Friday, 12 May 2017

Review: Alien - Covenant





Alien: Covenant (first-pass / spoilers in the footnotes)
Cert: 15 / 122 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott / Trailer



Taking place around ten years after the events of Prometheus*1, the crew of the Weyland Corporation vessel Covenant are transporting two thousand colonists across deep space to their new home, when they're brought out of cryo-sleep by a power surge which damages the ship. During the repair cycle, the onboard comms system intercepts a transmission coming from an unknown planet. Naturally, they go to investigate; naturally, I don't have to tell you what's coming next...

So Covenant is far more a sequel to Prometheus than a lead-in to Alien (which is fine), and it's interesting to see which of the 2011 threads Ridley Scott has picked back up to weave further, and which he's happy to basically abandon. The film also tackles its predecessor's somewhat cavalier approach to biological continuity more directly, still not answering all of its questions, but at least asking far fewer, this time*2.

Second best line in the film:
"There's so much here that doesn't make sense..."
~ Katherine Waterston's Daniels, around 45 minutes after everyone woke up and things started making little or no sense.*3

On a performance level, the Covenant cast mostly deliver pretty much what's needed and what's expected. Katherine Waterston does well though, bringing enough of herself to a role which could easily have been Cardboard Cutout Heroine. But the talking point of the film will be Michael Fassbender, of course. With his performance here ranging from theatrical to pantomime, this really is his spin on 'Legend'*4. And as a result, Covenant is every bit as bold, complex and problematic as that implies.

The film works better as an action/survival-horror flick, rather than a morality-thriller*5. That's not to say a film can't be both, just that this can't balance the two evenly. Although I didn't find this entry as instantly satisfying as Prometheus, it's an intriguing film and takes the overall story forward every bit as gleefully. It just also feels deliberately obscure and logic-defying*6, at times. There's definitely the feeling that Scott's enjoying leaving the big questions unanswered.

Still good, though*7.

Best line in the film:
"Watch me, I'll do the fingering..."
~ Michael Fassbender's android character, playing with himself.



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Prometheus, really.
It's certainly more Prometheus than Alien.
Which is as it should be
.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
Yes, it looks gorgeous.
Although again, try comparing the birthing-scenes in this movie to the 1979 Alien and you'll realise why you won't be watching these movies in narrative-order
.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Too early to tell at a first-pass…


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Probably not, but there's no shame in that.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
No, but I'll want to talk about it at great length either way.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: Both Danny McBride and James Franco starred in 2011's 'Your Highness' alongside Natalie 'Padmé' Portman, Kiran 'Teedo' Shah and Simon 'Blue Five' Farnaby.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Footnotes contain spoilers: Highlight-to-read
It's nice to see that USB plugs have evolved by the year 2104, but Jack Daniels bottles are the exact same ones we have now. Presumably they couldn't face the moaning about changing the design again. And I'm not imagining a writers-link between that bottle appearing on-screen, and characters with the names Daniels and Tennessee, am I? [ BACK ]

*2 Of course, if the face-huggers we know and love are the specific result of David's own genetic experimentation between 2093 and 2104, that would rudely de-canonise their usage in the present-day-set Aliens vs Predator movie. I worry about these things. Come on, I can't be the only one who loves the first AVP. [ BACK ]

*3 The Covenant crew have tracked a surprise signal to a previously undiscovered planet, to the point where they land about 8km away, then make the rest of the journey on-foot. Y'know, rather than actually landing where the signal is. Which, incidentally, is a city that their scanning equipment doesn't seem to have picked up. Although at the same time, this is once again a team of apparently professional space-explorers who land and step out of the ship after undertaking the absolute bare minimum of research, then proceed to smoke, spit and piss into an alien eco-system whilst prodding anything which looks unusual. You'd be forgiven for thinking they deserve the misfortune that comes of it all. [ BACK ]

*4 To be honest I rarely see eye-to-eye with Ridley Scott, but he's a director who can control not one, but two of Michael Fassbender's non-native accents. For that, he has my undying respect. I also liked that when David has long hair, he looks a bit like Iggy Pop, but when he's half-way through cutting it, he looks like Joe Elliott. Part of me hopes that's intentional, but god knows what it means if it is. [ BACK ]

*5 What's also interesting that the ersatz captain of the ship raises the matter that his faith is frowned upon by the Weyland Corp, especially odd since they had no problem with bringing Elizabeth Shaw along on the Prometheus mission with a similar philosophy and in such a critical role (even if she wasn't technically crew). Although fair play to the film for showing that poor decisions aren't down to the difference between faith and reason, but just because humans are naive, irrational and stupid. [ BACK ]

*6 So if David drops a hold-full of Alien-sauce capsule bombs (and remember the carnage which can be caused by a couple of drops in vodka and some black goo in a puddle) on a city-full of people, how come the place isn't still crawling with Xenos a decade later? They can't all have been killed in that initial blast, surely? Besides, even David describes it as a biological weapon rather than an explosive one. To be fair, this is why I need to see the film again. [ BACK ]

*7 Thanks for reading all these, though. I appreciate 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.

Thursday, 4 May 2017

Review: Their Finest



Their Finest
Cert: 12A / 117 mins / Dir. Lone Scherfig / Trailer

THE END IS NIGHY?
BRIT BILL LOCKED ON COMIC COLLISION COURSE!


A TOP TEAM OF Tinsel-Town technicians has been furiously working against the clock to bring Bill Nighy safely out of auto-pilot, it has been revealed. The alarm was raised during the British charmer's latest gentle-drama, Their Finest, in which onlookers had noticed his trademark head-flick was more pronounced than usual, and his deadpan wryness had been recycled from almost every other performance he's given over the last twenty years.

PROTÉGÉ

Hollywood boffins were hoping to avert disaster by relying on the film's co-pilot, Gemma Arterton, to steer the film to safety until they noticed that the Tamara Drewe protégé was also coasting unblinkingly along, and at an alarmingly earlier point in her career. Further inspection revealed that the Nighy model actually has no other setting, an issue which has been raised with its manufacturer.

FABERGÉ

The Surrey-born thespian's love of low-maintenance comedy roles has been common knowledge to industry insiders since his breakthrough appearance in Love Actually, in which his quasi-absent minded persona was juxtaposed into a faded rock star for comic effect. But since Richard Curtis was ostensibly left in charge of the star's appearances, critics and audiences alike are worried that comedy/drama dual-carriageway of Bill's acting career will soon merge into a single-lane ring-road. But with no exits.

Concerns about Nighy's ability to appropriately choose roles were voiced during the star's previous comedic outing, Dad's Army, in which the veteran actor completed a 100 minute character cover-version without once performing as anyone other than Bill Nighy™. When asked if he could justify making these choices in the 21st century, the 67yr old reportedly replied "Yeah, but the money..?".

DENIM

Meanwhile, BBC Films has claimed they have no choice but to let the 117-minute litany of earnest tweeness and irony-free faux spiritual propaganda run its course, hoping for as few casualties as possible in the process. The corporation's legal team has since admitted that Their Finest's theatrical May release-date will will ensure that the subsequent DVD has dropped to around £3 in time for next year's Mother's Day in-store displays, a position it will then inhabit permanently.

One studio insider told us "I don't know what we'll do if Bill Nighy actually crashes this time. Well, other than offer his planned future roles to Jim Broadbent. Obviously."




So, watch this if you enjoyed?
My Week With Marilyn, Singin' In The Rain, Inglourious Basterds, Atonement.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
Not unless you need to see the film immediately.
It's sort of a Sunday-afternoon-DVD, to be fair
.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Just about, although I suspect it's taking massive liberties with the actual events which inspired it to create a neat story (not completely un-ironic considering the story is about a film company taking massive liberties with actual events to create a neat story).


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
No, but this is a strong cast, to be fair.
Despite my sarcasm
.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Nah.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There is.
It's slowed (and therefore pitched) down a little, but it's there
.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: In case you hadn't picked it up, Bill Nighy is in this film. No, really.
He was also in Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest alongside Keira 'Sabé' Knightley.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…
It's actually not a bad film, but it's slightly forgettable, completely twee and infuriatingly self-satisfied. And I just couldn't give Nighy a free ride on this one.


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: Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2 (second-pass)





Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2 (2D / second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 136 mins / Dir. James Gunn / Trailer



Okay, this is your spoiler-break. Everything after this section will tell you far more than you need to know if you haven't already seen Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2, and besides that, won't make a lot of sense. I still stand by the full-marks I gave the film in my first-pass review. While the story does little to advance the thread of Thanos trying to get his mitts on All Of The Infinity Stones, GotG2's an enormous amount of fun and boasts actual character development across the board, which is not to be sniffed at.

There's just a few things niggling at me. Here be spoilers...

Seriously mate, SPOILERS FOLLOW…

Fractious and fragmented.

Firstly, there's the pacing and flow of the movie. In order to properly facilitate that character development (and there's something for pretty much everyone other than Drax and Groot, who are just amplified versions of their last appearance), the gang needs to be split up. But when this occurs, the film's momentum suffers, since the best Guardians scenes are where they're fighting side by side. The audience spends the first-act watching their friends bicker, the second watching them be unhappy apart, and the third watching them reunited, but notably subdued. And there's no doubt it makes for an interesting film, but that's not necessarily what audiences are expecting from Marvel.

Leaving so soon, Yondu?

And then there's the blue-guy. It's always fun watching Michael Rooker onscreen, but he was a supporting character in Guardians, at best. My only real complaint this time is that I wanted to see more of him being part of the team, rather than helping out on the periphery then carking it for a reason which could have been easily avoided at screenplay-level. His character-arc and ultimate send-off here are nice, but feel way too rushed. Don't forget that other than a very brief flashback montage in this second film, we've really seen nothing but the pirate and his protege complaining about each other. The emotional connection that Peter (re)establishes with Yondu feels like it should be happening in the third part of a trilogy, not the second, and while his bonding with Rocket is an unexpectedly nice touch, that feels as if it needs to be reinforced into the next film, too.

Daddy issues.

But my main issue is Peter's dad. The non-Terran half of Star-Lord's physiology was hinted at pretty boldly at the end of the first movie*1, so I'd certainly expected it to be addressed in the sequel. But the whole thing seems to be wrapped up both neatly and quickly, here. The character is introduced, transformed and despatched all within one movie, giving his relationship with Peter no time to resonate with the audience (and barely even with Peter himself). From a screen-time point of view, Ego may as well be Whiplash from Iron Man 2.

In terms of his character-development, there's clearly something amiss from the start as Gamora thankfully notes. And since the audience is with her on this, there's no 'reveal' when things go south and it turns out the guy's a planet-sized sociopath (his name's 'Ego', it was hardly subtext). Finding it impossible to warm to him, I had no emotional commitment when it came to the inevitable blows in the third-act. A big part of this comes down to the casting; I have no strong feelings either way on Kurt Russell the actor, but he's playing a psychotic narcissist with a history of luring innocents into a trap, exploiting their pride and vulnerability while knowing he's more powerful than them, casting aside their corpses when they fail to meet his expectations, and who finally meets his match when he picks on the wrong group. That's basically his Stuntman Mike character from Tarantino's Death Proof, and Russell plays it almost identically, especially in the scene where he's breaking down the lyrics to the song Brandy. Except the Guardians aren't out for Revenge™, so it's not as satisfying to see him finally lose.

Besides all that, Ego says that he needs his son's power to help execute his galactic plan, but he also says that if the core of the planet (ie Ego himself) dies, Peter will lose his demigod-abilities. Well it can't be both, can it? If Star-Lord's a separate entity in his own right, capable of boosting the raw power of Ego, then he'll continue to be so after the Celestial collapses, otherwise his father will only have been tapping into energy he had access to in the first place, and he could have just done it on his own.

I still love the film, though.
Anyway, discuss...



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Guardians Of The Galaxy.
You'll certainly need to have seen the first movie to begin with, at least
.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
You should.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
It does.
Whether that's what it should have been setting out to do is another discussion
.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Probably not best, but…


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Let's find out.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Still didn't hear one, no.
Help me out here folks...
.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: Missed a trick last time, didn't I?
This film features Seth 'Todo 360' Green as Howard The Duck.
Always read the credits, Yen; you're there waiting for extra scenes anyway...


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 And speaking of which, at the denouement Guardians, Nova Prime tells Peter that the non-human half of his lineage is "something very ancient, we've never seen here before". But the galactic community knows what Celestials are, don't they? In that same film, Knowhere (the location of The Collector's dealership) is stated by Gamora to be the head of a long-dead Celestial. Are Marvel just making this up as they go along? [ 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.

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Review: Sleepless





Sleepless
Cert: 15 / 95 mins / Dir. Baran bo Odar / Trailer



Hang on, is it still March? This is the sort of film which gets released in March. Or the £3 shelf in Asda. Where it's always March.

The latest entry to the vast canon of 95-minute clockpunched, autopiloted screenwriting sees Jamie Foxx playing an undercover cop on the verge of cracking a massive police corruption case. When he mislays a cocaine shipment belonging to a Las Vegas casino boss, his teenage son is kidnapped as retaliation, beginning an escalating game of cat-and-mouse where he can't be sure just who he can trust...

Yeah, I think this is what happens when Jamie answers the phone round at Liam Neeson's house. Sleepless is a mechanical procedural action-thriller whose title is somewhat ironic given that if you dozed off, you could be sure you wouldn't really miss anything. The film lumbers from punch-up to shoot-out to car-chase as the cast look increasingly bored with their placeholder characters and their plot-reveals which might as well be written on a placard and paraded around by a glamourous assistant behind the opening titles.

Genre stalwart David Harbour phones in a performance as Clearly Untrustworthy Detective, while Michelle Monaghan does Painfully Naive Detective like she was promised her role would somehow be more significant. Even Scoot McNairy's given up trying to be anything other than Typecast Psycho-Gangster. But what I really don't understand is the presence of Jamie Foxx. I've always struggled to warm to him as a leading actor, but he's better than this. Presumably Jamie owes someone a favour. I hope for his sake that it's now repaid.

The only thing which surprised me about Sleepless was the mention in the closing credits that it's actually a remake of an existing film. Because up until that point, I'd assumed it was a greatest-hits reel of about forty...



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Any film where Liam Neeson wears a leather jacket and punches people.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
Netflix, tops.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Oh probably, such is its paucity of ambition.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
No.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
That depends on how much you love it and also if you've never seen any cop thrillers before ever.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Not that I heard.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: This film's got that Jamie Foxx in it, and he was in that Django Unchained, along with Sam 'Windu' Jackson.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


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.