Sonic The Hedgehog Cert: PG / 99 mins / Dir. Jeff Fowler / Trailer
A disclaimer where it's due: during the early '90s console-wars I was always, if anything, a Mario-kid. This was only because we happened to have Nintendo devices in the house rather than Sega, but the long term knock-on effect of this is that I have precisely zero baggage with Sonic The Hedgehog, other than trailers which did nothing to convince me it was worth seeing.
And while I'd usually affect an air of understated cultural superiority with a subtext of "Hey, the hedgehog can take as long as he likes to arrive, it was the Italian plumber who got the cool movie", there are tribes in the depths of the Amazon rainforest as yet untouched by wider civilisation who know that's not true.
So fair play to director Jeff Fowler for having a crack at this now.
LYING Because it does feel like Sonic The Hedgehog is a screenplay that's been lying on a shelf for a couple of decades, waiting for the technology to catch up and do it justice. The initial pitch of a young alien transported to Earth from his homeworld, too fearful to reveal himself and too shy to make friends, is certainly timeless enough. And that's packaged here by writers Josh Miller and Patrick Casey into a present day, extra-terrestrial hero's journey road trip buddy-com, surprisingly uncomplicated and free of post-modern irony.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of its 2020 unveiling (and certainly the one forgiving its excesses) is that is that Sonic The Hedgehog is a film made unapologetically for kids, rather than the streetwise, retro-loving adults these things are usually aimed at. And when watched with that in mind, it's pretty damned good, never speaking down to its audience but still keeping things pleasingly undemanding. Plot-markers are carefully laid out and called back in, and in the context of the script it all makes relative sense.
HUNGRY The animation for Sonic himself is decent, although his facial contortions aren't quite as expressive as Ben Schwartz's voice performance, which in turn feels slightly too 'old' for a character who's meant to be at the back-end of adolescence. James Marsden*1 puts in a solid role as human sidekick Tom, supported by Tika Sumpter as his long-suffering wife Maddie; effectively the surrogate parents-to-be of this unexpected arrival. The movie looks mostly great, even if there's a part of me that now wants to see the entire thing with the awful Sonic, just out of morbid curiosity.
But a chase is nothing without a pursuer, and Sonic would be nothing without Dr. Robotnik - here, a government-funded black ops stooge played by an old-school-channelling Jim Carrey. Which is a nice way of saying that Jim Carrey is good at being Jim Carrey™, or rather, being that version of Jim Carrey which makes people who don't like Jim Carrey™ avoid all of his work on general principle. Somehow his nostalgic performance feels out of place in a nostalgic adventure. And the number of Carrey's scenes where he appears with no one else in shot - suggesting weeks of solo soundstage filming as he ad-libs material deemed good enough to bulk out the runtime - is quite worrying.
BETTE
And as suggested by the opening of this review, comparisons will inevitably be made to the infamous screen-adaptation of Super Mario Bros. Although in some ways the movie's perhaps closer to Doom - a game which never really had too much of a narrative to begin with, and where the movie version is a passably contrived story that plays out while the audience wait for The Set-Piece Sequences to link visually to its gaming-past. When these arrive in Sonic they're pretty joyous, but it's an ironically slow journey in getting there.
Worth noting though are a couple riffs on the Quicksilver super-slo-mo scenes from new-era X-Men, not least because they're each far better than the second time that series tried to coast on its bullet-time charm.
DICKIE
At a neat 98 minutes, this never outstays its welcome or oversteps its boundaries. Young voices in the room were code-compliant throughout and found the whole thing highly amusing, so Jeff Fowler has clearly done well for his audience.
The only real downside to Sonic The Hedgehog is that it's kinda forgettable, it's certainly disposable and there'll be little in there to bolster repeat viewings. I certainly don't feel the need to watch it again, and that will probably remain the case until the heavily-baited sequel comes knocking. Yet that's a sequel I find myself looking forward to, and I certainly wasn't that person when I sat down in Screen 5 two hours earlier. So the film's done that right, too.
If you're of an age and outlook to suspect that Sonic will be bulldozing over your childhood, then it's certainly true that you won't get the most out of this. Then again, Jeff Fowler hasn't really made it for you, so...
Think of E.T. without the heart and Super Mario Bros without the embarrassment.
Except it's not as bad as that sounds.
If you keep your expectations grounded (despite my positive words), yes.
There won't be a lot of rewatch-value in this unless you're a Sonic-obsessive, in which case you don't need my opinion anyway.
Well this might be the first time I've enjoyed James Marsden in a movie, so...
That's entirely possible.
There isn't.
A couple of very close-calls, though.
Level 1: As well as a clanging-great Obi-Wan Kenobi reference in the first five minutes, that Biker Scout from The Mandalorian is in this.
Exec 1: Mate, I've only got one of the ruddy X-MEN for our film!!
Exec 2: Oh wow, who? You get that Logan?
Exec 1: Well no, it's--
Exec 2: Professor X though, right? That'll be cool--
Exec 1: err no, it's not Prof--
Exec 2:. ..Jean Grey?
Exec 1:.Okay look, the X-Men thing's not really important...
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.
No-one can accurately predict which movies will become breakout hits. On the surface, there's not a lot to differentiate 2004's Anchorman from its classmates; just the right cast, the right script*1 and the right time. The film's success promoted Will Ferrell and Steve Carell to the A-List, and provided a plethora of quotable lines for the office, the pub, and the marketing department for Anchorman 2*2. But how could Dreamworks capitalise on this success? Well, in lieu of a sequel, re-issues of the Anchorman DVD featured a 'bonus movie', Wake Up, Ron Burgundy, created from unused subplots and alternate takes from the film. And that's sort of what Anchorman 2 feels like; a collection of disparate sketches and threads, with the cracks papered over by getting Will Ferrell to ad-lib exclamations (of the 'by Odin's beard!' variety).
Now don't let that dour, judgemental opening fool you: I liked Anchorman 2. There are sketches which work really well (the cruise-control camper van), skteches which fall a little flat (most of the scenes with James Marsden), ones which are excruciating for the right and the wrong reasons (the family dinner*3), and some which just retread past glories (jazz-flute and the battle finale). The problem (for me) is that most of these threads just don't connect with each other; and considering that the film's about a news team and many of Anchorman's finest moments were the on-air antics of that collective, we spend precious little time in the studio with the guys in the sequel (even though the film is centered around them moving to a new station). It may have been written by only two people (Ferrell and director, McKay), but it feels like it's been edited by someone who's never met either of them. Or read the script. That said, even I was impressed by the roll-call of celebrity cameos for the showdown in the park; not impressed that the film could get the names, more that they were all clearly so keen to have it on their CV's (Ford was a pleasant surprise and Cohen and Neeson I'd expect, but not Cotillard).
Apart from that, Anchorman 2 is what you'd imagine, really. Perhaps a little too much. If you're in the market for undemanding laughs then Adam McKay's got something he'd like to sell you, but don't expect to fall in love with Ron Burgundy all over again.
Maybe I'm just expecting too much? Or maybe when the producers of a film wait eight years to make a largely unnecessary follow-up, then there's an expectation that it'll be (at least) the equal of its predecessor? Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues is frequently very funny, but occasionally lazy and feels sloppily assembled. And with the pedigree behind it, you know it's capable of better.
I enjoyed it, and I think most audiences will, too. I, er... just can't think of many good things to say about it…
Well, the trailer is what the film wants to be. You'll understand if you've seen both.
More than half of the time, but less than all.
Making you laugh? Yeah. Continuing the legend of Ron Burgundy? Not really.
You won't lose anything by watching it on DVD.
No.
I will, but not right away.
There isn't, and I genuinely thought we were going to get one in the park-showdown.
…am I asking too much of an Apatow-stable comedy?
*1 Or more accurately, performances, as many of the best lines were ad-libbed. As in actually ad-libbed. Not just having Melissa McCarthy pulling faces and shouting 'fuck' at someone not speaking in the scene. #miaow
*2 Because seriously, some of the tie-in crossover promotions leading up to this film have been just embarrassing. Like they've been written by someone who's watched Anchorman every day for the last eight years and thinks that scripting out previously-used ad-libs isn't going to completely destroy not only the timing, but also the dignity of Ferrell, repeating his 'famous' material like some sort of moustachioed Peter Kay. And yes, I realise I'm being a purist over a Will Ferrell movie.
*3 I also wasn't too keen on how crassly the whole 'Ron's blind' segment was handled either, given that there was no real reason for it being there. Then again, I'm a wooly-liberal at heart, so what do you expect.
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.
2 Guns Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. Baltasar Kormákur
In a Summer like 2013's, it's going to be easy for a quippy action movie like 2 Guns to fall between the cracks, even if it isbased on a comic. The problem is that it stars a couple of leads who, while competent, have been taking on increasingly pedestrian roles. Thankfully they've both landed a script that allows them to shine. If only them.
The movie's real strength lies in the banter and bickering between Wahlberg and Washington, and scenes where they're apart make you realise how clunky the screenplay often is. The plot is convoluted in a reassuringly straightforward*1 way; The setup/reveal pretty much assumes you've seen the trailer, so doesn't try too hard to surprise you; and the finale seems to arrive as if suddenly realising there's only twenty minutes left to go. But there's still a lot of fun to be had, and Bill Paxton and Edward James Olmos are having a great time chewing the scenery as their respective bad-guy characters. The rest of the supporting cast phone in their roles a little, but I put that down to the roles themselves. It's not all laughs, of course, but it's surprisingly light-hearted considering the amount of shell-casings on the floor.
Oh, and a couple of the bedroom scenes with Denzel Washington and Paula Patton are so visually similar to the opening scene of Flight with Nadine Velasquez, that I'm starting to wonder if DW doesn't have this sort of thing written into his contract…
It's loud, it's funny and it's thoroughly disposable. But if you don't expect too much of 2 Guns, you might not be let down.
Yeah.
Yes.
…more than likely, yes.
It's a fun night out, but you won't lose too much by watching it at home.
A little.
Yes.
There ain't.
Which comic/graphic novel would you like to see adapted (or re-adapted) into a movie?
*1 In other words: it twists, it turns, but it won't lose anyone.
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.
What an absolute gem! Despite it being rooted firmly in indie film territory, it's very light on kookiness. The futuristic setting and appliances are presented (for the most part) without awe or exposition, and the varying treatment of Robot by the characters make him as human as any of them (despite Robot's repeated statements that he isn't).
There are recurring themes, metaphors and symbols on age, memory, regret and friendship, or if those aren't your bag, you can sit back and watch Frank Langella give a spellbinding performance opposite what is essentially a great mime-artist inside a very limiting suit. It's thoughtful, moving, funny, and the sort of thing I usually find very hit or miss. This is a hit. Oh, and is Frank's line of "She doesn't like you… I don't like you, either" a deliberate cantina-scene reference, or am I just willing that into being?
If you fancy something a bit different, but completely accessible, you should give this a go.
Perfectly.
Yes.
Yes.
Pay to rent; it's beautiful but doesn't need to be watched too often..
Yes.
Yes, although not for a while.
No.
When can I have a robot?
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 disclaimer where it's due: during the early '90s console-wars I was always, if anything, a Mario-kid. This was only because we happened to have Nintendo devices in the house rather than Sega, but the long term knock-on effect of this is that I have precisely zero baggage with Sonic The Hedgehog, other than trailers which did nothing to convince me it was worth seeing.
