I can't believe you've come here to read this and decide whether you should go and see Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw. Even if you've only seen one of these before, you already know where you stand on this. The trailer tells you all you need to know, I promise you.
But still. This paragraph would usually be a brief setup/synopsis, although that's barely needed here. Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) are the muscle-bound, chalk-and-cheese odd couple who basically flirt with each other for over two hours. They're up against Brixton (Idris Elba), a cybernetically enhanced mercenary (think The Winter Soldier but with more sarcasm) as he tries to recover a weaponised virus for his mysterious employer. The virus has been stolen by Shaw's sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby), an MI-6 agent who did this to prevent it falling into the wrong hands (ie Brixton's), and has been helpfully framed for murder as a result. This film is basically an extended fight-scene, albeit one that's way more entertaining than it has any real right to be.
CONTENDER A solid contender for 2020's Academy Award in the 'Screenplay Apparently Written By A 15yr Old' category, there's an action sequence every twelve minutes and industrial amounts of exposition between that really don't matter. With the likes of Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Eddie Marsan, Rob Delaney and Kevin Hart all straining to get on the cast list for the hell of it, this sequel-baited strand could well turn into the Carry On of action cinema.
What's perhaps most interesting (if that's the correct word), is that after eight full installments the first Fast & Furious spin-off movie is centered around characters who were only introduced in parts five (Johnson) and six (Statham). This alone should tell you that this is an F&F flick in name only, to the point where there's a surprising lack of vehicle chasing going on. In fact, while the main series has always leaned toward high tech when it comes to show-cars, with the voice-activated attack drones, smart-bikes and cybernetic super soldiers on display in Hobbs & Shaw, the series just took the leap into soft sci-fi. It is second only to Hellboy in 2019's chart of cinematic ridiculousness. Yes, it is that daft.
LADY The 12A certificate ensures that this is a largely bloodless affair of course, despite more gun-related deaths than you'd care to count. As a result, the fight scenes have editing with cuts so quick you stand more chance of seeing Jason Statham control his own accent than you would a punch actually landing or a single bullet going in. That said, the script which begins with a reliably grubby "nice tats" line to a female tattoo artist also includes such quips as no fuckin' way, bitch, arsehole, balls and wanker. The 'A' in 12A really does stand for 'advisory' more than ever before*1. Take your 8yr old to this and reap precisely what you sow.
But perhaps best of all, writer Chris Morgan seems to believe there are stretches of road from St Paul's Cathedral in London where you could run for five minutes without being picked up by a single CCTV camera. This might actually be the funniest joke in the whole thing. Although there's another screen-nod to Greggs for the 2019 list, which is also outstanding work.
SO BEAUTIFUL SO RIGHT MY LOVER EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE Fast & Furious: Hobbs & Shaw is good. In places it's even great. Everything you expect and fear it to be*2, it's loud, funny, makes no sense*3 and is indelibly cheesy. Director David Leitch is not going to change your life, and doesn't claim to try. If you're along for the ride, Hobbs & Shaw is great fun, and is not even going to attempt to change your pre-existing opinions, so leave any baggage back in the car park.
But it's also at least half an hour longer than it needs to be*5, and a more cynical reviewer might remark that the it has the absolute gall to evoke the great Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner during Elba's final scene, before the movie limps to a damp squib of an ending.
I couldn't possibly comment…
As much as I enjoyed Hobbs & Shaw, I really can't emphasis enough that it's not a Fast & Furious™ film. This is M:I-Lite with dick-jokes, although it does still carry that slightly unhealthy obsession with Fahh'mly™.
If you're going to see it at all, sure.
The film will lose quite a bit of punch on the journey to the small screen, but if you're a collector of the series then you'll be happy to have it on the shelf all the same.
With the best will in the world, no.
That's entirely possible.
There isn't.
Which, for a movie such as this, is an absolutely unforgivable sin.
Level 1: Well there's a scripted Death Star reference, a Han & Chewie reference, and also Rogue One Vader's in this.
*1 Although credit where it is undeniably due, the 'Michael Oxmaul' routine is a great joke, and while I chuckled more than I'd like to admit throughout Hobbs & Shaw, this was the one gag which caused me to shamelessly guffaw. [ BACK ]
*2 How come Vanessa Kirby's Hattie is an absolute bad-ass up until the point where Hobbs and Shaw have a conversation where Hobbs points out that she's an absolute bad-ass and from then onwards she's just The Girl One? The movie managed to leave behind gratuitous shots of women in swimsuits after the first twenty minutes, and I expected better, frankly. [ BACK ]
*3 All the bad guys' firearms have activator-chips Because Technology.
"We can get the weapons offline for six minutes!" says Hattie.
"Six minutes could be all we need!" says Deckard.
So that'll be why the Samoan gang*4 are squaring off against the goons in bike-leathers in pitch blackness, it kicks off, then all of a sudden it's broad daylight and they're still fighting using fists and sticks and the guns come back online about ten minutes later when they're chasing a helicopter off a cliff? Okay then… [ BACK ]
*4 Don't even ask how Dwayne Johnson's (a notably proud Samoan) screen-family are shown to be living in Samoa when more than half of them are clearly from New Zealand over two thousand miles away. I know they're all Polynesian, that doesn't mean they're all the same for actual fuck's sake… (and yeah, I did a footnote-within-a-footnote for this one. That's how committed I am to calling out lazy casting-racism. I mean when I notice it, admittedly.) [ BACK ]
*5 No really, this is too fucking long for what it is. And if your bladder is strong enough there are three during-credits scenes plus one afterward. I have to be honest and admit that I didn't see the final one as The Need To Pee™ proved greater. Seriously, you know those ones where you realise about halfway through that you should have timed yourself, and then you slowly realise that you realised this when you weren't even halfway through and it's not like you've even been drinking booze and dear god will it ever stop? Oh, just me then. TMI. Okay, as you were... [ 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.
Deadpool 2 (second-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. David Leitch / Trailer
A second-pass of Deadpool 2 in a more sparsely-populated screening proved to be a slightly quieter affair, but certainly no less enjoyable. With around 30 other patrons, the audible joke-reactions seemed fewer*1, but there was also no accounting for how many attendees had seen the film before*2, and repetition is the enemy of reaction-comedy.
But the gags are still funny, the action is still adrenaline-surging, I still teared-up at one point near the end and I believe I’m still justified in calling this movie better than its predecessor*3.
Deadpool 2 is a winner, but guarded threequel speculation begins now....
*1 But certainly sounding more like people watching a comedy than my time with the latest Amy Schumer flick where, (with the exception of one particular patron behind me who laughed like a drain but only for about a quarter of the movie) the crowd looked on in near-silent horror at badly ad-libbed body shaming. [ BACK ]
*2 While I was enjoying a second-pass, one of my erstwhile colleagues for the day was on his eighth. And while his own laughter was some way off the reactions of the opening night crowd, he still sat grinning like an idiot for the duration. Which made at least two of us. [ BACK ]
*3 Well, Ed Skrein isn't in it for a start. [ 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.
Deadpool 2 (first-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 15 / 119 mins / Dir. David Leitch / Trailer
Well, I don't know how Fox have done it, but they have. Against all expectation (cynical, hopeful or otherwise) David Leitch's new film is quintessential cinematic alchemy; a sequel which matches and then surpasses its originator without downplaying or dismissing that first movie in the slightest.
Deadpool 2 is even better than Deadpool.
There. I said it.
On this first and very broad pass, it's difficult pinpoint exactly what makes the movie better, since I absolutely loved all of it. Also, I admittedly missed sections by not being able to see the screen for crying (usually through laughter, but at a couple of points just through sheer exuberant joy).
The masterstroke (which is no doubt currently being over-analysed at various production studios) is that tonally, nothing is off the table here. Writers Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Ryan Reynolds play with the established X-Men universe (indeed the whole comic book genre) without being beholden to it. The film combines gut-busting humour, sincere warmth and affection, blistering action and the foulest of potty-mouths*1 all with equal vigour. That said, Deadpool 2 is above all else a comedy, and is better for it. When it goes full-on in one area, the whole thing is strengthened as a result.
Reynolds plays the title role to perfection as only he can, with returning appearances from Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), Weasel (TJ Miller), Dopinder (Karan Soni), Blind Al (Leslie Uggams) and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) which bring familiarity without repetition. Meanwhile, the 'now featuring' list is headlined by Josh Brolin as Cable, and a tremendously angsty turn from Julian Dennison as Firefist.
Leitch's direction is as tight as the script and as loose as its cast, the eclectic pop/rock soundtrack interspersing Tyler Bates' score with similar fluidity. And while actions in this movie aren't free of consequence, the fourth-wall breaking sets the tone for the screenplay's regard for sticking to the rules. All of which you'd expect, but this is even better, somehow.
About five minutes into the feature it occurred to me that because of the parodic nature of the trailer campaign, I had pretty much no idea what was actually going to happen in the movie. Unless you've already been digging for details, I advise you go into the cinema with the same mindset. Deadpool 2 is a magnificently violent, funny, sweary rollercoaster. Enjoy the ride.
Oh, and there's nothing at the end. Plenty of mid-credits action, but once the names start rolling on the screen, you can make your way out to book your next screening…
*1 There are even a couple of c-bombs, which is unusual for a 15 certificate. They don't necessarily match the flow of the script, but they're used in a way which doesn't de-rail it either. And I only mention this because if That Particular Language is going to be a problem for you, you should know in advance. But by the same token, anyone who's seen the first Deadpool know that this will be a top-end 15... [ 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.
It seems like we've waited most of the year for a break in the downpour of superhero tentpole-movies. So, before the autumnal clouds gather for Thor and the Justice League, Lionsgate have taken the opportunity to get the unmasked Deadpool and Nick Fury sent to Coventry*1 for a road-trip in The Hitman's Bodyguard, the kind of movie which would usually land in March or October, were it not for the names on the poster...
Michael Bryce (Ryan Reynolds) is a down-at-heel close-protection bodyguard, tasked to safeguard professional assassin Darius Kincaid (Samuel L. Jackson) on his journey to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to testify against despotic war criminal Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman). The underhand and frighteningly-connected Dukhovich has strike-teams out to silence the sole witness before he can arrive, but Bryce and Kincaid have their own intertwined history, and the road-trip will be anything but straightforward for this odd-couple! [ Do you see? One of them is an expert at killing people, whilst the other specialises in keeping them alive. It is this central disparity which creates unavoidable friction between the lead characters, and from whence the thrills and indeed humour will arise. Salma Hayek also stars as Kincaid's wife Sonia who swears a lot and who is in prison, and can therefore have her segments produced entirely separately. ]
At least I imagine that's how the pitch went. What we actually get here is a lighthearted generic action movie interspersed with scenes of Reynolds and Jackson's semi-improvised bickering in a car. Which is fine. The Hitman's Bodyguard feels for all the world like a Gerard Butler schedule-filler*2 that struck gold when the casting director was able to call in a couple of favours. The screenplay is efficient enough, if largely unimaginative, and leaves you with the impression that the 'comedy' aspect was tacked on in the third-draft once the lead performers had been confirmed. Reynolds and Jackson are great of course, but there's little here that they haven't done elsewhere, and to greater effect. Despite the best work of writer Tom O'Connor*3 and multiple narrative-assisting flashbacks, the audience never forgets that they're watching the actors, not the characters.
Likewise, Gary Oldman is basically fine as an Eastern-European warlord who mostly sits in a courtroom arrogantly protesting that he has no charge to answer, although he's not doing anything that a hundred other character actors could have brought in at less than half the price. Salma Hayek, as noted above, swears for comic effect at regular intervals. And she's good at it, but y'know. It seems like director Patrick ('Expendables 3') Hughes doesn't really know what he wants to do with his players so he's just letting them autopilot*4, and handing the day's footage to the editors. To be fair, that strategy could have backfired far worse than it did here.
The film's action set-pieces are on-par for the genre with some fantastic stunt-work, but using a hyper-shaky cam that's designed to disguise the lack of movement in a frame, and the kind of CGI explosions which make you realise how much of the budget went on the casting.
Overall, it feels like everyone had an absolute blast making this movie, which is rarely the sign of a focused piece of work. This is no exception.
The Hitman's Bodyguard is eminently forgettable and more than a little uneven, although it's distracting fun for the duration of the run-time at least. But when it comes to the standout actioner of the Summer-season with an A-list cast, gleefully stylish violence and a jukebox soundtrack, that crown belongs to the Atomic Blonde...
If you liked what Ryan Reynolds was doing in Deadpool*5, what Sam Jackson was doing in Die Hard With A Vengeance and what the story was doing in From Paris With Love or Olympus Has Fallen, you'll get a lot out of The Hitman's Bodyguard.
Not while Charlize Theron's kicking arses in the screen next door..
Not as much as director Patrick Hughes would perhaps like to think, but just enough to warrant the budget being funnelled directly into the casting department, yes..
*4 Not the requirements of the directorial role of course, but I suppose this was never going to be 'an auteur's movie'. [ BACK ]
*5 Also if you like Deadpool's thing of taking an iconic 80s ballad and framing it in an ironic way against a background of carnage. This film does that. Twice. [ BACK ]
*6 Oh, and while I'm on, despite what the film says there's no Dover-to-Amsterdam ferry. It's geographically unfeasible; the Amsterdam ferries leave from Newcastle. The ferries from Dover sail to Calais or Dunkirk, where you'd drive up through France to Holland. And sure, those of you who haven't seen the film may be wondering 'well how do you know that's what they don't do?' which would be a fair question except that 'Amsterdam' is on the ferry in huge letters. Okay, this isn't as whopping a transgression as the last Transformers film, but I didn't want to go the whole review not mentioning it. [ 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.
Life Cert: 15 / 104 mins / Dir. Daniel Espinosa / Trailer
So the general rule appears to be that any movie opening with an asteroid shower hitting a spacecraft is going to be hard work. After around ten minutes of exposition-heavy dialogue, the title card of Daniel Espinosa's sci-fi horror Life features a typographical homage to Alien and an orchestral homage to 2001. That's pretty much all you need to know.
Not as visceral as Alien, not as profound as Interstellar, not as sexy as Species… why am I here again?
It's a fine-looking film. If you're going to watch it at all, you may as well do it on a big screen that'll do the visuals justice.
…be a $58m cover-version? Sure. It's entertaining enough, but the film feels like the cartoon shown before Covenant. BUT fair play to casting for getting an actual international cast to inhabit the re-created International Space Station. Many productions wouldn't look much further than their own native shoreline. Although naturally, the poster's only got the white folks on, but hey.
And while I'm on about the poster: seriously though, mate?
Also, bonus points for the line: "That's not protocol, it's way too risky!", from Jake the pilot. This is after the galaxy's most inept Quarantine Officer has watched the galaxy's most slapdash Science Officer literally finger-prod an alien organism. After the same dude has electrocuted it to wake it up. After Ryan's gone full-belt in the laboratory with an actual flame-thrower. "That's not protocol!", Jake says*1. Sorry to pop your bubble Jake, but I don't think "Flubber Kills: In Spa-a-a-ace!" is in the manual...
No.
I like all of the cast, very much. They're just better than this.
It says a lot that in Jake Gyllenhaal's recent Wittertainment interview, he seemingly couldn't wait to talk about any-and-everything other than the film he was there to push, a tactic also employed on the same show by a Mr McConaughey when he was on the promo-trail for Gold.
I rest my case.
Probably not.
Unless you think it's better than Alien or Aliens.
There isn't, although Ariyon Bakare gets the line "I have a good feeling about this…".
From a scriptwriter's perspective, this is probably meant as a playful wink to the GFFA (especially given the question below this one). From the audience's perspective, it's a slap in the face reminding them they could be at home watching Star Wars.
*1 Speaking of which, if there's a 'protocol' for pushing the space-station out into the void in the event of an E.T. emergency, then there's a suicide-procedure for the remaining crew-members, surely? If only to stop them suffocating, starving or just going mad?[ 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.
