Kung Fu Panda 2

Kung Fu Panda 2

Year:  2011

Director: Jennifer Yuh

Cast: Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Gary Oldman, Seth Rogan, Lucy Liu

In My Own Words

                Actors must love animation roles. Sure, the obvious reason for loving them is that it provides an easier alternative to their usual on screen acting by only have to act using your voice rather than having to link it up with believable facial expressions and having to worry about where you are standing in relation to your co-stars. The reason I think animation roles are great for actors is because it gives them a great comeback when critics say “(insert name here) plays the same role all the time” and “ Such and Such isn’t a very versatile actor”. What a great way to prove them wrong! Provide the voice for an animated animal on the big screen! That will always provide a “different” role for you on the big screen!

                For example, Jack Black. Someone says “Jack, you are playing too many of the same roles. You always seem to be playing the guy who no one, including themselves takes seriously. You need to branch out to other roles”.

                Black says “Okay. Well, my next role will be about another underdog who no one takes seriously, but this time I will be a….PANDA!” (this isn’t actually a quote from Mr Black, this is just theoretical).

                I’m sure it’s not the versatility that critics are after, but at least it is fun for the actors, and it is a good comeback if someone says you play the same role all the time. “Oh yeah? I play the same role all the time? Well, when was the last time I played an aardvark? When have any of my roles resembled that of a big nosed creature on it four legs obsessed with eating ants?”

                These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

                “The sequel is never as good as the original”.

                This is most probably what the majority of people would have been thinking about Kung Fu Panda 2, and they would have had good reason to as it is not often that a sequel comes anywhere near the quality of the original (The Godfather II  a major exception). However, it is a pleasant surprise to find that Kung Fu Panda 2 is just as good as the original, if not better. The animation is brilliant, script funny and it appeals to all ages.

                Po the Dragon Warrior panda (Jack Black) is back with his Furious Five team of kung fu warriors. When he finds out that the famous warrior, Thundering Rhino has been killed in Gongmen City  by the evil peacock, Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) and his pack of wolves, he and the Furious Five set off to free the city from Lord Shen’s evil ways. Before leaving the Valley of Peace, Po was a “shocking” discovery that he is adopted and that his noodle cooking goose (he is actually a goose, not a silly person, although some may object) father, Mr Ping is not really his father. Po has reason to believe that Lord Shen knows who he really is and where he came from. To Po, this awesome mission is now personal.

                Animation in cinema has come a long way since the first animated feature length film, Snow White And The Seven Dwarves in 1937. The quality of the visuals in Kung Fu Panda 2 are very impressive. The action scenes are almost up to the standard of those which you would see in a non-animated action film. It’s not just the action scenes that make you forget that you are watching an animation, there are several nature visuals which you could easily mistake as being that of photography.

 On the other hand, there are then some scenes which resemble a video game, such as when Po is running through the streets of Gongmen City. This isn’t a bad thing, as this video game likeness makes the film a great deal of fun.

                Kung Fu Panda 2 doesn’t just rely on its visuals, it is also accompanied by a very funny script. It has a very sarcastic and random sense of humour to it with some very funny scenes and dialogue. The ending is a bit frustrating however. Although, you can understand why the film makers made it that way.

                The best performances in animation films are those who can disguise their voice to the point where you really can’t guess who’s voice it is you are hearing. Jack Black is the main voice and you can tell he has a lot of fun with the role. It is perfectly suited towards Po. Angelina Jolie is extremely controlled as Tigress and Dustin Hoffman, quite the peaceful master. It is Gary Oldman who does the best job. He tackles new territory as the voice of Shen and is completely disguised in the character. That’s the way it should be when an actor supplies their voice to a film, there should be a sense of becoming someone you’re not, even if it is just by using a different voice to your own.

                Kung Fu Panda 2 is a sequel out of the ordinary. Funnier than the first film and more suspenseful than many non-animated films. A great film for the holidays for families and adults alike.

7/10

Red Riding Hood

Red Riding Hood
Year: 2011
Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Gary Oldman, Billy Burke, Shiloh Fernandez, Max Irons

In My Own Words
Oh boy, I really wanted to like this movie. I love the idea of a dark take on a fairytale. There hasn't really been that many since "The Brothers Grimm" starring Matt Damon and Heath Ledger back in 2005. To tell you the truth, I don't know if there is any other way to do make a fairy tale into a movie these days than to do a dark take on it. Of course, to make a fairytale worth watching these days it needs to be somewhat different to the version we have heard hundreds of times since we were children. There are two such dark fairytale adaptations coming up in the future. "Sleeping Beauty" has been redone once again with Emily Browning in the lead and is set for release this year. However, this film won't be one you'll be wanting to take your children to see. In this remake, a university student find herself caught up in prostitution and other naughty activities. The other dark fairytale which is currently in pre-production is "The Brothers Grimm" Snow White", which is already gaining a tremendous amount of interest with it's recent casting news. Julia Roberts is to play the Evil Queen, Saoirse Ronan  is cast as Snow White and Armie Hammer of "The Social Network" fame is to play the Prince.

It almost seems almost as though the only people who can get away with making a traditional fairytale into a movie and doing it successfully is Disney, but even they don't do it as much these days as what they used to. They released "The Princess And The Frog" and "Tangled"  in two consecutive years, but upon release of "Tangled" they released a statement saying that they would be making no more princess movie.

Everybody loves a fairytale, whether in traditional style or with a twist. A twist creates a lot more interest these days though and doesn't seem to hurt at the box office as "Red Riding Hood" has shown. As we all know though, box office figures don't always point to a good film.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
Catherine Hardwicke knows she struck gold when she directed the first and best so far of the "Twilight" saga. After a three year break from feature film directing, she returns with "Red Riding Hood". The film's release was greatly anticipated, but the release fails to live up to expectations. "Red Riding Hood" is a classic example of how directors have a success and feel that they have to continue their success by trying to replicate their first success. The result is a film which seems like it is just trying too hard and is overdone in everyway. However, there is still something entertaining and suprising enough in the film to make it bearable. Amanda Seyfried is Valerie (Red Riding Hood), the small medival village girl who is betrothed to Henry (Max Irons) and in love with Peter (Shiloh Fernandez). Her village has a truce with a wolf who live in close proximately to her and her family, until the wolf strikes again after many years and kills Valerie's sister. The whole village is now in danger and the wolf specifically has it's eye on Valerie.

The main reason why "Red Riding Hood" fails is because it is trying so hard to be a dramatic historical horror film. It doesn't qualify as a horror film despite how dark the film tries to be because while being suspenseful, it really isn't that scary. The image of the wolf really isn't as threatening as one would expect it to be. The wolves in "Twilight" were scarier than this one! The film is suspenseful and actually succeeds more in being a thriller or a mystery as the ending is quite surprising. This is the best thing about the film and a film where you don't see the ending coming is more often than not a success. This film is a success in suspense and storyline, but weak in everything surrounding it. The cinematography and the way which the landscape is captured is really quite beautiful, although some scenes in the snowy village are quite clearly inside a set. The script is quite well written, but the way it is carried out on screen and directed is horrible.

The acting and chemistry between the actors is really quite atrocious. Amanda Seyfried isn't bad as Valerie and she was a good choice for the role. The character of Valerie is quite a dark character, never cracking a smile and extremely serious. She doesn't show too much emotion throughout the film, which she probably should have done more of in certain scenes. The chemistry between Seyfried and Shiloh Fernandez is really poor. These two have no connection with each other at all even in the most intense of scenes and physically do not look right together on screen. Fernandez's performance is also not anything to write home about. He was a horrible choice for the role and one might think that he was cast as the role of Peter just because his looks somewhat resemble that of the black wolf. Max Irons is nowhere near as bad as Henry showing the right amount of emotion at the right moments in the film. Gary Oldman probably gives the best performance in the film as Father Soloman, even though it is far from his best role. Again, the chemistry between Seyfried and Virginia Madsen who plays her mother, Billy Burke who plays her father and Julie Christie who plays her grandmother is almost non-existant in each case.

Looking back at "Red Riding Hood", it is so easy to see why there has been so many comparisons to "Twilight". The wolves, a girl with two boys after her and Billy Burke once again playing the lead character's father. The film isn't bad enough to miss altogether, but it is more worthwhile borrowing it on DVD when it comes out rather than make the trip to cinemas to see it on the big screen.
4.5/10

The Book Of Eli

The Book Of Eli
Year: 2010
Director: Albert and Allen Hughes
Cast: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, Mila Kunis

In My Own Words
I wish this movie was adapted from a novel. Well, there is a novel called “The Book Of Eli” by Sam Moffie, but it bears no similarity to the film. The reason I wish there was a book of this film is because all my questions could be answered. Very rarely do I get completely confused by a film, especially a film like this. If I was confused by a David Lynch movie, another story, but a film like this shouldn’t be so hard to figure out. At first I thought it may just be me, but after I asked my movie companion the same questions I was asking myself and he couldn’t answer them either, I was satisfied that it wasn’t just me. I do really wish that this movie was based on a book so that I could read the book and completely understand what I had just seen. If this movie was a book, I could imagine the book being really quite good, as it had the potential to be a good film based on the story and a book can express things in more words (funnily enough). Instead, I will have to guess the answers to my questions or I may be able to one day interview the Hughes brothers and writer Gary Whitta, and question them myself. For example, why do people ask Eli to show them his hands and who does this distinguish him from? I would love to put more of my questions here, but I don’t want to spoil any of the movie for people who are planning to see it!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“The Book of Eli” is a film that had the potential to be very good, but is not very well scripted. The huge problem with this film is that there are not nearly enough explanations offered as to why things are the way they are and therefore seems incomplete and not nearly as tense or suspenseful as directors, the Hughes brothers would want it to be. In the future, the human race has taken a huge step backwards as a result of the war making things such as food, water, education, shelter and power scarce. Eli (Denzel Washington) is on a lone traveller making his way across the land with a sacred book which is considered to be a weapon. When he arrives in a civilised town, he comes in contact with Carnegie (Gary Oldman), who is delighted to meet someone from before the “Flash” who remembers what life used to be like. He becomes obsessed with Eli when he realises that Eli is carrying the book which Carnegie has been so vigorously searching for. Eli tries to escape Carnegie’s town so to keep on his path of taking the book westward.

The good thing about this film is that in theory, it is a very good idea for a film. Unfortunately, it does not execute this idea to its full potential. It is very slow to get going as it is not until the 40th minute that the film actually offers any explanation as to what is going on. Even then, it doesn’t at one moment feel as though it hits the level of suspense that one would expect it too. The film has plenty of action and drama in it, but it feels slow and dull. Although the story itself is very interesting, it definitely feels as though the film’s writer takes his time to tell it and even then has problems trying to tell it. In hindsight, it is not an easy story to tell on screen, but it should have at least had more background so that the audience felt more comfortable in their understanding of what was going on. Possibly the idea of explaining what has happened to society as we know it gradually through the film may have been what the film makers were planning to do, but it does not work.

There are some good points about the film. For one, the cinematography is very good. The action sequences are very well filmed and edited. There are different filming styles used throughout the film which do actually make it visually pleasurable to watch. The musical score is also very fitting. It is not Denzel Washington’s best performance, but it is not a bad performance. The character of Eli is not a very complicated one to play, suggesting that this is one of the easier roles that Washington has played. Gary Oldman, on the other hand, is very good as the bad guy, Carnegie. He shows a ton of emotion in bringing this character to life and is the one that the audience will connect with the most.

The story is the foundation of any film, and if the story is weak for any reason, there is no chance that a successful film will come of it. “The Book OF Eli” succeeds visually, but this is about that only area that it does succeed in. Not a strong film by any means and will most likely be forgotten in the near future.
4.5/10

A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol
Year: 2009
Director: Robert Zemekis
Cast: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Robyn Wright-Penn

My Own Words
Welcome to Christmas! That’s what I saw this movie as representing. The start of the Christmas media season. I’m actually surprised it wasn’t released at the beginning of December rather than the beginning of November.

Anyway, I was very excited about seeing this movie. I love the story of “A Christmas Carol”, although, sadly, I have never read the book. I really should get around to that one day. There have been over 35 films based on Charles Dickens novel. However, I have only seen two of them. Those being “Mickey’s Christmas Carol” and “The Muppets Christmas Carol”, both of which I love. This version which I saw tonight, was a very different interpretation. In saying that though, I did really enjoy it and thought it was a great movie.

The one thing I have to say about this movie and is a bit of a warning to parents out there or people who were contemplating taking children to see this, it is not as child friendly as it appears. There are some pretty frightening parts in it for children. One of my friends took her three year old to see it the other day and as she was buying the tickets, the attendant told her that if the movie gets too scary for Bailey, feel free to bring him back out and she will refund her money. Apparently this had been the case with quite a few small children. But little Bailey soldiered on. He apparently got scared in a few bits, but was happy to stay until the end. In other words, “A Christmas Carol” is more of an adult animation. There were even bits I thought were a bit too full on!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
The latest interpretation of Charles Dicken’s masterpiece, “A Christmas Carol” comes at the hand of Robert Zemekis. The new, animated version of the timeless classic is beautifully made and is an extremely unique interpretation that still remains true to the original story. It exhibits how much computer generated animation can now achieve and is truly impressive.

For those that don’t know the story, Ebenezer Scrooge( Jim Carrey) lives a lonely life consumed by his wealth and greed. On Christmas Eve, he is visited by his past and long dead business partner who informs him that tonight he will be visited by three ghosts, the Ghost of Christmas Past, the Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmases Yet To Come. This version is quite dark and at times, can be disturbing. Although it is by the Disney company and looks harmless enough, it is definitely not a children’s movie. There are several images that would not seem out of place in a horror movie in terms of their fright factor, especially those of Jacob Marley.

However, the images, gruesome or not in some parts, are amazing. This film is definitely a credit to Zemekis and his direction. It is clearly obvious on screen who Jim Carrey is, as well as Gary Oldman in his portrayal of Bob Cratchit and Colin Firth as Scrooge’s nephew, Fred. Carrey’s Scrooge is extremely well constructed as it shows his sadistic and pessimistic nature right down to the tiniest detail, and the changes throughout the movie to the character are well portrayed. Even though it is animation, it is still very easy to pickup on Carrey’s mannerisms and facial expressions. Credit must be paid to him for portraying an old man so successfully, even if it is in animation!

The only criticism with “A Christmas Carol” is that it can feel in some sequences that Zemekis is trying to show off the amazing things that animation is able to do these days. This can lead to some sequences being longer than they have to be. However, in saying this, these sequences are still beautiful and it is indeed amazing what animation of this kind can do nowadays. Otherwise, it is extremely hard to find another criticism for this movie. It is a movie that everyone should see before Christmas and is likely to get you in the Christmas spirit. Just don’t expect it to be light and fluffy because it is clearly not a happy Christmas movie for the majority of the film. The film is dark, but it is still incredibly beautiful and a great version of a classic using modern technology.

8.5/10