Showing posts with label Karan Soni. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Karan Soni. Show all posts

Saturday, 15 July 2023

Review: Spider-Man - Across The Spider-Verse


Spider-Man:
Across The Spider-Verse

Cert: PG / 134 mins / Dir. Joaquim Dos Santos / Trailer

It's an odd one alright. I complain quite vociferously about the lack of new available content at my local 'small' five-screen cinema, while simultaneously seeming to ignore popular mainstream releases which should by all accounts be right up my alley. There are fatigue-related reasons that Sony's new Spider-Man movie opened at the beginning of June and it's taken me six weeks to get round to watching it.

While I didn't actively dislike its predecessor Into The Spider-Verse, the film was definitely saddled with the burden of being Sony's Spider-Man rather than Marvel's one. And Sony's output is increasingly like a 1980s pop band touring provincial venues with only one original member, and they're not even the best part of the band but they are somehow the one who won the legal rights to use the name. The 2018 animated feature was too long, too messy, too loud and with too much shit thrown at the wall in an attempt to make something stick.

With all this in mind then, I can confidently report that Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse is at least tonally consistent as a sequel.


MILES


The storyline follows on from last time, with Earth-1610's Miles Morales being back in his own world and struggling to find a trajectory as he nears the end of high school while moonlighting as Spider-Man. Meanwhile, Earth-65's Gwen Stacy battles with her own issues as Spider-Woman, living with a father who's unaware of her secret identity and determined to catch 'The Spider' for the murder of Peter Parker. But when a Renaissance version of The Vulture starts tearing through the multiverse, the multiversal 'Spider-Society' is tasked to stop him - which will mean reluctantly recruiting Morales to help...

In theory this is all fine; in practice it's too much simultaneous Content™ again. Visuals which would look outstanding for a three-minute music video become utterly exhausting over two hours. Each and every frame here is a work of art, they just make no sense when they're strung together too maniacally to keep track of. There's more detail than the eye can follow through the film's hyperactive editing, and the whole thing turns into the visual equivalent of white noise. Ironically for a film this active, it creates a soporific effect as the brain starts to shut down rather than keep attempting to process the information. Perhaps I just need to watch it on a smaller screen.

Part of the USP with the animation is that its art style is constantly changing, often within the same scene. Initially it seems to be doing this to reflect the character whose point-of-view we're experiencing, but scenes later in the movie only feature two people yet cycle through half a dozen looks. This precocious presentation results in a film which feels like watching a group of first-year art students have a collective seizure. Elsewhere, earnest and spirited vocal performances are rendered unintelligible by an atrocious sound-mix, poorly placed over intrusive, percussive soundtracking. And since around 60% of the dialogue here is catch-up exposition, Across The Spider-Verse basically has to be enjoyed (...) as a visual experience.


GINA


My real problem is bigger than all of this, though. The following is not limited to Spider-Verse, but certainly includes it. Put simply, multiverses are hands-down the worst thing to have happened to superhero cinema, and that's only getting more problematic. The concept works in print where the possibilities and limitations can be explored at a more careful pace (indeed, with comics it becomes needed as characters are relaunched for evolving audiences after years of literary service; multiverses allow for a soft-reboot), and I've admittedly enjoyed it at certain points previously. But the cinematic iteration of the superhero-multiverse has fast become the equivalent of 3D, a knee-jerk fad to be ordered at an executive level in lieu of creativity. And it's already on its arse.

As well as encouraging filmmakers to overindulge in distracting cameos and needless fan-service, the open-ended structure of parallel realities means that narrative decisions in one movie can be ret-conned, undone or just flat out ignored in the next (yes I'm looking at you, Gamora). When consequence is removed from the storyline then none of it matters on an emotional level, and cinema is supposed to be about empathy. But hey, why mine for a deeper pulse when you can just make the whole thing bigger and louder with more slightly-different versions of the same thing*1? Audiences know by this point not to expect restraint from corporations desperately trying to keep their intellectual property fresh, and the race for More Stuff™ has become just as repetitive as the origins-formula it was trying to supersede.

Even more ironically with Across The Spider-Verse, Miles Morales (and by extension, the whole audience) gets a whole lecture about 'canon events' - concurrences which need to take place across every iteration of the hero's life (here it's the death of Uncle Ben, or equivalent guardian in each timeline), otherwise their path will be too different from all the other spider-heroes and things will become too unpredictable. What this deftly - if unintentionally - illustrates is that Sony are happy to bring in about a hundred different Spider-Mans from all the corners of the property they've got the rights to but are too afraid to do anything different with the character. Spidey's backstory is permanently locked into our pop culture at the same level as Bruce Wayne's, meaning nothing can be changed on a fundamental level without Sony taking a massive gamble in pissing off the legacy fanbase and also not enticing new viewers. In other worse, Spider-Man is precisely the wrong character with which to explore the multiverse. Well done, guys.


DICKIE



Truth be told, when Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse slows down and actually concentrates on its character-work, it is pretty superb. But the fact that this only happens twice in over two hours means that the film, on the whole, isn't. A textbook example of Style Over Substance. In all honesty, it feels like I'm done*2.


All I really want out of Spider-Man is a third Andrew Garfield flick to close out his trilogy, and a new set of live-action movies for Miles Morales where possibilities can be broadened. And what are Sony bringing to the table instead? How are they maximising on their end of an historic deal from Marvel currently enjoyed by no other studio? With shit-Dracula and shit-Tarzan. We get the protagonists we deserve.

To make matters worse, I just know that Me in some other part of the multiverse is enjoying the good stuff...



And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 "more slightly-differing versions of the same thing" is, to be fair, Marvel's entire cinematic business-model. And I have to admit it's done them well for at least the first ten years of the MCU... [ BACK ]

*2 It's worth noting of course that this is Sony's mess, not that of Marvel Studios. But Marvel's name is on the can and they signed off on this - they do have that veto. Which means they are in a large and instrumental part responsible for it. And even that'd be easier to forgive if Marvel hadn't put out Eternals under their own banner. If they can be slack in what they serve up, they can expect consumers to give few fucks in return... [ 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.

Monday, 21 May 2018

Review: Deadpool 2 (second-pass)





Deadpool 2 (second-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. David Leitch / Trailer



A second-pass of Deadpool 2 in a more sparsely-populated screening proved to be a slightly quieter affair, but certainly no less enjoyable. With around 30 other patrons, the audible joke-reactions seemed fewer*1, but there was also no accounting for how many attendees had seen the film before*2, and repetition is the enemy of reaction-comedy.

But the gags are still funny, the action is still adrenaline-surging, I still teared-up at one point near the end and I believe I’m still justified in calling this movie better than its predecessor*3.

Deadpool 2 is a winner, but guarded threequel speculation begins now....



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
X-Men Origins: Wolverine.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
Yes.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
Yes, yes and yes.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
It's incredibly strong work, that's for sure.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
Only if you're wrong.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Yes.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: Uncredited Mudtrooper from the upcoming Solo movie is in this.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 But certainly sounding more like people watching a comedy than my time with the latest Amy Schumer flick where, (with the exception of one particular patron behind me who laughed like a drain but only for about a quarter of the movie) the crowd looked on in near-silent horror at badly ad-libbed body shaming. [ BACK ]

*2 While I was enjoying a second-pass, one of my erstwhile colleagues for the day was on his eighth. And while his own laughter was some way off the reactions of the opening night crowd, he still sat grinning like an idiot for the duration. Which made at least two of us. [ BACK ]

*3 Well, Ed Skrein isn't in it for a start. [ 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.

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

Review: Deadpool 2 (first-pass)





Deadpool 2 (first-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. David Leitch / Trailer



Well, I don't know how Fox have done it, but they have. Against all expectation (cynical, hopeful or otherwise) David Leitch's new film is quintessential cinematic alchemy; a sequel which matches and then surpasses its originator without downplaying or dismissing that first movie in the slightest.

Deadpool 2 is even better than Deadpool.
There. I said it.

On this first and very broad pass, it's difficult pinpoint exactly what makes the movie better, since I absolutely loved all of it. Also, I admittedly missed sections by not being able to see the screen for crying (usually through laughter, but at a couple of points just through sheer exuberant joy).

The masterstroke (which is no doubt currently being over-analysed at various production studios) is that tonally, nothing is off the table here. Writers Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Ryan Reynolds play with the established X-Men universe (indeed the whole comic book genre) without being beholden to it. The film combines gut-busting humour, sincere warmth and affection, blistering action and the foulest of potty-mouths*1 all with equal vigour. That said, Deadpool 2 is above all else a comedy, and is better for it. When it goes full-on in one area, the whole thing is strengthened as a result.

Reynolds plays the title role to perfection as only he can, with returning appearances from Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), Weasel (TJ Miller), Dopinder (Karan Soni), Blind Al (Leslie Uggams) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) which bring familiarity without repetition. Meanwhile, the 'now featuring' list is headlined by Josh Brolin as Cable, and a tremendously angsty turn from Julian Dennison as Firefist.

Leitch's direction is as tight as the script and as loose as its cast, the eclectic pop/rock soundtrack interspersing Tyler Bates' score with similar fluidity. And while actions in this movie aren't free of consequence, the fourth-wall breaking sets the tone for the screenplay's regard for sticking to the rules. All of which you'd expect, but this is even better, somehow.

About five minutes into the feature it occurred to me that because of the parodic nature of the trailer campaign, I had pretty much no idea what was actually going to happen in the movie. Unless you've already been digging for details, I advise you go into the cinema with the same mindset. Deadpool 2 is a magnificently violent, funny, sweary rollercoaster. Enjoy the ride.


Oh, and there's nothing at the end. Plenty of mid-credits action, but once the names start rolling on the screen, you can make your way out to book your next screening…


So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
Well, Deadpool.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
It is.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
Your preferred format-of-choice, as soon as it's available.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Could well be.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
If you don't love it, yes.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There is.
One-and-a-half, in fact
.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: K-2SO is in this.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 There are even a couple of c-bombs, which is unusual for a 15 certificate. They don't necessarily match the flow of the script, but they're used in a way which doesn't de-rail it either. And I only mention this because if That Particular Language is going to be a problem for you, you should know in advance. But by the same token, anyone who's seen the first Deadpool know that this will be a top-end 15... [ 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.

Tuesday, 12 July 2016

Review: Ghostbusters (2016)





Ghostbusters (2016 / 2D)
Cert: 12A / 116 mins / Dir. Paul Feig / Trailer


Well, thanks to the sterling work of Sony's marketing department, the opening-night showing of the first new Ghostbusters cinematic content in twenty seven years (for which the tickets went on sale about a month ago) was less than half full. The audience in attendance didn't seem too phased by this, but the awkward shuffling of the three fully-suited cosplayers invited by the cinema to meet-and-greet at the front of the auditorium during the pre-trailer ads spoke volumes.

Yes, we finally get to see Paul Feig's XX-chromosomed interpretation of Ghostbusters; 60% reboot, 40% flat-remake. Leaving aside the aforementioned lacklustre publicity and the ferocious number of online misogynists entitled fanboys it's attracted, the film has its work cut out long before the BBFC card. Because if you can't top everybody's favourite movie, should you even try?

Well, Ghostbusters takes about half an hour before it feels comfortable doing its own thing, and even after that it's constantly referencing beats and tropes from the 1984 original. The plot-mechanics around the increased paranormal occurrences and the central villain are sketchy at best, feeble at worst; Cameos from the legacy-cast are shoehorned in to the point where they're practically spot-lit; the pop-soundtrack is intrusive and repetitive in the number of cover-versions and remixes of the song we all know; there's a McCarthy-sized gap between some of the scripted dialogue and the improvised lines; the sequel-alarm goes off far earlier than it should, and there's a point shortly before the climax where writers Paul Feig and Katie Dippold clearly didn't know how to wrap up the neon carnage they'd created in Times Square...

Also, the film's magnificent. Quite, quite magnificent. Because everything listed above doesn't matter when you're having this much fun. Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones gel perfectly, and while the screenplay is anxious to get things moving at a brisk pace, they each have a lot to bring to the party (McKinnon and Jones pretty much steal the show, in fact. As they're relatively unknown to UK audiences, it's easier to buy into their characters*1). Chris Hemsworth's good fun as the dumb-blonde receptionist, but just as it feels like that joke's wearing thin, Feig finds a way to develop his character, too (well, a little).

Even in 2D the film is visually intense and it's deafening as soon as the action starts. As noted, there's very little in the way of downtime, but the pacing is fairly constant for all that. Is it a vehicle for SNL performers to riff off each other and indulge in puerile slapstick? Absolutely, as was the 1984 flick. While the methodology is suitably different, Feig captures the tone of the first movie and builds on it with the best of his own style.

And be warned: it's a 12A in the UK so if your kids are under ten, they may get a little freaked out. Although not as freaked out as I was by the library-ghost back in the day.
That's good though, right?

Will Ghostbusters 2016 be as iconic as its 1984 counterpart? No.
Does Ghostbusters 2016 need to be as iconic? Not at all.
The lightning-in-a-bottle of the original couldn't be recaptured by the same writers, director and cast five years later, so why would anyone expect a completely new gang to pull off the impossible more than quarter of a century after that?

But I'm happy to say that the new Ghostbusters is funny, exciting, gloriously self-indulgent and had everyone leaving the cinema grinning. And when it comes to a Summer-movie, I can't ask for more than that...


Oh, and wait around 'til the end of the credits.


So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Ghostbusters (obviously), 21 Jump Street, and to a lesser degree Deadpool.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
If you're able, yes.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
It does, much to everyone's surprise/relief.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
It just might well be…


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Depends on how/why, but I'll be happy to discuss it at length with you over a pint.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
Didn't hear one, but most of the action sequences are pretty much white-noise, to be fair.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: There could well be some direct links with voice-work in various SW projects (and there are certainly a few in behind the scenes departments), but let's go for Leslie Jones who plays Patty in this, and also appeared in 1998's Wrongfully Accused, as did Michael 'Nuvo Vindi' York.

Yes, I just reminded you that Nuvo Vindi is canon, didn't I?
#NotEvenSorry
#YeaYeaYeaYeaYEAYEAYEAYEAH!


And if I HAD to put a number on it…



*1 Wiig and McCarthy pretty much play the versions of themselves you've seen before, and while it works for this film, you also can't help but remember all the other times they've done that.

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.