Review: Jurassic Park (30th Anniversary)

Jurassic Park
Cert: 12A / 126 mins / Dir. Steven Spielberg / Trailer

There's something about the nonchalantly galling nostalgia of anniversary screenings for movies you saw in the first time around and technically weren't even a child then that nobody warns you about. The last time I watched Jurassic Park in a cinema (which I swear blind wasn't that long ago) it was old enough to buy a pint, yet now the fossilised mosquitos and interactive CD-ROMs weren't the only thing in that room feeling ancient...

And truth be told, there's not much to say all these years down the line about a movie that's still perfect. John Williams' score is still majestic, Bob Peck's focused intensity is still magnetic, the jokes still get audible laughs and Gary Rydstrom's sound-design for the Tyrannosaur is still one of the most hair-raising things I've ever heard. The digital and practical effects work is astounding of course, but above all else it's the human reactions to the dinosaurs that really sell this. And not just Ariana Richards' and Joseph Mazzello's terrified scrambling as Lex and Tim, but the sense of awe and jaw-dropped wonder from Laura Dern, Sam Neill*¹ and Jeff Goldblum. Meeting the Brachiosaur herds was magical in 1993 and it's magical now. I genuinely still wipe away a tear in that moment. Like I said, perfect.

It's also still horribly relevant. This romp of dinosaurs gone rogue (or more properly, dinosaurs behaving completely naturally) is in its essence a timeless cautionary tale, glossed over with unapologetically self-aware marketing. It's no accident that a parable about the dangers of unfettered capitalism has its own logo'd merchandise literally appearing within the film as part of the problem. The story is blunt in its message (classic Michael Crichton), but hugely accessible in its scope (classic Steven Spielberg). One of the most interesting aspects is how the director actually leaves the audience feeling slightly sorry for park-visionary John Hammond, the gently-spoken entrepreneur whose myopic hubris causes widespread destruction, mutilation and death, while at the same time we're invited laugh at the demise of lawyer Donald Gennaro as he cowers on a suddenly exposed toilet. Remember, he's one of the few professionals who hadn't been bribed or cajoled onto the island to sign-off the project, and was merely working to represent the interests of investors who had well-founded concerns about the park's demonstrably appalling safety procedures. In the first act of Jurassic Park, Gennaro is actually the good guy. This flips of course once he gets dollar-signs in his eyes and is subsequently punished by the narrative as a result. Like I said, blunt.

But perhaps most pleasingly, in the end there's no deus ex machina which gets our protagonists out of trouble. They just have to pick their battles, make it through the night and survive the ordeal*². Jurassic Park is about teamwork and tenacity in the face of adversity. About weathering the storm and about leaving no one behind. Yeah, even if they caused all this shit in the first place. Like I said, horribly relevant.

*¹ And for the record, Dr Alan Grant is never more than three lines of dialogue away from Sam Neill's native Kiki accent kicking back into gear, and I don't even mind. That's how much I love Jurassic Park. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² I do hope the poorly Triceratops was okay in the end. The plot-thread of the illness doesn't get resolved in the film (it's explained more in the novel but sill not 'fixed' iirc), and I'm not cool with the thought of her lying there incapacitated while the T-rex goes rampaging about the island willy-nilly... ^{[ 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.

Review: Star Wars - The Rise Of Skywalker (fifth-pass)

Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker (fifth-pass / 3D / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 142 mins / Dir. J.J. Abrams / Trailer


Previous reviews: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

This is your spoiler-break. Courtesy rather than necessity at this late point in the year, but as anyone who's shared a cinema with me will attest, I aim to be unfailingly polite. Unless the BBFC-card has passed but the end-credits haven't yet started, and the glow of a phone lights up someone's face when they should be watching the movie in which case I'm fairly sure it's legally permissible to snatch the offending rectangle out of their hand, quickly zip out of the auditorium and drop it in one of the toilets nearby before returning to the film, punching the owner right in the corridor if challenged*¹.

And with that delightful image settling over your consciousness, it's my duty to inform you (and not as forcefully as you're doubtlessly imagining) that the following article features plot-spoilers for Star Wars: The Rise Of Skywalker. And really big ones this time, as befitting the flow of the story itself. If you haven't seen the film yet, leave the rest of this until you have. Do watch it though, it's quite remarkable. Although you'll probably need to give it a couple of passes to get the most out. As previously noted.

But I digress...

So. When was Emperor Palpatine slotted into the puzzle of the Sequel Trilogy?

At what point did JJ Abrams, Rian Johnson or Kathleen Kennedy come up with the idea that The Emperor should make a comeback? Was this always the plan? Because watching The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi immediately before The Rise Of Skywalker, it really doesn't feel like it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm cool with Palpatine rearing his head once again, albeit surprised that it happened so early in the film and with so little build-up. But along with Starkiller Base from TFA, wheeling him back out of the cupboard as the ultimate weapon feels more like content-recycling than putting a new spin on an old feature, something you'd imagine Abrams would want to steer clear of at this point. While there was admittedly some disquiet over the direction of events in TLJ, no one was seriously clamouring for Darth Sidious to come back and restore order for the close of the trilogy.

Indeed, the whole subject of The Sith has been politely not mentioned until now. Mutterings persisted from 2015 that Supreme Leader Snoke could in fact be Sidious' old master, Darth Plagueis, having laid low for decades with his apprentice under the impression he'd been successful in his usurpation of the 'Master' role. With the game only beginning, Lucasfilm played that card close to their chests. But by the 2017, the official Visual Dictionary for The Last Jedi by Pablo Hidalgo (in conjunction with the LFL Story Group) seemed to draw some sort of line under things by stating that Snoke was categorically not a Sith.

'Star Wars: The Last Jedi, The Visual Dictionary', 2017 DK Publishing.

And of course technically, that hasn't changed with The Rise Of Skywalker. Snoke wasn't really a Sith. But for obvious reasons, the Visual Dictionary from two years ago didn't tell us that he's a genetically engineered meat-puppet on remote control to the somehow-resurrected Palpatine. And the more I think about it, the most obvious of those obvious reasons is that two years ago this wasn't the case. Just like Rey's true lineage, there are no seeds planted in the preceding episodes to suggest this reveal was coming down the track.

As much as I love the Star Wars films, old and new (in case you hadn't noticed), The Emperor's return serves to highlight one of the more pressing weaknesses with the Sequel Trilogy. That Lucasfilm have made it up as they went along. Although George Lucas variously stated that Star Wars was going to be twelve, nine or six movies (depending on which interview you read), he at least had a clear vision in his head/notepad at the time of beginning each trilogy. Even then, there are exceptions of course. Vader never 'became' Luke's father until The Empire Strikes Back script was in development, likewise the sibling relationship between Luke and Leia is unlikely to have been committed to paper at the time of Empire being made. But the core story - its ups, downs and turns - was in George's mind all along. And when those massive ret-cons do come along, shining a new light on previously-told events, they're that most precious of revelation: one which the audience wouldn't reasonably have guessed beforehand, but which in retrospect couldn't have played out any other way.

Palpatine's return at least scores half of this with ease. Over the past four years, both casual and hardcore audiences alike were not expecting to see the face of Ian McDiarmid back in the Galaxy Far, Far Away, at least not in such a central, prominent role. As for the pre-destiny of this, though? Well not quite. The Sequel Trilogy's third-act could easily have taken other paths toward the redemption of Ben Solo (because that was inevitable). Rian Johnson taught us to take our hands off the Star Wars rule book, to expect the unexpected.

So it should probably come as no surprise that the unexpected happened. Emperor Palpatine returned from the dark netherworld, seemingly as a lesson to us all that peace and balance are impermanent; a prize to be nurtured and cherished rather than attained then stuck on a shelf to show off. Or at least that's the lesson I'm going to take from it. And not a bad one as we close out this troublesome decade.

And in the end, it works. Because the resurgence feels tonally valid, because of the obvious vacuum left in Snoke's passing, and because the majority of the audience has already bought-in to whatever Mr Abrams has to offer*². Time will tell how smoothly this conclusion is received, as well as if this conclusion turns out not to be a conclusion after all - do not be surprised about this potential eventuality*³.

But hey, always in motion is the future...

The Star Wars.



Obvs.



Obvs.



Some possibly, not all.



That's possible.



There isn't.
Unless you've heard one.



Level 0: It is Star Wars.

...but if you wanted to go around the houses with it, The Rise Of Skywalker stars John Boyega, who was in 2013's Half Of A Yellow Sun with Thandie Newton, who was in Run Fatboy Run alongside Simon Pegg, who appeared in Ready Player One with Ben Mendelsohn, who rocked up in Darkest Hour as did Pip Torrens from Patrick Melrose, which also starred Harriet Walter who guested in the 'Survivor's Guilt' episode of Law & Order UK along with... John Boyega.





*¹ No wait, not legally permissible. What's that other thing which is like legally perm-... morally sound, that's right. Put your phone on flight-mode before the BBFC-card and don't look at it again until the end. Waiting for an important text or call? Wait at home. Bored during the film? Go home. 'Morally sound'. That's it. Not 'legal'. Probably. I always get those two mixed up. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Because the people who disliked the left-field character turns of The Last Jedi were more into the retro callbacks of The Force Awakens, and the vast majority people who loved Rian Johnson's movie also appreciated the nostalgia of its more cinematically-safe forebear. Put bluntly, it's a small crossover of people in the Venn Diagram who'd still be going to see The Rise Of Skywalker, but would then complain going "No, we didn't want you to bring that much of the Original Trilogy back! We want things to feel the same without being actually the same, but still being the same please...". ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Because as anyone who's been watching the studio's output knows, Disney really don't like putting numbers at the end of film titles. "Star Wars Episode 9" encourages franchise-fatigue and instantly excludes the casual viewer who knows they haven't yet caught up with 1-8. "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" on the other hand is more likely to attract impulse-viewers and casual cinemagoers. With The Rise Of Skywalker however, Disney can use the "IX" to create a sense of occasion, also lulling people into believing they're going to be present for the 'final' Star Wars movie. Y'know, as if the House Of Mouse paid $4bn for the name just to shunt everything over to TV within half a decade. There will be more Star Wars movies, and soon. It's just that the publicity-machine is no longer constrained by that section of the timeline (even if Rogue One, Solo and The Mandalorian suggest they're terrified to leave it). ^{[ 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.

Review: Captain Marvel (third-pass)

Captain Marvel (third-pass / 2D / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 124 mins / Dir. Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck / Trailer



Apologies for the lateness of this review, writing time is competing for top billing at Blackout Towers. First review way back here, second (micro) review here.

CAMEO

So, this was the third time of watching Captain Marvel, and the third time that the opening ident featuring Stan Lee brought me to tears. Ditto with his cameo in the train-scene. What I absolutely adore about this is that because the movie is set in 1995 and Kevin Smith's Mallrats was released in that same year, the Stan we see on the train is rehearsing the lines for his appearance in that film. It's the scene with Brody in which he plays himself after an appearance at a comic book store. So for this Marvel Cinematic Universe cameo, Stan Lee doesn't play Man At Window or Guy Opening Fridge; Stan Lee plays Stan Lee. An amazing tribute to a unique man which is fucking beautiful, frankly.

But I digress. What becomes clearer watching the movie after a break is that the amount of exposition mixed with call-forwards in the first act means that the viewer is bombarded with way too much information. Ironically, this isn't as noticeable on a first-pass when you're just gawping at everything anyway, but the more you understand what's going on, the more jumbled its beginning becomes. Anything before Vers lands in the Blockbuster feels needlessly cluttered.

GUN

On a more positive note (because I do love this, remember), the feeling grows that there's nothing in the actual story itself which dictates that Carol Danvers needs to be a female character. It could as well be Carl Danvers. That she's a woman is just a bonus (albeit a long overdue one). And whereas DC's Wonder Woman did a great job of ramping up its girl-power while retaining credibility, Captain Marvel is altogether less showy about it - although no less important. And that's either the mark of true narrative equality from Marvel, or a damning indictment of the homogenisation of superhero cinema. Definitely one of the two.

It's slightly odd to think that Danvers ends up being the one who inadvertently names The Avengers. As above, it's cool that there's a female touch to these proceedings, but way back in the supergroup's debut comic it was The Wasp who came up with the moniker. It's bad enough that she was recently reduced to being a sidekick in a movie where she should have co-headlined, but now this? I expect Hope Van Dyne to have her own kick-ass movie in short order by way of recompense.

It also occurred to me watching this again that Maria's daughter Monica is around 11 in 1995, which would put her in the mid-30s by the time of Endgame. Might we see the budding pilot teaming up with Carol Danvers in the future when she takes the fight to Thanos? Well, that movie's out by the time of posting this review, and that question has been answered…

Tonally, the other character-chapters in the MCU.



It is.



It is.



The jury's still out on that one.



That's possible.



Nope, I thought there was in the scene where Goose gets hungry for the first time, but I didn't hear it the next time round.



Level 1: Orson Krennic's in this.







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.

Review: Captain Marvel (first-pass)

Captain Marvel (first-pass / 2D / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 12A / 124 mins / Dir. Anna Boden & Ryan Fleck / Trailer



Okay, so you know the score. It's late (or early), I'm buzzing and I'm emptying my head after a first-pass viewing of Captain Marvel. There are no spoilers in here, but for best effect don't read this until you've watched the film. These are brief first reactions, they'll probably change as I get to know the movie better, and I've probably interpreted some of the moments incorrectly anyway. Right.

The film follows a mid-1990s Carol Danvers (Brie Larson) as she struggles to piece together fragments of memory and make sense of who she was, who she is, and who she's supposed to be. A human fighter-pilot from Earth? A Kree Starforce warrior from Hala? Both? Neither? The last thing she needs is to be thrown head-first into a Skrull invasion of Earth, although in that respect at least she's got good company in the shape of a particularly lithe Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson)…

FOUNDATIONS

Building on the foundations of pan-galactic politics laid by Guardians Of The Galaxy and strengthened by Thor: Ragnarok, the movie jumps straight into an alien civilisation with relatively little exposition. Marvel are expecting you to be on-board for this already, although given it's the 21st movie in a series, that's perhaps not an unreasonable assumption. The Kree/Skrull dynamic takes an interesting path, considering what we've already learned of politics of the former. But this is is treated more of a supporting aspect, rather than the main focus.

This is mainly because Carol arrives on our screens fully-formed and ready to beat the shit out of alien invaders first, then ask questions later. Her backstory and subsequent character development comes in the form of flashbacks, reveals and the gentle unravelling of the knot that is Danvers' memory. Online rumblings that the film is 'slow' have been greatly exaggerated, although it tells its own story in its own time, teasing out just the right amount of details to keep things ticking over, but not holding enough back to seem smug or self-indulgent. While the twists in the tale aren't quite telegraphed, they follow the familiar structural beats of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

DRIFTERS

They key thing is that (despite the pre-emptive crying from the usual corners of the internet), Captain Marvel isn't trying to be an MCU movie for girls, just a great MCU movie. The fact that it largely succeeds at this should draw precisely the right reactions from both sides of the fence. Much like Ant-Man and Doctor Strange, this isn't an attempt to re-invent the wheel - more to create a new cog which is integral to the existing machine*¹.

Larson is an absolute natural at this of course, an outstanding actress who's more than willing to commit to a role that's fun, energetic and sometimes outright silly - but still taking it no less seriously for all that. Both the performer and the character blend seamlessly into the MCU, thanks in no small part to the assistance of Jackson as the audience's long-time touchstone. Ben Mendelsohn puts in a solid turn which will be initially underrated by most, and Lashana Lynch's character of Maria is crying out for more screen-time. Annette Benning is under-used in the Marvel tradition of getting Robert Redford / Glenn Close / Michelle Pfeiffer to rock up and bring a bit of gravitas to the proceedings. Jude Law is also in this film.

TRIOS

It's not all plain-sailing, of course. The 1990s soundtrack is a little on-the-nose, and in playing some of the more iconic Grunge™ tracks, it's arguably used some of the era's least interesting music. That said, this is a major studio picture and not a hipster's mixtape, so that's understandable. I'd just be very surprised if this movie shifted albums in the way which Guardians did, because that's clearly the intention of such recognisable tracks.

Another problem could be that who Carol Danvers was seems far more interesting than who Captain Marvel is, and the film's climactic showdown has little to reveal as a result. There are plenty of big-stupid-grins to be enjoyed throughout, but the real goosebump moments come earlier rather than later. Captain Marvel is a very solid entry in the saga, but doesn't feel like anything more than that on a first-pass. And as Ant-Man & The Wasp was an unabashed palate-cleanser after the heavyweight Infinity War, the feeling remains that this should have a bit more clout as we hurtle toward the Endgame…

The business-end not spoilers, but highlight-to-read anyway):

• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? I think there is, a second-pass should clear this up.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? There is, and it's quietly magnificent. Awarding the film an extra point for this.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? There is
• Is there a post-credits scene? There is*²

It's very much on-par with the MCU standalone films.
Which is by no means a bad thing, but perhaps not a surprising one either.



It is.



It is.



Not really, but everyone involved is on reliably solid form.



Possibly. Discussions will be lengthy, at any rate.



Ask me again when I've watched it again.



Level 1: Mace Windu's in this.





*¹ And using those two examples particularly, Captain Marvel succeeds in being its own thing. As I've probably mentioned before, Ant-Man is a structural retooling of The First Avenger, while Doctor Strange is beat-for-beat Iron Man. Meanwhile, Carol Danvers is bringing her own booze to this particular party, and it's a more varied ride as a result. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although a disturbing number of people stood up and left after the mid-credits scene. Who the hell loves Marvel enough to come to the midnight-screening of an MCU movie, but can't wait an extra six minutes once the names begin to roll at 2:20 in the morning? What the hell else are they going to use that time for? Amateurs. Anyway, the end-credits scene is fun as adding one more piece to a puzzle we thought had been previously completed... ^{[ 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.

Review: Incredibles 2

Incredibles 2
Cert: PG / 125 mins / Dir. Brad Bird / Trailer



So the house-lights went down for Cineworld's latest secret screening on Thursday evening, the BBFC card bore the words "Incredibles 2", and a cheer went up in the auditorium. I wasn't one of those cheering. I thought the first Incredibles movie was basically fine, but no more than that. This should explain the rest of the review…

Set after that first entry, we find Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl, Bob and Helen Parr, trying to balance the demands of raising a young suburban family, while being a superhero team in a city where superheroes have been banned. Billionaire tycoon Winston Deavour approaches the Parrs with a scheme to reverse the legislation through positive marketing, but super-villain The Screenslaver has other ideas, hypnotising citizens to carry out his warped will...

And y'know what? It's fine. Great fun. But no more than that.

On the plus side, the characters are likeable (where they're meant to be), the script is funny, engaging and has great pacing, while the voice-cast are all thoroughly committed to their roles. The cinematography and animation rendering is fantastic, and Michael Giacchino is having the time of his life on scoring duties.

But other than the central team whose visual style is carried over from the first movie anyway, the character design here is so bland it's shocking. They could be from any studio-animation of the last fifteen years. And the plot itself is absolutely bare-bones, just enough to cover the film, but doesn't feel like it's bringing anything new to either the ongoing story, the genre or the audience.

It used to be that an animation would be made when the events the film-makers wanted to show couldn't realistically be depicted in live-action, especially with superhero flicks. But there's very little in Incredibles 2 in terms of abilities or setpieces that we haven't seen in Marvel/Paramount, Fox and Sony's output over the last decade. Live-action has caught up, so where does that leave Mr Incredible?

Big Hero 6 tells a more interesting superhero story, while Inside Out is better at deconstructing home-life angst, and they're from this same studio. What's more, the former movies have moments of genuine, heart-wrenching emotion which Incredibles 2 is sorely lacking. I had fun with the movie, but it really feels like filler on Pixar's part.

High-grade filler, but no more than that.

Well, The Incredibles, frankly.



I guess, although it's only the scale of the action which sells that.



It is.



It's not.
Although fair play to Bob Odenkirk for making me think Steve Carell had been cast in his role. The audible-likeness is uncanny.



It's possible.



There is (buried, but I'm sure I heard one).



Level 1: The voices of Mace Windu, Kit Fisto and Bren Derlin are in this.







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.