Blumhouse's Fantasy Island Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. Jeff Wadlow / Trailer
I was reminded this evening of a point mid-way through The Empire Strikes Back, where Yoda is trying to calm Luke Skywalker the fuck down before he steps into a cave overgrown with foliage and neglect. In his own cryptic way, the Jedi master cautions his young charge that anything is possible once he crosses the threshold, that reality is relative. That before Luke can commit to seeking any answers, he needs to fully understand the questions.
Similar to most people handed such an opportunity, Luke grasps it with both hands and little thought. And similar to most of those, he realises in short order that the deal was probably too good to be true. Typical.
CLASSIC A re-imagining of the classic TV show*2, Jeff Wadlow's movie sees the linen-suited Mr Roarke (Michael Peña) alongside his personal assistant Julia (Parisa Fitz-Henley) and a small army of burly minions as the custodians of the eponymous landmass. We join them as The Plane*3 touches down carrying new guests; Gwen (Maggie Q), Patrick (Austin Stowell), Melanie (Lucy Hale) and brothers J.D. (Ryan Hansen) and Brax (Jimmy O. Yang).
These are competition winners come to have their deepest wishes granted by means which haven't been revealed. Melanie's involves revenge on a high-school bully (Sloane, played by Portia Doubleday), while the surrounding jungle is being stalked by (among others) private-eye Damon (Michael Rooker, expertly munching through the scenery). The only rules in place are that each guest is only allowed one fantasy which cannot be changed, and that these must be played out to their natural conclusion. And so, the protagonists begin living their heart's desires in startlingly realistic fashion, as alarm bells begin to clamour around them.
BENTLEY So. With The Invisible Man also currently in cinemas, Fantasy Island is indicative that Blumhouse are happy to be the platform for a variety of approaches (not to mention margins of quality) to contemporary horror, rather than maintaining a position as fierce gatekeepers of the brand. Given the presence of Peña, Rooker and Maggie Q, I was quite surprised that the film received such a low-key release in the UK. Then I realised it had opened six weeks earlier in the US and had received a thorough drubbing. That I had to actively seek out this mainstream flick has 'Q1 tax loss' written all over it.
An exploration of longing, repression and contractual small-print, the film is batshit crazy and unfocused as hell and probably all the better for it.
It's a simple enough premise laced with foreboding, scripted (for the very most part) in a nuts-and-bolts way, but the intent is clear even if the direction feels erratic. Part of the problem is that after the setup, the quartet of intercut storylines feels like too many plates being spun slightly too far apart. Three may have been more manageable in terms of screen-time (particularly since two of the four deal with familial guilt), but they at least converge in the final act.
LARGE COTTAGE One slight twist on the expected format is that this isn't just a nerfed down Saw-like morality tale. The partying brothers J.D. and Brax are meant to be boorishly hedonistic, yet I liked them anyway with their genuine affection and support for one another. Ditto Melanie's initial high-school revenge fantasy; absolutely fine by me. And who's never wished they could change a pivotal moment in their past? Because writers Jeff Wadlow, Jillian Jacobs and Chris Roach take their time in explaining exactly why this is all happening, there's little room for the viewer's brain to rail against the how. And even when that reveal lands, the only logical reaction is 'well, I've seen it working, so...'
Yet the heavily established the in-universe rules do seem to shift and change as we move along. And not in ways which develop, reveal or subvert the audience's expectation of the plot; more as if the scribes have painted themselves into several corners, and hope that the audience won't notice the walls of the maze being moved while they're still looking at them. This is a solid second-draft screenplay, but definitely not 'finished'.
Convoluted to the point of incoherence, this feels a bit like it should have been made two decades ago, but too few studio-horror movies don't, these days. The performers are having a good time and it's undemanding in the long-run. I've certainly seen a lot worse lauded as much better.
Blumhouse's Fantasy Island plays out like a dream. There are points of familiarity everywhere, even though the overall direction seems to be out of control. And there's probably some meaning among it all, but the gut feeling is that it's best not to over-analyse this many influences jostling for subconscious position.
I mean it's not a strong5, but I don't do half-marks and it's more enjoyable than a 4. I don't need to see Fantasy Island again and certainly have no hankering for a sequel or spinoff, but it's diverting enough for its run-time.
*1 The BBFC card and film's own title-caption state "Blumhouse's", rather than just "Fantasy Island". What manner of intellectual property wrangling is this? Is the Blumhouse tag there to proclaim the darker tone in advance for potentially civilian audiences, or have they somehow bought the rights to the premise yet not the original name?? [ BACK ]
*2 I remember the programme existing, but don't recall ever watching it. And yet as bizarre as this film iteration is, everything within does seem like 'the natural conclusion' of the overall premise, and I can't imagine things going that wrong on a weekly basis... [ BACK ]
*3 Extra cojones-points for the number of times "The plane! The plane!!" is shoehorned into the script. Like I said, i didn't watch this and even I know the catchphrase... [ 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.
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.
I think it's about Stacey off Eastenders leaving District 12 to go and join Slytherin and be one of the Lost Boys before Darth Winslet turns them all into her personal clone army. Or something. As a straight-on action movie it's surprisingly watchable if inoffensive, but thematically it's pretty dire…
Rarely has a film worked so hard at conveying one message…
Fairly.
Not as much as I was supposed to.
For me, absolutely not. For its market, I have no idea.
*shrugs*.
A little.
I can't foresee that occasion.
I'm pretty certain I heard one when Winslet gets stabbed in the neck.
That's not as much fun as it sounds.
You know that bit where they're standing by the sorting-bowls and cutting their hands in an unnecessarily lengthy coming-of-age ceremony? Did anyone else see a whole pile of sterilised knives lying around? Only there are hundreds of kids in that auditorium, and I only saw one cutty-handy-knife. It only takes one of the early ones to have Hepatitis and that's a generation of citizens fucked, surely? How is that society-building?
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 was reminded this evening of a point mid-way through The Empire Strikes Back, where Yoda is trying to calm Luke Skywalker the fuck down before he steps into a cave overgrown with foliage and neglect. In his own cryptic way, the Jedi master cautions his young charge that anything is possible once he crosses the threshold, that reality is relative. That before Luke can commit to seeking any answers, he needs to fully understand the questions.
