Fred Claus (2007)

Sometimes you can have a good idea and make a rather poor movie (Bruce Almighty), and other times you have a bad idea that still makes a very good movie (BASEketball). This film is what happens when you have a bad idea and even worse skills, so the result is just horrid.

But how can it be? This film stars Vince Vaughn, Kevin Spacey, Rachel Weisz, Paul Giamatti, Kathy Bates and the multi-talented Miranda Richardson? Surely some redeeming features must remain? Not really no. Vaughn is just an ass. And not a funny as like 2 scenes of Jim Carrey as The Grinch or 7 seasons of Hugh Laurie as Dr. House. Just a whining asshole that refuses to take responsibility for anything. As for the rest, they have either hugely uninteresting characters (Tim Allen had better dialogues as a Santa than Giamatti does here) or they're reduced to charicatures (Kevin Spacey, Kathy Bates). And most of the dialogue is either bickering or full-fledged quarreling. Exasperating. There is such a thing as balancing your cast, and here every single one is either a whining loser, or just a dick.

Oh! And if you're making a comedy: Some jokes would be nice. There aren't enough funny jokes here to feed a slug in an iron lung. The closest they come is a support group for people with famous brothers. Unfortunately, that also ends in a narcissistic rant, devoid of creativity and good jokes. I can't even remember having snickered during this flick and that is an exceptionally bad sign.

But there is still something that could save it! Does it have som Christmas spirit? Actually, yes. A very nice scene of about 45 seconds. Nicely set up, very fine acting by Giamatti and Richardson with just the right mood. What it lacks, though, is a believable and finely tuned transition as Christmas-hating protagonists need. Here, they just toss some morals together and hope nobody notices how poorly executed it is.

I hate Christmas myself, and I am still annoyed by how horrible this is. I can not for the life of me understand which audience they are trying to pass this off to. Surely not kids, as the tone is all wrong, and no grown man or woman would be stupid enough to accept this as quality. If there had been some good jokes, you could sell it to the crude and simple. As it is, this is perhaps the worst Christmas film ever made.


2/10

X-Men (2000)

Do you remember when there wasn't a superheromovie three times a year? When only true nerds knew who Green Lantern, Aquaman and the other loser-superheroes were? Back then, Bryan Singer actually had the audacity to make a flick about a bearded, cigar-puffing thug and his soon-to-be-friends. And since these films weren't a fad yet, he could do it well.

Singer immediately distances himself from the genre as a whole by making the first scene a historic one, from a Jewish concentration camp, heavy on tragedy and realism. To add to the reality, the scene as a whole is shot with very grey filters, in mud and rain. Practically bereft of colour. As an added bonus, the scene adds background to one of the characters. Now that is how you start a big-budget adventure (read this Michael Bay, you useless git).

It also plays to Singer's strength that he is able to create tension and thrills by many different methods, and on several different scales. It all feels genuine and exciting, and rarely boring. As the first of any instalment, there are many characters to introduce and that will wreak havoc with the flow of the film. At times, there is a bit little going on, and suddenly the story takes a leap.

It is immensely worth it though, as no superhero-flick has ever been cast as thoughtfully and fantastic as this. The pairing of McKellen (not a very known face before this) and Stewart is absolutely delectable and most of their scenes are a study in verbal sparring. There never were two more belivable leaders of a group than these two. Another great piece of casting is Anna Paquin. The perfect balance for a very unlikely mentor in Wolverine. And who could ever think of anyone but Jackman as Wolverine after this series? Marsden and Janssen are both good, as they have some relevance. Halle Berry is useless, though, and her character doesn't really fit into nor the story nor the other characters. Double kudos to Bruce Davison for playing a despicable politician with just the proper gusto, sneakiness, arrogance and megalomania to make it believable.

And since Singer is a good director, he actually has a plot here, and a story. Both good, and both developing nicely alongside the characters. Furthermore, the dialogue is refreshingly down to earth for this kind of film. It's also worth noting that the cinematography is very stylish and clean (apart from the aforementioned introduction), making it seem all the more futuristic.

This is the kind of film that has you dying to see the next, whereas standing firmly on its own two feet.

8/10

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

So new kinds of secret societies are apparently the way to go if you don't own the rights to any superheroes, nor James Bond. Most intriguing. I hope. To have a secret lair at a tailor's and all men being dapper accordingly is most pleasing. There's more to a film than scenography, though.

Generally, the Brits are very well cast here. There seems to be an abundance of actors able to pull off the archetypical British agent, with just a hint of overdone arrogance and cockiness. Colin Firth is particularly brilliant. And you can't go wrong with Michael Caine. Ever. As a result the interaction amongst the adult Brits is mostly fantastic. Old-fashioned, clever, and very, very dry.

The rest of the cast is a bit hit-and-miss. Egerton is fantastic as the rebellious Eggsy, pissing everyone off and generally not respecting much. As a student of the secret school, he's decent. As a Kingsman, not very good. Bar a couple of lines, mostly related to the Swedish royalty (a ludicrously entertaining and sensual Hanna Alström) he wants to nail. The bigger problem is Samuel L. Jackson. He was never the megalomaniac, and to cast him dressing like a slow 13 year old with a lisp, is such a stupid idea, it begs belief. And a movie like this with a useless villain, will never be good enough. Ironically a point made by Jackson in his scene with Firth

Furthermore, it's problematic that the film fails to find a defined note. At times it seems like a spoof, other areas are very serious, and some are light-hearted. In the latter category it works very well. Unlike, for instance, Demolition Man, it seems to forget what it is at times. Or it simply never knew. The director, Matthew Vaughn, is too busy being slick and cool in his scenes to bother with the film as a whole.

The new angle works wonders for the action though. Adding nice new ways of giving bad men bruises or much, much deadness. Violence with a smirk is a most welcome sight. The school and its tests adds little of interest though. And nothing new.

So all in all, it does have entertainment, you're rarely bored, but there are too many glaring errors to make it anything but a fringe instalment in the entertainment industry.

5/10

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

The second instalment had no great battles to speak of. That needed correcting. And Jackson was always one to please the fans. Hell, he even had the word in the title. Furthermore, when you start a film with an angry Smaug wanting to eradicate a village, you know it's likely to be a lively few hours.

First though: The surplus of characters. Bard seems a bit unnecessary, which is astonishing considering his key part. Perhaps after 5 flicks, there are just a bit too many trying to make up for themselves or their ancestors. I mean, there are several in this trilogy alone. So perhaps one of all the others could have done his tasks, or at least enough of them for him to be expendable.

Though Freeman makes a good attempt at carrying this, he never comes near the endearment that we had for Mr. Frodo. Perhaps due to Sam, or perhaps due to Wood playing Frodo as much more of a boy. Besides, the burden of the ring is now the burden of the Arkenstone and is laid on another character entirely. Furthermore, he has a lot less interaction with McKellen and Holm, and that makes it all the more difficult.

Ryan Gage suffers greatly with a larger role. He was annoying last time around, and unbearable here.
Kili's childish love is enviable, but continually nicely portrayed. And love is one of the few things Middle-Earth has not done in abundance. As for Armitage, he now starts to suffer under the fact that we have already seen Boromir, Frodo and others succumb to a power from a shiny artefact, and hence it has lost a bit of momentum and interest for the viewer.

There are more upsides as to the casting of new characters in this ending. Billy Connolly as a dwarf general is particularly perfect. Though his lines are few, his glee is unsurpassed.

We were spared the sadness of beloved characters dying in the first six hours of this trilogy, so there is no shortage of tear-jerkers here as our heroes steadily decline in numbers. Jackson is quite good at both making the scenes, and using the following effect, without resorting to melodrama.

He still is the best in the business when it comes to epic battles, but the absolute highlight here is Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf against the henchmen of Sauron. The last third is more or less one large battle. Though Jackson has developed a real penchant for Deus ex machina, it is dramatic, grandiose, and exceptionally entertaining.

8/10

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Starting up with a flashback to events before the first film started in a sequel is hardly original, but as stated with the previous instalment, the guarantee of quality that Peter Jackson brought, is also a guarantee that it can never be different from LOTR. Jackson isn't trying particularly hard to put some distance between the trilogies either, reusing sets, scenes and all his thoughts.

Armitage is still excellent. Visibly going weary in his long quest. Making horrible mistakes in anger in desperate situations as he fails to learn from past mistakes. Jackson makes the most of this development, by establishing the character of Balin as the older, wiser and most weary of them all. A pint-sized Gandalf for when the grey wizard is off solving side-quests if you will.

The Elves don't really work as well this time around. The CGI and stunts are pushed just a little too far at times, and as the dwarves are low-tech fighters, the elvish fighting feels like they've been imported from that God-awful Ang Lee-film. Much of it is a awesome as ever, though. The Elves do play Kiri into a more interesting part, and his bratty charm and general insolence is most welcome. Worse though, it would appear that Lee Pace was obviously cast for a different role last time around, and is a rare total miss in this film. At times that also applies to Orlando Bloom. The worst though is Ryan Gage as Alfrid. A broke man's version of Grima Wormtongue that could have been written by Michael Bay.

All in all you could say that Jackson does well with establishing the characters from its predecessor, but his new characters let him somewhat down. Not surprisingly either, as many are not a product of Tolkien, but new script-writers. The casting that was so sublime in LOTR, also feels more hit and miss here, as does the balance of characters. The afore-mentioned Ryan Gage is a greedy, evil pussy. His boss, played by Stephen Fry, is also that. ¨This ruptures the balance a bit. And though the love between an elf and a dwarf is most predictable, it is wonderfully done, with good characters and actors, so it works nonetheless.

The visuals, sound, editing and production is still immense, particularly well illustrated by the barrel-escape. Ten points also for the ingenuity and engineering of the kingdom of Smaug, and all the production lines. Smaug is as good as CGI comes, with the breath of an old V8. A most impressive sound. And though it ends on a dark note, it is not as dark as the second instalment in trilogies often are, though our friends are largely dispersed and it suddenly does loom.

7/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

An epic setup with voiceover followed by a hobbit at his most peaceful home? Peter Jackson sure plays it close to home as he takes over from Guillermo Del Toro late in the game. Del Toro had dabbled with this trilogy for a long time before admitting failure and handing the reigns to the very Shire-friendly hands of Peter Jackson.

Therein lies a bit of the flaws and successes of this first part. Though Peter Jackson knows the world of Tolkien like the back of his hand, it all feels very familiar. And after 14 hours of LOTR, something a bit fresher might be welcome. That also applies to Howard Shore's score, which is a mere continuation. The tone and humour with Jackson is largely identical to the former trilogy. Thankfully, it was all good then, and not vastly inferior here.

Perhaps the very best thing here is the re-acquaintance of Gandalf and the old Bilbo. McKellen and Holm bring such a warmth to their characters. They even have a couple of degrees extra if Elijah Wood joins them on-screen. Though that only happens for seconds.

The dwarves are a bit of a problem though. Particularly in the first hour, they are little more than a nuisance. Not only to Bilbo Baggins, but to the viewer. The singing is dreadful and fits in no way into the film, nor any of the moods. Generally the dwarves are stuck with the task of compensating for the lack of Tolkien as there is significantly less story for this trilogy. So also with Freeman's Bilbo at times. Freeman suffers under too much screentime, considering his character and dialogue. But he grows very nicely into the part over the course of this flick, though a more trimmed script would have helped him greatly.

Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, however, is a sight for sore eyes. With the looming feeling of a poor man's Boromir about him from the start, they pull him slowly out of that mire, and into a dark, deeply split man with heroism, bitterness and prejudice in equal measures. Radagast is just a stupid and unnecessary character though. Time wasted in every way unless you like really cute CGI-animals.

But though much is not quite as good as LOTR, "The Hobbit" still has fantastic scenery, utterly brilliant sound & picture and Peter Jackson does know his storytelling in epic tales by now. As he knows battles, large and small. Though many of the battles portrayed here are told as anecdotes, and therefore lack any real danger for our little friends.

Besides the pairing of Bilbo and Gollum in the cave is brilliant. In a rather noisy and chaotic film, the sobriety of a dimly lit scene where to little creatures play a simple game of riddles with all at stake is a most welcome variation.

So, it's still Middle-Earth, it's still Tolkien and it's still good. Just not as good as the original trilogy.

7/10

Wanted (2008)

If you want some lame, youthful looking loser to whine incessantly, why divert from Shia LeBoeuf? James MacAvoy plays the younger and exceptionally less funny version of Lester Burnham. And voice-over galore. Baby-Burnham does have his moments, but they can never quite compare to the original.

This is one of those films that doesn't really play on anyone being a superhero. However, they choose to disregard the laws of physics and probability to an exceptional degree, even when not relying on the "powers" of our friends. Meaning the set-pieces are extravagant but whimperingly stupid, an effect emphasized by overuse of slow-motion.

Another thing that lacks believability is the development of our protagonist. It takes him a stapler and a fat boss to go straight from loser to rockstar. MacAvoy isn't all bad. The script is, though. "Let your instincts guide you"? Even George Lucas at least made a faint attempt at explaining how his attempted superpowers work.

I can understand why Angelina Jolie would do this flick, as she is reported to be somewhat crazy and her acting skills are limited. Her part here is impossible to grasp in any logical way as the director is much more interested in showing off her naked skin than any depth. So cudos for that then, I suppose. But why would Morgan Freeman get involved? Surely he must have been sent a script at some point?

Danny Elfman composed a great theme for this film, and that adds to a few of the scenes, but mostly the music is the kind of crap rock you would expect in a Michael Bay-flick.

This film tries so hard, and does everything to the extreme. The set-pieces, the violence, the cruelty. It so badly wants to be cool. As it is, it's hardly even slick. And the twist is so unfathomably disconnected from the story, that it's hard to believe that it was all written by the same guy.

So, are there any redeeming features? Yes, it's not badly cast and it has plenty of action. And I must admit, the trick with the rats is very cool. See? Low-tech ftw!

3/10