50/50 Review #41: Watership Down.

Was I supposed to be on drugs while I watched this? Watership Down tells the story Fiver (Richard Brier), a rabbit with some psychic-esque abilities, and his wise friend, Hazel (John Hurt). One day Fiver gets a feeling bad things are coming to their warren (home), so he talks a group of rabbits in leaving with him to find a new home. Along the way, they face many dangers and eventually have to figure out how to prosper in a new land.

The story and its themes are inspired by Homer's The Odyssey and Virgil's The Aeneid. In other words, for an animated flick about bunnies, this film is dark, depressing, violent, and totally screwed up. Despite my love of the old Greek and Roman tales, I had a few difficulties getting into the story. I couldn't tell you why, but it was just something about it that didn't click with me.

It might have been the characters, as I had a difficult time for a while telling them apart. They did have their own characteristics, but there were still plenty of times it was difficult remembering which rabbit was who and what their personality was (if they had one) and what their role is in the story. Couple that with trying to mentally compare it to its inspiration, and I found myself lost for a good chunk of the movie. Even after I figured them out, I still couldn't much get into them. Perhaps it was the lack of differentiation or emotion in their voices (partly, anyway).

But I think it's the animation that needs to be discussed here. I've never really seen anything like it in a movie before. It's quite unique (Side note: how do you catch a unique rabbit? Unique up on it!). It almost looks like a painting that's turned into animation. But a really trippy painting that starts wigging out on you after you take some hallucinogens. Because this movie ends up in some very bizarre places visually. It sometimes drifts smoothly into almost a dream-like or nightmarish state where everything is off-the-walls, weird, or terrifying. It's also one of the most violent animated bunny movies I've ever seen, and the animation of violence and blood is both unsuspecting and quite well done. Apparently people still complain about the film's PG rating, and it remains today to be the most violent PG animated film ever made.

On the whole, though, I didn't really dislike it. In fact, once I got into it, I did enjoy it--even if it got really crazy at times. I particularly liked the character of Bigwig, as he was a pretty badass bunny. The animation was good and really interesting, which allows it to flow in and out of those strange sequences without seeming out of place. I doubt I'll watch it again, as I wasn't really in love with it, though I can see why somebody would be. It just wasn't all for me.


I Am McLovin!

IMMORTALS.

So, this was basically my most anticipated movie for the second half of the year (Deathly Hallows being for the first). I'm a huge fan of mythologies of any kind, but Greek, of course, was my first love (as it is for most people). When I first saw the trailers for this film, I became pretty dang excited. But were my expectations too high? The movie tells us the story of Theseus (Henry Cavill), a peasant who gets caught up in the war to stop King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke), who wants to free the Titans. Along the way, he teams up with a virgin oracle named Phaedra (Freida Pinto) among others, and gets help from the likes of Zeus (Luke Evans) and an Old Man (John Hurt). Stephen Dorff also co-stars as a rouge thief that teams up with Theseus.

Well, let's start with the obvious: this movie is freakin' gorgeous. If I were to make a Top 10 Most Gorgeous Movies Ever (and I just might), this would definitely make the list. Director Tarsem Singh aimed to make the film look like a painting, and he damn well succeeded. And sure, the costumes (particularly helmets and masks) could get a bit silly, but I still thought it fit the overall setting. But not only is it visually pleasing through the cinematography, but the action sequences are--at times--jaw dropping. In particular, any time the gods fight... well, let's just say it's what you'd expect to see in a God of War film adaptation. Fantastically stunning and brutal. The only visual issue was a CGI hyena (or something) that looks very fake, but it's probably in the movie for less than a minute total.

One thing it took me a while to figure out about this film is how it was approaching the mythology. I know chunks of Theseus' story (the labyrinth and minotaur, for instance), but that's about it. Typically, there are two ways to adapt a legendary story. The first is to keep in all the magic and mystical elements. The second is to make it more realistic, or the "how it really happened/what really inspired the legend" type stories (i.e. King Arthur or the most recent Robin Hood). The reason it took me so long to figure this movie out is that it mixes the two types together. Let me explain...

It makes things more realistic in that, for instance, Hyperion is a man instead of a Titan. The Minotaur is a brutal warrior in a rather freaky outfit (it works, though). The Titans themselves are more monstrous men instead of giant creatures. Tartarus is a mountain, not a pit in the Underworld. Things like that. However, at the same time it's doing this, it does keep in the gods. It does keep in mystical objects (like the Bow). It keeps that magic and mysticism to keep it routed in mythology. Once I figured this out, I enjoyed the film much more. I realized that this made it seem more realistic in terms of how the Greeks might have viewed things. The battles and wars and deaths and locations were all real, tangible things. But every now and then, when necessary, the gods would interfere. In other words, just because you say "this is how the legend really happened" doesn't mean the gods never existed or played a part.

The acting was pretty good around the board. None of it was super fantastic, but you don't really go into a movie like this and expect it to be, either. There were some interesting choices for the roles all around (John Hurt being the best). But I think these are probably the youngest I've seen the gods portrayed, particularly Zeus. Still, they did fine, as did the other actors. Though I'll be honest--Freida Pinto could be terrible and I wouldn't care. I think she's one of the most gorgeous actresses working today. (And she has a nude scene in this! I can't be 100% it wasn't a body double, though... but still!).

Most things I've read about it harp on the script and the dialogue. Besides the thousand mentions of either "the gods" or how one will be "immortalized in history" and the like, I don't recall anything that could give people much to complain about. In fact, I think the way the title was interpreted in the film was a good one. Instead of being about the obvious--the gods--it took it in a different direction. The title is more in reference to being remembered through time or being important in the grand scheme of things. There's also stuff about souls being immortal, as well.

In fact, if I find fault in anything in this movie, it's that there wasn't enough action. The action that is in the film is perfect. But I felt that when there wasn't any action going on, the film either tended to drag or not feel like it was moving forward. This mostly occurred in the first half of the film--and perhaps I felt this way because it was about the halfway point when I had my aforementioned realization. It just seemed like a lot was happening but it wasn't much at the same time. But then again, I'm sure if there was more action, people would be complaining that there wasn't enough substance. And I do have to say that the film does attempt to give you both substance and characters to care for. There was just an issue I can't quite put my finger on, and the best I can come up with is that it needed more action sequences.

The film has been compared non-stop to 300 (partially due to the fact it's the same producers). It's almost nothing like 300 outside of being a stylized Greek myth story. I do feel that Immortals won't find a proper audience until it hits DVD and Blu-Ray, which is a shame, as it's stunning enough that a big screen viewing of it is almost required to gather in all the aesthetics of it. Finally, I'll briefly mention the 3D--it doesn't add much, but it's not a detriment whatsoever. It still looks beautiful and the action brutally awesome. Perhaps I went in with expectations too high, but I still really enjoyed it, mostly thanks to the visuals and the action.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY.

So, the first one was decent and entertaining. This one, on the other hand, was that and more. Hellboy II starts off with a young Hellboy being read a fairy tale by his ‘father’, Trevor Bruttenholm (John Hurt), about the Golden Army and its origins. Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy (Ron Pearlman) is having some issues with his new relationship with Liz (Selma Blair). But when they, along with fellow friend and teammate Abe Sapien (Doug Jones), get called in to look at a crime scene with no survivors, they soon begin to realize something dangerous is afoot. Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) is attempting to reassemble all the pieces of a magical crown in order to bring back and take control over The Golden Army, though not if his twin sister, Princess Nuala (Anna Walton), has anything to say about it. Though after a little mishap that reveals Hellboy to the public eye, the director of the paranormal agency, Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), brings in Johann Kraus (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) to attempt to keep Hellboy in line.

As I said, the first movie was decent and entertaining, but this one takes it to another level. It’s not as dark as the first one, though. In fact, it’s a lot lighter with more fantasy and fairy tale aspects instead of the nitty-gritty demons, Nazis, and evil Russians of the first. In fact, there’s even a scene in a Troll Market that is somewhat reminiscent of mixing Harry Potter’s Diagon Alley with the Star Wars cantina. And the beginning with Abe and Manning walking through the department reminded me of something out of Men In Black.

The visuals are amazing, as per usual with Del Toro. There is some CGI, but there are far more puppets and costumes than computer graphics (at least from what I noticed), which is nice, because it’s not an overwhelming sensation of fakeness. There were even some really creepy parts, such as the Angel of Death sequence, which I loved. And one of the issues I had with the first movie was that it felt like I was cheated out of the battle scenes, especially the final battle. This time, I didn’t really feel like that (okay, maybe once). But the final battle was long, entertaining, and quite acceptable. Oh, and we finally got to see some cool moves from Abe at one point in the movie, though it’s very brief. Still, it was cool, nonetheless.

The humor from the first movie is still here, as well. In fact, there might be even more. The movie had me laughing out loud quite a few times, specifically the Hellboy/Kraus ‘fight’ and the Hellboy/Abe ‘moment’ (I don’t want to give it away, but you’ll know what I’m talking about).

The acting was a little stiff at times, but not too often. I was glad to hear Doug Jones’ voice for Abe. The villain of the movie, Prince Nuada, actually had some depth to him. He wasn’t just your typical revenge-seeking baddy. In fact, I could compare him (and a lot of the movie’s themes) to that of Magneto from X-Men. There were quite a few parallels, actually, to the themes of X-Men and the themes of this movie. And yes, when I said Seth MacFarlane, I did mean that Seth MacFarlane. But you really can’t tell (at least, I couldn’t).

Overall, I really enjoyed it. I found it much better than the first one, and I wasn’t left with a feeling that something was missing. Selma Blair still could have been given a bit more to do action-wise, though. She got some cool special effects with the fire, but that was about it. So she was nice to look at in more than one way. But yeah, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Short Review: Hellboy.

I saw this when it was in theater, and I think at least once sometime after that, but I saw it again tonight and wondered and wondered how to review it. So I realized a Short Review might do it best. And hey, it’s a short review that’s actually short.

--------

Premise: Nazis and Rasputin open a gateway to Hell and accidentally release a demon boy (thus named Hellboy). Sixty years later, Hellboy, along with the other paranormal bureau agents of the government, face off against a reborn Rasputin who is attempting to accomplish what he failed to do years before.

Starring: Ron Pearlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt, Rupert Evans, Jeffrey Tambor, and Doug Jones.

My reaction: Sometimes good/most-times mediocre acting (the best from Ron Pearlman). Great effects for mostly people in suits. Great CGI effects, as well (especially the long-horned Hellboy with the crown of fire). Ron Pearlman was a great casting choice, and he was hilarious in the role (‘oh crap’). Cool premise. With the exception of the Sammael fights, the bad guy fights/deaths were too short for the build up, leaving an almost anti-climactic feel to them. Overall it was fun and had a lot of potential, but it could have been done a bit better (maybe if it was longer). Still good, though.

I Am McLovin!