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.
I think I was right the other week, it must still be March. Demonstrating that there's still plenty of filler-thriller left on the shelves, Michael Apted's latest offering sees Noomi Rapace lead as a CIA agent working undercover with the UK security forces in anti-terrorism operations, her particular skill being the psychological manipulation of captured enemy operatives to reveal secrets and intel. In the middle of a relatively routine job, she realises that her organisation has been compromised, the clock is ticking and - you've guessed it - she doesn't who just who she can trust…
Leaving aside for one moment the industrial-strength levels of cynicism I'm able to draw upon when considering Unlocked, it's not really that bad a film. It's just desperately searching for a USP, and is so mechanical that our screening had an interval so that Peter O'Brien's screenplay could be wound back up again. The pacing is efficient enough at a standard-issue 98 minutes and with Rapace being joined by the likes of Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom, Michael Douglas and John Malkovich, its casting budget is impressive at least*1. Speaking of performers, Bloom swaggers through his scenes like a cockney Noel Gallagher, Malkovich acts almost entirely with his ears and Rapace does so with her right eyebrow. Everyone else is firmly on autopilot for dour-faced foot-chases around North London*2. By the time Collette breaks out the machine gun semi-ironically, the third-act is in the post as surely as its timer-countdown ending.
While it's clear that there's some dramatic traction to the story being told, the 21st century is a crowded marketplace for the 'Bad Man Has A Bomb™' techno-thriller, and this film has little to sell.
To its credit, Unlocked features three (three) separate product-placement ads for Irn-Bru. It's not even like the thing takes place in Edinburgh, or anything. That's almost as impressive as the time Seabrook crisps rocked up in Fast & Furious.
Not unless desaturated huffing and puffing through the streets of London is your thing. This was made for the £3 shelf in Asda, or preferably Netflix.
Oh, probably.
All flippancy and sarcasm aside, it's not.
Nope.
Not that I heard.
Level 1: That Akshay Kumar's in this, and he's in the upcoming Last Jedi movie. He's listed on the IMDB as "First Order Monitor". Going to assume for now that's some command-centre type role, rather than a GFFA 'milk monitor'?
*1 Although it does feel quite like like Michael Douglas was called in for a couple of days' shooting as a favour here, and John Malkovich similarly booked for a few days there. Each of their scenes feels strangely detached from everything else in the movie. Like that time Morgan Freeman was locked in a broom cupboard to record his bits for London Has Fallen... [ BACK ]
*2 Although our heroes do get a black-cab at one point. As the car pulls up we hear the driver say "That'll be £12.50, please". Given that this is London and the 21st century, I'm left assuming they took a taxi for around the length of one street? [ 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.
Look at that poster ^^ (there's a bigger version here, if you like). It may seem quite functional, but on a technical level it's far better than it first appears. Across the lower section of the poster, just above the title, are the words "Inspired by a true story of real life heroes". The legend takes up approximately 0.5% of visual real-estate, states its case clearly, but barely attempts to conceal the background image of 52,000 tonnes of steel which is exploding and on fire. And if there's ever been a movie poster which so accurately summarises its product, I've yet to see it.
Much like Peter Berg's previous true-story thriller starring Mark Wahlberg, Peter Berg's latest true-story thriller starring Mark Wahlberg isn't inherently a Bad Film™ in itself. It just feels massively inappropriate given how recently the events in it took place and adds nothing to the tale above the needless pomp and glamorisation of a bonafide disaster. The first hour consists of the cast pointing at everything on the titular oil exploration-rig and saying "well that's an accident waiting to happen!", then the second hour consists of everything being on fire. Some people get off the rig, some people don't, that's about it. If this was a Roland Emmerich movie it might be a more forgivable state of affairs; the overall mawkishness is a given, but Berg's film feels borderline exploitative.
It's hard to know who's patronised more here, the cinema audience or the actual fatalities of the actual disaster who are reduced to a five-second photograph and name-caption before the closing credits roll (not that their screen-counterparts have any dialogue or constructive part to play). Central and supporting performances are solid enough for a middle-of-the-road Sunday night DVD*1, but Deepwater Horizon is anchored by a pedestrian screenplay that does no-one any favours, on or off-screen. The harder the film tries to remind you of its factual connections, the more gauche the whole thing seems.
And if you think all of this sounds like a very cynical attitude, I'll remind you that I'm not the one who looked at one of the worst industrial/environmental disasters in history, then turned it into what is essentially an action-movie starring Will Ferrell's straight-man*2.
If a studio really wanted to to celebrate the heroes and honour the victims of Deepwater Horizon, a documentary would have been a more appropriate vehicle...
*2 Yes, the actor who wouldn't be allowed on an actual oil-rig because he's so wooden he's been classed as a fire-hazard. The actor who somehow managed to make 40-ft high robot beating the crap out of each other appear boring. The actor whose most well-received role was arguably opposite a swearing, farting, animated bear. I can't pretend this didn't colour my view of the movie from the first time I saw the trailer…
*3 Oh, and while I'm on, that BP-exec's tie isn't "magenta" as mumbled by Kurt Russell in an early scene, it's fucking purple. Magenta is magenta. The tie is purple. This point is especially underlined later when we see the magenta-alert onboard the oil-rig, and it's shown to be fucking magenta. Not fucking purple. And considering this is mentioned because 'the guys on the rig are superstitious', presumably that level of supernatural caution doesn't extend so far as not working with a shitload of malfunctioning equipment and wearing their ear-defenders sporadically and/or incorrectly? And this footnote doesn't even tie up with a * in the main review. It just needed saying. On the plus side, I'm fairly certain the broadcast-restrictions on oil-rigs are still in place, so at least the people most likely to be enraged by the film are statistically less likely to see 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.
Okay, let's get this cinematic train back on its track. Spike Jonze's 1999 fantasy flick is a one which slipped under my radar at the time (I was a little preoccupied with Star Wars that year), and has come up in conversation since, but only as a recommendation-with-caveats.
Off-beat, but rarely off-puttingly so, Being John Malkovich is on uneasy-street from the word go, taking a full half-hour before the title-star is even mentioned upon the discovery of a plot-device portal into his psyche. Under the normal run of things this alone would annoy me, but Jonez's world-building is a wonder to watch in the meanwhile, like trying to recall a fever-dream while you're still in the fever.
Cameron Diaz and John Cusack are fantastic leads, which makes you wonder why the rest of their careers are so monumentally bland*1. John Malkovich and Catherine Keener are great as usual, of course. Props also go to Orson Bean being quietly brilliant as Dr Lester.
Jonez's direction is the perfect fit for Charlie Kaufman's writing (although cinematographer Lance Acord could do with turning the lights up a little), and the whole concept - one which could easily have slipped into an unaware parody black-hole with a different headliner - comes together so neatly; almost as if it isn't one of the weirdest films you'll ever see.
It's just a shame that ending is so heavily telegraphed.;)
Really, never.
I am, indeed.
Yes. But with caveats.
Not that I heard.
Cameron Diaz played Natalie in the movie-incarnations of Charlie's Angels, the first of which also starred Mr Tim Curry, perhaps most famously known (obviously) for his role as the voice of Palpatine/Sidious in the later episodes of Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
*1 Don't get me wrong, I don't actively dislike either, but their choice of roles is often dreadful.
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.
