lordman Reviews

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Trope-filled, silly, pretty, and fun.

[6/10 · 16 November 2014]

(VERY minor spoiler below) The Winter Soldier may be dressed up as an espionage thriller. Don't fall for the deception, it is a silly, high-budget, dumb but thrilling action-adventure-sci-fi-romp through and through. On the inevitable way to its conclusion, the film leaves no trope untouched, no predictable plot twist avoided.

First of all, for all concerned: this is very much a Captain America movie. It's filled to the brim with pathos and good ol' American Exceptionalism. We're meant to just accept that the US were accepted as the world's leading nations once more on merit of the Avengers. That's fine, though - a Captain America film is still that. Where it gets a bit iffy is a contrived plot twist that pulls what could have been a seriously critical look at the military-industrial complex and some soul-seeking on part of the American militarist public mindset into golden age comics territory. In the Marvel movieverse, the Nazis weren't done in 1945 - they still serve as antagonists all the way in 2014. Seriously? This is a movie that Captain America would love - its core message: idealism beats realism, and realism always corrupts. Personally, I don't agree (and a review is always a subjective thing), and for a movie that tries so hard to be an espionage thriller, this movie sure also tries hard to insult the viewer's intelligence. That aside however, if one is to accept the black-and-white morality and cheesy done-twenty-thousand-times-before plot, this is a competently directed, action-filled film with brilliant special effects and masterfully choreographed fight scenes (UFC getting name-dropped should give you an indication as to what to expect).

So yeah, there you have it - it's dumb, but fun, and anyone who wasn't prepared for American pathos going into a Captain America film probably only has him- or herself to blame.

Treasure Island (2012)

Greyscale characters instead of Black & White

[8/10 · 11 July 2012]

As someone who likes characters to act like human beings rather than protagonist-antagonist clichés and who always preferred the character of Long John Silver for that exact reason, I must say that I like this version of the Treasure Island - and not last because of the thing that others seem to dislike about it.

I am talking, of course, about the way Squire Trelawney and Captain Smollet are characterized. They and Dr. Livesey are not the gallant, good-hearted heroes they were characterized as in the original story but far more believable men of different principles who want one thing mostly: to survive and get out of the matter with their own livelihoods and lives intact - and who can blame them? What this does for the story is simply this: no longer is Jim Hawkins' struggle about who to trust an obvious good versus evil choice, but it becomes a legitimate question. Does he remain loyal to the Squire who has disowned him of the treasure map and believes him to be a traitor as well, or does he go with Silver, who promises a fair share of the loot and recognition as a member of the crew? Jim himself is far more self-sufficient and competent than other versions show him to be, he knows how to cheat at cards and how to defend himself if necessary, he is a pretty swift learner as the film illustrates in several points.

All in all, this is a far more competent and realistic version that omits few points of the original story and should be very interesting for those who like realistic characters and conflict rather than clear-cut black and white situations.

Sherlock: The Blind Banker (2010) Season 1, Episode 2

The weakest of the bunch

[6/10 · 30 October 2010]

The Blind Banker offers two strong performances which are unfortunately brought short by a clichéd and somewhat disorienting storyline. Yes, the basic pieces are here and they are great, but there are many things that someone even barely familiar with East Asia might find irritating.

First of all, a disclaimer: I am a sinologist and therefore obviously sensitized towards these things. However, I feel that this episodes gets things wrong at every turn - enough to warrant irritation for the casual viewer.

But let us begin from the start. Holmes and Watson investigate a series of murders only to stumble upon a cipher and traces leading to a Chinese crime syndicate.

The performances of the leads are strong. Lestrade is replaced by a stand-in, who does his best to dislike Holmes and makes for a few good exchanges, but is all in all unremarkable. Urban London is once again shown to great effect and the series once again manages to root its story in a very solid sense of time and space.

However, as noted above, I have several nits to pick. The episode manages an amazing feat: Making China a central plot point and meaning Japan. For example, Holmes and Watson visit a store that imports "lucky cats" from China. While it might be reasonable to assume that these cats, small figurines with a moving, "waving" arm, might be produced in China for the lower price of manufacture, they are as Japanese as Mount Fuji. Even worse, the episodes continues to try and convince us that the Japanese tea tradition is actually identical with the Chinese one, that a clearly Japanese painting is Chinese and many, many other inaccuracies that fall into a very colonial stereotype of eastern Asia. Oh, and the woman running said shop of course speaks heavily broken English and tries convince Watson to "Buy lucky cat!".

Even apart from this, the episode falls flat by making the central conflict and motive, the storyline around the smugglers, center on very uninteresting characters. Victims are all treated as throwaway plot devices, and while there is a potential backstory there, everything around the killer and his motives is very formulaic.

While the other two episodes are amazing productions, this one does not quite reach their brilliance due to some fatal errors made in writing, directing and selecting props.

Going Postal (2010)

Best out of the three adaptions

[9/10 · 22 October 2010]

I must admit that I am quite surprised about the negative feedback the third movie based on Pratchett's works has received. There are many reasons for my surprise, which I will introduce in the following short review.

Going Postal is a story about a master con-artist who faces the gallows but it given a second shot at life as master of Ankh Morpork's run-down post office. To save the post (i.e. his own life) and win over the principled Golem-rights-activist Adora Dearheart, he has to employ all his conman wit to beat the owner of the telegraph-like "Clacks" in a business race evoking industrial-age competitions like that between Westinghouse and Edison, where showmanship and publicity were far more important than the actual product.

Talking about the product, this movie is well-acted and well-presented. It is based on one of Pratchett's newer stories and evokes a more urban industrial Steampunk feel than its Fantasy (Colour of Magic) and Faerie Tale-based (Hogfather) predecessors.

Still, for a friend of solid acting, solid backdrops, and more substance than metaphor, this may qualify as the best of the bunch.

Someone pointed out that the film lacked the "magic" of the other adaptions. This is all but true, yet, the lack of a fairy-tale air allows the narrative to flow much better. This time, you know precisely what you are looking at. After the somewhat confused and heavily-altered adaption of Colour of Magic, it is a relief to see a certain solid quality in terms of serious movie features returning to the series.

Let's face it: a TV-based production never does well when it relies on special effects more than it does on good actors, a decent script and solid direction. This was a mistake all too obvious in Colour of Magic, and is one not repeated here. Certainly, the visuals still to a perfect job at bringing Discworld to life, mostly due to the enormous attention given to them. However, they never feel overtaxed with their task, which makes it easier to suspend your disbelief in this adaption than in the other ones.

Of course, the movie is not for everyone. Especially those expecting a fantasy-fest will be sorely disappointed. This is fantasy only in the broadest sense, i.e. it takes place in a world quite fantastic and (maybe not quite to) unlike out own. If one wanted to exaggerate, it is - as Discworld always was - to fantasy what Daybreakers is to vampire fiction - a satiric subversion of the tropes.

It should be noted that the film is staffed mainly with rather less known actors - and this is a good thing. Although one might miss the presence of the likes of Tim Curry, Jeremy Irons and even Sean Astin, these are not exactly C-list actors either. You will be surprised how many of them you have seen before. I have graded some of the initial performances below. Please note that the 9 is not an average but a measure of the entire film relating to other reviews.

Plot: 10/10 - The best adaption yet, the changes within which are less noticeable than in Colour or Hogfather. Visuals: 7/10 - Clearly a TV production, but made with love. Not in over its head, unlike the previous adaptions. Special kudos for the sets (even though there is much subtle CGI involved), which are beautiful. Audio: 8/10 - More subtle, fitting. Certainly did not have a huge budget, but everything fits.

Richard Coyle as Moist: 8/10 - I was skeptical at first, but Richard Coyle makes for an energetic and sharp-witted scoundrel. An excellent fit for Moist Von Lipwick.

Claire Foy as Adora Belle Dearheart: 7/10 - She plays the role very much to the expected degree, and while her on-screen chemistry with Coyle is great, her performance is a bit too much "by-the-book" for my taste. Still, Claire Foy displays a lot of charisma; a more courageous performance might have been in order, though.

David Suchet as Reacher Gilt: 5/10 - Suchet plays Gilt very much as a commedia dell arte "scaramuccio", the scheming, conniving, but ultimately inept villain, always with a top hat and twirl-worthy beard. Oh, and the eyepatch. This is actually precisely what the role demands and he delivers. Still, there is not crowning moment in his performance, he just "gets it done", which is a pity given that his character is the only one standing up to Lord Vetinari.

Charles Dance as Vetinari: 7/10 - Charles Dance is not Jeremy Irons, that is for certain. It is also for the better, as Irons' performance in Colour, while memorable, was also very much unbearable on the longer run. Good thing it was so brief. Dance does a solid job, and gives Vetinari a very human, while inhumanly competent, face.

Steve Pemberton as Drumknott: 10/10 - I have singled out Pemberton as Drumknott because it is hard not to like his take on the character. Drumknott may just be Vetinari's right-hand-man and therefore destined to an existence as living piece of backdrop, but Pemberton really gives the devout assistant a depth which, I believe, is quite true to the spirit in which the character was conceived. He is not a footstool, although trained as one, and actually immensely able when tasked. However, he does not show this openly but rather gives subtle hints at his capability. Of course, this is (probably) not in the script, but mainly conveyed through Pemberton's acting. He nailed this part.

All in all, if the Sky1-Productions continue in this vein, we will not have to fear another disappointment like Colour. Expensive actors a good movie do not make. Great overall style and love and care, that's more like it.