Arriving like an early, unannounced Christmas present from a relative you'd forgotten existed, the new iteration of 70s classic Charlie's Angels bursts onto November screens, a movie so thoroughly bland and ineffectual that I don't even have the energy to be angry about it.
TAKEN Haha, I'm just kidding; yes I do. I've got to hand it to actor / writer / producer / director Elizabeth Banks. She's taken a franchise about which I had no feelings either way and made me despise it. Working transparently through a list of checkboxes, this reboot seems to be aiming for a tonal point somewhere between Mission: Impossible and Austin Powers, but ends up at Baywatch instead. I say 'reboot', but there are in-movie nods to both the original TV series and the 2000/2003 movies suggesting a canonical continuity, which is a nice touch. But that's not enough.
Considering the star-wattage of the cast list, the dimness on display here is quite an achievement. This film fizzes like a bin bag full of dead animals. Like it's been assembled by someone who's heard of lighthearted action-comedies but has never seen one. Working from a script apparently consisting entirely of placeholder dialogue, Naomi Scott throws herself into the proceedings with admirable abandon, Ella Balinska appears to be reading her lines for the first time and Kristen Stewart is miscast as usual. Elsewhere, Sam Claflin manages to get his shrieking out through a look of mortifying embarrassment, Patrick Stewart spends two hours wearing a badge which reads For The Money and of course Elizabeth Banks is there because there's no show without punch*1. The action setpieces themselves are well choreographed and shot. But that's not enough.
COMMUTER The film loops through a drawn-out, patronising cycle of Action Sequence > Outfit Change > Plot-point Exposition > Soulless Needle-drop, like being locked in Primark after hours while hiding from a hen party that are doing Stella and absinthe. Charlie's Angels is as visually, emotionally and artistically rewarding as being strapped to a chair and forced to watch all of BBC3's output simultaneously. There are noticeable rhythmic gaps in the screenplay which seem to have been left for the audience to fill with laughter, the main problem with this being that they aren't preceded with any jokes. I didn't think we'd get a worthy companion-piece to The Hustle this soon. I may have to go and see that godawful firefighter comedy now just to get this taste out of my mouth.
Still, it's some consolation to know that even Elizabeth Banks herself is suffering some disquiet over the movie. So that makes all of us.
Hey, her heart's in the right place.
But that's not enough.
NEVER LET PATRICK STEWART FORGET THAT HE SAID OKAY TO THIS, I DON'T CARE IF HE'S LOVELY.
That's possible.
There isn't.
Level 2: Elizabeth Banks is in this and she was in those Hunger Games movies with Woody 'Beckett' Harrelson.
*1 You can call that catty but her name appears on the poster three times, she's hard enough to take the fall for this one. [ 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.
Marvel Studios are doing well, of that there should be no doubt. One of the reasons for their continued success is that various chapters in their continuing cinematic saga can be ascribed to different genres of film. Which is a polite way of saying that "superhero" is not a genre (just as "animation" also isn't). While all of the 22 MCU chapters so far are linked by the common thread of superheroes, The First Avenger is a wartime adventure movie, The Winter Soldier is a modern espionage flick, Ant-Man plays as a heist and Ragnarok a flat-out comedy. Thus lies their success. However, due to the house-style being a self-imposed 12A certification limit, Marvel are unable to properly tackle horror. And any aficionado will tell you that comics have been about the macabre for as long as they've featured caped vigilantes.
Warner/DC have tried of course, but their efforts to produce more serious, thought-provoking tales often have the opposite effect, with Dawn Of Justice being particularly troubled in its 'darker' sections. Ultimately, the answer turns out to come from neither of the major comic studios, but it's on DC's side of the fence we stay (kind of) for David Yarovesky's Brightburn. It's a gleefully sardonic look at the Superman mythos, but one where the young hero took a different path once adulthood came knocking, turning into humanity's nemesis rather than its saviour*1.
REMAINS
Written for the screen by Brian and Mark Gunn, the location of a Kansas farm remains but in a present-day setting, as Tori (Elizabeth Banks) and Kyle (David Denman) Breyer spend years trying for children only to be gifted one by a falling meteor. Raising the human-looking youngster as their own for a dozen years, the pair wilfully overlook some of Brandon's (Jackson A. Dunn) quirks, knowing fine well that he's not 'normal'. But a secret hidden in the barn draws Brandon through sleepwalking, and soon the usual puberty-petulance and childhood revenge fantasies are being matched with superhuman powers, a tonne of questions and no one to supply answers. Things are about to go south.
On the whole, Brightburn is an interesting ride and works well. Always at the accessible-end of the horror genre rather than being a hardcore gorefest (although there are a smattering of delightfully gruesome moments), it's still far more interesting than the reams of supernatural studio-horror which usually clog up the schedules. Yarovesky and The Gunns never quite give in to darker urges (even if their subject does), and there's a pleasant lack of clockwork jump-scare moments - instead often revealing the antagonist at the back of a room to slowly raise the tension, rather than have him suddenly leap out of the darkness.
CANDELABRA All of the central performers do well, playing their roles as straight as a semi-parody will allow. While the supporting cast could have been drafted in from any small-town horror, that's the way they're written and is totally in-keeping with the screenplay. At 90 minutes this is a tight affair, and it's perhaps surprising how long things take to really escalate, given the cracks we see appearing the first act. That said, the film never quite gets over the 'what if?' hump, and because it's overtly based on the legend most of its audience have seen in at least one form, direct comparisons are always at the front of the audience's mind. Because of this, it becomes difficult to enjoy Brightburn on its own merits.
And ultimately it's this question that the script fails to truly capitalise upon. The key theme of Brightburn should surely be one of nature vs nurture? How are Clark Kent and Brandon Breyer different? Breyer's adoptive parents are much younger than the Kents - did they fail in instilling the same values because of generational divides? Was Clark Kent's mixure of power and humility a product of its time, which simply couldn't happen again?
MILK WOOD We see Brandon eventually interacting with the malignant force in the barn, but is this an echo from the past? A pan-galactic communication from the present? A misinterpreted message due to Brandon not properly understanding the alien tongue? Watching the film from his parents' point-of-view, it makes some sense that the audience would never learn the true origin of their son. But if we're meant to be with Brandon for the whole journey, it feels slightly unsatisfying that we don't really learn from his side either: 'the kid isn't human and he just turns evil because he was always going to be evil'.
And if that's the case, it might as well be a manky old nun in a haunted painting. Because if the answer to your 'what if?' is just "yeah, a lot of things get broken mate", then was it a question which was properly asked in the first place?
THE HILLS AND FAR AWAY Brightburn is beautifully crafted in places, but in its current form will be no more than a novelty, an oddity, a spin on a classic rather than being great in its own right. A thought which is underlined by some truly appalling sequel-baiting in the final minute which I dearly hope was dropped into the edit as a pastiche of superhero cinema rather than a genuine punt at expansion.
But the fact that this tale of heroes-gone-bad is in cinemas at the same time as X-Men: Dark Phoenix tickles me greatly, if only because Simon Kinberg seems to wish that he'd made something even a quarter as interesting...
Re-play value on this may be limited, but Brightburn will be good to have on the shelf.
Let's not go mad.
Disagree, unlikely. Discuss at some length, yes.
There isn't.
Level 2: David Denman's in this, and he was in that Logan Lucky alongside Adam 'Kylo Ren' Driver and Daniel 'TFA Stormtrooper' Craig.
*1 Although as one wag recently tweeted, "If I wanna watch an 'alternate' take on Superman in which he goes all kill crazy, I'll just watch Man of Steel.". And as much as I loved that film, I have to admit it's difficult to disagree at face-value... [ 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.
Has it really been five years since the first Lego movie? I supposed it must have, since the script for The Lego Movie 2 plainly sets this follow-up half a decade later, and when I check my previous review it is indeed dated 2014. The passage of time can be cruel and baffling for those of us who've refused to grow up completely*1…
So. In the intervening years, the Lego town of Bricksburg has slowly morphed into the wasteland of Apocalypseburg. While Emmet (Chris Pratt) continues to bimble along optimistically, his friend Lucy/Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) has become a hardened, cynical warrior - still living in the town, but ready to fight whatever dangers life throws their way, in a bid to protect what little order is left. When an extra-terrestrial warrior, General Mayhem (Stephanie Beatriz), arrives one day announcing that Queen Watevra Wa'Nabi (Tiffany Haddish) of the Systar System intends to wed Batman (Will Arnett), the resulting refusal, kidnap and voyage across the galaxy will be an adventure to test Emmet to his limits. Luckily, he's got a new friend to stand by his side…
SMART First things first, The Lego Movie 2 is fun. It very much relies on you having seen the first entry (although the "2" is in the title so there can be few complaints) and it's still prone to wholesome over-sentimentality. But the sequel is as inventive as its plastic namesake, consistently funny and deceptively smart. If you enjoyed The Lego Movie, you'll get a lot out of this. If you didn't, well…
Whereas the divide between 'collector' play and open-ended adventuring previously fell with Will Ferell's 'Dad' character and his son Finn (Jadon Sand), this second entry shifts that generationally (as hinted at the end of the first movie) featuring his younger sister Bianca (Brooklynn Prince), happy to mix-the-bricks while Finn moves up to advanced sets and more concentrated world-building. To properly facilitate this and illustrate that Lego™ can be enjoyed on a number of commitment-levels (because let's not forget that this is an unashamed two hour pay-to-view advert), the sprawling in-film, in-universe playscape now features pieces and characters from Duplo™ and Lego Friends™. Purists will squirm, and that's very much the point.
OUT Ferrell takes a back seat for this adventure, still voicing President Business in the animated story and the 'in another room' voice of Dad in the live-action. But Maya Rudolph capably takes the wheel as the squabbling siblings' embattled mother, deadpanning her role perfectly (even if the film's U-certificate means Maya's character can't give a screen-accurate rendition of the outburst in which stepping on a Lego brick in bare feet actually results).
The live-action sections of the first movie were something of a third-act reveal, here they're dealt with head-on, interspersing the animated action throughout. The Lego characters don't (can't?) know the full extent of their real-world status as toys, but they're aware that their home has changed and there are larger, inexplicable forces at play. Rather than trying to iron out the differences between these two versions of reality, the script just carries on playing with them. By the end, the audience is no longer sure which events are the result of kids acting out a story and which are the in-universe characters themselves, continuing the narrative in their own time.
On a meta-level, The Lego Movie 2 feels like the natural - if knowingly post-modern - thematic successor to Toy Story. It's never as up-front as Pixar's flagship series and almost seems more believable (if that's the right word) as a result.
SHORTY As per this film's predecessor (and continuing the theme cemented by Lego Batman between), there are no Marvel characters to be found here. This, despite the Marvel-half of Lego's Super Heroes line being a mainstay of their licensing model. Instead we get appearances by the Justice League in full comic effect, with Warner Bros going so far as to rope in Jason Momoa*2 for light voicework.
Indeed, Marvel are written out of the proceedings early doors with one cheeky line of dialogue. But not content to leave that where it lies, shortly after we have our hero (voiced by Chris Pratt, remember), blasting off into space for an adventure aboard his new ship, and talking to his plant as a co-pilot. Well, quite.
CARTER And the playfulness with the leading man's back-catalogue doesn't stop there. A fairly telegraphed but still eminently satisfying sub-plot sees his character introducing a rapid succession of character-cards, each boldly proclaiming skills in a CV of previous adventures. Most of these appear to be nods to the actor's work in other movies (most notably the velociraptors, of course).
It's a testament to the sold writing that there's plenty here for a young audience, their associated grown-ups and the happy-go-lucky film geeks who've rocked up anyway. The Lego Movie 2 is absolutely packed with Easter eggs and is all the better for it.
FRESH AT THE WEEKEND We're living through a golden age of animation of course, and we should stop for a moment to fully appreciate the craft of the Lego movies. Whereas the multitude of the corporation's TV-based features feature expressive, 'bendy' character models with working knees and elbows, the cinematic strand has used elements far closer to the relatively rigid toys themselves (with some artistic license).
Along with photorealistic plastic texturing, their blocky structure and appropriately restricted movement is a faultless CGI simulation of traditional stop-animation, and I don't think that gets enough credit. The animators have deliberately placed this obstacle in their own path, making them work harder to achieve the same fluid level of visual storytelling, while also achieving an end result which looks closer to the actual store-bought Lego toys (did I mention that this beautiful film is also a two hour advert?)*3.
But let's not dig too deeply into the toy box. Irrespective of your chronological-age, if you like Lego™, you'll get a lot out of The Lego Movie 2. If you don't, well…
It certainly earns a place near the top of everyone's list.
It's possible I suppose, although you'd have to be a hardened cynic to really get nothing out of this.
Not that I heard.
Level 1: Well, the film was written by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, formerly of the Solo parish, but since they left that production under something of a cloud, I suppose we'll have to go with this movie starring that uncredited Stormtrooper from The Force Awakens.
*1 Anyway, I navigate my life by the release of Star Wars movies (as those of you who've met me will attest), so all 2014 means to me is "before The Force Awakens". Although I suppose I could meet them half-way and call it "before The Force AwakensLego". [ BACK ]
*2 Interestingly (or predictably, depending on how you look at it), the powers-that-be have opted for the new bearded, shirtless version of Aquaman, rather than the more traditional model they're still happy to use elsewhere. No judgement in that, just an observation. [ 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.
Imagine being a set-hand on Brian Henson's The Happytime Murders. You're pretty low down the ladder but it's your first job on an actual movie and you're just excited to be there. This is where the magic happens. It's Tuesday and a scene is being filmed where two Muppets™-style puppets are noisily having sex in an office with a frosted-glass door and windows. The police are talking to a secretary (played by Maya Rudolph) outside the office, who's acting as if everything's normal. The male puppet 'pulls out' and, while the audience don't see his penis, he proceeds to ejaculate all over the office. This takes the form of silly-string, which is effectively a visual punchline to the joke. It's funny because they're puppets.
But this is a gross-out comedy from (among others) H.Brothers, starring Melissa McCarthy, and the audience have expectations. So the ejaculation continues. The people working on the set (yourself included) can imagine the tears of hilarity running down the faces of the audience as they watch this. But that's not enough. Director Brian Henson wants his cast to ad-lib their lines, looking for that elusive off-the-cuff comedy gold which often can't be captured in the writers-room. As set-hand, it's your job to clean the office-interior set so the crew can run again. And so they do. Noisy sex noises and silly-string resume. This means that in the new take, the distinct pattern sprayed on the door and windows will be noticeably different when edited into the original shot as one continuous sequence, but the director is sure this won't be noticed by the crowd having a good time on a Friday night. It's all good.
Then Brian wants to go again. To get more quality improvisation. Clean the windows, clean the door, sit back down. Action. Screaming, ejaculation, a different array of puppet jizz. That wasn't enough. Let's do one more take. Wiping, action, screaming, jizz. No, again. Wipe. Action. Scream. Jizz. Again. Again? Surely the comedy-well has to be dry by now? Surely these shots can't be intercut with the broken continuity of the silly-string jizz? Yes they can. Again. Wipe. Action. Scream. Jizz. Wipe. Action. Scream. Jizz. Everyone on-set is finding this hilarious. You see, it's funny because they're puppets. That may look like silly-string, but in the final movie it'll be jizz. Jizz is funny. Puppet-jizz is hilarious. Brian isn't quite happy with that last take. He thinks we could get more. You reach for your cloth.
You're just glad to be working in the film industry.
Your family are so proud your dream's come true.
You'll screenshot your name in the credits to go on Facebook.
Anyway, I went to watch The Happytime Murders, the comedically tone-deaf movie that can't tell the difference between a punchline and a profanity! The film which takes an interesting concept then grinds it straight down to the lowest common denominator of dick-jokes and witless improv. The USP - of humans and puppets interacting in a straight plot-driven story, with the difference between them noted and worked into the script as social segregation - is largely abandoned after ten minutes when everyone realises it's just easier to hope for a laugh by swearing. The first punchline of the movie is "well fuck you". Melissa McCarthy's first line contains the word "fuck", her last contains "asshole". The film's not a particularly great pastiche on either the buddy-cop nor film noir-genres, and has nothing else to say in the meanwhile*1.
Credit where it's due though - the puppeteering itself is pretty great. From the very first scene, I had no trouble at all in buying the felt denizens as their own separate characters. They're just characters who are as annoying as the ones played by humans.
Still, it's always nice to see Melissa McCarthy outmatched in terms of comic timing by a puppet.
Imagine putting the "asshole says what" joke into your 15-rated movie, in 2018. Imagine putting the "asshole says what" joke into your movie twice, because you want the second one to act as a callback, like you invented it. Then imagine having one of your characters stopping to explain the "asshole says what" joke.
Imagine looking in the mirror every day and seeing Brian Henson.
*1 Typical scene-ending punchlines include: "Fuck you" (yes, again), "You bit my dick" and "First time I've knocked a guy out with his balls". I don't want to come off as a prude, here. I'm not. My own language is generally quite horrific in relaxed company, as is my sense of humour. But swearing isn't the same as wit. The general level here is just bad writing and/or bad improv. Still, the crowds like it, I suppose? Well, not the crowd in my Friday screening, there were five of us. But it's been out since Monday so I imagine it was packed until Thursday. [ 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.
