Saturday, 15 January 2022

Review: Scream (2022)


Scream (2022)
Cert: 18 / 114 mins / Dir. Matt Bettinelli-Olpin & Tyler Gillett / Trailer


It is, it has to be said, not a particularly great time for fans of the picture-house. Not withstanding (understandable) audience reticence and the tug-of-war between theatrical distribution and streaming services, a glance at the scheduling for this weekend reveals Boss Baby 2, The 355, The King's Man, The Matrix Resurrections, Spider-Man: No Way Home, Clifford The Big Red Dog and West Side Story. Or, to put it another way: sequel, straight-to-video genre bilge, prequel, sequel, sequel, cinematic reboot and remake. And as satisfying as some of these are, it's hard to get excited when the message from the industry seems to be 'follow the easy money; give them what they think they want, not what cinema needs'.

Oh yeah, and another Scream movie opens as well...

Old scores become ripe for settling as a figure in a notorious mask begins a new killing spree in Woodsboro, sparking fears that a decade-long cycle is just about to tick over. And as this implies, the film is very much aware of the gap between its fourth and fifth installments*1, determined to work it into the mythology as a feature rather than a bug. And it's this knowing raise of an eyebrow which sees the new entry teetering between self-referential homage and shameless retread throughout.


COMFORT


So as you can tell by this point, Tyler Gillett and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin's debut into this sporadic franchise is potentially problematic for viewers who are seeking entertainment which refreshes with something new and inventive, rather than comforts with familiarity (or as close to 'comfort' as a slasher flick can get, anyhow). But of course, how much bristling originality can a viewer really want or expect five movies into a series?

Older (Legacy™) characters return to the fray having moved on just enough to make their inclusion feel natural, while the new young protagonists drive the story through familiar streets (literally). James Vanderbilt and Guy Busick's script pushes the same buttons as its cinematic predecessors and, it's thankful to note, largely gets results thanks to the commitment of its cast. Sure, everyone's having fun, but they're taking that fun seriously. In addition to the in-universe meta references, there are of course a plethora of more subtle (ie not literally described) homages and winks to fans of the genre at large. And bonus points have to be awarded for what is probably the finest unofficial callback to Once Upon A Time In Hollywood that we'll ever see.


LENOR


But the main hurdle that the film struggles to clear is that Slasher Film Deconstruction™ has been going on for so long now (and started, specifically, by Scream) that a generation of cinemagoers have grown up with it as their default watching-mode. It's 2022 so naturally this film seems to spend longer explaining what it's going to do than actually just doing it. One almost imagines it snagged that 18 certificate for Extended Scenes Of Structural Exposition*2...

So given that dialogued references to 4Chan and the state of Re-quel™ cinema aren't quite cutting it as unique insight, what can a new chapter really bring to the table in 2022? The snark and faux-lecturing about toxic fandom and worn-out franchising is all well and good, but don't come across as particularly clever if the smart-ass characters are just verbalising what the audience is thinking at that moment anyway. But hey, as much as Scream is clearly in love with its own aura, the film at least doesn't take itself as seriously as the likes of Halloween.

And as the minutes tick along to an almost frustratingly ouroboric ending, the suspicion grows that ultimately this is just More Of The Same. Although to be fair, when The Same is done as solidly as this, things could certainly be far worse.


And yet for all the chin-stroking cynicism from me and indeed the screenplay itself, the film finally reaches its bloody crescendo of righteous retaliation and everything clicks into place. The real trick was distraction. And it worked. Because as adrenaline surges and the audience feels itself inwardly cheering along with every climactic blow, slash, stab and gunshot, they realise they've been hooked. And it's revealed that Scream has in fact worked perfectly in fulfilling its only true remit: being - against all odds - a pretty fucking great Scream movie.

The problems exist but they aren't a bug, they're a feature.



And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Oh what, so you're happy to market "SCRE4M" but you draw the line at 5CREAM? Fucking cowards...
(I jest obviously, to be fair there wasn't a SCR3AM in this series, either) [ BACK ]

*2 I know I'm labouring the point, but so does the film. It really feels like Scream makes a good companion-piece with The Matrix Resurrections, just for blatantly repeating things while telling the audience that's clever rather than lazy.[ 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.

Thursday, 13 January 2022

Review: The 355


The 355
Cert: 12A / 123m mins / Dir. Simon Kinberg / Trailer

Let's cut straight to the chase. After all, that's what Simon Kinberg's done: Assembling the high-profile stars of Zero Dark Thirty, Inglorious Basterds, Pain And Glory and Us in order to make The 355 is like getting your hands on an F40 and using it to drive to Tesco. Perfectly serviceable for anyone with no imagination, and a complete waste of resources.

Jessica Chastain plays Mace, a CIA agent whose partner Nick (Sebastian Stan) is killed while the pair are on a mission to recover a piece of priceless tech hardware/weaponry which mustn't fall into the wrong hands (at which point it falls conveniently into the wrong hands). When her superiors claim they're powerless to take the case further, Mace decides to go rogue and recruits German BND operative Marie (Diane Kruger), MI6 hacker Khadijah (Lupita Nyong'o) and psychologist from the Mexican secret service Graciela (Penelope Cruz) to form a team of kick-ass bee-atches who might just save the ruddy world!

Now at this point you're either thinking The 355 sounds fantastic or utterly dreadful. Don't worry, it's neither. The film is staggeringly ordinary.


FILLER


Evoking such superficially passable cinematic filler as Jason Bourne, Unlocked and 21 Bridges, Simon Kinberg and Theresa Rebeck have crafted a sassy cyber thriller where the audience will not fully understand The Threat because the writers themselves do not fully understand The Threat, and are therefore incapable of actually explaining The Threat in any level of credible detail. Look, the macguffin is basically an iPhone-sized device which can make planes fall out of the sky and money fall out of banks at the same time or something. It's like watching a visual representation of the Daily Mail's internal thought processes when someone mentions bitcoin. You know this gadget's important because Jason Flemyng's international bad guy Elijah really wants it despite being the kind of man who has to keep asking his secretary what his password is, and cool-computer-expert Khadijah spouts a full thirty seconds of awed gibberish while looking at a vector graphic display which is supposed to be the user interface. To be fair, at least nobody talks about Unleashing The Hashtags...

Back at the business-end, pursuits and melees (of which there are many) are rendered through fast-cut, closeup montages, while a surprising number of people get shot at point-blank range considering nobody takes a bullet on-camera and you've seen more claret at a vegetarian barbecue. To say the film lacks the courage of its convictions is putting it mildly (hey, they've somehow made a 12A about murderers), and the industrial sequel-baiting in its final moments comes off as a cute joke rather than a tantalising promise or even threat. We shouldn't hold our collective breath for The 356*1.


STYRENE


Most successful actors knock out An Average Payday a few times in their career, and that's okay. But to have this many great performers all being this average and all at the same time is criminal. The 355 will be at the top of nobody's CV. There's definitely a feeling that from a marketing point-of-view, it's waving a flag for "Hey look, The Girls™ can do action thrillers too!!!". To which the only sensible response is "Okay, but why?". This just means there are more grindingly average punching-films but now with ladies in them. That's just adding to the problem, not fixing it.


Don't get me wrong, the film is technically fine as a two-hour chase sequence dumped out in January, and that in itself is also fine. But at some point in its development The 355 was doing something differently, and now this is all that's left; an absolute staple in the £4 Gift Ideas For Father's Day display in a supermarket.

Is this what 2022 is going to be..?



And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 It's okay, I know that's not why it's called that. That's the joke. Cool. [ 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.

Wednesday, 5 January 2022

Catchup Review: Censor

Censor
Cert: 15 / 84 mins / Dir. Prano Bailey-Bond / Trailer


Not every anticipated release gets to shine on the big screen (especially in the current maelstrom of UK distribution), but then some movies seem purposely designed to be watched at home...

As a slightly uptight London film examiner for the BBFC at the height of the early 1980s video nasty scare, Enid (Naimh Algar) is shaken by a piece which should be run of the gory-mill but instead seems to raise suppressed memories of the unsolved disappearance of her sister Nina when they were both children. Is there a chance that Nina is still alive? And what will it mean for her world if that's the case?

PLAYERS

What's immediately pleasing about director and co-writer Prano Bailey-Bond's Censor is that it's a feature debut, and what a great way to start. Not only does she have an understatedly brilliant players in Algar, Nicholas Burns, Vincent Franklin, Clare Holman, Felicity Montagu and Michael Smiley, but they're directed with the focus of a veteran. The commitment of the cast is a key factor of course, with the only over-playing being reserved for the roles where that's intentional.

Annika Summerson's cinematography is quietly assured in setting mood and tone while keeping even the darkest scenes visible (where they're supposed to be)*1, and the use of sets masquerading as outdoor locations adds to the claustrophobia and sense of shifted reality. Meanwhile, Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch's haunting score is the perfect companion piece in its own right to the visuals. The script, co-penned with Anthony Fletcher, feels a little on-the-nose in places; never unforgivably so, but this seems to be a casualty of the brisk pacing. That said, it also leads to some fantastic moments of show-don't-tell where lesser filmmakers would have shoehorned in a paragraph of exposition instead.

WOODBINES

Thematically, Bailey-Bond is on intriguing ground. Dealing with guilt and trauma head-on, there's a deeper exploration of psychological regression which only begins to be uncovered. And an interesting use of aspect-ratio helps reality break down through layers in several places which would, despite my opening gambit above, work at maximum effect on a cinema screen.

Although it's tempting to compare the film to Saint Maud, this is probably closer in tone to a British version of Mandy. High praise, either way.

The lean 84 minute run-time seems perfectly in keeping with the protagonist's linear descent into psychosis, although with those two aspects combined this often feels like a film playing with ideas rather than presenting them as fully formed. It's either the perfect length or needs to be an hour longer, nothing between.

Censor's dream-like unravelling invites further viewings, while resolutely refusing to promise clearer conclusions. But isn't that what the rewind button is for..?



And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 And fair play to Prano Bailey-Bond and the costume and make-up departments in at least attempting to pull off their greatest noble failure: trying to make Naimh Algar look Dowdy™. This is the UK equivalent of putting glasses on Kat Dennings. No one's buying it mate, but points for the effort. [ 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.