The Inbetweeners 2 Cert: 15 / 96 mins / Dir. Iain Morris & Damon Beesley
I won't lie, I wasn't expecting particularly great things from the second Inbetweeners Movie, largely because while I enjoyed the first one, I didn't think it was strong enough to warrant an hour and a half and the format was still too televisual for a cinema. While Messrs Morris and Beesley have clearly worked a lot harder on their sequel, there are still hurdles it can't clear (although most of those have been set up by the previous movie and TV episodes), and a scattering of jokes that the wooly liberal in me was hesitant to laugh at. The film is still a mixed bag and won't be for everybody, but within the closed arena of what it's trying to do I've seen little this year which can compete.
Most importantly, The Inbetweeners 2 is funny; more consistently funny than the first outing, and with humour that's not trying quite as hard to be spiteful (second-most importantly, Jay is way less of a dick this time, thankfully). There are a couple of OTT™ moments, of course, but in the context of The Inbetweeners they work very well. We get Will's narration for the entire movie, and although the secondary characters (ie the boys' parents) make fleeting appearances again, they feel far less shoehorned in this time around. But what the film does best is those moments of acute embarrassment, where we cringe not out of pity but recognition. I may not have sang 'The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face' quite like that by a campfire, but I've been that guy. And if you've been that guy*1, The Inbetweeners is for you. Usually, a 15-rated comedy that features willies, poo in the face, wee in the face and poisoned sea-life would feel like it's trying too hard. For Morris and Beesley, it's a successful day at the office*2.
This sequel to a big-screen adaptation of a Channel 4 comedy series aimed at teenagers won't win over new audiences, but that was never its intention. Very funny, very messy and surprisingly touching in places, The Inbetweeners 2 is a fitting sendoff for the characters. Not a sentimental ride into the Australian sunset, just one last splash before they close down the water-park.
For best results, mix with friends and alcohol.
No, the film's better (and a lot more charming) than the trailer.
Although all those bits are in it.
I laughed and cringed, mostly in the right places.
I think so.
Your choice, really. It'll be just as funny on DVD.
I won't.
I will, but it'll be on a small screen and with some beer.
There isn't, but there is a boot shot, and that's almost as good.
I think this is a far more coherent screenplay than the first movie.
But what do I know? Discuss.
*1 Or girl. We all make fucking idiots of ourselves. Although to be fair, the boys tend to do it more spectacularly.
*2 And the sentence before that one should give you a pretty good idea of whether you'll enjoy The Inbetweeners 2, 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.
Imagine, if you will, a film with the zany kookiness of Zoe Kazan's very own Ruby Sparks, the smug tweeness of Richard Curtis' About Time and the beautifully inappropriate supporting characters of Kevin Smith's Mallrats. Imagine how, even though those are three fantastic films there, it'd be difficult to mesh those sensibilities together convincingly. Imagine how painstaking it would be to cast well, how tricky it would be to script, and how delicately it would have to be directed.
And keep imagining it, because that film hasn't been perfected yet.
Michael Dowse's vision of Elan Mastai's screenplay is an ungainly beast, trying to cover too many target-demographics at once and lurching all over the place as a result. It's not a film without any warmth or charm, but much like my fourth-year school timetable, the leading couple have absolutely no chemistry.
Zoe Kazan is great value as the other-worldly Chantry, a hipster animator living and working in Toronto, but Daniel Radcliffe fails to convince as her would-be suitor Wallace, and seems to be channelling the bumbling awkwardness of Hugh Grant, but with more bumbling and total awkwardness. Which is bizarre in and of itself, as the film's end-credits feature a series of Instagram-style photos of the pair taken during the making of the film, and they look like they're having a great time; if only that intensity had translated into their performances. Radcliffe seems completely ill-at-ease in the romantic comedy genre, and I don't think that's just his characterisation, sadly. Despite Kazan's best efforts, you get the feeling that these two are will only end up together by default, rather than design.
Elsewhere, Rafe Spall's character of 'A-hole Boyfriend™' is all over the shop; as inconsistent as his transatlantic accent. Also falling into this rut is Adam Driver as 'Best Buddy, With Hopeless Advice™', who spends equal amounts of time supporting and abusing his friend, Wallace. Chantry's sister, Dalia seems to have been drafted in from some chick-flick (as do the rest of her kooky friends who have their personalities summarised by the glasses they wear), and there's a cul-de-sac of a sub-plot with Wallace's sister, Ellie, a single-mum who appears for two scenes as if she's been written in more.
But despite my grumbling, What If isn't a total misfire, it's just nowhere near as captivating and heart-warming as it thinks it is. There's a very good film in there somewhere, but it's weighed down by all the baggage it's carrying.
Well, the trailer's as laboured and awkward as the film, so…
Not really.
Not really.
It'd make a good date-movie, and it's far less demanding than it thinks it is.
Nope.
At some point, but it'll be for Kazan, not Radcliffe.
There isn't.
It's easy for me to pick apart Radcliffe's unsuitability for this role (really, it is), but who'd have made a better leading man?
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 Nut Job Cert: U / 86 mins / Dir. Peter Lepeniotis
Originally released back in January for US audiences, this American/South Korean co-production seems to have sat uncomfortably with UK distributors who eventually decided 'well, if we bang it out in the Summer holidays, what's the worst than can happen?'. On this thread, it's worth noting that despite the 'Real-D' logo on the movie's poster, my local is only showing this in 2D, which seems incredibly half-arsed on The Weinstein Co UK's part (all other 3D movies are shown in both versions, locally). Then again, after the thorough pasting the movie's had in the US, I imagine they're past caring at this point.
A curious mix of 1930's-era sets and costumes with 21st century character-design for the animals, the film feels disjointed and off-kilter. It's debatable if the target audience (ie the small people) will pick up on this since the heist-plot and slapstick-action are fluid enough, but the wisecracking quips of Will Arnett as Surly the Squirrel probably won't be enough to hold the attention of parents and guardians. Arnett gives, for the most part, the same performance he put in as Batman in The Lego Movie, albeit with a script which isn't as sharp. Katherine Heigl and Brendan Fraser read their lines affably (if blandly) enough as squirrels Andie and Grayson, and Liam Neeson voices Raccoon (a raccoon - really) without wandering into his Irish brogue for once. As catty as this sounds, it really seems like Neeson's the only one making any sort of real effort here. Yes, exactly.
Visually speaking, The Nut Job is mostly adequate (damning with faint praise, I know), although it seems as if different teams of animators handled the human and animal characters (and again for Surly's dog-whistle that he wears like a rifle, which sometimes seems to have been added on in post-production). Although the creatures themselves feel derivative of other animated features, the detailing on their fur is outstanding, and in complete contrast to the pastel scenery and plastic-looking gangsters. It feels like the animators have tried to channel the charm and aesthetic of a Merrie Melodies feature, but with the studio-heads yelling at them to 'make it more like Pixar'.
And just when you thought the disparity couldn't get any wider, the end-credits of the film feature the animated incarnation of Psy, leading the cast of characters through an entire rendition of Gangnam Style. Y'know, for no real reason. Clearly this is a cultural nod from the South Korean branch of the animation studio, but it'd feel dated enough back during the film's original January release; now it feels positively antiquated (if only because all the parodies and cover versions were done back in 2012 when it was still topical).
So what we end up with is a remarkably nondescript animation which looks like it took a lot of people a lot of time to make. By no means an absolute dud, The Nut Job is more of a sweet-natured mess, combining elements which aren't too individually shabby, but don't slot together as intended, and the resulting film never rises above mediocre.
Best suited to a younger, perhaps more undemanding audience, this is a movie for a rainy afternoon.
Well, kinda. I suppose.
Not really. Not as much as I was supposed to, at any rate.
Not really.
This is a DVD to keep the kids entertained.
Nah.
I can't foresee that happening.
There isn't.
I know that in animation it's commonplace to record characters' dialogue-tracks at different times, but am I alone in getting the impression that the principle cast recorded theirs in different places, as well? Without them having heard the other participants in the conversations they were reading?
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.
Guardians Of The Galaxy (3D / second-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 12A / 121 mins / Dir. James Gunn
I think I'm still slightly overwhelmed by this film, so don't have too much more to add from my previous, stunned review (which is also spoiler-free, ftr). I enjoyed Guardians Of The Galaxy every bit as much as before, although some of the initial impact is lessened for obvious reasons. And seeing the film in a theatre where the volume isn't turned up to Deafen The Audience™, means that I actually caught all the plot exposition this time; it still arrives in blink-and-you'll-miss-it bursts, so a second-pass helps here.
The downside today was that there were only 30 or so people in the auditorium, and while the many jokes didn't fall flat, the empty-beats after the gags designed to be filled by laughter are underscored slightly by the lack of an audience to provide it*1. I think the film will be received more warmly by large audiences, so this is a one you may want to brave the Saturday night showings for. And in other grumblings, I still think the soundtrack element is pushed a little too hard, largely because while they're good songs, they're not all great ones.
But you know what? Guardians Of The Galaxy is still an absolutely outstanding movie. At a squeak over two hours, it's not the shortest film in the series but it's at the lower-end, and for director James Gunn to use that time not only to introduce the audience to a wealth of new characters, but more importantly to also get that audience to care about at least five of them? That's quite some achievement. There are a few notable differences from the comic-incarnations of the Guardians, but that's to be expected, and in this case applauded.
I have a little background reading to do before I see the film again, after which the next review will be full of spoilers and nit-picky questions. In the meanwhile, go and see this film.
The business-end: • What's the 3D like? Nicely immersive with no ghosting, although the film will be fine without it.
• Yes, Stan Lee's got a cameo.
• There's no mid-credits scene as such, but The Jackson 5 segment serves the same purpose.
• Yes, there's a post-credits scene, so hang around. One for the old-schoolers.
It certainly is.
I certainly did.
It certainly does.
Go to the cinema for this one.
Er, yeah. Yeah, I will.
I certainly will.
Well, even with a much more sensible volume level this time around, I didn't catch the Wilhelm. If you've heard one in here, be a love and let me know where it is, yeah?.
Without going into spoilerific details, aren't some of the songs on Peter's mix-tape a little… well, inappropriate, given the circumstances of him having it?
*1 Seriously though Cineworld; 8 showings a day? I know it's the Summer holidays, but there's no way they'll all be filled, meanwhile you're scattering your audience when you could be putting the screens to more efficient use, surely?
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.
