I have, to put it mildly, a rough track record with Western-type movies (both vintage and modern), to the point where I'm never sure if it's a genre or setting that I actually enjoy. But let's face it folks, with a cast like John C. Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed, there's got to be something to enjoy in The Sisters Brothers, right?
Right. Jacques Audiard's cinematic rendering of Patrick DeWitt's novel sees the eponymous brothers (Reilly, Phoenix) heading west to San Francisco on the trail of a bounty (Ahmed, who befriends and drags in Gyllenhaal en route), while fending off fellow outlaws as well as each other's bickering, bad luck and poor judgement.
MOMENTS The film is not 'a comedy', but there are plenty of amusing moments (certainly far more than the one which preceded it), and begins with quite possibly the bleakest opening sequence in living memory. It's brutally violent in several places; never exploitatively so, but Audiard is certainly unflinching in his bloodshed. And yet, this can be more properly called a character-study, with the fantastic performances you expect from the central cast*1 and beyond.
For a movie which is a combined road trip and low-speed chase, The Sisters Brothers is an oddly paced affair. Not slow throughout, just uneven and ponderous. Although again, there's the feeling that the parts which I didn't connect with are more to do with my reservations about Westerns than this film itself.
JOHNSON
An audible ripple went through the auditorium during 'the spider-scene' (and again shortly afterward in its payoff moment). One of the few examples where mild breaking of The Code is probably permissible. By the time you add on a wonderfully relatable script and Benoît Debie's gorgeous cinematography, it's fair to call this something of a mixed bag, even if all the elements appear to be pulling in largely the right direction.
What begins loud ends quiet, and although the eponymous pair have more than earned their rest by the two hour mark, there's the feeling that it would have been more satisfying for this to be implied rather than shown. Had the title card made an appearance when they reached the gate five minutes earlier, the more ambiguous ending would have been - perhaps ironically - far more satisfying…
This is a film that's relatively unique to me, stylistically. It would be reductive and unhelpful to cite Django Unchained here, not least because The Sisters Brothers is nowhere near as desperate to be hip, but let's go with that anyway.
*1 What the hell kind of accent is Gyllenhaal meant to be doing, though? It's not American, it's certainly not British. I can imagine that in the expansion-era of 1851 it would be possible to have acquired a mix of the two, but this is just distracting... [ 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.
Venom (2D / Vaguely spoiler-ish)
Cert: 15 / 112 mins / Dir. Ruben Fleischer / Trailer
In short: I went to see Venom.
It is not a good film*1.
In long...
If there was ever a celluloid embodiment of the words 'oh mate', this would be the one.
So. It's Los Angeles. Some gooey aliens want to take over the Earth because scientists went into space and that was always going to end badly. We're at the point now where extra-terrestrial invasion narratives are no longer a metaphor for colonial attitudes or fear of progress, but just reflect the page where the library-copy of The Hollywood Screenwriter's Handbook falls open.
VENOM Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, an investigative reporter who makes non-branded videos of domestic issues which we first assume are just for YouTube, but are apparently for some corporation or other, the precise nature of which isn't explained. He's the kind of hard-hitting, new-media journalist who corners his quarry by politely arranging meetings in their place of work then arriving on time. Who ruthlessly fronts his videos by looking at neither the camera nor his interview subject, but at a scratty notepad clutched in his hand while he mumbles vague accusations. Who responds to firm corporate rebuttal by leaving the building when asked. Who is so celebrated and in-demand as a journalist that when he's sacked from his part-time job nobody even notices, let alone head-hunts him for their own company. If Brock is actually capable of any kind of sleuthing or intelligence-gathering, we don't see it in this film. Anyway, Eddie is poking his nose into things he shouldn't, and an alien goes in him. That's Act 1.
Brock's girlfriend, Anne Weying, is played by the Academy Award-nominated actress Michelle Williams, who brilliantly and incisively interprets her role as a woman looking indelibly bored for two hours. Anne is a lawyer whom we never see doing any lawyering, although given that a) it's not her film, and b) we barely see our investigative reporter actually investigating or reporting either, this is hardly surprising. Riz Ahmed plays Carlton Drake, who is The Baddie. We know this because he wears a sharp suit and whenever he opens his mouth, is forced to recite lines from The Movie Baddie's Phrasebook while squinting at underlings just off-camera. Woody Harrelson is in this but not until the end, and then you'll wish he hadn't bothered.
POISON So. Venom feels like spending two hours watching first-takes of actors reading their lines for the first time, from a script which was written by a 12yr old who only watches superhero movies.
Demographically, Sony have spent so much effort angling their product to a non-kiddie audience that they didn't notice anyone old enough to get in will have seen all of this before (and better), whether it be any movie with aliens arriving on Earth, Todd McFarlane's other creation, Spawn, or even just the distrusted-authority in shiny skyscraper laboratories of Sony's last two Spider-Man outings. And although we get enough of the glistening fangs and body-horror to squeak through as a 15-certificate, there's little here to actually earn this edgier rating in terms of lasting threat or human injury.
By the time Brock and Venom become a variety double-act of grumpy bickering which barely stops short of looking right down the camera, this is like a Hallow'een-costume Deadpool.
But without the swearing. Or the self-awareness. Or the wit.
TIGERTAILZ Beats are taken haphazardly from the horror genre, from the conspiracy thriller, sci-fi, action, comedy and of course the superhero-origins story. None of these gel together in the final edit, which incoherently changes tone at a rate suggesting that director Ruben Fleischer has suffered some sort of cranial trauma, and is permanently unable to recall the footage he shot each previous day. As a result, Hardy is left to bimble along from scene to scene in the title role, himself displaying symptoms of scriptual amnesia as he struggles to work out who his character is meant to be. The lack of direction in Tom's performance - both narratively and in terms of just being directed - is staggering.
The most disappointing aspect is that Venom should be better. It could be better. Why isn't this better? By this point, Sony have held onto the Spider-Man rights long and hard enough to know what works, what will be derided by critics and audiences alike, and what is ultimately damaging to their own reputation. To have assembled a cast this impressive and still have churned out a Tesco Value Sausage of a superhero movie is an embarrassment to all concerned.
TIGERFEET There are some moments of fun, but there are far more which aren't. Perhaps the only saving grace is that the movie appears to exist (thus far) in its own standalone stream of continuity. In this respect, at least it will be easy to disregard.
Venom shows that not only are Sony not on the same page as Marvel Studios, they're not even in the same chapter. Okay, it's not Fantastic Four levels of bad, but the tonal inconsistencies and cack-handed moralising in the final moments put this on the same shelf as Ghost Rider.
There is a decent Venom movie to be made from this story, by this studio and with this cast.
But this isn't it...
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? There is.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? There is.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? There is.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Well, kinda*2.
Not unless you like your migraines to originate from a 60ft wide screen.
Interestingly enough, this features the same cinematographer - Matthew Libatique - as A Star Is Born, also released in cinemas on the very same opening weekend. Although his hand-held, closeup style often threatens to derail that movie, too. In Venom, Matthew teams up with editors Alan Baumgarten and Maryann Brandon to go Full Seizure-Mode™.
Sure. This will make an interesting companion-piece for other superhero movies in the years to come.
In no way, shape or form.
Come at me.
There is, and it's as subtly woven into the mix as one would expect from a movie where a murdering alien says "turd" in the trailer.
*1 That's the micro-review version. But I'm writing this as well. Hey, I said I was going to stop doing full reviews for every single thing I watched, not that I was going to stop writing altogether. And if anything was going to bring me back for a stab, it's a disappointing Marvel flick. But I'm getting ahead of myself... [ BACK ]
*2 The mid-credits scene is a coda to Venom, so stay for this. After the names have rolled (and I don't usually moan about the time taken to credit everyone who contributed to making a movie, but Venom's roll-call is presented in the same 'easily readable' speed and size typeface throughout, mostly in a single-column list. Reader, this is a four-songs-and-a-bit-of-the-soundtrack-length reel), we get a sequence from the upcoming Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse animated film. It's not connected to Venom by anything other than the rights-holders, and if you arrived at the cinema early enough you'll have already seen the latest trailer for it. With this in mind, you'll already know whether this is worth you hanging around for an extra ten minutes.
[ 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.
[INT. A LUGGAGE LOCKER-ROOM, ATHENS. DAY.]
Jason Bourne uses a key he has been given to retrieve sensitive material which has been placed in an otherwise unidentified locker for him. Among the weapons and passports is a black USB drive containing encrypted data. We know it's encrypted because the drive has the word ENCRYPTED embossed into it in 36pt white Helvetica caps. #VisualStorytelling
^^ That's what Post-Snowden™ filmmaking means, apparently. Well, that and putting the word "Snowden" into the script every fifteen minutes or so, in a bid to resonate with the audience who'll have heard the name but know little of the situation surrounding it. Although we'll come back to that demographic of viewer in a while.
And so we're back, this fifth installment of the franchise making reference to the fourth one with about the same frequency and fondness as its marketing campaign (which is to say not at all)*1. Jason Bourne (Mr Damon) is making a tidy living off-the-grid by punching people in car-park punching competitions, when former-CIA operative Nicky Parsons (Ms Stiles) tracks him down in a bid to get his face onto CCTV cameras throughout European capital cities. By absolutely no coincidence at all, the CIA (Mr Lee Jones and Ms Vikander) pick up on this. Because it's 2016, there are also heavy-handed references to social-networking and privacy-vs-security issues, courtesy of Mr Ahmed. Anyway, carnage ensues.
Now, I've been quite facetious about the whole thing so far, but Jason Bourne*2 is actually a fairly entertaining film. Tonally, it runs a middle-ground between the first three movies' habit of belligerently withholding plot-points from the audience, and the fourth one's habit of spoon-feeding them instead. Despite repeatedly lunging for the zeitgeist with both hands, the film brings little new to the genre (or to the series, in fact), but it's reliably solid nonetheless.
The performers are something a mixed-bag, as we've come to expect. Julia Stiles acts the part but has trouble delivering her clunky dialogue with any real commitment. Meanwhile, Alicia Vikander fares slightly better, but seems to have joined in with the whole espionage-thing by changing her accent every twelve minutes. And Tommy Lee Jones struggles with his inability to personify anyone other than Tommy Lee Jones™, second only to Matt Damon's identical debilitation. You're constantly reminded that you're watching the cast, rather than the characters, but when they're this good anyway, it doesn't de-rail the movie.
I don't think this entry is the best in the series, and yet I say that as someone who hasn't particularly loved that series anyway. Despite my (manifold) gripes, the early installments were far more robust in terms of film-making. But the sequel-klaxon is duly sounded here, so I'm sure Mr Greengrass will be having another go.
Jason Bourne is either a self-aware, modern tour-de-force which simultaneously entertains and philosophises with the audience using a combination of action and meta-reconnaissance, or it's a cheap-ass thriller using the Bourne-brand as a pass to ride with the big-boys, using shaky-cam to overcome the 12A restrictions on graphic violence and using the climate of techno-paranoia as an inadequate smokescreen for bullshit, clichéd machismo.
It's definitely one of those, but I'll admit it's enough fun either way...
Best line: a scene early in the film shows a covert hacking-hub in Greece. Among the controlled chaos within as activists bustle around the operations centre, one line is subtitled for the audience from the Greek: "...use SQL to disrupt their databases!". Now, given that SQL is a programming language designed for building and managing databases, that's a bit like saying "use the custard to disrupt their trifle!" and is indicative of a script which hurls faux-technobabble at the audience hoping they won't have any real knowledge of the subject(s) being discussed. This level of unwieldy background noise runs throughout the film, of course, but it's the fact that this line is translated and presented on-screen which makes it stand out, blowing its own cover instantly. This is the best use of 'I don't know what that means but I'll write it anyway' since "They're ready to go... the hashtags will tip them over!" back in April.
I'm going to go right ahead and say Bastille Day, even though this isn't as much fun.
Only if you like 'em big and loud.
You won't lose too much by watching this at the tail-end of a Bourne-marathon in your living room.
As amiable as it is, not quite because it takes itself so seriously.
Nope.
Nope.
There is.
Level 1: This movie stars Riz 'Bodhi Rook' Ahmed.
It's okay that reference will be familiar soon enough, trust me.
*1 I don't care what people say, I quite enjoyed The Bourne Legacy. I mean, I've never felt the need to watch it again since, but I quite enjoyed it.
*2 Really though, what kind of title is that? We're used to them being a bit more dynamic, springboarding off the borderline-pun of The Bourne Identity (because he wasn't 'born' with it; do you see?). Anyway, I've thought of some better titles if they want to ret-con it for the DVD release...
• The Bourne-Broker
• The Bourne Cocktail
• From Dusk Till Bourne
• Hung, Bourne and Quartered
• Bourne Free
• Bourne Again Seriously Universal, hit me up. No need to pay me, a mention in the credits will be fine…
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.
Nightcrawler (second-pass)
Cert: 15 / 117 mins / Dir. Dan Gilroy
Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler is the perfect movie for a second-pass viewing (my first review is here). Knowing what the plot holds means you can linger more over Robert Elswit's cinematography, which feels far more at home in the dark yet harshly-lit streets of Los Angeles than it ever does during the infrequent daylight scenes. You can also spend more time watching Jake Gyllenhaal's performance as Louis Bloom. His masterful performance.
Every awkward smile, nervous twitch and sideways glance creates a character who - crucially, in great cinema - acts like he doesn't know he's being watched. The sequences alone with Louis in his apartment are when we get the closest to the core of his personality, as conflicted and scattershot as that may be. Gyllenhaal brings a childlike enthusiasm to the character, but with absolutely no innocence or naivety. Calculating without being outright malicious, he genuinely makes the best of whatever hand he's dealt (well, the best for himself, at any rate). The opening of the film sees Louis embarking on a new chapter in his life, and like the supporting characters in the film, we never learn about the previous chapter(s). As far as Bloom is concerned, they don't exist.
As the story progresses and our anti-hero transforms himself from petty thief to media mastermind, he displays enough paradoxical traits (no remorse, though; never remorse) that the viewer isn't sure if Louis himself even knows who he really is, only who he wants to be. But how many of us couldn't help being summed up in exactly the same way?
You can't approve of Louis Bloom's ethics, aims or methodology, but you have to admire his tenacity.
"I believe that communicating your goals clearly is more important than trying to relay them in a non-confrontational manner…""
~ Louis Bloom, using the words that people in my office at work are going to wish I'd never heard.
Well, it's not as fast-paced as that trailer might suggest, but it nails pretty much every other aspect of the film, yes.
Yep.
Yep.
Worth paying to see at the flicks.
Maybe just a little; but I will ask you to explain why.
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.
Nightcrawler Cert: 15 / 117 mins / Dir. Dan Gilroy
A fast-talking, but ultimately unfocused loner, Louis Bloom ekes out a life as a petty thief and con-man, until one night he witnesses a road accident close-up and gets an idea of the money which can be made in selling first-shot footage of emergency and crime scenes to TV news networks. Armed only with a camcorder, police radio scanner and a fanatical determination, Louis quickly establishes a name for himself as the man behind some of TV's most gruesome reportage, and he soon discovers there's a fine line between being an early-witness to a scene and a late-participant. But when money and exclusivity dictate morality, those lines are hard to see in the Los Angeles night…
Typical, isn't it? You wait years for a film about a deranged fantasist who'll stop at nothing to manipulate everyone around them in the cold pursuit of an ever elusive goal, set against the backdrop of the worst aspects of US broadcast media… and then two come along at once. In many ways, Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler is the perfect companion-piece to Gone Girl, but where Rosamund Pike's Amy leads the TV companies (among others) on a merry dance as an aid to her cause, Jake Gyllenhaal's Louisbecomes the media, in a deepening spiral of attention-seeking narcissism.
The film features an award-worthy performance from Gyllenhaal. The mania we see in the trailer is only a shadow of what's in the film, and Jake brings a complex performance to a single-minded character. There are hints that Louis has an undiagnosed learning disorder, and in the early part of the film is pretty much the only sympathetic trait for the audience to grasp. But his sociopathic personality almost renders that moot, and as the events in the film spiral worryingly well-within control, we're left simultaneously mesmerised and horrified, watching what's essentially the Scarface of rolling news.
For the supporting cast, Rene Russo gets her teeth into the role of Channel 6 news manager, Nina Romina, the source of Bloom's income and object of his manipulative affections. Riz Ahmed also shines as the nervous and put-upon Rick, general assistant and street-navigator in Louis's burgeoning enterprise. It's worth noting that pretty much all the other characters (crucially including Bill Paxton's rival nightcrawler, Joe) are reduced to background roles and stepping-stones, which is exactly how Louis sees them. As much of an astounding team-effort as this is, Nightcrawler really is Jake's film.
A story which picks you up with its sheer force of character and refuses to let go, Nightcrawler makes complicit, rubber-necked ghouls of us all. Not so much a cautionary tale, more a statement about where we are and how we got here; Dan Gilroy's film is perfect car-crash cinema, and for once that's a soaring compliment…
It points in the right direction; tonally, at least.
I did.
Pretty sure it does, yes.
Nightcrawler is visually dark as well as thematically, so it's pretty much designed to be watched in a darkened auditorium.
Maybe a little.
I will, indeed.
There ain't.
A bright red Camaro for stealth-reporting, though? I'm glad that got mentioned in the script, because it's what the rest of us had been thinking for about forty-five minutes…
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.
