Midway Cert: 12A / 138 mins / Dir. Roland Emmerich / Trailer
"War", as George O'Dowd once sang, "is stupid". Not to let this lie, he further opined"and people are stupid". Now, a mere thirty five years later, Roland Emmerich has refined, combined and underlined those points with merciless efficiency in his new offering, Midway.
If you've ever wonder what the grubby-end of a brutal and complicated global conflict would look like when filtered through the brain which brought us twoIndependence Daymovies and White House Down, you're in luck. Although if you have ever wondered that, you already know exactly what it would be like before you sit down. God help up all.
PEARL Ostensibly telling the True Story™ of the eponymous 1942 battle which turned the tide for the Allies after the Pearl Harbour attack, Midway is exactly what you'd expect from a movie whose gritty, blue-collar, All-American reluctant hero is literally named Dick Best*1. And that accolade works both for and against the film, depending on your pre-existing view of these things. This is a war movie, and it looks, acts and smells like a war movie. The smell, in fact, is palpable.
Credit where it's due, the many adrenaline-fuelled aerial combat scenes in Midway are absolutely outstanding, although they're coincidentally the ones where the cast do the least amount of talking. The film's script - laughably mechanical, its delivery often moreso - appears to have been assembled using the most textbook lines from the corniest war flicks by a team of 15yr old Call Of Duty enthusiasts, one of whom has an older brother "in the army". To think that this is in any way a serious tribute to those who died during the Second World War rather than an emotionally clichéd, thinly-veiled disaster epic would be to walk straight into the trap of its mid-November release date.
HOWARD The whole thing appears to be anchored to enough historical fact to prevent it being a complete waste of time, but what a way to manhandle the truth. That said, I couldn't hate Midway because it is what it is and that's a Roland Emmerich movie. But it's very clearly - and very cynically - aimed at a particular type of audience, and in that regard I must concede that it succeeds fairly well*2. But rest assured, this is far closer to the flag-waving of Battleship than the reflection of They Shall Not Grow Old.
Approach with extreme caution.
Banging a tin tray on your head for just over two hours.
For the combat scenes, yes.
Everything there is to love about this movie is on a big screen, so no.
It is not.
That's incredibly likely.
Inexplicably not.
Level 1: Tobias Beckett is in this.
I mean let's not get excited, Tobias Beckett was in Venom...
*1 And let me stop you right there. Yes, thanks to the helpful caption-cards acting as the film's inevitable coda, I know that "Richard 'Dick' Best" is the actual pilot's actual name. I can also clearly envision Roland Emmerich sitting in a room learning that nugget of information and yelling "Lads! Lads! This film is fucking writing ITSELF!!!".
Dick Best.
Dick. Best.
The fact that it's true somehow makes it much, much worse. It's perhaps notable that the gentleman's wikipedia page makes one solitary mention of his informal nickname. Which is to say that the film could have just called him Rick or Richard, but didn't. There is so much testosterone in this movie that our cinema gave it a half-time intermission so it could go out for a shave. Adding insult to injury is that Best is played by Ed Skrein, an over-acting live-action cartoon of a performer who at least has finally found his natural habitat under Emmerich's auspices.
*2 Yes, I'm aware that this sounds incredibly snobby, but in my defence I am an incredible snob... [ 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.
Deadpool (third-pass)
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Tim Miller / Trailer
Deadpool is a success. The fact that I adore the film (even with its faults) has already been committed to the aether here and here, but it's fairly safe to say that with an IMDB score of 8.5, Metacritic's 8.5 and Rotten Tomatoes scores of 84% and 94% for critics and audiences respectively, it's been generally accepted as A Very Good Thing Indeed.
And so it has begun. The frantic scrabbling by the movie-studios and rights-owners to replicate the critical and commercial success of Deadpool*1. DC have brought Batman's standalone flick forward (although to be fair, this is also partially due to their uncertainty surrounding the upcoming Dawn Of Justice), Fox themselves have suddenly decided that the next needs to be R-rated (roughly equivalent to a 15 in the UK). And that's not even accounting for the slew of indie-clones which will surface on the bargain-shelves in no time at all. A hyper-sweary, hyper-violent comic-book movie from a major studio will change not only how the cinema-going public watches superheroes, but also the superheroes they're given to watch.
Whether he'll be a saviour or a destroyer, Deadpool is a game-changer.
And as Guardians Of The Galaxy director James Gunn has already noted, this reactive attempt to ape the film's success will probably harm the genre far more than it will reinvigorate it. Writing-teams and studio-heads alike are now looking for the magic new ingredient that made Deadpool stand out. Was it the dry, self-referential humour? No, Guardians and Iron Man have that in spades. Was it an established fan-favourite character who nevertheless isn't beholden to a fifty year legacy of back-story interpretation? No, again Guardians of the Galaxy. Maybe it was the gleeful and wanton violence combined with self-aware analysis of the genre? No, Kick-Ass already went there back in 2010. Was it Ryan Reynolds, after all? With the best will in the world, no. It was the surprise. Not necessarily the audience's surprise - comic-book fans had been expecting great things anyway. More the surprise of an industry that a mainstream superhero flick with a character largely unknown to mainstream audiences could be so well received, especially when it's packed with the sort of content that makes the MPAA generally nervous. But it has been well received, with a sequel being green-lit before the movie even landed properly in theatres.
And it's this sequel which will carry the burden of expectation. After last year's Fantastic Four debacle, no-one would have batted an eyelid if Deadpool had failed to set the world on fire, but suddenly the bar has been raised. Fox are going to have to work far harder to top what they've given us this time if they're going to keep the goodwill of audiences and critics (exhibit a: the fantastic Kick-Ass vs the frustratingly derivative Kick-Ass 2, which recycled everything from its predecessor and brought nothing new to the table). 'More of the same' just won't do; although I expect the writing team capable of bringing us Deadpool in the first place to already be smart enough to know that. The real danger for the sequel will be studio-interference, as boxes are ticked and demographics are catered for.
The important thing to remember is that Deadpool wasn't successful solely because it had that R-rating. Sure, this particular film needs the rating to be what it is, but this worked because it's a great movie. Great movies (generally) succeed. The skill of the writers, performers and production and editing crews combined to made a great movie that (mostly) everyone enjoyed. Which is, generally speaking, the aim of everyone involved in the production anyway. And while it was fun to see severed limbs and heads flying away from torsos in this movie, what defined it more was the laughs that accompanied the whole thing. Comedy is way more subjective than action, so far harder to 'get right'. The occasional humour of the X-Men movies has always been patchy at best, so as Fox rush to make Wolverine's next outing "darker and edgier", they'd be wise to remember that while Batman benefited from this approach, Punisher and Ghost Rider certainly didn't.
Ultimately, the Deadpool wins because it was only ever trying to succeed on its own terms. And not giving a fuck was pretty high on that list of terms. This film had little to prove. Deadpool 2 on the other hand, could be a different matter entirely…
Superhero things, swearing, shooting.
Yes, indeed.
Yes, indeed.
Could well be.
Yes, indeed.
Y'know what? I actually don't think there is.
Level 2: Deadpool stars Morena Baccarin, who appeared in Spy, as did Rose 'Dormé' Byrne.
*1 Although not, from what I can see, by Marvel Studios themselves. As an established and successful franchise, the Marvel Cinematic Universe (ie the Avengers timeline) doesn't really need to chase fans at this point, and the Disney-ownership with its associated merchandising knows that nothing will be gained by suddenly having the heroes running around swearing (although this in itself was also highlighted to humorous effect in Age Of Ultron, where Captain America berated Iron Man over his potty-mouth).
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.
Deadpool (second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Tim Miller / Trailer
An interesting second-pass for 20th Century Fox's Deadpool, as it's a movie I scored full-marks initially yet didn't get a whole lot more out of when I re-watched it. That's not to say I enjoyed it less in any way, but other than a stronger grasp of the mechanics of Wade Wilson's superhero-transformation (more on that later), the movie holds that instant-classic feel of comforting repetition, rather than a film which is going to unfurl new secrets each time you watch it. In many ways it makes a nice change to not be bludgeoned over the head with Too Much Activity Obscuring The Plot Points™, but short of sequel ret-cons or back-referencing, it means that Deadpool has said pretty much all it has to say the first time you sit waiting for the end-of-credits scene.
And as much as I love this movie (I do, despite the picking apart I'm about to embark upon), it was this second-pass which highlighted a few of the cracks that were masked by the film's novelty the first time around. Whether Sunday night's audience just weren't as hyped as Wednesday's, the laughter wasn't as vociferous and the 'laugh-gaps' in the film become more apparent. The same can also be said of the classic-jukebox soundtrack, much of which is listened to in-movie resulting in a pretty firm nod towards Guardians of the Galaxy that also cuts down slightly on the cost of scoring the film. I'd been a little unclear on Wade's transformation, too, until a re-watch confirmed that yes, they basically just inject him with an accelerant then torture him until his mutant DNA kicks in. We aren't shown any scanning for traces of mutant DNA before that, so is it safe to assume that everyone has it, to some extent? So this process could apply to pretty much everybody? Really? Okay then.
The thing which really stuck out however, was what a sub-par villain Ed Skrein's Ajax (aka Francis) is. Not withstanding the fact that The Transporter Refuelled" is still making me be sick in my own mouth, the role itself seems to have been hastily sketched in at the last moment, never mind Skrein's inability to do much interesting with it. Don't get me wrong, he'd make a more than passable henchman (this portrayal and the actor), but he's just not boss-material here. Although is he more cringe-inducing than The Wolverine's Viper? Well of course not.
No, this movie is Deadpool's show in name and in spirit, and if that means eclipsing almost everybody else on-screen, then we should have been expecting that anyway, right? The movie has scored the goal which Marvel missed with Punisher and Ghost Rider, and made a fun, exciting flick for older (if not necessarily more mature) audiences. Then again, the central character is a creation of the 90s, and so isn't hampered with the baggage many heroes bring to the screen with them. Most importantly, Deadpool is a positive which more than cancels out the negative of last year's Fantastic Four reboot, but potentially sets the bar unfeasibly high for Fox's other Marvel output. Time will tell.
Superheroes appeal to us because they show us what we could be without our limitations, and dare us to aspire to that even with them.
And if we're allowed to have super-powers and still make dick-jokes all the time?
Even better…
As much as you'll scoff at this, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Yes.
Yes.
Ryan's on spectacular form, everybody else just about keeps up.
Oh, maybe a little.
I'm not hearing one.
Level 2: Deadpool features Gina Carano, who starred in Haywire alongside Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.
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.
Deadpool (Spoiler-free)
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Tim Miller / Trailer
The wait is over and like it or loathe it, Ryan Reynolds' previous outing as Wade Wilson has been well and truly scrubbed from the cinematic bathtub. With much anticipation and much promotional buzz, Deadpool lands in our cinemas with a crunch, a squelch and a scathing throwaway comment punctuated with profanities.
Yep, the red-band trailer wasn't exaggerating and the X-Men's longtime comic antagonist struts through his own movie with a potty mouth and more bloodstains than you can throw a bottle of Vanish at. The film is never exploitative, but it mixes the throwaway sass of Guardians of the Galaxy and the caustic edge of Kingsman with sociopathic glee, and it earns that 15 Certificate in no uncertain terms.
And of course Deadpool wouldn't be Deadpool without a little fourth-wall-breaking, which is undertaken regularly - if sparingly - and completely in the film's stride. There are also plethora of barbs thrown towards super-heroes generally, the X-Men franchise, the larger Marvel universe over the fence and even a couple at DC for good measure (although the Fantastic Four appear to escape a ribbing ~ maybe those wounds are still a little raw for Fox?).
But the film isn't entirely snark, it's also a ridiculous amount of fun. Visceral and adrenaline-fuelled, but fun. There are segments which are humorous and ones which are action-packed. The two tend to have a little trouble meeting in the middle ground, but whichever is being presented to the audience, the screenplay makes sure that no-one will be bored at any rate. Reynolds is fantastic with and without the mask (and with and without the scar-makeup), and is aided by a great supporting cast. Even Ed 'Transporter Re-tooled' Skrein is bearable, so the film must be doing something right.
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? See below.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? No.
• Is there a post-credits scene?Yes.
More punch than most action flicks, funnier than any comedy in recent memory and with the most down-to-earth super-powers you've seen since Cap' beat the crap out of a deck-full of mercenaries using his shield, Deadpool is utterly magnificent.
X-Men: Apocalypse really has its work cut out now, since the brazen attitude of this film makes the serious-nature of its stablemate look even more camp...
Not that I heard, but I spent a significant amount of time either guffawing, gasping or wincing.
Have you heard one in there? Lemme know in the box below ;)
Level 2: Deadpool is portrayed by Ryan Reynolds, of course, who 'played for the other team' in 2011's Green Lantern alongside Temuera 'Jango Fett' Morrison.
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.
Hang on a minute, how is 1997 now an acceptable time-point to set a 'retro' film? 1997's only just happened! Christ, I'm one of those 'young people' you see around, with their trainers and and their headphones and their internet, and I remember where I was bloody drinking in 1997! Well, for most of it, at any rate…
So, John Niven's screenplay adaptation of his 2008 novel follows Stelfox (Nicholas Hoult), an ambitious yet lazy and cynical A&R agent for a London record label, and charts his progress in a cut-throat business as well as his own monumental meltdown. Okay, it's basically Filth with a smattering of RocknRolla, not that that's an awful thing by any means. Set at the tail-end of the Britpop era in 1997, it highlights the preposterous vapidity of the mainstream music business a little too well, even in its exaggerated state. The film doesn't necessarily represent 'the truth' about the industry, but there's certainly more of 'a' truth there than many would like to admit.
The most entertaining way to deal with an immediately and inherently unlikeable protagonist is of course to offer them no redemption at all, pushing them so far through the hoops of anti-heroism that an audience can't help but enjoy watching them implode. And none more-so than here. At its heart, Kill Your Friends is every bit as grubby and exploitative as the business it claims to be lampooning, indeed that's very much the point. John Niven's ire works across the entire entertainment industry, and always has. If the film doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth, you're probably part of the game itself.
Kill Your Friends isn't lacking substance, but its style is far more overbearing. Occasionally feeling like more of an excuse for a compilation soundtrack album than for a movie, the plot reluctantly takes second-place to the parody-element; things certainly start strongly enough, but at a pace the screenplay can't maintain, sagging in the middle to the point where you know Director Owen Harris is going to have to pull something pretty special out of the bag if the finale is going to be back in-gear (which happens, to be fair). Additionally, a few of the scripted gags are telegraphed a little ("track three"), but I don't think anyone was in the auditorium for an intricate script. But even at its quietest, KYF is enjoyably detestable, and you've rarely seen a leading character fall so far while climbing so high. Hoult's leading character may be relentlessly charmless and nihilistic, but that doesn't mean the film follows suit.
Even if you only want to watch James Corden getting his face smashed fatally inward, Kill Your Friends is still worth the price of a ticket.
The DVD beckons…
Er, only if you already know it's going to be your thing.
Buy it, but wait until the price drops.
Hoult is quite fantastic here, even if he's restrained by the character he's playing.
For me? Yes.
No, but I'll ask for your detailed reasoning.
There isn't.
Kill Your Friends stars Deborah Rosen, who had a small role in Guardians Of The Galaxy, as did Peter 'the voice of Darth Maul' Serafinowicz.
[All roads lead to Darth Maul, today.]
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.
