Allegiant Cert: 12A / 121 mins / Dir. Robert Schwentke / Trailer
That time already, huh? Well, the third installment of a saga which has so far failed to delight me somewhat was never going to be an easy ride. And in that respect alone, Allegiant*1 didn't disappoint.
Too many characters, not enough development and some atrocious green-screening (for a production of this scale) puts this rushed-feeling sequel firmly into the Must Try Harder bracket, I'm afraid. Especially since the second movie showed far more promise than its predecessor. At times, Allegiant feels like an effects showreel (and not a particularly great one) with a meandering plot that makes itself up as it goes along, trundling through a repeating cycle of:
• Demonstration of unfeasible technology given the resources available;
• Exposition so heavy it has to be legally carried using mechanical equipment;
• Some 'third-act-reveal' which counters what we learned in a previous film, or sometimes just a thing which happened two scenes ago.
Sample scene:
EXT: Post-apocalyptic wasteland. Five teenagers tread warily under an ochre sky, through scorched craters and a stream flowing with red water.
The boy one: This hole looks radioactive. Or at least it was in the last two hundred years.
The girl one: ...what does that mean?
The boy one again: That someone seriously messed up the world!
…that the above exchange made it not only through the drafting process but also shooting and editing suggests that this film has been written as part of someone's GCSE coursework. Although not a GCSE in screenwriting, I'm guessing.
On the acting front, Theo James furrows his brow to the point where you could grow carrots in there, while Shailene Woodley spends the film looking bored and bemused in turn, often opposite Jeff Daniels phoning in one of his most lacklustre performances to date. Meanwhile, young Miles Teller is clearly using the film as an extended audition-tape for his much-vaunted stab at the young Han Solo, and every arched eyebrow and cocky retort demonstrates why he should be kept as far away from the role as possible.
Despite my grumbling, Allegiant isn't an awful film; it's just 'a bit crap', which given its position and platform, is probably even worse. At times it feels like the Children's Film Foundation doing a Saturday Night Live skit of Logan's Run.
Let's be honest, unless you've already got the first two chapters of this saga sitting proudly on your movie-shelf, you don't have to rush out to see this third one. And as I write this ten days after the film's initial release, chances are you probably already have or won't.
…the first two?
As above, you probably already have or never will.
I'd say not, but then it's not really aimed at me.
It's not even the best work of its own series.
Y'know what? I just might ;)
There isn't.
What, other than "Miles Teller wants to play Han Solo and I don't want that"..?
Level 2: Naomi Watts is in this and she was in The Impossible with 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.
Erm okay, why does Steve Jobs wash his feet in a dressing-room toilet? Is this an in-joke or reference to something I'm meant to know already? Because it's not explained either before or after, and Michael Fassbender's portrayal displays no more such eccentric (physical) behaviour for the rest of the movie. Steve's borderline-sociopathic interaction with his colleagues was already doing a fine job of painting him as a weirdo, I really didn't need that, too...
And so, the Aaron Sorkin/Danny Boyle collaboration comes to fruition in a three-act play which takes place entirely behind the scenery. Each segment focuses on the run-up to a key Apple keynote presentation (1984's Macintosh, 1988's Next and 1998's iMac) and the drama which preceded each one. Enough detail and context is deftly built into the script that little-to-no prior knowledge of the products or corporation is needed, because Boyle's is a film about dysfunctional people - not malfunctioning hardware.
Intriguingly cast with more-than-capable players, the people they're playing are perhaps less recognisable. So you never really feel like you're watching Steve Jobs; you're watching Michael Fassbender. But like I said, the main cast of young Michael, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen and Jeff Daniels all give great value for money. That said, I especially enjoyed Rogen, who seems to have switched from comedic gear into dramatic by not changing his screen-personality one single jot (that's not a sarcastic criticism by the way, I genuinely love that he's done that).
Oh, and bonus points go to Michael Fassbender for maintaining his accent throughout every scene in the film's two hours (I'm on his case as far as that's concerned, as he has significant previous form). Although those points are instantly deducted for Kate Winslet's vocal stylings. After going on-record to explain her research and rehearsal of Joanna Hoffman's accent, she then doesn't use it for an entire act of the film, instead opting for a standard mid-western American tone. Which would be fine, except that it's for the first act, so we're apparently to believe that Hoffman lost her unique Polish/Armenian/US accent for 1984, but then found it again? It wouldn't even matter if Winslet didn't go on to make such a great job of it for the other two thirds of the film. You just think '…why's she started talking like that?'
Aaron Sorkin's script is bitingly funny when it needs to be, but always in a very dry, self-congratulatory way. The main focus, though, is on the human drama, yet as heated as the dialogue becomes, there's still an overall lack of emotion on-screen; like a painstakingly programmed simulation of angst, designed as some sort of reverse Turing-test. Ultimately, I have to confess that after two hours in his company, I didn't actually like Steve Jobs any more or less. I knew a lot more about him (or at least the facet presented through the film), but I was as emotionally non-committal as I was when I sat down. And while I'm not an Apple-fanboy at all, I do use their products on a daily basis, so it's not like I had no interest going in.
The theatrical settings and repeated themes make the movements of the Steve Jobs more symphonic than cinematic. It's is an incredibly well-assembled film, but one which left me as cold as we're meant to believe the man himself was in his human interactions.
That could be the very point, but I doubt it…
Well, I think the film will feel far more focused on a cinema screen, even though it's not inherently cinematic.
Rental.
I don't believe so.
Probably.
Probably not.
Definitely not.
Michael Fassbender will be reprising his role as young Magneto in next year's X-Men: Apocalypse, a film which stars (or the voice of, at least) Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac.
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.
The Martian (3D / thematic spoilers)
Cert: 12A / 141 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott / Trailer
Seriously Hollywood, can you just stop putting Sean Bean in films? You're only encouraging him. Now, The Martian represents great value for money to your average cinema-goer as a) It's almost two and a half-hours long, and b) It's pretty much two films rolled into one. There's the survival-thriller about an unintentionally abandoned explorer, left to fend for himself in a hostile environment which will kill him without a second thought, and then there's the heart-wrenching, rescue-mission, adventure, in which morality and plucky idealism come head to head with practical limitations and financial bureaucracy. I'll leave it up to you to guess which of these wins the battle for screentime…
Credit where it's deservedly due, The Martian is a visually gorgeous film, and to make a pleasant change, the 3D only makes the dusty, ochre landscapes of our celestial neighbour look even more welcoming*1. It just goes to show that 3D can be used well in live-action; it's just usually not. The settings of a desolate planet and semi-claustrophobic space vessel also allow Ridley Scott to retread some of the steps he took in Alien, although as cinematographer Dariusz Wolski was also Scott's DoP on Prometheus, you get the impression that it was an intentional group-decision rather than a subconscious one.
The film itself? Well, as I've intimated, I found it more of a mixed bag. Matt Damon is pretty great and carries the role in a stoically self-deprecating way. The crew of his (ex-)ship, The Hermes, give everything they can, given their limited screentime. Jessica Chastain gets to do most of the lifting (and does it well, as always), but Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, Michael Peña and Askel Hennie are little more than pencilled in, with the focus falling more on the Earth-bound NASA team charged with formulating an efficient exit-strategy for their stranded astronaut.
And the only real problem I had with the film is that far too much of its time is spent on Earth watching Chiwetel Ejiofor and Jeff Daniels bicker about public relations, while Kristen Wiig and Mackenzie Davis pull concerned faces, and Donald Glover gets to be the clichéd, unconventional, "I've got a crazy idea… but it just might work!" guy who finally unveils a plan which should have been the first thing they thought of.
Short version: Anything which takes place on Mars or in space is awesome. Anything which takes place on Earth is an embarrassing mess full of mis-cast roles and hackneyed dialogue. The more the second one comes into play, the more loudly the wheels of the screenplay squeak. And to be fair, this could be the exact state of affairs in the book, but I wouldn't know as I haven't read it yet*2.
Vaguely spoilery question, highlight-to-read:Speaking of the book, can anyone who's read it tell me if Mark's burning of Martinez's crucifix in order to release the energy required to create life-giving water is covered in any more depth? Obviously the context is given fully in the film, but I thought this might have raised a question on the comfort of religion versus the facts of science, similar to Elixabeth Shaw's quandary in Prometheus. Then it's just never mentioned again.
Back on Mars, there's also the question of gravity. Occasionally, the exterior shots have been filmed in a higher frame-rate and then slowed down to standard to simulate the lower gravity (slower-falling objects, dus-plumes etc). But only very occasionally. The rest of the time, Mark's just padding around (indoors and out) as if the g-ratio is the same as Earth's. When it's not. Which is odd in itself, because quite a lot of work's gone into the zero-g effects onboard the The Hermes. As much as the film loves talking about science, it has a real problem showing it.
Astronaut Watney's mental health is also an issue which seems to be deftly avoided by the film. While his semi-emaciated form appears after months of surviving on dwindling rations, the extent of his inevitable breakdown is characterised only be him referring to himself as A Space Pirate, in a typically glib manner. I know I made pretty much the opposite point for Sandra Bullock's unstable character in Gravity, but in order for Watney to be so rational and upbeat after 300+ days alone on a world which is trying to kill him, he'd have to be unhinged to begin with. Obviously the mental strength and agility of potential astronauts is tested and measured before they get anywhere near a spacecraft, but we learn nothing of Watney's life on Earth, other than the fact that he has parents (…). No bar is set by which the audience can measure his stability, it's all just taken as read that he doesn't turn into a psychopath after a month without human contact.
Ultimately, Ridley Scott seems fascinated by the mechanics of survival on a hostile planet, but less interested in the isolation and insanity which would go hand-in-hand with it.
Watch The Martian for the visuals, and leave the existentialism to Interstellar…
Oh, and as if they would live-broadcast the rescue-mission on TV so that the world could potentially either hear the astronauts dying, or get really annoyed when NASA cut off the audio-feed of the astronauts dying…
For the spectacle, yes.
You're probably not going to watch it more than a couple of times, so a rental.
Matt Damon comes out of this very well, as do the crew of The Hermes.
Everyone on Earth, though..?
In terms of story, I couldn't tell you.
In terms of tension, sometimes.
In terms of visuals, yes.
Nope.
There isn't.
So let me get this straight: You can include a direct Lord Of The Rings reference in the screenplay (in one of Sean Bean's scenes, no less), and an Iron Man reference elsewhere, but no love for the GFFA..?
Okay, The Martian stars Jeff Daniels as the largely unconvincing Head Of NASA™, but in 1981, Jeff appeared in a movie called Ragtime, which also featured the late, great Bruce Boa; better known to audiences either as The Waldorf Salad Guy from Fawlty Towers, or General Rieekan in The Empire Strikes Back.
Shorter version:The Martian is basically a longer and more measured take on this…
*1 Seriously, we've got a pretty good idea of it now, and if that is what Mars looks like, I want to go. Granted, I want to go largely because it looks so much like Tatooine, but even so. Anyway, I'll be the guy standing atop the rock formations, making barking noises and waving a gaderffii stick…
*2 No really, I've barely got time to read all the 'Journey To The Force Awakens' material which is coming out before December 17th. I certainly don't have time to read standalone novels when I can just watch a movie of it in two and a half hours...
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.
Dumb And Dumber To Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. Peter Farrelly & Bobby Farrelly
Ah, 1994. It seems like only weeks ago that my best friend and I sat in the front row of Canterbury ABC cinema watching Dumb And Dumber, each working our way steadily through a bottle of wine*1, and laughing uproariously along to Jim Carrey at the height of his game. I had a coffee this evening, and I didn't laugh quite that much. Perhaps this is a lesson.
Set twenty years after the events of the first movie, Dumb And Dumber To sees our heroes reunited and embarking on a road-trip to track down Harry's recently discovered long-lost daughter, Penny; so that Harry can try and convince her to be a kidney donor for him, and so that Lloyd can woo her into marrying him. All they have to do is meet up with Penny at the KEN science expo in El Paso where she's due to give a speech on behalf of her genius adoptive-father. What could possibly go wrong?
With the hapless pair taking a cross-country trip to seek out an attractive young woman whilst becoming embroiled in a botched crime-caper, the film is a thoroughly shameless rehash of what's gone before. It's carried off, for the most part, by the chemistry between Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey, and they still play the physical gags to perfection after all these years. Sadly, even these two are frequently derailed by a script which is still in its second-draft, peppered with verbal jokes which don't quite work for the characters delivering them, and even a few toe-curling callbacks to the 1994 original*2.
All in all the film sort-of-works, coasting largely on the charm of having Harry and Lloyd back together. But this is a film that the Farrelly brothers should have put out in the late 1990's, when a lot of its more off-colour humour and naivety could have been forgiven by being caught up in the whirlwind of delivering an anticipated sequel. Sadly, this isn't the case in 2014; this film didn't need to be made*3. That is was is a testament to the continued bankability of Carrey, Daniels and the Farrellys, but while it's certainly nothing to be ashamed of, I doubt the film will be headlining many of the cast's CVs in the near future.
Extra points though, for a Hot Fuzz-level cameo by Bill Murray.
For all my moaning and over-analysis though, I rather enjoyed Dumb And Dumber To. It's certainly got a higher hit-rate than certain othercomedies this year, and as transparently unnecessary as it is, the film comes from a far less cynical place than its stablemates.
But I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be improved by a bottle of wine…
Well, it sets the tone, certainly.
Mostly, although not always as much as I should have, I suspect.
Didn't hear one, but the volume in Screen Four was set to Deafening™ this evening, and there are a couple of scenes where I may have missed one. I'll go with no, though.
Can we stop putting Rob Riggle in things now, though? He's not as good as he seems to think he is...
*1 They were more innocent times. Well, they were times when cinema staff were less inclined to search customers on the way into the auditorium, certainly.
*2 Basically just Jim Carrey saying a few key phrases from the first film, occasionally, with very little reason or context; the most basic and insulting type of callback.
*3 The most worrying moment is the film's end credits which feature side-by-side clips of the first film and the one you've just watched, essentially reminding you of how fantastic Dumb And Dumber was and also that you haven't enjoyed this one quite as much. Or in the case of many critics, anywhere near as much, apparently.
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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Looper (Huge Spoilers. Seriously.)
118 mins / Dir. Rian Johnson
Okay. You've had three weeks to see it, so I'm going to dish out the spoilers. You won't really get the rest of this post unless you've seen the film, and it'll ruin it if you haven't. There's a spoiler-free review of Looper here. All good? Splendid...
The Premise: 2044. Time travel hasn't been invented yet, but in 30 years, it will be. It will be instantly outlawed, and only used by the mob seeking to eliminate their enemies. As bodies are almost impossible to dispose of in 2074 (due to bio-tagging, etc, apparently), mobsters will zap their enemies back in time to pre-arranged locations and specialised assassins known as Loopers kill them the second they arrive. Tied, hooded and with blocks of silver strapped to their backs as payment for the Looper, they're despatched, relieved of their loot, and unceremoniously incinerated. The mob's enemy disappears in 2074, and a body is destroyed in 2044 that no-one's looking for as it doesn't exist, legally. Part of the deal with the assassins is a special clause written into their contract: that at some point, the mob will send back the Looper's future self (should they live that long) for termination. This avoids the loose ends that the gangsters don't need, and is known as 'closing your Loop'. Your future self will arrive with a bumper payment on his back (which you don't see until after you've killed him), and once that's cashed, you're released from your contract - free to enjoy your retirement over the next 30 years. Easy.
The Short Actuality: The five year old boy, Cid, is Joe as a child (Joe A). He witnesses his mother being killed by Bruce Willis (Joe C), when Joseph Gordon Levitt (Joe B) fails to stop him. This action sets Joe A (the child) on the disturbed, criminal path to become Joe B (the Looper), Joe C (the redeemer) and eventually Joe D (the Rainmaker). All of these lives intertwine to perpetuate themselves over the time between 2044 and 2074 until Joe B realises it can be stopped by him sacrificing himself at the point of his mother's murder.
Question One:Why send Loopers back to their young selves? This informs the assassin that they actually live for the next 30 years, and effectively makes them immortal in their own eyes. Any change to this (death by recklessness, excessive partying etc) would create a paradox and alter the timeline. By Abe's own admission, altering the future unnecessarily is not something they want to do. Surely a neater solution would be to send Looper One back to be disposed of by Looper Two etc, and keep it as anonymous and lowly-paid as the other killings? No paranoia, no paradoxes.
Question Two:If bodies are so difficult to dispose of in the future, how are the wide-hatted goon squad going to dispose of Bruce Willis's wife in 2074? They arrive to get Willis with handguns which they can't reasonably be expected to use by virtue of their very presence. Once they've clumsily slotted her, why don't they send her body back with him in the time machine? Which leads me to…
Question Three:Why send live targets back at all? Why not kill them in the barn in 2074 and zap the dead bodies back for disposal? We know non-live matter can be transported as the targets all arrive wearing clothes and packs of silver and/or gold. Killing people isn't the problem in 2074, only disposing of the bodies, and it'd be a lot less risky to do business this way.
Question Four:Isn't anyone else a little concerned by the fact that Joe has sex with his own mum? I mean, it's not like he becomes his own father or anything paradoxical like that, but if anything that just makes the whole situation pointless and even more weird. I know Cid claims Sara isn't his mother, but the kid's disturbed, five years old, and Sara's got a far more convincing account of events. His own mum.
Questions one to three, you can take your time with, but someone needs to look at question four sharpish.
Time is of the essence.
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.
