Showing posts with label Samara Weaving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samara Weaving. Show all posts

Sunday, 26 March 2023

Review: Scream VI


Scream VI
Cert: 18 / 122 mins / Dir. Tyler Gillett & Matt Bettinelli-Olpin / Trailer

Being a relative civilian at these things and not having perused the film's IMDB page in advance, I wasn't far into Scream VI's runtime before the thought occurred to me that 'oh, that's why this was double-billed with the fifth movie'. Because this new entry features a lot of the prominent (and crucially under-developed) characters from last time, whom I would have otherwise completely forgotten about in the intervening fourteen months. Emotional continuity dictates recent re-watching, here.

It's also worth noting that many of these players were not standing waving in the final frame of that film, suggesting that the Scream-verse is now closer to the Marvel model where central characters apparently never actually die. Not ideal for a slasher. Bonus casting-points should be awarded for the traditional semi-detached opening sequence starring Samara Weaving and Tony Revolori, suggesting that Scream has become Last Of The Summer Wine for millennial actors. Still, fans of arch scripting will be pleased with the line where Courtney Cox explains that Neve Campbell won't be showing up for this one, with all the subtlety of Christopher Lee being announced out of Return Of The King...


GUY


But I digress. To New York now, as 5quel scribes Guy Busick and James Vanderbilt return with directors Tyler Gillet and Matt Bettinelli-Olpin for a tonal reboot of the spiritual reboot which does exactly the same thing but different. Basically, a slasher movie which is in love with itself. And yet with the exception of the first act's Annoying Film Studies Geeks™, the extraneous structural introspection of the last outing is all but jettisoned as the film commits to continuing the storyline of 5, and bringing 4 closer into the ongoing continuity. Because there's little time for meta-smartarsery when you're crafting a convoluted whodunnit*1.

Ironically, this stripping-down makes Scream VI a far better movie for not constantly talking about how the movie will unfold, but also a more ordinary slasher and arguably far worse Scream movie as a result. I guess you can use that knife to cut the cake but the mask means you can't eat it, or something.


DOLL


And it's... okay. Engaging enough all the time the film is playing, but most viewers will take little away from this. The action and the set-pieces work well (earning that 18 certificate with gleefully exploitative violence), but as welcome as Hayden Panettiere's return is, the whole thing feels like it's running on fumes. Like a series which was relaunched Because Of The Money is already desperately scrabbling around for ideas to justify its existence. Convention would dictate at least one further entry under the title (just to act as a trilogy for this set of characters*2), but it already feels like there's little actual need for that. Not that need was ever an obstacle to a property's rights-owners.

Crucially, Scream V had a superbly climactic ending. This doesn't. It's as muddled and nonsensical as everything leading up to it, where the only redeeming feature is the enthusiasm with which it's executed (much like Ghostface's unfortunate victims).


Ultimately, Scream VI is absolutely fine for an audience who aren't expecting very much, although that hardly feels like the energy to be bringing to part six of an ongoing series (sorry, 'franchise', my bad. I'm never to proud too be schooled by characters smart enough to know they're in a movie, but dumb enough to repeatedly trip up a masked assassin and then run away instead of immediately stoving in his/her head with the nearest fire extinguisher, or at the very least use that to break their wrists or elbows or something, the one flaw of slasher-lore that even this lot haven't noticed).

But hey, those who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to reboot them...


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Without wading into spoiler territory, it was quite delicious to watch the scene unfold where Ghostface uses a gun to despatch victims in the convenience store, not least because that same moment in the trailer threw up an online spat with some fans arguing this was out of character, against others pointing out that in the first movie he'd used a garage door as a weapon. In the film itself, it's revealed that this particular iteration of Ghostface isn't really Ghostface which works as a get-out, until you think about the wider format of the movies and realise that this actually is Ghostface in a very real sense, because they all are. That's the point. This, and discussions of collective vs individual identity thereafter, is probably the most interesting thing that Scream VI does in its entire run-time, because it's also the thing the film barely seems to notice has happened, never mind actually spending the time explore it... [ BACK ]

*2 It does seem weird that 2023's Scream VI is scripted to be set one year after 2022's Scream V, and yet all of the returning school and college students from that movie now look about 30. Where were they studying, Rydell High? [ 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.

Monday, 23 January 2023

Review: Babylon


Babylon
Cert: 18 / 189 mins / Dir. Damien Chazelle / Trailer

Roll-up roll-up then - if you will - for a sizzling period-piece epic from a celebrated, eclectic auteur of a film-maker; an arch, blistering love-letter to Hollywood starring Margot Robbie and Brad Pitt, where everything happens all the time for three hours but without a coherent central narrative. Again. Welcome indeed, to Babylon...

A sprawling tale of path-crossing and deal-making in the golden age of cinema, writer/director Damien Chazelle seems to have been at something of an impasse over what genre he wanted this to occupy, and has instead gone for 'as many as possible, please'. Comedy meets drama meets high-camp head on, and even horror waits to be found in Los Angeles' seedy underbelly.


WEAVING


Taking the concept of all-star casting to admirable levels, the film spends its time weaving between the intersecting lives of jaded heartthrob Jack Conrad (Brad Pitt), rising starlet Nellie LaRoy (Margot Robbie) and aspiring producer Manuel Torres (Diego Calva). All the people they all meet over the next five years seem to be included here, played by a sea of familiar names and faces all happy to blag their 15 seconds onstage at this party. Beginning at the end of the silent-film era in 1926, Babylon's own excess earns that 18 certificate (no mean feat for a non-horror piece in 2022), some of it necessary for the story but most of it not.

To his absolute credit, Chazelle is a master of note-perfect, gloriously long takes, showing off not only the skill of his cast but also a tight reign over rehearsal and production discipline. One of the funniest segments centres around Nellie trying time after time to nail the perfect take of a very simple scene, channelling Alden Ehrenreich's turn in Hail Caesar but no less endearing for that. It's also one of the only parts of the film with any sense of form.


BOSS


Obviously Chazelle has merely created the illusion of 189 minutes of self-indulgent chaos, but that doesn't make the final product any more orderly (the lone title-card arrives over half an hour into the movie for approximately no reason). Visually sumptuous, technically stunning, narratively desolate and morally agnostic, this is a three hour Rorschach test; the cave on Dagobah, with glitter.

Packed to the rafters - again - with subtle references, direct references, themes and actual lifted plot points of his favourite film, I fear that if someone doesn't let Chazelle just remake Singin' In The Rain he may very well expire*1, although ironically this is perhaps closer in overall tone to De Palma's Scarface. For clarity, none of it is overtly bad, in the same way that watching a kid play happily with all of their toys at once brings a smile to the face. But only one of you is actually having fun.


ICE ICE


On occasion, this film thinks it has something meaningful to say about artistic yearning and the darker side of showbusiness. It doesn't*2. Babylon is mawkish and manipulative, full of straw-man arguments for hypothetical dinner parties, with Chazelle scripting as if he not only holds the answers but has also been the first to come up with the questions. As a result, this really is a film for audiences who think that explaining artifice is the same thing as telling truth.

And yeah, points are coming off because it ends with a greatest-hits reel of its own first act. Nailed-on celluloid onanism.


In his labour of cinematic love, Damien Chazelle may well have captured the very soul of tinseltown; Babylon is engaging, exciting, eviscerating, and even by the time the end-credits start to roll it means absolutely nothing...

Perhaps that's the real lesson.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 Spoilers, highlight to read: Look, I'm as much of a fanboy of the Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly classic as everyone else in here - really, I am - but the first two and a half hours of Babylon are a hyperactive retooling of Singin' In The Rain, then the final 30 minutes are the main character literally sitting in a cinema and watching Singin' In The Rain and crying at all of the sequences that have been ham-fistedly referenced earlier. This might as well feature Chazelle walking past the bottom of the screen holding a placard which reads 'do you understand yet? It is this. I want to make this'.

Oh, and that meta-flash-forward at the end where Manuel imagines visions of iconic cinema yet to come, intercut with clips of the greatest films of all time (plus Avatar)? I notice you couldn't get the rights to Star Wars, Damien...
[/End] [ BACK ]

*2 For the record, I genuinely believe there are points to be made about art vs entertainment vs consumerism, the intersections between the three and when it is and isn't helpful to define them. And for the record I genuinely believe that this movie hits precisely none of those marks... [ 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.

Thursday, 4 January 2018

Review: Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri





Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri
Cert: 15 / 115 mins / Dir. Martin McDonagh / Trailer



The year may be a new one, but the pattern’s familiar enough. Among the Ever-So-Worthy awards contenders currently queuing to fill up the cinema screens comes a smattering of smaller, more quirky fare, often ushered in by a familiar fanfare and the Fox Searchlight ident*1. And the first of these out of the gate (round my way, at least) is Martin McDonagh’s ode to small-town American unrest, Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri.

Frances McDormand stars as Mildred Hayes, a bereaved mother who rents the titular billboards as a way to antagonise a local police force who are showing no signs of progress in apprehending her daughter’s killer. Woody Harrelson plays Chief Willoughby (the named recipient of the above message), and the supporting cast includes Sam Rockwell, Caleb Landry Jones, Clarke Peters, Peter Dinklage and Abbie Cornish.

It’s quite (intentionally) funny. It’s also very (intentionally) dark. But from the writer/director behind In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths, that’s only to be expected. What you might also expect, however, is for the two to be blended together, the biting sardonic humour relieving the tension of a screenplay which touches not only on murder, but also rape, racism, police brutality, domestic violence, arson and more murder. What actually happens is that the gags themselves are closer to profane-farce and sit alternated with these events, so that the audience is never quite sure what the overall tone is meant to be.

It’s this division which proves to be the film’s undoing. Far from feeling complex or challenging, Three Billboards just comes off as convoluted and needlessly provocative. The script hopes to shock with either the bleakness of its actions or inappropriateness of its laughs, and while it often succeeds on both fronts, it’s an uneven affair.

All credit where it's due though, this is a compelling two hours of watching horrible characters trying to out-do each other’s awfulness in a claustrophobic setting. Even Mildred, whose side we are definitely on, tests our patience making escalatingly bad decisions for what we're assured are the right reasons. The result feels not unlike Twin Town, if it were directed by the Coen Brothers*2.

Three Billboards is an interesting second-draft of something which will be great when McDonagh decides which direction it’s meant to be going…



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
Well, Coen Brothers movies, frankly.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
Only if you're certain you'll enjoy it.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
Either a rental or wait for the stream.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
It's not, but that's not to say that everyone here is giving it their all.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
I shouldn't imagine so.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: This film's got Woody 'un-named role in the upcoming Han Solo movie' Harrelson in it.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 I should also confess, before you read this review any further, that it’s entirely possible that I just wasn’t in the most receptive of moods for Three Billboards, as I'd sat with narrowed eyes through the preceding trailers for Downsizing, The Shape Of Water and Isle Of Dogs , three upcoming movies which should at least interest, if not downright intrigue, me. So if you get to the end of this post and you’re like “oh you humourless get, can’t you enjoy anything?”, the answer is ”probably not after my first day back at work following the Christmas break, when I’m even more tired than I was when I finished on Dec 22nd, no”. The points I go on to make about the film still stand, I just probably wasn’t as forgiving of them as I could have been. Which is why I'm writing this on my blog and not for Empire, or something. [ BACK ]

*2 I expect to see many reviews comparing Three Billboards to the Coens’ output, and not necessarily for the best reasons. But Joel and Ethan know that restraint can be more powerful than excess in a screenplay. It looks like Martin has yet to reach that page in the handbook. [ 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.

Friday, 30 December 2016

Review: Monster Trucks





Monster Trucks
Cert: PG / 105 mins / Dir. Chris Wedge / Trailer



Stuck in that weird hinterland between wholly animated kids' comedy and more message-driven Young Adult™ cinematic fare is Nickelodeon's new live-action adventure/comedy, Monster Trucks. Aimed squarely at the younger end of the audience, we're almost back in Rydell High territory as the two 'senior year' leads are played by the 26yr old Lucas Till and 27yr old Jane Levy. And okay, they look young; but not that young.

Surrounded by a pantomime ensemble of sketched in archetypes and vague environmental themes, the film comprises an overly-simplistic screenplay, one-dimensional characters, sloppy slapstick plugging the gaps where scripted humour should be, an adult-cast who look faintly embarrassed to be there and Deus Ex Machina playing such a large part that it should get a mention on the poster. Monster Trucks can't quite work out whether it wants to be E.T. or Pete's Dragon, ends up aiming for both and achieving neither. And during the scene in Brett-out-of-Pulp-Fiction's trailer home, the repeated continuity gaffe around the placement of that scotch bottle was driving me up the wall. Fairly sure I'm not supposed to notice things like that the first time I watch a movie…

But for all that, the stunt/chase sequences entertain and the creature effects are absolutely outstanding*1. And that's what the film is for, after all…



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
It's a sort of half-way house between Pete's Dragon and Transformers.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
Only if you like 'em big and loud.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
With a paucity of ambition such as this, it probably does.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Cast, no. Director, no.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
I shouldn't think so, no.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There is.
It's fairly artlessly inserted, but fair play to the sound editor for being like "Nope, it's going in there"
.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: This film's got that Lucas Till in it, and he was in that X-Men: Apocalypse along with Rose 'Dormé' Byrne and Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 Weirdly, the practical stunts with the trucks look awesome, the CGI for the monsters is great, and then there are shots with CGI'd trucks that look like they've been put together by the intern. It doesn't spoil the film but it breaks what little flow there is.

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.