The Walking Dead: Season 2, Part 1

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR BOTH THE TELEVISION SERIES AND THE GRAPHIC NOVELS.

After seven episodes, The Walking Dead arrived at its mid-season finale this week. Tying together several loose threads that have run throughout the season, the final episode was a tragic mix of action, suspense and devastation. Then again, what else would you expect from a show that broke records for the most watched drama in cable television history? The second season of AMC’s hit show has unfairly garnered a lot of criticism, spurred, I believe, by the sudden departure of Frank Darabont and the dreaded budget cuts that, in return, have allowed a further two seasons of Mad Men. (Not that I'm complaining!) Some say the show is moving too slowly, whilst others believe it has become nothing but ‘a soap opera with zombies.’ I’m obviously watching a different show to many others for The Walking Dead has done nothing but significantly mature this season, exploring character depth and dealing with the darker issues of survival. In no way am I stating that The Walking Dead is perfect, but hit the internet, and you’ll get an unjustified critical response that in no way represents the show itself. 

Season two, so far, has turned its back on the action sequences that made the first the success it was. A risky move, yes, but one that has paid off. Glen Mazzara, The Walking Dead’s new show runner, has used these controversial budget cuts as an advantage. Slowing the show down has allowed Mazzara to focus on the genesis of the disintegration of society and how the group’s dynamic has changed as a result. Scenes like Shane’s sacrifice of Otis when faced with certain death or Rick and Lori’s discussion about letting their son die when he is shot, to save him growing up in such a horrific world, are, I feel, much more of a reflection of the psychological impact of an apocalypse then other shows have explored.

Maggie is introduced this season.

The first seven episodes focus primarily on the search for young Sophia, who is separated from the group after a surprise attack from ‘walkers’ on Interstate 85. Yes, this plot did drag, and its culmination could be seen a mile off, yet in its execution were glimpses of brilliance that really give us, as viewers, an idea of how ambitious this show actually is. Much of the action takes place on Hershel Greene’s farm, which, in itself, opens up some interesting plot points; the ethical and religious aspects of such storylines were ones that I was not expecting yet they were welcome after finding their place on the show. From what I’ve read online, many fans are calling for the group to move away from the farm when this season resumes. (Apparently they’re too safe there). I hope they stay a little while longer, if only to explore this host of new characters further. Hershel himself, played excellently by Scott Wilson, has a lot more to contribute while Glenn and Maggie’s relationship, still in its infancy, needs to be developed. 

Rick and Lori consider letting their son die.

Andrew Lincoln as protagonist Rick, continues to impress as does Sarah Wayne Callies as Lori and Chandler Riggs as their son, Carl. Acting wise, Riggs has significantly improved upon last season, something the producers of the show have obviously recognised by rewarding him with more screen time. However, Jon Bernthal as Shane, in my opinion, is incredibly annoying. Whilst he has the ability to carry his scenes with ease, there’s nothing about him that makes me care for his character. Shane is a tortured soul, there is no doubt about that, but his progression towards becoming a ‘killing machine’ does not resonate with what Mazzara has done with other characters. Shane has already been kept alive longer than in the books. Maybe Robert Kirkman, creator of the graphic novels, was on to something when they killed him off at the end of the first issue. 

A special mention must go to Norman Reedus, who portrays Daryl Dixon. Having been bumped to a season regular, the writers have done wonders for his character, hinting at compassionate sides to his personality, something that is mirrored in his constant search for Sophia. It will be interesting to see what direction Mazzara will take Reedus’ character now that Sophia has been found dead. Her absence was, of course, the driving force behind his calmer state. 

The show differs from the books.

Perhaps much of the criticism directed at the show has come from the fans of the graphic novels, who believe the series is not what it should have been. I’m not a fan of the books themselves, having only read the first volume, yet I understand that the pace moves quickly; too quickly for my liking. Anyone expecting a complete rehash of the novels is being naïve. I’ve always said that what makes good reading does not always make good viewing. The show now has an identity of its own whilst loosely following the plot points of the novels. This, I think, is a good thing, for Mazzara’s show is no longer dictated to by Kirkman’s original source material. Many things on the page cannot be done on screen and vice versa, yet I believe anyone who critically responds to the show should judge it as a separate canon to the books. It’s a shame that The Walking Dead brand has such a reputation; the series, as a result, will never be as widely accepted.

The first half of The Walking Dead’s second season has been incredible, ending with a shocking, emotional climax that will have everyone talking until the show resumes in February. Although I’m not sure of what the time lapse will be between the first and second half, it is certain that things have been set up nicely for its continuation. Mazzara has promised new characters, new locations and new events. Fans, of course, are clamouring for the introduction of a certain Governor, although I hope any criticism does not force the writers to hasten events in order to get to certain points in the narrative. I’ve been enjoying this slow approach with the odd action sequence thrown in. Hopefully the fallout from Sophia’s demise will not be brushed aside. Mazzara has set things in place for a great deal of conflict. I just hope the second half of this season can live up to the quality of what we’ve seen so far. Keep it up AMC. With The Walking Dead, Mad Men, Breaking Bad and Hell On Wheels, you’re fast becoming the new HBO, and readers of this blog will know how I feel about that network!

The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall

Last night, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera, was broadcast live to cinemas across the world as part of its 25^th anniversary celebrations. Specially staged in London’s Royal Albert Hall, this incredible event brought people out in their droves to see the most anticipated theatrical event of the year. (The screening I attended was a complete sell out). The atmosphere in the hall must have been electrifying, yet the cinema streams had their advantages. Attendees got to see everything in high definition, up close and personal, and came away having seen something better than Joel Schumacher’s 2004, Hollywood version starring Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum. The credits began to roll, and I stepped out of our screen thinking I had been there in person. The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall was something special, and something all fans, or as the die-hards call themselves, ‘phans’, should see.

The stream kicked off with a trailer for the Phantom sequel, Love Never Dies. As much as I like the London version, the quick flashes we saw of the Melbourne production were fantastic, especially on the big screen. (And by the way, ‘Beneath A Moonless Sky’ sounds epic in surround sound). After a quick voiceover announcing the show would soon be available to purchase on DVD and Blu-Ray after a stint in cinemas, the stream cut to another trailer advertising the recordings of the Royal Albert Hall production and a new Phantom tour in 2012. Andrew Lloyd Webber never misses a trick; god knows how many people were viewing this stream across the world! After a short documentary detailing the genesis of Phantom, which lasted around twenty minutes, a title card emerged announcing that the show would begin ‘in five minutes.’ Cue last minute toilet trips for everybody. The live feed eventually flickered to life, and we were greeted with a stunning view of the Royal Albert Hall, which looks considerably bigger on screen than it is in real life.  

The show began. Immediately, it became clear that those who had opted for the cinema screening had the best seats to the show. The close-up shots of the actors made this look more like a film, yet somehow, it never lost the magic that makes Phantom the theatrical experience that it is. The emotion, the clarity, the sheer brilliance of everybody’s acting ability was visible for all to see. I can’t imagine what it was like for those opposite the stage, across the other side of the Albert Hall. It’s easy to be carried away by the magnitude of such an event. Yes, it has the flashy special effects and the pyrotechnics, yet its brilliance lies in the two main actors: Ramin Karimloo as the Phantom and Sierra Boggess as his obsession, Christine. Their performances were nothing short of breathtaking. Our screening came with German subtitles, a potential annoyance, yet they were soon forgotten and I found myself so immersed in what was happening on screen that there were moments when I would question whether the subtitles had appeared on screen for a scene that had just occurred. 

Karimloo joins the cast once again as The Phantom.

Whoever follows Karimloo’s Phantom is going to have a tough job. I was lucky enough to see him twice in the title role at Her Majesty’s where the original show has been playing for 25 years, and saw him twice in Love Never Dies at the Adelphi before it (criminally) shut. How wrong I was to presume that Karimloo’s performance would be a ‘rehash’ of his earlier days as the iconic character. Karimloo brought an entirely new interpretation to the role, a renewed energy that really built upon the third dimensional aspects of such a character. The tears on his face in moments of silence, the anguish in his eyes, the yearning in his body language: these subtle yet powerful moments could only be appreciated by those in cinemas and the first few rows of the Albert Hall. Obviously I cannot comment on the show from the perspective of those ‘in the Gods’ as I was not there, yet I hope they can appreciate Karimloo’s achievements. The final lair sequence from ‘Down Once More…’ onwards can be described as nothing short of devastating. You could have heard a pin drop in our cinema. The idea of a live stage stream to cinemas could have resulted in a disaster, but it was anything but, something which bodes very well for the forthcoming Love Never Dies DVD. 

Boggess and Karimloo in 'Love Never Dies.'

Boggess, in her role as Christine was also phenomenal. Karimloo and Boggess have real chemistry, something which has been allowed to develop through Love Never Dies. It pays off here. The graveyard sequence where Christine sings ‘Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again’ was chilling, and rightfully earned Boggess a rapturous round of applause from the audience at the Albert Hall, and I imagine, right across the world. Hadley Fraser as Raoul was also brilliantly cast to complete the perfect trio for such a spectacle. 

The staging, as was to be expected, was pretty simple, relying heavily on projections, with the odd prop or two, yet this did not detract at all from the experience. In fact, it probably worked better than it would have done had every prop from the original production made an appearance. The boat sequence was played out almost exactly how it is in the original, and the chandelier, although already raised, was revealed in spectacular fashion. The projections, in a way, enhanced the show. For example, Christine reads a letter from the Phantom and we see him writing it, on the screen in the background. The Phantom’s abrupt appearance at the end of the 'Masquerade' sequence is enlarged by the screens, and as such, impose a genuine threat upon all of us. His skull mask was pretty creepy! My favourite use of projections was at the end of ‘Think Of Me.’ In the original, Christine turns her back to us and faces back stage, as if she is facing the audience of the Paris Opera House. Here, she does the same thing, although the audience at the Albert Hall was projected onto the screens to make it look as if she was singing to them, before the ‘back stage scene.' It was a nice touch, one in which the audience was physically brought into the show itself.

Favourite scenes for me had to include ‘The Music of the Night’, the boat sequence, the finale from ‘Point Of No Return’ and ‘Masquerade.’ ‘Masquerade’ is a big number anyway, but nothing compares to three, full companies singing it and blasting off the roof in the process. It’s nothing short of epic, especially against the orchestra which stretched the length of the stage. Perhaps this was one let down of being in the cinema. There was so much going on in the ‘Masquerade’ sequence that the cameras didn’t know where to look. A series of quick cuts were frustrating at times.

The only problem we had with our stream was a short break where the signal dropped. In the mean time, we received quick flashes of ‘The Gospel Channel’ (much to the humour of the audience) as the cinema tried to regain the picture, which they did within a minute, and thankfully, it was during a part where no one was really bothered. (the ‘Don Juan’ rehearsal scene, if I’m not mistaken).

The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall really was a phenomenal event and one which can be watched over and over again. Phantom has survived the West End for 25 years now and shows no sign of abating. The most successful piece of entertainment ever keeps going strong and it’s no wonder why. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s score has entranced generations of people, and will, I’m sure, entrance generations to come.

You can purchase The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall on DVD here and Blu-Ray here. The CD recording is also available here.

You can purchase the Melbourne production of Love Never Dies on DVD here and Blu-Ray here.

9/11: Ten Years Later (CBS)

This post is not really a review. It is more a commentary on a stunning documentary about 9/11. I urge you all to watch.

In 2001, two French film makers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet planned to make a documentary on a rookie fire-fighter, from his journey as a ‘probie’ to a fully qualified member of the New York Fire Department. That fire-fighter was Tony Benetatos, a young man who ‘always wanted to be a hero.’ For weeks, Benetatos’ moves were filmed by the Naudet brothers as he fought small fires throughout the city. Then, one September morning, at a routine gas leak call, Jules Naudet heard the roar of a jet engine. Pointing his camera to the sky, Jules captured the only piece of footage of American Airlines 11 slamming into the North Tower of the World Trade Centre. What followed was an unprecedented series of events that would change our world forever. Jules followed the fire-fighters as they arrived on the scene and as such, caught the only film recorded from inside the towers themselves. For two hours in 2002, CBS and BBC viewers sat glued to their screens when the Naudet’s film, 9/11, finally aired. Now, ten years on, with the memory of September 11^th still as raw as ever in our minds, Jules and Gedeon Naudet have returned with an ‘extended edition’, a ‘catch up’ with the fire-fighters, documenting how 9/11 has changed their lives. What they uncovered were shocking stories of how that fateful day is still claiming lives and how many men are still living with ‘survivor’s guilt’ as well as stories of hope and courage.  

Ladder 1 is the focus of the Naudet's 9/11.

The aerial views of the Twin Towers’ collapse is disturbing as it is, yet the Naudet’s documentary taps into all of our fears because it offers a glimpse of the perspective from those on the ground. I suppose we could even go so far as to say that it gives the perspective of the firemen themselves. After all, few other documentaries, if any, managed to follow the heroes of that day as they desperately sought to save as many civilians as possible. Even if we cannot fully understand what happened and why, the Naudet’s film allows us to observe these horrors like no other piece of footage that exists.

Whilst the clean-up operation and aftermath of the attack is hinted at in 9/11, there’s no real exploration into the psychological repercussions of such an event and the toll it has taken on the men. Finally, 9/11: Ten Years Later approaches the subject with full force. The original documentary resisted from delivering any kind of political message to its audience. Ten Years Later changes that. The Naudet brothers return to Ladder 1 on Duane Street, only to hear that two of the firemen who featured prominently in their film, have died from cancer, which in turn has been linked to the toxic cloud of dust that covered New York for days. The Naudet’s follow up, then, is a response, if not an attack, to the idea that compensation will not be given for cancer related illnesses. It’s a blatant criticism of a Government that has let their service men down. These stories are overwhelmingly sad. Indeed, the original documentary is now so well known that these men almost feel like our acquaintances.

Joseph Casaliggi re-appears in Ten Years Later.

One of the firemen speaks of how he no longer works for the NYFD because of 9/11, how he is no longer married because of 9/11 and how he is haunted by 343 (the number of firemen who died that day). Although you cannot really ‘review’ a film like this, I must praise the Naudet brothers for raising awareness, for not letting us forget and for informing us about how these firemen are still suffering because of what they saw on September 11^th. A number of fire-fighters, for example, admit that they drink more and that they are still going through counselling. Joseph Casaliggi returns to tell how he wakes up every day, wondering whether he will be told that he has a serious illness. The event, in a way, overshadows what follows. 9/11 itself was huge, but the individual stories of those who survived it are not told. We are not made aware. The Naudet brothers must be commended here for their efforts. 

Tony Benetatos, the 'probie.'

In contrast to this, however, there is still a message of hope that shines through the film. It may be a yearning for the unification that people felt in the days following the attacks but the Naudet brothers show how life can move on, and that we can still look forward whilst remembering the past. Joseph Pfeifer is now the Chief of Counter Terrorism. Tony Benetatos, the 'probie', is now a member of the Decontamination Unit of the fire service, a husband and father, while Dennis Tardio is a grandfather after retiring. Life, as they say, moves on.

The Naudet brothers, at the close of Ten Years Later, sum up what Nicholas Cage as John McLoughlin concludes at the end of Oliver Stone’s World Trade Centre: "9/11 showed us what human beings are capable of. The evil, yeah, sure. But it also brought out the goodness we forgot could exist. People taking care of each other for no other reason than it was the right thing to do. It's important for us to talk about that good, to remember. 'Cause I saw all of it that day."

9/11 is not a documentary that attempts to tell us why this event happened. It is purely a truthful account of a heroic group of men that worked together and made a sacrifice for their country. Ten Years Later offers us an insight into what these men went through after 9/11. If any documentary on 9/11 is worth watching, it’s this one.

Photos property of CBS and the Naudet Brothers: No infringement intended.

The Troll Hunter

THIS POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

Another ‘found footage’ film has made it onto our cinema screens this week. Troll Hunter, a Norwegian ‘mockumentary,’ written and directed by André Øvredal, follows a group of students who set out to make a documentary about a supposed Bear poacher, Hans. As the trio secretly follow and film Hans, they uncover a truth more shocking than anyone could ever imagine. Hans is a hunter, working for the Norwegian Government, killing trolls that have escaped their ‘territory.’ Unlike Apollo 18, this film treats its ‘found footage’ style as an asset. Surprisingly, Øvredal has crafted a little gem here, and while it may not achieve mainstream success, it will most certainly earn a cult following and rightly deserves it status as one of the better films of summer 2011.

Troll Hunter is not a horror and it doesn’t pretend to be. Part drama, part comedy, part social satire, Hunter works because of its tongue-in-cheek attitude towards itself. As a piece of film, it shines due to its ability to never take itself too seriously. Maybe this is what sets it apart from its Hollywood counterparts. There’s a sense of uniqueness here, a sense of foreign originality which is all too lacking in film these days. Yes, we are indulged with beautiful shots of the Norwegian landscape, but its genius stems from more than its patriotic, loving scenes of its homeland. Hollywood conformities are ignored and whilst the ending is predictable because of the way it is filmed, the rest is unpredictable, thrilling, and at times, down right menacing.  

Considering Øvredal shot Troll Hunter on a challenging budget of US $3.5 million, the special effects are of the highest standard. The creature designs in this remind me of Guillermo del Toro’s work on his own masterpiece, Pan’s Labyrinth. Combined with sweeping shots of Norway’s spectacular scenery and Hunter contains stunning cinematography that really adds a sense of scale to events. Although I was quite critical of the style in my previous review of Apollo 18, the ‘found footage’ aspect really gives the film a raw, authentic feel and is an excellent example of how this doesn't only have to be employed in horror films.

Creature designs reminscent of Guillermo del Toro's work.

Øvredal has fun with the creature’s ‘look.’ He is not concerned with how scary they seem. Indeed, the physicality of these monsters border on the humorous. Øvredal focuses on an ‘event’ in the film and its repercussions, rather than how he expects his audience to feel. This, in a way, adds to the realism of the picture and helps with the development of its characters. Jumping at times from the hilarious, to the tense, to the absurd, it all somehow works. Keep an eye out for the slight pokes at Hollywood blockbusters: Hans attempts to lure one of the trolls out of hiding using a sheep as bait, an obvious throwback to the infamous scene in Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, whilst a sequence where our heroes are fleeing an attack in their car is almost identical to the Tyrannosaurus Rex chase. Moments like this, with an underlying subtle humour, is where Troll Hunter excels.

I suppose UK and US audiences cannot fully appreciate the more ‘knowledgeable’ parts of the film’s humour. Hans is played by Otto Jespersen, a famous (and apparently controversial) Norwegian comedian who may be largely unknown to international viewers. The other main actors seem comfortable in their roles although a largely improvised script has its limitations and issues. When one of their team dies, they do not seem as upset as expected and within minutes they already have a new member joining them for their expedition. For a film that ‘pampers’ its realism, this seems a little disjointed compared to other moments of brilliance.

It may be slow in places, but this post-modern take on local folklore will certainly leave you feeling both satisfied and shocked. 106 minutes may be a little too long for this kind of film and the climax seems a little rushed, but its strengths overshadow any criticisms that it draws. It’s wry, it’s clever and most importantly, it’s fun. Go and see it before the inevitable Hollywood remake is released.

My Rating: * * * *

While I’m here, I must criticise the UK trailer. If you’ve seen it, ignore it. What the distributors of Troll Hunter were thinking when they put out such a ridiculous, cheap, tacky advertisement, I don’t know. In an attempt to make the film appeal to a wider audience, they’ve made it look like some ‘zany’ comedy. Isn’t it better to advertise a film on its own merits rather than trying to mould it into something it’s not? 

The official trailer you SHOULD watch!

 

The awful UK trailer:

 

Apollo 18

THIS POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS.
 
Apollo 18 is frustrating. Extremely frustrating in fact. Gonzalo López-Gallego’s ‘found footage horror’ has the potential to be something brilliant, yet in its desire to be something that it’s not, it fails spectacularly. ‘Found footage’ has been done to death, and in my opinion, The Blair Witch Project is the best of the lot, with REC coming a close second. Apollo 18, however, offers something unique, something that in hindsight, could refresh the genre for millions more to enjoy. Its strength lies in its setting: the moon. Immediately it is obvious that these characters will have to endure loneliness, isolation and segregation from humanity. If the film even bothered to tap into these simplistic yet raw themes, it would be an extreme improvement. Unfortunately, everything you want to happen is ignored and what is left is a thin storyline, an attempted horror and plot holes the size of moon craters. (Couldn’t resist. Sorry.)

The premise of the film is actually fantastic, which makes the finished outcome all the more disappointing. Film footage, uploaded to www.lunartruth.com, reveals that the cancelled Apollo 18 mission did in fact launch but never returned, which is why we never went back to the moon. The film, which acts as the material uploaded to the net, uncovers the secrets that NASA has been holding back for years. It’s all very intriguing. The problem lies with the film itself. Multiple sub-plots are stronger than the main story thread, ignored for the most part and only brought back to our attention when they’re conveniently needed. Inextricable problems are suddenly solved without a second thought and the film relies a little too much on the ‘Deus Ex Machina’ plot device to end the character’s dilemmas. It’s dumb and it’s stupid and a great disappointment.

Russians on the moon: One of the better storylines.

Visually, the film is stunning. López-Gallego should congratulate himself on his recreation, but it’s not enough for us to ignore the major flaws that exist here. The film takes an extremely long time to get going, too long for us to feel as if it’s worth investing anything here. When it does, things get interesting. Our main characters find an abandoned Russian landing module on the moon, the inside trashed and covered in blood. This is where Apollo 18 should have focused its energy; as the astronauts communicate with Earth in an attempt to uncover the truth, there is a genuine sense of foreboding and uneasiness. Not surprisingly, this disturbing atmosphere, so expertly crafted, only exists during the more realistic parts of the film, only to dissolve once the idea of an alien creature is introduced. Unfortunately, the Russian story is relegated to a subplot and left forgotten until the very end and there’s no concrete explanation as to why they are actually there. Reasons are hinted at, but for something that is given such prominence at the beginning of the film, the pay off is weak. I’m sure it would be fair to say that Apollo 18 would work far better as a conspiracy thriller. If López-Gallego could think of a legitimate reason as to why the Russians were really there and what happened to them, then this would most likely be something excellent. After all, why does the ‘found footage’ genre always have to revolve around the horrific?

Logic and realism are sacrificed to make a ‘horror’ film that offers nothing new than the one before it. When the good old ‘alien passing outside the window’ scene arrives, it turns out creatures the size of small rocks possess massive shadows that cover the entire lunar landing module. López-Gallego and his team have fallen victim to the horror clichés that dominate the genre these days. This brings me to the biggest plot hole of all, as well as the biggest spoiler. If you’re still planning on watching, I would recommend that you stop reading now and come back later.

All three astronauts die. Any footage that exists is either destroyed in space or left on the moon. We are told at the beginning of the film that, ‘we never went back.’ How, then, did this footage ever get found? I feel as if Dimension Films are really scraping the barrel when their entire marketing campaign (found footage from the moon!) is a sheer impossibility. Are we really meant to believe that this all just found its way back down to Earth? Even an unrealistic explanation would be better than nothing. Ignorance is rife here and it shows.

The casting of three unknowns is a good decision, although their performances are not the best I’ve ever seen. Warren Christie as Astronaut Ben Anderson has the best scenes out of the trio, and he makes the most of the climactic, ‘You’re not coming back to Earth’ scenario. I would be surprised if anyone still cared about these characters by the time their ‘official’ fates are revealed. Apollo 18 is only ninety minutes, yet a long, drawn out beginning makes it feel much longer. As the credits roll over a sombre, piano rendition of ‘We Three Kings’, you will already have pulled apart much of the film’s plot lines. You may also wish you’d spent your £5 on something else. This is one that is destined for the bargain bin when released on DVD and Blu-Ray. No doubt some more footage will have been 'found' by then to bulk out the special features.

Apollo 18 is an extremely predictable story. There’s no substance, no cathartic value. If there weren’t hints of something better in the remnants of an awful horror, then maybe I wouldn’t be so disappointed. It is said that in space, no one can hear you scream. After watching Apollo 18, I don’t think anyone would care.

My Rating: * *

Band of Brothers: Ten Years On

In 2001, HBO screened the stunning, ten part mini-series, Band of Brothers. Clearly inspired by their earlier collaboration on Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg reunited to tell the story of Easy Company of the 2^nd Battalion in the 506^th Parachute Infantry Regiment assigned to the 101^st Airborne Division of the United States Army. (What a mouthful!) This biographical account was to be an intimate look at those who fought and died, side by side for their country, and how, in essence, they became ‘brothers.’ Ten years on and Band of Brothers is still as significant as ever; the themes it explores are so very reminiscent of events in Afghanistan and other current war zones. The emotional and physical sacrifices of these men are analysed in heart wrenching detail. It is, quite simply, a majestic piece of television, hardly surprising seeing as it’s a collaboration between HBO and BBC. Balancing ideas of patriotism and heroism alongside the violence, terror and barbarism of war, Band of Brothers is as painfully realistic as a series can hope to get to real events. In fact, it is essential viewing, if only to gain some sort of idea of what the Second World War was like. Yes, some scenes may have been created or exaggerated for dramatic purposes, yet its structure which approaches these men on a personal level, helps us to realise, if not evaluate, just how much these people went through. Ten years on and Band of Brothers is still one of the best war epics ever made.

Human aspects of war take precedence.

I feel strange about calling the act of war a ‘genre.’ Genre is tricky, and something which can trivialize such a delicate subject. Labelling Band of Brothers as a drama seems much more appropriate and something which I believe contributes to its success. This series works because of its timeless nature and I am not talking about the scenario. The focus of this drama is on the men of Easy Company, their lives and how the deal with the situation that they find themselves thrust into. Strip away the breathtaking, war cinematography and we’re left with ideas and themes that we can all identify with. Death, friendship, romance and divorce are explored throughout. There is a yearning on behalf of these characters to find a meaning for their actions, in a war that seems meaningless, at least from their perspective. The writers of The Pacific, a sister series to Band of Brothers use the same approach. Whilst I do not think that it holds the same ‘classic’ status as its predecessor, the quality of the series and the time it spends identifying and analysing its characters, is un-doubtable. Even in Brothers' moments of extreme action, the camera does not indulge in gratuitous and unnecessary violence. Instead, amongst the sweeping battle shots, each director focuses on these men and their core instinct: survival.

Television has become superior to film.

Clear character arch’s can be seen through the series. From Easy Company’s training in England, where the soldiers are raring to fight, to their horrifying experience at the Battle of the Bulge where a substantial loss of life is experienced, we, as viewers, are able to gain an idea, not just of war itself, but of how these people were forced to adjust to war as a way of life. Shifts in mentality because of war is probably the most major point that Band of Brothers successfully hammers across to its audience. We see these men break before our eyes, we see their collapse of human spirit and as such, the pacifist in each of us questions what war can actually achieve.

I suppose this focus on character is where modern war films lose their focus. This, in turn, highlights the genius of television. A ten hour series allows us to identify with these characters; we are able to understand to some degree, the problems they face and the way they think when it comes to every day challenges in the midst of war. Television allows a project a little more room to breathe (an expression I’ve used in a previous post, but one which I stand by). A two hour war film does not. Whilst there is not much that can rectify this problem, the feat of a series is something which has made television superior to film in recent years. Quality television is not hard to come by now and early series’ such as this one can take credit for this newly emerged trend, although this can be saved for another discussion entirely. I do think, however, that war dramas in the present attempt to rise to the heights that Brothers has set. In other words, the approach to Brothers has been a major influence in war films that have emerged in the past decade.

Picking relative unknowns was a smart move on behalf of HBO. Few actors post-Band of Brothers have gone on to do anything mainstream, with a few exceptions of course. David Schwimmer as Sobel is probably the most recognisable due to his role as Ross Geller on Friends, yet ten years on and he has taken more of an interest in directing, than a position in front of the camera. Damien Lewis is probably the most successful out of the ensemble cast (who gel brilliantly together by the way). Yes, we have those cameos from Simon Pegg and James McAvoy, yet their careers have only taken off in the past few years. Rick Gomez as George Luz stands out for me. He, if anything, enforces the idea of Band of Brothers as a ‘human drama’ with the humour that he brings to the show. These lighter moments, away from the chaos of battle, is where Brothers excels, a welcome contrast to the bleak outlook of war and an insightful look as to how these men managed to cope with the seclusion they experienced and their segregation from their families. 

Shane Taylor plays medic, Eugene Roe.

Band of Brothers encompasses the people who helped the war effort, but who would otherwise be forgotten. The medic, Cpl Eugene Roe, played excellently by Shane Taylor, has an entire episode built around him. (‘Bastogne’ is probably one of the best episodes of the series). People like Roe are not those who predominantly feature in films based on war, yet Brothers actively seeks to include them. Moments like these remind us of why HBO’s drama is so great.

Band of Brothers was never meant to be anything ‘political.’ It was a drama that was meant to inform us of how these people fought and died for their country. Brothers premiered on HBO on 9^th September 2001. With the 9/11 attacks occurring forty eight hours later, it was somewhat ignored by the public (compared to its popularity now) in a time of crisis. Eventually, however, Brothers found an audience on DVD, and as such has become more significant then ever due to the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Brothers, in my opinion, now means more in a post 9/11 world than it ever would have meant pre 9/11. The series is needed, if only to help us catch a glimpse of the human dilemmas that face those deployed oversees, today.

Band of Brothers, I believe, will still be relevant in twenty years time. If you haven’t seen it, watch it, for you are missing out on what is, quite frankly, a masterpiece. As for a complete understanding of war, maybe that is impossible. As Pvt. David Kenyon Webster, played by Eion Bailey, says at the end of episode eight, entitled, ‘The Last Patrol’: “I wondered if the people back home would ever know what it cost the soldiers to win this war. In America, things were already beginning to look like peace time. Standard of living was on the rise. Racetracks and night clubs were booming. You couldn’t get a hotel in Miami Beach it was so crowded. How could anyone ever know the price paid by soldiers in terror, agony and bloodshed if they’d never been to places like Normandy, Bastogne, or Haguenau?”

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS

Andy Serkis recently stated in an interview that motion capture is like make-up. The actor acts and the visual effects are applied later. At first I was a little reluctant to embrace this view. Then I saw Serkis' performance in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the latest ‘reboot’ to hit our cinema screens, brought to us from British director, Rupert Wyatt. Forget James Franco or Freida Pinto. Serkis is the star here and it’s time that motion capture was recognised as a legitimate form of acting. Surely Serkis will receive some sort of recognition for his performance. It is, quite frankly, the best use of motion capture that Weta Digital has ever put onto film, beating even that of James Cameron’s Avatar.

Serkis plays Caesar, an orphaned chimpanzee with enhanced intelligence, made possible through the testing of a genetically engineered retrovirus applied to his mother. As scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) battles to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, he becomes increasingly ignorant of the repercussions that his experiments are having on his test subjects. Soon, the battle for supremacy begins as Caesar leads the rebellion against humanity.

Apes is driven by character, saving its action for the third act. This, of course, is part of its brilliance. Caesar’s life is documented by Wyatt in documentary type style before unleashing the uprising that is teased throughout. Indeed, the title for the film was originally Caesar before Twentieth Century Fox changed it to be a recognisable instalment in the well known franchise. (The less said about Tim Burton’s remake the better).

Serkis is terrific as Caesar.

I cannot praise Serkis’ striking ability to bring an emotional, three dimensional depth to a character that is visually made up of CGI, enough. Serkis’ genius resides in his eyes. In essence, they betray his character’s emotion when compared to the misleading façade that Caesar attempts to demonstrate to his human counterparts. His confusion at his mistreatment, his yearning for the safe haven he has learned to call home, his thought process and hatred of his enemies is all portrayed through his eyes. It is an incredible performance, and once again I shall reiterate the need for motion capture to be recognised at some of the more prestigious award ceremonies. You only need to catch a glimpse of the trailer to see what I mean. Human antics are present within Caesar; interesting questions about the bonds between the animal and the human and the boundaries between them are posed whilst the ethics, the moral philosophy and the wrongs of animal testing are also hinted at. It is, however, only a slight hint. Wyatt stops short of plaguing us with the political messages that he could easily promote in a film like this.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a drama and not, I would argue, the action film that the premise implies. The tension builds, at times, to unbearable levels and the turning point, the game changer of the film, where Caesar embraces his Spartacus-esque position as the rebellion’s leader is a fantastic, shocking, gritty and raw moment. “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” Tom Felton’s character screams at Caesar as the tables turn and the animals rise to dominance. “No!” Caesar shouts back, the first words spoken by the ape. This is drama at its best, executed perfectly and a nostalgic look back at the quote made famous by Charlton Heston in the original film. (I'm pretty sure the audience gasped here, such is the intensity). Many viewers looking for cheap thrills may prefer less time spent on Caesar’s hardships and more time dedicated to the action, most prominently the stunning final battle that takes place on the Golden Gate Bridge. Quite rightly, however, this is not the case.

James Franco puts in a disappointing performance.

The human cast is what prevents me from giving this film a perfect five stars. Franco has little to do in the final hour. We catch quick glimpses of him running around looking for his former chimp friend but his performance is disappointing, especially after his turn in Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours. Freida Pinto, last seen in Slumdog Millionaire (another Boyle film) is dull at best and brings nothing new to the table while Brian Cox just looks bewildered for the majority of his screen time. Tom Felton has a little too much Draco Malfoy in him for his performance to be taken seriously but in all honesty, it is hard to overshadow Serkis. Indeed, the 'ape only' scenes are some of the best that the film has to offer. John Lithgow, however, is heart breaking in his portrayal of a father afflicted with Alzheimer’s. Wyatt handles the subject tastefully and with sincerity. It is interesting that he includes the degradation of the human mind against the evolution of the ape’s intelligence. Symbolic? Yes. Gratuitous? No. Apes, at its core, deals with a son trying to save his father. It revolves around one man who attempts to achieve the impossible whilst trying to deal with the repercussions of his hubristic nature.

I hoped for a shot of a post uprising world yet Wyatt does not humour us with such events. This is only the rise of the apes and not the complete take over. One of the last images of man and ape standing side by side is an iconic one, and leaves the viewer to image what will happen next. Yes, the original films tell us what will occur in the far future, yet I cannot help but think that there is a missing chapter in between this prequel and the first film of the classic saga that will link all of the chapters in a definitive way. If there isn’t, it’s one hell of a jump, even with the scene that plays over the end credits, of which I shall not spoil.

  

Many have raved about this film. Some of the praise I find a little excessive. This isn’t a classic but along with Super 8, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is one of the better summer blockbusters to hit our screens this year. Terrifying, touching, emotional and raw, Wyatt’s film is essential viewing, if only to see how it pays homage to the original. I enjoyed it and I believe Fox will turn this into their next summer franchise. Expect sequels.

My Rating: * * * *

Captain America: The First Avenger

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting much from Marvel's latest blockbuster. For starters, I know absolutely nothing about the character (only that he was introduced to American audiences during the Second World War in an attempt to boost public morale). I also believed that Captain America: The First Avenger would act as one long trailer for the much anticipated Avengers film, arriving next summer (in the same vein as Iron Man 2). How wrong I was. True, there's nothing deep about Captain America; it embraces its patriotic roots and plays off its propaganda beginnings. There's no self doubt or inner demons plaguing our hero here. For once, it's all about the fun and Captain America excels in it. It's no Dark Knight but it certainly outshines 2011's other super hero flicks: Thor and X-Men: First Class, both of which I thought were brilliant. 

The First Avenger follows Steve Rogers, a boy desperate to join the army and help fight for his country in the Second World War. He is soon transformed into a super soldier, becoming Captain America, supporting troops oversees before he himself is plunged into the midst of battle, attempting to stop Red Skull, Hitler's head of weaponry, from using a tesseract energy source for world domination. Yes, the plot is preposterous, but it really doesn't matter. Captain America was created to promote America, and that's exactly what the movie adaptation does. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen so many stars and stripes in one film.

I believe Thor and Captain America work because of their uniqueness. They break the mould, if you will, of the generic super hero movie that we are all now accustomed to. Iron Man, Spider Man, even The Dark Knight to some degree, (although in no way am I criticising the latter) all take place in a city location. Frankly, it's beginning to get tiresome. The majority of Thor, however, takes place in the mythical world of Asgard, while Captain America takes place on the front line of World War II. It's a refreshing take on something that's been done thousands of times before. On that note, director Joe Johnston has done a terrific job of mirroring the streets of forties New York. This could, in all honesty, be your typical war drama. 

Chris Evans, after his disappointing, if not disastrous turn as the Human Torch in Fantastic Four, is perfect for the role of Captain America. I suppose, in hindsight, it was Evans who encouraged my reluctance to see the film in the first place. After all, it would be so easy to turn Cap into the cheesy, gimmicky joker that Evans played in one of Marvel's worst film franchises. There's no need to fear. The action is fun, but there are moments of seriousness that allows Evans to actually act. The Human Torch, truthfully, was a very two dimensional character. Surprisingly, Captain America is one hero who doesn't mind killing people; this is war after all. (One particular scene with a propeller comes to mind. Nasty.) Hugo Weaving as Red Skull brings nothing particularly interesting to the role. He does, at times, embrace the awful cliches that seem to epitomise Hollywood's portrayal of evil. It's a shame, but the film's positives outweigh these minor criticisms. Even the film's supporting cast, Stanley Tucci as Abraham Erskine, for instance, is brilliant. Credit must also go to Hayley Atwell as love interest, Peggy Carter, a Brit who holds her own amongst the film's strong, American cast.

It'll be interesting to study Cap's character arch in The Avengers. After all, his transition into the present could surely be a premise for a whole other sequel. It's almost a shame that Evans has to sacrifice his screen time in order to make way for the others. Maybe Captain America 2 before The Avengers would have made more sense. I will, however, reserve complete judgement on this until I see The Avengers. 

 

‘A weak man knows the value of strength and compassion,’ Tucci mutters to Evans during the course of the film. This is very much the theme of the movie. Captain America: The First Avenger won't win any major awards, but it will entertain the child inside of you, and, if you can stomach Alan Silvestri's overwhelming, patriotic soundtrack, you may leave the cinema feeling very satisfied indeed. Remember to stick around for a post-credits trailer for The Avengers. 

 

"You know what?" I said to my friend, who attended the same screening. "I'm no comic book nerd, but that just got me very excited." Congratulations Marvel. You've set everything up for The Avengers very nicely. Very nicely indeed.

 

My Rating: * * * *

Game of Thrones: Season One

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS

“When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground,” Cersei Lannister spits at Ned Stark in HBO’s adaptation of George R.R Martin’s epic. Truer words were never spoken. I suppose I must congratulate HBO on actually pulling it off. The sheer volume of Martin’s first instalment is enough to dissuade any producer from taking on such a burden, yet David Benioff and D.B Weiss have ruthlessly plucked chapter one of A Song of Ice and Fire and turned it into Game of Thrones. To the untrained eye, Thrones is fantasy, yet this is a presumption that needs to be cast aside. Benioff’s and Weiss’ adaptation is a tale of politics and power play, set in Westeros, a quasi-medieval world that visually resembles our own history. As such, there are hints of realism here. This could be, dragons and pet dire-wolves aside, a historical drama depicting the feud between three families that revolves around the Iron Throne. 

It’s impossible to sum Game of Thrones up into a coherent paragraph that’s a viable length for a blog. I will, however, have a go. It’s all about power. Having it, wanting it, in some cases even lusting over it. Three feuding families, the Lannisters, the Starks and to a lesser extent, the Targaryen’s, fight for the Iron Throne, the one thing that will give them the power they desire so much. Game of Thrones truly is devastating; the advantages of such power are highlighted to a degree by King Robert Baratheon in, of course, the most crass way possible. “I just want to drink myself to an early grave and f**k girls,” he says, or something to that extent. Yet the repercussions of such power is when Game of Thrones really gets going. Families are torn apart by dividend loyalties, tyrants become rulers and dark secrets lurk around every corner. This isn’t just about the magic. This is fantastical opera that rivals even that of J.R.R Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. Martin has created an entire universe. Major players of the game of thrones are scattered thousands of miles. Race, religion, sanctions; they’re all here in what has to be one of the most disturbing series to hit our screens this year. 

There’s no real resolution to Game of Thrones’ first season. After all, this is only the first piece of the puzzle. The map during the opening credits (well done Ramin Djawadi on the theme music, by the way) only alludes to the mass expanse of Westeros. There are, I feel, a whole host of places waiting to be explored. (Notice how the opening sequence changes depending on where the action of the episode takes place). One thing I must comment on is the closeness to the book. I’m astounded Benioff and Weiss have managed to stick to the original text with such detail. The ten hour adaptation gives Game of Thrones a little more room to breath. Had this been a two hour film, Martin’s genius text would have been massacred.

Game of Thrones succeeds because of character. It’s the one thing that drives the plot and it’s the better off for it. If anything, Game of Thrones is centred around humanity with all its perfections and, of course, its imperfections. There are no heroes or villains; the Starks, I suppose, are the ones we are meant to root for, yet even they possess dark motivation that blows any morality out of the water. We perceive the Lannisters as the ‘villains’ yet Cersei, the King’s wife, is purely motivated to do the things she does in order to hide her affair from the husband that never truly loved her. Acts of desperation can be misconstrued as acts if bitterness and revenge, but in Westeros, it is every man (and woman) for himself.

Sean Bean is fantastic as Ned Stark, and I won’t waste my time writing about the legend that is Peter Dinklage (Tyrion Lannister), who emerges as the fan favourite. For me, however, it is Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen who really shines. Exiled as a young girl, after a coup on behalf of Robert Baratheon sees her sadistic father overthrown, Daenerys is thrust into an arranged marriage by her brother who yearns for his rightful place on the Iron throne. Clarke, a relative unknown, is simply superb in her subtleness. For her, the events of Game of Thrones are a journey that sees her grow into a ‘Khaleesi’, or Queen, in her own right. Many have overlooked the Targaryen plotline. If you have, I implore that you go back and take another look. Clarke could well emerge as the star of Game of Thrones and rightly so. If anything, I’m rooting for her to get the throne. It will be interesting to see how she develops during the second series, which will, of course, be an adaptation of Martin’s A Clash of Kings. 

Visually, Game of Thrones is incredible. Weiss and Benioff really use medieval Europe as their inspiration, avoiding the fantasy clichés that dominate most pictures. The effects really are astounding. Every second counts. High sweeping scenes of Westeros (which is actually Northern Ireland and Malta) seem to relish in the beauty of such scenery. Winterfell, Lord Stark’s home, is the epitome of bleakness. At times, there is a translucency to the backdrop of this place, a cold, hard outlook that represents the harsh winter, a stark (pun intended) contrast to the rich and warm colours of the Baratheon household. Game of Thrones’ cinematography is stunning in detail. Maybe some of it is lost on a television screen. This is where my interest is piqued as to what the visual would be on a cinema projector.  

Needless to say, Game of Thrones’ first season has been both shocking and rewarding. It’ll be interesting to see how an adaptation of the second book goes down. Producers have already confirmed that the very long Storm of Swords (which will be Game of Thrones’ third season) will depart from the book, a move that  has been given a negative response from fans. If you felt as if Game of Thrones was lacking in pace (I don’t know why you would!) and only picked up towards its finale, stick with it. Yes, you may think you’ve seen the biggest shock the show can offer (end of episode nine, anyone?) but there is plenty more where that came from. *Cough* Red Wedding *Cough*. Fans of the book will know what I mean. Fans of the television show will have to wait. One thing is certain, however. Season two is going to be one hell of a ride. I, for one, cannot wait until play resumes.