Advance warning: this review consists my first-reactions only, and is free of spoilers. I'll have more to say after I've watched the film again (which will come as little surprise to you), and like many of the films I love, it seems too much to take in the first time you see it. My main point of comparison here is the first Captain America installment, but that's mainly because I watched the two of them back to back. Stylistically, The Winter Soldier is closer to Thor: The Dark World, and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and there's a darkening of the overall tone that I look forward to seeing continue in next year's Age Of Ultron.
Even at 136 minutes, it sometimes feels like the producers have tried to cram too much into The Winter Soldier. Although everything they've done here is welcome, make no mistake, this is quite a long film and at times it feels it. The reason I mention it is that there's not much in the way of light-relief, so furrowed-brows are the order of the day. This sequel makes several references to The First Avenger (far more than Avengers did), but the carefree action-romp feeling is nowhere to be seen, and CA:TWS may feature the least amount of wisecracking humour to date. But subtlety isn't what these films do best, and when some of the larger plot-revelations are being unfurled, you may well feel your eyes rolling along with them*1.
So there are characters you know, characters you don't, and a little bit of intrigue as the film tries to be a conspiracy-thriller but doesn't quite have the twists to pull that off. The 3D is there but doesn't really add much at all apart from inducing a slight headache in combination with all the handheld camerawork. Henry Jackman's score is moody and dramatic enough, but doesn't have the pomp of Alan Silvestri's First Avenger soundtrack, or the majesty of Bryan Tyler's work in Iron Man 3 and Thor 2. Ultimately though, if you've been onboard throughout the Marvel-verse so far, you won't be disappointed with The Winter Soldier. It's a great addition to the canon, and has some cards up its sleeve in terms of character- and overall-plot development.
The business end: • Yes, there's a Stan Lee cameo.
• Yes, there's a mid-credits scene before the names roll.
• Yes, there's a post-credits scene after the names roll.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below, or on the WorldOfBlackout Facebook page. I'm always eager to talk movies, but especially super-heroes.
Pretty much.
For the most part.
I think so, your mileage will vary.
Cinema for 'big and loud', but the 3D's not essential.
Slightly.
I will.
I think it's either been buried, or is the basis of the sound-effect used to denote The Winter Soldier himself.
Has Scarlett Johansson's voice always been that husky, or is this a recent development? I only really noticed it the other day.
*1 As well as feel your eyes watering in a moment which needs far more expansion than it gets. Spoilers prohibit me from saying more here.
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.
It was something of a golden age for Paramount's Marvel-verse in 2011. While we'd already been introduced to Iron Man, Thor and The Hulk, the Avengers were still a growing glimmer on the cinematic horizon, and the price-of-entry*1 for the movies was still relatively low. It was a time of introduction, rather than continuation, and it allowed director Joe Johnston to tell a rollicking super-hero story set during the Second World War (and indeed from the golden age of comic books themselves). While I'm a huge fan of the Avengers canon in general, I do believe that Captain America: The First Avenger represents a high watermark in visual storytelling for this series. A wartime yarn with 21st century sensibilities, Johnston gives just enough character building to offset the frenetic action sequences.
The film captures the spirit and hope of the era whilst deftly avoiding the general misery of an international conflict, and features characters with bravery and integrity who somehow don't come across as patronising (I'm looking at you, DC). I can't go so far as to call the film perfect of course, and I've picked it apart on several earlier occasions. Nonetheless, this is a film which is (so far) standing the test of time well.
It's unlikely that the Avengers series will revisit the WW2 era again in any long-format media. Notwithstanding that the general timeline has moved forward to the 21st century anyway, Marvel don't seem to be too keen on retreading old ground when it comes to Earth's Mightiest Heroes, and Cap now has a whole bunch of #21stCenturyProblems to deal with (more than most people, to be fair). While Marvel are making a concerted effort to have the character-centric films work independently, that's proving more difficult as their web grows larger*2. Captain America: The First Avenger, however, will always be a great standalone movie.
And who doesn't like watching a bright red skull-faced nazi chasing a magic space-jewel and getting his arse kicked?
Yeah.
I did.
For me, yes.
Cinema if you can, obviously.
I will, yes.
I will, yes.
YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT, THERE IS!
How do you make a superhuman, wearing what is essentially the Stars & Stripes, and called 'Captain America', into a hero who's not a complete laughing stock in this day and age?
*1 in terms of pre-existing knowledge, not actual monetary price of entry. Obviously.
*2 No cross-pollinating pun intended. Although seriously, when are Disney/Marvel going to buy the rights to Spider-Man from Sony and finally have the character do something worthwhile?
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.
Let's cut straight to the chase: I'm fairly certain I enjoyed The Zero Theorem. Although I'm also fairly certain that I didn't understand The Zero Theorem (not as much as I wanted to, at any rate). Visually and thematically fascinating, Christoph Waltz plays the neurotic Qohen, searching for feeling, connection and truth in a world full of sensory assault, and his endeavour has as much in common with Scott's Blade Runner as it does with Gilliam's earlier masterwork, Brazil.
There is, however, a very thin layer of smugness over some of the early scenes, particularly when we're seeing just how whacky and zany the future is, although this settles down as the film goes on and there are less quirks to introduce (and/or you just get used to them). I particularly liked the lack of explanation we're initially given for Qohen's job, which seems as baffling to us in 2014 as a data analyst's would be to an Elizabethan theatre audience.
The production design is every bit as detailed and gorgeous as you'd expect in a Gilliam film, and Waltz, Mélanie Thierry, Tilda Swinton, Lucas Hedges and David Thewlis fit into the oddball universe seamlessly (Matt Damon turns up and reads his lines in a manner which suggests to me that the producers were unable to secure Philip Seymour Hoffman. Me mordere).
The defining image of of the film for me (and one which is surprisingly underplayed) is the abandoned/converted church where Qohen lives, featuring a statue of the crucified Jesus, with the head removed and overtly replaced with a surveillance camera. It's a heavy moment of symbolism in a film filled with tiny details.
As enjoyable as I found The Zero Theorem, it did leave me wondering at several points what exactly the fuck was going on. Crucially, I don't see that as a bad thing in this case*1, and it's nothing that can't be remedied by further study. After I've dug out my copy of Brazil, of course.
Fairly.
I think I did, yes.
Almost certainly.
If you're interested, it looks great on a big screen, but you won't lose too much by watching it at home if it's not playing near you.
Probably not.
Definitely will.
Not that I heard.
Will one of you watch the film with me now and explain it, please?
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.
Starred Up (Mild spoilers)
Cert: 18 / 106 mins / Dir. David Mackenzie
Director David Mackenzie's new, gritty prison drama certainly doesn't pull any of its punches, and manages to be every bit as harrowing and claustrophobic as the trailer suggests. The only real problem I found with it is that I wouldn't work out what the film is trying to say (other than "prison's a bit shit"). The film captures the essence of its timespan perfectly, but come the closing scenes, I didn't feel I'd been on a journey, more just shown a snapshot.
Jack O'Connell and Ben Mendelsohn have a solid chemistry as the father and son who end up sharing a wing (particularly in the scene where young Eric finds out how prison has changed his dad), and they both put in solid turns, but I struggled to find any real character development for either of them. The way in which Rupert Friend's prison-counsellor is written out of the story seems emblematic of the film's general lack of plot direction. By the time you add on the mumbled dialogue and unexplained prison-slang, you could well be wondering if Starred Up isn't just an excuse for an all-male orgy of bad language and mean-spirited violence; because if that's all you want, there are films which will deliver more and with greater glee.
Because I couldn't identify with any of the characters, I didn't find the film to be moving on an emotional level, but it's certainly bloody engaging throughout. Mackenzie gets great value for money from his cast, I'd have just liked to see them be used in a story with more drive. But… (and this is the clincher), it's a solidly assembled film which commands you to pay attention. It's just that afterwards, you may be asking yourself what you've gained…
Largely.
Largely.
Largely.
You won't lose too much by watching it at home.
No.
At some point.
There isn't.
Prison does look a bit shit though, doesn't it?
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.
Under The Skin Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Jonathan Glazer
There was a worryingly high number of lone males in the audience for the 11am screening of "The Scarlett Johansson film with boobies in it" (including myself, I hasten to add), but judging by the confused grumbling as the audience shuffled out at the end, I wasn't alone in my opinion of the film either.
There's a fantastic visual disparity between Johansson, dressed apparently as a 1970's New York hooker, driving a white transit van around the streets and suburbs of modern-era Glasgow. This gulf is widened by her flawless (if sparingly used) 'post Brit' accent as she makes smalltalk with a series of strangers before going on to murder some of them. Although it also serves to underline the weakness of the screenplay as Scarlett ends up affirmingly-repeating a large percentage of their garbled, badly delivered improvisation.
Oh yeah, the script. The film's trailer had already indicated that Under The Skin was going to be a challenging watch, so I made a point of reading through the plot on the film's Wiki entry first. The page indicates that "Many of the scenes where Johansson's character picks up men were unscripted conversations with non-actors, filmed with hidden cameras." These scenes are a handy reminder that 'actor' and 'screenwriter' are real actual jobs for a good reason. Although to be fair, so is 'editor'. And while I'm in this paragraph, I'll openly admit that I'm glad I knew the plot beforehand, as that's a mystery that Jonathan Glazer and Walter Campbell seem to want to keep to themselves. The narrative thread of the film is 'relaxed', at best.
In all fairness, there are some fascinating visual and thematic ideas in here, particularly in how the murder-scenes are handled, and the beach scene is positively harrowing in its conclusion. I can see that Glazer's adaptation of Michel Faber's novel has been made with skill, craft and discipline, but quite frankly it needs to be more interesting, more often. Deliberately, tauntingly slow, the film tries to bait its audience into caring about characters it disposes of with little care or charm.
On a more technical level, don't try and watch this with any daylight coming into the room. More than a few scenes are so dark and murky that I had trouble making out what was going on in a darkened auditorium. Ultimately, the film's self-indulgence just led to me becoming impatient (admittedly because I had another film in another screen immediately afterwards and didn't want the two times to overlap).
I'm afraid I can't admire the finished product, but I at least have a grudging respect for how it's been made. Under The Skin is 30% remarkable, 70% infuriating, and ultimately just not for me (although I'm struggling to work out who it is for. Certainly not this morning's audience).
Best dialogue: "Do you want to look at me?"
"This isn't Tesco's, is it?"
"No."
Er, yeah. Yeah it is.
Not as often as was intended, I suspect.
For me? No. Your mileage will vary.
I can't make that decision for you.
A bit, yeah.
Very doubtful.
There isn't. Fair enough.
Was it Creative Scotland's idea to shoehorn in Deacon Blue playing on the radio? As if all radio stations in Scotland constantly play a stream of them, Texas, Runrig and The Proclaimers? It's the kind of generalisation I'd be taken to task for if I'd made it...
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.
