KUNG FU PANDA (2008) - Mark Osborne & John Stevenson

After the appalling Shrek The Third was released last year, it seemed that Dreamworks Animation were just gunning for cash, and not particularly interested in releasing animated films with any substance at all. CGI animation is no longer the jaw-dropping visual goldmine it once was, as audiences have become accustomed to high-quality 3D animation. So visuals alone no longer cut it. In order to get the audiences in the seats, the writers of these films strive to write more layered stories, with jokes not just for kids, but for adults too. To this end, sometimes plot can suffer in order to squeeze in one more joke. So it’s refreshing to see a film like Kung Fu Panda. It doesn’t take itself too seriously and still manages to be very entertaining.

Po is the laziest and clumsiest animal in the Valley of Peace. He works in his father’s noodle shop. But his real dream is to be a mighty Kung Fu warrior. When it is announced that Oogway, the master of the Kung Fu temple is to choose the Dragon Warrior, the prophesised warrior destined to bring peace to the valley, Po makes his way to the temple for the festivities. Much to everyone’s surprise (and none to that of the audience), Po is chosen. He gets to train under Master Shifu, alongside his heroes, the Furious Five- Monkey, Tigress, Mantis, Viper and Crane, all of whom resent this blow-in. And in a prison far away from the valley, shamed warrior Tai Lung escapes from his captors and makes his way back to the Valley of Peace to claim the title of Dragon Warrior for himself.



Okay, so Kung Fu Panda’s plot isn’t exactly Citizen Kane. It’s the typical story of a no-hoper who turns his luck around and becomes something nobody ever thought he could be. He faces challenges he shouldn’t overcome, but he finds a way. He rises to the challenge. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. But in the hands of directors, Mark Osborne and John Stevenson, Kung Fu Panda proves to be a damn entertaining watch. The success of the film rests largely on the shoulders of Jack Black, who voices Po. He’s an actor who’s familiar to both older and younger audiences, and his vocal talents seem to embody Po perfectly. He’s the character who gets all the laughs, which mostly come from Po falling over in various different ways.

That’s not to say that Kung Fu Panda is a film that relies on one element. When the action scenes kick in, they’re very entertaining. And at 92 minutes, the film moves at a very fast pace. At times, character development suffers. And it seems that some of the voice talents are a bit wasted. The Furious Five, voiced by Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross and Jackie Chan, yes, Jackie Chan, are given little to do in the film. Their resentment towards Po isn’t really explored. This element is sacrificed in order to keep things moving along. But then, this is a kids’ film, and it makes no attempt to be anything else. And it’s because of that, and despite the minor flaws that the film works very well.



The animation, as expected, is gorgeous. Po’s design works very well for the physical comedy in the film. At times, there are slow motion close-ups of Po’s gurning face, and these moments are pretty funny in themselves. The animation team seem to be having a lot of fun acting with this character. The production design in particular is gorgeous. The film has a visual style of it’s own, blending natural elements such as falling cherry blossoms, with cold, almost industrial style of Tai Lung’s prison. The production team are on top form and have created in Kung Fu Panda the most visually impressive of all the Dreamworks productions to date.

Kung Fu Panda is a kids’ film. It doesn’t layer in adult jokes that other animated films are so fond of doing these days. It’s unashamedly for the kids and if you can accept the prat-falls and juvenile nature of the comedy, then it’s a very entertaining film. Making up a helluva lot for last year’s terrible Shrek debacle, Kung Fu Panda is a film the Dreamworks guys can be proud of. Whether or not it’ll be able to trump Pixar’s Wall-E is questionable at this stage. But it remains a very entertaining film none the less.


8/10

WANTED (2008) - Timur Bekmambetov

2008, the year of the comic book movie... although recently, every year has seemed to be the year of the comic book movie, marches on with another adaptation. Where as the bigger names, the Batmans, Iron Mans and Hellboys are more recognisable to the general public, Wanted, adapted from Mark Millar’s comic of the same name, will be less recognisable. It arrives with less of a fanfare than the other films mentioned, and doesn’t feature leather or rubber clad super humans. Instead, it’s a bit of a gun fetishist movie.

Wesley Gibson is an office-working drone with a cheating girlfriend, miserable apartment and a life that nobody would envy. He’s prone to anxiety attacks and apologises constantly for things that aren’t even his fault. One day he’s approached by a woman in a drug store. She tells Wesley his father was one of the worlds’ greatest assassins and that he is a marked man himself. Wesley is introduced to The Fraternity, an ancient brotherhood of assassins who take orders from fate and assassinate people in order to keep the world stable. Wesley is told he has inherited his father’s gifts and must use them to take his father’s place as one of the world’s top assassins.



Some comic book movies take themselves very seriously. Which works for them. Some are a bit camp, which fits in with some views of the comic medium. And then you have the films that are just about the action. And this is the category Wanted falls into. You really need to check your brain at the door, because there is nothing in the film that really needs any use of the old gray matter. It’s a film that’s all explosions and bullets. There are some real tongue-in-cheek humour moments and plenty of gore. As long as you’re aware of what you’re letting yourself in for, there’s plenty of enjoyment to be had from the film.

The plot of the film is pretty thin. Paper thin. It’s yet another origin story, but since there’s not much to the characters, the origins part is more like a training montage from the Rocky films. These characters don’t have super powers or fancy gadgets. What they do have, however, is a love for guns and bullets that is a little odd. The type of love a man should really reserve for his partner. Or a very fine pair of pants. But if you’ve seen the trailer, you pretty much know what to expect, so don’t complain about the lack of plot.



The performances are very much in tone with the plot. There’s little to do but provide mouths for dialogue and hands for guns. James McAvoy plays the weak Wesley quite convincingly, and can deliver the action parts when necessary. Although there’s little bare knuckle fighting to be done, he has two legs for running, a finger for pulling a trigger and he uses them well. Angelina Jolie has little to do but smirk, stand around and look sexy. She pretty much delivers that by turning up to the set, and when she’s required to deliver some action, she too has little problem. Everyone’s favourite mentor, Morgan Freeman plays Sloan, the leader of the Fraternity. I have a feeling Freeman did this one for the dollars, as it’s not exactly a taxing role. Although it’s worth the price of admission alone to hear the man who embodies gravitas say the line ‘kill this motherfucker.’

Director Timur Bekmambetov previously delivered the almost incomprehensible but visually entertaining Russian films Nightwatch and Daywatch. Those films were thick with visual style, and Bekmambetov delivers the same here. There are some moments that will either make you grin or roll your eyes. Some of the action sequences get a little confusing. But it’s a frenetic film and it makes no apologies for being that way. Really, Wanted is 2008’s 300. It’s absolutely nothing but testosterone and action. For some, that will fall far from the mark of a decent film. But if you accept the film for what it is, you’ll at least be entertained.


7/10

BEOWULF (2007) - Robert Zemeckis

Cinema certainly has come a long way since the Lumiere Brothers first terrified Victorian audiences with images of a train arriving at a station. But the evolution of the art form has sped up in the last three decades, due in part to the use of computers. Director Robert Zemeckis has done plenty to promote the use of special effects. And with Beowulf, Zemeckis pushes the boundaries once more, using motion capture to create a film entirely out of CGI. It’s not the first time this process has been used, but Zemeckis raises the bar with his reimagining of the Old English heroic poem.

Beowulf opens with a celebration of the opening of King Hrothgar’s new meade hall, Heorot. The noise from the celebrations attracts Grendel, a monster that is the son of a water demon. Grendel attacks the hall and kills many of Hrothgar’s men, then disappears into the night. Hrothgar is at his wit’s end and needs a hero. Arriving from the sea is a host of men led by Beowulf, a brash, arrogant warrior who claims he will destroy Hrothgar’s monster and return peace to the land. Grendel once again attacks the hall, but becomes unstuck when battling Beowulf. Grendel limps back to his cave and dies in the company of his mother. Beowulf and Hrothgar celebrate Grendel’s demise, but during the night, the halls are once again attacked and many die. Hrothgar tells Beowulf that the second attack was perpetrated by Grendel’s mother and that Beowulf must also destroy her. Beowulf sets out to once again battle monsters. But his arrogance and lust for power may be his own undoing.



Obviously the main attraction of Beowulf is going to be the spectacle of seeing the film created entirely of CGI. And it is quite impressive. The landscapes are almost photo-realistic. The special effects are amazing. The production design is fantastic. And the CGI is the best in the industry. But while all this is great, I found myself asking what the point of the film is. The part of it that has me vexed, is that all the actors are all motion captured and then the models are made to look exactly like their human counterparts.

It is a showy piece of cinema. A kind of ‘look what we can do!’ exclamation. But again, why? I don’t really get what the point in motion capturing an actor and making him or her look exactly like they do in real life is (with the exception of Ray Winstone, who’s made look a lot slimmer and younger in the film). Either you film the actors, or you animate in CGI. As an animator myself, I’ve never been too impressed with motion capture. While it’s almost true to life, there’s always something missing from the motion that makes it feel unreal. And that’s pretty much what I felt watching Beowulf. It’s impressive, but something ain’t right.



As for the direction, well it’s pretty good. Unfortunately there are some rather silly moments in the film that had me laughing when I shouldn’t. Beowulf battles Grendel naked. While this is a good idea in the context of the movie, Zemeckis takes some drastic steps to ensure we don’t see Beowulf’s ‘sword’ and by doing this, the scene becomes a bit laughable. The battle with Grendel himself is a bit of an anti-climax. I’d heard bits and pieces about this poem over the years and I expected something a little more... epic, I guess. In fact, Beowulf’s battle with a dragon, the climax of the film, is far more impressive.

The acting, if you can really call it that, isn’t too bad. But the characters look soulless, so this kind of kills any nuances the actors may have brought to their roles. And that’s a little disappointing considering the cast includes Anthony Hopkins, John Malkovich and Brendan Gleeson. The script by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary translates pretty well into modern English, even if there are one or two silly moments that are a little too modern. The story itself is pretty basic. Monster kills man. Man kills monster. Other monster kills more men. Man must kill other monster. But there’s plenty of visual moments to keep you interested.

Beowulf is an interesting benchmark in terms of cinema. It’s a good place to look back at how far the art form has come. And a good place to glimpse into the future at where it’s going. And if you get to see the film in 3-D, as I did, it’s a fairly amusing film to fill two hours. But as a film, it’s nothing really spectacular. More of a portfolio piece for a special effects company than a brilliant cinematic film.


6/10

THE GOOD SHEPHERD (2006) - Robert DeNiro

Robert DeNiro returns to the director's chair for his second film since 1993's A Bronx Tale (although he did some uncredited work on 2001's The Score). The Good Shepherd charts the formation and early days of the Central Intelligence Agency through the eyes of Edward Wilson, a man who values discretion and patriotism, qualities that bring him to the attention of the big wigs at the OSS, the predecessor to the CIA. Set in 1961, the film opens with the planning and subsequent failure of the Bay of Pigs incident. Edward Wilson, head of Counter Intelligence in the CIA, and one of the architects of the disastrous mission is brought under suspicion, as a mole is discovered within the CIA. As the events unfold, the story is intercut with the events that lead Wilson to his position in life, from his induction to Yale's Skull and Bones society, his recruitment to the OSS, and the evolution of the OSS into the CIA. Wilson is a fictitious character, but is present for most of the real life events that surrounded the evolution of the CIA. We also witness Wilson's personal life. His marriage to Margaret Ann Russell, a woman he doesn't love, and the birth of his only son who he never connects with.

The film rests on the shoulders of Matt Damon who plays Wilson. I've enjoyed Damon's performances in the Bourne films and The Departed, but here, he is directed to act like a statue. This is the nature of the character of Edward Wilson, but it also prevents us from ever really engaging with the character. We remain as removed from Wilson as his family and friends, and never get inside his head. This is not Damon's fault, but because of the nature of the role, you cant help but feel disconnected from the film. The supporting cast, including John Turturro, Alec Baldwin, William Hurt, and Michael Gambon are on fine form. But they are given supporting roles, and as such they're never really given the screen time to give us something to cling to. Angelina Jolie seems totally miscast, playing Wilson's wife. Her role is to simply turn up now and again and complain that she doesn't know the man she is married to. I dunno about you, but I cant really accept an actress with her presence playing someone so weak.

The film is really about tone and atmosphere, and DeNiro does a good job of creating a sense that something big is happening during the flashbacks. However, there is very little plot as such, and the film feels drawn out at times. The mole plot that bookends the film seems hackneyed. We never really get the impression that a mole inside the CIA is anything more than a trivial matter. This is essentially a history lesson told through fictitious characters, but with little to do, you could be forgiven for getting a little bored. And at almost three hours in length, you get the impression DeNiro's film could really have benefited from a little more editing. Intriguing if you're interested in the evolution of the CIA. Lacking a great deal if you're looking for a spy adventure.