Ma Cert: 15 / 99 mins / Dir. Tate Taylor / Trailer
So apparently John Hughes movies are something that middle-aged people do now while the kids are out having fun. I knew that. Of course I knew that, I'm down with the kids. More importantly, I know that holding on to obsessions from your school-days at the expense of broader cultural perspectives leads only to bad places. Tate Taylor told me that. And how.
STALKER Yes his new movie, Ma, wears its love for dark nostalgia and high-school stalker movies on its sleeve as Octavia Spencer's Sue Ann (aka the eponymous antagonist) is the simmering pot which finally boils over in smalltown Ohio. It begins like a fairly run-of-the-mill teen horror as Erica (Juliette Lewis) moves back to her old hometown with teenage daughter Maggie (Diana Silvers) in tow after a separation. There's a distinctly indie edge to the opening and some very economical backstory exposition. Maggie quickly makes friends with her schoolmates, and an under-age booze run puts them in touch with Sue Ann, who offers the gang full use of her basement as a party-den, seemingly out of the goodness of her heart.
We move into more traditional psychological thriller fare with Ma's gradual flashbacks accompanying the unwinding of painful threads, but these still serve the purpose of the film well. Spencer is on absolute panto-form here, and it suits her. And although the movie centers around Maggie and her teenage cohorts, it's great to see a solidly capable supporting cast of 'the adults', and even better that they have constructive parts to play within the story*1.
THEODOSIA 99 minutes is a solid runtime for a movie of this nature. The whole thing moves along at such a pace that it's difficult for Taylor to really build up the foreboding atmosphere you'd expect, meaning Spencer has to work harder to sell Ma's full unhingedness by the final act. But sell it she does, with some classic batshit-crazy escalation.
The climactic sequence has quite a bitter edge to it, after writer Scotty Landes has been careful to build up enough sympathy for Sue Ann that her nastiness is justified, but not so much that it's excused.
There's not as much biting satire or behavioural-sermonising as you'd perhaps expect, but Ma is still a fun social-horror flick which demonstrates that the real monsters don't live in dusty basements.
Although they're happy to lend theirs out for parties if you promise not to misbehave…
There are notes of Carrie, Unfriended 2 and Get Out here, as well as a cracking nod-and-a-wink in the direction of Misery.
This film works well with a crowd, if that's your bag (a gentleman in the row behind me became Vocally Concerned at one point which I won't delve into here).
It is.
Probably not, but still something to be proud of on the CV.
That's unlikely.
There isn't.
Level 1: The voice of Aly San San in the rebooted Star Tours is in this.
Yes it counts.
*1 Although there's an awful lot of "OMG hey! I haven't seen you since, like high-school!!" going on here, considering the town's entire population seems to only be in double figures… [ 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.
To Illumination Studios now, taking a valiant amount of time away from the franchise which makes them the money and putting that into the sequel which, with the very best will in the world, nobody really asked for. 2016's The Secret Life Of Pets was fun. A flimsy and somewhat linear storyline, but played out by a committed voice-cast and packed with plenty of jokes for animal lovers. So where do we go from there?
PLAGUED This seems to be a question which has plagued writer Bryan Lynch as he struggles to deliver an amiable, if bare-bones, continuation of the pet-centric New York which was crafted first time round. The cast are still on great form (with the inclusion of Harrison Ford as the taciturn sheepdog, Rooster), the character animation and sets are highly polished (although Illumination's character-design for the humans is still as lacklustre as ever), and the whole thing zips along at a heady pace.
And, somewhat ironically, it's this briskness which is the film's undoing. At 86 minutes including all the end credits, this is already a short trip to the movies. But the story quickly splits into three strands (Max the terrier goes on a farm adventure, Snowball the bunny's superhero mission, Gidget the pomeranian's stealth mission) which occur almost entirely separately from each other, only tying up at the end with some strenuous narrative gymnastics. It quickly begins to feel like a trio of straight-to-DVD spinoff adventures, hastily reformatted into a movie at the 11th hour.
FAMINED That's not to say that The Secret Life Of Pets 2 isn't enjoyable (and for a U-certificate it does extremely well on the all-round laugh count), but the lack of imagination that's gone into the title*1 is a fair reflection of the screenplay. With the well of 'hey, dogs do this funny thing' gags just about run dry in the first installment, the humour here is broader slapstick and sight-gags. A fair amount of cat jokes still remain, but any threequel is going to have to think of some actual new content.
For all my grumbling, The Secret Life Of Pets 2 is actually pretty good considering its absolute lack of purpose. And with the trailer for The Queen's Corgi playing right beforehand, you just make the absolute most of the laughs wherever you can find them these days, y'know..?
*1 and while it's more of a marketing concern, check out that tagline on the poster. "They still have their secrets". What? Is that it, Terry? Have you literally written this having no knowledge of the first movie's content, but figuring you can just blag something based on the title structure alone? The 'I Still Know What You Did Last Summer of family animation? Michael Bay called, he wants you to join his scriptwriting team... [ 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.
Well, it’s the retooling that nobody clamoured for, but as part of Disney’s programme of self-exploitation we got it anyway. Aladdin is in live-action. Or as close to live-action as any adventure movie gets these days. To add an extra note of caution, this particular iteration is helmed by Guy Ritchie – a dynamic and talented film-maker who is also responsible for the atrocious King Arthur.
Yet somehow, Aladdin's okay. Very good in places, very ordinary in others. Distracting enough fun for a first-time audience, but the Disney magic just isn’t consistent enough.
MANIC Naturally, there was some consternation when Will Smith was announced as the Genie previously played by Robin Williams. While some of the manic delivery still lingers in the writing of the part, the CGI animation now employed means that he actually channels Jim Carrey in The Mask more than he does Williams. That said, there appears to have been some sloppiness between filming the Genie’s scene-surrounds and interactions, and actually recording Smith’s head against a greenscreen to drop in afterwards. The problem being that the eyeline between Aladdin and the Genie doesn’t quite match up whenever Smith wears the blue makeup, so it really feels like he was in another room. The sections of the movie where Smith has his own skin-tone don’t suffer from this at all, so make of that what you will.
But the extra half hour of run-time when compared to the 1992 animation certainly allows the story to breathe more freely, slowing down the often irritating pacing of that beloved original*1. And it’s worth noting that while the live-action version also opens with a framing device as a nod to its forebear, it also remembers to return to this at the close of the film.
WILLY Mena Massoud is a solid lead in the title role, although there’s the feeling that he’s somehow constrained by the part. The real breakout from all of this though is Naomi Scott as Jasmine. I’m not usually one for bigging up musical numbers, but Scott’s vocals here are absolutely outstanding. She’s got a classical stage-voice which is bigger than the rest of the film. She's going to be huge and this is a great calling-card.
Ultimately, Aladdin is a very pretty and thoroughly unnecessary way to spend two hours (if you’re a punter) or $183m (if you’re Ian Disney).
It should be awful and it isn’t. I’m absolutely fine with that.
In terms of what Disney took and what they ended up giving, The Jungle Book.
For the spectacle, sure
For the feeling, not so much.
If you've got padawans who are interested, sure.
Let's not get carried away.
Entirely possible, yes.
There isn't. I mean, would it have been too much trouble to drop the Jedha Kyber Crystal Temple into one of the wide-shots? Really? How about a couple of Dewbacks, then?
*1 Full disclosure: I only watched the 1992 version for the first time a couple of nights before seeing this. No previous agenda behind that, it's just the way things worked out over the years. Anyway, the animated film feels rushed in its execution and performances, and frankly not all that. Do not 'at' 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.
Credit where it's undeniably due, when you put your money down to see Dexter Fletcher's Elton John biopic, RocketMan, you know pretty much exactly what to expect, and that’s pretty much exactly what’s delivered. The fact that the film is also (mostly) fantastic is a bonus atop of this directional clarity.
SAILING It’s not all plain sailing. I struggled with the two child-iterations of our hero and storyteller, the whole thing having a distinct am-dram air as a heavy-handed rendition of childhood strife is laid out for the hard-of-thinking in the audience. But at the moment - that very frame - where Taron Egerton takes the reins, I instantly relaxed back into my seat with the thought ’ahh, it’s going to be great now’. And so it proved. The Kingsman star is shaping up to be one of the greatest performers of his generation, effortlessly endearing even when he’s portraying a self-confessed diva.
On that subject, naturally this whole thing should be taken with a pinch of salt so large it requires its own health warning. Sure, we see Elton John as a self-obsessed bundle of nervous energy, self aggrandisement and bad decision-making, but never forget that this is Elton John’s version of bad-boy Elton John. Many scenes seem to carry the subtext that things were probably either nowhere near that bad or about a hundred times worse. Let's just say that you don’t need to wait until the closing credits tell you that Elton John was the executive producer of this to work out that Elton John was the executive producer of this.
LEGEND
But the music’s great (as you’d expect) and the flashback-based structure is loose enough to have fun with the well-known facts while not getting too bogged down in plot-minutiae. All was going swimmingly until one particular climactic moment where I may or may not have broken The Code by muttering “oh fuck off!”, so needlessly literal is its amateur-hour psychoanalysis. But that’s fine because we still end on a high, and the ride leading up to it was great fun. Bonus points for the 'what happened next' cards which close out the film, in case anyone is sitting in the auditorium thinking 'yeah, because Elton's kept a very low profile since 1990, is he still around at all..?
Oh, and how come in the John Lewis advert he gets the piano for Christmas and is instantly entranced by it, but in this film the piano's just in the dining room anyway and he starts playing it one day for no reason?
It is, but watch it in the cinema for the full effect.
Fletcher goes from strength to strength, Egerton is fantastic as always*1
Bryce Dallas Howard should be a fun revelation, but her accent's Downton Abbey one moment and Eastenders the next. And while there are some scenes where she's putting on airs, I don't think that's intentional for the amount of times she wanders over the line.
As much as I love most of this film, that's still a distinct possibility.
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.
Well, if the second John Wick movie was a ballet of destruction, its successor is probably closer to a pantomime, although the whole thing is no less enjoyable for that. The closest you’ll get to restraint in this threequel is the full five minutes it takes for John to get round to killing someone at the top of the film. And in a bout of creativity which embodies the first act, he does this with a library book.
BROKEN Once this seal is broken it’s business as usual however, and the bodies soon begin to pile up alongside the shell-casings and dulled blades. The over-earnest tugging on the audience’s heart-strings as a justification for unbridled murder is toned right down this time (in fact, it basically occurs in those five minutes back there), and this chapter just gets right to what the audience have arrived for: a trigger-happy orgy of righteous vengeance.
CRIMSON It’s all massively self-indulgent of course, but by this point Chad Stahelski has more than earned it. Keanu glides along, right at home in his blood-splattered suit and sardonic demeanour, shining throughout. Likewise, while her screentime is somewhat more limited, Halle Berry steps up to the plate and is every bit as magnificent when it comes to doling out punishment. Not to be outdone, Ian McShane is just as flamboyantly, theatrically and infuriatingly lazy as he was in Hellboy. But we’d expect nothing less.
John Wick 3 is far too long of course, it begins not making too much sense and loses more narrative focus along the way. By the time the third act rolls around you can barely tell who John is fighting now and it matters even less.
And I absolutely loved it.
The first two John Wick movies, obviously. But there's also an air of The Raid to the final act, even if JW3 doesn't have that film's clarity or determination..
It is.
Speaking of such matters, how the hell is this a 15 cert when Beats gets an 18? Yeah alright there are 38 c-bombs in that movie, but it's basically teenagers getting mashed at a rave and being punched by the police. John Wick 3 has headshots. So. Many. Headshots…
It is.
Well, let's not pretend that everything Keanu touches turns to gold. He's been in (and continues to be in), some right old shite. But by the same token, the John Wick movies could easily have been some right old shite with anyone else in the lead. This is a case of the perfect performer in the perfect role..
Unlikely.
I think I heard a low-level one when the goons*1 are sent in to clear out The Bowery King's pad, but I suspect that a Wilhelm in this movie would be loud and proud, so let's side with no.
*1 I mean some run-of-the-mill, henchman-type goons. Not The Goons.
That would have altered the tone of the film somewhat. [ 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.
