Review: Wonder Woman

Wonder Woman (2D / Spoilers in the footnotes)
Cert: 12A / 141 mins / Dir. Patty Jenkins / Trailer



Well, the long-awaited day arrived, amid a flurry of media hype and no small amount of subsequent expectation. And so it was that a respectably-sized audience*¹ gathered to see if Patty Jenkins Wonder Woman movie could live up to the buzz which threatened to overtake it.

Mythology meets alternate-history when the studious life led by a tribe of Amazons on the island of Themyscira*² is interrupted when an escaping American WW1 pilot (Chris Pine's Steve Trevor) emerges through a dimensional portal, followed by a German battleship and its full contingent of furious Axis footsoldiers. Carnage ensues*³, leading to Diana (Gal Gadot) venturing back through the aperture in a bid to find and kill Ares the god of war, ending the global conflict. As her weapons, she has the purity of innocence, the conviction of righteousness, The Bulletproof Bangles™, The Sword of Omens™ and The Lasso of Overacting™. One of these gets used to the point where it's almost worn out. There is sass, there is action and there are big decisions to be made along the way, as well as a few laughs.

I'm quite surprised the Daily Express haven't made more of this movie, actually. It's literally Princess Diana vs The Evil Germans. All that's missing is a subtext on house-prices and they'd be frothing at the press...

But anyway, yeah, it's a pretty damned good film. Although if you've got a hunch that it sounds like half an hour of Thor, ten minutes of fish-out-of-water jokes, then an hour and a half of The First Avenger*⁴, with a few beats thrown in from X-Men, Guardians of the Galaxy and Inglourious Basterds, you'd be absolutely right.

Gal Gadot does well in the lead role here, but she has a lot of cinematic-lifting to do. While we certainly get a refreshing central female-focus from director Patty Jenkins, there's no escaping the fact that the film was written by three guys*⁵. After the opening act on Themyscira where the women drive the narrative, the story reverts to more or less standard superhero form once Diana is over the threshold and into the First World War. Other than Lucy Davis in a small comic-relief role and Elena Anaya being wasted as an enigmatic and thoroughly underused Axis weapons scientist, it's just Gal Gadot surrounded by cardboard cutouts of gawping Boys Own heroes and villains*⁶.

Wonder Woman is good fun and a step back to form for Warner/DC, certainly their most focused and relatable timeline-movie since Man of Steel. But the feeling never left me that rather than figure out their own way to tell stories, DC are still trying to be Marvel Studios*⁷ - and that's not their race to win…

Update: After sleeping on it*⁸, I have some final thoughts. With the best will in the world, I'm probably not going to see Wonder Woman again in its theatrical run, so I've updated the post to add them here.

The amount of online discussion and media-buzz prior to this release means it feels like one of those movies you should have a strong opinion on either way, and if the end result lands somewhere in the middle you end up wondering 'have I understood this properly?'. Truth be told, there's not that much there to understand, and that's absolutely fine. But who wants 'absolutely fine' as a pull-quote on their poster? After watching Wonder Woman, I think I certainly like it more for socio-political reasons than dramatic ones. Because at the end of the day, I don't really give two fucks about DC characters, and there's very little the film can do about that…*⁹

Wonder Woman is absolutely fine.

Well I think I've covered that already…



For big-and-loud, yes. It's a fine looking movie.



It does
Although I'm less convinced about what it sets out to do than whether it achieves that.



For Gal Gadot, possibly the best so far.
For everybody else, no.



Nope.



There isn't.
Which is bloody ridiculous as there are many, MANY perfect spots for one.



Level 1: Bern Collaco's in this.

Me neither, but he's Indian Regiment Soldier in Wonder Woman and he was Stormtrooper in Rogue One and First Order General in The Force Awakens. I genuinely hope he gets a character name next time around. Like, in anything. Seriously, look at the dude's IMDB page, it's a litany of anonymous sorrow. He's been in Eastenders twice and only got "Police Detective" and "Pharmacist".





SPOILERS: Highlight to read…

*¹ And of for all those sitting in the room that night, only five of us hung around for the after-credits scene; there isn't one. Fair enough… ^{[ BACK ]}

*² And really though, imagine making a mythical island full of actors speak with a heavy eastern accent, just to explain away the suspicion that Gal Gadot can do no other… ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ And while I'm very aware that this film is a certificate 12A, the beach-battle between a crew of fully armed soldiers and a tribe of expert archers and swordswomen is glaringly blood-free, other than a nasty scratch on Diana's arm in its final moments (the resulting scab/scar of which we don't see again throughout the film, but given she's a super-heroine that's understandable) ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ To the point where, after recruiting a side-crew of international heavy-drinking misfits in a London boozer, Noble Captain Steve sacrifices himself by flying off in a German plane full of super-bombs intended to kill millions, and all his superbly capable brunette love-interest is left with is a sepia photo and memories of the brief time they shared. No, seriously, they did that. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁵ And Diana was not, I repeat not - I repeat NOT - wearing her armour under that blue dress. Those writers put her in the figure-hugging blue dress because they wanted to see Gal Gadot in a figure-hugging dress. Don't care about the back-scabbard, wasn't happening mate. If she'd have been wearing the armour underneath it, it would have looked like she'd turned up to the gala dinner party just to smuggle out the cutlery… ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁶ And the next time I'm on complaining about Marvel's track record with slightly sub-standard movie villains, please please remind me that none of them have been as resoundingly shit as David Thewlis being Palpatine with a moustache and tweed overcoat. His performance in this film is nothing short of fucking excruciating. To the point where Richard E. Grant's Dr. Rice looks positively nuanced by comparison. Thewlis is better than this, and I just ended up feeling embarrassed for Patty Jenkins having to direct such utter, utter drivel. There. I said it. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁷ You would of course be perfectly justified in asking me "Oh, why do you have to compare DC films to Marvel?". Well, I'll stop doing it when DC do… ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁸ Of course it'd be lovely to be able to ponder and sleep on everything I watch, before writing a balanced and intricate review of the film probably while sitting on a veranda in the mid-morning sunshine in a light flannel shirt and sipping an espresso. But my brain doesn't work like that. The stream of jumbled praise and nitpicking you read above the edit-point is what's in my brain as I get home from the cinema. If I don't write that down before I go to bed, it's lost like the contents of an unsaved file when you power off a computer. There might be an auto-backup, but you can't rely on it containing everything you need. All you'd get the next day would be "Yeah, it's pretty good I suppose, apart from David Thewlis". If I take notes in the screening (yeah I'm sometimes that guy) then I've got that dark-room-scrawl as well I suppose, but it all just increases the gap between me watching a film and posting a review. I'm not made of time y'know, I've got a day-job in which to be unfulfilled... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁹ That said, Man of Steel was the first movie to make me actually interested in Clark Kent as a character, so maybe Diana could have done with more emotional conflict rather than physical. But not with Gal Gadot driving, one suspects... ^{[ 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.

Review: T2 Trainspotting (second-pass)

T2 Trainspotting (second-pass)
Cert: 18 / 117 mins / Dir. Danny Boyle / Trailer

"The world changes, eh? Even if we don't…"
~ Francis Begbie, T2.

It's always good when you can get a new experience from re-watching a film, and T2 Trainspotting is a fine example. After not knowing what to expect the first time round and being bombarded with the twenty years of catching up that Boyle, Hodge and Welsh throw at the audience, my second-pass was a quieter, even more isolating watch. Not more poignant exactly, but knowing the destination means you can enjoy the journey more and take in the scenery*¹.

Away from the attention-grabbing, gurning bromance between Ewan McGregor and Johnny Lee Miller, this is really Robert Carlyle and Ewen Bremner's film. Begbie and Spud are the half of the original gang who actually manage to achieve some level of advancement from everything that occurs. And while I'd initially thought the movie was beating nostalgia with a harsh stick (being a large part of the reason that Renton and Sickboy find themselves caught in the same failing behavioural loops), it became clear that a more focused, objective nostalgia is the very thing which allows Spud to move forward with his life. And while Begbie still has some way to go by the closing credits, his character develops more in those two hours than it has in his previous fifteen years.

Although on the subject of the former two, that the scene in the King William Arms where Renton and Sick Boy improvise a sectarian musical number in the process of robbing and entire pub is excruciating. Utterly masterful and utterly excruciating. An underhanded confidence-trick played once on the page, it's amplified through by the screenplay to become so unfeasible that it somehow just works completely. All the while underlining the character-flaws in everybody on the screen. T2 embodies a pastime which has been made more popular and accessible than ever in the twenty-first century: looking on in gleeful, satisfied awe at the poor decision-making of others, ignoring the quiet voice at the back of your brain reminding you that you're no better.

I can see this movie getting some serious play at my house...

Trainspotting, pretty much.



While you still can, yes.



It does.



Maybe not best of everyone involved, but certainly in the top-half of their CV.



Absolutely not.



There isn't.



Level 1: Obi-Wan Kenobi's in this.
Plus, at the end of the movie there's a kid outside Renton's childhood home playing with a toy lightsaber. A blue one as well, so I think it's safe to assume that's a self-referential easter-egg? I mean it'd be a bit weird for someone to bring that to the set and have it be Anakin's saber, wouldn't it?





*¹ That said… while I think we'd all agree that Irvine Welsh deserves a repeat appearance in this movie, you'd think that at some point in the last twenty years he'd have taken some acting lessons, no? And while I'm on, in that scene where Spud steps out of the boxing-gym and has a flashback looking down the road, the repeatedly alternating camera-angles make the continuity-gaffe with his sweatshirt (on/off his shoulder) glaringly obvious. And also while I'm on moaning, can someone have a gentle word with Danny Boyle and point out that soundtracking a film by hitting shuffle on your iPod only works if you have good taste in music to begin with? Much like its predecessor, T2's soundtrack features three good tunes and the rest is padded out with bland filler. Ridiculous. ^{[ 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.

Review: T2 Trainspotting

T2 Trainspotting
Cert: 18 / 117 mins / Dir. Danny Boyle / Trailer

"Nostalgia. That's why you're here. You're a tourist in your own youth…"
~ Simon 'Sick Boy' Williamson, T2.

If only all sequels were as self-aware. Packed with callbacks and flashbacks, director Danny Boyle, screenwriter John Hodge and author Irvine Welsh's long awaited sequel rolls into the station twenty one years after the last service. While the film is far from a rehash, it relies heavily on the dynamics (and clips) of its predecessor to exist. It also doesn't care whether that bothers you or not. With Renton (Ewan McGregor) back from his nervous exile in Amsterdam, Sick Boy (Johnny Lee Miller) now running his aunt's pub in Leith, Spud (Ewen Bremner) still struggling to stay off heroin and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) freshly out of prison, the boys are older but absolutely no wiser. As coincidence and desperation join forces to push the four back together again, Sick Boy's latest girlfriend/business partner Veronika (Anjela Nedyalkova) acts as the prism through which we get reacquainted. With scores to settle and new deals on the table, the boys are back in town…

This is, it has to be said, a film for fans of Trainspotting. As you might well expect. Occasionally too fixated on its predecessor for its own good, but that's all part of the forced nostalgia vibe, as quoted above. Not as much 'fun' as 1996 outing, but certainly not as prone to utter despair, either. This is the film that's realised it's apparently grown up and doesn't know how it's supposed to act, a feeling which will probably resonate with Generations X and Y in the audience. The screenplay borrows from Welsh's sequel novel Porno and retrospectively from Trainspotting without committing to being a true adaptation of either. As befits the characters we know and love/hate.

The four leads pick up the reins effortlessly, inhabiting their old personas with an ingrained weariness that is no doubt helped by twenty years of being a jobbing actor. Various secondary-characters from the first movie pop up, with screen-time not unlike that which they had the last time (I'm fairly certain they only feel so familiar to me because of how many times I've watched Trainspotting over the years). And threatening to outshine them all is the aforementioned Anjela Nedyalkova, but sadly we don't get to know Veronika as much as I'd have liked. Although given her role in the film, I suspect that's entirely intentional.

In T2*¹, echoes of a shared past rearrange into the mistakes of the present and regrets of the future. In any other film this could be lazy writing, but here it's a sign that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Like gangsters, psychopaths and monsters, we can spend time with this bunch of utter misfits in the cinema so that we don't have to associate with them in real life. Grinning at their excesses, wincing at their follies and laughing at their stupidity.

Compelling yet charmless; gloriously and selfishly nihilistic. T2 Trainspotting is, in the best way, a film which stopped giving a fuck two decades before it was made. Choose life, indeed...

Well let's be honest, Trainspotting.



If you want to see it, you'll want to see it a) big and b) loud and c) soon.



It does.



As much as I loved it, I'm not sure I'd go that far.



Hell, no.
This film is not for everybody.



There isn't.



Level 1: Obi-Wan Kenobi's in this.





*¹ Although while I'm on, what kind of title is "T2 Trainspotting", anyway? Obviously you can't properly market a film called 'Porno', but at least have a think about what rolls off the tongue, eh?

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.

Review: Get Santa

Get Santa
Cert: U / 102 mins / Dir. Christopher Smith




So writer/drector Christopher Smith's idea of a U-rated, 21st century Christmas Film™ is centered around a convicted criminal with repressed memory syndrome over a childhood encounter with an old man..? I suppose the only way to follow that up would be to set around half of the film in a men's prison, like a Christmas Special of Starred Up? Oh, I'm only joking. Well, that is also the film, but I'm only joking about it being in some way inappropriate. It's undeniably an odd choice for a festive flick, but Smith pretty much pulls it off.

Newly refreshed from a two-year holiday at Her Majesty's pleasure, getaway driver Steve Anderson (Rafe Spall) is anxious to reconnect with his young son Tom (Kit Connor), and strained relations with his estranged wife (Jodie Whittaker) don't help the situation any. Meanwhile, a herd of reindeer wandering around central London is reported on the TV news, and on the 23rd of December Tom spies a mysterious stranger (Jim Broadbent) in his garage, panicking about the loss of the herd and his sleigh. Could the man really be who he claims he is? And what will happen to Christmas if he's right..?

So all in all, the film's pretty good. Y'know, but. The structure itself is solid enough, but the narrative is in need of some repair. The screenplay can feel fairly clunky in that the central character is just released from prison largely because he needs the inside knowledge to spring Santa from that same prison later in the film, as does the fact that he drives a camper van largely because he'll need to transport a reindeer further down the line. Eyebrow-raisers like that wouldn't matter so much if this was a saccharine, feel-good festive flick, but the first act in particular has a layer of realism that you don't normally see in this type of film...

Despite the U-rating and the youthful co-star, Get Santa never really feels like a kids' movie. Spall has far more to do than his on-screen son, and while Steve undergoes some character development, the same can't be said of young Tom sadly, who just seems to complain and drag his dad from scene to scene. As a bonafide Christmas Film™, Tom should be the driving force of the story, but instead he's sidelined to being a sidekick.

It's also worth stating that with Tommy and Mullet from Snatch, and Cookie and Tank from RocknRolla, it feels a bit like a Guy Ritchie reunion flick at times. That's no bad thing, by the way, it's just how my mind works. But I get the feeling that had the script left Tom's character at home with his mum, ramped up the comic-violence and bad language and gone for a 15-cert, Get Santa could have been a much more satisfying film, somehow*¹. The film's got it where it counts, but it's only good where it could be great.

But you know what? Charming and funny as Christmas films go, Get Santa is pretty damned good. I don't think it'll become a classic, but everyone involved should be proud to have it on their CV.

It's also nicely underplayed, but I loved the ongoing theory that Santa has all the tools and methodology of a serial burglar. Rafe Spall and Jim Broadbent are fantastic, while Warwick Davis, Stephen Graham and Nonso Anozie are clearly having a whale of a time, and there aren't many films which could make six farting reindeer quite this endearing.

Some questions which aren't covered by section 7b, below:
• In 'Barber's solo-scene, how come he's watching the TV sitcom Porridge on Channel 4? They don't have the broadcast rights for that programme, do they? (Unless he's watching the film spin-off, but I'm fairly certain he wasn't; the tape/film-stock difference between the two is jarring, and would be evident even in an in-movie appearance)
• Not all of the reindeer are namechecked, but where the hell's Rudolph? Or is 'Get Rudolph' being lined up as a sequel?

The film's best references:
• It wouldn't be a prison comedy without a direct nod to The Shawshank Redemption.
• There's also a much smoother Back To The Future, 'I'm sorry it's not to scale' reference.
• Steve's son is called (and named in full by Santa as) Thomas Anderson, which is the 'civilian' name of Neo in The Matrix. Which would make white-bearded Santa The Architect, given his extensive knowledge about all of the other characters in the film. This could also go some way to explaining the reality-bending sequences, given that it's all a simulation. Admittedly, my brain may have made a connection here where there isn't one.

Get Santa's best line:
"Are you on medication? …Or worse, are you not on medication?"



In the warm, fuzzy moments; yes.



Mostly, I think.



As a Christmas Film™? Pretty much.



If you want to see it this year, cinema it is. Otherwise, this is a Sunday afternoon DVD with sherry and mince pies.



Nah.



I will. Although probably just at home with sherry and mince pies.



I thought I heard one when young Tom goes to investigate movement in his garden shed in the middle of the night; y'know, when there should have been an owl sound-effect. Unless it was a just combination of my tinnitus and the deafening volume-level in the auditorium, of course.

Do you know how often there's a full moon on Christmas Eve? Not often at all. So either a) the film takes place specifically in 1996 or 2007, or b) the moon is used as a narrative symbol to subconsciously illustrate to the audience that this is a work of fantasy, and that while the themes and ideals of the plot should be taken to heart, the actualities of the plot shouldn't.

Or c) having Santa's sleigh silhouetted against a full moon is just lazy screenwriting.

One of those.

*¹ Although at one point, a police officer does get reindeer-faeces blasted directly into her face on Christmas Eve. Directly. Although the screenplay doesn't address it, I think we all know that she's going to go blind by New Year...

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.

Review: Trainspotting

Trainspotting
Cert: 18 / 95 mins / Dir. Danny Boyle



So I received an e-mail the other week, from the lovely people at Vue, informing me of a special screening they were holding of a new film called 'Trainspotting'. I have to say that the quirky poster they attached was quite different from the staid, sober mood the title would suggest. With that, I was intrigued, and decided to pop along for a look.

Well, firstly, I should point out that this must have been a very exclusive screening, as Vue showed the film in the bijou Screen 10, and only eleven people had been invited to attend! There was an absolute minimum of fuss, and I wasn't asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, so I'm guessing Channel 4 Films are hoping that influential bloggers and social-networking types will spread word of mouth, ahead of general release. Obviously, I'll be only too happy to oblige.

Secondly, as it transpired, the film isn't about trainspotting at all (although I did catch a train to the cinema to see this, and there were some trainspotters on the platform. Viral marketing performance art?), but is actually about some Scotch heroin addicts! I did see two trains in the film, but the characters seemed to make no attempt to record either their model nor registration numbers. I'll assume they have those down in their books already. Although with all that skag coursing through their veins, who knows what their handwriting looks like?!?

The story follows Ewan McGregor's 'Mark' and his pasty chums as they get into an escalating series of scrapes around money, women and you've guessed it... heroin! I've seen Ewan before in a Star Wars film, but don't worry - his Scotch accent is almost impeccable. He is quite convincing. A rather nice touch, I thought, is that this is a period piece, set in the 1990's, and the fashion, music and branches of John Menzies add a layer of realism that really draws you in.

Although bleak at times (don't worry, the baby comes back later!), 'Trainspotting' is a real Boy's-Own romp that will keep audiences entertained and adrenalised from start to finish. Mark my words, publicity may be low-key now, but this is a cult-hit waiting to happen, and by the end of the summer I suspect you'll be hard pressed to find any serious film fan who hasn't at least heard of it.

Warning: features Keith Allen, albeit briefly, and two scenes of people with poo on their hands. I'll let you decide which is worse.

---

---

It makes the film look like a lot more fun than it often is, but yes.



Yes.



Yes. Which is to say it's more cohesive than the book.



Well, if you get the chance to revisit this at the cinema, it's well worth it, but the DVD/BRD should see you right.



Yes.



Yes.



No.

If / when the gang get back together to make a sequel, would you want it to incorporate (if not neccessarily follow) Welsh's sequel book, Porno?

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.