Movie of the Week – Kingdom of Heaven

This week’s movie: Kingdom of Heaven (2005) – Director’s Cut

After being sought out by his estranged father (back from the Crusades) in France, Balian decides to follow his father back to Jerusalem to start a new life (during the 12^th century). When he gets there, he finds the region embroiled in a deadly struggle as Christian and Muslim hostilities put their truce in jeopardy. The only thing holding the peace together is the just King of Jerusalem; however, he is unwell and near death. Balian pledges himself to the defense of the King and the people of Jerusalem, placing him right in the middle of the struggle.

Kingdom of Heaven is maybe director Ridley Scott’s most epic film to date, as its scope and scale are comparable to that of Lawrence of Arabia (a film that seems to have been a big influence). Scott set out to make an epic in the style of old Hollywood classics (complete with a musical overture, intermission and musical entr’acte). Composer Harry Gregson-Williams delivers his career-best score (it is phenomenal). Cinematographer John Mathieson and production designer Arthur Max also do great work.

The film stars Orlando Bloom and has an impressive supporting cast, including: Michael Sheen, David Thewlis, Liam Neeson, Kevin McKidd, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Marton Csokas, Alexander Siddig, Eva Green, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons, Edward Norton, Ghassan Massoud, Ian Glen, and Robert Pugh.

Twentieth Century Fox was skeptical that releasing a film with a runtime over three hours would prove to be financially sound. Thus, they recut Scott’s film to be 144 minutes and released it to mild reviews and domestic box office (grossing just $211 million worldwide against its $130 million production budget, only $47 million domestically). Critics complained that the film felt incomplete and lacking texture. Fox’s cut left the film to play as a blockbuster when the film is really so much more (actually having something of substance to say about religious tolerance). Thankfully, Scott’s director’s cut was released later. The film is restored to its 190 minute runtime with much more depth and historical perspective. It is by no means a perfect film, but as an epic costume drama it plays quite well. It is well-worth checking out for fans of epic films in the classical style.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray

Movie of the Week – Schindler’s List

This week’s movie: Schindler’s List (1993).

The Holocaust drama takes place in Poland during WWII. It is about Oskar Schindler, a German businessman who decides he is going to risk his life to save as many members of his Jewish workforce as possible after witnessing the horrors committed on the Jewish people by the Nazis.

Director Steven Spielberg won an Oscar for his directorial work on the film, and while it was his fourth time being nominated this win (followed by his win five years later for Saving Private Ryan) announced him as Hollywood’s premier director. He was already the king of blockbusters, but now he was also at the top of grand Hollywood style prestige drama as well.

Spielberg worked with his frequent collaborators composer John Williams (whose score is beautiful, capturing the sadness and struggle) and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (though, this was Kaminski’s first time working with Spielberg – they have now made thirteen films together) on the film, both of whom won Oscars as well. He also employed Polish production designer Allan Starski, who did fantastic work (winning an Oscar too – he later worked on Roman Polanski’s The Pianist, returning to the genre).

The film has a great cast as well, headlined by tremendous performances from Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, and Ralph Fiennes.

All together, the film won seven Oscars including Best Picture on twelve nominations. However, what makes the film a classic and one of the best from the 1990s is its humanity, amidst one of the most tragic, heinous, and inhuman periods in history. There have since been many fantastically made films focusing on the time period, but Schindler’s List will remain maybe the most iconic. It is a must-see for fans of Spielberg and excellent period dramas.

Trailer: Here

Available on: DVD

Movie of the Week - Batman Begins

This week’s movie is Batman Begins (2005).

The action-adventure is the first of the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy. It is the origin story of how Bruce Wayne becomes Batman. Written and director by Nolan (with additional writing work from David Goyer), it is the Batman film fans had been waiting for, as Nolan delivers the character in a realistic world with phenomenal performances from a wonderful cast and brilliant narrative and aesthetic filmmaking. The film is Nolan’s fourth (third commercial film), and he again worked with great cinematographer Wally Pfister (who also shot Memento and Insomnia prior) and production designer Nathan Crowley (who worked on Insomnia prior). He also brought editor Lee Smith (who has done every Nolan film since) and composers Hans Zimmer (who is a frequent collaborator since) and James Newton Howard (whose work on The Dark Knight with Zimmer is quite astounding, and changed modern scoring) to his team, a team that has gone on to work on all Nolan’s subsequent films (more or less). His wife and producing partner Emma Thomas and brother and writing partner Jonathan Nolan are also big parts of the Nolan creative team. The cast of the film (as stated above) is amazing: Christian Bale stars, while Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Kate Holmes, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson, Rutger Hauer, and Ken Wantanabe highlight the supporting cast. What makes the movie great is Nolan’s handling of the Batman world. His take on the world is dark (a bit like Tim Burton’s Batman sans all the campy and goofy stuff) and character driven. Along with Spider-Man 2, this film took comic-based films to a new level of quality and expectation. It is a must for genre fans. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and to Rent

Unknown (2011) – Review

Unknown is a lot of fun. While the plot may seem somewhat implausible (as many have stated), it is a thriller with twists and turns designed to entertain, so the story is merely the frame in which to accomplish this goal – and it does. The film is very entertaining, both stemming from the action set pieces and the unraveling mystery, as well as fine performances from the cast (especially lead Liam Neeson and German standouts Diane Kruger and Bruno Ganz). Director Jaume Collet-Serra is able to take full advantage of his locations, in this case being Berlin in winter. The cold and dark nature of the setting mixes well with the narrative for the main character Dr. Martin Harris, a man who is in a sense abandoned. Collet-Serra does do a good job grounding the film in reality, which benefits the narrative greatly as the resolution of the mystery feels a bit manufacture and inorganic (though, I enjoyed the twist quite a bit). However, this feeling (which for some viewers degrades the film) is the result of Collet-Serra leaving only subtle clues, and not the typically glaring (hey look at me) tips in other films, nor did he just pull the revelation out of left field – the clues are there for the observant viewer. While the main character, a man put upon by society and his predicament who is forced to prove himself, is nothing new to Hollywood film, the relationship between Harris (Neeson) and Gina (Kruger) felt fresh – mostly because there was not some forced sexual or love relationship between them. Their working friendship seemed genuine and was really the strongest part of the film, further grounding it, amidst the spies, espionage, action scenes, betrayal, and so. Collet-Serra also infuses the film with a lot of tension, often dragging out moments of panic to engage the audiences’ nerves. It makes the film all the more enjoyable.  However, a knock against the film (and really one against a growing number of Hollywood films it seems) is that the overall plot and idea of the film appeared on the outside at least to be unoriginal (also due to Neeson starring). For viewers that have seen Roman Polanski’s Frantic, part of the film felt a lot like that film, while the other part felt a lot like the more resent Taken (which also starred Neeson). However, the similarities are really only on the surface – the themes of those pieces play into this, but the characters and plot are much different. But, seeing Neeson in an action-thriller immediately takes some viewers to Taken as a comparison (which really is about as good as this – and with a just as implausible plot). Going back to Frantic, Kruger does look a bit like Emmanuelle Seigner and played sort of a similar role (but different too) and the scene in Gina’s apartment also had some noteworthy similarities to a scene from Frantic in Michelle’s apartment. These similarities (or references or homages) again do not detract from this film’s narrative, but do evoke a distracting comparison (for some). Despite this, Unknown is a good action-thriller, which will certainly be enjoyed for fans of the genre.

Technical and acting achievements: Jaume Collet-Serra directs his most ambitious and in my opinion best feature film with Unknown. Coming from a horror background gave him a strong command of the thriller aspect of the film, making it all the better especially in a genre that is often plagued by an overabundance of action and not enough real tension. The score by John Ottman and Alexander Rudd is fitting and emphasizing the tension well, making many a viewer uneasy. Flavio Martinez Labiano’s cinematography is also good, bringing the cold feeling from the location to the visuals – creating the sense of being lost. However, the standout among the technical work is that of production designer Richard Bridgland. His sets are interesting making for impressive visual composition as well as playing off the audience’s visceral experience of the film. I particularly liked his set for the blown-out hotel. The film features good work from its cast. Sebastian Koch did not really have that much to do, but is good in his scenes. Frank Langella, Aidan Quinn and January Jones also deliver strong performances without much character work to do. Bruno Ganz is fantastic and steals all his scenes. Diane Kruger is very good as well – mixing vulnerability with toughness, while not feeling like just another Hollywood romantic interest, but rather a full character. Liam Neeson makes for a good action star. He is tough and stoic, while being able to carry the dramatic work well.

Unknown may seem like just another typical action-thriller similar to others you have seen, but it is much more – feeling original and being very entertaining (and having a compelling twist, that I for once did not figure out before it was revealed, but looking back there certainly were signs). 7/10

Movie of the Week - The Mission

This week’s movie is The Mission (1986).

The drama is about 18^th century Spanish Jesuits who form a mission in a remote part of Brazil. When the Spanish give over control of the land to the Portuguese, who are pro-slavery, the Jesuits must protect the Indian tribe and their mission. The film is directed by Roland Joffe, who also made The Killing Fields and Fat Man and Little Boy – though his last few films have been disappointing. The film has a fantastic cast and crew. It features composer Ennio Morricone, who does some of his best work on this, cinematographer Chris Menges (one of the best) and production designer Stuart Craig (who went on to design all the Harry Potter films). Jeremy Irons and Robert De Niro star (and are both excellent) and Ray McAnally, Aidan Quinn and Liam Neeson co-star. What makes the film great is the beautiful aesthetics and score plus the powerful performances. Joffe made the film to be more atmospheric than plot bound, much like the work of Terrence Malick. The result is a prevailing character piece. It is a must for cinema fans (it won the Cannes Golden Palm) and fans of great cinematography and Morricone. Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray and DVD from Amazon.com and to rent at Netflix.com

The A-Team (2010) – Review

The A-Team is a summer movie – high on outlandish action, full of humor, low on meaningful plot – but hey good summer movies are a lot of fun, and this is a good summer movie. The film succeeds on its characters. For a movie like this to work, the audience has to relate to and ultimately like the protagonists. Here, they do. Each character, while short of depth, has a unique quality and an absolute likability to them, which benefits the film in two ways – first the audience generally likes them and backs them and routes for them and second each viewer will have a favorite, and the film gives each character their moments. The film is unapologetic in its structure. It knows exactly what it is and who it is meant for, and this is a strong attribute to the film. It does have great sequences of action, implausible but wholly enjoyable stunts and feats. There are some dramatic threads in the piece, but they neither predominate nor bog down the film. They are there merely for plot, which is fairly straightforward, but does it need to be anything more? The film also succeeds on its humor. There are a number of very funny moments and lines that offer a good break from and a complimentary aspect to the action. Another aspect to the film that works well is having the characters grounded in reality. While the action and stunts seem to be completely insane and impossible (though these guys are the best of the best and theoretically can do stuff that others cannot, but still some of the stuff is pretty crazy), the characters themselves are grounded and have stock in real life emotions and cares that are relatable. Again, this endears them to the audience and is fundamentally why the film works as well as it does – if the viewers do not care about the characters (much like any movie really) the film would just be silly meaningless action. However, while the film is good for what it wants to be, it does not offer a lot in terms of powerful meaningful drama. The characters are all shallow and their interrelationships are not explored in any kind of depth. Their emotional journeys are fairly cliché, but that works here for this film’s purpose as it allows for the audience to associate with them without much work. Director Joe Carnahan shows here that he can deliver a fun action film that both incorporates some reality and grittiness, while being completely bombastic and extreme (sort of a composite of Narc and Smoking Aces). Carnahan also does a good job with the narrative structure. The film is constantly moving forward – while the intro does seem long, it plays more as a prologue than as part of the film, overall the structure holds tight and keeps the audience engaged. Alan Silvestri’s score is good at times and disappears at others. Charles Wood’s production design is passable, but most of it is shrouded in darkness for many of the scenes, and it is more due to the locations and cinematography that the film looks good than his work. Mauro Fiore’s lighting and camera work is good (not as great as his work on Avatar, but comparable to The Kingdom). He is able to get the most out of the locations and keep the focus of the action and actors. The greatest attribute of the film was its performances and they were good across the board. Jessica Biel and Brian Bloom are good in supporting roles, while Patrick Wilson is great in his part. Quinton Jackson, having probably the most iconic of the roles to live up to, is good in the role and seems to fit it well. Bradley Cooper has a lot of charisma and Liam Neeson is spot on. However, it is Sharlto Copley who steals the show. He is hilarious and kooky (and with just two films under his belt, I cannot wait to see him in lots of stuff to come). Big action, loud effects, funny jokes, and great characters – these are what makes The A-Team work and an entertaining summer movie. 7/10 

Clash of the Titans (2010) – Review

Clash of the Titans is a mess. Not only is it a remake, but from the get-go it seems as if it is trying to be a bunch of other films (action similar to Transformers, comedy and quips like Pirates of the Caribbean and a sort of epic nature like The Lord of the Rings). Yet, the film trying to be all these things, ends up not being any and not really even being that entertaining (which I assume was its main goal). The action was big, the visual effects were big, but all the effects and action in the world will never be enough for a good film (also note that the 3-D in this was an afterthought and is thus pointless and shotty and the film should be seen without it; after Avatar’s 3-D, is there really any point to do 3-D unless you really make an effort; the refashioning of the film last minute for crappy 3-D is just another sign of the film piggybacking on the successes of other films, and failing at every attempt). The story and more importantly the characters need to connect with the audience and make them care, and this film does not do that. By the end, at the emotional peak, the audience is more concerned with pretty much everything else aside from the culmination of the main character’s arch. Be it the fault of a flat performance or a terrible script and writing (probably more the latter), the film just does not bring the audience in, rather it is more like a spectacle to behold, but carries little meaning once the thrill is done. The main problem is with the script by Travis Beacham and the team of Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi. Aside from it seemingly trying the steal narrative and character elements from other films, it makes a mockery of its whole unique story. The character of Io for example seemingly is inserted for the sole reason of delivering exposition (can the audience be trusted to know anything about Greek mythology, or at least be given a chance to learn stuff through the story, nope it all must be spelt out; can the characters discover anything for themselves, nope, again it all must be spelt out). Elements of the story seem odd and self-defeating – Zeus agrees with Hades to spite man, but loves his son who is a man (sort of), but still spites man, but aids his son to foil the spiting of man, but still spites man – it makes no sense. Or, Perseus (the main character) continuously claiming that he will complete his task as a man without the help of the gods, which makes it more difficult and leads to the loss of life, but still it is noble, except he decides only after everyone is dead to take the help of the gods which then seems to state that all the hardship and death leading up to him deciding to give in to his own weakness was pointless. And really that sums up a lot of the movie’s plot – pointless. Even the ending feels phony – Perseus has completed his task and is all alone (in that everyone around him has died due to the quarrelling of the gods and man), which seems like a suitable enough ending and even has a little emotional weight to it, but then the film goes and makes it more happy, but not too happy, but happy enough to, like pretty much the whole film, drain any emotional connection to the characters out of it. At the end of the film, the audience is left with a number of big action pieces, some chuckles, a story that is pointless, and characters that they do not care about. On to the technical side, Louis Leterrier’s direction felt like a step back from his previous work. There were some interesting ideas, but nothing really felt fleshed out. His major failure however was his inability to create an emotion journey for the characters (and so to for the audience). Thus, the viewer is left to merely watch, rather than participate. As stated above, the writing is absolutely atrocious and is the knife in the heart of the film. Martin Laing’s production design was a highlight of the film. His Mount Olympus set for the hall of the gods was fascinating to behold and really by far the best and most interesting aspect of the film. The cast was quite impressive in name, but under utilized and given drivel to work with in practice (why cast Danny Huston or Alexander Siddig if they are only going to be in one medium shot, a few long shots and only have one line each? and I sort of feel bad for Gemma Arterton, as her character got a lot terribleness in this one, the performance Leterrier asked of her was basically to try to say all her exposition in the most epic and serious way possible, which ultimately just made it all super cheesy and wore down the importance of it all). Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson and Alexa Davalos are pretty much the only ones to come out of this unsullied (though Fiennes’ Hades was a bit like his Voldemort, sort of), as their performances are high points. Sam Worthington continues to be adequate at best. Overall the film was just a waste of a talented bunch of actors and the opportunity to make a fun entertaining film with some meaning – which this is not on all accounts. 5/10