The (Pod) Casting Couch - The Descendants

Podcast Powered By Podbean

FILM: RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES REVIEW

Rush Hour: Always a bitch.

I’ve never really understood the whole ‘Planet of the Apes’ phenomenon. I get that they’re entertaining films with a few good ideas and a nice twist, but the series’ longevity and level of cultural impact was always somewhat beyond my grasp. I was therefore not only surprised that there was a prequel on the way but even more surprised that it was premiering in this, the most blockbuster-heavy summer in recent memory.

Most of the hype for ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ has happened by stealth and put the special effects front and centre as the primary selling point. Stars James Franco, Freida Pinto and Draco Malfoy (I mean, Tom Felton) have been sidelined in favour of short, effects-heavy clips of the stunningly real-looking apes. Not only is this also how the film itself works, but it’s also why the film works – and no one is more surprised than me that it does.

James Franco stars as Will Rodman, a scientist motivated by the illness of his father (John Lithgow) to find a cure for Alzheimer’s. After a disastrous presentation for his new drug, he is left with nothing but a small baby chimp named Caesar (Andy Serkis) who displays remarkable intelligence. Will cares for Caesar while continuing to work on his research, but as Caesar grows older and finds the world outside, the situation spirals out of Will’s control.

Perhaps the most pleasant surprise about Rise is the fact it’s willing to engage in the slow burn. So many action or sci-fi movies feel compelled to punctuate their plot with action set-pieces for their own sake, but surprisingly little of Rise feels forced. The creative team understands that scenes of people (or in this case, monkeys) interacting can be just as thrilling as things exploding or colliding and that means the pacing of the film feels just right. Those expecting an all-out monkey assault on Earth might be blindsided by the numerous early scenes of Caesar being adorable and learning about his environment, but they’re worth it because they provide the base for what comes later. The relationship between Will, Will’s sick father and Caesar is given the time and investment it deserves – and that gives Rise every chance to be an above-average, even a great sci-fi movie.

Improving the odds is the outstanding special effects work. Special effects company Weta Digital should lock the FX Oscar away here – not only is the film thankfully in 2-D, but these computer-generated apes give unbelievable performances. Specifically, if there is one performance that warrants that much-mooted Best Motion-Capture Oscar category, it’s Andy Serkis and his computer wizard team as Caesar. The work here is simply outstanding, a real step forward. You understand every single emotion and thought that passes through Caesar’s head, you feel for him and anyone who can make me feel emotionally invested in a computer-generated chimp from start to finish deserves some sort of recognition. Not only that, but the other ape characters are also well rounded and deserving of your emotional attention. That’s a fair effort.

Faring less well in the acting department are those pesky humans. Even a day later, I can’t quite work out if this is a good or bland performance by James Franco – he’s completely without his trademark smirk, so that’s good, but also completely devoid of any other identifiable character traits. He’s not laughably bad or anything – but he’s so buttoned-down that I can’t help but feel he’s dialled it back on purpose to give Caesar/Serkis the limelight. That hurts the film slightly, as we end up caring more about Caesar’s general plight than we do his relationship with his ‘father’. John Lithgow has the showier role as a sufferer of Alzheimer’s and is admirable without being anything special, while Freida Pinto gets VERY short shrift as something barely approaching a character. Having the most fun by far is Tom Felton as Dodge Landon (Ha!) who gets to be involved in the film’s most thrilling (and potentially cheesy) moments.

On the way out of the cinema the discussion turned to what this film was actually trying to say, if anything. The storylines throw out all kinds of moral questions about science, ambition, motivation and revenge without exploring them with any real depth. It’s a film driven by plot, performance and technical wizardry rather than theme – one that gives you just enough to chew on to avoid being shallow, but stops well short of being deep.

My primary complaint involves elements of the film that enter spoiler territory, so I’ll speak in general terms. The elements of Rise that look to set up sequels and join the dots between this and earlier films, primarily concerning the humans, feel forced and out of step with the rest of the action. It’s a token gesture that pays off to some degree as the credits roll (the credits themselves are surprisingly chilling) but it’s hard to really invest in a plotline that is kicked off by a side character being phenomenally, soul-crushingly stupid. It should also be said that the ending doesn’t quite live up to all the fantastically laid groundwork but features several thrilling moments.

I think if it was watched in the wrong mood, the wrong light or on the wrong screen, even, Rise could seem a ridiculous, cheesy film. On the big screen, though, with next to no expectations, I bought into it and was handed a more than pleasant surprise. All the scenes featuring Caesar are just brilliant, and that makes up for the film’s other shortcomings. Rather than having a monkey on its back, the monkey actually does the carrying here. Refreshingly, Rise of the Planet of the Apes doesn’t try to do too much, it doesn’t have too many characters and it doesn’t have too many plot threads. I don’t love it, but I respect it as professional, thoughtful and highly skilled entertainment.

18.5/25

(SHAMELESS PLUG - if you liked this review, please click on an ad or two to keep this site ticking along! Cheers!)

The (Pod) Casting Couch - Kung Fu Panda 2/Top 4 Kids movie Scenes

The Podcasting Couch this week tackles their top 4 kids movie moments and reviews Kung Fu Panda 2. Featuring Shannon Harvey from the West Australian (@Choc_Bomb), Quickflix film critic Simon Miraudo from blog.quickflix.com.au (@quickflix), Andrew Williams (@Intheboxseat) and Laura Hewison (Twitter account pending). Also, the Podcasting Couch has just joined twitter, so you can get all the podcast updates from @podcastingcouch.

Please subscribe and rate us on iTunes!

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The Podcasting Couch - Super 8

The Podcasting Couch puts on their best 'Spielberg face' and takes a wistful look at the new J. J. Abrams movie Super 8. You can e-mail us anytime atthepodcastingcouch@gmail.com with your suggestions for this week's Top 4 - the best ever movie monsters!

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The Podcasting Couch - X-Men: First Class

After an inconsistent couple of weeks, The Podcasting Couch has returned to regularly scheduled programming and this week we bring you our thoughts on X-Men: First Class, as well as discuss our Top 4 Movie Teams of all time. Check it out and e-mail thepodcastingcouch@gmail.com.


Search for the podcasting couch in itunes or simply listen below:

Podcast Powered By Podbean

The Podcasting Couch - Arthur

This week the Podcasting Couch has a lot of ground to cover, so we've split the podcast into two parts. In the first part, you'll find:
Review of 'Arthur', starring Russell Brand, Greta Gerwig and Helen Mirren. E-mails - best movie deaths. Shannon's reviews of Sucker Punch and Scream 4.

In the second part, you'll find our Top 2 Worst and Top 2 Best Movie Remakes of all time, including a fairly robust discussion of Gus Van Sant's Psycho.

Enjoy and e-mail your best and worst movie remakes to thepodcastingcouch@gmail.com.

Search 'The podcasting couch' on itunes, or listen below...

PART ONE:

Podcast Powered By Podbean

PART TWO:

Podcast Powered By Podbean

FILM - THOR REVIEW

I’ve written and spoken often about how important expectation is to the success (or otherwise) of films in this hype-heavy, instant-reaction world we live in nowadays. This is a film world where people get excited to see still images from a film – something I’ve never understood – and hype has the ability to make or break a film. You go in expecting Spiderman and you get Spiderman 2, Sam Raimi is a directing god. You go in expecting Spiderman 2 and you get Spiderman 3, and you’ll be cursing out Sam Raimi on internet message boards for the rest of time.

So as I went into the cinema to see Thor, I was aware that the hype had been middling in the lead-up to the film’s release. The promotional pictures had been gaudy and ridiculous, the trailer was uninspiring and the fish-out-of-water humour was in danger of derailing the whole operation. All I was hoping for, as someone who has never read a Thor comic but desperately wants this whole Marvel cross-film pollination to succeed, (I’ll never get sick of superhero films) was a three-star movie that regular punters would go and see.
I think Thor is better than a three-star movie. Thor is a very funny, sometimes thrilling epic action fantasy elevated by fantastic acting performances from all involved and surprising direction from an unexpected corner in Kenneth Branagh. It was flaws – boy does it have flaws – but for not one second of it was I bored. On that level, Thor has overcome my expectations and is much, much better than the lacklustre hype for the film would indicate.

The plot: Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has been exiled to Earth by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) after foolhardily destroying a precarious peace between his home realm of Asgard and the ice realm of Jotenheim. On Earth, he meets scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her friend Darcy (Kat Dennings) after being hit by their car. As turmoil begins to envelop his home realm, he must learn humility and selflessness if he is ever to return a hero. If the Green Lantern is DC’s Star Wars, Thor is Marvel’s Lord of the Rings.

Thor is played by Chris Hemsworth, he of Home and Away and opening-scene-of-Star-Trek fame – and the steely, selfless determination he displayed in that scene is completely abandoned here. It’s abandoned to great effect, however as Hemsworth plays every beat he is asked perfectly – brash, arrogant, charming, powerful, humiliated, whatever, he nails it. I think it’s the sign of a great acting performance, especially in a movie like this, that you can’t picture anyone else in the role for a long, long time. Robert Downey Jnr IS Tony Stark, but anyone could (and will) be Daredevil. On a higher plane, Heath Ledger IS The Joker, but someone else could conceivably be Batman – despite Christian Bale being so excellent in the role, he hasn’t defined it. Chris Hemsworth IS Thor. He’s totally at home in the skin of this character (and this character’s weaponry, awesomely), as good with a romantic moment as he is with a hammer and even more surprisingly at least the second funniest character in the film. All of this, and he even looks perfect for it.

Everyone else is equally good, especially Tom Hiddleston as Thor’s ‘mischievous’ brother Loki. Both the character and the acting are executed beautifully here – Loki is the kind of villain I like – one with actual motivations, sympathetic origins and most importantly, an arc – and Hiddleston does a great job. He’s able to give away so much at times and so little at others through just the use of his eyes – he’s a powerful performer and perfectly cast. Kat Dennings as the comic relief Darcy is excellent, I loved the Warriors Three and Lady Sif (spin-off!) and Anthony Hopkins and Idris Elba are reliable as ever – though I’m fairly sure Hopkins was coasting.

My problem with this film – that I enjoyed thoroughly – is with the women. In combining the Shakespearian tendencies of Kenneth Branagh with the geek-sensibilities of comic book lore, Marvel has mashed together two drastically male-dominated areas of literature. As a result, Natalie Portman has been given absolutely nothing to do besides look pretty and giggle at Thor’s abs. She’s spectacularly smart, of course – but book-smart – and does absolutely nothing of note in the film besides get Thor to fall in love with her. No wonder, given his most immediate options are Kat Dennings (too young) and Stellan Skaarsgard (too Swedish). Couldn’t she have been given a bit of spark, a role to play in an action scene, a rapier wit, a far nerdier persona, anything? At the moment, she’s just the most gorgeous girl on the Street in the Middle of the Desert. Rene Russo as Thor’s mother is similarly inconsequential. Her part could have been played by a lamp and I wouldn’t have noticed.

The action scenes move wildly from thrilling to incompetently confusing and Branagh is still finding his feet as an action director – but there’s enough imagination in here to keep me satisfied. I particularly enjoyed whenever Mjolnir was involved. Thor uses the hammer in creative and powerful ways – he’s a genuine force to be reckoned with and you get a real sense of his power when that hammer is in his hands.

Other flaws include the cameo from a Future Avenger which feels shuttled in from Marvel studios rather than organic to the plot, often risible dialogue and the completely unnecessary 3d post-conversion, which is a complete waste of time. I’d recommend seeing it in 2D if possible, because I found the 3D glasses unnecessary, uncomfortable and annoying where I was. On the flipside, though, Branagh knows how to work with actors, and it shows. The film is long without being too long, gets the action/dialogue/laughs/exposition balance right and sets up any future movies wonderfully, without feeling like an Avengers preview.
Thor is a fun ride. Turn your brain off, sit back and enjoy the show – because this one more than lives up to the hype.

15/20

Hail of bullets:
- Zachary Levi (TV’s Chuck) was the original casting for the Robin Hood-esque Fandral (the Dashing) and I kind of wish he had been cast as he would have been perfect, but Joshua Dallas is fine. The other two members of the Warriors Three are less interesting, but fun.

- Jaimie Alexander, who plays Lady Sif, is out-of-nowhere gorgeous and charismatic. Apparently she is most famous for Kyle XY. She should be more famous.

- I would be first in line for a sequel, that’s a good sign.

- The Avengers stuff – including the cameo mentioned above and the post-credits sequence – is there purely for the geekiest of nerds. I knew about all the elements of Marvel mythology involved and what they were referring to, but the relatively geeky folk I saw the film with were clueless.

- I didn’t have my iPhone with me (preview screening), but if I had I daresay I wouldn’t have checked it once. So iphone check count: 0. Laugh count: double figures. Entertaining film.

- If Captain America is this good (don’t f*** it up, Joe Johnston), we are in very good shape for the Avengers.

The Podcasting Couch - Sucker Punch

For the Podcasting Couch's thought on the new Zack Snyder film 'Sucker Punch' - search 'the podcasting couch' on itunes, go to http://boxseattv.podbean.com/ or simply listen below...

Podcast Powered By Podbean

FILM REVIEW - FASTER

Sorry, son. It's a starring role in the Tooth Fairy for you.

You know how people have guilty-pleasure songs, or guilty pleasure movies? I have a guilty pleasure actor – Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson. Part of it stems from me being a wrestling fan when I was younger but mostly I just find him an incredibly appealing screen presence. He’s not quite in the Patrick Swayze guilty-pleasure actor pantheon, but he’s getting there.

Wherein lies the appeal? In Johnson, you have a gregarious, cocky presence who owns the screen when given the chance to explore that side of him. (See The Other Guys, Get Smart, Welcome to the Jungle, Be Cool, Saturday Night Live). If you don’t allow that side to come out, you’re playing to his weaknesses – dramatic heft, introspection and so on. What you really need for a role like that is someone with far greater dramatic chops than muscles.

As such, in casting the sedimentary action star as a hard man on a mission who rarely speaks and has no sense of humour, the film completely wastes Dwayne Johnson. There’s a sentence I never thought I’d write.

I understand what the thinking is here. Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham, among others, are in the running to become the next big breakout action star. But in casting these men as the 21^st century’s Charles Bronson, producers fail to recognize that what we actually want is a 21^st century Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis, men who achieved their missions with a sense of humour, for better or worse.

But this film buries Dwayne Johnson – resorting to a series of half-assed action beats sadly lacking in originality, coolness or emotional investment. I like a good revenge thriller as much as the next guy, but you’ve got to at least do something with it – and not just forget to give your characters names.

Johnson stars as Driver, an ex-con out on a mission to avenge the death of his brother by hunting down his killers. He is in turn chased down by two men – a Killer (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) and a Cop (Billy Bob Thornton).

The movie is thoroughly entertaining – for the opening five minutes – partly because of some cool music and partly because watching the credits is like an eyebrow-raising workout. Deb from Dexter is in this? Mr. Eko from Lost is in this? Tom Berenger is in this? Shannon from Lost is in this?

After that, though, it descends into action movie tripe with only brief moments to raise us out of the gloom and doom. Irredeemable characters hurt and kill each other but no one is worth caring about, so accordingly, I didn’t.

Even more egregiously, the action - the movie’s main selling point - is almost non-existent. Executions are quick and blood-minimal, fight scenes are over quickly when they begin at all and the movie’s one memorable excuse for a car-chase feels like it’s just The Rock driving around the block with unnecessary reliance on brake turns. If we shouldn’t see an action movie for the action, why the hell should we go and see it?

The lack of action is even more baffling when we take into account the alarming amount of time spent on the ‘Killer’ character, played by Jackson-Cohen. A character with enormous unfulfilled potential, I spent most of the film wishing someone had made an entirely different movie about this character because he was completely useless in this one. Played charismatically and with an interesting back-story, he could have made an extremely effective anti-hero, rather than a series of pointless diversions in Faster.

As far as the acting goes, the movie’s star is not the only cast member to suffer from charisma burial. Carla Gugino, a gorgeous and watchable actress when not doing terrible B-movies, is forced to handle some truly abominable dialogue. Here’s my favourite:

Billy Bob Thornton: ‘I’ve got a hunch.’

Carla Gugino: ‘So did Quasimodo, look where it got him.’

I don’t know what the opposite of scenery chewing is, but Gugino does a lot of it here. Thornton does his usual hangdog, down-on-his-luck shtick as a cop who we are reminded several times, only has two weeks to go before retirement. Maggie Grace makes the fastest transition ever from lingerie-clad hottie one moment to nagging housewife the next, Berenger is in the film for roughly thirty seconds, and so on.

The one cast member to make an impression is Triple-A, Mr. Eko himself, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Playing an evangelist with ties to our main character, his scenes with Johnson briefly lift the film out of the mire it has been stuck in for 90% of the film. It’s nothing groundbreaking, but I enjoyed the melodrama of it and the quiet chemistry between the two men, something sadly lacking everywhere else.

The best part of the film is the music and that really should be no surprise considering the film is scored by Clint Mansell, the same man responsible for the wonderful soundtrack to Black Swan. He’s scored some bad movies in his time but the music here is soulful and atmospheric and far better than the script deserves.

But even with those two elements, there’s really nothing here for anyone. If you want a half decent revenge thriller, seek out Edge of Darkness, Taken or The Brave One. They may not be perfect, but they’re a hell of a lot better than this.

How dare they waste Dwayne Johnson. 4/20

OVERALL RANKINGS FOR THE YEAR

The King’s Speech   17/20

The Fighter               15/20

Black Swan               12/20

The Green Hornet    7/20

Faster                          4/20

FILM REVIEW - TRUE GRIT

The Coen brothers have made great movies. No Country for Old Men is well loved and an Oscar Winner for Best Picture. The Big Lebowski would go close to being the most popular cult film ever made and what is widely considered their best film, Fargo, is a classic. So the Coens are no strangers to greatness.

Their latest film, True Grit, fails to bridge that crucial gap between a good, capable, well-executed film and a great one.

Based on the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, which was made into a film starring John Wayne as Rooster Cogburn the year after, True Grit follows 14-year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) on the trail of her father’s killer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). To do this, she enlists the help of drunken deputy U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and Texas Ranger LeBouef (Matt Damon).

This version of the Portis novel sticks much closer to the book than the 1969 original, which catered more to John Wayne’s heroic instincts and cast 21 year old Kim Darby in the role of Mattie.

Here, the role of Mattie is filled by Hailee Steinfeld and she’s fantastic. It’s a more involving story in many ways with her at the centre of it – she’s the film’s beating heart and Steinfeld fills the screen with charm and wisdom beyond her years. She plays every note along her character’s journey beautifully and is a standout in a few choice moments.

It’s moments that the Coen brothers are most interested in here – they linger where other films might have moved on. Set pieces involving hanging corpses or confrontations are given more time and credence – and while that will annoy some people who want a great story to rollick along, that’s rarely how the Coen brothers work.

There’s no harm in that, though, when the moments are filmed and scored so atmospherically. Regular Coen brothers’ cinematographer Roger Deakins is his usual capable, artistic self and the score by Carter Burwell is really excellent. I don’t often think about buying a soundtrack to a film but I would consider it here.

All this adds up to a well-made, effective, involving film – but nothing much more than that. First of all, my view on remakes is that if you’re going to go to the trouble of remaking a film you have to reinvent the story enough to warrant the effort. But that doesn’t happen here – it’s a series of tweaks, adjustments and changes that don’t add up to any thematic improvements. You’ll enjoy this film as you watch it – and forget it afterwards.

The other performances are all as great as you’d expect. I especially like the casting of Damon as LaBoeuf – he manages to bring an unexpected level of both comedic and dramatic depth to his scenes and I think the film is better when he’s in it. Jeff Bridges is decent as Rooster Cogburn, drunken, swaggering, slurring – but I don’t think he brings enough to the role to warrant a Best Actor nomination. Josh Brolin oozes sleaze and charisma in his few scenes as villainous Chaney and Barry Pepper is effectively menacing as his namesake, Ned Pepper.

All in all it’s difficult to criticize a film when all the elements that make it up are this good – but it doesn’t have that spark, that extra something that really makes a great film. I don’t think True Grit will last in our memories like The Social Network might. If you’re wondering if it’s worth seeing, it is –my problem is I’m not sure it’s worth remembering. 14/20

OVERALL RANKINGS FOR THE YEAR

The King’s Speech   17/20

The Fighter               15/20

True Grit                   14/20

Black Swan               12/20

The Green Hornet    7/20

FILM REVIEW - THE GREEN HORNET

It’s hard not to watch The Green Hornet without thinking about Batman. Under the stewardship of Seth Rogen, The Green Hornet plays like Batman if Batman didn’t have skills, an alternative personality or sense of purpose.

That’s not the world’s worst idea. There’s the possibility of a subversive superhero movie there – like a more professional Kick-Ass – and if one director and star combination might pull it off, it’s Michel Gondry and Seth Rogen.

Unfortunately, they don’t.

I’m a big fan of the superhero film, as I’ve made clear already, so I thought the Green Hornet could be something interesting and different. But the film makes Britt Reid such an uncomplicated, unlikeable jackass that you lose any interest in his story whatsoever. That’s the primary problem with The Green Hornet – The Green Hornet.

In my preview piece on this film I guessed that either all the different elements and sensibilities in this film – comedy star Seth Rogen, kung-fu exponent Jay Chou, indie director Michel Gondry and charming, respected Oscar winner Christoph Waltz – would gel to create something special or butt into each other to create a mess. Unfortunately, the answer was behind door number two.

The Green Hornet starts off shakily with what might be the world’s most uninspiring superhero seed-planting scene in history. Spoilt fat kid gets his toy broken by his frustrated father – again, its like the anti-Batman. But instead of making me feel for the kid and understand why he was such an a**-hole, it just made me think maybe he’s always been an a**-hole.

Seth Rogen has a lot of fun with his role but unfortunately Britt Reid is so badly written that he can only do so much. It’s a testament to his screen presence that there are flickers of likability and charm, but he does so many stupid, arrogant things that you just lose interest in watching him. Well done to Rogen for achieving a remarkable feat of screen charm but the odds are too insurmountable for him here.

Similarly Jay Chou certainly has some charm and a watchable presence but the chemistry between himself and Seth Rogen really doesn’t have the spark the film is looking for – and depends on to be a success. Their characters meet during the film and learn about each other in the process of becoming superheroes but that concept sacrifices the two having any sort of long-standing bond. I think that would have overcome the language problem the pair face and helped out both the buddy comedy and our enjoyment in watching it.

When I was watching the trailers I wondered what Cameron Diaz was doing in this film, as she never seemed to be anything more than eye candy. But you kind of get it when watching the film – her character is smart and capable and so on. Nevertheless, although she’s said she took the film to work with Michel Gondry but the role still seems…beneath her somehow. Christoph Waltz does a decent enough job with a horribly underwritten villain* but suffers the same fate as everybody else.

*Can we have a moratorium on the movie trope of the villain that shoots people for the smallest reason and doesn’t appear to care? It’s lazy, lazy screenwriting.

Moreover, it’s hard to tell exactly why these characters are so underwritten. There are only really three action scenes but the story tries to introduce too many characters, none of whom have any chemistry with each other. There’s a scene early in the film that features a cameo from Rogen-associated actor that is by far the best scene in the film – displaying the charisma, wit and energy that the rest of the film is sorely looking.

Looking back on what I’ve written so far I’m noticing it’s almost all negative. There are good points to The Green Hornet if you’re not expecting too much. All the actors are engaging presences by themselves, Gondry involves in the occasional directorial flourish and there are a few funny scenes. Mostly, however, The Green Hornet makes the classic, oft-repeated action movie mistake. If we don’t care about the characters, we don’t care about the action involving them.

I don’t care about the characters in The Green Hornet and I want better from my blockbusters. It’s an occasionally entertaining but ultimately shallow and forgettable film. 7/20

OVERALL RANKINGS FOR THE YEAR

The King’s Speech   17/20

The Fighter               15/20

Black Swan               12/20

The Green Hornet    7/20