Review: Star Wars - The Mandalorian And Grogu (spoilers)

Star Wars:
The Mandalorian And Grogu
Cert: 12A / 132 mins / Dir. Jon Favreau / Trailer

There's a very telling line right at the very top of 2015's The Force Awakens. After seven years away from cinema screens*¹, Star Wars returned with the great Max Von Sydow's reassurance that "This will begin to make things right". It was not just in reference to the galactic map-fragment he was holding, but a (slightly ham-fisted) message to the audience that the Disney Corporation viewed the Prequel Trilogy-era as marketing anathema, and that everyone was now firmly back in safe hands. We were home! Han, Luke and Leia were back! Albeit never in the same room. Episode VII can be considered a commercial and critical success, although it's not inaccurate to say that the reception and performance of the numbered-chapters which followed and their two standalone cinematic interludes was more, well, variable. After a somewhat muddled Rise Of Skywalker closed-out a trilogy that left next to no cultural footprint, the new Lucasfilm's on-the-fly approach to filmmaking bled over into television output for Disney+, and proved just as tonally erratic. Of course the poster-boy for the small screen-era of the Galaxy Far, Far Away has been The Mandalorian, and despite that the show has its own problems, he is the hero who's been chosen for the 2026 return of Star Wars to the big screen.

So it feels notable that the first words spoken on-screen after another seven years away from the cinema come from Hemky Madera's Imperial Warlord Commander Barro, proclaiming to his subordinates and the viewership alike "I think we can all agree that things were better under the Empire". Again, it's no coincidence that this line is subtextually loaded. Even accounting for 2015-19 being ostensibly under the auspices of JJ Abrams while this phase is in the hands of Dave Filoni, the jibe is still effectively Disney-era Lucasfilm dunking on its own movies. The First-Order stuff you're nudging us to disregard was still made by you, lads. The opening line of dialogue also sets up the expectation, not unfairly, that what's about to follow is going to be pretty special...

SEASON

Timelines are deliberately sketchy under LFL's new management, but The Mandalorian And Grogu takes place after the show's third season, so probably around eleven years after the events of Return Of The Jedi. Din Djarin (Pedro Pascal) and his little green Force-wielding sidekick (himself) are still in the bounty hunting game, but have found a more stable paycheck in taking jobs from the fledgling New Republic (the authoritative face of which is presented here by Sigourney Weaver's Colonel Ward). This rolling contract involves the capture (or, if push comes to shove, elimination) of various mid-ranking Imperial Remnant warlords, before they can amass enough power to bring back the Empire. The movie opens James Bond / Indiana Jones style with Mando in the middle of snagging the aforementioned Barro, prior to being assigned the job of tracking the mysterious General Coin on a trail which will take him deep into Hutt space...

So it's been long established that Disney wanted to move away from the 'Episode' numbering system of cinematic installments (and with fair reason given their hopping around the timeline in each 'non-Skywalker-saga' project), but as well as the omissions of regular features we'd expect here (no lightsabers, no Artoo and Threepio*² , no Wilhelm Scream), this is also the first branded Star Wars movie to open without the 'A Long Time Ago, In A Galaxy Far, Far Away...' title card, the first to feature cast and production names in the opening credits, and the first to end without sweeping into John Williams' closing score. It's perhaps also worth noting that the aqua-green 'swoosh' branding used across the film's marketing material is nowhere to be seen in the film itself, opting instead for a flat, two-colour title card of the established Mandalorian-logo/font. Progress is one thing, but it's unclear whether moving forward by becoming more 'ordinary' will prove to be a winning strategy for the franchise.

And that question of identity extends well past the title sequence.

The final screenplay here is very clearly several episodic storylines taped together, and the flow of the movie suffers as a result. 2008's The Clone Wars cinematic outing was also plagued by this of course, but at least in the days of network TV those episodes were all the same length. True to Mandalorian TV-form, each of these strands is 'as long as it needs to be', which means the overall pacing is at best baffling and at worst incoherent.

EVIL

As much as tMAG doesn't rely too heavily on the TV show's own established continuity (the price of entry is surprisingly low, you can watch this having only seen the first season), it was never going to be truly Standalone™, coming as it does after 15½ hours of its televisual predecessor's run-time. The fact that the film doesn't even try to expand on those previous events or leave the timeline any real consequence*³ other than finally giving Mando another ship he can use to do his actual job in*⁴ is - admittedly - a weightier burden. Outside of the eponymous pairing very few faces from the small-screen return here, whereas new faces pop up intermittently throughout the run-time thanks to the sequential format. Worse, Star Wars' tradition for clearly and verbally naming its major players in the first act is a coin-toss affair. Zeb Orellios from the Rebels animated series had a background cameo in the TV show but shows up here as a fairly major supporting character, yet his name is only muttered twice in the script where it's lost in the wall of noise. Likewise, iconic Clone Wars bounty hunter Embo features heavily in the movie's mid-section (I can't say 'second act', that's not how this is made) and is effectively nameless on-screen (again, it's said once among longer dialogue, and I only know that because I went out of my way to attend a subtitled screening).

The screenplay does occasionally try to lean into genuine emotion between the two lead characters, but usually undercuts itself with whimsy, stoicism or the fact that one of them is wearing a helmet over his facial expression (and let's face it Pascal is no expressive mime-artist) and the other is a puppet; a nicely expressive puppet for the story's broader strokes, but without Yoda's wrinkles (and size), Grogu's range is, shall we say, limited.

Pascal puts in a reasonable enough turn as Djarin overall, of course. By this point he knows how to play the part, and in the majority of his scenes here he's interacting with effects-work, so the character's trademark stand-offishness works perfectly well. On first viewing though, I found Sigourney Weaver's Colonel Ward to be equally stilted, even more than the character's rank and position suggesting she might be. The next time round, however, I noticed that Weaver's delivery is actually channelling Carrie Fisher's Leia in the Sequel Trilogy films, and the thought occurred that had things panned out differently in our own timeline, it might have been General Organa we saw handing out the 'Gulf War' cards.

DENVER

In fairness, while the film doesn't do much to develop its own cast, it is considerably more interested in playing with the wider toybox.

Despite that opening line as above, there is a reasonable smattering of Sequel Trilogy referencing here (the Anzellans in particular, as well as droid archetypes from across the 2015-19 films), an Original Trilogy-heavy opening sequence (with bonus INT-4 Mini-Rig for those of a certain age) and Prequel Trilogy vibes coming from adapted antique battle droids and their STAP-riders. With Clone Wars supervising-director Dave Filoni now in the big chair at Lucasfilm it's perhaps no surprise that the animated series perhaps has the biggest external influence, with that bounty hunter and his amazing hat doing his best to steal any remaining scenes not nabbed by Jabba's boy Rotta The Hutt (who is, of course, His Own Man™), both characters originally created on his watch. It can't be escaped, however, that Mr Filoni seems to think his cameo appearances are comparable to those of Alfred Hitchcock, when they are instead absolutely of the same calibre as M. Knight Shyamalan's...

Visually, the movie lands in a similarly mixed place.

When the action is taking place outdoors (thankfully often) cinematographer David Klein's visuals are dense and richly detailed (even if they do have that slightly muted, artificial hum brought about by filming on a soundstage), but a lot of the interior scenes are ludicrously dark. And as you'd expect, this problem is only exacerbated through a pair of 3D glasses*⁵. 2018's Solo had the excuse of removing detail to try and preserve budget on a production which required 80% reshoots, but tMAG should be under no such restrictions. In more than a few of the melee-fight scenes it's difficult to tell what's actually happening (made worse in the life-sized Dejarik battle, where watching CGI berserker-creatures clobbering other CGI berserker-creatures is, I'm afraid, terminally uninteresting*⁶). And if the clarity can't be picked out on a cinema-sized screen in blackout-conditions, good luck watching this on Disney+ in your living room.

And while I'm here and complaining about things on a slightly unfair technical level, the Imperial Officers of the Original Trilogy had those Hugo-Boss-inspired*⁷, razor-sharp uniforms and received-pronunciation accents (that's Radio 4 Continuity Announcer to you), largely as a result of trained Shakespearean actors from RADA and the Royal Central School of Speech and Acting. While Commander Barro's informal fur-collar can be explained by his snowy surroundings and his diction at least retains force and authority, the Empire now seems whittled down to the point where we get General Coin, a bald bloke in a grey tweed sports-jacket who looks and speaks like a mid-tier gang boss from Bermondsey. I am still genuinely tickled at how some Americans (which in this case appears to be the entire production and editing staff at Lucasfilm) have an absolute tin-ear for the British accent and its myriad regional implications. No wonder we didn't see Coin during the Original Trilogy; Ozzel, Jerjerrod and Veers would have had him emptying the bins...

TERRITORY

Fortunately, where the film really wants to succeed, it generally does. Ludwig Göransson's score romps the whole thing along nicely (with the slightest dusting of John Williams), even if the soundtrack never feels like it does more than it needs to. The scope and effects work is over-and-above what you'd expect of a TV show (Season Two's krayt dragon notwithstanding), but the overall structure and lasting effect is not. This wasn't made to be 'more than' its small screen sibling, just as an extra story in another medium. Which feels weird given that we've had The Mandalorian for well over half a decade, and the traditional expanded-universe storytelling of comics, novels and video games surrounding it is nowhere to be seen.

In its top-down form, The Mandalorian And Grogu is essentially a series of precariously threaded fight-sequences. Luckily, these fight sequences are where the film positively shines, with Djarin despatching droids and Stormtroopers alike with the adrenaline-glee of an eight year old wired on Haribo and flipping over their Kenner action figures. This really is Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni playing with their toys (and I do not mean this as a criticism).

So does the film show any development of Mandalorian-lore and Din Djarin's evolving place in both honouring his past and forging his people's future, while caring for a youngling who's finding his way between two traditionally-opposing ancient cultures? Nope. Does the film expand upon the mechanisms of the New Republic in its work to rebuild trust and hope in the aftermath of the Galactic Empire? Nope. But is this at least a rounded, satisfying adventure movie designed to appeal to a mainstream cinema audience? Well what do you think? Of course it's not.

Okay, is The Mandalorian And Grogu a fairly undemanding and uncontroversial fandom tickbox exercise which bolts-on perfectly to a TV series which has been - to be fair - absolutely all over the place? Yes, yes it is. Star Wars is well past the era of 'event-cinema' whether we like that or not (to be fair, event-cinema might be well past the era of event-cinema), and in 2026 we have to take the fun where we can find it.

I had enormous fun with this movie.
This is the way.

Okay, it's "a" way...

(Y'see, I'm not even sure if The Mandalorian And Grogu should get any star-rating at all. I automatically assign 7 because it's Star Wars and that's my thing, but this is not a full-marks Star Wars movie. It's arguably not a movie at all. But it's still more way satisfying to watch and ponder-over than The Rise Of Skywalker, and that got full marks from me, so what can you do?)


*¹ Don't @ me. Yes 2005's Revenge Of The Sith was a decade before 2015's The Force Awakens, but The Clone Wars movie landed at cinemas in 2008, seven years before TFA. Yes, of course that counts. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² There is a moment in the opening titles at the New Republic base on Adelphi (which I swear to god looks like it's two doors down from Tony Stark's mansion) where an R2-unit is being loaded into an X-Wing fighter, and the way it's presented - with the droid right in the middle of the frame, visually uninterupted over a lingering shot - seems to suggest that perhaps this is a cameo from our favourite Astromech. But then, Artoo will be with Luke at this point in the timeline, and he's nowhere to be seen here. This would also be a level of subtlety completely not in keeping with the movie's other cameo appearances, so forget I said anything. But if Dave Filoni turns up on the commentary track saying that's R-D2, you read it here first. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Okay, two members of Moff Gideon's Shadow Council are removed from the frame here, but after a blink-and-you'll-miss-it introduction one episode before the end of Mandalorian Season Three they were hardly holding the plot together. Potentially more galactic fallout comes from the deaths of the Hutt-twins, but they weren't strictly characters from the Mandalorian series anyway, so it's debatable when their loss will be revisited. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Yeah I'm going to say it again, they had to give Mando another Razor Crest because he can't be a bounty hunter in an N1 Starfighter with no storage facilities. Why do you think the first mission we see him completing with that ship involves him decapitating someone and bringing just their head back? Because the guy can't bring back any target which doesn't fit into a small duffel-bag. The N1 was a ridiculous idea and he should have never picked up the keys for it. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁵ Because of course I also went to see this in 3D. More out of novelty than anything else, admittedly. Way back in the dim and distant past of 2019, I recall actually having to travel to another town to watch The Rise Of Skywalker in three dimensions, because my local multiplex was only screening it in two. Even back then it appeared the entire industry and audiences alike had given up on the fad, so I have no idea why stereoscopy is rearing its head again now. For what it's worth, the 3D conversion of Mandalorian is 'basically fine'. It doesn't need the 3D (live-action flicks rarely do), and for the most part it's a forgettable add-on which also makes the film's darker scenes even more problematic. ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁶ No, seriously. Dejarik is presented in A New Hope (and again in The Force Awakens) as the Star Wars version of chess on a round board. The holographic monsters represent pieces which have their own limited and unique movements and powers, resulting in a strategic game that requires both intelligence and experience to play - hence it being so difficult to win against a droid. The "Dejarik match" in The Mandalorian And Grogu seems to involve releasing the real-world counterparts into a circular arena which is at least painted like a Dejarik board, whereby they all just randomly attack each other on account of being wild animals. THAT'S NOT WHAT CHESS IS, IS IT? IF YOU DID LIFE-SIZE GIANT CHESS WITH PEOPLE IN COSTUMES, THERE'D STILL BE RULES. THEY WOULDN'T ALL JUST START STABBING EACH OTHER AND SHOUTING "YES, THIS IS THE CHESS". ffs... ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁷ You know what I mean by that. ^{[ 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.

Review: Aliens

Aliens
Cert: 15 / 154 mins / Dir. James Cameron / Trailer

Ah 4/26 again, and a very healthy turnout in suburban Oxfordshire for what is, after all, a mercenary annual marketing exercise as opposed to any kind of anniversary screening. Healthy to the point where your correspondent looked around the growing crowd comprising couples of all ages, groups of men and groups of women and thought '...right, have I walked into the wrong screen?'. The downside of an eager audience of this size is of course an uptick in the general rustling, fidgeting and coughing throughout the deeply atmospheric first act of a film which defined Tension™ for a generation. But a communal experience is the heart of cinema (so they tell me), and you take the breaks where you can find them.

And so to planet LV-426, again, where bad luck charm Ellen Ripley is coerced to go on another works outing*¹ despite narrowly escaping being permanently barred from the Engineer's Arms only 57 years earlier...

PLEASANT

I am, it should be reiterated, merely a civilian lover of the Alien franchise. Definitely a fan, but it's not ingrained in the same way as Star Wars. This means that there are certain things that always seem to slip my mind between viewings, which therefore always return as a pleasant surprise. Y'know, to cheer me up amidst all the shrieking claustrophobic death...

For example, I seem to forget the literally ground-breaking futuristic tech colony on LV-426 is filed to the brim with CRT monitors, and that some of the costumes here are a bit 'V' in places, and that the worst proponent of this is Paul Reiser's Burke, and what an absolutely transparent pantomime villain he is; chewing his way through the scenery as an $18.5m film sneers against the corporate profiteering which had, by that point, come to define the decade which spawned it.

But it's nice to be reminded of the shared cast between the Alien, Predator and Terminator movies, like an intermarriage of 1980s royal cinematic dynasties, and of the influence Alien(s) had on the production design of Red Dwarf.

And I didn't want to be the one to say it, but the kid is annoying.

EVEREST

Snark aside, it's an absolute masterpiece, of course.

For something which - on paper - is only supposed to be an action/sci-fi sequel (and very much like Cameron's other game-raising sequel, Terminator 2), Aliens is so much more than the sum of its parts. The miniatures and matte paintings and puppets look like miniatures and matte paintings and puppets, but that doesn't matter because they (still) look gorgeous.

The picture has cleaned up well but the grain is still very much there, giving the whole film a very tangible texture that's hard to capture in the 21st century. And then the stylistic and structural parallels between this and T2 are intriguing. Utterly glaring in places, but still intriguing for all that*². Most of all, Sigourney Weaver's commitment to the intensity of her character (even if it is just an extension/development of the original 1979 role) is jaw-dropping, and the fact that she made this two years after Ghostbusters is kind of amazing*³.

PEGGY

In horror movie parlance, Aliens is another masterclass of not showing off your monsters too early; and even when you do go all-in, keep it ambiguously detailed. And there aren't as many actual xenomorphs in this as you think you remember, a triumph of budget and deft production design leading to lasting appeal. Although to be blunt - directorial vision or otherwise - 154 minutes is too damned long for a film where the vast majority of it takes place in the dark.

Adrian Biddle's cinematography is superb throughout, but Ray Lovejoy's editing means that the action scenes for two thirds of the movie are a meaningless montage of grimacing and muzzle-flare. And as the human characters are rapidly picked-off, there are by definition fewer of them to explain exactly what's going on (other than "we need to get from here to there, but everything between is covered in acidic goo and death, good luck"

Not to put down the further films in this series (or non-series, depending on your views regarding continuity), but it's been impossible to recapture the absolute breath-holding dread of the first two Alien installments. I'm not complaining about this, it just makes them look better. Either way, you know fine well the powers that be are not going to stop trying any time soon...

*¹ SPOILERS: Remind me again why everyone at Weyland Yutani repeatedly says that Ripley won't have to go 'in with the troops' on LV-426, only to then have her immediately go right in with the troops? I know they're lying to her, obviously, but so does she. So why is Ripley seemingly just going along with this? ^{[ BACK ]}

*² SPOILERS: How does the Sulaco have an airlock that can be operated from inside the airlock at a single panel, and which allows the doors at either end to be open at the same time? With that approach to Occupational Health, it's no wonder Weyland Yutani's got the safety record it has... ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ By which I mean Sigourney Weaver is kind of amazing. Obviously. ^{[ 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.

Review: Alien

Alien
Cert: 15 / 111 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott / Trailer



And following a brief break after Prometheus, the second-part of the 426 extravaganza was 1979’s original Alien movie*¹.

The problem with running this double-bill in chronological story order, of course, is that the original film really isn’t ageing well, visually. There, I said it. The film stock is furry, even for a remastered director's cut. Miniatures look like miniatures, the fully-grown Xeno looks like a guy in a suit, and the escape of the iconic chestburster is nothing short of comical*². And that's all fine until you run it back to back with a flick made in the digital age.

But, when it comes down to the mechanics of the Mansion Murderer In Space, Scott’s film is masterfully tense and hasn't been topped since (although many are still trying). This was the first time I’d seen the original Alien at the cinema. Hopefully it won’t be the last...

As the Nostromo is hauling an ore-refinery for mining operations, that effectively makes the seven crew members and the Seven Dwarfs.
Which would make the Xenomorph Snow White.

Discuss.

The Aliens.



If you can bear the analogue-feel on a digital-screen, yes.



It does.



Probably not, but only because of their impressive other work.



Nope.



Nope.



Level 2: Sigourney Weaver's in this of course, and she starred in A Monster Calls along with the voice of Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson.




Yeah, I've marked it up. Despite looking worse in the cinema, the film's better in the cinema. Me mordere...


*¹ There were 13 people in the auditorium for the screening Prometheus which is embarrassing enough. But two of those left in the interval, and one walked out about ten minutes into Alien. Who does that? I could understand if they'd been showing the films the other way around. Alien is generally accepted as the better of the two, right? Some weird reverse film-snobbery going on.
^{[ BACK ]}

*² Not the screaming and the writhing; that bit where it looks around then goes skittering off across the floor. Tonight's audience had already watched a far more visceral version of the birthing process in Prometheus of course, but then this film was followed by a couple of sequences from Covenant, one of which shows a similar event. So seeing modern-interpretations both before and after John Hurt’s most famous scene doesn’t really do the film any favours I’m afraid. ^{[ 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.

Review: A Monster Calls

A Monster Calls
Cert: 12A / 108 mins / Dir. J.A. Bayona / Trailer



And so, my bid to watch and review all of 2017's movies in alphabetical order begins on a strong footing. My bid to evade more heavyweight fare in search of entertainment and escapism? Not so much.

The cinematic adaptation of Patrick Ness's award-winning book is a musing study of grief, anger and forgiveness, and one which is as deliberately frustrating and contrary as its subjects. Seen through the eyes of the introverted young Conor O'Malley as he struggles to accept his mother's cancer, the film shows a series of lucid dreams where he's visited by a monster formed from a tree in the local churchyard. The monster tells Conor three stories, and insists that after the final one, Conor must tell his own. Although he becomes unsure of what is real and what he's imagining, Conor knows the monster isn't an enemy, but an embodiment of the challenges faced by his whole family.

The film is driven by fantastic performances from Lewis MacDougall and Felicity Jones as Conor and his mum, Lizzie. Liam Neeson's voice and motion-capture work as the monster is convincing enough for the audience to take for granted, and gracious enough to know that it's not the real star of the movie. This is a slow-burner for the first act, but once the monster tells his first story - the first two are illustrated through some frankly beautiful animation - the structure becomes more clear. And this clarity is needed because there's a lot going on in A Monster Calls. Even though it's a film which frequently pauses to examine and interpret its own analogies, the third act is a triumph of emotional writing. That Ness has adapted his own novel for the screen helps a lot, especially since the story origininated from author Siobhan Dowd during her own terminal illness, and Ness has the best hand for keeping that closeness. While the film never quite blew me away, the intricate web of metaphor it weaves will stay with me for a long while.

That said, the pacing can feel a little uneven, especially with that slow build-up. The film is also occasionally a bit too whimsical, even for a fantasy-tale. Toby Kebbel appears as Conor's estranged father, and while he plays the role sympathetically enough, I can't help feeling he should have had a greater impact on the story (it's not like Conor or Lizzie hate him at all). And while I'm prepared to go with a 1,000yr old tree in England having that sort of vague Irish brogue that Liam Neeson brings so effortlessly and so often, I can't help wonder why/how Sigourney Weaver passed the audition process as 'an English grandmother' when she can't keep her native accent under control. It doesn't de-rail the film, but it's more distracting than it should be.

But none of this stops A Monster Calls from being an outstanding piece of cinema. It's just probably one that I don't think I'll have the strength to watch again.

If you've had enough fun and frollics over the holiday season but you're not quite ready for the earnest hand-wringing of true-story adaptations that the awards season has lined up, you could do a lot, lot worse than A Monster Calls.

It's heavy-going.
It's meant to be heavy-going.
Try not to cry.

Tale of Tales, Arrival.



Not necessarily, the film's hook is mainly emotional so should work on any size screen.



Yes.



It's definitely up there.



Probably not.



There isn't.



Level 1: Not only has this film got Jyn Erso and Qui-Gon Jinn in it, Toby Kebbel's in there as well and he did voice-work in Star Wars: The Old Republic. Oh, yes.





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.

Review: Chappie

Chappie
Cert: 15 / 120 mins / Dir. Neill Blomkamp / Trailer



You've got to hand it to Neill Blomkamp, he doesn't exactly go out of his way to make his films likeable. Following in the footsteps of District 9 and Elysium comes Chappie, still in a dystopian South African setting, but more '20 minutes into the future' than flying cars and space-stations.

In a similar vein to Alex Garland's Ex Machina, Chappie doesn't spend much time postulating whether its central character can be classed as 'alive' or not, but looks more at the behavioural effects impressed upon a non-human being raised by humans (I was going to say 'deeply flawed humans', but in this film at least, there are no other kind).

First and foremost though, Chappie himself is outstanding. The visuals of the robot are so naturalistic that you instantly forget you're watching an animated character (and props to Dev Patel, Ninja and Yolandi Visser for supporting this so well). Sharlto Copley arguably brings more humanity and wonder to his role than the rest of the cast manage; maybe that's the point?

The problem (okay, my problem) is that writer/director Blomkamp can't seem to commit to the philosophical points he raises in his script about society, the nature of morality and the Promethean acts of Chappie's creator, Deon*¹. However, the film also struggles to become the loud actioner that Elysium was, and the pantomime performance of Hugh Jackman (as the stupidest military strategist you'll ever meet) repeatedly knocks the film down a gear.

Oh, and it's nice to know that the next generation of automated law enforcement will be created in a manufacturing facility still running Windows XP on its machines (the PS4s featured heavily in the film put a fairly firm timestamp on when it's meant to be happening, and they're not even the most blatant or embarrassing product-placement Sony could wangle into the film).

40% Robocop, 40% Short Circuit and 20% Ali G (just to stop you liking it too much), Chappie is a fascinating film which pulls a few too many of its punches.

But by this point, you're either on Neill Blomkamp's bus or you're not. He's making films for himself first, his fans second, and to hell with them being mainstream friendly. Which already makes Chappie one step closer to pure art than most movies you'll seen this year.

Spoilery question for those of you who've seen the film: Why does Chappie flip out at being lied to by Ninja as if he's only just discovered that it's a human trait? When Ninja asked Chappie about the doll he was hiding behind his back, the first thing he did was say 'it's nothing' (probably more out of embarrassment, admittedly), so he's already got 'deceit' on his CV, surely?



If you're a fan of District 9 and Elysium, yes it is..



A rental should do you.



In Sharlto Copley's case, it just might.



I think it almost does.



No, I know it won't be to everyone's tastes.



There ain't.



Chappie's maker is played by Dev Patel, who also stars in the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel series alongside Celia Imrie, best known of course for her portrayal of Naboo pilot Bravo 5 in The Phantom Menace…







*¹ Indeed, on the 'Prometheus' front, there's no caution, pride, regret, punishment or redemption. But to be fair, that's because Blomkamp hasn't re-made Frankeinstein, I suppose.

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.

Review: Exodus - Gods And Kings

Exodus: Gods And Kings (3D)
Cert: 12A / 150 mins / Dir. Ridley Scott




Okay, there's two ways we can do this. Either you can go on and read the 511 words after this paragraph, or you can stop after the final word of this one: shite.

Still here? Oh, fair play. The thing that strikes you about Ridley Scott's Exodus (and fairly early on) is how bollocks it is. That's not to say it's complete bollocks, of course, since that would be implying that the film succeeds at something. No, it's just bollocks in that 'all-over-the-place like Joel Edgerton's accent' sort of a way. It's clear what the story's meant to be, and in all fairness you have to be pretty much on-board with that before the BBFC card appears, because the film's going to do little to change your mind. I wasn't on-board. By the time the credits rolled, I'd have happily thrown myself overboard just to end the white-noise of Uncle Owen chasing Batman and The Mandarin around the desert for two hours while the audience look on, thoroughly bemused.

Here's an actual, genuine excerpt of the screenplay:

* * * * *
Exterior: Day. Moses and the 400,000 Israelites trudge across the desert. A MESSENGER gallops to the head of the line.

MESSENGER: Ramses rides after us, Moses, with four thousand men and a thousand horses!
MOSES: How far behind..?
MESSENGER: Four days; less, if they don't rest the horses!

CUT TO ~
Exterior: Night. RAMSES and his horde ride over the desert.

GENERAL: Sire, we must rest the horses!
RAMSES: NO!!!
* * * * *

…even the frequently-ghosting addition of a third dimension can't add an extra layer of depth to this screenplay, and in socio-political terms, it's the Phantom Menace of Biblical epics*¹, with pseudo-political gossip, tittle-tattle and backstabbing interspersing the scenes of outlandish action like a kind of Old Testament soap-opera. On a logistical level, the key story-points of the film make Darren Aronofsky's Noah look like a wildlife documentary, although I'll admit that it's to the film's credit that it doesn't try to rationalise them. In fact, the 'parting of the sea' finale was looking quite understated until Scott turned it into an eye-popping 3D Guinness advert (ironically, for a film which might have worked better if I'd had a drink in my hand).

If there's one thing Prometheus taught us, it's that Ridley Scott directs symbolism and suggestion as if they're fact. By the time Grumpy Moses sees God as a petulant 8yr old, and begins to bicker with Him as such, your backside will be getting as numb as your brain. Two and a half hours is long for a fantasy film, and it's long for a mythical/political statement. When the film can't work out which it wants to be, it's even longer. Choose one, Ridley, choose one.

A grand vision which seems to have been lost half-way back down the mountain, Exodus: Gods And Kings is an unholy mess of a sermon...

Oh, more or less.



Not at all.



I have no idea.



*shrugs*.



Not really, but you'll have one hell of a job convincing me why it's great.



Nope.



There is, indeed. This is no consolation.

Why do they keep calling Moses 'Mosher'?
His hair isn't that long…*²

*¹ And I say that as someone who loves The Phantom Menace, as well you know.
*² No, that's a joke. Let me get some kind of enjoyment out of the film.

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.