Hey, d'you remember Zombieland? The low-fanfare, roundly entertaining ensemble comedy-horror from 2009 when The Walking Dead was only three seasons old so everyone was still into zombies? With the jokes and the splatter and the post-modern subversion of the nuclear family and 21st century crisis-management? Well if you missed that, here it is again only less.
Writer/director Ruben Fleischer returns - hoping for all the world that people still associate his name with the 2009 undead debut rather than last year's Venom - along with his original players in the form of Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), Wichita (Emma Stone), Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) and Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). The years have been good to the cast, with Stone in particular largely beyond this type of fare these days, so their reunion is a definite point in the movie's favour.
FAMILY We pick up ten years after first meeting the gang as they've settled into a dysfunctional yet relatively stable family unit. Stable that is until Little Rock feels the urge to flee the nest after a chance meeting with drifting stoner Berkeley (Avan Jogia), and the arrival of the valley-girl-esque Madison (Zoey Deutch). And so another road-trip and rescue mission begins through the burned out wreckage of America as fun, gunfire and relentless gore go hand in hand...
Eisenberg's opening (and subsequently sporadic) narration returns*1, as does the slow-motion, Metallica-backed title sequence*2, as do the on-screen graphics listing Zombieland's familiar rules, as do the Zombie Kill of The Week™ cutaways. And while it's certainly nice that these stylistic recurrences haven't been jettisoned during the production process, their collective weight quickly becomes the film's problem, rather than its solution. Double Tap is doing nothing new, even with characters we're meeting for the first time*3. The cast all do fairly well in their roles, but for the most part we've seen it before (in Eisenberg's case especially, as he only seems to have one performance).
SHARON The problem, as is so often the case, is one of expectation. 2009's Zombieland came out of nowhere and took civilian audiences and critics alike by surprise. But much like Guardians Of The Galaxy, Kingsman and Deadpool, the audience for this sequel consists almost entirely of fans of the first movie. And now they've got a checklist. What's more, in this case they've had that list for a decade. The zombie-culture renaissance has waned somewhat in the intervening ten years, and scripted references to Dawn Of The Dead and The Walking Dead now seem more lazy than geekily insightful.
Then there are the weird tonal shifts throughout, like the creative team couldn't agree on where to land between cynical, bleak and comic. It doesn't help that the characters new to this entry have only been half-written, so some of their 'exits' come off as similarly uneven. Ultimately, both the story and its execution feel very on-the-nose, as the film steams through in its bid to make as many callbacks as possible, hoping they'll be an adequate substitute for charm or originality*4. I mean, sincere congratulations to Fleischer for getting the band back together, but Double Tap feels as if they should have come back for more. It's like a second-draft screenplay became the shooting script without anyone noticing until the edit stage.
LYLE And for those among you thinking 'this sounds like it would work better as part of a double-bill with the original', I assure you it doesn't. I'd re-acquainted with that one at home in the afternoon before watching Double Tap, and if anything the direct comparison just hurts the sequel more. Don't get me wrong, the film has some great moments and even in its dips is never flat-out unenjoyable. It's just very forgettable.
There's a mid-credits scene which begins about 45 seconds into the credits (basically so that you won't be able to walk out without watching it start). It features a flashback/reprise of Bill Murray's Bill Murray™ character from the first Zombieland. And if you enjoy that, there's also a post-credits coda in the same vein. Alas, of the sizeable Saturday night crowd who'd come out to watch Double Tap, I was the only one who wanted to hang around that long. Which should tell you something about the mood in which the movie leaves its audience.
I'm not convinced that we needed a second Zombieland movie, and watching this I don't think Ruben Fleischer was either. But in a year which sees the sixth installments of both the Rambo and Terminator franchises, I see no real harm in splatting a few more ghouls just for the hell of it. Double Tap is basically fine, but that in itself is not.
You remember how Amazon made that TV spin-off pilot episode which worked relatively well on its own, yet still completely failed to recreate the spark of what had made Zombieland special in the first place? Well, now there's a movie like that as well...
Zombieland.
It is very, very similar to Zombieland.
That's not a bad thing, it's just not enough.
Without wanting to damn with faint praise, you may as well see this in all the glory it's got on a huge cinema screen, yes.
It is, although the number of rewatches you'll get out of this is anyone's guess.
That's a strong four, but I think the film will quickly earn a reputation of being 'neither nowt nor summat'.
*1 Although the narration seems to be aimed through the fourth-wall and directly at the viewer this time, rather than something which could broadly count as a diary being read retrospectively. [ BACK ]
*2 For the record, 1986's Master Of Puppets is used to open Double Tap. And I'll be honest, For Whom The Bell Tolls from the first movie worked far better. It's a super slo-mo sequence so the slower, heavier song creates a stronger pairing. Choosing Master Of Puppets to for the sequel just feels like Ruben Fleischer trying to impress a girl by picking his naming Metallica tracks. Which, as men of a certain age will no doubt know, never actually works. [ BACK ]
*3 Guys, seriously. The whole "oh we've met another group of travellers who are avoiding zombies and their defining characteristics are almost exactly like our own!" schtick was done first in Shaun Of The Dead. The one from fifteen years ago. And it was only a passing gag there, here's it's dragged out expanded to fifteen minutes for a punchline which could have been achieved after five. [ BACK ]
*4Haha! Tallahassee is sitting in the president's chair in The White House*5! He's brash and uncivilised and kind of a moron and he's sitting in the president's chair! DO YOU SEE? DO YOU GET THE JOKE? THIS IS HOW YOU DO A SATIRE HAHAHAHA!![ BACK ]
*5 Naturally it's not explained why our heroes are able to break into the White House and find everything intact because not a single looting soul has forced their way into one of the most prominent buildings in America over the previous ten years that it's stood empty. Although I imagine the reason is on the same page as the fact that they're living there for weeks/months and no one attempts to get in then, either, despite there being plenty of other surviving humans around elsewhere in the movie.
[ 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, I'm not sure which theatrical gods I've appeased recently, but while the faintly trashy thriller Morgan didn't arrive at my local multiplex*1, the latest offering from Woody Allen did. And unless I'm very much mistaken, it's the first film of his to play there in the cinema's nine-year tenure.
** proudly wears film-snob hat **
The tale of Bobby, a self-conscious young Jewish man in the 1930s, moving from New York to Hollywood to work with his successful film-producer uncle, Café Society is one of Woody Allen's more Woody Allen™ films, and is all the more enjoyable for that. When falling for the girl of his dreams turns out to be far more complicated than he'd hoped, Bobby returns to the Big Apple to help run the family business, a decidedly dodgy nightclub. Naturally enough, the past returns to haunt him, and Allen's comedy of manners turns into a rumination on guilt, regret and idealism (don't worry, it's not as heavy as I've made that sound).
Jesse Eisenberg is almost tailor-made for the protagonist's role, seamlessly blending his trademark awkward muttering with Allen's script. He's supported in this by Steve Carell as the aforementioned uncle and Kristen Stewart as both his love-interest and macguffin. Carell cruises through his role as the troubled Hollywood mogul, not having to strain himself at all, but being able to deliver what's required without autopiloting. Stewart is a little more concerning, though. While it's great to see her and Jesse back together again, and while they have an undeniable screen-chemistry, Kristen never really convinces as someone from the 1930s. I think Stewart's a very underrated actress but she carries a modern aesthetic she can't seem to shake off here. And in this case, I have to lay the blame at least partly at the feet of the director. The rest of the cast blend into the timeframe so effortlessly that I can't believe Allen just let one of the most important performances of the film stand out in the wrong way. Things are made even more glaring when Blake Lively arrives in the second half, exuding a bygone era once again and thoroughly upstaging her counterpart.
But, on the whole, the film works perfectly well. Woody Allen is completely at home in the 1930s, and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro bathes the depression-era in a golden glow which matches both the script and the narcissistic characters delivering it. As noted above, what begins as a zippy farce ends quite ponderously, and often feels more like the Coen Brothers at times. Café Society won't be one of its director's most loved works, but it's a more-than-acceptable offering until the next one of those comes along...
Possibly, but I don't think it achieves all it could.
No, not that that's a criticism in itself.
No.
No.
Level 2: This movie stars Ken Stott, who appeared in those Hobbit films, along with Richard 'Bravo Six' Armitage and Christopher 'Dooku' Lee.
*1 It's not like I purposely travelled to watch Morgan, it just happened to be playing near where I was at the time. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate the movie, I'm just glad that a) I was able to use my Unlimited Card and b) it was genuinely a rainy afternoon as an alternative.
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.
So, magic-troupe, The Four Horsemen, with their entourage and nemeses in tow, return in the sequel to 2013's Now You See Me*1. Well, 75% of the Four Horsemen return, but since Isla Fisher's off having a baby and the follow-up simply couldn't wait, her character is indelicately written out and Lizzy Caplan is even more indelicately drafted in as The Girl One™. And Caplan's good (although she always is), but the handling of the situation feels insulting to both the cast and the audience alike (although Mélanie Laurent's protagonist from the first movie isn't even mentioned, let alone discarded).
Relying heavily on the audience being familiar with NYSM, Ed Solomon's screenplay doesn't spend a lot of time setting up the modus operandi or filling in the blanks between installments (about a year in plot-time). Aiming for a slick, globe-trotting caper but feeling more like someone running for a bus, the film's pacing is all over the place, and the various sub-plots are just as inconsequential as the headline-act. Whereas the previous entry was a series of loosely connected set-pieces holding together a heist-movie, this one feels more like an over-produced first draft of an episode of Hustle, with the central characters jumping through hoops to steal a Magic Computer Chip Macguffin™ that even the script doesn't bother explaining adequately.
Messrs Ruffalo, Eisenberg and Franco reprise their roles to varying degrees of success, but Woody Harrelson's turn as Merritt as well as his own twin brother means he's arguably putting in the most work out of all the players, and apparently having the most fun as a result. Michael Caine phones in another performance, but at least Morgan Freeman's not on cinematic autopilot for this outing, although he's still being absolutely no more than Morgan Freeman™ (although when was the last time he wasn't?). Meanwhile, Daniel Radcliffe struggles to find meaningful work after graduating Hogwarts. Keep looking, Dan.
And I know that this is a bugbear of mine second only to accents, but what the hell is with the geography in this movie? Once the Four Horsemen hit Ol' London Town and split up to give separate diversionary street-magic shows, Merritt's brother (Harrelson) takes Merritt (Harrelson) to one side and crows, "So where are you guys moving towards? By the Thames? Tower Bridge? Greenwich? Greenwich! I know where you're going..!". Except that when he's saying all this, they're already standing in Greenwich. Yeah you're right, I'm sure no-one else will have noticed...
Luckily, the film is just enough fun to paper over the cracks caused by the amount of sense it doesn't make. Just. That said, it's not as likeable as its predecessor and doesn't carry the goodwill it seems to think it can coast on. In the best showbiz tradition, Now You See Me 2 is fairly entertaining but utterly disposable. The second time this year I've been underwhelmed by Four Horsemen.
After the faux-moralistic, climactic showdown, perhaps the most ambitious trick the film attempts is in its final moments where Morgan Freeman's Thaddeus tries to convince the Horsemen (and by extension, the audience) that they've been through something meaningful.
But by that point, we've all seen behind the curtain and realised there was nothing there, after all...
Level 1: Although it's a very low-key link, Shina Shihoko Nagai and Attila G. Kerekes have a small roles in this movie, as well as the upcoming Star Wars: Rogue One.
*1 And before I get started (unless you're reading this footnote after the review), I feel I should say that while I really enjoyed the first Now You See Me at the time, it's left me with a sort of cinematic itch. And not a good one. The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that I'm not really a fan of watching Magicians™. I'm fascinated by what they do and admire if immensely from a technical and performance point-of-view, but I'm one of those irritating realists who believes in Illusions™, rather than Magic™. I'll be just as gob-smacked as the next punter when the JCB (or whatever) apparently disappears, but I don't believe for a second that supernatural forces are at play. And since it's the actual job of the Magician™ to resolutely not explain how they've achieved the illusion, this ultimately leaves me more irritated than awe-struck. The more a performer plays their art down, the more smug they seem to become, somehow.
Anyway, the reason I'm raising this is that while it may be a fantastic experience to watch this stuff in a live environment (or even a recording which was made in one), using it as the basis for a film is completely pointless. Moreover, this would still apply even if the core team were actual illusionists, rather than actors-playing-illusionists. You can already do anything in a film, it's called film-making. If you're the kind of viewer who oohs-and-aahs at Jesse Eisenberg making the rain go up (even though that trick is explained in the film), you're probably going to shit yourself when you watch Age of Ultron. If the line between movie-real and audience-real is sometimes fuzzy, Now You See Me is the cinematic equivalent of Gaussian Blur…
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 third time may be the charm but before that, the second is confirmation. A confirmation that I enjoyed Dawn of Justice. A confirmation that it's got some great characters, great performances and great moments. And a confirmation that the film is still an undisciplined, almighty mess. A mess which held my attention for its two and a half gruelling hours, but only as my brain picked holes from scene to scene (far to many to list here, unfortunately)*1.
Much has been said and written about Batman v Superman by now of course, and even I have to concede the validity of most of the sniping (although not the petition-raising by entitled fanboys who don't seem to be able to differentiate between a director and a writer). But today, I found that the key to enjoying Dawn of Justice is trying one's damnedest to ignore Jesse Eisenberg and his part in it. A repeat viewing only reinforces how much he's clearly not Lex Luthor, to anyone with even the most civilian knowledge of Superman's nemesis.
But what we really get here is the combined fragments of a great Batman film, a mediocre Superman one, and a dreadful Justice League setup. The former shows great promise (although I still hold deep reservations about Jeremy Irons), and as much as I'd like to see Affleck direct Batman's next outing, I'd love to see Kevin Smith helm it more. Superman's a little trickier as he has far less story-time here (which considering the film is about him seems odd), and the scenes we do get are hampered by the Daily Planet drudgery that should really be sidelined into a weekly TV show. And the less said about the DC extended-universe being pimped by having characters watch clips of superheroes on a laptop, the better.
White Dawn of Justice is by no means one of Snyder's best films, I can't hold him responsible for the film which came out of the editing suite. The jumbled storytelling smacks of mid-production and last-minute re-writes, studio hesitation and focus-grouping.
And as fascinating as I find the final product, a movie that cost a hundred million dollars for each hour of screen-time should do more than leave me interested…
Oh, and it's also a hell of a lot easier to watch in 2D.
Oh, 'DC things'…
By this point, I imagine you either already have or definitely won't.
Not likely.
Not nearly.
Nope.
There is indeed.
Level 2: Ben Affleck was in 2003's Daredevil (lest we forget) alongside Jon 'Pre Vizsla' Favreau.
*1 Although two things:
1) That 'mark of the bat' thing being a death-sentence in prisons is fucking bullshit for a start. Those institutions run on reputation; a brand that says "I'm such a badass I could only be taken down by the Batman" is going attract attention, but hardly mark someone out as an easy target. Those two blokes that the news report says were killed were doing time as p*edos. I suspect that would have been the real cause?.
2) How long have Gotham and Metropolis been that close together? When the bat-signal goes up and Lois Lane's on top of that building in Metropolis, it's like less than two miles away. I know they're on the edge of town, but are you really telling me that the combined size of these two would be smaller than London? Really? Or are they more like Newcastle and Gateshead? That could explain the initial animosity between the heroes, actually. It's not until Doomsday shows up (from Sunderland, I imagine) that they can put aside their differences…
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, that's a change of gear. Or rather, Dawn Of Justice is a change into several gears, all at once, for two and a half hours. Riding the cinematic clutch towards the Justice League, DC bring us a whole bunch of ideas and origins, all crammed into one 150 minute rollercoaster. And before I get properly started, I'll add here that the film kept me entertained throughout. Okay, it also kept me bemused and thematically motion-sick from time to time, but on the whole I enjoyed it*1.
The main stumbling block is that the story's trying to be in too many places at once and ends up flitting all over the place, even once the main plot-thread has kicked in. In trying to set up Batman, Superman's story falters and Wonder Woman's falls at just about every hurdle (and we all know Batman, of course, just not this Batman. Even if he's remarkably similar to Batman). Structurally, the film's a mess, and I don't know if that's down to re-shoots, re-writes or just taking two potentially great movies and cramming them into one which is less so. The film either needs to be much shorter or about 45 minutes longer, either would ease the strain.
There are also a few directorial issues that didn't seem to happen in the previous film. Laurence Fishburne is over-acting a cartoon version of the newspaper editor he played perfectly sensibly three years ago; Jeremy Irons forces himself to grimace through a wisecracking version of Alfred The Butler which suits neither the actor nor the character; and I've no idea why Jesse Eisenberg seems to think that the best portrayal of Lex Luthor would be channelling Jim Carrey's Riddler into the role, but Snyder appears to have agreed and has just let him get on with it, anyway*2.
Between the hyperactive story-threading, the shoe-horning of other DC properties and Bruce Wayne's anxiety daydreams, there's far too much going on here. Dawn Of Justice is not a great film, although there are great things within it. It's really a good second-draft which needs tightening up and trimming down.
Perhaps most ironically, DC have brought us a film which doesn't really do justice to the Superman we know, and certainly doesn't do justice to the Batman we don't.
Okay, it may not be Zack Snyder's Watchmen, but at least it's not Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch. We should all be grateful for that, if nothing else...
All of the superhero movies at once, I think.
Go big or go home.
Sadly, I don't think it does.
And it does pain me to say that, even as a Marvel fanboy.
Not nearly.
Not at all.
There only bloody IS, yes!
Level 2: This film's got Scoot McNairy in it, and he was in Killing Them Softly with Ben Mendelsohn, who'll be in Star Wars: Rogue One later this year. Actually they were in Black Sea together as well, which is why my brain struggles to separate them since those films were where I saw both of them for the first time. Even though there's like this ten year age difference between them.
Anyway yeah, that. Look, I've been awake for 22 hours as I write this and I'm still too buzzed to sleep...
*1 I pretty much have to say this because I'm going to go on and pick it apart. But ultimately, it's a film I'll gladly watch again, even if that's just in prep for the sequel. I can see why the critics are mauling it, and as much fun as I had, I'd be hard pressed to actually disagree, put it that way.
*2 Oh, and further to Superman having My Two Robin Hood Dads, it turns out that Batman's parents are Maggie out of the Walking Dead and The Comedian out of Watchmen. Which explains a lot, when you think about it…
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.
