Because if anyone is going to be able to blend mid 20th century Russian political satire and West End farce, it's going to be Armando Iannucci, the mind behind Alan Partridge, The Thick of It and Veep. In the company of writers David Schneider, Ian Martin and Fabien Nury, he's crafted a razor-sharp comedy which is about exactly what it says on the front, there: The Death of Stalin in Russia, 1953. It is very funny. By which I mean the film is very funny. Not the on-screen death of a 74 year old man. Although that is also very funny. In this film.
While the story takes place in its period setting, the script is interwoven with Tarantino-level bickering and a timeless British-level sarcasm (and not a cod-Russian accent to be heard, which only adds to the charm*1). The filmmakers have assembled an absolutely outstanding cast to deliver it, with everyone on blistering form. Central characters are introduced with brief in-scene title cards showing their name and position in the Soviet hierarchy, but most of what happens isn’t reliant on the audience bringing any prior knowledge. Shot in a hand-held documentary-style, the pacing for the first hour is one of escalating bedlam, with Stalin's demise creating a vacuum of both power and common-sense.
From the Act I opening of a panicked Paddy Considine, to the quiet bluster of Michael Palin and self-absorbed scheming of Simon Russell Beale, the film is the best example of institutional chaos you'll find short of the actual news. Although you might come for Steve Buscemi and Jeffrey Tambor, you'll stay for Jason Isaacs and Rupert Friend*2. In its second-hour though, the pace slows and shifts to a poignant ending I don’t think it quite pulls off. Then again, this section would probably have worked better with me if I knew anything at all about that period of history. I can’t hold Armando at fault for me not bringing any prior knowledge. Everything I saw in the meanwhile was evidence of a creative team at the top of their game.
As enjoyable as The Death Of Stalin is, Iannucci ‘s directorial home is really on the small screen. There’s little here that’s inherently cinematic, and although I’ll definitely watch it again, I doubt that will take place at the flicks.
Iannucci's aforementioned TV work.
This is quite unlike anything I've been lucky enough to see in the cinema.
Only if you can't wait for the DVD/BRD/VOD to land in around 17 weeks.
I think so, although I'm perhaps not best to judge it on a content-level.
*1 To the point where it seems odd at first that Olga Kurylenko has that twang to her voice, until you remember half a second later that that's her actual Ukranian/French accent when she performs in English. [ BACK ]
*2 It's Rupert Friend who gets the best line in the film as Stalin's tantrum-prone spoilt son, coaching an ice-hockey team by essentially just yelling at them. I promise you no film this year will deliver a more sincere exasperation than "Play better, you clattering fannies!!". Priceless. [ 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.
It takes a certain skill to make the central character in your PG-rated adventure flick an 11yr old boy, and yet not be making a kids' film. Step forward Mr Terry Gilliam. Time Bandits bridges the phases of his career between Python and mainstream film-making*1, which turns out to be both its strength and its weakness.
The film feels a little like a companion-piece to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with the surreal humour and roving quest carried over. It's definitely Gilliam reaching further than before (despite messrs Palin and Cleese having prominent comedic cameos), but he's not quite ready to take the strides he did in Brazil or Munchausen. There's also still the feeling that the film is a series of vignettes assembled into a screenplay, or a bare-bones story which has been padded out with previously written material.
The cast are a real mixed bunch in terms of acting (Ralph Richardson can't always have been like that, surely?), although they're all earnest and enthusiastic enough to carry the bizarre story forward. But it's really David Rappaport who shines as the Bandits' leader Randall, to the point where he's almost too good for the film. There are also some great effects and high production values at work, especially as you can often tell that there was a very finite budget available.
Despite Gilliam's stamp being all over Time Bandits, you're never quite sure who's actually in charge. Charmingly shambolic (at least some of which is intentional), like The Hobbit re-imagined by Douglas Adams…
Best line:Best line: "If I were creating a world I wouldn't have started with butterflies and daffodils. I'd have started with lasers. Eight o'clock, day one!"
Yeah, really. I've seen clips of it, of course, and even read the comic-adaptation in Return Of The Jedi Weekly back in the day. But never seen it. Until now.
I am, but I'm also glad I saw it in such close proximity to Holy Grail.
With reservations, yes.
There only bloody IS, an'all!
The film stars Kenny 'R2' Baker, Jack 'Jawa/Ugnaught/Teebo the Ewok' Purvis, Mike 'Logray the Ewok' Edmonds and Malcolm 'Un-named Ewok Warrior' Dixon.
*1 Well, as mainstream as film-making can be under Mr Gilliam's magnificent auspices...
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.
Ah, what can I say about The Holy Grail? I'm not sure what's more disconcerting, that this film is 40, or that I'm older than this film (not by that much, but still). Even as a lapsed Python fanatic, Holy Grail is the one of their movies*1 I've watched the least. There used to be a VHS copy in the house which was put on throughout many drunken evenings, but only really played from the point it was left at previously, so I've seen all of it in small snippets and in various stages of sobriety but it's rare that I'd watch it as a whole…
So yeah, it's not really a film, is it? More 'loosely-knotted-sketches-in-a-medieval-setting'. Some of those sketches are better than others, some go on for slightly too long after the punchline before petering out, some have no real punchlines at all, the film-quality is patchy, the audio-quality is patchy and the pacing is thoroughly unfocused.
But hey, the majority of the dialogue is pure gold and delivered in a masterful deadpan by the group. While the animated interludes barely cover the holes in the screenplay, the film structure itself plays with the form (particularly with the ongoing police involvement), taunting the audience's expectations and making fun of itself in the process. Most importantly, the script dances between childish flippancy and middle-aged hairsplitting petulance with ease, gleefully wielding the two sharpest weapons in the Python's armoury.
But that's really as much as I want to over-analyse things.
This film's meant to make you laugh; it made me laugh.
The Holy Grail isn't Python at their finest, but may well be them at their silliest…
Technical Notes: • We got the version of the film with the sing-a-long subtitles. Not a problem, but just thought I'd mention it since it wasn't advertised as such and I'm now wondering if all the anniversary screenings were of this print.
• We also got no adverts or trailers. At all. I arrived just at the beginning of the opening titles, so I didn't miss anything, but other customers were arriving five and ten minutes into the film, no doubt expecting the usual 27-minute buffer zone of promoted products and services. It would have been nice if the tickets/website/app-listing had mentioned that punctuality was essential, Cineworld ;)
For the novelty of seeing it back on the big screen, yes. Although…
…it's not a difficult film to come by in its many releases, although the Python-faithful will more than likely own several copies anyway ;)
Graham Chapman is understatedly fantastic in this.
It does. The film has seriously low ambitions, but it more-than achieves them.
Since - as much as I love it - it's not actually my favourite Python film, no I won't.
There is :)
Messrs Gilliam, Cleese, Palin, Idle & Jones voiced The Extraterrestrials in this year's Absolutely Anything, the star of which was none other than Simon 'Dengar in the Clone Wars / as-yet-unconfirmed role in The Force Awakens' Pegg.
Absolutely Anything is also, I should point out, a film which I haven't seen/reviewed since it was apparently deemed so awful that it was buried upon its release and shown in as few cinemas as contractually possible by the major chains. Ho-hum.
*1 By which I mean the three film-films. 'Holy Grail', 'Life Of Brian' and 'Meaning Of Life'. Those are the films. 'And Now For Something Completely Different' doesn't count, and neither does 'Live At The Hollywood Bowl'. But you knew that already.
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.
