Tag: Tim Roth

THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Directed By: Louis Letterier
Written By: Zak Penn (Script Revisions By: Edward Norton)
Cinematography: Peter Menzies Jr.
Editing By: Rick Shaine & Vincent Tabaillon & John Wright

Cast: Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Blake Nelson, Tim Roth, William Hurt, Ty Burrell, Lou Ferrigno


Depicting the events after the Gamma Bomb. ‘The Incredible Hulk’ tells the story of Dr. Bruce Banner, who seeks a cure to his unique condition, which causes him to turn into a giant green monster under emotional stress. Whilst on the run from the military which seeks his capture, Banner comes close to a cure. But all is lost when a new creature emerges: The Abomination.

While somewhat improved over the first movie this re-take of the comic character still doesn’t find the right tone for a satisfying hulk project. This film seems to be trying to give the fans everything they want that the first film lacked the only problem is they have a very bare blueprint to base the story elements around

The effects were better in the first film and I liked the moving comic canvas of the first film it at least showed some inspiration here with Edward Norton in the lead and helping with the script I expected a better output than what I saw on the screen. The plot wasn’t that interesting or engaging. This film was very painted by numbers story-wise it had classic action scenes and a CGI battle between two beasts but when I watched this film I don’t remember asking for an animated film sure I want a comic book movie that might involve a little fantasy but do want some realism. It also does the requisite by involving a character who seems minor but perfectly setting up a villain for the sequel for those who notice.

One of the problems I don’t think Louis Leterrier was the right director for this project he is used to making fast-paced action films I know directors are supposed to have a wide range but he’s not ready for that yet. This is a hero film for the MTV generation with all the fast cuts and such. It also appears that the film was entirely filmed on backlots and soundstages I can understand the need for secrecy during filming so that no one knows in advance what is happening. But the budget for this film is huge the funny thing is it doesn’t show on the screen other than the effects everything else looks cheap or false not making for the best looking film.

The one female they showed in Brazil must be the only one for miles around and she is over the top hot yet has no lines. Tim Roth as one-note as the villain that really showed no motivation at all for his villain. Liv Tyler and Edward Norton for old long-lost lovers seem to have no chemistry and both seem to try very hard to have it. This hurts the film since at the heart of this tale is a love story in the middle of a comic book film. For all the ingredients in this tale, the poetic and artistic integrity of this film doesn’t feel very deep as it wants to be. William Hurt as General Thunderbolt Ross made me remember. How much I missed Sam Elliot as the same character from the first film he was compassionate and doing his job William hurt here just seems like a jerk who says he loves his daughter but his actions prove otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong there were good things in this movie the chase scene through the favela comes to mind. But nothing too noteworthy.

Why is it in colossal disaster films New York is the city all the destruction takes place in and where the epic battles must be fought? Does New York really need more publicity we have enough tourism to go and destroy some other cities it would be nice to see maybe to have stuff go down in Miami or Arizona there’s a lot of open space and dessert there.

While the film might work as an action-adventure film. Which tries to improve upon the mistakes of THE HULK movie. Which was more artistic and character-driven.So as that was more the origin story this film was more the continuing adventures of Bruce Banner. So like most sequels, it was more action-packed and go bigger as we know the characters already.
Though it also shows the limitations of director Louis Letterier who is skilled when it comes to more action films and sequences. He has more of a problem doing emotional scenes and making the film feel more dramatic.
While the film might work as an action-adventure film. Which tries to improve upon the mistakes of THE HULK movie. Which was more artistic and character-driven.
So as that was more the origin story this film was more the continuing adventures of Bruce Banner. So like most sequels, it was more action-packed and go bigger as we know the characters already.
Though it also shows the limitations of director Louis Letterier who is skilled when it comes to more action films and sequences. He has more of a problem doing emotional scenes and making the film feel more dramatic.

Spoiler – Plus what the hell are they going to do with the abomination now that the hulk didn’t kill him and he can’t turn human again and we know the professor is going to turn into the villain the leader the smile on his face is like a wink to the audience or fans of the comic at least.

Spoiler end

So in the end you have to wonder was it worth all of your attention to make a film that is the same quality as the original but instead of character and emotions, this film is all about action and special effects.

GRADE: C-

FUNNY GAMES (2008) (REMAKE)

~ jbg ~ Leave a comment

Written & Directed By: Michael Heneke 
Cinematography By: Darius Khondji 
Editor: Monika Willi 
Production Design: Kevin Thompson 
Art Direction: Hinju Kim 

Cast: Tim Roth, Naomi Watts, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearheart, Siobhan Fallon, Boyd Gaines 

In this English-language remake of a deconstruction in the way violence is portrayed in the media, a family settles into its vacation home, which happens to be the next stop for a pair of young, articulate, white-gloved serial killers on an excursion through the neighborhood.

Not as good as the original of course I think the real weakness of the film is not only going back and repeating something that was never wrong, to begin with just to expose it to a massive audience that might have not seen the film the first time just because it was in a foreign language.   

The remake doesn’t show growth but hey rockstars have to play their classic hits once in a while, Even with new band members. If they are willing to pay you to do it why not.


I think one other weakness this film has is that it is opened up more than the original, with more characters. Who are minor but it opens it up. which in the beginning was scarier and more intense because it was more intimate.


It’s not a shot-for-shot remake but is similar enough. Maybe the film doesn’t affect you because we already saw the original and know what’s going to happen. Whereas when you see the original it’s a shock and keeps you on the edge of your seat. Watching this is like watching an imitation even though it is by the same director. Maybe it is also because whereas there were no stars in the original. So anything could happen and It felt realistic. Seeing stars in this you know it’s just fake and doesn’t penetrate any of my emotions like it seems to be directed to. By bringing well-known actors into the film also gives them nothing to do but whimper in pain for two hours there are no great characters to play or great lines unless you have the villain’s role in this film.


you also notice that in the original the female star was in her underwear for a scene then gets clothed. Here Naomi Watts spends most of the movie in her underwear. Sure it’s great to look at but I guess it was meant to tap into American horror films as usually the females run around naked and in their underwear as they are stalked and killed rarely do they survive. In fact, there is no real violence shown only the aftermath. The only time there is violence it happens to one of the villains.


The main villain also doesn’t speak to the audience as much as he did in the original, maybe it was deemed annoying. The remote scene which seemed daring in the original seems like a gimmick here. Here in making it bigger, it is marketed as a thriller but shot like an art film with attention to detail and colors but with no real shown violence that the audience is waiting for.


It also plays with the conventions of films such as foreshadowing and making an excuse for the violent behavior, breaking the fourth wall, and the illusion that in the end, everything will turn out fine. The false hope that it can all turn around because that’s what happens in the film. They wouldn’t be that messed up.


It plays with the rules that you have come to expect and then just when you think it will follow narratives you have seen it switches it upon you.

The pacing also seems off that it makes the film almost seem boring. Some could look at it as satire. It is obviously a message movie because all that happens in the film makes you realize your own bloodlust and includes you as a co-conspirator in all that happens because you are sitting there watching for entertainment.

SPOILER:


Like the scene where Anna is then taken to the boat where she attempts to cut herself loose with the knife shown earlier in the film, only to have it taken from her as a way to mock the standard Hollywood foreshadowing. She is then dumped overboard and drowns as the two boys discuss school fiction and state the message of the film quite clearly by stating (in reference to a novel they read) “the family was real, the hero was in fiction”, demonstrating that violence is real and what occurs for entertainment happens in reality, however rising above the odds and becoming a hero only happens in fiction. And as a note, all of the killing is off-screen, this is a pro-reality but anti-violence film in its own brutal right

SPOILER END


Now I didn’t exactly write the last paragraph but it is summed up pretty well that I agree with it I say if you didn’t see the original this might be interesting but if you did you don’t really have to bother with this film. Trust me rent the original it’s a lot better.

GRADE: C