Sky High: A Movie Review

I bought a DVD before leaving work today. I hadn't heard anything about the film I was buying, but I saw it on the shelf, read the back cover of the case and figured I'd give it a shot. After all if it turned out to be crap, well there are a couple of places in town that buy second-hand DVD's. The film is Sky High, which is a high school comedy/drama with a twist. The school hovers a couple miles up in the sky, and is a special learning facility for super-powered teenagers.

The idea of a superhero school is hardly new; cartoonist Aaron Williams writes & draws a comic book called PS238 for instance, which has the same central premise (though that school is deep underground). And (more famously) there is the Xavier Institute from the X-Men comics/films/cartoons. But a couple things convinced me to give this film a try:

1. The film stars Kurt Russell who is one of my favourite actors. This is the guy who did Stargate, Big Trouble In Little China and Escape from New York (among many others). Seeing him playing a superhero. Yeah that sounded cool.
2. The film also stars Bruce Campbell who never fails to be cool in any role he plays, though his most famous role is, of course, Ash from the Evil Dead movies.

The movies plot centres around young Will Stronghold, the son of the worlds two most legendary heroes Commander (Russell) and Jetstream (Kelly Preston) starting at Sky High school. There's just one small problem... Will has no super powers! He has been hiding this from his parents, who fully expect him to join them in the family business.

No such luck at school though and when he has to admit to being powerless, Will is placed in Hero Support class aka Sidekick Training, much to the dismay of his father. There is the usual high school cliches of course: the couple bullies who pick on the sidekicks, the bitchy cheerleader, the angry rebel kid, and the girl best friend with a crush on the boy next door. None of that detracts from what is a fun film. Yeah the plot is wafer thin really but I didn't care.

The film is funny and entertaining and I enjoyed it. For that it gets a 4/5 rating from me. It doesn't pretend to be anything more than light entertainment, and it is exactly that. I hope they make a sequel!

King Kong: A Movie Review

Okay to start this off I feel that it is important to state that I hate King Kong. Not this movie, no no, I mean the original 1933 black and white version. I've watched it a couple times and I think it is crap. It is held up to be this amazing film, and I honestly cannot understand why. That said, I do like the remake of it that was made in the 70's, as while it was a mess of a film, it was at least in colour. I detest black and white as a medium, the world isn't monochromatic, so making a film or taking a photograph that is, to me robs that image of any semblance of reality. It pushes my suspension of belief past breaking point.

I was stoked to watch this film though, from the moment I heard that it was going to be made. You see, I've read the book of King Kong, and the story is dynamite. And it was being made by Peter Jackson, who has already proved with his Lord of the Rings trilogy, that he is a director who can bring books to life on the big screen in spectacular fashion. And of course it would be in colour! I had the day off work today, and had pegged today as Kong Day for the past couple weeks. So I walked to the cinema (a trip of about 2 miles) to see the 3pm showing, as it wouldn't be too busy, and since I had to walk back home afterwards, I wanted the showing to be reasonably early.

I got there in plenty of time, watched the adverts and the trailers (including the awesome teaser for Superman Returns), and then sat and watched 3 hours of one of the best films I've ever seen. I had some doubts going in, most of which revolved around Jack Black, a man I regard as being utterly talentless. His music (if you can call the noise that Tenacious D produces that) is terrible and in the couple films he's been in that I've seen, he was easily the worst thing in them. He is still the worst thing in this film. His character is Carl Denham, a desperate movie maker who carries people with him on his doomed expedition, through lies and hollow promises. Which wouldn't be a problem, only Black's portrayal of him is completely unconvincing. He has zero charisma and it baffles me why the other characters on the ship go along with him.

Naomi Watts though is just stunning in this, perfectly cast as the object of Kong's affections, her Ann Darrow is a vision. I will have to see what other films she is in, because she is superb in this. Also she spends a good chunk of the film in a silk nightie which is very easy on the eyes!

Adrian Brody is great as Jack Driscoll the playwright who get stuck on the ship, when it leaves port (to escape the police who are after Denham), and who falls for Ann on the voyage (she being a huge fan of his plays, the attraction is mutual). I loved seeing him typing in his cage (not enough cabins, so he has to bunk down in one of the animal cages in the hold... sharing space with a huge supply of chloroform! He risks everything to rescue Ann from the jungles.

The other characters are well done, everyone gets their moment to shine, from the various members of the motley crew of the Venture (the ship Denham hires to take them to Skull Island), especially the Captain who quickly figures out that Denham is up to no good to the lead actor in the film Denham is shooting, who papers his cabin with posters of his big action films, yet he himself is a coward. Brilliant!

The SFX are top notch, which is hardly surprising since they are done by WETA, who have replaced ILM as the best effects studio in recent years with the successes of the Rings trilogy, Narnia and now Kong too. The big ape is very believable, really, truly well done, and it will be a crime if this movie doesn't take the Oscar for visual effects. Being a complete aracnophobe, the sequence in the "Bug Canyon" genuinely made me cringe, as the fight between Kong and a trio of T-Rexes had me shifting in my chair, as though I could dodge the snapping jaws and raking talons that filled the screen.

King Kong gets a solid 5/5 from me, as even with the abysmal presence of Jack Black, he thankfully can't ruin the film (though annoyingly he does get the last line). I'll be getting this one on DVD when it comes out for sure, and hopefully there's extra footage lying around somewhere that they can use to make a Director's Cut version, as while the film is long, it is beautiful, and thus for me at least, not quite long enough.

Gothic Horror

I recently watched Sleepy Hollow, one of several movies I've watched over the past week. I seem to be on a bit of a movie marathon of late. I don't like horror movies as a rule, it's not that I'm scared to watch them, I've watched plenty of them in my time, I simply don't find them to be entertaining. Except for gothic horror. I love gothic horror... wait make that I love GOOD gothic horror, because bad gothic horror is just awful.

So what makes good gothic horror? For one, things should never look quite right, even in daylight (and there should be precious little of that), the shadows cast by it should look slightly off. At night mist is pooled about on the ground, buildings should have sharp angles in their construction, and even though the film is in colour, the world should be bleak with an abundance of black, white and grey. It should not be without colour though, some set pieces should a riot of colour, if only to make the dreariness of the rest of the film that much darker by comparison... and the blood should be a vivid shade of red!

I'm not a fan of black and white movies at all, so while there are plenty of gothic horror movies that are shot in that style, I'm not that fond of them. Also a lot of them, while greatly hyped as being masterpieces, really don't stand up that well to repeat viewing. Examples include the original Frankenstein and Dracula movies. I think part of it is that the world isn't black and white, and so I have a hard time watching such films because they are not remotely believeable, they don't draw me in.

Similarly a lot of the early colour gothic horror movies are pretty bad, especially the majority of Hammer Horror movies, though credit goes to Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, the main stars of the studio, who while often starring in dubiously plotted movies, were never less than entertaining, and often superb in them.

Modern gothic horror is really quite sparse, with very few films made in that style these days, and even fewer good ones. Recent films that I have seen and liked though include: Sleepy Hollow, Interview with the Vampire, From Hell, Bram Stoker's Dracula, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and for examples set in the present day see Dog Soldiers, The Howling and An American Werewolf In London. For less serious examples of the genre, that incorporate some aspects but also pander to the blockbuster audiences, see The Mummy, The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing.

Part of the reason for the lack of these movies today is that while they look great, they rarely bring in the big bucks at the Box Office, and Hollywood is all about the money. For a slightly different take on gothic horror see the animated films The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride, both by Tim Burton (who I would love to see do a version of Dracula, Jekyll & Hyde or one of the other classics on the genre, the Invisible Man perhaps).

Superman I & II: A Movie Review

I watched a back to back double bill of the two Superman movies last night (I don't count Superman's III & IV as worth watching, though to my pain I have seen both at least a couple times), in part because I love them and also because next summer sees the release of Superman Returns, which is a direct sequel to them. I am very much looking forward to director Bryan Singer's continuation of the storyline, from these movies, picking up the story 6 years later on.

The two films are essentially one, the second picking up directly from the first (hardly surprising since half of it was shot at the same time as the first film), with Superman having to deal with the trio of Kryptonian super villains (General Zod, Ursa and Non), who were jailed in the Phantom Zone at the beginning of the first film by his father Jor-El.

The first film in particular is pretty much the benchmark for how to adapt a comic book to the big screen, and for years no-one came close to it (though Tim Burtons flawed Batman and Batman Returns made a good effort). Thankfully, in the modern era we have directors and screenwriters who use it as a reference as to how to do it right, and we have had films like Batman Begins and Spiderman 1 & 2 as a result.

The casting is a bit hit and miss though, while the late Christopher Reeve absolutely nailed the part of Clark Kent and Superman (no easy task to pull off), I do not like Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor one bit. Quite why the suppossed "Greatest Criminal Mind of Our Time" as he describes himself, is surrounded with incompetents is beyond me. Don't get me wrong, I like Gene Hackman, he's a great actor, he just doesn't convince me in the part. I am very hopeful though that Kevin Spacey will impress as Luthor, in the new film next summer.

Margot Kidder does okay as Lois Lane (though the chain smoking has never been a part of the character except here), and I actually like her song (Can You Read My Mind) when she is flying with Superman, which apparently many don't. Jackie Cooper though is superb as the Daily Planet's editor Perry White, a spot on portrayal of the character ("Now listen to me, I tell you boys and girls - whichever one of you gets it out... is going to wind up with the single most important interview since... God talked to Moses!"). Perfect.

The first movie is slow to get going, we don't actually see Superman in the costume until about an hour into the film, and not in action until later still, when he first appears in public to save Lois Lane and the Daily Planet helicopter. This allows for a good solid telling of his fantastic origin story, and is a trick now copied by the latest generation of superhero movies (especially Batman Begins). The plotline about Luthor's landgrab in California by using a Nuke to detonate the San Andreas fault line, rings true to the character pre-Crisis (a storyline in the comics during the mid 80's, in which the DC Universe was re-written from scratch, to make it more coherent. Before it Luthor was a renegade scientist and criminal, afterwards in the redesigned DC Universe, he was the head of the worlds largest mega-corporation Lexcorp. I personally prefer the later version of him, and I am somewhat dismayed, that the comics have recently made him again what he was pre-Crisis).

Freed of the need for a lengthy origin (though parts of the first movie are shown amongst the title credits, a trick copied by Spiderman 2), the second movie is my favourite of the two, giving Superman a real threat in the form of Terence Stamp's ruthless General Zod and his minions Ursa and Non, three villains each possessing powers to equal Superman's own, and without his regard for life and property. The battle between the four of them in the streets of Metropolis is brilliant to watch, a 12 minute tour de force, that looks impressive even compared to todays special effects laden blockbusters. Again, Lex Luthor fails to impress, his part feels tacked on here, and I think the film would likely have been better without him. While the love story is well written, the whole "You must live as a mortal" bit is just stupid. Quite why Superman goes along with it I don't know, as he has disobeyed his natural parents laws before (interfering with history in the first movie).

What annoys me about the second film though, are the liberties taken with the powers used by the Kryptonians, with numerous powers displayed that they should not have: Telekinesis, Force beams fired from their fingers, Teleportation (though it could be argued that this is simply them moving too fast to see), Illusion and Superman throwing an energy shield from the S on his chest over Non. Considering the vast array of powers at their disposal anyway (Flight, Super Speed, Strength, Invulnerability, Heat Vision, X-Ray Vision, Super Breath, Enhanced Hearing, Telescopic and Microscopic Vision, as well as the ability to hold their breath for a VERY long time), I feel that adding more was just bad scripting.

As one movie, these films get a solid 5/5 rating from me, individually they get 4/5 each. One thing is certain though, the current run of superhero movies has its good and bad films. It would have a lot fewer good films, without these movies as a guide to how to do it right. Superman returns to the big screen next summer, I can't wait!

Dungeons & Dragons II: A Movie Review

Having watched this new movie a couple nights ago (thanks to the internet), I feel compelled to write a review of it, so here goes. To start with, a little background. This is the second D&D movie, and I was sceptical when I heard about it being made. this is due to the legacy left by the first film which was... well it was bloody terrible. Hammy acting (Jeremy Irons in particular as the movies main villain Profion), bad SFX and a total lack of understanding the D&D game in particular (the Beholders being the best example of this failing).

So when I heard they were making a sequel set in the same fantasy world (an empire ruled by a king and a council of wizards named Izmer) and it starred one of the major characters from the original film (Bruce Payne's evil soldier Damodar), I was practically groaning. Still, as time went on and I read snippets of info on webpages and saw some stills from the movie I began to kindle some small hope thatit might be okay. While I would dearly love to see D&D given the same treatment as Lord of the Rings, the realist in me knows that is likely never going to happen.

This movie is okay. It's not brilliant, there are bits where myself, Tony and Gareth were groaning, but also a lot of times where we were smiling as the film got things right. It got the magic right, the wizards made gestures, spoke arcane phrases and even used material components. They pooled their power for a ritual, researched through books, potions and even summoning creatures to consult with. Heck, there was even a brief explantion of how arcane and divine magic differ from each other!

It got the monsters right, and there were plenty of them. I can name a few straight off: A lich (skeletal wizard), a death knight (Damodar), a white dragon, a half-orc, wraiths, piercers (at least I think thats what the living stalactite critters were anyway), a magmin (small lava being) and a couple varieties of demon/devil.

Most importantly (for me), it got the characters right. In the first movie only one of the entire cast of characters seemed believeable, the fighter/thief Ridley.The others being a complete idiot of a thief (Snails), a 'dwarf' (Elwood) who was actually the tallest person in the group when he wasn't crouching to make himself look the height he should be, and an elf ranger (Nora) with the worst pair of stick on pointy ears ever! This time out they treated the characters with respect and we get a far better mix with:

Berek the Fighter: The party leader, who is an older veteran warrior, semi-retired but called up to lead the quest by the king due to his experience. He loves his wife Melora (a member of the wizards council) and is sworn to do his duty and save his country.

Lux the Barbarian: My favourite character, she is a 6' beautiful blonde killing machine. She throws herself into battle, fearlessly taking on far greater numbers (an entire bandit army at one point). She clashes with Nim as his cautious approach goes against her reckless attitude.

Nim the Rogue: I've always loved clever, sneaky characters and this one is both. The most cynical member of the group, he clashes with Lux over their respective styles to problem solving, though they do learn to respect each other as the story progresses. His skills with puzzle solving and trap finding are invaluable, and the groups quest would have failed without him.

Ormaline the Wizard: A decent looking elf this time (her ears are barely noticeable, as they should be), and a powerhouse mage to boot, as evidenced by her spells which wipe the floor with a bandit army and she utterly annihilates a white dragon that ambushes the group! She has the least dialogue of any of the group though, but if anything that helps to reinforce the mystery of her power.

Dorian the Cleric: We actually get a cleric this time, but it is a shame that he doesn't last that long, meeting a rather grizzly end about halfway through the film. Still the actor played the part well, with the quiet dignity of a typical priest.

The villains are better this time out (not difficult considering how bad they were in the first film), and while Damodar is the arch bad guy this time, it is the Lich who steals the plaudits for the best performance (witness him summoning a small horde of Wraiths to battle the heroes when they disturb his lair).

The main plot revolves around the party trying to recover the Orb of Faluzure that has been stolen by Damodar. with it he can wake up the long slumbering form of Faluzure the Night Dragon, a being of godlike power in the shape of a gigantic zombie dragon, which was long ago imprisoned by a cabal of wizards. With this incredibly powerful being loose, Damodar intends to raze Izmer to ashes and then rule over whatever is left in retribution for the defeat he and Profion suffered a hundred years before (the outcome of the first movie).

The SFX are a marked improvement on the first film, but still fairly poor when compared to even a modestly budgeted big screen movie. Still, there are some stand out sequences such as Faluzure itself, Ormaline's use of a Ring of the Ram, and a truly great battle against a white dragon. The action is good too with a great fight in which Lux and Ormaline take on a bandit army by themselves, while the others work on opening the entrance into a dungeon.

All in all this is a big improvement on the first film and I'm now hoping they make another one. If they do, I certainly hope they keep the scriptwriters who wrote this one, as they have a good grasp of what a D&D movie should be like. I'm going to award this film 3/5 as it has plenty of room to be better, but it is certainly entertaining in its own right. A big step in the right direction.

Serenity: A Movie Review

I got back from the cinema a couple hours ago now, so figured it would be best to write this while the film was still fresh in my mind. A little background first. This movie is a follow-on from the plotlines begun in the aborted tv series Firefly which only ever had 15 episodes made (and only 12 got aired), you can buy the whole lot on one very nice DVD package. I know, I own it, and very worth the money it is too. From what I've read elsewhere online and comments from the Writer/Director himself, the movie is set about 6 months after the end of the tv series. While watching the series isn't neccessary to appreciate the film, you will gain a lot more insight into the plot from having done so.

So I'm biased. I love the tv show, the characters, the universe that Joss Whedon and his team of scriptwriters created, a future 500 years from now where humanity has moved on from Earth after this planets resources ran out, and instead settled a huge solar system, with dozens of planets and hundreds of moons, all of which got terraformed to one degree or another. The film nicely summarises this backstory in the first couple minutes and then moves into the history of a couple of the major characters, namely the doctor Simon Tam and his gifted sister River. As the tv series revealed, River was extensively operated upon, her brain altered and parts stripped away, granting her telepathic ability, but also removing her control over her emotions. While she isn't the films lead character, she is the reason for what happens in the story.

Serenity itself is a Firefly class transport ship, owned by Captain Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds, an independence war veteran who fought on the side that lost and carries a serious grudge against the side that won. His crew consists of: Zoe the first officer, the only other surviving member of his war regiment, her husband Wash the pilot who is also light comedy relief, and whose death provides one of the films most shocking moments. Jayne the mercenary is hired muscle, used by Mal as a strongman on the jobs they undertake, which are frequently criminal in nature. Kaylee the mechanic keeps the ship flying, as well as having a crush on Simon. The other major characters are Inara a companion (high class escort girl) and Book a shepherd (preacher) who both travelled with the ship during the tv series, but have since settled elsewhere. Needless to say both get caught up in events.

I loved this film, it provides a big payoff for several of the major plot threads from the tv series, while still leaving plenty of room for a sequel and I'm really hoping that it gets at least one more film to follow it. I would be very surprised if it doesn't do extremely well for the careers of the actors and actresses involved (I know I'd like to see more of the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin, who plays Inara, on screens). It deserves to have sequels, it is not a pretentious film that gets preachy (most of the Star Treks) nor it is flashy for the sake of it (Star Wars prequel trilogy). It presents a pretty believeable view of the future, I especially like how the characters swear in chinese as that and english are the only languages left.

The movie is small in that it is primarily driven by the nine characters on the ship and also The Operative, a ruthless government agent sent to hunt down and kill River Tam as she is believed to know various state secrets that the government want kept secret at all costs. It is also epic, in the scope of the plot, the huge space battle near the end and how it looks. The film was shot on a fraction of the enormous budgets Hollywood likes to throw at films these days, yet looks as good as anything else in its genre, every cent is there on the screen, and from the looks of it, well spent.

If you like sci-fi see this film, if you like clever sneaky characters being clever and sneaky, see this film, and if you want to see a far more compelling vision of mankinds future in space than the utopia of the Federation from Star Trek, then see this film. I loved this movie, arguably the best film I've seen at the cinema all year.