Stuber Cert: 15 / 93 mins / Dir. Michael Dowse / Trailer
Y'know not long from now, using Uber as a plot-point in your movie is going to look about as cool as a MySpace reference. Tread carefully, writers. Anyway, Stuber is what happens when you put two supporting actors in leading roles*1 and hope that the goodwill of the audience will fill any gaps.
DRIVER Kumail Nanjiani plays Stu, an unassuming Uber driver (this is the joke, do you see? Stu. Uber. 'Stuber'. Do you see?) and sporting-goods store clerk who wants to run his own fitness studio. Dave Bautista plays Vic, an bullish yet efficient police officer who is recovering from laser eye-surgery, meaning he can't drive his own car. Vic books a car via the aforementioned app, and Stu ends up being his unwitting partner in law-enforcement for the day. As this odd couple learn to get along, each realises that the other is exactly what they need right now, and of course there's plenty of ha-ha-hilarity along the way! Also, a lot of people get shot in the face.
Well, if you're in the market for an hour and a half of gunfire and wide-eyed shrieking, your cab has arrived. Apparently Dave Bautista myopically bumping into shit is the new 'Kevin James Falls Over For An Hour And A Half'. When it's being a lightheared actioner, Stuber is just about passable. When the movie is being an outright comedy it really struggles. Which is odd, because both of its starts can do comedy, they're just choosing not to. There's more grunting and tyre-screeching than dialogue in this movie, and Dave still has too many lines. The reason Drax worked is because he didn't say that much.
METRO The frustrated bickering between the two leads means the film squeaks past the six-laugh-test, but only just. In many ways it's a shame that director Michael Dowse is such a fan of bad language and gratuitous headshots, because at heart this is a kids' comedy*2. A buddy-cop movie where only one of them is the cop, this isn't awful but it's certainly unapologetic Filler™. Failing whenever it tries to take itself too seriously (so the first and third acts, basically), the number of quips in the trailer that don't make it into the final cut suggest thousands of miles of B-roll footage (not to mention slack direction). Pity the film's editor, if nothing else.
The likeability of its cast isn't enough to save Stuber, but it may just be enough to elevate it to 'conveniently forgettable'…
Well put it this way, I see Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg have stopped returning 20th Century Fox's calls...
*1"Oh" you exclaim, "Kumail Nanjiani isn't a supporting actor, he was the main dude in The Big Sick!". Yes. This is precisely my point, thank you. [ 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.
Well credit where it's due, there aren't too many mainstream movies these days which depict disabilities in a way that isn't heavy handed or a 'look at me' feature. Mile 22 has a leading character in the shape of James Silva (played here by Mark 'Wahlberg' McMark), a US government black ops assassin who coincidentally has a genius level IQ, no social skills and a form of high-functioning autism meaning he finds it difficult to focus his thoughts in one particular direction. We see our hero constantly trying to keep control of his brain and his temper, and prevent them whizzing off in a dozen different directions at once. What's more, the film also appears to have been written, shot and edited by people with that same condition.
There's not a single cut in here longer than four seconds, and the vast majority aren't even half of that. Mile 22 is like having a 94-minute panic attack in Curry's TV display-area while being talked down by Roseanne Barr and Seth MacFarlane. Wahlberg spends half his screentime irately repeating other characters' dialogue back at them, and the other half muttering or yelling unintelligible rubbish, the latter being a technique shared by many members of the cast in reciting a script which doesn't seem to matter.
John Malkovich tries his hardest not to look embarrassed in the best/worst wig since Nic Cage in Ghost Rider. John's only reassuring thought is that in a cutaway 'control room' role, he could still maybe persuade his agent to have the performance removed in post-production for a get-out fee, or if it was conveniently discovered he'd Done A Spacey. You didn't pay (or harass) them enough mate, they left you in.
Some deft choreography (or what you can see of it anyway) and a couple of nice action sequences aside, this film has no idea what it wants to say or how it should be said. It's like a Sicario fan-fiction written by a 13yr old. Cinematic gibberish. Although frankly, I've seen worse; it's me that should know better.
In addition to the regular seven-question roundup, here's a pro/con breakdown of what to expect from Mile 22...
✔ It's fast-paced action-thriller featuring Lauren Cohan. ✖ Although its main star is the solid brass charisma-vacuum, Mark Wahlberg. ✔ It's got the magnificent Iko Uwais in it. ✖ Whose skills you won't see properly because of the editing. ✔ It's got MMA/UFC champion and Judo Olympic medalist Ronda Rousey in it. ✖ Who gets to display almost no hand-to-hand fighting. ✔ It's about the US secret service, so plenty of shootouts. ✖ Accompanied by plenty of po-faced flag-waving*1 and blinkered moralising. ✔ It's got an 18-rating because of All The Violence. ✖ Then again, so has the batshit-crazy American Assassin. ✔ At 96 minutes, it's short and punchy. ✖ So is cholera.
Still, that's next year's Academy Award for 'Laziest Father's Day DVD' in the bag...
I'll level with you, I was going to score this 3/7.
but reading back everything I've written, I really can't…
*1 Although to be fair, I don't think I saw a single actual stars-and-stripes in the whole movie (not that my eyes had that much time to take in the set-dressing), which for a Wahlberg/Berg collaboration is previously unheard of. Hey, maybe it wasn't the flags which were ruining those flicks after all! In fact, it's almost as if America™ exists on a purely metaphorical level here. Then again, with Chinese production company Huayi Brothers co-producing the movie, it's just as likely that The Suits want this political thriller to be as non-political as possible for the 2018 global marketplace.
Russia gets a mark against its name in the script, but even that jibe has a lame moral cop-out justification. [ 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.
The thing that hits you in the first twenty minutes of Berandal is how much more 'talky' the film is than its predecessor. Whereas 2012's Redemption was a very linear affair, there's a concerted effort this time at building a bonafide reason for the upcoming carnage. That said, the location settings do often feel like a screenwriter saying "but he needs to be in a prison so that we can have a prolonged fight in a muddy prison yard!", and the plot becomes far more involved (and sometimes contrived) than feels strictly necessary.
The fight-scenes are utterly spectacular, of course, and the skill of the cast is matched only by that of the cinematographers Matt Flannery and Dimas Imam Subhono in making sure that every kick, punch, slap and gunshot is described perfectly on-screen. There is none of the fast-cut chaos of Hollywood on display here, and you can almost feel each blow connecting with its recipient. Naturally there are many shots (both in the cinematic, and firearm sense) in the film which can't be carried out 'for real', and the effects teams work here is flawless. Well, I imagine it's flawless, but I don't have a lot of experience with watching people's heads get blown apart at point blank range. Their work is certainly convincing at any rate.
Of course, the film and its director aren't so much of an unknown quantity this time around, so audience expectation is far higher. In many ways, The Raid 2 is infinitely more nuanced than Evan's previous outing, but I do think that it comes at the expense of the constantly flowing adrenaline. This is a better film, perhaps, but not a better movie. At the risk of sounding like a complete heathen, there's far too much dialogue in Berandal (not to mention subtitles that don't stay on-screen long enough to be read), but to be fair, you won't be going to watch this for the witty banter (although there is a little). While the fight-choreography is amazing, the duration of the 'setup' scenes seems far too lengthy, and while it's admirable that this sequel is trying (and succeeding) to operate on a higher level, the film feels distinctly episodic (as it covers around two and a half years, as opposed to the one day of The Raid), and left me feeling like I'd watched four episodes of a TV series back to back. The film's director Evans has already proved he can tell a compelling story and keep the momentum sustained, but I don't think he quite manages it this time.
Iko Uwais brings the wide-eyed, yet resigned, determination to the game once again, and is similarly fantastic, as is Yayan Ruhian ("Mad Dog" from the first film, who I could have could have sworn died in that one, but it has been a while since I watched it, and the IMDB page suggests he plays a different character), even though he seems to have been given his brief role out of courtesy, rather than plot necessity. Also very much 'on the radar' in this film is Julie Estelle, listed only as "hammer girl". There are few things more simultaneously foreboding yet amusing than watching a hot chick retrieve two claw hammers from her bag on a crowded tube-train and stare menacingly down the other end of the carriage. The only thing better than this is watching her use them. Other gleefully violent scenes in the film utilise a baseball bat, a restaurant hotplate and a motorcycle helmet. I'm sure you get the idea.
But as I said, there's a lot to cover in this film, and considering the story is still centered around Rama and his quest to cleanse the city of corruption, we don't seem to spent a great deal of time in his company. Rama is one of the seemingly incorruptible characters in the story, and amongst all the human filth we encounter, it's great to see a protagonist focused on his righteous goal without seeming patronising at all.
The Raid 2 is far too long, and although it's filled with amazing martial arts skills, doesn't top its predecessor for sheer adrenaline. That said, it's still the best action film you'll see this year. A little bird tells me there's a limited number of prints in the UK (although I don't know why, in this digital age), so if it's on at your cinema, go and see it.
Best line: "Suck it up… don't fuck it up."
For the action, yes, for the plot, no.
I winced a lot. Although not as much as the chap in the row behind who pretty much sucked his teeth and whispered "Shi-i-i-i-t" for the duration.
It does, but I'm not sure that's what's needed.
Big. Loud. Noisy. Cinema.
Nah.
I will.
I didn't hear one, but there's a lot of screaming in this, so it wouldn't surprise me if I missed it.
How long's The Raid 3 going to be? They'll have to put an intermission in it at this rate…
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.
Watching The Raid a second time, after reading reviews and hearing an interview with the director, it's a much more paced film than I'd thought. A second-pass doesn't lessen the impact of the on-screen violence at all, but it does allow you to concentrate on the performances of the central characters. I know how that sounds, but bear with me…
Shooty-Shooty-Bang-Bang, we love you… I was pretty much overloaded last Friday, as was my brother-in-law tonight when he saw it for the first time, but there are levels of subtlety in The Raid that aren't immediately apparent when you're still trying to keep count of how many people have been killed. The face-off between Jaka and Mad Dog is somehow more poignant when you know how it's going to end. As lengthy as the fight is, you see that Mad Dog takes next-to-no actual hits. He's toying with Jaka like a cat with a half-dead bird. The Zen-like state he goes into at the end of the fight carries a lot more weight when you watch it back again. The same can also be said of Mad Dog's fight with Rama and Andi a little later. He's quite comfortably holding his own against the pair of them when you watch where the blows are landing. Which is another great thing about The Raid: for all the handheld camerawork and rapid cutting between shots, you never once lose track of what's happening in a fight. The film has been made by people who understand the art of Pencak Silat intimately.
Rama-Tama Ding Dong… But the main thing that struck me (if you'll pardon the expression) when I watched the film a second time, is that this isn't real. Not that you'd know it from what you're seeing, but this is a film, with actors, stunt actors, effects artists and crew members. How proficient do you need to be in an art where you can perform at that level, with that degree of authenticity, and not hospitalise everyone else on-screen? Stunt-falling is one thing, but there are angles-of-limbs shown in The Raid that really shouldn't occur in a safe environment. That said, I bet there were some absolutely corking bruises acquired in the making of the film.
The violence may not be your thing, but you have to appreciate the craft...
Incidentally, I'm saddened at the news of not only a sequel, but also an English-language remake. This from the director himself, on the podcast I linked to up there. You can't equal it, and you certainly can't better it. Leave it alone!
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.
The Raid or The Raid: Redemption if you're in the US. 101 mins / Dir. Gareth Evans
I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage, Mr Evans. I don't really have a frame of reference with The Raid, as I don't watch a lot of martial arts movies. That's not to say I don't enjoy them, but we don't cross paths very often. So y'know… bear with me.
The Plot: A Jakartan SWAT team launches a dawn-raid to capture/incapacitate a drug-baron and gangster. What stands between them? 15 floors of run-down apartment block, populated by Riyadi and his minions, and the poor and desperate civilians who fear and obey him. What could possibly go wrong?
The Good: It's a testament to an excellent screenplay that you could watch The Raid without the subtitles and still grasp exactly what's going on. To a certain degree, that's pretty much what happened (see 'The Ugly'), but it underlines the point. The opening scene sees the central character, Rama, readying himself for the raid his team is about to embark on. He kisses his pregnant wife goodbye, and we get some mission-brief exposition on the way to the tower-block… then the action begins.
The story is simple but solid, and more credit to the writers for not overcomplicating things, as is par for the course with many American productions on this level. There's a certain degree of character 'twisting', but only what you're expecting anyway. It's told more or less from Rama's viewpoint, with the (albeit minor) unfolding events revealed as he learns them. A consequence of this technique is that a lot of the supporting cast are disposed of with a minimum of fuss (although with a lot of firepower), and it reinforces Rama's escalating isolation as his team is whittled down. But hey, let's not get too deep…
I would dearly, dearly like to know how many gunshots are in this film. It's certainly in four figures, and quite possibly in five. No, seriously. The first half of this movie sees a shell-count (and body-count) unlike anything I've witnessed in years. The second half focuses more on hand-to-hand martial arts, with more shouting and grunting than actual dialogue. But all in all, it adds up to a spectacular ride, with genuine tension throughout.
Like I said back there, I don't have a massive comparatory database for this genre, but I enjoyed it immensely, and it seems to be getting the nods which suggest it's a leader in its field.
The Bad: If you don't like extended bouts of gunfire and martial arts displays, you're not going to get a lot out of The Raid. There is an over-arcing plot, and the acting and scripting is incredibly solid, but this is an action film. An interestingly shot, beautifully choreographed action film.
The Ugly: Now, this is no fault of the film-makers, but when are Cineworld going to either a) stop using analogue projection, or b) employ someone who knows how to operate an analogue projection system? The Raid was shown in Screen 2 of my local, and seeing that on the ticket always makes my heart sink a little. Screen 2 is the only one of the available five that always projects in analogue. Y'know, with actual reels of film, as opposed to a digital projector. So the shaky slightly out-of-focus movie you're going to see also, statistically, has a greater chance of other inherent problems, too. Today's first problem was the image being shifted to the top half of the screen in the pre-film Orange promo. Not 'squashed', just a black lower half of the screen, and the bottom half of the picture on the remaining upper section of the screen.
As there were only five people in attendance (hey, that's why I like a Friday afternoon showing, okay?), I popped to the foyer to ask the ticket-checker to have a word with the projectionist. The ticket checker was in the foyer, chatting to the projectionist. He looked embarrassed and went to fix it. The opening title-card of the film quickly adjusted to it's proper position, and the five of us watched the action unfold. Until about twenty minutes in, when we noticed that when the subtitles appeared on two lines, the second one was mostly cut off by the bottom of the screen. The film was either being projected at a size too large for the screen, or was being shown in the wrong aspect-ratio. A woman a couple of rows in front of me left to 'have a word'.
About a minute later, we all enjoyed the rest of the film with full subtitles. Then, after the closing shot of the film, the title-card appears, with THE RAID in massive letters ('Aardvark Bold' or similar). Massive letters not centered in the screen. The projectionist hadn't adjusted the projection size and/or moved the curtains, he'd just shifted the whole thing upwards a notch, cutting off the top of the picture. Y'know, like Matt Flannery, the Director of Photography intended?
Now I'm not going to get all Kermode and dismiss digital projection as skill-less computer operation, but if you don't have a competent operator for your analogue system, don't fucking use it. It's not like I want to see analogue outlawed, but it is redundant technology. Charming? Historically important? 'Earthy'? Yes, all of those, but outdated.
Like playing vinyl on a cheap record-deck, analogue projection is wasted if it's not given the dedication, skill and attention it deserves.
I stress again, that the above is NO reflection on the film, I just needed space to rant.
Worth £8+? Fuck, yes. See this immediately.
Oh, it's GOOD.
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.
