Because if anyone is going to be able to blend mid 20th century Russian political satire and West End farce, it's going to be Armando Iannucci, the mind behind Alan Partridge, The Thick of It and Veep. In the company of writers David Schneider, Ian Martin and Fabien Nury, he's crafted a razor-sharp comedy which is about exactly what it says on the front, there: The Death of Stalin in Russia, 1953. It is very funny. By which I mean the film is very funny. Not the on-screen death of a 74 year old man. Although that is also very funny. In this film.
While the story takes place in its period setting, the script is interwoven with Tarantino-level bickering and a timeless British-level sarcasm (and not a cod-Russian accent to be heard, which only adds to the charm*1). The filmmakers have assembled an absolutely outstanding cast to deliver it, with everyone on blistering form. Central characters are introduced with brief in-scene title cards showing their name and position in the Soviet hierarchy, but most of what happens isn’t reliant on the audience bringing any prior knowledge. Shot in a hand-held documentary-style, the pacing for the first hour is one of escalating bedlam, with Stalin's demise creating a vacuum of both power and common-sense.
From the Act I opening of a panicked Paddy Considine, to the quiet bluster of Michael Palin and self-absorbed scheming of Simon Russell Beale, the film is the best example of institutional chaos you'll find short of the actual news. Although you might come for Steve Buscemi and Jeffrey Tambor, you'll stay for Jason Isaacs and Rupert Friend*2. In its second-hour though, the pace slows and shifts to a poignant ending I don’t think it quite pulls off. Then again, this section would probably have worked better with me if I knew anything at all about that period of history. I can’t hold Armando at fault for me not bringing any prior knowledge. Everything I saw in the meanwhile was evidence of a creative team at the top of their game.
As enjoyable as The Death Of Stalin is, Iannucci ‘s directorial home is really on the small screen. There’s little here that’s inherently cinematic, and although I’ll definitely watch it again, I doubt that will take place at the flicks.
Iannucci's aforementioned TV work.
This is quite unlike anything I've been lucky enough to see in the cinema.
Only if you can't wait for the DVD/BRD/VOD to land in around 17 weeks.
I think so, although I'm perhaps not best to judge it on a content-level.
*1 To the point where it seems odd at first that Olga Kurylenko has that twang to her voice, until you remember half a second later that that's her actual Ukranian/French accent when she performs in English. [ BACK ]
*2 It's Rupert Friend who gets the best line in the film as Stalin's tantrum-prone spoilt son, coaching an ice-hockey team by essentially just yelling at them. I promise you no film this year will deliver a more sincere exasperation than "Play better, you clattering fannies!!". Priceless. [ 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, full disclosure: I haven't seen the 2007 Hitman movie. I also haven't played Hitman. This film: not really made for me. Going to review it anyway. I wouldn't normally be rushing out to the cinema to see this (indeed I haven't rushed this time, either), but Agent 47 currently has a Rotten Tomatoes approval rating of 8%. That's low, even by game-adaptation standards, but I refuse to believe any film this year can be worse than Pixels…
The good news? It's not (although very few things could be). Movies based on branded video games are always tricky to get right due to the inherent differences in the formats, and Hitman: Agent 47 is no exception. The photography here is frequently stunning, and only let down by an over-zealous approach to editing which confuses fast-cuts for style. Aleksander Bach's direction is solid enough, and his cast do a remarkably convincing job considering the script they're given is so clunky it could be recreated with Lego. The story itself is pretty standard-fare for a Euro/techno/action thriller; emotionally sterile, but only in a way that's dictated by the plot itself.
But the problem isn't the editing, it's not the scripting, and it's not the story. No, the problem is that Hitman: Agent 47 is so boring. It's the same dilemma which has plagued Superman movies for years; when your central character is physically invincible and morally immovable, how the hell do you pivot an interesting story around them? The film's first act tells and shows us that Rupert Friend's Agent 47 is as close to bulletproof as needs be, and the second act explains that he's throughly amoral. Brilliant at his job, but not to the point that it's interesting to watch. Usually it'd be up to his female co-lead, Hanna Ware's Katia, or ever-present nemesis, Zachary Quinto's John Smith (no, seriously), to bring the angst and anger to the film, but these characters become necessarily less human as things progress.
So where's the jeopardy? How do you introduce the tension? Well, in this case, you apparently just don't. The film's homicidal setpieces are nicely choreographed (don't worry, it's only nameless henchmen being despatched), but they're few and far between. The rest of the screenplay consists of a lot of scowling, hand-wringing and grudge holding, all without any trace of feeling. I'd like to say that the disconnect was due to me not being hands-on familiar with the game franchise, but I honestly don't believe that's the case. I didn't expect to be moved to tears, but I didn't expect to be bored to them, either…
The film's called Hitman.
I expect to see people being killed.
There wasn't enough of that.
Really, is it too much to ask?
Not really, although the big-screen will certainly have an edge over watching this on your TV.
TV/Netflix.
Fuck, no.
Fuck, no.
No, but I'll expect a full and detailed justification.
There is. And it's textbook.
The film stars Rupert Friend who also appeared in Starred Up alongside Ben Mendelsohn, due to pop his head around the door in 2016's Star Wars: Rogue One.
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.
Starred Up (Mild spoilers)
Cert: 18 / 106 mins / Dir. David Mackenzie
Director David Mackenzie's new, gritty prison drama certainly doesn't pull any of its punches, and manages to be every bit as harrowing and claustrophobic as the trailer suggests. The only real problem I found with it is that I wouldn't work out what the film is trying to say (other than "prison's a bit shit"). The film captures the essence of its timespan perfectly, but come the closing scenes, I didn't feel I'd been on a journey, more just shown a snapshot.
Jack O'Connell and Ben Mendelsohn have a solid chemistry as the father and son who end up sharing a wing (particularly in the scene where young Eric finds out how prison has changed his dad), and they both put in solid turns, but I struggled to find any real character development for either of them. The way in which Rupert Friend's prison-counsellor is written out of the story seems emblematic of the film's general lack of plot direction. By the time you add on the mumbled dialogue and unexplained prison-slang, you could well be wondering if Starred Up isn't just an excuse for an all-male orgy of bad language and mean-spirited violence; because if that's all you want, there are films which will deliver more and with greater glee.
Because I couldn't identify with any of the characters, I didn't find the film to be moving on an emotional level, but it's certainly bloody engaging throughout. Mackenzie gets great value for money from his cast, I'd have just liked to see them be used in a story with more drive. But… (and this is the clincher), it's a solidly assembled film which commands you to pay attention. It's just that afterwards, you may be asking yourself what you've gained…
Largely.
Largely.
Largely.
You won't lose too much by watching it at home.
No.
At some point.
There isn't.
Prison does look a bit shit though, doesn't it?
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.
