Review: Oppenheimer

Oppenheimer
(Spoilers)
Cert: 15 / 180 mins / Dir. Christopher Nolan / Trailer

Oppenheimer is a three hour, period-set film about nascent nuclear weaponry from a provenly competent storyteller which somehow features neither a young Emmet Brown sitting in a physics lesson nor Indiana Jones in a fridge.

Christopher Nolan is a fucking coward*¹.

*¹ Okay, I'll keep this as brief as I can. The note about Doctors Brown and Jones is obviously a joke. The score is not. I did not enjoy Oppenheimer. Then again, I genuinely believe that it's a film not created for enjoyment in any traditional sense, quite a demanding piece to watch and unsatisfying by narrative necessity. We should certainly expect no less a challenge from Christopher Nolan though, just as we wouldn't want him to be anything other than himself as a filmmaker. I suppose.

Playing with non-linear storytelling once again, Oppenheimer is framed as two separate interviews with associated sets of intertwining and converging flashbacks, each spanning the same twenty-or-so years from different points of view, where the guy we're supposed to be rooting for is demonstrated as being a dysfunctional, womanising moral-vacuum who's figured out how to most efficiently carry out genocide before the nazis and complains non-stop about this before, during and after the fact. Leaving a spray of failed personal and professional relationships in his wake, we see Oppo systematically piss off just about everybody in his life and then act surprised when they take against him...

Of course, this wouldn't be a Christopher Nolan movie without mumbled, unintelligible dialogue from the most important characters, battling here against Ludwig Göransson's piercing, intrusive score in a sound-mix that was finalised while somebody was hoovering. All of this has the pacing and delivery of high-drama, but with the implication of a storyline rather than the exposition of one. I know Nolan doesn't like to spoon-feed his audience, but Oppenheimer doesn't even have cutlery on the table.

You see, despite the device itself having a supporting role on the film's poster, this movie is not actually about Da Bomb. This is just as well, because shortly into the first act Nolan realises he can't narratively simplify for the audience either quantum physics nor the workings of an atom bomb, so quickly stops trying. What the movie actually is, is three clinical hours of dislikeable characters doing unpleasant but necessary admin and then everyone being unable to cope with the fall-out (literal, as well as metaphorical) of that, interspersed with the micro-management of international and domestic U.S. politics of the 1930s, 40s and 50s. So I was hardly expecting Terminator 2, but this is lots (lots) of middle-aged white guys in suits sitting around withholding information and showing they really can't be trusted (I go to the cinema to get away from that), leaving the cinema audience with quite frankly nobody to root for. Other than the demonstrable sociopath the film is named after. I suppose.

In terms of moral debate, Oppenheimer occupies the same shelf as Eye In The Sky and Red Joan, where hand-wringing and thousand-yard stares nudge aside the brutal practicalities of Not Losing A War. I never thought I'd watch a movie where Matt Damon plays the most rounded and sympathetic character, but here we are.

While the two timeline strands are clearly delineated by the use of colour, the content in each rarely seems complementary or interactive enough to warrant the effort. Like several of the director's recent pieces, the presentation seems needlessly fiddly yet is perhaps the only thing saving a story which would otherwise be grindingly linear. But without a solid grounding in the U.S. politics surrounding the Second World War, it all comes out as a mess anyway. It certainly feels like there's a price of entry here that's separate from the one printed on the ticket...

Biggest bugbear: We know that test-bomb's not going to destroy the world, lads; we're all here in 2023 watching the film and we'd probably have heard about that before now.

Second biggest bugbear: So what are these clandestine, closed-room hearings for, exactly? What are the nefarious powers in faceless American government trying to do to Mr Oppenheimer, who single-handedly won all of that very specific part of the late-war for them? Are the Suits trying to have him silenced? Discredited? Ruined? Killed, even? No, they're trying to remove his security-clearance. They want his badge back, that's all. They don't want the guy swanning around the lab like he owns the place ten years after he built them a super-bomb and has done nothing since but wear out the buttons on the highly-subsidised coffee machine. Just have a bit of dignity and retire, Oppo. Jeez...

Oh and bonus points to Kenneth Branagh, failing to control an accent in a built-up screenplay. Again. Proof positive that our celebrated auteur director was either distracted on-set, or deaf.

In short (and I'll bet you wish you hadn't clicked into this footnote now), Chris Nolan has not made a genuinely great film since Inception. There, I said 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: Everest

Everest (3D)
Cert: 12A / 121 mins / Dir. Baltasar Kormákur / Trailer



I think we all remember where we were on Friday May 10th, 1996. On the other side of the world, a few brave/determined/foolish souls were desperately trying to make their way to the peak of one of humanity's greatest immovable challenges. Me? I was losing a boot in a White Zombie mosh-pit at Brixton Academy. All I'm saying is, one of those two events has left an indelible mark on my memory and will continue to do so...

It's a cinematic truism that a well-made film will take a subject that the viewer is ambivalent about, and make them care about the characters experiencing it. Anyway, I'm still waiting for that great mountaineering movie.

Featuring far too many characters and far too many ominous "I'll be fine / I don't feel too good" lines, along with their accompanying phlegmy-coughs and sidelong glances, Everest is A True Story™ that was apparently full of awful cliches. As a result of two teams (needlessly) competing to reach the summit and get home before tea/lightning-storm time, there are also far too many appearances of characters you'd assumed had died two scenes earlier because everyone looks basically the same when they're in cold-weather gear with beards and frost, and all-but-two of the characters are sold short due to a lack of screen-time. These on-screen personas are a barely-likeable lot (which is a problem when the film is about them dying), but then again I suppose it takes a special kind of narcissist to believe they're better than one of the world's most treacherous mountains, and a special kind of sociopath to make money from encouraging them. Everest comprises almost entirely of those two types of people.

At no point does the spirit of Ben Kenobi stand over a prone, snow-caked mountaineer commanding them to go to Dagobah. At no point do any of the team uncover a hoard of Nazi gold, awakening the undead guardians that are damned to protect it for eternity. It's 2015, Universal; you're going to have to give me more than 'you can count the number of people who went up on both hands, but the number of people who came down on one; and I don't mean because of the frostbite'. And Ted Moult? Nowhere to be seen.

On the plus side, it turns out that Jason Clarke is actually a much better actor when he's allowed to use his own accent. Although it also turns out that Sam Worthington isn't. And being used in wide, brightly-lit exterior shots, much of the 3D in the first half of the film looks beautiful, although suffers under the night-time, close-quarter photography which follows. And speaking of which, why does the scene where they're at the summit of Everest look for all the world like it was shot on a sound-stage, with its flat, azure-blue sky and oddly-yellow lighting? Surely that's the most important exterior-shot of the whole film?

Everest may indeed be 'based on a true story', the problem is that it's just not a particularly interesting one. The most disquieting thing about it is that the members of the teams who didn't make it back in May 1996 weren't the first ones to die trying, and they weren't/won't be the last; a thought which the film doesn't even take the time to raise. And don't go giving us a 'real-life' photo-montage at the end like you've told an awe-inspiring story of bravery and humanitarianism, rather than a faintly exploitative made-for-TV disaster movie to be shown on Channel 5 at 2pm on a Wednesday...

A caption-card at the film's beginning tells us that of the mountaineers to climb Everest around that time, 1-in-4 died. Ironically, that's also the exact the ratio of audience members who made it to the end of this film. This afternoon's screen held four people at the start of the movie, and one of those left after an hour and a half.

Today's survivors of Everest bonded over an ordeal they're not inclined to repeat…

If you like that sort of thing?



A rental. You won't need to see this film more than once, whether you're a mountaineer scoffing at all the mistakes or a non-mountaineer squirming slightly at hubristic yet gullible people dying in the cold.



No, although in Sam Worthington's case that'd be an odd case to try and argue.



…probably? I have no idea



Nah.



No. There isn't.
I mean, if you won't use a Wilhelm Scream when someone falls actually off a mountain, when the fuck will you?.



The film features a simpering performance from Queen Amidala's favourite handmaiden, bodyguard and decoy, Keira 'Sabé' Knightley.








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: Terminator Genisys

Terminator Genisys (3D)
Cert: 12A / 126 mins / Dir. Alan Taylor / Trailer

The doors of Cyberdyne Systems impressive headquarters burst inwards spraying glass and chrome over the figures already in reception. Sarah Connor looks on in grim worry as the T-800 Terminator unit javelins a 12-foot metal rod into the insane, mutated being which used to be her son, impaling him into the bank of monitors behind. "John Connor talks too much…" he quips in his Austrian accent, and the audience is inclined to agree. Except the audience had already reached that conclusion around 90 minutes earlier…

Yes, Terminator Genisys is here. And the fifth cinematic chapter in a sprawling multimedia franchise with a worldwide fan-base for 31-years-and-counting opened tonight to an expectant audience of 19 people*¹. James Cameron must be turning in his swimming pool.

This time we're taken right back to 1984 Los Angeles, to remix the beats of the original movie, once again manhandling a timeline which has been treated with barely-concealed contempt since the 2003-outing. From that point onwards, each new chapter has re-cast the protagonists (Arnie aside, obviously), and completely altered the characters themselves as a result. The most painful casualty here is Emilia Clarke, who proves herself to be a competent enough action heroine; she's just not 'Sarah Connor'.

Speaking of casting, how do you top hiring an Australian actor who hasn't got the charisma or gravitas to co-lead a Terminator film? Simple! You get two of them! Courtney and Clarke at least manage to keep the accents well under control, but that's about it, with stretches of grandiose dialogue that's not only woodenly delivered, but would still be completely out-of-character for Kyle Reese and John Connor even if it wasn't. And then there's poor old Matt Smith; stunt-casting in its purest form, they could have got the janitor to play that part.

The trailer is a fairly accurate bellwether of the film itself (although the shoehorned-in catchphrases aren't as jarring in the full movie). What director Alan Taylor brings us is around one-third homage to James Cameron's masterpiece, two-thirds scrabbling around on the floor looking for a direction in which to take the franchise. The fight/battle sequences are quite delightful, as are the lovingly re-created scenes from the first movie.

So much time is spent on bringing the audience a 12A action-blockbuster that screenwriters Laeta Kalogridis and Patrick Lussier seem to forget that the audience have met these characters before, so are expecting a little thematic continuity, if nothing else. Worst culprit (spoilers): at the film's climax, Sarah Connor is forced to destroy not only the hybrid monster which used to be the son she hasn't had yet, but also the T-800 surrogate-father who has protected her for ten years. She essentially kills her own father and son to save a future without either of them, and the script doesn't even acknowledge the emotional weight of this act.

Despite the horrendous early-scores which are creeping in, I didn't actively dislike Genisys, and I think the core screenplay is an intriguing concept. It's just poorly executed and hobbled by woeful miscasting and a horrendous script.

If anything, the film feels like it's trying a bit too hard to connect with its 1984 progenitor. Although after the po-faced mess of Terminator Salvation that's not necessarily a bad thing, but the events of 1991's classic Judgement Day are also wiped out as collateral damage. Hey, that's time-travel, right?

Not quite as awful as some would have you believe, Terminator Genisys would have been a perfectly acceptable addition to the canon had it been made in 1996, before the timeline got so convoluted. But y'know, it wasn't. Too little, too late.

Oh, and there's a mid-credits scene, if you're interested. FYI. Keep your 3D glasses out for it, though.



Not really, to be honest.



Rent it and watch it back-to-back with The Terminator.



In Jai Courtney's case, there's no such thing…



It doesn't.



Maybe a little.



There isn't.



Jason Clarke starred (perhaps the wrong word, admittedly) in 2014's Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes alongside Andy Serkis, due to perform Supreme Leader Snoke in The Force Awakens.







*¹ And I'm not kidding, they didn't even play the Arnie/Compare The Market promo beforehand. The one which has been running in cinemas for months, now. The one which has been subliminally promoting this very film. Is this so that we don't laugh at Arnold before Genisys starts? So that we remember to take his character more seriously?

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: Child 44

Child 44
Cert: 15 / 137 mins / Dir. Daniel Espinosa / Trailer



Now, I haven't seen Child, Child 2, Child 3, Child 4, Child 5… [ I should point out at this juncture that as a dyed-in-the-wool devotee of Lee & Herring, I will never tire of this joke. Never, I tell you.] … Child 42 or Child 43, so I had a fair bit of catching up to do in the first ten minutes. Luckily, the film makes little-to-no mention of previous installments, so this should be ideal for newbies to the franchise.

Stalinist Russia, 1953, and a series of child-deaths determined by the authorities to be 'accidents' bear all the hallmarks of a serial killer. MGB agent Leo Demidov is determined to unravel the case, but finds his progress hindered by his superiors, colleagues and even those he thought of as friends. Because how do you track down a killer when "there can be no murder in Paradise"..?

The film's setting is its unique selling point, but it the darkness of the era and that of the story never seem to gel the way you know they should. Not especially cinematic in either tone or form, Child 44 feels like a solid four-hour TV drama which has been compacted for a single big-screen outing, often at the expense of the narrative-flow. The film does a fantastic job of following the 'show, don't tell' ethos, resulting in some solid character building for Hardy's Leo, but things still feel rushed, even at two-and-a-quarter-hours. Noomi Rapace and Tom Hardy are reliable as always, but are crying out for stronger scripting and more focussed direction. In fact, it feels like Paddy Considine is the only member of the cast really grabbing the dramatic bull by its horns, and he outshines everyone with the momentum he brings to the film.

A major stumbling block (for me, at least) is that stretches of dialogue feel casual to the point of being improvised (and if they're not improvised, that's even more of a problem). This results in 21st century, English speech-patterns inserted into a 1950s Russian setting. Not quite as jarring as the way Julian Fellowes writes characters in Downton Abbey saying "…as if", but on the same page, certainly. The assortment of accents are distracting enough*¹ without being pulled out of the story by the script itself. The worst offender in this department is Tom Hardy's line: "Obviously we are all guilty by association, irregardless." You can have irrespective, or you can have regardless. But 'irregardless' isn't a real word. How did this make it into the final edit?

A great story let down by dodgy accents, mumbled, off-the-cuff dialogue, atrocious shaky-cam and a rushed approach to storytelling, Child 44 is thoroughly intriguing but fails to live up to its full potential.

…not really.



Probably a rental; I doubt you'll get more than a couple of watches out of it.



With the best will in the world, no.



Narratively, yes. Dramatically, no.



I won't.



Well, who makes a film featuring a full-on battle scene in the first ten minutes and doesn't insert a Wilhelm Scream? The guy who hires sound-designer Christopher Assells, that's who…



Gary Oldman and Tom Hardy are both Nolan-era Batman alumni of course, as is Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson.



^^ That's a strong four, but a four nonetheless.




*¹ Although I'm also aware that Noomi Rapace and Vincent Cassel both speak heavily accented English to begin with, so maybe giving fake Russian accents to the cast puts everyone on the same handicap, so to speak? That said, Child 44 contains another small role for Charle Dance, illustrating that he either can't do All The Accents, or just chooses not to.

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: Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (3D / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 12A / 130 mins / Dir. Matt Reeves




I'm going to try my best to convey my reservations about Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes, whilst still recommending that you go and watch it. You'll understand my reticence shortly. The thing is, I was ready to see this at the weekend. Cineworld had their Secret Screening set up for the Tuesday beforehand, and in all honesty even I wouldn't have put money on a national advance screening being of a film that was due to open less than 48 hours later. Well played, World of Cine, well played…

+ + + + +

So, as much as I enjoyed DotPotA (and I did enjoy it), I have to say that its hamstrung by some of its most central aspects. You might not think that 130 minutes of watching two societies simultaneously fall victim to prejudice, in-fighing, scapegoating and general xenophobia is going to be a fun ride for a Summer Blockbuster Movie™. And you'd be right; it's not. It makes for an absolutely compelling watch, but it's not what could be described as fun. The few touching moments of bonding and affection from the film's predecessor are nowhere to be found, since even the quieter scenes between Caesar and his simian family are marred with the furrowed brow of impending war.

Matters aren't helped any by some pretty awful casting for the human characters. Jason Clarke pulls the right faces at the right times, but really isn't a strong enough actor to lead a film like this, whereas Kerry Russell has never been great (imho, obvs) and to make matters worse is saddled with the role of The Woman One Who Is Also Handily A Nurse™. Last but by no means least is Gary Oldman, who seems to have landed Distinguished Actor Hired For Smaller Part To Bring A Bit Of Gravitas To The Whole Thing™, presumably because Morgan Freeman wasn't available at the time.

Believe me when I say that every human in the film is out-acted by CGI apes, and that's not a term I use flippantly; the collaboration between the mo-cap actors and the digital artists who've brought their performances to life is nothing short of astounding, and fully deserving of awards I suspect they'll go on to win. To the point where I wish there had been fewer humans in the film, frankly. Andy Serkis is, as you can probably imagine, worth the price of admission alone. Although you could quite easily knock a couple of quid off that price by seeing the 2D version. The stereoscopy is there, but even the frames where things are thrown directly at the camera are underwhelming. Removing the need for 3D glasses may well be the only way to brighten up this film.

As far as allegory and subtext goes, DotPotA is hardly delicate, but from a story point-of-view it's exactly what's needed. If you enjoyed Rise Of… you'll get a lot out of this, and if you didn't then you're not likely to be seeing it anyway, right?

As a regular movie, Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes is clunky and contrived, its reliance on spelled-out metaphor only relieved by its outstanding effects work. As a Planet Of The Apes movie, however, the film is a thing of quite savage beauty, fitting seamlessly into the narrative gap and detailing all the things we want to see, how we want to see them. As a very casual fan of the franchise, both of these facets were at the forefront of my mind throughout the run-time; thankfully the second one more than makes up for the first.

And I do recommend that you see it.

Pretty much.



It was more of a sustained wince, but in a good way.



With in the Planet Of The Apes spectrum, it certainly does.



Cinema if you like 'em big and loud, but don't bother with the 3D.



I won't.



As much as I enjoyed it, probably not for some time.



Pretty certain there is, yes; when one of the humans is trying to crawl under a car to safety and is dragged away before he can make it.

Shouldn't 'Dawn Of…' been the title of the previous movie and 'Rise Of…' been assigned to this one? Wouldn't that make more sense, chronologically and narratively?

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.