Gary Ross's female-led heist spin-off is a movie saved wholly by the likeability of its players. An entertaining if unadventurous adventure, Sandra Bullock's plot to liberate an obscene quantity of karats from the Met Gala isn't let down so much by its overall predictability, but lack of any real third act, cliff-edge danger.
Plenty smooth but with absolutely no weight, this screenplay corners like it's on rails. Not as witty, zippy or smart as a cast the fantastic deserves (the writing and the editing, basically), the gang nonetheless give it their all and just about win the audience's trust in return. And fair play to the physical acting chops of Bullock and Cate Blanchett, each wearing so much foundation that I'm amazed we were able to see their faces move.
Thoroughly undemanding and 12A-safe, check your disbelief in at the foyer and you'll have a much easier ride…
The previous Ocean's movies, I shouldn't wonder.
I haven't actually seen any of them. No agenda behind that, they just haven't crossed my path. And with the best will in the world, that isn't something I feel I now have to rectify.
Well the distributor of this movie has lined up a selection of pre-film adverts and trailers suggesting they believe that every woman in the land will flock to the cinema to see Ocean's 8 instead of watching The Football™. Not a completely unfair assumption, but a pretty patronising one. And given that tonight's sizeable audience was around one-third guys, it's not entirely accurate either.
Stream it, or wait to buy until it comes down in price.
Doubtful, although I'm sure we'll have an interesting conversation about Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter's accents apparently being stuck in Shop Demonstration Mode™.
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.
Who waits six years to release a sequel? That's way too long for a movie to seem like a much-needed follow up piece*1, but far to short a time to be intended as a revival of any sort. Not to worry, The House Of Mouse luckily managed to get Alice Through The Looking Glass in the can while the inimitable Mr Rickman was still with us, and even I'll admit that my eyes became more moist than usual at his first scene in this movie.
Where the 2010's Wonderland adaptation always seemed to be a faltering balancing act between the visions of Disney, Burton and Carroll, this part-sequel/part-prequel is a lot more focussed, building on what's come before with a brand new screenplay by Linda Woolverton (rather than trying to visually re-invent a world which didn't really need it). The production design is a lot more sure-footed this time around, and the established characters and settings are now the pieces for what is essentially a time-travel adventure movie. And while I'm certainly no expert on Carroll's original stories, that's handled in a way which fits seamlessly into the newly Burtonised Wonderland.
What will also raise eyebrows among the purists is the number of action sequences in the film that feel like levels from a video-game adaptation. Not necessarily what I'd expect from a piece with such literary origins, but there are also much more subtle hat-tips to both Back To The Future and Blade Runner (which I'm always up for).
The performers are on solid form (a pleasantly surprising range for Mr Depp, and Mia Wasikowska is great as usual), even if a lot of the secondary characters seem shoehorned in for the sake of perceived continuity. And while Sacha Baron Cohen sticks largely to playing Sacha Baron Cohen™, his part itself as the personification of time is as intricate as the clockwork mechanism he's made of. Unfortunately as the film nears its climax, the plot tries to become more complex but only succeeds in being louder and more chaotic as a result.
I'm not entirely sure if Looking Glass is a 'better' film than Alice in Wonderland but I definitely found it more interesting, which counts for a lot. That said, the final fifteen minutes or so are needlessly, horrifically mawkish; the sort of thing I thought Disney had left behind now. In screenwriting terms, it all appears to be the satisfying finale which wraps up the audience's hopes and expectations, but in the cinema, it comes off more as a self-congratulatory group hug for a relatively well-executed idea.
Ultimately, Alice Through The Looking Glass wasn't aimed at me. While I was neither bored nor annoyed, I'll have pretty much forgotten about it tomorrow. Make of that what you will…
Well, Alice in Wonderland, let's be honest.
Only if you're a fan. In which case, you probably already will have.
Just about.
Sadly not.
Probably not.
Pretty sure there's not.
Level 1: This movie stars none other than Lindsay 'TC-14' Duncan and Richard 'Bravo Six' Armitage, both from The Phantom Menace.
And while I'm on the subject, an honourable mention has to go to this fella on the right-hand side in the church scene (I think it's Frederick Warder playing Poomally, but please correct me if I'm wrong), for inadvertently pulling off the best Doctor-Who-era Peter 'Tarkin' Cushing I've ever seen:
*1 Not least since the events of the film (before all the time-travelling, at any rate) take place three years after the previous one, suggesting the screenplay had been in development-limbo for some considerable time.
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.
A decent-sized crowd was seated for the opening night of Sarah Gavron's Suffragette on its opening night, and if it can draw those numbers on traditionally-quiet Monday, it bodes well for both the box-office and exposure of the film. And for obvious reasons, Suffragette deserves every bit of that exposure as An Important Film™ which manages to convey its message without preaching or shaming. I could name several directors who could learn a lot from this, one of whom had a film in the trailers beforehand.
Focusing on the women's suffrage movement in 1912 and its transition from verbal persuasion to physical activism, the screenplay stays at 'street level', following the Suffragette's escalating protests from stones through shop windows, to (non-fatality-inducing) explosives and the unintentional death of Emily Wilding Davison at the Epsom Derby in 1913. It's a relatively short timespan to cover in the life of the organisation but the film knowingly treats it as one step forward, from being a source of gossip and disapproval to an unequivocal force in British politics.
Now as we live in (relatively) liberal times, it would be easy to make the film a mawkish and self-congratulatory history lesson, whereby the audience could leave all feeling very pleased that the battle's won and everyone's now equal (…). Instead, screenwriter Abi Morgan raises fascinatingly uncomfortable questions about the morality of the Suffragette's techniques. It's easy for 2015's audience to know that the movement wanted the right thing for the right reasons, but in our current climate it's not easy to say how far we'd go to achieve the same level of persuasion. Placards and breaking shop-windows are on one level, but when an organised group uses explosives to gain political recognition (irrespective of injuries/fatalities), you'd be hard pushed to argue that it hasn't branched into terrorism.
The 't'-word seems very extreme of course, but so were the Suffragette's actions in the early 20th century. Even the same deeds in 2015 of detonating devices inside post-boxes would attract major media attention. As the Suffragette's aims at the time were seen as utterly outlandish by the establishment, their actions were treated with equal incredulity. As mentioned above; all the right things, for all the right reasons - but what's the right way of going about it? However, it's a train of thought that the film only pushes in its second act, and which then gives way to the ongoing historical plot.
The only real drawback I found is that Suffragette isn't particularly cinematic. Don't get me wrong, it looks absolutely fantastic with all the grit and grime you'd expect of London's East End in 1912, but it looks like fantastic television. This isn't to disparage TV necessarily, especially in this day and age, but the film has the tight-shots and restrictive feel of a Sunday night drama. As it turns out, the subject matter of the film itself helps to carry this off, but there's always the feeling that the message is grander than the medium. The final scenes are a painful victory, and the film ends with archive footage of the funeral procession of Emily Wilding Davison through London's packed streets. Footage which, if I'm being honest, I found more affecting than the preceding film.
But obviously it's still very, very good.
[ Actually, the only real bugbear I had with the film is the speech that Meryl Streep gives as Emmeline Pankhurst to the amassed crowd from her balcony window. There's some quite horrific ADR at work here, and while the dialogue has been painstakingly matched, it's clear that the passion and determination we hear in her voice weren't there when the scene was filmed, as her facial movements just don't match. And it's a real shame because Streep is one of the finest actresses working, but it takes the wind out of the film's sails a little when it looks like she's miming to her own speech. ]
It's worth paying to see, but whether that's full-whack at the cinema will be up to you.
Cheap-Tuesdays, if you're unsure.
A one to buy but again, once it drops in price.
Helena Bonham Carter and Carey Mulligan are awards-worthy, here.
Everyone else doesn't quite have enough to do.
Absolutely.
A little.
Although it depends what we're disagreeing on.
There isn't.
Suffragette stars Meryl Streep, who also appeared in 1990's Postcards From The Edge, which was written by Carrie 'Last Princess of Alderaan' Fisher.
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 the BBFC card vanished from the screen today and the Steamboat Willie ident appeared in its place, I actually got a little tingle. Not the one I get when I hear the Marvel Studios fanfare, obviously, but a buzz nonetheless. Disney's recent efforts (with one notable exception) have entertained me greatly and built up a reputation that's going to be difficult to sustain, surely?
Well, the in-built precursor to Cinderella is an animated spin-off/featurette, Frozen Fever, reuniting the central characters for seven minutes; enough time to set up the premise and wedge in a musical number. It's quite fun, even though it feels rushed somehow (and Princess Elsa seems to have become more powerful than any Jedi in her telekinetic ice-wielding powers). An array of miniature snowmen are introduced, sneezed into existence by the cold-ridden Elsa, and they're incredibly cute (read: marketable), although you've also got to remember that they're essentially frozen snot ;)
And with the b-movie (in the nicest sense) over, the live-action retelling of an old Disney favourite began, and my inner-cynic made himself comfortable with a glint in his eye. As events transpired, the cynic wasn't there for long, because Cinderella is really good. There. I said it. With the studio, cast and director playing to their strengths, it's outstanding at being a good old-fashioned Disney Princess Film™, and that's the important thing here. During the setup first act, the format feels occasionally anachronistic, with recent Disney entries like Frozen and Maleficent pushing the princess-story into new territory. But these film's can't achieve what they do without having the core methodology as their counterpoint, of course, and 2015's Cinderella is Disney reminding the audience that they basically invented the genre anyway (at least cinematically).
While it could certainly be said that the film doesn't push the envelope in any way, shape or form, it's only fair to note that it never feels the need to. With the story already locked and loaded, the performers have a solid sense of direction, and leading, supporting and cameo roles alike are confident and focussed. Lily James is the perfect casting for Ella, supported by Cate Blanchett, Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera as her manipulative step-family, riding the line between horrible and pitiful with ease.
Although as earnest (and innuendo-free) as the first act is, it can't escape from the fact that between the 1950 animated film and the 2015 live-action iteration, Cinderella has become more of a pantomime-favourite than a fairytale one, and the Brit-centric cast reinforces this wholesale. Although they do, for the most part, play their roles completely straight, making for a stronger film as a result. The two exceptions to this are Rob Brydon, who's been cast in the role of Rob Brydon In A Hat™, and Helena Bonham Carter, whose role as the fairy godmother requires her to wear a set of prosthetic teeth so tremendously fierce that they prevent any part of her face above them from moving, making her look like she's been using botox as a moisturiser, somehow. And Richard Madden's research for his performance as The Prince appears to have been locking himself in a room with a copy of David Essex's showreel DVD. The man's one neckerchief away from going full rogue…
Oh, and [Facetiousness - highlight to read]: I'd thought that Ella's mum's advice in the trailer had lost its meaning in the edit, but that really is what she tells her. "Have courage and be kind" is hardly 'a secret', is it? Solid guidance, yes. Good life-advice, even. But it's not a secret. In fact, if "have courage and be kind" sees you dying of consumption before your 35th birthday while your husband spends a suspicious amount of time abroad, is it really a secret worth heeding? But there's my inner-cynic rising to the surface, again. And trust me, by the second act of Cinderella, my inner-cynic was all but defeated, lying on the shore gasping for air, too weak to take the piss out of the film. [/Facetiousness]
Under Kenneth Branagh's fantastic direction which keeps things from descending into silliness, Cinderella is great at being Cinderella, and while it may not be a creative interpretation in the mould of Maleficent, it at least makes some reparation for the farce that was Into The Woods.
If your miniature humans are pestering you to take them to a movie over the Easter holidays and you can't palm them off with a DVD, this is the one.
If you're in the target demographic or you just like well-made films, yes.
For its audience, it'll be a buyer.
I shouldn't think so, but everyone involved can proudly wield it on their CV, yes.
Undoubtedly.
Not particularly.
Not that I heard.
Wicked stepmother Cate Blanchett starred as Galadriel in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies, alongside Sir Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.
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.
