The Legend of Tarzan (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 110 minutes
Director: David Yates
Writers: Edgar Rice Burroughs (based on the 'Tarzan' stories created by), Craig Brewer and Adam Cozad (screenplay)
Cast: Alexander Skarsgard, Margot Robbie, Christoph Waltz, Samuel L. Jackson, Djimon Hounsou

The Legend of Tarzan is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Roadshow Films.

Bringing 'Tarzan' back to the realm of live action in 2016 is not even half a bad idea. It is actually a concept that is easy to get excited about when you consider how much could be done with it. However, it takes only five minutes to realise that that is all The Legend of Tarzan is and is instead exceptionally dull, flawed and overly cliché.

In what is an attempt to be unique and original with a story that has been told many times, The Legend of Tarzan is essentially a sequel to the more traditional Tarzan tale and takes place in the years following the "Tarzan meets Jane" fiasco. Tarzan (as played by Alexander Skarsgard), now known as John Clayton, has brushed up to become quite the civilised English gentleman with his American bride, Jane (Margot Robbie) at his side. He is coaxed back to Africa under the instruction of Belgian King Leopold to see what he has done for the countey and is accompanied by both Jane and American, George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson). When they arrive, they find a new enemy in Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) who is ruthlessly ripping through tribal villages with no guilt and has his eye set firmly on Tarzan.

While it is admirable that screenwriters Craig Brewer and Adam Cozad have tried to do an original take on Tarzan, there is nothing unique in the fact that it is merely a sequel being released at a time when cinemas are literally flooded with origin stories and sequels. It has been a significant amount of time since the last live-action Tarzan film so it can be presumed that the idea for the film came from that lightbulb moment of "Imagine what we could do with that story now!"

Visually, yes. There was a lot that could be done with The Legend of Tarzan and it does not disappoint in this department. The production design is very impressive and the CGI of the African animals and scenery is superb. This is where the excitement and intrigue exists with the film as the story is hardly suspenseful nor action-packed and very predictable. Of course the argument is that Tarzan films and television shows are supposed to have an acceptable level of tackiness and are not supposed to be taken too seriously, but with anything that isn't supposed to be taken too seriously you expect a level of enjoyment and a bit of fun. The Legend of Tarzan doesn't have any of this. It is a Tarzan film that is perfect in so far as capturing the atmosphere of the Congo, but doesn't succeed in capturing the sense of adventure in the way a Tarzan adaptation should.

The Legend of Tarzan is not just a new story about Tarzan, but the revealing of Tarzan as a new man. Alexander Skarsgard's Tarzan is a lot more civilised than the jungle man of old and the animalistic side of his personality is barely existant. He is a man caught between two worlds, but in the situation he finds himself in in this film, you would expect fragments of the man he used to be to come through in his behavior. Physically is a different matter. This isn't just in relation to his physique and his unnatural male model poses that were undoubtedly the basis for him being cast in the role, but he progresses in stature from a very well-to-do man to the King of the Jungle just fine,

It is Margot Robbie's Jane who has a bigger personality than Tarzan himself and has the fire that you would hope her husband would have. As well as Robbie does do performance wise, Jane is a little too contemporary for the film's time period. She is being presented as a cross between a strong woman and a damsel in distress, but with a less than refined accent and vocabulary that was not typical of the time. The fact that in her final close up you can see that Jane has pierced ears, when ear piercing did not come into fashion until the 1920's does not help this case either.

Samuel L. Jackson adds some humour to the film in a role that is again very contemporary, but probably more accepted than Jane. His addition to the cast makes things a bit more entertaining and animated, even if his character is quite Tarantino-esque minus the swearing. Christoph Waltz is fine as the villain Leon Rom, but sadly isn't too much of a stretch from the characters he has been playing of late.

The Legend of Tarzan proves to be nothing more than an exciting idea that cannot carry the excitement through to it's execution.

4/10

Spectre (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 148 minutes
Director: Sam Mendes
Writers: Ian Fleming (characters), John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade (story and screenplay), Jez Butterworth (screenplay)
Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, Lea Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Monica Bellucci, Naomie Harris, Dave Bautista, Andrew Scott, Rory Kinnear, Jesper Christensen

Spectre is now showing everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Sony Pictures.

With 24 films now making up the 007 catalogue, James Bond fans have been spoilt over the years with the variation of quality films to be featured within the realm. However, the variation of films has meant that many fans prefer a particular type of Bond film over another and Spectre is the type of Bond film that will appeal to some of his faithful more than others. As a stand alone film it is particularly well made, but unlike many of the past Bond film does require a pinch of knowledge of the past films with an unexpected link between films.

After James Bond (Daniel Craig) receives a message from beyond the grave following his last mission, he starts to believe that there may be a connection to a higher organisation, despite reservations from M (Ralph Fiennes) who is preoccupied and fighting the agency's own war in London. His suspicions turn out to be justified when he tracks down the underground organisation, but he never suspected the head of their organisation would be a direct link to his past and someone who still very much holds a grudge against him. To stop his long lost enemy, he must track him down before his followers find him and protect Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) who he swore to protect.

Spectre is a Bond film that will delight some and infuriate others. In the past four Bond films where Daniel Craig has played the special agent, we have seen a James Bond that is more humanized than he has been in the past when portrayed by such favourites as Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Rather than be the mysterious, enigmatic Bond with a past that isn't discussed, Craig's Bond has been the one that has opened a chapter on finding out who really is the man behind the mystery. In Casino Royale, audiences were treated to an understanding of why he never could quite settle or calm down with women as the one true love of his life in Vesper Lynd was cruelly taken from him. In Spectre, the subject of his upbringing and his family is approached as never before. Therefore, Craig's Bond becomes more relatable and more human...which won't sit well with fans of the past James Bond. Missing from Spectre is also the abundance of fun gadgets and gizmos which Bond films had become known for. In Sam Mendes' film, there is the obvious inclusion of Q's (Ben Whishaw) improved Aston Martin and a watch which is really a secret weapon.

So it is these members of the fandom who appreciate the older Bond who will feel that Spectre has not paid a proper tribute to their beloved spy hero. Yet, there are also fans who have found that in the past decade, this Bond played by Craig has been the one they greater admire. Something that fans of the last four films will appreciate more than others is the way that Spectre answers questions regarding Bond's past and links up with Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. With it's well-written screenplay, the film offers it's audience a sense of intrigue as to what really did happen in Bond's past as it is a personal journey for Bond. Although even this inclusion of learning more about Bond's family may be problematic to some, as these revelations almost appear out of nowhere when his family and past have only had miniscule mentions over the past fifty years of Bond. Yet, it is refreshing knowing more about 007.

However, Spectre is undeniably a very well made film. The opening scene, which takes place on the Day of the Dead in Mexico City, is incredibly impressive with a great air of intrigue and danger, exquisite travelling camera shots and wonderful costumes and music. One thing that no Bond fan will be disappointed with is the quality and quantity of action sequences. The special effects used in the highly intense scenes which involve combat or explosions are incredible and wonderfully designed. The production, set and art design is brilliant and costume design by Jany Temime perfect. "Writing's On The Wall", as sung by Sam Smith, is another great Bond theme song which fits the feeling of the film as the opening credits play.

Daniel Craig gives another solid performance as James Bond. It is perhaps not his most emotional of performances as the man and considering the subject of his family and childhood, should have gave a bit more. However, this would again be out of character for James Bond if he had become too emotional. Ralph Fiennes as the new M is very good and gives the character the strength and presence it deserves. Ben Whishaw is always quirky and intriguing as Q and Lea Seydoux gives an incredibly strong performance in her turn as a Bong girl. However, Christoph Waltz as a Bond villain does not hit the mark quite as powerfully as what he should. There is no denying that Waltz is very charismatic on screen, but the role does not seem so far removed from his previous villainous roles and does not come across as overly intimidating.

Spectre is a Bond film that will have it's admirers and critics depending on what type of Bond fan one is. A stunning film, but hard to judge it as a stand alone film when it has obvious links to previous Bond films.

7.5/10

Django Unchained

Year: 2012

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington

Before I begin my review….

Tarantino.

Where do you go from that name? His directorial style is one of the most recognisable in this day and age. He is one of a kind. He is able to do things in his movies that if other people attempted to do, they would be criticised till the cows come home. Yet, when Quentin Tarantino does it, it is considered genius.

Tarantino’s last two films, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained have taken him in a new direction with his film making. He does historical films in such a unique way. He doesn’t neglect what makes his film making style recognisable and remembers that making a film is about entertaining as well as informing. Both of the mentioned films are quirky in the Tarantino way, but quirky when you are Tarantino means brilliant.

Honestly, this is one film I would love to see win Best Picture at the Academy Awards.  I think it has everything it takes to win. So it aches to say that I don’t think it is the winner, even though I would love it to be. It may just still be a little too extreme to win. However, it definitely is one of the best films of the year and there are no complaints about it being one of the nine films nominated.

This being said, I think it is a certainty to win Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly For Screen. Yes, Tarantino did win this award at the Golden Globes so chances are good for him, but it is an amazing script. Brilliantly written and a verbal dream.

Another name which is right up there is an Oscar contender is Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor.  His main competition it would seem is Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln, but as Lincoln has yet to be released in Australia, I can’t make an informed decision as of yet. I will say that Waltz’s performance in Django Unchained is Oscar worthy. We’ve seen Waltz play the bad guy on a few occasions now, but here he shows his versatility playing the good guy and does so with so much character and charisma that when you leave the cinema, you feel like you want to go and visit him to spend more time with that character.

26 days till the 85^th Academy Awards, five more Best Picture nominees to review.

Review

American history gets the Quentin Tarantino treatment in Django Unchained and for that we are thankful.

Django Unchained is thoroughly entertaining and enjoyable. It has heroes to root for and villains to hate, a gripping story and killer script. Like any other Tarantino film, nothing is done with subtlety. Yet, like other Tarantino films, this lack of subtlety is what makes his films so entertaining and the art of film is not lost on his visual extremes.

The year is 1858 and slave, Django (Jamie Foxx)is about to become a free man. German bounty hunter, Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) takes Django under his wing to help him find a set of wanted men, but then seeing promise in him makes him his partner for the winter. As a condition, Dr Schultz will help Django find and free his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Before Django and Broomhilda can be together, they have some life-threatening hurdles they must face all in the form of plantation owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).

The Tarantino technique of film making makes viewing a historical film unlike any other film in the same category. The way he combines, in this case, brilliant dialogue by colourful characters with amazing cinematography, crazy images and a unique musical score is an absolute winner.

It is not often you watch a historical film that has music which is associated with the present time accompanying it and it actually works for it. Images of slaves heading towards a plantation with rap music playing in the background is something you know isn’t right, but it seems perfect.

The script is just brilliant. The dialogue used throughout the film is perfect for each of the characters and very interesting to listen to. There are some very funny lines in the film, and one scene in particular involving cutting holes in sheets is hilarious.

The characters created by Tarantino, who also wrote Django Unchained as well as directed, are just fantastic. All the main characters have a background and their development is fantastic. You love the good guys and hate the bad guys. The good guys become your friends and the bad guys your evil enemies.

Jamie Foxx is very good as lead, Django (the “D” is silent). He is the perfect example of wonderful character development. He starts off at the bottom of the food chain and you see him change and become arrogant, and then changes again to ensure survival. Django becomes like a rock star who deserves applause and cheering.

However, Christoph Waltz is in a class of his own here. Even though he is being categorised as being in a supporting role, he outshines Foxx in every scene he is in. He has so much charisma and is such an interesting character. Dr Schultz was written so well by Tarantino and brought to life by Waltz in spectacular fashion. This is one director/actor team that can do no wrong, considering this is the second time Tarantino has directed Waltz and could well be the second Oscar win form this partnership.

Django Unchained is the first film in which Leonardo DiCaprio has taken on a villainous character and proved that…yes….this man can do anything. He is terrifying. There is nothing better than when a character is terrifying without needing a scary physical appearance to add to this perception.

Samuel L. Jackson is one that tends to flourish under Tarantino’s light as well. Here he is another great character. Playing Candie’s butler, Stephen, he has hints of being a good guy, but is ultimately evil. He is quite evil, but also provides a few giggles.

Don’t be fooled, this is Tarantino film so there is violence. If you didn’t his earlier films because of the violence and language, don’t think that he has changed this. There is lots of blood spilt and F-bombs dropped, but they aren’t the centrepiece of the film and there is a great movie around it.

Django Unchained is Tarantino’s best film to date (which is no light comment). A quirky film in which everything is exaggerated, but done in the most brilliant way possible.

9.5/10

The Three Musketeers

Year: 2011

Director: Paul W. S. Anderson

Cast: Logan Lerman, Matthew Macfadyen, Ray Stevenson, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Milla Jovovich, Christoph Waltz

Before I begin my review……

                It’s insane how many times The Three Musketeers can be remade and the characters can be featured in different films, and they can still be a huge box office draw.

                I did a quick search and The Three Musketeers have been made into nearly 30 films in at least four different languages including English, Spanish and Danish. Disney have, of course, had a go at it, as has Japanese anime. The characters of Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D’Artagnan also appear in such films as 1998’s The Man In The Iron Mask. 

                The words The Three Musketeers are known to everyone, whether you have seen the films are not. They still capture the heart of adventure lovers from every generation.

                I guess The Three Musketeers is like many other remade adventure/ action movies these days. Film makers want to remake them as when they watch the original, they think to themselves “Imagine what we could do with thus film with all the film techniques we have available to us these days”.

                The 2011 version is definitely an example of “Hey! Look what we can do now!”

Review

                2011 seemed about time to make another The Three Musketeers, so why not? Just don’t expect too much different from other films of the same name as far as the story goes, visually except so much more!         

                Young D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) is the son of a once Musketeer and travels from country France to Paris to become one himself. When he arrives, he finds that the three Musketeers, Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans) are not quite as popular and heroic as he once thought. However, when Lord Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) visits from England, he and Athos’ once love, Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich) scheme to steal a diamond necklace from Queen Anne (Juno Temple). The Musketeers embark on an adventure to England to claim back what belongs to France.

                The Three Musketeers is one of those adventure films with plenty of corn cheese to it. It is very unrealistic with fights in air ships, fighting on top of English and French landmarks and blowing these landmarks to pieces. But hey, true story adventures were never this fun, right?

                Everything is very over the top, there is backing music to accompany every situation, even if it makes everything just seem all the more ridiculous. The graphics and special effects are very good and enhanced by 3D. However, some special effects visuals don’t look quite as realistic they could be.

                The musical score is very good and the sword fighting scenes are impressively choreographed. 

                Logan Lerman does well as the young D’Artagnan and Macfadyen, Stevenson and Evans are all very good as the Musketeers. Lerman, Macfadyen and Stevenson do very well with each of their characters and you know the true self of each of them. Evans lacks a tad in this area as you don’t really know where his character fits in personality wise with the others.

                Christoph Waltz is, as always, at home in the role of the villain. Not quite as evil as his previous roles of late, but still convincing as the Cardinal. Orlando Bloom impresses as Buckingham. Bloom isn’t known for playing the villainous roles, but he is completely convincing here and actually very entertaining to watch.

                Milla Jovovich is perhaps the most over-emphasised character. Absolutely everything about her character is completely overdone. Every facial expression and line she says just has a little too much in it.

                The Three Musketeers is this time around just as entertaining as the previous versions. Nowhere near the best version and not really very memorable, but entertaining enough.

6/10

Water For Elephants

Water For Elephants
Year: 2011
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz

In My Own Words
I have actually had a close encounter with Reese Witherspoon. Well, not close in that I have met her or touched her...but I have been in the same room as her! I was lucky enough to be in the audience at a filming of "Jimmy Kimmel Live" in November 2008 when she was on to promote "Four Holidays" (otherwise known as "Four Christmases"). It was a stroke of luck to see her really, because she was supposed to appear the night before. I hadn't even realised that Witherspoon had to change to the night I would be going until I was strolling down Hollywood Boulevard during the day and there was the sign! She was lovely. I was very impressed at how down to earth she was. She raved about her children and all of the animals they own on their property. Witherspoon even rattled off all the names of her geese, chickens and pigs! It was so nice to hear her lovingly talk about her life away from Hollywood. I am sure that with her love of her farm animals she would have loved doing this film considering she got to work with horses and the elephant!

The bottom line is definitely go and see "Jimmy Kimmel Live" on Hollywood Boulevard if you are there, because it is basically the only place in Hollywood where you are guaranteed to see celebrities!

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
The film maker who decided to adapt Sara Gruen's bestseller "Water For Elephants" was always going to have a winner on their hands. The picture you paint in your mind with the idea of a love story in a travelling circus in the 1930's conjures up glamorous images of women in sequined costumes and all sorts of exotic animals. That's exactly what the Franis Lawrence directed "Water For Elephants" is. It is a visual delight which is entertaining, moving and suspenseful.

Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson) has the world at his feet when he is just about to graduate from college in veterinary science when his parents are killed in a car accident and he is left without a home. By accident, he ends up on the same train as a travelling circus, which needs him about as much as he needs them. As the new circus vet, he comes to know the ringleader, August (Christoph Waltz) and his beautiful wife and star, Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). August has an aggressive streak, which becomes even more evident when Rosie the elephant is introduced to the show and when Jacob falls in love with Marlena.

"Water For Elephants" is incredibly moving and really a beautiful film. There hasn't been many circus movies in recent times and this is definitely the best one in decades. There are some scenes in the film which some people will find quite disturbing and shocking. Yet the fact that we do take these moments in the film so to heart is because the mixture of images, musical score and the cinematography enhances all of our senses to experience what is going on in the film with the characters. The film is actully nail-biting in many scenes and you know the ending could go one of two ways, but there is no disappointment and no sense of predictability.

The images in this film are magic. The way in which all the animals appear on screen is beautiful and loving. Although the brutality of life with a travelling circus is talked about, the brutality even depicted by Lawrence is still in its own way quite beautiful.  The cinematography and editing for the big top scenes are exquisite. The musical score and sound effects all add towards the emotion of each scene and the score for the scenes with Rosie are particularly good.

One of the best things about this film is that the character development is brilliant. Each of the three lead characters have so much character to them and they make so much of an impression on you that you really do take them with you when you leave the cinema. Robert Pattinson's does well in the lead as Jacob, yet he seems to have the least dialogue out of the three main characters. Pattinson relies more on his facial expressions to show how he feels , which works but there isn't any scene which really stands out for him. However, it is great to see Pattinson smile a great deal more in this film than he usually does!

 Reese Witherspoon is just beautiful. She is perfect in this role and shines every moment she is on the screen. Credit must also be paid to her for all the tricks she had to do with the elephant and the horse. Christoph Waltz is also fantastic. He comes into the movie and everyone thinks he is just a typical boss who is protective of his business, but he changes throughout the film in character and becomes more psychotic. What truly is brilliant is that he is scary, but it is so subtle in the way he is aggresive at times and then so obviously brutal at others. Hal Holbrook is also commendable as the older Jacob. He is completely believable and very sweet.

However, the only problem is that the romantic chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon is nearly non-existent. You can't really see the love between the two characters at all and there is no heat or passion in the love scenes. They both seem to do well in their roles individually, but there is no chemistry at all to be felt. The older Jacob shows more emotion towards Marlena than the young Jacob. As a result, the film is more moving in regards to the animals and not with the romanticism.

"Water For Elephants" is one of the most entertaining, enjoyable and beautiful films released so far in 2011. It is a beautiful story with beautiful images with beautiful characters. It is not often a book adaptation is amazing, but this one truly is.
8/10