Sunday 23 January 2011

Film Review: The Green Hornet

The Green Hornet

Starring: Seth Rogen, Jay Chou, Cameron Diaz, Christoph Waltz
Directed by: Michael Gondry
Screenplay by: Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg

3 stars out of 5

XxXxXxXxX

Britt Reid (Rogen) is the party loving son of the biggest and best newspaper editor in town. With little to live for other than parties, he finds himself drifting upon his father’s sudden death. A chance encounter with a whizz mechanic named Kato (Chou) leads to a drunken stunt ending in a fight with some thugs; the two friends are inspired to become costumed vigilantes as a result. The twist? They pose as criminals. All too soon, they become embroiled in a gang war with the villainous Chudnofsky (Waltz), and uncover corruption at the highest level…

‘The Green Hornet’ is a silly film. No, scratch that. It is an incredibly silly film. I don’t know how faithful it is to the original incarnation, but what we have here is a stoner buddy movie spliced with a much less ethical spin on the Adam West version of ‘Batman’. Sprinkle just a touch of French Surrealism to taste, and you have the final film. Of course, silly is by no means a bad thing, if you like that sort of thing. However, it is a slightly awkward blend of genres, and the combination doesn’t always work.

It must be said that it does feel very much like a classic, Silver Age comic book – or perhaps the view many non-comic readers have of comic books even today – and that is to be admired. In fact, in some ways it feels almost like a parody of Batman: an incredibly wealthy playboy moonlighting as a vigilante, with a ridiculously tricked out car and very, very competent sidekick/butler figure. However, where Bruce Wayne poses as the irresponsible playboy, Britt Reid is an irresponsible playboy, for much of the film at least. His life as the Green Hornet is the direct result of a drunken prank, and he carries it on largely due to boredom and the fact that he thinks it’s cool, rather than any innate desire to improve the lives of the citizens of Los Angeles. In some ways, this is quite refreshing; few comic book films (few comic books, in fact) have such a sense of fun, the Iron Man films aside. On the other hand, it can make him a little unlikeable at times, especially when you see the havoc he causes on his faux crime sprees, conducted with little regard for innocent lives and a great deal of excitement on his part. There is a similar issue with Kato, the formidable sidekick, but he does compensate by being almost unbelievably awesome in practically every possible way. Highly skilled at kung-fu, a brilliant mechanic, talented artist, snappy dresser…he is really the hero here, although he does have a similar lack of concern for the havoc he and Reid cause, but if he were the main character, it would be a very dull film indeed, with little in the way of real conflict.

I do not mean to harp on about the ethical issues of their crusade – I don’t write for the Daily Mail, after all – but it did leave a slightly sour taste in my mouth, which would doubtless surprise anyone who had seen me giggling through ‘Kick-Ass’ a few months ago. I fully admit that it is more a product of my dislike for Seth Rogen’s brand of comedy; in different hands I would probably barely have noticed it. And now I will leave the issue aside for the rest of the review.

The plot is a by the numbers blend of comic book and buddy movie, really. Unlikely duo discover a shared bond, everything goes brilliantly, they fall out, they make up just in time for the big finale, while fighting crime and taking names in suitable origin story fashion. It makes as much sense as it is supposed to, and while it may be heavily weighted with clichés, there is little to truly criticise without getting mean spirited. Do not expect too much though. The script is good without ever being truly memorable – I laughed constantly, but can’t remember more than a couple of lines – and as you may expect, the villain gets the best lines. Of course, you might expect nothing less from Christoph Waltz, after his fantastic turn in ‘Inglourious Basterds’; he also gives the best performance in the film, although he is hardly up against stiff competition. Rogen and Chou are perfectly fine, although Rogen seems little different from ‘Knocked Up’, but they never reach higher than that. Cameron Diaz, as Reid’s secretary, is utterly wasted in the role, getting to do little of interest. You can’t help but get the impression that she’s there for the money.

The action scenes are more inventive, making full use of each and every one of the Black Beauty’s gadgets (the Green Hornet’s impressive car, and strong contender for star of the show). Many of them strain the laws of physics (I’m fairly sure that the car is undriveable by the end of the film), but that misses the point a little. They are still enjoyable, shifting from high octane action to Benny Hill style chases in the blink of an eye.

Somewhat surprisingly, there seems no obvious plot hook for a sequel – it won’t be too hard to cook up a suitable plot, I’m sure, but the film stands proud as an individual. I am not convinced a sequel will be commissioned; perfectly enjoyable, if never especially great, I don’t predict a massive hit. With a less fanatical fanbase to boost the sales figures, I can’t see this doing great business.

That would be a shame. There are far better films, and certainly more intelligent films, but there are worse ways to kill a few hours. It definitely wasn’t worth the price I had to pay to get in, ramped up due to the (rarely if ever noticeable) use of 3D. I’m not sure if it was simply more subtly used than is the norm, or whether they didn’t bother doing anything with it. Either way, the price is hardly the fault of the film, or anybody involved in the making of it – I simply object to paying extra money for something so unnecessary.

Game Review: Enslaved: Odyssey to the West

Enslaved: Odyssey to the West

‘Enslaved’ came with a lot of anticipation. Co-written by the bestselling author Alex Garland, motion-captured/acted and co-directed by Andy Serkis, and based (fairly loosely, I understand) on the Monkey myths of Japan, this seemed like it was going to be a highly unusual take on the usual post-apocalyptic game. If nothing else, the highly verdant world is strikingly different from the typical wind-blown wastes.

Indeed, there is much to praise here. The gameplay itself is fairly straightforward, and will be instantly familiar to anyone who has played any of the ‘Prince of Persia’ games since ‘Sand of Time’, especially the reboot from a couple of years ago. It’s eerily similar in fact. You arrive in an area, there is a quick overview of the terrain, and you bounce around it like the monkey you’re named for, periodically pausing to smack seven bells out of the mechs that threaten you. You even spend a great deal of time collecting glowing orbs, just as with ‘Prince of Persia’. For all its basic familiarity though, it is hugely entertaining – all the good bits of the ‘Prince of Persia’ series with a decent combat system welded to it. The controls are simple and intuitive, and you’ll rarely find yourself failing for any other reason than your own mistakes, aided by the system that simply won’t let you fall – or jump – off ledges unless you’re in the right place, although it must be said that this can be a little jarring as you try to find exactly the right place to launch from. The game is at its best when it presents extended stretches of world for you to navigate around.

Similarly, the combat quickly becomes second nature, again helped by the lack of complications to the system. There are three attacks to start with; three or four more can be learnt by the end of the game, all of them relying on the same two buttons. You can also shoot things with your staff; never as much fun as the close quarters combat, but sometimes essential, always signposted by enormous quantities of ammunition. The occasional boss fight invigorates things, with you systematically wearing down much larger mechs in increasingly impressive fashion. Often, you will have the assistance of your ‘cloud’, a spinning disc that functions like a hoverboard, making for a couple of intense chase scenes. Sometimes, your two companions will chip in to lend a hand, of which more later.

The game is undeniably beautiful, and not just the scenery, which has clearly been lavished with attention. The character models are incredible, especially Andy Serkis as Monkey. Your main companion, Trip, is stunningly rendered, but is a little more generic looking, while the secondary companion Pigsy, introduced late in the game, is…grotesque, really, but it’s very well done. It is really the characters who are at the heart of the game. The plot is vague at best – find your way to a settlement, then fight your way west – but the character relationships are excellent. From Monkey’s brutal introduction, to the very funny scene where Pigsy and Monkey discuss Trip’s affections, by way of a tender scene by a fire, it can be genuinely affecting. It is both the best thing about the game, and the worst. The ending is the sole thing I can really criticise, a truly mystifying attempt at…well, I’m really not quite sure. Something spiritual? Something existential? Whatever it is, it is introduced far too late (literally five minutes prior to the credits at most) and given far too little explanation to really work. Striving for a deeper theme is always admirable, especially in a videogame, where plots tend to be little more detailed than ‘go here, shoot this’. ‘Bioshock’ and its sequel is an excellent example of this trend; ‘Enslaved’, sadly, is not. The ending is simply weird.

Overall, ‘Enslaved’ is a great game. The meshing of subtle yet rewarding gameplay, rich characterisation, and sheer unadulterated fun makes for a highly enjoyable and recommendable experience. It’s not long – maybe ten hours in total, although there’s replay value in collecting everything, of course – but ending aside there’s little to truly criticise. Equally, it’s not a truly outstanding game. For all its good points, it never quite reaches true greatness. It is well worth playing though, and an admirable attempt at something a little different.

Review of the Year: 2010

Only slightly delayed...

Review of the Year 2010

Disclaimer: by no means a comprehensive list!

Film

2010 was a pretty damn good year for film – the year of the intelligent blockbuster, as some have called it. We started off with ‘Avatar’, a film that was apparently going to change film forever. Credit where it’s due: the visuals and the technology used to produce it were genuinely incredible, there’s no argument. The film itself though was distinctly unoriginal and uninteresting – entertaining, in a mindless action fashion, but not especially good. Disappointing, after all the hype.

Following ‘Avatar’, there was little of note until ‘Alice in Wonderland’ around Easter. Again, there was a lot of hype for the film, Tim Burton and Lewis Carroll seeming a match made in heaven. Disappointingly though, what we got was essentially ‘Alice in Wonderland’ fanfiction, Burton’s trademark oddball Gothic married to a desperately unoriginal fantasy adventure. Inoffensive, but hardly worth the price of admission, even for Johnny Depp’s bizarre interpretation of the Mad Hatter.

That said, it was (technically) a much better film than the dismal ‘Clash of the Titans’, a film that managed to get almost everything wrong (full review here). What ‘…Titans’ did manage though was a measure of entertainment, even if it was of the ‘I can’t believe I’m watching this’ sort. Similar mindless entertainment was to be had with ‘Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief’, although it was pretty well made. Some fun ideas, enjoyable set pieces, and some fun cameos made for a fun couple of hours, although once again, hardly essential viewing. Also in this camp was Benicio del Toro’s ‘The Wolfman’, a mess of Gothic horror and slasher film, rescued by some glorious hamming from Hugo Weaving and Anthony Hopkins.

Ridley Scott’s ‘Robin Hood’ was surprisingly good; an extended origin story maybe, but meaty and well acted. Some of the historical detail niggled, but this was well worth watching. Even better was ‘Kick-Ass’, a hugely enjoyable comic adaptation that gained bonus points for annoying the Daily Mail. Uniformly excellent acting, especially from Mark Strong, Nic Cage and Chloe Moretz. A definite must see.

Summer was the true highpoint for any film fan though. ‘Iron Man 2’ was a little disappointing, true – more of the same, not that this is entirely a bad thing, of course – but Christopher Nolan’s ‘Inception’ was brilliant, a truly clever blockbuster. Perhaps not as clever as it thought it was, and definitely lacking in character detail for the various sidekicks, but there was a point where it seemed like it would be a shoo-in for film of the year.

Then came ‘Toy Story 3’. Sorry, the all-conquering ‘Toy Story 3’. I genuinely cannot think of a single bad thing to say about it; it was funny, it felt relevant, it was astonishingly moving, it was beautifully made. Film of the year, for me.

Which means that the best compliment I can pay ‘Scott Pilgrim vs the World’ is that it came very, very close to taking that spot from ‘Toy Story 3’. Original, supremely entertaining, witty, well-acted…a great Hollywood debut for Edgar Wright, and I look forward to more from him.

I shall gloss over ‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice’ – daft fun, but little more – and move onto the winter months. ‘Despicable Me’ made a valiant attempt at a quality family film, but never really rose above average, despite some fun use of 3D in the end credits, but winter has been all about the mighty Harry Potter. More detail can be found here, but suffice it to say that it was a good adaptation of an average book. More imaginative, if not quite as good, was ‘Voyage of the Dawn Treader’. I enjoyed it a lot, but on reflection, there were a lot of problems, largely caused by the rather episodic nature of it. Attempts were made to tie everything together, but they weren’t entirely successful – what was the green mist, for example? – but it did manage to feel magical, more so than ‘Deathly Hallows’, actually. Finally, we have ‘Tron: Legacy’. A triumph of style over substance, this looked pretty, had a few cool set pieces, but made little sense. Whether this was true for those who had seen the original, I don’t know, but there should be some effort to make it accessible for new fans – particularly in light of Disney’s baffling decision not to put Tron on DVD outside America.

Literature

Ironically, and somewhat sadly, this will probably be the briefest section of this review. I’ve read rather a lot this year, but little of it was actually published this year (the curse of being an English student…). My book of the year award goes to Jim Butcher’s ‘Changes’ – hardly a masterpiece of literature, but it was frenetically paced, seemingly with an action scene every other chapter, well written, funny, and genuinely moving. A strong entry in the series, although not if you haven’t read the earlier instalments.

A close contender was ‘The Midnight Mayor’, by Kate Griffin, released at roughly the same time, and following similar genre territory. Griffin’s works are undoubtedly more surreal than Butcher’s though, with an infinitely more magical idea of magic. Again, it’s advisable (although probably not essential) to have read the previous instalment, ‘A Madness of Angels’, but it was beautifully written, highly imaginative, and very clever.

Rounding out the top three, we have Terry Pratchett’s most recent novel, ‘I Shall Wear Midnight’. I am something of a Pratchett fanboy, rarely able to find much if anything to criticise about his work, but this was definitely one of his lesser books. How much of that is due to his unfortunate illness is a matter for debate, but regardless of that, some of the dialogue felt awkward and stilted, and at least one character was far too convenient, if not for the plot then for the romance – there’s little satisfaction when a budding romance spread over three books is dropped in favour of a more ‘suitable’ partner introduced in the same book. Niggles aside though, there was the customary humour, intriguing plot and some fantastic fan service in the form of old characters.

Another decent read was ‘Ordinary Thunderstorms’, by William Boyd. At first, this came across as a typical if well-written thriller; an American in London is framed for murder, and in the course of trying to clear his name uncovers a conspiracy regarding a new wonder drug. Quickly though, it turns into more of a portrait of the seedier side of London than a mere thriller. It is engaging and enjoyable, but the climax lets it down, with very little really resolved. Such are the amount of plot threads left hanging, I wouldn’t be at all surprised – although not disappointed either – to see a sequel. I fear that this is a vain hope though.

Merely enjoyable were ‘Artemis Fowl and the Atlantis Complex’, by Eoin Colfer, and ‘Ghosts of Manhattan’, by George Mann. Colfer’s work was technically superior, but lacked the spark of his earlier books, with a rather lacklustre plot but some decent character work. Mann’s work is solid more than anything else, and ‘Ghosts…’ was more than a little generic (a wealthy American moonlighting as a vigilante in a corrupt city, with outlandish gadgets), and introduced a supernatural element far too late – and too vaguely – in the book to be really effective, but was an entertaining romp through a steampunk twist on the 1930’s.

Television

Show of the year…a tough one. ‘Doctor Who’ was fantastic, but this was largely due to Matt Smith’s astonishing performance; there were some outstanding episodes, but a lot of them felt like feet finding instalments, although this is perfectly understandable. The Christmas Special was superb, if a little nonsensical, and made the brave decision to focus on the characters rather than overblown setpieces (a trait that could be applied to the whole series, as a matter of fact). Season 6 is looking excellent, from the trailer.

‘Sherlock’, also by Stephen Moffat, was much more confident, hugely inventive, and had some interesting spins on the usual portrayal of Holmes. Two outstanding performances from Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman cemented the show’s quality status. There was a single duff note, and even that was arguable; the portrayal of Moriaty in the final scenes of the series. It was a little difficult to take him seriously as a villain when he so strongly reminded me of Graham Norton. The frankly evil cliffhanger should guarantee interest in the second – hopefully much longer – series.

Last, but by no means least, we had ‘Downton Abbey’, a sumptuous, beautifully shot and written period drama. It wasn’t without its faults – at least two of the daughters of the house seemed to be in a competition for ‘Bitch of the Year’ award, which meant sympathising with them was tricky, and there were definitely a couple of historical niggles – but overall this was high quality, brilliantly acted television. This will be back next year, all being well, and I can’t wait.

I’d love to simply announce a three way tie, but that would feel like cheating. In the end, I suppose the clincher is that ‘Sherlock’ is the only one I have sought out on DVD, a sure sign of quality.

In different fields, we had ‘Mongrels’, a BBC3 comedy show. It really shouldn’t have worked; a variety of animal puppets indulging in humour that would make Frankie Boyle blush. Well, maybe not quite that dark, but not exactly fluffy comedy. It was, however, astonishingly funny, with some delicious song and dance routines, and memorable characters. Highly recommended, and I am eagerly anticipating the second series.

The high profile adaptation ‘Pillars of the Earth’ was sadly disappointing; I’m not familiar with the book, but the series was let down by being far too fast paced, with little time to focus on the already slim characterisation. It was lavishly produced, and had some wonderfully hammy acting from Ian McShane, but other performances were let down by the aforementioned characterisation issues. It must have been difficult for any of the actors to really sink their teeth into the roles – although Matthew Macfadden sadly misjudged his Welsh accent, which was at least amusing. Deeply average, despite the potential.

Book Review: The Left Hand of God; Paul Hoffman

The Left Hand of God: Paul Hoffman

3 out of 5

Thomas Cale knows no existence but the harsh, brutal world of the Sanctuary. Raised by the Redeemers his entire life, and extensively trained in combat, his world is turned upside down one fateful night. Over the following months, Cale’s life changes completely as he explores the world, seeking only freedom but all too inevitably finding violence…

I find myself in a curious position reviewing this book. There is a part of me – quite a large part of me – that screams that in a lot of respects, it really isn’t all that good, although by no means dreadful. On the other hand, it would be incredibly dishonest of me not to acknowledge that I started reading it at about 9.30pm and didn’t put it down until exhaustion claimed me at 1.30am. By this point, I was about halfway through the book. Another few hours the next day, and I’d rattled through to the end. Whatever the flaws of the book, I cannot deny that it is engrossing, almost addictive.

The most frustrating aspect of the book, for me, is that there is clearly so much potential here. The first part of at least a duology, we don’t get anything like a full picture of the world, but there are hints of something truly interesting, sadly swamped in familiarity. The Redeemers, for instance, are interesting in terms of the religion they follow, which clearly riffs on Christianity, but in terms of personality are almost every cliché of hypocritical and malevolent Catholics ever written. Followers of the Hanged Redeemer, it is not until a fair way into the book that we realise that it is not just a religion that riffs on Christianity, but is a bastardised, parallel version of it. Jesus does get a mention at one stage – mentioned as a jinx, who gets swallowed by a whale. In this context, and lacking anything much in the way of theological knowledge, I take the Hanged Redeemer to be Judas Iscariot, as the only person in the Bible I can immediately think of who was hanged; it would certainly fit with the twisted version of Christianity presented here. This is the most interesting part of the book.

The novel’s world is familiar in other aspects. Aside from the Sanctuary, the other main location is the city of Memphis…which is apparently not that far from York, and inhabited mainly by a people who seem to be blends of Spaniards and Venetians. It is a fairly stereotypical fantasy world, run by the nobility and thriving on honour. If you are as avid a reader of fantasy as I am, there will be little in Memphis that you have not seen before. Equally, Cale is an instantly recognisable figure – the mysterious orphan with a hidden destiny, little more than a walking weapon for much of the book, although showing some needed signs of development by the end. There are many other stock characters: the wily diplomat (a vizier in all but name, although apparently honourable), the witty mercenary, the beautiful princess, and so on and so on. There is a fine line between use of tropes and use of clichés, and Hoffman does not walk it without a few wobbles.

However, cliché does not itself a bad book make. While the writing is fairly bland, with some tense changes that I believe are technically correct, but no less frustrating for that, it is enjoyable. There is plenty of accomplished action, the plot is fast paced, with little time to breath between the next twist and turn, and there are plenty of plot hooks in place for the sequel, out this month. Ultimately, if you have more than a passing familiarity with fantasy over the last twenty years or more, you won’t find much more than an entertaining diversion here. If you are less of a geek, ‘The Left Hand of God’ will probably be more impressive.