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.
Insurgent (3D)
Cert: 12A / 119 mins / Dir. Robert Schwentke / Trailer
It should really go without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that Insurgent*1 is a sequel to Divergent in a very real and direct sense, picking up swiftly from its predecessor with very little in the way of catch-up. And I do have to admire the film for this; Insurgent knows its audience, and plays to them and them alone*2.
That said, of course, aside from a switch of director and a haircut*3 we're largely on the same turf as last time, with the film carrying on the modus operandi of two hours of teenage petulance and foot-stamping, while Shailene Woodley's squeaky voice sends the residents of the nearest dogs home into absolute meltdown. The haircut, incidentally, is self-administered at the top of the film's first act, to give Tris a more practical look and stop press articles using promo shots from the first film. Actually, characters in films seem suspiciously adept at cutting their own hair (cf Blue Ruin), especially when they're going from a style that's clearly taken years to grow, into a short bob or a crop. I only mention this because there's a lady in my office who regularly cuts her own fringe, yet more often than not it looks like she's done it in the dark. Ah, well.
Insurgent is certainly a more focussed film than the first one*4, necessitated by the urgency of the plot, but I still found the protagonists too annoying to want them to succeed. Which is a pretty major obstacle when you're trying to like a film. In addition to this, the villains are every bit as moustache-twirlingly overblown as they were before, with perhaps the most embarrassing being Jai Courtney's scenes as he chews every last bit of scenery he can get his jaws on. It seems sad the think that Die Hard 5 can be the highlight of anyone's CV as Jai hams things up almost as much as Kate Winslet, who's convinced that she's the villain in an animated Disney movie. But at least it looks like Kate's enjoying herself.
And then, just when my mind was really starting to wander, the film's third-act is interesting. Nicely structured, boldly actualised and really interesting. Tris undergoes a series of simulation-trials based around the traits of the five factions*5, and it's like we're watching a different film. Okay, the sequence certainly needs the film-and-a-half beforehand to set it up, and it's faintly reminiscent of the Resident Evil movies, and the ending seems to share a lot with the ending The Maze Runner pulled with only one film, but - most importantly - it's left me wanting to see the next movie. And I'm fairly certain that's the point.
A hesitant step for the Divergent series, Insurgent is a step forward nonetheless. The film knows its strengths, but can't seem to let go of the things weighing it down. I can't say it had much of an impact on me (again), but I don't think the '41yr old men' presentation took up much time at the Summit Entertainment's demographic meetings. I look forward to 'Newsagent' if only because at this pace, I'll be able to rate it "pretty good".*6
…and I can't be the only one who was waiting for hooks and chains to spring out of the box, can I?
If you're an existing fan, yes.
If you're not bolting out the door to the cinema then you can probably wait for this to be on cable/Netflix. If anything, it'd be ideal to watch back-to-back with the first film.
In no way, shape or form.
Oh, probably.
Not really.
There isn't, yet there are plenty of shots of people falling off things. MUST. TRY. HARDER..
Insurgent's pantomime-villain Kate Winslet performed voice-acting in 2006's Flushed Away as did Andy Serkis, he of the as-yet-unspecified role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
*1 And it's all very well Summit Entertainment registering the film as the standalone 'Insurgent'at the BBFC, but most cinema chains appear to be promoting it with the cumbersome moniker 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent', in a move that either has little-to-no faith in the strength of the brand, or little-to-no faith in the intelligence of the audience. They may as well have tagged it 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent - you know, the one with Thingy Woodley in it from last time. Like a knock-off Hunger Games with slightly less to say about society, but more jumping off things. You quite liked it, remember? She was in that film where her and the other one had the cancer and went to Anne Franks's house, as well. Yes her.'
*2 Although speaking of 'audience', demographically targeted advertising is all well and good, but Insurgent features an ad for Facebook before the film. Yeah, y'know. That Facebook. As if there's a single fucking person in the auditorium to watch a Divergent film who's thinking "Oh, that's what Facebook is… well I think I'll check that out then! Eeeh, whatever next?".
*3 And while I'm on with the superficiality of it all, this post-apocalyptic dystopia has quite a lot of make-up in it, doesn't it? It's almost as if Shailene Woodley's Tris and Naomi Watts' Evelyn are going to be the founding members of the Maybelline faction in the next film.
*4 And probably more focussed than this review, to be fair. Footnotes like these are what happens when my mind wanders during a film. Or, more pertinently, when the cast, director and editor allow my mind to wander during a film. Yeah, like this snarkiness isn't my fault...
*5Brainy, Frowny, Smugly, Hapless and Wishy-Washy. But there's no test for the group for people without any faction, Raggydolls.
*6 Thanks for reading all these, by the way. Yes, you. Thanks.
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, David Cronenberg's tale of the Russian Mafia in London (his second film so far in this ongoing season) turns out to be nowhere near as difficult to watch as I'd feared. Sadly, it turns out to be nowhere near as interesting as I'd hoped, either.
There's the feeling (particularly towards the end of the film) that an intricate story of corruption, vice, family loyalties and power would have worked better laid out as a four-part TV drama, and that the extra screen-time that format allowed would make for stronger character building as a result. The gangsters that make up the film's principal movers feel like crudely drawn stereotypes here (although I've seen many worse portrayals in more recent years). On one hand, Cronenberg would like the audience to marvel at how 'real' everything is, but the then undercuts this by having his Russian-speaking mobsters talking in English to each other most of the time. Actual Russian scripting would have helped greatly with the authenticity, especially since the mumbled dialogue itself necessitates having the subtitles on throughout the runtime, anyway. Additionally, having your three main Russian characters played by German, French and American/Danish actors doesn't really help matters, either. I get the impression that Cronenberg was basically fine with how everyone sounded as long as it was 'foreign'.
Conversely, succeeding on the accent-front is Naomi Watts (already given a head-start by being Australian) as a troubled midwife from London who gets mixed up in the Russian power struggle after delivering a baby whose mother, an illegally-immigrated, coerced sex worker, dies at the same time. This, sadly, the accent is the only area in which Naomi succeeds. I like Watts, but she's really not that good an actress, and her default 'glazed' expression is used to its full extent in Eastern Promises, exacerbated by the fact that her role in the screenplay as the bridge between regular 'civilian' life and the unseen, seedy underworld seems to be treated as an afterthought after the first ten minutes of the movie. The naivety that should endear her character to the audience only serves to make her more irritating.
The only time Cronenberg ever seems to come into his own as a director is the infamous brawl-scene in the sauna-baths, and the fighting is presented with a surgical precision that the characterisation sorely needs.
Eastern Promises is a frankly ordinary film, made by an extraordinary film-maker. In the hands of a more 'human' director, the film's inhuman characters could have flourished more...
(Oh, and that baby would clearly have been born with a heroin addiction, yet this isn't even mentioned in the script.)
It didn't play at my local cinema, and it's not really the sort of cheery Saturday-night-fare you choose at random, so no.
Yes, although I don't feel I've gained much from it.
Only as part of a season of similar films, I think.
There ain't.
Naomi Watts starred in 2013's The Impossible alongside Obi-Wan Kenobi himself, Ewan 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.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. Alejandro González Iñárritu
I don't particularly enjoy using phrases like 'superlative performance' or 'plays with the form', largely because they make me sound like I'm trying to be a film-critic rather than a movie-reviewer, and especially in this case as director Alejandro Iñárritu has plenty to say about critics (although he also has plenty to say about audiences, for that matter).
Nonetheless, this two-hour joyride of surreal adrenaline stretches 'the form' to breaking point, being a film, play, dream-sequence and monologue all-in-one. Presented as a single, unbroken hand-held camera-shot*1, Birdman is relentless, picking up the viewer like the levitating Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton) in its opening scene and refusing to put them down as they laugh, cry, rage and fly with Keaton for the duration of the film. With two notable exceptions, the film is soundtracked purely by jazz drummer Antonio Sanchez (and while a drummer often appears in-shot, that's not actually him), with the tempo always syncopated, but growing more erratic as Riggan's breakdown looms.
Trading heavily and only semi-ironically on Keaton's IRL role as Batman, we spend the vast majority of the running time seeing things through his eyes as the washed-up actor creates, directs and stars in an ambitious Broadway play, adapting the work of one of his favourite writers, Raymond Carver, in a bid to prove that he's more than just a has-been celeb in a bird-costume.
The screenplay is brutally self-aware, with the Birdman character and in-movie actor names seeming to be the only fictionalised aspects, as pop-culture references and icons of the 20th and 21st centuries are ruthlessly deconstructed. Birdman is Keaton's show of course, in a career-defining role played as only he could, but it couldn't be done without the stunning supporting performances from Edward Norton, Andrea Riseborough, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Amy Ryan and Zach Galifianakis. While their characters often seem underdeveloped, it's mainly because that's how Riggan sees them. My only niggle is that the final act of the film all but abandons the secondary characters as Riggan's psychoses close in, also leaving behind much of the dry humour that preceded it. I also have to admire that Birdman chooses not to close on the two natural end-points which occur, but on the third and actual one (which is admittedly better). I may not like that necessarily, but I admire it.
By no means a throwaway film, Birdman will command your attention from start to finish, but that's not to say it won't be enjoyed by fans of indie-film and superhero-movies alike.
Never has the phrase 'the lie that tells the truth' seemed more appropriate…
It begins to be, but nothing can come as close as the film itself.
I did.
Absolutely.
If the trailer appeals, go and find this movie at the nearest cinema to you, forthwith.
I will a bit, yeah.
I will.
There isn't.
Does anyone else want a Birdman animated mini-series anyway?
Just because?
*1 And it's not, but it's presented very effectively as one, and I confess that I spent more time than was strictly necessary ticking off the edit-points.
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 Impossible Cert: 12A / 113 mins / Dir. Juan Antonio Bayona
Okay, we read your script and we LOVE it, there's just a couple of little changes we want to make. Kids on a tropical island? That's great, but their mom's a doctor? Who likes a doctor? Nobody, that's who! Doctors SUCK! So we make her... a SCIENTIST! Kids love science!
And we don't make it about a tsunami, we make it about DINOSAURS and we call it...
Jurassic! Park! Four!*
*ish*.
No.
Yes.
DVD.
No.
No.
No.
* Well, I say 'review'. I can see what everybody else loves about The Impossible, but I didn't really like it if Im being honest. I found it slightly irritating, slightly too often. Make if that what you will. Anyhow, if the main body of the post made any sense to you, you have great taste in obscure 1990's television comedy. This footnote doesn't count as part of the 77 words, by the way. Obviously.
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.
