Reviews

Hot off the critical and box office success that was How To Train Your Dragon, Dreamworks wasted little time in announcing a trilogy, and that second installment landed among us last summer.

Let me preface this by saying that I did not have the best experience leading up to this film. The marketing was inconsistent, starting with a fantastic teaser, which was followed by a terrible trailer. Terrible in the sense that it spoiled what I thought must have been a major plot point. Honestly, it was a crazy decision to include some of the details that they did. I was hoping to be proved wrong by the actual film, and that is was a piece of genius double bluff marketing. Unfortunately not.

The original How To Train Your Dragon was truly brilliant, and if the sequel even just matched the efforts of 4 years ago they would be doing well. It had a lot to live up to, and had already lost some of my favour in the build up.

At the end of the day it does fall short of the first film, and also short of the usual standard of animation in the past couple of years (terrifically high). How To Train Your Dragon 2 lacked that surprise spark that makes so many animation films wonderful for adults as well as children. It is not difficult to make an entertaining kids film. The Smurfs series is an example of a production made purely for children with no regard for their guardians. How To Train Your Dragon 2 is miles better than the Smurfs, but the fact of the matter is that I found myself constantly being drawn out of the film by inconsistencies and illogic.

From dialogue that purely exists to expose the plot and a few convenient plot twists, one could feel constantly reminded that they were watching a film in dark room rather than inhibiting a world for 2 hours. Harsh maybe, but these are the perils of setting such high standards for yourself. There was a romance plot thread that didn't seem to know what to do with itself. It existed and didn't really justify the time given to it over the course of the film. The stakes were also raised, but the more personal story of last time worked better than the grander scale afforded this time.

But as far as negatives go, it rather does stop there. The animation is stellar, and the one area in which the first film is surpassed is the sense of scale you get with these dragons. It's very difficult to portray size realistically past a certain level, but the combination of animation and sound really brings these multi-ton dragons to life. The animation is used really well too. When you are given the gift of being able to stretch and morph things in any way you want, you really should use it. The comical dragons showed extent of how animation should be used. It's also funny enough, not as funny as the first film, but still contains a laugh here and there.

The problem is that all the highlights of the film are the individual jokes and spectacles rather than the complete package. It has most of what is required in animation for the standard level of quality, but is let down by mediocre storytelling. The glue which holds everything together is missing, and all the pieces were so beautiful too!

Read more at rabsi1.weebly.com/film/

In October 2014, comedy motoring show Top Gear attracted criticism and then violence in Argentina for driving around sporting a number plate that made references to the Falklands War. Veterans saw this as a needless joke and an attack on what they considered a touchy subject. They alleged that Top Gear had easily crossed the line with their provocations, and that the attack (involving rocks and other projectiles thrown at the cars of the presenters and the crew) was inevitable. Top Gear insisted the plate was completely coincidental. So it rumbles on.

Which brings us to The Interview, an entirely different level of provocation. It makes the Top Gear incident seem insignificant in comparison. How far can you openly lambast a living political leader and keep it funny?

The Interview is a film composing of two very distinct parts: the buddy comedy of two very good friends, and the political satire of North Korea. That these two can be so readily separated is already an issue, and an omen of things to come. For all the hype, The Interview is actually a very disappointing film, both from a comedic and a satirical view.

Comedically, the film is a letdown even by Seth Rogen's and James Franco's standards. They of course do have their formula and style which already would not impress a certain crowd. The now proverbial "dick and fart humour" is pervasive here, but everything is put together like a puzzle with no more than 4 pieces. Furthermore, there was an obsession with shoe-horning as many contemporary terms into the film as possible, probably in order to connect with the audience. It just comes across as the unpopular nerd spewing catchphrases he read on the internet in an attempt to fit in.

Like Kim Jong Un, the audience does not get treated with much respect either. Figuring out jokes yourself is not only more satisfying, but it helps the film flow just as much. The Interview is a juddering affair, using so much time to repeat or explain every joke, for fear that we might miss the fact that a tiger has night vision (but not night vision goggles). Rogen and Franco have been funnier before (see Pineapple Express) so this isn't a case of a film being dead on arrival for a certain section of the audience. They have their juvenile style, but it has worked better before.

To briefly address the satire aspect, it truly comes down to one's opinion after seeing the events. In my opinion the satire took it too far, it was not humorous anymore because shock value was preferred over actual incisive mockery. The poor human rights records and death camps are certainly addressed, but they had much more fun looking at the cult of personality surrounding Kim Jong Un (and all his ancestors). At that point it became more of a personal attack on Kim Jong Un rather than North Korea itself. Place any world leader into Kim Jong Un's position and subject him to the insults seen in the film, and it would be plain offensive. But since North Korea is such low hanging fruit, people can get away with making films like this.

Are there any positives? The physical portrayal of Kim Jong Un was actually quite funny, and the best and funniest scenes of the film are the scenes involving Randall Park (Kim) and James Franco. The film is also an important one for the film industry in more ways than one: as bad and boring as the film is, it was important to release it. It might have been the beginning of a slippery slope otherwise. Secondly, the film was released simultaneously in theatres and online, which was a landmark moment and it will be fascinating to see the film industry's response.

Read more at rabsi1.weebly.com/film/

The post-war period often seems like a bit of a black hole for films. Aside from the films made at the time which dealt with the issues the population faced, most notably Italian Neorealism, contemporary films prefer to explore the actual conflict themselves. More drama is to be found there. But while World War II was 'the' war, the conflict never really stopped, and Britain still had mandatory military service at the age of 18, with deployment to Korea for their civil war a real proposition. This is what John Boorman focuses on for what is probably his final film, and a sequel to his most famous work, the 1987 mildly autobiographical piece Hope And Glory.

We are told the story of Bill, a young boy in the first film. He has grown up into quite the strapping young fellow, and he received his notice for mandatory army service. There he quickly befriends Percy, and a bond forms. But this bond is hardly the centre of the film. It stretches far beyond that, as Bill deals with the army, love and his family. This is all well paced handled by Boorman, who is probably best known, aside from Hope And Glory, for directing Deliverance.

The acting is quite spotty on a case by case basis, Callum Turner does very well as the protagonist Bill Rohan, but you can't help but think he was constantly being overshadowed by a couple of doses of overacting. Being manic or excitable is all well and good, but there occasions where people were channelling their inner Joker or Harley Quinn. On the subject of acting, David Thewlis (of Harry Potter fame) is present and he is phenomenal, one of my favourite acting performances of the year.

Furthermore, the script isn't perfect either. There were too many logical inconsistencies, especially early on, where background character information is introduced in very lazy ways, usually dialogue. It's frustrating to see two characters talking to each other about things they clearly already know, and that it's only for the audience's benefit.

What is best about the film is that it tells the story of war really well. This was something a film like Fury really fell short at, relying on clichés to tell a heroic story. Even though there are very few scenes of combat, Queen And Country definitely gets right what Fury got wrong, showing the horrors of war, what it does to people and how anyone can be a victim or a casualty. That goes a long way in my book.

Read more at rabsi1.weebly.com/film/

For almost 4 years now, Die Hard had been the greatest film I had ever seen. It was top of my list of films, and it always shone as the top film, I never questioned it's position. I still do not question it's position today, simply because it is most definitely the second greatest film I have ever seen. City Of God is sensational, a masterpiece emanating from the slums of Brazil.

The film starts off in a newly built City Of God, a favela in seemingly pretty good nick. The narrator, Rocket, is introduced. Rocket is a Nick Carraway from Great Gatsby sort of person. He does his best to stay honest, even talking to the audience in a way Nick Carraway does. He also tries his best not to be involved in anything, yet finds himself having a weak connection with every character in the film or book. In fact, Rocket's story is so close to that of Li'l Zé (legendary antagonist) that it becomes a plot point how far apart their lifestyles dictate them to be. Never has a film spoken so much to me about so many things. The physical and emotional power of drugs, crime and murder. The gang of Li'l Zé could be a band of misfits, composed of ginger haired cocaine addicts and aggressive 9 nine year olds, but more sinister gangs are we unlikely to come across in real life

I often seem to have problems with the way death is treated in Western films. I remember the copious amounts of deaths, and it feels so dehumanised that I never fully enjoy western films. Clint Eastwood just shoots bandit after bandit, and never gets anything coming to him. In City Of God, every act, every murder of a person has a family behind it. A family that will seek revenge, and no matter how primary the antagonist or protagonist is, it will not make them any harder to kill. Clint Eastwood has Chuck Norris like abilities of invincibility if any of his Westerns are to be believed. These acts of retribution come as a shock to every character, as it does to the audience. It is so well made and true to life, that one cannot pick out who has what agenda. The film also uses flashbacks to now important dialogue, to enhance the facepalm at your own stupidity effect.

Finally, the film making. This is what nails the film as being head and shoulders above the rest. Even Matrix-style bullet time shots are used, but they finish by being melted into a shot of the same character, but 20 years previously. Magic. We also get many scenes shown together in real time from different perspectives, and it never seems to be too much for the human eye. It beats 3D images any day of the year as well.

The list can go on, but not without spoilers. If you are OK with themes such as drugs, murder, rape and heartless 8 year old psychopaths, then watch this film as soon as possible! Actually, even earlier if you can.