![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Movie Reviews: Journey to the Centre of the Earth and Mama Mia
Yes, I saw two movies on Saturday. I know, I know. But I couldn't decide between them.
First up: Journey To The Centre Of The Earth 3D. This was in 3D, which is the main reason I wanted to see it. I'm fascinated by the new 3D technology to the extent that it doesn't matter if the script is terrible or the performances stink; I can just enjoy the visuals.
Journey isn't terrible, but it's not all that great, either. It's a film for kids who are at the age where they giggle madly when someone farts. No, I don't mean that it's full of toilet humour; it's not. But a couple of the 3D visual gags are so obviously aimed at that mentality that...well, that pretty much tells you what the rest of the film is like.
Rather than a remake of the Jules Verne story, the movie takes as its premise the idea that Jules Verne's story was true, and crazy scientists are out there trying to prove it. Brendan Fraiser plays the brother of one of said scientists, who vanished a few years ago. Having finally figured out where his brother went before he vanished, he sets out to follow the trail along with the missing brother's teenage son and a "mountain guide" who just happens to be young, female and beautiful. Naturally they end up falling into a hole in the ground which leads to...well, the title kinda gives it away.
The plot is marginally more intelligent than I'm making it sound. I'm no geologist but the science actually sounded right to me (by "right" I mean internally consistent) and bits of it fit with the geology and physics I remember from school. But there's no real emotional depth to the film; I mean, the central story is a man searching for his dead brother and a kid looking for his Dad. You'd think at least one of them would feel it.
Instead, it's basically a theme park ride. There's the runaway train thing like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, there's the walking-on-breaking-glass scene like...well, half a dozen movies but I'm thinking the second Jurassic Park or Day After Tomorrow, there's the T-Rex chase just like every Jurassic Park film and so on. Not much originallity.
Also, the film is a little too aware that it's a 3D movie. This is the big weakness of 3D: directors get carried away by the cool factor. So in this one you get lots of stuff flying at the screen, people pointing things at you, Brendan Fraiser spitting in your face (yuck!). It's a trap Beowulf managed to avoid. Honestly, 3D works so much better when the film isn't yelling "hey, isn't this cool?" at the audience.
The other thing about this new 3D technology is it relies heavily on focus. If you take off the special glasses for a few seconds you can see why. The actual digital image is doubled but the depth-of-field relies on normal camera blur and doesn't look much different without the glasses. It's only the bits meant to be in focus where you can see the double-image. The result of all this tech is an incredibly sharp picture (as seen through the special glasses) which is great - way sharper than most regular movies. But it also means that you have to look where the director wants you to look, because the picture is only sharp where it's supposed to be. I have a habit of not looking where I'm meant to when I watch movies: I listen to the right things but my eyes tend to wander to the background stuff. You simply can't do that with these 3D films, which means the director has to be good enough to make you want to look at the right things. I didn't find it so in this film.
*Shrugs* It's a popcorn film. Great for the kids, and it looks really good, but if it weren't 3D no one would bother to see it.
After lunch I saw Mama Mia. Yesterday I linked to Mark Kermode's review of the film and I agree with almost everything he said (and do watch it if you can - he's so hilarious). But the film is so much fun! I haven't laughed so much in the movies for ages. You know how I'm always saying most romantic comedies are neither? Well, this one is both.
Oh, don't get me wrong: it's an awful film. The direction is sloppy, the acting is mostly pretty poor, the plot is dumber than dumb and Pierce Brosnan and Colin Firth really, really can't sing. But I don't care.
The plot? A twenty-year-old girl, Sophie, is about to get married (and I must be getting old because she looks way too young to get married to my eyes). She desperately wants her father to give her away at her wedding, but she has no idea who he is. But she's nicked her mother's diary and knows from this that it must be one of three men. So she invites all three to the wedding, convinced that she'll magically know her real dad the moment she sets eyes on him. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work out that way. The plot isn't the point. It doesn't matter at all - it's just an excuse to string together all the songs.
The thing is, I grew up hearing those songs. I've never been a huge ABBA fan, but I know all those songs because Mum never quit playing them. So from start to finish it's all very familiar stuff. But taking a bunch of pop songs and attempting to invest them with some plot-wise significance, the way songs in a regular musical work, results in real hilarity. Some of the parts I laughed at weren't meant to be funny. Seriously, Colin Firth cannot sing and his rendition of Our Last Summer is so, so funny. Other songs kind of work within the plot but it's really just all in great fun. I'm just sorry Two For The Price of One isn't one of the songs in the film :-)
But on a serious note, there's another reason to recommend this film. How many blockbusters nowadays would give the romantic lead to someone Meryl Streep's age? How many even acknowledge it's okay for a woman in her sixties to be sexual? That's the strength of this film: it's about the women, and their relationships. The guys are just there as eye candy. I can't help feeling that a stronger director could have made this film much more than it is. But what it is, is enough. Fun, fun, fun and I'm going to see it again.
First up: Journey To The Centre Of The Earth 3D. This was in 3D, which is the main reason I wanted to see it. I'm fascinated by the new 3D technology to the extent that it doesn't matter if the script is terrible or the performances stink; I can just enjoy the visuals.
Journey isn't terrible, but it's not all that great, either. It's a film for kids who are at the age where they giggle madly when someone farts. No, I don't mean that it's full of toilet humour; it's not. But a couple of the 3D visual gags are so obviously aimed at that mentality that...well, that pretty much tells you what the rest of the film is like.
Rather than a remake of the Jules Verne story, the movie takes as its premise the idea that Jules Verne's story was true, and crazy scientists are out there trying to prove it. Brendan Fraiser plays the brother of one of said scientists, who vanished a few years ago. Having finally figured out where his brother went before he vanished, he sets out to follow the trail along with the missing brother's teenage son and a "mountain guide" who just happens to be young, female and beautiful. Naturally they end up falling into a hole in the ground which leads to...well, the title kinda gives it away.
The plot is marginally more intelligent than I'm making it sound. I'm no geologist but the science actually sounded right to me (by "right" I mean internally consistent) and bits of it fit with the geology and physics I remember from school. But there's no real emotional depth to the film; I mean, the central story is a man searching for his dead brother and a kid looking for his Dad. You'd think at least one of them would feel it.
Instead, it's basically a theme park ride. There's the runaway train thing like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, there's the walking-on-breaking-glass scene like...well, half a dozen movies but I'm thinking the second Jurassic Park or Day After Tomorrow, there's the T-Rex chase just like every Jurassic Park film and so on. Not much originallity.
Also, the film is a little too aware that it's a 3D movie. This is the big weakness of 3D: directors get carried away by the cool factor. So in this one you get lots of stuff flying at the screen, people pointing things at you, Brendan Fraiser spitting in your face (yuck!). It's a trap Beowulf managed to avoid. Honestly, 3D works so much better when the film isn't yelling "hey, isn't this cool?" at the audience.
The other thing about this new 3D technology is it relies heavily on focus. If you take off the special glasses for a few seconds you can see why. The actual digital image is doubled but the depth-of-field relies on normal camera blur and doesn't look much different without the glasses. It's only the bits meant to be in focus where you can see the double-image. The result of all this tech is an incredibly sharp picture (as seen through the special glasses) which is great - way sharper than most regular movies. But it also means that you have to look where the director wants you to look, because the picture is only sharp where it's supposed to be. I have a habit of not looking where I'm meant to when I watch movies: I listen to the right things but my eyes tend to wander to the background stuff. You simply can't do that with these 3D films, which means the director has to be good enough to make you want to look at the right things. I didn't find it so in this film.
*Shrugs* It's a popcorn film. Great for the kids, and it looks really good, but if it weren't 3D no one would bother to see it.
After lunch I saw Mama Mia. Yesterday I linked to Mark Kermode's review of the film and I agree with almost everything he said (and do watch it if you can - he's so hilarious). But the film is so much fun! I haven't laughed so much in the movies for ages. You know how I'm always saying most romantic comedies are neither? Well, this one is both.
Oh, don't get me wrong: it's an awful film. The direction is sloppy, the acting is mostly pretty poor, the plot is dumber than dumb and Pierce Brosnan and Colin Firth really, really can't sing. But I don't care.
The plot? A twenty-year-old girl, Sophie, is about to get married (and I must be getting old because she looks way too young to get married to my eyes). She desperately wants her father to give her away at her wedding, but she has no idea who he is. But she's nicked her mother's diary and knows from this that it must be one of three men. So she invites all three to the wedding, convinced that she'll magically know her real dad the moment she sets eyes on him. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't work out that way. The plot isn't the point. It doesn't matter at all - it's just an excuse to string together all the songs.
The thing is, I grew up hearing those songs. I've never been a huge ABBA fan, but I know all those songs because Mum never quit playing them. So from start to finish it's all very familiar stuff. But taking a bunch of pop songs and attempting to invest them with some plot-wise significance, the way songs in a regular musical work, results in real hilarity. Some of the parts I laughed at weren't meant to be funny. Seriously, Colin Firth cannot sing and his rendition of Our Last Summer is so, so funny. Other songs kind of work within the plot but it's really just all in great fun. I'm just sorry Two For The Price of One isn't one of the songs in the film :-)
But on a serious note, there's another reason to recommend this film. How many blockbusters nowadays would give the romantic lead to someone Meryl Streep's age? How many even acknowledge it's okay for a woman in her sixties to be sexual? That's the strength of this film: it's about the women, and their relationships. The guys are just there as eye candy. I can't help feeling that a stronger director could have made this film much more than it is. But what it is, is enough. Fun, fun, fun and I'm going to see it again.