nixsight

Going to try and keep these brief… Holiday season is almost over, and there was a glut of movie watching done, but it’s time to clear the decks for 2009, I reckon.

Mamma Mia

Girl One has been raving about this movie since seeing it at the cinema, but was cautious about trying to sell it to me too hard. We both like musicals, but generally for different reasons, so there was no certainty that I’d like it as much as she did.

However, it was a fairly safe bet that we were going to bond on the inclusion of Amanda Seyfried in the lead role of Sophie. From “Veronica Mars” to “Big Love”, we’ve been fans of the pretty, talented actress for ages, and in this role – which seems to already be a pretty likeable one – she shines.

She’s got a great singing voice, too – and in fact, all of the mainstream acting talent in the movie do a great job on that score, with one notable exception – and the musical arrangements here are great, with a lovely chaotic feel to the choreography and camera work.

I think a lot of the songs were a little lost on me, because I’ve never really liked Abba all that much. Having said that, there are some genuinely touching moments that mostly come out of these arrangements, and I’m not immune to them. Meryl Streep on “Winner Takes It All” is awesome.

The only sticking point for me is Pierce Brosnan’s performance – the bonding sequences between the male characters are truly great, but of all the stars, he’s the only one whose singing voice isn’t quite up to what’s demanded of him, and I find it a bit distracting.

Wanted

There were so many reasons why this film shouldn’t have worked for us – Girl One doesn’t like Angelina Jolie, and to be honest, I’ve never been that drawn to her performances – and I’ve mentioned before how I felt about Mark Millar’s mean-spirited mini-series, on which this film is based.

Timur Bekmambetov has an uncertain pedigree, too – “Nightwatch” and “Daywatch” were beautiful looking movies, but I imagine Girl One might have disliked the randomness of those previous films if it was in evidence here. And James McAvoy is a peculiar pick to head the cast of an action movie.

However, though there are plenty of hokey plot elements to the movie that don’t make all that much sense – to some extent we are asked to suspend a lot of disbelief throughout – the action set-pieces and the very cool use of CG and stunt work really makes up for it.

There is some lovely, very un-Hollywood amorality threaded through the movie, too, and though it sometimes feels a little try-hard on the nihilism front, Wesley Gibson’s final monologue makes a lot more sense in the movie than it did in the original comic.

Madagascar

There’s a massive difference between a Pixar CG animated movie, and a Dreamworks one.

It isn’t in the quality of the animation – although while movies like “Shrek” and “Madagascar” are beautifully made, I think Pixar might have the edge on the direction front.

It’s in the consistency of vision, I think, and the willingness to sacrifice gimmicks and gags for the good of the story. Both studio’s movies tend to deal in alternate realities – such as the ancient world of fairy-tales, the plight of fishes or toys, or in this case the reluctant transplanting of zoo animals to the wild – or “The Wild” as the movie puts it.

But when Pixar do it, the characters behave the way the characters should – though anthropomorphised, a fish will know what a fish might know, and ditto for a toy. A bug in a Pixar film will not have a working knowledge of human popular entertainment, and unless there’s a way to make the analogue work, he’d be unlikely to need to see a shrink.

Dreamworks characters are more like normal people in fancy dress than actual consistent characters, and it seems crass to complain about it, but with Pixar doing a much better job, it’s really obvious.

(Disney aren’t immune to gimmick writing, but they tend to wait till the “straight to DVD” sequel to their animated movies before they roll out the Pop Idol pastiches and such – such as the annoying populist pandering of “Mulan 2″.)

Which is to say that “Madagascar” is pretty, with some nice moments, but one never really believes the characters of the zoo or the wild animals, and as such, you’re only ever half engaged in what is going on. To be honest, I found it a little distracting trying to work out what the reality of the film was supposed to be, and what exactly the rules that the characters exist by are.

Sacha Baron Cohen’s performance outstrips everybody else’s, with all of the best gags occurring around his supporting role. Everybody else does a perfect job with the script, and the film is often funny, though the gags are more slapstick than situational. And I’m pretty sure a giraffe’s body doesn’t bend that way.

Kingdom Of Heaven

I had only ever heard bad things about this movie, but I’m a bit of a sucker for epic historical films, Girl One is nuts for stories about noble warriors, and it was really very cheap indeed, so it worked as a perfect stocking filler.

As it turns out, it’s a pretty good movie. Unlike “Gladiator” -  Ridley Scott’s previous attempt at the genre – this one has a genuine epic feel to it, with in-camera effects and stunning sets and props taking the place of the rampant CGI and overwrought emotional posturing that plagued that film.

It’s a more interesting period of history that he’s playing with this time out, too, and while I couldn’t speak to the historical veracity of it, the deeper political and religious background to this film gives it added interest.

The script is thoughtful and sympathetic, the direction is lush and beautiful, and the battles are suitably intense and bloody. There’s a great understated performance from Jeremy Irons, a lovely Liam Neeson, and it’s always good to see David Thewlis given the sort of role he deserves, with the supporting but vital and mysterious hospitaler. Eva Green is stunning but given very little to do in this cut of the film, Alexander Siddig gives good support – if not exactly the result of inspired casting – and Brendon Gleeson and Marton Csokas are deliciously malicious villains.

I actually find it hard to see why the film is so badly maligned. Orlando Bloom is a bit difficult to buy as a noble and influential war hero, for sure, but he’s only half as vacuous as Russell Crowe is arrogant.

Having said that, there are a few times when it’s quite obvious that the film had about a half an hour or so of vital footage cut out of it, and on occasion the cuts are a little awkwardly sliced, and make it a tiny bit hard to follow. That may have considerably cut down the audience’s enjoyment of it somewhat.

There’s a director’s/definitive cut of the film available which we may make an effort to watch soon, though the theatrical version that we have is perfectly good. Which sounds, now that I write it, like damning it with faint praise, but seriously, trebuchets, siege towers, massed battling hordes and political intrigue – what’s not to like?

Journey To The Center Of The Earth

There’s this lovely thing about movies that are made to be viewed in 3d, where even now, decades after the technology became possible, the film-makers are so enthusiastic and excitable about what they can do that they keep throwing in moments that are obviously made to show off the technique.

There’s a particular sweetness to seeing those moments without the benefit of the 3d. Every coin tossed to camera or spear thrust at the viewer has that slight crisp edging, and vivid framing, that lets you know that you’re missing out on the effect, but in some ways that’s almost as good as seeing it properly. The human eye and imagination does so much that full 3d cinema is almost a redundancy, as far as I’m concerned, but the exuberance of the effort put in is akin to watching a child open up a present on Christmas morning: even though you know it’s a plastic piece of crap that will have fallen apart by New Year’s Eve, the fact that the kid thinks it’s awesome is infectious.

That isn’t even irony, incidentally. Though it’s good to have a bit more meat or substance to the entertainment in which one partakes, sometimes all you need from a movie is that it’s enthusiastic – or in this case, that if it has to look like prep-work or advertising for a theme-park ride, that it’s a ride that at least looks like it might be awesome!

The kid and female support are adequate, but let’s not pretend that the acting performances in this film rest on any more than Brendan Fraser’s ability to sell the tissue-thin story and bizarre only loosely causal progression through the various thrills. And if that’s the case, Fraser is more than up to the task, as he is, as always, likable and competent enough that you choose not to whine too much about his character’s journey from awkward science geek to studly action-hero.

There are two possible plot-holes almost big enough for one’s attention to fall through – the movie’s biggest crime, really, is to risk a broad enough plot in the first place that it’s possible for holes that big – and I’m still a little disappointed that fifteen years on, it still feels like no-one has done a better T-Rex than Spielberg. But otherwise, this was a perfect holiday season weekend matinee adventure.