Arriving like an early, unannounced Christmas present from a relative you'd forgotten existed, the new iteration of 70s classic Charlie's Angels bursts onto November screens, a movie so thoroughly bland and ineffectual that I don't even have the energy to be angry about it.
TAKEN Haha, I'm just kidding; yes I do. I've got to hand it to actor / writer / producer / director Elizabeth Banks. She's taken a franchise about which I had no feelings either way and made me despise it. Working transparently through a list of checkboxes, this reboot seems to be aiming for a tonal point somewhere between Mission: Impossible and Austin Powers, but ends up at Baywatch instead. I say 'reboot', but there are in-movie nods to both the original TV series and the 2000/2003 movies suggesting a canonical continuity, which is a nice touch. But that's not enough.
Considering the star-wattage of the cast list, the dimness on display here is quite an achievement. This film fizzes like a bin bag full of dead animals. Like it's been assembled by someone who's heard of lighthearted action-comedies but has never seen one. Working from a script apparently consisting entirely of placeholder dialogue, Naomi Scott throws herself into the proceedings with admirable abandon, Ella Balinska appears to be reading her lines for the first time and Kristen Stewart is miscast as usual. Elsewhere, Sam Claflin manages to get his shrieking out through a look of mortifying embarrassment, Patrick Stewart spends two hours wearing a badge which reads For The Money and of course Elizabeth Banks is there because there's no show without punch*1. The action setpieces themselves are well choreographed and shot. But that's not enough.
COMMUTER The film loops through a drawn-out, patronising cycle of Action Sequence > Outfit Change > Plot-point Exposition > Soulless Needle-drop, like being locked in Primark after hours while hiding from a hen party that are doing Stella and absinthe. Charlie's Angels is as visually, emotionally and artistically rewarding as being strapped to a chair and forced to watch all of BBC3's output simultaneously. There are noticeable rhythmic gaps in the screenplay which seem to have been left for the audience to fill with laughter, the main problem with this being that they aren't preceded with any jokes. I didn't think we'd get a worthy companion-piece to The Hustle this soon. I may have to go and see that godawful firefighter comedy now just to get this taste out of my mouth.
Still, it's some consolation to know that even Elizabeth Banks herself is suffering some disquiet over the movie. So that makes all of us.
Hey, her heart's in the right place.
But that's not enough.
NEVER LET PATRICK STEWART FORGET THAT HE SAID OKAY TO THIS, I DON'T CARE IF HE'S LOVELY.
That's possible.
There isn't.
Level 2: Elizabeth Banks is in this and she was in those Hunger Games movies with Woody 'Beckett' Harrelson.
*1 You can call that catty but her name appears on the poster three times, she's hard enough to take the fall for this one. [ 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, it’s the retooling that nobody clamoured for, but as part of Disney’s programme of self-exploitation we got it anyway. Aladdin is in live-action. Or as close to live-action as any adventure movie gets these days. To add an extra note of caution, this particular iteration is helmed by Guy Ritchie – a dynamic and talented film-maker who is also responsible for the atrocious King Arthur.
Yet somehow, Aladdin's okay. Very good in places, very ordinary in others. Distracting enough fun for a first-time audience, but the Disney magic just isn’t consistent enough.
MANIC Naturally, there was some consternation when Will Smith was announced as the Genie previously played by Robin Williams. While some of the manic delivery still lingers in the writing of the part, the CGI animation now employed means that he actually channels Jim Carrey in The Mask more than he does Williams. That said, there appears to have been some sloppiness between filming the Genie’s scene-surrounds and interactions, and actually recording Smith’s head against a greenscreen to drop in afterwards. The problem being that the eyeline between Aladdin and the Genie doesn’t quite match up whenever Smith wears the blue makeup, so it really feels like he was in another room. The sections of the movie where Smith has his own skin-tone don’t suffer from this at all, so make of that what you will.
But the extra half hour of run-time when compared to the 1992 animation certainly allows the story to breathe more freely, slowing down the often irritating pacing of that beloved original*1. And it’s worth noting that while the live-action version also opens with a framing device as a nod to its forebear, it also remembers to return to this at the close of the film.
WILLY Mena Massoud is a solid lead in the title role, although there’s the feeling that he’s somehow constrained by the part. The real breakout from all of this though is Naomi Scott as Jasmine. I’m not usually one for bigging up musical numbers, but Scott’s vocals here are absolutely outstanding. She’s got a classical stage-voice which is bigger than the rest of the film. She's going to be huge and this is a great calling-card.
Ultimately, Aladdin is a very pretty and thoroughly unnecessary way to spend two hours (if you’re a punter) or $183m (if you’re Ian Disney).
It should be awful and it isn’t. I’m absolutely fine with that.
In terms of what Disney took and what they ended up giving, The Jungle Book.
For the spectacle, sure
For the feeling, not so much.
If you've got padawans who are interested, sure.
Let's not get carried away.
Entirely possible, yes.
There isn't. I mean, would it have been too much trouble to drop the Jedha Kyber Crystal Temple into one of the wide-shots? Really? How about a couple of Dewbacks, then?
*1 Full disclosure: I only watched the 1992 version for the first time a couple of nights before seeing this. No previous agenda behind that, it's just the way things worked out over the years. Anyway, the animated film feels rushed in its execution and performances, and frankly not all that. Do not 'at' me. [ 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.
Full disclosure, this film wasn't really made for me and I'm absolutely fine with that. By the time Power Rangers started airing on UK television in the mid-90s, I was already going to work down the pit for sixteen hours a day (and more importantly, getting back into obsessing over Star Wars), so other than a bare-bones knowledge of its existence, I was bringing little in the way of baggage to this particular gathering. However, I like to think I know enough about movies to spot the difference between world-building and box-ticking. Most cinematic reboots don't become really heavy-handed fan service until their second or third instalments. Power Rangers waits around forty-five minutes. More amazingly though, it sort of works.
So. Something-something group of disparate teenagers; Something-something asteroid crash site; Something-something evil forces awakening; Something-something super-powers awarded to worthy heroes. Think the Sword in the Stone meets Guardians of the Galaxy. Classic hero's journey stuff, no problem there. A gently-paced opening act introduces the five teenagers who will go on to be trusted with tools of unbelievable destruction, before its successor arrives bearing over-generous amounts of exposition and training montages. The by-the-book origins story is solid enough, the super-powered Breakfast Club bonding feels more laboured. The young central cast themselves are good form, but any performer older than twenty or so comes off as patronising at best. Scoring the most highly in that round are Mr Bryan Cranston and Ms Elizabeth Banks*1, both of whom blithely continue to devalue their own showreels.
As well as satisfying all the checklist items required of a throwback movie, the thematic nostalgia is furthered by referencing visual beats from The Lost Boys, Ghostbusters and perhaps more notably, the first Avengers flick. But as the film goes on, it shifts in tone from moody-teen pouting to the brightly coloured, super-camp finale which is at least fitting for its televisual roots.
As hero origin-stories go, Power Rangers is surprisingly reasonable, if somewhat unremarkable (considering it's a shameless series-opener and two hour action-figure advert). And as much as it pains me to admit it, the film has more focus and unabashed self-awareness than DC seem to have managed recently. Still, we live in hope. Obviously, this film will be sequelled to death, inevitably diluting the fun and feasibility with each new entry (for those interested, there's a mid-credits teaser scene, but nothing at the end).
But fair play to Lionsgate for putting out a 12A certificate film when the core target demographic is aged around 7. And Power Rangers is definitely at the lighter-end of 12A, but the rating still stands. Approach with caution.
Not necessarily, unless you want the multi-coloured carnage to be bigger.
Y'know what?
It does.
With the best will in the world, I should hope not.
Nope.
There is.
Level 1: The voice of Alpha 5 is performed by the voice of BB-8, Bill Hader.
^^ And a 4 seems harsher than it's intended to be, it's just not strong to be a 5 round these parts. The film was relatively enjoyable for its duration, but by this time tomorrow I'll be struggling to remember most of what happened in it, apart from admirable work with the Blue and the Yellow Rangers, and Elizabeth Banks letting herself down again. I'm not the target audience, and it had pretty much no impact on me either way.
*1 I know that the Power Rangers' nemesis hasn't been newly named for this movie, but an antagonist named Rita further strengthens my theory (following on from last week's Elaine and Maureen) that prominent female roles in 2017's movies are being screen-written by my Grandma's friends. [ 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.
