already does. Besides, what is there to gain for the rebooted franchise by itself if they keep leeching off the classics, thus refusing to let the new movies stand on their own merits - of which, to my mind, they have few to begin with - by dragging iconic characters into the mix? Just let go off the past and let Nimoy and Shatner enjoy retirement, they said their farewells twenty years ago back when we still cared. It's bad storytelling to keep them from recurring next to their hip and cool modern counterparts Pine & Quinto. Contemporary audiences will only get confused by the oldies, while real Trekkies don't give a damn about their involvement, as the faithful and sensible fan community members among them have stopped bothering with the reboot franchise (and the rest of them isn't worth considering). It's not their Trek, goes for both the fans of the real Kirk and Spock and the actors portraying them. Abrams and co., please go write something original rather than milking the original ad nauseam just because you have no idea how to proceed otherwise.




http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157407/eerste_trailer_tak3n

Why wasn't Liam Neeson in any of The Expendables flicks? He's making more action movies than Statham and Stallone put together these days. Granted, they're all interchangeable and Tak3n (or Taken 3, if you prefer, which I do) doesn't seem any different. Somebody not too smart screws Neeson over, he goes berserk and hunts down the perpetrators, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake for our enjoyment. Tak3n is said to be the final installment in the Taken saga, a franchise that few people would have thought would become one judging from the first film, which was just so surprisingly successful more of them had to be produced. The trailer seems to indicate it ends on a dramatic note, not the least of which is provided by disposing of Famke Janssen (why would you do such a thing?!). From the looks of it, there is a very real chance Neeson's character himself might not survive this one either. Probably for the best, so Neeson will soon be free to start doing redundant sequels to all those other action flicks he has starred in over the last few years. Or maybe join the cast of The Expendables 4, where he will fit right in.



http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157416/tetris_film_in_de_maak

Yes, Tetris is getting the unasked-for and unneccesary Battleship treatment. Don't ask me what the story will be about, the producers are not commenting on that aspect so strongly the likelihood of there not being a story as of yet must be strongly considered. They found something for Battleship, feeble though it was. That too ended up as what could be described as a 'science fiction epic', which is the route the producers of Tetris say it will take. It'll probably involve an alien invasion again. But this time, rather than fighting them off with ancient WW II battleships, we'll rain down digital blocks on their heads! That'll teach them! Or stuff. I wouldn't expect too much, to be on the safe side. Except for the appearance of that darn catchy game tune, which is so iconic they'll have to keep it in or people will call shenanigans on this film. Maybe that's how the aliens will be defeated? Though that would mean stealing a plot point from Mars Attacks. I'll stick to the game on my old Nintendo GameBoy. It's the only console I have (if that term is eligible for use in this regard, I dunno) and the only game that came with it. Or I can play it on my digital calculator, which is what got me through high school (though without it, I may have gotten through high school quicker, admittedly). For some reason, playing Tetris never gets old. So why do we need a motion picture about it at all?

zondag 28 september 2014

Today's overdose of news



It's been a busy week for posting movie news after all:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157368/nieuwe_trailer_jupiter_ascending

Jupiter Ascending is back with a vengeance. We've had zero word on the project since it was postponed a few months back, but it's certainly set to be the big film of February 2015. Which seems an odd time to release such an ambitious and expensive title, but at least it ensures there's not a lot of competition to go up against. In terms of visual effects and atmosphere it seems this is going to be quite a thrilling piece, but I have my doubt about the plot, which marries an element or two from Dune to bits and pieces of The Matrix and of course mixes the epic qualities of Star Wars in as well. Then again, I kinda dig the notion of humanity simply being bred as a resource for an extraterrestrial imperial dynasty's vain pleasures. It doesn't seem to emphasize the moral and existential 'specialness' such Sci-Fi films inherently attribute to our species, usually portraying them as the great wonder of the galaxy. Here, humanity is just a big herd of dumb sheep, ignorant to the bigger picture. Of course, this fairly rebellious notion is sure to be shattered by the character played by Mila Kunis. And speaking of Kunis, I'm not convinced of both her and Channing Tatum's ability in terms of acting to carry such a big blockbuster movie. At least there's a decent cast of supporting characters (Sean Bean, yay!) to make up for it if they fall short.




http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157333/game_of_thrones_acteurs_gecast_in_pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies

There's enough pride & prejudice in the Lannister family to be siphoned off by other projects for sure. Game of Thrones has also witnessed its fair share of zombies, too. Any excuse to get Headey and Dance showing off their considerable acting talents, on their own or together, is well worth the effort. Dance should have plenty of time on his hands, now that he's not likely to do much more work on GoT (and boy, will we miss him!). The cast for this movie grows ever more impressive, perhaps more so than its decidedly silly premise deserves. It's a clear sign all these grand actors, who usually deal with heavily dramatic performances, need a break at times, something lighter to keep from going insane. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies may be just what Headey and Dance need, to keep their mind of all the political intrigue, backstabbing and murderous family squabbling they've had to endure in recent years. It'll be great to see them bounce off such frustrations on the mindless hordes of the undead.



http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157366/game_of_thrones_acteur_wordt_booswicht_maze_runner_2

Here's another GoT actor who has time to spare for a big genre movie. Considering the series has progressed as far as the books with Littlefinger's particular story line (or Sansa's, to be more precise), I wouldn't be surprised to see he was used only sparingly in the next season. Which gives Gillen time for other things, like playing another villain (come, on, that's what Littlefinger is and you kow it!) in a hugely popular dystopian teen franchise. I have no doubt he'll excel at playing the part of the character called the 'Rat Man', even though, considering the pace with which The Scorch Trials is being produced (the deadline ends in less than a year from now), it seems he has very little time to prepare for the role. Good thing his experience on Game of Thrones comes in handy then.



http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157335/nieuwe_trailer_laggies

Oh hey, they made a movie about my lack of a career! And Keira Knightley is playing me. Odd choice, but I'll take it. But seriously (if ever), this movie is just made to reflect on the many millions of people lagging in their lifes, of which I am only one. Hopefully it'll also provide a solution out of this mess that is my existence, other than the generic resolves of embracing adulthood and responsibility. Which wouldn't help me any further, as I do believe at least the latter element is perfectly honed in my case. But from the trailer it at least appears as if I would leave the theater in a cheerful mood, as the sizzling levels of feel-good juice are dripping off my computer screen when it's playing this preview of Laggies. Whether the movie will have the same effect, or whether I'm in for a painful confrontation with the hard, merciless truths of life remains to be seen. It's starring Keira Knightley, so the latter scenario seems unlikely.




http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157350/neeson_en_freeman_in_ted_2

More actors in for a change of pace and genre. These days, Liam Neeson is either starring in a slick but forgettable action thriller, or a comedy cannibalizing on his persona of a slick (and forgettable?) action thriller star. The latter was the case in Seth MacFarlane's previous zany comedy, A Million Ways to Die in the West, in which Neeson made quite the badass desperado. Seems both parties enjoyed their collaboration well enough to go at it again, though one of them is resorting to doing voice work only again (and it's not Neeson). Freeman is still wandering around completely at a loss as to providing any sensible exposition of what exactly went down in the unintelligible Lucy, and apparently hopes to do a better job explaining the still somewhat fuzzy science behind a living teddy bear. Probably easier to do than providing the many answers that come with a woman unlocking her mind to the max and turning into everything there is. Or stuff. I dunno. And neither did Freeman. No freckle added to his face for a job well done on that one, that's for sure.




http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157371/nieuwe_trailer_big_hero_6

Well, this looks simply adorable. And also quite un-Marvel for what is in essence still a Marvel movie. The subject matter obviously lends itself better to a regular Disney animated film, or so this catchy trailer would suggest. It does make for a less complicated Marvel movie that refrains from tieing into other Marvel movies for a change, diversifying the Marvel properties under Disney's control. Yet it remains faithful to the source material in keeping the (fictional) Japanese type of setting, though the characters don't seem all that South-East Asian, except for the robot himself which seems to come straight out of a Studio Ghibli film. This movie seems to do a great job of marrying the younger side of Marvel to the traditional Disney style, yet ensuring there's enough to enjoy for the adults in a way more reminiscent of Pixar. But what's up with keeping this one in the fridge for Dutch theaters for four months? That's just asking people - not me, I must say - to start downloading illegally! I thought Disney had learned their lesson on Up. Though waiting four months instead of six admittedly is a kind of progress.






zaterdag 10 mei 2014

Today's Trailer: a million dirty words in the West



Here's a little trailer I posted on MS this here yesterday:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155673/nieuwe_redband_trailer_voor_a_million_ways_to_die_in_the_west

This trailer is fifty-fifty in regards to showcasing novel material. A lot of it has been covered in previous trailers, while the opening and most of the second half consists of never-before-seen footage. In totally the same, raunchy, puerile way of course. Penis and pussy jokes are as commonplace here as bullets and bandits. This is Seth MacFarlane territory after all, so what else did you expect? I don't mind a potty mouthed neo-western for a change though, it's something else for a change, considering the overly serious tones that characterizes the genre. My fear for this movie is not the debasement of the iconic western genre so much as it is a situation of the trailer containing all the good jokes and the rest ending up to be shitty leftovers only. Especially since it's a red band trailer (again, as the previous previews for this film were), so we already know what kind of filthy language and absurdly steamy situations to expect, nor did they have to save the worst for the actual movie (they still might have, naturally). I don't think it's too smart a move for the promotional campaign to lay out all the cards on the table just yet in this regard, I would have gone with the usual green band trailers and only one red band trailer to spice things up a little. Not that it matters much, as fans of MacFarlane will know this movie just had to be Rated-R, as is his wont. PG-13 is not his style, as is common knowledge. And if it wasn't, it is now, thanks to this trailer and several just like it.


woensdag 26 juni 2013

Today's News: Liam Neeson Taken once more



Here's a scoop I delivered to MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148151/liam_neeson_terug_voor_taken_3

Without having seen Taken or Taken 2 (and certainly in the latter case I know I have not missed much) I can quickly deduce this project to be a prime example of a studio doing some cash grabbing. The original Taken in itself was nothing more than a solid action thriller, as is typical for a Luc Besson production. A good cast, compelling action sequences, etc., but nothing more than an average action flick, released just before the 2008 blockbuster season kicked off, which is one of the reasons it did so well since cinemas didn't have that much else to offer. The second one was predictably more of the same, except of lesser quality. But apparently it still did wel enough despite a largely negative critical reception. And now there's Taken 3 in the works, making us wonder just how often one unlucky person can get involved with abductions of his own family without the feeling of the plot forcing the issue. But hey, Besson and co., never did care for plausibility. They do care for money, just as any commercially motivated film studio. And apparently they feel confident enough to hand Liam Neeson the big bucks for gracing the production with his presence, offering him a whopping 20 million dollars. It's an excessively large sum of money for one actor in any action vehicle, even if it's a third installment in a surprisingly successful franchise. Good for Neeson, but it does mean some cuts have to be made to protect the film from running rampant in the budget department. Expect the writing to suffer at least.

Still, 20 million dollars for Neeson isn't nearly as preposterous and insane as 50 million dollars for Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man 3. And we all know how "good" that movie's plot turned out to be...

And yes, I accidentally made a typo in the original news posting on MS. I know it's supposed to be 'rondt', I'm not an idiot.



zondag 20 mei 2012

Someone please sink this battleship...

Battleship: Rating **/*****, or 3/10

It seems the alien invasion subgenre of science fiction is in full decline as far as quality is concerned, though when it comes to quantity, it's rarely done better. The last few years numerous alien invasion films have invaded our movie theatres trying to rule the box-office, but most of them failed due to humanity's natural resilience against bad movies. Last year's examples include Skyline, Cowboys & Aliens, The Darkest Hour and Transformers: Dark of the Moon, but on the 'badness' scale none of these were a match for the stupendously dismal World Invasion: Battle Los Angeles, which chronicled the fight of a rag-tag group of marines against a vastly superior extraterrestrial intelligence. It was a complete defiance of logic and a total waste of everybody's time and money, particularly for the audience – okay, so I can get in for free, but I'd still like those two hours back...– Now Battleship comes sailing into the cinemas to pull off the same trick (i.e., bore the audience some more at the expense of their no doubt hard earned cash that had better be spend on something more worthwhile), except it takes the fight to the seas instead of rehashing the land based routine. And in the process it manages to defile the name of a classic board game, on which it claims to have been based, though the connection is hardly ever present, other than in the simple presence of a battleship.



Apparently using the concept of one fleet of ships being pitched against another and taking each other out was either not politically correct in the current climate, or the studio executives considered it too boring. So the line of thought seems to have been that if there's no human adversaries to combat, the threat must come from outer space. Battleship opens with an expositional scene explaining the existence of large radio telescopes on Hawaii which are used to send signals to a distant solar system that might contain an Earth like planet. Lo and behold, the signals are received and the resident aliens return our call of hospitality by sending in an invasion force which crashes into the Pacific – except for one starship which hits downtown Hong Kong instead, resulting in the typical levels of destruction à la Armageddon, spectacular but devoid of emotion – around the same time a huge international naval exercise is underway in that area, featuring participants from many countries, and of course led by the good ol' United States ready to gallantly defend our freedom from foreign agressors seeking to take it from us (think Independence Day, except with less impressive results on all fronts).

Naturally, a face must be put on the heroic side to make the resulting drama (what little of it there is amidst all the action anyway) feel compelling, and that face belongs to Taylor Kitsch, in the role of Lieutenant Alex Hopper. Kitsch recently managed to save Mars from internal political turmoil by uniting warring factions against a common enemy in the epic space opera John Carter, so this next task should prove easy enough for him. Alex is kind of a rebel, a loudmouth screw-up with problems adhering to authority, who is about to get kicked out of the navy, much to the chagrin of his more responsible and successful older brother Stone Hopper (portrayed by everybody's favorite True Blood vampire actor Alexander Skarsgard, no fangs) who hoped the navy would provide some much needed stability for his loose gun kid sibling. To complicate matters, Alex is madly in love with the daughter of Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson in a typically commanding performance, something we're used to in his case), so the admiral holds him in great contempt and is all too eager to dismiss him from the service. Fortunately for Alex, aliens conveniently come and provide an opportunity to prove his worth and set things right, saving his love life and his career.



Warning! Here be spoilers! During the navy war games, strange objects are spotted in the ocean, at which point the admiral dispatches three vessels to investigate, including Alex's. Upon closer inspection, the objects turn out to be (very digital) alien spaceships which immediately deploy a huge force field, which envelops the Hawaii islands, and cuts the fleet off from the three destroyers locked within, after which a cat and mouse game ensues between the human and alien warships involving a lot of gunfire and explosions. Why the aliens can't simply protect themselves with separate force fields instead of proving to be all too easy to destroy with simple cannon fire is just one of the many questions the conflict raises over the next hour and a half. Within ten minutes two out of three navy ships have been destroyed and all officers including bloodsucker Eric Northman have been killed off, so Alex gets his chance to shine and kick some alien ass, accompanied by his distrusting crew who give him the benefit of the doubt only to find he can do the job after all. Among the ranks we find the recording artist Rihanna, offering some female empowerment in her first film role. Don't worry, she doesn't sing, and neither does she do much acting.

The aliens' interest in the Hawaii islands, other than their stunning natural beauty and fantastically sensual beaches of course, is focused on the presence of the aforementioned telescopes, which the aliens mean to commandeer so they can call in reinforcements from their home planet, since their space craft downed in China apparently was the only ship capable of communicating with home base (yeah, that makes perfect sense, if you take your audience to consist solely of morons). The action of Battleship therefore is not limited to the ocean, but also witnesses a struggle on land between the aliens and a small group of valiant braves consisting of Alex's girlfriend, a local telescope scientist and a crippled marine with prosthetic legs, attempting to foil the evil schemes of the invaders. Of course the girlfriend is total eye candy, the scientist is a stereotypical hairy nerd who turns to cowardice (after all, science created this mess which the navy must now clean up) and the ex-marine feels like an uncomfortable attempt to give credit to the many battle scarred troops in the armed forces who might not be compatible with the hard business of soldiery anymore but can still prove to be useful human beings when it comes down to it. A noble sentiment, but not the best time to express it if you want the audience to take things seriously.

The movie proceeds to press the latter point too much when the plot calls for a new ship to save the day after the three destroyers have met the fate their class name suggests they should have done to the enemy. Only one true battleship remains, the near legendary USS Missouri, and though it's a museum piece she's still ready for action, as is the sturdy crew of very old veterans who preserved her and get called upon for active duty once more. And so the movie reaches its lowest point when we see these seniors walk down the decks in excessive slow motion as truly heroic characters, reporting for duty in order to save the day. Any sense of seriousness this movie might have offered before this point now gets completely undone in a single moment of utter camp, while it remains unclear whether this is what director Peter Berg (also responsible for the not so funny superhero spoof Hancock) intended.
And so the final battle for the fate of the planet begins, when the Missouri squares of against the vile extra-terrestrials all by itself guns fully blazing. It proves to be as tiresome and overly loud a confrontation as the rest of them, and all too soon forgotten when the lights in the theatre go on. In fact, though the action might deliver some minor entertainment during the course of the movie, none of it proves memorable, also due to the obvious levels of computer generated imagery that never makes the invaders, be it the aliens themselves or their vessels, feel convincingly real. What's worse, in the heat of battle even the battleships feel overly pixelized at times. The design of the extra-terrestrial aggressors is also lacking originality, except for the silly beard like appendages on their face which makes the threat and thus the film itself that much harder to take seriously (if the platoon of old folks hadn't ruined it completely yet). And when you take into consideration that their motives for attacking humanity are never explained and clearly badly executed, it's obvious Battleship is yet another pointless addition to the plethora of lame alien invasion films that have plagued moviegoers for the last few years. Being based on a much beloved board game does not excuse studio executives to regurgitate their recent failures.

The original Battleship board game was a game of wits and skill, but the resulting movie employs neither and appears to be nothing but a haphazard attempt to out-Bay Michael Bay by applying his noisy and irritating style of action to yet another Hasbro owned toy franchise (as if the Transformers trilogy wasn't headache inducing enough), undoubtedly also intended to sell more Hasbro products. The latter might not be a bad suggestion, since saving the money for two tickets for this film can buy you the board game instead, which is guaranteed to make for more fun for two than watching the Battleship movie could ever hope to achieve.

Oh well, at least we still have The Avengers to remind us alien invasion films can still be done right occasionally...


And watch the trailer here:

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

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

maandag 16 april 2012

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:


vrijdag 9 maart 2012

Batman Begins




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


Christopher Nolan's darker, grittier and overall more realistic take on the much beloved Batman character results in a fantastic origin story that universally made audiences forget about any previous incarnations of the Caped Crusader. Portraying Bruce Wayne (played by Christian Bale) as a young man ruled by trauma and fear, the movie witnesses him learning to embrace that fear and wield it in his fight against the rampant crime of Gotham City, ruled over by mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). However, Wayne's educator Ra's Al Ghul/Ducard (Liam Neeson) also doesn't prove to be very trustworthy and has his own shady agenda for Wayne's home town, after which Bruce dons the Batman persona to go at it his own way, together with this trusted butler Alfred (Michael Caine), his associate Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) providing all the awesome gadgets and hardware in his quest for justice and redemption. This is undoubtedly the prime example of how to reboot an extremely popular franchise correctly. First movie I saw in IMAX.


Starring: Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Michael Caine


Directed by Christopher Nolan


USA: Warner Bros. Pictures, 2005