Tag Archives: blockbuster

Mad Max: Fury Road {Film Review}

Posted on by

At one point, I was a little worried about this particular movie. Not only is it another entry of Mad Max, not only has it been 30 years since the last one but also being written, produced and directed by George Miller. If we learned anything, directors returning to movie series that put them on the map in the first place usually end up with underwhelming results (George Lucas with Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Steven Spielberg with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Ridley Scott with Prometheus). Remember how the trailers would look spectacular and too good to be true but eventually being huge letdowns? However, that trend has now been broken because George Miller has made an insane action masterpiece!

The movie is a reboot of the series, with Tom Hardy replacing Mel Gibson as our troubled hero Max Rockatansky. Rather than start from the very beginning in typical reboot fashion, it already establishes Max’s wife and child were killed and he’s been surviving this mad_max_fury_road_ver13_xlgchaotic post-apocalyptic world. He gets captured early on by the War Boys, a pale skinned gang led by Immorton Joe (played by only returning Mad Max cast member, Hugh Keays-Byrne). He is in charge of a kingdom known as the Citadel, as he controls the people and major water supply. Though Furiosa (Charlize Theron) has her own agenda; taking Joe’s five brides away and taking them to the green place. This results Joe giving chase and Max (and the audience) along with the wild ride. That’s pretty much it from there; a roller-coaster ride that barely slows down. The world of Fury Road is wildly creative with the production and costume design. It all feels Max has been transported to Dante’s Inferno, as there’s even an intense escape sequence before the main title shows up. Miller never gives any exposition to who or what is going on on-screen.

Tom Hardy is a great replacement, bringing the Max we all have grown familiar but also bringing his own interpretation that doesn’t result being an imitation. He’s almost like a wild animal, just making his way through and looking out for himself. Though even he is not so far from being insane as everyone else. He often has hallucinations of his family, mostly from a little girl. Keays-Byrne is impressively threatening as Immorton Joe. Fuelled by pursuing his belongings as if he’d lose everything (including his sanity) if they ever get far from his grasp. The inventive ventilator collar adds to his bonkers costume design, including a see-through body armour. Though the ones who steal the spot-light are the women, including Theron’s Furiosa. They are far from the damsels in distress or completely written as being illogical (I’m looking at you Anastasia Steele and Bella Swan!) It’s also saying something that most of the women in this movie are the sane ones. The brides may not be warriors but they will do the damn hardest to actually do something to prevent from anything bad happening. Everyone is aiming for something, whether it’s simply to survive, gain back something or even head somewhere better. Even Nux (Nicholas Hoult) is given a bit of an arc, something he slowly but eventually realises his full potential. The movie may be an action movie on its surface but it has a bit of humanity in its core and also heart on its sleeve.

As said before, the movie is completely bonkers but it is beautifully bat-shit insane! It’s one of those situations where I would describe something from the film and it will give you an idea what kind of ride you’ll be going on. For example; there’s one character where he wears a red onsie but is standing on a bunch of towering sound-speakers and plays an electric guitar. . . . that also acts as a flamethrower. Even character names will also give you an idea what you’re walking into, such as The People Eater and The Bullet Farmer. John Seale even came out of retirement to help shoot this movie. His experience on shooting in desert settings in The English Patient may have been useful but he brings it to a whole new level. The action sequences are easy to follow but shot in a way that’s more intense and satisfying to watch than any action movie nowadays. You actually get worried when our heroes are close to death’s door (unlike Fast & Furious series where lead characters can survive anything, even ramming to an oncoming car).

Overall: 30 years waiting for the return of Mad Max and it was worth it! George Miller finally unleashes his crazy vision and never holds back. The cast is excellent and the action is breath-taking! Easily one of the best movies of the year and going to be hard to top this from being movie of the summer. J.J. Abrams, don’t let us down with The Force Awakens!

5 out of 5!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 {Film Review}

Posted on by

* WARNING! Does contain spoilers *

It has been exactly ten years since Sam Raimi released the first sequel to his 2002 hit, Spider-Man 2. I remember the movie being incredibly fun but also can see and feel the passion behind it. Now it is Marc Webb’s turn with his The Amazing Spider-Man series that we got our first glimpse in 2012 (which resulted to mixed reactions).

 

Andrew Garfield returns as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, continuing his duty help New York City being crime free. While also struggling to keep a promise from Gwen Stacy’s (Emma Stone) father to stay from harm’s way. It’s nice to see him doing more than catching thieves, like stopping a bunch of bullies and walking bullied kid back home. The chemistry between Garfield and Stone are cute and affectionate but all feel contrived to have Peter have another conflict on his plate. The scenes between Peter and Aunt May (Sally Field) are humorous to some level but, again, all feel superfluous (I mean, she seriously can’t tell there isn’t anything going on with Peter from having a dirty face and having the excuse “I was cleaning the chimney”, she catches that by saying “we don’t have a chimney” and he acts flabbergasted?) Star Trek and Transformers writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci were brought in to redraft the script, thus does comes across the movie having way too many cooks. The movie is unfocused with what it really should be and that’s giving a different take of the story but it is more interested on what it is setting up (i.e. the Sinister Six for the most part). More evidence the movie was unfocused was when they shot scenes with Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane Watson but cut them out as they felt it was overstuffed (definitely can tell when watching the final cut).

 

amazing_spiderman_two_ver11_xlg

The villains in this movie is quite embarrassing, trying to give dramatic weight but it all comes flat. Max Dillon / Electro (Jamie Foxx) is basically another fan of the main protagonist but feels betrayed and becomes the villain (similar to Batman Forever and Iron Man 3). Paul Giamatti as Aleksei Sytsevich (though everyone will just remember him as The Rhino) is wasted as he just shouts his lines in a hammy Russian accent and only becomes his alter-ego in the last 5-10 minutes of the movies. Dane De Haan as Harry Osborn is a character that would’ve been beneficial if introduced in the previous movie but felt forced into the movie as if he was put in at the last second (like Venom in Spider-Man 3). Having both Peter and Harry talk about their backstory on their childhood memories all felt forced and empty. All these villains have one purpose; world building and setting up for Sony’s planned sequels and spin-offs. That may be all well and good but doesn’t give us time to care about the story and characters if they’re not fully developed enough. Also Martin Csokas as Dr. Ashley Kafka seemed he came out from auditioning as titular character in Dr. Strangelove but needed a moustache to twirl as he was comically villainous (both Giamatti and Csokas really do feel out of place from its grounded setting and tone).

 

The action sequences are well choreographed and probably the best Spider-Man swinging sequences since Spider-Man 2. The Green Goblin character in particular may have made Dane DeHaan look creepy but the design looked lazy and plain compared the look in the comic books. Electro was probably the most interesting looking villain in the series, which I give credit to the visual effects team at Sony Imageworks. Hans Zimmer scores another comic book blockbuster and it is relatively creative (the idea of using dubstep style music for Electro felt cringe-worthy but it fitted the character). Though one particular set-piece that had similar affect in Spider-Man 3 was Spider-Man and Green Goblin fight and felt it wasn’t given a lot of thought. The only reason this was included so we would have the famous Gwen Stacy death scene that Spider-Man/comic book fans are very familiar with. It comes off the filmmakers felt they were obligated to include this scene (same way audiences would expect Breaking the Bat scene in The Dark Knight Rises). It should’ve come across being shocking but it was predictable and makes this emotional scene fail on all aspects.

 

Overall; this movie is just a product so Sony can keep the rights to Spider-Man rather than revert it back to Marvel. The leads may be charismatic and production value is all there but the movie feels empty underneath its shiny surface (not since Iron Man 2).

 

2 out of 5

Iron Man 3 {Film Review}

Posted on by

This movie couldn’t have any more weight on its shoulders. Not only would it start of blockbuster season of 2013 but will have to follow from The Avengers. That’s a huge task to tackle but Marvel hired Shane Black, writer/director of action films such as Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout and his directorial debut Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Black seems more of a natural filmmaker than Jon Favreau (if you have seen Bang Bang, you will know that Black and Downey Jr. are a match made perfect). This film is essentially what you’d expect from an Iron Man movie and that entirely depends whether you see it as a good thing or bad thing.

 

Robert Downey Jr. continues to bring such charisma to Tony Stark, he really does make this movie work in terms on rooting for the protagonist. Stark is dealing with a personal issue; since his near death experience in The Avengers, he’s been having post traumatic stress (reference to our feelings after 9/11, even Stark says “hasn’t been the same since New York”). It’s an interesting factor that weighs on Tony Stark’s shoulders, almost identical to his alcoholism in the comics (which I thought it would lead up to it). Though the tone and the way they treat Tony’s PTS is very bi-polar; they bring it up like this will affect him and bring him down, but it then it gets treated as a comedy later in the film and doesn’t really get resolved or goes nowhere. Gwenyth Paltrow finally gets to do something useful as Pepper Potts, she’s essentially the sensible one out of the cast (whether you see that as a positive as a female character or a joy kill for Tony Stark). The rest of the characters are serviceable, Don Cheadle is basically Tony Stark’s Murtaugh (which Shane Black writes brilliantly with Stark and Rhodes) but Rebecca Hall’s character feels more of a plot device than a supporting character. There is not much I can say before ruining the surprise twist but if you have seen the film, you know what I’m talking about. I won’t say much about it but I will say I did not see it coming and I thought it was an interesting twist that was refreshing (though I won’t be surprised that a lot comic book/Iron Man fans will feel the character has been treated in a disrespectful way).

iron_man_three_ver11_xlg

 

The film does contain great set-pieces, especially with the mid-air rescue with Iron Man and Air Force One crew. The final climactic battle scene with the Iron Man suits is really fun to watch and really interesting to see the different type of Iron Man suits Stark had created. Though it’s almost interesting to see what Pacific Rim will be able to deliver in terms of men in iron suits. I was very impressed how much Marvel Studios allowed to have Tony out of his suit for the majority of the running time (same as I was impressed with The Dark Knight Rises on having Bruce Wayne not wear the Bat-suit a lot). It actually showed Tony still being the genius he is on being able to do what he does best without the suit (as Obediah Stane said in Iron Man to scientist having trouble replicating one of Tony Stark’s creations; “TONY STARK WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS IN A CAVE WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!”).

 

Although the film doesn’t really soar to the skies as it really just goes on autopilot for the most part. The villains in the Iron Man movies haven’t really been memorable and the villain’s motive in this movie is just being power hungry. Granted Tony Stark finally is given a worthy adversary that isn’t another man in an iron suit (a huge disappointment in Iron Man 2 and a waste of Mickey Rourke’s talent). It doesn’t detract the quality of the movie but there are plenty of other comic book movies that you can compare and they don’t add anything new or interesting to separate itself from the others. Another thing that makes the movie fall apart (almost) is Tony Stark’s thinking has gone backwards after The Avengers; he decides to respond to The Mandarin’s video threats by threatening him and also giving out his home address. Though he is still surprised when The Mandarin does respond by sending attack helicopters to destroy his home and doesn’t have any back-up plan (something you’d think Tony would have been prepared for, as Jarvis mentioned that he has been awake for 72 hours).

 

Overall; a fun sequel to Iron Man and a good start to 2013 blockbuster season. Light-years better than Iron Man 2 but still think Joss Whedon did a better job on writing Tony Stark/Iron Man in The Avengers. Robert Downey Jr. does what he does best and the rest of the cast are having fun with their roles. Shane Black does deliver wit but also the spectacle. It’s a shame it’s just a decent blockbuster than a great one. Your turn Man of Steel!

 

3 out of 5

 

p.s. Stay after the closing credits (but you already knew that, right?)

 

HOLLYWOOD – IS IT STILL THE CENTRE OF THE FILM MAKING WORLD?

Posted on by

oscar winners 2013Following the success at the Oscars of both Argo, a big pat on the back of Hollywood, and Life of
Pi, an ‘international’ film with no recognisable big name star, Jonathan Brown looks at whether Hollywood is still the centre of the film Universe.

‘Domestic’

Hollywood is Cinema, right? After all, despite every country having its own awards ceremony, the
Oscars are still seen as the pinnacle of the film making world – at least to the studio marketing men.

Even though film wasn’t created in the US, it’s where it became what it is today. If fact, some of the
big original Hollywood studio are still around today, and, despite flagging profits, are as influential as ever. To be classified a big blockbuster, you need to take over $300m ‘domestic’ , ie in the USA.

Even if you flopped abroad, a good take at home could be enough to make a success. Even in Britain,
films like Skyfall are sold as the ‘Number 1 USA Box Office Hit’, even if they only spent one weekend at the top and just broke even.

The American box office was, and still is, the judge of commercial success, in the way the Oscars
were the mark of critical success (there’s an argument that the Oscars are way of the pulse of new
and exciting cinema, but that’s a different article).

But the tide is turning. America, as a country, is suffering more than most in the economic downturn,
and, while Hollywood continues to spend more and more on their blockbusters (the recent Twilight
movie cost £120m!), the people spending the most of their hard earned wages going to see these
blockbusters is moving.

‘Overseas’

While America still is the biggest single market for movies, and is far ahead of its closest rivals,
the ‘Overseas’ market is becoming a bigger cash cow.

Let’s have a look at the numbers. The usual ratio for a movie is around 40% of its takings from the
US and 60% from overseas – roughly. Ten years ago, in 2002, just four of the top ten highest grossing
movies took more than 60% of their box office from overseas, with two films (Signs and My Big Fat
Greek Wedding), taking less than half.

In fact, My Big Fat Greek Wedding took 76% of its taking from the US. And I’m assuming the other
24% from Greece.

Skip forward ten years, to 2012, and seven films took over 60% from overseas with Ice Age 4 taking
82% from overseas. Compare this to the first Ice Age move, which took only 54% from ‘foreign’ box
office and the swing becomes hugely noticeable, and important.

It’s the same if you compare 2011 and 2001. In 2001, there were just two films making over 60% of
its box office from foreign markets, while in 2011 there were nine films.

In 2009, box-office behemoth Avatar took 72% of £2.7bn from overseas. Ten years earlier, The
Phantom Menace, the new Star Wars movie the world had been waiting for, took just 54% from said
world.

If we go even further back, to the days of ET and the original Star Wars, the take is even slimmer,
with overseas counting for just 45% and 40% respectively.

Some of the shift can be accounted for by long term word of mouth, or even self-fulfilling prophecy.
Many of the big sequels, especially animations, have made huge amounts overseas, while their
domestic take, while still massive, hasn’t grow as fast.

When a film has been classed as a hit in the US, companies are a lot happier pushing the sequels
overseas. Also, while many overseas viewers might not have caught the original at the cinema, the
may have bought the DVD, seen it on TV, or downloaded it.

However, you don’t need to be a hit in the US to be a hit abroad. A textbook example of how foreign
markets can make a film a success is the recently released, and hugely divisive, Cloud Atlas. Directed
by the Wachowskis and Tom Twyker, the film has been classed a huge flop. On a budget reported to
be around $100m, it opened to just $9m in the USA.

As the US is so opening weekend focus (film takings tend to drop off by around 40-60% per
weekend), the chances of it making its budget back in America were pretty slim. It went on to earn
just £27m in total – domestic.

However, the film, set across various countries with a cast from across the world, has made a very
decent $80m overseas – so far. The $80m take does not include the UK, France, Japan and Australia.
This could easily add another £10-20m to its take.

Some of this change, especially from the 70’s/80’s, is the arrival across the world of the multiplex
cinema – meaning more films, more showings, and more attendees in the foreign markets. Factory
cinema, if you will.

However, this doesn’t account for the change in the past ten years. These changes are partly due to
two main factors – one is the new middle classes in the emerging markets like India, China and South
America, where people are starting to get some Rupees, Pesos or Yuen in their pockets, and having
the free time to spend it.

Secondly, is the move in America away from cinema to home viewing. Companies like NetFlix are
drawing people away from the multiplex and into the living room, despite desperate Hollywood’s
attempt to keep them with the introduction of the ultimate cinema experience – 3D.

This has seen cash intake increase slightly, due to higher ticket prices for 3D films, but attendances
are still dropping.

And why wouldn’t they, when you’ve had vast improvements and reduction of costs of home cinema
systems, or just a decent TV, and the reduction in time it takes for a film to go from the cinema to
online. People are realising they’d rather wait a couple of months and watch it on their home 3D
system, instead of paying $20 for a cinema ticket.

The Future

So, what does this mean for the future of blockbusters? I can see two possible outcomes.

The Hollywood studios could start to tailor their films more for foreign markets, using casts,
locations and directors from across the globe.

While Hollywood is keen on using foreign actors, they always tend to be the bad guy – maybe we’ll
see a few more leading actors from across the globe in mainstream Hollywood movies.

Or, more cynically, it could mean that distributors start to buy up more screen space in foreign
cinemas, pushing out locally made films.

However, on the evidence, especially in the foreign markets with an established film industry, this is
not the case. In 2009, four of China’s top ten grossing films where from China. China does however
limit the number of foreign movies able to be released a year.

In India in the same year, seven where from India (and one of the other ones was Slumdog
Millionaire).

So, maybe there is a balance to be struck. Maybe Hollywood can start to look outwards, taking
influence from a world of cinema, while still pumping in the big bucks to bring the big spectacle.