Well, I didn’t think it’d be eleven years until Paramount green-lit a remake of Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, but here we are. The big-screen iteration of Nickelodeon’s most famous explorer is here to help the Summer holidays go with a swing.
Isabela Moner takes the eponymous lead in this tale of creepers, creeps and lost treasure. She’s a natural lead and shines throughout, her buoyant style easily making the audience forget that at 19 she’s already cut her acting teeth on titles as diverse as Transformers and Sicario.
With Dora’s parents played by Eva Longoria and Michael Peña, the combination of familial warmth and tight comic timing is never too far away. But a kid can’t adventure in the shadow of their parents forever of course, and so she’s joined by her cousin Diego (Jeff Wahlberg), with schoolfriends Sammy (Madeleine Madden) and Randy (Nicholas Coombe). Together they find themselves whisked away from the city and into the jungles of Peru, forming a group that can spark off against one another while learning to work as a team (because let’s not forget the actual target demographic here, yeah?).
And it’s great fun. The most obvious cinematic homages are to Indy of course*1, but it also draws from the wider pool of adventure movies while never forgetting that this is Dora’s show, and never trying to re-invent the wheel. The perfectly paced action sequences slot in with the sharp script and perhaps more toilet humour than you’d expect from a PG. There are also some very self-aware gags for fans of the TV show in the first act, although these drop to a more manageable level as things go on.
If you can’t quite bear the thought of the brightly coloured Angry Birds just now, drop in on Dora for the most good natured, good-old-fashioned adventure you’ll have this Summer…
*1 Seriously though, of the four Indy movies that Dora could have chosen to emulate, structurally it's closest to Crystal Skull. And I like it more for that because I like Crystal Skull and there I said it. Fight me. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I'll cut to the chase, the jury at Blackout Towers is out on this one. It's not that Once Upon A Time In Hollywood failed to meet my expectations - I didn't really have any expectations. While I'm definitely a fan of Quentin Tarantino's work to the point of being forgiving of his worst excesses, I was impressed that the trailer is a kaleidoscope of cool which reveals very little of the actual story. It's only after watching the movie that I realise that's because there is no coherent story.
Quentin sets up his core characters, then just sort of bimbles along aimlessly, going off on lengthy tangents which add to the character-building but do almost nothing for the narrative. You remember when Tarantino was famous for driven pacing and snappy dialogue? Well those days are long gone, mate. This begins languidly where each scene is around 30% longer than it needs to be, and pretty much keeps that up for the entire movie. Meticulous yet thoroughly unfocused, this is the absolutely unfiltered Tarantino of 2019, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Self-indulgent as absolute fuck, even by his standards.
WESTERN There's an entire, lengthy saloon-scene where actor Rick Dalton is filming a western, which might be more quirkily entertaining if Quentin hadn't already made Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight. Has he still not gotten spit-and-sawdust out of his system? But there are too many unanswered questions elsewhere. A sporadic narration comes from Kurt Russell. But he's also in the film as a big-shot director. Is it supposed to be his character who's narrating this? Why? How would his character know of events which went otherwise unwitnessed? Wasn't the whole "once upon a time means it's a fairytale and I can subvert your expectations from real-world events" used up on Inglourious Basterds?
Why have big names like Al Pacino and Bruce Dern been hired for a cameo roles which add nothing to the final movie? Why has Leonardo DiCaprio been edited into The Great Escape for a cutaway scene, but Margot Robbie hasn't been given the same digital treatment in The Wrecking Crew when she's playing the actress Sharon Tate watching Sharon Tate in a film? Because the Sharon Tate in those clips is clearly not Margot Robbie, so why put them in at all? I know that ultimately the film is a tribute to her, but it's glaringly noticeable that she's not watching herself. Why am I even thinking about these things when I'm meant to be enjoying a movie by a director I love?
IN SHOW Don't get me wrong, there are some great things in this, I just don't think it's a great movie. I definitely had that dissatisfied feeling leaving the auditorium where I'd apparently been waiting for something that Quentin wasn't going to deliver. Because while the climactic fight is inordinately, gleefully, brutally good fun, the actual narrative payoff afterward feels like a weak punchline that doesn't support the grandiose, bar-room, shaggy dog story which went before it. It turns out the journey was more important than the destination, but you weren't able to focus on that because the driver had been rabbiting on for the entire journey.
This is Guy Ritchie giving us Revolver, James Cameron's Avatar, Spielberg with Ready Player One. It's not devoid of merit, but by no means what Quentin is best at - and this has happened because there's now nobody to tell him 'no'. The bottom line is that if any other writer/director had made Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, I'd be calling it out as a rambling, first-draft mood-board. In fact I still am. Because since each movie ultimately has to stand on its own merits, where does that leave this? But now I know what to expect, another viewing is called for, that's for sure.
^^ This may be subject to change after the next viewing.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
You join me at something of a disadvantage, as I thoroughly, thoroughly enjoyed an advance screening of Pedro Almodóvar's latest semi-autobiographical film, Pain And Glory, and yet I find myself struggling to articulate why, exactly.
It's a perfectly paced two-hour introspection, entirely in Spanish with subtitles that don't detract from the inflection or meaning of the script. The film follows director Salvador Mallo (Antonio Banderas), wincing through middle age as his body crumbles through illness and self-inflicted substance abuse, trying to make amends with the star of one of his films from 30 years ago (Alberto, played by Asier Etxeandia) as he comes to terms with the film's lasting appeal. Interwoven throughout is a thread from Salvador's childhood in rural spain, as his young self is played by Asier Flores and his mother Jacinta by Penélope Cruz (and by Julieta Serrano in the 'present day' narrative).
Ultimately it's a confessional study of regret, fulfilment, trust and seeing the same world with new eyes. Banderas is on awards-worthy form in the lead role, with a far more intricately powerful performance than he's asked to give in his English-language work. And okay, it may have the most hassle-free 'coming off the skag' sequence since A Street Cat Named Bob, but everything else here is delicate to the point of devastating. That final scene is nothing short of beautiful.
Pain And Glory is very good and you should go and see it.
In the best possible way, I'm not sure.
Maybe watch Almodóvar's earlier film Julieta and go from there.
It is.
It is.
It could well be.
Possible, but unlikely.
There isn't.
Level 2: Penélope Cruz is in this, and she was in that Murder On The Orient Express alongside Daisy 'Rey' Ridley.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
So, genuine question: Is Angry Birds still a thing, then? I don't mean 'are people still playing it', because I know that as long as some version of the game is available in the online marketplace, procrastinators of the world will idle away the hours flinging digital birds at digital pigs. I just mean is Angry Birds still enough of a thing to make a movie of? Because even the first entry back in 2016 felt like the window had been missed somewhat (I know animation isn't a quick process, but still). Anyway, the fact that I have no idea what the franchise has been up to for the last three years goes some way to explaining how I approached The Angry Birds Movie 2.
We open on Bird Island, where the war between its avian inhabitants and their porcine nemeses over on Pig Island has cooled to the level of playing constant pranks on one another, albeit pranks with no small level of vigour. But when a mysterious third island suddenly appears and begins hurling giant ice boulders at the other two, the pigs and the birds realise they have to join forces to save their homes and thwart their new enemies - the eagles.
PRESENT The good news is that if you did enjoy the series' first cinematic outing, the sequel should present no significant problems. Once again the U certificate means the writers have to work harder to get the laughs from silliness and slapstick, and there are solid visual gags throughout. While the packed script doesn't quite have the wryness of its predecessor, it still zips along at an accompanying rate. The story itself is more prone to meandering however, not least because the main narrative is punctuated by a side adventure that feels for all the world like a ten-minute short has been edited into the movie. They both come together at the finale, but you're definitely left with the feeling that each was originally written without the other in mind.
The voice-casting is solid once again, with the characterisations matching their vocal performances almost perfectly. The visuals are as great as you'd want for an animated feature, although it's perhaps notable that there's no 3D option available this time round. Meanwhile, there's some thematic study of teamwork and confidence, but that's a pretty basic lesson for a kids' movie and it only features here to serve the plot. Speaking of which, the film waits pretty much until its third act to actually introduce the specific game-mechanics as being relevant to the birds achieving their goal. Which means that until that point it's been a standard animated kids flick with Angry Birds characters pasted in over the top.
SINGER While 97 minutes is a respectable run-time for this type of thing, that comes pre-loaded with a predictably preachy script in its final minutes - although again, that's perhaps understandable given its appeal to a young audience. Because with soundtrack nods to Lionel Richie, Europe and Dawson's Creek, this movie may not be aimed at people in their 30s and 40s, but it was sure as hell made by them.
The Angry Birds Movie 2 is fun but definitely feels like a tacked-on sequel that should have landed two years ago to maintain brand momentum. It's not trying to reinvent digitally simulated physics, but it's sweet and diverting fun for the Summer holidays…
As above, this will be a good one for future rainy afternoons.
Let's not go mad.
That's possible.
Not that I heard.
Level 1: Well, I'm taking the sudden appearance of a snow-covered landmass containing a geothermal-powered superweapon (and its subsequent infiltration by the team of heroes) to be a direct homage to The Force Awakens' Starkiller Base, but that's for a longer analysis of the film which you'll be thankful to learn I'm not going to write.
But this has the voices of the LT-319 and BB-8 (okay, voice "consultant" in roundie's case) in it.
Oh, and Catherine 'Clone Wars' Winder is an exec producer.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
