****
Dir. Steven Spielberg
From the visionary minds of director Steven Spielberg and producer Peter Jackson, The Adventures of Tintin is storytelling at its best.
Based on the comic book series by Hergé, this film features pirates, a lost treasure, a canine companion, and many more elements that captivate audiences of all ages. When young Tintin (Jamie Bell) purchases a model of a 17th century pirate ship, he comes across other characters who are after the same object. Among these is Rackham (Daniel Craig), a dastardly villain seeking an ancient treasure which the ship holds a clue to, and to avenge his long time rival Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). When Tintin and his faithful dog Snowy join forces with Haddock to find the lost treasure, they find themselves on the adventure of a lifetime.
I'll go ahead and confess that this is one comic which I have yet to read; but it is certainly on my list nonetheless. Yet whether or not you are familiar with these characters, the screenplay by Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish does an effective job of chronicling the events depicted. Tintin is an inquisitive journalist with an adventurous spirit, eager to unravel mysteries and exploit the corrupt. The manner in which the story is structured is very well executed, providing the basis for Spielberg and Jackson's vision.
For a film like this, excessive CGI is inevitable. Spielberg and Jackson stated early on their intentions of stepping outside the 2-D world of the comics, in order to do animation similar to that in Robert Zemeckis' Beowulf and Polar Express. While I'm typically not a big fan of modernized animation, this one's an exception. Although there's heavy emphasis on the technical aspects, I didn't think that it undermined the story. Rather, it complimented the fantasy world created by Hergé. Yeah, there's too much action, but that's expected for an adventure picture like this. This film proves that digitalized effects have their place in cinemas, when used appropriately.
The voice-over performances were another highlight. Bell exemplified the youthful complexion of the character's spirit, and the scenes between him and Haddock were great. Listening to Serkis, viewers wouldn't even recognize the Gollum in there. He instead plays a drunk, washed up sailor, providing the film with a nice element of humor. Craig presented Rackham as a sort of Jason Isaacs type villain, perfect for the tone of the story. The film also features the iconic duo of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as a pair of slapstick detectives.
Furthermore, John Williams' score is right up there with his classics. All in all, I think it's fair to call this film the Indiana Jones of this generation.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
***
Dir. Guy Ritchie
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law return in the sequel to the 2009 reboot of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic series. I came out of it with the same feelings as the first installment. Is this a decent action film? Yes. Is it consistent with Doyle's vision in the books? No.
With political turmoil, a rival mastermind, and the fate of his world upon him, the stakes are high for the famous detective. As nationalism and imperialism sweep across pre-WW1 Europe, Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Watson (Law) are caught in the middle of this conflict. Beyond this, the maniacal and brilliant Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), a long time opponent of Holmes, seeks to destroy Watson and his new wife while constructing his empire.
Like its predecessor, this film is overtly modernized so as to present itself as a flashy action movie. While there's definite originality, it nonetheless fails to capture the essence of the story and deliver it properly. Ritchie knows how to produce an effective thriller with solid visual effects; but both his direction and the script do only a decent job of exploring the depths of the character.
Jared Harris' performance was for me the highlight of this blockbuster. His mannerisms and expressions reflected the villainous attributes of Moriarty, as envisioned by Doyle. Downey Jr. and him had definitive chemistry, which was well communicated to audiences. Law also brought to life the inquisitiveness and humorous elements of Dr. Watson, as he did in 2009.
In terms of cinematography, it was well executed and correlated well with Ritchie's vision. But again, the over emphasis on fast-paced action only works part of the time. The lighting and other visual elements created a shadowy feel, as dictated by the title.
This is a series which is being made and remade way too much. Although it's nice to see different interpretations, there's a point where directors make the story too outlandish; so as to appeal to younger audiences with too short attention spans to actually read the source material. This to me is a primary example.
Dir. Guy Ritchie
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law return in the sequel to the 2009 reboot of Arthur Conan Doyle's classic series. I came out of it with the same feelings as the first installment. Is this a decent action film? Yes. Is it consistent with Doyle's vision in the books? No.
With political turmoil, a rival mastermind, and the fate of his world upon him, the stakes are high for the famous detective. As nationalism and imperialism sweep across pre-WW1 Europe, Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Watson (Law) are caught in the middle of this conflict. Beyond this, the maniacal and brilliant Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), a long time opponent of Holmes, seeks to destroy Watson and his new wife while constructing his empire.
Like its predecessor, this film is overtly modernized so as to present itself as a flashy action movie. While there's definite originality, it nonetheless fails to capture the essence of the story and deliver it properly. Ritchie knows how to produce an effective thriller with solid visual effects; but both his direction and the script do only a decent job of exploring the depths of the character.
Jared Harris' performance was for me the highlight of this blockbuster. His mannerisms and expressions reflected the villainous attributes of Moriarty, as envisioned by Doyle. Downey Jr. and him had definitive chemistry, which was well communicated to audiences. Law also brought to life the inquisitiveness and humorous elements of Dr. Watson, as he did in 2009.
In terms of cinematography, it was well executed and correlated well with Ritchie's vision. But again, the over emphasis on fast-paced action only works part of the time. The lighting and other visual elements created a shadowy feel, as dictated by the title.
This is a series which is being made and remade way too much. Although it's nice to see different interpretations, there's a point where directors make the story too outlandish; so as to appeal to younger audiences with too short attention spans to actually read the source material. This to me is a primary example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)