Pan (3D)
Cert: PG / 111 mins / Dir. Joe Wright / Trailer
Did you know that "James Hook" is an anagram of "Han Solo"? Well according to Garrett Hedlund, it is. In fact, there's so much of the Corellian smuggler in his portrayal of Hook that there's barely room to top it up with Indiana Jones; to the point where Hedlund's outfit may as well consist of a t-shirt featuring a head-shot of Harrison Ford. But wait, I'm ahead of myself…
And so, director Joe Wright firmly grasps the wheel of the Warner Bros. ship, bound for a prequel/origins-tale of Peter Pan. Beginning during the Second World War*1, the story follows young orphan Peter as he's abducted by flying clown-pirates and taken to Neverland to mine for crystallised Fairy-Dust™, a substance which serves as the elixir of life to the megalomaniacal pirate overlord, Blackbeard. All the while, hints of Peter's lineage and glimpses of his destiny are revealed, as the journey introduces the friends and foes which will define his life to come.
First things first, Pan looks fantastic*2, and the action set-pieces of the film are executed magnificently. Levi Miller carries the weight of the title-role easily and Rooney Mara is great as warrior-princess, Tiger Lily, his accomplished and intriguing counterpart in Neverland. But it's Hugh Jackman who appears to be having the most fun as Blackbeard, bringing the pompous-camp to the film in full-force, like a matter-transporter mashup of Frank N. Furter and Emperor Palpatine (with the Darth Vader rejuvenation chamber, but I'll get on to that). There's also a spot of product-placement for Fray Bentos, which is something you won't see in too many movies this year. Outstanding work.
The film's stumbling blocks are twofold, however. Most noticeably that Pan borrows far too heavily from other action/adventure/fantasy movies, even if it is a Hero's Journey story. Now my brain is always looking for visual nods to the Galaxy Far, Far Away anyway, but I swear that so many of Pan's beats come from Star Wars that it's barely got time for the Pirates Of The Caribbean tropes it wants to employ. It's honestly no exaggeration to say that either by character archetypes, recurring themes and plot points, or just the action sequences themselves, I was reminded of Star Wars every two-to-three minutes. And it certainly didn't make me enjoy Pan any less, but I don't even get that many Star Wars references when I'm watching Star Wars.
More disconcertingly, the screenplay seems to ignore the central themes of the established Peter Pan mythos, reasoning that they just haven't occurred yet so how can they be important? The film goes a long way to establish the How of the classic story that it ends up leaving the Why to future instalments*3 of this particular strand. The original Peter is a tragic figure who, although helping others through acts of heroism, petulantly refuses to grow up and adapt. And how do you develop a character who by their very definition resists change and urges their contemporaries to follow suit? None of these issues are even hinted at in Pan, meaning sequels to this film will either get a hell of a lot darker, or will just ignore the original subtext completely.
Visually, Joe Wright's entry to the canon is a finely executed fantasy adventure movie, but thematically its reach exceeds its grasp, somewhat. There are slightly too many knowing, post-modern winks for the film to be the classical adventure it aspires to, but Wright also relies too heavily on good old-fashioned derring do for this to be a fresh take on the mythos.
In terms of sheer entertainment however, this film is a notable success.
While I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call Pan the cinematic equivalent of fast-food, it's certainly a meal which has been prepared by looking at the menus of other restaurants…
For the casual audience, yes. Although fans of J.M. Barrie may want to wait for the home-release, to save them being thrown out of the cinema for yelling "You're doing that WRONG!" during the performance…
You'll lose a lot of the visual impact watching this at home, but it'll be a one to buy and watch back-to-back with other adaptations of the mythos, if only for contrast, not comparison..
Levi Miller's performance is occasionally heavy on the "child actor" front, but he handles the part very well and I look forward to seeing him in future roles. Or even just future-takes on this one.
Mythologically/thematically? Not particularly.
Nope.
Not that I heard, but I'd be amazed if there isn't one buried somewhere.
In addition to my opening snark above, Pan features Garett Hedlund, who appeared in Inside Llewyn Davis along with Oscar 'Poe Dameron Isaac and Adam 'Kylo Ren' Driver.
*1 In a move which may well boil the piss of continuity-hounds everywhere. My knowledge of the Peter Pan story itself is fuzzy admittedly, but I was under the impression it's set about forty years before this movie in late-Victorian times, and it's also heavily implied that Peter knew Wendy's mother when she was a little girl. Now, the film does establish that Neverland is dimensionally set aside from Earth-time, and that there are children 'from all places and times' there. And yet, I didn't notice anyone asking where all the Playstations are, or making jokes about Kim Kardashian. So if the film eventually segues into Peter Pan as is implied by the opening narration, you'll have a boy from one decade bringing a child from an earlier one into a timeless realm which nevertheless has its own chronological continuity, whilst also knowing her mother from a time earlier still, when he took her to the same place after the events of the Pan film. A place where they sing a capella Nirvana and Ramones songs (no, seriously). Frankly, it's a space-time continuum disaster waiting to happen. But not to worry; thematically, the film has far bigger issues which it's completely ignoring ;)
*2 Although for some reason the animation of the mermaids looks utterly dreadful. Like someone's printed a picture of Cara Delevingne's face onto a sheet and waved it about underwater...
*3 That's not me being cynical, by the way. This film is definitively written as the opening-chapter of a series, rather than a one-off standalone prequel. Besides, when was the last time you watched a 21st century family adventure movie which wasn't geared up for sequels?
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.
Unbroken Cert: 15 / 137 mins / Dir. Angelina Jolie
It's comforting, at least, to know that there was once a generation (ie pre-1975) which wasn't inherently terrified of sharks. Stranded across two inflatable life-rafts in the Pacific ocean, the three servicemen in Angelina Jolie's new film Unbroken react to the sight of fins protruding above the surface in the way that you or I would to a wasp buzzing at the window. The audience winces at this new layer of imminent danger, whilst two of the stranded airmen try to repair punctures in the raft whilst the third one smacks a shark over the head with an aluminium paddle as if it had tried to steal a biscuit. Bravo.
It's this combination of stark danger and reserved practicality that best sums up the film, following 1936 Olympic athlete Louis Zamperini as he enlists to serve the allied forces during the second world war and ends up, as I've intimated, adrift in the ocean with two loyal comrades, three hungry sharks, and a dwindling chance of survival. Although rescue finally arrives, it's in the shape of a Japanese battle-cruiser, and Zamperini finds himself captured as a prisoner-of-war. And I don't know whether you've heard this or not, but the Japanese forces didn't have a particularly shining reputation in their duty of care towards their prisoners.
Unbroken's main strength lies in the performances of Jack O'Connell and Takamasa Ishihara, with fine support from Domnhnall Gleeson, Finn Wittrock and Luke Treadaway. Jolie's tight direction gets the best out of her cast without turning it into a pantomime (with the exception I'll mention in a minute), although the film does a better job of capturing the unending misery of the war, rather than the outright horror. From the blistering airborne dogfight with sepia-toned childhood flashbacks, to the quiet tension of the life-raft sequence, to the bloody-eyed despair of the Japanese POW-camp (the make-up and effects teams on top form here), each section is magnificent in its own way although I did often feel as if it was three films stitched hurriedly together. Whether this intentionally represents the fact that the war becomes everything in the lives of its combatants, or whether it's just a choppily assembled adaptation of the original book, I can't say. I'd hope for the former.
[ As a side-note, I have to say how impressed I was at the film's opening dogfight as we seem to have come full circle in terms of direction and editing. For the Death Star assault in Star Wars, George Lucas famously cut together a test-run from old war movie footage; the opening twenty minutes of Unbroken, in which a squadron of US bombers are attacked by ground and air forces against a sharp blue sky, looks for all the world like it could be from The Clone Wars. Bravo. Again. ]
So while the film certainly makes no bones about illustrating what Zamperini went through, I didn't get the impression that he was being singled out for much more 'punishment' than his fellow prisoners especially (I only mention this because that's how the film had been described to me). The treatment he receives is beyond harsh, certainly, but so was everyone's, and we obviously spend more time with Zamperini as it's his story. While it's clear that his Japanese officer nemesis Watanabe, 'The Bird', put Louis through the ringer, you still get the impression that he was an absolute arsehole to all and sundry, as and when he felt like it. In this respect, Unbroken almost becomes more about the POWs as a group, and that almost works in its favour…
…because it had all been going so well until the final twenty minutes, when the climactic stare-down between Zamperini and Watanabe is accompanied by silent, slack-jawed onlookers, a Spielberg-esque 'Music Score Telling You What To Feel', and is only one step away from a slow-hand-clap ending. The film layers on so much unnecessary, synthetic Cheese™, that I thought the US bomber which cruises victoriously overhead was going to be trailing a Dairylea banner behind it. It's not a deal-breaker, but it's so out of kilter with what's gone before it that it feels like last-minute interference from exec producers.
But as a whole, Unbroken is a far better film than its final reel, and the craft of the storytelling overcomes the hurdles of the Hollywood tick-boxes. I'm not even entirely sure the story needed to be told, but I'm still very glad it was. It's also head and shoulders above others in its class, and the only real issues I had with the film were just that: mine.
If you don't mind dampening your festive spirit with a gruelling, if uneven, true story, Unbroken might just be the film for you…
For the most part, although the childhood flashbacks don't make up the same percentage of the film as they do the trailer.
For the most part.
It tells Zamperini's story expertly; so in that respect, yes.
Other than the opening dogfight, you won't lose too much by watching this at home.
I won't.
I will, but probably not for a while.
There isn't. FOR SHAME.
Will I get away with white-washing a milk bottle to surreptitiously drink gin out of while I'm at work?
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.
Inside Llewyn Davis (second-pass)
Cert: 15 / 105 mins / Dir. Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
So after what probably seemed like a lukewarm review, I decided to watch Inside Llewyn Davis again before it gets relegated to afternoon showings next week. The good news is, it's just as mesmerising the second time around (perhaps more so, as the spiralling narrative of the film feels even more like a recurring dream). The rhythms of Llewyn's opportunity, ineptitude and regret are almost soporific, in the much same way that Davis himself finds it impossible to break the cycle of his behaviour. Oddly, the inevitability of his failures remains consistent however many times you watch the film. C'est la vie.
If there's a downside, it's that I didn't really gain that much from watching the film again; I'd hoped that I could lay the plot on the back seat and focus more on everything else, but it's either everything I caught last week, or so far beyond me that I'm never going to get it (the more likely option). It's not that the film is mysterious, more that it's magnificently subtle. That said, I had more fun with the secondary characters this time around, especially knowing in advance how they work in isolation of one another.
I was initially unsure about the opening and closing motifs, and having watched the film again am now even moreso. It's not something I'll go into here, but if you want to get symbolic, come and have a chinwag over at the Facebook page. I look forward to you bending my brain...
Inside Llewyn Davis is a fiendishly interesting film, although while there's plenty for me to like, I can't bring myself to outright love it. I probably don't need to see this again for some time now, and when I do return, it'll be largely for the soundtrack. It's a film I'd recommend, but for when you're in a contemplative mood.
And yes, that does sound massively self-indulgent. It's a Coen Bros film, after all ;)
Yeah.
As much as I was ever going to, yes.
Now, I think it probably does.
It's a night in with a bottle of red.
No.
Yeah.
No.
So. Coen Bros. Where's a good place to start?
Haven't been able to latch onto anything I loved. I didn't like True Grit, but I thought No Country… was okay (just not 'my thing'). A couple of other films of theirs I've tried and failed with, but am willing to have another go. So, where do I start?
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.
I won't lie to you, the first time I saw the trailer for Inside Llewyn Davis was with Mrs Blackout, and afterward we looked at each other and I mouthed "what?". This happens more often than is good for anyone, but it's rare that repeat viewings of a trailer actually sell me a film. Nonetheless, by the time today's showing rolled around, I was quite looking forward to it, not least because I'd also heard an interview with the directorial brothers on 5Live, laying the pitch for the narrative and the themes, rather than just the setting. Oh yeah, The Themes. This film has The Themes. It doesn't beat you over the head with them per se, but you should be prepared to understand that you're seeing Llewyn Davis' version of events*1, not that you'll see any other.
The film's soundtrack and Oscar Isaac (responsible for a large percentage of that soundtrack) do the heavy lifting, thematically speaking. Most of the other characters are totems of the various facets of Davis' personality, since we only see them from his point of view, and they very rarely interact with one another. The narrative is needfully meandering, as again, it's essentially Davis telling the story, and it reflects his haphazard lifestyle.
Bruno Delbonnel's soft-focused camera lends the film a dream-like quality, tranquil and disconnected even in its more emotionally traumatic moments. Quiet, introspective and borderline hypnotic, I think this is how I'm supposed to feel about all Coen Bros films. I think I understood it*2; I think I enjoyed it. But I've been wrong on both counts in the past, so let's chalk it up quietly as a success*3.
Inside Llewyn Davis is as centered and driving as its eponymous character, and is a better film for it. I'm fairly confident I'll get more out of it on repeat viewings, but I'm happy to let it bed in for a while, first.
Yeah, mostly.
…I think I did.
Probably. Maybe. I don't really know.
It's quite an 'intimate' film, so it wouldn't hurt to watch it at home.
Nah.
I will.
There isn't.
Is F. Murray Abraham just, like, not ageing or something?
*1 You knew that anyway from the title though, right? Yeah. Good.
*2 Not withstanding the cinematic devices used to tell the story, I know nothing about 1960's folk music, other than the fact that there are 'real world' references in here that I didn't fully get; I just knew they were there.
*3 Me enjoying a Coen Bros film, I mean. Not the film. The film's a success irrespective of how much I get it, I know that much.
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.
