I won't lie to you, when I first heard that a live-action Paddington film was being made, my heart sank a little, and seeing the prospective cast list did nothing to change my mind. Thankfully, the first full trailer gave me a little reassurance that things were on the right track, and I'm happy to report that it's an excellent snapshot of the film itself.
After a localised earthquake forces young Paddington from his home in darkest Peru, the young bear finds himself stowing away on a ship, hoping to meet with the kindly explorer who befriended his guardians forty years previously. Bound for London armed only with the knowledge that his aunt and uncle have given him of the world's most polite and courteous city, Paddington finds that the years have not been kind to that reputation...
Paddington may well be the most charming film I've seen this year. Beautifully animated, genuinely funny and heartwarmingly silly. A family adventure film in the truest sense, Michael Bond and director Paul King have written a thing of great beauty, and it's brought to life by a cast who (largely) play the screenplay straight rather than patronise the younger audience (naturally Nicole Kidman's Millicent is more the cartoon villain, but that's what the part calls for). Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins pretty much steal the show as Mr & Mrs Brown, with Ben Whishaw's Paddington being just on the right side of sweetly loveable.
But as I said it's not all saccharine, and the film's trump card is its inherent playfulness (and Hugh Bonneville dressed as a cleaning lady like a latter-day Ronnie Barker, flirting with Simon Farnaby*1). The greatest example of this being that no-one really questions a talking bear. It's commented upon, certainly, but at no point does anyone freak the hell out over it. And when the characters buy it, so do the audience.
On the downside, the film's relatively delicate allegory for immigration and integration is pretty much undermined in one scene between Nicole Kidman's evil taxidermist and Peter Capaldi's nasty-neighbour, Mr Curry. It's no biggie, but feels like the one part of the script which wasn't proofread, somehow. There's also a nice bit of product placement for First Great Western in the film too, although I suspect that the scene set last thing at night in Paddington Station was meant to be in the early evening, but they ended up having to wait for the train to come in ;)
You'd have to be some kind of heartless monster to get nothing out of this film; go and see it.
It pretty much is.
I did indeed.
I think it certainly does.
A family outing to the cinema is certainly called for, but you won't lose much if you decide to watch it at home in four months' time.
Maybe a little.
I will, but probably not at the cinema.
There isn't, although there *is* a brief Die-Hard reference. And an Indiana Jones reference. Well, two actually, if you include the fridge. Which I do.
Can we somehow stop Michael Gambon from doing voice-roles, though please? It's one thing when he's on-screen refusing to be anything other than Michael Gambon™, but his 'no job is beneath me' attitude to voiceovers has cheapened his own brand to the point where his Uncle Pastuzo character just sounds like an overly-smug TV advert for HSBC. Or that Sky ad which ran directly before the film.
*1 Yet despite having one of the film's most tear-inducing comedy sequences, Farnaby isn't credited on the film's IMDB page. What gives there?
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.
It's difficult to imagine the situation which prompted a sequel to 2011's Horrible Bosses being commissioned, although it's probably a safe bet to guess that the meeting didn't include the phrases "surprise hit" or "runaway success". The original did, by all accounts, provide a reasonable return both financially and critically, but was never going to set the entertainment industry on fire. So why not do it again, right? That's how the business works?
Well, whether it's the change of director or the non-change of direction, Sean Anders' 2014 sequel has come in for something of a kicking (from critics, at least) in its opening weekend, which seems a little unfair. Sure, the plot is more like a series of weakly connected sketches, some of which work better than others; sure, that plot explains itself so heavy-handedly in the first twenty minutes that it doesn't have to do any more expository work until the final reel; sure, a lot of the (clearly) improvised dialogue leaves you thinking '…this is the take they went with?'; sure, there's a clear line of good-taste which Jennifer Aniston's sex-addicted dentist Julia frequently crosses, as if daring herself to be as gross as possible rather than as funny as possible; but in all honesty, there are few insults you can fling at this film which wouldn't be equally deserving of its predecessor.
The day is saved by Jason Bateman, not doing anything new, but certainly doing what he does best. His resigned exasperation at the moronity of those around him being his calling card as a comedic actor. Similarly on good form are Jason Sudekis, Charlie Day, Christoph Waltz, Jamie Foxx and Kevin Spacey. Special props have to go to Chris Pine, demonstrating once again that his talent for comedy far outweighs those of action or drama. And if that list seems a little light on the ladies' names, that's because the film is too; Aniston is pretty much it. Although I doubt whether the film would have been any better for more female characters, it might have been nice to have given it the chance, at least.
But y'know what? I probably laughed far more than I should have throughout the film. I can't gauge audience reaction since I was at a private screening*1, but Horrible Bosses 2 never tries to be anything more than a largely unnecessary, morally-questionable farce-comedy. And in that at least, it succeeds.
That's where we're at, yeah…
Mostly, although many of the scenes end up driving into an improvisational cul-de-sac.
Oh, probably.
DVD tops, if I'm being honest.
Not at all.
I can't envision me seeking it out, but I know it'll be good for a chuckle in the right company.
Erm, there's a boot-shot? Actually, there are two boot-shots. Which is over-egging the pudding somewhat
…see you for HB3?
*1 By which I mean that I was the only person who wanted to see Horrible Bosses 2 at 3:30 on a Friday afternoon. By the time you factor in my Unlimited card, my local Cineworld were basically setting aside Screen 5 (the big screen) for 2+ hours whilst looking at the profit on an already-discounted coffee. Ouch.
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 further ten packs added to the collection and we've gone from 36% to 55%. The potential 50 stickers yielded 40 for the album with 10 swaps, and has made for the completion of pages three and thirty-nine (although we now have a further 6 pages which are 1 sticker away from being finished).
As you can see, we've now crept slightly ahead of the prediction-model's forecast (the red-dotted-line in the chart), which calculated an average of 50% by the time it'd reached 28 packs. Will the actual and predicted figures continue to separate, or is this just a momentary anomaly? I don't know either; time will tell.
Anyway, here's today's breakdown...
Duplicates so far: 2,3,11,20,27(x2), 44,51,53,62,64,68,71,76(x2), 97,120,123,137,140,146,186.
[If you're collecting these too and you're after any of the stickers appearing in the duplicates-list, give me a shout either in the comments-box or the WoB Facebook page.
Yes, of course I'm serious.]
It gives me no great pleasure to tell you how dispassionate I feel about Mockingjay Pt 1. In fact, I felt a lot worse about my state of mind until I re-read my reviews of the previous two installments and remembered how little enthusiasm I was able to raise for those, too. It's not that I actively dislike The Hunger Games, far from it in fact, but I just can't seem to connect with what it's got to offer. I don't want to fall back on blaming demographic differentials (ie, me not being a teenage girl), because I honestly don't think that's the case; I'm just not sold on this universe.
The first two Hunger Games films wielded a heavy-handed pastiche of reality television and consumer culture. That's all but disappeared in the first Mockingjay film, but if feels at times like there isn't enough to rush in and fill the resulting vacuum. This is structurally a very different movie and carries the general tone forward well, but it feels slightly too detached for me. Almost, dare I say, like a general rant against a political situation by someone who hasn't spent enough time working out what they specifically dislike. Too broad to make any succinct points, really.
On a more cinematic front (because that's what I'm here for iirc), I spent too much time thinking 'what, like in the Star Wars?' or 'what, like in The Matrix?' to get into the movie properly. Even I would expect me to draw these comparisons of course, but when the story centres around a charming, charismatic white-haired dictator ordering his white-armoured troops to quell a rebellion (like in the Star Wars*1), and that ragtag uprising evading detection of the state by living in an underground bunker, led by an equally charismatic leader who gives rousing speeches on a first floor balcony in a dirty looking basement to a bedraggled audience (like in the Matrix)… well sorry, I've already got those scenes allotted elsewhere. To be clear, I'm not shouting 'rip-off'; they're not concepts original to those other films by any means. I just think they could have been handled more… uniquely, that's all.
Jennifer Lawrence proves her acting credentials once again, as do pretty much all of the cast (Sutherland's a but moustache-twirly, but that's the role), and the production values are nothing short of mightily impressive. The score, the visual effects, the dialogue, all robust in a way which many A-list movies can only aspire to. I should also point out that Katniss's visit to the refugee hospital was an outstanding scene, as were the film's last two appearances from Peeta. If the film had maintained that level of heart and adrenaline throughout I'd have had more to latch onto. But ultimately, I just don't care enough about the characters for some reason. The feeling of Dystopia-Lite™ hasn't disappeared for me. *shrugs*
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 is well directed, well produced and well acted, and I'm genuinely interested to see the final film in the series; I just wish I could like it more.
Pulls all the faces, sells none of the feelings. So like the film, yes.
Most of the time, I'm afraid not. Although there are a couple of fantastic moments in there…
I imagine it probably does.
It looks great on a big screen, so cinema if you're going to see it.
Nope.
Hmm…
There isn't. Outrageous.
Is it just me who was disappointed that President Snow doesn't use the word 'ergo' more? Or 'concurrently'?
*1 And while I'm on the subject, it's just a shame that that particular era of the Star Wars Expanded Universe has recently undergone a soft reboot, as Julianne Moore would make a fantastic Ysanne Isard.
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.
We hit the ground running with the two sheets of six stickers from each of the albums*1, the six packs of stickers included in the 'starter pack', and a further nine loose packs bought separately.
Because my spreadsheet is set up to record the sticker numbers in batches of five, and the single-sheets include six stickers (a glaring oversight on my part), these twelve stickers take up the space of three packs in the source-table rather than two. Not that this will matter in the long run, but it's why the number-of-packs appears to be out by one at this early stage.
From this point onwards, it's packs of five. Like all that matters.
So, eighteen packs (or part, thereof) of stickers takes us straight to 36% overall completion. Not too shabby at all!
No pages complete yet, and twelve duplicates accumulated so far.
Here's the breakdown*2, with the green bars being the actual completed percentage by pack increment, and the red dotted line being the simulated prediction...
Duplicates so far: 3,11,20,27(x2), 51,62,64,71,76,120,123.
If you're collecting these too and you're after any of the stickers appearing in the duplicates-list, give me a shout either in the comments-box or the WoB Facebook page.
Yes, of course I'm serious.
*1 I'm not filling both albums; one's to keep empty, along with an unopened pack of stickers. What? No, you shut up.
*2 It's arguable, of course, that this whole exercise is the breakdown...
We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
#CrapSequels: Teen Wolf Too Cert: PG / 90 mins / Dir. Christopher Leitch
Year: 1987 (2 years after the first movie)
The general feeling: RT Score: 14% / IMDB Score: 3.0
This film was released in the same year as Good Morning, Vietnam. Think about that for a second.
Christopher Leitch's layered exploration of the duality of the human psyche is a more curious beast than its primary character. The director's use of sport and music as cultural adolescent metaphors emphasise the… oh fuck it, who am I kidding?
The plot: A bashful, if well-meaning, youth finds out he's inherited a congenital lycanthropic condition which has lain dormant until his late teens. After several uncontrolled outbursts causing him to transform into a werewolf in public, his contemporaries' attitudes shift from revulsion to acceptance and celebration, albeit in the empty, cliquey way which often passes for friendship in college. After letting his newfound popularity go to his head, his genuine friendships begin to falter, and the youth is forced to reevaluate his priorities and choose the right path for himself and the ones he loves. So basically Teen Wolf, then?
Cast as Scott's lupine cousin, Todd, it's faintly ironic that Jason Bateman's lead character spends the film getting bent out of shape because everyone's expecting him to be the same as Michael J Fox's one. If only because that's why the writer, director and 1987 audience had turned up, too. The film's not so much the metaphor that the first film was, it's more a simile for that metaphor. A lazy, box-ticking, audience-placating rehash of its predecessor.
This wholly unnecessary sequel doesn't even open with its lead character, it just skips straight to a metric fuckton of exposition posing as 'foreshadowing' delivered by Gomez Addams. At least I think it's exposition. Something about clarinets and Michael Bluth being Marty McFly's cousin. Then James Hampton turns into a wolf in his first scene. Bang goes any reveal, then.
The first act is dull, awkward and clunky as fuck, as it none of the cast have any confidence in what they're doing, and are hoping everything will be smoothed out in the edit. Actually, I get the impression that even the editor was hoping things would be smoothed out in the edit. Alas, they aren't. The best the film can do is make constant heavy-handed references to Teen Wolf, hoping that familiarity by proxy will be an adequate justification for having assembled the cast and crew. Alas, it isn't.
By the time the second act kicks in, Teen Wolf Too is a done deal; like a hurried pastiche of a John Hughes comedy assembled by a team who've never seen one. Character A is inserted into Situation B with Outcome C. Apply laughs and goodwill before allowing to dry. I guess someone skipped the last step.
I especially enjoyed the brief scene in which Todd and his prospective amour Nicki watch an actual string quartet playing, when the accompanying soundtrack is clearly a synthesiser's version of what a string quartet sounds like.
Switch out the musicians for actors and you've got an analogy of the entire film.
Not to the best of my knowledge. Which should tell you a lot.
I have, but not for some time.
It'd probably help, but don't worry - the cast of this film will go over the last one repeatedly.
James Hampton returns as proto-Peter-Griffin, Harold Howard, keen to surf on the wave of goodwill so ably stirred up previously by Michael J, and Mark Holton gives another turn as Chubby. That's it.
No, although a rebooted live-action series began in 2011.
Don't bother.
I didn't hear one.
Without being overly familiar with the original, is there a reason that the werewolves can change at will and in broad daylight? Going to assume it's the same reason they also don't become feral, bloodthirsty maniacs once the fur's on?
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.
