Review: Strays

Strays
Cert: 15 / 89 mins / Dir. Josh Greenbaum / Trailer

So if 2023 has brought you to the place where you need The Incredible Journey meets The Secret Life Of Pets meets Ted, then director Josh Greenbaum has got you covered. This R-Rated pup comedy does exactly what it says on the tin, in a movie where the dogs saying fuck is the primary joke for an hour and half. It works well enough as a concept, and there are frequent chuckles from Dan Perrault's script but no real guffaws. If that's all you want for an hour and a half, knock yourself out.

In all fairness, the central quartet of characters voiced by Will Ferrell, Jamie Foxx, Isla Fisher and Randall Park is well balanced and reasonably fleshed out. The mix of live-action and CGI is nicely accomplished and the voice-cast is enthusiastic, but at its core the film is tired before it's properly begun. This is third studio-comedy in as many months which feels like a Judd Apatow script that's been found in a drawer after fifteen years and put into production because there was nothing else on the board.

Dick-jokes aside (so many dick-jokes), this movie is actually about the innocence of abandoned dogs, loss, companionship, trust and rising above abusive relationships, so it periodically tries to pull on the heart strings. But Greenbaum doesn't have the sincerity or courage of his convictions to do that properly*¹, and the only real enthusiasm here comes from the shrieking profanity on display in the trailer. Strays just isn't smart enough for the message it thinks it wants to convey and has little to emotionally justify its existence. But the dogs are (largely) real *² here, so it's already head and shoulders above The Meg.

Oh, but I'm taking points off for that accelerated greatest-hits montage of the most Outrageous™ gags just before the finale. If you need to tell your jokes twice to assure an audience they've enjoyed themselves, those weren't good enough the first time...

*¹ And rest assured, I am Dog-People™ and susceptible as fuck to all that. Strays just doesn't have it. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² The main dog is very cool, though. Not Will Ferrell who voices Reggie (obviously) but Sophie, the border terrier who plays him. ^{[ 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.

Review: Just Mercy

Just Mercy
Cert: 12A / 137 mins / Dir. Destin Daniel Cretton / Trailer

The UK film distribution community’s resolution of Po-Faced January™ continues*¹ as director and screenwriter Destin Daniel Cretton brings us Just Mercy, based on legal-aid lawyer Bryan Stevenson’s true-life book of the same title.

Set over the course of 1986-1993, Michael B. Jordan portrays Stevenson as he works for inmates on Death Row in an Alabama state prison. One of his clients is Walter McMillian (Jamie Foxx), whose sentence for murder is shaky at best. Stevenson begins the arduous task of investigating the case properly in a bid to overturn the conviction, coming up against all the obstacles one would expect in a small town in America’s southern states. Ahem.

STILL

Now it’s easy to be cynical about a film like this, but it’s easier still to be unquestioningly swept up in the earnest drama. Just Mercy is very good at what it does, but that’s undercut by having such a broad target that it’s difficult to imagine a version of this film which wouldn’t work. Foxx does best out of all the performers here, his mix of defiance, introspection and dignity perfect for the role of a wrongly-condemned man. Likewise, Jordan copes well with the faith and dogged determination of a rookie lawyer trying to unearth the truth, but struggles more in the moments of anger which Stevenson has to endure. Brie Larson plays a lawyer’s assistant*².

But the film itself lacks the punch that the true story should have, almost pedestrian in its direction and pacing. Just Mercy is almost exactly the film an audience expects, walking a well-trodden path without ambition. Which, given the actual gravity of the events, is borderline negligent.

BLOSSOMS

A large part of the problem (for a film which I enjoyed, remember) is the almost autopilot structure. Perhaps assuming that everyone watching remembers the case from three decades ago*³, Stevenson is almost immediately convinced that McMillian is innocent, even before the exonerating evidence is discovered. And because the film is from Stevenson’s perspective, the audience then becomes convinced he’s innocent, too. So while there’s still some jeopardy in overturning Walter’s conviction*⁴, there’s never any narrative doubt or a chance that Bryan will uncover something he wishes he hadn’t. A little moral ambiguity would have made for a much stronger film.

Because as much as Just Mercy has working in its favour, the film is shameless awards-bait. It ticks all the right (and righteous) boxes for judging panels, while the 12A certificate ensures there’ll be nothing in there to actually upset them properly. Closing out with a montage of the real-life players (because of course), there’s the lingering thought that the film should be upsetting. Like this week’s other contender, we’re a long way off these issues being fixed. Patting ourselves on the back that justice is occasionally done isn’t really a workaround.

Ultimately, Just Mercy is a decent film, but a forgettable one. Far more forgettable than a story like this should be...

Imagine if John Grisham was doing 1980s daytime TV movies.
This will sit well on the shelf next to Green Book.



If you think you know what you're going to see then you know exactly what you're going to see, so that's very much up to you.



Streaming, there won't be too much re-watching in this.



It's certainly 'up there' for the ones who shine.



That's possible.



There isn't.



Level 2: Tim Blake Nelson is in this, and he was in that Lincoln with David 'Kallus' Oyelowo, Joseph 'Slowen' Gordon-Levitt and Adam 'Kylo' Driver


Although it's a shame I'm not Marvel-spotting for this bit because the film's got Killmonger/Human Torch, Captain Marvel and Electro in it. Also, Tim Blake Nelson was Samuel Sterns in 2008's Incredible Hulk, but like I said, that's not what this bit's for.





*¹ For what it's worth, not everything is doom and gloom as my local has an advance screening of the upcoming riotous comedy Like A Boss in a couple of weeks' time. I'm not going of course, as by the looks of the godawful trailer it'll make me far more angry than any hand-wringing awards-nudgers ever would. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² And yes, the depth of that sentence is largely reflective of Larson's role in the film and the scope which she had in defining it. The second-best thing about Room is here as a secretary. Just wow. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ And yes, I'm saying after assuming earlier this week that everyone watching Bombshell will have read the news reports of the case in 2016. A quick scant of social media the very next day shows that this is not the case. Mea culpa with that one. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Because let's be fair, nobody makes this film with this cast for a January release and has the third-act reveal of "anyway it turned out he had done it after all, so we watched him fry while we had a beer...". The actual identity of the actual murderer is something of an afterthought by the way, but since the case was never successfully closed that's perhaps understandable.
^{[ 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.

Review: Baby Driver

Baby Driver
Cert: 15 / 113 mins / Dir. Edgar Wright / Trailer



Well okay, this will be a review of two parts: the first is for people who haven't yet seen Baby Driver, the second for those who have. There are no real spoilers in the latter section, but without the context of having seen the film it'll only make limited sense. So, here goes...




Baby Driver is the new heist movie from British writer and director Edgar Wright. A smart, funny standalone action flick, it holds stylistic and thematic nods to his previous work, but no narrative ones. The story follows a young, automotively-gifted getaway driver who goes by the name of Baby (Ansel Elgort), and the interaction with his boss Doc (Kevin Spacey) as he tries to distance himself from an accomplished criminal career and an ever-changing crew of robbers, killers and outright psychopaths.

So as mentioned above the film is smart, the film is funny and there is plenty of action. While many are hailing this as an antidote to the Fast & Furious franchise, that's an unfair comparison as Baby Driver is a story about people, not machines. The car-chases here serve to drive the story forward, not the other way around. The film's not quite as smooth and zippy as its trailers might suggest, but that's because the promo-reels touch more on the style rather than the substance, and while the film never goes into melodrama mode, Wright carefully builds his central characters along the way, to the point where standoffs and shootouts feel genuinely perilous, rather than the through-the-motions setpieces we've become used to over the years.

The whole thing is also heavily soundtracked of course (more on that below), so if you get overwhelmed by the fast-paced scripting and editing, you can at least tap your along with your foot in the meanwhile.

The Summer-season is turning out to be a bit of a mixed bag. Baby Driver will be one of the highlights. It's great fun, see it soon…

So, why didn't I love this? Oh I liked it very much, but I'd be hard pushed to go further than that. Part of the problem could be the near-universal praise Baby Driver has had heaped upon it before the film is even on general release. I'm used to my brain wanting to automatically rail against that and find things wrong with a movie, but when it's a filmmaker I admire as much as Edgar Wright it almost becomes personal: 'I know what you're capable of because I've seen you at your best, so impress me - raise the bar'.

But the guy's bar is not only way too high to begin with, it's also beginning to recede into the distance. While I've enjoyed all his big-screen outings, I tend to rank Shaun of the Dead at the top and everything else pretty much on a (only slightly) downward-scale from there. I remember feeling slightly put-out that Wright had left Ant-Man mid-production, not least because I ended up loving that movie and wondered what there was about the final product that he'd disagreed with to the point where he'd quit altogether. So then I look at the tonal in-fighting there is throughout Baby Driver and think 'what was the utopian vision for this movie?', because I don't think the film I watched embodied that. There's a layer of genuine sentimentality across the whole screenplay which is more than welcome, but sits ill-at-ease with the snark and cynicism practiced by the characters. Neither comes across as genuinely as they should in an Edgar Wright movie, and the whole thing shudders as a result.

Speaking of which, the players. Ansel Elgort is refreshingly enjoyable in the central role*¹, but still feels essentially miscast. For my money, Michael Cera would have been ideal for this, not least since he'd have had to leave his own comfort-zone as an actor. Lily James is also great to watch as always (although she gets comparatively little to do), but feels a little too clean for the role of a burned-out yet still optimistic waitress. Meanwhile, Kevin Spacey can't quite pass off the hard-edged cynicism he needs to as gang-boss and blasé murderer, Doc. But nor can he bring the warmth to the moments where he shows that he has some genuine fondness for his favourite and long-time driver.

On the plus-side (and with comparatively less screen-time), Jamie Foxx, John Hamm and Eiza González all fantastic as opportunistic career-criminals. Jon Bernthal has a minor role as Jon Bernthal™ but with a beard, which he pulls off with his accustomed ease.

But the biggest bugbear I have with Baby Driver is probably the relentless diegetic soundtrack. It's not that I disliked any of the tracks used*², nor were songs were shoehorned in (I'm looking at you, DC), or that the idea was feeling strained (ditto, Marvel). More that it's over-used, to the point where a device which is to all intents and purposes a character in itself, loses relevance the closer the film gets to its third-act*³. And having punches, gunshots and explosions synced in time with the soundtrack works in a trailer but becomes distracting throughout an entire film. In fact many of the action sequences have the air of being tweaked in post-production to add more dynamic energy, but have instead come out feeling cluttered.

But for all my grumbling, I should add that it's not a case of 'this film should be better', just 'I should have enjoyed it more'. There were parts of the movie which had me grinning like a lunatic, but there were far more that I found disjointed, or like a work-in-progress from an earlier draft of the script*⁴.

All of this is me just groping for a way to justify saying that Baby Driver is very good, but not Wright's best work (future or past) by a long shot. But the pre-built hype and my predisposition to enjoy the director's work makes it feel like saying "it's good" isn't enough, somehow. Fully aware I'm in a minority here, although I take no joy from that.

Baby Driver: it's good.

The film's probably more American Ultra and The Nice Guys than Scott Pilgrim.



Oh, absolutely - it's big and loud and full-on enough to justify the ticket, certainly.



I think it does, but also that it could have achieved so much more.



It's not.



I won't.



There isn't.



Level 2: Lily James is in this, and she was in that Wrath of the Titans along with Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson and Toby 'Additional Voices in The Old Republic' Kebbell.





*¹ Regular readers might recall the time Elgort played a terminally-ill teenager who I spent a film's run-time wishing would hurry the fuck up about it all. Although don't get me wrong, I found his character in this film deeply annoying for the first twenty minutes or so. Thankfully two things then happen: 1) we get to know a bit more about him and 2) he tones it down a lot, anyway. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Serious note though, writer/directors: your taste in music is nowhere near as quirky, clever, cool or interesting as you think it is, I promise you. I've currently got Slayer, Lady Antebellum and Così fan tutte on my iPod, but I wouldn't dream of shoehorning them into a screenplay for geek-points. At the risk of beginning a rant, I'm getting a bit tired of sitting in the cinema and imagining the initial phone call to the producer's office: "Hey guys! I've got a great idea for a soundtrack! …er, I mean film! Yes a film, that's it! I mean both, obviously, whatever…". Going to see an action/hero movie is increasingly becoming like arriving at a party to find one guy guarding the stereo in the corner because he's brought all his own records. And he then insists on describing why he's chosen each one as he goes (this is a broad simile of course; I don't go to parties. And if I find myself at one, I try to stay as far away from All The People as possible). ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ And as a slight aside, I should mention that it's explained in the film that Baby suffers from Tinnitus due to a childhood accident and almost constantly plays music 'to drown it out'. While I'd put money on there being some level of personal experience in the writing of his character, members of the audience who also suffer from the hearing disorder will be fully aware that while music is indeed a welcome distraction, the pasttime doesn't replace the humming/ringing/screeching noise, more that the listener gets music plus Tinnitus. Which, over time, leads to more Tinnitus.
Just saying, because that's not addressed in the script... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ And for those of you who've seen the film, is there a significance behind the lack of internet/smartphones? Baby's obsession with cassettes and analogue recording works in the context of the story, but Doc hands out flip-phones to his crew for the duration of each job, and at one point his son Samm is seen with a PSP. I'd thought at first that maybe the film was set in the mid 00s, but since we get a flashback showing a 3-4yr old Baby receiving his first (and 1st-generation) iPod, it's reasonable to assume that took place circa 2001 and the story-proper takes place around sixteen years later, ie now. So is Doc keeping his criminal network nicely undercover by having them use phones that your grandad would get laughed at for using in public? Also ref the iPod, Baby's got a range of different devices all loaded up with different playlists (a nice touch), yet I don't recall seeing him use a computer at all (they ain't going to sync themselves)? I'm hoping there's a PC (with like, thirty user profiles on it) in the background of a shot in his flat, and I just didn't notice it... ^{[ 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.

Review: Sleepless

Sleepless
Cert: 15 / 95 mins / Dir. Baran bo Odar / Trailer



Hang on, is it still March? This is the sort of film which gets released in March. Or the £3 shelf in Asda. Where it's always March.

The latest entry to the vast canon of 95-minute clockpunched, autopiloted screenwriting sees Jamie Foxx playing an undercover cop on the verge of cracking a massive police corruption case. When he mislays a cocaine shipment belonging to a Las Vegas casino boss, his teenage son is kidnapped as retaliation, beginning an escalating game of cat-and-mouse where he can't be sure just who he can trust...

Yeah, I think this is what happens when Jamie answers the phone round at Liam Neeson's house. Sleepless is a mechanical procedural action-thriller whose title is somewhat ironic given that if you dozed off, you could be sure you wouldn't really miss anything. The film lumbers from punch-up to shoot-out to car-chase as the cast look increasingly bored with their placeholder characters and their plot-reveals which might as well be written on a placard and paraded around by a glamourous assistant behind the opening titles.

Genre stalwart David Harbour phones in a performance as Clearly Untrustworthy Detective, while Michelle Monaghan does Painfully Naive Detective like she was promised her role would somehow be more significant. Even Scoot McNairy's given up trying to be anything other than Typecast Psycho-Gangster. But what I really don't understand is the presence of Jamie Foxx. I've always struggled to warm to him as a leading actor, but he's better than this. Presumably Jamie owes someone a favour. I hope for his sake that it's now repaid.

The only thing which surprised me about Sleepless was the mention in the closing credits that it's actually a remake of an existing film. Because up until that point, I'd assumed it was a greatest-hits reel of about forty...

Any film where Liam Neeson wears a leather jacket and punches people.



Netflix, tops.



Oh probably, such is its paucity of ambition.



No.



That depends on how much you love it and also if you've never seen any cop thrillers before ever.



Not that I heard.



Level 2: This film's got that Jamie Foxx in it, and he was in that Django Unchained, along with Sam 'Windu' Jackson.





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.

Review: Horrible Bosses 2

Horrible Bosses 2
Cert: 15 / 108 mins / Dir. Sean Anders




It's difficult to imagine the situation which prompted a sequel to 2011's Horrible Bosses being commissioned, although it's probably a safe bet to guess that the meeting didn't include the phrases "surprise hit" or "runaway success". The original did, by all accounts, provide a reasonable return both financially and critically, but was never going to set the entertainment industry on fire. So why not do it again, right? That's how the business works?

Well, whether it's the change of director or the non-change of direction, Sean Anders' 2014 sequel has come in for something of a kicking (from critics, at least) in its opening weekend, which seems a little unfair. Sure, the plot is more like a series of weakly connected sketches, some of which work better than others; sure, that plot explains itself so heavy-handedly in the first twenty minutes that it doesn't have to do any more expository work until the final reel; sure, a lot of the (clearly) improvised dialogue leaves you thinking '…this is the take they went with?'; sure, there's a clear line of good-taste which Jennifer Aniston's sex-addicted dentist Julia frequently crosses, as if daring herself to be as gross as possible rather than as funny as possible; but in all honesty, there are few insults you can fling at this film which wouldn't be equally deserving of its predecessor.

The day is saved by Jason Bateman, not doing anything new, but certainly doing what he does best. His resigned exasperation at the moronity of those around him being his calling card as a comedic actor. Similarly on good form are Jason Sudekis, Charlie Day, Christoph Waltz, Jamie Foxx and Kevin Spacey. Special props have to go to Chris Pine, demonstrating once again that his talent for comedy far outweighs those of action or drama. And if that list seems a little light on the ladies' names, that's because the film is too; Aniston is pretty much it. Although I doubt whether the film would have been any better for more female characters, it might have been nice to have given it the chance, at least.

But y'know what? I probably laughed far more than I should have throughout the film. I can't gauge audience reaction since I was at a private screening*¹, but Horrible Bosses 2 never tries to be anything more than a largely unnecessary, morally-questionable farce-comedy. And in that at least, it succeeds.

That's where we're at, yeah…



Mostly, although many of the scenes end up driving into an improvisational cul-de-sac.



Oh, probably.



DVD tops, if I'm being honest.



Not at all.



I can't envision me seeking it out, but I know it'll be good for a chuckle in the right company.



Erm, there's a boot-shot? Actually, there are two boot-shots. Which is over-egging the pudding somewhat

…see you for HB3?

*¹ By which I mean that I was the only person who wanted to see Horrible Bosses 2 at 3:30 on a Friday afternoon. By the time you factor in my Unlimited card, my local Cineworld were basically setting aside Screen 5 (the big screen) for 2+ hours whilst looking at the profit on an already-discounted coffee. Ouch.

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.