Review: Timestalker

TIMESTALKER
Cert: 15 / 90 mins / Dir. Alice Lowe / Trailer

Nigh-on impossible to track down on the multiplex circuit comes Alice Lowe's Timestalker, a surreal anti-romcom where the central character of Agnes (Lowe)*¹ is a hapless romantic who falls head over heels for precisely the wrong man (Alex, Aneurin Barnard), while being unhappily married to definitely the wrong man (Nick Frost), to the exasperated support of her best friend Meg (Tanya Reynolds). The problem is that she does this in the Scottish highlands in the 1680s, the English home counties in the 1790s and New York in the 1980s (plus more, besides). The pair are destined to never be together, and reincarnation it seems is just a chance to make the same mistakes, only better.

A British, independent film about memory, fatalism and crushing ennui is either the last thing we need in 2024, or the only thing. And since Alice Lowe’s lightness of touch means that Timestalker never wallows - even in its most introspective moments - I’ll go for the latter...

CHARMING

Laugh-out-loud funny, charming and never less than completely watchable, it’s a shame then that the final product feels so uneven. Mainstream sensibility would dictate that each of the film’s timeframes be given roughly equal, episodic, screen time, and from there the rhythm of Agnes’ inbuilt neuroses and repeated follies would be methodically built-up, like a meeting point somewhere between Blackadder and Groundhog Day if you will. Timestalker is far from mainstream, however, and takes no small amount of pleasure foxing audience expectations in having some era-segments play for over half an hour, while others last for less than five minutes. In fairness, this is narratively due to the fact that in some lives Agnes fixates over Alex for months/years, while in others she sees him mere moments before her own death, but the arrhythmic presentation can feel off-putting when all the viewer wants to do is root for our heroine.

It also gives way to the repeated suspicion that outside of the 90-minute runtime there’s about another hour which was filmed and never made the edit, and that there’s at least another two hours which were written but never filmed. On a structural level, the story seems more suited to six half-hour sitcom episodes, each fully presenting their own era with flashbacks (/forwards) to the others. Because ultimately, Agnes’ story is certainly something I want to see more of.

AND THE NEW POWER GENERATION

The scripted gags and cast interplay are superb and Lowe doesn't under-write any of the parts, but the slightly ponderous nature of the film’s pacing means these are more like interludes than the driving force of the plot. That said, Ryan Eddleston’s cinematography means the piece works perfectly as visual storytelling anyway, supported as he is by a wonderfully expressive cast. Especially notable is the 1980s ephemera which envelops the longest segment of Timestalker and almost acts as a companion piece to Lowe’s short story Carnival. This is certainly the timeframe which feels the most fully realised here, and bodes well for future projects from the creator.

But ultimately the film ends up feeling faintly unsatisfying, although I readily admit this is more down to my own hopes, expectations and presumptuous baggage than anything lacking in what was (beautifully) presented.

Not as compact as Lowe’s Sightseers, not as intense as her Prevenge, but also not as freewheelingly silly as her classmates’ Mindhorn, there’s much to be said for Timestalker, even if the final product never quite achieves its potential. But when everything else at the cinema is a sequel, remake or franchise entry, this is still a perfect example of actually getting something new onto the screen. Which is also a never-ending quest which can seem to take lifetimes…

*¹ A quick note here to say that under normal circumstances, the same person writing, directing and starring in a movie would raise more red flags than a parade in Tiananmen Square (proof, if it were needed). As a genre, comedy seems more open to this however, and Alice Lowe has previously shown her credentials to be utterly sound. While I'll go on to list some of the issues I had with Timestalker, none of them feel like the result of one person hogging control of a project; if anything, the film feels impacted by the compromise that directors have to deal with on a daily basis. ^{[ 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.

Review: The Personal History Of David Copperfield

The Personal History Of David Copperfield
Cert: PG / 119 mins / Dir. Armando Iannucci / Trailer

A disclaimer. I haven't read Charles Dickens' David Copperfield. Also, I haven't watched any television, film or stage adaptations of David Copperfield. There's no agenda behind that, it's just the way these things fall. I've heard of it obviously, but the only Dickens I'm reasonably familiar with is A Christmas Carol, and even then it's only because some new adaptation is filmed almost every year. And it's not like I employ the same level of reverse-snobbery for his work as I do with Shakespeare's material.

So when I went to see Armando Iannucci's The Personal History Of David Copperfield this evening, I did so because I like its cast, I like Armando Iannucci and I trust them all to make an entertaining retooling of a thing I'm not familiar with in the slightest. This review is of the thing I just watched, not the thing I was expecting or the thing I was necessarily wanting it to be. And with all that in mind, this will either be the exactly the viewpoint you're after or the last opinion you want to read. Either way, you're very welcome...

JOLLY

And what a delight it turns out to be. By definition of the material alone it's a far more jolly ride than Iannucci's previous cinematic outing, as he works Dickens' classic into a sprawling comedy of manners with tight scripting and sharp performances to match. Opening with a theatrical framing device, the whole thing has an air of knowing artifice, yet never waivers in its conviction. The film is energetic without tipping over into the chaotic, stagey without being forced. sumptuous without feeling stuffy.

Although Iannucci runs a wide social gamut of Victorian England, the grime of that era (in this story's settings) is barely present. Yet there's a detailed richness to the production design letting the audience know this is an aesthetic choice rather than a time or cost-saving measure. David Copperfield looks, and feels, gorgeous.

CHIPS

The cast are as superb as you'd hope. Dev Patel shines as always in the eponymous role, as does Jairaj Varsani as the younger Copperfield. At the film's height (and especially with Tilda Swinton involved), there's an almost Coen-esque farce going on, and it even begins to approach the claustrophobia and nightmare-logic of Aronofsky's mother! as reality becomes blurred and we're once again reminded of the narrated performance structure.

David Copperfield is a whistle-stop tour of a big-old book, and the two-hour runtime feels optimistically cramped in some places, while there are entire sections of the hero's life that would clearly benefit from a full, serialised adaptation for a more emotional connection. I'm reliably informed that some key story-elements have been altered here, although as this is the director's re-imagining of the saga, that's absolutely permissible*¹. That Iannucci keeps masterful control of the whole thing is a credit to his dedication and enthusiasm for the source-text.

YSCIENCETHEATER3000

This is a timely companion-piece with Greta Gerwig's Little Women, both stylised adaptations of stories from the mid 1800s which are just as engaging for audiences today. Gerwig's film has more to say of course, but both channel the stunning vision of their writer/directors.

David Copperfield is snappy, stylised and consistently funny. But it's also a bit of a confection, almost a curiosity, and despite its period-setting this version won't be for everybody. Which is probably a large part of why I enjoyed it so much.

.



If it's your bag, certainly.



It is.



This should certainly be near the top of everyone's CVs for the foreseeable future.



Quite possibly.



There isn't.



Level 1: Captain Phasma and Captain Madakor are in this.





*¹ More 'strict' adaptations of David Copperfield already exist and will no doubt be made in the future. Think of this as the Dickensian equivalent of Cumberbatch's 'accompaniment' Sherlock Holmes, rather than Jeremy Brett's more canonical interpretation (even though this version of Copperfield is still set in its original time period). ^{[ 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.

Review: Dunkirk

Dunkirk
Cert: 12A / 106 mins / Dir. Christopher Nolan / Trailer



Well it's hard for me to absolutely rave over Dunkirk, not least since all I've seen for the last fortnight is pull-quotes telling me how life-altering an experience it would be, setting the bar unreasonably high. It's not. It's very good and certainly a unique film, but while he thankfully steers clear of the open-goal mawkishness of the genre, Nolan's project almost feels held back by its run-time and Certificate 12A compliance*¹. This is a beautiful looking piece of work, with Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography and the outstanding sound design stealing the show from the on-screen performers*² (Hans Bjnerno's aerial camerawork is particularly balletic).

The film follows three groups of people (beginning separately one week, one day and one hour before the Dunkirk evacuation) as their story threads gradually intertwine in the heat of battle. A British soldier desperately trying to leave the beach before attacking enemy aircraft kill him and his comrades, a small pleasure cruiser which sets off from Weymouth to assist in the rescue mission, and a trio of Spitfire pilots headed across the English Channel to help take out the attacking Nazi forces. Chronologically it's not a 'regular' film, and I felt a little resistance from the audience I was seated with*³, particularly since once the timelines begin to converge it briefly makes less sense, not more. Overall, while the period-detail is exquisite here*⁴, the story is more about feeling and tension, and the realising (of course) that the people who lived through those moments didn't know how it would all turn out.

But I particularly liked that a film of this scale only ever tells its stories from an individual (or small group) perspective. The grandiose morale-boosting and general flag-waving of most war epics is all but absent. If anything, the film succeeds thoroughly in presenting the misery and confusion of armed conflict. Dunkirk is to the war-movie genre what It Comes At Night is to horror; eschewing the tradition of self-contained narratives to be more of a visual tone-poem.

Unusually for Nolan's work, I'd have preferred the film to be about half an hour longer, or at least more tightly knit, to do more justice to the individual unfolding stories.

Although if we'd had that extra screen-time, I'm pretty sure it would have gone towards an extension of Sugary-Tom's Scenic Sky-Tours…

[ Spoilery-bit: highlight to read ]
Seriously though, not withstanding the question of 'could a Spitfire glide for that long after its engine has cut out?', what's Tom's game here? I'd assumed he was trying to keep the plane in one piece and land it for repair and re-use, since it had only ran out of fuel. But then he gently lands on the far end of the beach, torches it and awaits capture by Ze Germans. If he's trying to keep the machinery out of enemy hands, why not just parachute out earlier and let it crash? Plus, if he'd bailed out by the pier, Commander Branagh could have picked him up instead of an armed Nazi escort. Because there's no fucking way they're letting him live after his antics up there.



Difficult to say as I've not really seen anything like this, tonally.



For the big screen and big sound, absolutely.



I have absolutely no doubt that this is the film Christopher Nolan wanted to make, and that is a great thing.



Nope; Inception.



Nope.



Not that I heard.
Poor show.



Level 2: Not including a plethora of level-1 stunt performers, this film stars that Mark Rylance, and he's in the upcoming Ready Player One alongside Ben 'Krennic' Mendelsohn, Hannah 'First Order Officer' John-Kamen and Simon 'Plutt' Pegg.





*¹ Is it wrong of me to want a 15-rated version of this film? To really ramp up the carnage? I wasn't expecting Hacksaw Ridge, but there's a film that doesn't flinch from the terror of warfare. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² While the ensemble cast are on generally fine form here (even Tom 'The Mumbler' Hardy who - naturally - is given a flight-mask to talk through), I can't not say that Mark Rylance plays civilian rescuer Mr Dawson like it's the first time he's read his lines, and Barry Keoghan plays his young charge George like he hasn't been given a script. Both are far better than this and the film succeeds in spite of them, not because.
There. I said it. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Bless them though, I've moaned about the cinema-etiquette of senior audiences in the past, but this lot were on best behaviour. Not a rustling wrapper or mid-movie conversation to be heard. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Although as I was leaving, I overheard one patron saying to her friends "the only thing was, the seats on that train in the end looked too modern!", referencing a post-evacuation scene back in Blighty. It was all I could to to keep myself from interjecting 'That's probably because you've sat on them. Train companies were still running that same stock (albeit refurbished) in and out of London until the late 1990s'. I'm not even a train geek, I just used to commute on the rattly bastards… ^{[ 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.

Review: Legend (second-pass)

Legend (second-pass)
Cert: 18 / 131 mins / Dir. Brian Helgeland / Trailer



A second-pass is a chance to re-evaluate a film without waiting for it to hit the domestic-release market. A chance to put the narrative on the back-burner and focus on the details; be it in the set, the costumes, the script or the editing. A chance to really focus on the character development, to see events through the storyteller's eyes. A second-pass is a chance to enjoy the film again.

And while I still stick steadfastly by the hesitant praise I laid upon Legend after my first viewing, I have to say that watching it again to study Tom Hardy's performance really underlined (what I perceive to be) the film's weaker-points...

It seems that any dialogue which isn't crafted to be eminently quotable in pubs and offices (most of which lines are delivered by Hardy in his Ronnie persona) is distinctly average at best, and quite often falls below that line. The worst affected examples of this involve characters speaking to anyone other than the Kray twins, and a worryingly high percentage of Frances' narration.

The twins' much loved mother, Violet Kray, doesn't appear on-screen until the second hour of the film (which seems inconceivable given the awe and respect she commanded from them), and their older brother Charlie doesn't even warrant a mention. Even allowing for skewed narrative viewpoints, this seems at odds with the story of two brothers who value family above all else.

The film's hyperactive soundtrack gatecrashes nearly every scene, often playing less than thirty seconds of each song as if the sound-editor is trying to get away with not paying royalties for their use (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty certain films don't work like that, even if TV does). Many of the tracks indicate the rising popularity of Americana at the time, but feel out of place in a movie about London's East End. The most startling example of this is the use of The Meters' Cissy Strut in an early scene of the film. Already associated with movie-goers as part of Tarantino's Jackie Brown collection, it's a track which wasn't even recorded until 1969, one year after the Krays' arrest at the end of the film.

Hardy is magnificent, which is what I wanted to get out of seeing the movie again. But what I'd also like is an alternate cut of the film (as a bonus-feature, not a replacement) with the brightness and colour-saturation turned down a notch, with the soundtrack excised completely other than the in-scene songs which are actually heard by the characters, and with the narration removed. Don't ask a lot, do I?

And despite everything I've just said there, yeah I enjoyed the film again ;)

See it on a big-screen while you can, because once it's on DVD, it's on DVD forever…



If you're not rushing to see this at the cinema, then a rental will probably do you.



Hardy is great; Browning is held back by the part that's been written for her.



Not enough.



Nope.



Nope.



In addition to the somewhat extensive list I made last time, Legend also stars Mr. John Sessions, who appeared in 1991's The Pope Must Die with William 'Jek Porkins' Hootkins; 1984's The Bounty and 2002's Gangs Of New York with Liam 'Qui-Gon Jinn' Neeson; 2000's Gormenghast series with Christopher 'Count Dooku' Lee and Celia 'Bravo Five' Imrie; not to mention 2012's The Domino Effect with Tiya 'Sabine Wren' Sircar.

Sessions is kinda connected himself....







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.

Review: Legend

Legend (SPOILERS)
Cert: 18 / 131 mins / Dir. Brian Helgeland / Trailer

legend (noun | leg-end | \ˈle-jənd\)
1) a story coming down from the past; especially: one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary

As a general rule I don't read reviews of films before I see them, mainly because I'll pick up on any points they raise and that will shape the prism I watch through. However, I didn't see Legend until it'd been out for a few days, so I browsed over a couple to get the reaction to Tom Hardy's dual-roles as the Kray Brothers. Whilst generally favourable, I noticed that more than one writer had questioned the veracity of the tale, namely the events that are narrated by Reggie Kray's wife Frances, of which she'd have no knowledge. [Spoilers: Highlight-to-read] Well, since it's revealed mid-way through the film that she's narrating everything from the afterlife, Legend can hardly be taken as a documentary, now can it? [/spoilers]. The clue is in the title, heavily insinuating that the story which unfolds is every bit as subject to hearsay and interpretation in 2015 as it would have been in 1967, particularly since so many of the main players are no longer around to either dispute or verify the facts. Maybe treat it the same way you would any other London gangster movie?

And with that off my chest, onto the movie itself. A suspiciously clean-looking 1960s East End is the backdrop for this tale of London's notorious criminals, and most audiences will be aware that neither the style, setting nor characters themselves are new to the big screen. This would be an easy film to get wrong for a number of reasons, but I really enjoyed it, with reservations. Director Brian Helgeland is trying very hard to resist turning it into a Guy Ritchie flick (particularly since Ritchie doesn't really work in that genre at the moment), but the only other weapon it has in its arsenal is being a moody melodrama; and it's hard to tell an emotional story when pretty much every single character on-screen is repellent in one way or another. So claw-hammers and quotable-dialogue it is, then. Running parallel to all this is a slightly patronising and intrusive soundtrack, which feels like a generic 1960s compilation album rather than any meaningful accompaniment to the film.

But you don't sit down to watch Legend for the soundtrack, or the 1960s clichés, or the underdeveloped secondary characters. You're here for Tom Hardy; and he's magnificent as both Ronnie and Reggie Kray. Wardrobe and thick-rimmed glasses separates the characters on a superficial level, but Hardy's love of affected voice-work and extremely physical acting completes the job, to the point where you pretty much forget you're watching the same actor in two different places at once (although a couple of scenes feature fairly shonky effects-work which will remind you again). In fact, it's not too unfair to say that Tom Hardy is so much better than the rest of the film it's untrue. Without his performance (and without the script's frequent foul language), this would be a late-night ITV costume drama.

I get the feeling (from the title alone) that the film wishes it had spread its wings more and pushed a little harder at either end, rather than trying to deliver a movie which doesn't offend those who remember that the Krays were a couple of murderers, but also doesn't disappoint everyone who's watching on the promise of the killings. What we get is something noncommittally in-between. Interesting and entertaining, but not bringing anything new to the table other than its central performance.

Does Legend glamourise the Krays? Yes, a little, although it certainly won't change your mind on them.
Should it glamourise them? No, not really.

Does that make it a worse film? No, not really.

Oh, and why does Reggie Kray's tie-pin keep moving about throughout the film? A man finds his personal 'right level' for a tie-pin and then ensures maintains it. That wouldn't happen in a Guy Ritchie flick…



Yes, although that might be £10 better spent by buying it on DVD.



If you love Tom Hardy and you love swearing gangsters, it'll be a buy-er.



It's a film young Tom can add firmly to his CV, yes.



Despite my enjoyment, I don't think it does.



Not at all.



Not at all.



Well, there are no one-step links, but the film stars:
• Tom Hardy, who appeared in Warrior alongside Joel Edgerton (Uncle Owen in the Prequel Trilogy).

• Emily Browning, who appeared in 2011's Suckerpunch alongside Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron in The Force Awakens).

• Taron Egerton, who appeared in 2015's Kingsmen, alongside Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker in the Original and Sequel trilogies) and Sam Jackson (Mace Windu in the Prequel Trilogy)

• Paul Bettany, who appeared in 2006's Firewall, alongside Harrison Ford (Han Solo in the Original and Sequel Trilogies).

• David Thewlis, who appeared in The Theory of Everything, alongside Felicity Jones (due to star in Star Wars: Rogue One).

• Christopher Ecclestone, who appeared in Shallow Grave, alongside Ewan McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi in the Prequel Trilogy).

• Colin Morgan, who appeared in the BBC series Merlin, two episodes of which featured Linsday Duncan (the voice of TC-14 in The Phantom Menace).

• Paul Anderson, who appears in 2015's The Revenant, alongside Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux in The Force Awakens).

• Sam Spruell, who appeared in 2015's Taken 3, alongside Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace).

• Kevin McNally, who appeared in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, alongside Keira Knightley (Sabé in The Phantom Menace).

• Tara Fitzgerald, who appeared in Exodus: Gods And Kings alongside Ben Mendelsohn (due to star in Star Wars: Rogue One).

• Adam Fogerty, who appeared in Mean Machine alongside Ralph Brown (Ric Olié in The Phantom Menace)…

…it's well-connected.







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.