Film review - Captain America: The First Avenger

In some ways, this is as perfect as a comic book movie can get. The story is told properly and patiently, and action serves the story, rather than the other way around. To those who are concerned about the title's implication of American flag-waving patriotism; worry not- this isn't that movie. If anything, it's parodied.
The visual effects are pretty flawless, even when Chris Evans's head seems a little too big for his body (in the early scenes), you can never see the join or begin to imagine how they did it.
The cast are all great, and Evans himself is particularly excellent, showing a real emotional journey, proving he's more than a pretty bod. The characters are sympathetic, and the period detail is captured beautifully, reflected in both the score and pace.
Which brings me to my reservations. The pace is SO leisurely that I'm not sure I'd enjoy it as much on a repeated viewing. Once you know how tab A fits into slot B, you lose the suspense that's kept you watching, but there's not much bang to keep you occupied either.
Also, I tended to switch off when Hugo Weaving's villainous Schwarzenegger impression (and sidekick Toby Jones) came on-screen. They're just not given much to do- Villains really need to do a bit more than plot in a lab to get me interested.
But I'd highly recommend it, and am more excited than ever to see The Avengers next year. Speaking of which, sit through the credits...

Film Review - Cars 2

I'm on record as being a bona fide Pixar fan. Some may consider me biased- A Bug's Life, Cars, WALL-E, Ratatouille and even Up! all have their critics, but I adore them all. It certainly sours my opinion of rival animation studios' work (in particular the massively over-rated Shrek). But, for the first time, it's worked against them.
Their consistently brilliant output has been unrivalled, giving us colourful characters, visuals, dialogue and stories, all with an emotional wallop. The original Cars movie, despite its undeserved "boring" reputation, is no exception to this rule, and I'd encourage anybody to re-evaluate it. But yet... Something's missing in this sequel.
I can't put my finger on what, but there were times when the frantic action on-screen left me restless, rather than excited. We were all struggling to remember the new characters' names afterwards, and at times I could tell what was on-screen was amusing, yet wasn't finding myself laughing.
Whereas Cars was a beautiful, leisurely film that knew how and when to crank up the excitement, Cars 2 is as beautiful, but keeps its foot on the accelerator, so maybe it's this absence of light and shade? (How's that for mixed metaphors?)
The only emotional moment (a Pixar trademark) came early on, with a reference to the late Paul Newman's character from the first film- but this only has an emotional resonance BECAUSE of the first film.
Maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind, but I must agree (partially) with the critics- Pixar have delivered their first true disappointment.
But is it bad film? Not in the slightest. Visually, it's a feast. The intricate blink-and-you'll-miss-it details are all there, and the scenes in Tokyo and Milan are breathtaking. For the first time in ages, I wish I'd seen the 3D version of a film. The animation and design are flawless, and the themes in the score are wonderfully tongue-in-cheek, referencing spy movies of the past. Unfortunately, however, the sound mixing is off. There are times when the music could have added impact to a scene, but instead we get just a generic spy music backing track, overpowered by sound effects and/or dialogue.
Hopefully my opinion of Cars 2 will improve on later viewings, but for now it appears that this may be the first time Pixar won't appear in my annual top 10 films. At least Disney gave us Tangled this year.

Film Review - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

As always, there are a few crucial moments I would have done differently (I may elaborate once the film's out), but to criticise this film as an adaptation of the final section of the book is to be picky in the extreme. They make enough changes for the film franchise to make sense, with a few surprises (mostly pleasant) for the initiated too. Whilst we've all been waiting to see The Battle of Hogwarts, the film-makers have decided that the story is the most important part, and does take priority over the spectacle. For that, they are to be commended, so a lot of the action is off-screen (or background). As for the cast, they've matured nicely, the surprise stand-out being Matthew Lewis as Neville, and the no-surprise stand-out being Alan Rickman's Snape (although Maggie Smith does get to upstage him at one point!). I laughed, I cried, I stamped my feet with excitement, and I can't wait to do it all again next weekend. Oh, and the 3D conversion has proven to be a complete waste of time and money. Not one moment requires it, and there are several mis-shapen faces that require its absence. Even that can't spoil this awesome movie, but save your money, see it in 2D.

Harry Potter

With the eighth and final Harry Potter movie about to be released in cinemas, now is an appropriate time to take a look at the most successful franchise of all-time.

With its books, movies and merchandise, Harry Potter has become a worldwide phenomenon that has encouraged children and adults alike to discover and rediscover reading, not to mention packing cinemas and shifting millions of DVDs, all over the world.

I read the first four books in September 2001, after seeing the trailer for the first movie, and was a bona fide fan by the time the movie was released. Each book was re-read before each film's release, the whole series was re-read before each book was released, and each movie's release saw (at least) its predecessor re-watched, both for cinema and DVD releases. So it's fair to say I know them all pretty well.

I've been lucky enough to obtain preview tickets for a screening of the final film this coming Thursday, July 7th, over a week before its official release date on Friday 15th. After that screening, it is my intention to re-watch all previous seven films, and review each with an eye on various particular perspectives;

1. Straightforward film review; how it stands up as a film in its own right.
2. The film as an adaptation of the book; what works, what doesn't, what they got right, what they got wrong.
3. What was changed from the book; what was left out, what was put in, what played out differently.
4. What essential information was left out for the film series to make complete sense.

It's the fourth point in particular in which I'm most interested for this blog.

Whilst I'm currently re-reading the end of Deathly Hallows, I'm noticing that there is so much that hasn't been covered in the films that should have been by now. And I'm not talking about the likes of Snape's relationship with James Potter & friends- it's important in the books, but no longer necessary for the film series to work.

I'm talking about some glaring omissions that have been carried over film-to-film, but never addressed. If you haven't read the books, and aren't confused, then you're not paying attention.

For example...

Peter Pettigrew. From film 4 onwards he's called "Wormtail". Explained in book three, but none of the films.

Harry has a piece of mirror in film 7. Explained in book five, but none of the films.

Film 8 will feature items referenced in book 6, but no films so far.

It'll be interesting to see how much is rectified in their final chance. I'm hoping to clarify what they don't.

Film Review - Green Lantern (2011)

First up, this review will sound negative, but it really isn't. I thought Green Lantern was a good film. It kept me interested and entertained, and the SFX were pretty spectacular. I don't know or care how accurately it portrays the comic, as a film with its own story, it worked. It does not deserve the kicking it's been getting from critics.

And yet. There are a few issues I just need to get off my chest.

I love Ryan Reynolds. He has proper big-screen charisma, great comic timing (and delivery) and a body that makes me want to kill myself. But he has developed a bit of a familiar schtick, and whilst I love it, there are times when it isn't appropriate. He knows this himself, as proven in Buried and Amityville. But here he uses it randomly, rather than in a considered manner, so sometimes it works well, sometimes it feels fake.

We also get the now over-familiar Superfluous Character Syndrome, the honours here going to Blake Lively's blander-than-bland damsel, and the oddly-cast Peter Sarsgaard as a balding, middle-aged doctor or something who gets mutated by evil (or "fear" to be more accurate). When these characters appear, the film has a tendency to slam on the breaks. No comment on the actors per se, just their characters (or rather their lack thereof).

But most importantly, each time you're introduced to a new superhero, you need to know "what's his gimmick?" And Green Lantern's is pretty cool. Basically, he's given the power to bring his imagination to life. And therein lies the problem with this film. Hal Jordan apparently has a very VERY limited imagination. I'm sure he'll grow with time, but it was a bit infuriating to see him consistently defeating bad guys (including enormous planet-devouring entities) by just imagining various weapons and projectiles to throw at them. Not that the film's conclusion isn't satisfying, it is. It's also disappointingly unimaginative.

But apart from that, I enjoyed it very much. I'd watch it again and I'll happily queue to see Green Lantern 2. Although it's looking about as likely to happen as The Subtle Knife.