Looks like it's been shot on a hi-res webcam; sounds like it's been ADRd in a toilet; acted like it's an unsolicited showreel handed to Guy Ritchie in a busy pub; scripted like it's a first draft by a 17yr old who watches too many geezer movies and lives in rural Berkshire. Borrows so heavily from it's wannabe-contemporaries that the only idea it remembers to have of its own is to be fucking awful.
On the plus side, they did get a film made, and it's short. That's it.
Loses a point for employing Mark Renton's dad and apparently keeping him pissed for the entire shoot.
Loses a point for having the audacity to use two boot-shots.
Absolute shite.
The trailer looks like a semi-watchable Lock Stock rip-off. The film itself doesn't even reach those lofty heights.
Well, I did crack a smile at the asthmatic prostitute.
Not by a cockney mile.
Never watch this. Ever.
I will.
I fucking hope not.
Thankfully… thankfully, not.
Why, though? Why?
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 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• 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.
A selectively shot London of chrome and glass serves as the backdrop for an efficient, minimalistic thriller which focuses on a surprisingly linear*1 plot rather than character development*2. It works in this instance, but you wouldn't want all your films to be like it. Eran Creevy does a decent job of ramping up the tension, and an even better one of sustaining it; in the final twenty minutes, there really are no guarantees as to who'll walk away.
I could actually envision this film taking place in the same universe as last year's Sweeney (which I still stand by. What?). As with that film, …Punch isn't Guy Ritchie territory, and works all the better for it. James McAvoy and Mark Strong do the majority of the heavy lifting, albeit with very solid supporting roles from all around them. The script is as free from extraneous banter as it is from tertiary characters, and this leads to quite a claustrophobic atmosphere at times (the best example being a four-man shootout in a nightclub which has no punters and no music playing).
I can see why the film isn't for everyone (and even I wasn't convinced by the trailer), but it's great to be pleasantly surprised. Not as raucous as Rocknrolla, but not as downbeat as Harry Brown, Welcome To The Punch has an intensity that's not easily matched these days.
Largely.
Yes.
Yes.
…Cinema ideally, but DVD will still work.
No.
Yes.
YES!*3
*1 Which is to say that there is a structure to the events, but it doesn't waste the viewer's time with twists, turns and red herrings. The unfolding plot is revealed in one neat scene. This would never happen in the Hollywood version.
*2 Seriously, this is not a character-piece. The characters are fine, but you find out very little about them, and it doesn't really matter anyway.
*3 During the shootout at the container-yard. Get in!
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.
When a low-end mobster organises a robbery that leaves too many loose ends, enforcer Jackie Cogan (Pitt) is called in by the big boys to smooth things over. Unfortunately, that will mean ruffling even more feathers…
It seems like, in adapting the original novel for the screen, writer/director Andew Dominik has watched too many Tarantino movies. Brief bursts of visceral violence, with vast expanses of dialogue to expand the characters meting it out; Awkward silences, meaningful silences and threatening silences; Touches of humour, touches of humanity and touches of madness. All are present and correct, and yet something's not quite right. Lots of talking and an 'eclectic' soundtrack does not a Quentin, make.
Whilst all the stretches of conversation are competently written and delivered, I just didn't care either way about many of the characters. This is probably just as well, as toward the end of the film, a lot of them are seemingly abandoned with everything that's gone before cast aside with a brushing-of-the-hands. The worst offender in the show-don't-tell department is Gandolfini's New York Mickey, who arrives like an American version of Doug The Head, hogs the screen in building an interesting character and a great relationship with Pitt's Cogan, and is then discarded. In many respects, it feels like a 150-minute film hacked down to 97, but by the same measure, there are so many pauses that when the credits roll, you feel like you've been sat there for two and a half hours. Not a bad two and a half hours, by any stretch, but there should be more to it.
But. Despite my grumbling, I did enjoy Killing Them Softly. It doesn't get as convoluted as many of its genre-mates, and some of the cinematography here is nothing short of beautiful (I have rarely marveled, or indeed had such time to marvel, at someone being shot through the head). The referencing of the 2008 US presidential-election serves as a grounding for the film's timeline, as well as a reflection on the themes of the disintegration of America, with the nail being hit firmly on the head by Pitt's magnificent final line (which I won't spoil).
Killing Them Softly is another addition to this year's canon of 'Good, but not great' movies. Despite the fine work of everyone on-screen, the potential is there for it to be so much better.
Oh, and while it's nice that the casting director gave Ben Mendelsohn a part where he can drawl in his native Australian, Scoot McNairy seems to have trouble maintaining his American accent when he shares a scene with him. It could be intentional, of course, revealing a psychological weakness in the character of Frankie, but I doubt it, sadly. And while I'm on the subject, why does no-one in a film set in New Orleans sound like they're from New Orleans?
Beautifully filmed in some places, brilliantly scripted in others. It just struggles to do everything right at the same time.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
My heart sinks when I see the words 'Based on a true story'. It's usually reserved for sub-par horror movies and mid-afternoon made-for-TV melodramas. In the case of a historical drama, however, it's entirely forgivable. Particularly when the historical era in question was full of bent cops and machine guns...
It may be adapted from a novel, but Lawless feels like an absent-minded memoir. The whole film suffers from a meandering narrative that introduces characters, then forgets about them for half an hour or so while we focus on the minutiae of courting a preacher's daughter. Like listening to an old-timer telling a fascinating story about his youth but being constantly sidetracked by coincidental memories, it's as if it should make a good 12-part series, but too much has been lost in cutting it down to film-size (and yet, too much has also been left in).
Shia LaBeouf, Tom Hardy and Jason Clarke manage to just about rescue things as the Bondurant brothers, operating a moonshine business in the middle of the prohibition era. Guy Pearce overacts marvellously as Special Agent Rakes, determined to end their operation, and Gary Oldman is pretty much wasted as Floyd Banner, a gangster who is becoming the Bondurant's biggest customer. Everyone else is almost window-dressing, sadly, and when the story can't focus on those five characters for any length of time, the supporting cast stand no chance.
It's a real shame, because Lawless has the ingredients of a fine film; dry humour, likeable/hateable characters, moments of horrific violence, moments of genuine warmth. It looks fantastic, but it feels unfocused. With 30 minutes more than it needs, it ends up trying to cover too many bases, and comes out as merely good. With faster pacing and a tighter narrative, it could have been great.
Oh, and stop mumbling your fucking lines, you lot.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
I, erm, don't want to generalise about South American gangsters, but do you think it's a massive coincidence that the Bolivian gangster Diego Mendez from GTA: Vice City Stories (2006) bears more than a passing resemblance to the Mexican gangster Bigotón from El Mariachi (1992), at all?
Yeah... I think you probably already noticed, but you weren't going to say anything. Am I right?
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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 organizations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
