The boy, it appears, does have patience after all. After missing its appearance at the 2015 LFF and catching it on VOD instead, I've finally managed to see the Star Wars documentary Elstree 1976 in a cinema as part of its nationwide screening-tour, which included a Q&A session with the director Jon Spira, composer Jamie Hyatt and the hero of the battle of Yavin, John Chapman.
There's not actually too much more to add to my first review of the film; it's an intimate, charming and utterly fascinating look at some of the lesser-known faces of 1977's A New Hope, presented in the form of intercut interviews with former cantina aliens, X-Wing pilots, stormtroopers and more. I'd previously mused that a film this niche would perhaps go right over the heads of a 'civilian' audience, but that's exactly who was present at Oxford's Ultimate Picture Palace this evening. Unlike the recent Gary Numan doc, these weren't particularly fervent Star Wars fans, or even documentary fans, just a selection of punters curious enough to want to look through the window into another world, and this film held their attention throughout, even when I could sense that they were a little lost by the minutiae of the GFFA. It was interesting to see which aspects of the cast's reminiscences resonated with them, as well as the parts which were perhaps too inaccessible (they seemed to find Boba Fett actor Jeremy Bulloch's description of all the pens he carries for signing different items highly amusing, for some reason. Even after the man tells the tale of the time his silver marker leaked all over a poster which had already been signed by many other performers. I was wincing through that section (as was Jeremy, recalling it), but presumably this doesn't sound like a big deal to the The Normies?).
A thing which did surface more the second time I watched it was the borderline transient nature of the convention/autograph circuit, which was underlined by John Chapman speaking afterwards. Elstree 1976 is already a sincere study of the scene, but it's definitely not a 'look at what these movie extras are doing these days'. It's more look at what they were doing then, a snapshot taken when the documentary was made. Several of its stars have since moved away from the circuit, having either scratched that itch or just gotten tired of the hierarchical politics surrounding the whole thing. The film makes no judgement of either the actors, nor the fans who adore them, but nor does it take issue with them stepping back into the relative obscurity of regular life. This is a film about ordinary people that celebrates their ordinariness.
If you like old-school Star Wars, you'll enjoy Elstree 1976. Otherwise you're probably going to be like the couple sat behind me who didn't appear to know what the film was about (at all) before it started, despite being interested enough to have bought tickets to watch it. Which I suppose is fair enough if you're the proprietor of a cinema...
The decent bonus-documentaries from the old days which actually used to impart something about the production of a film, rather than those ones you get now which are basically a showreel of the cast and crew all saying how wonderful it is to be working with each other and little else.
Meow, I know.
Well, despite initially missing this at the 2015 London Film Festival, I've finally got to do just that. So for me, yes.
In the director's case, we'll wait and see.
He freely admitted in the Q&A that this level of intricate fandom wouldn't really work with any other series or franchise, so I shall watch Jon's career with great interest.
Nope.
There isn't.
Mind, who's the performer inside the Stormtrooper suit who goes tumbling off the Death Star gantry where the Wilhelm is used? That's what I want to know…
Level 1: The entire featured cast was in Star Wars.
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.
Bleed For This (SPOILERS, technically*1. And bad language, certainly.)
Cert: 15 / 117 mins / Dir. Ben Younger / Trailer
And so, December is almost upon us and I braced the now-freezing elements as well as my less-than-warm reservations*2 for the true-story movie of Vinny Paziena, the successful Rhode Island boxer who suffered a broken neck in a car crash in 1991, then worked towards an unprecedented recovery and back into the ring to carry on fighting.
As you might imagine, writer/director Ben Younger's film isn't a barrel of laughs, although a few uneasy chuckles are scattered among the scowls, frowns and wincing. The path to righteous retribution is gritty and painful, and Miles Teller puts in a decent turn as the troubled boxer. Also supporting ably are Aaron Eckhart as the only trainer in history who's not a washed-up, exploitative sociopath, and Ciarán Hinds as the only father/manager in history who's not a bitter, exploitative sociopath (Ciarán channelling his best Robert de Niro here, arguably better than de Niro can manage these days).
Although it borrows heavily from the trope-bank (more on that shortly), Bleed For This is actually at its best when it's a story about people. Although it's central to the story, the film isn't about the sport, that just serves as a backdrop to frame the characters. Well acted all round and strongly directed from Younger, the efficient screenplay doesn't spoon-feed the audience too much, although with a plot this linear it doesn't have to. The film also does this weird thing where various clips of news and archive fight-footage feature the real-life Vinny Paz, rather than Miles Teller's portrayal. But not all the clips. And it's all the more noticeable because they don't look that alike. I suspect it's meant to be a tribute, but it's a weird way of doing it.
All in all, I thought Bleed For This was actually a pretty decent (if low-key) drama all the time it wasn't trying to be A Boxing Film™ and applying unrestrained cliches accordingly:
✓ Plucky working-class underdog*3 determined to fight, against expectations and recommendations.
✓ Grizzled old promoter saying "Ya got heart, kid!".
✓ Training-montage with musical backing (three of these).
✓ A flashback sequence in the final act to remind the audience of things which happened less than an hour ago.
✓ A final, climactic, blood-stained match with female members of the family watching from between their fingers on the TV, which goes the full twelve rounds without anybody losing consciousness so is then decided upon by the judges. Yes. Fucking again (cf this and that). Everything the audience goes through with Vinny - the sweat, the pain, the anger, the frustration, the fear, the determination… none of those are what earns Paziena the title. That was done by the opinion of a guy sitting at a desk.
That's not redemption, it's fucking admin.
"Hey Terry, both of these lads are still standing after the full twelve rounds, which one do you think should win?"
"Well neither of them yet, obviously Bob. Tell them to keep punching each other in the face until only one of them can walk out of the ring. That's what they're fucking well there for, after all. I'm here to make sure they don't start biting or stabbing each other, not to hand out 'I tried hard' badges, for fuck's sake. If I knew this was going to be down to my opinion, I'd have called it an hour ago and been at home by now…"
But like I say, apart from being A Boxing Film™, it's a passable enough drama.
The kind of films where people argue in between wearing shorts and punching each other in the face.
There's nothing particularly cinematic about it, I've got to say.
Especially all those reaction-shots during the actual face-punching.
I think so, yes.
Probably not, but it's a solid effort.
Of course not.
Of course not.
Level 2: Well, Miles teller was in the running to be the young Han Solo (and yes, I'm glad that didn't pan out), however, this film stars Katey Sagal who was in that Sons of Anarchy along with Jimmy 'Organa' Smits.
*1 It's a 'true story', the facts have been out there since they happened in the early 1990s. Although I'll understand if you don't know the outcome of the climactic match before watching the film (I certainly didn't). Anyway, no spoilers in this particular paragraph, just in the review above.
*2 Yeah, I didn't want to open the review with a sluice of negativity (although if you're reading the footnotes as you go then I've pretty much done that anyway), but I wasn't looking forward to this if I'm honest. We're not even into full Oscar-season yet and I've already had enough of Worthy True Story Films™; 2016's been angst-ridden enough as it is without putting myself through the ringer when I sit down in the cinema, too. Added to this, I don't seem to have a great track record when it comes to The Boxing Films. Even with the training, skill and passion inherent to the sport (I imagine), it still comes down to two people getting Punched In The Face, and that's what The Stath is for, right? The trailer for Bleed For This is basically just a guy saying "Hey. I might be disabled now but I still want to get Punched In The Face, because that's all I know and when you think about it there's something kinda inspirational about that, don't you think?". Like doing an inherently stupid thing for heartfelt reasons automatically makes it a good thing. Again, cf 2016. And what's that you say? The film's got the lead actor from the Fantastic Four reboot in it? Well, where do I sign up? To be honest, Bleed For This could only have been less appealing if it featured a duet between Peter Kay and James Corden singing about how great they are, a backing choir of three Katie Hopkins clones and Piers Morgan playing a foghorn. And if that's what I'm feeling before I go into a movie, it's really going to have to work hard to impress me.
But Like I said, I didn't really want to open the review with that paragraph...
*3 Although not to piss on the film's parade unduly, but the guy's not an angel by any means. While his convictions all occurred after the events of this movie, you can't imagine that Vinny was into crochet and The Archers growing up, y'know?
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.
And so Amma Asante's new film, the eagerly awaited project following 2013's Belle, lands in cinemas earlier than you'd expect, with January usually leading the charge for politically and emotionally heavyweight fare. The story centres around the post-war romance between Seretse Khama (David Oyelowo), heir to the kingdom of Bechuanaland, and Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike), a financial clerk he meets while in London training to be a barrister. With Ruth's Britain still reeling from the effects of the Second World War and Seretse's deeply traditional homeland on edge about their ongoing partnership with the British Empire, their marriage was never going to be easy. But when government agent Sir Alistair Canning (Jack Davenport) gleefully informs them that their union has far-reaching political ramifications, personal loyalties weigh as heavily as societal responsibility…
Don't worry, it's not as heavy-going as I've made it sound. Which is sort of an issue, if I'm being honest. That the film is Worthy™ is of no doubt, and Rosamund Pike and David Oyelowo's fantastic performances reflect this no end. The rest of the cast however (particularly those playing the part of the British-establishment), threaten to turn it into a slightly twee pantomime of acidic put-downs and twirling moustaches. The deportment of Jack Davenport alone brings to mind Pirates of the Caribbean, but with more racism. He's not alone though, ably supported in his weasling ways by Malfoy-Junior Emeritus himself, struggling as ever to find a role which doesn't paint him as a complete arse. To quote Mrs Blackout upon leaving the cinema, "Tom Felton's not ageing well, is he?". To which I could only reply "Yeah, he's not acting well, either…".
A lot of the biggest problem I had with the film can be summed up by the BBFC's own summary…
…where even they can't narrow the film down to one genre and have it listed as both romance and drama (and it's the BBFC's primary job to classify things, remember). There's certainly no reason why a film can't be both of course, but A United Kingdom treats these two themes as something to pull apart from each other, rather than together (which, given the central unifying thread of the film, seems counter-intuitive). The love-story between Ruth and Seretse never gets the chance to build up the emotional momentum it needs because the story's constantly being sidetracked by sketched-in political vignettes. And the events leading to the creation of Botswana aren't given nearly enough detail because of the interruption of the rushed love-story.
But the ultimate enemy of both narrative strands is time. The film covers around ten years in just under two hours, and in doing so skips forward at a pace which threatens to leave everyone behind (plus there's that thing where none of the characters appear to be ageing at all, so you're left wondering what sort of timeframe this is all happening in, especially since the '1947' caption at the beginning is followed by precisely no others). Entire scenes exist - repeatedly - where an exterior establishing shot of a building leads to a fifteen-second conversation inside it, after which the film moves to somewhere else, days/weeks later. Like the dialogue was too important to leave out, but not to the point where you'd spend any time on it. I don't know if this is down to Guy Hibbert's screenplay or the editing from Jonathan Amos and Jon Gregory, but someone's selling this story short. Literally. Another forty minutes or so, casually scattered throughout the film, would give the story room to breathe and the characters room to grow.
I have a massive amount of admiration for Asante and her work, but I'm starting to think that the delicate way she puts a film together might be at odds with the subject matter. I know not everything can be as viscerally unnerving as 12 Years, but this is the second time I've left one of her films thinking '…how are you not more furious about all this?'. Because outside of a little historical education, the only two themes I really took away from A United Kingdom are a) racism is for dicks, and b) politicians are lying, opportunist dicks. And speaking as someone at the arse-end of 2016, those are lessons I've already learned pretty damned thoroughly, thanks…
There's also the matter of an old-looking Nicholas Lyndhurst existing in the film's initial 1947 timeframe*1. Is someone going to ret-con what went wrong with the portal that caused this to happen?
Belle, Mandela; both deal with heavy subject matter in an accessible way, and both struggle to reconcile the span of the story with the running-time of a film.
It's a Sunday night DVD, to be fair.
Yes, but only just.
No, not least because everyone involved has particularly strong form.
*1 Although I should also point out that the 55 year old Nicholas Lyndhurst looks in no way old enough to be the 37 year old Rosamund Pike's father. That it's socially and biologically feasible is irrelevant, frankly, if the audience doesn't believe it. And in this case, that means me.
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.
Allied Cert: 15 / 124 mins / Dir. Robert Zemeckis / Trailer
Ah, that awkward feeling when you realise you're watching Marion Cotillard being outstanding in a film which is only quite good. If anything, it reflects quite badly on director Robert Zemeckis that an actress who was probably pregnant for a lot of her scenes was the one required to do all the heavy lifting. But I'm getting ahead of myself…
Morocco, 1942. Canadian allied-forces spy Max Vatan is airdropped outside of Casablanca*1 and instructed to meet fellow operative Marianne Beausejour. Posing as a married couple, they are to carry out an assassination of a high-ranking Nazi official. After completing their mission (that's in the trailer, it's not a spoiler), they relocate to London and marry while Max continues working for the Ministry of Defence. But when his superiors have reason to believe that Marianne is a German spy filtering information back to the Fatherland, Max has to ask himself how deep her cover really is, and if he even knows the real Marianne at all…
An odd recipe this, putting Mr Pitt of 'no fixed genre' with thespic heavyweight Cotillard, written by Steven Knight (of Eastern Promises' parish) and directed by Robert 'Back To The Future' Zemeckis. And that list of primary ingredients is as uneven as the film which comes out of the cinematic oven after two hours.
Ultimately, Allied doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, be it a tense espionage thriller or angst-ridden romantic drama. As a result the film ends up convincing as neither, although it is quite a lot of fun in the meanwhile. The action set-pieces are nicely executed, as is the overall sense of creeping tension. Pitt seems to struggle when he's required to show emotion (although I can't tell how much of that is his perma-spy character not wanting to show his true colours), whereas Cotillard more than makes up for it with a performance which is far too subtle for a film like this. While each scene moves the story in the right direction, the film is baggy at just over two hours, often feeling like it's stalling the audience. Elsewhere there's some neat cinematography in the Casablanca section of the film (even if much of it screams 'soundstage'), and the damp, muted colour-palette of London complements it perfectly. We've also got long-time Zemeckis cohort Alan Silvestri on scoring duties, routinely playing his game of 'hide the BTTF opening-line' where everyone can hear it. Bless him.
The other awkward feeling comes in the film's closing moments, when a quiet, reflective coda suggests that the audience have been watching something emotionally engaging rather than just quite entertaining. For all the ducking, shooting, whispering and shouting though, the relationship at the centre of the film just didn't convince me. And that is supposed to be the point of the film.
I want to score Allied more highly, because it is enjoyable. But I know for a fact that in about a week, I won't remember a thing about it…
Well, it wants to be Inglourious Basterds with a heart, but it ends up more like Mr & Mrs Smith with a grimace.
As much fun as it is, there's nothing inherently cinematic about it, unfortunately.
Judging by the last few minutes?
Apparently not.
It's not.
I won't.
There is.
First firearm-related casualty of the movie.
Textbook stuff.
Level 2: This film stars messrs Brad Pitt and August Diehl, both of whom rocked up in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, a movie which featured a voice-over from Sam Windu Jackson.
I mean seriously, who casts Pitt and Diehl in a WWII thriller together again? Mind you, Daniel Betts is in this, and he starred with Pitt in Fury, another WWII drama. Thinking about it, the problem could just be Brad Pitt…
*1 Bear in mind, the film Casablanca wasn't released until 1942. This film is set in 1942. At the time it came out, it was another run-of-the-mill, quick-turnaround drama; well-received an'all, but it didn't gain its iconic status until years later. I only mention it because that line in the trailer where Marianne's like "You'll go on the roof. In Casablanca, that's where men go…" is a trope she wheels out every three minutes or so. Like there's something really special about this Nazi-occupied city that all the others in mainland Europe haven't got. "In Casablanca, we don't drive slowly" / "In Casablanca, men don't kiss their wives with their top shirt-buttons undone" / "In Casablanca, we start with the cutlery from the outside but we use the steak-knife to butter the bread". I genuinely expected Max to stop and yell "Oh, are we in Casablanca? I WISH YOU'D SAID SOMETHING EARLIER, I'VE DRESSED FOR CROYDON!"…
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.
Doctor Strange (2D / second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 115 mins / Dir. Scott Derrickson / Trailer
This review contains spoilers. Although it's been out for a few weeks now, so I guess you've seen it already and that doesn't matter, right? I mean, if you're waiting for the DVD because you can't make it to your nearest participating auditorium, you wouldn't very well be clicking on reviews of the film in the blind hope that they're spoiler-free, now would you? Nonetheless, if it's spoiler-free discussion you're after, click here for my previous review.
Apart from anything else, if you haven't seen Doctor Strange, none of this will make any sense.
Still here? Smashing. Now to be honest, not that much changed on my second viewing of Doctor Strange, other than Mordo's path being laid out more clearly than I'd first perceived. But I enjoyed the film just as much, and maintain that it's one of Marvel Studios' stronger standalone-movies. But you know what would make it better? Scrapping that prologue.
As the film opens, we meet Kaecilius and his acolytes as they break into the Kamar-Taj library and steal pages from a sacred book belonging to The Ancient One, murdering the librarian protector in the process. Their escape with the pages is then threatened by Tilda Badass herself, who pursues the group into a mirror-dimensioned London and battles throughout a continually warping cityscape to recover her property. The gang escape, safe in the knowledge that their reputations, and the film's maguffin, have been established. We then cut to a New York hospital and meet Doctor Stephen Strange…
But why is that sequence there at the start? It's a bold spectacle to establish the mystic and psychadelic elements of the film, but it blows any reveal further down the line. The first Captain America movie had a similar opening segment, intriducing the Cosmic Cube and Red Skull which would form the backbone of the film, the difference being that both were used incredibly sparingly at the church in Tønsberg, hinting at what's to come rather than flat-out showing us.
Much like Predator*1, it'd be better for the structure of the film if we skipped the went straight into Stephen's story without the page-theft prologue. Our realisation that magic is a quantifiable force in the everyday world would have unfolded with the hero's. The doctor's physical unmaking and spiritual rebuilding would be more a journey we travel with him, rather than as a passenger who's already seen a snapshot of the destination. Imagine if Strange's initial blast through the Astral Realm had been the first fantastical imagery we'd seen in the film.
As for Kaecilius, the rest of the film not only explains his character and intentions, but also recaps on that very scene when the theft is described to Strange. A tighter edit in the Mordo/Strange training conversation, so that the mention of the stolen pages cuts directly to Kaecilius summoning the floor-portal, would be all that's required for the audience to catch up. It's not even as if the rest of the screenplay expands the villain's character too much anyway, so having him as The Generic Marvel Baddie Who Doesn't Survive His First Film Appearance*2 would be equally workable without his early-doors introduction. Indeed, without the opening as it stands, Kaecilius' later soliloquy to Strange about good and evil being illusions while time is the real enemy would be so much more ambiguously convincing had we not seen him lop off a dude's head with two axes and for no real reason*3
In fact, it almost seems like Doctor Strange's opening sequence was an afterthought designed to hammer home the "these are the bad guys" schtick and grab the audience's attention from scene one, rather than tell the story with an unfolding intrigue. Are Marvel really so worried that audiences will get bored after thirty minutes of hero-building with no superpowers on display? They managed perfectly well with 2008's Iron Man, as I recall.
Anyway, I notice that the three Sanctums - Hong Kong, London, New York - providing equally-spaced supernatural cover to the world are all in the Northern Hemisphere. Who's protecting Australia? Thor, when his accent slips, I imagine…
The Marvel Cinematic Universe movies preceding it (although that's not essential to enjoying this).
For the heachache-inducing spectacle, yes.
Pretty much.
Not really, but only because of the strength of the cast..
No, but I will grill you mercilessly for reasons.
I'm not hearing one :(
Level 1: The score for Doctor Strange is provided by one Michael Giacchino, who's also on musical duties for Rogue One. In fact, I mentioned this in the footnotes last time.
I have reservations.
*1 Basically, Predator would have been a much better movie (and it's already a great one, remember) if the opening sequence of the alien craft crashing from space into the jungle had been cut from the movie altogether. That way, the reports of an unsubstantiated threat in the undergrowth would have been as elusive to the audience as they would to Schwarzenegger's Schaefer, and the gradual reveal of his nemesis would have greater weight as a result. Instead, everyone in the auditorium (okay, living room, these days) knows that a UFO has landed because they've watched it happen, and it's just a case of clock-watching until the Yautja reveals itself. The opening shot manages to rob the film of its mystery and suspense, leaving a disposable action-flick in its wake.
*2 Indeed, the recurring problem in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is how to balance the villains. If you spend time in a hero's origin story to sufficiently build their nemesis from scratch, you risk detracting from the hero's screen-time. They need a measure by which to test/prove their own strength, of course, but have the villain killed at the end of the first film and it feels like a one-dimensional, token character (cf Abomination, Whiplash, Malekith). Whereas if you don't permanently despatch the villain, the hero hasn't beaten their challenge and the film can feel like nothing's really been achieved (cf The Chitauri and Thanos, even though that one's building up to Infinity War). All you can do really is at least give your villain a decent amount of personality in the meanwhile (cf Red Skull, Ronan the Accuser, the Trevor Slattery Mandarin), or give them a sliding-scale of morality (cf Loki, Winter Soldier).
*3Kaecilius and his gang had the librarian incapacitated while they stole the pages anyway, there was no actual need to kill him if they thought they were skilful enough to carry out the heist. Worried he'll leap into a portal and follow you? Break his legs before you go. That way he suffers the humiliation of having to explain to The Ancient One how he failed to stop the theft (damn I'd make a great supervillain). But if the pages are as powerful as Kaecilius believes (and they are, remember), then leaving survivors behind becomes irrelevant, surely?
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.
