Dolittle Cert: PG / 101 mins / Dir. Stephen Gaghan / Trailer
So we get through the ads and trailers and more ads, the film is about to start and then nothing. Blank screen, silence. After about 30 seconds, I'm on my feet and off out to the foyer to let the staff know there's an issue in Screen 3 (because I'm that guy and I'm fine with that), and to their absolute credit we were up and running again within a couple of minutes. My point is, long after the anonymised online ordering of my ticket for the new Robert Downey Jr talking-animals-film, I could have taken this glitch as an omen, a sign, a get-out-of-the-cinema-free card. But fate tried to intervene and I brushed it aside. I went out into the foyer and actually, physically, verbally asked to watch Dolittle. It's not even like this hasn't happened before.
Reader, I am directly to blame for everything that followed...
Dolittle is a studio boardroom's idea of fun. An adventure without being exciting in any way, a comedy without jokes, old-fashioned without nostalgia, twee without charm, humourless without grit, depressing without weight, mawkish without any genuine emotion to call upon, energetic to the point of incoherence, white-Hollywood's attempt at diversity when left to its own devices, the kind of misguided faux-imperialist bullshit suggesting Tarzan had a one night stand with Pirates Of The Caribbean and this screenplay was dumped on the steps of a local orphanage shortly after, populated by a star-studded voice cast who each appear only to have seen their own lines and which still sound as if they're ad-libbed like the resurrection of Johnny Morris through a combination of CGI and witchcraft, all led by Robert Downey Jr trying to coast on charm through his own appalling decision-making*1 and managing to stumble over his own vocals as the central character seems to hail from the small Welsh village*2 of Barnsley-upon-Ganges...
If this is life-after-Stark then the MCU isn't all that's going to suffer.
Down with this sort of thing.
And also with this actual, exact thing.
Part of me is delighted that The Call Of The Wild is playing in cinemas at the same time as this atrocity, like an instant antidote. But a larger part of me is embarrassed on that film's behalf..
*1 And I can't believe someone actually green-lit the decision to give RDJ the Iron Man 'helmet-shot' as he dons the deep sea diver's outfit, as if that's not a calculated insult to the actor and audience alike.
Actually no, it's Universal. I can believe that... [ BACK ]
*2 He literally says "boyo" on a couple of occasions without any sense of affectation or irony and I'm pretty sure that's, like, racist?[ 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.
It's great living in the future. Technology has caught up with human imagination to make flawless, photorealistic visualisations of pretty much any story that can be dreamt up. And now this wizardry has been paired with $110m of someone's actual money in creating a franchise-burner which is so linear, perfunctory and crushingly dull that not even Will Smith wanted to turn up for the glaringly obvious cameo opportunity during the first act. Christ.
So, something must have happened, right? During a visit to the Endgame set by a Sony rep checking up on Spider-Man's scenes, something bad must have been witnessed involving Chris 'Thor' Hemsworth and Tessa 'Valkyrie' Thompson, and now Sony are using the dirt as leverage to get them to star in this absolute, grade-A atrocity of a movie.
Men In Black: International is the perfect summer storm of watching people you love doing things you'll hate.
MISH An incoherent mish-mash of previous installments, Hot Fuzz and Kingsman with plagiarised notes from Guardians Of The Galaxy, this is a two hour effects-reel loosely taped together by an elevator-pitch of a script which took longer to read back than it did to write. MiB:I isn't even a bubblegum movie, it's just brightly coloured wrapping paper masking a box which contains nothing of any value whatsoever*1.
The cast look bored and embarrassed in equal measure. Hemsworth clearly hopes the other highlights in his career will consign MiB:I to the 'Oh, I'd forgotten he did that' pile. Meanwhile Tessa Thompson (the actress who almost single-handedly turned a boxing sequel where no one wins the boxing into a layered character-drama) is on hand to literally point and explain everything throughout every scene in the movie. Liam Neeson is acting like someone's set his cadence-dial to 'shit Qui-Gon'*2 then pushed START on the autopilot. Although credit where it's due, casting Neeson in a movie called "Men In Black"after his last set of promo-interviews takes some balls. And as for Emma Thompson? Look, I know she's everyone's favourite auntie, but between this and Johnny English 3 she should be made to hand back her National Treasure™ certificate at the nearest police station.
MONSTER By the time Rebecca Ferguson arrives and the film has inexplicably turned into The Man From U.N.C.L.E. by way of Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy, all that's left is a series of third-act reveals which have been so heavily telegraphed they may as well have been captioned during the opening titles. You're left with the feeling it's not that MiB:I took seven years to produce, but rather someone spent six and a half years staring at a wall for ideas before giving up and just letting the computer write the damned thing instead. Whatever Sony have got on the Asgardians, I can't see how it'd be as bad as this...
Would make a passable double-bill with X-Men: Dark Phoenix for anyone who's having trouble sleeping.
Imagine the pilot episode of a Nickelodeon sitcom which has gotten out of hand while still being unfinished on the page.
It is not.
It is not.
It is not.
If you have anything remotely positive to say about the film, yes we will.
Look, I don't give out enough bottom-marks.
Seriously though, fuck this movie.
*1 Okay, it's supported some jobs in the film industry. I get that. Men In Black: International's biggest claim to social or artistic worth is that it put food on the table for its cast and crew so that they could stay alive for a bit longer to be ashamed of it. [ BACK ]
*3 Speaking of location-spotting, it looks like Eat have paid the premium for brand-placement in London's scenes. Although that's not as cool as the branch of Greggs which shows up in one shot (literally the only time I smiled). [ 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.
Laika's latest follows intrepid 19th century explorer Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman) as he follows a lead to Canada in search of the Sasquatch, or Bigfoot, certain that it represents the missing link in human evolution. When he arrives, the creature in question is a good deal more civilised than Frost had anticipated. Naming his venerable new partner Mr Link (Zach Galifanakis), the pair seek help from Frost's former acquaintance Adelina Fortnight (Zoe Saldana) and trek to Nepal in a bid to locate the Yeti colony - a place where Link might finally feel at home…
CHANNEL The plot structure itself seems to channel Aardman's The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists somewhat. Taking potshots at colonial attitudes that may seem like an easy game in the 21st century, but they're undoubtedly deserving targets nonetheless. What's more, the third-act turnaround is just enough to give the audience something to think about, too.
Laika's work may not be as gag-laden as Aardman's but they're the two animation studios who can proudly stand shoulder-to-shoulder to Disney, precisely because they don't try to emulate what the House Of Mouse does*1. Each just makes its own brilliant films in their own brilliant way, and they're often much deeper thematically as a result.
FAMOUS Hugh Jackman gives a great vocal turn in the lead role (the model bearing fantastic likeness when it comes to his facial movements) with only a couple of minor slips in the accent*2. While Zoe Saldana and Zach Galifanakis are solid here, there's the feeling that they're probably not the best casting for the parts, both feeling like they're doing impersonations of their characters rather than bringing life to them.
It's a common gripe that if you're noticing the tiny but beautiful details in an animated film that there's something missing from the writing. And that may very well be the case, but with work as exquisite as this, that's understandable. That said, Chris Butler's story does feel a little linear. It's never less than fully engaging for the duration of the film, but I have to admit that once I'd left the cinema the lack of oomph quickly became apparent.
SLAUGHTERHOUSE As has become the norm for this studio's work, hang around during the credits to get an idea of the sheer scale of the production. Once the names start rolling (and brilliantly, this begins by crediting the animators) you can make your way to the exit.
It's a damn good road-trip romp either way, and after witnessing the atrocity that is the trailer for The Qu*en's C*rgi, you know Missing Link is going to be one of the year's highlights…
No, but only because the bar is unfeasibly high for cast and crew alike.
That's possible.
Depends how wrong you are.
There isn't. Bah.
Level 2: Emma Thompson's voice is in this (she's perfect, naturally), and she was in Love, Actually with Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson, Keira 'Sabé' Knightley and Thomas 'Thanisson' Brodie-Sangster.
*1 For the record, I wrote this review on Sunday night but didn't post it until Monday evening. Between those points, I caught up with the previous Friday's Wittertainment podcast, knowing I was 'safe' to do so with my thoughts on this new movie now written down and untouched by the subconscious influence of a critic I respect and admire a great deal (even if I only actually 'agree' with him about half the time). Anyhow, between the in-show interview with writer/director Chris Butler and Mark Kermode's review which followed, the points I've made about comparisons with Aardman, not needing to emulate Disney and cocking a snook at the British Empire of days past all arose, as did Kermode's view that the film is very, very good, but still not the best it possibly could be. Just thought I'd drop this in now so that you don't read this review and think 'yeah he's just copying what he heard on the radio again'. Fuck it, I'm not re-writing my review now, even though I know Wittertainment's observations aired before I'd even watched the film. It's just that on this occasion, Dr Kermode agrees with me… [ BACK ]
*2 The guy's Australian so he's already got a fantastic blank canvas for accent work, but there are a couple of moments where his 'a's are short where they should be long, in his role as a Victorian gentleman (it's the difference between 'cat' and 'cart' with a Brit accent). Anyway, I put it down to an oversight in the direction. It's certainly not a big deal, but regular readers will know how much things like this bug me. [ BACK ]
*3 Okay, Coco (and yeah that's a Disney film), but I mean apart 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.
Disclaimer: I made the rookie error of assuming a film titled "The Children Act" would actually be about The Children Act. That it isn't, has caused me no small level of consternation and probably goes some way to accounting for my mood as the runtime increased. Anyway, here are my opinions on what the film isn't…
I'd thought that August was a bit early in the season for awards-bait, then as The Children Act - a film where a judge has to rule over a case where Jehovah's Witness parents are fighting for their right to withhold a hospital's recommendation of a blood transfusion for their son with leukaemia (who, incidentally, is also refusing treatment) - went on without managing to ask any difficult questions, I realised it's probably out now because it's not really a contender for any gongs.
Emma Thompson stars as the Fiona Maye, the put-upon judge, with Stanley Tucci as her dissatisfied husband Jack. Fionn Whitehead plays Adam Henry, the 17yr old to which the titular legislation applies, with Ben Chaplin and Eileen Walsh as his devout parents. The film also features appearances from pretty much everyone you'd expect from a production with Nina Gold in the casting-director's chair (although no Bill Nighy, this time).
But it's Emma Thompson everyone's come to see, and Judge Maye is the dramatic pivot around which everything revolves.
This is, let us not drive this one around the houses, a story more concerning the judge than the judgement. The court case itself is just one building block in the screenplay, that's not what the film is actually about. Which is fine I guess, but not being familiar with Ian McEwan's source novel (which he's also adapted for the screen), I have to say I found the title a little disingenuous. The film is called 'The Children Act', not 'The Turbulent And Tiresome Domestic Life Of A Judge Who Once Invoked The Children Act, A Law Which Was Already Established Before This Story Begins'.
When Maye begins singing in the hospital to the boy with leukaemia playing his grandfather's acoustic guitar*1, you know this film's far too pleased with itself*2.
Thompson's great of course, but then she could be reading the phonebook and still be magnificent. The problem is more than she starts the film in full 'Love Actually' mode, and has nowhere to take things after that. If the message of The Children Act is that the events of a case don't end once the court is dismissed, that's fair enough. If the message is that the background of a court case is more complicated or interesting than what's presented to the judge, then that's demonstrably untrue.
At one point in the third act, the treated and recuperating Adam confronts Fiona and fumes that her judgement was always going to be to save his life since that's the law, and that the case was a foregone conclusion. The problem is that the character here is also describing the story itself.
Perhaps the only interesting aspect is that the script doesn't present a coherent, measured argument from the Jehovah's Witness side in opposing the blood transfusion, only the re-stating of doctrine*3. I don't know if that's because as an audience member, my mind was already made up, or if it's because there just isn't a convincing argument. The filmmakers doesn't bash the religious organisation unduly, but in barely addressing the already-legally-decided debate, there's little left for the story to be interested in.
I'm not entirely sure who this film is for. I mean, it's clearly not aimed at me*4, but given the Grey-Pound™ trailers beforehand - and the number of seniors in attendance*5 - I suspect I may be somehow too young to get the most out of this. There's little about the film which screams 'pensioner audience', that's just who it appears to have been marketed at.
And then there's a bit at the end where Emma gets to sit on the edge of her bed delivering a monologue which is a recounting of the exact sequence of events that the audience has spend the previous 95 minutes watching. There's no new nuance or insight made clear by the sequence, it's just a recap. How marvellous.
Make no mistake, the moral-core of The Children Act has its mind made up well before the BBFC card appears. The only surprise is that it managed to annoy me, and not for the reasons I'd feared it would. Because, as if you hadn't already gathered, I'm not a person of faith. Liberal, humanist and logical in nature, I didn't expect The Children Act to change my mind, but I expected it to at least try...
I haven't seen it myself, but I'm told Collateral Beauty?
*1 A guitar they bury with the boy in the end. Oh spoilers, sorry. But yeah. That's a nice acoustic he's got there, and it's an antique as well. As a cherished family heirloom with its sentimental value far above the monetary, obviously the first thing you'd do would be to stick it underground at the first opportunity, right? [ BACK ]
*2 Oh, and that bit in the finale where the gruff security guard is standing outside the concert venue with four sets of doors between him and our heroine gently playing the piano and singing with no amplification, when he cocks an ear, throws down his fag then comes inside to watch reverently and coo compliments afterward? Fuck. Right. Off. [ BACK ]
*3 Right then, actual dialogue exchange from the film:
Fiona: I want to hear it in your own words. Why won't you have a blood transfusion?
Adam: Because it's wrong.
Fiona: Go on...
Adam: God has told us it's wrong.
Fiona: Why is it wrong?
Adam: Why is anything wrong, My Lady? We just know it. Murder, torture, lying, being unfaithful in your marriage... and how do we just know it? It's in our hearts. God has put it there.
Fiona: Is transfusion like torture?
Adam: They're both wrong. I wish I could make you see this. Blood isn't just a biological thing and it isn't just a symbol. It's life itself. It's what we are.
And that's it. That's pretty much the argument, from the proverbial horse's mouth, other than a court scene with Adam's father repeating the same ideology about blood. No-one points out that murder, torture, lying and infidelity are all inherently destructive actions arising from selfish behaviour and resulting in a victim. No-one asks how saving the life of a terminally-ill person is a similarly malicious act. No-one asks if, by extension, all surgery, medical treatments and medications are therefore equally sinful as they're interfering with God's pre-laid lifespan. No-one asks if God might actually want His subjects to be around for a little longer, so that they can do more of His good work than they would otherwise be able. No-one points out that if blood is so sacrosanct and what makes us special, why aren't Jehovah's Witnesses all strict vegans (or at least strict vegetarians), since animals have been given blood, too. Do animals not count? Is that it? Was Noah wasting his time, then? Yeah?
None of this is addressed because the film called 'The Children Act' is about a middle-aged person elsewhere having a domestic breakdown. Which is fine, but don't frame the whole movie like it's got some greater meaning... [ BACK ]
*4 At one point, Maye talks about Newcastle being the only place where she was "wild and free". And yet upon arriving in the jewel of the North East, our favourite judge doesn't immediately head down to the Bigg Market and glass someone in a way she knows will be legally watertight. Another opportunity wasted. [ BACK ]
*5 Today's audience-participation consisted of two walkouts during Slender Man and four walkouts during BlacKkKlansman. Meanwhile, The Children Act made up the numbers somewhat by having four late arrivals - all 'seniors'. The latter pair of these arrived twenty minutes into the film. Twenty minutes. That's 47 minutes after the time on the website, the foyer-screen and indeed the ticket itself. Who in the name of actual fuck looks at their ticket, their watch, notices the disparity of just under an hour and then thinks 'yeah it's okay, we probably haven't missed anything important'? [ 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.
And, relax. After the pleasant surprise that was Disney's retelling of Cinderella, but followed the next year by a rendition of The Jungle Book which left me blank-faced, I wasn't exactly a quivering bundle of excitement for Beauty And The Beast being given the same live-action treatment. Which would partly explain why it took me a week to set aside the time to go see it.
But the Friday-night performance of the film (and in my local's largest auditorium) was veritably packed. Considering there are still five-showings a day and it's been out for a week, this is an excellent turn and good news for everybody. Speaking of which, let's cut to the chase: Beauty And The Beast is marvellous. I see no reason to build up to praise, here. Following the framework of the classic story, it's primarily a remake of the 1991 animated film, with branches of the 1994 Broadway musical grafted on. And it is, to be blunt, perfect Disney.
Emma Watson and Dan Stevens bring equally bold performances, with subtle character-development on each side which could easily be overlooked by many another director. They're reliably supported by an ensemble cast of established character actors*1 and near-flawless visuals. There are enough songs to make the film A Musical™, but still plenty of gaps in between to allow for actual storytelling to occur. Although speaking of the cast, I can't help but feel that the Scottish Ewan McGregor's vocal performance as the French candelabra Lumiere is a calculated, 30-year payback for Christopher Lambert's work in Highlander. Never entirely comfortable with anything other than his native-brogue or Kenobi British, the actor's nowhere near 'bad' here but always just sounds like Ewan McGregor putting on an arch, comedy-French accent.
And speaking of retribution, there's been much (and needless) controversy about Josh Gad's LeFou being depicted as gay in the film, of course. While his moments are certainly played up for comic relief, he is nonetheless one of the film's character high-points. But the cynic in me couldn't help but wonder if this more sympathetic turn is Gad showing some form of penitence for his borderline homophobic character in PIxels. I actually hope it is.
But all in all, there's really very little for me to say about Beauty And The Beast. The audience know what they're going in for, and the film delivers. Although more eager to see the film that I was, Mrs Blackout actually found the film's finale to be a bit over the top. I, on the other hand, think that by that point, the film has earned every second of its self-indulgent and boisterous crescendo.
With a cast this strong, probably not, to be fair.
Nope.
I didn't hear one.
Which is ridiculous, because there's a five-minute segment just crying out for it.
Level 1: This film's got the voice of Obi-Wan Kenobi in it.
*1 With the unsurprising exception of Luke Evans, who seems to think he's starring in an am-dram pantomime version of the tale. It's perhaps not his fault as he's a) almost uniformly awful in everything, and b) been mis-cast terribly to begin with. While Gaston is certainly a deplorable archetype, part of that is his deceptively-dashing exterior. It's never a 'reveal' that the character's actually an arsehole, but you're supposed to come to the conclusion gradually. Evans' version just looks like a wrong'un from the moment he steps onto set, barking like Peter Kay auditioning for The Pirates Of Penzance… [ 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.
So we get through the ads and trailers and more ads, the film is about to start and then nothing. Blank screen, silence. After about 30 seconds, I'm on my feet and off out to the foyer to let the staff know there's an issue in Screen 3 (because I'm that guy and I'm fine with that), and to their absolute credit we were up and running again within a couple of minutes. My point is, long after the anonymised online ordering of my ticket for the new Robert Downey Jr talking-animals-film, I could have taken this glitch as an omen, a sign, a get-out-of-the-cinema-free card. But fate tried to intervene and I brushed it aside. I went out into the foyer and actually, physically, verbally asked to watch Dolittle. It's not even like this hasn't happened before.
