Well, it took its time, but it's finally happened. This week's 'take two' screening at my local was a one that they didn't show when it was first released. Ah well, better late than never, right?
Er, right. So the Jackass team have given us what is essentially a hidden-camera show with a plot. And if that sounds like it shouldn't quite work, you'll be relieved to hear that it doesn't; certainly not for an hour and a half, at any rate. The story follows Irving Zisman (Johnny Knoxville) as he drives his 8yr old grandson Billy (Jackson Nicoll) across the US to meet with the boy's estranged father. Meticulously staged pranks are fired out in rapid succession, and linked by in-character banter between the two leads. Jaws drop, as do trousers, and hilarity ensues.
Now… some of the pranks are very funny, whereas the gradual majority of them are merely 'okay'. They have their moment, but seem to be played out for slightly too long, and the sketch ends shortly after you stop laughing/chuckling/smirking. The worst-case example of this is the Cherry Pie stunt from the trailer. In the context of the promo it's a lot snappier, but the build-up of the movie-version's drawn out to the point where you're willing it to crack the joke and move on. It's also the one piece of the film which feels like genuine satire, and while this would normally be a good thing, the thought-provoking humour seems at odds with the scene where an 86yr old man sprays his own excrement across the wall of a busy restaurant*1. In addition to this, the vast majority of the skits don't really have an end, because at some point the director has to come in and tell everyone they've been set up for a movie before waving release forms around (we see some of this behind the end credits). So before this happens, the camera lingers for slightly too long on no-one saying anything, and then cuts to a dialogue scene in the car between Irving and Billy…
…which is my other bugbear. No-one in the audience actually believes the narrative that's playing out on any level, so the conversations between the boy and his grandfather are largely pointless, especially as they're mostly alone for these and performing only to each other and the camera. The thing that really sells the film is the reactions of people who aren't acting, so when you remove them from the equation, you're left with two poker-faced actors and an age-gap that makes most of their dialogue creepily inappropriate. The final scene is also redundant, as there are seemingly no members of the public around to witness the audacious stunt/calback, and the dialogue rounds off a story which you weren't following anyway.
But, Bad Grandpa does have some incredibly amusing gags (and in the bar-scene, an incredibly brave cast). It's worth watching, but when it's on the TV, and with a few beers on the go.
The bottom line is, "it's not a film". But maybe I'm just examining it too closely?
I suppose it is, yes.
Sometimes yes, often no.
Probably. That's the worst part.
Telly.
No.
Doubtful.
No, but there is a boot-shot.
Did Catherine Keener still get paid in full, considering all of her speaking-scenes (which we see in out-takes behind the credits) were cut? That looks like a lot of footage to lose.
*1 I've got to be honest with you, that one did make me guffaw.
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.
Frozen (3D)
Cert: PG / 108 mins / Dir. Jennifer Lee / Chris Buck
Disney's latest seasonal offering opens with a Mickey Mouse short, Get a Horse! It's a beautiful mixture of black and white hand-drawn animation, and its modern 3D counterpart. Using the best of both worlds, it's intriguing to watch from a production standpoint, as well as being a good old-fashioned funny film. Importantly, the 3D is a part of why it works as well as it does. Featuring Walt's own voice as well as his standard-bearer, it features a layer of warm-familiarity that makes it the perfect opener.
Now, as long as you're on-board with the whole Disney Princess / Power-ballad / Comic-relief / über-family-friendly methodology, there's plenty for you to enjoy. Almost everything, perhaps. The film plays solely to Disney's strengths, taking a fairytale starting point, and adding two female protagonists and host of supporting characters. Co-director Jennifer Lee's screenplay does a great job of rounding out the two princesses, the main bonus being that we get to see more character traits than would realistically be possible with just one heroine. Anyone who's not female royalty is bound for a slightly more one-dimensional portrayal, but even then they fit so snugly into the Disney template that it doesn't matter too much.
The musical numbers are used quite sparingly (ie, it's not completely 'a musical'), and while the vocals are enough to rattle your fillings, some of the arrangements seem unusually contemporary; not that they're badly performed at all, but they can seem at odds with the sweeping, Disney Fairytale aesthetic of the film. Outside of the warbling, Frozen is as funny, charming and sickly sweet as you'd expect from the studio. Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel give great performances as princesses Anna and Elsa, and are ably backed up by Jonathan Groff and Santino Fontana as their respective foils. Josh Gad brings a welcome air of silliness as Olaf the snowman, although in all fairness, the part is basic enough that quite a few actors could have filled that role comfortably. Olaf's great, but has displays as much personality as Sven the reindeer, who doesn't have any dialogue, so go figure.
The animation is everything you'd expect with today's production standards, and again it's lovely to see that meshing of old-school Disney character styling with CGI and 3D (which looks fantastic by the way, but isn't a deal-breaker). The one thing the film is lacking is a really good villain. It's true that the protagonists' struggles are more internalised than older volumes in Disney's library, but there's never any real sense of jeopardy. It makes the film an easier watch, but perhaps robs it of the depth it aims for.
While Frozen won't change any opinions, it should keep fans of The Mouse Kingdom entertained and help to snare the next generation. Although it lacks the iconic appeal of Disney's tried and trusted favourites, the film has a classical feel which should ensure its longevity in the catalogue.
Hang around 'til after the credits for an extra moment or two of icy (if slushy) goodness…
That trailer captures the laughs, but not the feeling.
I did.
Very, very almost.
The 3D's nice, and it looks gorgeous on a huge screen; but the overall effect will work just as well on your TV.
No.
Not right away, but it could make its way into my Christmas rotation by next year.
Not that I heard (plenty of opportunities, must try harder).
…so Anna never finds out that she was mind-wiped as a child and subsequently lied to for years? I can see her going off the deep-end when that one surfaces, reconciliation or not...
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.
Saving Mr. Banks (second-pass)
Cert: PG / 125 mins / Dir. John Lee Hancock
(You can read my first review of Saving Mr Bankshere)
Watching the film for a second time is a fascinating experience. For one thing, you get to focus more fully on Emma Thompson's magnificent performance as P.L.Travers, being able to apply the full scope of the film's 1906 timeline to Thompson's 1961-era performance, right from the beginning. There are certain nuances which, although by no means hidden when viewed for the first time, carry more weight when you already know of all the baggage she insists on carrying. It also makes the unravelling of her childhood a more staid affair. Although there's initially a sweetness to the scenes between Colin Farrell and Annie Buckley, we know that all of the gags are in the 1961 Los Angeles thread, and as an audience we're as powerless to stop the downfall of Farrell's Travers Goff as the attendees of the Town Fair, looking on in horror as he slurs a speech then topples off the stage.
But for all the familiarity of the plot, the execution is just as powerful upon re-watching, and the final half hour is every bit as uplifting. Although I think you won't lose too much by watching this on DVD, there is a remarkable parallel in being in a cinema audience and watching Travers, Disney and the L.A. Premiere audience as they view the film for the first time. Clips of the actual Mary Poppins film are used sparingly*1, so as not to distract from the reactions it's evoking in the Grauman Chinese Theatre.
After last weekend's Doctor Who and Kennedy events, it occurred to me that 2013 is an odd time to release this, given that next year is the 50th anniversary of Mary Poppins. Then after about a second's thought, it also occurred to me that by the time of that anniversary, both of these (Mary Poppins remastered, no doubt) will be in retail-friendly DVD and BluRay formats. Gotta love Disney.
All I can tell you is that you should see Saving Mr Banks as soon as you can, and that if you aren't moved by it on some level then you're probably not human.
Yes it is.
Yes I did.
Yes it does.
It's cold, dark and wet out there, but this film is worth leaving the house for, yes.
I will, yes.
Probably not until it hits DVD now, but yes.
There isn't.
You've got to feel sorry for Paul Giamatti, haven't you? In 1961 he's a limo-driver for a studio, and two years later he's worked his way up to making his own movies! Then, on his first day's filming, something goes a bit wrong on set and the Secret Service are commandeering his footage. No wonder he gave up, after that.
It's a shit business.
*1 In a sort of 'well, of course we've got the rights, but that's not what you're here for' type of way.
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.
