Before we get started, I saw the new trailer for The Last Jedi today, on the biggest screen in my local. So the afternoon wasn't entirely wasted. Right, then. It's a sad fact of 2017 that Gerard Butler's name on a poster usually points to the production being toward the lower-end of the Tomatometer, but that's where we are. A disaster-flick from the co-writer of two Independence Day movies and 1998's Godzilla was never going to hold any great thematic enigmata, yet this new presentation still manages to disappoint, irritate and bore. That said, it would be unfair to call Geostorm indescribably bad. Not least because I'm about to describe how bad it is...
The plot: The year is 2019 (or thereabouts?), and the Earth's network of weather-stabilising satellites is malfunctioning, causing localised Extreme Weather™, which is killing people. Since Gerard Butler is the one who designed the whole system (no really), he has to go into space to punch things until they all start working again. Meanwhile, his brother Jim Sturgess leads the mission on Earth to uncover the conspiracy behind why it's all happening. Obviously this includes President Andy Garcia Of The USA, because movies. Also, Gerard may be a reluctant-genius, borderline alcoholic insubordinate, but he's got a daughter from a previous marriage because it's important that we know he's straight. That's how I read it, anyway.
Science fact! During inclement weather, buildings and vehicles will explode fierily for no reason…
Our tale begins by having a child deliver a condescending monologue on climate-change and apolitical international cooperation*1. That's how it begins. This narration isn't returned to until the film's final moments when at least the majority of the audience can use their empty popcorn receptacles as sick-bags. The driving force behind the narrative is that humanity (well, Gerard Butler) has constructed a planetary shield of satellites, which end up having the opposite of their intended effect. Which, if you recall, is basically the setup of Highlander II. Imagine how piss-poor your screenplay must be when it essentially rips off The Quickening. Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps Dean Devlin has directed and co-written an unofficial prequel to one of the worst movies of all time. That would certainly fit.
The film itself quickly sketches in Butler as the put-upon everyman and Sturgess as his put-upon brother, then escalates from one contrived disaster set-piece to the next, like a story written by an 8yr old who doesn't realise this will all need wrapping up at some point. Every other line of dialogue is exposition. Either descriptive of what's happened in the past, descriptive of character motivations or descriptive of the things which are happening in the same room at that actual moment. It's as if Warner Bros have decided to save money by merging the script with the hearing-impaired Audio Description track. All that's missing from this packed barrel of bar-raising Wowshit is an appearance from Morgan Freeman as a respected academic whose role in the film is to scratch his head and not have a clue what's going on for the duration.
Dialogue highlight! I particularly enjoyed the moment when Gerard Butler has to tell his brother of the unspoken code between brothers by speaking it to his brother. #writing
As with all of these things, the point-of-jeopardy isn't the death of the central characters, but the potential extinction of all humanity itself. Although since that would necessarily include the death of the central characters, it often feels like a tempting trade-off.
On the plus-side, the effects work is pretty solid in here, as is Butler's non-region-specific US accent, amazingly. I assume he's been taking extra tuition. Or maybe he's just nowhere near the worst thing in this film. I could write a lot, lot more about Geostorm's flaws, but quite frankly it isn't worth the effort (not mine to write, nor yours to read). Every single scene in this cries out for lengthy and merciless deconstruction, and I imagine that the inevitable CinemaSins takedown will be at least as long as the movie itself.
Verdict! Every bit as lazy, reductive and pointless as the trailer suggests and then some, this is a moral, artistic, categorical waste of $120m. If Dean Devlin is really so concerned about the environment, he can do his bit by ensuring that after its theatrical run, no more copies of Geostorm are produced in any format whatsoever…
This is like someone put Lockout, San Andreas and Armageddon into a blender they found in a skip, and smeared stale piss round the rim of your glass. While you were watching.
I saw this in a cinema where an elderly couple to my immediate right kept sporadically returning to their full-volume conversation, throughout.
It was not the most annoying thing which happened in that room.
I genuinely have no idea what this sets out to achieve.
The only individual to escape this debacle with any shred of dignity is Alexandra Maria Lara, who seems to have been acting for a much better film. She's going to be fucking livid when she watches this back.
You know what? I will, a bit.
Not that I heard.
Level 2: Our Hero Gerald appeared in 2008's RocknRolla of course, alongside Geoff '2nd Lt. Frobb' Bell.
Incidentally, there is also a scripted reference to Rocknrolla in Geostorm, which is delivered with all the consummate artistry of a toddler at a drum-kit.
*1 And bear in mind, I'm already on-side for this. As a Guardian-reading, science-loving, realist, I know that the first step in actually tackling demonstrable climate change is by affecting people's attitudes. And even I found this to be a load of manipulative, sanctimonious old shit, half-heartedly smeared across a two-hour montage of cities collapsing for no explicable reason. It's the sort of thing that makes me want to sit in my back garden, burning old refrigerators full of polystyrene, just out of spite… [ 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.
mother! Cert: 18 / 121 mins / Dir. Darren Aronofsky / Trailer
Before what could be politely described as 'a challenging piece of work', and after the usual run of ads for products that no-one is actively bothered about, sat a selection trailers. This was the distributor's demographically-charged opportunity to showcase upcoming content to an audience already somewhat on-side, by means of them being perched in front of a tonally-related film. And so, on Friday afternoon, we had the promo reels for The Ritual, Jigsaw, Flatliners and… A Bad Moms Christmas. It appears that Paramount aren't entirely sure who Darren Aronofsky's mother! is for. And having since watched it through, I know the feeling…
We centre around a couple played by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, building an idyllic life for themselves in a recently restored house in the countryside. But when a stranger arrives unexpectedly and is offered hospitality, it begins an irreversible chain of events that will change their lives forever. It's nowhere near as linear or formulaic as that setup makes it sound, I assure you.
Notwithstanding my snarkiness at the choice of pre-film trailers above, the other thing which caught my attention was the BBC-card's brief cautionary summary: "Strong violence", it said*1. Just that. Strong violence. Which, with a work like this, translates roughly as "The two lines afforded to a description on this screen are nowhere near enough to even begin listing all the things which an audience could find problematic. Seriously, mate. I mean, you've seen the trailer, right? However, there are moments of violence in there which, while they aren't intended for shock-value alone, are nonetheless over-and-above what we could normally squeeze into the 15 bracket. So let's just say 'strong violence' and leave it at that. In all honesty, the violence depicted will be the least of your worries if you start actually thinking about what you've sat through, but hey. Strong violence."
Right, four paragraphs in. Better start critiquing the film, really. And that's very much the thing; the more you think about this, the more you'll back away from examining too closely. mother! is frankly insane*3, albeit in a marvellous way; a two-hour fever dream, grinding together domestic farce and escalating psychological horror, like Terry and June on an absinthe and mescaline-fuelled bender. Aronofsky's screenplay is an allegorical symphony of religious*4, social and ecological notes, where not a single frame, line of dialogue nor pause between them is wasted. Less of an enigmatic scalpel, more an intricate sledgehammer.
Lawrence and Bardem are on excellent form, absorbed completely into their characters. Ed Harris with Brian and Domhnall Gleeson are strong (if fleeting) support, and Michelle Pfeiffer is utterly terrifying. As the story unfolds and the cast grows larger, Aronofsky never loses the focus on his leading pair. All in all, this is great direction of a great cast.
And how it makes the audience work, like only art can, and is all the better because it's not trying to appeal to the widest possible audience. None of the characters are specifically named, so the spoken references to him, her, he, she, they and you gets irritating around ten minutes after the house-guests arrive. The hand-held camerawork spends a fair chunk of time in close-up / extreme close-up position and is constantly moving, lending the atmostphere an air of genuine claustrophobia unlike anything else I've seen this year. This is a horror movie in the truest sense, showing what can me achieved when a writer/director has the courage to let madness expand organically.
The only real issue I have with mother! is that I'm not sure if I want to see it again (just yet, at least), in case I find it less enjoyable the second time round. Ironically, watching with the knowledge of what's to come feels like it will rob the screenplay of its power, despite bringing the opportunity to pore over its foreshadowing in greater detail.
It's rare that films come so close to being classified as an art installation, and rarer still that the multiplexes screen them, but Aronofsky's work really is the jewel in the ashes.
The close-quarters shaky cam is arguably better suited to a small screen. This film looks gorgeous but I wouldn't be surprised if it gives some viewers headaches/nausea.
I think so?
It could well be.
Absolutely not.
There is a fair chance you'll despise this, and I delight in you telling me why…
Not that I heard, although there's a lot of hullabaloo in the third act and it would be easy to lose one in there.
(I can't give the film a 7 without watching it again; I can't watch it again without letting my brain process it; I can't let my brain process it without speaking to other people who've also seen it. So go and watch this then report back, yeah?)
*1 Speaking of which, this was the second 18-rated movie of the week, and the second to feature very specific capitalisation in its title. And while I know it's a thing I can't seem to let go of, that exclamation mark at the end of mother! isn't going to hashtag well. And it'll look even worse without the capitalisation normally given to a film title. Any online buzz will be lost in people talking about their mums*2. It's almost like Aronofsky just wants to bring life to his artistic vision and doesn't give two fucks about social media marketing. I know, right? [ BACK ]
*2 Maybe that's why we got the trailer for Bad Moms Christmas? Very meta. Speaking of which, yeah - a footnote within a footnote. That's quite meta, too. Although a film like this fully deserves it. [ BACK ]
*3 Now it's one thing to have the title stylised as mother! with the lower-case 'm' and exclamation mark permanently attached making spell-checkers think the sentence has just finished. As it's a conceit of an already unique film, I'm fine with that. But it feels very, very wrong to be starting a sentence with the title and keeping the small-m. [ BACK ]
*4 If even I can see the biblical references scattered throughout this film (but still know that's not what it's specifically about), there are probably way, way more that I'm not picking up. [ 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.
Y'know, snarky comments about Liam Neeson as an alcoholic estranged father, punching and shooting people in a leather jacket are becoming almost as clichéd as films featuring Liam Neeson as an alcoholic estranged father, punching and shooting people in a leather jacket. Although despite today's neatly-timed announcement*1, Liam shows no sign of stopping just now, so I don't see why I should either.
Mr Neeson's latest (well…) offering bestows upon him the honour of The Opening Line. As he lies bleeding and surrounded by shrubbery, his sonorous transatlantic grumble delivers the absolute gem, "I've done terrible things in my life… things for which I can never be forgiven", with either an over-indulgence of self-awareness, or none whatsoever. I can't be sure which it is. Poor Liam is on autopilot for the entire movie, and Joel (Robocop) Kinnaman can't seem to muster the likeability required to be An Actual Protagonist. The screenplay makes no attempt to offer us anyone else to really root for, so it's just a case of sitting back and watching the claret.
The plot of the film takes place over the course of 16 hours, and the episodic nature of the father/son adventure does make it feel a bit like a mission-arc from Grand Theft Auto (complete with expository cut-scenes, naturally). The script itself seems to have been compiled by a computer working from a database of action-movie catchphrases and platitudes, hoping that the mumbling of the actors will fudge the audience's aural déjà vu. Strangely, one of the best scenes is the downtown New York chase, in which Neeson tries to ram the patrol-car of corrupt police officers off the road. Coincidentally, it's also a scene with almost no dialogue for four minutes.
Despite my moaning, Run All Night isn't 'awful'. As bullet-ridden action-thrillers go, it's actually on the better side of alright until dear old Liam keeps playing His Film Character. He's supported by Ed Harris (who can't seem to believe what he's doing), Joel Kinnaman (see above) and Boyd Holbrook, who puts in a reasonably interesting turn until he's killed in the first act (that's a plot point. It's in the trailer. It's not a spoiler.) The cast are so elderly, listless, or elderly and listless that Common*2 has to be drafted in during the second act to do some of the heavy lifting (and in fairness, Liam and Common duelling with flaming table-legs was rather nice, I thought).
Despite some interesting stylised transitions between scenes, there's really very little here that you haven't seen before. The film doesn't do anything too badly, it just doesn't do anything new. Although it doesn't really promise to, either. And when you're asking people to hand over a tenner to watch it? That's going to be a stumbling block.
With a smarter script and more inspired casting, Run All Night could have been just the thing. As it stands, it's another also-ran in the Liam Neeson box set of mediocrity.
Actual fact: Run All Night's distributor, Warner Bros UK, have thought long and hard, and decided that a 15-rated violent revenge-thriller should be preceded by the trailers for Home, Spongebob and Cinderella. No, seriously. Who the hell do they think is watching this movie? Well, me, evidently since I plan on watching at least two of those three movies. Although I was going to anyway, so…
Oh, and by all means write your screenplay and call your hardened, grizzled mob-boss Shawn Maguire. But whenever he gets mentioned, I'll be thinking of Sean Maguire. Threat-central, yeah.
Not really, if I'm being honest.
Unless you star in the film, I can't see that you'll want to watch it more than once. Rental, it is.
Well I doubt it'll be in Ed Harris' obituary-reel, somehow.
It probably does, actually.
Not really.
There isn't. For shame.
Run All Night stars Qui-Gon Jinn himself, Liam Neeson, of course.
*1 Seriously though, "two years"? John Candy died and they were releasing 'his last film' for the next five years. Two years of Neeson actioners is like a decade in human-years, or something.
*2 He's one of those rapper-actors, I think. He's generally used as background-scowling in movies, but he's pretty good in this. Certainly better at action-movies than the rest of the cast, anyway.
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.
Disney's anthropomorphic aeronautical spinoffs return to cinemas a mere year after their last, slightly muted outing, but can a new director propel the returning core-cast to a new altitude? As champion racing-plane Dusty Crophopper develops the U-Certificate equivalent of a terminal illness*1 and decides on a change of career in order to help Mayday, the lovably decrepit airport fire-truck, the film is a step above the 'who's going to win the race? vibe that's par for this particular course. While it's still strictly youngling-friendly, there's a lot more riding on the outcome of Planes 2, which should help it connect more with older audiences.
The film goes some way to giving the older folks a few wry grins (the Howard The Duck and CHiPs references are awesome, and I have to admit that I loved the AC/DC, Thunderstruck sequence) including a scattering of very mild double entendres, but generally speaking if you're here for the film, you're here for the characters. The central thread about trust, duty and (to a lesser extent) sacrifice gives Fire and Rescue a whole lot more heart than its predecessor, and along with the film's opening dedication to the world's firefighters, suggests that this is more than just a cash-in sequel to a cash-in spinoff.
Yet Despite the absolutely gorgeous animation, this isn't Disney bringing their A-game (which would seem self-evident since the feature was produced by DisneyToon Studios, the straight-to-video arm of their animation house), but then it's not the quality of the visuals which hold the film back. The voice-casting has an air of B-list about it (or at least, not the A-list we're accustomed to for this sort of thing), and while the actors do a marvellous job, it's one string less in the bow of the marketing department. Combine this with the shortened run-time*2 and you get the feeling that this is filler, in lieu of something big for the Summer holidays. There's no real harm in this of course, but Fire and Rescue had the potential to be so much more than an amusing distraction for the little ones.
While it may not be a classic in the making, Planes 2: Fire and Rescue is pleasantly surprising and could well hold its own in the Summer marketplace if it can attract an audience*3. Visually stunning in its aerial sequences, it's worth a watch if you're in the mood for a warm, if undemanding, family movie.
(don't tell Disney this, but you won't lose too much by watching it at home; it's still a straight-to-video spinoff at heart).
Nope.
Probably only the the company of my nephew/niece.
There isn't. Gutted. Although there is that eagle/hawk sound-effect that you hear in everything.
And was I the only one who thought of Mustafar thoughout the movie's incendiary finale?
*1 I know I mentioned it with a flippant tone, but he really does develop have a heart condition, and while it's handled very euphemistically, there is a sense of consequence about the whole thing.
*2Monsters University clocked in at 110 minutes, and Wreck-It Ralph at 92, but more importantly both of these films had a larger scope.
*3 The screening I attended had an audience of no more than 20 people, which given it was daytime during the school holidays (and on the film's opening day) is worryingly low. Hence the need for stronger marketing; ie 'celeb' voice actors.
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.
Gravity (3D) (Vague spoilers - maybe) Cert: 12A / 91 mins / Dir. Alfonso Caurón
It feels like it's been months that I've been seeing this trailered*1, yet no matter which version it was, I wasn't able to imagine how Alfonso Caurón was going to make a ninety minute film out of a singular incident. As it turns out, there's more going on than that; certainly in terms of the events on-screen, but also in terms of what the characters go through (in other words: astronauts plummeting to earth is what happens in the film, but it's not what the film is about).
In addition to a fairly linear plot, Gravity keeps piling on the metaphor: some of it gleefully in-your-face, some of it gleefully vague. For much of the film, even the scenes with immense tension, there's a sort of dreamlike feeling which is excellently realised, but kept me detached from the action, and to a lesser degree, from the characters themselves. As the film goes on, it asks lingering questions over the nature of memory, faith and reality, and it's an admirable step for Caurón's team not to answer any of them completely. A larger problem, for me, was that I thought some of the questions themselves were too vague, and having one or two more characters on (or even off) screen could have defined them more clearly.
Visually, Gravity is absolutely stunning. The 3D is used wisely and well applied, but it pales into insignificance compared to the zero-gravity effects work. My brain didn't doubt, for one second, that every floating, gliding and smashing object in this film was actually in space, to the point where I don't want to spoil the illusion by watching any making-of docs. The sound design works hand-in-hand with the visuals, making it the most believable space environment I can remember seeing on-screen.
As much as I enjoyed Gravity, I found the thoughtful, introspective film was often being drowned out by the movie about exploding space-stations. The two facets of the story didn't sit together as satisfyingly as I'd have liked, but they're definitely both required to prop each other up. I suspect I'll get more out of a second-viewing where I can concentrate on the quieter moments.
If you can cope with the claustrophobia of only having two actors*2 on screen, it's a fascinating ride. As long as you're not expecting Armageddon you shouldn't go too far wrong.
Sort of. And not really. Both?
Most of the time.
Almost certainly.
There is something magnificent about seeing this on a big screen.
No.
I will.
There isn't, but there are three instances of "I have a bad feeling about this". Personally I think that's too many, but you have to admire the commitment.
Can't ask the question I really want to ask without spoiling the film, I'm afraid. Once you've seen the film, hit me up on Facebook, and we'll talk.
*1 Although that's largely because it has been months. Way longer than most publicity campaigns.
*2 The few others don't really count. Come on, they don't really.
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.
