You'd be forgiven for thinking, from the trailer, that Silver Linings (as The Weinstein's UK marketing division would lead you to believe it's called) is an upbeat, quirky RomCom about a couple of kerr-azy folks who can just maybe solve all of each other's problems!
Well the bad news is, it isn't that. The good news is, it's so much better for not being that.
The film is more of a study of the psychological states of the characters, their interactions and triggers. It is consistently funny, although you'd be pushed to call it a comedy first and foremost. SLP still contains all of the moments in the trailer, but there's more space between the gags, so they come over a lot drier. It's also worth mentioning that if you've ever noticed any traces of OCD or addictive behaviour in yourself or your loved ones, this won't be an easy-watch in places (although it's arguably going to be even more difficult if this is your introduction to it). Bradley Cooper is engaging as always, with just enough humility to take the edge off his necessarily loud performance, Jennifer Lawrence is equally likeable/believable*1, and the two have an excellent chemistry as two damaged souls. Robert De Niro threatens to derail proceedings at an early stage by over-egging the pudding*2, but the more screen-time he gets, the more sympathetic his character becomes (I'm not usually a massive fan of De Niro, but he is doing well in this).
Silver Linings Playbook is nicely paced, neatly scripted and beautifully acted. It's not quite in the same class as Wallflower, but it's of the same school, certainly. The ending is perhaps a tiny bit too neat considering the tone of the rest of the film, but it's pulled off with enough style to leave you with a grin.
But the best thing seems to be that they've got Nurse Gladys Emmanuel to play Bradley Cooper's mum! Not the actress, the character. Now there's a turn-up.
*1foronce. …what?
*2 This is a metaphor, not a euphemism.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
What could be better, on a cold, wet Sunday afternoon, than an old-fashioned Brit-farce, filled with a cast who've proved their comedic chops over the years..?
...Very few things could be better. In fact, next time I'll flip through my DVDs and find one…
The Problem? It's just not that good. Oh, it should be; the names on the outside seem reliable enough, but something's amiss. Diaz ('PJ') and Firth ('Harry') seem woefully miscast as a Texan cowgirl and harassed art curator respectively. They pull the right faces and say the right lines, but they're never especially engaging or, crucially, likeable. Similarly with Rickman as Harry's overbearing boss, he seems to be phoning in his performance and never reaches the dastardly heights his character requires. Elsewhere we have secondary characters in the form of Tom Courtenay as 'The Major', clunkily reading an occasional narration (for the first time, it sounds like), and Stanley Tucci as German art curator and Harry's rival, Martin, who seems to come over as a cut-price version of Stanley Tucci, somehow.
The plot is standard farce-fodder (and in itself, interesting to the point where I'll be checking out the 1966 version of the film), and the screenplay is fine, if a little stilted. But Gambit seems trapped between wanting to be a haphazard farce and a slick heist movie, and sadly it achieves neither.
There are some nice stylistic touches (Harry's envisioning of how the plan will run, at the beginning of the movie), and some chuckles (the hotel/vase/trousers routine midway through), but are they aren't enough to warrant building an entire film around. I couldn't help but feel that if the remake had been produced in 1978, and starred Terry Scott and Arthur Lowe in place of Firth and Rickman, the result would have been sharper, funnier and charming. er.
Much like the forgeries that are the centrepiece of the film, Gambit may have the requisite brush-strokes, but it lacks feeling.
They don't make 'em like they used to.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Hello. It's here.
Part three of my Bowling For Soup art-trilogy-thing.
You can see part one here, and part two here.
This is what they've been building towards.
Remember last year when I did the picture of Resident Elvis, and I said it was a test-run for a bigger project? This was it. It's been laying dormant in my brain for a couple of years now, and was finally resuscitated by ZomBeadle.
The movie-poster one-sheet.
Click for bigger, 1499*1012px, 446kb, Opens in new window.
The graphic novel cover.
Click for bigger, 1012*1499px, 402kb, Opens in new window.
So, obviously you get the vibe I'm going for this time around, less GTA, more TWD. Originally, Jaret was going to be a priest holding a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, but I soon realised that a figure dressed in black wasn't going to stand out against the desaturated zombies. Thus Mr. Reddick became a cop.
The Jaret character-sheet poster.
The Erik character-sheet poster.
The Gary character-sheet poster.
The Chris character-sheet poster.
I'm very happy with how these have turned out, for now anyway. In a couple of years I'll probably look at them and roll my eyes at the techniques I've used, but if future-me has proved anything, it's that he's an idiot. He can't appreciate the moment. That said, past-me is also an idiot who spends too much time appreciating the moment. Only *I* am great.
What's that? My working-out? This is the digital-age, we don't have... oh.
Even in 2012, we're still using "pens". I know, crazy.
This time round, each figure starts as a line-drawing, capturing the key details, and then each area has a base-colour and one highlight and lowlight. It leads to some sharp gradations of colour, but looks much cleaner.
As before, they've been hand-vectored in CorelDraw.
Yes, I am good to you, I know.
Below for wallpaper-displays for your various modern devices. Images open in a new window, or you can right-click and save-as.
If I've missed out an important size/format, give me a shout and I'll sort it.
By all means share these around etc, but leave the webside idents on the images and credit me where possible, please. You know it makes sense.
As usual, feel free to leave lovely words in the comment-box below, I appreciate those.
Oh, and you're very welcome.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Hello. In lieu of film reviews, more pictures...
This is part two of a Bowling For Soup art-trilogy-thing. You can see part one here.
Click for bigger, 1198*1198px, 556kb, Opens in new window.
This one is from 2010. The feel is largely inspired by GTA: Vice City Stories, although the colour palette is a lot more muted (so more Scarface than Miami Vice).
There are more levels of high/lowlights, and a lot of the detail is defined by the shading, rather than a base line-drawing. It's less stylised than the previous entry. Again, it's hand-vectored in CorelDraw, based on a photoshoot BFS did for Kerrang! with the following portraits filtered through Instagram.
I think it's held up pretty well, but it's nowhere near as defined as my Empire Strikes Back piece, also from 2010. You'll see a lot more of the required definition in the final part of the trilogy (can't really call it a triptych, can I? Or can I?)
Oh, and yes. The guys have seen it.
Coming soon... 'Things To Do In Denton When You're Undead'
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
(You can read my review of Breaking Dawn Part 1 here.)
Let's be honest, no words from me are going to convince you on tTS:BDp2*1 either way. You're either going to see it, or you're not, and you already have a pretty good idea about how much you're going to enjoy it.
The temptation is for me to really rip into Breaking Dawn Part 2 and make an escalating laundry-list of its faults. It has many, including a couple of moments where I actually laughed out loud in the cinema, and yet as flawed as it is, it never becomes awful. Because in order to be watching the fifth Twilight, you pretty much have to have enjoyed the other four; there's no other excuse for being there. And since the main offenders in the list are also inherent to the previous installments, there seems little point in underlining them at this late stage. For a Twilight film, Breaking Dawn Part 2 is very much on-par. That should tell you all you need to know.
As with BD1, there seems to be an awful lot of stalling going on in the first half of the film, with plenty of things being explained but very few actually shown. There's also the issue again with the appallingly illustrated passage of time (we're told the child Renesmee is maturing rapidly, but we have nothing to compare it against since the actual timescale isn't mentioned and the other vampires aren't ageing; the film could take place over six years for all the viewer knows), and some of the CGI/makeup used on the offspring of Bella and Edward is nothing short of bizarre. The recruited vampiric witnesses gathered by the Cullens are like a United Nations of one-dimensional casual racism, and the Volturi are embarrassingly laughable, as always.*2
But… but… as a way to round off the cinematic side of the saga… it sort of works. If you're watching it from Edward and Bella's perspective*3 then you'll get what you came for and see everything tied up neatly, and in the context of this movie, that's what matters. With a couple of notable exceptions, everyone gets to do their five minutes, there's a face-off, a battle*4, and the end-sequence you'd expect (although it was far shorter than I was expecting, but LotR has done wonders for my cynicism).
If it sounds like I'm skirting around it, I am. There are far more things wrong with the film than right, but I can't actively dislike it. It knows its audience, and it treats them better than a few other films I've seen this year. It should be applauded for that, at least. You'll either love Breaking Dawn Part 2, you'll hate it, or you'll be largely indifferent. But you won't be surprised. In cinematic terms, it's the ultimate foregone conclusion.
Oh, but if you must soundtrack your film with songs featuring lyrics which which the characters can't hear (ie they're not on the radio, etc), don't cut the songs into scenes where people are talking so that the dialogue and the lyrics overlay each other. This is inexcusable, unless the film's editor has actually been paid to underline how inconsequential the script is.
So, y'know. Well done, there.
*1 That's what the kids are calling it, right?
*2 Oops. I made that list after all, didn't I? Well, no. That's far from the full thing, trust me.
*3 And I get the impression that you're meant to be, although I don't fit into that demographic, physically or psychologically.
*4 Don't get me started on the battle. I actually enjoyed it, and then it underlines its own ridiculousness to the point where I guffawed. I salute the nerve of the screenwriters.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Oh, hello.
It's a bit quiet on the cinematic front at the moment, so here's some pictures and stuff I made.
Click for bigger, 1200*1200px, 341kb, Opens in new window.
I drew this back in 2008. It's loosely based around the cover for GTA: Liberty City Stories, and sourced from various BFS pics, both online and from album art (notably The Great Burrito Extortion Case).
It's what happens when I play a lot of GTA and listen to a lot of BFS. A lot of things have changed in four years, but not those two.
Hand-vectored in CorelDraw, with the following portraits filtered through Instagram. Looking back at them now, there's so much I'd do differently. Then again, you'll see how/what I changed when I post the next one in the series.
Oh, and yes, the guys have seen it.
Coming soon... 'Party Like It's 1985'
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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 makes even less sense than the first film, which is an achievement given that they stop to explain everything every 12 minutes...
Sepia-toned pallette / Desaturated pallette / Too dark to see anything.
LOUD NOISE.
Monster with a bum for a face.
Mr Triangle Head.
Unremittingly dull.
All that, for an hour and a half.
Like being chased though an abandoned funfair by Rammstein, but with none of the excitement that implies.
A half-arsed rehash of a film that was barely finished to start with.
3D is functional but a waste of time in a film as pointless as this.
Shitting awful, but I can't mark it lower than The Possession.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
And so the third of this year's horror-themed animations hits cinemas, and if this doesn't school the young'uns in the ways of Classic Creeps and Chills, nothing will...
So, yes. Despite being trailered well in advance of its brethren, Tim Burton's spook-fest limps in last, more than likely using Hallow'een as an excuse for its tardiness. You'd think that with Disney behind the production, some money might have been spent using computer animation, to help the speed, if not the quality, but no. Burton's new film uses old-fashioned stop-motion photography, limiting the things that can be shown on-screen to the extent of the model-maker's skills.
As a further insult to the ticket-buying public, Frankenweenie has been made in black and white, of all things! Apparently this is some kind of tribute to old-fashioned horror films, but if that's the case, why isn't there a Dracula in the film? Or a wolfman? The name Frankenstein is used, but I notice there's no likeness of the monster - probably so that Burton didn't have to pay the full amount of money for the rights to use it. The story seems largely derivative of the classic horror genre, but without any proper namechecks.
Elsewhere, the voice-acting is left to a cast that features Winona Ryder (who's a Burton favourite anyway), and Martin Short as its high-points. If only someone had spent more money and gotten the likes of Adam Sandler and Kevin James on board; they could have injected to much needed humour into the proceedings. Instead, we're treated to 90 minutes about a boy who doesn't learn to let go of his pet dog and becomes a necromancer as a result. What kind of message is that sending to our children?
Spoilers:Oh, of course I enjoyed it. Sure, it's a little self-indulgent, but putting this much love into a film is bound to have that effect. You don't need me spending three paragraphs telling you how gorgeous Frankenweenie is, there are plenty of reviews doing that already ;D It's funny, dark, touching, and above all else, it has an actual message. If you don't enjoy this film on some level, you're a heathen.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
Based on a declassified true story, the US government initiate a dangerous plan to rescue six american citizens hiding in the Canadian ambassador's house in Iran after a political coup in which 52 other people are taken hostage at the US embassy. Tony Mendez, an experienced exfiltrator, is tasked to bring the refugees home posing as a film crew location-scouting a new science fiction movie: Argo…
This is a bloody solid film. It's worth saying that it's definitely told from Mendez's (Affleck's) perspective, and although the performances of the six terrified office workers are excellently crafted, I didn't feel like I really got to know them at all. I did get to know Mendez, although he's the hero here so that's forgivable. Argo looks, and feels, absolutely gorgeous. The grain on the film, the muted colour pallette, the camerawork, the period-soundtrack… nothing short of exquisite. The only thing that kept pulling me out of it was the lengths that this department of the CIA will go to to rescue six people that the Iranians aren't even sure are there. Especially when there are 52 other hostages who don't seem to be getting any attention from the US. As tense as it is (and the longer it goes on the tighter it gets), it almost shifts gear into a caper movie at one or two points, with John Goodman and Alan Arkin keeping the stateside banter flowing comedically.
Argo seems to be as much about making a cheap, knockoff SciFi movie in Hollywood as it does about the intricacies of covert hostage liberation, and even entry-level-me was sitting there marvelling at a movie which is apparently at the location-scouting stage, yet has a finished shooting script and poster artwork. Maybe things worked differently back in 1980? Yeah, I don't think so, either. The other thing that kept threatening to distract me from the plot was the 'true story' element, whereby I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to think who various characters in the movie industry could/would be. For example, I had the loudmouthed wisecracking Jewish producer down as Irvin Kershner, but at that point in 1980 he'd still have been working on The Empire Strikes Back. Pardon? You thought I'd go and watch a movie about 70's/80's SciFi and not have Star Wars at the front of my mind? Hmmm.
Seriously though, the only actual downside to this cracking film is Affleck's lapses into sentimentality, and more pertinently, the thick layering of Sweeping Music To Tell You When To Feel Happy™. There are genuinely emotional scenes in Argo, and the Warhorse-level of schmaltzy scoring is almost insulting to the audience. I know when I'm meant to feel warm and fuzzy, thank you. And after two hours of both oblique and direct references to the best and worst SciFi of that period, you only have to show me a shelf with the first twelve Star Wars figures complete on their group Kenner display stand, and throw in a 12" C-3PO and Boba Fett… then I'll start to well up, okay?
It's a strong story, very well told, and although it feels like it's lacking in frills occasionally, it's thoroughly engaging in a way that few films manage in 2012. Hang around at the end of the film for a closing round of actual-facts on the case and the people involved. Bearing in mind the Iran Hostage Crisis did happen, it'd be rude not to.
Also from the closing credits:
"Some scenes and dialogue have been fictionalised for dramatic effect"
It's okay, Ben, I'd guessed that much. But you've done such an outstanding job on a film so mired in fact that it doesn't matter too much. Not too much at all ;)
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
And so Craig returns for another round as the increasingly world-weary hero in the 23rd Bond movie. A great, lengthy pre-titles sequence sets the scene for an agent who's worried he's losing his edge, in an organisation that's struggling to keep its head above water…
In some respects, it's been pared down nicely to a muted version of the spectacle we've seen in previous films; by the final showdown, the world isn't at stake, only the worlds of four people standing in a deserted chapel. Elsewhere, CAT diggers and tube trains ramp up the action to precisely the level of mayhem we've come to expect.
Javier Bardem makes an excellent villain, although I'm not convinced that he's an excellent Bond villain. He carries a layer of madness and tragedy that lifts him way above other characters in his class, but at the same time caps his overall threat-level. He's so wrapped up in his personal agenda that you get the impression that he won't know what to do after he's achieved it, like a dog chasing a car. Ultimately, this makes him arguably more human than anyone else on-screen, which may be the point, but seems a little out of place for a story where we're meant to be cheering the good guys. There are some interesting themes running through the MI6 threads, particularly with the overall fear of obsolescence, but they're pretty much shrugged off by the end of the story, and they're just not as engaging as watching Bardem's Silva losing the plot scene by scene.
A hugely entertaining movie which doesn't outstay its welcome.
Oh, and the chase sequence at Embankment tube station? I'm probably not the first person to point out that they put things on the Tube escalators to stop you sliding down them like that. So, y'know, don't try that. Just saying.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
