Now, I initially felt a little lost in the first act of this film, because I haven't seen Son, Second Son, Third Son, Fourth Son, Fifth Son, or Sixth Son, and that's a lot of ground to cover for someone late to the franchise. And that may well be a hoary old joke to begin the review with, but please believe me that it's more original than anything in the script for Seventh Son…
Jeff Bridges plays Gregory, a sort of alcoholic Witchfinder General channelled through Yoda and Danny Trejo, who acts surprised when the witch he imprisoned in a mountain breaks free, largely due to the fact that she's a witch. He couldn't bring himself to kill the witch because of Plot Reasons™, and so is going to spend the next hour and a half of your life attempting to do just that, aided by his new sidekick apprentice, Tom, a seventh-son-of-a-seventh-son psychic and child of a witch. Who also has a thing for witches. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, murky visuals, ghosting-3D and a script so laboured you could set your watch by it don't really help matters. The problem isn't that the film is bad (although coincidentally, it is), but that with each hackneyed plot-progression and pixel-heavy setpiece, it becomes more and more bland. It's all snarling and pouting with no spirit or conviction; like a mythology assembled by a marketing committee. The limitations of the 12A certificate deprive Seventh Son of the heft (read: violence) that the story really needs, but it's no excuse for that story being so profoundly uninteresting. The film is like a 100-minute cutscene from a very average video game that you know you won't bother playing to completion.
So whatever Jeff Bridges is trying to pull off, it's at least clear that he's having a good time doing it. Julianne Moore, on the other hand, is practically holding up a sign reading "Look, I'm in this for the money", as is Olivia Williams. It's down to Ben Barnes and Alicia Vikander to give surprisingly straight turns as the titular Seventh Son and his sorcerific love-interest. But even then the pair are constricted by the dialogue they have to deliver. Dialogue which can be neatly divided into three categories: Exposition, Cliché, and Exposition And Cliché. There's no real character development because there are no real characters. The most mysterious thing about the screenplay is how Steven 'Locke' Knight was happy to have his name attached to it.
By the time you've added in a very curious range of accents (considering the film takes place within a 100-mile radius), and an array of costume changes for the female characters which appear to have been executed with a view to selling action figures, Seventh Son isn't so much a fantasy film, more a cover-version of one.
You know you're in seriously camp territory when a gang of ruthless assassins all wear leopard-print capes.
If Lord Of The Rings is a mythological banquet, Seventh Son is chewing-gum…
Is it bollocks.
Wait until it's in a format you don't have to pay directly for (TV, Netflix etc).
Well the film industry's in real trouble if it is…
If its aim is to prove that Julianne Moore's acting skills are far better than her judgement in choosing roles, then yes it does.
*looks over spectacles*
I didn't hear one (although the volume in Screen 1 was set to 'deafening' tonight), and there really is no excuse not to cram one into this sort of thing.
Alicia Vikander starred in Son Of A Gun alongside Ewan 'Obi-Wan' McGregor.
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 the BBFC card vanished from the screen today and the Steamboat Willie ident appeared in its place, I actually got a little tingle. Not the one I get when I hear the Marvel Studios fanfare, obviously, but a buzz nonetheless. Disney's recent efforts (with one notable exception) have entertained me greatly and built up a reputation that's going to be difficult to sustain, surely?
Well, the in-built precursor to Cinderella is an animated spin-off/featurette, Frozen Fever, reuniting the central characters for seven minutes; enough time to set up the premise and wedge in a musical number. It's quite fun, even though it feels rushed somehow (and Princess Elsa seems to have become more powerful than any Jedi in her telekinetic ice-wielding powers). An array of miniature snowmen are introduced, sneezed into existence by the cold-ridden Elsa, and they're incredibly cute (read: marketable), although you've also got to remember that they're essentially frozen snot ;)
And with the b-movie (in the nicest sense) over, the live-action retelling of an old Disney favourite began, and my inner-cynic made himself comfortable with a glint in his eye. As events transpired, the cynic wasn't there for long, because Cinderella is really good. There. I said it. With the studio, cast and director playing to their strengths, it's outstanding at being a good old-fashioned Disney Princess Film™, and that's the important thing here. During the setup first act, the format feels occasionally anachronistic, with recent Disney entries like Frozen and Maleficent pushing the princess-story into new territory. But these film's can't achieve what they do without having the core methodology as their counterpoint, of course, and 2015's Cinderella is Disney reminding the audience that they basically invented the genre anyway (at least cinematically).
While it could certainly be said that the film doesn't push the envelope in any way, shape or form, it's only fair to note that it never feels the need to. With the story already locked and loaded, the performers have a solid sense of direction, and leading, supporting and cameo roles alike are confident and focussed. Lily James is the perfect casting for Ella, supported by Cate Blanchett, Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as her manipulative step-family, riding the line between horrible and pitiful with ease.
Although as earnest (and innuendo-free) as the first act is, it can't escape from the fact that between the 1950 animated film and the 2015 live-action iteration, Cinderella has become more of a pantomime-favourite than a fairytale one, and the Brit-centric cast reinforces this wholesale. Although they do, for the most part, play their roles completely straight, making for a stronger film as a result. The two exceptions to this are Rob Brydon, who's been cast in the role of Rob Brydon In A Hat™, and Helena Bonham Carter, whose role as the fairy godmother requires her to wear a set of prosthetic teeth so tremendously fierce that they prevent any part of her face above them from moving, making her look like she's been using botox as a moisturiser, somehow. And Richard Madden's research for his performance as The Prince appears to have been locking himself in a room with a copy of David Essex's showreel DVD. The man's one neckerchief away from going full rogue…
Oh, and [Facetiousness - highlight to read]: I'd thought that Ella's mum's advice in the trailer had lost its meaning in the edit, but that really is what she tells her. "Have courage and be kind" is hardly 'a secret', is it? Solid guidance, yes. Good life-advice, even. But it's not a secret. In fact, if "have courage and be kind" sees you dying of consumption before your 35th birthday while your husband spends a suspicious amount of time abroad, is it really a secret worth heeding? But there's my inner-cynic rising to the surface, again. And trust me, by the second act of Cinderella, my inner-cynic was all but defeated, lying on the shore gasping for air, too weak to take the piss out of the film. [/Facetiousness]
Under Kenneth Branagh's fantastic direction which keeps things from descending into silliness, Cinderella is great at being Cinderella, and while it may not be a creative interpretation in the mould of Maleficent, it at least makes some reparation for the farce that was Into The Woods.
If your miniature humans are pestering you to take them to a movie over the Easter holidays and you can't palm them off with a DVD, this is the one.
If you're in the target demographic or you just like well-made films, yes.
For its audience, it'll be a buyer.
I shouldn't think so, but everyone involved can proudly wield it on their CV, yes.
Undoubtedly.
Not particularly.
Not that I heard.
Wicked stepmother Cate Blanchett starred as Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies, alongside Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.
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.
Oldboy (2003)
Cert: 18 / 119 mins / Dir. Chan-wook Park / Trailer
Okay, that was weirder than expected. Chan-wook Park's revenge thriller takes a long, lingering look down the path most genre-movies would walk then dismisses it with barely another thought, but somehow keeping the unravelling mystery and occasional bursts of gleeful violence intact.
The weirdness is a major factor of course, and it occurred to me that it could be the result of a cultural disparity between Korean and more 'Western' cinema. But on balance, I've arrived at the conclusion that it's just meant to be weird. Which isn't really to say that the film is relentlessly grim and unnerving; moments of pitch-black humour intersperse protagonist Dae-su's search for not only his captor, but for the reason behind his 15-year incarceration, and it's a well-told, offbeat story.
It's not all plain sailing, however, and the various visual/narrative techniques used throughout the film (to great effect individually) don't always gel together as well as you'd like. Much of the framing's absolutely gorgeous, but then it's used for fight-scenes which feel plastic and non-threatening (I didn't come for the violence, but I expected it).
I don't think the film has changed my life or perspective on movies, but it interested the fuck out of me, and I'm actually intrigued to see the 2013 Spike Lee remake, now. Well played, Mr Park.
Oh, and I didn't eat seafood before watching Oldboy, but after watching Min-sik Choi munch a live octopus, you'll be lucky to find me near an aquarium without a sickbag…
Nope. As is becoming the standard, Oldboy had been recommended to me several times, but only by people who failed to convince me I needed to see it. Incidentally, some sources put this film as 2003, some as 2004 and some as 2005. But I hadn't seen it before tonight, and 2003 fits my viewing schedule, so bite me.
I am.
I pretty much would, yes.
But not to everyone, and not all of the time.
There isn't.
Oh, you thought a Korean-language thriller would be a nightmare to link quickly didn't you? Well, Oldboy director Chan-wook also headed up 2013's gothic-noir, Stoker, a film which starred The Phantom Menace's very own Naboo pilot, Ralph Brown.
YEAH, LOOK IMPRESSED!.
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.
Insurgent (3D)
Cert: 12A / 119 mins / Dir. Robert Schwentke / Trailer
It should really go without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that Insurgent*1 is a sequel to Divergent in a very real and direct sense, picking up swiftly from its predecessor with very little in the way of catch-up. And I do have to admire the film for this; Insurgent knows its audience, and plays to them and them alone*2.
That said, of course, aside from a switch of director and a haircut*3 we're largely on the same turf as last time, with the film carrying on the modus operandi of two hours of teenage petulance and foot-stamping, while Shailene Woodley's squeaky voice sends the residents of the nearest dogs home into absolute meltdown. The haircut, incidentally, is self-administered at the top of the film's first act, to give Tris a more practical look and stop press articles using promo shots from the first film. Actually, characters in films seem suspiciously adept at cutting their own hair (cf Blue Ruin), especially when they're going from a style that's clearly taken years to grow, into a short bob or a crop. I only mention this because there's a lady in my office who regularly cuts her own fringe, yet more often than not it looks like she's done it in the dark. Ah, well.
Insurgent is certainly a more focussed film than the first one*4, necessitated by the urgency of the plot, but I still found the protagonists too annoying to want them to succeed. Which is a pretty major obstacle when you're trying to like a film. In addition to this, the villains are every bit as moustache-twirlingly overblown as they were before, with perhaps the most embarrassing being Jai Courtney's scenes as he chews every last bit of scenery he can get his jaws on. It seems sad the think that Die Hard 5 can be the highlight of anyone's CV as Jai hams things up almost as much as Kate Winslet, who's convinced that she's the villain in an animated Disney movie. But at least it looks like Kate's enjoying herself.
And then, just when my mind was really starting to wander, the film's third-act is interesting. Nicely structured, boldly actualised and really interesting. Tris undergoes a series of simulation-trials based around the traits of the five factions*5, and it's like we're watching a different film. Okay, the sequence certainly needs the film-and-a-half beforehand to set it up, and it's faintly reminiscent of the Resident Evil movies, and the ending seems to share a lot with the ending The Maze Runner pulled with only one film, but - most importantly - it's left me wanting to see the next movie. And I'm fairly certain that's the point.
A hesitant step for the Divergent series, Insurgent is a step forward nonetheless. The film knows its strengths, but can't seem to let go of the things weighing it down. I can't say it had much of an impact on me (again), but I don't think the '41yr old men' presentation took up much time at the Summit Entertainment's demographic meetings. I look forward to 'Newsagent' if only because at this pace, I'll be able to rate it "pretty good".*6
…and I can't be the only one who was waiting for hooks and chains to spring out of the box, can I?
If you're an existing fan, yes.
If you're not bolting out the door to the cinema then you can probably wait for this to be on cable/Netflix. If anything, it'd be ideal to watch back-to-back with the first film.
In no way, shape or form.
Oh, probably.
Not really.
There isn't, yet there are plenty of shots of people falling off things. MUST. TRY. HARDER..
Insurgent's pantomime-villain Kate Winslet performed voice-acting in 2006's Flushed Away as did Andy Serkis, he of the as-yet-unspecified role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
*1 And it's all very well Summit Entertainment registering the film as the standalone 'Insurgent'at the BBFC, but most cinema chains appear to be promoting it with the cumbersome moniker 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent', in a move that either has little-to-no faith in the strength of the brand, or little-to-no faith in the intelligence of the audience. They may as well have tagged it 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent - you know, the one with Thingy Woodley in it from last time. Like a knock-off Hunger Games with slightly less to say about society, but more jumping off things. You quite liked it, remember? She was in that film where her and the other one had the cancer and went to Anne Franks's house, as well. Yes her.'
*2 Although speaking of 'audience', demographically targeted advertising is all well and good, but Insurgent features an ad for Facebook before the film. Yeah, y'know. That Facebook. As if there's a single fucking person in the auditorium to watch a Divergent film who's thinking "Oh, that's what Facebook is… well I think I'll check that out then! Eeeh, whatever next?".
*3 And while I'm on with the superficiality of it all, this post-apocalyptic dystopia has quite a lot of make-up in it, doesn't it? It's almost as if Shailene Woodley's Tris and Naomi Watts' Evelyn are going to be the founding members of the Maybelline faction in the next film.
*4 And probably more focussed than this review, to be fair. Footnotes like these are what happens when my mind wanders during a film. Or, more pertinently, when the cast, director and editor allow my mind to wander during a film. Yeah, like this snarkiness isn't my fault...
*5Brainy, Frowny, Smugly, Hapless and Wishy-Washy. But there's no test for the group for people without any faction, Raggydolls.
*6 Thanks for reading all these, by the way. Yes, you. Thanks.
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.
Oh, Sean… you can soapbox your political views all you like, but if you're going to produce and star-in films like The Gunman then you can't expect to have your judgement taken too seriously. As much as this movie would like to assure its audience that it's an intelligent, political conspiracy thriller, it quickly becomes apparent that it's just a Liam Neeson film*1 with A-levels…
The Gunmanis a competently assembled film, doesn't spoon-feed the audience too much and has some beautifully tense set-pieces. It also features some fantastic melee-choreography and enough 'wet-kills' to justify that 15 Certificate. So it's a bit of a shame really that the film doesn't bring enough to the party to set it apart from the other guests. Beginning with Penn as 'security contractor' Jim Terrier carrying out an assassination in the Democratic Republic of Congo*2, we then jump forward eight years as he reconnects with his former acquaintances in a bid to find out who's trying to permanently silence him. Yeah, you can pretty much guess the rest from there.
Despite Penn's contractually-assured shirtless scenes, he's really a bit too old to be starting in this genre. All that's missing from this performance is a comedic gripe about his bad hip. I expect more from Penn as an actor somehow, even though I don't particularly like him. This becomes part of the problem too; Sean Penn has the raw charisma to lead the film, but not the charm to be likeable while he's doing it. And if you can't like Jim Terrier, it's going to be an uncomfortable two hours. A fairly heavyweight cast surrounds him, pulling their weight with a laboured script, including Javier 'Skyfall' Bardem and Mark 'Wolf Hall' Rylance going full-pantomime (with the latter growling away like a pissed-up British Batman).
While it's never less than watchable, The Gunman is also never more than passable, and feels far longer than it's 115 minutes. It's also very considerate that Jim's Incredibly Fragile Brain Trauma™ is diagnosed in the first act then lies dormant throughout the bullet-ridden second one until the plot requires its resurgence at the film's climax. Although the best part for me was a script is so switched-on that at one point it has a rowdy skinhead start a fight in a pub in the East End of London, then mid-way through shout "call the fucking pigs!". A phrase which, for his character, sits on the real-life-probability-chart just behind "I really like crochet!". Although the hardened-reality of this film also has the characters engaging in a conversation between bursts of an un-silenced firefight indoors. I'm imagining the "military advisors" listed in the credits had the day off for the Spanish villa scene?
Say what you like about Penn's politics, but you've got to love his taste in Hawaiian shirts. They're certainly more colourful than his performance in The Gunman, anyway…
Probably not, to be honest.
Netflix / telly.
Not in the cases of the cast members whose work I'm familiar with, no.
I'd be very surprised if it did.
Not particularly.
Of course there bloody isn't. What do you think this is, some two-bit action flick? …oh.
The Gunman features a 'you-get-what-you-pay-for' performance from Ray Winstone, who starred in 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' opposite the Corellian smuggler himself, Harrison Ford.
*1 Oh, and as with Run All Night, the trailers for The Gunman included Cinderella, Minions and The Moomins. Who the fuck do Studio Canal think is watching a 15-rated film of Sean Penn shooting people in the face for two hours??
*2Where, it has to be said, not one person is shown to be drinking Um Bongo. Hollywood lies, yet again.
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.
