~SM: "Tell us about the film, tell us- just dip us slightly into the world of Mortal Engines."
~PJ: "It's a movie that's based on a book written by Philip Reeve who's… it's actually the first book in a series of four…"
Peter Jackson, interviewed on BBC's Wittertainment show, 01 December 2018.
Peter 'Braindead' Jackson there, not the director of this film but the exec-producer with more media clout than first-time-feature helmsman Christian Rivers. Peter 'Rings' Jackson who, when asked to set the scene for listeners new to the fantastical world of Mortal Engines, needs to point out first and foremost that it's based on a book. On a set of books. Peter 'Hobbit' Jackson who thinks that the first thing you need to know, the first thing before anything else he's going to say, is that this hasn't just been dreamt up in a writers' room.
Because when you say 'well that sounds utterly implausible and quite possibly a little bit shite and I'm not sure if I'm going to gamble the thick-end of £15 finding out', Peter will be like #YeahButBookMate.
Because when you say 'Peter, did they send you to this interview because nobody would give a toss about Mortal Engines if its cast or actual director had come on the show?', Peter will be like #YeahButBookMate.
Because when you say 'But Peter, you love All The Books so much you butchered the Lord Of The Rings trilogy and expanded out The Hobbit novella to include a musical number about doing the bastard washing up, and besides everybody knows that adaptation is probably one of the least reliable ways to make a good movie, and besides it's not as if 'being a book' is any guarantee of quality in itself because as anyone who's ever set foot in a Waterstone's will attest, the literary world is fucking awash with incredibly mediocre fantasy fiction and do you honestly, genuinely think you have anything to add to this genre on a cinematic level when entertainment behemoths like DC are struggling with their own fucking content?Really, Peter?'…
MORTAL Now, as astute readers may have already gathered, your humble correspondent did not enjoy Mortal Engines. I really don't like saying '[x] is not a good film', because statements like that aren't productive and everything comes down to the viewer's own subjective view. But in the case of this two-hour pileup of a movie, I'll make an exception: Mortal Engines is not a good film. In fact after what I've witnessed, I'd be amazed if the book is really any good either, because if it uses the same story, characters and excruciating dialogue as its cinematic cousin, all it'll be workable for is as a doorstop, paperweight or hamster bedding.
The plot (if you still need a recap) involves a post-apocalyptic world in which cities roam the land (mainland Europe, it appears) on wheels with furnaces in their bellies, devouring smaller mobile towns and villages they come across. Resources are scarce and hope comes in the form of mob-led survivalist greed. London (apparently now the area of a village albeit with St Paul's cathedral at the top) is commanded and course-directed by Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), a thinly veiled despot clinging onto power by any means available to him. When historical administrator Tom Natsworthy (Robert Sheehan) finds himself unwittingly exiled from the city, he crosses paths with Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar) and her cybernetic mentor/stalker, a young woman who's desperate to desperate to get into London for very different reasons.
Something something, 'look at the graphics!'; something something, 'wow The Man is bad!'; something something, 'hang on isn't this just Star Wars?'. Still, it was released bang in the middle of pantomime-season, so somebody got that right at least...
You'd be forgiven for expecting a film with this much exposition to make more sense, and the script is even more mechanical than anything the effects teams have to offer (the superb visuals can't make up for the rest of this gibberish). Any time not spent explaining the backstory is used to throw out plot-boomerangs for the third act. Mortal Engines is an over-earnest, overproduced neo-steampunk melodrama, probably fine for audiences young enough to have seen absolutely no fantasy cinema, ever.
Don't worry, there are light-hearted quips in it as well. "Hey careful, you nearly knocked over that priceless historical cultural artefact!" exclaims a character as someone brushes roughly against a table containing a battered, three-foot high reproduction of two Minions. That, and almost winking at the camera when referencing the obscure antiquity of USB plugs, are the level of scripting we're at.
PALATIC Still, it looks like cinematographer Simon Raby is a fan of the Galaxy Far, Far Away, so you can spend the time between plot-bursts playing "spot the Star Wars shot". And I don't just mean the many Original Trilogy setups. There are nods to scenes from The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, Rogue One and even the coaxium implosion from Solo, here. But it's the third act which really has a boner for the Death Star battles (the first, the second and Starkiller Base). And I'm not ashamed to admit that I laughed out loud during the "I am your father" scene. It'd be impressive if the whole thing wasn't so transparently needy.
I suspect that at one point, this was a biting satire on British colonialism, rampantly stripping away anything in its path with righteous flag-waving indignation. It's faintly ironic that since the final movie is neither as insightful, impressive nor important as it thinks it should be, that's still arguably the case.
MUNTED Mortal Engines is a bad film. Please prove me wrong. The only saving grace may be how ultimately forgettable it is. I'm sure that's what younger members of the cast are pinning their futures on, at any rate.
Although on that subject, I love that Hugo Weaving had declined reprising his role as the Red Skull in Marvel's Avengers: Infinity War because he thought he'd "done [his] dash with that sort of film".
Well, quite.
Necking three bags of Haribo, two litres of Sunny Delight then reading the novel by turning over two pages at once.
Hahahahaha.
Sure, why not see the same mess only smaller?
This is Christian Rivers' first feature film.
At least he has that as an excuse.
The only reason that's not a 1 is because the film looks good.
Which is of absolutely no consolation.
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.
Don't Breathe (SPOILERS (separate, underneath post))
Cert: 15 / 88 mins / Dir. Fede Alvarez / Trailer
First things first, this review features an introductory paragraph (this), a brief synopsis of the film's setup, a list of things I enjoyed then a list of things I didn't. In doing this, the review is structured classically but thoroughly predictably. Much like Don't Breathe itself...
The Plot: When a trio of amateur burglars in run-down Detroit get a tip that a local, blinded war veteran is holed up in his house with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, the gig seems to good to pass up. However, The Blind Man is harbouring more secrets than his money, and getting out of the house proves to be far more difficult than getting in...
The Good:Don't Breathe features some fantastic performances and thoroughly intriguing cinematography throughout. The camera almost floats around the house, casually showing us the things the protagonists don't see and the things the antagonist can't, and a pretty marvellous night-vision sequence in the house's cellar levels the playing field plunging everyone into darkness while the audience look on holding their breath, as if the film's title is an instruction for us as much as the would-be escapees...
The Bad: Unfortunately all this is let down by one-dimensional characters and a screenplay which segues unevenly between the woefully hackneyed and the gleefully perverse. And therein lies the beef. I'm willing to cut any film some slack if it at least makes sense internally, but as it stands this film is just too silly to be taken seriously*1. And if you're not taking the idea of three misguided kids being chased around a locked and fortified house by a traumatised war veteran with an array of weapons seriously, there's little point in being there.
Despite having a very real and credible threat at its core, there's far to much of the quiet-quiet-BANG going on for a film which shows so much promise in its technical areas. At one early point we're treated to a whistle-stop tour of the house which only serves to set the markers for upcoming callbacks, like the audience should pat themselves on the back for remembering a hammer...
The Ugly: And then the script has the audacity to reveal the film to be a moral battle about Atheists vs Burglars, somehow? This is proffered so cack-handedly (whilst similarly ignoring issues of grief, PTSD, mental illness and gun-control) that the wheels fall off completely and I was just willing anyone to die so that the film could end.
Although the score-point that the movie squarely loses for this assault on the audience's intelligence is almost (almost, but not) won back for the all-to-brief recreation of the famous Alien 3 shot. Blink and you'll miss that.
Don't Breathe is a fascinating exercise in film-making; not so much in storytelling...
To be honest, it's a bit like a cross between 2007's Disturbia and 1991's The People Under The Stairs Even though I enjoyed both of those movies more than this..
The tension will be higher in a cinema, I gladly admit.
Level 2: This film's got that Stephen Lang in it, and he was in The Men Who Stare At Goats alongside Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor...
*1Things I couldn't get past; I've made a list... (spoilers obviously, plus these will only make sense if you've seen the film anyway)
1) So a team of repeat-but-amateur burglars target houses whose security systems are managed by the same company and which are all within driving distance of the company-owner's house, and the police haven't pieced anything together by the time this film starts?
2) And the most brash of the three offenders, Money, routinely leaves DNA evidence at the scene of the crime, as if a kid like him's got no previous?
3) The main plot-strand seems to work on the basis that a blind war veteran won't hear a window being broken in his own house with all the internal doors open, or the alarm beeping for thirty seconds. Okay, we find out the TV's running while he sleeps, but still. More on this later.
4) After The Blind Man foils the first attempt on robbing his house and boards up the bathroom window that was the entry-route, why doesn't he then go and check/reset the alarm?
5) And this security-conscious Blind Man has all his windows securely barred except for those five massive, non-strengthened single-panes forming a conservatory roof over his ground-floor kitchen, yeah?
6) War veteran or not, with that many shots being fired, unsilenced, in confined spaces, there's no way any of the characters would be able to hear jack shit for most of the movie, let alone The Blind Man who can apparently detect a pin dropping while everybody else still has double-vision...
7) Now, he's either got a) superb hearing which has compensated for his sight-loss in the intervening years, or b) chronic tinnitus from years of active service spent in close proximity to firearms. Either way, how come the repeated gunfire in the aforementioned enclosed spaces causes him no apparent discomfort, but when the burglar alarm is finally triggered he's paralysed by the deafening ringing? I've heard a burglar alarm, and I've heard gunfire. I know which was more uncomfortable.
8) Had our antagonist's not-at-all-creepy plan worked, and not withstanding the explanation that he's going to have to give the authorities at some stage in the future, how the hell is The Blind Man going to raise a baby? No, seriously. He might be a psychopath, but he's a psychopath who apparently knows how to plan shit out, yet this never occurred to him..?
9) And if the police are a two-minute drive away to respond to that triggered alarm, how come there was no call the night before when around thirty shots were fired? I know he lives in a rough area, but really?
Apart from that it was fine, I guess.
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.
The Nut Job Cert: U / 86 mins / Dir. Peter Lepeniotis
Originally released back in January for US audiences, this American/South Korean co-production seems to have sat uncomfortably with UK distributors who eventually decided 'well, if we bang it out in the Summer holidays, what's the worst than can happen?'. On this thread, it's worth noting that despite the 'Real-D' logo on the movie's poster, my local is only showing this in 2D, which seems incredibly half-arsed on The Weinstein Co UK's part (all other 3D movies are shown in both versions, locally). Then again, after the thorough pasting the movie's had in the US, I imagine they're past caring at this point.
A curious mix of 1930's-era sets and costumes with 21st century character-design for the animals, the film feels disjointed and off-kilter. It's debatable if the target audience (ie the small people) will pick up on this since the heist-plot and slapstick-action are fluid enough, but the wisecracking quips of Will Arnett as Surly the Squirrel probably won't be enough to hold the attention of parents and guardians. Arnett gives, for the most part, the same performance he put in as Batman in The Lego Movie, albeit with a script which isn't as sharp. Katherine Heigl and Brendan Fraser read their lines affably (if blandly) enough as squirrels Andie and Grayson, and Liam Neeson voices Raccoon (a raccoon - really) without wandering into his Irish brogue for once. As catty as this sounds, it really seems like Neeson's the only one making any sort of real effort here. Yes, exactly.
Visually speaking, The Nut Job is mostly adequate (damning with faint praise, I know), although it seems as if different teams of animators handled the human and animal characters (and again for Surly's dog-whistle that he wears like a rifle, which sometimes seems to have been added on in post-production). Although the creatures themselves feel derivative of other animated features, the detailing on their fur is outstanding, and in complete contrast to the pastel scenery and plastic-looking gangsters. It feels like the animators have tried to channel the charm and aesthetic of a Merrie Melodies feature, but with the studio-heads yelling at them to 'make it more like Pixar'.
And just when you thought the disparity couldn't get any wider, the end-credits of the film feature the animated incarnation of Psy, leading the cast of characters through an entire rendition of Gangnam Style. Y'know, for no real reason. Clearly this is a cultural nod from the South Korean branch of the animation studio, but it'd feel dated enough back during the film's original January release; now it feels positively antiquated (if only because all the parodies and cover versions were done back in 2012 when it was still topical).
So what we end up with is a remarkably nondescript animation which looks like it took a lot of people a lot of time to make. By no means an absolute dud, The Nut Job is more of a sweet-natured mess, combining elements which aren't too individually shabby, but don't slot together as intended, and the resulting film never rises above mediocre.
Best suited to a younger, perhaps more undemanding audience, this is a movie for a rainy afternoon.
Well, kinda. I suppose.
Not really. Not as much as I was supposed to, at any rate.
Not really.
This is a DVD to keep the kids entertained.
Nah.
I can't foresee that happening.
There isn't.
I know that in animation it's commonplace to record characters' dialogue-tracks at different times, but am I alone in getting the impression that the principle cast recorded theirs in different places, as well? Without them having heard the other participants in the conversations they were reading?
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.
