Oh, hello there. I've been to see The Last Jedi again, and rather than bore you silly with nitpicking and needlessly in-depth opinions*1, I've made you some Skittlez character-posters instead...
[ Click for Big (opens in new window) ]
More soon.
You're very welcome.
The Star Wars's.
It is.
For me, it's a buyer (already pre-ordered, obvs).
It's high.
It's very high.
Over some points, possibly.
There is.
Level 0: It is Star Wars.
*1 Don't worry, there's a rant on punctuation usage in the GFFA due to arrive in the near future. [ 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.
Maybe it's because I'd just sat through the distinctly sparkle-free Christmas With The Coopers, or maybe it's because what followed was the threat-free Krampus, but my Christmas movie of 2015 is The Night Before, by a Lapland-mile.
Maybe it's because the film isn't really about Christmas, but about friendship? Good old fashioned sweary, drunken, adventure-having, mistake-making, off-your-box-a-range-of-substances friendship. As someone who loves the idea of the festivities but seems to struggle with the actuality, I love that The Night Before is more of a yuletide safety-valve for the writers than a heartwarming parable, and I'll completely understand a lot of people disliking the film for continually stepping over the line of what's expected from a tinsel-flick (not that it's ever hateful, but the script's frequent disregard for the line of perceived good-taste is breathtaking).
Ostensibly a very loose retooling of A Christmas Carol, there are also beats from (and references to) Home Alone, It's A Wonderful Life and Santa-knows how many other seasonal movies nested away in there. Seth Rogen is on fantastic form, which is no mean feat alongside Anthony Mackie and Joseph Gordon-Levitt both bringing their comedic A-games. There's still the feeling that the film is a loosely linked series of separately-written sketches, but the recurring beats hold it together nicely enough. Not least of these is Michael 'Zod' Shannon as the mysteriously shambolic Mr. Green. It wasn't until about half way through the movie that I realised Shannon appears to be playing his character as played by Samuel L Jackson. It's never overdone, but quite unnerving once it kicks in.
But as overtly raucous as the film is, there's a good heart beating away underneath, blurring the lines of choosing between spending your time with friends vs family in the holiday season. Because if you're doing it right, your family are your friends, and your friends are family. And neither are just for Christmas ;)
As festive messages of goodwill go, The Night Before is immature, irresponsible and utterly puerile. And all the more genuine, for it...
It's worth paying to see, for sure, but…
…it'd be equally suited to a cold, December night in with buddies and beverages.
And as it's a Christmas movie, you may as well buy it for repeated future use, of course.
All of the baubles shine brightly, here.
It does.
I think it could have achieved more, but that's not the point.
Not one jot.
There isn't.
Well, The Night Before stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who also appeared in 2009's G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra, as did a certain Ray 'Darth Maul' Park…
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 Walk (3D)
Cert: PG / 123 mins / Dir. Robert Zemeckis / Trailer
Not convinced by the trailer? Don't worry, I wasn't either. I struggled to see how Robert Zemeckis was going to make a compelling movie about a subject which is already documented on pageandon film. But The Walk is much more than a series of escalating events (no pun intended), instead it gets inside the head - and heart - of wire-walker Philippe Petit, and ends up being three movies in one.
The first act follows Philippe through his childhood and adolescence, showing his fascination with performance acrobatics first in rural France, then to Paris, and his idea for the World Trade Centre walk. From the very beginning, Zemeckis is keen to highlight that this is a true story, with a massive title card informing the audience of such. And yet this section of the film is also the least convincing, as the director employs an array of techniques to keep pulling the viewer out of the story and create a strong sense of artiface; be it the fourth-wall-breaking on-screen dialogue from Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Petit as he narrates the major points of his life from the top of an astoundingly false looking Statue of Liberty*1, the black-and-white scenes with bursts of colour injected, Ben Kingsley's voice*2, or even just the heavily stylised filming of the scenes which aren't designed to catch your eye, particularly. At this point, it almost feels like Zemeckis is saying that the truth of the story isn't enough, that it has to be embellished with spectacle and exaggeration. It doesn't bode well, and I still wasn't convinced.
However, once Philippe arrives permanently in New York and begins assembling a team of accomplices to help him achieve his unauthorised and highly-illegal walk between the towers, the film becomes an energetic heist-movie, not unlike American Hustle, complete with JGL donning a number of disguises as he cases the still-incomplete South Tower with a view to infiltrating it with all of his wire-apparatus. It's at this point that the chemistry between Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Charlotte Le Bon really kicks in, and they're fantastic together even if their combined screen-time is relatively short. This is also the act which features the comic relief from the misfits Philippe recruits, partly because of their skills, but also through sheer desperation. Additionally, it's here that the director seems to delight in homaging his own Back To The Future movies*3, as he's already got Alan Silvestri to score the film, and then goes on to show his love of a) ominous thunderstorms in the lead-up to a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, b) fascinatingly detailed architectural maquettes, painstakingly over-built to illustrate only one point, and c) steel cables and ratchets. Lots of ratchets. The heist-act is a lot of fun, by this point I was well onboard.
But it's act-three, the final stretch, the walk itself, which everyone's come for and this is where Zemeckis really shines. The Walk becomes a film not about the technicalities of stringing a wire between two buildings, nor about the adulation and amazement coming from the streets below while that's done, but about the performance art itself. About testing your own limits and doing something unique purely because you can (with a lot of help from your friends, of course). Far from being the hyper-tense tale of hubris that the trailer hints at, it's a film about freedom on a personal and artistic level. Philippe refers to the planning and execution of his walk as le coup, but despite the authorities (eventually) becoming involved, there's nothing either political or egotistical about his actions; it's just something he has to do for himself.
Then, almost as a post-script to the story, Zemeckis' film deftly delivers a metaphorical love-letter to the Twin Towers, but again it's a one which manages to steer well clear of any mawkishness or politics somehow; not mourning their loss, but just celebrating their existence. A carefully crafted final sequence shows the towers as beacons of hope and possibility, of Philippe's dream and everything he did to achieve it. A reminder that people may think you're crazy (in fact, you very well might be), but all the time it's your dream, you're the only one who can chase it properly. And a reminder that the best art is created for the sake of art itself.
The unspoken fate of the buildings aside, any film which can make a wooly-yet-cynical liberal like me misty-eyed over two monuments to naked, unabashed capitalism - in today's climate - is doing something very right, indeed.
Go and see The Walk...
It is, and in 3D as well. There a fewer 'fairground thrill-simulator shots' in there than you'd think (although there are several, obviously), but much like The Martian, this is one of the rare examples of a live-action movie which looks great in 3D.
Seriously, much of the effect will be lost on the small screen (unless your telly's massive), but this will be one to buy. Once the price drops, naturally.
Accent quibbles aside, JGL's on great form here.
More than.
Probably not…
There isn't.
Which is ridiculous, because there is the perfect spot for it, too.
The film stars James Badge Dale and Ben Kingsley, both of whom appeared in Iron Man 3, along with Jon 'Pre Vizsla' Favreau.
*1 And like I said, this first act is specifically designed to not be a documentary, but how come in some of the shots of Petit narrating, the wind machine's turned on to simulate standing exposed to the elements 150 feet in the air, but in other's it's not and everything's just deathly still? I know I'm not meant to believe it Zemeckis, but you could at least pretend you're trying to convince me…
*2 Oh, and fair play to Kingsley here as Petit's mentor and trainer, Rudy. Levitt's introductory narration tells us that "Papa Rudy never said exactly where he was from…", which gives Ben carte blanche to employ a wildly-roaming non-specific European drawl for the rest of the film, which seems to change with each scene he's in. Half of me suspects that this is a deliberate tie-in with his advice to Philippe when he tells him "Never be insincere on stage, it must come from here. The audience will know if you're lying". Because for all his shop-demonstration-mode vocal acrobatics, he plays his role perfectly (more importantly, his accent doesn't matter, although JGL's might)…
*3 There's also a sort of homage to 1985's Ghostbusters too, in the form of people standing on the streets of New York, looking at the top of a building they can't really see properly and ooh-ing and aah-ing. Although this is less of an intentional reference than an unavoidable one, I suspect.
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.
Prior to this evening, I'd been asked occasionally (irregularly certainly, but more than once) if I'd seen 500 Days Of Summer. My answer, as the header-image of this review would suggest, was 'no'. Not for any real reason as such, but like so many films which are widely enjoyed and respected by my contemporaries, it just hadn't crossed my path and I saw no real reason to seek it out. In fact, the arguments for and against watching the film were pretty much this:
For: The film stars Zooey Deschanel.
Against: The film stars Zooey Deschanel.
Now, it's not that I actively dislike the actress, singer and fringe-model, but I've really got to be in the mood for her work, since I find her a bit one-note. And also because Cariad Lloyd pretty much irreversibly hits the nail on the head, here. Anyway, now that I've watched the film, I can reveal that there are actually more arguments for and against watching 500 Days Of Summer…
For: Joseph Gordon-Levitt being 50% quietly charming, 50% introspective.
Against:Zooey Deschanel being 30% cute, 70% irritating.
For: The film takes a fresh, outsiders' view on relationships in the 21st century.
Against:Because couples walking glassy-eyed around Ikea had never been used as a heavy-handed symbol of the decline of spontaneity before 2009.
For: The film features Poison on the soundtrack.
Against:The film features The Smiths on the soundtrack.
For: The film's non-linear approach to storytelling is an interesting device.
Against:…which becomes annoying after about half an hour with the apparency that it's preventing any narrative-flow
For: The film's non-linear approach to storytelling means that the characters can display complex and varied personalities from the start of the film.
Against:…and that you can have a rom-com with All The Whining™ throughout the entire film, rather than just in the third act.*1
For: The film's eclectic soundtrack is almost a character in its own right.
Against:…to the point where it's basically used instead of writing dialogue.
For: The film has ushered cinema on from mainstream twee rom-coms like Four Weddings… Against:…and has wedged the door open for mainstream emotionally-stunted rom-coms like What If.
So it turns out the actual reason I'd never seen 500 Days of Summer before is that it was exactly as I'd suspected it would be: Like being trapped on a long bus journey sat next to an unbearably self-indulgent hipster who won't shut up about the bands you've never heard of, but is still the only other person on the bus you'd want to sit next to anyway.
Because when the interviewee introduces herself at the end of the film and Joseph Gordon-Levitt smirks directly into the camera, I shouldn't say "Oh, fuck off" out loud, should I..?
What it ultimately comes down to is:
For: The film stars Zooey Deschanel.
Against: The film stars Zooey Deschanel.
Like the central character Tom, I've come so far only to learn what I already knew…
Nope, really never.
Well, I'm glad I can now tell people that 'yes, I've seen it' and then proceed to annoy them with my opinions on it?
Oh, if the film's your thing then you've already seen it, I have no doubt of that.
There ain't.
The film features a split-second cameo from Yavin Throne-room Celebration Han Solo.
Too linear? Okay, Joseph Gordon-Levitt starred in Sin City: A Dame To Kill For, as did Jamie King, the voice of Aurra Sing in Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
*1 I know it's not really a 'romantic comedy' in the traditional mould, either in the sense of romance nor indeed comedy, but it's one of those comedies which you're not meant to really laugh at; more sit smiling wryly at, revelling in how clever you are for finding it amusing. Yeah, whatever.
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.
Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (3D / SLIGHT SPOILERS. ish.)
Cert: 18 / 102 mins / Dir. Robert Rodriguez & Frank Miller
The opening roll-call of Miller and Rodriguez's seamless follow-up to 2005's Sin City warns once again that this will be a film with too many characters. Episodic in nature as its predecessor, the stories A Dame To Kill For are set after the Hartigan thread from last time, but before the Marv one. Although both characters still feature in this film, and the comic-book roots of the stories mean they exist in their own heavily-inked isolation, anyway.
We're back once more in Basin City for another trio of tales of nocturnal sleaze, debauchery and vengeance. Mickey Rourke returns as the bullet-headed trouble-magnet Marv, this time siding with Josh Brolin's not-so-private eye Dwight in a story which pits them against Eva Green's calculatingly unhinged Ava. Elsewhere we get Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the brash gambler Johnny out to teach Senator Roark a lesson he won't forget, and the return of Jessica Alba's Nancy, with her own score to settle from the first film. As mentioned above, Bruce Willis reprises his role, as do Rosario Dawson, Power Boothe, and Jaime King.
It's all shot in uber-noir, and the presence of JGL reminded me how much I'd love to see a live-action Batman feature executed in this style. First-person voiceovers feature heavily again, as does the convoluted web that exists between the characters. But the moments of monochromatic bloodshed which drag the smoky 1930's screaming into the present-day seem to be spaced too far apart, even if when they do arrive, they do so with a glee which outshines Sin City's. In terms of general tone, Rodriguez seemed to be having far more fun in Machete Kills. And just because you can count the number of smiles in A Dame To Kill For on one hand, don't be fooled into thinking it has any deep message to impart. If anything, the film's treatment of its female characters leaves me feeling somewhat uncomfortable, but that's an area best covered by writers more qualified to wade into such waters.
You'd imagine the 3D would be a great addition to a film which is borderline animated, but if anything it just makes the juxtaposition between the photography and rendered backdrops more jarring. It's clear from the off that more money's been spent on the visuals this time around, but it doesn't make for a smoother ride. Not withstanding the fact that the screening I saw had 3D ghosting all over the shop, the lesson I gleaned from Sin City is that film noir needs restraint, not excess.
All in all, Sin City: A Dame To Kill For has been made with care and attention, but I'm not entirely sure there was any need for it to exist. It expands on the continuity of the first film with flair and conviction, but it never really adds anything to it. If that's good enough for you, then fair play; it's certainly more entertaining than a lot of films I've seen this year.
Fans of the first film will welcome it to their shadow-loving hearts and bookshelves, but it's not doing anything Sin City didn't.
And crucially, it's not doing anything better.
I'd say so.
Y'know what, I don't think I actually did.
Probably, although that's not really for me.
If you're going to see a film this dark, a massive dark room is the perfect place for it.
Nah.
Probably.
I didn't hear one. And this is Robert Rodriguez, here. Sort it out, man.
What the hell is Eva Green doing with her accent? British? American? Australian?
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.
