Luc Besson’s two most memorable films for me are The Fifth Element and Léon: The Professional. The latter stars a very young Natalie Portman that wants to learn the trade of being an assassin, and this is in fact the starting point of the French-American movie Colombiana. It opens with scenes from our heroine’s childhood: Cataleya, but quite quickly switches to her story as an adult portrayed by Zoe Saldana.

While Besson has written many over-the-top action flicks over the last decade, he has not directed any of them. This also holds true for Colombiana which was instead helmed by Olivier Fontana. Fontana has given this film the same look and feel as the purely action-oriented production The Transporter. Unfortunately, this does not mix well with a plot which is more reminiscent of the drama and human-condition-driven Léon. Especially, for the scenes with the young Cataleya.

Cataleya wants her uncle to help her become a professional assassin for reasons that are revealed near the beginning of the movie and in the trailer below. At one point she insists on being taught the trade and her uncle’s reaction to this is far too extreme, let alone the lack of reaction of others in that scene: it just feels contrived. These kinds of moments significantly hamper character development making the audience less engaged with the rest of the movie.

Fortunately, Colombiana gets better as focus shifts to the adult Cataleya. Zoe Saldana saves the day with excellent acting, and some well choreographed fight scenes make the second half a treat. However, it is hard for the audience to sympathize with anyone’s faith in the movie apart from Cataleya. This is where Leon so excellently succeeded and Colombiana fails. Perhaps this would have been in better hands being directed by Luc Besson himself. Nevertheless, this is an okay movie to go see provided you like the over-the-top action style and can forgive the lack of character development.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Video Hosted by YouTube, Copyright © 2011 Sony Pictures

Steven Soderbergh is a very prolific director. Interestingly, he recently announced that he has lost interest in the film medium and wants to retire. Soderbergh has directed several gems such as Erin Brockovich and Ocean’s Eleven, and was involved in the production of other good quality flicks like Syriana and the rotoscoped adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s A Scanner Darkly. However, some of his work is notably harder to follow like Solaris and the critically acclaimed Traffic.

But let’s move on to Contagion: Soderbergh’s most recently released work concerning a global pandemic. The movie opens in an original way by showing a number of infected people in several places in the world. This is followed by a sequence of introductory scenes for the main characters. After this the consequences for the principal cast rapidly become apparent. The first third of the movie is gripping and fast paced, but not in an action-film way as we’ve become used to from Hollywood. Instead Contagion mixes narrative and character build-up with close to documentary-style film. The second third of the movie is more conventionally paced as officials try to figure out a way to develop a remedy for the spreading disease. Unfortunately, the movie loses direction and comes to a grinding halt in the last third of the movie.

Fortunately, the scriptwriters have not tried to `dumb down’ the movie, for example: the medical researchers appear to use real, hard to follow, language. Nor have the creators tried to pump it into a blockbuster: there are no over-the-top gun blazing heroes here. Good! As people begin to realize what situation they are in they choose for themselves leading to rioting and looting, revealing the dark side of the human spirit. This also accurately shows the indirect consequences of societal turmoil: a refreshing take on easily milked subject matter.

The filmmakers chose to follow several characters throughout the pandemic that are essentially disconnected from each other. That can work quite well if their stories are logically intertwined. Unfortunately this is not the case which makes some of the subplots underdeveloped, for example the one involving a blogger and one that involves a WHO representative. On the other hand the main character at the CDC, a role by Laurence Fishburne, and of a family man portrayed by Matt Damon are well structured.

This leaves me with the problematic last third of the film, which is simply paced too slowly. This is not helped by the fact that the viewer does not really have a sense of where the movie is going once the main device that closes the story is undramatically revealed. In this sequence, surprisingly, characters are used that were either unseen or insignificant during the rest of the movie. Finally, the ending itself is somewhat predictable, but satisfactory.

Good and unnerving cinematography, a strong start and some excellent acting save this movie. However, Contagion is certainly not for everyone, and people seeking action or a blockbuster should skip it. Nevertheless, if you are interested in a more realistic spin on what might happen during a global pandemic, this might be for you.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube, Copyright © 2011 Warner Brothers

Among all the 3D super hero blockbuster violence of late, there is: Super 8. A science fiction drama created by J.J. Abrams perhaps best known for creating Lost, Cloverfield, and the most recent Star Trek instalment. Good science fiction does not revolve around using impossible physics and technology just for the sake of it, but rather: using these as backdrop in stories about the human condition. Does Super 8 succeed in this regard, or is it just a special effects extravaganza?

Joe lost his mother in an accident and now lives alone with his father: deputy Jackson. The deputy does not appreciate that his son hangs around with his film making friend Charles. Nevertheless, Joe, Charles, and other friends continue making their zombie movie together. The title of the movie is a reference to the 8mm film they use. If you want to see the end result of their movie project: be sure to stick around after the credits start to roll. Super 8 starts with building a good back story and carving out plausible characters. Things start getting fishy after a train derails while they are filming. Although somewhat over the top, the excellent cinematography and sound mixing makes this part both enjoyable and startling. However, effects aside: It is really the acting talent of the youngsters that carries most of the movie. All of them are well cast and play their roles to near perfection.

Steven Spielberg was involved as producer and his signature is clearly visible in some of the story telling: a good mix of light hearted scenes and typical young folk banter combined with suggestive science fiction elements leading up to a grand finale. The movie conveys the feeling of being young and exploring the world very well which aids in pulling the viewer into the story. I do not want to give too much away, but Super 8 contains elements of both Lost and Cloverfield. The pacing is excellent throughout, although more reminiscent of typical drama than typical science fiction. There are some key emotional scenes which could have been made more believable, and perhaps some parts contain too much touch of Spielberg’s early movies. Nevertheless, Super 8 is an enjoyable ride for science fiction lovers, but perhaps a bit too slow for the typical popcorn crowd. For those that are not afraid of depth: this is a movie that actually dares to tell a story instead of resorting to screaming computer generated imagery and contrived cardboard characters. Recommended!

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Paramount Pictures

A film with a budget of 200 million and lots of gifted people at the helm, but does all this creative talent lead to a good movie? With Martin Campbell as director, best known for GoldenEye and Casino Royale, and Stuart Baird of Die Hard 2, and more recently Vantage Point, as editor, can anything still go wrong?

Perhaps the problem with Green Lantern is not so much with the people involved in its cinematic recreation, but rather: in the source material and the script based on it. While DC Comics is well known for creating both Superman and Batman, Green Lantern does not share a long history of animation series and feature films with those franchises and is therefore less known. This lack of adaptations seems understandable as its back story requires significantly more suspense of disbelief than Superman and Batman combined. An observation that holds true for this movie as well. The fact that a Green Lantern is limited in recreating physical items only by his own imagination is underused in the script. Although, the few times where it is used are admittedly very cool.

Green Lantern starts with a narrative which tells us a bit about the history of the Green Lantern Corps. This is a welcome addition, as the story would be difficult to follow without it. From this we transition to a nice and light part until the main character, Hal Jordan portrayed by Ryan Reynolds, becomes a Green Lantern. Near the middle the movie starts to drag and suffers from taking itself too seriously. The beautiful renderings of the Green Lantern home planet Oa and excellent use of 3D can not disguise a somewhat lacklustre plot. While the movie regains proper pacing after the break, the “this is too easy, what was all the fuzz about?” ending leaves much to be desired: it feels far too rushed.

It is surprising that the more interesting storyline is not about Hal Jordan at all. It’s Peter Sarsgaard that, apart from one cheesy scene, delivers an excellent performance as the son of a powerful senator. His character is an under-appreciated scientific geek: Hector Hammond, who turns into a vehicle for the main villain: the Parallax. The film explores the interesting theme of the fear and hate driven Hammond versus the willpower and courage of the Green Lantern. However, the Hal Jordan character is not carved out deep enough to make this conflict interesting.

The film makers do a nice job of letting elements early in the movie recur later at appropriate times. As such the movie is easy to follow and understand. Had the main character been more believable Green Lantern would have had a more positive critical reception. Perhaps Ryan Reynolds will be a better fit for the Marvel universe? We will find out when Deadpool (2014) appears.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Warner Brothers

I recently finished viewing the first season of NBC Television Series “The Event”. I’ll try not to give too much away, but its twenty-two episode run reminded me of 24, although: it does not share the “real-time” format for which that series is famous. The first half season of “The Event” also uses elements found in Lost and there are some moments similar to those found in X-Files and The 4400. Regardless of these comparisons, the question is: can the series stand on its own feet?

Belgian series creator Nick Wauters motivated the start of the series: “It’s about a normal guy, Sean Walker, gradually getting caught in a huge conspiracy”. Sean’s girlfriend Leila is kidnapped on a cruise ship which sets the main plot in motion. We also see the story from the perspective of the President of the United States where an airplane on a collision course vanishes right before hitting the ground. The pilot of the plane is the father of Leila, and also a member of a mysterious group of people of whom the majority are imprisoned at a secret facility. The series revolves around the origins and plans of these people, first encountered over 66 years ago, and their leadership, particularly a woman named Sophia.

The Event veers into a wide number of directions early on and there is a lot of jumping around in time: flashbacks. This makes for a somewhat discontinuous and awkward feel as it is not executed as well as in Lost. Add to this that the acting seems somewhat wooden in the early episodes and we have an explanation for why the shows ratings plummeted very quickly. This is not entirely deserved though, as the characters and acting get more believable as the season progresses and the actors grow in their roles. The story is interesting and entertaining, and explanations for what is happening are never too far away, which prevents disappointment over unanswered questions. Nevertheless, there are a few things that are left unexplained. The format changes with less jumping around in time mid-season. Although this makes the series easier to follow, it sacrifices deepening of the characters. Nevertheless, this seems to be a good choice that fits the more action-packed second half of the series.

I was not too impressed by Laura Innes portrayal of Sophia in the early episodes. There is just something off with her voice. However, there is a lot of improvement towards the end of the season when she faces a number of moral dilemmas. Blair Underwood delivers a strong role as the president of the United States, but I was particularly pleasantly surprised by Zeljko Ivanek‘s memorable role as Director of National Intelligence Blake Sterling.

Where 24 provided us with a seemingly superhuman lead character that could solve everything: Jack Bauer, The Event has the somewhat impulsive and clumsy Sean Walker, portrayed by Jason Ritter. Even though the way in which he gets a sidekick later in the season is one of the weaker parts of the overall plot, his clumsiness works surprisingly well for the series, making the character much more believable and not as one-dimensional as Jack Bauer. Add to this that when viewing The Event you swing back and forth between sympathising with the mysterious group of people and the rest of the planet, and you have an entertaining and thought-provoking ride.

Even though NBC cancelled the series after its first season due to poor ratings, there is still a possibility of some type of continuation. This would be justified given the first season’s interesting ending. If you like a combination of action, drama and thriller with a light mystery / sci-fi flavour this is for you.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © NBC

This movie marks the end of a string of no less than eight films, started by Chris Colombus, of Home Alone fame, and finished with a more mature tone set by David Yates. The reason for splitting the last book of the series into two films was perhaps due to its length: nearly 800 pages. However, one can not entirely disregard a financial motivation either: the Harry Potter film franchise has been a massive success. Perhaps due to the split, the seventh movie: which is the first part of the last book, was a bit too lengthy and drawn out for my taste. It was also more grim than its predecessors, which is in-line with the source material. So, how satisfactory is this second part: the conclusion?

At the start of the film we jump immediately into the story: it feels more like returning after the break than the start of a new film. This is exactly what viewers would expect, so it seems like a good choice. Unfortunately, during the first twenty minutes, not everything feels solid: the pacing is slow, the tone a bit too serious and there’s distracting overuse of dramatic music at inappropriate moments. In all honesty: this would probably work if you would watch the first part immediately prior to seeing this movie. Nevertheless, the pieces of the movie fall in to place as Harry Potter reaches Hogwarts. From there on the pacing is good with pleasant acting thanks to the great ensemble cast. There are also enough sprinkles of humor from this point on to keep the movie from taking itself overly serious. Furthermore, the cinematography is excellent and the special effects are well done. Parts of the movie are clearly influenced by the feel of contemporary movies, particularly Lord of the Rings. The post-converted 3D is not over-used or distracting apart from some minor strobing in some scenes, but they might as well have left it out as far as I am concerned.

It is always difficult for film makers to adapt a book so loved by millions. The good source material if anything, makes this more of a challenge. Besides having less time for the build-up of characters, things that work well in books simply do not translate well to the big screen, particularly long stretches of monologue or dialogue. Fortunately, the film makers manage to keep the dialogue to an absolute minimum putting the focus where it belongs: the trials of the main characters. There are several changes with respect to the book. I will not spoil anything content-wise in this review, but with respect to the source material there are some more moments in the movie for Hermione, professor McGonagall and Neville Longbottom, and there’s less emphasis on the back story of Dumbledore’s family. Some changes have been made to be able to to play on the strengths of the medium: telling a visual story, I find that this predominantly works well.

All in all, this is a worthy closing to a long-running film franchise. A good job by David Yates and all the other people who have worked on this movie. It is understandable even for people that have not read the books, even though seeing the first part of the deathly hallows is mandatory. To be honest: if you haven’t read the book, you really should read that first as it contains a lot more detail and back story which will make you better able to understand the film, as well as appreciate the minor changes it makes for more effective visual storytelling. If you are looking for a movie with lots of action then this is certainly not for you, as action is used only as a story-telling device. This is a good choice, as it caters to those who have really come to love Harry Potter over the years. This is the best movie in the series: recommended!

Rating:  

Trailer hosted by Vimeo. Copyright © 2011 Warner Brother Pictures

The first Transformers movie was a pleasant surprise, the second a let down with a confusing haphazard plot. A friend told me that they should have left the Transformers franchise alone: “Don’t taint my childhood memories”. The best way to deal with that: skip it if you feel nostalgic about the subject matter. So, is the third instalment any good? Does it bring the franchise back to its initial glory? Let’s find out.

Transformers Dark of the Moon starts with a spectacular moon landing that ties in the Transformer’s story with real history. Admittedly, this came across better in the teaser trailer than in the theatrical movie. After this, we return to the familiar character of Sam Witwicky and his sexy girlfriend this time portrayed by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. The relationship between Witwicky and his car Bumblebee is put to good use throughout. In the first section Sam is eagerly looking to find a job: the comical focus of the movie. This section is relatively slow and light, which works well to draw viewers in and prepare them for the more serious tone in the later sections. Technically, the movie is full of typical Michael Bay shots: showing the main characters from an upward off-angle and movie poster like shots emphasizing the relationship between characters. All things that we have seen before in movies like Bad Boys and Pearl Harbor.

The middle section of the movie is where Dark of the Moon excels. There are a number of original plot twists there. Good supporting roles from Alan Tudyk and Ken Jeong prevent the movie from taking itself too seriously. The confusing and gripping situations in which the main characters are thrown and the fact that during most of the middle section we remain closely with them makes this part particularly engaging and memorable. However, shortly after the break, after scenes taking place in a collapsing building, the movie loses its focus. There are, for my taste, too many scenes in which Optimus Prime comes to save the day out of nowhere. The finale is also drawn out, the last sixty minutes could have been told in half the time. Although, it has to be said: lovers of an action-packed special effects extravaganza will not be disappointed by this part. The Transformers are extremely well modelled and the excellent audio design gives a familiar feel making them very believable. There are few noticeable special effect flaws, and, fortunately, the 3D does not distract and is never overused: there is very little visual strobing and jitter.

Even though it is somewhat unevenly paced, it is almost on par with the first movie in the series, and a lot better than the second: one we’d perhaps better forget about. If you like Transformers, Michael Bay movies or action-packed summer blockbusters then Transformers Dark of the Moon is for you.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Tip: Watch the excellent Teaser Trailer first.

Trailer hosted by Vimeo, Copyright (C) 2011 Paramount Pictures.

The premise of Source Code may sound somewhat boring: the same eight minutes in a passenger train repeated over and over again. However, the film makers manage to keep each iteration interesting by varying the story, as well as the perspectives. In the first few minutes the main plot line is revealed: the lead character, Colter Stevens, is supposed to identify the person planting a bomb on the train. He is repeatedly sent back to find out the identity of this person via the so-called source code. As a software developer I honestly feel that ‘source code’ is somewhat of a misnomer, but I am willing to let that one slide.

The film was directed by Duncan Jones, of Moon fame and is excellently paced throughout. Even though the plot surrounding the bomber is weak, the film is saved by Jake Gyllenhaal acting at his best in the lead role: I am impressed. All the more important since the film hinges strongly on its lead, more so than any of the other characters. Although, the role of Vera Farmiga is memorable as well. The chemistry between Jake Gyllenhaal and Michelle Monaghan is used for function and does not feel contrived or overblown at any point. The ending is philosophical enough to really make you think. Source Code is an odd mix between Groundhog Day, minus the humor, Robocop and some elements of The Butterfly Effect. Nevertheless, it manages to convince and entertain. Recommended for those who like plots revolving around time manipulation as well as people with an interest in good thrillers with a light science fiction flavour.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer Hosted by YouTube, Copyright © Summit Pictures.

This has been in theatres for a while now, and I have to be honest and say that it is certainly one of the best teaser trailers of the year. The idea of taking something the whole world has witnessed: the moon landing, and then suggesting that some covert operation took place when they went dark: great! We still have to wait a couple of more days, but here is the trailer that shows what director Michael Bay has in store for us with Transformers: Dark of the Moon:

As the name implies, this is the follow-up to 2009′s surprise hit movie The Hangover. The creators kept predominantly the same cast of main characters as the original, which really is a good choice. I admit I am impressed by Bradley Cooper’s recent work particularly in Limitless and to a lesser extent in The A-Team. Unfortunately, the creators of the Hangover recycled nearly the same format as used for its predecessor, which is a bad choice and leads me to the main point of criticism: the movie fails to surprise. The sequence of photos, revealing what really happened during the night out, shown at the end of the movie, got the most laughs of the audience, which is not a good sign: this is supposed to be an entertaining movie after all, and not a funny slide show .

The first half is slowly paced and contains relatively sparsely placed jokes. There are a couple of laughs, although too much of these are already revealed in the trailer. The second half has more energy and seems somewhat better developed. Although, both Ed Helms, known from The Office, and Bradley Cooper deliver a solid performance, it is Zach Galifianakis as Alan that really steals the show with well-timed jokes, over the top bluntness and double interpretations.

Even though I liked the first movie, I felt it was somewhat overrated, perhaps this was because of its, then novel, storytelling. As far as this follow up movie is concerned: Even though it is entertaining, I can not shake the feeling that it was developed solely for cashing in on the first part’s success. Understandable perhaps from a commercial point of view, but a disappointment for movie goers.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube, Copyright © Warner Brothers.