Partial Education Presents
All The Better To Bore You With: The Alternative Fairy Tales
Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of:
Beastly
Red Riding Hood
Snow White And The Huntsman
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
and
Jack The Giant Slayer
It's a craze that someone apparently asked for, but I can assure you it wasn't me. The alternative fairytale has inundated cinemas over the last few years and the results have been relatively 'meh'. Here's five of the reasons why.
Always say something positive. Always say something positive. Always say something positive. Always say something positive. Wait, I've got something. Neil Patrick Harris is OK in it.
Taking the tried-and-tested story of Beauty And The Beast and throwing it in a modern setting shouldn't necessarily guarantee success, but you have to admire the skill that director and writer Daniel Barnz has demonstrated here. I don't think anyone else could have made quite as much of a royal balls-up. Alex Pettyfer takes the Beast role, while Vanessa Hudgens handles the Beauty side of things. The acting is awful, with the young cast seemingly trying to outdo each other in the sincerity department, but instead coming off hokey, with top prize going to Mary-Kate Olsen (yes, that one), as the witch responsible for the Beast's curse. The real reason for why this film is awful though is Barnz's direction and script. Lines feel forced and people converse in a way that you have never heard people ever converse before. You can tell when it thinks it's got a winning line because it makes sure it focusses all the action directly on that line, before everyone pauses and basks in the glory. The fact that Barnz is also directing means that this all comes off like some sort of self-congratulatory masturbation ritual. So convinced is he of his genius that he's failed to notice everyone else is groaning and just how uncomfortable Pettyfer looks in the lead role, presumably because he realises what he's starring in. Special, and final, mention though has to go to the film's idea of insults, managing to come up with some of the most ridiculous and pathetic attempts at sounding adult within a PG-13 / 12A environment you have ever heard. Of particular note: "you have the humour of a marmot". OK, then.
ONE out of five
Aesthetically, Red Riding Hood is near flawless. It's opening credit sequence is so well done that it may make you sit back and think this isn't going to be as bad as you'd expect. As we approach the village of Daggerhorn, the beautiful surroundings also feels dangerous and isolating; menace being amply supplied by Brian Reitzell and Alex Heffes' outstanding score. For the remainder of the film, the visual aspect rarely lets up and the overbearing feeling of imminent doom remains ever-present. Unfortunately, the film is borderline ruined by an incredibly boring plot. Amanda Seyfried plays Red Riding Hood, here named Valerie and mostly wearing blue. Instead of her entering the wolf's territory, the wolf enters hers, as it has taken to offing the residents of Daggerhorn. Oh, and it's also been upgraded to a werewolf. The plot then becomes a whodunnit as Gary Oldman's Wolf-finder General, Father Solomon, comes a-huntin'. The problem with the whodunnit is that the film pretty much gives away who the wolf is very near the beginning and, if you miss the shot that does that, you will have worked it out by the end. In addition, the acting is fairly poor. Even Oldman's phoning it in, but he's nowhere near the worst. Seyfried's OK in the calmer scenes, but when expressing more anguished emotions, she falters and the less-said about the shoe-horning in of "what big teeth you have" the better. Meanwhile, Max Irons, as Valerie's unwanted betrothal, isn't an actor I've seen much of, but on the basis of this and this alone, he may want some tutelage from his Dad. With Catherine Hardwicke as director, it's safe to say that Red Riding Hood is aimed squarely at the Twilight crowd and, as a result, not me. On that basis, if you enjoyed Twilight, you may enjoy this. For me though, despite the pleasing nature to both the eyes and ears, the brain's gone to sleep.
TWO out of five
The biggest problem with these new takes on fairy tales is that a lot of them feel incredibly po-faced, so enamoured by their own visions of grandiosity and style that they forget to find a way to successfully spread these stories over near 2 hour running times. In that sense, Snow White And The Huntsman is the worst of the offenders here. That's not to say it's the worst film here. It isn't, but it is the most snobbish. Rupert Sanders is all about the realisation of his vision, in a very literal sense. Much like Red Riding Hood, it looks undeniably fantastic and Sanders has a real talent for the capturing of mood, no doubt from his days in advertising. When it comes to character though, it's flat. He squanders his best opportunity when Chris Hemsworth's Huntsman arrives in a drunken flurry that suggests he may provide the film with a much-needed injection of humour. This isn't continued though, as The Huntsman reveals himself as even more mopey than the other characters. Acting-wise, there's nothing particularly special, but there are notably awful performances in the villains. I must have missed the part where the Evil Queen in Snow White is constipated, but thankfully Charlize Theron noticed and portrays it incredibly well here, moving between a whispering calm and a herniated scream, presumably during the stomach spasms. End sarcasm. As her equally evil brother, Sam Spruell perfects the art of curling the upper lip and appears to be about to burst a blood vessel at numerous points. Aside from the dwarves (which are still a bit of a misfire), Theron and Spruell provide the film with it's only real dose of amusement; shame it wasn't intentional. Most of all though, Snow White And The Huntsman is just a bit boring and Kristen Stewart doesn't make for a remotely interesting heroine. With zero surprises in the story and nothing that's going to particularly stick with you afterwards, other than the worst excuse for a mirror you've ever seen, it's another film which survives on visuals and pretty much those alone.
TWO out of five
Having stated that I don't like these films when they're po-faced, you'd have thought Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters would have had the best chance of me liking it. It's not just reeling out the same story with a little bit of a twist, but instead presents itself as more of a sequel. Hansel and Gretel have entered an adulthood of witch hunting and slaying and that's really all the plot you should need. Sadly, two problems cripple the film from the get-go. The first is the swearing and the second is the gore. There's a lot of both and precisely none of it is necessary, preventing the age group that would probably have the most interest in watching this from actually being allowed. Writer-director Tommy Wirkola obviously likes his gimmicky concepts, after his Nazi-zombie film Dead Snow, with it's exceptional tagline Ein! Zwei! Die!, but …Witch Hunters doesn't even have cheap laughs such as that. Similar sins to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter are committed, by taking itself quite seriously at times and focussing more on being a riveting action film (which it isn't) than brainless fun (which it should be). Gemma Arterton is flat-out terrible as Gretel, so too is Famke Janssen as chief villain witch. Jeremy Renner, meanwhile, is fairly boring, whilst the attempts at chemistry between him and Pihla Viitala's character (Is she a witch? Isn't she? Of course she bloody is) feels dreary and uninvolving. Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is not so bad it's good. It is an entirely inexcusable waste of an hour and a half that's trying to sell itself as a guilty pleasure, but forgot the pleasurable bits.
ONE out of five
Let's go in all guns blazing here. Of all five of these films, this is the worst. I mean, technically, Beastly is the worst, but that gains some enjoyment from just how inept it is. Jack The Giant Slayer is just a sorry effort from a director who should (and does) know better, with an incredibly flat lead performance from Nicholas Hoult. It starts off fairly similar. Jack buys beans. Beanstalk grows. Giants are at the top of it. The story develops though as Jack uncovers an impending war that the giants are about to wage on humans. This then gets further exacerbated when Stanley Tucci's treacherous Lord Roderick finds a way to make himself King of the Giants. First problem: the human characters are pretty much all so dull or pompous that wiping them out seems like a positive. The rich speak in posh accents, while the poor are (what else?) Northerners. Second problem: the effects. The big beanstalk set-piece is set on a rainy night, rendering the most impressive visual sequence pretty much unwatchable. Then there's the giants, who, frankly, look awful. It's CGI at it's absolute worst. Third problem (and this is the main one): the film's outright failure to adhere to one set bad guy. Without giving anything away, the film changes it's mind on a number of occasions with regards to who the main villain is, despite the fact that Stanley Tucci is stood there as the obvious choice. Despite the odd glimmer of humour here and there, Jack The Giant Slayer is a true bust, worthy of nothing other than forgetting. Bryan Singer more than just misfired here, he swan dived.
ONE out of five
Next Time (19th June)
Ted's Not-So-Excellent Adventures
No comments:
Post a Comment