Review: Belfast

Belfast
Cert: 12A / 98 mins / Dir. Kenneth Branagh / Trailer

A quasi-memoir from writer-director Kenneth Branagh, Belfast centres around 9yr old Buddy (Jude Hill), a young resident of the eponymous city at the start of the troubles in the summer of 1969*¹. Living with his family, Jude has to juggle the domestic strains of urban prepubescence with a rising tide of political violence on the streets, as communities are literally torn apart in an escalating series of clashes.

Presented in high-contrast monochrome (with the exception of a largely needless present day fraction of a framing device which looks like it's gone through Instagram*²), Belfast is a fine-looking film, initially at least. While cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos captures some striking and moody imagery, it soon becomes apparent that the black-and-white filter is doing all the heavy lifting in assuring the audience that this took place In The Past. Because as meticulous as the wardrobe and set-dressing departments have been, the look of the film feels slightly exaggerated in its period detail, like an overdone cosplay or episode of Life On Mars. Not helping this is the music. Van Morrison's incidental work is fine, but there are needle-drops in every second scene, like Kenneth's got his eye on three soundtrack albums before the film even hits Netflix. A bizarre Commitments-lite moment in the third act blurs the lines of age-distorted reality.

BLUNT

What's more of a problem however, is the director not quite knowing what type of film he wants to make. Belfast is an uneven mix of a bittersweet, slightly mawkish childhood tale of crumbling innocence in the days before coming of age, and a socially-charged drama where there are no right answers but plenty of wrong choices. To be blunt, Branagh's not quite the filmmaker to bridge the two, and the end result is depressing without being especially gritty; heartfelt without being particularly uplifting. While he doesn't hold back on getting up-close to the era's atrocities, the 12A certificate can't quite do justice (if that's the word) to the outrage and panic the audience feel in watching the scenes of violence. They're done well but feel like they're from another film altogether, and presented as as a recurring irritant rather than a rising tide.

In terms of performance, the central figure is of course Jude Hill. While he certainly shows a lot of promise, the young actor is not yet strong enough to pull together the whole film, and although Jamie Dornan and Caitríona Balfe put in great turns as his parents, they seem to do this around Jude rather than with him. He does get a handful of great scenes with Ciarán Hinds as his grandfather though, and you suspect this is where the real heart of the film lies (certainly the wisdom), but there isn't enough of the interplay to make it a defining feature. Judi Dench is also in the film*³.

Too fluffy to be a real hand-wringing awards-nudger*⁵, not quirky enough to go full Yellow Poster™, Belfast is an odd and unsatisfyingly unsatisfying experience. The film's clearly been made with a lot of love, but that's not enough. The message gets lost in the confusion.

Unless that is the message..?

*¹ This film could have been a Bryan Adams jukebox musical instead, I'll leave you to think about that. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² And I say this as someone who's a fan of Instagram, but still. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Look I love Dench as much as anybody, the very definition of A National Treasure™, but her scenes seem to have been filmed during pre-production when Judi was still trying to decide if her accent should be Belfast, Byker or Bombay*⁴... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Yes I know it's Mumbai now, but the film's set in 1969 and it was Bombay then. Plus alliteration, y'know? ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁵ Although I'm sure it'll pick something up. It'll probably land Best Flick at the BAFTAs now, if only to make my review look even more redundant. That's precisely the kind of thing they do over there... ^{[ 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: Justice League

Justice League (2D)
Cert: 12A / 120 mins / Dir. Zack Snyder / Trailer



Well, this is definitely a film. (Warner Bros, you can have that one for the back of the DVD cover if you like). DC's cinematic interpreters bring their equivalent of Phase One to a head with the long awaited Justice League, featuring Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman and Ben Affleck's Batman saving the world from a horny god with three evil boxes*¹ by recruiting The Flash (Ezra Miller), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and concocting a plan to exhume and resurrect Superman (Henry Cavill) to lend a hand. There will be scenes.

First things first, Justice League is disposable, undemanding fun. Mostly. Gadot and Miller are by far the standout stars, the former arguably bringing the film's only real sincerity to her role, the latter some much needed humour. Cavill is on slightly shakier ground, although that's largely down to how the Man of Steel is treated in the film, and Batfleck still doesn't get his moment in the spotlight, sadly*².

Things get off to a staggered start as the team are introduced one by one, as well as the threat they'll be facing, and it's there we begin running into problems (see footnote 1). With the best will in the world, the whole thing reeks of its re-writes, asking more questions than it attempts to answer*³. The customary act-three carnage begins in act-two, followed by a dip that's far longer than the breath-catching pause needed. The resulting finale is a brightly-coloured CGI panic-attack, with the team becoming little more than NPCs in a game you're watching someone else play. I didn't not-enjoy the film, but I have to admit to not actually caring about a single character, situation or plot point therein. And that's not a good sign.

Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon try to show DC's world in chaos, and succeed better than I think they meant to. Much like Superman's upper lip, Justice League is an imperfect oddity that's making the best of a troubled production, but never quite convinces…

Dawn of Justice.



If you're going to watch a superhero movie, that massive screen will be the best place, yes.



Kinda.
Although DC's moving of the narrative goalposts has done the pacing no favours at all.



Nope.



Nope.



Not that I heard.



Level 1: Jav Mefran's in this.



^^ I found this amiable enough to be a 5/7 movie, but I'm taking a point off for Superman's CGI'd upper-lip. A ridiculous situation with an inexcusable outcome*⁴.


*¹ Probably best if you don't ask. Much like David Thewlis' Ares from Wonder Woman, Steppenwolf is a CGI'd one-dimensional baddie with only half-dimension of actual character (think of a crossover of Malekith and Apocalypse), chasing a trio of macguffins whose only purpose is apparently to evoke memories of Marvel's Infinity Stones and Tolkiens's Rings. Without going into any detail, let's just say that his eventual defeat is brought about by a crisis in the writers-room when they realise that they aren't allowed the cojones to have any of their Heroes™ actually deal a killing blow to a sentient being (man, beast, god, or otherwise). It's an insult to not only the audience, but also DC's flagship characters. Well done, guys. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although he's off again in Justice League. If you remember, Bruce Wayne's raison d'etre for killing Supes in Dawn of Justice was that, and I quote, "if we believe there's a one percent chance that he is our enemy we have to take it as an absolute certainty". Which is clearly mathematical (not to mention moral) horseshit. This time round he's learned his lesson of course, and during the discussion of digging up the body of Kal El with a view to bringing him back to life (don't ask), proffers: "If there's even a fraction of a chance it could work-". It's just as well Bruce inherited his fortune off his old man, because he sure as shit wouldn't win anything in a casino with that grasp of probability…
^{[ BACK ]}

*³ To wit, and in no particular order of importance:
Q. Bruce Wayne and Alfred have quite a nice conversation near the start of the film about being left behind by a changing world. Was this going to be a running subtext at one point in the screenplay's development? Because it doesn't rear its head again.
Q. If Wonder Woman can move faster than bullets (shown in this film) and Superman can move faster than bullets (pretty much known anyway, I think), what exactly is The Flash bringing to this party other than sarcasm and millennial-angst?
Q. Why has Aquaman - the superhero who lives in the sea - got that straggly hair and beard? The barnet's not practical for swimming with, and he's getting out of the sea/river and just air-drying. He's going to smell like a wet dog most of the time.
Q. What the hell is Cyborg's dad playing at? Given that he's Miles Dyson out of Terminator 2, you'd think he'd know better than to arse around with robotics, 'trying to help'.
Q. Given that even the trailer throws in that gag about Diana Prince doing "nothing interesting" at the weekend, and the fact that the Bat-Signal can only realistically be used at night, why didn't Steppenwolf attack at 10:30 on a Monday morning? Or better still, during prison visiting-hours? The Justice League wouldn't be about, it'd be a piece of piss…
Q. Does… does Amber Heard think she's doing A British Accent™? Oh, mate… ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Much like Grand Moff Tarkin in Rogue One, it looks absolutely fine until the shot requires actual movement. Then it's like watching that devil-kid off the AA adverts all over again… ^{[ 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: Silence

Silence
Cert: 15 / 161 mins / Dir. Martin Scorsese / Trailer

"It is so often the way, sir, too late one thinks of what one should have said. Sir Thomas More, for instance, burned alive for refusing to recant his Catholicism, must have been kicking himself, as the flames licked higher, that it never occurred to him to say, 'I recant my Catholicism'..."

~ Edmund Blackadder, 1987.

Okay, I'd be lying if I said Martin Scorsese's 160-minute exploration of belief didn't basically evoke ^that^ scene and my childhood memories of watching Shogun for he majority of its run-time.

In 1640, two Portuguese Catholic Jesuit priests (Adam Driver and Andrew Garfield) learn from a belated letter that a former mentor of theirs (Liam Neeson) has gone missing whilst carrying out missionary work in Nagasaki. Refusing to abandon him to his supposed death, the two travel secretly through Japan, a country that (at the time, obviously) holds a strong and brutal anti-Christian sentiment. On their journey they must evade detection by the authorities, tend to the underground Catholic community and of course have their own faith tested to breaking point...

It's not as dynamic as I've made that sound, unfortunately. The film's hardly meant to be entertainment I know, but Scorsese makes it feel a bit too much like hard work. And not in a 'ooh, their suffering looks terrible!' way, but more '...okay, where is this going?'. Languidly paced, deliberately ponderous and often self-indulgent for a story containing such urgency, I appreciated the craft of film-making, but wasn't particularly bothered either way by the rest of it.

Adam Driver and Andrew Garfield are both on great form here, but the latter in particular doesn't seem to be quite ready for a role of this weight (yet). The naive determination we see in his performance feels like it belongs to the actor, not the character. Speaking of those two, it's not clearly laid out until more than half-way through the film that the 'English' dialogue we hear is in fact Portuguese. It makes perfect sense narratively and historically, but why waste time having Adam Driver and Andrew Garfield affect those half-accents they can't keep a grip of? (Liam Neeson pays this technique no mind, needless to say). There's enough pidgin english (or Portuguese, as the case may be) in the film as it is with the Japanese villagers, without having the leads needlessly mangling the script.

But Silence is a nicely shot film. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto uses a cool colour palette and a lens which is unflinching during the harsher moments without feeling exploitative. Not necessarily a film about faith, but having faith in faith. Naturally it's pretty heavy-handed when it needs to be, but that's the nature of the story itself. I just felt like this was 100 minutes of story stretched out for an hour longer than it really needed...



Shogun and Apocalypse Now.
Yeah, I said it.



If you're on for it, absolutely.



I imagine it does and that that thing just wasn't really aimed at me.



With the best will in the world, no.



I shouldn't imagine so.



There isn't.



Level 1: Qui-Gon Jinn and Kylo Ren? Hell, yeah!





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: Bleed For This

Bleed For This (SPOILERS, technically*¹. And bad language, certainly.)
Cert: 15 / 117 mins / Dir. Ben Younger / Trailer



And so, December is almost upon us and I braced the now-freezing elements as well as my less-than-warm reservations*² for the true-story movie of Vinny Paziena, the successful Rhode Island boxer who suffered a broken neck in a car crash in 1991, then worked towards an unprecedented recovery and back into the ring to carry on fighting.

As you might imagine, writer/director Ben Younger's film isn't a barrel of laughs, although a few uneasy chuckles are scattered among the scowls, frowns and wincing. The path to righteous retribution is gritty and painful, and Miles Teller puts in a decent turn as the troubled boxer. Also supporting ably are Aaron Eckhart as the only trainer in history who's not a washed-up, exploitative sociopath, and Ciarán Hinds as the only father/manager in history who's not a bitter, exploitative sociopath (Ciarán channelling his best Robert de Niro here, arguably better than de Niro can manage these days).

Although it borrows heavily from the trope-bank (more on that shortly), Bleed For This is actually at its best when it's a story about people. Although it's central to the story, the film isn't about the sport, that just serves as a backdrop to frame the characters. Well acted all round and strongly directed from Younger, the efficient screenplay doesn't spoon-feed the audience too much, although with a plot this linear it doesn't have to. The film also does this weird thing where various clips of news and archive fight-footage feature the real-life Vinny Paz, rather than Miles Teller's portrayal. But not all the clips. And it's all the more noticeable because they don't look that alike. I suspect it's meant to be a tribute, but it's a weird way of doing it.

All in all, I thought Bleed For This was actually a pretty decent (if low-key) drama all the time it wasn't trying to be A Boxing Film™ and applying unrestrained cliches accordingly:

✓ Plucky working-class underdog*³ determined to fight, against expectations and recommendations.

✓ Grizzled old promoter saying "Ya got heart, kid!".

✓ Training-montage with musical backing (three of these).

✓ A flashback sequence in the final act to remind the audience of things which happened less than an hour ago.

✓ A final, climactic, blood-stained match with female members of the family watching from between their fingers on the TV, which goes the full twelve rounds without anybody losing consciousness so is then decided upon by the judges. Yes. Fucking again (cf this and that). Everything the audience goes through with Vinny - the sweat, the pain, the anger, the frustration, the fear, the determination… none of those are what earns Paziena the title. That was done by the opinion of a guy sitting at a desk.
That's not redemption, it's fucking admin.

"Hey Terry, both of these lads are still standing after the full twelve rounds, which one do you think should win?"
"Well neither of them yet, obviously Bob. Tell them to keep punching each other in the face until only one of them can walk out of the ring. That's what they're fucking well there for, after all. I'm here to make sure they don't start biting or stabbing each other, not to hand out 'I tried hard' badges, for fuck's sake. If I knew this was going to be down to my opinion, I'd have called it an hour ago and been at home by now…"

But like I say, apart from being A Boxing Film™, it's a passable enough drama.



The kind of films where people argue in between wearing shorts and punching each other in the face.



There's nothing particularly cinematic about it, I've got to say.
Especially all those reaction-shots during the actual face-punching.



I think so, yes.



Probably not, but it's a solid effort.



Of course not.



Of course not.



Level 2: Well, Miles teller was in the running to be the young Han Solo (and yes, I'm glad that didn't pan out), however, this film stars Katey Sagal who was in that Sons of Anarchy along with Jimmy 'Organa' Smits.





*¹ It's a 'true story', the facts have been out there since they happened in the early 1990s. Although I'll understand if you don't know the outcome of the climactic match before watching the film (I certainly didn't). Anyway, no spoilers in this particular paragraph, just in the review above.

*² Yeah, I didn't want to open the review with a sluice of negativity (although if you're reading the footnotes as you go then I've pretty much done that anyway), but I wasn't looking forward to this if I'm honest. We're not even into full Oscar-season yet and I've already had enough of Worthy True Story Films™; 2016's been angst-ridden enough as it is without putting myself through the ringer when I sit down in the cinema, too. Added to this, I don't seem to have a great track record when it comes to The Boxing Films. Even with the training, skill and passion inherent to the sport (I imagine), it still comes down to two people getting Punched In The Face, and that's what The Stath is for, right? The trailer for Bleed For This is basically just a guy saying "Hey. I might be disabled now but I still want to get Punched In The Face, because that's all I know and when you think about it there's something kinda inspirational about that, don't you think?". Like doing an inherently stupid thing for heartfelt reasons automatically makes it a good thing. Again, cf 2016. And what's that you say? The film's got the lead actor from the Fantastic Four reboot in it? Well, where do I sign up? To be honest, Bleed For This could only have been less appealing if it featured a duet between Peter Kay and James Corden singing about how great they are, a backing choir of three Katie Hopkins clones and Piers Morgan playing a foghorn. And if that's what I'm feeling before I go into a movie, it's really going to have to work hard to impress me.
But Like I said, I didn't really want to open the review with that paragraph...

*³ Although not to piss on the film's parade unduly, but the guy's not an angel by any means. While his convictions all occurred after the events of this movie, you can't imagine that Vinny was into crochet and The Archers growing up, y'know?


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: Hitman - Agent 47

Hitman: Agent 47
Cert: 15 / 96 mins / Dir. Aleksander Bach / Trailer



Okay, full disclosure: I haven't seen the 2007 Hitman movie. I also haven't played Hitman. This film: not really made for me. Going to review it anyway. I wouldn't normally be rushing out to the cinema to see this (indeed I haven't rushed this time, either), but Agent 47 currently has a Rotten Tomatoes approval rating of 8%. That's low, even by game-adaptation standards, but I refuse to believe any film this year can be worse than Pixels…

The good news? It's not (although very few things could be). Movies based on branded video games are always tricky to get right due to the inherent differences in the formats, and Hitman: Agent 47 is no exception. The photography here is frequently stunning, and only let down by an over-zealous approach to editing which confuses fast-cuts for style. Aleksander Bach's direction is solid enough, and his cast do a remarkably convincing job considering the script they're given is so clunky it could be recreated with Lego. The story itself is pretty standard-fare for a Euro/techno/action thriller; emotionally sterile, but only in a way that's dictated by the plot itself.

But the problem isn't the editing, it's not the scripting, and it's not the story. No, the problem is that Hitman: Agent 47 is so boring. It's the same dilemma which has plagued Superman movies for years; when your central character is physically invincible and morally immovable, how the hell do you pivot an interesting story around them? The film's first act tells and shows us that Rupert Friend's Agent 47 is as close to bulletproof as needs be, and the second act explains that he's throughly amoral. Brilliant at his job, but not to the point that it's interesting to watch. Usually it'd be up to his female co-lead, Hanna Ware's Katia, or ever-present nemesis, Zachary Quinto's John Smith (no, seriously), to bring the angst and anger to the film, but these characters become necessarily less human as things progress.

So where's the jeopardy? How do you introduce the tension? Well, in this case, you apparently just don't. The film's homicidal setpieces are nicely choreographed (don't worry, it's only nameless henchmen being despatched), but they're few and far between. The rest of the screenplay consists of a lot of scowling, hand-wringing and grudge holding, all without any trace of feeling. I'd like to say that the disconnect was due to me not being hands-on familiar with the game franchise, but I honestly don't believe that's the case. I didn't expect to be moved to tears, but I didn't expect to be bored to them, either…

The film's called Hitman.
I expect to see people being killed.
There wasn't enough of that.

Really, is it too much to ask?

Not really, although the big-screen will certainly have an edge over watching this on your TV.



TV/Netflix.



Fuck, no.



Fuck, no.



No, but I'll expect a full and detailed justification.



There is. And it's textbook.



The film stars Rupert Friend who also appeared in Starred Up alongside Ben Mendelsohn, due to pop his head around the door in 2016's Star Wars: Rogue 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.