1917 Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. Sam Mendes / Trailer
Well even as early as its opening weekend, what more can be said on the film everyone is talking about? After much anticipation (and coincidentally just in time for awards-season), Sam Mendes' gruelling First World War epic 1917 has finally arrived on our screens.
The hype - it is both relieving and delightful to note - is justified.
April 6, 1917. In the British trenches of northern France, Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield (Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay) are tasked with a vital mission, delivering a message to cancel a planned attack that would see 1,600 soldiers walking into a German ambush. The route needed to accomplish this in time will see the pair moving on foot across no man's land, through (hopefully) abandoned enemy territory, and open countryside where the war is being fought more chaotically and without lines in the dirt. Using no more protection than they can carry, the most important tools for Blake and Schofield are their wits and the will to survive...
JOURNEY I must confess from the off that I enjoyed 1917 from a more technical perspective than as an immersive journey, despite how well the film achieves the latter. Chapman and MacKay blend into their roles instantly*1, whereas appearances from more distinctive actors such as Daniel Mays, Colin Firth, Andrew Scott and Benedict Cumberbatch are more likely to elicit an 'oh, look who it is! jolt from the viewer. But the star of the show is really Mendes here, his auteur-like presence looming over the production in the very best of ways. Because of the situation our leads face, there are lengthy stretches of 1917 with no dialogue, where physical and empathetic acting come to the fore, along with the direction required to achieve this.
The film's USP is that it's presented as a single, continuous shot*2, an approach creating an escalating intensity that's hard to achieve under the normal run of things; Mendes makes it look - if not quite effortless - completely natural. And I admit to spending a lot of the movie marvelling at the imagined camera-setups, rather than becoming lost in the story. This didn't quite 'pull me out' of the proceedings, but there was always a faint disconnect where I knew I was watching a film. I imagine normal people (you, dear reader) will not be hampered by this.
FOREIGNER In the film's opening moments, the sense of reveal achieved through moving the camera backwards to track our heroes is outstanding, as the intricacy and scale of the continuous sets becomes apparent. The nature of the story means that most of these setups are only used once, in real-time as the film progresses. The quality of the Dennis Gassner's production design here is staggering. And although he'd already set his own bar immeasurably high, cinematographer Roger Deakins really has out-done himself. The more visually-minded viewer will lose count of the number of shots which would look amazing as framed prints.
This was always going to be more of a sensory journey than an emotional one, but 1917 fares well on both counts (as long as the emotions you're onboard for are fear, desperation and anaesthetised isolation). The ongoing survival quest paired with a race against the clock is a cinematic halfway-house between The Revenant and Dunkirk; this film shares the best qualities of both.
SPEEDWAGON What's perhaps most affecting in the long-run is that the film isn't about any pivotal event in the war, it's a collection of the stories told by Sam Mendes' grandfather Alfred; it's that things like this played out every day across France, with men trying their damnedest to stop or at least survive the industrialised slaughter one way or another while the war was directed from afar.
Perhaps most impressively, 1917 achieves all of this without exploiting the visceral horror of warfare (Hacksaw Ridge) or resorting to mawkish sentimentality (War Horse). That's a rare phenomenon with this subject matter, and something to be treasured in itself...
*1 When Blake describes his brother (twice) as "looks like me, but a bit older", I genuinely hoped we'd later see Dean-Charles Chapman in that role too, but with lifts in his shoes and an obviously stuck-on moustache. As it turns out we get Richard 'Cardboard' Madden, instead making the character completely unrealistic in a whole raft of new ways... [ BACK ]
*2 It's not, of course. The film comprises around 12-15 (depending on which articles you read) shots, meticulously stitched together to appear as a single take. And the good news is that you can play 'spot the join' without taking anything away from the final movie, even if Sam Mendes would prefer that you didn't. I mean in short, don't tell the audience that this is the feature then expect them not to think about it during the film, yeah? [ 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.
Having left Matthew Vaughn's follow-up spy caper to breathe for a couple of weeks, I found that my enthusiasm for the sequel wasn't diminished exactly, but I didn't really get anything 'more' out of re-watching (in much the same way as the film doesn't really add anything more to the first movie), especially with the more critical eye that a second-pass always brings.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle is far too long; not necessarily in run-time, but in the sheer number of 'boss battles' in the third-act. Taron Egerton and Colin Firth only really succeed here by building on the character foundations of The Secret Service, whereas Julianne Moore is doing her damnedest to pour two pints into a role which can only hold one. And Mark Strong can barely speak in that Scottish accent, let alone sing in it*1. The film is frequently derivative not only of itself*2, but also of other works in the superhero genre*3 from which it borrows, stylistically*4. The gender politics are still broadly worrying given the female input at the screenwriting stage*5, and the script's approach to arbitrarily killing off characters becomes an emotional anaesthetic in the first act*6.
But I still enjoyed the hell out of it. The Golden Circle does a lot of things it really doesn't need to, but I don't believe it does anything it shouldn't...
The film-makers are banking on you having watched and enjoyed the first Kingsman movie.
If you can, do.
The film doesn't aim particularly high, so pretty much yeah.
It's not.
I won't.
There is, it's buried in shootout outside the diner.
*2 Using drugs as tampered-with conusumer-products is effectively a criminalised equivalent of the SIM cards from the first movie, especially when the film then starts pleading the moral innocence of casual users. [ BACK ]
*3 This is a superhero movie, but with spies in it. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what it is. [ BACK ]
*4 In addition to point one, the 'mass hostage' angle is a fairly direct play on Tim Burton's 1989 Batman with the Joker holding Gotham's citizens to ransom using compromised toiletries and cleaning products. And it's not as if an ally from a first installment has never come back in the sequel, brainwashed by an enemy organisation and with a cybernetic arm. Surprised they didn't call him The Summer Soldier... [ BACK ]
*5 While it's become the elephant in the room elsewhere, I think 'the tent scene' with Eggsy and Clara is just unnecessary, rather than outright malicious. It's certainly no worse than many of Bond's bedroom moments, even if it's more direct in its approach. But since the sequence only serves to demonstrate that Eggsy is genuinely committed to Tilde, it's a long and arbitrary way of doing so. All Clara herself there for is to provide a tracking-link to the secret lab in the Italian Alps (where she's later killed on a whim anyway). That could have been sourced a hundred other ways; no-one had to get fingered for Poppy's base in Cambodia to be finally located... [ BACK ]
*6 We don't really see people actually dying in Poppy's multiple missile-strikes of course, but since Harry previously took an on-screen shot to the eye and still came back, the dramatic weight of the bloodless UK assault is reduced to more or less nothing. If Harry can be resurrected, so can Roxy who we only saw legging it off the bed as the missile approached. Lead-lined fridge for the threequel, anyone?[ 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.
I'll keep this short and sweet. You've probably arrived at this review with two questions. The answer to your first is 'yes, very much'. The answer to your second, 'of course not, how could it be?'.
The eagerly awaited followup to the 2015 hit, Kingsman: The Golden Circle knows what made its predecessor work and knows what made it falter. Screenwriter Jane Goldman returns with writer/director Matthew Vaughn, and they use this knowledge wisely to tiptoe around audience expectations. Set around a year after The Secret Service, the story sees Kingsman™ intelligence agents Galahad (Taron Egerton) and Merlin (Mark Strong) teaming up with their American counterparts Statesman™ led by Champ (Jeff Bridges), to stop a crazed entrepreneur (Julianne Moore) killing vast swathes of civilisation with poisoned recreational drugs. Other characters from the first outing return, but to go into that would be to unfurl plot points, and this is a spoiler-free joint tonight.
Now, the good news is that the cast (reprising or otherwise) are all largely on great form, and the issues which hampered the previous movie don't really apply here (and 'that troublesome line' gets a reference at a similar point in this film which is laugh-out-loud funny, at least). The action is slick, the language is foul, the CGI is better than last time and the shell-casing count is off the chart. The Golden Circle is a very enjoyable flick. And be warned, it's also another one for this year to bow at the altar of John Denver.
But at the same time, there are far more moments in Vaughn's sequel than you expect than ones you don't. It never becomes a flat-out retread, but much like GotG2, it's impossible to top the unique buzz of an unexpected hit when everybody's looking forward to your follow-up, especially when there are the requisite number of callbacks to be made anyway.The story serves as a solid continuation of the events we witnessed last time, but brings nothing in the way of new toys to the sandbox.
But when it comes down to it, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is smart, fun, genuinely touching in places and more than acceptable in the cinematic roller-coaster which is 2017. Just temper your expectations and you won't go too far wrong…
Kingsman, pretty much.
If you're going to watch it at all, watch it big, yes.
I'm not entirely convinced at this point that the film knows what it wants to achieve.
It's a more-than-passable sequel however, so let's go for a yes.
It's not.
I won't.
Didn't hear one.
Level 1: This film's got Sam 'Windu' Jackson in it, albeit very briefly and in a flashback sequence. Still counts, though.
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.
When I was four, I wanted to be Mark Hamill. Well, I wanted to be Luke Skywalker, but the two were indistinguishable at that age, and remained so for some time. Whether it was the loose-fitting desert tunic, the pristine stolen stormtrooper armour or a heavy-drill orange flight-suit, these were outfits I wanted to wear, to be like my hero. Forty years later, I watch Mark Hamill in this movie*1, an appreciator of fine whisky in a brown corduroy jacket… and nothing has changed.
Anyhow, from the mind of Mark Millar comes Kingsman: The Secret Service, the comic-book roots spawning a perfect cinematic mashup of spies and superheroes. After its original run two and a half years ago, revisiting Eggsy's first outing on a big screen doesn't really deliver any new or prescient insights, it's just bloody good fun still. Back in 2015, this felt like it could be the first charge in a new wave of action cinema; not so much re-inventing the wheel, just reminding you how cool the wheel can be when it's done right, although tonally we haven't since had anything comparable other than Deadpool and maybe John Wick.
Absolutely perfect in its pacing and approach, this is the classic Hero's Journey for the 21st century. While Colin Firth, Mark Strong and Sam Jackson are all great value for money, Taron Egerton holds the whole thing together effortlessly, suggesting that he's going to be a (welcome) fixture on our screens for many years to come.
It's perhaps notable that the film which ran tonight was the original cinematic print, rather than one of the edited versions that later hit the home-release market. Fair play to 20th Century Fox*2 for sticking to their guns with that one, I suppose; it passed classification once and there's no point being defensively revisionist about it, right?*3
But all in all, this is amazing. And the church-scene is still one of the greatest action sequences ever committed to film. Kingsman: The Secret Service is a thing of profane beauty…
Oh but for the record, you do realise that even if the gun is loaded with blanks, you'll still be looking after a deafened dog for the rest of its traumatised life, don't you? Well done Caine, now get back in your bloody attick…
As fantastic as the movie is, probably not, due to the strength of the talent involved.
Nope.
I'm not hearing one. Help me out here?
Level 1: This film's got Mace Windu and Luke Skywalker in it of course, but as of December last year, Lt. Frobb from off of Rogue One is there, too.
*1 Although this time Mark is the tutor, and it's Taron Egerton who gets to shoot white-armoured troops while running around polished corridors in an enemy fortress to rescue a princess. Boom.[ BACK ]
*2 It hasn't escaped my attention that in Harry's office, all the front-pages he has on display are from The S*n newspaper, owned by one R*pert M*rdoch, the same tycoon also owns 20th Century Fox, this film's distributor. And sure, this could be a coincidence, until you get to the sequel film in which all news-bulletin reports (even ones taking place in the UK) are branded as F*x News, also owned by… well, you get the picture. And as much as I try not to let my political affiliations colour either this blog or my cinema-viewing in general, I'd be lying if I said that didn't leave a slightly bad taste in the mouth. [ BACK ]
*3 Knowing I'd be writing separately about The Secret Service, I went back over my two previous reviews in 2015 to see what I'd covered at the time. I'd forgotten quite how annoyed I was by the film's gender politics. Not necessarily how shoddily the female characters are treated (cf. most other screenplays, ever), but how that's come about when the rest of the movie is so consistently strong. Let's just say that while I still genuinely love the first Kingsman flick, I stand by every single word I wrote about its flaws.
[ 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.
Standard operating procedure, mate. Begin a day's film-viewing with a tense and complex drama unfolding around a subject about which you know little or nothing! But we can only obey the most efficient cinematic schedule, never change it.
John Madden's political drama stars Jessica Chastain as its subject, a US lobbyist who takes on the task of persuading senators to vote for tighter firearms regulations. The film opens at a congressional hearing in which Sloane is being indicted for violations of Senate ethics-rules. Character closeups then spark a series of personalised flashbacks, to fill in the three months' events leading up to this moment.
The story structure requires thisformat , with its reveals and character-building dependent on the courtroom scene we know is coming. The pacing of the film however, suffers a little under the non-linear timeline, with stretches of backstory becoming longer and taking over the narrative 'now', jarring when we drop back to the trial. Miss Sloane is a densely scripted affair, with a lot of fast talking and legal shorthand thrown at the viewer but with enough smart-arsed quips and shouting to break things up for a civilian audience (ie. the audience).
Alison Pill, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, John Lithgow and Mark Strong all offer sterling supporting performances but this really is Jessica Chastain's show, and she's fantastic in a film which never really gets past quite-good. Constantly engaging and 'dumbed down' enough for even me to follow easily, I'd still be hard pushed to recommend it as an entertaining watch. But the film handles a sensitive subject without resorting to hysterics or even taking sides other than 'they're all shifty, mate'. Miss Sloane is more about the lobbying process itself than what the characters are pushing for.
Best line: "Career suicide's not so bad when you consider that the alternative is suicide-by-career…"
The only real downside for me was the lack of narrative-transformation on the part of our eponymous protagonist. While the events of the film gradually reveal Elizabeth Sloane to be principled but flawed, she's supposed to come across at the film's beginning as an obsessive, inaccessible perfectionist, striking fear into the hearts of those around her rather than awe or admiration*1….
But in an early scene where Sloane washes her hands in a work restroom, we see her then use a paper towel to grab the door handle, forming a barrier between herself and any germs left behind by less diligent colleagues. And in that moment, I thought that's someone with such a fundamental distrust of other people's basic decency and self-awareness that I pretty much just fell in love with the character before the door had swung closed again.
And if I'm on-side from Act I, where's the development, eh?
The Big Short.
Except this is easier to follow and features characters who aren't all uniformly awful.
That won't be essential to get the most out of the film.
I think it does, although the subject matter is largely alien to me, so I can't say for certain.
Maybe not best but certainly on the front-page.
Nope.
Nope.
Level 2: Gugu Mbatha-Raw's in this, and she was in some episodes of that Doctor Who programme along with David 'Huyang' Tennant.
*1 Although at one point, we see Sloane reading a John Grisham novel of an evening. For someone who spends an inordinate amount of time around lawyers for a living, this shows a damning lack of imagination on the character's part. That'd be like expecting an astronaut on the ISS to watch episodes of Star Trek after clocking-off for the day. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but everyone else would quite rightly take the piss. [ 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.
Well even as early as its opening weekend, what more can be said on the film everyone is talking about? After much anticipation (and coincidentally just in time for awards-season), Sam Mendes' gruelling First World War epic 1917 has finally arrived on our screens.
