Showing posts with label 9/10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/10. Show all posts

Thursday, 6 July 2017

SPIDERMAN HOMECOMING; Full-Tilt Review

“Can't you just be a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man?”
Tony Stark


"With great power..."

Synopsis:
Following on from the events of Civil War, well-meaning high school student Peter Parker excitedly awaits his next mission with the Avengers, unaware that he has been essentially 'shelved' from the most dangerous assignments because Tony Stark isn't confident he's ready for the big-leagues. Elsewhere, salvage specialist Adrian Toomes is all but put out of business by Stark Industries, and so turns to selling illegal weapons created from alien technology to support his family. When Parker stumbles across Toomes' operation the stage is set for a super-powered battle of wills with far-reaching consequences.

For your consideration...
Spiderman Homecoming does not exist within a vacuum. Most will realise that this is the third reboot in 15 years (that's a reboot every 5 years for the slow of math). I've always maintained that re-boots not only deserve to be, but in all fairness should be, considered alongside previous incarnations. After all, if you don't feel confident that you can improve on what's already come before, then why are you rebooting something? The first of Sam Raimi's Spiderman films was a film for adults pretending to be one for children (complete with an attempted rape, a bone-crunching final and a hero who fails to 'get the girl'). His second Spiderman was a children's film pretending to be for grown-ups (featuring a villain who 'learns the error of his ways' and redeems himself saving the hero, as well as some sickly-sweet soul searching). Raimi's third entry failed in just about every way, but by now Raimi had proved once and for all that superheros could be big business. Marc Webb's (oxymoron alert) 'Amazing' two efforts somehow turned everybody's favourite unassuming teenager into a prick; there's more to updating a character than giving him a skateboard and an attitude (he was more of a Bart Simpson than any Peter Parker). It was therefore with a mixed reception that Marvel finally managed to buy back Spiderman's rights from Sony and announced yet another reboot by launching the character into it's expanding MCU (the Marvel Cinematic Universe). There were those who were happy to see the character back in safer hands, those who were upset that they would never see the close of Marc Webb's announced trilogy (idiots mostly), and those who thought a third reboot was simply too much too soon. Even Kirsten Dunst,Raimi's leading lady, waded in to the debate. "We made the best ones, so who cares?... They’re just milking that cow for money.". It was a fair comment, and in most instances she'd be dead right; the first 2 Raimi films would be hard to top, but let's not forget the movie business is still a business and I'm sure she's taken the odd job 'for the money'. However, on this occasion Ms. Dunst may have to eat those well chosen words... The first thing that needs to be said about Spiderman Homecoming is this; it's by far the best Spiderman movie to date, and one of Marvel's strongest entries. Secondly, it's very, very funny. Most of the Marvel films to date have been an entertaining combination of whip-smart banter and explosive mayhem, with Guardians of the Galaxy thus far being the most humerus. However, Spiderman goes one step further to the extent it's probably first and foremost a comedy and a super powered adventure second. That's certainly no bad thing... I once said the time for a perfect Spiderman has come and gone, but I was (as the scores might suggest) dead wrong, although I do feel vindicated in the accuracy of some of my points. I said Marc Webb's Nolan-esque take on the character was a step totally in the wrong direction, and for a character like Spiderman it should sway more into the comedic realms of Kick-Ass (which in so many ways essentially was a Spiderman story). Homecoming is EXACTLY that, thanks to a terrific script credited to no less than 12 writers, which would normally result in disaster. Read-on, Spidey fans...

Script: 1/2
Despite the fact that the script is incredibly entertaining, there's no disguising the fact that, so far as the plot is concerned, it's pretty silly. However, that said, you're not watching a Spiderman film for the plot, right? By placing Spiderman into the Marvel universe (a God-send in so many ways), it does mean having to embrace some of the more 'wild' elements of that franchise, including alien technology. But with Marvel's favourite son back on home ground and in safe hands, it's a very small price to pay... On another note, it always bothered me how anybody was supposed to overlook the fact that a teenager on a low to modest income could afford to create the Spiderman outfit and web-shooter tools (a point that became laughable in Marc Web's gritty attempt). In Tony Stark the Marvel universe finds it's answer, and it's at once such an obvious and shrewd move. Naturally, Stark is responsible for essentially bankrolling Peter Parker and providing him with the tech, and it becomes suddenly believable that the suit would be blue and hot-rod red (this from a flashy and extravagant billionaire who designed himself a gold suit). Minor grumble; too many gadgets for my liking, but it feels a reasonable fit for the MCU. Wasn't overly sold on the suit's internal-voice, but it proved a great way of keeping the character talking and provided the occasional laugh.

Pace: 2/2
While I was watching the film I always felt like we were moving from scene to scene with such speed and efficiency that by the time it ended it had felt like a relatively short experience. I was surprised to read that actually the film was just over 2 hours in length. While I adamantly stand by my opinion that most stories can be told successfully in 90 to 120 minutes, Homecoming obviously stands as proof to the fact that a well told film will justify it's length. Thankfully, none of this time is spent wasted on an origin story (not even Civil War bothered). The Marvel head-sheds, quite wisely, have figured out most people know the whole 'uncle Ben thing' pretty well by now, and instead just get on with telling the story at hand.

Acting: 2/2
Not sure how else I can put this, but Tom Holland IS Peter Parker. He's perfect; he's nerdy, he's self deprecating, he's enthusiastic, he's innocent, he's witty, he's good natured while never being a goody-two-shoes. He's not wet like Toby McGuire was (his moping got tedious after a while), and he's not too-cool-for-school like Andrew Garfield. And, shock-horror, he's pretty close to actually being of genuine high-school age- that's a first and it makes a huge difference. McGuire and Garfield were both clearly adults, adults in peril. Holland looks like a kid, sounds like a kid, acts like a kid- he's just a kid doing the right thing in the face of real danger, and all the more braver for it. That's what Spiderman should be about!... In Raimi's first Spiderman, Willem De Foe chewed the scenery with relish and gusto, and made for the perfect Green Goblin. There will never be a better Goblin, why try? Wisely, Marvel didn't bother. Instead, they've found a perfect foil in Michael Keaton, and rather than dial in a zany Beetlejuice-styled performance, Keaton again proves his range by making Adrian Toomes a very nuanced character. He's ruthless but not an entirely unlikable, he's a character that started with honest intentions and, true to life, found himself on a slippery slope. He's justified his crimes (he has a family to support), he had the opportunity (the alien technology from his clearance days) and he had the motivation (forced out of work by Stark Industries). Ruthless but not cruel, nothing he does ever feels for the sake of causing suffering, although he's clearly dangerous. It all comes from an honest emotional place, who hasn't at some point felt like they're put upon by 'The Man'? And, in a refreshing turn, Toomes, AKA The Vulture (although in the film nobody ever calls him this) is one of the few villains in the Spiderman rouge's gallery who isn't the result of a failed science experiment.
I don't think it's saying too much to point out that, once again, the villain learns of Spiderman's secret identity (after all, it's only happened in every film so far; Green Goblin, Doc Ock, Harry Osborne, Venom, Sandman, Lizard, Hobgoblin). So naturally, Parker also learns who Adrian Toomes is (in one HUGELY shocking twist which I did not see coming). In the scenes that follow with Holland and Keaton sans-masks, the air is electric and both actors show the standard of their game; Holland looks genuinely heartbroken and terrified all at once, and because he's (importantly) "just a kid" he looks all too vulnerable. Keaton is totally conflicted- all seething rage and reluctant adoration. It's a Hell-of-a scene, and sets up the dramatic tone for the remainder of the film. On that subject, like Ant Man before it, Homecoming's stakes are relatively small. There is no doomsday bomb, no city-sprawling gas-cloud, no alien invasion. Ant Man (while not the best film in the Marvel cinematic franchise) was, in the end, a man trying to save his daughter from a maniac: as an audience we can relate to those stakes much easier than, say, the Avengers saving the world from aliens. Spiderman's stakes concern an attempt to steal a shipment of powerful weapons, but that's about it. But, given the smaller-scale, and Spiderman's relative inexperience and the terror he feels confronting the Vulture, that's significant enough. This is about bravery, loyalty and dedication, and what is at the end of the day (super powers not withstanding) "just a kid".
Other mentions; Robert Downey Jr is always a delight as Tony Stark, although his long-suffering assistant 'Happy' Hogan, as played by Ironman director Jon Favreau, has more screen time in his function as Parker's minder. Marisa Tomei gets a few laughs as a MILF-style aunt May, and Disney heartthrob and teen model Zandaya is a 100 miles from her usual glam image as one of Parker's fellow students (I dare not say more). Laura Harrier plays Parker's popular but sweet natured love interest Liz, while Jacob Batalon is a joy as Parker's nerdy best friend; he and Hollander have a warm and believable chemistry which the film does well to exploit.

Aesthetic: 2/2
The effects are (despite earlier misgivings) all good, and the suit design has grown on me some. The Vulture (never my favorite villain) here has a cool makeover, and the scenes where he's flying around while fighting Spiderman are all serviceable. Most of this sort of action we've seen a lot by now, no matter how good this reboot is there's no denying a strong sense of deja vu in the visuals. What makes it different this time round are the characters and situations at play. That said, the film does include a few novel touches; by moving much of the climax to very high-up in the air (beyond the 'playground' of buildings seen in most of the other films) there's a genuine sense that Spiderman is out of his element and in great danger, and it's also funny to see Parker suffer from a bout of vertigo, a joke that works all the better for Holland's youth. In fact, his relative inexperience is a cause for many of the funniest moments- it's refreshing to see that, just because he has the suit, this doesn't make him the fully-fledged and capable hero that McGuire and Garfield instantly became (although I admit things on occasion did go wrong for McGuire). But yes, the budget and effects are well utilised, and the smaller scale means that the spectacles somehow feel more grounded in reality.

Intention: 2/2
Homecoming is the first film that nail's it's target audience, in the purest sense. It's a film about a teenager, for teenagers. But, by extension, teenagers being the middle-audience, there's something here for everybody. It's funny (very funny), it's sweet natured (while never saccharine) and it's exciting (especially if you're too young to remember the first 3 films). Familiar themes and characters are given fresh overhauls, but are never so different that they're somehow offensive to long term fans. As a child I grew up on Spiderman, and I personally thought the changes were not only made with good intentions but entirely necessary; I've seen Aunt May as doddery, I've seen MJ as the perfect cheerleader type, I've seen Flash Thompson as the mindless brute, I've seen Harry as the best friend. I honestly didn't have high hopes for Homecoming, like a lot of people I thought it was a film the world didn't need, even if Marvel would likely do better than Marc Webb (I really, truly, hated those films). But, happily, I was wrong. Another feather in Homecoming's cap is how it essentially stands alone. Sure, it references events from Avengers Assemble and Civil War, but in such a way that, even if you have no prior knowledge, the film feeds you this information easily. Sure, it also features Tony Stark, and 'Happy' Hogan, both to great effect (Stark's relationship with Peter is particularly poignant in parts, hysterical in others, not to mention an excellent way to introduce Spiderman into the MCU) but, again, it's set-up in such a way that anyone can enjoy this film without an encyclopedia-like knowledge of all the other Marvel output. This didn't feel like a 'tent-pole' film; it wasn't there just to set-up more cross-overs, an issue that plagues many of the Marvel films. Nor does it suffer from the twin plagues of too many characters and establishing too many plots. No, Homecoming is Homecoming, it's that simple. Refreshingly, anyone can enjoy this on it's own merits.

Final Word: 9/10
Let's hope “friendly neighborhood Spiderman” is less a disparaging remark and more of a statement of purpose for the wall-crawler's future films, because it's this smaller scale which is one of the films most vitalizing and promising strengths. Will something be lost in seeing Parker transform from a well-meaning but fledgling hero into a sure-footed mega-hero on par with the other Avengers, as it was in the dreadful Kick-Ass sequel? We will have to wait and see, but the future is looking bright. It was very brave for the studio to have the entire climax of the film take place without use of the iconic Spiderman suit, (for reasons I can't discuss just yet), but like Tony Stark chastises “If you're nothing without the suit, then you shouldn't have it”. And with those words, Marvel invest everything they have in the character of Peter Parker and not the cash-cow image of Spiderman, a conviction that pays off in spades. I've heard Homecoming described as "Harry Potter meets Avengers", and while that's not entirely inaccurate it also fails to capture the films level of success or significance: Homecoming didn't try and rework that old line "with great power comes great responsibility"; it lived it. Homecoming isn't just the title, it's the Marvel welcome the character deserves. A joy from start to finish. Kudos Marvel, one right out of the park.







Friday, 6 November 2015

BATMAN; Full-Tilt Review

"Tell me something, my friend. You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" 
The Joker

Batman; the film that pioneered the "I'll take it in black" wardrobe craze which dominated the superhero genre for the following 20 years...




Synopsis:

Everybody's favorite caped vigilante is stalking the dark and rain-drenched streets of Gotham, either hospitalizing or terrifying witless the city's assorted thugs and purse-pinchers. But, in spite of this, Batman's little more than an urban-legend, swept under the carpet by the Gotham officials. Only kooky tabloid reporter Knox and radiant prize-chasing photographer Viki Vale seem interested in shedding any light on the case of the mysterious "Batman"... That is, until the arrival of the manic and deadly Joker!


Script: 1/2 - a somber yet oddly comical take on the 'revenge' movie.

Pace: 2/2 - doesn't let up.

Acting: 2/2 - pitch-perfect performances from everyone.

Aesthetic: 2/2 - spectacularly Gothic.

Intention: 2/2 - a true 'game changer'.


Score: 9/10


Tim Burton's Batman is the polar opposite of everything Nolan created with his own Dark Knight trilogy- a comically grim fairy tale!
The film is impressive for a number of reasons; the audacious and inspiring (not to mention expensive) casting of Jack Nicholson as the Joker, Michael Keaton's surprisingly excellent turn as Bruce Wayne (despite his slight physique and inexperience with action movies), as well as a foreboding visual flair which would go on to become Burton's raison d'être- but what's most incredible about the film is, and all too easy to overlook in a world now over-saturated with comic-book tie-ins, this was the first time a superhero had ever been realised on the silver-screen with the intention of being more than just family-friendly-fodder (say what you like about Reeve's Superman, but it's essentially just fluff)! Warner Brothers hurled some serious money at this project, and considering this, perhaps even more surprisingly they allowed a relatively inexperienced director to helm the film- Tim Burton, who up to this point had only completed two movies.

Critics at the time gave Batman a mediocre reception, but that's hardly surprising considering just how "bloody hell, what was that?" different it must have seemed to an audience neither acquainted with Burton or superhero films in general. Even today Burton's odd sensibilities divide cinema-goers, so compared to the more conventional action-flicks of 1989 (Lethal Weapon 2, License to Kill and Roadhouse to name but a few) Batman was something of an enfant terrible...

To my mind, the film is superb in every respect- having aged favorably (still a strikingly handsome production) and proving a refreshing antidote to the more po-faced and anxty Batmans of late. While the script may be a strictly nuts-and-bolts affair, it does deserve kudos for at least handling it's ludicrous premise of "a man dressed as a bat" with just enough 'realism' required for the plot to unfold dramatically in this fantastical setting.
Burton's been quoted on a number of occasions as saying his inspiration for the film came from 2 comics in particular; 'The Killing Joke' (the first comic Burton "ever loved") and 'The Dark Knight Returns', but I personally feel like Burton's work is more of a homage to the Golden Age of comics, and the original Bob Kane run- all Gothic towers, pinstriped gangsters and absurd gadgetry! 'The Killing Joke' and 'The Dark Knight Returns' would seem to have been more directly influential on Nolan's franchise, favoring a more gritty and realistic world dominated by city-wide corruption and a steel skyline.
Despite making good money, it took film studios a further decade, with the release of X-men and Spiderman, to realise that comic-books could prove to be a lucrative industry.

So, in closing; ground-breaking, striking, surreal and with  a strong line in marcarbe humor, Burton's Batman has stood the test of time and remains one of the more successful interpretations of the character to date.



Sunday, 16 February 2014

BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD; Carlisle's Final Word

"Strong animals know when your hearts are weak."
Hushpuppy


Will the RAC come out for this?




Synopsis;

Savvy 6 year old Hush-puppy lives with her father in a place known by the locals simply as the Bathtub. When her strong-minded father's health begins to fade, and a catastrophic flooding desolates her community, Hush-puppy must put aside the small comforts of childhood and emerge both strong and determined if she's to survive in this dangerous new world.

Script Logic; 2/2
To be fair, there's little to the script outside that synopsis, the meat of the film is chiefly concerned with the relationships of the characters caught-up in the ecological ramifications of the flooding- hard grafting and hard living. It doesn't sound like a riveting film, I'll admit, but I was engrossed from start to finish.

Pace; 1/2
While I was never bored (far from it), I was aware the film meandered at certain points. Having a very definitive 'moment' that the film was clearly heading towards meant that all lulls in pace and plot deviations from reaching that certain 'moment' were very noticeable.
Acting; 2/2
Enough praise cannot be lavished on the largely unknown cast, especially young Quvenzhané Wallis who played the film's plucky little heroine Hush-puppy. I don't believe I've ever seen a more natural and convincing child actor, and I'd go so far as to say I doubt many A-listers have ever given a better performance. A film like this lives-or-dies on it's lead's ability to carry the story, and Wallis (in her first film, no less) effortlessly rises to that burden, stealing every scene she's in- which, as the view-point character, is every single one. Beyond impressive, and the film is worth watching for this reason alone.

Aesthetic; 2/2
The aesthetic of the film is intentionally gritty and, whether by luck or design, the grainy quality of the image is very in keeping with the tone of the story- somehow invoking the sense of news archives and raw documentary footage without relying on imitation. You can almost taste the dirty water, and the sweat on your upper lip, or feel the mud between your toes and the callouses on your hands- just sitting through the film feels like a hard days laboring (but in no way is that intended a flaw)! In the best possible sense, this is a film you don't 'watch' so much as 'experience'.

Originality & Intention; 2/2
I've not seen a film like it, and I highly doubt I will again. It make's it's points about community, family and ecology very clear without ever becoming preachy, it's beautiful without every losing the rough edges that keep it grounded in realism, and throws it's young heroine into the drama and dangers of  an ecological disaster with refreshing disregard for her young age. The result is an honest, touching, heart-warming, heart-breaking and (dare I say it) uplifting film.

Final Score; 9/10 
I can't recommend this film strongly enough, and while it may be at points a hard film to watch (not exactly light hearted although amusing in parts), overall the film celebrates the tenacity, frailty and perseverance of the human spirit. We'd all do well to remember just how easy we often have it when we feel life has dealt with us unfairly...


Thursday, 6 June 2013

"NEVER ANYTHING ON, IS THERE?"

Liz (Sean Of The Dead).

"Should have said- bass"


A quick guide on how I qualify the final score for the 'Carlisle's Final Word' posts...



0/10:                       God I hope to never have to sit through a film that scores 0.

0 to 2 out of 10:      Crap. Utter crap.

3 to 4 out of 10:      Useless, don't even bother watching this.

5 out of 10:             Watchable, if there's nothing else around. Hire it, don't buy it.

6 to 7 out of 10 :     Good, solid effort and enjoyable.

8 to 9 out of 10:     Excellent, worth seeing at the cinema, and certainly worth buying.

10/10:                    Perfect. Rare as hen's teeth. Need I say more? I couldn't fault it.



Sunday, 2 June 2013

TAKE SHELTER; Carlisle's Final Word

"You think I'm crazy? Well, listen up, there's a storm coming like nothing you've ever seen, and not a one of you is prepared for it"
Curtis 

It's perfectly normal to blow the family budget on building a bunker.


Script Logic; 2/2

Pace; 1/2

Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2

Final Score; 9/10




Final Word: On reflection, 9/10 does feel like a really high mark for a film I didn't much enjoy. Still, it's a film I'd definitely recommend, but one which you'd probably only watch once. The story concerns Curtis, as played with seething intensity by quality actor Michael Shannon (soon to be seen in Man Of Steel), a family man plagued by portentous visions of an apocalypse. However, poor Curtis struggles to convince the people he loves that his visions are real, and not the result of hereditary mental illness- and this uncertainty creates the film's tension. Through the duration of the film we witness Curtis' life coming apart at the seams and his once stable relationships unraveling while he takes desperate measures to protect his family. Although it feels perhaps twenty minutes too long the story culminates in a memorable and haunting payoff- one which I won't spoil for you here, and I recommend you don't go looking for answers online or you'll spoil the entire film. A successful but uneasy mix of drama, psychological horror and almost unbearable unease.


Saturday, 1 December 2012

SHERLOCK HOLMES; Carlisle's Final Word.

"Head cocked to the left, partial deafness in ear: first point of attack. Two: throat; paralyze vocal chords, stop scream. Three: got to be a heavy drinker, floating rib to the liver. Four: finally, drag in left leg, fist to patella. Summary prognosis: unconscious in ninety seconds, martial efficacy quarter of an hour at best. Full faculty recovery: unlikely."
Sherlock Holmes.
 

 
Script Logic; 1/2
Pace; 2/2
Acting; 2/2

Aesthetic; 2/2

Originality & Intention; 2/2
Final Score; 9/10



 
Final Word;
Speaking as someone who can take-or-leave most of Guy Ritchie’s output, and is only lukewarm on Jude Law, this is adventure comedy at its very best. The chemistry between the aforementioned Law and Downey’s portrayal of the ‘great detective’ sparks with wise-cracking good humour and warmth, while the action and set pieces (while absurd) are all exciting stuff. The pace never lags, and good support is given by the beautiful Rachel McAdams and Mark Strong- on fine dastardly form as the Alistair Crowley-type mastermind behind a bizarre spree of killings. But beware, the Sherlock Holmes that your mother and father read this is not, so don’t expect any real attempt at sleuthing- in this, Ritchie’s adrenalin-fuelled reinvention, the puzzle solving is purely a means to take you from laugh to laugh and explosion to explosion. Accepted on its own good-spirited terms this is entertainment of the highest order.

Tuesday, 16 October 2012

INCEPTION; Carlisle's Final Word.

"You remind me of someone... a man I met in a half-remembered dream. He was possessed of some radical notions."
Saito.
 
 

Script Logic; 1/2
Pace; 2/2
Acting; 2/2
Aesthetic; 2/2
Originality & Intention; 2/2
Score; 9/10


Final Word; sacrificing any sort of explanation for its plot-central technology may sound like a bad decision on paper, but is surprisingly one of the film’s many master strokes-so instead of having to explain away such a far fetched procedure (and thus ruining the audiences suspension of disbelief, as well as cranking up the run-time) Nolan uses that time to instead build on the characters and get to the spectacle. A blockbuster with brains, balls and explosions: what more could you dream of?

Thursday, 4 October 2012

ALIEN; Carlisle's Final Word.

"I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies."
Ash.
 
 
Script Logic; 2/2
Pace; 1/2
Acting; 2/2
Aesthetic; 2/2
Originality & Intention; 2/2
Score; 9/10



Final Word; Ignore the fact that the look of the film is starting to show signs of dating, and consider the restrictions of the shoe-string budget and effects, and the film is nothing short of remarkable. Compare it to the cardboard scenery and rubber-masks of its peers (Star Trek, Doctor Who and Star Wars, A New Hope) and you have a truly believable world and an absolutely terrifying monster. Solid acting, and a sharp (if slow-burning) script that takes the standard ‘slasher’/ ‘3 Little Indians’ idea and transplants it into space. Genre defining and iconic.

Thursday, 6 September 2012

FIGHT CLUB; Carlisle's Final Word.

"Did you know that if you mix equal parts of gasoline and frozen orange juice concentrate you can make napalm?"
Tyler Durden.


Script Logic; 2/2
Pace; 1/2
Acting; 2/2
Aesthetic; 2/2
Originality & Intention; 2/2
Score; 9/10

Final Word; Close to a perfect film, which I should have marked down for what is essentially (no matter how entertaining) a cliché ending. But that said, it's pulled off with a fresh and exciting spin, and it's exactly the experiance that David Fincher intended it to be: subversive, intriguing, seductive, edgy, and darkly funny. Again, another iconic film.

Saturday, 1 September 2012

THE LORD OF THE RINGS, FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING; Carlisle’s Final Word.

"One Ring to Rule Them All. One Ring to Find Them. One Ring to Bring Them All and In The Darkness Bind Them."
Gandalf.

 



Script Logic; 2/2
Pace; 1/2
Acting; 2/2
Aesthetic; 2/2
Intention & Originality; 2/2

Score; 9/10


Final Word; A very faithful adaption of the first book, and a staggeringly detailed presentation of Tolkien’s world. Could have benefited by a little more editing, and a less slavish devotion to the source material (much of which does nothing for the story), but still a brilliant adventure, and brave enough to take itself seriously.