TORRANCE Doctor Sleep is the screen-continuation of the tale begun in 1980’s The Shining, with Ewan McGregor picking up the reins as that film’s Danny Torrance, now an adult with the requisite number of issues you’d expect from someone who survived the events of the first movie. While the Overlook Hotel returns (more properly as a character rather than a location), Danny’s main foe here is age-old occultist and psychic-vampire Rose The Hat (Rebecca Ferguson), while he tries to save gifted youngster Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran) from her evil clutches.
And the film good. More to the point, I’m saying it’s good as someone who didn’t particularly enjoy The Shining. Doctor Sleep is more satisfying as a feature film largely because Mike Flanagan knows how to direct a cast*1, yet despite King’s somewhat lukewarm reception to that original film, this entry still reveres it without becoming enthralled. There are sections which are admittedly closer to tribute-act than follow-up, but that’s no bad thing (Kubrick’s visuals are at least on the tick-list of things I liked). It’s rare to get a sequel which is so clearly in love with its predecessor yet for all its nods and homages is nowhere near as laboured or self-indulgent.
NAPCETER It’s not all plain sailing of course. Smooth visual parity with the earlier film is speed-bumped by the (apparently deliberate) decision to re-cast roles from that movie using actors who bear almost no resemblance to the earlier players*2, while McGregor, Ferguson and supporting actor Cliff Curtis all regularly run the risk of being pulled over and arrested for failing to control an accent in a built-up screenplay.
Additionally, rather than use the extended run-time for an all-encompassing web of storytelling, what we get comes off as episodic. Danny's time as a hospital porter seems like a spinoff novella that's been retrospectively worked into the narrative as an interlude, rather than the central pillar to his character that it should be. That said, thanks to some choice casting, the introduction to Ewan's/Danny's adult life feels like a flashforward to an alternate-timeline Trainspotting, with the added bonus of desert-Obi-Wan's beard.
Ultimately, you have to admire the chutzpah of a two-and-a-half-hour movie which recruits an actor as formidable as Jacob Tremblay for a five-minute appearance. Very few can pull that off, nor indeed the film in general. Bravo.
Difficult for me to say since I'm not an aficionado of King's work, but I guess the fast-call is The Shining.
*2 To the point where the "great party, isn't it?" dude isn't even using the same accent. Don't even get me started on the bar scene. You've got Jack, talking to Daniel, pouring from a bottle of Jack Daniels, but you couldn't get Jack Nicholson back onto a set? Just for that bit? Instead you've gone and used Henry Thomas (Elliott from E.T.), a dude who neither looks, sounds nor acts like Jack Nicholson? Yeah, you're right - Nicholson wasn't a central feature of the first movie, no one will really notice.
Listen Mike, here's what you do: The bartender in 1980's The Shining was played by Joe Turkel - Old Man Tyrell from 1982's Blade Runner. Now, aerial footage from the beginning of The Shining was used at the end of the 'happy-cut' of Blade Runner, so to continue that link across the movies, why not get Harrison Ford to play Lloyd the bartender in Doctor Sleep? Better still, you'll then have Han Solo serving drinks to Obi-Wan Kenobi, another link to the blizzarding snows of Hoth which connects The Shining to Empire Strikes Back.
That's how you intertwine mythologies while maintaining narrative fluidity, Flanagan.
You're very welcome. [ 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.
The Post Cert: 12A / 116 mins / Dir. Steven Spielberg / Trailer
Well, we're still in January so Worthy Chin-Stroke Film Season continues with Steven Spielberg's telling of the Pentagon Papers affair of 1971, in which the US government tried to stop the press (chiefly the New York Times and titular Washington Post) from publishing documents claiming they'd lied to the public over the Vietnam War. A srs-stry requires a srs-cst of course, and Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks have been drafted in to do the heavy lifting. Cue two hours of polyester shirts*1, hand-held camerawork and actors talking over each other to give the impression of fast-paced chaos.
And it's fine.
While I appreciated the overall exposition as someone who wasn't alive at the time of the film's events, the script feels a little over-written in some places (yet wilfully obfuscating in others). And although the visuals of the movie are undeniably on-point for the 1971 setting, and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski captures the documentary-feel of the storytelling, this always felt like a modern-day facsimile of the era, rather than an immersive environment. Although I suspect Linus Sandgren's outstanding work in Battle Of The Sexes has rather spoiled it for everyone else, now (speaking of such matters, dear lord Tom Hanks does a lot of manspreading in this movie).
Another of the director's regular collaborators, John Williams brings a score which is great at the pomp and urgency of the proceedings, but occasionally becomes too sweeping and lyrical for the story it's attached to. Although the same can be said of Spielberg's direction, to be fair.
But the film tells its story with the conviction of a committed cast and crew; I can't fault it for that. There were, however, two main stumbling blocks preventing me from enjoying it more...
Firstly, I couldn't forget that I was watching Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks, not newspaper proprietor Katharine Graham and editor Ben Bradlee. This is isn't necessarily a new problem of mine with Mr Hanks, but Streep usually manages to disappear into her roles, becoming the character completely. And it's not like she's has nothing to work with here, I was just always aware that I was watching an actor, acting. The problem could well be the star-wattage of the cast - Streep or Hanks on their own have more chance of blending into a scene with their supporting players, but together their light just shines more brightly than any film they're part of.
Secondly, I couldn't forget that the while the presented issues concerning press-freedom may well be very prescient in 2018, it's also a far more complex situation now. Freedom of speech is more than a right, it's a responsibility, and the needle sways both ways in 2018. Now admittedly, that's not what The Post sets out to cover, but it was in my mind throughout. And while I also don't particularly like dragging my own politics into what is supposed to be a casual movie-review blog*2, the film's stars took what can only be described The Bare Minimum Amount Of Prodding to wade into current events while promoting the film. All The Politics isn't something you can really brush aside with this movie as that's precisely what it's about.
So, all in all, The Post is basically fine. I found the story itself interesting, but got little more out of the feature than that. A well-assembled documentary would have been just as good from where I was sitting. Your mileage will vary.
Oh, and we get the fourth Insidious movie in 2.35:1 aspect-ratio, but Steven Spielberg's delivers his awards-nudger 'tv-sized' 1.85:1? Have a word, mate…
Well, pretty much everyone else seems to think so.
Unless your thing is historical politics or Spielberg, this is a rent/stream.
It's not.
I wouldn't think so.
Hang on, you've put a Vietnam jungle battle-scene at the beginning of the film and there's still no Wilhelm? Insane.
Level 1: As noted, this film's got the one and only John Williams on score-duty…
*1 The period-detail of sets and wardrobe is reliable enough in all the right places, although at one point Hanks' wife (played by Sarah Paulson) lifts a framed photo from the side cabinet in their lounge, showing the couple reclining on a sofa with John and Jackie Kennedy. "That picture makes me sad", she says, to which I inaudibly replied "Yeah me too, love. It looks like it was put together by the intern using MS Paint. Why can't film production companies employ dececent graphic artists to put together faked historical photos in movies? They're the one thing other than the cast that the camera always lingers on, put some bloody effort in."[ BACK ]
*2 Although y'know, as I've linked to articles at the New Statesman and the Guardian, you can probably guess which side of the fence my own deckchair is on. It's not that I'm not on the side of The Post, I absolutely am. I'm just more worried that The Post isn't always on the side of The Post, and hasn'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.
Gold Cert: 15 / 121 mins / Dir. Stephen Gaghan / Trailer
And to gently ease our way out of the It's A True Story*1rut that is the early part of each year, comes Mumblin' Matthew McConaughey in the guise of one Kenny Wells, a gold-prospector down to his last chance after the 1988 financial crash. Making a written-on-a-napkin deal with a half-remembered contact in Indonesia, the pair take a punt and manage to land themselves a literal gold-mine. What could go wrong?
Everything, naturally.
The jungle of Borneo is filthy and damp, the boardrooms of New York are polished and plush, and McConaughey comes across like a walking midlife crisis. For all the niggles I had with it, Gold is a fine-looking film. If only the same level of enthusiasm had gone into Patrick Massett and John Zinman's screenplay. The movie never becomes more than you expected it to be and in the first hour particularly, struggles to make it that far. As excited and distraught as the various characters get, it's hard to feel any genuine emotion for grown men slobberingly chasing an unreachable dream. And while the film highlights the vacuousness of that dream at every turn, it still doesn't have the bite to become a morality-tale, just a rather sketchy study of edacity, faith and delusions of grandeur*2.
Gold doesn't wield the wanton excess of The Wolf of Wall Street, or hold the narrative resonance of The Big Short, although it still shares that air of naivety and chaos in the face of a beast which can't be tamed: greed. It's not even that you find yourself willing Kenny to succeed, more that you're just wondering how hard he's going to fail. Because no story that starts out from a place of unashamed, capitalist avarice really deserves a happy ending.
While McConaughey's on the reasonably good form which is fast becoming his autopilot and Edgar Ramírez supports well but feels under-used, the best performance here may be from Bryce Dallas Howard as his long-suffering girlfriend Kay. It's certainly the only thing in the film which feels remotely real, at any rate. Meanwhile, everyone else is basically a placeholder; this is Mumblin' Matt's show. It's just not his best one.
For all its exuberance, Gold is a passable story, unremarkably told.
Not unless you need to see McConaughey's paunchy, balding, wonky-toothed chrysophilist on a massive screen.
Well I'm not entirely sure what the film's setting out to do, so…
Well, no.
I shouldn't imagine so.
There isn't.
Level 1: This has got Toby 'additional voice-work in The Old Republic and yes that still counts' Kebbell in it.
*1 The film's opening card which reads "inspired by true events" is about as loose a commitment to reality as you'll find in the film, not that it really matters for the story being told. [ BACK ]
*2 And no, the irony isn't lost on me that I used the phrase "delusions of grandeur" almost immediately after shoehorning the word "edacity" into the text. Snarky comments to the usual address, please. [ 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.
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.
I'm pretty sure that Pines is a classically structured tragedy/drama full of subtext and symbolism, and I'm pretty sure that (some shaky-cam aside), it's filmed beautifully. But the lulls between the key story points were too frequent and lengthy to get me to really buy into it at all.
There are excellent performances all round and some great set-pieces, but quite frankly I just didn't want to spend this amount of time around these characters. The lines that are blurred between good-guy and bad-guy should have made the central story more interesting to me, but if anything it had the opposite effect; at around the hundred-minute mark, I realised that I didn't care how each character's arc was going to be resolved. Which is just as well, because then it didn't happen. Oh, and for the record, putting dark makeup under Eva Mendes' eyes doesn't make her look 15 years older. Especially when all the other characters only appear to have aged by about six months, tops.
You'll probably get much more out of this than I did. I'm the guy who was bored shitless by Drive*1, after all…
Too much method, not enough character.
…ish?
…sometimes.
…*shrugs*
…DVD?
…yeah.
…doubtful.
…no.
What are the films that you know you should have enjoyed more (either high-drama or Hollywood trash), but just couldn't seem to connect with?
Comments box, let me know;)
*1 Which is no reflection on Mr Gosling, in this case. I thought he was terrible in Drive, but I also thought it was a terrible film. He's got far more to do in 'Pines', but sadly he doesn't come off any more likeable or interesting, for it. Oh, and that Metallica t-shirt that Gosling wears? I used to have that. I don't know where it ever ended up. It was far more washed out than the one in the film, so I don't think Ryan stole it from me, although I do like to think that he also bought it from HMV in Newcastle.
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.
