JayDee's Movie Musings

→ in
Tools    





I enjoyed Arthur Christmas slightly more than you, but your thoughts on MacGruber are really similar to mine when I watched the film, I knew it wasn't particularly good and was pretty stupid but I do admit to laughing at quite a few bits
__________________



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Peter Jackson

Written by
Peter Jackson (script)
Fran Walsh (script)
Philippa Boyens (script)
Guillermo del Toro (script)
J.R.R. Tolkien (novel)

Starring
Martin Freeman
Ian McKellen
Richard Armitage
Ken Stott
Graham McTavish

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

-

Plot - Set many years before the events of the Lord of the Rings films, The Hobbit finds a young Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) far removed from the adventurer he would later become. This Bilbo is happy to remain in his beloved Shire, and has no desire to go adventuring. That is until the wizard Gandalf (McKellen) brings an adventure right to his doorstep in the form of 13 dwarves. The dwarves, led by the great warrior Thorin Oakenshield (Armitage), are on a quest to reclaim their spiritual home of the Lonely Mountain; a home they lost to the dragon Smaug. Initially reluctant, Bilbo is eventually convinced into joining up with the group and embarks upon the journey; a journey that will bring him face to face with all manner of beings across Middle Earth, and place him in perilous situations time and time again.

Before I kick off this review I want to say that I viewed The Hobbit in good old-fashioned 2D, and at a measly 24 fps. How stone age of me! Therefore while it's been a large part of most Hobbit reviews, I won't be commenting on the issue of frame rates as I'm not in the position to.

Unlike the original Rings trilogy, The Hobbit has certainly not been met with almost universal adoration. A number of critics have aired their problems with it, so first off let's get some of the film's problems out of the way. As has been noted in pretty much every negative review of the film, the pace isn't exactly what you would call electric. The first half of the film in particular really is quite slow, it seems to take forever before this new fellowship actually embarks on anything even resembling a journey. And even when we get going the momentum is occasionally interrupted by little asides featuring a wizard named Radagast, and returning Rings alumni including Saruman and Galadriel. The Radagast sequences seem rather pointless, and while it's nice to see so many links back to the Rings films, many of the returning characters feel rather shoe-horned in. The opening ten minutes also features appearances from Ian Holm and Frodo. While they also don't do much for the film's pace out of the blocks, there's no way that I could begrudge those particular returns; it's lovely to see them back there in their little home in the Shire. The second half proves to be the complete opposite, it's really quite loaded with set-pieces. The pace and action just build and build before arriving at a final crescendo. So the pacing certainly isn't the most even. The film could have benefited with some trimming in the first half, and a bit of polish on the script to better distribute the several notable and memorable sequences throughout the film's large running time.

And while the pace certainly picks up as we rattle along, I didn't really feel that the journey ever resembled a natural or organic story in the same vein as the Lord of the Rings story did. It felt more like a series of incidents just strung together; perhaps as a result of its reputation as more of a kids book than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It has more of a kid-ish feel as if a kid actually wrote it - “then they run into some goblins, then orcs, next some trolls, oh and then some big giants made of rock...” It's like a tour of Middle Earth: The Greatest Hits, with the story trying to cram in as many of world's inhabitants as possible.

Film trivia While Martin Freeman was always Peter Jackson's first choice to tackle the role of Bilbo Baggins, he was not the only actor to come into consideration. Daniel Radcliffe, Shia LaBeouf, James McAvoy and Tobey Maguire were all apparently considered. Initially Freeman was unable to accept the role due to his commitments to the BBC series Sherlock. Jackson was so desperate to have Freeman's participation however that he reworked the entire shoot around him and his Sherlock schedule.
Another bit of a flaw that comes as a result of the source material is the number of dwarves the film has to deal with. With 13 of them it's rather a struggle to really distinguish them and develop distinctive characters; they all rather meld into one big ball of hammers, axes and facial hair! And even immediately after viewing the film I'm not sure I could list a single one of the names featured without assistance. Only two of the dwarf characters really stood out for me; Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield and Ken Stott's Balin. The reason they stood out was the prominence and screen time they were given, as well as the performances of Armitage and Stott. Armitage in particular is very impressive. A British TV stalwart for the last decade or so, The Hobbit marks his first really 'big' foray into film and he certainly makes the most of his opportunity. His character definitely has a bit of an Aragorn vibe to him; he may be a hero and a great leader but most certainly of the strong, silent, brooding type.

While there is nothing on the scale of the battles of Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields, the action that is present is still riveting and at times spectacular. The undoubted highlight in the action stakes is a sprawling battle that takes place inside the Misty Mountains. Having been captured by the goblins who reside within the mountain, the dwarf troupe are rescued by the returning Gandalf. He then leads the dwarves through the sprawling and winding mountain, coming face to face with goblins at every turn. With Gandalf in more butt-kicking form than ever before it's a really smash-mouth stretch of the film. In addition to this battle there are also numerous skirmishes with ocrs, wargs, storm giants and with a massive albino orc by the name of Azog.

After his showing in the Lord of the Rings trilogy it is absolutely no surprise to find that Ian McKellen is still a joy to behold as the beloved wizard Gandalf. And as many suspected from the moment it was announced, Martin Freeman proves to be a perfect piece of casting as the reluctantly intrepid Bilbo Baggins. Before a single image of him on set had even emerged I could just picture him completely in the role, and so it proves to be. He makes for an extremely likeable, warm-hearted and spirited Bilbo whilst maintaining an unassuming air of insecurity and trepidation. He absolutely aces the character's journey from the stuffy and cautious hobbit who sees no need to leave his familiar surroundings, to the brave and heroic hobbit who selflessly saves Thorin at the film's close. And then there's the glorious entity that is Andy Serkis. It may be the best part of a decade since he last inhabited the wretched creature that is Gollum but it seems like he's never been away; the man just doesn't miss a beat. His Gollum remains a magnificently charismatic and magnetic presence, it's impossible to take your eyes off him when he appears on screen.

Film trivia – I mentioned how I was impressed with the performance of Richard Armitage; but if you knew the history of his career it really shouldn't have come as any surprise. Armitage's first acting experience was actually playing an elf in a theatrical production of The Hobbit! What are the odds?
And while Gollum's showing in the Lord of the Rings series remains one of the most impressive CGI creations in the history of cinema, he was created using technology that is now ten years behind the times. As a result, Gollum now looks better than ever. Where you really notice it is in how much more expressive he is, particularly when it comes to the eyes. And there's no doubt that it's his scene with Freeman's Bilbo; the Riddles in the Dark sequence, that is the true standout moment of the film. Separated from his companions and lost in the Misty Mountains Bilbi stumbles upon the nasty little creature that is Gollum. Bilbo wants help finding a way out, while Gollum wants to eat the little hobbit. The compromise is a game of riddles, with the victor getting the spoils. With Gollum in full on schizophrenic mode it's a terrific scene as the rather baffled Bilbo attempts to best him. It is here where Bilbo comes into possession of the One Ring, something that may just become important at some point in the future. There's also a wonderful little moment where Bilbo has Gollum at his mercy, Sting resting against his throat. Bilbo takes pity on the wretched creature however and allows him to live.

The creation of Gollum is not the only pleasing facet for the eyes however, Middle Earth itself proves to still be a beautifully designed and realised world. Achieved through a combination of effects, both digital and practical, Middle Earth is once again brought to life and once again is a delightful place to be. The costumes, art design, locations, sets......just everything is of the absolute highest calibre. And Jackson certainly hasn't forgotten how to direct this type of fare to show it in the best possible light. It's a treat to return to some of the haunts that we came to know and love over the Rings trilogy; the Shire is still an absolute delight to behold while Rivendell is as magical as ever. And Alan Shore's accompanying score continues to move and delight, though I'm sure some people will see it as a bit lazy on his end as it doesn't feel like there is much original material to be heard, much of it seems to be reprised from Rings. As someone who adores that original score however I loved it for that. And to be fair perhaps there was a lot of new material there, I just didn't pick up on it as the pieces of music I already knew and loved just stood out and grabbed the attention.

This was quite a large risk for Jackson to take on, returning to the world that elevated his name into the elite amongst directors. Make a mess of it and you risk following the trajectory of George Lucas; a man who built up an incredible amount of good will with the original Star Wars trilogy, but has since frittered much of it away with his less than successful returns to the world where he made his name. Well thankfully this is certainly no Phantom Menace. However I would say that so far it's still in the balance. I certainly don't think Jackson has dropped the ball as many critics and fans seem to; but it's also not the perfect, roaring success that Rings was. We'll only really know the level of his success (or indeed failure) come July 2014, when the concluding part of the Hobbit story is released to cinemas.

Conclusion – As a technical and visual achievement this is still top class stuff. As an actual story however it is certainly flawed, and comes up well short of the original Rings trilogy. As a piece of entertainment though it still just worked for me. Undoubtedly my standing as a huge Ringer certainly helped get me through some of the flaws, and resulted in me liking it perhaps more than it deserves. Had I seen this before Lord of the Rings however I don't think I'd have liked it even half as much, it certainly relies very strongly on my already developed affection for this world.



I was hoping the whole "developed affection" thing would work for me too, and it did to a certain extent, but mostly with the music. Every time I heard one of those spikes from the original trilogy I felt a lovely warm tingle, but unfortunately those dropped off pretty quickly. I thought the movie was a farce, in all honesty. Visually, great. Of course. But where I think LotR earns a sense of grandiosity, The Hobbit is undeservedly self-important. Each of the dwarves were too much of a caricature for me to emotionally buy into the story, so for me, it boiled down to a group of comic foils going to get some treasure, which in no way deserves the same epic scale that LotR's end-of-the-world scenario does. This should have been one 3-hour story, max, and an intimate one too. It felt like nothing real actually happened.



Fantastic review of The Hobbit there, probably the best I have seen and the one I agree with most, I also viewed it in 2D/24fps so can only asses the film on it's content. I can't disagree with you on any of the points mentioned and would give the film a similar rating myself, top stuff



We've gone on holiday by mistake
It felt more like a series of incidents just strung together; perhaps as a result of its reputation as more of a kids book than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It has more of a kid-ish feel as if a kid actually wrote it - “then they run into some goblins, then orcs, next some trolls, oh and then some big giants made of rock...” It's like a tour of Middle Earth: The Greatest Hits, with the story trying to cram in as many of world's inhabitants as possible.
Nail on the Head stuff there. Felt like it was trying hard to be the Fellowship but just not quite the same. Just got back from seeing it myself. This is what I wrote in the Hobbit thread;

Just watched it and that about sums up my feelings. Good but not great. Bit too much CGI.

The Stone Giants scene was a bit wtf, the escape from the Goblin mine was terrible, a bit reminiscent of scenes from Indiana Jones 4 or Star Wars prequels. Silly wooden bridges and everyone falling down perfectly into place without harm just felt like a silly scene from a Carry On movie, slapstick nonsense, not to mention Gandalf just showing up out of nowhere bowling all the Goblins over with his power then he just runs away.

I haven't read the book in years and only once so I'm not up to snuff on exactly what the differences are from book>film, but I really liked the prologue that shows us what happened to Erebor, I liked the inclusion of Azog the Defiler because I think it's always good to have recognizable antagonists rather than mindless packs of Orcs/Goblins. I had no problem with the long start in the Shire, in fact I wouldn't say it dragged at all. The highlight was Gollum and Bilbo's scene/riddle duel. Really felt like it was part of the LOTR story and from what I remember they stayed very close to the book on that one. I also liked the inclusion of the Necromancer (Sauron) plotline which I'm sure will include important scene's in the next movie for the whole story.

TLDR;

Really good but nowhere near LOTR standard. Hopefully the second 2 installments will be an improvement.

7.5/10



We've gone on holiday by mistake
Also just reading your ROTK review. I feel that Fellowship and Towers are perfection, 11/10 imo but parts of ROTK really make me angry to this day, let me try and explain why.

You have the Frodo, Sam and Gollum/Smeagol storyline, which when watching Towers I find myself looking forward to getting back to Aragorn and co, especially during the Helms Deep battle. The opposite is true in ROTK, especially as it draws to a close, inspirational scenes on the mountain as Sam picks up a dazed and exhausted Frodo shouting "Cmon then, let us be rid of it once and for all". Amazing stuff, so no fault at all here.

You also have the Rohan storyline with the excellent Bernard Hill really stealing the show with the "Shields shall be splintered" speech, and the charge of the Rohirrim. Again no fault here at all, perfection.

The real problem is what the writers/Director have done with Aragorn and Gandalf's storylines. We have no charcters in Gondor to follow in the battle, Faramir is out of action and Denethor is up in his hall going mad, which leaves us with no face whatsoever except Gandalf and Pippin to follow in battle. They should have included the part from the book where Gondor's armies come to reinforce Minas Tirith with a few Captains to boot, like a Brendan Gleeson or 2. They do this very well in Braveheart, the whole battle you are following the 5 or 6 main guys from the Scots.

Another major problem imo in the battle is that the Orcs basically overrun half of the City, and in the book only 1 member of Sauron's army EVER comes into the City, the Witch King of Angmar. Which leads me to the change that makes me most angry in LOTR, WHERE IS THE FACE OFF WITH GANDALF AND WITCH KING AT THE GATE??!! They didn't even show this scene at all in the theatrical release it was so bad, despite Gandalf and the Witch King both discussing their eventual face off, instead you have to buy the extended edition to get a half arsed face off somewhere in the City in which Gandalf is made to look like a complete pussy. In the book the gate is smashed and the Witch King calmly rides into the City alone, all the men running away in terror, even the Orcs don't come near, and the only thing standing in his way is Gandalf. It is at this point that Rohan comes and the horns cry out and the Witch King rides back out again to deal with the new threat and Gondor's soldiers pour out of the gates and meet the Orcs outside in the field. Now you cannot tell me with a straight face that this wouldn't have been a better version of events.

As for Aragorn's storyline everything is going perfectly up until the battle. For a start it just looks so stupid when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli jump out of the boat alone to join the battle, then get followed by the Ghost army which stupidly proceeds to obliterate Sauron's entire army with no real effort. Gimli and Legolas are still playing their stupid counting game from Two Towers. It is supposed to be a 3 way battle, Sauron's armies in the middle assaulted by Rohan on one side, Gondor on the other and Aragorn bringing up the rear with MEN from Lossanach(I think). To recap again from the book, Aragorn is supposed to be joined by remaining Rangers from the north aswell as Elrond's two sons forming a badass team of 20 or so, they enlist the help of the ghosts to help them defeat the black ships, at which point Aragorn releases the ghosts and assembles an army from the City of Lossanach. It is these men that fill the ships and arrive at Minas Tirith to join battle. Again would it really have been so impractical to do it this way rather than have the stupid ghosts simply wipe out Sauron's army.

Rant Over.

I think special mention should go the the "Lighting of the Beacons", scene. Just about the finest few minutes of Cinema I have ever witnessed. Especially as the Orchestra booms out the theme. Flawless.

For the above reasons the middle of the film is really spoiled for me, but the beginning and ending are superb I can only give it a 7 or 8/10.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Fantastic review of The Hobbit there, probably the best I have seen and the one I agree with most, I also viewed it in 2D/24fps so can only asses the film on it's content. I can't disagree with you on any of the points mentioned and would give the film a similar rating myself, top stuff
Thanks Daniel. Are you talking about amateur reviews on forums/blogs, or all reviews in general? Either way wow, very flattering, thank you.

I was hoping the whole "developed affection" thing would work for me too
Yeah I noticed in your movie tab score that you weren't overly fond of it. And I'll be interested to see how I find the film in future. Obviously I had only just watched the LotR films so I was very much in a Middle Earth state of mind; perhaps if they weren't so fresh in my mind my enjoyment would have been lessened. On the flipside however, perhaps the two future instalments will flesh out the characters more so that I come to care about them and enjoy An Unexpected Journey more.

I think special mention should go the the "Lighting of the Beacons", scene. Just about the finest few minutes of Cinema I have ever witnessed. Especially as the Orchestra booms out the theme. Flawless.
Very interesting reading your thoughts mate. And I can't believe I forgot to mention the lighting of the beacons sequence. I had scribbled down loads of stuff I wanted to include in the reviews and that was one of them; somehow I completely missed it.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
Some hardcore film buff material here.


Not sure what you mean. Don't know if it's a sarcastic comment brought about by garbage like MacGruber, or if it's a genuine sentiment based on the thread as a whole. Either way welcome to the thread.



We've gone on holiday by mistake
Very interesting reading your thoughts mate. And I can't believe I forgot to mention the lighting of the beacons sequence. I had scribbled down loads of stuff I wanted to include in the reviews and that was one of them; somehow I completely missed it.
I'm basically just saying that they ****ed up the middle of ROTK but the start and the ending is basically perfection like the rest of the trilogy.

The had a chance to put to film the finest battle ever and they ****ed it up big style.



Thanks Daniel. Are you talking about amateur reviews on forums/blogs, or all reviews in general? Either way wow, very flattering, thank you.
In general I guess, most of critics I have seen spend most of it talking about 3D and that, you've actually dealt with the content and strengths and weaknesses from that perspective, and I find myself agreeing with you more than anyone else.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror






Year of release
2011


Directed by
James Marsh


Based on
"Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would be Human"
written by Elizabeth Hess




Project Nim

++

Plot – A documentary that tells the story of Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee taken from his mother when he was born and placed with a human family. He is raised like a human child as part of an experiment with the intention of learning about the ability of chimps to communicate through language. It follows Nim's incredible journey and the impact he had on the lives of those who came into contact with him.

This is a fascinating but ultimately troubling documentary. It tells the incredible story of Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who was taken from his mother as an infant with the purpose of being a scientific experiment. Initally placed with a rather hippie-ish family Nim's life soon comes to resemble that of an orphan being shunted from one foster home to the next. Over his 26 years he had 5 different 'homes', from a classic Manhattan browstone to a medical research facility. And in each home he was treated very differently, meaning that in no way did he have a settled existence. As is the case with so many great documentaries, the story is one that you would struggle to buy into were it a fictional exploit. If you were presented with the story as a scripted piece of film it would seem far-fetched and ridiculous, so the fact it's a true story is incredible.
The film is not presented in a retrospective manner; we are not treated as if we already have knowledge of the story and are told 'well here's how it all happened.' It's told very much from a narrative perspective, unfolding just like a dramatised film as opposed to a documentary. Like a biopic of Nim's life it develops chronologically, dropping in every twist and turn at us just like the latest scripted effort out of Hollywood. The film is presented through a mixture of archive material (home videos and photographs charting his life) alongside the standard talking heads approach featuring most of the important players in Nim's life. To link these elements together the film also makes occasional use of dramatised re-enactments. They are not filmed in a particularly stylish manner, but in a rather raw style that resembles old super 8 footage. As a result it fits nicely with the rest of the archive video, and while it's clear it's not genuine footage it doesn't make the transition between the different sources jarring; it all flows nicely.

Also making this film easy to digest as a narrative piece are clearly defined hero and villain archetypes. They're not forced upon us by the film which I felt provided a balanced account of events; but occur naturally as a result of the ideals held by the majority of people. So the company using Nim and his fellow apes for medical research? Obvious bad guys! The main 'boo hiss' villain of the piece however is definitely Herbert Terrace, the scientist who initiated the project. He's just such a stereotypical example of a scientist, cold and in his eyes purely 'logical' with no room for sentiment or feelings. He treats Nim as nothing more than a chimp to be experimented with and controls his life with no regard for his happiness. When the project is abandoned due to financial restrictions Nim is drugged, flown overnight on a plane and deposited in Oklahoma in a cage alongside other chimps. And after relegating him to a rather shabby sanctuary he doesn't visit Nim until one year later, and then never saw him again. And that one time he did see him? Purely as a PR exercise to get video footage for a TV interview.

It's a real rollercoaster of emotions. And while the film deserves a sentiment less clichéd than that, it really is a perfect fit. The whole concept alone is fascinating, while there are numerous moments that are really quite amusing. Other moments, such as Nim's interaction with cats and dogs, are really sweet. Unfortunately however the prevailing emotion is one of sadness, the film is really quite heart-breaking on more than one occasion. It's just such a terrible ordeal this creature was put through. Very often these emotions while sit side by side. There's one great scene in particular where Nim is introduced to another chimp for the first time in his life. It's very amusing to see Nim's sheer bemusement at this creature, but at the same time it's really quite sad. Nim has lived such an unnatural life for so many years that the mere sight of a chimp causes him to freak out, he doesn't recognise what it is. That particular scene does have a happy ending however when you see Nim begin to settle and play with the other chimp just like he should be doing.

Just as interesting as the ordeal of Nim are the humans that were involved in his story, and the psychology involved. Nim's life was filled with a wide array of characters, coming from complete opposite ends of the spectrum. So we are provided with insights from very academic scientists who were only interested in the hard science aspect of Nim, and alongside them we then have the input of hippies who smoked pot with Nim! Nim was treated so differently depending on which individuals were in his life at particular times. His initial human 'mother' and family treated him like a child whereas other people would treat him as a pet, a science project or in some cases a friend. The way that other characters would project onto Nim was quite fascinating as well, with a power struggle occurring at one point over who was Nim's 'mother.' There are numerous interesting dynamics that played out between the people involved at the time including romantic relationships, both past and present, and clashes over what was happening to Nim. And on a number of occasions you can tell from the talking heads portion that some feelings and resentments are still very much at the forefront, as tears and anger abound.

Conclusion - A compelling tale which is both funny and heart-breaking. A film which raises ethical questions and explores the experiences and emotions of those who were involved in Nim's life. It's a film which says just as much about humans as it does chimps, and sadly much of it is not exactly positive were we're concerned. Indeed watch this before viewing any of the Planet of the Apes flicks and you'll likely find yourself rooting for the apes!



Project Nim looks interesting but The Hobbit, though I repped it, I haven't actually read your review...


I'm waiting to see it myself... I don't want it spoilt by reading reviews but I'm not holding much hope for the movie... nuff said.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Mark Andrews
Brenda Chapman
Steve Purcell

Written by
Mark Andrews / Brenda Chapman
Steve Purcell / Irene Mecchi
Michael Arndt

Starring
Kelly McDonald
Emma Thompson
Billy Connolly
Julie Walters

Brave
-

Plot – In an ancient and mythical Scotland a young and spirited princess by the name of Merida is an aspiring archer and a talented rider of horses. Desperate to fulfil these ambitions she is crushed when her mother informs her that she has to forget such pursuits, and instead marry for the good of the kingdom. When she defies her mother's wishes the fallout sends her running off into the forest. In the forest she stumbles across the domain of a witch and asks her to change her mother, thus changing Merida's destiny. The 'change' however is not at all what Merida was expecting, and now both the life of her mother and the safety of the kingdom are at risk. And now it's up to Merida to try and tidy up her own mess.

This is a pleasant if ultimately disappointing effort from the geniuses at Pixar. I just felt it failed to really capture the magic and wonder that a Pixar movie usually generates. At the film's conclusion I just couldn't shake the feeling of, “is that it?” I was just left feeling rather underwhelmed by it. I had been expecting to find a lot more action and adventure present, and was a little miffed to find a much smaller and more personal tale. Indeed it's all rather quaint. It's as if the bigwigs at Pixar came across an unfilmed script for a lost Disney film of the 40s, and they decided to make it with the use of modern technology. The story, characters and tone all feel very reminiscent of the old Disney movies I watched over and over as a kid. The only thing missing were a few big song and dance numbers. The technology really does feel about the only element which sets this aside from classic Disney fare. Following on from Cars 2 which seemed purely like a cash-in, I just hope this isn't a sign of Pixar becoming truly Disney-ised.

Were I not Scottish I think my level of enjoyment would have been even less. As a proud Scot however I viewed Brave through tartan tinted glasses and really took the Scottish elements to heart. I loved how they were able to capture and replicate the beauty of the Scottish scenery, and found myself really quite stirred by the film's score which had a very strong Scottish/celtic twang to it. I also got a massive kick out of hearing some exceedingly Scottish phrases being uttered in a big Hollywood film. Hearing insults like 'galoots', 'tumshie' and 'numpty', as well as hearing utterings of 'jings crivens help ma boab', 'jiggery pokery' and 'crivens' was probably my favourite part of the film actually. And then of course there was this little extract from a song sung by King Fergus - “we'll bile yur heed wae dumplin' breed, tae make an ursine stew!”

Film trivia - Some of the technology employed on Brave is astonishing. Indeed Pixar actually had to develop two additional software programs just for this film. One of the programs was required for Merida's hair to handle the 1500 separate strands it entailed, and to allow them all to move naturally in conjuncture with her movements.
I'm
very glad that the makers of Brave decided to go with an almost exclusively Scottish voice cast. As well as just the enjoyment I got from hearing so many genuine Scottish voices, it also means the film was able to avoid any botched attempts at the accent which would go on to become infamous examples alongside the likes of Keanu Reeves in Dracula and Brad Pitt in Devil's Own. So while I am a fan of hers I do dread to think what Reese Witherspoon, the original Merida, would have been able to come up with had she remained in the role. The cast who did feature all do a very nice job with Kelly McDonald and Billy Connolly being particular favourites of mine.

I mentioned earlier how the film lacked the usual magic and story of Pixar. and there are a few other areas where I felt it came up short. As far as Pixar films go I found this to be amongst the least funny they've so far produced. The laughs came at a much slower rate than one would expect and I'm struggling to really remember any big laughs. I also felt it very much lacking when it came to memorable characters. Take a film like Finding Nemo for example which is just absolutely littered with them; from the main characters to the inhabitants of the aquarium and the sea turtles, all the way down to the seagulls who make such a memorable impact despite only having a single word to say - “Mine!” Yes you've got Merida with her flame haired locks and well rounded character but outside of that I didn't find much else. And after hearing much about them I found the trio of brothers disappointing, and even slightly annoying on occasion.

Film trivia The film took six years to reach completion. Initially the film was to be directed by Brenda Chapman, with Mark Andrews acting as a consultant, providing information for the film's Scottish elements. In October 2010 however Chapman left after four years work and Andrews took over directing duties. He still kept much of Chapman's intended story and Chapman herself said she is still very proud of the finished movie as her “vision still came through.”
When I was discussing the film's Scottish elements I noted the beauty of the scenery, and the film as a whole does look astonishing. Indeed from a purely animation point of view this is right up there amongst the best ever produced. The highland landscapes are just gorgeous, the detail in Merida's flowing red locks is stunning and the action is terrific. The particular moment I'm thinking of is when Merida is out riding on her horse and shooting arrows. The movement of the horse is amazing and they were just able to create such energy and life in these shots. Another highlight of the film would be the character of Merida herself. For an animated film, even those of Pixar's quality, she really is an impressively rounded and fleshed out character. A character who has both good and bad qualities to her personality.

What I was probably most disappointed in is that the film just didn't live up to its own billing. It may be titled Brave but I certainly wouldn't describe it as such. It feels like a very safe venture for Pixar, especially when you consider the kind of ground-breaking and visionary work they have produced in the past. Through a combination of me being a huge fan of Pixar and my Scottish roots, I had been following the progress of this film ever since I initially heard about it (back when it was called The Bear and the Bow) and was very sad to find it didn't meet my high expectations of it.

Oh and the accompanying short was quite delightful. Titled La Luna it doesn't feature any recognisable words with the characters communicating only through grunts and gestures. It follows the more surreal and creative bent that some of the shorts have taken of late and is just a really sweet, touching little effort.

Conclusion – While it doesn't sound out the creative demise of Pixar it certainly isn't a shining beacon of hope that Cars 2 was a rare slip. Their next film, Monsters University, now has more scrutiny and pressure on it than perhaps any Pixar film ever has before. They need to deliver and prove they are still amongst the best creative forces that Hollywood has to offer. This is a nice film but one that I don't really see lingering long in the memory. The Scottish elements, even if they did go a little Brigadoon at times, certainly helped for me personally. Without them I'm not how much there would have been here for me.



As a stand alone film, Brave I thought was a pleasant experience, I enjoyed the fable like mythical tale and the all Scottish setting and from a first viewing perspective I would have awarded it a rating of -


But yeh, as part of Pixar it's not something that well keep you talking about afterwards and stay in your memory like greats such as Up, Wall-E, Monsters, Inc. etc. there's nothing that you'll really savour and love about it like the characters from the other films - a reason why Cars doesn't compare to the rest of their work, they're just talking cars



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
mirror
mirror




Year of release
2009

Directed by
Duncan Jones

Written by
Duncan Jones
Nathan Parker

Starring
Sam Rockwell
Kevin Spacey (voice)



Moon


Plot – Sam Bell (Rockwell) has a three year contract with the large corporation, Lunar Industries. The terms of his contract see him as the sole employee of a manufacturing facility set on the moon, with his only company coming in the form of a robot assistant named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey). With only three weeks of his contract left Sam is desperate to finally make it home. Such a long period of loneliness has taken its toll on Sam who just wants to get home to his wife and young daughter. When Sam is involved in an accident however he awakes to find that he is no longer alone, and that his new companion causes him to question is sanity and his own existence.
WARNING: "Major plot point" spoilers below
What he finds is a clone of himself.
***WARNING - There are some spoilers ahead***

I've been curious to give this film a watch for quite a few years now. And following both its appearance on the Mofo 100 list, and the fact that a friend of mine recently watched and just loved it, I decided now was the time to finally see what it was all about. In the years since it's release I've heard lots of positive buzz and for the most part I found it to be well worth it. It's an intelligent, contemplative and mesmerising film; one that I found really quite hypnotic viewing.

Now I know that not everyone will 'like' this film, but I have to say that for anyone who appreciates the art of film making I find it hard to believe that they won't find a lot to admire here. The craft on display is really quite impressive, especially when you consider the film's rather meagre budget of just $5 million; a real drop in the ocean when it comes to this genre. And yet despite the small budget, the effects are completely able to do justice to the story and the ideas. They achieve this through a mixture of practical effects, and limited but well judged and impressive digital effects. The retro practical effects, in particular the terrific use of miniatures, just feels such a perfect fit for this film, as Moon as a whole has quite an old school 70s sci-fi vibe to it. These effects help a great deal in creating such a convincing setting, a setting which is really quite atmospheric. It allows for some impressive visuals of the surface of the moon which creates quite a silent and unsettling sense of loneliness and extreme isolation. And this is further heightened by an eerie, mournful and ultimately evocative score from Clint Mansell which is just terrific.

While he is certainly far from being a movie 'star', Sam Rockwell is certainly up there when it comes to favourite actors amongst the movie buff community. And arguably the strongest element of this film is as an acting showcase for Rockwell. He does a spectacular job at portraying the character of Sam at varying stages. This comes about both in terms of the contrasting physical condition of both characters, and the different mindset that the characters are in. The initial clone is physically battered and in a great deal of pain while the new clone is in the pinnacle of health. Emotionally the characters are in completely different spaces, it's almost as if they are both at one of the five stages of grief. Sam 1 is clearly at the denial stage, refusing to accept that he could possibly be a clone. While Sam 2 seems very much in the acceptance stage. Watching the two identical, but still vastly different characters interact is a very intriguing and entertaining spectacle. It's a tremendous showing from Rockwell as he paints a vivid portrait of loneliness. And I personally feel he was unfortunate not to have been nominated at any of the major ceremonies when the awards season rolled around a few years back.

Film trivia – When he was asked to provide the voice for Gerty, Kevin Spacey accepted but with conditions. Despite having read and liked the script he wanted to see the finished film first; and then only if he liked it would he go ahead and take on the role. When he was finally shown the film Spacey loved it, so much so in fact that he recorded all his lines in just half a day.
Through the clones the film attempts to tackle the question of what it means to be human. It also addresses something that currently may not be a huge issue but could become one before too very long – cloning. If scientists are one day able to completely clone a human being it would raise all sorts of questions. Starting with the question, what exactly is a clone? Is it merely a physical facsimile, or is it something more? Have you created an actual life that has a soul/spirit/consciousness/whatever you want to call it? What rights would they have? If a company such as the one featured in Moon has created a clone, what rights of ownership would they have? That leads us onto another of the film's themes; the evil, faceless corporate villains and how these big corporations take advantage and live off of the little guy who actually does all the work. And while it's a much smaller theme in the large scheme of things there is also a little element of family and the sacrifices you sometimes make for them. Sam has taken this contract on the agreement that he will be gone from his family for three years, including his little daughter who was born just before he left. That's an incredible sacrifice and you have to think it's something the character would really have had to weigh up. What is best for his family? The financial security the job could bring, or the presence of their husband/father?

Jones clearly knows his stuff when it comes to the science fiction genre, and he uses this knowledge to subvert our expectations at times by avoiding a number of the clichés that go along with the genre. The most obvious example would likely be GERTY. Voiced with a cold, emotionless tone by Kevin Spacey I was convinced throughout that Gerty was going to turn out to be evil; that he was the mastermind behind this whole cloning procedure. That never comes about however, he remains helpful to Sam throughout and in reality becomes a friend to Sam. It's a highly impressive effort for a first time director, and coupled with the highly entertaining Source Code, Jones certainly deserves his standing as one of the hottest young directors currently plying their trade.

The film certainly isn't perfect. Throughout this review I've used words like measured and contemplative. Basically they're just fancy, positive ways of saying the film is slow! Though I'm sure many would instead go with the words 'excruciatingly dull'. While I personally didn't find it a dull experience, it certainly is a film low on thrills; a film whose aim is to stimulate the mind rather than get the adrenaline flowing or to dazzle the eyes. And it does feel like you've watched every one of its 97 minute running time, and that it's right at the tipping point of 'too long' territory. There's only so long you can watch what is basically a 'one man, one location' film. And the film perhaps lacks a touch in terms of logic and explanations for the whole concept to begin with, but it wasn't something that bothered me personally. I was just able to allow myself to become absorbed in the whole thing.

Conclusion – With a powerhouse showing from Rockwell driving the film along I found this to be a great film from its debut director Duncan Jones. On a technical level it is a highly skilled effort, and indeed I'm sure some people will view Moon as more of a success as an exercise in film-making as opposed to a strong narrative story. I felt it found a nice balance between the two however and I was thoroughly engrossed by it.



Starting with the question, what exactly is a clone? Is it merely a physical facsimile, or is it something more? Have you created an actual life that has a soul/spirit/consciousness/whatever you want to call it? What rights would they have? If a company such as the one featured in Moon has created a clone, what rights of ownership would they have?
^^That would've been a much better film.^^

I saw this recently and have no idea what all the fuss was about. Actually, that's not quite true, I probably do, it's just that I'm not impressed by it.

It's an ok film. Had I just stumbled across it late one night, I'd have thought "Hey, that wasn't bad. I'd say it's worth a look. Sam Rockwell was good."
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Miss Vicky's Loyal and Willing Slave
As a stand alone film, Brave I thought was a pleasant experience, I enjoyed the fable like mythical tale and the all Scottish setting and from a first viewing perspective I would have awarded it a rating of -


But yeh, as part of Pixar it's not something that well keep you talking about afterwards and stay in your memory like greats such as Up, Wall-E, Monsters, Inc. etc. there's nothing that you'll really savour and love about it like the characters from the other films - a reason why Cars doesn't compare to the rest of their work, they're just talking cars
Well while you've certainly been more positive on that one for the most part we seem to have quite similar tastes and opinions of particular films.

I love this movie. The loneliness, the isolation, the sadness. It's far from being dull.
You'll be pretty happy with the next film as well, as I think it's also one that made your top 10 of the year lists. And Honeykid will be pleased as well.

Still working on it. Might be ready for posting later on, if not tomorrow is an almost certainty.