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.
Say what you like about cinema audiences (and I have, frequently), but their en masse reactions are a source of great amusement to me, at least. As we sat down on Saturday night for a Secret Screening, I could tell from the gathered demographic alone that many people in the room were hoping it was going to be Deadpool. Alas, it wasn't, and while there wasn't a collective groan this time around, the general reaction to the BBFC card bearing the words "Triple 9" was more a one of '…and what the hell is this?'. The UK marketing for this movie has been sparse at best, despite the A-list names attached. But credit where it's due, there were no walk-outs tonight; everyone gave the film a fair crack of the whip.
Set in present-day Washington DC and spinning a tale of organised crime, cops and bent cops, Triple 9 is a perfectly serviceable crime-thriller, lifted from the straight-to-DVD shelf by virtue of its cast. The film feels slightly formulaic on occasion, although stories like this are generally headed in one direction, anyway. I don't think it's a spoiler to tell you that a lot of people die in this film. In fact, my only real complaint is that Triple 9 could really do with being another half an hour longer, in order to let the central characters bed-in a little more. There are quite a lot of them here, and while the inevitable deaths are never treated as throwaway, they don't hold as much weight since we've barely gotten to know them.
Director John Hillcoat brings in a nicely understated collection of performances from his cast, given their pedigree, including a surprisingly restrained turn from Kate Winslet as Jewish-Russian Mafia matriarch, Irina Vlaslov (compare and contrast this with her performance in Insurgent). A feeling of claustrophobia and confusion bleeds through the whole film, but never to the point where the audience is lost, largely because corruption is reassuringly straightforward. The film works because both the cast and director are taking it seriously, rather than being the usual filler starring Russell Crowe or Liam Neeson. Although it loses a point for the frankly ridiculous amount of mumbled dialogue.
Triple 9 isn't going to set the world on fire, but it's very, very good at what it does and has the courage of its convictions.
I can't really ask for much more than that; I'd just like more of that...
Well, as nice as it is to have everything big and loud, this is really a DVD / sofa / bottle of wine kind of movie.
Almost.
No, but it's a comfortable supporting body of work.
Nope.
Not that I heard.
Level 2: The film stars Chiwetel Ejiofor, who was in 12 Years A Slave alongside Lupita 'Maz Kanata' Nyongo.
Yeah, try saying that four times after you've had five pints.
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.
Erm okay, why does Steve Jobs wash his feet in a dressing-room toilet? Is this an in-joke or reference to something I'm meant to know already? Because it's not explained either before or after, and Michael Fassbender's portrayal displays no more such eccentric (physical) behaviour for the rest of the movie. Steve's borderline-sociopathic interaction with his colleagues was already doing a fine job of painting him as a weirdo, I really didn't need that, too...
And so, the Aaron Sorkin/Danny Boyle collaboration comes to fruition in a three-act play which takes place entirely behind the scenery. Each segment focuses on the run-up to a key Apple keynote presentation (1984's Macintosh, 1988's Next and 1998's iMac) and the drama which preceded each one. Enough detail and context is deftly built into the script that little-to-no prior knowledge of the products or corporation is needed, because Boyle's is a film about dysfunctional people - not malfunctioning hardware.
Intriguingly cast with more-than-capable players, the people they're playing are perhaps less recognisable. So you never really feel like you're watching Steve Jobs; you're watching Michael Fassbender. But like I said, the main cast of young Michael, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen and Jeff Daniels all give great value for money. That said, I especially enjoyed Rogen, who seems to have switched from comedic gear into dramatic by not changing his screen-personality one single jot (that's not a sarcastic criticism by the way, I genuinely love that he's done that).
Oh, and bonus points go to Michael Fassbender for maintaining his accent throughout every scene in the film's two hours (I'm on his case as far as that's concerned, as he has significant previous form). Although those points are instantly deducted for Kate Winslet's vocal stylings. After going on-record to explain her research and rehearsal of Joanna Hoffman's accent, she then doesn't use it for an entire act of the film, instead opting for a standard mid-western American tone. Which would be fine, except that it's for the first act, so we're apparently to believe that Hoffman lost her unique Polish/Armenian/US accent for 1984, but then found it again? It wouldn't even matter if Winslet didn't go on to make such a great job of it for the other two thirds of the film. You just think '…why's she started talking like that?'
Aaron Sorkin's script is bitingly funny when it needs to be, but always in a very dry, self-congratulatory way. The main focus, though, is on the human drama, yet as heated as the dialogue becomes, there's still an overall lack of emotion on-screen; like a painstakingly programmed simulation of angst, designed as some sort of reverse Turing-test. Ultimately, I have to confess that after two hours in his company, I didn't actually like Steve Jobs any more or less. I knew a lot more about him (or at least the facet presented through the film), but I was as emotionally non-committal as I was when I sat down. And while I'm not an Apple-fanboy at all, I do use their products on a daily basis, so it's not like I had no interest going in.
The theatrical settings and repeated themes make the movements of the Steve Jobs more symphonic than cinematic. It's is an incredibly well-assembled film, but one which left me as cold as we're meant to believe the man himself was in his human interactions.
That could be the very point, but I doubt it…
Well, I think the film will feel far more focused on a cinema screen, even though it's not inherently cinematic.
Rental.
I don't believe so.
Probably.
Probably not.
Definitely not.
Michael Fassbender will be reprising his role as young Magneto in next year's X-Men: Apocalypse, a film which stars (or the voice of, at least) Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac.
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.
This film, (this 12A certificated film) was preceded by not one, but two separate adverts for gin. Never let it be said that either Entertainment Film Distributors nor Digital Cinema Media don't know their intended audience…
Kate Winslet stars in The Dressmaker as Myrtle 'Tilly' Dunnage, a fashion designer who returns unannounced to the dilapidated home-town she was removed from as a child, looking for answers, connections and perhaps a little bit of revenge. Director Jocelyn Moorhouse captures the claustrophobia, paranoia and squalor of the film's sole setting with suffocating glee, and with the screenplay's humour shining through the blackest moments. However, the film seems torn between wanting to be funny and meaningful. It's not that there's any reason it can't be both, it just has issues balancing them.
Winslet is great in the film's lead role, but it's really Judy Davis as her eccentric mother who steals the show in terms of both performance and character development. And I'll go on record now as saying that Hugo Weaving is nothing short of fucking magnificent in this film.
The Dressmaker is far better at being a genuinely quirky indie-comedy than it is a homecoming melodrama. And although it ploughs both furrows with equal earnestness, the screenplay never quite manages to merge them successfully. With an alarmingly high body-count for a 12A movie set in rural Australia and featuring no firearms, the humorous vein is far more interesting than the ponderous one of poetic justice.
But fair play for the references to X-Men, Pet Cemetary and The Empire Strikes Back. There aren't many films set in the 1951 Australian outback that would manage those so seamlessly…
For the right audience, yes.
Sunday night, bottle of wine, sorted.
For Kate Winslet, not really.
But I'll be amazed if Hugo Weaving doesn't get some major props…
I think it does, it's just not a thing which was aimed at me in any way.
Nope.
There isn't.
Well, Hugo Weaving appeared in those Matrix movies, of course, one of which starred fellow Aussie Bruce Spence; Tion Medon from out of Revenge Of The Sith.
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.
Insurgent (3D)
Cert: 12A / 119 mins / Dir. Robert Schwentke / Trailer
It should really go without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that Insurgent*1 is a sequel to Divergent in a very real and direct sense, picking up swiftly from its predecessor with very little in the way of catch-up. And I do have to admire the film for this; Insurgent knows its audience, and plays to them and them alone*2.
That said, of course, aside from a switch of director and a haircut*3 we're largely on the same turf as last time, with the film carrying on the modus operandi of two hours of teenage petulance and foot-stamping, while Shailene Woodley's squeaky voice sends the residents of the nearest dogs home into absolute meltdown. The haircut, incidentally, is self-administered at the top of the film's first act, to give Tris a more practical look and stop press articles using promo shots from the first film. Actually, characters in films seem suspiciously adept at cutting their own hair (cf Blue Ruin), especially when they're going from a style that's clearly taken years to grow, into a short bob or a crop. I only mention this because there's a lady in my office who regularly cuts her own fringe, yet more often than not it looks like she's done it in the dark. Ah, well.
Insurgent is certainly a more focussed film than the first one*4, necessitated by the urgency of the plot, but I still found the protagonists too annoying to want them to succeed. Which is a pretty major obstacle when you're trying to like a film. In addition to this, the villains are every bit as moustache-twirlingly overblown as they were before, with perhaps the most embarrassing being Jai Courtney's scenes as he chews every last bit of scenery he can get his jaws on. It seems sad the think that Die Hard 5 can be the highlight of anyone's CV as Jai hams things up almost as much as Kate Winslet, who's convinced that she's the villain in an animated Disney movie. But at least it looks like Kate's enjoying herself.
And then, just when my mind was really starting to wander, the film's third-act is interesting. Nicely structured, boldly actualised and really interesting. Tris undergoes a series of simulation-trials based around the traits of the five factions*5, and it's like we're watching a different film. Okay, the sequence certainly needs the film-and-a-half beforehand to set it up, and it's faintly reminiscent of the Resident Evil movies, and the ending seems to share a lot with the ending The Maze Runner pulled with only one film, but - most importantly - it's left me wanting to see the next movie. And I'm fairly certain that's the point.
A hesitant step for the Divergent series, Insurgent is a step forward nonetheless. The film knows its strengths, but can't seem to let go of the things weighing it down. I can't say it had much of an impact on me (again), but I don't think the '41yr old men' presentation took up much time at the Summit Entertainment's demographic meetings. I look forward to 'Newsagent' if only because at this pace, I'll be able to rate it "pretty good".*6
…and I can't be the only one who was waiting for hooks and chains to spring out of the box, can I?
If you're an existing fan, yes.
If you're not bolting out the door to the cinema then you can probably wait for this to be on cable/Netflix. If anything, it'd be ideal to watch back-to-back with the first film.
In no way, shape or form.
Oh, probably.
Not really.
There isn't, yet there are plenty of shots of people falling off things. MUST. TRY. HARDER..
Insurgent's pantomime-villain Kate Winslet performed voice-acting in 2006's Flushed Away as did Andy Serkis, he of the as-yet-unspecified role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
*1 And it's all very well Summit Entertainment registering the film as the standalone 'Insurgent'at the BBFC, but most cinema chains appear to be promoting it with the cumbersome moniker 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent', in a move that either has little-to-no faith in the strength of the brand, or little-to-no faith in the intelligence of the audience. They may as well have tagged it 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent - you know, the one with Thingy Woodley in it from last time. Like a knock-off Hunger Games with slightly less to say about society, but more jumping off things. You quite liked it, remember? She was in that film where her and the other one had the cancer and went to Anne Franks's house, as well. Yes her.'
*2 Although speaking of 'audience', demographically targeted advertising is all well and good, but Insurgent features an ad for Facebook before the film. Yeah, y'know. That Facebook. As if there's a single fucking person in the auditorium to watch a Divergent film who's thinking "Oh, that's what Facebook is… well I think I'll check that out then! Eeeh, whatever next?".
*3 And while I'm on with the superficiality of it all, this post-apocalyptic dystopia has quite a lot of make-up in it, doesn't it? It's almost as if Shailene Woodley's Tris and Naomi Watts' Evelyn are going to be the founding members of the Maybelline faction in the next film.
*4 And probably more focussed than this review, to be fair. Footnotes like these are what happens when my mind wanders during a film. Or, more pertinently, when the cast, director and editor allow my mind to wander during a film. Yeah, like this snarkiness isn't my fault...
*5Brainy, Frowny, Smugly, Hapless and Wishy-Washy. But there's no test for the group for people without any faction, Raggydolls.
*6 Thanks for reading all these, by the way. Yes, you. Thanks.
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.
