So as circumstances unfolded, I missed this version of the performance last year. Tonight's showing was the variant with Benedict Cumberbatch as the shambling, slurring and utterly charming Creature, and Jonny Lee Miller as his emotionally anesthetised creator. As you might suspect, BC gets the lion's share of the stage-time in this role, and has that and more of the work to do. This isn't to downplay JLM's performance at all, but as the story is told from the Creature's point of view, it's a necessity that we spend the most time with him.
Mrs Blackout was on my arm this evening, and so was my newbie-by-proxy. She spent the first fifteen minutes or so as I initially did, thinking 'well, this is all very avante garde; do we get a script or is it all expressionism?'. The unannounced, untitled, introductory birthing-sequence does feel longer than it is (even watching it again), yet it's absolutely essential for bonding with the Creature, and by the time of his departure from the farmstead you're glad you shared it with him. Cumberbatch is nothing short of magnificent here, and as much fun as he's having, it never gets hammy or overdone, even when delivering the humourous lines which the script is deftly hiding (although these moments are intentionally more broad when delivered by the other members of the cast). Extra props go to the ever-engaging Karl Johnson and Naomie Harris, whose roles seem almost criminally (if needfully) short.
Whether you're a Shelley aficionado, or have only caught fleeting glimspes of the Karloff-guise, this interpretation of the tale is worth your time, money and attention. Meticulously staged, and thought-provoking without beating you over the head with weighted morality, Frankenstein is definitely "theatre", but definitely worth a watch for even the most hardened cinephile.
Oh, and as it turned out, Mrs Blackout enjoyed it very much. So, all good.
Folks in the UK: The other half of the performance (with Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature) is being shown at participating Cineworld, Vue, and Odeon cinemas. Independents are listed on the NT Live website. International screenings are being held, but you'll have to Google your area I'm afraid ;)
Well, it's not really meant to be, I don't think.
I did.
It does.
If you can see Frankenstein at a cinema, do, because it looks like there's no DVD imminent.
I probably will.
If they show it again, I will watch it again.
There isn't.
What's your favourite version of Frankenstein's monster?
Yes, I know it's an obvious question.
That's why I asked it.
*1 You can read my original 2012 review of the show (with Jonny Lee Miller as the Creature) here.
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.
Thor: The Dark World (3D) (first-pass*1) (SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 12A / 112 mins / Dir. Alan Taylor
So, big expectations after the God of Thunder's first outing, and does the caped hammer-thrower live up to them? Well, yes and no. The Dark World is huge fun in a 'smash the crap out of things with hammers' kind of a way, but it still feels like the whole thing is of little consequence. That's not to say that there aren't events in the film which will have repercussions later in the timeline, but there are more which feel like they won't.
Hemsworth's Thor has developed nicely from his Avengers appearance, and he displays the ongoing maturing of his character well. But of course it's Hiddleston's Loki who steals the best lines and deepest chuckles, brining a sarcasm which almost seems lost on those around him (although thankfully not on the audience). In addition to this, one of his scenes features a brief appearance by another Avenger which also tickled the auditorium this evening*2. Natalie Portman has a great chemistry with Hemsworth this time around (read: better than last time), and the now London-based scientist team of Dennings, Skarsgård and Howard provide exposition and comic relief second only to Hiddleston. Everyone in Asgard wears armour and frowns a lot. Again. Which is fine.
The 3D is there, and does the job well enough most of the time, but really isn't a deal-breaker. The same can be said of Brian Tyler's score; well grounded, but a little too reminiscent of his excellent work on Iron Man 3 for my liking (which, y'know, was only six months ago).
The biggest drawback for me has to be the antagonists, in the form of the Dark Elves. I know that Paramount are busily shoehorning in as much Marvel property as they can get the rights to, but after the inclusion of the Chitauri and Thanos in Avengers Assemble, it seems a little unnecessary to introduce a new set of villains which only fill a token role anyway. To cap it all off, Christopher Ecclestone's turn as their leader Malekith seems particularly weak, given what a capable actor he can be. He grunts and fumes his way through the role, aided by Darth Krayt and The Robots Of Death, but it doesn't really feel like the Dark Elves will maintain much of a presence in this cinematic timeline. Much like the Iron Man movies, we seem to be missing a really decent villain; but unlike those, we don't have a witty, charming hero to paper over the cracks.
• Stan Lee cameo? Yes, there is.
• After-initial-credits-scene? Yes, there is.
• After-all-of-the-credits scene? Yes, there is. Although it's not as significant as the one before the names start rolling.
The Dark World is a solid addition to the canon, but a fairly weak film in its own right, even as a Thor sequel. As much as I love Paramount's Marvelverse, even I've got to admit this has a sniff of filler about it. Pretty great filler, but even so…
Pretty much, although the trailers are careful not to go too far into mechanics.
As much as I could with what was there.
I think it does, but only because it doesn't want to achieve too much.
It does look lovely on a massive screen…
Probably not.
I will.
I didn't hear one this time around...
Since when has Greenwich been three stops away from Charing Cross on the tube?
For a scene that's essentially a joke anyway, a lengthier, more accurate answer would have made it far funnier ;)
*1 Let's just clear this up now; we all know I'll be seeing this more than once. This was the first time.
*2 Well okay, morning. It was a midnight showing, after all.
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.
Thor (3D) (third-pass)
Cert: 12A / 112 mins / Dir. Kenneth Branagh
You can read my first (2011) review of Thorhere, and my second-pass one here.
Pardon? A double-bill with 2011's tousled-lock-fest Thor leading into a midnight-showing of 2013's swinging-hammer-fest The Dark World? Why wouldn't I be interested? Hmm? You're right, I do have work in the morning; but it's nothing that coffee can't fix. YEAH!
So I think we all know the score. Gratuitous chest-shots from Chris, gratuitous smouldering from Tom, and gratuitous smashing-things-with-a-hammer to keep the everyone else happy. I'd actually forgotten that the 3D's not too shabby in the first half hour or so of the film, I'd forgotten how much time we spend on Asgard throughout, and I'd forgotten how good Jaimie Alexander looks in body-armour. All three are points in the film's favour.
Going back to this movie after the excesses of Avengers Assemble and Iron Man 3, it actually seems quite… well 'restrained', somehow. It's a marvellous scene-setter for the God of Thunder, but works better as part of the ongoing series than as a standalone adventure.
Yep.
Yep.
For me? Yep.
For me? Cinema. Hence this review.
A little, but not too much.
Yep.
I'm pretty certain I heard one buried in an explosion, yeah.
Where's Lorelei though, hmm?
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.
A stylistic rollercoaster, which suffers from one instance of frankly dreadful casting. The problem is that when audiences in the UK see Matt Lucas with no trousers on and a comedy wig, it's more-often-than-not in the context of sketch comedy, where he'll deadpanningly play a ridiculous character with a look of bemusement on his face. That's also pretty much what he's doing in this film, but it's not what's required. Many of his scenes are performed alone, and he has no comedic foil to bounce off and the whole thing falls a bit flat. That said, I've got no idea who would play the part any better, so maybe it's the part itself?
Small Apartments is the Instagram of dark, quirky comedy; dreamlike one moment, wisecracking the next, slapstick the one after that followed by introspective pathos. It makes Seven Psychopaths look like Pulp Fiction, yet sadly it doesn't even have the character of the former, let alone the hipster attitude of the latter.
The worrying thing is that all the other characters seem to have been relatively well, but in roles that are defined by an outfit (and/or wig) with a facial expression. There's enough surreal action to maybe suggest that the entire episode is taking place inside one of the characters' minds (see also: Super), but since the closing scenes dwell more on the story-resolution of a previously incidental character, it seems unlikely, somehow.
I'd like to say that at least Small Apartments tries hard, but for about half of the runtime I just don't think that's the case. I many ways it's a noble failure, but a failure nonetheless.
The trailer is far more coherent than the actual film.
Not really, no.
I have no idea, but I do hope so.
If anything, free.
Yeah.
Nope.
Not that I heard.
Why do I bother?
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 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• 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.
Very little to say about this one, really. If you've seen the first Cloudy, you'll know pretty much what what you're getting, and the film takes that expectation and delivers nicely. It's very funny, it's very sweet, and there's enough going on to keep the kids and the adults engaged throughout.
Outstanding animation and excellently cast (and performed) voicework already put it above the other animated movie that's out at the moment, but it never quite reaches the level of greatness you feel it's aiming at. The themes are all painted very broadly and there's little in the way of subtext, but the fast-paced script and number of visual gags will make re-watching a lot of fun for quite some time.
It may rely quite heavily on puns, but Cloudy…2 has a sense of joy that's quite infectious. The film doesn't take itself too seriously, and as a result lacks the full-on emotional manipulation we're used to in this genre (a welcome change, if I'm being honest). If there was ever an animated movie which seemed happy to be classified as 'a cartoon', this is it. Enjoy.
Yeah.
I did.
I think it does.
That will depend on how eager you are to see it, ultimately.
No.
I will.
There IS.
Bill Hader is excellent as Flint Lockwood in the 'Cloudy' movies, but do you think he's got the heft to be the lead in live-action comedies?
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.
