Monster’s University (Pixar), Epic (TCF), Turbo (Dreamworks), Planes (DisneyToon) and we have our 5th nomination from the year for next year’s Academy Awards in the category – Feature Film (Animated). MU and Epic need not feel worried about their place in the nominations since there is nothing else due this year. Unless of course the Academy decides to pick only 3 instead.
Showing posts with label Ciarán Hinds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ciarán Hinds. Show all posts
Friday, 29 November 2013
Friday, 9 March 2012
John Carter
We are actually looking at a character that was created 100 years back!!! Would you believe it??? By one of the leading authors / creators of our time. By an person who gave us one of the most memorable characters to ever be born – Tarzan. Yes. John Carter is also a child of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ imagination. He was created in 1912 and the Disney picked up a fine time to hit the screens. 100 years!!! And that too with a character that carries the name of the maker. How cool is that.
But one cannot help but wonder as to why did anyone take 100 years to come up with John Carter the Movie? From the looks of the trailer, it seems like a movie that would not be remotely short on entertainment value. The stunts seem to be miraculous to say the least. The characters are very Star Warish for lack of any other word – ergo the possibility of a fan following is huge to say the least (don’t even think that I am for once indicating that Star Wars in replaceable in any manner). Then why would it take 100 years for any production house to pick the story of John Carter and explode it onto the silver screen? Lucky for Disney that no one else did it to date.
Andrew Stanton had the backing of Finding Nemo and Wall E – 2 Animation movies that would get into the top 10 list for Animation – Any Given Sunday. And therefore, the expectations from his side were not ill placed at all. To say that he has disappointed would be unfair. But he hasn’t come upto the levels that one would have expected.
A lot of work has been done with the special effects to spruce up the movie but the screenplay and the narration get a tad complicated for the average audience as the movie moves at a brisk pace. One could not fault the audience if they were to get too confused between Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and Tal Hajus (Thomas Haden Church) and Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) and Tardos Mors (Ciarán Hinds) and Matai Shang (Mark Strong). Kinda difficult to keep up unless you have read the books and are familiar with the story. Very Star Warish as mentioned earlier. And capable of gaining cult status like Star Wars also.
What Stanton does well though is to keep the story alive through the 130+ minutes. Gives us great quality of action sequences. Gets the near plebian star cast (except Hinds and Strong) to act a bit. And he is supported with the voices of the reliable Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church. He has also left enough of a window to go into a sequel/s. And most importantly finishes off with a nice little twist. Watch out for it. Well done Mr.Stanton & more importantly Mr. Burroughs.
John Carter is a movie that can be seen by people from all walks of life and all ages. There is nothing offensive in the least. Trust Disney to make clean family movies. Definitely on your must watch list for the weekend. 7 on 10. Big screen entertainer.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2340397337/
But one cannot help but wonder as to why did anyone take 100 years to come up with John Carter the Movie? From the looks of the trailer, it seems like a movie that would not be remotely short on entertainment value. The stunts seem to be miraculous to say the least. The characters are very Star Warish for lack of any other word – ergo the possibility of a fan following is huge to say the least (don’t even think that I am for once indicating that Star Wars in replaceable in any manner). Then why would it take 100 years for any production house to pick the story of John Carter and explode it onto the silver screen? Lucky for Disney that no one else did it to date.
Andrew Stanton had the backing of Finding Nemo and Wall E – 2 Animation movies that would get into the top 10 list for Animation – Any Given Sunday. And therefore, the expectations from his side were not ill placed at all. To say that he has disappointed would be unfair. But he hasn’t come upto the levels that one would have expected.
A lot of work has been done with the special effects to spruce up the movie but the screenplay and the narration get a tad complicated for the average audience as the movie moves at a brisk pace. One could not fault the audience if they were to get too confused between Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and Tal Hajus (Thomas Haden Church) and Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) and Tardos Mors (Ciarán Hinds) and Matai Shang (Mark Strong). Kinda difficult to keep up unless you have read the books and are familiar with the story. Very Star Warish as mentioned earlier. And capable of gaining cult status like Star Wars also.
What Stanton does well though is to keep the story alive through the 130+ minutes. Gives us great quality of action sequences. Gets the near plebian star cast (except Hinds and Strong) to act a bit. And he is supported with the voices of the reliable Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church. He has also left enough of a window to go into a sequel/s. And most importantly finishes off with a nice little twist. Watch out for it. Well done Mr.Stanton & more importantly Mr. Burroughs.
John Carter is a movie that can be seen by people from all walks of life and all ages. There is nothing offensive in the least. Trust Disney to make clean family movies. Definitely on your must watch list for the weekend. 7 on 10. Big screen entertainer.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2340397337/
Saturday, 25 February 2012
Ghost Rider : Spirit of Vengeance
The concept of the Ghost Rider remains pretty much the same. The only difference being that this time around the Rider knows that he is one and it doesn’t come as a surprise to him. But the rest of the cast has changed hands and the story is obviously a new one. The special effects team, I would guess has remained unchanged considering the quality and the end product. The look and feel doesn’t seem vastly different. So for those who found the build up to the Ghost Rider series (that released 3 years back if memory serves me right) to be good, you are bound to enjoy this one as well.
For those who didn’t think that the first one was remotely good movie making – avoid this one even if someone were to pay you watch it. The Devil this time under the garb of Roarke (Ciarán Hinds) has continued with his attempts to generate more and more souls. And in the bargain, he has also bought out the soul of Nadya (Violante Placido) in return for a child that he bears off her. This child is the only one who can defeat the devil and has therefore assumed paramount importance. The only one who can keep the child away is the Rider (Nicholas Cage). And helping him this time is a monk, Moreau (Idris Elba) who has more alcohol than blood in his stream at all times.
Ghost Rider : Spirit of Vengeance is the 4th movie made by the director duo of Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor who have movies like Gamer and the Crank series to their credit. I have seen the 2nd part in the crank series and found it quite literally out of this world i.e. from a different planet (not in the positive sense). The earlier and current Ghost Rider though are very much from this planet luckily. There is, as mentioned earlier little difference in the special effects this time around. The nicer part being that the rider doesn’t leave a trail of destruction with his bike and has learnt to control it a bit more. I somehow found the effects and story of the first part a tad better in fact.
In movies of this genre one cannot really expect too much of acting talent on display. My not so favouritest of actors in the lead once again comes up with some really constipated expressions. I really cannot fault him at this skill set. It is an art that he has mastered better than most people. Nowadays all his expressions seem a bit constipated to me. Now please understand that for some reason he hasn’t impressed me to date and I am biased in my opinion. So sorry Mr.Cage. this is not personal. I am sure you are a wonderful human being but I don’t quite like your acting for some inexplicable reason.
There is nothing much to write about so I will not drag this review any further, Lest it turns out to be as watchable as the movie. 5 on 10 from my side for this one. Not as good as the first part. Watch if you have nothing better to do. You may like the effects.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2284953881/
Thursday, 16 February 2012
The Woman in Black
James Watkins is primarily a writer and has one directorial venture before The Woman In Black. It was another thriller of sorts called Eden Lake. But he is best known for writing the likes of The Descent 2 and a random movie called Gone (not the one I reviewed last year or the one that is expected in the near future with Amanda Seyfried). Surprisingly, all movies are in the horror genre. Must be a fetish that Watkins developed in his early years. For what its worth, the end product seems to be one that does sends a few shivers down or up your spine. So I guess Watkins has learnt quite a bit from his adventures with this genre over time.
What stands out all through the movie is the fantastic use of sound, light and silence. The music is haunting – which is what it should be in a horror movie – and really makes you get that eerie feeling. There are really long periods of time without a sound leave alone a concept of a dialogue. It builds up the suspense quite well and makes you want to grab hold of the seat a little tighter than how you normally would. Most of the movie is shot in a very dark hue with some elements of light petering in as required. Even the day time sequences which are creepy are shot with a lot of fog and diffused lighting as the case may require. So sticking to the basics seems to have paid off. Horror movies need not have dialogues right. So why waste your time on it. Focus on creating the errie and not talking about it.
But that’s where the good parts kind of end. Most the movie is vastly predictable. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out whats going to happen next. So when Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is forced to take the assignment with his law firm that takes him to a desolate place to figure out the last will and testament of a lady who has recently passed, you know that it has to be in a house or a castle that’s errie or has too many secrets. And you know that if he stays the night then bad things are going to happen to him. And you know that if he decides to investigate errie sounds in the middle of the night which involve climbing up creaky stairs and trying to open doors which otherwise don’t open – guess what, the door will open. Normal eerie horror flick techniques. No rocket science as I mentioned.
Not much of a star cast with the exeption of that boy prodigy who got famous for playing the lead role in probably the most amazing fantasy series of the previous decade. And the vastly under rated Ciarán Hinds. Not much of a role for the rest of the cast actually but for overacting with fear in their eyes. Its not really “have to see material”. 6 on 10.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi385981977/
What stands out all through the movie is the fantastic use of sound, light and silence. The music is haunting – which is what it should be in a horror movie – and really makes you get that eerie feeling. There are really long periods of time without a sound leave alone a concept of a dialogue. It builds up the suspense quite well and makes you want to grab hold of the seat a little tighter than how you normally would. Most of the movie is shot in a very dark hue with some elements of light petering in as required. Even the day time sequences which are creepy are shot with a lot of fog and diffused lighting as the case may require. So sticking to the basics seems to have paid off. Horror movies need not have dialogues right. So why waste your time on it. Focus on creating the errie and not talking about it.
But that’s where the good parts kind of end. Most the movie is vastly predictable. One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out whats going to happen next. So when Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is forced to take the assignment with his law firm that takes him to a desolate place to figure out the last will and testament of a lady who has recently passed, you know that it has to be in a house or a castle that’s errie or has too many secrets. And you know that if he stays the night then bad things are going to happen to him. And you know that if he decides to investigate errie sounds in the middle of the night which involve climbing up creaky stairs and trying to open doors which otherwise don’t open – guess what, the door will open. Normal eerie horror flick techniques. No rocket science as I mentioned.
Not much of a star cast with the exeption of that boy prodigy who got famous for playing the lead role in probably the most amazing fantasy series of the previous decade. And the vastly under rated Ciarán Hinds. Not much of a role for the rest of the cast actually but for overacting with fear in their eyes. Its not really “have to see material”. 6 on 10.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi385981977/
The Debt
Now here is a director who has successfully transitioned from the small screen to the silver variety. Afer a string of TV serials, John Madden stormed into the scene with Shakespeare in Love – and what a storm it was. Post that, he has had some low profile movies like Captain Correli’s Mandolin and The Debt which released a couple of years back. I believe he has The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel releasing this year which promises to be a laugh riot. So I guess there should be no question on Madden’s capabilities as a director right? More or less right I guess. But not the whole nine yards right unfortunately.
Firstly, I get quite peeved when directors take the path in between in case of movies which are set in a geographic region where English is not the primary language. Why then do you need to use actors / actresses whose preferred language happens to be English. To make matters worse, you get the likes of the hugely talented Dame Helen Mirren and Tom Wilkinson to speak with an accent which I am not sure is truly Israeli or Hebrew if you would like to call it that. In contrast, in the same movie, he has got the younger lot of Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas and Sam Worthington to speak in German. So why then would Madden not consider getting them to speak Hebrew instead of English with a forced accent? I was very disappointed within the first few minutes itself. A mark of a director who is probably not brave enough and not common sensiscal.
But the performances and the story line more than make up for this really bad call from Madden. There are 4 key characters in the entire movie. Rachel Singer, Stephan Gold & David Peretz who are Mossad agents sent to East Berlin to track, capture and bring back alive one Dieter Vogel. The 3 agents are played by Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciarán Hinds in the current day i.e. 1997. In 1965 which was the time of the assignment they are played by Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas & Sam Worthington respectively. All 6 have performed quite exceptionally I must say. Even Jesper Christensen who playes the sinister Dieter Vogel is brilliant.
What takes the cake though is the premise of the movie which is one of an assignment that goes horribly wrong and how the 3 agents deal with the consequences of the same not only in the immediate future but over a period of 30 years. Will they get any retribution whatsoever? Or does the failure get the better of them? Mind you, Mossad doesn’t take too kindly to failure – or so we have heard. A very different spy story. Exactly the type that audiences would lap up. Put it on your must watch list @ 7 on 10.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1506057497/
Firstly, I get quite peeved when directors take the path in between in case of movies which are set in a geographic region where English is not the primary language. Why then do you need to use actors / actresses whose preferred language happens to be English. To make matters worse, you get the likes of the hugely talented Dame Helen Mirren and Tom Wilkinson to speak with an accent which I am not sure is truly Israeli or Hebrew if you would like to call it that. In contrast, in the same movie, he has got the younger lot of Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas and Sam Worthington to speak in German. So why then would Madden not consider getting them to speak Hebrew instead of English with a forced accent? I was very disappointed within the first few minutes itself. A mark of a director who is probably not brave enough and not common sensiscal.
But the performances and the story line more than make up for this really bad call from Madden. There are 4 key characters in the entire movie. Rachel Singer, Stephan Gold & David Peretz who are Mossad agents sent to East Berlin to track, capture and bring back alive one Dieter Vogel. The 3 agents are played by Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciarán Hinds in the current day i.e. 1997. In 1965 which was the time of the assignment they are played by Jessica Chastain, Marton Csokas & Sam Worthington respectively. All 6 have performed quite exceptionally I must say. Even Jesper Christensen who playes the sinister Dieter Vogel is brilliant.
What takes the cake though is the premise of the movie which is one of an assignment that goes horribly wrong and how the 3 agents deal with the consequences of the same not only in the immediate future but over a period of 30 years. Will they get any retribution whatsoever? Or does the failure get the better of them? Mind you, Mossad doesn’t take too kindly to failure – or so we have heard. A very different spy story. Exactly the type that audiences would lap up. Put it on your must watch list @ 7 on 10.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1506057497/
Friday, 30 December 2011
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Did you know that Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (with commas) was a 1979 TV Series starring Alec Guiness? It ran for a full 7 episodes it would seem. I tried my best to get my hands on the book before I saw the movie but sadly could not find it . Will keep the search on for a while – not just for academic interest but because the movie is so heavy and slow that ironically you find it difficult to keep pace with it. Funny right. But one has to read the book before you can understand the movie completely. I guess you will experience it when you watch it. It is difficult to explain it in words. I will now add the mini-series search to the list of must watches as well.
Tomas Alfredson peels out the story layer by layer by layer and that too in a very disjointed manner. That’s what I would call giving exceptional credit to the audience’s intelligence. Sometimes it backfires like it did with Tree of Life. At other times it comes out exceptionally well like in the case of Pulp Fiction. And then there are really good movies such as TTSS which kind of lose it in an attempt to increase the intrigue.
TTSS is an espionage movie that forces you to concentrate. Despite its slow pace, you could actually miss the plot if you miss a few seconds – like I did. The good news though is that it allows you to catch up unlike a lot of other movies which don’t. It traces the story of British Intelligence which suspects a Russian mole in its highest ranks. The task of unearthing the same is given to George Smiley (Gary Oldman) who builds his own mini team of sorts and starts the arduous task of figuring out who is the actual culprit – Toby Esterhase (David Dencik) OR Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) OR Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) OR Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds). They are code named – Tinker, Tailor, Soldier and Spy – not respectively.
TTSS has some really solid performances by the entire cast. Little known names such as David Dencik and the vastly under-rated Ciarán Hinds have come up with really solid performances. The movie has some outstanding editing and cinematography which is apparent within the first few frames. The use of light and colour is quite stunning. The only thing, if any, which could have been in doubt were the costumes. Not sure if there were some errors on that count – pardon me for not being familiar with the kind of clothes which were worn in the 70s. Cannot comment on the screenplay either because I haven’t read the book. However, independent of the book, the screenplay would be OK in my books. Overall, one of the better movies of the year. 7 on 10. Must watch again to be totally sure of the concept – willing to do it too.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3394673689/
Tomas Alfredson peels out the story layer by layer by layer and that too in a very disjointed manner. That’s what I would call giving exceptional credit to the audience’s intelligence. Sometimes it backfires like it did with Tree of Life. At other times it comes out exceptionally well like in the case of Pulp Fiction. And then there are really good movies such as TTSS which kind of lose it in an attempt to increase the intrigue.
TTSS is an espionage movie that forces you to concentrate. Despite its slow pace, you could actually miss the plot if you miss a few seconds – like I did. The good news though is that it allows you to catch up unlike a lot of other movies which don’t. It traces the story of British Intelligence which suspects a Russian mole in its highest ranks. The task of unearthing the same is given to George Smiley (Gary Oldman) who builds his own mini team of sorts and starts the arduous task of figuring out who is the actual culprit – Toby Esterhase (David Dencik) OR Bill Haydon (Colin Firth) OR Percy Alleline (Toby Jones) OR Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds). They are code named – Tinker, Tailor, Soldier and Spy – not respectively.
TTSS has some really solid performances by the entire cast. Little known names such as David Dencik and the vastly under-rated Ciarán Hinds have come up with really solid performances. The movie has some outstanding editing and cinematography which is apparent within the first few frames. The use of light and colour is quite stunning. The only thing, if any, which could have been in doubt were the costumes. Not sure if there were some errors on that count – pardon me for not being familiar with the kind of clothes which were worn in the 70s. Cannot comment on the screenplay either because I haven’t read the book. However, independent of the book, the screenplay would be OK in my books. Overall, one of the better movies of the year. 7 on 10. Must watch again to be totally sure of the concept – willing to do it too.
Watch the trailer at http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3394673689/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)