It was four years ago this month that I first held a self-enforced film marathon in Twelve Days - Twelve movies. The objective was to watch a different film every day for, yeah, 12 days. It seemed quite audacious at the time, even though looking back it required next to no effort to complete (well, other than having to sit through a Richard Curtis car crash). It was really an exercise to get me watching more films and attempt to decrease the pile of DVDs sitting next to the TV, as well as taking in new flicks at my local cinema.
Now, as much as I moan about the place, I do love my cinema, if only because it's ten minutes walk away and I can go as much as I want. One of the downsides (the ones that they can't do anything about), is that we've only got five screens. Yeah, hark at future-boy here, moaning that his jet-pack isn't quite fast enough, I know. But with big releases staggered over two screens to ensure timely showings, it means we don't always get the variety or quantity of films that a geek like me wants. Y'see, I'm not all about the popcorn-fodder*1, and I enjoy watching the two hours of entertainment that hundreds of people have worked for 2-3 years to make. Quantity is rarely better than quality, of course, but at least with a higher number of films, you get a higher hit-rate of good movies.
So. Twice in the past, I've been able to juggle starts and ends of cinematic runs and visit the pictures every day for a week (although that was before I started rating and reviewing everything I see there). Depending on the movies you watch, it can really start to seem like hard work, but that's the risk of going to the cinema these days anyway. And at least you've got the possibility of catching a real gem 24 hours later...
What I'm meandering my way around to is, I've broken my Seven Days record. And I've matched my Twelve Days record. Only this time, it doesn't include any DVDs*2. So, if anything, I've broken my Twelve Days record, too. It was way more by luck than judgement, and it meant visiting *gasp* another cinema, but it's done. Bang.
Twelve Days. Twelve Movies. Twelve Tickets*3.
Click on each image to go to the review (opens in this window)
Favourite new movie? Probably G.I. Joe, if I'm being honest. Favourite new film?Trance. Wreck-It Ralph gets the highest score, but I'd already seen that one before. And what have I learned? Nothing I didn't already know. I'm a sucker for big loud movies in my local multiplex. Variety is a good thing, but not necessarily for its own sake.
I doubt I'll be able to match the Twelve Days record again in the future, but then I'm not entirely sure I want to. These were all films I wanted to see anyway, and just happened to be running concurrently. In other news, I haven't set a target of 100 films this year, but at this rate that may also happen. Let's wait and see.
I need a lie down, now. In a dark room.
A dark room with a massive screen and full surround sound.
Turn your mobile off, I'm trying to rest...
*1 Although I also unashamedly profess a love for all things mainstream.
*2 I'll be honest, going to the cinema every day hasn't left me any time to watch movies at home. I've got a life to live as well, you know. Not that you'd think so from this.
*2 And twelve slightly overpriced cups of coffee.
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.
I've learned a lesson today. I've found my line. It's at my local multiplex, watching the sequel to G.I. Joe in eye-straining 3D. Leaving aside my grumbles with the Independent Cinema which was to be my venue for the film*1, I probably didn't bond with Dans La Maison as much as the director intended.
The short version is, I found it hard to like the central character, the school-teacher Germain, and he's the one we're supposed to be relating to. And if I can't get along with him, you can only imagine how I felt about the others; the flawed, oblivious, lying, narcissistic characters which flesh out two hours of deliberately ambiguous, depressing whimsy. Outside of these, I didn't particularly enjoy the story, either in narrative or in subtext. I'd like to think it's a cultural difference, but I know it isn't; it's an entirely personal disconnect.
But, at its core, Dans La Maison is a story about writing, itself. I found it extremely irritating that Germain frequently berates his protegé, Claud, for using form over content when the film I was watching had a patchy form and next to no content. It felt a little like a concussion sufferer trying to recount details of an accident he barely remembers being in; disjointed, confusing, and ultimately aimless.
At the end of the two hours, as the credits rolled, I thought to myself 'what have I gained from the story I've just watched?. With the best will in the world, the answer is fuck all.
There are shades of Ruby Sparks, except that it all pretty much happens as you see it, and you can't like anyone on screen. So that's all good, then.
I feel no shame whatsoever in longing for Iron Man 3 at my local Cineworld.
Kinda.
Not really.
Probably. Just not what I want it to achieve.
Pfff. DVD, I suppose.
Oh, yes..
Nope.
I wish.
*1 I'll save that for another post.
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 Host Cert: 12A / 125 mins / Dir. Andrew Niccol
The film about the dystopian future, aliens inhabiting human bodies, the underground of human survivors and unilateral trust issues is quite good. I mean, it's made up of aspects that have been used countless times elsewhere, but it does work within its boundaries.
On the other hand, the film about 'oh, I don't know if I like this guy, or that guy, it's so difficult being an indecisive girl!' just made me want to punch someone in the mouth. It's not even constant; it just seems to get slotted in every 12 minutes or so, which is somehow worse. I understand that it's part of the reason the plot resolves itself, but it could have been handled so much better. Parts of the actual script infuriated me with their clichéd tweeness, but I can't deny that I was hooked and willing the story along (often with this script, you'll find yourself willing it along just to think about anything other than what's being said aloud).
All of The Bad Guys™ wear crisp white uniforms, live in minimalist cubes and make constant reference to The Puny Humans™, whereas the humans in question have essentially gone back to the earth, metaphorically and literally as they've developed an subterranean farm to go with their rounded group of stereotypes. There's an efficient amount of psychological button pushing to ensure you don't side with The Puny Humans™ completely, but you're also frequently reminded that The Bad Guys™ are exactly that. A parable for immigration? From anyone else, maybe, but doubt this goes that deep.
I know, so far it sounds awful, doesn't it? Well, a massive hat-tip goes to Saoirse Ronan who manages to carry the whole thing so ably. Much of the film consists of watching her talk to herself as Melanie/Wanda (the human/alien segments of her brain), and as incredible as this sounds, not only does she pull it off with ease, it's actually one of the highlights of the film. Given how pedestrian the whole thing should be, she really is outstanding. I wanted the relationship between the aliens and human hosts explored more thoroughly, but I don't know if the lack of that is down to Meyer's novel or Niccol's screenplay.
So, is Roman outstanding enough to make the film great? Sadly not. Diane Kruger puts in a solid turn as Melanie/Wanda's nemesis, Seeker, but it's not enough to save it from comfortable mediocrity. As is so often the case with this 'genre'*1, it's ideal for audiences who haven't seen a lot of sci-fi. Call me snobby if you want, I'll only agree with you.
The bottom line: Saoirse Ronan saves this, completely.
It's Bodysnatchers for the Twilight generation, but give them a break, everyone's got to start somewhere…
That one's representative of the worst aspect of the film. Does that help?
About half the time.
In the end, yes.
DVD.
No.
Probably not. Unless I want to play catchup before a sequel.
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.
When it's being a fun adventure romp with battling giants, Jack The Giant Slayer is quite good fun. Unfortunately, the first hour and a quarter never reaches these heights, and is dragged along by the shocking delivery of a truly appalling script. Dramatic tension is nowhere to be seen; We have to climb the beanstalk? We climb the beanstalk. We have to rescue the princess? We rescue the princess. We have to come back down again? We come back down again. It's frighteningly bland, with no sense of fun or adventure, and even the kids in the audience were starting to fidget and chatter.
Then it somehow picks up for the final battle. Well, comparatively anyway. It's still a very linear affair, but it's adrenaline central compared to the pantomime that's gone before.
And if you're thinking you can at least send your brain to sleep for a couple of hours, your eyes will have other ideas. The number of jump-cuts to avoid showing stabbing and chopping wounds (because it's all swords and arrows in here, unlike Hansel & Gretel), combined with poorly applied 3D (complete with ghosting and horribly forced perspective) make the film an absolute headache to watch. Combine this with the CGI used for the giants, and the whole thing's sadly underwhelming. The CGI isn't bad per se, but the giant's look is really suited to an animated film. In live action, they look more like 'special effects' than characters.
Ultimately, Jack The Giant Slayer comes off as an Aldi-brand Lord of the Rings, and it's a real shame because the potential's there for so much more. It's well intentioned, but it wastes a lot of time going down well-trodden pathways. Oh, but full marks for the sheer temerity of that final scene. Dear, oh dear…
Geek points: • A young boy living on his uncle's farm, who's called away to rescue a princess, accompanied by Ewan McGregor in full Kenobi-mode? Why don't you just have McGregor say 'I'm starting to have a very bad feeling about all this'? Oh, you did.
• And by all means, throw Wald and Ric Olié in as well. No, I'm serious, do that, I love those guys.
• It's slightly mad to think that Renton and Spud are climbing the beanstalk. Ace :)
Fairly.
Not really.
I have no idea.
DVD / Telly.
Yup.
Unlikely.
Yes*1.
*1 In the sequence where flaming tree trunks are being hurled into the castle.
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.
So after watching the first G.I. Joe movie at the weekend, I wasn't expecting too much from this sequel. The first one was passable, but on that fine line between being awesome and awful. I'm pleased to report that I enjoyed the sequel, although I needn't have bothered taking my brain in with me. All the basic exposition happened last time round, so we just get to focus on the 'still batshit crazy' plot, and watch live-action toys knock the living shit out of each other for just under two hours.
There's a bare-minimum catch-up narration at the start of the movie for those too impatient to watch both, and very little downtime after that. Everything's linear, borderline tongue-in-cheek, and just revelling in blowing shit up.
It's always a pleasure to watch Ray Park in action, and the melee sequences are the most satisfying in their execution (pun intended, if you want). The 3D's nicely done for a live-action, but not essential. It doesn't add anything to the film, but it doesn't derail it either. Elsewhere, Dwayne Johnson looks like he's loving the attention, Jonathan Pryce looks like he's loving the pantomime, and Bruce Willis is in full just give me the money so I can get out of here mode. Hey, a man's got to pay the bills.
Oh, and bonus points for Ray Stevenson, whose accent makes his character Firefly sound like he comes from Louisiana-Upon-Tyne.
Bottom Line: G.I. Joe: Retaliation is every bit as loud, messy and inherently stupid as you'd expect a 12A action movie, based on a toy-line, starring The Rock and Bruce Willis, to be.
In that respect, it succeeds rather well.
Yes.
Largely.
Yes.
Cinema/DVD.
Nah.
…at some point.
I think so. At the end, where Firefly comes off his bike, I could swear there's one low in the mix. I mean, seriously. This film is full of people getting shot, stabbed and falling over. There's an entire hand-to-hand battle on a cliff-face, and anyone wearing a red uniform (and there are a lot of them) takes a dive into the abyss. And you bury the Wilhelm at the end? Sort it out. *rolls eyes*
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.
