Tag Archives: sequel

‘300’ Sequel Over-the-Top Fun

300

Usually when a movie is successful, it doesn’t take eight years for a sequel to spawn. However that is the case here, with “300: Rise of an Empire”, the sequel to 2006’s “300”, a film that grossed $450 million and has since developed a cult following and become a pop culture hit. Some actors return from the first film, such as Lena Headey who plays the Spartan queen Gorgo, while newcomers Sullivan Stapleton and Eva Green play a Greek general and Persian naval commander, respectively. Noam Murro takes over directing duties from Zack Snyder, who this time serves as a producer on the film.

“Rise” is a prequel, sequel and continuation of the first film. It shows the events that led up to the events of the King Leonidas and the 300 marching to fight the Persians, the battle that takes place on the sea between Greece and Persia the same time the Spartans are fighting on land (including several archive footages of the first film) and then the final battle of the Persian War in 480 B.C..

The first “300” revolutionized action movies (and one can argue ruined them) with its excessive use of slow motion and stylized sequences. Since then, most every action and war movie attempts, and usually fails, to find the same level of success using the technique.

“Rise” is not afraid to use the technique that made its predecessor successful. It works better than a lot of other copycats, however the constant slowmo does seem a bit derivative at this point. The stylized and green screen fighting does lend itself to making the constant slowing down and speeding up of action, but by the end of the film it is a burden more than strength.

That isn’t to say the film isn’t pretty to look at. It is beautifully shot, whether it is a sweeping shot of the Persian fleets or immersing you in the middle of a battle, director Murro does a great job always keeping the audiences’ attention.

The two leads do a great job, too. Stapleton may not be as masculine as Leonidas, but he has inspirational quotes and is just as impressive on the battlefield. Green does a good job as the film’s main villain, Artemisia, the female naval commander of the Persian Navy. She knows the film isn’t to be taken too seriously, and provides just the right amount of corniness while at the same time remaining sinister and cruel.

“Rise” may not be as original as the first “300”, but in many ways it does make improvements. The plot is more developed, and characters’ motives and reactions are much more reasonable. In Spartan culture they found glory in death; the Greeks in “Rise” feel much more human. When their comrades die in battle, they are visibly shaken. They don’t look down at their dead friend and say “ah, he’s the lucky one!”. The production value is also higher in this film, which only makes the spectacle all the more grand.

You know what you’re in for when you watch a movie like “300: Rise of an Empire”. It is an over-the-top blood and gore fest with just enough plotline to justify actions. And despite the overuse of slow motion, the film manages to keep you entertained for 90% of the running time, even if by the climax the film begins to wear a little thin. It is by no means a history lesson, but anyone who enjoys period pieces, action or high body counts will enjoy “Rise”. Just leave your brain at the door.

 Critics Rating: 6/10

This Just In: ‘Anchorman’ Sequel Works

Anchorman_2_Teaser_Poster

          I’m gonna do the thing that God put David Palmer on this earth to do: have Sports Clips quality hair and review the entertainment medium known as movies.

It is not too often, quite rare in fact, that comedy sequels are any good. Often the sequels are lazy carbon copies of the original. “The Hangover: Part II”, “Grown Ups 2” and “Caddyshack II” (shutters) all come to mind as sequels that horrifically missed the mark. However sometimes sequels are good. “Shrek II” and “Wayne’s World 2” are such examples.

Now we have “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues”, the follow-up to the 2004 hit that put Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd and Steve Carell on the comedy map. And I am happy to report (ha, news pun) that it is not a disaster.

Once again directed by Adam McKay, the movie follows Ron Burgundy (Ferrell) and his news team (Rudd, Carell and David Koechner) as they move from San Diego to New York City in an effort to be part of the first ever 24 hour news broadcast channel.

The first “Anchorman” is a pop culture cornerstone, and is quoted daily. While this sequel has some entertaining one liners, one can’t help but think they may have been trying a bit too hard to reinvent the wheel. There are many moments where you get the feeling Ferrell and his friends think they just invented the next big pop culture reference, but in reality it is just a chuckle that we forget about moments later.

That is not saying the film is not funny; it has more chuckles than any film this year, and the ending is one of the most irrelevant and pleasurable sequences in cinema in i don’t know how long.

It was fun watching the movie touch on the topic of 24-hour news stations, and how they are run by big companies and sometimes cover fluff stories instead of hard hitting reports. It does this so well that one could argue the film is a satire. And since the film is set in 1980, there are a few clever jokes about future events, such as how “innocent” and “trustworthy” OJ Simpson is.

There are times the movie goes way off the tracks, involving one subplot that only produces one laugh yet lasts twenty minutes. It was random even by Will Ferrell and Anchorman standards, and I felt it was really just a pointless part of the film (I won’t say what it is for the sake of saving the one joke but trust me, it is pretty out there).

The film may not live up to the hype it built for itself (you couldn’t turn on a TV the past two months without seeing Ron Burgundy, whether he is in a car commercial or interviewing Peyton Manning for ESPN), but “Anchorman 2” is a funny movie. Yes, it is stupid and pointless and has no real structure by any conceivable measure, but if you’ve seen the first film you should expect nothing less.

It is clear that Ferrell and all the other comedic geniuses had a blast filming the movie, and that fun is quite infectious. You are having a ball alongside them, even if occasionally they are enjoying the ride a bit more than you. With a dozen fantastic cameos sprinkled in throughout the film’s running time, the movie never loses your interest and it is great to see the actors treated this like a passion project and didn’t just phone it in for an easy paycheck. And to quote Ron Burgundy: that’s kind of a big deal.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Catching Fire’ Is Flawed Fun

220px-Catching-Fire_poster

        

            It is a rare feat when the sequel to a worldwide blockbuster film is better than the original film. “The Dark Knight” was able to overtake “Batman Begins” (in some people’s eyes), while “The Hangover: Part II” was not as good as the first movie (once again, it’s in eye of the beholder). “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” follows an entertaining but flawed first film, and for the most part it succeeds in being better, but it is not without stumbling along the way.

Jennifer Lawrence, fresh off her first Oscar, once again plays Katniss Everdeen, the heroine who, alongside Peeta Mallark (Josh Hutcherson), won the most recent Hunger Games. If somehow you don’t know the franchise’s basic story arch, the Hunger Games are a yearly event where 24 teenagers fight to the death for the entertainment (and symbol of power) of the tyrannical government. The Katniss and Peeta’s victory has sparked a rebellion among the oppressed citizens, making the Capitol target the two and send them back into the Games. Francis Lawrence takes over direction duties from Gary Ross.

The first Hunger Games film was just alright. It was entertaining and somewhat fresh, even if the shaky cam and PG-13 violence held it back a bit. On this second go around the direction is much more fluid (my hat goes off to Francis Lawrence) and we get a little bit more bloodshed, mainly because all the fighters in the Hunger Games have won the event before, so they are 20 and older, not young kids who we can’t show actually get killed.

The film has its share of intense and exciting moments, most of which come from the dedication of Jennifer Lawrence. She throws herself into the role of Katniss, and it is her cunning wit and humanity that makes us follow her on her journey. However I can’t say I was always Katniss’ biggest fan.

The idea of the film (and book) is that Katniss is unlikable and has no real relationships, which is supposed to make her status as the Districts’ beacon of hope more meaningful; that a nobody can be the leader of great change. However when your main character is unlikable, then who are we as an audience supposed to root for? Where is our symbol of hope? There are points Katniss gets upset at people for reasons that are out of their control, and it really just annoyed me when she would break down crying because of what happened to her in the first film. We get it, she witnessed death. We all saw the first film; we don’t have to be reminded of what happened a dozen times.

Some of the pacing leading up to the Games is also a bit awkward and the running time is unnecessary (clocks in at near two and a half hours). And of course they try and force a love triangle because God forbid a film aimed at teenagers doesn’t feature the main character having to decide between two beefcakes.

Gripes about Katniss and the pacing aside, “Catching Fire” is an enjoyable film. The ending that may leave some people uneasy, but it is all to try and build the hype up for part three (well to be technical, part 3a). This sequel is more impressive and more fun than the first film, while at the same time adding layers of drama. The stage is set for an epic finale(s), even if the road to the climax wasn’t always smooth.

Critics Rating: 7/10