While I tend to watch movies in the original
version, which is mostly in English, I consciously chose to watch this one in
German. For several reasons. One, it is an animated movie which means it is
easier to translate and the dubbing is not quite as obvious since in a way all
characters are dubbed. Two, I watched the trailer in German and decided that
the German voices were actually quite good (this is not always the case,
therefore I am cautious). And thirdly and most important, I grew up with Tintin
in German where he is called Tim. It would not be the same watching Thompson
and Tompson instead of Schultze und Schulze.
My expectations weren’t too high. The movie was
not on my must see list and I would not have watched it in 3D. But when friends
suggested watching it together I thought why not. After all, even though in the
recent past I had my issues with the racism that is apparent in some of the
original comics I had enjoyed them when I was a kid. So a trip down memory lane
it was to be.
I was not disappointed. All the beloved
characters were there, they were lovingly animated and the animation itself is
somewhat awe inspiring (I believe in future we won’t need that many actors,
they seem to be more and more expendable as animations become more and more lifelike).
As too the story, it did not disappoint in the
way that it managed to capture the somewhat fantastic spirit of the original.
And the characters stayed true to themselves. Tintin is dashing and daring, Snowy
is adorable and clever, Captain Haddock is an irrepressable drunk with a
vocabulary of expletives that is awesome, Thompson and Tompson are bumbling
dilletantes, and so on and so on.
It also confirmed a suspicion I held for a long
time. Tintin is the original Indiana Jones. An impression that was further
heightend by the fact that the musical score was done by… the guy that also did the score for Indiana Jones. The slightly
wacky story line, the villains, the treasure hunt, the dashing hero, car
chases, airplane chases, boat chases… it’s all there and feels very familiar.
Of course Spielberg has long ago admitted that he was inspired by the Belgian
comic. So similarities were to be expected. But they are in no way subtle.
Spielberg does what he is good at doing and what has proven to be working. What
does it matter that one has seen it before. We have seen it and liked it…so why
not do it again. Even if it feels a bit “been there, seen that”.
What is new is the quality of the animation. It
is really good. So good in fact that there is scene after scene that seems to
have no other purpose than telling the viewer: “Look, what we can do! Aren’t we
awesome?” It is indeed awe inspiring, the first three or four instances. After
that it becomes it bit much.
All in all, I’d say that the film was entertaining.
It had a certain nostalgic appeal and was a bit of lighthearted entertainment
to while a Sunday evening away with friends. The story was stretched a bit thin
though, there’s not so much happening to really fill the almost two hours. And
the wanking on its own awesomeness was a bit annoying. I’d give it 3 out of 5
points.
...
Anonymous
This is a Roland Emmerich movie, so my
expectations were accordingly low. I wanted to see it because I am fond of
period pieces and I am especially fond of the Elizabethan Age. And as such it
was surprisingly low key and well researched by Emmerich’s standard. A plus was
that all the actors were British. No grating American Accent in Shakespeare’s
London. Thank Goodness. Rhys Ifans was astonishingly good, if not for the voice
I would not have recognized him. Vanessa Redgrave is a treat as usual. All in
all, it was an entertaining piece and as I said for Emmerich it was
surprisingly well done. More of a character study and a political thriller than
the bombastic historical spectacle I would have expected. Even though, the story,
while thrilling and entertaining, took itself way too serious and was way
off. If you want a political intrigue
with great costumes, a well done CGI version of Elizabethan London, good
actors, lots of Shakespeare line sproclaimed in good old British stage voices,
you’ll like it. Emmerich quite cleverly uses bits and pieces from Shakespeares
plays to make his theory and wacky back story fit. For me, a history buff, it
was a bit too far out there and elicited several “Oh, no, he didn’t!!!” So, 2.5
of five points.
...
A dangerous method
Of all four movies, this is the one I looked
forward to the most. I think I mentioned before what a great actor I believe
Michael Fassbender to be. And he did not disappoint. Keira Knightley on the
other hand did. Greatly. (Well, maybe not that much, because I never believed
her to be a good actress). While Fassbender made a very convincing Dr. Jung,
managing to convince us of his inner turmoil with only the smallest facial
expressions, Knightley as Sabrina Spielrein was an utter disaster. Not only did
she and Fassbender have no chemistry at all (the fault for that I believe lies
wholly with her), the portrayal of
her character’s struggles with her sexuality, her unability to conform to
the social norm and her growth into a doctor herself remains thoroughly
unconvincing if not downright ridiculous. If not for the great acting of
Fassbender, and to a lesser extend Viggo Mortensen as Dr. Freud, the film would
have been terrible. As it is, this is a film that lives of the tensionsbetween
its characters and the little nuances of their interactions. It is in a way a chamber
play. Something that Cronenberg is known for and rightly so. Only in this
instance it falls somewhat flat. The utterly unconvincing attraction between
Knightley and Fassbender (although the latter really tries but has no chance
against Knightley’s lack of talent) and the somewhat overdone mannerisms on
Mortensens part (so that the audience really believes it is Freud, he has to
suck on a cigar every time he is onscreen…sheesh guys, sometimes a cigar is
just a cigar) fail to draw the viewer in. The story this way stays shallower
than it should have been because it makes it impossible to emphatically feel
for them. Their reasons for acting the way they did stay obscure and at best a
scientific self experiment. A positive surprise was Vincent Cassel whom I had
almost not recognized (what a difference a beard makes). He adds his
considerable acting talent in a supportive role. So all in all, because the
story in itself was quite good and some of the acting was really good but the
chemistry and empathy falls flat, I’d give it 3 out of five points.
...
Carnage
The film is based upon a French play “Le Dieu
du Carnage” (The God of Carnage). Polanski chose New York for his setting. In truth it really doesn't matter where the story takes place. This is a brilliant play that is carried by the amazing talent of its actors. And while all four (Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Christoph Walz, John C. Reilly) of them are amazing, it is Foster who rules them all. The flawless execution of the acting as well as the cinematographie makes this possibly the best film I've seen all year. Even the length of 79 min. (refreshingly short these days) is perfect. I won't tell you any more, go see it for yourself. (And tell me if you didn't recognize yourself in it...). 5 out of five points.
...
How can you not find those creatures adorable:
 |
| via flickr user clofresh under a creative common license |
Happy December 2nd!
No comments:
Post a Comment