Well, if Brad Pitt played with unabashed glee recently in his Casablanca-themed sandpit, Live By Night is very much Ben Affleck's Godfather fan-film. Adapted from Dennis Lehane's 2012 novel, our Ben directs and screen-writes and stars*1 in the tale of self-made gangster Joe Coughlin, rum-running in prohibition-era America while somehow managing to keep his hands clean.
It's not bad, but given the films which clearly influenced it, it's certainly not great and feels like Affleck couldn't decide what sort of movie he wanted to make. The script is fairly mechanical, with exposition in every other sentence as a four-hour story is squeezed into a two-hour film, and characters are killed off-screen with a single perfunctory line. The hero's wily, moustache-twirling nemesis is set up in the first twenty minutes then seemingly forgotten about until the last ten, and as much as the story rushes through its fifteen-or-so years (with minimal ageing to the principal cast, obviously, and with the heavy-handed assistance of Coughlin's sporadic narration), it still finds time to slot in some quite astonishing sermonising*2.
When he's not trying to channel Gene Kelly in modelling a wide selection of jauntily-angled hats, Affleck struggles with his character's Boston accent*3, almost as much as any Irish character that's not being played by an Irish actor struggles with theirs.
But perhaps the film's biggest problem is that the pacing's all over the shop. Affleck's great at directing the action sequences, but fails to bring any real dynamism to the dialogue-led scenes (of which there are many). With more patience and focus, this could have been a contender for the all-time great gangster-flicks. The ingredients are all there but the chef lacks the discipline to cook them properly.
The lengthy gunfire sequences are pretty neat, though (and with some fantastic head-shots).
In the January no-man's land between awards-bait and popcorn-fodder, Live By Night should be a lean, visceral yet extravagant drama; instead it's just period-detailed padding.
Well Ben would have you believe Scarface and The Godfather, but I think the film actually has more in common with American Pastoral. And not just because of the presence of Elle Fanning, a performer who manages to ride right through the centre of the Uncanny Valley without even being CGI…
Why not? It'll save you going out to buy it on DVD then going out again to drop it off at the charity-shop when you've watched it once.
Create a non-demanding buffer film while we all wait impatiently for Batman?
Sure.
It is not.
I will not.
There is not.
Level 2: That Brendan Gleeson's in this, and he was in that Calvary alongside his boy, Domhnall 'Hux' Gleeson.
*1 Which, let's face it, is a level of involvement that's rarely a good sign for any project.
*2 Because our hero may be a smug, opportunistic, lying, treacherous murderer with commitment and authority-issues, but at least he's not a racist. I'm not kidding, this is literally Act III of the film.
*3 Well I say 'struggles', it's more 'forgets about until he says a word like "bar" or "walk", at which point he's all over it like Peter Griffin'.
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 Boxtrolls (3D)
Cert: PG / 97 mins / Dir. Graham Annable & Anthony Stacchi
It's almost (almost) as if animated films in the twenty first century have become too clean, too polished. And not just visually, either. It's almost (almost) as if all character foibles (and in the case of 'villains', entire defining traits) need to be ironed out, sanitised or fixed by the closing credits (sequels notwithstanding). Even with this in mind as I was watching, The Boxtrolls seemed to feature a layer of delightful sweat, which wouldn't quite let me love it, however much I admired what was in front of me. Although it was only published in book-form in 2005, the story has a true Dahl-esque feel to it, where even the characters you're rooting for are charmingly flawed.
The story of a young boy raised underground by non-human scavenger creatures and his subsequent re-acquaintance with the surface-world, The Boxtrolls carries themes of family, identity and societal unrest that would probably be handled far more cloyingly by one of the major animation studios. That said, I don't think the film has the immediacy of Laika's previous feature, Paranorman, and the aforementioned 'dirty' look and feel may well put off casual audiences and critics alike (although it's going to be a done deal for existing fans of the book).
The animation itself (including the 3D) is absolutely stunning; hand-crafted stop-motion with a fluidity I've never seen before, and the film has a voice-cast to match it perfectly (Ben Kingsley is a particular highlight as cheese-obsessed super villain, Archibald Snatcher). Rolling in at a very respectable 97 minutes (where many computer-animated features are shorter*1), you have to admire the craft, even if nothing else takes your fancy (hang around during the credits for the tiniest glimpse into the scale of making the film). I even thought that the central character's racing helmet may have been a nod to Anakin Skywalker's podracing gear, but a) that may be a generic design, and b) I would think that, wouldn't I?
I was left with the impression that there were areas which could have used further development (the young Eggs playing music with the boxtrolls is seen in a montage at the start of the film then not used again), but the film certainly packs its runtime to maximum effect.
For the younger members of the audience, there'll be as much to disturb them in The Boxtrolls as there will to entertain, which thinking about my favourite books as a child feels about right. Like being trapped in a charming yet macabre dream, The Boxtrolls has a lot to offer. It's just hidden under a layer of grime…
Pretty much.
Kinda, although there are surprisingly few 'jokes' in there.
Almost certainly.
Whatever takes your fancy; the story will work on any size screen, but the animation is beautiful on a big screen.
Maybe a touch, but not enough for you to worry your pretty little head over.
I will, but there's no burning need at the moment.
Didn't catch one.
Have you seen any other films this year which make an almost direct homage to Fist Of Fun'sRod Hull character?
Because I've seen one, now.
*1 I'm not saying that computer animation is "easier", by any means, but the physical frame-by-frame effort in a 97 minute stop-motion picture has to be commended when a behemoth like Disney are prepared to put out an 84 minute CGI feature as their Summer standard-bearer.
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.
Maleficent Cert: PG / 97 mins / Dir. Robert Stromberg
In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I didn't get round to re-watching Disney's Sleeping Beauty before going to see Maleficent. And I say re-watching, but I honestly can't remember the last time I saw it. When I was very, very small, certainly. I seem to have more recollection of the accompanying story-book than I do of the film itself. No matter though, I was familiar enough with the story to catch up as I went, right?
Well largely, yes. Although I did clock several moments in the sequel/retelling that are signposted like massive callbacks, and I imagine they'd be quite neat if I had the knowledge to connect them fully. I'm just very aware that this film isn't really aimed at me, while at the same time, it's not not aimed at me (hence the casting of Ms Jolie). Anyhow, despite all this, I really enjoyed it. More a retelling than a prequel, Disney retool their classic iteration of the story from the titular evil fairy's point of view. And while it's not without its fair share of saccharine, the result is a lot more engaging that I was expecting. Not as doom-and-gloom as the trailer would suggest, but not entirely pink-fairy-wings either.
Visually, it's about as close to its predecessor as you can get with live-action, and Disney have gone to great lengths to make Maleficent look and feel like a companion piece. Although part of me (the awkward, old-school, traditionalist part which doesn't always walk in-step with the marketing divisions) thinks that a traditional drawn-animation would have looked just as good, if not better. The film struggles at times with the sheer amount of sprites, fairies and magic flowers on-screen, to the point where it looks like a CGI animation. To have the live-action Angelina walking/flying around in the middle is jarring, and almost reminded me of the fox-hunting sequence in Mary Poppins (except in that film, the effect was intentional). That said, the flying sequences are absolutely astounding in 3D, largely because of the amount of CGI, and there's no doubt as to how meticulously the film's been assembled.
The acting's a slightly different story, however, with poor old Angelina left carrying the load as she plays the role completely straight. Jolie's quite magnificent as the evil/misguided fairy, and it's clear she had a lot of fun while also taking things completely seriously. The rest of the cast are a mixed bag, mostly passable, but I had a problem with Michael Higgins playing young Stefan, and the fairies Flittle, Knotgrass and Thistlewit played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple respectively, were slightly too close to Irritating™ for my liking. But as I said, I doubt if anyone in a demographics meeting at Disney HQ had a picture of me on the flipchart as they were planning this out.
Maybe I'm getting old and soft, but the recent Frozen and now Maleficent have both managed to bring a fresh lick of paint to the Fairy Story genre. Well written and fantastic to look at, if you can get over the Disney Princess™ hurdle, there are great things here.
Well, ish. It's not as consistently 'dark' as the trailer.
For the most part, yes.
That's not really for me to say, but it's got to come pretty damned close.
Cinema for full effect (although the 3D is optional, obviously).
Nah.
Yes, but probably not for a while. It's done its job.
I think (think) I heard one low in the mix, but don't quote me on that.
Is Sharlto Copley meant to be attempting that Scottish accent? Is that what the king was like in Sleeping Beauty? Is he taking the piss out of how bad the original one was? Because if that's the case, he's doing it very well…
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.
