Hello, this is your spoiler-break. If you haven't seen Spider-Man: Far From Home, you shouldn't be here. This piece goes into (and underneath) far too much detail of the plot and themes of the film. To the point where it probably won't even make too much sense if you haven't seen the movie, but all the same you can always read my first-pass review to get a general flavour of what's in store (very vague spoilers in there, but nothing too derailing).
It took me far too long to get round to watching Far From Home again, but in the meanwhile I was at least able to marshall my thoughts somewhat. I absolutely love it, that should have been clear last time, and watching a second time allowed me to pick out more specific detail while also having the deeper themes filled in with more texture. I still didn't get quite the buzz that I did from 2017's Homecoming, but this movie is far more than just a flashy ride, as we'll discover.
Anyway, that's enough stalling - proceed with care…
Still here? Smashing. Okay, let's look at potentially the biggest revelation in Far From Home before we get into the meaning of the film. Because while they're certainly linked, they're not the same thing. J.Jonah Jameson appears in the mid-credits scene. Big deal, J.Jonah Jameson is a central player in the spider-specific mythos, and he didn't rock up in Homecoming, either reinterpreted or otherwise, so he fits in well here. But J.Jonah Jameson is played by actor J.K. Simmons here. Big deal, Simmons is an absolutely perfect fit for the bullish newspaper editor. In fact, we know he's a perfect fit because we saw J.K. Simmons play J.Jonah Jameson in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy from 2002-07.
Wait, what? Oh yeah.
Now, the one point on which Marvel Studios have been consistent over the course of twenty three movies is that the cinematic universe is sprawling yet self-contained. Characters who have appeared in other movies and media previously are not to be taken as the ones in the MCU content, in terms of the story-canon. Many of them will have broadly similar backstories, but characters, events and even actors outside this timeline are not to be taken as historical in their new iterations. That's why Chris Evans was able to portray The Human Torch in a pair of Fox's Fantastic Four movies, and still become the definitive Captain America. It's why Ben Affleck was Daredevil in the 2003 flick, but in the MCU he's played by Charlie Cox, and different things happen to that character.*1
Anyway, the point is that Marvel Studios aren't beholden to the story arcs and casting choices of any 'sub-contracted' movie series*2. So why, after all these years of retooling and re-imagination, has J.K. Simmons returned in the role of J.Jonah Jameson? They could have dropped many other performers into that role. Robert Redford, Glenn Close, Tommy Lee Jones, Jenny Agutter, the MCU is full of actors who maybe can't do the action stuff any more, but are still great to have in roles of gravitas. But they chose Simmons again. Rest assured, this was no accident. And the answer, somewhat ironically, lies in last year's Into The Spider-Verse. Sony's non-MCU animated extravaganza deals with the collision of various comic and cartoon versions of the web-slinger, when a dimensional-portal mishap draws all these threads together. And just when we thought the MCU was safely walled off from Marvel's uneven earlier cinematic efforts, J.K. Simmons rocks up as J.Jonah Jameson, reminding everyone of those three Tobey Maguire movies*3. And all of a sudden, it seems like characterisations from elsewhere in Marvel's screen history actually could exist in the MCU after all. Different stories, but same faces.
How? That's not explained. Yet. Doctor Strange spoke of seeing different realities at the climax of Infinity War, his 2021 outing is titled Multiverse of Madness, and Disney's recent re-acquisition of the X-Men and Fantastic Four characters via the Fox buy-out could well point to some mass crossover whereby non-MCU properties are at least accounted for (otherwise it's exposition-heavy reboots all round). Far From Home teases the possibility earlier in its run-time when Mysterio states he's from Earth 813, a parallel dimension to the MCU's 'standard' Earth 616. But as everything else Quentin Beck says here is a lie, presumably we can discount that, too? We can certainly scrub his exact version of events, although the seed has been planted all the same. Hell, Beck's got access to a lot of Stark's old files, and it's possible his own team have made some advancements of their own, he's just rounding it out with bullshit.
But the first shoot to break through the soil comes in the mid-credits scene, and it's something which was there all along - we just hadn't been shown it yet.
J.Jonah Jameson exists in the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the editor of The Daily Bugle, and he's played by J.K. Simmons. And Jameson's still angry. He's angrier than ever, in fact. Because director Jon Watts hasn't stopped with a callback to an old character. In the MCU, The Daily Bugle and its associated website is an opinionated, authoritarian, right-wing, conspiracy-theory-loving news outlet. 2019 (our version) is a cynical place, and not everyone has that 'gee-whiz' trust in the media any more. The Daily Bugle now shadows the likes of Fox News*4 and even InfoWars; Jameson rants and raves across the digital airwaves, so determined to bring viewers The Truth™ that he's prepared to spread lies to do it. And it could be the most real thing that Marvel Studios have done to date.
Which brings us, as they say, to the crunch. The real message, hiding in plain sight throughout Far From Home. That even in fiction, you can't handle the truth…
IT'S EASY TO FOOL PEOPLE
WHEN THEY'RE FOOLING THEMSELVES. Or, as a much wiser man once said, "your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them". That thing you just saw, there. Did you really see it? Really? Okay, but did you also believe it? In 2019? More fool you. And its coming to something when the largest entertainment company on Earth - the one that's been capturing hearts through fiction for just shy of a hundred years - feels the need to dole out that lesson.
The Daily Bugle's paranoid propaganda machine is the final raised-eyebrow, tongue-in-cheek hammerblow in a movie which has spent two hours telling its audience to question everything. From Quentin Beck's fabricated backstory, to the hologram generators he uses to create his attacks, to the con he pulls on Peter to get the E.D.I.T.H. glasses, to the visual nightmare he summons around Spider-Man to paralyse him, to his coup de grace contingency-plan of faking a video then doxxing Parker as revenge from beyond the grave: question everything.
From the double-life that Parker still leads as he tries to complete his education and not assume the full mantle of hero, to pretending he doesn't know why his school tour is being diverted around Europe into the path of attacking Elementals, to the clumsy excuses he makes to MJ as he tries to avoid the subject of his absence without flat-out lying to the girl he's falling for: question everything.
From Happy Hogan and Aunt May lying to Peter about the relationship they're having, to Happy Hogan and Aunt May lying to each other about the relationship they're having, to Happy sending clumsily coded messages to Nick Fury about Mysterio's whereabouts, to Nick Fury pretending he didn't pick those up, to Nick Fury lying to Happy and Peter Parker because Nick Fury is actually Talos because the real Nick Fury is halfway across the galaxy helping the Skrull refugees, to Talos then attempting to play down the absolute shit-show he's created on Earth in the meanwhile: question everything.
PEOPLE NEED SOMETHING TO BELIEVE;
THESE DAYS, PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING. Throughout all of this, Spider-Man: Far From Home is a film about belief. It's about Peter Parker learning how much Tony Stark believed in him, and Parker learning to believe in himself, too. Not so much the cocky, self-assuredness of an athletic teenager with access to a billionaire's vault of technology and the free-rein to use it, but believing - knowing - that he's doing this for the right reasons. That being the hero is just the right thing to do, because not everyone can help themselves. Because being the hero is a privilege.
It's a film about confidence, about trust, about choosing friends you can rely on and about accepting that sometimes you'll make mistakes. It's about accepting that you won't always know what to do - whether you're 15, 35 or 85. And ultimately it's a film about truth. About how damaging the truth can be as well as how liberating. About how we'll often deny the truth in comfort rather than confront it to make things genuinely better, and how when it's taken out of our hands that can cause even more problems.
At the end of Far From Home, the city of New York (and by extension the world) knows that Spider-Man is a kid named Peter Parker. That shouldn't affect him too adversely, Tony Stark outed himself as Iron Man at the end of the first movie, after all. In fact, Spider-Man is one of the few heroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe who actually has a 'secret identity'. But that disguise wasn't there to help the web-slinger - it was there to help the kid who wears the suit. The kid who knows he still has to finish his education if he's to become the best version of himself. Well, I'm sure the Stark Foundation can stretch to some private tuition because now Parker is in the big-leagues. They're probably going to have to stretch to some protection for May, Ned and MJ too, but that's another story.
Parker will do well, though. He'll grow, he'll adapt.
He'll become the hero he was meant to be.
It certainly deserves to be near the top of the CV of everyone involved.
I suppose we might.
There ain't.
Level 1: Pre Vizsla is in this.
Also, Peter Parker's got a 3¾" scale TIE Bomber in his bedroom, which is exactly the level of in-universe homage I'm after. The Lego Death Star from last time was a bit much, mate.
*1 It's also kind of why Evan Peters is the mutant-Quicksilver in 2014's X-Men: Days Of Future Past, but Aaron Taylor-Johnson is the "enhanced" Quicksilver in 2015's Avengers: Age Of Ultron. That one is more complicated, in fact - same character, completely different backstory for self-defeating contractual reasons - and I'll be honest I'm regretting bringing it up now. But here we are. Blame Marvel. [ BACK ]
*2 Andrew Garfield did a fantastic job in The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and Marvel still recast the role to Tom Holland in the MCU. Holland is also fantastic, but that's not my point. [ BACK ]
*3 In fact, Simmons also voiced Jameson in the Ultimate Spider-Man animated TV series, although that's less likely to be in the minds of the casual cinema-going audience. [ BACK ]
*4 While they've kept the newspaper's branding in-universe for obvious reasons, this is a particularly delicious tonal twist as Disney (owners of Marvel) have recently bought the entertainment arm of Fox Corp, leaving its broadcast network and news outlets to fend for themselves financially - ie without being under the larger umbrella that also earns income from licensed Marvel characters such as X-Men. They can basically take the piss out of Fox's shouty bullshit paranoia full-belt now, knowing they're not inadvertently funding it. [ 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.
Crawl (SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 87 mins / Dir. Alexandre Aja / Trailer
Okay, let's keep this brief. Crawl isn't very good. There. I said it. And it's not 'just fun' because movies aren't fun when you're wishing all the characters could just die sooner so that it would be over. And technically it could be over at any point you choose, of course, but we'll come to that widely-taken option later. In the meanwhile…
We open in Florida USA with Haley (Kaya Scodelario), a university student and competition-swimmer. After a phone conversation with her sister, Haley decides to attempt to contact her semi-estranged father and swimming coach Dave (Barry Pepper - he's not a real pepper) as a hurricane is moving in and neither have heard from him in some time. Arriving at Dave's house (after evading two Highway Patrol Officers, for whom she is solely and directly responsible for the later deaths of) she finds his dog, Sugar, but no other signs of life. Eventually Haley traces her errant father to their old family home, now borderline derelict after a family split years earlier.
Dave is in the cellar, trapped and injured, as floodwaters have attracted the residents of a nearby alligator-farm, and they're suddenly quite protective of their new gaff. But the rain pours heavily outside and time is running out for Haley and Dave to escape. Will award-winning swimmer Haley be up to the challenge of out-manoeuvring a predator that's had millions of years to evolve its talent? And also the dog is up in the living room! Oh no, the dog! Hashtag danger!
DOG First things first, you know for a fact that this movie won't kill the dog. Because if it was the kind of movie that would kill the dog, then it would have killed the dog in the first fifteen minutes just to establish that no-one was safe. And I don't want the dog to die, but it's an indicator of exactly what the movie is. And of course Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper (he's not a real pepper, remember) aren't going to die early on since they're the only cast members contracted to have more than three lines of dialogue before getting eaten by a CGI alligator - there's basically no movie without them. So what we're left with is a desaturated colour palette, jump-scares and shrieking in a manky old cellar. This is basically a Conjuring movie with 'gators instead of ghouls. Which perhaps explains why I lost patience with it so quickly.
The first act is so packed to the rafters with hackneyed backstory and exposition (all sports-coach parents are inherently terrible and should be left for whatever's crawling around in the basement) that it's no surprise the only way to go was down once the rains kicked in. There's a vague suggestion later that the whole thing could be a clumsy metaphor for generational angst and self-reflection on failure, as if Crawl has the cojones to think it could be placed on the same shelf as The Shallows. If only it had that much to say. You'd think that after Pirates Of The Caribbean 5, Scodelario would have approached a film where she spends a considerable percentage submerged in water with a little more caution. Kaya is a capable and promising performer, but even she can't save this dull scream-fest.
SMALL As the flood-level rises, so does the detail-free murkiness*1, and every 'oh no I'm back in the water!!' is more tedious than the last. There's something quite retrograde about watching half-arsed characters splashing around an enclosed area, fleeing from animated creatures like there's supposed to be some layer of irony which got forgotten in post-production. The film was never going to be a layered masterpiece, but it certainly shouldn't have been this boring - that most unforgivable of cinematic sins. Although this was made worse by the fact that I also started becoming angry at how bored I was getting*2.
There's a scattering of quite nasty effects shots if that's your thing, but with a cast this small they have to be used sparingly if the film is going to last its gruelling 87 minutes. Why does Crawl exist? What purpose does it serve in 2019? This cost actual money to make, right? What does this bring to the schedules right now and what will it leave for its genre in the years to come, other than an also-ran shelf warmer? Who is supposed to enjoy a film that's been punched out of a template so well-worn that all of its edges are smoothed away? Who is this for that doesn't already buy their new movies from the £3 shelf in Asda? How is Crawl advancing anything? And if it's not, isn't that a slap in the face to all the filmmakers with imaginative, intelligent projects they can't get made because this shite is clogging up the screens?
The only thing missing from this turgid, self-indulgent mess is a good ol'fashioned Stars'n'Stripes waving defiantly from the roof of the house as the rescue helicopter finally wobbles into view. Because obviously they all fucking survive. It's that sort of movie*3.
Sample dialogue: "We are going to beat those pea-brained lizard shits." Well, quite…
You may as well watch it in a cinema if at all, because a film this dark and murky will be impossible to see in your living room unless you've got blackout-curtains...
Absolutely not.
Nope.
Yep.
Nope.
Level 2: Kaya Scodelario and Barry Pepper are in this (and he's not a real pepper, remember), and they were in those Maze Runner movies with Thomas 'Petty Officer Thanisson' Brodie-Sangster.
I do not award this score lightly, I assure you.
*1 She is literally scrabbling around in excrement at one point. I ask you. [ BACK ]
*2 Now not for nothing, Crawl was a secret-screening. By which I mean that none of the audience knew what the movie would be until the BBFC card came up after the trailers. And it was a busy screen tonight (in fact, where the fuck were these cowards when Beats was playing?). So. As the title was revealed to the audience, a handful of people stood up and left. No doubt they'd seen the trailer and knew this wouldn't be for them. The ticket price was covered by their Unlimited cards, so no harm done other than a wasted journey out of the house. Over the course of the next twenty minutes or so, more people left when it became apparent what the film was going to be, and they then knew this wouldn't be for them. Then over the course of the next twenty-five minutes or so, more people left when it became apparent that the movie wasn't suddenly 'going to get good'. Although because of a shameful mass-reaction to another recent mystery screening, I now make a point of counting how many walk-outs there are. Forty people walked out of Crawl. Forty. Four-Zero. And that was just in my screen, I know my local had put on an extra showing, too. And the longer the gap between the BBFC card and that dissatisfied trudge to the front, the more damning an indictment each one was. Fuck it, I only stayed out of morbid curiosity and because I wouldn't be able to write about the movie if I didn't pay it the courtesy of watching the whole thing. [ BACK ]
*3 So as Haley drives to her dad's place, there's a conspicuously signposted Alligator Farm™ (Because Florida) on the opposite side of the road. Fair enough, plot-point, foreshadowing, I get that. But later on (after realising there's more than one creature down there with her), Haley goes to the far end of the basement and discovers a clutch of alligator eggs, some of which have hatched. By this point, it's been raining less than six hours. So are we to believe that in that time, the 'gators have a) escaped the farm, b) set up shop in Barry Pepper's cosy cellar-bar (and he's not a real pepper, remember), c) laid some eggs and d) hatched some eggs? Because some people reckon those take around 65 days to incubate rather than… say… six hours. I get that there could just be alligators in the basement anyway Because Florida, in which case why leave the implication that the flooding will cause them to get out of the Alligator Farm™? If they're everywhere you look, then what was the point of that? Anyway, this movie was directed by the helmsman of Piranha 3D and written by Michael and Shawn Rasmussen, whose IMDB credits feel entirely in-keeping with all of this. [ 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.
Here we are, just over half-way through 2019, and already Disney have given us three Marvel Cinematic Universe entries, and alongside Dumbo and Aladdin, three live-action*1 retoolings of classic animated tales, too. Is this a sustainable rate?
GENERATIONS To be absolutely clear, this film is a straight-up remake of 1994's The Lion King, songs and all, a piece beloved by generations and now presented in a new, shiner form. First and foremost, credit is undoubtedly due for the way the movie looks. It is flawless. And while we should be able to take that as a given with any Disney output by this point, it really can't be emphasised enough: This is an animated film and film and It. Looks. Flawless. This level of CGI was barely imaginable only a couple of decades ago, and yet here we are.
But are the visuals enough? Well it's certainly true that Jon Favreau's new rendering doesn't add anything to the original story. It even takes away some of the cartoonish, excitable charm perhaps, but audiences coming to this version as their first will still have a great time. The story and characterisation are clearly laid out*2 and there's no shortage of action, spectacle and laughs. Then again, how much does this need to add to the existing mythos? Well, only as much as The Lion King ever 'needed' to be remade in the first place. Which is to say not a lot.
NEMESIS The big draw is the return of James Earl Jones as the voice of Mufasa*3, and he does well opposite Chiwetel Ejiofor as his nemesis, Scar (although the latter often sounds distractingly like the former, particularly in later scenes where they aren't sharing the screen). Meanwhile, Big Simba is voiced by Donald Glover, with Beyoncé as lioness Nala. And it's here that the movie stumbles once again. If anything, the photorealistic nature of the visuals can't accommodate the expressive nature of the the pair's voices. While both are demonstrably great performers, their relaxed - almost street - delivery just doesn't gel with the lions they're portraying. It's not unlike like that time Favreau had Bill Murray be the voice of a bear when it clearly should have been John Goodman.
Pumba and Timon remain a highlight, voiced by Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner respectively, in a turn which echoes Jordan Peele and Keegan-Michael Key in Toy Story 4. And I confess that I did get goosebumps during their rendition of The Lion Sleeps Tonight, if only because I'm a sucker for a capella*5.
OCTONAUTS ROLLERCOASTER ADVENTURE Truth be told though, I think I'd have found a non-musical version of the film more engaging (although looking back, that's exactly what I said about the original, too). Sure, the tunes are iconic and award-winning and well-known, but their inclusion in 2019 seems to hold the whole thing back, resulting in nothing more than a pristine remake, rather than bringing anything new on a narrative or emotional level*6.
The Lion King is entertaining and it looks utterly amazing, but active enjoyment will hinge on your feelings toward the hand-animated version. And even then this will feel like less to some degree. The bottom line is that with visuals this lifelike overlaid with human voices, we're all in Johnny Morris's fever-dream, now.
Oh and Circle Of Life is basically The Power Of Love.
There. I said it.
But all those desert dunes with not a dewback in sight? For shame, Ian Disney, for shame…
*1 Yeah, yeah. Let me join the chorus in saying that while The Jungle Book had a live-action Mowgli, the rest was essentially CGI, and so by extension The Lion King is a flat-out animation. But I'll get to that... [ BACK ]
*2 Although let's be fair, The Lion King's storyline itself has always been pretty slight. 1) Little Simba gets tricked, 2) Little Simba goes away for literally years and turns into Big Simba, 3) Big Simba comes back, 4) Big Simba has a fight, 5) That is the end thank you very much for your money. There are no extra layers or interweaving subplots in either this or the 1994 version (although Favreau has managed to make his one thirty minutes longer, all the same). It's just a very linear series of events with some basic life-lessons about not being a dick. [ BACK ]
*3 Look, I get that the lions talk, and I get that they still growl and roar in some places to give emphasis. But there are sections of sound-mixing here where the growling and the talking noticeably overlap each other. They're not blended, they're just running at the same time. Are these special lions with two sets of vocal cords, then?*4[ BACK ]
*4 Although the keen-eared among you will recall that there are scenes in the first Star Wars trilogy where Darth Vader's ventilator can be heard separately breathing in and out behind his speech. And bear in mind that when you or I talk, we're only breathing outward. This implies that Vader has a secondary set of artificial lungs to take care of this body functions, while his own damaged ones can just about handle the 'barking-orders' stuff. Perhaps Mufasa's twin-throats are an homage to Darth Vader?. I should coco... [ BACK ]
*5 No, not that a capella, I mean good a capella. The kind where I don't want to stab someone during or after it. [ BACK ]
*6 But keep in mind, my main bugbear with The Jungle Book was all the promo-press touting the movie as 'a re-imagining', rather than a remake. Which could have worked until Disney just left two of the songs in for the hell of it, meaning that they were remaking their own version after all. Unless those were the original songs penned by Rudyard Kipling, of course... [ 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.
Animals Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. Sophie Hyde / Trailer
Occasionally there's comes a film that I'm glad to have experienced in a cinema, even if I can't go so far as saying I actually enjoyed it (cf). The work is usually well constructed, tightly written and soundly performed. And watching it in a custom-built, dedicated auditorium is the level playing field that all movies deserve. Even accounting for differences in audience demographics and cultural norms, there should be something in any film that I can find to admire. Even if I can't go so far as saying I actually enjoyed it.
I wish I'd liked Animals more, even though I can't think of any inclusion (or omission) which would have facilitated that. Well done, Sophie Hyde. I guess.
SCREEN Adapted for the big screen by Emma Jane Unsworth from her 2014 novel of the same name, we meet aspiring novelist and full-time barista Laura (Holliday Grainger), and her best friend Tyler (Alia Shawkat). With the former in her early thirties and the other rapidly approaching that third decade, the pair are trying their damnedest to drown out the ticking of social clocks and expectational standards by continuing to party like teenagers.
And they're doing a pretty fine job of it when Laura meets pianist Jim (Fra Fee) and a serious relationship blooms. But Jim's idea of a great time is the occasional night out, and pretty soon Laura feels torn between her hedonistic past and a responsible, potentially achievement-filled, future. Can Laura reconcile the two halves of her personality? More to the point, should she?
GODDESS So. Best friends having a great time, one of them gets a boy/girlfriend, the boy/girlfriend doesn't really click with the best friend, tensions ensue. It's not a bristling new idea for a story, and that's very much the point of Animals. Hyde's film focuses more on the interweaving characterisation, and she's got a strong cast to deliver that.
Alia Shawkat is on fine form, selling her role as only she can. Vivacious to the point of obstreperous, Tyler is the kind of person you love to have at your party as long as it's not you who's having to steer them away from the crockery all evening. But the real standout here is Holliday Grainger, largely because hers is the only part in the story which feels fully written. For all the character's faults, Laura tip-toes along a fine line of being sympathetic and unlikeable, never faltering too far either way. Ultimately she's just heartbreakingly human, the core of what keeps the film watchable for its run-time. It's not as if Grainger even needs a dramatic showreel at this point in her career, but Animals would fit the bill in and of itself.
GIANT But it becomes more of a problem when everything begins to fall apart and the mood of the film sags accordingly. Hyde over-directs pretty much every scene, any trace of nuance in the characterisation ground into the boards as the cast emote like they're in panto at a borstal. The highs are ear-splittingly high, the lows correspondingly despondent. The dim light at the end of the tunnel is merely the prospect of Laura 'getting by' - hardly an aspiration - while the excesses of her peers echo noisily throughout the quieter scenes. And all of this is intentional, but Animals is often hard work. At times it feels like a Trainspotting fan-film crowdfunded by Mumsnet, without any deeper message, bordering on contemporary mis-lit. Because Laura is the only character who's properly explored, everyone else feels two-dimensional. And this leads to an unintentional (I hope) claustrophobia as those surrounding Laura turn into walls, holding her in place.
We end on a great note of quiet optimism, but it's one perhaps suited to a more delicate film. Although that could just be my inner cynic being surprised the movie doesn't close with a higher bodycount.
There's a chance I was never going to get fully immersed in this world, of course. There's even the sneaking suspicion that it's Not Intended For Me™. But I do think hinging an entire movie around one performance is a huge gamble. Worse still, I can't be sure if it even paid off...
Well I was hoping for Thoroughbreds with a little less murder, but it's not even that.
It's a bit Sunday Night DVD, but if you think it'll be your thing then it almost certainly will.
As above.
Grainger is very, very good.
Almost certainly.
There isn't.
Level 2: Alia Shawkat is in this and she was in Pee Wee's Big Holiday with Paul 'RX-24' Reubens.
I agree, it does read like a 3, doesn't it?
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.
Apollo 11 Cert: U / 93 mins / Dir. Todd Douglas Miller / Trailer
I have to admit that I went in pretty much blind for this one (having missed its initial release as it's not important enough for my local, apparently?), and since I tend not to read reviews of films I haven't seen yet. The trailers beforehand were for Playmobil, The Lion King and Racing In The Rain, and I thought 'hang on… is this a documentary for kids?'. Then they showed that Champagne For Wankers advert which only runs in front of grown-ups films, and I realised that the distributors have absolutely no idea who will be watching Apollo 11.
Although here's a clue: it should be everybody.
MISSION Apollo 11 is (as you should know and/or have gathered), a documentary about the eponymous space mission which saw Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot on the moon, on 21 July 1969*1, while Michael Collins kept the engine running like the absolute legend he is. Unlike most documentaries, it's a purely historical account with no commentary or retrospective interview footage. The film comprises amazingly restored archive footage and sound recordings*2, with additional (minimalist) illustrative graphics and readouts, sound design by Eric Milano and an immense new score by Matt Morton*3.
With no voiceover to guide the viewer, the events are told through the storytelling skills of an editor (which director Todd Douglas Miller also performs), meticulously assembled and often covering two or more simultaneous strands (and yet it's always perfectly clear). Viewers would be advised to have a general grounding in background knowledge before taking their seats. As great as this is (and it is), Apollo 11 is perhaps not as accessible as it could be to younger audiences taking their first gaze at the heavens (even though it's not like the subject hasn't been tackled elsewhere). While it's a brilliant and immersive snapshot, the film is arguably not designed as a teaching resource, detailing nothing of the painful lead-up to the mission. It's still a dignified and massively respectful tribute, though.
SISTERS After the triumphant landing, the documentary also covers their journey back to Earth (in admittedly less detail), a key component of JFK's initial pledge. In fact, the film doesn't touch upon that speech until its closing moments, a quiet reminder that Kennedy never lived to see the achievement he inspired.
I left Apollo 11 absolutely humbled that humanity achieved something so extraordinary so long ago, and absolutely appalled that we didn't keep up that momentum and find new ways to go further.
While they're very different, this will make a great companion-piece with First Man.
If you can, do.
There probably won't be a lot of replay-value in this unless it's your subject anyway, in which case you don't need me to tell you to get it on your shelf at the earliest opporunity.
Todd Douglas Miller has outdone himself.
Discuss vigorously, I imagine.
There isn't.
Level 2: Neil Armstrong performed voicework for 2010's Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey, as did James Earl 'Vader' Jones, Hayden 'Anakin' Christensen, Mark 'Luke' Hamill, Sam 'Windu' Jackson, and Tom 'Nute Gunray In The Clone Wars' Kenny.
Which is pretty fantastic company to be in, you have to admit.
*1 I saw this film a week ago, and while I'd like to tell you I waited seven days to post my review so that it syncs with fifty years to the day since Neil Armstrong's iconic walk, the fact is that I've just been spectacularly poorly organised this week, hence me dropping four posts in a single day and two more still in the pipeline. [ BACK ]
*2 As listeners of the BBC podcast 13 Minutes To The Moon will be aware, much of the radio communication between Apollo 11 and control is static-y gibberish. But at least we have the visuals in the meanwhile. [ BACK ]
*3 And the geek in me loves that Morton's score has been produced only using instruments and effects which existed at the time of the launch. That's dedication to art. [ 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.
