If you followed our live tweeting of the EE BAFTAs last night, you’ll have been up to date with our experiences, opinions and thoughts. Take a look at our gallery from the night.
Now, take a look at some of these pictures and you’ll notice Fearn Cotton, quite often, looking like she’s going completely mental
We like her for that.
All images are © Elliott Percival 2014
A horrible new trend in blockbuster film making is the mystical epic. After great films like The Lord of the Rings and OK ones like 300 proved that the technology could meet the style needed for these stories, audiences were hungry for more fantasy action. Unfortunately, this appetite has been met with too many rushed films with horrendous CGI or plot (see The Clash of the Titans remake or The Immortals). Vikingdom is among the films that tick all the wrong boxes.
When Thor, the God of thunder (Conan Stevens), puts into motion a plan to bridge the Heavens and Earth in hopes to rule both, Eirick (Dominic Purcell), a resurrected King, is tasked by the Gods to prevent him. Eirick must band together with friends, old and new, to battle the mighty God and hopefully put his plans to and end.
Firstly, the plot is incredibly half baked. The whole thing reeks of stock plot points and dialogue so poor that it’s, at times, almost unbearable. It’s so interchangeable with so many other kinds of films, the Nordic elements never pass influence. It takes so much from fantasy series like LOTR and Star Wars that it’s left with very little of it’s own identity, and what little identity it is left with is so under par that you’d rather it ripped off other series more.
A crutch of too many of these films is the SFX, and in Vikingdom they swing between not bad at all to completely ridiculous, sometimes dipping into eyesore territory. Something that really stood out was Thor’s hammer making lightsaber sounds. It was both comical and distracting, serving only as a reminder of all the better films I could have been watching. Vikingdom is a result of the post 300 cinematic landscape, where slow motion, colour filters and SFX are the drive of the new wave of mythical “epics”. Unfortunately for audiences, SFX do not a movie make. Instead, these films lose the balance of their SFX and plots, making them feel obnoxious, ridiculous and self-important.
My largest issue with this film is the length. It’s so bloated at its nearly 2 hour running time that what could have passed by as a slightly goofy, rainy day film that might have been good for a laugh at 90 minutes or under spills into tedious self importance well above its station. This delusion of grandeur is backed up by the unused and unadvertised subtitle, The Blood Eclipse, which tells you that they were aiming for a hopeful franchise (please, don’t!).
The performances all around are uninterested, wooden or just plain poor. There isn’t one that I can pick out and legitimately say I thought was decent. The stars either know what kind of film this is and care as little about it as I ended up doing, or are just not fantastic generally. When you put these two types of performance side by side on the same screen, it makes for no relationship dynamics and fake camaraderie, further pulling you out of the viewing. We’re given no reason to care about these characters, so when decent twists and plot points affecting them crop up, I was utterly uninterested.
As far as sets, they are so limited there never seems to be a definite sense of place. Instead, there are just generic settings with no real character. We’re either in a forest, or in a sea, or in a castle, never that forest or this castle. Instead of flowing between the scenes, it plods clunkily from place to place, which may have been less of an issue if not for the grand CGI establishing shots. So we swing from these grandiose shots setting up where we are and then these flaccid, generic sets.
Actually, limited is the key word for this film. What could have been a half decent film is limited by so much, the run time, the special effects, the stock plot, almost everything, that what I got from it was a serious limiting of my enjoyment and patience.
Its action sequences are Vikingdom‘s saving grace. I’ve seen films I’ve enjoyed more but with far sloppier shot fight scenes. Against my better judgement, I even found myself enjoying some of it. Being a gore hound, I gleefully grimaced at the brutality on display, but it was executed well so infrequently, plus the boring direction and general tedium you’re made to suffer the rest of the 2 hour runtime, meant it was hard to really appreciate when it did crop up.
We are spoiled for films who do this kind of thing so well, so that when a film like Vikingdom comes out and falls so far short of the mark, its fall is even more titanic. It is ambitious, and should be commended for it, but it doesn’t work on any level of what it’s attempting. If you’re into these kinds of films, I’d just wait for 300: Rise of an Empire.
The EE BAFTAs are tomorrow. Many a year I, and I’m sure you too, have sat at home, nestled up on the sofa watching the coverage from red carpet entrances and interviews, nominations, awards and speeches. But like all televised events, we’re really just passengers, spectators. We have no real connection to the event. We’re not sitting in that theatre, we’re not walking down the red carpet, brushing shoulders with the highest echelons of British talent. That is, we weren’t, until now. EE have announced that this year, two lucky fans have the opportunity to be there in person, ish.
The EE Fanbots look like the bastardised love-children of iPads and Segways, controlled from home, rolling around the red carpet and, using video calling, to let you meet celebrities face to digital face and potentially have a conversation. That is, unless they’re as robophobic as Detective Spooner.
But this isn’t a joke, this is technology at its best. For the first time, an ultra-elite and exclusive event beyond the realms of most people’s realities, is now tangible. Real people will be in control of what they see, how they see it, and influence a world that for so long has been a place of aspiration, always just beyond our, the fans, reach
Now, there are only two of these Fanbots rolling around tomorrow, and the ‘pilots’ have already been selected from the ranks of EE’s film community. However, as the years progress maybe it’ll be you at the controls of one of these, meeting your heroes in person?
Take a long, hard, cold stare at that poster. How does it make you feel? Happy? Cheeky? Like Kid & Play are back in the game? I don’t know about you but it makes a chill run down my spine and my stomach turn as if I’ve just been told I must watch Enter the Void on 24 hour repeat whilst constantly on an acid trip.
Femi Oyeniran, who has previously starred in Kidult/Adulthood, writes/directs/produces/stars in this film about a wealthy teenager who decides to enroll at his cousins local state school. The reason is some angst-y teenage search for identity. In his new school he meets a variety of stereotypes and fuck heads who say “safe” and “blud” a few billion times. The title “It’s a lot” is a street phrase apparently. Whilst admittedly it’s been a while since I used to bounce around the ghetto suburbs in my Sean John jeans but it reminds of when Sergio Leone titled “Duck, You Suckers!” thinking that it was a popular phrase. If I’m wrong about that one feel free to back hand my jive chops.
Plot goes; Oyeniran’s Shawn throws a party while his folks are aware in order to impress the school “hotty”/douch-bag. House becomes wrecked. Parents Lamborghini becomes wrecked. Money must be raised in order to replace things. All this done whilst people shout “MAN” at the top of their voices, un-threatening gangsters do sub-Tarantino “menacing” dialogue and Oyeniran uses the most ridiculous “posh” accent this side of Keanu Reeves in ‘Dracula’. I’m aware I’ve already used “” too many times so I’ll stop. Vaguely recognizable faces turn up, you know you can name an advert they may have been in but have no idea of their names, turn up to mug their way loudly through scenes because Oyeniran doesn’t have the thought to rein them in. It’s nice that everyone looks like they’re having a good time.
Fair play to Oyeniran for mounting a production in four roles but what It’s A Lot shows is that he should master at least one before taking on more. The photography looks washed out, scenes seem to appear from nowhere as though he and the cast thought it would be funny and their visual flourishes that would look better in a music video. Whilst I’m an admirer of Tim Westwood and his work for hip-hop in the UK there is no excuse for having him on camera. And I think I leave it there.
People will tell you that 3D is here to stay. I’ll just say it’s..here. Throughout the history of 3D it has come in and out of popularity, and while we are certainly in its most popular phase it has disappeared before. If 3D wants to stick around what must it do to be taken seriously? The way we are looking at it today, with many interchangeable points and a huge subjective bias, is to see which of the genres that feature the technology most heavily uses it to the greatest effect.
Horror
Notable Mentions – Friday The 13th 3D, Piranha 3DD, Saw 3D
Pro – Most of the uses in 3D horror films is William Castle style gimmickry which can really add to the shock factor of these films. The kinds of horrors that employ 3D either came out at the height of the horror film as exploitation, drive-in movies, or are highly influenced, if not homages, to that era. As such, the 3D also makes sense contextually.
Con – The biggest weakness for these films is also their greatest asset. The gimmick aspect of 3D can be highly entertaining, but more often than not is something that takes us out of the film. Horror is a genre reliant on immersion, and bad 3D can be as bad as naff SFX for making the audience more aware of the mechanics of the film instead of being engrossed in the film itself.
Superhero Movies/Comic Book Adaptations
Notable Mentions – Dredd, Superman Returns, The Avengers
Pro – The use of 3D can heighten the power of these films as a contrast to the sources. Going from a beautiful 2D image on the page, the 3D can both heighten the differences to the source material as well as the spectacle of the action. After all, there is no better genre for an operatic battle or epic physical feat.
Con – The blanket use in the genre does not allow it to gain legitimacy in the “high brow” critical sphere. I’m not saying they are all terrible, but it’s keeping the genre bogged down in B-Movie territory and keeping it from gaining the praise it can deserve. Obviously 3D is not the only reason Tom Hiddleston has yet gain a supporting actor nom, but it can’t be helping.
Sci-Fi/Fantasy
Notable Mentions – Avatar, Pacific Rim, Gravity
Pro – Sci-Fi and Fantasy films are inherently harder to buy into than other genres, being based around ideas or settings that are either fictional or situations that are fantastical. The largest hurdle for a mainstream audience is getting them to buy into these worlds. 3D can be a fantastic aid for this, adding to the depth and grounding to the events unfolding in front of us, no matter how fantastic.
Con – When utilised poorly, as with all 3D, it detaches, but this is a particular problem for Sci-Fi. It makes the alien settings all the more alien, and instead of bringing us further in to the film we are pushed back out and left to marvel at how wrong they have got it.
Kids/Family
Notable Mentions – Hugo, Toy Story 3, Up
Pro – A big tick in the kids film box is the audience being far less fussy about film quality. Children have a tendency to be less worried about the film itself and more the spectacle experience within. They don’t look for plot holes or mind if a character isn’t well rounded. All they want is to be entertained, and 3D offers them that in spades.
Con – The problem comes when these kids grow up to watch an old favourite they haven’t seen in years, only to be greeted with a big slap to the face. In most cases, the 3D overrides a lot of the story elements in favour of gimmickry, leaving us with style over substance and many a ruined childhood memory in the coming years.
Documentaries
Notable Mentions – Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Walking With Dinosaurs 3D, Ghosts of the Abyss
Pro – A documentary enters into an unspoken contract with the audience; what you will see will be true or real. When executed properly, 3D documentaries can bring a real immediacy to what we are seeing, making us pay closer attention to the details. It can do what great films should do and make our lives outside the cinema more spectacular, forcing us to look at the world around us in a different way.
Con – Unfortunately this is so often not the case. Instead, we are mainly treated to films used to sell 3D TVs and IMAX tickets. These films, to me, create the opposite effect. They detach us from what we are watching, making it all less real (one of my problems with the upcoming war film Stalingrad 3D), which is defeats the aim of a documentary
If you are a film addict and not one for having films ruined by special effects or poor 3D quality I would consider what you are looking for in your 3D TV before you decide to buy one.
I personally feel that of all the above genres, Sci-Fi/Fantasy is the one that works the best with 3D. Of all the genres listed, the fantasy film is the one that can display the truly amazing, which is, as far as I can tell, the true calling of 3D. Of course all films require a level of investment from the audience, but in no other is it so necessary. However, it is because of its ideal use that when the 3D is piss poor, it falls flattest. Once you’ve been treated to a wholly fleshed out world like Avatar, everything else looks like Battlefield Earth.