Well, I didn’t think it’d be eleven years until Paramount green-lit a remake of Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull, but here we are. The big-screen iteration of Nickelodeon’s most famous explorer is here to help the Summer holidays go with a swing.
Isabela Moner takes the eponymous lead in this tale of creepers, creeps and lost treasure. She’s a natural lead and shines throughout, her buoyant style easily making the audience forget that at 19 she’s already cut her acting teeth on titles as diverse as Transformers and Sicario.
With Dora’s parents played by Eva Longoria and Michael Peña, the combination of familial warmth and tight comic timing is never too far away. But a kid can’t adventure in the shadow of their parents forever of course, and so she’s joined by her cousin Diego (Jeff Wahlberg), with schoolfriends Sammy (Madeleine Madden) and Randy (Nicholas Coombe). Together they find themselves whisked away from the city and into the jungles of Peru, forming a group that can spark off against one another while learning to work as a team (because let’s not forget the actual target demographic here, yeah?).
And it’s great fun. The most obvious cinematic homages are to Indy of course*1, but it also draws from the wider pool of adventure movies while never forgetting that this is Dora’s show, and never trying to re-invent the wheel. The perfectly paced action sequences slot in with the sharp script and perhaps more toilet humour than you’d expect from a PG. There are also some very self-aware gags for fans of the TV show in the first act, although these drop to a more manageable level as things go on.
If you can’t quite bear the thought of the brightly coloured Angry Birds just now, drop in on Dora for the most good natured, good-old-fashioned adventure you’ll have this Summer…
*1 Seriously though, of the four Indy movies that Dora could have chosen to emulate, structurally it's closest to Crystal Skull. And I like it more for that because I like Crystal Skull and there I said it. Fight me. [ 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.
Director Stefano Sollima was always going to have his work cut out for him, helming a follow-up to a modern classic like Sicario. Crucially, writer Taylor Sheridan returns, with Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin in tow reprising their characters from the first film, but the world of drug trafficking across the Mexican border has taken a sidestep into the black-market currency of current times: people.
Without Denis Villeneuve holding the reins, Soldado lacks much of the brooding visual poetry that interspersed the conflict last time. However, Sollima brings cinematographer Daruisz Wolski with him, and they succeed in capably continuing the tone, at least. Early questions about the ethics of border-control threaten to wink right at the camera, but these quickly sink into the background when we're reminded that these characters have no ethics. Lines of conduct and loyalty which were previously blurred are now almost invisible.
Because what's really ramped up here is the body-count. And while it's always narratively justified, never throwaway and never glamourised, not a scene of this movie goes by without the execution, the threat or the discussion of violence. If Sicario was a cinematic embodiment of threat, Soldado represents unrelenting punishment.
Del Toro and Brolin are now thoroughly and seamlessly embedded in their roles, but the star of the show here is Isabela Moner, displaying an attitude not seen this acutely since Hailee Steinfeld grimaced and sneered her way through True Grit.
What Soldado lacks as an intricate conspiracy thriller, it more than makes up for by putting its characters right through the ringer. Fantastic, if grim, stuff...
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.
The Jedi themselves said it from the start, 'don't get too attached to shit'. But did you listen? The lightsaber which Rey uses to help cut down the Praetorian Guards? That's the same one Anakin used to murder a room full of children. It's not good or evil, it's just an object, a tool to be used as the wielder sees fit. Obi-Wan stressed its importance to Anakin, and now Anakin's son throws it away like a fork arriving with the soup-course. He was mistaken in this action of course, and that's one of the things you didn't like; having to re-evaluate your heroes. Star Wars: The Last Jedi is about re-evaluation. And change. I heard you don't like change. Good.
Really though, you shouldn't get too attached to shit. The idea that the old-school, one-thousand-generation order are the arbiters of truth and static wisdom in a changing galaxy? Well, we know how that turned out around fifty years before the time of TLJ. The idea that you knew where a Star Wars movie was headed before seeing the BBFC/MPAA card? Well, like I said; I heard you don't like The Last Jedi. The past of the monastic order order may be a done-deal, but the future isn't. And although The Force Awakens took a safe path in bringing audiences back to the Galaxy Far, Far Away, TLJ takes the steps its forebear probably should have in not only shuffling the deck, but playing with new cards altogether. I get that you were always going to be upset by this.
And although I certainly don't want to pull rank on any section of fandom, good. While certain restrained words posted on social media hold fast and true in principal, at the same time… no. If you're going out of your way to incoherently badmouth the film on social media*1 and sign petulant petitions, you're not a fan of Star Wars. You may well be a fan of Some Of The Star Wars Films, but you're not a fan of Star Wars. The day I walk out of a cinema and 'hate' the Star Wars movie I've just watched is the day I hang up the lightsaber*2. I still won't be signing a petition.
The Last Jedi is a film about change. About passing on the baton. Kenny Baker is no longer with us as Artoo, Chewbacca is played entirely by Joonas Suotamo this time round, and Anthony Daniels' Threepio has a distinctly supporting role*3. Two of our main, central heroes have bought the farm in-universe, and the third won't be around to film the next episode. This is a story about letting go of all you've been taught, and yet trusting The Force all the same. The path is uncertain, our heroes are fallible (more on that next time). We can trust that good will prevail, but it's going to have to really try this time round...
If The Last Jedi isn't what you expected, that's fine. It's an amazing film, deep into its own entrenched franchise, which makes the audience re-evaluate why they're sitting there. Yet at the same time, this is quintessentially The Hero's Journey. It's just not the hero's journey some were expecting. Or wanting. But if you don't get goosebumps watching a kid grasping a broom-handle and gazing into a night sky full of possibility, like millions of us did when we were eight years old, then you've missed the point of Star Wars and I can't change your mind.
I heard you don't like The Last Jedi. Good.
That means I'll have less trouble booking my seat for the Solo movie in May…
+ + + + +
Oh, and the D-Box was great as always, but I was a little surprised the film was playing to fewer than 20 people. Even on the last shopping-Saturday before Christmas, in a location which isn't exactly a 'pass-through' (the O2 arena), and in the earliest screening of the day. Still, no matter.
The Star Wars.
Yes.
Yes.
It's strong.
It's very strong.
That all depends on how wrong you are.
There is.
Level 0: It is Star Wars.
*1 Start a blog, write a review. Write several reviews. Of the same film if needs be, or of different films. Share your reviews on social media, by all means. You want to hate what you've watched? Fantastic, just think about exactly why you hated it. That makes you examine your opinions on movies a lot more closely, trust me. No matter how concentrated your rage, I assure you that 140 characters isn't enough to adequately express it, and a signature on a petition (for which you will be widely and justifiably mocked) certainly isn't. [ BACK ]
*2 I seem to come out of everyfirst-pass of a Star Wars film unsure, whether I've indulged in spoilers or not. That's not that I don't love what I've just witnessed, just that I can't process everything in one sitting. It's only my ridiculous, self imposed blog-rules that dictate I type up a review for every separate showing I see. [ BACK ]
*3 And start bracing yourselves now because there's a distinct probability that next May's Solo movie may well be the first branded*4 Star Wars movie without an appearance by R2-D2 and C-3PO. I mean, Rogue One was pushing it, frankly. How small do they want us to think the galaxy is..? [ BACK ]
*4 The two Ewoks movies are a curiosity of course, as they were Lucasfilm-made (and clearly set on the same Endor as Return of the Jedi) but didn't feature the actual Star Wars branding until the 2005 DVD release, despite characters appearing in official encyclopaedia-type references until the 2012 'Legends' reboot. [ 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.
Sicario Cert: 15 / 121 mins / Dir. Denis Villeneuve / Trailer
Apparently the best thing about being an FBI operative is that the riot-gloves they issue you with are so sensitive that you can feel a man's pulse (or lack thereof) though them while you've got the adrenaline pumping through you that you'd get if that man had just shot at you and you'd just blown his spine all over the wall in return. Or so it would appear, anyway.
Following a successful if slightly naive Agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) through her recruitment into a CIA black-ops unit to eliminate a Mexican drug baron, Sicario is a tight, grim and moody thriller of a film, but one which never wallows in its despair. Realism, rather than pessimism, is the order of the day as Macer struggles with both the legal and moral loopholes used to tighten a net which is, even she has to admit, for the greater good. As much about the trust issues as it is the dead bodies, the film features the visual aesthetic of Marshland and the philosophical bent of Zero Dark Thirty.
Director Denis Villeneuve is unrepentant in his stark amorality, and cinematographer Roger Deakins' camera pays as much attention to the gorgeous aerial photography and horizon-sunsets as it does the festering corpses who are collateral damage in the story. This film is beautiful for all the right and wrong reasons. Although it's tonally dark, the film never feels exploitative, and even the most blasé killings are carried out with the characters' sense of moral or poetic duty, rather than the dynamic glee which would have come from many other directors.
The film uses a documentary style to immerse the audience, but a sparse script to make them pay attention; the story never strays from the linear path, but you're not spoon-fed the plot either. Jóhann Jóhannsson's accompanying score is percussive and abstract rather than outright musical, and often combines with the camerawork to make the film feel like a first-person-shooter game*1, particularly during the climactic scene where the photography slips exclusively between infra-red and thermal imaging. Sicario may not always be fluid storytelling, but it's astounding film-making…
But best of all, I love how the Mexican-Spanish for "…on the buses" is (verbally - in this film) "…on the buses". That's going to make sitcom programme-scheduling a hell of a lot easier…
I think it is, but I also know that the film won't be for everyone, despite how much I've just gushed over it.
A rental, then buy it when it comes down to a fiver.
Emily Blunt and Benicio Del Toro are fantastic; Josh Brolin coasts a little, but to be fair that's also how his character's written.
It does, indeed.
Not particularly.
There isn't.
Well, the Benicio Del Toro / Episode VIII situation is still in 'heavy-rumour' mode, so rather than rely on that direct link, I'll just drop these here.
Sicario stars…
• Emily Blunt, who appeared in Salmon Fishing In The Yemen alongside Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.
• Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin, who appeared in Guardians Of The Galaxy with Peter 'Darth Maul' Serafinowicz.
• Jon Bernthal, who appeared in Fury with Jason 'Inquisitor' Isaacs*2.
• Daniel Kaluuya, who appeared in the Doctor Who episode Planet of the Dead alongside David 'Huyang' Tennant.
• Victor Garber, who appeared in Big Game with Sam 'Windu' Jackson.
*1 And I mean that in the best possible sense, a great film feeling like a great game; it's incredibly rare to get that crossover. The vast majority of game-to-movie adaptations manage to miss it completely…
*2 (hello to Jason Isaacs)
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.
You know those films where you catch yourself mid-movie, not bored at all, but suddenly pulled back into your seat with the question "…what the bloody hell is going on again?" tugging at your brain? That. I have to confess to being a complete n00b to Paul Thomas Anderson*1, so that may go some way to explaining the situation, but I also got the impression I'd have fared a little better if I'd been familiar with Thomas Pynchon's novel which the film is based on. Though I also imagine that the book places the same barriers in front of its audience. It's that kind of story.
Set in 1970 beachside-California, Inherent Vice brings us private investigator Larry 'Doc' Sportello as his ex-girlfriend Sortilège arrives at his home unannounced in the middle of the night, and proffers the case of her recently-disappeared now-boyfriend, married property tycoon Mickey Wolfmann. What follows is a tangled web of corruption, narcotics and flares as Sportello finds himself drawn further into the case with every smoke-shrouded discovery.
The good news? Joaquin Phoenix may well be an actual genius. I've never been a one for stoner-characters, but his shambolic, bleary-eyed Wolverine is charming and repellent in equal measure. Anderson directs with a surgical precision masquerading as casual naturalism*2. Every wince, groan and sigh of the characters is calculated to create the illusion of exhausted sloppiness. In terms of its tone, Inherent Vice plays like Jackie Brown with a crushing hangover, and this may very well be one of my favourite films. But I'm going to have to watch it a dew more times (in various states of sobriety) to be certain.
Unfortunately, the combination of a) on-set dialogue recording (ie no distinguishable ADR top-ups) resulting in prominent background noise, b) characters who mumble their speech and c) the deafening volume of Cineworld Chelsea's Screen 4 meant that there were entire conversations which I couldn't make out. The makers of the film aren't responsible for Screen 4 of course, but the combination of the first two seems like a bizarre choice. Even with Joanna Newsom's intermittent narration, the plot (in its cinematic form) is basically meandering gibberish. Stylish, fun gibberish, but gibberish nonetheless. Luckily, the overall ambience and the film's performances are interesting enough for the narrative to unwind at its own relaxed, haphazard pace, but I can certainly imagine a lot of viewers having a problem with this.
For its considerable run-time, Inherent Vice seems in no hurry to drive itself forward, and to be fair I was quite happy to just enjoy the ride. This is a 100 minute film shown over two and a half hours, like a sprawling dream that doesn't quite know where it wants to go, as long as it ends up roughly near home again.
Considering all the gripes I had with the film, I'm amazed I enjoyed it as much as I did. This is why I suspect it's a future-favourite.
Well, at two and a half hours, it's certainly value for money…
A buyer, as it'll get better with re-watching.
It's certainly up-there in Phoenix's case, yes.
I imagine it does, but I can't be sure at this point.
Nope.
There isn't.
Inherent Vice features Benicio Del Toro, who made an appearance as The Collector at the back end of Thor: The Dark World; a film which starred Padmé Amidala herself, Natalie Portman.
*1 And I write a film-blog, I know.
*2 Wow, that sounds pretentious. Even for me.
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.
