The Lighthouse dops the viewer on a rugged, minuscule island with keepers Thomas Howard (Robert Pattinson) and Thomas Wake (Willem Dafoe), arriving at the eponymous building for a four-week shift. Words are soon crossed, tempers flare and truces are formed. But when their relief fails to show up due to some boss-level-ironic fog, that's when the oars really fall out of the boat.
The maintenance not only of the lighthouse but also its ancillary buildings, in these elements, is bloody hard work. And of course for a lighthouse-keeper, doing the job properly means that nothing happens. It's this Sisyphean toil-for-inaction which quickly leads to madness.
REMOTE This is a study of what happens when you put two men in a remote location and wait to see their primal personalities bubble to the surface. The film is stagey - in a very good way - with a strong Aronofsky-vibe. Surreal like a solemnly-paced, orchestrated nightmare of barely repressed dread. Director and co-writer Robert Eggers brings such a strong tonal vision that you know this is an idea realised to absolute perfection.
Pattinson seems to enjoy going for more experimental roles as he develops, and he's perfect for this. Similarly, Dafoe's part feels like it was written for him; as if Willem's always been a borderline psychotic sea-dog and we'd just never noticed. I'm not sure which accent each performer is trying to effect - could be Cornish, could be Irish. In a film as surreal as this one it may as well be Elvish, The Lighthouse takes place on one claustrophobic island and the rest of the world is effectively another reality.
SHE'S OUT OF From the dialogue alone, I have no real idea when (or even where) this takes place. There's no 'modern' technology on display, but the metaphorical and literal isolation of time as well as location means this could even be in-the-now. Canada is mentioned in the script and Pattinson has a monologue where a New England twang seems to be fighting its way out, but either way the vocal oddness really works with the film*1.
Other sections are deliberately repetitive like arthouse incantations, as if Stewart Lee did a pass as script-editor. There should definitely have been more of this shrieking insanity in The Light Between Oceans (which, oddly enough, I watched in that very same room).
We end as only a tale like this can; in a heap of stunned and writhing allegory, sated and baffled in equal measure. The Lighthouse is glorious, seek it out.
Level 2: Robert Pattinson is in this, and he was in that Maps To The Stars with Carrie 'Leia' Fisher.
*1 And that montage-scene where Pattinson is er, "holding the mermaid figurine", plays like the best aftershave commercial you'll never see. Magnificently weird. [ 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.
Imagine, if you will, a version of Temple of Doom where Indy has massive trust issues, is unable to assemble a reliable team, goes to India three times to find the Sankara Stones, and then doesn't come back and isn't heard from again but he's definitely still the hero. I've just saved you 141 minutes, you can thank me later.
In essence, the story of Lt Col Percy Fawcett's early 20th century search for a lost city in the South American jungle, the 'itch he couldn't scratch', should be inherently cinematic. Unfortunately, screenwriter and director James Gray can't decide between Downton Abbey, Indiana Jones and Blackadder Goes Forth. You can imagine the resulting imbalance.
The characters explore; the story rambles.
Trying desperately to add dramatic ballast by shoehorning as much of the surrounding politics as it can, the film is an unfocused muddle full of characters who are at best tolerable (and often not even that). Bravely leading a charge of poor casting decisions is our central character represented by Charlie Humdrum, wandering from scene-to-scene like an understudy to a different part, added to the final cast-list by an admin error. The film is woefully miscast*1 with the possible exception of Robert Pattinson, and even he's in no position to save the rest of it.
Taking place over twenty-or-so years, some of the recurring characters are aged almost comedically, some not at all and Charlie's children are re-cast every twenty minuted like this was a feature-length episode of Neighbours. Until, that is, until Charlie's eldest son is finally played in Act II by Spider-Man, after which is he subsequently aged by means of a stick-on moustache and a hat. I wish I was joking about that. The film handles the passage of time with the same artlessness it applies to the introduction (and disposal) of secondary characters. If you ain't in Charile's immediate circle of contacts, you're a face at the back of the raft, mate.
And all the while, I failed to be convinced by Fawcett's inspiration, motivation and commitment to his life-threatening endeavour. Maybe the real-life adventurer was a character-vacuum too, I guess we'll never know*2.
Exploring regions untouched by western civilisation isn't for everyone of course, and our Charlie has suspiciously liberal views, as is often the way with contemporary screenplays of turbulent historical times which feel like they were script-edited by Julian Fellowes. But before you get too attached to him, let's not forget that Act III sees our plucky protagonist kowtowing to the geographical society he'd previously told to Fuck Right Off™ in order to get their money after all, then taking his brainwashed eldest son and going off into the jungle forever, leaving his wife and two younger children behind.
With heroes like this…
Historical costume-dramas where you don't actually like anybody.
Not 'adventure/explorer' films where you want to.
I can't imagine it making much difference to be honest, although the set-dressing's admittedly nice .
Not a clue, mate.
No.
…
There isn't.
Level 1: Palpatine himself's in this. Indeed, the performance in his lengthiest scene appears to be based almost entirely on the Mon Cal Opera.
It gets a three because as much as the film might have furrowed my brow, I didn't dislike it as much as the next entry on my review-list…
*1 I don't care what she says, Sienna Miller is 'just the wife', here. That is very much the point of her character's representation in the screenplay. It's not a good thing by any means, but that's what it is, both historically and narratively. [ BACK ]
*2 Or we could just go from his final few scenes in the movie of this True Story™ which, of course, nobody would have been there to successfully document as his final expedition never returned to civilisation, instead merely returning his compass to his wife in England as a cryptic 'sign' of his success (and that the lost city had a functioning Post Office, one presumes). [ 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.
Sex, bullying, guilt, murder, incest and repetition; Hollywood™! Nothing is off the cards in David Cronenberg's tale of tinseltown corrosion that makes Birdman look like a comedic romp by comparison. Glibness aside, Maps To The Stars is pretty much the perfect companion-piece to the Iñárritu flick about mental collapse in a semi-fictionalised film industry, but walks in much darker shoes.
Mia Wasikowska, Olivia Williams, John Cusack, Robert Pattinson and the young Evan Bird are all outstanding under Cronenberg's taut direction, but it's Julianne Moore who really shines here (ironically, given the nature of her role as a psychologically wrecked actress approaching the end of her Hollywood 'shelf-life'). Julianne gives the grief, desperation and vulnerability that do full justice to Bruce Wagner's screenplay. I only wish the story-strand with Moore and Sarah Gadon, playing the young-incarnation of her mother, had been given more screen time. That said, there's a hell of a lot to get through in this tangled web, and it's not easy-going at the best of times.
In other hands, the film could well have turned into a self-fuelling darkly comic parody, but there's little to smile at here, even if there's much to admire. Maps To The Stars won't be for everybody, but that's always been Cronenberg's style. Inaccessible yet intriguing, you'll need a fascination with the twisted machine that is Hollywood to see it through to the end, but it's one hell of a ride.
Not a film you'll want to watch with your parents in the room.
I haven't. It was a bit too genre to come to my local, and only on for one week in London so I didn't get the chance.
I am. A little drained, but glad.
I'd recommend it to people who like tales of inwardly-spiralling self-destruction, yes.
There isn't. It's not really that kind of film, to be fair.
The film briefly features Princess Leia herself, Carrie Fisher.
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.
The lengthy, unbroken opening shot of David Michôd's The Rover gives you a precise measure of how the film is going to be delivered. Natasha Braier's camera moves slowly, quietly, but never lazily towards its subject in exactly the same was as the screenplay teases out gems of background information whilst the story unravels with bleak intent. A title card reads "Ten years after the collapse", but doesn't go on to furnish us with details of exactly what collapsed, or how widely its effects are being felt. All that matters is where the characters are now, and what they're dealing with (or not dealing with, as the case may be).
Set in Australia during a time of worryingly contemporary societal breakdown, gruff loner Eric (played by Guy Pearce) has his car stolen by three armed robbers. After a failed attempt to recover it, he's left for dead in the outback where circumstance unites him with the brother of one of the outlaws (played by Robert Pattinson), who was also abandoned after a botched raid. The two form an uneasy (and largely unspoken) alliance to track the gang down and each set their respective records straight. But in this landscape, strangers aren't to be spoken to, and fewer are to be trusted.
The economical script paired with a solid screenplay gives Pearce the opportunity to turn in a very physical performance as Eric, which he does with grim ease. When he speaks, he's articulate, but guttural and direct, with a glint just short of desperation in his eye. Also on fantastic form is Pattinson as the socially inept Rey, in a performance which could be attributed to his character suffering from learning disabilities, or just the collapse of society and lack of education; the effect here is much the same, and he's outstanding either way.
The film is reminiscent of Blue Ruin in tone, and while it may not have the same emotional spark, it shares the raw tension and constant sense of impending violence. The only downside is that with a cinematic release as limited as The Rover has had, its intended audience may well miss it on the big screen and have to watch those Australian dustscapes and sunsets at home.
The best line comes from the world's most unenthusiastic gun salesman:
"If you don't have 300, you can fuck off."
To be fair, you really have to see that in context…
The film's has some darkly comic moments, but other than that, yeah.
Sure did.
Does indeed.
The cinematography's gorgeous on a big screen, but the story will work just as well on DVD/BluRay.
Probably not.
I will, but not for a while.
Didn't catch one..
Given that Pattinson's focused, energetic performance works well here, which other genres would you like to see him try?
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.
(You can read my review of Breaking Dawn Part 1 here.)
Let's be honest, no words from me are going to convince you on tTS:BDp2*1 either way. You're either going to see it, or you're not, and you already have a pretty good idea about how much you're going to enjoy it.
The temptation is for me to really rip into Breaking Dawn Part 2 and make an escalating laundry-list of its faults. It has many, including a couple of moments where I actually laughed out loud in the cinema, and yet as flawed as it is, it never becomes awful. Because in order to be watching the fifth Twilight, you pretty much have to have enjoyed the other four; there's no other excuse for being there. And since the main offenders in the list are also inherent to the previous installments, there seems little point in underlining them at this late stage. For a Twilight film, Breaking Dawn Part 2 is very much on-par. That should tell you all you need to know.
As with BD1, there seems to be an awful lot of stalling going on in the first half of the film, with plenty of things being explained but very few actually shown. There's also the issue again with the appallingly illustrated passage of time (we're told the child Renesmee is maturing rapidly, but we have nothing to compare it against since the actual timescale isn't mentioned and the other vampires aren't ageing; the film could take place over six years for all the viewer knows), and some of the CGI/makeup used on the offspring of Bella and Edward is nothing short of bizarre. The recruited vampiric witnesses gathered by the Cullens are like a United Nations of one-dimensional casual racism, and the Volturi are embarrassingly laughable, as always.*2
But… but… as a way to round off the cinematic side of the saga… it sort of works. If you're watching it from Edward and Bella's perspective*3 then you'll get what you came for and see everything tied up neatly, and in the context of this movie, that's what matters. With a couple of notable exceptions, everyone gets to do their five minutes, there's a face-off, a battle*4, and the end-sequence you'd expect (although it was far shorter than I was expecting, but LotR has done wonders for my cynicism).
If it sounds like I'm skirting around it, I am. There are far more things wrong with the film than right, but I can't actively dislike it. It knows its audience, and it treats them better than a few other films I've seen this year. It should be applauded for that, at least. You'll either love Breaking Dawn Part 2, you'll hate it, or you'll be largely indifferent. But you won't be surprised. In cinematic terms, it's the ultimate foregone conclusion.
Oh, but if you must soundtrack your film with songs featuring lyrics which which the characters can't hear (ie they're not on the radio, etc), don't cut the songs into scenes where people are talking so that the dialogue and the lyrics overlay each other. This is inexcusable, unless the film's editor has actually been paid to underline how inconsequential the script is.
So, y'know. Well done, there.
*1 That's what the kids are calling it, right?
*2 Oops. I made that list after all, didn't I? Well, no. That's far from the full thing, trust me.
*3 And I get the impression that you're meant to be, although I don't fit into that demographic, physically or psychologically.
*4 Don't get me started on the battle. I actually enjoyed it, and then it underlines its own ridiculousness to the point where I guffawed. I salute the nerve of the screenwriters.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
Hello. Atrociously late in reviewing this one (but let's face it, it's not like my review was going to be your deciding factor in going to see this) for which I apologise profusely. Ramping up for the Christmas Season at Blackout Towers, and very little time on the internets. But I digress.
So. The fourth Twilight movie, and the third of which I've seen in the cinema. A good strategy seems to be Monday nights. It's not the weekend, it's not cheap-Tuesday or Orange Wednesday, so you actually get a fairly quiet crowd, as opposed to the sold-out auditorium of 14yr old girls who can't leave their phones alone for two hours*1 (which was what I was expecting).
Skip to the End… I'm not kidding, there is nothing (no.thing.) in the first hour of this movie that couldn't be summed up in a 3-to-5 minute montage. They get married, those two mopey arseholes square up to each other, they drive down to Rio, they get on a boat, they have the kind of sex-scene that gets more embarrassing to watch the older you are, they both fucking mope about for an hour, and then they realise Bella's pregnant and that's not a good thing (because it was always going to be, wasn't it? Mating a human with a non-human, and just blithely assuming that everything would go swimmingly). Apparently 'the honeymoon' covers a two period. I'll be honest, it felt much longer. Once they get back to Edward's gaff, the passage-of-time is similarly skewed (oh, they've been back for a month, but you could show that in five minutes), but at least we start getting meaningful interaction*2 from other members of the cast. Considering there's slightly less than usual of Bella fucking sighing around the house even though it still happens, the second hour is good. It almost makes up for the first one.
Soundtrack Overload: What the fuck is with the constant soundtracking? It's almost as if there was no score written for the film at all. The only time I want to hear that many songs-with-lyrics in a film is when I'm watching a fucking musical.
Subtitling of the wolves: Or lack thereof. I understand why we need the human voiceovers when the wolves are talking to each other in full dog-mode; to carry over the inflections that are limited when your animated wolves are… well, wolves. But I'll be honest, it just comes off as silly. Which is a shame, because I'm really liking the rest of the wolf-concept*3.
Slowly Slowly, Catchee Vampee: Home come Meyer's vampires can move faster-than-sight when it comes to packing bags in a hurry (no, seriously), but the minute they're being chased through heavy woodland by a 300-pound wolf, they fucking dawdle enough to be caught? Or were they just weighed down by the feeding they'd just done? And while I'm on there's a scene where Rosalie*4 comes into the room and walks past a mirror, and she's got a reflection. That shouldn't even be worth mentioning at this stage, but it still irks me:
Q: Do you need human blood to survive? A: Well, I can manage without it, although I do get a bit sulky.
Q: Do you burst into flames in day/sunlight? A: No. Cloudy days are fine, and in the sun I go a bit 'sparkly', I suppose.
Q: Do you have a reflection in a mirror? A: Yes. Yes, I do.
You're not a fucking vampire. You're a goth.
Summed Up: The first hour? Fucking awful. The second hour? I enjoyed it very much, although I can understand how other people might also think it's fucking awful. If you've liked any of the Twlight films, you'll like (some of) this. But let's be honest, you knew that anyway, didn't you?
Yeah, a four. Oh, it was alright. Eventually.
*1 I know it's a pet peeve on mine, but during the first hour of this, I was tempted to start texting people, if only to warn them away from the cinema… *2 Okay, as meaningful as you're going to get in a Twilight movie. I know, alright? *3 That said, full props to David Reed of Film Fandango Podcast when he pointed out that although they pull their shirts off before changing, their trousers just seem to turn into a dog. *4 Oh, look at me. Knowing the characters' names...
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• 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.
So, the second movie of nautical #FilmDay in black and white, with a nigh-on 1:1 aspect ratio and where people smoke like chimneys. It's also a great compare-and-contrast model that demonstrates the divergent career-paths of Twilight alumni.
