Allied Cert: 15 / 124 mins / Dir. Robert Zemeckis / Trailer
Ah, that awkward feeling when you realise you're watching Marion Cotillard being outstanding in a film which is only quite good. If anything, it reflects quite badly on director Robert Zemeckis that an actress who was probably pregnant for a lot of her scenes was the one required to do all the heavy lifting. But I'm getting ahead of myself…
Morocco, 1942. Canadian allied-forces spy Max Vatan is airdropped outside of Casablanca*1 and instructed to meet fellow operative Marianne Beausejour. Posing as a married couple, they are to carry out an assassination of a high-ranking Nazi official. After completing their mission (that's in the trailer, it's not a spoiler), they relocate to London and marry while Max continues working for the Ministry of Defence. But when his superiors have reason to believe that Marianne is a German spy filtering information back to the Fatherland, Max has to ask himself how deep her cover really is, and if he even knows the real Marianne at all…
An odd recipe this, putting Mr Pitt of 'no fixed genre' with thespic heavyweight Cotillard, written by Steven Knight (of Eastern Promises' parish) and directed by Robert 'Back To The Future' Zemeckis. And that list of primary ingredients is as uneven as the film which comes out of the cinematic oven after two hours.
Ultimately, Allied doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, be it a tense espionage thriller or angst-ridden romantic drama. As a result the film ends up convincing as neither, although it is quite a lot of fun in the meanwhile. The action set-pieces are nicely executed, as is the overall sense of creeping tension. Pitt seems to struggle when he's required to show emotion (although I can't tell how much of that is his perma-spy character not wanting to show his true colours), whereas Cotillard more than makes up for it with a performance which is far too subtle for a film like this. While each scene moves the story in the right direction, the film is baggy at just over two hours, often feeling like it's stalling the audience. Elsewhere there's some neat cinematography in the Casablanca section of the film (even if much of it screams 'soundstage'), and the damp, muted colour-palette of London complements it perfectly. We've also got long-time Zemeckis cohort Alan Silvestri on scoring duties, routinely playing his game of 'hide the BTTF opening-line' where everyone can hear it. Bless him.
The other awkward feeling comes in the film's closing moments, when a quiet, reflective coda suggests that the audience have been watching something emotionally engaging rather than just quite entertaining. For all the ducking, shooting, whispering and shouting though, the relationship at the centre of the film just didn't convince me. And that is supposed to be the point of the film.
I want to score Allied more highly, because it is enjoyable. But I know for a fact that in about a week, I won't remember a thing about it…
Well, it wants to be Inglourious Basterds with a heart, but it ends up more like Mr & Mrs Smith with a grimace.
As much fun as it is, there's nothing inherently cinematic about it, unfortunately.
Judging by the last few minutes?
Apparently not.
It's not.
I won't.
There is.
First firearm-related casualty of the movie.
Textbook stuff.
Level 2: This film stars messrs Brad Pitt and August Diehl, both of whom rocked up in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, a movie which featured a voice-over from Sam Windu Jackson.
I mean seriously, who casts Pitt and Diehl in a WWII thriller together again? Mind you, Daniel Betts is in this, and he starred with Pitt in Fury, another WWII drama. Thinking about it, the problem could just be Brad Pitt…
*1 Bear in mind, the film Casablanca wasn't released until 1942. This film is set in 1942. At the time it came out, it was another run-of-the-mill, quick-turnaround drama; well-received an'all, but it didn't gain its iconic status until years later. I only mention it because that line in the trailer where Marianne's like "You'll go on the roof. In Casablanca, that's where men go…" is a trope she wheels out every three minutes or so. Like there's something really special about this Nazi-occupied city that all the others in mainland Europe haven't got. "In Casablanca, we don't drive slowly" / "In Casablanca, men don't kiss their wives with their top shirt-buttons undone" / "In Casablanca, we start with the cutlery from the outside but we use the steak-knife to butter the bread". I genuinely expected Max to stop and yell "Oh, are we in Casablanca? I WISH YOU'D SAID SOMETHING EARLIER, I'VE DRESSED FOR CROYDON!"…
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.
And so, it was after a 10 minute break following part one that the lights dimmed in Oxford's Magdalen Street Odeon and Back To The Future Part II began. And that was only the second time I've seen this movie in a cinema, stat-fans.
Although they're still generally regarded as a part of the whole, both the second and third installments of Robert Zemeckis' time-travelling trilogy come in for a fair amount of stick, especially from people who loved the first film, bizarrely. My own peers are split between disliking two and three (although I don't think I know anyone who dislikes them both). Me? Yeah, I love 'em. Okay, not as much as I love BTTF, but that's in no way the fault of the films; things were just different by the time 1989 came along.
Yet as much as I enjoy BTTF2, even I have to admit that the essential spark which made 1985's film such a hit isn't quite there. The writing is far more plot-based this time around, with the intricacies of time-travel taking centre stage. The audience knows the mechanics of the film's causality by now, so rather than coasting along to deliver another box-ticking adventure, the screenplay doubles back on itself and interacts with its predecessor. The fact that Doc Brown literally draws on a blackboard to explain the story to Marty and the audience, yet never comes off as patronising, is an astounding feat of film-making. But what the film gains in narrative complexity, it seems to lose in warmth. The story isn't humourless at all, but the scripted gags seem to fall flatter than last time around, and it lacks the spontaneity and wit of the original.
Another hurdle the film can't quite clear is the absence of Crispin Glover as George McFly, following failed negotiations to secure his return. Re-used footage from Back To The Future and a remarkably capable body/rear double just about plug the hole, but it means his character can't contribute anything new, despite his presence. And while I'm on the subject, Thomas F. Wilson is fantastic as the three ages of Biff Tannen, but overacts to pantomime levels in this film, which is why so much of the humour feels forced. And while I'm on the subject of being on the subject, if Claudia Wells' Jennifer Parker had been given more screentime in the first film, would she have been as annoying as Elisabeth Shue's version from the second one?
Most peculiarly, the woman sat in the row behind Mrs Blackout and I did find the film laugh-out-loud funny, which is great. Her audible amusement was frequent and vocal (throughout this and the previous BTTF, in fact). However, she kept laughing when there weren't any jokes happening on screen, then after a while I noticed that she was laughing a short time before a scripted or visual gag. To the point where I began to think she had her own time-machine and was watching the film 45 seconds in the future…
Oh, and a question for you: In the first movie where Marvin Berry And The Starlighters are playing Earth Angel, the song ends on this orchestral flourish as George and Lorraine kiss and the timeline is set right. Now as there's clearly no string-section on the stage, I'd just assumed this was where the in-movie playlist and Alan Silvestri's score combined for cinematic effect. But in BTTF2 when Marty ends up at the 'Fish Under The Sea; dance again hiding under a table, Earth Angel is playing and ends on this sweep again - even though the focus isn't on George and Lorraine this time around. There's not really any need for the romantic crescendo to the song as the McFly-parents plot point is secondary in the revisited scene. A cynic might even suggest that it was dropped in like that as the sound editor didn't want to remaster the band's performance without the bolstered ending.
So, since the 'full' version of Earth Angel is used as background (being given the same narrative status as a song the characters would hear on the radio), where's the bloody orchestra, hmm?
Well I think so, your mileage will vary ;)
You can't buy the first one without buying the trilogy (and rightly so) so you should already have it, hmm?
Not particularly, sadly.
It does; whether you like that or not.
Not as long as you can justify your insane beliefs.
There ain't.
BttF2's visual effects supervisor was Mr Ken Ralston, who also provided visual and optical effects for the original Star Wars trilogy.
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, if I can't enjoy one of my favourite trilogies in my favourite cinema, I suppose I'll just have to watch two-thirds of it in one which is 'alright, I suppose'. And that's not to be too harsh on one of Oxford's two Odeons, but as Magdalen Street's Screen 1 is converted from a theatre, the ceiling is way too high, meaning the sound bounces around everywhere. That's not really their fault, of course, but when both films begin with the sound half a second out of sync? That is. Added to that is the fact that the other Odeon (less than five minutes walk away) was also showing the exact same double-bill half an hour later, so there were less than 40 people in this massive room. It wasn't my intention to start this review on a downer, but the venue robbed the atmosphere of the night, somewhat.
Never mind, though. October 21st, 2015 was Future Day, and the assembled faithful had braved the elements to celebrate 66% of Robert Zemeckis' timeless trilogy. In exactly the same way as the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies, I can't disengage and watch Back To The Future objectively. I've seen it too many times and in various states of sobriety; it's become a part of me, and I wrote a piece in 2011 about why it means so much to me. I still stand by everything I said, there.
That said, Back To The Future is one of those wonderful films which just keeps on giving; whether it's a previously un-noticed visual reference to other parts of the trilogy, or a recurring theme which finally clicks into place when you weren't looking for it.
Future Day was no different, and tonight I noticed two things for the first time…
One: How come two of my three favourite trilogies have inadvertent incest*1 in them? In Back To The Future, Lorraine kisses her son Marty in the car outside the Fish Under The Sea dance; and in The Empire Strikes Back, Leia plants one on Luke - the full awkwardness of which wouldn't be felt until the Ewok-village conversation in Jedi. I suppose I should be relieved that Last Crusade doesn't feature a comedy-aside where Indy ends up bumming his dad…
Two: I know it's a time-travel film, but what's going on with the passage-of-time (not to mention the weather) when Marty arrives in 1955?
And if that's the level of nit-picking I indulge in with a film I love, you can imagine how lesser fime-travel movies fare...
Anyway, I've been to see Back To The Future in the cinema, and I grinned like an idiot throughout the whole damn thing. If only my past self could have imagined that on Future Day, he'd go to watch BTTF in a cinema, and see trailers for the new Bond and Star Wars films beforehand! What a time to be alive…
Well, I've got it in the house - in several formats - and I still did, so…
You should already have it.
If you haven't, I'm not sure if we can be friends any more.
That's a tricky one. They're certainly the casts' most iconic performances.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Didn't hear one.
Well, other than the clanging great Darth Vader reference and the film's effects being done by ILM, one of the film's exec-producers is long-time Lucas/Spielberg cohort Kathleen Kennedy, who now runs Lucasfilm of course.
*1 Well, it's not incest-incest, but you know what I mean. It's a bit odd. And it's inadvertent on the part of the character themselves but not on the writers, which is more what I'm getting at.
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.
Not that I'm a CGI snob by any means, but the animation isn't ageing at all well in The Polar Express. The models and texturing themselves look great, and the body movements are motion-capture perfect, but the faces... dear lord, the faces. Any character other than the nameless "Hero Boy"*1 bears a glassy-eyed rictus-infused visage, moving with an eerily palsied sluggishness as different expressions are called for but rarely achieved (although The Hero Boy isn't much better, but looks like he's had the most time spent on him). At one point I honestly thought the train might have a little girl standing in the caboose, ready to tell the protagonists "You're all going to die down here…"
Of course the visuals don't make a film on their own, but I think that had Zemeckis chosen traditional 2D animation (or even live action), I'd have found the whole thing far more empathic. But then there's also The Film's Message, and in all honesty it's not too difficult for a halfway decent Christmas movie to get my eyes misty. But The Polar Express is the cinematic equivalent of the Coca Cola Santa Claus, and I've felt more sincerity emanating from David Cameron. A scene near the start of the film sees The Hero Boy looking into a department store's Christmas window display with puzzlement and disappointment as the mechanical Santa on show has a massive clockwork-key protruding from his back. I can't work out if this sequence has 100% self-awareness, or none whatsoever.
And these points burden the film enough without the atrocious 3D conversion I sat through. Sharp one minute, muddy the next and with ghosting all over the shop. Bonus points go to Tom Hanks who performs six voices which all sound distinctly different, yet all sound like Tom Hanks. That is a talent, I'll admit.
But y'know what? It's a popular film, so clearly I'm just being a terrible Scrooge about the whole thing. I'm going to watch The Muppet Christmas Carol now, and we shall never speak of this again…
Well, that trailer only captures a fraction of the sheer, unnerving terror…
Nowhere near enough.
In 2004? Maybe. In 2014? Well, if it's setting out to scare me shitless then yes.
You may well get the chance to see this at the cinema around this time of year (I did), but if you watched the film before, I'd recommend catching it at home first.
I. Just. Might.
I. Doubt. It.
There isn't.
That kid on the train. The one with the glasses and the big mouth. What's he for? He basically just acts like an arsehole for the duration of the film until Santa tells him "back in your box, you little bastard", at which point he switches to being an only-slightly-less-annoying little arsehole. And The Girl One. She seems like a basically good kid when we first meet her, and remains that way until the end of the film. Isn't the train ride meant to be an upwardly-transformative journey for the kids who are chosen? Isn't that the point? If it's not, then what is..?
*1 No, really. According to IMDB and Wiki, the characters don't have actual names. Which is probably just as well as they don't seem to have actual personalities, either. Yeah, me-ow. Whatever.
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.
