King Kong (1933) Review.

Everyone knows the tale, everyone knows the monster. The famous story of King Kong is one of the most recognized stories on the planet, along with Godzilla, Frankenstein and a few others. So when I decided to watch King Kong I was ready for a trip down nostalgia lane.

A group of film-maker’s travel across the sea to film on ‘Skull Island’. Carl Denham, the films director, knows of a large beast living on the island, and wants to capture it. As the group head further and further into the wilderness of the island, more and more catastrophic events unfold before their eyes.

In its day, King Kong was a colossal technical achievement: The stop-motion technology employed in the film was certainly ahead of it’s time, hardly being bettered until Jurassic Park came along in 1993. That’s 60 years. Despite it having the façade of being prehistoric, it has a certain uncanny tone, which is perfect for this story of exploring the unknown. And that’s something that animation just doesn’t have anymore.

Just as prehistoric as the animation is the acting. The majority of the performances are stiff and hammy, with many an awkward moment thrown in between. Most of the dialogue is stark and, troubles me to say, plain. Basically put, the performances aren’t of today’s standard and are seldom immaculate.

That isn’t all though. After a discomforting first half an hour the film heads into full throttle with the appearance of Kong. Becoming a tour de force, King Kong never slows down. You’ll be lucky to catch you’re breath in-between each powerful and extraordinary scene. This remarkable storytelling of King Kong is perfect; as long as you don’t mind one or two debauched scenes (there is a scene where racism is imminent).

As the film reaches its climatic end, there is a scene that is no-doubt one of the most iconic images in the history of cinema. Planes are flying and people are panicking, and amidst all this terror and fear is a large gorilla, doing what he thinks is right. He has destroyed trains as opposed to snakes, he has smashed planes as opposed to pterodactyls, and all for love. Trapped in this unknown-yet-familiar city, a concrete jungle if you will, there is this large cruel beast who is absolutely terrified. Then, as he reaches the top of the Empire State Building, he is shot down. This is incredibly mortifying. A large cruel beast who was feared by everyone was, in the end, just trying to be reunited with his love. This goes to show that everything, no matter what size, has compassion and feeling. Completely realizing this, Carl Denham says the famous line “It was beauty killed the beast.”. And it is ever so true.

It’s rigid, hammy and clichéd at timeS, but what is so spectacular is the tone King Kong gives. The animation is ahead of its time, not only giving an iconic image of Kong, but giving it an atmospheric ambiance. It tells the classic story of Kong with perfection and ease, as well as providing a deep moral nuance. I don’t know how it’s done it, but King Kong has withheld the test of time and has still proven to still be the great film it was years ago. 

Rango (2011) Review.

As far as animations go in the film world, movies like Toy Story and Shrek are perhaps the best you will watch. The reason for this is that most animations are developed for children, with no deeper meaning. Now, before you go on saying “now, how could a mainstream film like Rango be any different?” let me explain.

Rango is the story of a pet chameleon who finds himself stranded on the road, left behind by his owners. Soon afterwards he meets Beans, a resident of the appropriately-named town “Dirt”. Dirt is a dusty town in the middle of the desert, and is in desperate need of water. The longer Rango stays in Dirt, the more he finds out about its history, resulting in a few more problems than you would expect… 

Now, if you want to see an animated film with your children, I don’t suggest seeing Rango. Rango may seem appealing to children but the truth is that it’s more of an adult’s movie. The film get’s into some deep elements near the start of the film, and doesn’t let up throughout. Many of the topics presented in this film will either just go right past children or worse, confuse them. I can’t say that children won’t enjoy this movie; most likely they will, but some scenes may confuse them.

Visually, Rango is beautiful. Industrial Light and Magic has managed to create one of the most stunning animations since last year’s Toy Story 3, and that’s a great feat. Each character and set has been given the most intricate detail, setting a very rustic atmosphere, which is what I believe they were aiming for. All the characters in the film are given a very dirty (or beastly) look, which pays off in the end, contributing to the films overall atmosphere of a not-so-typical animation.        

The script is quick-snap and clever, but not clever enough to be anything special. This script is used to the best of its ability by the cast, with a range of great vocal talents such as Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin and Ned Beatty.

There are also a few neat film references in here as well, the most obvious being the spaghetti Western nods. As Rango walks around like a ‘typical’ westerner, donning his poncho, you can see the influences clearly. 

As for complaints, the only true fault in Rango is that it goes on for just a little too long. Not a very big complaint, but a notable one nonetheless.

Overall Rango is a beautifully animated film that brings much joy. The cast are well chosen, the story is unique and there is some nostalgia thrown in for good measure. Some of the overall themes are too obscure for children, but nonetheless this is a film that both adults and children will adore.

Source Code (2011) Review.

2 years after his previous film, Moon, Duncan Jones’ new film, Source Code, hit the theaters. After showing potential through his previous film, Duncan has now proven himself to be on the front of new directors, with the promise of becoming a great ‘new-generation’ director, possibly even reaching the acclaim that directors like Christopher Nolan and David Fincher have received.

Source Code has a storyline that is very insinuating to the 1993 classic film Groundhog Day, as the main story involves giving the main character (in this case Colter Stevens, played by Jake Gyllenhaal) the ability to relive a period of time over and over again. 

Colter Stevens is an army officer who has woken to find himself in an enclosed chamber, where he is the center of a ‘scientific’ breakthrough, called Source Code. As he spends time in this chamber he learns why he is there and what his purpose is. This purpose is for him to relive the last 8 minutes of teacher Sean Fentress, a passenger on a train which was destroyed in a bomb attack. He must keep revisiting Sean’s last 8 minutes over and over to eventually identify the bomber, thus preventing another explosion in the future. This is the main stronghold of the film, with many smaller stories intertwined within, giving the film a feeling of depth.

Before I go into the appealing aspects of Source Code, I would like to point out a few of the flaws. This film’s genre is defined as science fiction, which it is, but reputedly not in some aspects. Science-fiction is meant to depict technological advances with a few other themes showing up often, such as space and time travel. Now this film does have ‘time-travel’ as a sort, even though in the film it is described more of ‘time reassignment’ than anything else, but the real problem lies where the science is.

Source Code is supposedly an advanced program which helps predict what will happen in the future, but the way it is depicted in the movie is very obscure. Colter Stevens is ‘taking over’ Sean Fentress’ mind, finding out what happened in the last 8 minutes of his life, but does that mean that he receives Fentress’ memories as well? Supposedly not, but it is never explained, so you can’t be sure.

There is another problem with the Source Code itself is the suggestion of pseudoscience (which is how the Source Code ‘works’), which is explained far too easily in the film for it be even believable by the most obtuse viewers, rather than the enigmatic nature of explanations in other science fiction films. This kills off any part of the film feeling like it could even plausibly happen; it is never realistic. And sure, films aren’t really ever meant to be realistic, but when you watch films you feel part of the film, you are almost ‘in’ the story for the period that it runs for. Here it just throws you back into reality.

Nevertheless, the rest of the film is rather well paced and always interesting. Despite Stevens returning to the same ‘event’, it always manages to involve something new: a new detail or an aspect not shown to the viewer beforehand. This keeps the viewer interested and never bored.

The cast is well chosen, with Jake Gyllenhaal obviously being the most noticeable actor, playing Stevens with a convincing performance of a customary, genuine character. Michelle Monaghan plays a sweet and occasionally anxious character, Christina Warren. Vera Farmiga plays the charming and slightly lonely Goodwin, who acts as the ‘good cop’ in the story, opposed to the ‘bad cop’ that Dr. Rutledge (played by Jeffrey Wright) ends up being.

The script is well written, with many a memorable quote, and a subtle atmosphere is brought by it, an atmosphere of despair and worry, with a slight overhanging feeling of cheer and humor. It isn’t anything particularly special, but it’s worth a mention.

As for any other lasting criticism, the last scene could do with some work for viewers, as the ‘message’ if you can call it that, will fly over some (or many) viewers heads. As Stevens and Christina approach the ‘Cloud Gate’ in Chicago, the world around them is shown as distorted and bent. I think that this makes it reflect on the film as a whole, showing how they distort the future and bend it into something else.

Source Code is a flawed science fiction film, but it’s not without its great moments. The cast is well chosen, the dialogue is notable, and the concept is interesting, even if it is not pulled off as well as you would expect. Some viewers may get slightly confused with the story, but most will understand.  Duncan has proven himself to be an ‘up-and-coming’ film director, and I can’t wait to see what he comes up with next.

Citizen Kane (1941) Review.

Orson Welles masterpiece was a film of many troubles. It was hated when it was released due to it’s in-the-wrong-light depiction of Hearst (a famous newspaper tycoon), who tried to get the film destroyed. Despite being nominated for many oscars, it only won one, for screenwriting. This was Orson Welles only oscar. But it got through all those troubles, and was eventually realized as one of the most important films ever to have been shot. I hope this review does justice to the film, as it truly is a cinematic chef-d’oeuvre.

Journalists struggle to understand newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane’s last words (“Rosebud”), inspiring William Alland, a news reporter, to set out on a hunt for the true meaning.

Citizen Kane is a wonder of a film, being the very essence that is Orson Welles, relying on the fact that he got the once-in-a-lifetime chance to direct, produce, act, write and cast the whole movie, letting no-one else interfere. It was this very straightforward direction of the film that led it to become one of the most celebrated and influential masterpieces in the history of cinema.

Dark, melancholic themes run through Citizen Kane in a very subtle and intrinsic way, crafting what is some of the greater motifs that we as humans try to overlook. There is the desire for happiness, the corruption and power of fame, depression and solitude, and it gives the film it’s overall ambiance. It was this depression that controlled Welles, and led to him ‘being’ the character that he played: a lonely lugubrious pessimistic man who died alone, never finding what he desired. This impeccable acting on Welles behalf won him an oscar nomination for best actor. As for the other performances, Joseph Cotten is a delight as Kane’s best friend Jebediah Leland, as is Dorothy Comingore’s take on a repressed and maltreated ‘singer’  as Kane’s second wife, Susan.

As brilliant as the acting is the script, being very well-structured and aristocratic, as well as having many memorable lines. It gives all the actors a chance to perform at their best, and that’s just what they do.

Even more spectacular is the cinematography throughout the film. The bizarre and unique shots that Gregg Toland has utilized has been flawlessly perfected, taking some incredible scenes and and making them paradisaical. The lighting is used masterfully throughout the film, and with Tolands fantastic use of ‘Deep-focus’, this makes for the most beautiful of shots. Welles recognized Toland’s incredible contribution to the film and put his cinematography credit in the final title card of the film next to his own, showing his appreciation towards his efforts.

There is that unnoticed and dexterous way that this film performs every shot and every take. Many camera angles are shot down low to show the characters are ‘larger than life’, the many themes, like mentioned before, are profound in their presentation (for example, the theme ‘money can’t buy you happiness’ is reflected by Kane’s line ‘You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn’t been very rich, I might have been a really great man’) and many counterparts of a characters personality are shown in a sui generis way (an example is Kane’s obsessive buying of statues, reflecting how he tries to control everyone around him, but always fails). Of course, there is the famous symbolization of the snow globe and sled, referencing the only true time Kane ever truly enjoyed life. You could miss these small intricacies, as you need to be able to appreciate and analyze films properly to fully enjoy Citizen Kane.  

The way i see films, defined by time and era, is before Citizen Kane and after Citizen Kane. The depth is exceptionally profound, the acting sublime and the cinematography beautiful, making for one of the greatest, if not the best, films of all time.