I have to be honest and say that the mawkish and patronising trailer for Mel Gibson's true-story wartime epic didn't put me in the most receptive frame of mind for the film*1, and nor indeed did the opening of that film itself, comprising a battlefield scene from the climactic sequence enacted in slow-motion with full orchestral accompaniment, and inserted apparently for the members of the audience who want All The Guns And Explosions Immediately Now. Was young Mel going to bring us a Spielberg film, after all? This is, after all, a film about a pacifist in a war-zone, so we should expect some level of preaching, right?
After the title sequence, the film drops a 'Fifteen years earlier' card and we see a pivotal moment in the young protagonist Desmond Doss's life. Skip forward from that, and we meet the adult Desmond (Andrew Garfield), properly for the first time. By now, we're in more familiar, character-building territory, with narrative support coming from his mother (Rachel Griffiths) and father (Hugo Weaving), as he meets his wife-to-be, Dorothy (Teresa Palmer). And the latter three are all great performers, but the thing which already makes the film shine at this early point is Andrew Garfield. He's great, isn't he? Like, from his first scene where he's in a church, playfully making fun of his mother's choir (even if he is soon seen breaking the Code of Conduct by talking in a cinema, of course*2). Garfield brings an optimistic sincerity to his role as a conscientious objector who signed up to serve in the Army medical corps, where many another actor would have gone for naive righteousness. And while the trailer suggests that everyone around him is a one-note cutout, there to dissuade and belittle Doss until some third-act revelation, I was delighted that that's not the case. Those scenes in the trailer do take place of course, but at a pace which is kinder to everyone involved.
So, Act 2 comes along and with it the first battle on the titular Ridge. Good god. The utter, utter carnage. As much as I'm a wooly liberal at heart, this first extended sequence is deeply satisfying, cinematically*3. I can only describe what we see as Walking Dead levels of gore and mutilation. More interestingly, there's no score during this first fight, just a symphony of ordnance, screaming and the coursing of adrenaline. And that's worth noting because the second-wave battle the next day, and Doss's subsequent rescue-mission do have the soundtrack running behind them, which naturally increases the emotion of what we see, but lessens the overall impact.
As the film progresses, the characters are filled in more intricately, as is the gravity of the situation. And sure, it gets a little bit pantomime on occasion, but the film's worst pouting excesses are still easily forgivable. At two hours twenty minutes, this isn't a short tale, but it's worth every minute. And true-story or not, you will find yourself holding your breath and wondering who's going to make it. As is so often the way with this type of film, the closing segment shows archive interview footage from surviving members of the platoon and Doss's family*4; as is less-frequent, the film earns this entirely.
Thoroughly pleased to have my cynicism thwarted, Hacksaw Ridge is an outstanding film. Mel Gibson has done the unfathomable and made a movie which is completely respectful of pacifism, whilst also being unrepentantly gleeful in its violence.
He's also done the unimaginable by making a movie where Vince Vaughn and Sam Worthington are an actual pleasure to watch*5…
…although am I alone in thinking the poster tagline is basically Mel Gibson telling Clint Eastwood to fuck right off?
At this rate, I suspect that Eastwood is going to jump on Gibson after school…
Saving Private Ryan, I imagine.
(Although I haven't seen that. No, you shut up.)
For the big and the loud? Oh, yes.
It certainly does.
It's up-there.
Probably not.
Of COURSE there bloody is!
Level 2: Andrew Garfield was in that Silence with Qui-Gon JinnandKylo Ren. I mean yeah, that's a recent one, but I think it's worth not-forgetting.
*1 To the point where I had tickets for Monday's preview-screening, but after a shitty day at work, decided I couldn't handle being condescended to for two hours, knowing that the film was on general release from Thursday anyway. [ BACK ]
*2 Where young Desmond is pestering his date through the newsreel at the start. Okay it's not during the movie itself, but it's more important than trailers or something, y'know? Actually, it occurred to me in this scene that it would have been cool for Gibson to have used the newsreel footage we see in the first Captain America film, to easter-egg this movie into MCU continuity. But then it occurred to me that Hugo Weaving plays the Red Skull in The First Avenger, and he plays Desmond's dad in Hacksaw Ridge. And if Des's compatriots are initially reticent about going into battle with a pacifist by their side, I shouldn't imagine they'd feel any better if they found out his old man was the head of the Hitler-disowned Nazi deep-science division, Hydra. This is why I'm not a screenwriter, by the way. [ BACK ]
*3 Although I now want to see a sequence of that intensity, but with Stormtroopers and Rebel Fleet Troopers, like a live-action R-rated Battlefront. And naturally, I know that's never going to happen. [ BACK ]
*4 Although I'm not going to lie, from the 2003 interview we see at the end of the film, the real, actual Desmond Dossdoes remind of of Henry Kane from Poltergeist II, and that does kind of take the glow off the film a bit. Imagine lying bleeding out on a battlefield when he comes over to grab you, saying everything's going to be just fine… [ BACK ]
*4 And yes, you're right - For the first time I've actually hyperlinked these footnotes so you can just flip up and down at a click/tap. It's a pain in the arse as I manually code all this, but I might just keep it up. That's how much I care about your scrolling-finger… [ 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.
Everest (3D)
Cert: 12A / 121 mins / Dir. Baltasar Kormákur / Trailer
I think we all remember where we were on Friday May 10th, 1996. On the other side of the world, a few brave/determined/foolish souls were desperately trying to make their way to the peak of one of humanity's greatest immovable challenges. Me? I was losing a boot in a White Zombie mosh-pit at Brixton Academy. All I'm saying is, one of those two events has left an indelible mark on my memory and will continue to do so...
It's a cinematic truism that a well-made film will take a subject that the viewer is ambivalent about, and make them care about the characters experiencing it. Anyway, I'm still waiting for that great mountaineering movie.
Featuring far too many characters and far too many ominous "I'll be fine / I don't feel too good" lines, along with their accompanying phlegmy-coughs and sidelong glances, Everest is A True Story™ that was apparently full of awful cliches. As a result of two teams (needlessly) competing to reach the summit and get home before tea/lightning-storm time, there are also far too many appearances of characters you'd assumed had died two scenes earlier because everyone looks basically the same when they're in cold-weather gear with beards and frost, and all-but-two of the characters are sold short due to a lack of screen-time. These on-screen personas are a barely-likeable lot (which is a problem when the film is about them dying), but then again I suppose it takes a special kind of narcissist to believe they're better than one of the world's most treacherous mountains, and a special kind of sociopath to make money from encouraging them. Everest comprises almost entirely of those two types of people.
At no point does the spirit of Ben Kenobi stand over a prone, snow-caked mountaineer commanding them to go to Dagobah. At no point do any of the team uncover a hoard of Nazi gold, awakening the undead guardians that are damned to protect it for eternity. It's 2015, Universal; you're going to have to give me more than 'you can count the number of people who went up on both hands, but the number of people who came down on one; and I don't mean because of the frostbite'. And Ted Moult? Nowhere to be seen.
On the plus side, it turns out that Jason Clarke is actually a much better actor when he's allowed to use his own accent. Although it also turns out that Sam Worthington isn't. And being used in wide, brightly-lit exterior shots, much of the 3D in the first half of the film looks beautiful, although suffers under the night-time, close-quarter photography which follows. And speaking of which, why does the scene where they're at the summit of Everest look for all the world like it was shot on a sound-stage, with its flat, azure-blue sky and oddly-yellow lighting? Surely that's the most important exterior-shot of the whole film?
Everest may indeed be 'based on a true story', the problem is that it's just not a particularly interesting one. The most disquieting thing about it is that the members of the teams who didn't make it back in May 1996 weren't the first ones to die trying, and they weren't/won't be the last; a thought which the film doesn't even take the time to raise. And don't go giving us a 'real-life' photo-montage at the end like you've told an awe-inspiring story of bravery and humanitarianism, rather than a faintly exploitative made-for-TV disaster movie to be shown on Channel 5 at 2pm on a Wednesday...
A caption-card at the film's beginning tells us that of the mountaineers to climb Everest around that time, 1-in-4 died. Ironically, that's also the exact the ratio of audience members who made it to the end of this film. This afternoon's screen held four people at the start of the movie, and one of those left after an hour and a half.
Today's survivors of Everest bonded over an ordeal they're not inclined to repeat…
If you like that sort of thing?
A rental. You won't need to see this film more than once, whether you're a mountaineer scoffing at all the mistakes or a non-mountaineer squirming slightly at hubristic yet gullible people dying in the cold.
No, although in Sam Worthington's case that'd be an odd case to try and argue.
…probably? I have no idea
Nah.
No. There isn't.
I mean, if you won't use a Wilhelm Scream when someone falls actually off a mountain, when the fuck will you?.
The film features a simpering performance from Queen Amidala's favourite handmaiden, bodyguard and decoy, Keira 'Sabé' Knightley.
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.
I don't remember the sequel to the original Clash of the Titans. Largely because there wasn't one because it wasn't needed. It's not that I'm dead-set against them having made Wrath…, but I can barely remember what happened in the remake, it was so bland. Still, it was with an open mind (no, shut up, really) that I sat down to watch Sam Worthington ply his craft...
The Plot: The Gods are under threat. People have stopped praying, robbing them of their power, and Chronos, the father of Zeus, has formed a pact with his other son, Hades, to break free of the underworld. If Chronos escapes, and the gods aren't powerful enough to stop him, it will mean the end of the universe. Now the Gods have to pursue every avenue of possible help, including those who have rejected them…
The Good: For the most part, WotT looks pretty smart. A lot of the less fantastical effects are good to the point where you don't think of them as visual trickery, and the more over-the-top ones are… well, not convincing as such, but you imagine that's pretty much what a mile-high volcano monster/God would look like, yeah. Exposition points are interspersed evenly, and while this might normally be a drawback, there are chaotic stretches in the film where you'll be struggling to remember what the bloody hell's going on; so I found it welcoming to have frequent catchup sessions.
The casting is interesting, mostly workable, and it was nice to see Bill Nighy being paid to not just turn up and be himself for once. Part of me was wondering exactly why a weaponmaker/inventor for The Gods would have a broad Yorkshire accent, of course, but then Zeus has a thinly veiled Northern Irish one, and Perseus is magnificently Australian, as is Sam Worthington's apparent trademark. Actually, I know I usually moan about this, but I give Worthington points for his voicework, this time around. He's not even attempting to disguise it, and I'd much rather watch him not give a shit than watch him fail badly. Again.
Oh, and Rosamund Pike as Queen Andromeda, running around in a leather battle-tunic and looking all flustered? Go on, then. If you must.
The Bad: Toby Kebbel is a welcome addition as Agenor, the son of Poseidon, and actually injects some proper character into the proceedings, but there's something in either the editing or the timing of his humour that just makes it fall flat. The same goes for Bill Nighy as Hephaestus, where his slightly whacky character seems out of kilter with everything around him. It's as if there's been a gap left for the canned laughter to be dropped in later, but the editors didn't get round to it. When you add this to the aforementioned chaotic 'what's happening in this bit, again?' sequences, it feels a little like two second-drafts of different screenplays that have been edited together without either being finished. If you're going to go to all this effort to make a needless sequel to a needless remake, get the writing sorted first, and the rest will follow.
Bubo, the mechanical owl from the 1981 Clash of the Titans has a cameo. Again. He was in the last one, briefly, but this time his appearance is of Stan Lee proportions in terms of subtlety. If you're going to put him in, give him something to do...
The Ugly: As generally entertaining as I found it, there was just no immersion for me. At no point did I forget that I was sitting in a cinema watching a hastily green-lit follow-up. And who the hell spends $150 million on making a film, then shoots it in 16:9 ratio? It feels like they're not trying, if I'm being honest.
The Third Dimension: Quite a few 'let's point things right OUT OF THE SCREEN!!!' moments, which were either a) jarringly out of context, or b) didn't quite work (when the spears are that 'close' to you in 3D, the ends appear to bend downwards - how is that a good thing?). Either way, they're probably not going to look very good when you're watching it in 2D at home (if my recent re-viewing of Drive Angry is anything to go by). The 3D is definitely there, but I suspect at the expense of a decent screenplay...
Worth £8+? Not particularly, unless you're a hardcore fan of this sort of thing. I think I enjoyed this more than its predecessor, if only because that had lowered my expectations. And that's not great, is it?
With the heartbreaking news of an Avatar sequel being given the go-ahead, I await the announcements of 'Carry On Again Titans' and 'Man on a Ledge 2: Ledge of Allegiance'...
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.
"Surgeons have worked tirelessly for 72 hours but have been unable to separate Sam Worthington from his Australian accent."
Yes, Worthington's back - the cinematic equivalent of beige wallpaper. Able to take any role and drain it of all emotion and believability. It's not that he's 'bad' as such - he reads his lines and pulls the right faces - but he always comes off as an understudy who doesn't really want to be there.
The Plot: A cop, framed for a jewel robbery, breaks out of prison as part of a plan to clear his name. While he stages a diversion so the rest of his ruse can take place, he has to choose which of his ex-colleagues he can trust...
The Good: As a crime/revenge thriller, it's competently made. Cryptic where it should be, tense where it should be. The characters are a little cardboard, but Elizabeth Banks, Ed Harris and Jamie Bell all make the best of a mediocre job, and in the final act, you do want to see the wrongs righted and the nasty people to get their come-uppance.
The Bad: Yeah, it's a little cardboard. But with a title that's second only to Snakes on a Plane for descriptiveness over creativity, that's not surpsising. Nothing about the film feels new at all, and it's pretty much a cookiee-cutter action thriller. It's not necessarily a 'bad' thing, but when the price of entry is £8+, you'll feel shortchanged.
The Ugly: Why to people keep casting Sam Worthington as an American character? If his backstory involved his being Australian, he could have stopped trying the accent (although it's debatable how much he was trying), and just got on with looking off a ledge and acting grim and earnest. I don't blame Worthington, I blame Asger Leth. As a director, he's well within his boundaries to stop everything and shout "You! Worthington! What in the name of flip are you doing? DO THE VOICE or you're SACKED!" or at least ADR the dialogue afterwards.
Worth a Punt? In the cinema? Not really. When it's on telly? Absolutely. The sad fact is that it could have been so much more enjoyable with a better male lead. Elizabeth Banks goes some way to making up for that, but the one-man characterisation-vacuum strikes again...
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.
