The auditorium wasn't particularly full, given that the film in question (a moderately 'big' movie) was being released on a rainy Wednesday in the middle of a particularly busy blockbuster-season. Nevertheless, in all my years of cinema-going I have never before witnessed so many people go to the toilet during a performance, so utterly unconcerned were they with missing some vital element of the plot. Let us not drive around the houses here, Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets is bad. I barely even have the strength to be bitter about losing two and a half hours of my life to this, but for you dear reader, I shall try...
Quite often, the second paragraph of my review would be used to hold a brief synopsis or plot-premise. In the case of Valerian, I have no idea. Really. There's an opening montage showing mankind's future progress into space and successive diplomatic introductions to several developed alien species, and after some sledgehammer-exposition from Rutger Hauer, the story-proper begins. I think. Something like Avatar, but set on a beach and featuring small CGI armadillos that shit pearls into a well. Meanwhile, Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne play two humans who look less convincing than the animated aliens and fail to flirt (indeed, act*1) for over two hours, while Sam Spruell and Clive Owen pull that 'I've made a terrible mistake' expression in lieu of emoting alongside their lines. The five minute pole-dancing scene featuring Rihanna isn't even the worst part of the film, although it's as inexplicable as everything else.
So from the meandering gibberish of the poorly-established narrative, through the horrifyingly executed 'Han/Leia' dynamic of Valerian and Laureline, the piss-weak performances of inconsequential supporting characters, and to the desperate attempts to bed the property in as the cornerstone of a cinematic franchise, there is no aspect of this film which does not anger, baffle or disappoint. Valerian owes so much to The Phantom Menace that it's had to take out a loan from John Carter just to keep up the repayments*2. Even the countless other sci-fi flicks which exist solely as regurgitators of clichés and genre-tropes usually do so with more narrative coherence than this.
The final presentation is full of moments you know were fantastic in the mind of Luc Besson. So it's a shame really that as both screenwriter and director*3, he completely failed to translate any of that to the screen. Judging by the way the dialogue clatters off the tongues of the performers, I suspect Luc typed the script in his native French and then just ran it through Google Translate for the cast to read. I'm not sure what's more excruciating, when the film tries to be funny and cool, or those moments when it thinks it actually has some message to impart. The third act features an outstandingly distracting diatribe about the effects of economic anxiety and protectionist politics, which in any other contemporary movie could be seen as a quasi-satirical statement on the real world. Here however, it comes off as a cack-handed attempt to convince the audience that they haven't just spent the last two hours watching Besson's computer-animated cheese dream*4.
I suppose if you could credit Valerian with anything, it would be the visuals on display. It's all 'pretty', but in that way where everything's been over-designed to the point where each new scene gives you a different level of headache. The film looks like a teenager won the Euromillions and blew the lot on making a Jupiter Ascending fan-film.
Luc Besson goes from strength to strength, finding new and inventive ways of annoying me. That should be applauded, at least.
Stabbing your own eyes for fun.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Not that I heard, but I spent a lot of the film shouting under my breath.
Level 2: Well, this movie features R&B fembot Rihanna, who was also in the execrable Battleship alongside Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson.
*1 Dane DeHaan spends this entire movie acting as if he passed the audition doing an impersonation of Keanu Reeves. I wish I was joking. The stupid thing is, I like Dane DeHaan. I like Cara Delevingne. I have no idea what's happened here. No wait it's Luc Besson, isn't it?.. [ BACK ]
*2 And remember, I say this as someone who loves both The Phantom MenaceandJohn Carter. Yeah, I'm that guy. [ BACK ]
*3 No, I haven’t read the comics that this is based on. Besson has made a film so that I don’t have to. Allegedly. [ BACK ]
*4 I've written far more words here than I intended, but I cannot slate this film emphatically enough. It's a horribly ironic state of affairs when the only way to truly appreciate how awful Valerian actually is would be to watch it on a big screen, yet at the same time I cannot condone that in any way, shape or form. Please take my word for it. Apart from anything else, I don't want the film to make the money which would encourage any manner of sequel or expansion. Even if you've got one of those subscription type-cards and it doesn't cost you any more to sit and watch the movie, there'll still be some manner of transaction between the cinema owner, the distributor and the studio. Luc Besson doesn't care if you enjoy this film or not, he just wants the figures to show that you've seen it. Please do not humour him. It is worse than Transformers: The Last Knight, and I do not say that lightly. At least with that movie I could enjoy taking the piss out of it, Valerian doesn't even deserve that energy... [ 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.
Okay, you read that spoiler-warning at the top, didn't you? I wrote some words about the film which are completely spoiler-free in this post, but you're here because you want big dirty spoilers, right? Good, I won't warn you again.
More so than in the fim’s 2012 predecessor, here Spider-Man's major enemies and losses are inextricably linked with Parker himself. Notwithstanding Rhino, who's essentially a pawn in Osborn's game, Green Goblin and Electro represent either an inadvertent flaw or failure-to-act on Parker's part. Max Dillon clearly has (underdeveloped, cinematically) psychological issues that increase the ideological gulf between him and his hero. Parker's left wondering, as are the audience, if anything he's said or done could have changed that? No matter, things are the way they are, and he can only play the hand he's dealt. Similarly with Harry Osborn, we clearly see the reasons for Peter's reticence in helping his friend, but we're left unsure as to how many of his problems he could have solved, if any. When both characters have had their fill of the friendly neighbourhood vigilante, their combined hatred only spurs them on to a mutually beneficial partnership where they can focus their efforts on the subject of their disdain. As with his Uncle in the first film, Peter Parker learns that his most pivotal moments don't occur because he's there at the right or wrong time, but because he's there at all.
This is ramped further and further until the point where Gwen Stacy dies, meters away from Parker trying to save her. Because Parker tried and failed to save her. It's vital for the progression of Spider-Man's character not that she dies, but that he's effectively responsible for it (in the same way that it was cinematically vital that a late pickup shoot added in the scene beforehand, where Gwen emphatically states to Peter that she chooses to be involved. It's a little over-egged, but a wise move to put it there, nonetheless). Even watching the sequence a second time, it's not clear whether Gwen's head hitting the concrete kills her, or whether her sudden deceleration breaks her neck (in the comic universe, it was the latter). Either way, Parker has to live with the repercussions of his failure to keep a promise to Gwen's dying father (which to be fair, he wasn't really responsible for. For a change). The death of Gwen Stacy not only brings a sense of consequence to the storyline and cast-list of the next movie, but also irreversibly builds Parker's character. While the video of Stacy's graduation speech brings Spider-Man out of his self-imposed exile, how much longer can he be the city's sole vigilante protector? Where does the balance lie between the greater good of the people of New York, and the personal losses Peter suffers (and causes) as a result?*1 It’s a far more subtle way of illustrating the old axiom about power and responsibility than having Uncle Ben repeatedly spell it out.
And it's this final hammer blow to Parker's resolve that transforms the movie from good to great. The scene where Peter cradles Gwen in his arms could have been about a minute and a half shorter in any other adaptation*2. A director or editor could have chosen to fade-to-black early, and raise the sentimentality by laying Gwen's speech over the funeral scene. But Webb keeps us there, making us watch Peter's disbelief and growing acceptance, holding the scene until the expectation of Gwen opening her eyes has ebbed away from the young superhero and audience alike.
Peter's subsequent five months of mourning are covered very smoothly*3 and Spider-Man's re-emergence is handled spectacularly. A callback to an earlier, throwaway villain that represents the day-to-day supervillains he faces, the single-comic-stories if you will, and sees the return not of a darker, brooding hero, but a one who remembers his greatest weapon is hope, not fear.
And a little cheeky humour, of course.
Apart from those couple of moments which are in the trailer, but seem to have been cut from the film, yes. Perfectly.
I did.
For me, absolutely.
If you're going to see it, your cinema has a massive screen and matching sound-system which is ideal.
I will a bit, yeah.
I will, yeah.
Pretty certain there isn't.
As much as I love the movie (and I do), did I miss the bit where it explains how Max Dillon isn't just killed by falling into a vat of electric eels whilst also being electrocuted? I know he's an expert electrician, but biology is biology, and that's like saying the Gordon Ramsay wouldn't be killed if you locked him in a heated oven, he'd just emerge as Gas Mark Ten™, or something.
*1 How many more times can Stan Lee appear before Spider-Man stops what he's doing and asks "Look, who are you? I keep seeing you everywhere…"?
*2 Although it has been pointed out that the factory-floor where Parker and Stacy have their final, doomed embrace seems remarkably clear of the half-ton of debris which was falling down with them only seconds earlier. Hey, ho.
*3 Although at this point you've been sat on your arse for over two hours and you can see the finish-line, so you're a little anxious to skip over the moping.
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 wouldn't be a lie to tell you that initially, I wasn't particularly bothered about Marc Webb's sequel to 2012's Amazing Spider-Man. Although I found the original enjoyable, it didn't really leave me with anything, particularly when other Marvel-based franchises seem to be shouting louder and for longer. I still wanted to see this on the opening day, of course, so I braved the crowds*1 and settled in to watch the webslinger in glorious 2D*2…
And my word, I wasn't disappointed. Tonally, this screen-incarnation is as close as I've seen yet to the comic book character; Exciting, touching and, most importantly, fun. The humour's more in a goofy vein than Iron Man's sassiness, and even in its bleakest moments, the film avoids the moroseness of Thor*2, and Marc Webb succeeds - finally - in making Peter Parker an interesting character. That's an essential tool in getting Peter's story to work, yet it's also the events in the film, and his character's handling of them, which allow him to be interesting. Andrew Garfield has made the role his own now (certainly Parker, if not Spider-Man), and he has a great rapport with all of the supporting cast. Emma Stone keeps things on a (relatively) low-flame as Peter's on/off girlfriend Gwen Stacy, whereas Jamie Fox and Dane DeHaan enjoy the hell out of their roles as Max Dillon and Harry Osborn, respectively. Sally Field once again rules the roost as Aunt May, making a sympathetic character without patronising everyone she speaks to.
The story follows several converging threads in Peter Parker's life, which while they lead to a precisely engineered conclusion, often feel like they're jostling for screen-time along the way. My main worry was that the screen-villains*4 would take up too much time and overshadow our hero, whereas what's actually happened is that two of the stories seem almost like they're taken from different screenplays, only syncing together for spectacle rather than narrative value. In the end it works well, but I wanted to see more build-up of Foxx's and DeHaan's characters. Paul Giamatti, for the record, is fantastic, and his character is handled brilliantly.
Spoilers and weighty-analysis will follow in a future review, but let's just say that this could well be the best super-hero film of the year. And that's as much of a surprise to me as anyone else...
The business-end: • Yes, Stan Lee's got a cameo.
• Yes, there's a mid-credits scene.
• No, there's no post-credits scene. So after the minute-or-so in the army (P.O.W?) camp, you can make a move.
Action? Yes. Emotion? No.
I did.
For me, more than.
Cinema. Big. Loud. Cinema.
A little.
I will.
Y'know, I didn't hear one. I'm starting to think that my asking of this question throughout 2013 has gotten them banned or something..
What manner of sorcery has taken place to enable 20th Century Fox to run a push for their movie in the middle of a Sony film's credits? I know it's all Marvel, but this is mighty unusual, isn't it?
*1 And it was busy; the schools are off for Easter, so there was a big family-presence.
*2 No agenda behind that, but the 2D showing was at 5:30, and I figured the 3D at 8:30 would be busier.
*3 And I say that as someone who wholeheartedly approves of both the sassiness and the moroseness.
*4 Okay, there are three of them on the partwork-poster, but we're going spoiler-free 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.
