This Week: Jack, James and Ben discuss Steve McQueen's 'Shame', Ralph Fiennes' 'Coriolanus', Dead Space 2, and various Steam indie games in 'What You've Been Playing and Seeing'. Then give their opinions on the Oscar nominations for 2012, moving onto the debate over 'Used' or 'Pre-owned' games. Are they damaging the Gaming Industry? Is there an alternative option?
Coriolanus Review
Email: respawningcouch@gmail.com
A blog devoted to films and cinema. It's also the "home" of RespawningCouch Podcast.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Coriolanus Review
Coriolanus
Recently nominated for a BAFTA, Ralph Fiennes’s directorial debut comes in the form of Coriolanus, a modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s classic tragedy. Fiennes has had a strong and substantial stage career surrounding Shakespeare’s numerous works, so there was no doubt over his performance. However the choice to adapt Coriolanus as his first directing role is an interesting and brave one. The play itself isn’t the most recognisable work and with a growing reluctance for many to indulge in cultured cinema, its 16th position on the weekend’s Box Office was inevitable. Nevertheless, Fiennes’ first attempt is one that is compelling and filled with emotional dexterity and vigour.
Set in ‘Rome’, the film follows the growing war between the Romans and the Volscian forces. Rome’s populous has become more aggressive towards Caius Martius Coriolanus’ (Ralph Fiennes), an accomplished, humourless general, political accession. Party opposition gains the support of ‘the people’, and mobilises against Caius culminating in his downfall and banishment from Rome. Vengeful, he forms an alliance with Volscian’s leader Aufidius (Gerard Butler), and orchestrates an invasion on the capital. Shakespeare’s tragedy is a relatively straightforward and engaging tale, never straying too far from the usual tropes of his work. Fiennes changes the period and the ‘costume design’, but keeps the narrative largely the same where it’s themes of social frustration and instability feel topical. Meanwhile, the ‘swords and sandals’ Siege of Corioles is substituted for visceral, modern shoot-outs that manage to settle nicely into the political drama. The script itself keeps the dynamic and sometimes cryptic language of the original source material. While initially feeling out-of-place in the modern context, the interchanges soon become natural and coherent.
The film’s cast is one with incredible prowess, both experienced and young. Fiennes’ own performance is phenomenally intense and powerful. From his fierce exclamations to subtle hints of emotional fragility, his stern man of valour is one filled with rage, an emotion he excels at portraying. Equally impressive is Vanessa Redgrave’s portrayal of the autocratic mother, Volumnia. Dressed in military uniform, she delivers her lines passionately and with conviction, culminating a breathtaking scene in the final act. Brian Cox, Jessica Chastain, and James Nesbit also offer a fantastic supporting cast that manages to leave a lasting impression even with Redgrave’s and Fiennes’ substantial presence. Gerard Butler even manages to provide a memorable performance as the bearded, muscular leader of the tribal Volscians.
The Hurt Locker and United 93’s cinematographer Barry Ackroyd captures the film’s tense drama and action. From the battle scenes to the numerous confrontations, Ackroyd creates a sophisticated picture. However the use of handheld cameras in certain scenes destroys the poignancy and atmosphere, and a problem with camera focus definitely becomes all too noticeable. Meanwhile the sound design is good, while the soundtrack unfortunately never makes itself apparent.
Overall Coriolanus is a fierce and well-executed adaptation of one of the ‘lesser’ known Shakespearean works. It’s clear that Coriolanus doesn’t strive to be an grand epic, but rather constrains itself to its ‘ordinary’ locations and rightly focuses on the torment and emotional complexities of each character. And it does that spectacularly. Great performances, engaging story and a sophisticated look, Ralph Fiennes’ debut is a fantastic start to his directing career.
8/10
Sunday, 22 January 2012
RespawningCouch Podcast: Episode 10: Most Anticipated of 2012
This week: Jack, James and Ben discuss Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Real Steel and Bioshock in 'What You've Been Playing and What You've Seen'. Then talk about their 'Most Anticipated Games and Films of 2012: Mass Effect 3, the new Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite and Max Payne, as well as The Dark Knight Rises and other film releases.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes Review
Rise of the Planet of the Apes Review
Saturday, 21 January 2012
Rise of the Planet of the Apes Review
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Released last year, Rise of the Planet of the Apes did phenomenally well at the Box Office and gained positive critical appraisal. The long standing and iconic franchise has never managed to truly build on the original Planet of the Apes back in 1968. The last instalment was Tim Burton’s dreadful 2001 remake that pretty much ‘killed‘ the series. However 20th Century Fox obviously saw the financial potential for another after Burton’s film grossed in $362,211,740, and thus green-lit a ‘reboot’. Relative new-comer Rupert Wyatt was given the $98 million project, and for the most part does fairly well. The end result is a genuinely entertaining blockbuster that ticks most of the action film boxes.
The film’s plot follows Caesar (Andy Serkis), a highly intelligent and increasingly human-like chimpanzee as a result of an experimental drug. After the project is shutdown, Will Rodman (James Franco), the drug’s creator, raises Caesar with the help of his ill father (John Lithgow) and girlfriend (Freida Pinto). However Caesar’s growing uncontrollable emotional complexity sees him imprisoned in an ape sanctuary. Harsh treatment by his captivators results in his search for justice and the start of a rebellion against the human-race. Essentially a prequel to the franchise, Rise of the Planet of the Apes’s story is riddled with plot-holes, but remains a straightforward affair. Never delving into twists or narrative complexities, Caesar’s ‘origin story’ is an engaging and interesting one. However, the film’s conclusion is annoyingly underwhelming and its attempt to build a romance between Franco and Pinto fails miserably and is unnecessary.
Andy Serkis’ performance as Caesar is by far the best asset of the film. The sheer effort and execution of Caesar’s character is fantastic. Posture, facial expressions and the growing humanisation are perfectly captured throughout the course of the film. Meanwhile James Franco performance is competent, never needing to truly test his acting capabilities, and John Lithgow is great as the father. However Freido Pinto’s character is pointless, while David Oyelowo and Tom Felton play the epitomes of the greedy ‘business man’ and an insolent ‘prison guard’. Cinematography-wise, the film never stretches beyond the typical camera-work and lighting associated with action films. However where Rise of the Planet of the Apes truly shines is in its special effects. A BAFTA nomination and a highly probable Oscar one, are justified by the use of CGI on the primates. Outstanding motion-capture and facial-capture are amazingly complex and realistic even during sustained, zoomed shots.
Overall, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a surprising enjoyable action film. Andy Serkis performance is fantastic, and the story is pretty entertaining. However it feels slightly light on the action front, and builds to a less-than-impressive conclusion .
7/10
Friday, 20 January 2012
Sunday, 15 January 2012
The Thing (2011) Review
The Thing 2011
(Originally written for Impact Magazine: 5/12/11)
John Carpenter’s 1982 remake of the 1951 classic The Thing From Another World, is one of the best adaptations and remakes of all time. And it’s a personal favourite of mine. Originally based on John W. Campbell’s 1938 novella Who Goes There? the film followed an American Antarctic research team who struggle against an alien parasitical organism, that perfectly replicates lifeforms. With the modern trope of regurgitating sequels, reboots and remakes, it was inevitable that the ‘cult classic’ would fall victim to modern cinema’s latest phase. Unfortunately, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr’s version fails to distinguish itself between being a genuine sci-fi horror film, a prequel or simply trying to recreate Carpenter’s cinematic opus.
The prequel follows the events that transpired in the Norwegian research facility, which was briefly explored in Carpenter’s film. Set in 1982, palaeontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is recruited by Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) to join a team of Norwegian scientists in Antarctica. They have discovered an alien spacecraft and the frozen corpse of a creature that crashed there 100,000 years ago. After excavating the body, they soon realise that the life form isn’t here to make friends. It is hard to ignore the fact that Heijningen Jr’s The Thing has an uncanny resemblance, structurally and narratively, to Carpenter’s version. We’re introduced to the setting, the characters, the ‘Thing’ makes an appearance, hell breaks lose and people start getting killed off. His and screenwriter Eric Heisserer’s clear intensions were to create a ‘remake’ in a similar style to the ’82 version within the confinements of a ‘prequel’ story. However their unequivocal and flawed attempts to mimic the predecessor become the film’s major downfall.
Bogged down in trying to replicate the styling and visual demeanour of Carpenter’s work, it soon becomes apparent that the same care and attention weren’t devoted to the screenplay. An overzealous nature to show every death scene and the constant exhibition of the ‘thing’ itself, completely removes the psychological element that the ‘assimilating alien’ concept allows for. The sense of mystery and paranoia amongst these characters is never a continuous notion that descends into the ‘cabin fever’ madness that Carpenter perfected. Individual scenes attempt to recreate those memorable experiences, but don’t have the same visceral impact and substance to successfully accomplish the same significance. The film’s ‘horror’ element therefore and unsurprisingly boils down to jump scares and predictable revelations, culminating in a horrendous third act.
The lack of character development, in particular, is a major missed opportunity with The Thing.We’re introduced to lead characters far too quickly and never have sufficient time to build an attachment to them. Thus, their imminent deaths become far less shocking, which has become a frustrating failure of most modern horror films. While the acting isn’t memorable, its competent and believable. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does well with Heisserer’s lukewarm script, providing a realistic and understandable protagonist who avoids turning into a typical action-hero. Meanwhile, Joel Edgerton and Adewale Akinnuouye-Agbaje are unarguably rehashes of Kurt Russell’s and Keith David’s characters from Carpenter’s film and while pale in comparison, they offer humour and charm to the proceedings. The Norwegian cast members adds believability and realism to the narrative with Jørgen Langhelle character Lars, bringing much needed madness and intensity.
The cinematography and sound design are top notch. The extensive set design conveys the claustrophobic nature and drab interiors of the research base, while the long establishing shots emphasise the remote and hostile surroundings. Marco Beltrami’s soundtrack manages to capture the chilling tone of Ennio Morricone’s original score and the iconic synthesised repetition, whilst adding his own mixture of sharp and flowing notes. The gory depictions of the ‘thing’ sound fantastic, however the same can’t be said about the visuals. Heijningen Jr’s employment of CGI in order to realise the creature’s transformations and assimilations, while inventive, don’t have the same awe-inspiring impact as Rob Bottin’s effects in the ’82 version. Prosthetics and practical effects are used, but the constant CGI showcase of the creature quickly takes away any suspense and anticipation, and looks more ridiculous than genuinely terrifying.
As a sci-fi horror film, Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. efforts fail to scare and shock, nor does he bring anything original to the genre. While it’s an entertaining and competently acted romp, its predictable nature and failure to evolve from the basic genre elements, result in a shallow experience. But as a prequel to John Carpenter’s film, it tries too hard to follow in the footsteps of the 1982 version. Numerous references, the soundtrack, the narrative structure will undoubtably and momentarily satisfy fans. But plot-holes and a disregard for the principle concepts and themes of its predecessor create further criticism towards its purpose and existence. Go watch Carpenter’s version.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)