Full disclosure: I haven't seen the previous movies or played any of the games, so I was watching the new Tomb Raider purely as an action/adventure flick. Adjust your response to my responses accordingly.
So, it's mid-March and this is the first 3D movie I've seen in 2018, not that I've been avoiding them, which perhaps illustrates how the stereoscopic format has fallen in the eyes of schedulers and distributors. The last two MCU movies have opened in 2D before being joined in the listings by 3D screenings the following week. It's always been an 'event movie' gimmick, but it seems to be one which is fading in demand, rightly or wrongly. Speaking of event-movies…
Tomb Raider is the latest adaptation to make the perilous journey to our screens from gaming consoles*1, never an easy transition at the best of times. As a starring vehicle for Alicia Vikander, it's helmed by Norweigan director Roar Uthaug, and written by Evan Daugherty, Alastair Siddons and Geneva Robertson-Dworet. It is, as one would expect, the first film in a potential cinematic franchise.
We open with Ms. Croft (Vikander) scraping an existence in London as an experienced archer, average boxer and exasperated cycle courier. She's flat broke, you see, that's why she's living out of a loft-arpartment in Shoreditch. In order to make ends meet, Lara has to get involved in her mysteriously-vanished father, Lord Croft's (Dominic West), business interests, by talking in-person to Derek Jacobi and Kristen Scott-Thomas while they phone in their performances from the same room.
Anyway, upon receiving an ancient, mystical Chinese puzzle box from her dad's solicitor, Lara cleverly unlocks its contents by just twisting at it for fifteen seconds, finding a key to a secret workshop on the Croft estate, where a camcorder which has lain untouched for six years still has charge left in its battery. Then it's off to Hong Kong for some Indiana Jones shit with barely-interested sidekick Lu Ren (Daniel Wu). Walton Goggins appears as Matthias Vogel, the film's obviously-creepy baddie, and nuances his performance by continuing to act that way, relentlessly.
Oh, also the world is at stake. Something about bio-weapons. The script doesn't spend too much time on that, since the characters who really want it wouldn't conceivably know about it until the film's third act, yet there they are.
So. The exterior action setpieces are choreographed, shot and directed well (which is at least partially the point here, admittedly), but as far as praise or 'finding the good' goes, that's really about it. Tomb Raider is spectacularly ordinary at best, and it's quite often not even that.
The problem, as usual, is that the collection of well-worn setpieces will work perfectly well in a game where there's interaction to the proceedings (let's not forget that Lara Croft was essentially a gender-flipped Indiana Jones to begin with). But once that's reverse-translated back onto the silver screen, all that's left is an almighty rip-off of the cinematic properties which inspired it. There's no intrigue or story driving Uthaug's movie, just the hope that Alicia Vikander sweating through a sports-vest will be enough to distract the audience from the aching void at the heart of the screenplay. Spoiler: It's not.
From the petulant, reluctant hero, to the slave-labour archaeology camp run by an evil anthropologist, to the white water rapids with a climactic waterfall, to the prising open of a cursed casket, Tomb Raider is little more than a tedious procession of adventure tropes you've seen done elsewhere, and better. The 3D is implemented well enough from a technical level, but it's pointless in a movie with this much skaky-cam and action scenes which take place in dark environments.
Then, the level of exposition here is horrendous. We get three bursts of backstory before Lara has even left London, and the third of those basically recaps the first. If the script was any more clunky it'd be written out in Lego. Although Lara is indeed presented as resourceful and tenacious, she doesn't have to try too hard to figure out the way to the Ark of the Covenant Himiko's sarcophagus, since Lord Croft has handily left a series of clue-dropping audio-diaries from previous adventures, like a cross between Rick O'Connell and Mr Kipling…
"…I found a speck on an old map that no-one else has". Three people were involved in writing this. That's actual dialogue delivered by Dominic 'The Wire' West. I was initially amazed the man could keep a straight face for his lines, but then I remembered that he recently did a pasta sauce advert for TV. That said, his mullet here is nothing short of awards-worthy, and I hope the notoriously short-memoried Academy panel keeps this in mind for next year's gongs.
For Vikander's sake, I hope the fee she negotiated is enough to compensate for the hit to her credibility as An Actual Actress. Easy money does not necessarily mean an easy life.
The movie plays out like a two-hour cutscene from a game you won't be bothered about finishing, and feels like it should be the fourth entry in a series, not the first. Just before it's re-cast for straight-to-DVD continuations and a kid-friendly animated spinoff.
Tomb Raider brings little interesting and nothing new to action-cinema, nor (I imagine) does it shed any new light upon the game series which spawned it. It's faintly ironic that the film has been rated 12A since it's natural target audience is ten years old and too wired on Haribo and Tango Ice-Blasts to analyse anything they see...*2
I was going to give this an 'unsatisfying' 3/7, but reading back everything I've said about it, that hardly seems right...
*1 Content-generators: Please stop penning speculative articles asking "Will this be the first good video-game movie?" every time one of these things comes along. We can safely assume it won't be, until we're miraculously proven wrong, upon which you can fill your clickbait boots retrospectively. Thanks. [ BACK ]
*2 And even your kids will have seen all this before. [ 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.
Finding Dory (3D)
Cert: U / 103 mins / Dir. Angus MacLane & Andrew Stanton / Trailer
Okay, it's Sunday night and like a kid putting off their homework, I've been sitting on this one since Friday afternoon. I have, however, been giving it some thought and the fact is, I just don't have that much to say*1 about Finding Dory.
That's not to say this isn't a very competently written, produced and performed piece, nor that I didn't enjoy the film thoroughly. I smiled and laughed my way through it, as did the sizeable audience. But at the end of it all, I got up and left the cinema accompanied only by the satisfied feeling that it hadn't been time wasted at all (which, in itself, is actually an understated compliment).
Sauntering into town a mere thirteen years after its progenitor, Finding Dory uses many of the characters from the first film and many of the same gags as a result. The fact that they're always well-intentioned and sincere works in its favour, as does the film's relentless sweetness. The central plot strand itself also isn't a million miles away from what's come before, so if you're a cynical parent who's been force-fed Finding Nemo to the point where the Stockholm Syndrome's worn back off again, you may want to bundle your youngsters off with their friends (and associated cinema-going guardians) for this one.
At just under an hour and three quarters, it's slighly too long for the story it's telling, made more prominent by a third-act which keeps extending itself into More And Bigger Crescendos Before The Credits Can Roll. A couple of the younger patrons got a bit fidgety by this point in the movie; something to bear in mind if you're paying for them all to sit in the flicks. And to make matters worse, I'm also going to tell you to stay until the end of the credits for a great reference to Finding Nemo. The scene's over a minute long, so it's worth hanging around for if you're a fan of the first film. As for the saccharine-level? Well, it's a U-rated Pixar movie, so you should know what to expect by now ;)
But in all seriousness, there's very little to dislike here. Finding Dory is consistently funny and thoughtful, and manages to raise disability issues in a way that's relaxed and ideal for youngsters and parents alike.
It's just a film that I was able to appreciate completely, then file as watched…
…Finding Nemo?
Only if you're passing that way and you want something emotionally pleasing and in 3D.
Other than that, this will be just fine to watch at home.
The film's been a long time coming and it hasn't really brought any new ideas with it.
So in that respect, actually yes.
Ellen DeGeneres is reliably fantastic once again, everyone else just about keeps up.
Nah.
Not that I heard.
Level 1: Bill 'BB-8 Voice Consultant' Hader does vocal-work here, as does John 'Derlin' Ratzenberger.
^^ And it's actually better than 'quite' good, but it's not as good as the 'pretty awesome' it'd get if I awarded it a 6.
But I don't do half-marks, and I don't like marking out of ten, so there we go.
*1 No, really. Not like other times when I'll say I don't have much to say and then go on to write 1,500 words about someone repeatedly using the wrong accent, etc, all the while skirting around the central issue of me picking up on entirely the wrong thing(s) whilst watching the film.
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 got the feeling when I first saw the trailer for Pride that it could be something of a mixed bag, and that feeling was indeed borne out in full with the film's screening tonight. Stephen Beresford's screenplay is at times touching and delicate, and at others almost overbearingly condescending. Thankfully, the former outweighs the latter, although when the moments of shrieking tweefulness do arrive, they do so with all the subtlety of a hen party locked in a sex shop.
The biggest problem, for me, is that there are just too many characters for the runtime. Although the film doesn't shy away from issues facing the LGBT community in 1984, there's also the feeling it's sanitising them somehow, with each of the London-based activists sporting a different problem (and regional accent), most of which seem neatly tied up by the end-credits (their problems, not their accents). It seems odd that a film which is all about unashamedly being who you are and following your heart often feels like it's pretending too hard. The group's counterparts in the Welsh mining village receiving their support are treated a little more evenly, although the initial feeling of stand-offishness between the mining community and the metropolitan fundraisers doesn't play as large a part as you might expect. As a whole it works very well, but I can't help feeling that a six-part TV drama could have explored the motivations and backgrounds of everyone better than a two hour film really can.
But despite my nitpicking there's not a duff performance in the whole movie, with Ben Schnetzer, Paddy Considine, Faye Marsay, Dominic West and Bill Nighy slightly underplaying their roles to perfection. George MacKay also fares well, and Joseph Gilgun is criminally underused. In all honesty, it's the cast that make the film what it is, and while I don't think it's perfect, it could certainly have been handled more poorly in less caring hands. I'm just worried that the inevitable comparisons to the likes of The Full Monty will detract from a story which is far, far greater.
Pride is a picture painted in very broad strokes, which works for and against it, but makes for a very effective film and has its heart is in the right place, which counts for a lot. If you're not at least smiling by the final reel then you really have no soul.
Close enough for jazz, yeah.
Mostly, although I also found my eyes rolling a couple of times.
Almost certainly.
As much as I enjoyed it, this is a DVD-movie.
Nah.
I will, but probably not for a while.
There ain't.
It's not just me that had it with the shrieking though, is it?
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 Awakening (Spoiler-free)
Cert: 15 / 117 mins / Dir. Nick Murphy
More of a supernatural thriller than an outright horror, The Awakening is the story of an author and sceptic who accepts a job at a boys' boarding school after the first World War (the trailer says 1919, the movie says 1921, what can you do?), after sightings of a ghost have lead to the death of one of the pupils. As the building is emptied for the holidays, hallways echo and voices from the past make themselves heard…
On the plus side, the desaturated colour palette and wisely used camerawork gives the film a beautiful antique, claustrophobic feel reminiscent of The Others. The frights and chills are wholly expected, but delivered with a restrained perfection. As a ghost story, it sets out its stall and sells its wares beautifully. Rebecca Hall, Dominic West and Imelda Staunton all give solid performances perfectly in keeping with the atmosphere.
That said, it seems to owe a lot to stories you've already seen or read. That's not a deal-breaker when it's told as solidly as it is, but the further in to the film you get, the less it has to offer. Don't focus too much on the destination, and just enjoy the ride. As is usual with this sort of thing, a lot of the story's power lies in the first telling, so avoid spoilers if you can. Best watched in the dark.
Yes.
Yes.
Just about.
Pay to rent.
A little.
At some point.
There isn't, no.
Where can I get me one of those torches that seems to illuminate nothing but my face as I'm tiptoeing around the house at night?
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 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• 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.
