2018 is a turbulent time to be a film fan, and as the less salubrious side of Hollywood rears its head once more, audiences are sometimes left with the unenviable challenge of attempting to separate the art from the artist.
Great strides are being made in the industry to redress longstanding imbalances, of course, and no right-thinking person would want misdemeanours to go unpunished or worse still, ignored. But these troubled waters are muddied further when one of the personalities involved has had a slew of historical allegations raised against them (with commendable support for the accusers, throughout the business), but so far accompanied - inexplicably - by no legal ramifications. While those who speak out on abuse should always be listened to, we also want to believe in due-process and rule of law. The awkwardness comes in the gap between, the doubt left in onlookers' minds while things run their course, which is this case is slowly, publicly and messily for all involved.
What this boils down to is when the BBFC rating card for a Woody Allen film warned of "moderate sex", your humble correspondent's first reaction was ‘Well… what's “moderate” going to mean, exactly?'.
But with The Unpleasantness out of the way (for now), Wonder Wheel is Allen's annual outing to our cinemas, as he foregoes the quippy comedies of the past and brings us a broiling melodrama set in New York's Coney Island amusement park during the 1950s. Beach lifeguard and aspiring writer Mickey (Justin Timberlake) narrates the story of the woman he's having an affair with, Ginny (Kate Winslet). A world-weary waitress, Ginny lives on the park with fairground operator Humpty (Jim Belushi), and her young pyromaniac son Richie (Jack Gore) from a previous marriage. But when Humpty's estranged daughter Carolina (Juno Temple) unexpectedly arrives on the run from her gangster husband, all of these uneasy threads are drawn together to make a fuse which only burns one way...
So maybe it's indicative of the baggage which an audience will likely bring into the auditorium with them, but Wonder Wheel is similarly troubled. Never quite straying into hammy territory, this is effectively an all-American kitchen sink drama, feeling for all the world like a vintage stage production which has been ported directly onto the screen.
It's nice to see Allen's sepia-tinted, oak-panelled satires giving way to 50s kitsch and over-saturation, although this is arguably more cinematographer Vittorio Storaro's movie than its director's. The fairground setting with its erratic weather gives the award winning lens-master carte blanche to change the lighting and colours mid-scene, often mid-monologue, morphing with the character's emotions and intentions. Key exterior shots are framed against backdrops of tunnels formed by receding arches, blatantly symbolising echoes of the past and repetitive behaviour. Visually, this is an intriguing work.
(That said, there's at least one scene where the moles on Kate Winslet's face switch sides, indicating that the footage has been mirrored in post-production. Vittorio probably needs to have a word with editor Alisa Lepselter, because if the audience notices this upon their first viewing, it's undoing his work and the movie's not really doing its job.)
Back in the screenplay, Mickey's fourth-wall-breaking commentary admits to seething melodrama and overblown characterisation from the outset, perhaps as an attempt to absolve Allen of blame for the slightly archaic structure. While Timberlake, Temple and Belushi all put in reliably solid turns (the latter in a role which appears to have been written for the late James Gandolfini, but still carried off with aplomb), the real screencraft comes from Kate Winslet as the connecting tissue between all other characters. Smouldering throughout the movie, Kate positively shines in a closing monologue which the camera awards directly to her, like a $10 performance in a $5 film.
Back in the writer’s chair, Allen's scripted allusions to the characters of Hamlet and Oedipus feel deliberately eyebrow-raising given their respective daddy-issues, and there's the thought that Wonder Wheel could be a pointed, cinematic confessional about responsibility, regret and bad decision-making. Alternatively of course, this could just be an autopilot pot-boiler masquerading as one. The exaggerated artifice in Timberlake's sporadic narration and Winslet's stagey performance would certainly suggest the latter.
Unfortunately, there's just so much of this theatricality that the film has little emotional resonance during its run-time and even less once the house lights come up. While Allen’s relentless work-schedule means that, statistically, they can’t all be winners, this latest offering feels like the film-maker not really trying, carried along by his cast and crew, but to no satisfactory end.
And while we await a firm conclusion to the unfolding drama behind the scenes, there’s the thought that Wonder Wheel could well be the director’s final, faltering curtain-call. Time will tell of course, until which point all we can do is try our best to keep the art and the artist on separate shelves…
Think of something like The Sopranos, but with no edge whatsoever.
It's a Sunday evening DVD, if anything.
Yeah, probably a rental or stream unless you're an Allen-completist.
It's not.
We won't.
There isn't.
Level 1: Timberlake may have gotten the chop from being a Jedi himself, but he's in that Inside Llewyn Davis with Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac and Adam 'Ren' Driver.
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.
Inside Llewyn Davis (second-pass)
Cert: 15 / 105 mins / Dir. Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
So after what probably seemed like a lukewarm review, I decided to watch Inside Llewyn Davis again before it gets relegated to afternoon showings next week. The good news is, it's just as mesmerising the second time around (perhaps more so, as the spiralling narrative of the film feels even more like a recurring dream). The rhythms of Llewyn's opportunity, ineptitude and regret are almost soporific, in the much same way that Davis himself finds it impossible to break the cycle of his behaviour. Oddly, the inevitability of his failures remains consistent however many times you watch the film. C'est la vie.
If there's a downside, it's that I didn't really gain that much from watching the film again; I'd hoped that I could lay the plot on the back seat and focus more on everything else, but it's either everything I caught last week, or so far beyond me that I'm never going to get it (the more likely option). It's not that the film is mysterious, more that it's magnificently subtle. That said, I had more fun with the secondary characters this time around, especially knowing in advance how they work in isolation of one another.
I was initially unsure about the opening and closing motifs, and having watched the film again am now even moreso. It's not something I'll go into here, but if you want to get symbolic, come and have a chinwag over at the Facebook page. I look forward to you bending my brain...
Inside Llewyn Davis is a fiendishly interesting film, although while there's plenty for me to like, I can't bring myself to outright love it. I probably don't need to see this again for some time now, and when I do return, it'll be largely for the soundtrack. It's a film I'd recommend, but for when you're in a contemplative mood.
And yes, that does sound massively self-indulgent. It's a Coen Bros film, after all ;)
Yeah.
As much as I was ever going to, yes.
Now, I think it probably does.
It's a night in with a bottle of red.
No.
Yeah.
No.
So. Coen Bros. Where's a good place to start?
Haven't been able to latch onto anything I loved. I didn't like True Grit, but I thought No Country… was okay (just not 'my thing'). A couple of other films of theirs I've tried and failed with, but am willing to have another go. So, where do I start?
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 won't lie to you, the first time I saw the trailer for Inside Llewyn Davis was with Mrs Blackout, and afterward we looked at each other and I mouthed "what?". This happens more often than is good for anyone, but it's rare that repeat viewings of a trailer actually sell me a film. Nonetheless, by the time today's showing rolled around, I was quite looking forward to it, not least because I'd also heard an interview with the directorial brothers on 5Live, laying the pitch for the narrative and the themes, rather than just the setting. Oh yeah, The Themes. This film has The Themes. It doesn't beat you over the head with them per se, but you should be prepared to understand that you're seeing Llewyn Davis' version of events*1, not that you'll see any other.
The film's soundtrack and Oscar Isaac (responsible for a large percentage of that soundtrack) do the heavy lifting, thematically speaking. Most of the other characters are totems of the various facets of Davis' personality, since we only see them from his point of view, and they very rarely interact with one another. The narrative is needfully meandering, as again, it's essentially Davis telling the story, and it reflects his haphazard lifestyle.
Bruno Delbonnel's soft-focused camera lends the film a dream-like quality, tranquil and disconnected even in its more emotionally traumatic moments. Quiet, introspective and borderline hypnotic, I think this is how I'm supposed to feel about all Coen Bros films. I think I understood it*2; I think I enjoyed it. But I've been wrong on both counts in the past, so let's chalk it up quietly as a success*3.
Inside Llewyn Davis is as centered and driving as its eponymous character, and is a better film for it. I'm fairly confident I'll get more out of it on repeat viewings, but I'm happy to let it bed in for a while, first.
Yeah, mostly.
…I think I did.
Probably. Maybe. I don't really know.
It's quite an 'intimate' film, so it wouldn't hurt to watch it at home.
Nah.
I will.
There isn't.
Is F. Murray Abraham just, like, not ageing or something?
*1 You knew that anyway from the title though, right? Yeah. Good.
*2 Not withstanding the cinematic devices used to tell the story, I know nothing about 1960's folk music, other than the fact that there are 'real world' references in here that I didn't fully get; I just knew they were there.
*3 Me enjoying a Coen Bros film, I mean. Not the film. The film's a success irrespective of how much I get it, I know that much.
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 wanted to like this. Really, I did. Timberlake and Arterton aren't going to change the world, but they're usually a good bet to turn up and read their lines, and I enjoy watching Affleck, even if I don't like some of the movies he's been in. But Runner Runner is like a celluloid anaesthetic, and they only make it worse, somehow. In different hands (and with a different cast), this could have bee a slick, tense thriller, yet Brad Furman's made a plodding, clockwork also-ran, filled with characters you don't care about, either way.
This was the main problem for me; I didn't hate Affleck's corrupt, double-crossing casino-lord, Ivan Block, and I didn't side with Timberlake's naive, greedy, smart-arsed maths genius, Richie Furst (and Arterton's one-note wonder, Rebecca, could have been played by anyone, she had so little to do). I didn't even form an opinion either way on Mackie's hard-nosed, rough-diamond, corner-cutting FBI agent, Shavers. I just spent an hour and a half not really giving a shit about them either way; I didn't have to as everything in the story is so linear that you don't need to wonder how it's going to end.
It never gets 'terrible', but Runner Runner is so dull it never even breaks into a jog. If you want to see a movie where a student gets into money problems with gambling to try and fund his tuition, 21 isn't too shabby (despite the RT score).
Not really; the trailer looks fairly interesting.
Not really.
Not really.
DVD, tops.
Not really.
Not really.
There isn't, no.
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.
In Time is the third cinema-film I've seen this year that stars JustinTimberlake. That statistic would be worrying if it wasn't also the fifth that's starred Olivia Wilde…
A futuristic action-thriller where time is the currency of mankind, and Will Salas (Timberlake) is living day-to-day in the ghetto where most people wake up without enough on the clock to see them 'til the evening. Basic commodities cost precious minutes and life is a balancing act for those struggling through it. On the other side of this, and several time-zones away, society's elite have more time than they could ever want, and live in opulent disregard for the unfortunates. Crime is rife in the ghetto, but through a chance encounter with a philanthropist, Salas is set on a course to try and seize justice, and time, for all…
The Good: Timberlake's on fairly good form here, as is Olivia Wilde. The script, plot and pacing are all clear enough. Despite it seeming like an outlandish concept, it works quite well in context. None of the characters are completely believable, but given the scenario of the film, they're not going to be. Generally speaking, it's respectable performances all round.
The Bad:Yeah, it's a pretty heavy-handed metaphor for capitalism, and feels a little overdone in the first half-hour or so. I expected it to get quite preachy in the final act, about 'not wasting the time you have', but surprisingly they've eased off on that. As a result, though, the ending seems a little limp; and things more or less slot into place for the characters, one way or another, and it all seems a little easy. Another downside is that in this undisclosed future-Earth (set at least 100 years after our time, but probably more), humans are genetically modified to stop ageing at 25 when their 'clock' kicks in and they have to buy time to survive. So, you just cast a bunch of 25yr olds, right? Well, for the most part it works fairly well, but it doesn't explain how Timekeeper Leon (Cillian Murphy) looks about 40 (especially as Murphy's actually 35). On the flip side of this, when you have Vincent Kartheiser playing a 25yr old-looking man who's aged over 100, and he puts on the pomp and concern that befits his character, it feels a little like a sci-fi Bugsy Malone. It's not a biggie, but it doesn't quite add up. And lastly (I promise), there's a partially-revealed backstory about Will's father, that concerns Leon. Some details are discussed and more are hinted at, but we never get a complete picture. Cut for time?
The Ugly: Alex Pettyfer, trying to channel his best 'Ray Winstone' as a ruthless but well-spoken ghetto gangster. Sadly, he has neither the presence or the gravitas to do this. Frankly, it's a bit embarrassing.
All-in-All: Despite my moaning, there, it's very enjoyable. Although I feel they could have done more with it, given an extra half an hour and a more adventurous plot.
See if you liked:The Adjustment Bureau, Source Code.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
It's Rom-Com by numbers, no matter how self-referential and meta it tries to be at times. In fact, the only thing that genuinely surprised me is the depth of the product placement deal that Sony have managed to secure in here.
The cast are likeable, the soundtrack's dependable, and you can see the plot coming before you sit down to watch it. In fact, if you've seen the trailer, you've pretty much seen the film.
That said, I enjoyed it. It is what it is, and it neither makes nor requires any apologies for itself. Woody Harrelson's pretty much the best thing in it, and he's chronically underused, but again, you get that impression from the trailer.
The film's a lot of fun, satisfying in the short term, but despite what it says in the moment lacks any real emotional depth. Which, given the central theme, is either a little ironic or completely fitting… probably both.
Watch with beer for best effect.
Oh, and it's good to hear Semisonic again.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
