Showing posts with label Steven Spielberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Steven Spielberg. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Movie Review - War Horse

War Horse
Based on the book by Michael Morpurgo
Starring: Jeremy Irvine, Peter Mullan, Emily Watson, Matt Milne, David Thewlis, Robert Emms, Tom Hiddleston, Benedict Cumberbatch, Patrick Kennedy, David Kross, Celine Buckens, Niels Arestrup, Nicolas Bro, Toby Kebbell, Julian Wadham, Liam Cunningham, Eddie Marsan, and Pip Torrens
Release Date: December 25th, 2011
Rating: ★★
To Buy

Young Albert Narracott's dreams come true when his father, drunken and surly, outbids their landlord for a young colt. The Narracott's were in desperate need of a plow horse but Albert has spent months watching the young colt grow, spying through the various fences of Devon, and knows that he can train him because they were destined to be together. Against all odds Albert succeeds only to lose his horse, Joey, because their crop failed and his father had no other recourse, drunk and bitter from the Boer War, he sells Joey. Another war has begun and Joey is sold to a Captain James Nicholls, an upstanding solider who promises to return Joey to Albert after the war. Albert begs to accompany Captain Nicholls but is too young to join up. Tearfully he promises Joey that they will be reunited. In France Joey a has steep learning curve, especially when it comes to being around other horses. But he quickly bonds with Major Jamie Stewart's black stallion and the two are inseparable, even as their riders are mowed down by German gunfire they remain together behind enemy lines. It is a long war and soon Albert is old enough and enlists and is stationed abroad. Will he find Joey or will they forever be separated?

War Horse, by it's episodic nature following Joey through all his adventures is reminiscent of Black Beauty. Therefore you could basically call this film Black Beauty Goes to War. The problem with this kind of storytelling is that you really have to be invested in the character of the horse. And while the horse who played Joey could easily be singled out as one of the best actors in the film, it still didn't make this film work. The main problem I had was that the film seemed to be taking it's subject matter too lightly. This could be seen in every frame with the overly perfect shutters and thatching on the Narracott's overly large farmhouse to the goose being used as comic relief. I don't think that Spielberg got the memo that England is supposed to be a little gloomy and run down. Instead he artifically lit most scenes, seriously, look at the two light sources in almost every scene! Oh, and that spotlight on Emily Watson when she leans out the window? What the hell? This was the best lit war EVER! The problem with this is that it literally felt like you were watching Babe or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, forever waiting for the animals to start talking or a Teletubby to wander by. I would also totally recommend those films before this one.

This overall stylization makes for a very sanitized Disneyfication of World War I. Yes, I know the lack of blood and the cunning use of windmill blades was to secure that ever important family friendly PG-13 rating to make this the holiday film of 2011, but still... why? Why the hyper exaggerated colors? Why this muted horror? Why tone down The Great War!?! This is an event that forever changed the world and this movie almost makes light of it. Yes, there are moments that pull on your heartstrings, but I don't think it gets across any important message that could be said about this war. If you wanted to really make this film right, don't pull punches. I mean, would you ever seriously imagine the director of Schindler's List pulling punches? This film could have opened up a dialogue with the younger generations who didn't know about the war and everyone could sit around sipping eggnog and discussing the atrocities. Instead it focuses on the more "romantic" nature of the war, wherein instead of soldiers putting down their weapons on Christmas and meeting in no man's land to have a sing-a-long and a game of football they all unite to save Joey from the barbed wire, even with comedic throwing of wire cutters. There shouldn't be comedic throwing of wire cutters people!

Speaking of the comedy... this film highlights the fact that comedy shouldn't be banned from the saga of war, just look to Blackadder! Comedy can be used if done right. Which is why I must hang my head in bafflement that this film was co-written by the co-writer of Blackadder! Richard Curtis! YES! I was just as shocked as you are, I'm assuming you're shocked here by the way. I couldn't believe that a man who handled the first world war with such insight, such nuance, could produce this schmaltz. SHAME ON YOU RICHARD CURTIS! You have let the schmaltz take over. Let's look to your IMDB credits shall we? Comedic and insightful genius through the eighties, I particularly love The Tall Guy and Rowan Atkinson's performance in that. The nineties are a little rockier, I hate Mr. Bean but my love of The Vicar of Dibley outshines anything because it's one of my favorite shows ever. The turn of the century started off strong with Bridget Jones's Diary and then it quickly went to hell in a handbasket. Love Actually, yes I know I'm alone in my hatred of that but I can't be alone in my hatred of the Bridget Jones sequel! Oh, and The Girl in the Cafe! You Richard Curtis have turned into some sort of romantic bleeding heart that has to have a "message" in their work. What happened to the quality of the work emphasizing the message versus the work being solely about the message? You have failed me sir, and you have failed War Horse.

Because the thing is, everyone I know who has read the book or seen the stage adaptation has been moved by the brilliance of War Horse. This wasn't brilliant, unless you are talking about the lighting. You can kind of glimpse what made the book stand out if you look for it. What I did find interesting was that by tracking Joey's journey we get to see the war from both sides. It's kind of like he is a prisoner of war, yet the English, aside from the stalwart Captain Nicholls, are just as barbarous and uncaring to their animals as the Germans. So buried deep there is the message hidden from sight that despite their differences, despite being on different sides, both sides are the same, just young boys being killed by the great war machine that cares little for them or animals. So I guess I could say it was nice that this wasn't all one-sided? We saw not very nice Englishmen, and some very nice Germans. And that poor French girl and her grandfather did a nice job representing those caught in-between the conflict. So, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that all the pieces where kind of there, just put together in such a way that the whole didn't work. It was too jumbled, too scattered, too toned down, too saccharine. And the thing is, the movie has kind of turned me off ever wanting to see the play or read the book and what if they really are as brilliant as people say? Then I'm just losing out because of some misguided desire of Spielberg's to make another war movie, but this time for the whole family.

I also can not lie about the fact that I really had to see this movie eventually because of the Hiddles/Cumberbatch confluence. Now, I'm not trying to be biased here, there are performances of theirs I haven't liked so I'm not always fawning on them. Hiddles was in that awful A Waste of Shame and was in the abysmal Cranford sequel, and I can not forget the mess that was High-Rise. As for Benedict... avoid Tipping the Velvet, Starter for 10, Atonement, and all those "Hobbit" but not really The Hobbit movies. Oh, and Parade's End! So when I say they were a highlight of this film I'm NOT playing favorites. But their appearances were more bitter than sweet, because for just a second you could see what this movie might have been. They are true actors, they fully physically embody the characters they play. In fact Benedict's performance as Major Jamie Stewart was fabulous because I one hundred percent hated him. The brusque voice, the posture where it always looked like he had a stick up his ass. This wasn't Benedict in all his goofiness, this was Major Stewart, and he could have been an interesting character if given more screen time. As for the naivety that Hiddles brought to Captain James Nicholls, the ability of him to show the horror of the realization that he is about to die using just his eyes... perhaps the most touching and real moments in this entire film. And there's not much reality to be had here.

Friday, May 22, 2015

Movie Review - Jurassic Park

Jurassic Park
Based on the book by Michael Crichton
Starring: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Ariana Richards, Joseph Mazzello, Bob Peck, Martin Ferrero, Wayne Knight, Samuel L. Jackson, Cameron Thor, Miguel Sandoval, Gerald R. Molen, BD Wong, Richard Kiley, and Greg Burson
Release Date: June 11th, 1993
Rating: ★★
To Buy

After the death of a worker on his theme resort on an island off the coast of Costa Rica, John Hammond has to agree to an inspection that his investors are demanding through their lawyer Gennaro. Gennaro is bringing in the mathematician Ian Malcolm as his auditor, seeing as Malcolm did projections for the project and predicted it's failure. Hammond brings in paleontologist Doctor Grant and paleobotanist Doctor Sattler, as people with a vested interest in his idea as well as being dependant on his grant money to fund their dig. The truth of Jurassic Park is that they have brought dinosaurs back from extinction to serve as the attractions in an amusement park. Hammond has also brought his grandchildren so that his "guests" can see that the park is designed with children in mind. Of course no one listens to Malcolm's dire warnings and everyone is enraptured by the novelty and majesty on display, never thinking about the risks; and for some, only the monetary rewards. But it is one person thinking about his own monetary gain that puts everyone's lives in danger and the future of the park in jeopardy.

Prior to this past weekend I had only seen Jurassic Park the once. At the one dollar budget cinema. With my mom. After I read the book for my high school biology class. What can I say? There weren't Muppets in it, teenage me wrote it off. Of course I'd catch bits and pieces over the years on TV, those "famous" and "memorable" scenes that everyone remembers, but never did I sit down and watch it in it's entirety. Unlike the book which relied a little on that adolescent knowledge of dinosaurs that still resides in us all, there is no doubt in my mind that Spielberg made this movie for eleven year old boys; as evidenced by the fact that my brother has seen this film innumerable times in the theater and I'm sure if pushed could have recited the movie word for word. Re-watching it with him I was alerted to not only when the "big scenes" were coming up, but also when the funniest ones where, ie, when Tim gets electrocuted. Overall though I was left with this impression of mystification. This was the highest grossing film until Titanic came out? Seriously!?!

I really wish I could read the script that Crichton wrote, before the exposition and violence was removed; in other words, before talking DNA cartoons took over the exposition. It was like having that stupid talking paperclip in Word pop up to annoy you, offer no good advice, and then stick around long after he'd worn out his welcome. There is no way around the fact that Jurassic Park is schlocky! Yes, I know, I was shocked by schlock! That little talking DNA cartoon is symbolic of everything that went wrong with the new script from a man most known for the unwatchable Death Becomes Her. The plot was streamlined almost into irrelevance, the characters became more stereotypical, look at Doctor Sattler mooning over children and sighing wistfully over her ticking biological clock, Hammond isn't a bad guy, he's just an old showman, not that Spielberg would be that obvious to show his hand and his simulacrum, oh yes, he would. And how can we hook those eleven-year-old boys? Add bathroom humor. Literally. Gennaro, who in the book has depth as a family man and as a lawyer really steps it up to be a hero dies ignominiously on a toilet. What The Hell Spielberg! Plus dino snot! Oh, and, heaven forbid carnivore and herbivore are too complicated, let's call them meat-o-saurus and veggie-o-saurus.

If it wasn't for the dumbing down of themes and concepts, then time itself would have destroyed this film. Yes folks, it's time to talk about CGI. Old school CGI, which is exactly what Jurassic Park is, is laughable. I've heard it said that if I were to watch it on Blu-ray it would have been worse... but it was bad enough already. The majestic scenes of the dinos grazing across the fields looks like a bad children's book illustration, but really, it's the fake lake that made me laugh out loud. The truth is technology is changing so rapidly unless it's a physical effect whatever technology was used to make it is already obsolete by the time the movie comes out and as time goes on it looks worse and worse. Thankfully, and surprisingly, there aren't that many dinosaurs in the movie and quite a fair amount of them were made as animatronic. The animatronics hold up far better then any of the CGI, but there's still a schlockiness to them. There's a jitter to the dinosaurs that made me repeatedly think of Gremlins and other low budget horror films. Not to mention the baby raptor looks like the chestburster from Alien... a franchise Stan Winston and his team worked on, so, not that unfair a comparison. Unless you have some special connection to this film you will only be able to see all that is wrong and nothing that is right.

The main aspect of the film that as a designer drove me up the wall is that while in the book they are more then a year away from the launch of the Park and haven't yet moved onto branding and merchandise, here the park is fully branded thanks to Chip Kidd's iconic logo and get your t-shirts while they're hot! It should be noted the in the movie the park isn't opening for over a year as well. I want to know if this was a subtle way to make the "Park" seem real, more like Disneyland, or if it was just to sell merchandise. I want to think it was the former, but the cynic in me knows it was the later. Re-watching Jurassic Park I realized that the entire movie was made to sell merchandise to those rapt eleven-year-olds. As certain scenes came on my brother would be saying things like, oh, you could buy that raptor enclosure as a playset, or the whole visitor's center was another playset. In fact, he pointed out that Jurassic Park was the last big movie to bother with elaborate playsets. But not to fear, it didn't just have playsets and action figures! There were video games and t-shirts and stuffed animals. You name it, Jurassic Park had it. The biggest irony being the ride at Universal Studios! Seriously?!? Do you not get the irony here?

There are two redeeming factors to the film. The first is that Doctor Grant is insufferably rude to those annoyingly precocious children and it gave me some ersatz joy to see the snark seeing as for the entirety of the book I wanted those brats dead. Secondly, and most importantly, the genius that is Jeff Goldblum. It doesn't surprise me in the least that when a sequel was thought of they wanted it to be all about Ian Malcolm. Of course it had problems canonically because Crichton killed off Malcolm at the end of the first book, but that was easily solved with some retconning and a joke from The Princess Bride. Someone on this film had the genius idea to basically let Jeff Goldblum wander around set being Jeff Goldblum. He has a natural insouciance that is needed in the film, not to mention his wardrobe. The film distinctly gets progressively worse the less screen time he has. In fact, this film might have been the start of my Goldblum obsession, and yes, I do love Transylvania 6-5000, proving that I can love and embrace schlock; just the right kind, and Jurassic Park ain't it.

Older Posts Home