O.k So I will keep this
brief, mainly because I do not have long to write and also because
brevity has not proved to be my forte so far. Generally though if you
have a problem with that, go back to the manifesto and then piss off
and read the the daily mail website. I hear they use short sentences
without too many syllables. They may even throw in a few racy images
to quicken your pulse. What are you waiting for?
So I am rambling
already. Anyways, going forward my posts about trailers will be
called 'Hugh's Pre-Views'. I will give you a minute to recover from
your mind being blown.
You ready?
Right, I now present to
you (on behalf of Marvel films) Thor: The Dark World
Now what did you make
of that?
I will open myself up
to accusations of bias because I am a boy and somewhat of a geek and
I don't appreciate the subtle wonder of The Hunger Games trailer and
blah blah blah. I can not tell you if Thor 2 will be better than the
Hunger Games 2, but the trailer certainly gives me hope.
This is just as much of
a teaser. It shows you how it will kick in to gear. A catastrophic
blight on London? We are having a rough year. Big sci-fi/fantasy
sequels have it in for us. Just look at G.I Joe 2 and Star Trek 2.
Ouch.
Further to that and the
subsequent arrival and departure of the eponymous hero (with Natalie
Portman in tow on her first trip to Asgard. Meeting the parent? Must
be getting serious!), it tells us almost nothing about the
machinations of the plot, which is fine because it shows so much
despite revealing so little.
You have grand action
on a vast and intimate level. Huge battles and one on one combat.
Malevolent villains in brief reveals. Scowling warrior princess types
with bad intentions. Real world intrigue with human children
demonstrating unusual powers. Fantastical landscapes with limitless
possibilities. Perilous fates teased for characters with presently
unformed destinies. It hints not only at the potential for where the
action could go, but at the film makers clear desire to go there.
And as for the sting at
the end? Well having given arguably the stand out performance in the
highest grossing film of last year, close to all time, Tom
Hiddlestone's Loki has earned his pride of place and will doubtless
have fun holding it. They know what their audience wants and they
look like they will give it to them.
The cinematic entity
that is the marvel movie universe is a discussion unto itself for
another time, and will be coming up very soon with the imminent
release of Iron Man 3 and thus the start of 'phase 2'. Suffice to say
the gargantuan success of The Avengers and the key role that Thor's
protagonist and antagonist played in that could mean big things for
Thor: The Dark World.
After this trailer, I,
for one, am excited.
(That wasn't really
brief was it? I will get there. In time)
Stars: Ryan Gosling,
Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, Rose Byrne
Plot: A travelling
motorcycle stuntman discovers he has a son with an old flame whilst
passing through her town. He decides to stick around to try and be a
father to said child however times being what they are, he resorts to
robbing banks in order to provide support. Drama ensues.
Hugh's View:
If there is a director
you can count to show you bad times in a good way, it is clearly
Derek Cianfrance. After depicting the decline of the relationship
between a husband and wife in graphic detail with Blue Valentine
(2010), he returns to attempt a similar feat between fathers and sons
in The Place Beyond the Pines. The difference this time being the
scale of the drama. Whilst Blue Valentine found the devil in the
detail, showing how the minutiae of everyday married life could
overwhelm the foundations of love, The Place Beyond the Pines goes
epic with a sense of inevitable fatalism driving the characters
towards their downbeat destinies.
Ryan Gosling plays
Luke, the boyishly handsome yet ruggedly manly (anti)hero of the
piece as it kicks off. If you haven't seen the posters it wont be too
hard to picture. He's the kinda guy who, were you to take him home to
meet your mama, she's gonna tell say that boys no good, he's trouble,
you stay away from him. But you won't because you will get lost in
the eyes that tell you there is a heart of gold somewhere beneath the
stormy depths of his soul, all the while ignoring the fact that he
clearly has 'heartbreak' written across his forehead. It is the kind
of character he is becoming synonymous with, and for good reason. He
plays it well.
The problem is, this
film is not about a leading man and the story to be told is not his
alone. What you ostensibly have is a trifecta of connected stories,
detailing the relationships of various fathers and their various
sons. Luke may be the butterfly that makes a big deal out of flapping
his wings in china but this film is just as interested in the
resulting tornado that traverses time and reaps destruction along the
way. The problem is, whilst the concept may be interesting, all
stories are not created equally.
This film simply does
not wear its running time well. The structure being what it is means
you come out knowing full well you have been watching it for all of
the two hours and twenty minutes it has to offer. This is a result of
the pacing which starts out all guns blazing and then switches to
water pistols a third of the way through when Bradley Coopers
character, clean cut police officer Avery, takes the limelight. It is
not so much that he doesn't have an interesting story to tell, it is
more that his story is far more pedestrian. Quite literally. Luke
zooms around on a motorcycle, Avery spends most of his time walking
with a limp. Luke's is a story of actions, Avery's is a story of
consequences.
Like a roller-coaster
that starts off kicks off at a drastic speed throwing you through
loops and turns, it uses the second story to drag you up a slope,
attempting to ratchet up the tension on the way before using all its
gathered momentum to ride you through the final descent of the third
story, staying in the pit of your stomach the whole way. It is not
really possible to say anything about the final act without spoiling
the fun of the build up, suffice to say once you can see where it is
going, it won't be too hard to plot the final course.
Your opinion on this
last segment will likely decide your overall reaction to the film. It
arrives with a sense of blood brothers-esque pre-destination which
you can view as fitting with the established themes of inevitability
and fate, or view as a contrivance that doesn't sit well alongside
gritty, human led drama that has gone before it. I personally respect
the films ambition with the story it tries to tell, however my gut
response ultimately leans towards the latter. Despite any pacing
issues, you do invest in all the characters leading up to this point
and you truly care about their relationships. Whilst this is still
the case towards the end, the contrivance can't help but dilute the
sensation. You also have to question whether the films ending truly
has the strength of its convictions. Obviously I am not going to
discuss that here though. That would mean ruining the ending. What do
you take me for?
Overall Derek
Cianfrance has delivered an intimate epic formed from the misery sewn
by fathers and the sorrow harvested by their sons. Whilst it succeeds
at having you dab the tears from your eyes with one hand, it will
likely have you checking your watch with the other.
See also:
Blue
Valentine. If The Place Beyond the Pines is emotional shotgun blast,
this is a dagger and it knows just where to get you. Hard to
recommend as an 'enjoyable experience, but no less compelling for it.
If not you are about to. Now. And later. And for a long time after.
The Hunger Games are/is back, you can watch the first trailer for Catching Fire below:
Now all cards on the table, I am a fan of the books and a fan of the first film. Neither would likely crack my top ten in either medium but I gained enjoyment out of reading and watching The Hunger Games.
So does this trailer fill me with joy and anticipation? No.
This does not mean I think the film will be awful. O.k so I think it is the weakest of three books, that is not a widely held opinion, but I do hold it. Also, unless you are one of the few significant fans of Constantine, I Am Legend or Water For Elephants, you won't be jumping for joy at the choice of director in Francis Lawrence. He adapted all three films from highly regarded source material and were you to canvas opinion on all them, the summary would likely come out as 'underwhelming at best'.
This is merely speculation though. You can not possibly judge the finished project until it is released. I still want it to be good. I do.
This trailer though? It leaves me wanting more and yet doesn't at the same time.
Obviously the point of a trailer is to get you wanting more. To stoke your intrigue, to tease the possibilities of what is to come, to tantalise your eyebuds with the promise of a rich visual feast you can hardly wait to devour. Hmmm. Maybe I should go eat something.
The point is, this trailer fails to make this happen for me. Naturally there is only so much you can show in what is clearly a teaser trailer and it is not as if they don't already have a devoted fan base locked in for opening night, but when you are kicking off a marketing campaign for something this big which will garner such a high level of coverage, well you want to start with a gasp, not a yawn.
What does it show? The bad guys who were plotting before? Still plotting. The people who were oppressed, dirty and hungry before? Still oppressed, still dirty, definitely still hungry. That unkempt and surly mentor? Still unkempt, still surly. And how about that girl who was a national figure of controversy and a symbol of a slightly muted revolution despite being just a teenage girl torn between the affections of two young men? Well you get my point.
The hunger part is all accounted for, where are the games? You don't have to give away plot, you don't have to reveal character details, just the hint of some kind of inventive action would be enough. Make me believe in seeing this film I will see something I have never seen before. Something I can only get from a Hunger Games film.
Take the action crescendo. The dramatic peak of the trailer. Katniss standing in front of a law enforcer with a gun.
Wow. There should be a laceration warning that comes with this trailer because viewers will be wanting to cut that tension with a knife.
Please don't insult my intelligence and tell me that is a moment I should looking forward to watching. That I should be excited for. My 2 year old nephew could tell you how that will turn out. And I don't even have a 2 year old nephew. I don't have a nephew at all.
Watch this clip. It is from October last year, before any trailers, posters or even plot descriptions were known for the new Star Trek film. With a salivating fan base in waiting, director J.J Abrams went on Conan in the U.S and played a 3 frame clip. 3 frames. It lasted like a milisecond. Nothing. Yet it was more exciting than any moments from The Hunger Games trailer.
Now clearly Abrams set that up as a joke but the lone image he shared promises so much through so little. I know Catching Fire can offer something similarly exciting, if it is even half as faithful an adaptation as the previous instalment then their is wonderment practically guaranteed.
I know plenty of you are just excited to see the characters on screen once more, to hear them talk, to really believe that the film is on its way. I just wish it didn't feel so creatively damp when I just want something to make my imagination, well, catch fire.
Stars: Tom Cruise,
Morgan Freeman, Andrea Riseborough
Plot: A future Earth
has narrowly survived a nuclear war. With aliens. Given the poor
state of earth, most people are living on a giant space station
whilst they siphon off the last of Earths resources. Two humans
remain on Earth to help facilitate this.
Hugh's View:
Before you read this,
watch this clip (its not from the film and not a spoiler, just watch
it trust me)
Right, watched it? Are
you sure? The following won't make as much sense if you don't.
Ok? Right so that clip
is an exact representation of what went right and wrong in Oblivion.
Just the other way round. Because in the clip they say awww when they
should respond with awe. But in this film its awe instead of awww.
You with me?
The thing is, this film
is epic. Like massive epic. Well massive in the sense of America is
massive. And it has massive monuments. And football stadiums are
massive. Especially if you are just a small man standing next to one
or inside one. Like Tom Cruise is. It only just struck me now, I
wonder if his stature is part of why they cast him....
Regardless, this film
shows America (and we are to assume by extension, the rest of the
world) as a desolate, apocalyptic wasteland. Apparently it's correct
to say apocalyptic as opposed to post apocalyptic because the
apocalypse is the end so nothing comes after it. I digress. Tom
Cruise is one of the two humans left alone on this planet and
alongside the love and to an extent leadership of Andrea Riseborough,
doing mankind a favour by performing a spot of diy, reflecting on memories
of an earth he never knew and generally being the good guy.
You see mankind has
fled the planet as they tend to do, after narrowly winning a nuclear
tiff with some aliens that kinda look like Predator by the way of a
Mad Max film. What you see of them that is. They are a scuttling
type. Inevitably upon his time of parading along the planet he
discovers something is amiss and all is not as it seems, they may not
be as alone as they think they are blah blah blah, plot, all that was
in the trailer anyways. You can't say much more then that without
going in to spoiler territory, but you don't really need to. The
first act alone symbolises the heart of the problem, or lack there of
it. You see the thing is, I just didn't care.
Now don't get me wrong,
watching Tom Cruise fly around the earth in his spaceship come
helicopter and then riding around on his stormtrooper chic motorbike,
whilst so many great monuments rise out of a dusty, baron desert
landscape is a spectacle and a winning one at that. I watched this on
IMAX screen (blag blag, whatever, get your own IMAX) and that was the
way to see it. A film that relies this heavily on its vast vistas
needs to be watched on the biggest screen possible. Normally I am
quick to deride a movie that sells itself on having the producer of
another hit film behind it, as if that will somehow make it a
comparably artistic achievement. That said if this is the kind of
staggering yet artistic desolation we can expect from a future earth
in the hands of the producers from Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we
hopefully have a lot to look forward to future entries from that
franchise. Because they are the same people who produced this film. I
hope I made that clear.
The thing is, it has a
beautiful futuristic aesthetic with a very clean and clinical feel,
its just a shame that this extends to the characters too. I don't
blame Tom Cruise. I am not a hater. You are? Stop reading a film
review and go read a gossip rag. Go on. Scram. It doesn't matter if,
in the outside world, someone is a wise man who builds his house upon
stone, a foolish man who builds his house upon sand or a famous man
that builds his house upon a fruit cake, they are an actor, watch
them act in a film, let them convince you and judge them on that.
He is the central
figure though, no matter how you look at it, this film is about his
face and his person. The fact that you recognise him so easily from
everyday life doesn't help you become immersed in his character and
this is a problem. The problem extends beyond this though. The core
of this story is a human one and without one you can really get
behind, the whole things feels hollow and hardly engaging. They go
through a lot of the beats that might normally connect you
emotionally to a character. He dreams of a wife he never knew, he
reflects on football games he never saw, he lovingly embraces his sole
companion as she lovingly waits for him to get home after his earthly
excursions. He even saves a dog for Christ’s sake. He even saves a
dog.
These are emotional
beats though, nothing more and you can tell. It's like someone typed
'relatable and endearing human traits' in to Google and then
displayed the image results. There is a difference between seeing
them and feeling them. The irony of course being that the film this
resembles most is the Disney-Pixar classic Wall-E about a robot left
behind on an abandoned earth to clean up the mess left by humans. It
shares a similar vast and isolated scope but the main protagonist in
that film is a Robot. An almost mute Robot. He can barely talk. But
he emotes more than double what Tom Cruises' character gets across.
And he doesn't have a mouth! No mouth. Come on.
Need I say more:
Wall-E doesn't have a
mouth just to be clear. Not Tom Cruise. He has a mouth. Of course he
does. How can he do his winning smile without it? He doesn't do much
of that in this film though. He is mostly dour. That could have been
included in his initial character description in the screenplay. Tom
Cruise drives, flies and mopes around looking mostly dour. They of
course throw twists and turns in to the mix of course. More reasons
to care, more reasons to worry, more reasons to question, more
reasons to gasp. None of them add up to anything. Some feel like they
are from a completely different film. Bits involving Morgan Freeman.
Even he can't elevate it. (He is in the trailer and on the poster, that is
not a spoiler). The plot keeps you second guessing as much as it can,
you might almost say more then it needs to because the big picture
when it finally comes together feels significantly less than the sum
of its parts, and that's a shame.
It really tries, it
does. Even the soundtrack is saying 'go one, give it a go, dive in,
love these people, care for their aquatic love dancing'. Not
literally. The musical equivalent. Sweeping strings and electronic
beats. They really turn it up to 11. But overall it would work much
better as a music video. The track on the end credits is great, I
would love to watch a video for that featuring epic shots taken from
this film. I just want more if I am watching it for around two hours.
It's not asking much. Awe can only make you appreciate, you need some
'awww' before you care.
This is the ending track by the way. Give it a listen, it may even be enough to convince you to go. Rendering the rest of the review kinda pointless...
You won't be sad you
spent your money to see this on the big screen but you also won't be
sad to leave it behind.
Also watch:
Wall-E.
What do you mean you haven't seen Wall-E? It is a true achievement.
Whilst it shares a similar theme it has less than half the dialogue
of Oblivion, more then double the warmth. Its a classic. Trust me.
There is no hiding it.
In fact if you are reading this you already know it full and well to
be true. I have started a film blog. Again. If you were reading this
without knowing it to be true, now you certainly do. If you are still
confused now may be the time to jump ship. It is only downhill from
here on in.
As introductions go it
is hard to know which questions to be answering in the sense that I
don't know which questions you are asking in the first place. If any.
You tell me. Why ARE
you reading this?
Is it because you like
films? Is it because you like me? Is it because you love the witty
play on words that make up the title? Thanks, I am quite proud of it.
You see it rhymes with my name but it also say its my view like my
opinion but also like my view like its what I viewed. Multi-layered.
Like an onion. A cultural onion. That still makes you cry.
Well regardless to the
reason why you are reading this, it doesn't matter because I am not
writing this for you. I am writing it for me. If I was to write this
for anyone else I would have to write it to their standards. And
their whims. This is about me digesting my visual consumption and
laying my response out for all to see.
I refuse to be a slave
to a whim. In fact that is going to be the first rule of the Hugh's
Views Manifesto. Because I just decided there is going to be a Hugh's
Views Manifesto. I can do that. It is as follows.
Never be a slave
to a whim.
Create things at a
moments notice if you feel like it. Like, for instance, a manifesto.
Never put much
research in to what these things are before you create them. Like,
for instance, a manifesto. Is this a manifesto? I think so.
Write what you
feel like writing, when you feel like writing it.
Never promise
reviews of certain things at certain times.
Feel free to only
go and watch things that you want see unless someone has a good
reason to compel you to do otherwise.
Feel free to offer
views on anything other than films, just because you feel like it.
See above.
Just because
someone doesn't agree with what you say, doesn't make you wrong.
They just don't get it.
Just because
someone doesn't believe what you say doesn't make it false, belief
has no bearing on objective truth.
Feel free to veer
in to largely unconsidered pseudo philosophical nonsense on a
moments notice.
Try not to do it
too much though, it will just come across as pretentious.
When you can't
think of anything to say, feel free to write a bullet point list of
the first things that come to your head. Like when your at school
and doing an exam and you're all like you run out of time to finish the exam when really you just didn't revise enough and then you're like
'I’m just gonna answer in bullet points because its better to get
something down' when really its not and you fail anyway.
You are not
failing if you weren't trying in the first place.
If you were trying
but ending up failing anyway, its perfectly o.k to act you were
never really trying in the first place. And everyone that tries
sucks. Cos trying is for suckers. And jive ass turkeys.
Feel free to use
you own notions of grammar, vocabulary and especially sentence
structure.
Ramble to your
hearts content.
Always follow the
manifesto.
Always feel free
to contradict yourself.
So this is the basic
outlay that I may or may not be sticking to on a regular or irregular
basis. I genuinely will be just rambling off thoughts in a
semi-constrained stream of consciousness at least for the initial
period. Thankfully though I am putting up a review at the same time
as this which, given the nature of blogs, you are likely to have
already read before you get to this so no doubt you will have your
mind already made up.
Just remember, you have
nothing to lose if you choose Hugh's Views.
That is obviously not
true but I like it as a sentiment. It means I am not completely
wasting my time...
