Tag Archives: Charlie Hunnam

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017)

Did we need another King Arthur movie? Of course not. But I certainly didn’t mind one, especially if it’s directed by Guy Ritchie. I thought applying Ritchie’s frenetic pace and direction to this re-envisioning of the class tale might deliver a fun, action-packed experience in the vein of his Sherlock Holmes franchise. Unfortunately, Ritchie missed the mark.

Legend of the Sword does have some good things going for it. Ritchie infuses his unique style, visuals and colour palette to the King Arthur world, and you end up with a lot of wild sequences of characters running around and chirping slick dialogue in thick accents. The action is pretty fantastic too, especially all the fights and battle scenes with Excalibur. Reminded me a lot of the stylized scenes from 300, with lots of speed manipulation but less blood. The film actually looks and feels like a video game a lot of times, in a good way. And David Beckham even has a cameo!

But sadly, Legend of the Sword just doesn’t feel right. It just doesn’t come together the way it should have. For starters, as much as I like him, Charlie Hunnam feels all wrong as Arthur. He’s just…too old? He starts off as a little kid, and not that many years later, he morphs into Hunnam, who is 37 in real life (and looks it) but is supposed to be in his early 20s in the movie. As a result, he doesn’t have that youthful vibe Arthur ought to have.

Secondly, the story picks and chooses from the Arthur legend but does it in a weird way. There’s the sword of course and mention of Mordred, but Merlin is nowhere to be seen and Arthur is raised in a brothel but somehow is also taught to be a badass by a bunch of warriors. The main baddie is Jude Law’s Vortigern, Arthur’s uncle, who makes a deal with some weird demonic creature that looks creepy and fantastic but is never explained. There are also these giant elephants that are clearly ripped off from Lord of the Rings.

Thirdly, the story itself is just not very interesting. After an explosive start, the majority of the middle of the film sags as Arthur and his mates run around trying to escape enemies and forge a plan. Arthur has some character development moments, but he’s never particularly relatable. There’s some humour throughout, though I wouldn’t call it particularly funny.

On the whole, Legend of the Sword is probably better than its 28% rating on Rotten Tomatoes suggests and more deserving of its $97m box office against a $175m budget. It has nice visuals and action, and Guy Ritchie fans will appreciate his sensitivities in the direction, but the film is too strangely mediocre in terms of plot and engagement for me to recommend it.

2.5 stars out of 5

2012 Movie Blitz: Part 11

Safe House (2012)

safe-house-movie-poster-02

Denzel Washington plays an ex-CIA operative who turns rogue and becomes an international criminal who, unsurprisingly,  appears to be more than meets the eye. Ryan Reynolds plays a low-level CIA agent who is tasked with looking after Denzel when the latter is captured and brought to a South African safe house (hence the title. Disaster strikes, and Reynolds is thrust into a dangerous situation in which he must figure out who he can trust in order to discover the truth behind everything.

It’s the type of basic premise we have seen dozens of times before (albeit with slight variations) — where a decent but relatively inexperienced guy out of his depth is paired with a slick professional and there is a big conspiracy waiting to be unveiled (is this considered a huge spoiler?).

I don’t mind these movies per se, but I’m a bit sick of the whole “Denzel is so cool” routine we seem to be getting in just about every film we see him in these days. You know, charismatic, super cool under pressure, extremely gifted in firefights and hand-to-hand combat, acts like he doesn’t give a crap about anything but cares deeply about doing the right thing in accordance with his own principles. As for Reynolds, I’m assuming he just played exactly the same type of character in RIPD (which I haven’t seen yet but will).

Look, Safe House isn’t bad — there’s intensity, action, suspense and a few semi-predictable twists here and there — but there is nothing that makes it memorable or stand out. In fact, I had forgotten a lot of the details and had to give myself a little refresher on YouTube and Wikipedia just to write this review. The performances are solid, but I didn’t like how the action sequences were edited with those quick, choppy cuts that prevent you from seeing exactly what is happening.

On the whole just an OK thriller that fails to live up to its full potential despite Denzel and an all-star cast that also features Vera Farmiga and Brendan Gleeson.

2.75 stars out of 5

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012)

The-Perks-of-Being-a-Wallflower-poster

I swear I still intend to get to the acclaimed book on which this film is based, written by Stephen Chbosky. I’ve heard so many people rave on about the book that it would be an injustice for me to ignore it. Interestingly, the film version is directed by the author, who wrote the screenplay as well. Usually it’s a recipe for disaster to place so much of a story in the hands of a single person, but in this case it was complete justified because The Perks of Being a Wallflower turned out to be one of the best coming-of-age movies I’ve seen in a long time.

Charlie, played by Percy Jackson‘s Logan Lerman, is a high school freshman dealing with a traumatic loss from the year before. Shy and withdrawn, he is a wallflower, someone who observes but is never really part of the story — until he meets step-siblings Sam and Patrick, played by Emma Watson (Harry Potter) and Ezra Miller (We Need to Talk About Kevin), who accept him as part of their group.

Without going into too much more detail, this is a story about the loss of innocence, friendship, falling in love, loyalty, betrayal, and all those things many of us go through as we grow into adults. With full control over the material, Chbosky delivers an extremely genuine and heartfelt story told through a sensitive and delicate lens that I’m sure will be easy for many teens to relate to and conjure up a deep sense of nostalgia in adults. It’s hard to explain except to say that I connected with this film more than I thought I would and that I fully believed in the story from start to finish. Yes it is sentimental in parts but not overly so.

I’m astounded that Chbosky has only previously directed one other film, in 1995. The tone and atmosphere he creates in The Perks of Being a Wallflower is masterful and reflects just how in command of the material he is. He must also be credited for eliciting the best performances I have ever seen from Logan Lerman and Emma Watson. Let’s face it, Percy Jackson and The Three Musketeers are not the best films for a thespian to show off their acting talents, but Lerman is unbelievably believable as the mild-mannered Charlie who is immediately likable but is also clearly holding onto something that prevents him from opening up. Your heart goes out to him. The only complaints could be that he is not quite young-looking enough to pull off a freshman or that he is too good looking to play such a loner.

As for Emma Watson, wow. I always thought she was the most talented out of the Harry Potter trio, but here she completely sheds the shackles of Hermoine and gives us the best performance of her career. The same can be said for Ezra Miller, whom I thought would forever be trapped in my nightmares as the horrific Kevin (from We Need to Talk About Kevin, one of the best movies of 2011). Here he is a completely different character as the giddy and affable Patrick and totally made me forget that he butchered a bunch of kids in his previous role.

In some ways, The Perks of Being a Wallflower might oversimplify or even glamorize some difficult issues in adolescent life, but for me it’s a small flaw in an otherwise brilliant motion picture.

4.5 stars out of 5

PS: I’m almost doing The Perks of Being a Wallflower a disservice by reviewing it as part of a four-film movie blitz, because it deserves a solo review of its own. But I am lazy and I can’t be bothered.

Deadfall (2012)

deadfall_xlg

A stylish crime drama of intersecting subplots that feels strangely complicated but is actually very straightforward.

Eric Bana and Olivia Wilde play a pair of siblings on the run after a casino heist has gone horribly wrong. For some reason they must split up so they could reach their goal of making it across the Canadian border under blizzard conditions, kicking off a string of violent events and coincidences that eventually all comes to a head in a climatic flurry. The film is powered by an A-list cast that also features Charlie Hunnam (Pacific Rim), Kate Mara (House of Cards), Kris Krisofferson, Treat Williams and Sissy Spacek.

I found Deadfall a difficult film to grasp because it seems to be moving along confidently, taking the audience in several directions seemingly without aim, but there is actually an underlying strategy all along to pull all the strands together by the end. But at the end of it all, I said to myself, “Is that it?” Despite the intrigue, I was left wondering what the fuss was all about.

That said, I was engaged and kept wondering what was going on through the majority of the 94-minute running time. I suppose you could call it dark, character-driven film, but then again I didn’t really care for any of the characters. Could it be described as a B-grade movie masquerading as an A-grade movie because of its sound technical efficiency and the super cast? I dunno. I can’t decide whether I liked the film, disliked the film, or if I am just indifferent about it. Meh.

2.5 stars out of 5

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (2012)

seeking-a-friend-for-the-end-of-the-world-poster

Every now and then comes along a really interesting idea for a movie and the execution is nearly good enough to pull it off, but for whatever reason just doesn’t quite get there. Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, starring Steve Carrell and Keira Knightley, is such a film. It starts off brilliantly and has its fair share of genuine laughs and oddly comical moments all the way through, but unfortunately it loses steam halfway through and drifts towards a rather disappointing final act.

The film starts off with the announcement that the world, as we know it, is coming to an end. A giant asteroid is coming to Earth and there’s no Bruce Willis to save us. With just three weeks until impact, the world is understandably flipped into chaos (with drugs and suicides and looting and guilt-free sex dominating), but at the same time there are many lost and lonely individuals out there who have no idea how they are going to spend the last few days of their lives. Steve Carrell, whose wife leaves him in the opening scene, is one of them, until he meets Knightley, who had just broken up with her boyfriend and has no chance to see her family in England one last time.

Seeking a Friend could be described as a road trip comedy-drama, but it’s really a fascinating imagining of how the world would react if everyone thought they had just days to live. Would you keep working in your job because you have nothing else better to do? Or would you stay with family and go have beach BBQs all day? Or will you go crazy and break every law you can think of, just for the sake of it? A lot of the things depicted in this film, as random and outrageous and hilarious as they are, strangely ring true. I laughed often and hard, especially early on.

I’ve never been a big fan of either Carrell or Knightley, so I was shocked to discover that I really liked both of them in this. Despite the age gap (51 to 28), they had a comfortable rapport and a sweetness to them, and the resulting banter was sharp and clicking.

However, perhaps feeling like it cannot be a pure comedy with no emotion (given it is the end of the world, after all), the film starts to become more personal and begins venturing into light melodrama, regretfully sucking out its earlier charm. The closer it got to the end, the more flat and uninteresting things got. Some of the attempts are indeed poignant, but frankly I just wanted more laughs.

3.5 stars out of 5

Movie Review: Pacific Rim (2013) (2D)

Gotta give the Aussie robot a plug!
Gotta give the Aussie robot a plug!

Ever wondered what Transformers vs Godzilla would be like if it was directed by Guillermo del Toro? Well, Pacific Rim might give you some idea.

Del Toro, the visionary master who gave us Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone (as well as Hellboy and Blade II), apparently gave up on directing The Hobbit so he could work on projects such as Pacific Rim, his personal version of a light summer blockbuster focused on spectacular visuals and popcorn entertainment as opposed to the recent trend of dark, brooding movies such as The Dark Knight Rises and Man of Steel.

The result? A mixed bag, I’m afraid. Del Toro succeeds in making Pacific Rim a visual feast that pays homage to the Japanese monster movies and robot anime I loved so much as a kid, but on the other hand the script (which he co-write with Travis Beacham) is so pedestrian (to put it nicely) that it prevents the film from achieving what could have been all-round brilliance. That’s disappointing because we all know from his past films that del Toro is a brilliant storyteller when he sets out to be one.

Pacific Rim starts off by placing us right in the middle of the story, with a lengthy explanation about how gigantic monsters, known as “Kaiju” (from the Japanese word for “monster”), began emerging from the depths of our oceans some time in 2013, wreaking havoc on cities all around the world. While it makes zero sense, the world’s governments decide to join forces to create “Jaegers” (German for “hunter”), which are essentially massive robots, to fight the Kaiju. That’s about it.

(Personally, I thought it would have been a good idea to start right from the beginning, because seeing the Kaiju rise from the depths up close and in detail for the first time would have been a jaw-dropping sight. But the movie is already 132-minutes long, so maybe not.)

At its core, Pacific Rim is just enormous robots and gigantic monsters beating the crap out of each other. And that’s awesome. Del Toro infuses the action sequences with his marvellous visual flair, supersized to an awe-inspiring scale. His attention to detail in the movements of the Kaijus and Jaegers and their interactions with their environment puts Transformers to shame. As great as the visual effects were in Transformers, there was always something fake and cartoonish about the robots, but in Pacific Rim the effects are so seamless that such thoughts never crossed my mind.

The look of the Jaegers and Kaijus are also amazing and emphasize del Toro’s genius when it comes to creature design. Each monster has different attributes and characteristics, as do the Jaeger, which reflect their country of origin (such as the US, China, Russia and Australia). Watching a showdown between such wonderful creations — with remarkable clarity, by the way — was truly an exhilarating ride.

Unfortunately, it’s the humans who bring Pacific Rim down. The film is at its best when there is no talking or attempted character development, because as soon as the humans interacting the film nosedives into mediocrity. I don’t think the acting is horrible but it feels horrible because of the atrocious dialogue. It’s as though the screenwriters thought no one would care about the characters or the dialogue so they just came up with the quickest way to progress the story by summarizing all human interactions into cringeworthy cliches — and yet it felt like there were far too many attempts to make us care about them. The end result is a lot of unsatisfactory, disjointed and embarrassing “human drama” fillers in between the action scenes.

The formulaic storyline also appears to tick every plot-point box of Hollywood blockbusters these days from The Dark Knight Rises to The Avengers to Skyfall (not sure if this qualifies as a spoiler, but if you don’t wanna know, skip this paragraph now) — an early catastrophic incident for the protagonist(s), forcing them to start over from the bottom; a deceptively clever antagonist(s) who plans a trap for our hero(es); and a moment of despair that seems impossible to overcome, just before the final heroic climax.

I know all of this sounds harsh. After all, isn’t Pacific Rim supposed to be a summer popcorn movie? Yes, it is, but I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a little more in the other departments, especially considering this is del Toro and not Michael Bay we’re dealing with.

The cast is headed by Charlie Hunnam, best known from the TV series Sons of Anarchy. He’s really just an older poor man’s Garrett Hedlund (Tron: Legacy, The Road) who takes his short off more often than Taylor Lautner (though to be fair, I would too if I was that ripped). He’s OK — physically suitable but lacking the requisite charm to carry a film like this.

Playing his Jaeger partner/love interest is Japan’s Rinko Kikuchi, a fine actress I remember from 2006’s Babel. She’s actually pretty good, as is Idris Elba as a drug kingpin…oh hang on, that’s The Wire. Actually, here he’s just the boss of the Jaeger pilots. He’s Idris Elba, so you know he’s awesome, even though he does deliver a hilarious Braveheart speech (compulsory for all movies with a final battle) in his original British accent (which actually felt kinda weird).

For comic relief, we have two scientists and Kaiju experts. The first is Charlie Day, who is nearly as loud and abrasive (and occasionally adorable) as he is in It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. The second is Burn Gorman, who plays a rip-off of Tucker from There’s Something About Mary, complete with the whiny voice and dodgy limp.

Tucker, is that you?
Tucker, is that you?

Rounding out the main cast are Max Martini (American) and Robert Kazinsky (Brit) as two fake Aussies with really exaggerated accents. Seriously, why not get some real Aussies? oh well, at least it was good to see one of them playing a semi-villain.

The actor who steals the show is del Toro favourite Ron Perlman (aka Hellboy), who plays a black marketeer who harvests the organs and body parts of dead Kaijus. It’s an outlandish and campy performance that Perlman absolutely nails, and the few short scenes with him and Day are the “human” highlights of the entire film.

Pacific Rim got a lot of very positive reviews, which surprised me in some ways given how critics are always so quick to savage poor dialogue and characterization. I have a feeling much of the warm response stems from their respect for del Toro as a visionary filmmaker. I really wanted to like Pacific Rim a lot more than I did because the last two Transformers movies just about destroyed my faith in humanity. The creature designs and action sequences fulfilled if not exceeded my expectations, but those things alone were not enough to reach the bar I had set for the movie.

3.25 stars out of 5

PS: No matter what you thought of Pacific Rim, the groundwork has been laid for what could potentially be a blistering sequel, apparently already in the works.