1917 Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. Sam Mendes / Trailer
Well even as early as its opening weekend, what more can be said on the film everyone is talking about? After much anticipation (and coincidentally just in time for awards-season), Sam Mendes' gruelling First World War epic 1917 has finally arrived on our screens.
The hype - it is both relieving and delightful to note - is justified.
April 6, 1917. In the British trenches of northern France, Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield (Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay) are tasked with a vital mission, delivering a message to cancel a planned attack that would see 1,600 soldiers walking into a German ambush. The route needed to accomplish this in time will see the pair moving on foot across no man's land, through (hopefully) abandoned enemy territory, and open countryside where the war is being fought more chaotically and without lines in the dirt. Using no more protection than they can carry, the most important tools for Blake and Schofield are their wits and the will to survive...
JOURNEY I must confess from the off that I enjoyed 1917 from a more technical perspective than as an immersive journey, despite how well the film achieves the latter. Chapman and MacKay blend into their roles instantly*1, whereas appearances from more distinctive actors such as Daniel Mays, Colin Firth, Andrew Scott and Benedict Cumberbatch are more likely to elicit an 'oh, look who it is! jolt from the viewer. But the star of the show is really Mendes here, his auteur-like presence looming over the production in the very best of ways. Because of the situation our leads face, there are lengthy stretches of 1917 with no dialogue, where physical and empathetic acting come to the fore, along with the direction required to achieve this.
The film's USP is that it's presented as a single, continuous shot*2, an approach creating an escalating intensity that's hard to achieve under the normal run of things; Mendes makes it look - if not quite effortless - completely natural. And I admit to spending a lot of the movie marvelling at the imagined camera-setups, rather than becoming lost in the story. This didn't quite 'pull me out' of the proceedings, but there was always a faint disconnect where I knew I was watching a film. I imagine normal people (you, dear reader) will not be hampered by this.
FOREIGNER In the film's opening moments, the sense of reveal achieved through moving the camera backwards to track our heroes is outstanding, as the intricacy and scale of the continuous sets becomes apparent. The nature of the story means that most of these setups are only used once, in real-time as the film progresses. The quality of the Dennis Gassner's production design here is staggering. And although he'd already set his own bar immeasurably high, cinematographer Roger Deakins really has out-done himself. The more visually-minded viewer will lose count of the number of shots which would look amazing as framed prints.
This was always going to be more of a sensory journey than an emotional one, but 1917 fares well on both counts (as long as the emotions you're onboard for are fear, desperation and anaesthetised isolation). The ongoing survival quest paired with a race against the clock is a cinematic halfway-house between The Revenant and Dunkirk; this film shares the best qualities of both.
SPEEDWAGON What's perhaps most affecting in the long-run is that the film isn't about any pivotal event in the war, it's a collection of the stories told by Sam Mendes' grandfather Alfred; it's that things like this played out every day across France, with men trying their damnedest to stop or at least survive the industrialised slaughter one way or another while the war was directed from afar.
Perhaps most impressively, 1917 achieves all of this without exploiting the visceral horror of warfare (Hacksaw Ridge) or resorting to mawkish sentimentality (War Horse). That's a rare phenomenon with this subject matter, and something to be treasured in itself...
*1 When Blake describes his brother (twice) as "looks like me, but a bit older", I genuinely hoped we'd later see Dean-Charles Chapman in that role too, but with lifts in his shoes and an obviously stuck-on moustache. As it turns out we get Richard 'Cardboard' Madden, instead making the character completely unrealistic in a whole raft of new ways... [ BACK ]
*2 It's not, of course. The film comprises around 12-15 (depending on which articles you read) shots, meticulously stitched together to appear as a single take. And the good news is that you can play 'spot the join' without taking anything away from the final movie, even if Sam Mendes would prefer that you didn't. I mean in short, don't tell the audience that this is the feature then expect them not to think about it during the film, yeah? [ 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, I didn't think I'd be making comparative references against the third Avengers get-together until at least this time next year, but a conversation at the weekend raised the point that for the more, ahem, civilian viewer, there are two superhero movies out at the moment. Inevitably, some casual cinema-goers are going to be standing in the foyer deciding which one they want to watch*1.
Because for a lot of people, the choice will be between a pair of Marvel flicks starring a partially-CGI'd Josh Brolin as a bad-ass with a time-slider*2. But that's not really an accurate comparison, is it? Or is it? Infinity War and Deadpool 2 are very different products, albeit for partly the same audience*3. The merc-with-the=mouth has come armed with the fuckbombs, but it's Earth's Mightiest Heroes who carry the weightier story.
And yet in the weeks since my first two passes, I'd forgotten how funny Infinity War is, especially given its consistently escalating death-toll. Although obviously it's very different from that other movie, tonally. Avengers' humour is very much the Private Eye to Deadpool's Viz. Both are great institutions which can't replace each other, and don't try.
So, watching Infinity War again after a few weeks, I'm pretty much of the opinion that any deaths which occurred before the Infinity Gauntlet was fully operational (only four, remember) will be permanent. The amount of build-up, screen-time or dramatic weight allocated to each one seems fairly irreversible, and the film's legacy would be cheapened if these characters managed to find themselves magically resurrected by the end of Avengers 4.
Conversely, the casting-losses which occur once Thanos snaps his fingers (the other twelve*4) are, to put it mildly, suspiciously rapid given their narrative stature. The heroes that flutter out of existence leave behind an intriguingly-thinned (and deliberately 'classic') team for next May's concluding chapter, but the ultimate resolution lies in the knowledge that Spider-Man 2, Black Panther 2 and Guardians 3 have already been commissioned.
But hey, I've previously joined the chorus bemoaning Marvel's reluctance to apply a little consequence to their continuity, and it's still by no means certain who will survive into Phase 4. At a rate of three cinematic entries a year, the MCU is now dense enough to give classic heroes the rest they've earned, while still maintaining forward momentum. Maybe, as a man from another galaxy once said, "it's time to let old things die".
Because we all know this isn't the end of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning...*5
Avengers films.
it is.
It is.
2019 will tell, I guess.
Not likely, since you'll love it as well. Right?.
There is, layered in when Ebony Maw goes for a space-walk.
*1 And of course that's perhaps not the way things should work. But let's not forget I sat in a Saturday night screening of A Ghost Story and watched people walk out mid-way, almost certain that they'd made their choice on a whim since Annabelle: Creation was playing two screens down and was likely the choice on the other side of their coin. Not all moviegoers are as disciplined or as informed as us, dear reader. And that's why I'm here; to help. Or maybe to lecture. Either/or. Okay, it's probably the second one. [ BACK ]
*2 Okay, Thanos-related plot question. When Thor is on the Milano, he tells the Guardians that Thanos "stole the stone and slaughtered half my people". So... where are the survivors, exactly? Because everyone on-screen looked pretty much floaty-in-space-dead to me, the Asgardian ship looked completely mullered, and the Guardians of The Galaxy (the only responders to the distress-call) didn't pick up anyone else from the wreckage.
It had previously struck me that there's not much of a big deal made of Thor being the last Asgardian now, especially as the whole point of Ragnarok was that the refugees fleeing the planet were the symbol of endurance and hope. But yeah, maybe half of that film's survivors are pootling off on the B-Ark somewhere, right? [ BACK ]
*3 For the record, there are currently Deadpool 2 cup-toppers on sale in the foyer. I expect that for the 12A certificate hero-flicks aimed at family audiences, but this is a hard 15. T-shirts absolutely, popcorn buckets at a push, but cup-toppers? Maybe it's meant to be ironic. Although I'm pretty sure the money that Fox are making from the products looks the same either way...
[ BACK ]
*4 Yes, of course I made a list. And no, I'm not going to reproduce it here. I know I marked the review 'spoilers' but I'm not a complete animal... [ BACK ]
*5 Yeah, I went there. I'll be wearing a plastic Union Jack bowler hat and writing angry letters to local newspapers, next. [ 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.
Doctor Strange (2D / second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 12A / 115 mins / Dir. Scott Derrickson / Trailer
This review contains spoilers. Although it's been out for a few weeks now, so I guess you've seen it already and that doesn't matter, right? I mean, if you're waiting for the DVD because you can't make it to your nearest participating auditorium, you wouldn't very well be clicking on reviews of the film in the blind hope that they're spoiler-free, now would you? Nonetheless, if it's spoiler-free discussion you're after, click here for my previous review.
Apart from anything else, if you haven't seen Doctor Strange, none of this will make any sense.
Still here? Smashing. Now to be honest, not that much changed on my second viewing of Doctor Strange, other than Mordo's path being laid out more clearly than I'd first perceived. But I enjoyed the film just as much, and maintain that it's one of Marvel Studios' stronger standalone-movies. But you know what would make it better? Scrapping that prologue.
As the film opens, we meet Kaecilius and his acolytes as they break into the Kamar-Taj library and steal pages from a sacred book belonging to The Ancient One, murdering the librarian protector in the process. Their escape with the pages is then threatened by Tilda Badass herself, who pursues the group into a mirror-dimensioned London and battles throughout a continually warping cityscape to recover her property. The gang escape, safe in the knowledge that their reputations, and the film's maguffin, have been established. We then cut to a New York hospital and meet Doctor Stephen Strange…
But why is that sequence there at the start? It's a bold spectacle to establish the mystic and psychadelic elements of the film, but it blows any reveal further down the line. The first Captain America movie had a similar opening segment, intriducing the Cosmic Cube and Red Skull which would form the backbone of the film, the difference being that both were used incredibly sparingly at the church in Tønsberg, hinting at what's to come rather than flat-out showing us.
Much like Predator*1, it'd be better for the structure of the film if we skipped the went straight into Stephen's story without the page-theft prologue. Our realisation that magic is a quantifiable force in the everyday world would have unfolded with the hero's. The doctor's physical unmaking and spiritual rebuilding would be more a journey we travel with him, rather than as a passenger who's already seen a snapshot of the destination. Imagine if Strange's initial blast through the Astral Realm had been the first fantastical imagery we'd seen in the film.
As for Kaecilius, the rest of the film not only explains his character and intentions, but also recaps on that very scene when the theft is described to Strange. A tighter edit in the Mordo/Strange training conversation, so that the mention of the stolen pages cuts directly to Kaecilius summoning the floor-portal, would be all that's required for the audience to catch up. It's not even as if the rest of the screenplay expands the villain's character too much anyway, so having him as The Generic Marvel Baddie Who Doesn't Survive His First Film Appearance*2 would be equally workable without his early-doors introduction. Indeed, without the opening as it stands, Kaecilius' later soliloquy to Strange about good and evil being illusions while time is the real enemy would be so much more ambiguously convincing had we not seen him lop off a dude's head with two axes and for no real reason*3
In fact, it almost seems like Doctor Strange's opening sequence was an afterthought designed to hammer home the "these are the bad guys" schtick and grab the audience's attention from scene one, rather than tell the story with an unfolding intrigue. Are Marvel really so worried that audiences will get bored after thirty minutes of hero-building with no superpowers on display? They managed perfectly well with 2008's Iron Man, as I recall.
Anyway, I notice that the three Sanctums - Hong Kong, London, New York - providing equally-spaced supernatural cover to the world are all in the Northern Hemisphere. Who's protecting Australia? Thor, when his accent slips, I imagine…
The Marvel Cinematic Universe movies preceding it (although that's not essential to enjoying this).
For the heachache-inducing spectacle, yes.
Pretty much.
Not really, but only because of the strength of the cast..
No, but I will grill you mercilessly for reasons.
I'm not hearing one :(
Level 1: The score for Doctor Strange is provided by one Michael Giacchino, who's also on musical duties for Rogue One. In fact, I mentioned this in the footnotes last time.
I have reservations.
*1 Basically, Predator would have been a much better movie (and it's already a great one, remember) if the opening sequence of the alien craft crashing from space into the jungle had been cut from the movie altogether. That way, the reports of an unsubstantiated threat in the undergrowth would have been as elusive to the audience as they would to Schwarzenegger's Schaefer, and the gradual reveal of his nemesis would have greater weight as a result. Instead, everyone in the auditorium (okay, living room, these days) knows that a UFO has landed because they've watched it happen, and it's just a case of clock-watching until the Yautja reveals itself. The opening shot manages to rob the film of its mystery and suspense, leaving a disposable action-flick in its wake.
*2 Indeed, the recurring problem in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is how to balance the villains. If you spend time in a hero's origin story to sufficiently build their nemesis from scratch, you risk detracting from the hero's screen-time. They need a measure by which to test/prove their own strength, of course, but have the villain killed at the end of the first film and it feels like a one-dimensional, token character (cf Abomination, Whiplash, Malekith). Whereas if you don't permanently despatch the villain, the hero hasn't beaten their challenge and the film can feel like nothing's really been achieved (cf The Chitauri and Thanos, even though that one's building up to Infinity War). All you can do really is at least give your villain a decent amount of personality in the meanwhile (cf Red Skull, Ronan the Accuser, the Trevor Slattery Mandarin), or give them a sliding-scale of morality (cf Loki, Winter Soldier).
*3Kaecilius and his gang had the librarian incapacitated while they stole the pages anyway, there was no actual need to kill him if they thought they were skilful enough to carry out the heist. Worried he'll leap into a portal and follow you? Break his legs before you go. That way he suffers the humiliation of having to explain to The Ancient One how he failed to stop the theft (damn I'd make a great supervillain). But if the pages are as powerful as Kaecilius believes (and they are, remember), then leaving survivors behind becomes irrelevant, surely?
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.
Doctor Strange (3D / first-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 12A / 115 mins / Dir. Scott Derrickson / Trailer
And there was me being so distracted by the upcoming Rogue One that Marvel's latest entry into their ongoing canon sort of snuck up on me. Sort of.
The new offering sticks largely to the format as expected (why gamble when you've got no sign of a losing hand?), but is more rooted in the mystical side of the continuity. One where armoured suits still exist, but focusing on the magic that's merely science the characters don't yet understand. Despite the frequent brain-bending visuals, the film never quite goes full-Inception, although it does often feel like M.C. Escher got drunk and rebooted Harry Potter. Structurally, the narrative is on solidly familiar ground*1, which helps to keep everything flowing smoothly.
Benedict Cumberbatch and Tilda Swinton shine in their roles as the eponymous Doctor and The Ancient One respectively. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Benedict Wong make the most of their supporting slots, as does Mads Mikkelsen. Rachel McAdams puts in a good turn as far as she's able, but feels slightly wasted in the film, to be honest.
As mentioned, Doctor Strange takes place within Marvel's Cinematic Universe framework of course*2, and while references to the other movies and characters are fleeting, they do feel like they're being presented to the audience as a reward/reminder, a little. Tonally, the film lies somewhere between the dimension-hopping disorientation of Thor: The Dark World and the humorous stellar-agoraphobia of Guardians Of The Galaxy. Director Scott Derrickson balances the action, danger and sense of fun well enough, although any philosophy the film might have been aiming for seems truncated by a run-time of just under two hours. Although after the lengthy and action-packed continuity admin of Civil War, this movie is a nice change of pace for the series.
But these are just my first impressions. Doctor Strange is a movie which is going to take a few viewings to properly sink in…
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? I didn't hear one.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.
Other movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Inception.
Yep. In 3D too, if you can bear the light-loss.
It does, but I'd have liked it to make that achievement with about an extra 20-30 minutes of run-time.
In terms of the cast, no, but director Scott Derrickson is better known for his mass-market horror fare, so most likely yes.
You'll have to justify yourself.
I didn't hear one.
But let's not rule it out.
Level 1: Galen Erso is in this.
*1 And speaking of familiar, composer Michael Giacchino is on score-duties here and seems to have loved his own Star Trek theme so damned much that he's retooled it as the recurring motif in Doctor Strange. Don't worry lads, it's only going to be geeks watching this; they won't notice…
*2 It's also interesting to note that the ever-evolving Marvel Studios ident at the beginning of the film has now dispensed with the flickering comic-panels (other than the first couple of seconds) and is comprised of their MCU screen properties. While they can hardly deny their comic-book roots, is this a sign that the company now views the cinematic stories as the definitive versions? Discuss.
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.
Well even as early as its opening weekend, what more can be said on the film everyone is talking about? After much anticipation (and coincidentally just in time for awards-season), Sam Mendes' gruelling First World War epic 1917 has finally arrived on our screens.
