Review: Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.3

Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.3
Cert: 12A / 150 mins / Dir. James Gunn / Trailer

Having watched it back on release-day, this review of the James Gunn's off-again / on-again third Marvel sci-fi smash-up has admittedly taken some time to make it onto the blog, not least because I've been busy updating my relationship status with Guardians of The Galaxy to 'It's Complicated'...

Part of this is down to the current odd malaise with the MCU, whereby "no Infinity Gauntlet" equals "no collective-narrative forward momentum and no individual storyline with legacy characters strong enough to really justify its existence". Another factor is still wincing from the frankly atrocious GotG TV Holiday Special, which we now know was definitely filmed on the same sets as the cinematic threequel but with precisely none of the creative talent that's gone into the movie. But I digress.

POOLING

The very short version of all this is that the 60% of Guardians of The Galaxy Vol.3 which focuses on Rocket Raccoon sustaining serious injuries, the Guardians-family pooling everything to rescue him, Rocket's reflecting on his backstory and how this affects his present and his future, and then properly developing the character into what he needs to be... is absolutely outstanding. It's precisely what Marvel Studios do best; engaging, exciting, affecting (slightly schmaltzy in places, but well-earned) and most importantly funny. Bradley Cooper loses himself in the character once again and everyone benefits. Rocket Raccoon is the beating heart of this film and every minute spent in his company enrichens the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The other 40%, however, is James Gunn throwing as much content at the viewer as he thinks he can get away with. It's a white-noise cacophony of over-written subplots, over-scripted clatter, over-designed sets and over-directed action sequences. Gamora's return feels poorly defined, Adam Warlock's presence (not to mention the fantastic Will Poulter's performance thereof) is wasted, and the sheer volume of returning minor-characters just to really rip into the casting-budget makes the movie feel scattershot and bloated, like emptying all the free vending machines on your final day in the office.

SNOOKERING

Oh, and after two movies with Peter Quill's vintage cassettes accompanying the journey, the tunes come via Rocket's iPod this time around. But the temporal versatility of this as a format means that the soundtrack is an absolute mishmash of anything James Gunn happens to like from whenever. Now I'm always here for a bit of Spacehog but this is basically Danny Boyle's Mixtape Madness all over again.

Guardians of The Galaxy Vol.3 is worth watching for the things it does right. Just about. Like I said, it's complicated...

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: Midsommar

Midsommar
Cert: 18 / 147 mins / Dir. Ari Aster / Trailer



Perhaps the biggest surprise with Ari Aster's claustrophobic folk-horror Midsommar is that it's found a release window (appropriately) in the height of summer, rather than the March/October slots usually reserved for more challenging fare.

We follow four young Americans (Dani (Florence Pugh), Christian (Jack Reynor), Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter)) as they're invited for a month-long vacation by their friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) to his home village in northern Sweden. Rural and more than a little isolated, it's a special time of year for the villagers as they begin a series of longstanding celebrations. But they're more than welcoming to their new guests, and before long the gang are getting involved at every level, no matter how odd it all seems...

RAGING

Nobody does raging, existential paranoia quite like Ari Aster, and his film is surreal, soporific and in places bluntly unsettling. In other words, not something to watch when suffering from a hangover. This could easily have been Hostel for hipsters, but Aster has more restraint than Eli Roth, even if Midsommar does have moments which play like a psychopath's fever dream. It's tempting to think of this as experimental, but Aster knows exactly what he's doing here, and precisely what the outcome will be.

With Pugh, Reynor and Poulter onboard, there was always going to be an expectation regarding the performances, and the cast do not disappoint. True to the longstanding tradition of teen 20-something roadtrip flicks, the group basically spend the movie off their collective box on either over-the-counter pharmaceuticals, or a range of home-formulated psychotropics. There's an interesting contrast and crossover between the two, as American and European cultures clash.

FLORENCING

Once our travellers arrive in the village and start exploring, an array of overtly placed pictograms illustrates forthcoming plot-points, underlining the sense of inevitable ritual with the heroes eventually accepting their roles in a play they know can't be re-written. Although this determinism proves to be the film's only real downside, and ends up running like it's on rails. Beautifully shot and scored, hallucinogenically bleak rails, but still. Symbolism, foreboding and fatalism are plaited together until each becomes indistinguishable from the others, and the whole thing is stronger than the sum of its parts.

There's enough here for fans of mainstream horror (providing they can sit out the steadily paced two and a half hour runtime), but there's more to Midsommar than a straight A-to-B shockfest. And while there are spikes of flat-out scare-tactics during the first two acts, these are more akin to dramatic punctuation, a release valve for the escalating unease.

DOUGALLING

Aster takes his time almost to the point of self-indulgence, but when the shit finally hits the fan it's been well earned. Much like its A24 stablemate, A Ghost Story, this feels designed to test both the patience and resolve of its audience*¹, with no promise of reward other than the first-hand experience of intricate art. It is a thing of terrible beauty.

Midsommar is great and definitely not for everyone, which only makes it greater. I can't wait to see what Aster does with his next adaptation, Bergüraac*².

The Ritual, mother!, Suspiria, The VVitch, Mandy.



It is.



It is.



It is.



That's a possibility.



There isn't.



Level 2: Well we almost had Han Solo in this, but Florence Pugh was in The Commuter alongside Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson.





*¹ The patron next to me had a particularly hard time with some of the more graphic scenes, especially the jump-cuts that switch to close-up gory shots. If you're squeamish, this film is not for you and carries its 18-rating for a reason. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Sorry, obvious John Nettles joke, couldn't resist, no you shut up. ^{[ 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: Maze Runner - The Death Cure

Maze Runner: The Death Cure
Cert: 12A / 142 mins / Dir. Wes Ball / Trailer



And so, after the production team played on through injury-time*¹ to accommodate its star's recovery after a filming accident, the third Maze Runner movie finally lands on our shores in an attempt to cheer me up before the end of the month. And for the very most-part, it's succeeded.

Following on from The Scorch Trials, The Death Cure sees Thomas (Dylan O'Brien), Newt (Thomas Brodie-Sangster) and the gang trying to break into WKD headquarters, to rescue their captured friend Minho (Ki Hong Lee). Naturally the corporation's enigmatic head, Ava (Patricia Clarkson) and her heel-snapping henchman Janson (Aidan Gillen) have other ideas. Things will get messy.

Much like its predecessors, this is bloody good fun. Far above what the Young-Adult-Adventure™ format usually throws our way, thanks to a fantastic cast and a screenplay which doesn't patronise either them, their characters or the audience. It's very much a dystopian Hollywood action/thriller, of course, but there's still the feeling that (in the appropriate places) The Death Cure is a better zombie movie than most zombie movies (although it doesn't have that raw edge of The Scorch Trials). The plot shifts a back toward the 'chosen one' model for the story's conclusion, but doesn't neglect the supporting characters in doing so, and this particular installment gets very smashy-crashy in its third act (which, true to Hollywood tradition is far too long), putting slightly more emphasis on All Of The Death™ than All Of The Cure™. Additionally, the final couple of scenes are very on the nose and the film could have ended quite well without them.

But minor quibbles don't detract from a satisfying close to a pleasantly surprising trilogy; one which will have slipped under the radar of many casual film watchers by means of its YA marketing-push. The Maze Runner series may not have changed the world, but it's punching well above its weight in a crowded ring*²….



Rather than run through a list of lesser-faring teen dramas, I'll just restrict it to the first two Maze Runner movies. Because if you haven't watched those then The Death Cure will make absolutely no sense.



If you've seen the previous chapters and enjoyed them, absolutely.



Unless you're completing the trilogy for your shelf, you should get away with a rental.



Well I'm knocking a point off for every scene featuring Aidan Gillen where he can't remember what accent his character's supposed to have. It's as if he doesn't have significant previous with this, and allowing it here (again) indicates sloppy direction.



I shouldn't imagine so.



There is, and it's textbook.



Level 1: Petty Officer Thanisson is in this, finally getting to run around polished corridors with an assault rifle.





*¹ …is this how sport analogies work? I have no idea. As you've probably gathered. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² See? I use a simple, well-worn boxing metaphor, then extend it to the second half of a sentence and it just sounds wrong.
^{[ 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: Detroit

Detroit
Cert: 15 / 143 mins / Dir. Kathryn Bigelow / Trailer



Coming in five years after her last feature directorial, Kathryn Bigelow's Detroit is a snapshot of the Algiers Motel incident during the Detroit riot of 1967, in which three black teenagers were murdered during a police raid, responding to reports of gunfire at the scene.

Rather than try to encapsulate the broader scope of the unrest at that time, Bigelow begins by focusing on the smaller stories. People - authorities and civilians alike - trying their best to go about their lives and jobs while the city tears itself apart every night. Even in such a permanently fragile situation, Bigelow and writer Mark Boal find moments of peace and even wry humour, all the time gradually building tension until the characters are in or around the motel. After this point, the film we get is more scathing than most in living memory, but always with a calm righteousness at its side. Never mawkish, and amazingly delicate given the level of brutality on display*¹.

The ensemble cast are all on fantastic form, with John Boyega's performance as a night-time security guard who gets caught up in the fracas only upstaged by the magnificent Will Poulter, as the police officer who's forgotten how the law works. Poulter is destined for huge things and I don't think we've seen his best, yet. It's a brave and committed actor who throws himself into playing a character as reprehensible as this one. But obviously he's only as good as his co-stars; everyone is worked hard under Kathryn's auspices, and the audience reaps the rewards.

On a more technical level, this is one of the very few films where hand-held cameras (and frequent crash-zooming) not only work, but actually help with the atmosphere. Good job this time, Barry Ackroyd, but don't let me catch you doing it again.

So after just under a couple of hours of outstanding film-making, the story moves to the resulting trial of the police officers present that night. And I can see how this sequence - not just a quick montage - is absolutely vital for narrative closure, but it effectively derails the pacing completely. At first I'd thought we were seeing the trial to avoid having the 'what happened next' caption-cards before the closing credits. But it's about twenty minutes of courtroom drama, then we get the captions anyway. The problem is that as heated and emotional as the case becomes, it's thoroughly anti-climactic after what we've just witnessed. It's no biggie, but it feels tacked on given that we get another small coda at the very end, one which is far more in keeping with the main thrust of the film.

Never an easy watch, although it's not meant to be, Detroit is finely crafted, compelling viewing. Twenty minutes or so shorter and it would have been perfect…

If you enjoyed Selma, you'll get a lot out of this.



It'll certainly ramp up the intensity if you do.



I think so.



In Bigelow's case, that's hard to tell as she's consistently great, but the cast can all wear this one proudly.



…maybe, maybe not.



There isn't.



Level 1: Finn is in this.





*¹ I'm aware that it's a very right-on thing to say, but I like how angry a lot of America is with its own history, and isn't afraid to verbalise that. We could perhaps do with a little more righteous fury over this side of the pond, sometimes. ^{[ 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: The Revenant

The Revenant
Cert: 15 / 156 mins / Dir. Alejandro Iñárritu / Trailer



Already generating more than its share of awards-buzz is Alejandro Iñárritu's The Revenant, the tale of a US frontier trapper who gets separated from his hunting party, attacked by a bear, attacked by a tribe of Native Americans and attacked by his own hunting party. It like a fairly arduous journey, and indeed it is. I've seen the trailer a lot recently, and I have to admit that it didn't really push any buttons for me other than the names involved. But the trailer only hints at the setting and the story, and its duration can't properly show off what the film is. Which is fantastic.

Credit where it's due (and the awards-panels of the media industry will no doubt observe this), Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy are on quite, quite magnificent form (even if Hardy goes Full Jeff Bridges™ and mumbles much of his dialogue). Both have become immensely talented actors, and I think we've still to see the best work from each of them. But what really makes the film so enjoyable*¹ is the collaboration between director Iñárritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki. While it's not at the level of their previous outing Birdman's seamless-take presentation, The Revenant features some of the lengthiest and most complex continuous shots I've probably ever seen. Neither Iñárritu or Lubezki are afraid to use a single camera for a single take, while often showing the audience the full 360° of the surrounding landscape. This alone meant I sat grinning like an idiot for much of the film.

Although I really don't enjoy making the distinction, I think there's more in The Revenant for the film-fan than the movie-fan. The main narrative itself is well structured and relatively linear, but it's occasionally interwoven with dreams. hallucinations, and symbolism. While it's not exactly art-house, even the main thrust of The Revenant has a ponderous, often hypnotic quality that could well disappoint anyone sitting down hoping for a punchily-paced revenge tale of the Tarantino-school*².

But rest assured, the film's got the physicality when it needs it, too. Large stretches of the story are (necessarily) combat-based, and while Iñárritu doesn't revel in the gore of projectile and blade weapons, he certainly doesn't recoil from it, either. I've never known a collective audience audibly wince as much as they did during the film's climactic showdown.

An outstanding, if exhausting, piece of cinema, The Revenant is a hauntng and relentlessly bleak survival horror. A bit like an olden-days version of The Walking Dead but without any zombies, yet just as fraught with danger. Fantastic.

Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight, Birdman.



For the cinematography alone, yes.



Undoubtedly.



No, but it's up there…



Probably not.



There's not, even though the number of arrows and horses in use means it's the perfect movie for one.



Level 1: The Revenant stars none other than General Hux himself, Domnhall Gleeson.

Oh, and let's just say there's "a Taun-Taun scene" in it, as well :P







*¹ Okay, maybe not enjoyable… satisfying?

*² Although I didn't rush out to question their reasons, there were a couple of walk-outs at my screening. On one hand, this was an Unlimited Card preview, so the patrons in question hadn't necessarily paid anything extra to be there and would feel less aggrieved at giving up on a movie. But on the other, I find card-holders to be generally more receptive to different genres and styles, since they've bought the subscription precisely because they love the cinema. Maybe it was just Tom's mumbling?

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.