Erm okay, why does Steve Jobs wash his feet in a dressing-room toilet? Is this an in-joke or reference to something I'm meant to know already? Because it's not explained either before or after, and Michael Fassbender's portrayal displays no more such eccentric (physical) behaviour for the rest of the movie. Steve's borderline-sociopathic interaction with his colleagues was already doing a fine job of painting him as a weirdo, I really didn't need that, too...
And so, the Aaron Sorkin/Danny Boyle collaboration comes to fruition in a three-act play which takes place entirely behind the scenery. Each segment focuses on the run-up to a key Apple keynote presentation (1984's Macintosh, 1988's Next and 1998's iMac) and the drama which preceded each one. Enough detail and context is deftly built into the script that little-to-no prior knowledge of the products or corporation is needed, because Boyle's is a film about dysfunctional people - not malfunctioning hardware.
Intriguingly cast with more-than-capable players, the people they're playing are perhaps less recognisable. So you never really feel like you're watching Steve Jobs; you're watching Michael Fassbender. But like I said, the main cast of young Michael, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen and Jeff Daniels all give great value for money. That said, I especially enjoyed Rogen, who seems to have switched from comedic gear into dramatic by not changing his screen-personality one single jot (that's not a sarcastic criticism by the way, I genuinely love that he's done that).
Oh, and bonus points go to Michael Fassbender for maintaining his accent throughout every scene in the film's two hours (I'm on his case as far as that's concerned, as he has significant previous form). Although those points are instantly deducted for Kate Winslet's vocal stylings. After going on-record to explain her research and rehearsal of Joanna Hoffman's accent, she then doesn't use it for an entire act of the film, instead opting for a standard mid-western American tone. Which would be fine, except that it's for the first act, so we're apparently to believe that Hoffman lost her unique Polish/Armenian/US accent for 1984, but then found it again? It wouldn't even matter if Winslet didn't go on to make such a great job of it for the other two thirds of the film. You just think '…why's she started talking like that?'
Aaron Sorkin's script is bitingly funny when it needs to be, but always in a very dry, self-congratulatory way. The main focus, though, is on the human drama, yet as heated as the dialogue becomes, there's still an overall lack of emotion on-screen; like a painstakingly programmed simulation of angst, designed as some sort of reverse Turing-test. Ultimately, I have to confess that after two hours in his company, I didn't actually like Steve Jobs any more or less. I knew a lot more about him (or at least the facet presented through the film), but I was as emotionally non-committal as I was when I sat down. And while I'm not an Apple-fanboy at all, I do use their products on a daily basis, so it's not like I had no interest going in.
The theatrical settings and repeated themes make the movements of the Steve Jobs more symphonic than cinematic. It's is an incredibly well-assembled film, but one which left me as cold as we're meant to believe the man himself was in his human interactions.
That could be the very point, but I doubt it…
Well, I think the film will feel far more focused on a cinema screen, even though it's not inherently cinematic.
Rental.
I don't believe so.
Probably.
Probably not.
Definitely not.
Michael Fassbender will be reprising his role as young Magneto in next year's X-Men: Apocalypse, a film which stars (or the voice of, at least) Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac.
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.
This film, (this 12A certificated film) was preceded by not one, but two separate adverts for gin. Never let it be said that either Entertainment Film Distributors nor Digital Cinema Media don't know their intended audience…
Kate Winslet stars in The Dressmaker as Myrtle 'Tilly' Dunnage, a fashion designer who returns unannounced to the dilapidated home-town she was removed from as a child, looking for answers, connections and perhaps a little bit of revenge. Director Jocelyn Moorhouse captures the claustrophobia, paranoia and squalor of the film's sole setting with suffocating glee, and with the screenplay's humour shining through the blackest moments. However, the film seems torn between wanting to be funny and meaningful. It's not that there's any reason it can't be both, it just has issues balancing them.
Winslet is great in the film's lead role, but it's really Judy Davis as her eccentric mother who steals the show in terms of both performance and character development. And I'll go on record now as saying that Hugo Weaving is nothing short of fucking magnificent in this film.
The Dressmaker is far better at being a genuinely quirky indie-comedy than it is a homecoming melodrama. And although it ploughs both furrows with equal earnestness, the screenplay never quite manages to merge them successfully. With an alarmingly high body-count for a 12A movie set in rural Australia and featuring no firearms, the humorous vein is far more interesting than the ponderous one of poetic justice.
But fair play for the references to X-Men, Pet Cemetary and The Empire Strikes Back. There aren't many films set in the 1951 Australian outback that would manage those so seamlessly…
For the right audience, yes.
Sunday night, bottle of wine, sorted.
For Kate Winslet, not really.
But I'll be amazed if Hugo Weaving doesn't get some major props…
I think it does, it's just not a thing which was aimed at me in any way.
Nope.
There isn't.
Well, Hugo Weaving appeared in those Matrix movies, of course, one of which starred fellow Aussie Bruce Spence; Tion Medon from out of Revenge Of The Sith.
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.
Carol Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. Todd Haynes / Trailer
Despite the atrocious social politics, the 1950s seem alright, don't they? The two lead characters in this movie sit down in a restaurant, order and have their food (plus cocktails!) in front of them within four minutes! I can't even get the waiting-staff's attention in that time. That said, I look like neither Cate Blanchett nor Rooney Mara, so…
Adapted from Patricia Highsmith's 1952 novel, The Price Of Salt, Carol stars the aforementioned actresses struggling to reconcile the relationship they both want; not only because of general societal norms, but also because of the expectations of their friends and families. And if that all sounds a bit too over-earnest, don't worry, it's not really. As Drama™ goes, Carol is directed a little too languidly for its own good, and Haynes' pace is too relaxed to seize the angst and emotional drama that's at the core of the story.
The film is saved by its performances, rather than being driven forward by its narrative, and both Blanchett and Mara inhabit the roles completely. I bought into Carol and Therese's characters individually, but not so much their relationship, although I suspect that's because the film itself is hesitant about exploring that too deeply. It's also important to remember, of course, that the story was written around the time it's set, which explains much of its slightly reserved tone. While most serious dramas at this time of year smells a lot like awards-bait, I think Carol shows too much restraint for its own good, and will probably slip through the Oscar-net*1.
A fine looking movie in terms of sets and wardrobe, cinematographer Edward Lachman makes great use of both reflection and unconventional framing. But his colour-balancing, film-grain and camera-wobble are all over the place, the latter of which suggests a lot of zoom/crop shots. A story about a relationship that didn't bloom, rather than one that shone and burned-out, the film isn't always as visually quiet as the tone of the script requires it to be. Although the final dialogue-free scene saw many of my perceived gripes pushed aside*2.
Despite the combination of the story's era and subject-matter, there's little which is daring or challenging about the film, yet it's still an engaging watch throughout. Carol feels more like a repressed melodrama than an intense romance, and I'm not sure that does it any favours in the long-term…
It is, but…
…you wouldn't lose too much by spending that £10+ on the DVD and watching it at home.
Not quite, although both Blanchett and Mara are outstanding in their work and they can't all be the best performance.
For me, no.
Nope.
Nope.
Cate Blancett starred in those Lord Of The Rings and Hobbit movies, alongside Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.
1 Plus, with the best will in the world, I just don't think it's that good. And while I'm on, how the hell does Kyle Chandler get an 'And' credit?? He's hardly the special guest of the week, ringing on the doorbell as he pops round to borrow a cup of sugar, single-handedly raising the profile of the film with his presence alone, now is he?
*2 Not my gripes about the photography, though. That much hand-held camera-shake for the final, measured, interior tracking shot is nothing short of excruciating.
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.
Well okay, the general lack of full-on Disney/Pixar promotional buzz (of the level we've come to expect, at least) should perhaps be an indicator, but Peter Sohn's new flick is a real mixed bag. That's not to say it's down to both good and bad aspects jostling for position, but more that the film is full of conflicting elements which can't quite work together. Either would be fine, but not both…
The first and most prominent clash comes between the exquisite, photo-realistic environments the pre-historic characters inhabit, versus the hyper-cartoon design of those characters themselves (imagine a sleeked-down, hi-res textured re-imagining of the Chewits monster). Following audibly close on the heels of this disconnect is a full orchestral score which evokes Howard Shore's Celtic-infused Lord of the Rings soundtrack for the first and third acts, but moves jarringly into Frontier Western mode for the film's central section (as does the screenplay to be fair, but even so).
But the rift which does the most damage is that the movie's scripted gags are nowhere near as funny or inventive as its visual ones, which becomes a metaphor for the issues facing the whole movie. With the main story set several million years after an asteroid (which was meant to cause the Dino-apocalypse) whizzes harmlessly past the Earth, saurian-culture has developed to the point where the creatures speak to one another as well as using crude tools and farming techniques (as a concept, it works for the film, trust me). Humans are also on the scene by then, but haven't developed to the point of fluid verbal communication. This creates a juxtaposition where the feral human child which the Apatosaur Arlo befriends is, to all intents and purposes, a pet dog (albeit a self aware dog with problem-solving intelligence. Plus, y'know, his character is called Spot).
And that's where the necessary communication barrier between the two lead characters leads to some beautiful visual film-making; storytelling in its purest form which can be enjoyed by audiences regardless of age, verbal dexterity or language. The best scenes by far are the ones with no dialogue, and they're where the story feels most at home.
But there aren't enough of these moments for the film to flourish. The script, as it stands, is a little too unwieldy for its youngest audience members, but too simplistic for their older counterparts. I get the feeling that if The Good Dinosaur had been made as a dialogue-free 'silent' film, it would have been more challenging for the film-makers and far more rewarding for the audience as a result (cf Shaun The Sheep). The film is still thoroughly mawkish and manipulative of course, but it doesn't even do that as well as you know a Disney piece should.
Maybe my expectations are too high? Maybe the House of Mouse has spoiled us all in recent years? The Good Dinosaur is by no means a bad movie, but it's not Disney/Pixar's A-Game. This feels like February-half-term filler which has been shunted into the holiday-season schedule in lieu of something more focused…
But ultimately, I know that it doesn't really matter what a middle-aged cynic like me thinks about this film; The Good Dinosaur is aimed squarely at the younger crowd. Although when a considerable number of those chatter and shriek throughout the performance, it tells me that Pixar can't even keep the attention of their target audience, either*1…
With the best will in the world, it ain't.
Oh, it's a "£4 on DVD" type-film.
Not particularly.
I don't think it achieves all it could…
Probably not.
There ain't.
Why, The Good Dinosaur features the golden tones of none other than John 'Derlin' Ratzenberger, himself…
*1 And as I've noted on several occasions, the sustained attention-holding of the youngest audience members is the real test for any kids-film.
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, this is my third Jesse Plemons film this month; the cinema staff are beginning to talk. Everyone's favourite grump-faced young Texan is just one supporting pillar of many in the fantastically cast Black Mass, the true/dramatised story of Massachusetts crime-kingpin James 'Whitey' Bulger and his 20 year grip over Boston, all of which was in fact aided and abetted by his state-senator brother, and their childhood friend who became a crooked FBI agent.
First and foremost, Johnny Depp is on blistering form as Bulger. It's great to finally have Johnny back in a role which gives him something to do, boldly striding down the line between charismatic and repellent (and often being both). As Black Mass progresses though, it becomes as much Joel Edgerton's film as Depp's, and he's shaping up to be a classic character-actor in playing the FBI's John Connolly. Backed by understated performances from the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch, Dakota Johnson, Kevin Bacon, Corey Stoll, Rory Cochrane and Juno Temple (okay, and Jesse Plemons), director Scott Cooper isn't afraid to use some quiet restraint with his cast, opting for lengthy, scathing glances rather than Tarantino-esque shoot-outs (although rest assured, there's a not-insignificant bullet-count in here as well).
In other hands, the film could easily have been a straight-to-DVD thriller starring Russell Crowe, but Cooper's unflinching treatment of his subject matter (this is a hard 15 Cert), Junkie XL's melodically imposing score, and the fantastic sets, make-up and costumes make Black Mass far more than the sum of its parts…
…although it's duly noted that Mr Cumberbatch seems to have mastered his Massachusetts accent by studying Peter Griffin, Depp's criminal mastermind barely ages between 1975 and 1995, and his accompanying semi-receded hairline doesn't seem to budge at all;)
If you're in the mood for unrelenting grimness on a large screen, yes.
It'll be one to buy, but maybe once the price has dropped.
Almost certainly.
Almost certainly.
Maybe a bit.
There isn't.
Black Mass stars none other than young Owen Lars himself, Joel Edgerton.
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.
