|
| cdn.vox-cdn.com |
Da Couch Tomato Podcast, Episode 34, discussing the Netflix film Enola Holmes, staying true to the essence of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes character, and breaking the fourth wall.
Hosts: Sting Lacson and Rachel
Rating: 6.7/10
Showing posts with label helena bonham carter. Show all posts
Da Couch Tomato Podcast, Episode 34, discussing the Netflix film Enola Holmes, staying true to the essence of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes character, and breaking the fourth wall.
Hosts: Sting Lacson and Rachel
Rating: 6.7/10
 |
| "Parang out pa rin 'yang Chinese dress mo kahit sa Wonderland." |
Para sa mga fans ng original literary work ni Lewis Carroll na Through the Looking Glass (And What Alice Found There), kalimutan niyo na – itong pelikulang ito ay hindi adaptation ng libro na 'yun.
In fact, bukod sa pamagat, ang pagkakapareho lang ng libro ni Carroll sa pelikulang ito ay si Humpty Dumpty. At ang mga chess pieces. At ang looking-glass insects. At ang pagpasok ni Alice sa salamin. Ayun lang. 'Yung malaking chess game? Waley. 'Yung sasakay si Alice sa tren? Waley din. The lion and the unicorn? Waley talaga. So ayun.
Isa sa mga problema ng franchise na ito ay na-condense na nila ang adaptation sa unang pelikula na Alice in Wonderland noong 2010. Halimbawa, ang tula na "Jabberwocky" ay nasa pangalawang libro, pero lumabas ang creature sa unang pelikula pa lang. Ganoon din sina Tweedledum at Tweedledee; wala sila sa unang libro, pero naroon na sila sa unang pelikula. So basically, sinira na nila ang narrative noong 2010 pa lang, kung kaya naman totally unrecognisable na ang kwento sa bagong pelikula.
So ano ang kwento nitong Alice Through the Looking Glass kung malayo na ito sa kwento ng libro? Well, since winalang-hiya na nila ang original source material, naisip siguro nila na might as well dalin na nila sa totally different direction ang pelikula. At ang direksyon na iyon ay... science fiction. Specifically, time travel. Labo, 'di ba?
So dito sa direct sequel ng 2010 film, you can tell a lot about the film base sa iisang character lang, at ito si Father Time (Sacha Baron Cohen). Una, si Father Time ay hindi naman character sa libro ni Lewis Carroll, which means they took the liberty na tumahak na sa totally different direction. Pangalawa, ang pagkakaroon ng isang time lord sa pelikulang ito ay ang cue na may time travelling na magaganap dito.
 |
| "BAKET ANLABO NG PELIKULANG 'TO?" |
Ang orihinal na libro ay totally new adventure para kay Alice (Mia Wasikowska), dahil siya ay nasa totally ibang mundo, hindi na sa Wonderland. At dahil ibang mundo na ito, iba na rin ang cast of characters dito. Pero dahil nga binale-wala na ng filmmakers ang source material, hindi na rin sila tumahak ng panibagong direksyon at kumuha ng bagong cast, maliban kay Baron Cohen at Rhys Ifans bilang tatay ng Mad Hatter. Naroon pa rin ang Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), ang big-headed Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), ang hindi naman pala mabait na White Queen (Anne Hathaway), ang mga hayop sa Tea Party, at siyempre, ang Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) na siyang pinag-basehan ng kwento ngayon.
Sa lahat ng mga adaptations ng Alice books ni Lewis Carroll, ito na marahil ang pinakatumaliwas sa source material. Ang genre ng literary nonsense ay natumpok ni Carroll, at sana ito na rin ang direksyon na tinahak ng filmmakers (ang direktor pala nito ay si James Bobin; si Tim Burton ay isa sa mga producer). Ang maganda sa mundo ni Alice ay ang pagiging dream-like nito, dahil ang mga scenario at pangyayari ay talagang non-sensical at malabo. Hindi naman kailangan ng back story ng Mad Hatter, at hindi na rin mahalaga na maintidihan natin ang history ng Red at White Queens. Pero siyempre, mas malaki ang box-office draw nina Depp at Hathaway, kaya kinakailangan lumabas sila muli sa sequel.
Ang isang dream o whimsical o surrealist work of art ay mukhang walang sense at structure at first glance. Pero sa in-depth analysis makikita na ang pagiging surreal nito ay grounded pa rin sa reality. Kaya nais ko lang i-raise ang dalawang point na ito: Una, ang steampunk motif ng mundo ni Father Time ay medyo hindi naangkop sa period kung saan naka-set ang pelikula, lalong-lalo na ang time-travelling unicycle ni Alice. Pangalawa, sa historical period na ito, hindi makatotohanan na ang kapitan ng isang barko ay babae. Sorry.
Medyo nakakabahala ang ginagawang ito ng Disney. Para silang nanloko ng mga manonood, tipong "false advertising" kumbaga. Ang dating ay parang nag-announce sila na "Hey, gagawa kami ng pelikula ng Through the Looking Glass!" Sa announcement pa lang na iyon, nakuha na nila ang market na 1) mga fans na nasiyahan sa unang film at gustong mapanood ang sequel para makita kung maa-adapt ito ng Disney nang tama; at 2) mga fans na hindi nasiyahan sa unang pelikula at gustong mapanood ang sequel para makita kung maa-adapt ito ng Disney nang tama. Either way, nagoyo tayo ng Disney, at may danger na abusuhin itong trend na ito sa paga-adapt ng mga works in the public domain. Huwag naman sana.
 |
| "Ayaw na namin ng Part Three!" |
Alice Through the Looking Glass. USA. 2016.
Orihinal na rating: 5.5/10
Huling voice-over ni Alan Rickman: +0.1
Time travel: +0.1
Pagtaliwas sa original source material: -0.2
Walang Mia Wasikowska nudity: -0.1
Johnny Depp sa isa na namang weird role: -0.1
Sacha Baron Cohen: +0.1
Final na rating: 5.4/10
RIP Alan Rickman
Basahin ang review ng naunang Alice in Wonderland.
If you mix the ingredients of Gore Verbinski, Johnny Depp, and Walt Disney Pictures, you'd think that you would always end up with a Pirates of the Caribbean movie blockbuster.
 |
| They obviously had no Helena Bonham Carter inserted here. |
But you're wrong!
 |
| Let's play "Spot the Pirate". |
 |
| Working Title/Cameron Mackintosh |
The success of Les Misérables stems from the great directing of Tom Hooper. As a musical, it strays away from becoming merely a stage performance filmed on camera. Other movie musicals tend to be either “more movie than musical” or “more musical than movie”. Hooper’s Les Mis (yes, I get tired of typing the accented “é”), however, succeeds in becoming a perfect hybrid, becoming, in my opinion, a great example of musical cinema.
 |
Working Title/Cameron Mackintosh Nothing says "cinema" more than Russell Crowe's mug. |
 |
| YouTube |
A lot of people who wish to sound smart will comment on the fact that director Tim Burton seems to be using the same actors over and over again. Well, yes he is. But you can't blame him for that. It saves thousands of dollars per movie, money which can be redirected to the other departments such as costumes and special effects. So if you're a director, it pays to marry and be best friends with great actors.
But going back to the topic─is there a Team Burton? The answer is yes, there is definitely a Team Burton, and yes, that pun was forced. And I shall show you by analyzing the last five movies of Tim Burton, this film included. And those films are, in reverse order of chronology: Dark Shadows, Alice in Wonderland, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, Corpse Bride, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
On the surface, the three actors common to all five films are:
Johnny Depp
 |
|
Those finger extensions look fake as well as horrendous. |
Weird, oddball role: Check.
Weird, oddball acting: Check.
 |
| It's time to stop delaying the inevitable. |
Seven, books, eight films, more than a decade of the magic that is the Harry Potter universe. Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 1 was the calm before the storm and the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 is the big, grand, epic finale. But allow me to rant a bit:
 |
| Spoilers abound. But really, who doesn't have even the slightest idea? |
Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) gigling "I've always wanted to use that spell" is, I think, completely out of character. Granted the Hogwarts' Deputy Headministress has a bit of punk in her persona, she has more sense than that, especially knowing that all hell is about to break loose.
 |
| But it was a blast to see her and Mrs. Weasly kick ass. |
The before-we-die kiss between Ginny (Bonnie Wright) and Harry (Daniel Radcliff) was forgettable. And so was Ginny, which is a bit sad. And speaking of kisses, the most awaited kiss between Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermoine (Emma Watson) would have been nice if the camera showed the lip-lock.
 |
| And not just "the most awaited" shot of Ron's red hair. Pffft. |
Overall, it feels a bit rushed. Although I agree that the cameras should follow Harry and Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), I felt a little robbed of the essential aspects of the Battle of Hogwarts. The whole grand battle is seen more in a macro scale: You see the massive number of Death Eaters and giants storm the castle, but we miss out on seeing Fred (Oliver or James Phelps?), Remus (David Thewlis) and Tonks (Natalie Lena) die. I thought the whole idea of splitting the book into two films was to be able to have time to show what counts, be it the magnificent special effects or the gravity of emotions that the story holds.
 |
| That's it, I swear, no more rants. |
But all that said and let go, it may very well be a fitting end to the Happy Potterverse. I maybe just expected that it'll be too faithful to the book (Yes, I know films are different!). But it's not at all bad. Not bad at all.
 |
| My eyes were dry up until the scenes after this. |
The child actors have grown physically into and connected with their roles and it's evident that they gained experience acting side-by-side with most talented actors. Fiennes was really effectively evil. Bonham Carter playfully displayed her acting range. Ciaran Hinds as Aberforth Dumbledore and Kelly MacDonald as Helena Ravenclaw were unexpectedly awesomely cool. Special mention, though, to Alan Rickman as Professor Severus Snape, who as an actor and a complex character really stole the show for me.
 |
| "Eee-qual-ly..." guilty of making the audience sob in terror. |
It's bittersweet to bid farewell to Harry, Ron, Emma, Draco (Tom Felton) Neville (Matthew Lewis, who has a bit of a Clive Owen-feel now that he has shed the baby fat and has facial hair, plus a good sense of British humor), Ginny, and Luna (Evanna Lynch), and to Hogwarts and The Burrow. But as J.K. Rowling said, "Hogwarts will always be there to welcome us home."
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 gets an eight out of ten because Snape made me cry and because it is the last of its kind and we will all miss it. And because the child actors in the series kinda grew up fairly decent.
*Photos from daemonsmovies.com
You may also want to check out the other reviews of Deathly Hallows: Part 2 by Mary Quite Contrary and Sting Lacson.
 |
| He's won almost all of the Best Actor awards this year. |
A movie junkie as I am should watch the foremost contender in the Oscars and already-winner in the Globes and others. And so I have.
The King's Speech is about how King George VI (Colin Firth)—the now Queen Elizabeth II's father—overcame his stammer in time for his first war time speech. War time meaning World War II against Germany's Hitler. And he wouldn't be able to do it without the help of his speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and also his loving wife and partner Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter).
 |
| Their exchanges make British humor actually funny. |
That's as simple as any good story but it gets a bit of an overall treatment. A solid story is always a chunk of how good a movie is. Plus the artistic depiction of the era when the real King George VI ascended the throne, and the scenes feels legit. And then you see the three very distinguished actors do their thing, and it's a marvel to watch in an instant. Firth, I think, portrayed a stammering grownup man with real charm that you would hold your breath every time he speaks hoping he wouldn't stammer. And you can only admire Rush's portrayal of a brave man unwilling to totally give in to his monarch's whims. A toned down Bonham Carter, too, did a royal take on a soon-to-be-queen, sheepishly powerful in her own right and very lady-like.
 |
| Love her more with eyeliner, but she's still a gem without it. |
It was always a thrill to appreciate British humor, kinda intelligent at some points. But I think the real edge of this movie is capturing the hearts of its audience to feel for King George VI, although there were some articles that claim the movie wasn't truthful to the real King George VI's political stance during that time. Well, The Social Network isn't completely accurate, is it?
The King's Speech gets an eight out of ten, for a total ensemble of simply brilliant acting, filmmaking, and storytelling.
*photos from 1.bp.blogspot.com, circlecinema.com, and teawithmarykate.wordpresscom
By now, you will have noticed my obsession with 3D films. Well, let's not call it an "obsession", but rather, a "devotion" to what I consider the medium of the future.
As such, the first part of this review shall be devoted to its 3D-ness, while the second part will be the regular review.
First, I didn't like its 3D-ness. When I was in the theater, I could really sense something was amiss. This wasn't like Avatar.
So when I got home, I researched on it, and confirmed my suspicion: This film was shot in conventional 2D, with the footage converted to 3D in post-production. James Cameron, in all his Avatar arrogance, criticized this, saying that "It doesn't make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D." Tim Burton felt, however, that 3D cameras were too bulky and expensive, and that there was really no difference between converted 3D and those originally shot with 3D cameras. Well, maybe to regular moviegoers there isn't; but Mr. Burton, there is a difference, because I felt it.
Okay, how did I feel it? I could feel it in the depth of the shots. There was just not enough depth.
And now I consider myself a certified 3D addict. You know you're a 3D addict when you can detect the difference between converted 3D and original 3D footage.
And now, on to the regular review.
This version is based on, but is definitely not, the original Lewis Carroll books of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. Those stories were more of a stream-of-consciousness hallucination all throughout. In this version, however, screenwriter Linda Woolverton attempted to put a narrative structure to it, and so it ended up as a retelling (which Tim Burton would vehemently deny). It worked, I must say. But I sort of liked the hallucinatory quality of the Lewis Carroll version.
The first part starts off in Victorian England. And for a moment there, I forgot that this was a Tim Burton film. I can't really imagine Tim Burton directing Sense and Sensibility. It only becomes Burton-esque once Alice enters Wonderland.
Among all the countless visual adaptations of Lewis Carroll's beloved tale, this version, I believe, is the one that truly puts the "mad" in "Mad Hatter". And we can thank Johnny Depp for that. His Hatter was bonkers. Like totally. And even the March Hare was cuckoo.
Helena Bonham Carter, a.k.a. Mrs. Tim Burton, was perfect as the Red Queen. Plus I loved how Burton made her head bigger. Bonham Carter brought a new edge to the Red Queen. Tyranny with insanity.
Helena Bonham Carter, a.k.a. Mrs. Tim Burton, was perfect as the Red Queen. Plus I loved how Burton made her head bigger. Bonham Carter brought a new edge to the Red Queen. Tyranny with insanity.
Anne Hathaway, I now have no doubt about your acting skills. Yeah, she was really great in Rachel Getting Married. But as the White Queen, you could see that she can take any role given to her, and execute it with style. And I now officially have a crush on Anne Hathaway because of her acting prowess.
Mia Wasikowska, I admit that I thought you wouldn't be able to pull this off. But surprisingly, you did. Good job. But you're still not as pretty as I thought you would be.
Crispin Glover, I don't even have to say anything. You are one talented actor. You may not be mainstream enough, but all your fans since Back to the Future know that you are one talented actor. I think I already said that.
And Alan Rickman, I'd know your Severus Snape voice anywhere. But I've nothing against you, as I like you as an actor.
The Cheshire Cat was the best portrayal of the Cheshire Cat I've ever seen, floating around like a ghost, disappearing in a puff of smoke. I can't help but compare this to the animated Disney version, where the cat was more of an annoyance that didn't really help propel the story forward. Oh, wait. The original didn't really have a story. Oh well. The only thing I didn't like was when they addressed the Cheshire Cat as "Ches". Please stop Americanizing Lewis Carroll's creations. Thank you.
And finally, great character design for the Jabberwocky. I think this design was lifted straight out of Sir John Tenniel's illustration. But why oh why did Mr. Burton decide to use Christopher Lee to voice this monster? Again, my only explanation: to milk Mr. Lee for all the movies he can make, before he snuffs it. Sorry if I sound so mean.
Anyway, I've learned a valuable lesson with this movie, one that could save me a lot of money. And that is: Never watch a 3D film that wasn't shot on 3D cameras. If it was just converted 3D footage, just watch it in regular cinemas. You should be paying for the 3D experience, not the conversion.
pic from iconvsicon.com
Alice in Wonderland. USA. 2010.
Rating: Eight out of ten.
3D-ness: Five out of ten.
 |
| "No, Miss Granger, I have no potion to improve acting." |
(Boo to Claire for not reviewing this despite watching it first.)
They say this is like The Dark Knight of the Harry Potter franchise. I say not really.
Okay, first thing's first. Let's get the adaptation issue out of the way.
This is already the sixth Potter adaptation. Everyone should know by now that the movie is not like the book. There are some exceptions, of course, but as a general rule, do not expect the movie version to be a hundred percent faithful to the adapted source.
So what can I say about Half-Blood Prince? It's darker. Edgier. Less action than Order of the Phoenix, but we have more flashbacks of Tom Riddle, which makes it a treat for fans of the book.
Emma Watson and Bonnie Wright are getting prettier and prettier. But sadly, Emma Watson's acting hasn't improved much. Just a little. She doesn't overact that much anymore. Daniel Radcliffe's acting has improved a lot. And Rupert Grint is always good.
On the adults' performances, Mrs. Tim Burton a.k.a. Helena Bonham Carter is in her element as usual, while Jim Broadbent is excellent as Professor Horace Slughorn. Alan Rickman is still the best. And Michael Gambon tends to look like Gandalf the Grey in a lot of shots. Must be the hair. And the beard. Or both.
This reminds me of something Homer Simpson once said: "No man should outlive his fictional wizard." Which is exactly what I felt when Dumbledore, you know, died.
Again, they say this is The Dark Knight of the Potter franchise. And I say The Dark Knight does not have any teeny-bopper romance going on every fifteen minutes or so.
*some info from IMDb
pic from movies.msn.com
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. UK. 2009.
Rating: Seven and a half out of ten.
Not as excellent as it was hyped up to be.
Let's take the strengths first. Johnny Depp as always shows terrific acting, and his singing voice is not bad. Mrs. Tim Burton is also great in belting out those tunes, although frankly I'm wondering when Tim Burton will stop using her in his films. Alan Rickman too fleshes out the despicable judge, and one will not feel sorry once Todd slits his throat. And Sacha Baron Cohen's brief appearance is one of the film's redeeming moments.
Cinematically, the film is a sight to behold. Burton masterfully paints the visual mood of the story, with bright crimson blood contrasting the cinematography's de-saturated tones. Production design is also good, especially the meat shop, where the filthy kitchen (with all its roaches) sends shudders up your spine and takes away your appetite.
And now, the weaknesses. Well, there is only one basic weakness: the songs sucked. A musical film must excel on two grounds: visually, and musically. Tim Burton took care of the visual part, but frankly the songs were not even good enough to creep into my head and subconsciously plant themselves as a last-song syndrome.
Bottom line is, the music wasn't great, and the songs weren't catchy. It therefore fails as a musical.
Rating: Three and a half stars.
 |
| "One more take, please? Didn't stick my tongue out too much." |
By now, everyone should have realized that it is very rare for a movie adaptation to be exactly like the book. This film is no different. Movie adaptations should only be either one of two things: as good as the book, or better. I would like to congratulate David Yates for a visually somber look, complementing the darkness of the story itself. Order of the Phoenix, compared to the other movies, utilizes the most magic, with an excellent representation of the Ministry of Magic, as well as the Weasley’s Skiving Snackboxes and their awesome fireworks display. The juvenile actors have shown some improvement, especially Daniel Radcliffe, whose angst-filled Potter takes center stage. Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley is terrific as usual, while Emma Watson still has to work on her overacting. The adults, meanwhile, give the film its darkest edge, with Gary Oldman taking the lead (when will this man win an Oscar?) and Helena Bonham-Carter making her wizarding debut as the twisted Bellatrix Lestrange. Of course, there is no need to mention Ralph Fiennes, who gave a five-star performance as Lord Voldemort. Alan Rickman has never failed to deliver an extremely despicable Severus Snape, and we can expect his splendid performance for The Half-Blood Prince.
Note: Mrs. Arabella Figg was played by the actress who also played Cleopatra’s nanny in HBO’s Rome.
Three stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
