Bombshell Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. Jay Roach / Trailer
Oh, is it awards-season already? No sooner have the Golden Globes taken over Twitter discourse*1 than we begin with the raft of Worthy™ films, released in January because voting committees have notoriously short memories when it comes to listing the favourite things they've watched.
And opening this year's lectures is Jay Roach with Bombshell, the Charles Randolph-penned screen rendering of 2016's media-scandal where everybody suddenly realised that Fox News was being run by some right old wrong'uns. Charlize Theron leads as presenter Megyn Kelly, with Nicole Kidman as outgoing host Gretchen Carlson and Margot Robbie as incoming harassment-target Kayla Pospisil. John Lithgow stars Roger Ailes, the touchy-feely Darth Vader to Malcolm McDowell's Emperor Rupert Murdoch.
CAST And it's good in a sort of solidly linear fashion. The story is compelling (although this has more to do with the real-life actual events) and the cast are fantastic (although it's a fantastic cast, so we'd expect nothing less). Roach brings the social urgency of The Post and the wry outlook of The Big Short, always taking the subject seriously but with some of its aspects requiring a full fourth-wall-break to convey the required incredulity*2.
But the film spends quite a lot of its runtime winking at the audience (whether that's the glaring "STAY IN LANE" road signs during Kelly's deliberations over how to react to the developing situation, or Ailes' withering line of "me too..." during his firing, followed by five seconds of pointed silence in the room). Bombshell often feels like the dramatised-reconstruction sequences of a documentary without the documentary and made for an audience who already know the story.
THE LA'S Which brings us to Bombshell's biggest problem, a searing dose of Daniel Blake Syndrome. It's never entirely clear what point the film is trying to make which wasn't made by the 2016 news reports or the subsequent flow of reactions and think-pieces. And it's even less certain whose mind film is going to change.
There'll be no sexists watching this thinking "Hey, I've asked attractive young women to undress (and more) in my office before, but y'know that seems more than a bit creepy now I've watched Big Roger doing it!". Similarly, the liberal (and let's be fair, 'target') audience are already sympathetic to the cause. While there's plenty of justifiable outrage, there are few revelations here. With the very best will in the world, Bombshell is two hours of confirmation-bias*3.
Yet at the same time the central message of the movie is still very much relevant. The issues the movie addresses are still ongoing and show no real sign of being resolved*4. Bombshell exists in 2020 because it needs to exist.
Stream it. There's not really a lot of re-watch value here.
Not with a cast as solid as this one.
That's likely.
There isn't.
Level 1: NPR Radio Drama Yoda is in this. And he makes a Jabba The Hutt reference.
*1 Okay, that's probably more the thrust of my social media feeds than your own. Yours probably have far more serious (ie depressing) subject matter to infuriate your lunch hour, but there's only one of us who can change that... [ BACK ]
*2 I must admit that during Theron's opening whistle-stop 'to-audience' introduction of the Fox News building, the style and pacing had me believing we'd cut to a shot of Ron Burgundy any moment and it wouldn't be played for laughs. [ BACK ]
*3 Although to be fair, Bombshell does at least challenge the cosseted liberal audience in one regard, with its idea that Fox News apparently employs people who a) aren't absolute arseholes to begin with, b) somehow aren't aware of the absolute arsehole problem at Fox News, and c) are fine with putting a roof over their heads by actively contributing to the continued success of some absolute arseholes. Of course I know it's not that simple. But of course I'd still walk away from someone in a pub if they told me they worked for one of "those" outlets. In a movie about every single voice having an essential and cumulative effect, it seems odd to be forgiving people who go with the fetid flow for an easy life. Even the guy just mopping up the blood is still keeping the abattoir in business.
Although bear in mind that next week I'll be watching the new socio-political drama from Mr Clint Eastwood, so my leftie-righteousness will be stretched the other way as I'll doubtlessly sit going 'DO YOU THINK THIS POMPOUS CONSERVATIVE HOGWASH IS GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND?' for two hours. [ BACK ]
*4 Because even in 2020 people are still awful, in case you hadn't noticed. [ 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.
I'd be crap in Starfleet, me. It seems you have to be ready to needlessly sacrifice your own life every twenty minutes or so*1. Apparently trapped in a volcano? Just deal with it, mate. Toast burnt? Go down with the kitchen. Their HR department must be utter bedlam. Mind you their 'that's probably a trap' review-team all seem to have all booked the same week off, too.
So anyway, it becomes clear fairly early on with a bunch of heavyweight exposition surrounding the Klingon situation, that this film is a definite step away from the mainstream appeal that its predecessor established. Even though Into Darkness is a reasonably accomplished mystery/conspiracy-thriller, it's one which takes place firmly in the Star Trek universe, with the self-referential plot points and easter eggs ramped right up. Perhaps too far, but that's not an argument a Star Wars fan can convincingly make.
The film has become oddly polarising, of course, with some of its most vehement detractors being part of the fanbase itself. Still, if there's one thing that 2016's taught us, it's that online-fandom is in crisis-mode.
But the best thing about the Star Trek reboot was the personal interplay between the core characters. The explosions were pretty, but they weren't why everyone was sitting there. And seeing as vast swathes of Starfleet's employees have been killed in Into Darkness (not to mention the potentially thousands of San Franciscan fatalities), how do you plan to top that without setting up the ramps for shark-jumping? On this particular evening, I didn't have to wait long to find out.
I don't think I necessarily enjoyed Into Darkness tonight more than the first time I saw it, but I certainly enjoyed it more than I remember enjoying it. Somehow.
A firm enough movie, but it seems hesitant to write too much on 2009's clean slate…
And crap pseudonyms aside, every time someone says "John Harrison" with a straight face, I think of Tony Harrison. Which just makes it even worse.
Judging by the screenplay here, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan…
Again, not really an option right now, but if you get the chance then yes.
I think it does, but the aims of the film and the requirements of the audience aren't necessarily the same thing.
It's not, but only because they've all been so great elsewhere (and/or in earlier/later installments).
*1 To be fair, I've always been more the 'inept Stormtrooper' type, which equates to roughly the same outcome in terms of the company's health-insurance policy.
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.
Star Trek Into Darkness (3D) - First Pass / Spoiler-Free Cert: 12A / 132 mins / Dir. JJ Abrams
Before I start, let me say now that I enjoyed this film. The central story and performances are solid, and a great foundation for what should be a great film for fans and civilians alike.
We good? Good.
• Oh yeah, I said "should be", didn't I? Well, for starters, the film's too damned long for the story that's in it. It's already a slow starter, and the first half has the air of an unfolding mystery and intrigue which wasn't quite pacy enough to keep my attention when it's interspersed with (admittedly fantastic) action sequences and internal politics of Starfleet. When the puzzles are resolved well before the final battle… it just seems like a wasted opportunity; almost like the film's trying to be too many things at once. Too ponderous for an action flick, too brash for a crime drama, surprisingly Earth-bound for a space adventure. Harrison's back-story (which should be the emotional key, here) feels drowned out by Spock and Uhura's teenage squabbling, indeed when Kirk interjects "whoa, don't drag me into this!" I was thinking much the same thing.
• The other thing that was constantly in the front of my mind was the number references/homages to existing ST. I'm aware that the in-universe setup is still the same, even though the timeline isn't, but the 2009 Trek made a fantastic job of restarting everything while losing nothing. This movie feels like it should be using that clean-slate for good, but can't let go of the past and is holding itself back. I can't go into it without wading into spoiler-territory, but there are very oblique references that even I found forced, and I think that these will divide the ST-fandom (certainly if my own experience with SW fandom is anything to go by).
I know that I'm essentially complaining that a Star Trek film feels too much like Star Trek, but that's the best way I can describe it.
• Thumbs up for the 3D! It's used effectively and adds a nice depth to the proceedings, which is unusual for live-action. It doesn't make-or-break the film, of course, but it's refreshing to see a film where it's worth having. If you're even vaguely interested in seeing Into Darkness, the cinema is going to give you the best results; it's made to be watched big.
• Speaking of visuals, what's with the fucking lens-flare in this film? By all means go wild with it when we've got a glory-shot of The Enterprise bursting through a planet's atmosphere, or for a Bay-eque sunrise, but most of the internal shots set on the ship's bridge have hazy blue streaks, often in front of character's faces. Often while they're speaking. Less is more, Abrams, less is more.
But, like I said, I did enjoy Into Darkness, it just didn't resonate with me as its predecessor did. And as visually/audibly stunning as it was, it left me thinking about the things I didn't like, rather than the ones I did. And that's not what a film's meant to do, is it?
Largely.
Mostly.
Likely.
Cinema.
No.
Yes.
No.
Spock and Bones are being portrayed very similarly to their previous incarnations, both in looks and mannerisms, whereas Kirk and Uhura have more of their respective performers' style coming though. Which of these approaches sits better with you, and is that because you are/aren't a hardcore fan of ST?
Please think of others and avoid spoilers for the comments on this one ;)
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.
Oh, is it awards-season already? No sooner have the Golden Globes taken over Twitter discourse*1 than we begin with the raft of Worthy™ films, released in January because voting committees have notoriously short memories when it comes to listing the favourite things they've watched.
