Review: Allied

Allied
Cert: 15 / 124 mins / Dir. Robert Zemeckis / Trailer



Ah, that awkward feeling when you realise you're watching Marion Cotillard being outstanding in a film which is only quite good. If anything, it reflects quite badly on director Robert Zemeckis that an actress who was probably pregnant for a lot of her scenes was the one required to do all the heavy lifting. But I'm getting ahead of myself…

Morocco, 1942. Canadian allied-forces spy Max Vatan is airdropped outside of Casablanca*¹ and instructed to meet fellow operative Marianne Beausejour. Posing as a married couple, they are to carry out an assassination of a high-ranking Nazi official. After completing their mission (that's in the trailer, it's not a spoiler), they relocate to London and marry while Max continues working for the Ministry of Defence. But when his superiors have reason to believe that Marianne is a German spy filtering information back to the Fatherland, Max has to ask himself how deep her cover really is, and if he even knows the real Marianne at all…

An odd recipe this, putting Mr Pitt of 'no fixed genre' with thespic heavyweight Cotillard, written by Steven Knight (of Eastern Promises' parish) and directed by Robert 'Back To The Future' Zemeckis. And that list of primary ingredients is as uneven as the film which comes out of the cinematic oven after two hours.

Ultimately, Allied doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, be it a tense espionage thriller or angst-ridden romantic drama. As a result the film ends up convincing as neither, although it is quite a lot of fun in the meanwhile. The action set-pieces are nicely executed, as is the overall sense of creeping tension. Pitt seems to struggle when he's required to show emotion (although I can't tell how much of that is his perma-spy character not wanting to show his true colours), whereas Cotillard more than makes up for it with a performance which is far too subtle for a film like this. While each scene moves the story in the right direction, the film is baggy at just over two hours, often feeling like it's stalling the audience. Elsewhere there's some neat cinematography in the Casablanca section of the film (even if much of it screams 'soundstage'), and the damp, muted colour-palette of London complements it perfectly. We've also got long-time Zemeckis cohort Alan Silvestri on scoring duties, routinely playing his game of 'hide the BTTF opening-line' where everyone can hear it. Bless him.

The other awkward feeling comes in the film's closing moments, when a quiet, reflective coda suggests that the audience have been watching something emotionally engaging rather than just quite entertaining. For all the ducking, shooting, whispering and shouting though, the relationship at the centre of the film just didn't convince me. And that is supposed to be the point of the film.

I want to score Allied more highly, because it is enjoyable. But I know for a fact that in about a week, I won't remember a thing about it…

Well, it wants to be Inglourious Basterds with a heart, but it ends up more like Mr & Mrs Smith with a grimace.



As much fun as it is, there's nothing inherently cinematic about it, unfortunately.



Judging by the last few minutes?
Apparently not.



It's not.



I won't.



There is.
First firearm-related casualty of the movie.
Textbook stuff.



Level 2: This film stars messrs Brad Pitt and August Diehl, both of whom rocked up in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, a movie which featured a voice-over from Sam Windu Jackson.

I mean seriously, who casts Pitt and Diehl in a WWII thriller together again? Mind you, Daniel Betts is in this, and he starred with Pitt in Fury, another WWII drama. Thinking about it, the problem could just be Brad Pitt…





*¹ Bear in mind, the film Casablanca wasn't released until 1942. This film is set in 1942. At the time it came out, it was another run-of-the-mill, quick-turnaround drama; well-received an'all, but it didn't gain its iconic status until years later. I only mention it because that line in the trailer where Marianne's like "You'll go on the roof. In Casablanca, that's where men go…" is a trope she wheels out every three minutes or so. Like there's something really special about this Nazi-occupied city that all the others in mainland Europe haven't got. "In Casablanca, we don't drive slowly" / "In Casablanca, men don't kiss their wives with their top shirt-buttons undone" / "In Casablanca, we start with the cutlery from the outside but we use the steak-knife to butter the bread". I genuinely expected Max to stop and yell "Oh, are we in Casablanca? I WISH YOU'D SAID SOMETHING EARLIER, I'VE DRESSED FOR CROYDON!"…


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: The Conjuring 2

The Conjuring 2
Cert: 15 / 134 mins / Dir. James Wan / Trailer



"I don't know what's worse," Franka Potente's sceptical parapsychologist Anita opines in a moment of second-act downtime, "the demons, or the people who prey on our willingness to believe in them". It's a brief moment when James Wan's horror threequel lays itself bare, and the more cynical viewers in the audience will raise an eyebrow and mouth a silent "...well, quite". Like so many other movies in its genre, The Conjuring 2's dramatic impact relies almost entirely on the unwavering belief of its audience; not least because the opening titles feature those dreaded words 'based on the true story'*¹...

So, based on the already well-documented case of The Enfield Poltergeist, psychic investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren cross the Atlantic at the request of the church to try and uncover the truth (if any) about mysterious happenings in north London*² (represented in its 1977 era by a wardrobe of man-made fibres, a desaturated colour palette and afternoon showings of The Goodies*³).

On the plus side, the film works in a purely nuts-and-bolts way, aided massively by the performances of Vera Farmiga and the younger members of the cast. James Wan makes a solid job of expanding the relationship between Ed and Lorraine Warren, and there are some nicely un-nerving moments in the first half hour. But these are all achieved by actual acting, rather than the jump-scares and general silliness which the screenplay then autopilots into. Because if there's any real tension at all, it only comes when the soundtrack drops to the point where you can hear the faint hiss of the auditorium speakers, and you involuntarily start counting the heartbeats to the inevitable BANG.

As much as Wan clearly enjoys playing in Seventies London, he can't resist the urge to fall back on his tried and tested tricks. With its multi-layered possession, haunting of people (rather than places, exclusively) and a box-ticking goodie-bag of spectral tropes, the film is arguably more a spiritual sequel to Insidious 2 than it is The Conjuring (and certainly feels more in keeping than Insidious 3).

The Conjuring 2 has some interesting facets and is far from a bad movie, but it's still a worryingly generic addition from someone who can and should give us better. In much the same way as the upcoming Independence Day and Central Intelligence flicks will contribute to sci-fi and comedy respectively, this film is fine for a mainstream audience, but there'll be little here for the hardened genre-fiend…

Oh, the others.
Not The Others, I just mean other films like this.
Basically anything with James Wan's name on the front, for a start.



Only if you want your jump-shot especially loud.



I suppose it probably does, to be fair.



Not particularly.
(although again, massive props to the younger members of the cast for taking the silliness so seriously)



Probably not.



Definitely not.



Level 1: The Conjuring 2 features the voice-work of Robin Atkin Downes, who's also worked on Star Wars Rebels, Clone Wars, Star Tours, Empire At War, KOTOR, KOTOR 2, The Old Republic, Rogue Squadron 3, Bounty Hunter… oh he's connected, alright.





*¹ Which, as in the majority of these cases, appears to mean "it's true that someone once told this story". Although this retelling even takes artistic licence with that.

*² And it's good to see that the Warrens spring into action a full minute and a half after people start screaming immediately outside of the room they're sleeping in, ostensibly to be 'on hand' should anything go awry in the night...

*³ UK TV historians, please help me out on this one. I was only four in 1977, but I don't remember The Goodies being repeated in the afternoon. There were only three channels back then, and broadcast 'real estate' was a bit more precious at least. I don't even know why this slightly anachronistic point should bother me so much when the rest of the film is clearly ficitious, then again I'm not the one plastering the words "true story" over the top of it to put bums on seats. To be honest, the most alarming thing I noticed was the apparently TARDIS-like disparity between the external and internal shots of the house.


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.