Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief

I must admit I went into the cinema with very low expectations for Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief (as stupid and unwieldy a title as I've ever heard). And, to be fair, it wasn't as awful as all that. The film was directed by Chris Columbus (of Harry Potter and Home Alone fame) from a novel by Rick Riordan. Logan Lerman stars as the titular hero, accused of stealing Zeuss' (a tragically underused Sean Bean) lighting bolt and is given fourteen days to return it before there is a war amongst the Olympic Gods. Yes, I probably should have mentioned that Jackson is the son of Greek god of the sea Poseidon (Kevin McKidd) and a human woman, making Percy a demigod, and Zeuss' nephew. Though Percy had nothing to do with the theft, his uncle Hades (Steve Coogan) believes he did and is determined to take the bolt from Percy for himself. Thus, our hero is summoned to a special camp for those of both Godly and mortal parentage, run by the centaur Chiron (a very bearded Pierce Brosnan) so he can learn to defend himself. However, Percy and two friends, the satyr (if you're into nitpicking, which I am, it is actually the Roman version of a satyr. Not Greek) Grover portrayed by an entertaining Brandon T. Jackson and demigod Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario). They then come across various Greek mythical creatures while attempting to return the lighting to its rightful owner. (Though quite why these Greek creatures have all moved to America is uncertain.)

The film is reasonably well acted and directed. The story, while somewhat ridiculous and overflowing with plot-holes, is always entertaining. However, the film just lacks something. I think it's heart. For example (slight spoiler coming up) when Percy realizes his mother is dead, he looks mildly miffed for about 30 seconds then goes about his day as though nothing untoward has occurred! Percy Jackson is also found wanting in comparison to the Harry Potter films through their use of actors. With Harry Potter even if the rest of the film was utter dross, the appearance of such stalwarts as Sir Michael Gambon and Richard Harris before him, Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, Maggie Smith et al would make the film at least passable. Though Percy Jackson, too, has plenty of stars to name drop, not only Bean, Brosnan and McKidd but also Joe Pantoliano, Uma Thurman and Catherine Keener they feature for only briefly, some for just a handful of minutes.

So. What do I think? This film took more time to present the star rating than anything else I've reviewed (admittedly only 2 films, but still...) but I finally came to a decision. While it's certainly not high art, not everything has to be. The film achieves what it set out to do. It entertains. Kids will enjoy the playfulness and parents won't be checking their watches every 2 minutes. What more could such a film be expected to provide?

★★★☆☆

The Hurt Locker

The Hurt Locker follows an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) squad in Iraq. Kathryn Bigelow's film opens with the quote "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug" (Chris Hedges). Something Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner) certainly would agree with. James is willing to put himself in danger to defuse the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) for the rush he receives. There is no overall story other than following the sergeant's squad (Anthony Mackie as Sgt. JT Sanborn and Brian Geraghty as SPC Owen Elridge) from setpiece to setpiece. As the group get closer and closer to their rotation back to America, James' reckless attitude towards his job causes the careful Sanborn to despise him.

The film's script by Mark Boal moves quickly, but not so quickly that character progression is ignored in favour of action. Bigelow's direction, shaky cameras and grainy picture suit perfectly the tone of the script. The acting is strong, especially Renner's performance though those of Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty are solid, rather than spectacular. There are also memorable appearances from Guy Pearce as James' predecessor, Ralph Fiennes as a British PMC leader and David Morse as a colonel enamoured with James' methods and record.

The film leaves without ever precisely explaining why William James does what he does, just that he cannot function without it. And I wouldn't have it any other way, it is an annoying trait of many modern Hollywood films that ALL questions must be answered by the conclusion of the film.

In short, one of the best, original and thrilling war film for years. The Hurt Locker is well deserving of the plaudits it has been winning of late, unlike Bigelow's ex-husband James Cameron's "Avatar".

★★★★★

Avatar

James Cameron's 'Avatar' stars Sam Worthington as Jake Sully an ex-Marine who has lost the use of his legs, who replaces his scientist twin brother as an avatar driver on Pandora a moon of another planet. The avatars look like the indigenous people of Pandora (the Na'vi). The intention is to convince the Na'vi to give up their ancestral home so that the invading humans can mine for Unobtainium (imaginative, I know). Jake is rescued by Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) the daughter of a Na'vi chief. Somewhat surprisingly Jake and Neytiri fall in love. Basically, the film is the bastard love-child of Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. The racist undertones - the indigenous people NEEDING the white man to help them win - can make the film a little uncomfortable. The fact that many of the Na'vi most noticeably Zoe Saldana are black does not help this situation.

The direction is fine, however, the characterization is poor to say the least. None of the characters are fleshed out. We know little to nothing about Jake's life on Earth or his motivations. Some of the acting is a little ropey, but given the material they are forced to work with I cannot blame that entirely on the actors. Also, Sam Worthington needs to work more on his accents, his native Australian breaks its way through regularly.

The much discussed 3D aspects of the film were, to me at least, unnecessary. The quality hit of making it 3D far outweighed the small improvement gained from the extra dimension. I am, however, willing to admit that this might have just been where I saw it.

The film is fine for 161 minutes of escapism. But to build it up to be the future of movies is just ridiculous. It's not even one of the best films of the year. As a result of the massive hype surrounding the release of the film it becomes a major disapointment. Now Academy Awards, I mean really? Nine nominations? Hm why does Avatar get recognised by the Academy, while The Dark Knight (a better acted and directed film with more originality) had to make do with the minor categories?

'Avatar' has superb effects. However, effects do not maketh the film.

✭✭✭✩✩

Statement of Intent

This blog is my attempt to counteract the elitism shown by many professional film critics. I intend to review every new film I see (which is a fair few) alongside old favourites (and non-favourites) to fill in the gaps when I can't afford to see any new ones.

Films will be rated thus:

✭✩✩✩✩ Truly, truly awful. No redeeming features whatsoever.

✭✭✩✩✩ Pretty bad. But has at least something going for it.

✭✭✭✩✩ Alright. Could have been better. See it if it interests you.

✭✭✭✭✩ Very good. Should see.

✭✭✭✭✭ Excellent. A must-see future classic.