Hell's Kitchen, New York, 1978*1. The put-upon wives of three mobsters (Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, Elisabeth Moss) find themselves struggling when their husbands are jailed following a failed store robbery. At first they decide to take up the reins of the business themselves, then the idea occurs that the ladies could be players in their own right. As their operation grows, they find themselves rubbing up other underworld figures the wrong way, and eventually decisions have to be made about how far each is prepared to go to assure their success...
POINT Now. I've heard a few folks comment that the premise of this movie is a blatant rip-off of 2018's Widows, and I feel the need to point out that this is definitely not the case. The Kitchen is in fact based on the 2015 comic from DC/Vertigo, and that was a rip-off of 1983's Widows. Come on people, really. Flippancy aside though, this is closer in tone and structure to a sort of Grand Theft Auto '78, since they're not pulling off One Big Job but building a sprawling criminal empire.
And although the levels of intensity feel right, the setup for the central premise itself feels a little linear. "Hey, y'know we could do The Crime, right?" - "Shall we do The Crime?" - "Yeah, let's do The Crime!!". Structurally this isn't a million miles away from Hustlers, except here it's a fight for identity and survival, rather than entitlement (obviously there is a bit of entitlement). Also, the vintage soundtrack is better in this movie, even if the best tunes have appeared in numerous other soundtracks over the years).
PRISON The central cast all do well with roles which don't tonally overlap too much, joined by Margo Martindale in full, glorious gangster-pantomime mode. Each of trio are individually flawed outside of their base criminal aspirations, with their own hurdles to clear before the credits roll. Two of our gang take to the life of crime like ducks to water, while the third still gives it one hell of a crack before becoming uncomfortable with the consequences of her new responsibilities. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Melissa McCarthy is far better at drama than she is comedy, even if she plays both almost identically*2. And it turns out that the same appears to be true of Tiffany Haddish. Elisabeth Moss is great as always.
As well as the strong - borderline caricature - 1978 production design*3, we're treated to some fantastic establishing scenery shots courtesy of cinematographer Maryse Alberti and the effects team who brought them to digitally enhanced life. At times this feels a bit like an early Guy Ritchie flick (no bad thing) in that the police are mentioned, but fire a handgun a few times in broad daylight and they're nowhere to be seen. This isn't their manor, and the players in this tale don't take them seriously anyway.
BIG The film drags a bit in its third act, and the whole thing ends up feeling like it could easily lose around twenty minutes. When the final plot tie-up arrives, it feels like something which has been dropped in because it's expected for the format, rather than the thing which has been driving the story all along. As escalating crime-sprees go, The Kitchen is a relatively nuts-and-bolts rendition, but one made with conviction and no small amount of style...
Buy it, but maybe wait for the price to come down first.
Not particularly, but there are strong and surprisingly nuanced performances all round.
Unlikely, since while The Kitchen won't be for everyone, it'll be a difficult to movie to actively take against.
No.
Level 1: General Hux is in this (and whose deadpan comic timing is superb, by the way)
*1 While obviously I'm aware that the title is location-specific, I can't help but feel that putting three women in a movie called "The Kitchen" in 2019 is playing into the wrong hands, somewhat. [ BACK ]
*2 I'll be honest, a small part of me was hoping Melissa McCarthy would be dreadful in this so that I could say "If you can't stand The Heat... stay out of The Kitchen!!1!". Alas, that cheap pun doesn't apply because her turn here is absolutely solid. We can only play the cards we're dealt, right? [ BACK ]
*3 Mate, it's 1978 and no one mentions Star Wars? At all? It'd only been out for six months and was still massive. You have a scene in a street full of movie theatres and the most recognisable name you've got splashed on the hoardings is Grease? ...what do you mean 'this isn't a documentary'? [ 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.
Okay, join in if you know this one. Something-something Joel Kinnaman stars as Peter, a former gangster who’s now a Family Man™ and off-the-books double agent for the FBI. Something-something Polish mobsters doing a drug deal that goes wrong. Something-something Peter cast adrift by his corrupt handlers and facing a five-stretch to avoid blowing his cover. Something-something Peter has to work this whole damned thing through himself not knowing who he can trust, to find some version of justice, keep his family safe and spend more of the run-time giving glowering glances than reading his lines. Etcetera. Etcetera.
BOOK Apparently adapted from the sort of book which keeps the shelves warm in The Works, Andrea Di Stefano’s The Informer shows an equal paucity of ambition, all soundtracked by a shop-demonstration mode of Dark Ominous Tones™. Between the cardboard characters and clockwork plot mechanism, I’m surprised that the cast and crew managed to channel the concentration to finish making it.
It's like Russell Crowe handed down the mantle of po-faced, put-upon, anti-hero Family Man™ to Liam Neeson, he gave it to Matt Damon, and now Matt's passed it on to Joel Kinnaman and we all have to go through the cycle again, nodding politely and pretending to be impressed by the fight choreography when none of the shaky-cam shots therein last for more than a fifth of a second*1.
BOOGIE Kinnaman simmers throughout, precisely the performance needed for a role which could have been written by a computer. Meanwhile, Rosamund Pike and Clive Owen plough through the screenplay like they’re resigned to starring in TV procedural cop dramas now. Ana De Armas is in this as The Girl One, the big-eyed wife of the hero who spends the film flitting between simpering and screaming.
The villains of the piece are pretty clearly defined, and it was only ever going to end one way. Fair enough. And yet the movie could have cut to the Directed By credit at any moment and I’d have been absolutely fine with that. I had no emotional involvement with this film either way. Worse, I suspect that’s intentional.
TALLADEGA How, in a world where Sicario exists, does a thriller as clock-punchingly perfunctory as The Informer even get made? I mean, I know how movies get made, but why was this greenlit? Who read through this screenplay and decided it was bringing something new or worthwhile to 2019? Whose favourite film will this absolute, unremitting filler actually be?
Don’t get me wrong, The Informer is never bad*2.
But I think it might have been more interesting if it was...
*1 The honourable exception being the 1-on-1 scrap in the prison dorm, which goes to the ground almost instantly and is just grappling and grunting until it's over within 90 seconds. That part is a far more realistic depiction of how most fights work. Unfortunately it's also boring as hell to watch, and is the reason than movie-fighting was developed for movies.
That's right, The Informer really can't win either way... [ BACK ]
*2 Clive Owen, though. Clive Owen is bad.
Christ, his accent here sounds like he comes from the New York suburb of Walford... [ BACK ]
*3 Statham, Butler & Wahlberg sounds like the absolute worst solicitors' firm in the world.
Someone should make a sitcom out of that. [ BACK ]
*4 Seriously, Rosamund Pike was in Gone Girl and was fucking magnificent. What the hell are her mortgage repayments like that she's signed up for this absolute autopilot of a movie? All it's doing is using up toner by making the CV longer and dragging her Rotten Tomatoes average into the middle. Who benefits from that? [ 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.
Selma Cert: 12A / 128 mins / Dir. Ava DuVernay / Trailer
And there was me thinking all the Important™ films were done for the year. This relatively late entry to the Films You Really Should See Before All The Explosions-and-Superhero-Movies Start category centres around the voting-rights marches from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery, led by Martin Luther King Jr. The film opens in 1964 with King being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, yet still being strung along on civil-rights issues by the then-president Johnson.
Although it rarely pushes the boundaries of its 12A certificate, Selma isn't always an easy-watch (and nor is it meant to be). A lot of the racial tension in the first act feels slightly melodramatic (not unlike The Butler*1, with whom it shares four cast members, oddly), until you almost instantly remember that while the film isn't a documentary, the events in it were documented and did happen.
There's a definite feeling that at times Selma is only presenting one aspect of a much larger story (which it is, by its own admission, but even so…), and that a viewer will get more from the film if they already know all the details anyway. Scripted exposition helps set the timeline, but I didn't feel fully immersed until the final act. Overall, the whole thing seems to work better as a historical document than a work presenting any new insight into political ideals. Then again, how much of a fresh take is really needed when the principles of the story are so apparent?
David Oyelowo's performance is absolutely astounding as Martin Luther King, to the point where you forget you're watching an actor (similar to Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady). The supporting cast is also incredibly strong and has a heavy Brit-presence (Ejogo, Roth, Wilkinson in addition to Oyelowo) considering all the characters are American. Although it has to be said that Tom Wilkinson's performance as President Lyndon Johnson is better than his accent. Speaking of whom, it interested me to note that Johnson is explicitly shown as 'doing the right thing' because of its perceived effect on his legacy, rather than steadfastly believing in it. I'm afraid my US history isn't much of anything, so if any readers could let me know whether this is an accurate assessment, that'd be lovely, thanks.
Elsewhere, Oprah Winfrey is always just Oprah Winfrey before any character she plays. And while the set and wardrobe departments all give an outstanding display of 1965, Common looks so out of place it's almost like he's stepped out of a time-machine, somehow. But we also get some beautiful moments of clean, atmospheric photography from lens-chief Bradford Young, that I wished had continued for longer.
But aside from my snarky criticisms and wanting to be spoon-fed history, Selmais a very good film, and you really should see it.
It is, although catch it while you can since it doesn't seem to have that wide of a release from where I'm sitting.
Probably a renter. As great as it is, it's debatable how often you'll watch it.
For Oyelowo, certainly.
It does, but nothing more than that.
Maybe a little.
There isn't.
David Oyelowo is the voice of Agent Kallus in Star Wars Rebels.
*1 Sorry, that should be Lee Daniels' The Butler. Sorry, Lee. Sorry. That's World Of Blackout's Sorry.
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.
