The end of March sees me happy to have my doubt quashed, once again*1. It was all the way back in the emotional vacuum of January that I sat, stone-faced, through the trailer for Isle of Dogs, wondering why I wasn't sharing the excitement of everybody else. Obviously, my reaction wasn't at the same level of distaste I reserve for the likes of F*fty Sh*des, so when the opportunity arose for a preview screening of Wes Anderson's animated latest, the least I could do was give it a go.
And y'know what? They're right.
Isle Of Dogs is the most meticulously beautiful film you'll see this year.
Following a young boy in Japan who goes to rescue his guardian best friend Spots from a quarantined island, this is a near-future, metaphorical folk-tale presented as stop-motion puppetry, and voiced by more seasoned performers than you can throw an Equity-card at*2.
Although the film is dialogue-heavy in its execution, the occasional stretch in untranslated (and unsubtitled) Japanese means that this is primarily visual storytelling all round. Even in its heavily stylised form, the narrative is never unclear to the audience*3, and it's the visual element where the director's strength lies. Animated with such passion, precision and the unerring cinematography of Tristan Oliver, Isle of Dogs is almost hypnotic to watch. The formal structured storytelling, complete with chapter-cards, intercutting prop-labels, and a terse, sporadic narration makes this feel like Kill Bill-era Tarantino, particularly with its Japanese ties.
Although for all this, I feel the same (presumably deliberate) emotional disconnect that I did with The Grand Budapest Hotel, where Anderson seems to make the telling of the story more important than the story itself. And as great as the actors and expressive as the modelling are, I still think that the voice-cast don't feel like the dogs they're portraying*4.
What shines through most of all though, is that Wes Anderson makes animated movies in the same way he approaches live-action - with absolute, unremitting theatricality...
For the committed cinephile, this will be a buy-er.
Best, no - highlight, yes.
Unlikely, unless you really detest it.
There isn't.
Level 2: This film has the voice of F. Murray Abraham in it, and he was in that Inside Llewyn Davis along with Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac and Adam 'Ren' Driver.
*1 Which is nice because as I write this, I have yet to see Pacific Rim: Uprising, a movie which has caused me to take out a second mortgage to book enough storage-space for the reservations I have about it... [ BACK ]
*2 And yet, not a single level-1 Star Wars connection. Ridiculous, I know. [ BACK ]
*3 And bear in mind that certain other movies at the moment feature a cast who constantly explain everything, while the plot details still remain disconcertingly vague. [ BACK ]
*4 With the exception of Gondo, brought to life by Harvey Keitel, whose canine avatar looks as tired and fleabitten as the actor's vocal cords sound... [ 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.
Full disclosure, this film wasn't really made for me and I'm absolutely fine with that. By the time Power Rangers started airing on UK television in the mid-90s, I was already going to work down the pit for sixteen hours a day (and more importantly, getting back into obsessing over Star Wars), so other than a bare-bones knowledge of its existence, I was bringing little in the way of baggage to this particular gathering. However, I like to think I know enough about movies to spot the difference between world-building and box-ticking. Most cinematic reboots don't become really heavy-handed fan service until their second or third instalments. Power Rangers waits around forty-five minutes. More amazingly though, it sort of works.
So. Something-something group of disparate teenagers; Something-something asteroid crash site; Something-something evil forces awakening; Something-something super-powers awarded to worthy heroes. Think the Sword in the Stone meets Guardians of the Galaxy. Classic hero's journey stuff, no problem there. A gently-paced opening act introduces the five teenagers who will go on to be trusted with tools of unbelievable destruction, before its successor arrives bearing over-generous amounts of exposition and training montages. The by-the-book origins story is solid enough, the super-powered Breakfast Club bonding feels more laboured. The young central cast themselves are good form, but any performer older than twenty or so comes off as patronising at best. Scoring the most highly in that round are Mr Bryan Cranston and Ms Elizabeth Banks*1, both of whom blithely continue to devalue their own showreels.
As well as satisfying all the checklist items required of a throwback movie, the thematic nostalgia is furthered by referencing visual beats from The Lost Boys, Ghostbusters and perhaps more notably, the first Avengers flick. But as the film goes on, it shifts in tone from moody-teen pouting to the brightly coloured, super-camp finale which is at least fitting for its televisual roots.
As hero origin-stories go, Power Rangers is surprisingly reasonable, if somewhat unremarkable (considering it's a shameless series-opener and two hour action-figure advert). And as much as it pains me to admit it, the film has more focus and unabashed self-awareness than DC seem to have managed recently. Still, we live in hope. Obviously, this film will be sequelled to death, inevitably diluting the fun and feasibility with each new entry (for those interested, there's a mid-credits teaser scene, but nothing at the end).
But fair play to Lionsgate for putting out a 12A certificate film when the core target demographic is aged around 7. And Power Rangers is definitely at the lighter-end of 12A, but the rating still stands. Approach with caution.
Not necessarily, unless you want the multi-coloured carnage to be bigger.
Y'know what?
It does.
With the best will in the world, I should hope not.
Nope.
There is.
Level 1: The voice of Alpha 5 is performed by the voice of BB-8, Bill Hader.
^^ And a 4 seems harsher than it's intended to be, it's just not strong to be a 5 round these parts. The film was relatively enjoyable for its duration, but by this time tomorrow I'll be struggling to remember most of what happened in it, apart from admirable work with the Blue and the Yellow Rangers, and Elizabeth Banks letting herself down again. I'm not the target audience, and it had pretty much no impact on me either way.
*1 I know that the Power Rangers' nemesis hasn't been newly named for this movie, but an antagonist named Rita further strengthens my theory (following on from last week's Elaine and Maureen) that prominent female roles in 2017's movies are being screen-written by my Grandma's friends. [ 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.
It's a rare and precious thing as you get older, those moments of peace and quiet over the holiday season. And what better way to enjoy just that, than with the other inhabitants of screen 2 tonight, as they sat in collective and absolute unbroken silence throughout 20th Century Fox's festive schedule-filler, Why Him?*1.
Set loosely at Christmas (ie, characters say it's Christmas and that has approximately no actual impact on the plot), this is the Meet The Parents reboot you never asked for. Bryan Cranston is the grumpy dad, James Franco is the boorish but well-intentioned prospective son-in law and Zoey Deutch is The Girl One who keeps being left behind by a screenplay that forgets she's on the poster. Although in the long-run, perhaps that's better? She certainly comes out of the whole thing with more dignity than the rest of the cast. Just.
So, this is your hero of The Breaking Bads, not too long off the set of Crying In A Wig For Two Hours and reduced to being a straight-man to Franco's best grinning, fuckbombing autopilot. The latter usually gets to at least play second-fiddle to Seth Rogen's more boisterous effing-and-jeffing, but this time has to do all the heavy lifting himself. Luckily, the screenplay is mechanical enough to at least give him a hand.
Every single character in this movie could have been played by a dozen other performers and the result would have been exactly the same. Inadequate. And I include the tacked-on appearance by the front-half of Kiss. In fact, had someone else been cast as the rock-legends, at least the Paul Stanley we got on screen might not have looked like he was about to burst into tears. Although so was I, by that point. The film is so lazy yet desperate-to-impress, it's an insult to the performers and audience alike.
And I'm taking a point off for that bit where Franco's talking about getting Kaley Cuoco to be the voice of his computer-assistant, and they've dubbed in about five seconds of dialogue where his mouth isn't moving.
A lazy movie for a lazy audience, Why Him? brings us Bryan Cranston being squirted in the face by an A.I. controlled bidet. Not the comedic hero 2016 wants, but definitely the one it deserves…
The Meet The Parents films.
This is basically those anyway, but with more dick-jokes.
No.
No.
No.
I will.
There isn't.
Level 2: This film stars Bryan Cranston, who was in this year's The Infiltrator along with Daniel 'over-acting fantastically at the Ring of Kafrene' Mays and Jason 'Inquisitor' Isaacs.
*1 In the interests of full disclosure, this movie is only being watched/reviewed in 2016 so that I can bump up my viewing-count and beat last year's total. It is very much a placeholder; anything could have filled that gap, but luck and timing dictated it was Why Him?. Coincidentally, that's exactly the way that 20th Century Fox see it as well, so at least we were on the same page to begin with...
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.
Kung Fu Panda 3 (2D)
Cert: PG / 95 mins / Dir. Jennifer Yuh Nelson & Alessandro Carloni / Trailer
A great start to Dreamworks' latest installment in the Kung Fu Panda series is the BBFC card itself. Bearing the PG rating-logo and associated colour scheme, the only supporting information or guidance is the words "Mild martial arts action". Firstly, I love that this was worth putting on front-street for a movie called Kung Fu Panda. Secondly, it's slightly ironic that this movie has better fight-choreography than most grown-up action movies. And is a damn sight more fun.
The overall style of the saga has really come into its own now, and the very first scene in this threequel feels like throwing on an old comfortable hoodie. It's not just the quality of the animation itself that makes KFP what it is, but the cinematography and editing as well. Stylised enough to pay homage to both traditional Oriental artwork and more the schlocky martial arts movies of recent years, while still feeling entirely like its own thing.
The film is the usual mix of visual slapstick, scripted gags and a little bit of soul-searching. The latter is more muted this time around, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The more reflective moments are always fighting a losing battle with mawkishness, but there's more than enough of the silly humour to keep things rolling along well. There's certainly the feeling that these movies could push a more philosophical message if they worked harder to balance it well, but that could well be at the cost of what makes them so much fun in the first place.
A comfortable addition to the canon, Kung Fu Panda 3 does what it does well and gives the audience plenty to chortle at. Dreamworks Animation will never be Disney, but while they're able to reach this high, maybe they don't need to be…
The other Kung Fu Panda flicks.
Having knowledge of the lead-ups is desirable, but you'll still have fun if this is your first.
For the quality of the animation, yes. Everything else will be fine once it hits DVD/BRD.
Pretty much, although that could be because it's not stretching too far this time around.
Really not sure I'd go that far, but everyone can safely put this on their CV, yes.
Nope.
I didn't hear one..
Level 2: KFP features the voice of Bryan Cranston, who also stars in Trumbo along with Alan 'as yet unnamed role in Star Wars: Rogue One Tudyk.
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.
Godzilla (3D)
Cert: 12A / 123 mins / Dir. Gareth Edwards
In a way, I was a cinematically spoilt kid. The first film I remember seeing at the cinema was Star Wars, and while I went on to have a very sci-fi-centric childhood, A New Hope set a bar that many franchises (especially TV-based ones) couldn't really compete with. Blake's 7, Space 1999, The Black Hole; they look naff and shonky to us now, but they looked pretty much like that to me then. Call me snobbish, but I don't have the time to waste on media in the "so bad, it's good" bracket. To me, there's no such thing. And I think it was this infant elitism that meant I never connected with the Godzilla franchise (cartoon excluded, obvs). The very hallmarks that to millions were (are) its charm; corny dialogue, bad acting, rooting for the 'good' monster and booing at the 'bad' one, disregarding basic rules of biology and evolution… I file them all under "not good enough".
In that respect, 2014's Godzilla is a wonderful homage to its forebears.
A brief opening scene, slightly reminiscent of Jurassic Park, filled me with some hope that this may be the movie to change my mind, but once Bryan Cranston arrives and begins delivering his part with more ham than Miss Piggy firing a sausage chaingun at the Three Little Pigs, it's all downhill (even his wigs look embarrassed to be there). Aaron Taylor Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen seem to have no fucking clue what they're doing, while Watanabe, Binoche, Strathairn and Hawkins almost stare directly into the camera and mouth the words "don't judge me".
Every page in the disaster-movie-rulebook has been copied into what's meant to be a screenplay, seemingly verbatim.
• Wow, that reactor-meltdown's expanding at the speed of roughly just-faster than a running human!
• He's not a crazy old man, he knows the truth!
• You can't kill the dog (but can apparently wipe out thousands of people at regular intervals).
• Will the kids be alright though? The ones on the schoolbus where the driver has decided that in the wake of a monster being in the river and the army being everywhere, he's still going to drive over the Golden Gate Bridge?
• Hey, it's a good job that this ace bomb-disposal expert happens to be passing through town just as the army are semi-ineptly loading a clockwork nuclear device onto a rickety cargo train!
• Hey, he helped that kid who got lost, he's such a nice guy! I wonder if he'll see his own wife and child again, though?
• If you can't have the monster trashing the Eiffel Tower, have it trash the small version in Vegas!
• Yeah, have the monster absolutely fuck Vegas!
• We caused this with evil mankindedness and horrible science!
• Should we explain how he breathes lightning-fire out of his mouth when we've attempted to shoehorn in every other bit of exposition? …no. No, we shouldn't.
• LET'S END THE MOVIE WITH A TICKING COUNTDOWN CLOCK, I DON"T THINK ANYONE'S THOUGHT OF DOING THAT BEFORE!
• Oh look, Gozdilla's just going back into the sea like the surprisingly anthropomorphic pseudo-ally he is instead of continuing to trash the fuck out of the city!
• THREE CHEERS!
I call bullshit.
Like some sort of bastard hybrid of Pacific Rim and Battleship, Godzilla can't even be a convincing version of the thing it clearly loves. The only (only) saving grace is that the lizard himself looks and sounds fantastic, but the titular beast has so little screen-time that even that's no comfort. As is becoming a trend, the film's remarkably boring considering how much stuff gets blown up. Oh, and it's in 3D. Whatever.
To quote the wonderful Michael Legge: "Well, I can tell you now that Godzilla isn't the worst Godzilla movie anymore. Godzilla is."
What he said.
I don't know how to answer that.
No.
If it does, I need a serious word with someone at Warner Bros.
Go away.
Yes. Yes I will.
No. No I won't.
I heard one early on, and it's no consolation.
How do we go about redacting all the good things which have been said about Bryan Cranston's carreer as penance for the face-palmingly shit performance he gives in this film? Is there a form I fill in?
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.
