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.
Okay, this is your spoiler-break. Everything after this section will tell you far more than you need to know if you haven't already seen Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2, and besides that, won't make a lot of sense. I still stand by the full-marks I gave the film in my first-pass review. While the story does little to advance the thread of Thanos trying to get his mitts on All Of The Infinity Stones, GotG2's an enormous amount of fun and boasts actual character development across the board, which is not to be sniffed at.
There's just a few things niggling at me. Here be spoilers...
Fractious and fragmented.
Firstly, there's the pacing and flow of the movie. In order to properly facilitate that character development (and there's something for pretty much everyone other than Drax and Groot, who are just amplified versions of their last appearance), the gang needs to be split up. But when this occurs, the film's momentum suffers, since the best Guardians scenes are where they're fighting side by side. The audience spends the first-act watching their friends bicker, the second watching them be unhappy apart, and the third watching them reunited, but notably subdued. And there's no doubt it makes for an interesting film, but that's not necessarily what audiences are expecting from Marvel.
Leaving so soon, Yondu?
And then there's the blue-guy. It's always fun watching Michael Rooker onscreen, but he was a supporting character in Guardians, at best. My only real complaint this time is that I wanted to see more of him being part of the team, rather than helping out on the periphery then carking it for a reason which could have been easily avoided at screenplay-level. His character-arc and ultimate send-off here are nice, but feel way too rushed. Don't forget that other than a very brief flashback montage in this second film, we've really seen nothing but the pirate and his protege complaining about each other. The emotional connection that Peter (re)establishes with Yondu feels like it should be happening in the third part of a trilogy, not the second, and while his bonding with Rocket is an unexpectedly nice touch, that feels as if it needs to be reinforced into the next film, too.
Daddy issues.
But my main issue is Peter's dad. The non-Terran half of Star-Lord's physiology was hinted at pretty boldly at the end of the first movie*1, so I'd certainly expected it to be addressed in the sequel. But the whole thing seems to be wrapped up both neatly and quickly, here. The character is introduced, transformed and despatched all within one movie, giving his relationship with Peter no time to resonate with the audience (and barely even with Peter himself). From a screen-time point of view, Ego may as well be Whiplash from Iron Man 2.
In terms of his character-development, there's clearly something amiss from the start as Gamora thankfully notes. And since the audience is with her on this, there's no 'reveal' when things go south and it turns out the guy's a planet-sized sociopath (his name's 'Ego', it was hardly subtext). Finding it impossible to warm to him, I had no emotional commitment when it came to the inevitable blows in the third-act. A big part of this comes down to the casting; I have no strong feelings either way on Kurt Russell the actor, but he's playing a psychotic narcissist with a history of luring innocents into a trap, exploiting their pride and vulnerability while knowing he's more powerful than them, casting aside their corpses when they fail to meet his expectations, and who finally meets his match when he picks on the wrong group. That's basically his Stuntman Mike character from Tarantino's Death Proof, and Russell plays it almost identically, especially in the scene where he's breaking down the lyrics to the song Brandy. Except the Guardians aren't out for Revenge™, so it's not as satisfying to see him finally lose.
Besides all that, Ego says that he needs his son's power to help execute his galactic plan, but he also says that if the core of the planet (ie Ego himself) dies, Peter will lose his demigod-abilities. Well it can't be both, can it? If Star-Lord's a separate entity in his own right, capable of boosting the raw power of Ego, then he'll continue to be so after the Celestial collapses, otherwise his father will only have been tapping into energy he had access to in the first place, and he could have just done it on his own.
I still love the film, though.
Anyway, discuss...
…Guardians Of The Galaxy.
You'll certainly need to have seen the first movie to begin with, at least.
You should.
It does.
Whether that's what it should have been setting out to do is another discussion.
Probably not best, but…
Let's find out.
Still didn't hear one, no.
Help me out here folks....
Level 1: Missed a trick last time, didn't I?
This film features Seth 'Todo 360' Green as Howard The Duck.
Always read the credits, Yen; you're there waiting for extra scenes anyway...
*1 And speaking of which, at the denouement Guardians, Nova Prime tells Peter that the non-human half of his lineage is "something very ancient, we've never seen here before". But the galactic community knows what Celestials are, don't they? In that same film, Knowhere (the location of The Collector's dealership) is stated by Gamora to be the head of a long-dead Celestial. Are Marvel just making this up as they go along? [ 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.
Expectation was always going to be the enemy of James Gunn's Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2. There are no audiences to surprise this time, it's a return-trip to the well. The ticket-buyers might not know exactly what to expect, but they have boxes they want ticking. So how does the movie fare against this?
Short version: satisfyingly well. The sequel is consistently funny, dynamic and engaging, upping the ante of the first film without coming off as fan-service. Sure, the run-time is probably a little too long at 136 minutes (a quarter-hour above the first movie), the eagerly-awaited soundtrack is a little more 'needle-drop' this time around, and Drax's foghorn-humour has been turned notably up, as has Groot's playfulness. But crucially the film is more than enough fun to cover the occasional raising of an eyebrow. Integral characters from the first installment return, and several new ones are introduced (with a couple of classic-Marvel cameos to boot). Things are left typically open-ended, but there's significant character development all round.
As usual with this sort of thing, the film's a sensory bombardment the first time you watch it. More words will be written after future viewings, but in the meanwhile rest assured that if you enjoyed the first Guardians Of The Galaxy, there is plenty in here for you…
Oh, and if you're a bit OCD when it comes to your playlists, this is the movie-used order of the soundtrack album:
Brandy (You're A Fine Girl) - Looking Glass Mr. Blue Sky - Electric Light Orchestra Lake Shore Drive - Aliotta Haynes Jeremiah The Chain - Fleetwood Mac Southern Nights - Glen Campbell My Sweet Lord - George Harrison Come A Little Bit Closer - Jay & The Americans Bring It On Home To Me - Sam Cooke Wham Bam Shang-A-Lang - Silver Father And Son - Cat Stevens Surrender - Cheap Trick Flash Light - Parliament Guardians Inferno - The Sneepers (I didn't notice The Sweet's Fox On The Run playing anywhere in the film itself, so that could be a trailer-only track, as Spirit In The Sky was last time around.)
You're welcome.
And the business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? Didn't hear one yet.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? Yes, several.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.
It's close to their previously high-watermark, but maybe not quite up to it.
That will depend on why we're disagreeing.
Not that I heard, but there are many viewings for me to unearth it, should it be there.
Level 2: Zoe Saldana's in this, and she was in those Star Trek movies with Simon 'Unkar Plutt' Pegg.
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 doesn't matter that this film is a low-risk gamble, a carefully crafted franchise-entry from two of the largest entertainment corporations on the planet. Guardians Of The Galaxy is utterly magnificent. Almost as a self-set challenge, James Gunn's movie introduces (and embeds) a swathe of new characters, and uses a bare minimum of connecting tertiary forces to establish itself in Marvel's larger cinematic universe. This is a high-point in a consistently high range. That's about all I have to say this time around…*1
*1 Although my previous ramblings from the film's initial release-window can be found here, here, here, and here. [ 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.
Saturday night at the movies, who cares what picture you see? As long as someone gets beaten to death with a tape-dispenser and all the office-workers in the audience grin and silently fist-bump. Greg McLean's The Belko Experiment is a non-supernatural horror movie which is not for the faint of heart (relatively few films actually get an 18-certificate these days).
During an apparently normal working day, a seven-story building full of administrators for the mysterious Belko Corportation is put on enforced lockdown, whereby employees are informed by an unknown agency that they're to begin systematically reducing their numbers by any means possible. With no particularly favourable way out, the group begins dividing into leaders and followers, survivors and compliers, killers and victims.
The Belko Experiment is exactly the film it sounds like, and is all the better for it. The opening scenes are packed with background exposition and visual-callback setups, but at a lean 89 minutes, it wastes absolutely no time in getting to the starting line of having eighty colleagues holed up and panicking. The film's not particularly incisive with its social satire, and it's not even trying to be that clever. It's just gleefully amoral and nihilistic, not offering any solutions, just underlining the problem which has always been humanity's biggest enemy: other humans*1. Much like The Walking Dead, the plot-structure means that pretty much any of the characters can die at pretty much any point, without warning or justification (albeit often with ecstatic poetic licence).
Given the outlandish nature of the movie in general, it's fairly solidly performed all round, with strong leads from John Gallagher Jr, Adria Arjona and Tony Goldwin, a fairly easy paycheck for Michael Rooker (although the employees aren't going to stay trapped in the building for long with the amount of scenery John C. McGinley's chewing his way through, surely?). And when the James Gunn-penned flick opens with José Prieto's Yo Vivire, you just know this is going to be fun. Outside of the orchestrated score, the film's song-selection is often camp, always arch and never over-egged. Oh, and bonus point for the old-school Orion Pictures ident, too. Fantastic stuff.
The Belko Experiment was never going to redefine the genre, but if you get no enjoyment out of it then you obviously don't spend forty hours a week trapped in a building with beige electronics and idiots…
Don't know if I'd go quite that far, not that it makes the film any less glorious.
No.
No.
Level 2: This flick's got that Michael Rooker in it, and he was in 2008's Jumper alongside Hayden 'Skywalker' Christensen.
*1 Although it's 2017 for crying out loud, if the film's sharpest stick is 'people are awful by default', that's hardly a point which needs reinforcing, now is it?[ 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 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.
