Today is a very special day. We’re officially a third of the way through 2012. It’s been a pretty solid year for movies, and it’s been an interesting year for movie news. However, some news stories haven’t had quite the traction that I would have expected, and might have passed readers by. So, to celebrate getting through the first third of 2012, here’s the 30 most underreported movie-related news stories of 2012.
The guys over at Universal just sent on this latest trailer for their summer blockbuster Battleship. Being entirely honest, I’m not quite sold on the nautical adventure yet, if only because it looks a little bit too much like Transformers… but with boats. Still, I’m willing to be convinced, and I think the movie could work, if it manages to avoid the heavy-handed dour seriousness that sucked the fun out of Michael Bay’s film series. There is, after all, plenty of room for fun in blockbuster cinema and I hope this could offer the fun of something like Real Steel. Personally, I think it’d be worth it simply to hear Liam Neeson utter the line “they sunk my battleship” with the utmost gravitas. (I don’t actually know if he does, but that’s really been something I’ve been hoping for since he was cast. I’m actually 100% serious, I’m imagining the dramatic pauses and everything.)
Anyway, here the trailer is. Make up your own mind on it and let me know.
Never Let Me Go is a mess of a film. Adapted from the highly-praised novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro (who also wrote the novel that inspired The Remains of the Day), the movie is never really sure what it is talking about, or how it’s talking about it, or even what the point of it all is. There are two superb performances at the middle of the movie, but there’s not nearly enough constructed around them to really make it interesting. Director Mark Romanek cannot decide whether he’s telling a conventional love story in an unconventional setting (with the clear moral that “there’s never enough time”) or if he’s exploring the issue of bio-ethics through the prism of human nature. Ultimately, the film tries to both at the same time, which becomes impossible with Romanek’s cold and efficient direction, which left me feeling quite unsatisfied.
I guess I’ve kinda marked Tony Scott as a more talented Michael Bay, in that he’s a director who manages all the tense and superficial elements of his action films particularly well, but that he also a strong eye for dramatic talent and seems to work much better with his leads – or, at least, draw stronger performances from them – than Bay. I was kinda thinking that as I was watching Unstoppable, pondering how Bay’s fascination with physical objects and explosions could have turned the film into a nigh-impossible mess, as the movie is literally based around the idea of a runaway train. Scott can’t quite find the human drama at the core of the story he’s telling, but he does try. And I think that effort alone makes the film watchable, if not remarkable.
This is part of the “Morality Bites” blogathon being hosted by the always awesome Ronan over at filmplicity and Julian at dirtywithclass. It is, as ever, a joy to be asked to take part.
There’s a right way and a wrong way to tackle politics (or any thorny issue) in cinema. Documentaries are the obvious exception, but very few people go into a major motion picture (or even an indie one) expecting a personal diatribe of the creator’s controversial political opinions construed as absolute fact. It’s often more interesting to hear a rant in spoken form rather than structured into three acts at well over an hour with awkward plotting and characterisation designed to outline a particular world view. Don’t get me wrong, many great film makers have used their films as clever points of interest on a particular topic, but those that succeed often do so through clever construction, honest analyse and a decent amount of subtlety. However, such an approach is far too rare in Hollywood, as I thought to myself emerging from Michael Bay’s Transformers 3. I’d made my piece with the fact I was attending a two-and-a-half hour toy commercial, but I didn’t expect it to be a two-and-a-half-hour toy commercial delivered as a declaration on American foreign policy.
Here’s the thing: I don’t really expect a lot from Transformers: Dark of the Moon. It’s a movie about two rival factions of robots who engage in civil war on Earth. It’s not the stuff of epic tragedy or cinematic masterpieces. It’s designed to offer knock-down brawls, superb CGI, stunning action and a handful of fist-pumping moments. I’m cool with that. I don’t expect any more than that, and – to a certain extent – the movie meets my basic needs. However, despite a superb supporting cast and some superb special effects, the movie feels a little too self-important and po-faced to ever really engage. The final forty minutes are something to behold, but there’s just too much mundane plotting and pompous pseudo-philosophical rambling in the first two hours to really justify it.
I love Crimson Tide. It comes from a time when, through my nostalgic eyes, Tony Scott could do no wrong. This was the nineties, when Scott was after directing the under-rated True Romance and on his way to helming the solidly entertaining Enemy of the State. Sure, there was also The Fan in there, but we really don’t talk about that. Part of the appeal of Crimson tide, beyond it’s wonderfully powerful basic premise, is the fact that concept could work as either a powerful Aaron Sorkin stage play, or as a bombastic Michael Bay production – the set-up is such that either approach is possible with the material. Scott manages to straddle the middle, offering a tense action thriller which isn’t afraid to ask a few probing questions about the nature of the chain of command and the morality of blinding following orders.
At least Michael Bay’s Armageddon is honest with you from the opening moments. A deep and thoughtful voice provides an explanation of how a single hunk of space rock managed to wipe out the dinosaurs, complete with an illustration of that important moment. Now, as a viewer, you are confronted with two options. Your choice will define whether you enjoy the movie, or whether it ends up causing you serious physical pain. Your options are: (a.) sit back and enjoy the fact that Bay opened his movie with a pseudo-science lecture which had the decency to include an explosion with the force of “ten thousand nuclear bombs”; (b.) wonder why, if this scene is set millions of years ago, the continents are all in exactly the same places they are today.
“You haven’t seen Bad Boys II?” a character states in complete disbelief to police man officer Nicolas Angel. I’m fairly sure that Hot Fuzz is consistently clever and entertaining even if you’re never seen a testosterone-laden big-budget explosive action cop movie, but Edgar Wright’s parody/homage is absolutely ingenious to anyone remotely familiar with the concept. At its most basic, the movie asks what would happen if you asked Michael Bay to make a balls-to-the-wall action movie in a small English village. The result might look a little bit like this, but I bet it wouldn’t be half as charming.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is one of those films that you have heard so much about that you feel almost obligated to check out. It’s like a challenge. “It can’t possibly be that bad,” you laugh off criticism from just about everybody you know, “I mean, if it’s that bad, it has to at least be entertaining – you know, in the same way that Ed Wood films are entertaining?” And those people reply in what gradually become pleas, imploring you to just accept that it’s a terrible film and let it go. And yet, it’s like a “do not touch” warning to a small child – it draws you closer, attracts your attention, arouses your curiousity. It couldn’t be that bad.
the m0vie blog 