Showing posts with label 2004. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2004. Show all posts

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy was recommended to me as the best possible cure for my fierce hatred of Will Ferrell as an actor and comedian, and sadly it has failed to change my view. This is probably the best performance I've ever seen him give, but he was still the millstone around this film's neck, with far funnier performances coming from supporters Paul Rudd and David Koechner. I think Ferrell's main problem is with his basic thesis of how comedy works - he seems to think that the comedic value of a line increases in proportion to how loudly you say it. That being said, this film has some moments of comedy gold (though I would argue that it is far out-stripped in that department by later Apatow project The 40-Year-Old Virgin), from the a capella rendition of Starland Vocal Band's "Afternoon Delight", to the hilarious (and altogether too brief) battle against the bears. Even a fleeting appearance by Jack Black is memorable, simply because his short time on screen is largely spent ostensibly murdering a dog. This being a Judd Apatow film (sure, he's only producing, but still...), you shouldn't be surprised that every comedy actor from the early 2000s is present, however briefly - Seth Rogen, Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jack Black - though Owen Wilson is noticeably absent. Luckily, his brother Luke was available. Round off with one of the least credible screen couples since Kate Winslet and Jack Black in The Holiday, and you have a film that, while pretty funny in parts, doesn't really deserve the praise or following it receives. Playing Kansas' "Wayward Son" over the credits, while giving a real boost to the film's "awesome" factor, won't solve every problem.


In fairness, things got alot worse...

Wednesday, 26 January 2011

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

When adapting a survival horror video game for the big screen, there are a few rules that any aspiring screenwriter should follow: stay true to the source material, don't disrespect any of the beloved characters from the games, and most importantly, survival horror is all about atmosphere, and this should be reflected in your movie. Paul W.S. Anderson clearly had a note of all of these rules, since he managed to avoid following every single one. While this is a decent enough zombie film, and the follow-up departs much more from Resident Evil, the flashy action scenes don't scream "atmosphere". Unlike the first film, this movie has alot more in common with Resident Evil, featuring characters Jill Valentine and Carlos Oliveira, and classic series baddie Nemesis, and taking place in Raccoon City. That being said, since they had already established that the film's heroine is Alice Nosurname, genetic aberration and ass-kicker extraordinaire, she would have to remain as the main focus, and thus, Jill and Carlos are knocked back into secondary character roles. This wouldn't be too heinous, but this film seems to relish the demotion, particularly in one painful scene - Jill has just rescued Angie from a couple of zombified dogs, and leaks gas into the area, setting a book of matches and throwing them behind her to light the gas and destroy the dogs. However, the matches go out, and it's up to Alice to throw a lighter past the two and ignite the gas. Jill is made to look incompetent, and Alice adds to her already-overstuffed awesome pile. This is probably the best in the series, though the character disrespect can be irritating to fans of the game series.


Surprisingly, they make some things perfectly loyal to the source material.

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

C.S.A. Confederate States of America (2004)

I must confess to being a huge fan of the genre of alternative history, though, I hasten to add, not in the rose-tinted and reality denying vein of D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation. However this film could almost be seen as a spiritual successor to Griffith's film, nearly a century on, this time played for satire rather than an attempt to misrepresent history. Really, it's very well written and acted mockumentary, creating a fairly plausible world in which a combination of American isolationism and saturation of the culture with propaganda have allowed people to still accept slavery as a norm. Few would argue that the America we see is a massive regression from the America of our experience, warts and all; alliance with Hitler, a pre-emptive attack on the Japanese, imperial expansionism into South America and, of course, the mostly uncontested continuation of slavery up until the present day. Sadly the historical narrative is marred by a few glaring flaws, not least the lack of mention of the U.S.S.R. (and no mention of why it would fail to emerge) resulting in a Cold War with abolitionist Canada instead, and no explanation as to how Britain would have survived a World War II with no American assistance. That being said, overall this is an extremely enjoyable film, really only marred by problems of structure rather than content. The mockumentary is broken up by spoof commercial breaks for various products, mostly real products from before the 1950s, featuring some of the hammiest and least credible (even for advertisements) performances I have ever witnessed, including the worst not-Martha Stewart in human history. It breaks the flow of the narrative and is a black mark on what is otherwise a very compelling and engaging movie.


And they still found time to fake the moon landings!