SHORT Toy Story 4 picks up some short amount of time after the third entry, with young Bonnie now the custodian of the toys and about to start kindergarten. When she fashions a new pal, Forky, made from pipe cleaners and a plastic spork, he's slightly neurotic although begins to fit in with Woody, Buzz and the gang. But things go awry during a road trip when Forky becomes lost, Woody goes on an adventure to rescue him, and meets an old friend in the process...
Clocking in almost a quarter of a century after the first entry, Pixar's fourth full-length chapter in the Toy Story series can hardly be accused of being a quick cash-in. The studio's quality levels are (usually) high, and they're one of the few safe bets when it comes to animated entertainment - not only working to ensure the film takes all the time it needs to be created, but also that it tells a story worth watching.
BANG Concentrating more on high-adventure this time rather than heart-melting nostalgia, the animation here is better than ever (even if Andy still looks weird), with the photo-realistic scenery and smoothly-moving, well sculpted and weighted models*1 you'd expect from an industry leader. The pacing is brisk, the stakes are reliably high, Andrew Stanton and Staphany Folsom's script is tight and often laugh-out-loud funny, although it's notable that those moments usually come from the newly introduced characters (Forky, Duke Caboom, Ducky & Bunny). On that subject, it's also good to see Disney/Pixar embracing the idea of more sinister dolls*2, although it feels a little Goosebumps at times.
The old gang are present, correct and on-character (as far as they're used - this is very much Woody's show), but tend to bring wry smiles rather than outright guffaws. Despite the frequent action, the film doesn't have the peril of previous adventures (although Toy Story 3 really pushed that to its limit anyway), but it's still great.
Toy Story 4 is an enormous amount of fun, but is it more that that?
More to the point, does it need to be?
CASH Although it's been asked countless times since the film was first announced, the question isn't so much 'does the Toy Story series need a new chapter?', more 'now that two Lego movies have taken the idea of sentient toys in parallel interacting realities and moved it on a notch, is there still a story to be told with Woody and Buzz?'. The Lego movies don't have the emotional punch of the Toy Story ones, but they seem more adept at making broader, more societal points.
On an entirely smaller level, it feels a bit wrong where the toys band together to control the RV in the final act, wresting control from the human driver. The Toy Story films have always played with the 'just out of sight' motif - it's not as if the toys can't move when people are just watching, they just have the discipline not to - but the tension has previously arisen from the 'OMG will they be seen?' moments. In Toy Story 4, our heroes are pretty much running around in plain sight, and by the end almost causing a fatal traffic accident. If I want that, I'll watch Gremlins, thanks.
BRAVO There also appear to be a couple of glaring tonal mis-steps in the final moments (even though these are thoroughly cued up by the preceding film). When Woody chooses a life as a 'lost toy' with Bo Peep and is assured by Buzz and Jessie that "Bonnie will be alright", doesn't this completely undercut the final scene in Toy Story 3? Woody was going to be the one toy that Andy kept and took to college, the lone memento of his childhood. He's been Andy's action companion throughout the years who's now earned a comfortable retirement, as adulthood beckons but with one nostalgic eye on the formative past. When Andy sees Bonnie's face light up on discovering Woody at the bottom of the box, he knows that Woody's adventures can now continue in new hands, that it's okay to let his favourite cowboy go knowing he'll be fulfilling his purpose all over again. So then we fast-forward a few months and what? Woody's picking up dustballs in the closet while Bonnie plays with plastic cutlery? Is that all Woody counts for? Is that all the affection Bonnie can manage? She got these toys for free and she treats them like trash, no wonder she makes her own ones from the bin, the entitled little shit. Bonnie deserves to play in garbage. There, I said it.
But it's not just the kid who's to blame here*4. With Bo Peep assuring Woody that kids lose toys every day and that Bonnie will quickly get over it, not only is Bo underlining the point above about the kid's attention span, she's also ignoring the very point of the previous three films, surely? Bo abuses the goodwill of her previous relationship with Woody to get him to gainsay his own golden rule - a toy must be there for their kid. Bo's own abandonment issues have morphed into soft-spoken nihilism over the years, and now she's passing on her blithely hedonistic manifesto to any toy she encounters. As a cowboy, Woody symbolises the hardworking optimism which forged America's early days - the truth, compassion and family values which Woody has preached throughout the series. Now Disney (of all people) are showing us how easily these can be disregarded in the 21st century, and ultimately how replaceable we all are*3.
HALLOWEEN H Don’t get me wrong, I did enjoy Toy Story 4. But I’m happy to join the consensus on this one and be like “Great work guys, now stop”.
Although fair play to Pixar for making a movie showing a young black girl getting lost in a fairground at night then being reunited with her parents, and not having her wear a Michael Jackson's Thriller t-shirt. Don't think I'd have been able to resist, especially with Jordan Peele in the voice-cast...
Well, the Toy Story flicks.
It is.
It is.
It's not but let's be fair, that's a very high bar.
*1 And yes, I would totally buy a three-pack of 3¾"-scale Combat Carl figures in their different fatigues. Yes please. [ BACK ]
*2 Although on that subject, I don’t think that Gabby Gabby earns her redemption here. She spends more than half the movie wanting to disable the hero and is just one of those weird old toys to begin with. [ BACK ]
*3 If you think this is harsh, don't even go near my ideas on what The Boss Baby is really about… [ BACK ]
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.
Yesterday (part one of two, spoiler-free)
Cert: 12A / 116 mins / Dir. Danny Boyle / Trailer
There are certain movies where you know you need that soundtrack before the ink has dried on the first act. Inside Llewyn Davis is one, so is Sing Street. And now Yesterday joins that list. And it's not just because of the tracklisting (who doesn't already know that The Beatles are fantastic?), but rather the performance of the songs in the movie*1. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
SINGER Yesterday follows Jack Malik (Himesh Patel), a 27yr old aspiring singer/songwriter from Suffolk who works in a discount supermarket by day and plays largely audience-free gigs by night. Downhearted, Jack is on the verge of quitting and returning to his old job of teaching, much to the annoyance of his friend/agent/manager Ellie (Lily James). But when cycling home one night, a far-reaching power blackout sees Jack involved in a serious road accident.
When he awakes in hospital, all seems normal (other than bruises and the abscence of a couple of teeth), but it quickly becomes apparent that nobody except Jack has ever heard of The Beatles. How has this happened? More to the point, what can be done? Armed with an acoustic guitar and a fairly encyclopaedic memory of lyrics and chord structures, it seems that our hero's musical career is now set on a solid path. Because what can go wrong when you're just invented some of the greatest songs of all time?*2
WILDE Yes, writer Richard Curtis returns to our screens with the utterly fantastical proposition that anyone could know Lily James socially, and not spend all their time in her presence basically crying because they're so utterly in love. James and Patel are fantastic, the dual-pivot around which the entire movie hangs. Himesh gets the lion's share of the screen-time in jetting to America for the big time of course, but carries it off effortlessly, every bit as charming when he's speaking as when he's singing.
And it's not just the leads who do well here. The movie is filled with a cast who are happy just to be a supporting part of something much bigger (am I the only one who grinned like an idiot when Meera Syal and Sanjeev Bhaskar are introduced Jack's parents? It'd arguably be lazy casting if the pair of them weren't so fantastic to begin with). I never thought I'd see the day where I genuinely enjoyed a vehicle carrying Ed Sheeran and James Corden, yet here we are*3.
MCFLY The script is occasionally ungainly but of course yes, it's Richard Curtis, so the whole thing ultimately runs like it's on rails. Wasting little time, the film begins with an air of Quantum Leap or Tales of The Unexpected, albeit for an audience who want absolutely no surprises. The sub-plot with Justin Edwards’ and Sarah Lancashire's characters is thoroughly and mercilessly telegraphed, then largely unexplored save for one wish-fulfilment scene that feels slightly tacked on.
But if you've come for the music of The Beatles, you won't be disappointed. Then again, you might. While Patel's central turn here is outstanding, it's notable that we don't get any complete renditions of songs, more a 'greatest clips' selection to facilitate a realistic runtime and higher turnover of titles (read: soundtrack sales). Then again, The Beatles have long been a business rather than an artistic endeavour, so maybe that's to be expected. And because the soundtrack is based almost exclusively on their work, at least we're spared the pantomime of director Danny Boyle gleefully hitting shuffle on his iPod as if he's trying to impress a girl in the year above. But I digress.
BUSTED Elsewhere we get a baffling assortment of on-screen graphics throughout the movie featuring famous song titles and place-names, like it's been produced in conjunction with the Liverpool Tourist Board and designed by the work-experience kid. And who knew Ed Sheeran can't act? Well everyone, now. In line with the narrative, we get a lengthy stretch telling us how vapid and superficial the music industry is once money becomes involved (but not the movies though, eh Richard?) before things reach an end which is emotionally satisfying but makes no sense when put under scrutiny.
But I'll write more about that in my second review.
Because despite my gripes I love this flick and I want to see it again.
Yesterday has been precision-engineered to appeal to the broadest, safest possible audience, and is often so clunkingly on-the-nose that I'd normally want to fire it into the heart of the sun. And once the inevitable mainstream gushing occurs upon the film's general release, maybe I'll feel that way still.
But right now? Yesterday is pretty magnificent.
If the cast don't melt your heart, the soundtrack will.
If you enjoyed About Time, you'll dig this immensely.
It is.
It's probably going to be one to buy once the price comes down, although at the same time I rather suspect that this film will have a long life on broadcast television.
Everyone involved can be very, very proud of this.*4
Unlikely, although I will start a lengthy conversation with you about causality. You have been warned.
*1 I'm talking about diegetic/performance albums by the way, not film scores or those ones where the soundtrack is a compilation of pre-existing tracks. Because as magnificent as the Dusk Till Dawn CD is, who among us hasn't eagerly rushed out to buy things like The Crow only to discover two - maybe three - decent tracks on it and the rest being absolute filler? And any OST boasting the words ”Music Inspired By The Film" can do one as well, frankly. If a band's song isn't good enough to make the final edit of the movie, I don't see why it should be included on the tie-in material. There. I said it. [ BACK ]
*2 Although as Christina Martin recently noted, "Gary Sparrow already fully explored the Yesterday movie concept".
Goodnight Sweetheart is at the core of my idea for bringing Dad's Army into the MCU anyway, so I'm delighted it's starting to catch on. Besides, now it'd make the time-travel element of Endgame a lot more fluid. Has anyone got Nicholas Lyndhurst’s number? [ BACK ]
*3 Hey, at least P*ers M*rgan has been confined to a cameo in the new Men In Black movie. A guest appearance on, as it turns out, precisely the platform he deserves... #Meow [ BACK ]
*4 Apart from Sheeran and Corden obviously, who should spend every remaining breath apologising for everything beforehand. WHAT? [ BACK ]
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 great living in the future. Technology has caught up with human imagination to make flawless, photorealistic visualisations of pretty much any story that can be dreamt up. And now this wizardry has been paired with $110m of someone's actual money in creating a franchise-burner which is so linear, perfunctory and crushingly dull that not even Will Smith wanted to turn up for the glaringly obvious cameo opportunity during the first act. Christ.
So, something must have happened, right? During a visit to the Endgame set by a Sony rep checking up on Spider-Man's scenes, something bad must have been witnessed involving Chris 'Thor' Hemsworth and Tessa 'Valkyrie' Thompson, and now Sony are using the dirt as leverage to get them to star in this absolute, grade-A atrocity of a movie.
Men In Black: International is the perfect summer storm of watching people you love doing things you'll hate.
MISH An incoherent mish-mash of previous installments, Hot Fuzz and Kingsman with plagiarised notes from Guardians Of The Galaxy, this is a two hour effects-reel loosely taped together by an elevator-pitch of a script which took longer to read back than it did to write. MiB:I isn't even a bubblegum movie, it's just brightly coloured wrapping paper masking a box which contains nothing of any value whatsoever*1.
The cast look bored and embarrassed in equal measure. Hemsworth clearly hopes the other highlights in his career will consign MiB:I to the 'Oh, I'd forgotten he did that' pile. Meanwhile Tessa Thompson (the actress who almost single-handedly turned a boxing sequel where no one wins the boxing into a layered character-drama) is on hand to literally point and explain everything throughout every scene in the movie. Liam Neeson is acting like someone's set his cadence-dial to 'shit Qui-Gon'*2 then pushed START on the autopilot. Although credit where it's due, casting Neeson in a movie called "Men In Black"after his last set of promo-interviews takes some balls. And as for Emma Thompson? Look, I know she's everyone's favourite auntie, but between this and Johnny English 3 she should be made to hand back her National Treasure™ certificate at the nearest police station.
MONSTER By the time Rebecca Ferguson arrives and the film has inexplicably turned into The Man From U.N.C.L.E. by way of Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, all that's left is a series of third-act reveals which have been so heavily telegraphed they may as well have been captioned during the opening titles. You're left with the feeling it's not that MiB:I took seven years to produce, but rather someone spent six and a half years staring at a wall for ideas before giving up and just letting the computer write the damned thing instead. Whatever Sony have got on the Asgardians, I can't see how it'd be as bad as this...
Would make a passable double-bill with X-Men: Dark Phoenix for anyone who's having trouble sleeping.
Imagine the pilot episode of a Nickelodeon sitcom which has gotten out of hand while still being unfinished on the page.
It is not.
It is not.
It is not.
If you have anything remotely positive to say about the film, yes we will.
Look, I don't give out enough bottom-marks.
Seriously though, fuck this movie.
*1 Okay, it's supported some jobs in the film industry. I get that. Men In Black: International's biggest claim to social or artistic worth is that it put food on the table for its cast and crew so that they could stay alive for a bit longer to be ashamed of it. [ BACK ]
*3 Speaking of location-spotting, it looks like Eat have paid the premium for brand-placement in London's scenes. Although that's not as cool as the branch of Greggs which shows up in one shot (literally the only time I smiled). [ BACK ]
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.
Marvel Studios are doing well, of that there should be no doubt. One of the reasons for their continued success is that various chapters in their continuing cinematic saga can be ascribed to different genres of film. Which is a polite way of saying that "superhero" is not a genre (just as "animation" also isn't). While all of the 22 MCU chapters so far are linked by the common thread of superheroes, The First Avenger is a wartime adventure movie, The Winter Soldier is a modern espionage flick, Ant-Man plays as a heist and Ragnarok a flat-out comedy. Thus lies their success. However, due to the house-style being a self-imposed 12A certification limit, Marvel are unable to properly tackle horror. And any aficionado will tell you that comics have been about the macabre for as long as they've featured caped vigilantes.
Warner/DC have tried of course, but their efforts to produce more serious, thought-provoking tales often have the opposite effect, with Dawn Of Justice being particularly troubled in its 'darker' sections. Ultimately, the answer turns out to come from neither of the major comic studios, but it's on DC's side of the fence we stay (kind of) for David Yarovesky's Brightburn. It's a gleefully sardonic look at the Superman mythos, but one where the young hero took a different path once adulthood came knocking, turning into humanity's nemesis rather than its saviour*1.
REMAINS
Written for the screen by Brian and Mark Gunn, the location of a Kansas farm remains but in a present-day setting, as Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) Breyer spend years trying for children only to be gifted one by a falling meteor. Raising the human-looking youngster as their own for a dozen years, the pair wilfully overlook some of Brandon's (Jackson A. Dunn) quirks, knowing fine well that he's not 'normal'. But a secret hidden in the barn draws Brandon through sleepwalking, and soon the usual puberty-petulance and childhood revenge fantasies are being matched with superhuman powers, a tonne of questions and no one to supply answers. Things are about to go south.
On the whole, Brightburn is an interesting ride and works well. Always at the accessible-end of the horror genre rather than being a hardcore gorefest (although there are a smattering of delightfully gruesome moments), it's still far more interesting than the reams of supernatural studio-horror which usually clog up the schedules. Yarovesky and The Gunns never quite give in to darker urges (even if their subject does), and there's a pleasant lack of clockwork jump-scare moments - instead often revealing the antagonist at the back of a room to slowly raise the tension, rather than have him suddenly leap out of the darkness.
CANDELABRA All of the central performers do well, playing their roles as straight as a semi-parody will allow. While the supporting cast could have been drafted in from any small-town horror, that's the way they're written and is totally in-keeping with the screenplay. At 90 minutes this is a tight affair, and it's perhaps surprising how long things take to really escalate, given the cracks we see appearing the first act. That said, the film never quite gets over the 'what if?' hump, and because it's overtly based on the legend most of its audience have seen in at least one form, direct comparisons are always at the front of the audience's mind. Because of this, it becomes difficult to enjoy Brightburn on its own merits.
And ultimately it's this question that the script fails to truly capitalise upon. The key theme of Brightburn should surely be one of nature vs nurture? How are Clark Kent and Brandon Breyer different? Breyer's adoptive parents are much younger than the Kents - did they fail in instilling the same values because of generational divides? Was Clark Kent's mixure of power and humility a product of its time, which simply couldn't happen again?
MILK WOOD We see Brandon eventually interacting with the malignant force in the barn, but is this an echo from the past? A pan-galactic communication from the present? A misinterpreted message due to Brandon not properly understanding the alien tongue? Watching the film from his parents' point-of-view, it makes some sense that the audience would never learn the true origin of their son. But if we're meant to be with Brandon for the whole journey, it feels slightly unsatisfying that we don't really learn from his side either: 'the kid isn't human and he just turns evil because he was always going to be evil'.
And if that's the case, it might as well be a manky old nun in a haunted painting. Because if the answer to your 'what if?' is just "yeah, a lot of things get broken mate", then was it a question which was properly asked in the first place?
THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY Brightburn is beautifully crafted in places, but in its current form will be no more than a novelty, an oddity, a spin on a classic rather than being great in its own right. A thought which is underlined by some truly appalling sequel-baiting in the final minute which I dearly hope was dropped into the edit as a pastiche of superhero cinema rather than a genuine punt at expansion.
But the fact that this tale of heroes-gone-bad is in cinemas at the same time as X-Men: Dark Phoenix tickles me greatly, if only because Simon Kinberg seems to wish that he'd made something even a quarter as interesting...
Re-play value on this may be limited, but Brightburn will be good to have on the shelf.
Let's not go mad.
Disagree, unlikely. Discuss at some length, yes.
There isn't.
Level 2: David Denman's in this, and he was in that Logan Lucky alongside Adam 'Kylo Ren' Driver and Daniel 'TFA Stormtrooper' Craig.
*1 Although as one wag recently tweeted, "If I wanna watch an 'alternate' take on Superman in which he goes all kill crazy, I'll just watch Man of Steel.". And as much as I loved that film, I have to admit it's difficult to disagree at face-value... [ BACK ]
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, you have to admire Simon Kinberg's optimism, if you can tear yourself away from pitying him for it. With the Disney / 20th Century Fox takeover-deal now a paperwork exercise and its far-reaching effect on superhero franchises a headache in the making, the twelfth film in Fox's X-Men roster closes with a crane-shot of the School For Gifted Youngsters, accompanied by a stirring narration, boldly leaving an 'open road' approach for future stories to be told.
That this arrives after two of the absolute dullest hours audiences will see this year is glossed over with equal wistfulness.
PHOENIX Let us not chase this one around the houses for too long, X-Men: Dark Phoenix is not good. It's not awful, but that's only because the movie's not interesting enough to be awful. The cinematic equivalent of a contractual obligation album, it's two hours of watching people you know can do better*1 making it resolutely clear that they have no intention of doing so. What's the point? They're staring into the DVD bargain bin on a hiding to nothing. When Marvel Studios finally get round to bringing mutants into the MCU, they'll be rebooted and recast at absolute best. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
After a 1975 flashback to Jean Grey's traumatic childhood, we open properly in 1992 with Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) dispatching his best and brightest into the Earth's orbit to assist stricken United States space shuttle. What appears to be a solar storm is in fact something more malign, and in the kerfuffle Grey (Sophie Turner) absorbs a hitherto unimaginable amount of raw power, almost dying as a result.
Back on terra firma, Jean struggles to come to terms with her experience and terrifying new strengths, while a task force of shape-shifting aliens led by Jessica Chastain in an atrocious wig arrives to claim what they were after in space, the gift that Jean Grey - the dark phoenix - unsteadily holds…
ROACH Now that we're past the watershed of Future Past, the series*2 has been using its clout to re-craft the origins and fates of characters we've known for almost two decades. But Fox's longstanding cavalier approach to continuity means that this just comes over as 'yeah, thanks for the time and money you spent taking in those earlier flicks; they don't matter now by the way'. And this more than takes the edge off the new stories, too. The problem is that there's no jeopardy when the audience sees narrative consequence as a moot point, and even less when the cast are acting like that too.
Jean's struggle with newly heightened powers, repressed (and/or censored) memories of her past and fear for the future is nowhere near as emotionally complex as it should be (and Turner does not play this role well). Almost a side character in her own movie, cinematographer Mauro Fiore seems more interested in Jean's cleavage than her character. No, really.
In its quieter scenes, Dark Phoenix isn't particularly interesting, but when the action really ramps up it's positively boring. The bigger and louder the CGI mayhem becomes, the less it all means. That's a hurdle of which many modern movies fall afoul, granted, but with little actual story to act as a foundation in the first place, there's nothing for these sequences to even distract from. The driving force of the alien antagonists trying to steal back Jean's power is treated like a subplot, left over from an earlier draft of the screenplay and which can't be dropped completely because of a clause Chastain's contract. And It may seem a little late in the game for Fox to be introducing new, specially written characters, but lo and behold the debut of Captain Exposition™, a shapeshifter who mimics the appearance of central characters to read out a CliffsNotes summary of key scenes in the movie.
JOHNS But it's not just big, tonal, structural problems. On an entirely civilian nitpicking level - how come the team are teleporting from the X-Jet into a space shuttle which has a massively ruptured hull, yet they don't need to wear space suits? Nightcrawler pops one on towards the end of the mission, seemingly for no reason since he's been in and out of open space three times by then, as have Jean and Quicksilver. And speaking of such matters, how come the X-gang spend so much time fighting the alien enemies during the final train-heist battle, when Nightcrawler could just bamf each one away from the train and then return for the next, like Azazel in First Class? And speaking of those such matters, wasn't the heavy, heavy implication at the end of First Class that Azazel and Mystique were Nightcrawler's parents? Because the latter two are on missions together here and there's not so much as a sniff of that idea.
And it's amazing that a movie which is so visually meticulous in its effects can be so slapdash when it comes to the basics of serial storytelling. From First Class's 1962 onward, we've leapfrogged around ten years in each installment. So here we are thirty years later and the central characters seem to have only aged around a decade (in line with the real-world production schedules, of course). This can easily be explained for Jennifer Lawrence's chameleon Raven/Mystique, but just shaving James McAvoy's head as Xavier isn't going to cut it, lads (Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult aren't even awarded that concession - and let's leave aside that they're theoretically only a few years away from looking like Ian McKellen and Kelsey Grammer by this point).
Speaking of Mystique, how come she changes into her 'human' form here while knocking around in the mansion and there's no need for that subterfuge? We know Charles disapproves of this form as 'hiding her true self', yet in Dark Phoenix he doesn't bat an eyelid. Are we in a strand of continuity where they didn't have that previous conversation? On a similar note, we see Hank 'Beast' McCoy in his human-guise while in the depths of despair and grief, also within the walls of the school. Wouldn't this be a time when Hank would drop that pretence? He then turns 'human' when he's stunned by attackers in a later scene. But isn't the blue beast his natural resting form now? Isn't that his true self? Isn't the facade of duality the whole point of the X-Men movies?
AVON But in all honesty I probably can't score this one too lowly, if only because I went easy on Aquaman and this movie has nowhere near as many problems as DC's last offering. At least that was knowingly silly. But given the absolute heights of what the X-Men movies are capable of, Dark Phoenix is unforgivably weak.
I'm not even saddened to say that I look forward to no more of these films being made. 20th Century Fox have, over the years, told stories where outsiders band together to fight oppression and prejudice, where they learn the value of working as a team without losing sight of the individual, where they rise above those who hate and fear them to save everyone, including their persecutors. 20th century Fox have taken the quintessential essence of what superhero stories are supposed to be about, and watered it down to the point where I - a fan of superheroes - no longer care what happens to the X-Men. Well done guys, now give it back to Marvel.
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? There is.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? There isn't.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? There isn't.
• Is there a post-credits scene? There isn't.
If you're going to watch it at all, you may as well. This will be dire when witnessed through your TV, no matter how big that is. I saw Dark Phoenix in 3D, which was basically fine considering live-action rarely translates well into stereoscopy.
It's perhaps also worth noting that I saw it on opening day and in 'the big screen' with only ten other people, but that perhaps says more about the popularity of 3D than of the franchise itself (this was the only 3D screening of the day, the format really is on its absolute arse unless you're going for IMAX).
Completists may want to wait until the Blu-ray price drops significantly before adding it to their collection. Personally I'm not sure if I'll even bother doing that, and I say this as someone who eventually bought Apocalypse as a shelf-warmer.
Hahahahahahaha James McAvoy's good, but he's been this good and better elsewhere.
Y'know what, that's entirely possible.
Yes. There's a low-level Wilhelm scream during the train brawl. Fucking FINALLY. I've watched 59 movies at the cinema in 2019 so far, and Dark Phoenix has been the first one with a clear, unambiguous (albeit quiet) Wilhelm. I'm thankful for that, if nothing else.
Level 1: This movie is written and directed by Rogue One and Rebels producer, Simon Kinberg.
*2 Although I really shouldn't use that word. As a wise person recently noted, "There is no X-Men movie series. There are X-Men movies."[ BACK ]
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.
