Wow, there's a lot of flatulence in this film. Like plot-driving flatulence. That's not usually a high-point in cinematic entertainment, but It's impressive given that for around twenty minutes, it's one of the characters' primary means of communication.
Swiss Army Man is the story of Hank (Paul Dano), who's stranded on a desert island and has all but given up hope. When a new arrival joins him in the shape of Manny (Daniel Radcliffe), this gives Hank the inspiration and impetus to escape exile and try to find home, and the girl he loves. Manny is dead to begin with, of course, but that's not to say he still can't be a useful friend...
From the film's opening scene, there's a beautifully crafted sense of hyper-surreality, meaning you have little choice but to stop asking 'how would that work' and just go with the film. Dano is magnificently fragile as the more talkative of the leads (then again he usually is), but Radcliffe's performance shouldn't be underrated here, either. Directors Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert*2 have crafted something that's thoughtful and entertaining in equal measure, leaving you with as many questions as when you started, but still satisfied all the same.
So indie in feel that I'm surprised it doesn't have a yellow poster, it's often melancholic, sometimes inspirational and occasionally downright bleak. This thankfully isn't the Weekend At Bernie's re-imagining it could easily have turned out as; instead, one of those movies that I'm just glad exists at all.
Extra points for the outstanding a capella soundtrack overseen by Andy Hull and Robert McDowell.
Swiss Army Man is an intriguing film. I think I enjoyed it very much and look forward to watching it again to make sure…
It's a film you'll probably want to watch more than once and with a gap in between, so if you see it on the shelf in Asda....
I think so.
Maybe not best, but certainly up there.
Nope.
Nope.
Level 2: This film's got Paul Dano in it and he was in 2011's Cowboys & Aliens, which was directed by John 'Vizsla' Favreau and starred Harrison 'Solo' Ford and Clancy 'Opress' Brown.
*1 Because I can't really complain about my local cinema not showing enough new movies and complain that I never have time to watch stuff at home, now can I? [ BACK ]
*2 Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert directing a film with Daniel Radcliffe in pretty much every scene. I bet that wore thin on-set after about half an hour... [ 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.
So, magic-troupe, The Four Horsemen, with their entourage and nemeses in tow, return in the sequel to 2013's Now You See Me*1. Well, 75% of the Four Horsemen return, but since Isla Fisher's off having a baby and the follow-up simply couldn't wait, her character is indelicately written out and Lizzy Caplan is even more indelicately drafted in as The Girl One™. And Caplan's good (although she always is), but the handling of the situation feels insulting to both the cast and the audience alike (although Mélanie Laurent's protagonist from the first movie isn't even mentioned, let alone discarded).
Relying heavily on the audience being familiar with NYSM, Ed Solomon's screenplay doesn't spend a lot of time setting up the modus operandi or filling in the blanks between installments (about a year in plot-time). Aiming for a slick, globe-trotting caper but feeling more like someone running for a bus, the film's pacing is all over the place, and the various sub-plots are just as inconsequential as the headline-act. Whereas the previous entry was a series of loosely connected set-pieces holding together a heist-movie, this one feels more like an over-produced first draft of an episode of Hustle, with the central characters jumping through hoops to steal a Magic Computer Chip Macguffin™ that even the script doesn't bother explaining adequately.
Messrs Ruffalo, Eisenberg and Franco reprise their roles to varying degrees of success, but Woody Harrelson's turn as Merritt as well as his own twin brother means he's arguably putting in the most work out of all the players, and apparently having the most fun as a result. Michael Caine phones in another performance, but at least Morgan Freeman's not on cinematic autopilot for this outing, although he's still being absolutely no more than Morgan Freeman™ (although when was the last time he wasn't?). Meanwhile, Daniel Radcliffe struggles to find meaningful work after graduating Hogwarts. Keep looking, Dan.
And I know that this is a bugbear of mine second only to accents, but what the hell is with the geography in this movie? Once the Four Horsemen hit Ol' London Town and split up to give separate diversionary street-magic shows, Merritt's brother (Harrelson) takes Merritt (Harrelson) to one side and crows, "So where are you guys moving towards? By the Thames? Tower Bridge? Greenwich? Greenwich! I know where you're going..!". Except that when he's saying all this, they're already standing in Greenwich. Yeah you're right, I'm sure no-one else will have noticed...
Luckily, the film is just enough fun to paper over the cracks caused by the amount of sense it doesn't make. Just. That said, it's not as likeable as its predecessor and doesn't carry the goodwill it seems to think it can coast on. In the best showbiz tradition, Now You See Me 2 is fairly entertaining but utterly disposable. The second time this year I've been underwhelmed by Four Horsemen.
After the faux-moralistic, climactic showdown, perhaps the most ambitious trick the film attempts is in its final moments where Morgan Freeman's Thaddeus tries to convince the Horsemen (and by extension, the audience) that they've been through something meaningful.
But by that point, we've all seen behind the curtain and realised there was nothing there, after all...
Level 1: Although it's a very low-key link, Shina Shihoko Nagai and Attila G. Kerekes have a small roles in this movie, as well as the upcoming Star Wars: Rogue One.
*1 And before I get started (unless you're reading this footnote after the review), I feel I should say that while I really enjoyed the first Now You See Me at the time, it's left me with a sort of cinematic itch. And not a good one. The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that I'm not really a fan of watching Magicians™. I'm fascinated by what they do and admire if immensely from a technical and performance point-of-view, but I'm one of those irritating realists who believes in Illusions™, rather than Magic™. I'll be just as gob-smacked as the next punter when the JCB (or whatever) apparently disappears, but I don't believe for a second that supernatural forces are at play. And since it's the actual job of the Magician™ to resolutely not explain how they've achieved the illusion, this ultimately leaves me more irritated than awe-struck. The more a performer plays their art down, the more smug they seem to become, somehow.
Anyway, the reason I'm raising this is that while it may be a fantastic experience to watch this stuff in a live environment (or even a recording which was made in one), using it as the basis for a film is completely pointless. Moreover, this would still apply even if the core team were actual illusionists, rather than actors-playing-illusionists. You can already do anything in a film, it's called film-making. If you're the kind of viewer who oohs-and-aahs at Jesse Eisenberg making the rain go up (even though that trick is explained in the film), you're probably going to shit yourself when you watch Age of Ultron. If the line between movie-real and audience-real is sometimes fuzzy, Now You See Me is the cinematic equivalent of Gaussian Blur…
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.
'From the guy who brought you Bridesmaids' boasts the poster for Judd Apatow's Trainwreck. Well firstly, he was only a producer on the movie, which (generally) is like attributing the production of your main course to the waiter who brings it to your table. Secondly, he's also "the guy" who brought us This is 40 and The Five-Year Engagement, so let's not get too fucking excited, eh?
Okay, perhaps that's overly cautious for the producer whose name was also on the fantastic Superbad and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but it's caution well earned for a Gross-out Comedy™ which also clambers over commitment, bereavement and self-confidence in its quest for a workable resolution. Like the weakest of Apatow's films, Trainwreck rarely feels like more than a collection of assembled sketches. Frequently very funny and occasionally very charming sketches, but in need of another draft, stronger narrative direction and an editor who's not afraid to trim the edges. It could really do with being about 20 minutes shorter, but in its current form that would do more harm than good.
That's not to say the film isn't amiable enough (no pun intended, because…), and Amy Schumer is the best of a very good cast, here. But the piñata of emotionally affecting comedy remains just out of reach, to the point where Trainwreck spends most of its second-act wishing it was Chasing Amy. Chasing Chasing Amy, if you will. The story's main dynamic, the relationship between Amy and Bill Hader's Aaron, isn't given enough attention to feel convincing, and the sub-plot with her care-home-ridden father feels tacked on, too, trying to inject some pathos to punctuate the laugher; except the laughter is already sporadic enough that it's not needed.
The committment-issues which should be the heart of the film remain unexplored, like the screenplay doesn't have the guts to wade any more than ankle-deep into those waters, and doesn't have the cojones to make Amy as 'out-of-control' as she's meant to be.
1) Worryingly, this is yet another studio-comedy where the only person who needs (or indeed seems) to 'change' for the final act is the lead female character; because being an interesting, funny and non-threateningly-attractive woman simply isn't good enough when you can stop having fun and be a bad cheerleader. All she needed was the right man to show her how wrong she'd been.
2) Distressingly, this is the character that Amy Schumer wrote for herself (even Apatow can't shoulder that one). And it's a shame, because Schumer's on great form in this movie with not enough to do.
It's faintly ironic that Amy's character Amy spends the film trying too hard to be something she's not. That's sort of the point of the movie, but at the same time you wonder if the lesson has been lost on those who need it most.
Certainly not the disaster the title jokingly implies, but it's definitely 'two lanes cordoned off and enforced speed restrictions'. Trainwreck isn't the vehicle for Amy.
That said, it's full of dick-jokes; you'll probably like it.
It's worth seeing, but it's not worth top-dollar. Cheap-Tuesday perhaps?
You won't get more than two or three watches out of it, so a rental will suffice.
Everyone's on great form here, they just don't have enough content to fill the run-time.
Oh, and why is Matthew Broderick in it as himself?
Is this part of a running gag that was cut at every other scene?
Sadly, not as much as it'd like.
Not as much as I'd like, either.
Not really.
There isn't.
Amy Schumer appeared in Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, a film which starred Keira 'Sabé Knightley.
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.
Imagine, if you will, a film with the zany kookiness of Zoe Kazan's very own Ruby Sparks, the smug tweeness of Richard Curtis' About Time and the beautifully inappropriate supporting characters of Kevin Smith's Mallrats. Imagine how, even though those are three fantastic films there, it'd be difficult to mesh those sensibilities together convincingly. Imagine how painstaking it would be to cast well, how tricky it would be to script, and how delicately it would have to be directed.
And keep imagining it, because that film hasn't been perfected yet.
Michael Dowse's vision of Elan Mastai's screenplay is an ungainly beast, trying to cover too many target-demographics at once and lurching all over the place as a result. It's not a film without any warmth or charm, but much like my fourth-year school timetable, the leading couple have absolutely no chemistry.
Zoe Kazan is great value as the other-worldly Chantry, a hipster animator living and working in Toronto, but Daniel Radcliffe fails to convince as her would-be suitor Wallace, and seems to be channelling the bumbling awkwardness of Hugh Grant, but with more bumbling and total awkwardness. Which is bizarre in and of itself, as the film's end-credits feature a series of Instagram-style photos of the pair taken during the making of the film, and they look like they're having a great time; if only that intensity had translated into their performances. Radcliffe seems completely ill-at-ease in the romantic comedy genre, and I don't think that's just his characterisation, sadly. Despite Kazan's best efforts, you get the feeling that these two are will only end up together by default, rather than design.
Elsewhere, Rafe Spall's character of 'A-hole Boyfriend™' is all over the shop; as inconsistent as his transatlantic accent. Also falling into this rut is Adam Driver as 'Best Buddy, With Hopeless Advice™', who spends equal amounts of time supporting and abusing his friend, Wallace. Chantry's sister, Dalia seems to have been drafted in from some chick-flick (as do the rest of her kooky friends who have their personalities summarised by the glasses they wear), and there's a cul-de-sac of a sub-plot with Wallace's sister, Ellie, a single-mum who appears for two scenes as if she's been written in more.
But despite my grumbling, What If isn't a total misfire, it's just nowhere near as captivating and heart-warming as it thinks it is. There's a very good film in there somewhere, but it's weighed down by all the baggage it's carrying.
Well, the trailer's as laboured and awkward as the film, so…
Not really.
Not really.
It'd make a good date-movie, and it's far less demanding than it thinks it is.
Nope.
At some point, but it'll be for Kazan, not Radcliffe.
There isn't.
It's easy for me to pick apart Radcliffe's unsuitability for this role (really, it is), but who'd have made a better leading man?
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.
As a ghost story, The Woman in Black is a bloody solid hour and a half of entertainment. As a horror film, it's held back by the fact that it's a Cert 12A, and that it falls into a very familiar trap in no time at all...
Sub GhostStoryIn2012MustHaveHorrorElements()
Dim Mins as Time For Mins = 0 to 95 Mins = Mins + 5
Activate full colour palette Init Plot Exposition Activate desaturated colour palette Init Quiet Init Quiet Init Quiet Init "LOUD NOISE" and "FACE CLOSE-UP" Next Mins
Init Credits End Sub
The Plot: Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is a young London-based solictor sent to Yorkshire to deal with the estate of a deceased client who has left no relatives. When he arrives in the small coastal village of Crythin Gifford, the superstitious locals are on full alert, and a series of untimely deaths do nothing to lighten their mood. Kipps skepticism and nerve are both put to the test as he determines to unravel the mystery of The Woman In Black...
The The Good: What I said back at the start; It's a good ghost story. Formulaic? Sure. But it's a Hammer production of a 1983 novel which is an Edwardian (ish) ghost story, so there's not exactly a lot of new ground to cover. The plot unfolds at a leisurely pace (for the most part), with the major exposition points teased out nicely. The sets and costumes all appear to be in good order (to my untrained eye), although there's a surprising range of accents to be found in such an isolated village.
The Bad: I can't deny that there is suspense in this film, and that there are jumps. But that's largely because the audience is beaten so solidly over the head with them. If no-one's speaking and the music stops, it's like a red flag goes up telegraphing the imminent jump. The best shots are the ones where the ghost(s) are standing innocuously in the background as the camera sweeps past, unseen by the characters on-screen. There are a few of those shots, but not enough to build the suspense that way. This film would be so much better if it had stuck to creepy until the finalé, because that's when it's interesting. That said, the toys in the nursery are a bit overkill. We know they're sinister, Daniel, you don't have to set them all off at once...
The Ugly: On a personal note, I could have done without the final scene (not what happens at the end, just literally the final scene). It seemed a little saccharine for my taste and robbed the film of an end in keeping with the story. It didn't ruin the film for me, I just don't get why it's there.
Worth a punt? For me? Yes. I like the traditional structure and feel of it, which is sorely lacking from most contemporary horror. I'd have preferred more of a focus on 'the victims', but the movie would be outside of its 12A bracket then. Not that that should matter when you're trying to market this type of thing.
It's good, but there are seeds of greatness in there...
It's a 12A. Take your kid, it'll freak them the fuck out and set the bar at a decent level for ghost stories! ;)
Quick question for those who've seen it: The train at the end... there's only one line running through the village, so why does the next train arrive so quickly after the first? Just a thought.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
*1
