Ah, what could be better for the lunchtime film-slot than catching up with Obi-Wan, Monneypenny and Bootstrap Bill? Perhaps only doing it at the ear-splitting volume normally reserved for crap horror movies? (That's your call, Cineworld, but it's not like there's mumbled dialogue to make up for in this film)
So, director Susanna White manages to do what Tomas Alfredson apparently couldn't all those years ago, and brings a John Le Carré thriller to the big screen without it being a complete, stilted mess. And at no point is a tent-based live entertainment facility identified in the script as having a Talpidae-infestation in its uppermost reaches…
University lecturer Perry (Ewan McGregor), his barrister wife Gail (Naomi Harris), Russian Mafia informant Dima (Stellan Skarsgård) and British Intelligence operative Hector (Damian Lewis) lead the story of corruption and money laundering through Marrakech, London, Paris and Bern, in a surprisingly tense thriller that never feels over-egged, somehow.
Harris, Skarsgård and Lewis are fantastic as the core characters for the film, sometimes leaving Ewan McGregor struggling to keep up. He struggles well, but you can see the strain. Meanwhile, cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle comes through his desaturated colour-palette and subdued lighting, and manages to conjure reflections and lens-flare as if by magic. It's a striking combination, but it works well. Visually, the film is definitely glossier than a made-for-TV thriller, but its content wouldn't be out of place at 9pm on a Sunday evening*1 (although this says more about the quality of modern TV than it does about cinema, admittedly).
With its 108 minute runtime, the film rolls at a very measured pace, with White neither rushing nor dawdling, allowing the plot to unfurl organically. And there's little-to-none of the double-cross twists you'd expect of the genre, if only because the audience don't fully trust any of the characters to begin with.
The film may not pick up too many awards (or even that much recognition), but Our Kind of Traitor is an example of a film succeeding in a genre which should be more than overcrowded by now. An intelligent thriller which never feels it has to be needlessly confusing or obscure in its storytelling.
Come for the writing; stay for the performances.
And massive props go to screenwriter Hossein Amini, who gives Mark Gatiss the best acerbic (and utterly deadpan) quip of the film with "…I don't like the c**t any more than you do". Unless your name is Guy Ritchie, you do not drop a line like that lightly.
The second-best dialogue exchange comes in a car-scene, as Stellan opens his shirt to Ewan, revealing a chest inked in symbolic mafia ephemera. "Do you know what this is?", he asks, pointing to an illustration over his solar plexus. "Is it a clearly fake tattoo…", Ewan replies, "…drawn on less than ten minutes ago in blue felt-tips by the work-experience kid who's heard of Russian Mafia tats, but has never seen one?".
Stellan looks out of the window awkwardly as the scene fades to black…
Only if you want to appreciate the cinematography on a massive screen.
It does.
Not best, but deserving of a place on the CV, certainly.
Nope.
Nope.
Level 1: Obi-Wan Kenobi's in this.
*1 Although it's also worth pointing out that director Susanna White has helmed relatively few cinematic features, but has a lot of solid TV work under her belt.
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.
When the BBFC card vanished from the screen today and the Steamboat Willie ident appeared in its place, I actually got a little tingle. Not the one I get when I hear the Marvel Studios fanfare, obviously, but a buzz nonetheless. Disney's recent efforts (with one notable exception) have entertained me greatly and built up a reputation that's going to be difficult to sustain, surely?
Well, the in-built precursor to Cinderella is an animated spin-off/featurette, Frozen Fever, reuniting the central characters for seven minutes; enough time to set up the premise and wedge in a musical number. It's quite fun, even though it feels rushed somehow (and Princess Elsa seems to have become more powerful than any Jedi in her telekinetic ice-wielding powers). An array of miniature snowmen are introduced, sneezed into existence by the cold-ridden Elsa, and they're incredibly cute (read: marketable), although you've also got to remember that they're essentially frozen snot ;)
And with the b-movie (in the nicest sense) over, the live-action retelling of an old Disney favourite began, and my inner-cynic made himself comfortable with a glint in his eye. As events transpired, the cynic wasn't there for long, because Cinderella is really good. There. I said it. With the studio, cast and director playing to their strengths, it's outstanding at being a good old-fashioned Disney Princess Film™, and that's the important thing here. During the setup first act, the format feels occasionally anachronistic, with recent Disney entries like Frozen and Maleficent pushing the princess-story into new territory. But these film's can't achieve what they do without having the core methodology as their counterpoint, of course, and 2015's Cinderella is Disney reminding the audience that they basically invented the genre anyway (at least cinematically).
While it could certainly be said that the film doesn't push the envelope in any way, shape or form, it's only fair to note that it never feels the need to. With the story already locked and loaded, the performers have a solid sense of direction, and leading, supporting and cameo roles alike are confident and focussed. Lily James is the perfect casting for Ella, supported by Cate Blanchett, Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as her manipulative step-family, riding the line between horrible and pitiful with ease.
Although as earnest (and innuendo-free) as the first act is, it can't escape from the fact that between the 1950 animated film and the 2015 live-action iteration, Cinderella has become more of a pantomime-favourite than a fairytale one, and the Brit-centric cast reinforces this wholesale. Although they do, for the most part, play their roles completely straight, making for a stronger film as a result. The two exceptions to this are Rob Brydon, who's been cast in the role of Rob Brydon In A Hat™, and Helena Bonham Carter, whose role as the fairy godmother requires her to wear a set of prosthetic teeth so tremendously fierce that they prevent any part of her face above them from moving, making her look like she's been using botox as a moisturiser, somehow. And Richard Madden's research for his performance as The Prince appears to have been locking himself in a room with a copy of David Essex's showreel DVD. The man's one neckerchief away from going full rogue…
Oh, and [Facetiousness - highlight to read]: I'd thought that Ella's mum's advice in the trailer had lost its meaning in the edit, but that really is what she tells her. "Have courage and be kind" is hardly 'a secret', is it? Solid guidance, yes. Good life-advice, even. But it's not a secret. In fact, if "have courage and be kind" sees you dying of consumption before your 35th birthday while your husband spends a suspicious amount of time abroad, is it really a secret worth heeding? But there's my inner-cynic rising to the surface, again. And trust me, by the second act of Cinderella, my inner-cynic was all but defeated, lying on the shore gasping for air, too weak to take the piss out of the film. [/Facetiousness]
Under Kenneth Branagh's fantastic direction which keeps things from descending into silliness, Cinderella is great at being Cinderella, and while it may not be a creative interpretation in the mould of Maleficent, it at least makes some reparation for the farce that was Into The Woods.
If your miniature humans are pestering you to take them to a movie over the Easter holidays and you can't palm them off with a DVD, this is the one.
If you're in the target demographic or you just like well-made films, yes.
For its audience, it'll be a buyer.
I shouldn't think so, but everyone involved can proudly wield it on their CV, yes.
Undoubtedly.
Not particularly.
Not that I heard.
Wicked stepmother Cate Blanchett starred as Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies, alongside Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.
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.
Are you a hustling, bustling, go-getting, empathically-stunted 30-something 'professional'? Then step right this way, as Peter Chelsom's got a film he'd like to show you. No, don't worry about bringing emotions; the screenplay has those for you, which it will be handing out in blunt, calculated, mechanical order...
The story of a moderately-successful psychiatrist with a Perfect Life™ feeling adrift in contemporary society, the titular Hector embarks upon a journal-annotated trip which will span several countries as he searches not only for his elusive happiness but also its cause and meaning. Along the way he meets old friends and makes new ones, each with valuable lessons to teach.
What's that? Sounds a bit familiar? Well, Hector's jotter, its writings and doodles spring to life throughout the film giving us, among other things, a numbered series of observations as we progress on the journey. The first of these entries is "1. Making comparisons can spoil your happiness", which seems ironic considering that the film constantly reminds you of a middle-class mashup of 'Yes Man' and last year's 'Walter Mitty', only with the British Awkardness™ turned up to excruciating levels (although thankfully no-one skateboards past a volcano in this one).
The film's downfall is its attempt to cover the bases of both 'quirky, stylised comedy' and 'inspirational emotional journey'. Sadly, it has so much trouble spinning one of these plates that it really has no hope of managing both. The second (but by no means secondary) problem is that it's so damned patronising all the time. After ironically warning patients of his in the first act about the dangers of an uncontrolled ego (and overblowing minor inconveniences), Hector gives the audience a whistle-stop tour of his Fantastic Life™ before having a half-arsed existential crisis while his long-time girlfriend wears the Thick-Rimmed Glasses Of Moaning And Bossiness™ (before spending the rest of the film as a visual bookmark for the first act). Hector then jets off around the former colonies where he can learn inspirational truths from people who have less money than him*1, almost turns the film into Pretty Woman Lite™, and has an escalating series of scrapes centered around pens. All the while, slowly discovering that maybe happiness isn't a destination after all, but a journey itself? He's basically sent around the planet to learn something he could read on a mug in a gift shop on London's Oxford Street.
And if you haven't been spoken down-to enough for an hour and a half, Christopher Plummer arrives in the final reel to spell everything out (almost to-camera, at one point) and make sure you haven't missed the point. Complete with a greatest-hits montage of the film you're still watching. At this stage in his career, Simon Pegg knows comedy well enough to excel at it naturally, but his achilles heel is sentimental sincerity and it's precisely this kind of role which may pay the mortgage, but holds him back from progressing into other acting styles where he could shine.
It's almost as if he's learned nothing from 'Run Fatboy Run'.
Still, at least we get the "happiness / a penis" joke out of the way in the first five minutes. Oh, and how come the early Skype conversations are watermarked with their logo, but later in the film they're not?
A self-help manual for the emotionally repressed and easily inspired, Hector's heart is in the right place, but is every bit as condescending as its faux-angst-ridden protagonist. The Search For Happiness has some interesting ideas, but really needs to seek professional help…
Yeah, that's about the size of it.
Some of the sight-gags are funny, but nowhere near enough for a film's worth..
Oh, probably. The film has exactly the sort of box-ticking agenda you'd expect it to.
Do not pay to see this film.
A bit.
I shouldn't imagine so.
Didn't hear one.
Have you read the book that this is based on? Is it as painfully patronising as the film? I'm just asking because I'm not really likely to pick it up, now…
*1 to be fair, the film does feature people who have more money than Hector, but in these cases, he teaches them to be better people. Do you see, though? DO YOU SEE?
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 Railway Man (SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 116 mins / Dir. Jonathan Teplitzky
It gives me no great pleasure to say that I wasn't really moved either way by The Railway Man. What should have been a thoroughly thought-provoking, if not harrowing, study of pride, post-traumatic stress disorder and forgiveness came over as a rather clunky melodrama (albeit with remarkably solid acting, somehow).
Despite the excellent, tense atmosphere the film creates, I wasn't really moved by the scenes of emotional breakdown in the first act, wasn't really horrified by those of torture in the second, and wasn't convinced by the reconciliation in the third; all of which is only exacerbated by the fact that this actually happened. The film doesn't get all War Horse about the moral issues at play, but it makes little attempt to paint grey areas either. I was expecting the story to convey the horrors of war, but instead only learned that Eric Lomax had a really shitty time of things after 1942 (which I knew before I went in, so…).
Maybe the film, being released strategically for awards-season, has just been paled by its competition in 2014? Or maybe choice lines of emphasised dialogue like "I am happy" and "I am sorry" sound like they should have been left at the first draft?
…then again, the audience around me seemed fairly engrossed, so maybe the problem with this film lies with this viewer.
Pretty much, yeah.
I didn't. You might.
Not for me, but hopefully for the folks who made it, yes.
The cinematography's nice, but you don't need to see it on a massive screen.
I won't.
Doubtful.
There ain't.
1) In 'the funeral scene', why do the surviving comrades all have Scottish accents? They didn't when they were prisoners.
2) Looking at the standard-issue 'comparison' photos over the final credits, Jeremy Irvine looks like the young Eric Lomax, and Colin Firth looks like the old Eric Lomax. And Eric Lomax looks like Eric Lomax. So why doesn't Jeremy Irvine look like Colin Firth*1?
*1 Even though Jeremy Irvine does a bloody good job of acting and sounding like Colin Firth, and underlining the fact that Colin Firth is really just acting and sounding like Colin Firth. #ColinFirth
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.
It's always nice when I can get three cinematic reviews of the same movie spread over three calendar months; if only because it shows that it's enjoying a good run*1. So tonight was the last showing of the The Dark World at my local, and as I was there for the first, I figured I'd see it off in brighter-than-I'm-used-to 2D, to shorten the gap until I can start devouring the extras on the BluRay. I also managed to drag along my brother-in-law tonight, who hadn't gotten round to watching it, so that I can compare his first reactions with my seasoned ones. This is why I'm a geek.
Watching the movie now, it actually holds up slightly better than it did when it had my fresh expectations burdening its shoulders. My gripes about the chief-villain aside, it's a very entertaining offshoot movie, showing us 'the stuff which happens between Avengers films'. I'm still of the feeling that the story itself lends itself more to a comic arc or novel, but there's no doubt that I'm getting more out of it on repeat viewings than I did for its predecessor. Maybe its because Thor spent most of its time introducing characters, whereas with TDW its welcome-reel is inserted (okay, clumsily) into the first twenty minutes. I don't think it's a better film, but in many ways it is more watchable; although I'm still hoping Kenneth Brannagh will return for a future Marvelverse installment.
Considering how outside-the-box The Dark World is compared to the rest of the Avengers canon, I can't wait to see audience reaction to Guardians of the Galaxy, next August…
For the record, bro-in-law thoroughly enjoyed it. More than I thought he would, actually. Although he was a bit put off by Greenwich being turned into a smoking pile of rubble. Which is fair enough.
I'd say so.
Mostly.
Not as much as I'd have liked..?
You're pretty much stuck with DVD/BRD now, which isn't the worst thing in the world.
No.
Yes.
Three times now, and I have to concede that I can't hear one. Bugger..
*1 Or just that it was released strategically towards the end of a month. Well okay, that.
Oh, and apparently I can (one for the people who saw the 'search description' field under the link on the way in).
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.
