So it turns out I did the right thing by going home halfway through last night's ID4 double-bill after all. I'll say from the outset that I didn't actively dislike Independence Day: Resurgence, but I had so many gripes with it that I'm glad I didn't sit up until the small hours having them thrown at me immediately after the first lot...
The film opens twenty 'real-time' years after the events of Independence Day, in the radically different 2016 that sprang from the events of that movie. But rather than let the social and technological details of this timeline seep through to the audience over the course of the first act, the screenplay mechanically explains them all in very small words, with a pseudo-narration to begin with, followed up by the exposition-heavy conversation that no-one has, even in fiction ("Alright Terry, how's your alien-powered magic bladeless helicopter like we all have here in the present day?").
The film spends so much time explaining minutiae and introducing characters we don't need to meet, that it almost forgets to be a movie about aliens who want to smash the living-shit out of the Earth. Almost, but not quite. There's more up-close ET involvement in this sequel I'm glad to say, and while they're still effectively personality-free drones, the film's best scenes are the melee and ground-battle engagements. The rest is entirely formulaic blockbuster fluff, though.
Now, unlike the modern breed of city-smashing superhero movies, Resurgence doesn't spend its climactic battle committing bystander-genocide. No, it does this off-handedly in the middle of the film, apparently for no other reason than making our heroes pull slightly concerned faces at monitors and news reports as millions of civilians die because they were in the wrong hemisphere at the wrong time. Still, as any good despot knows, the more you kill, the less it seems to actually matter, somehow.
Another regular complaint of modern movies is that the CGI effects feel hollow and without punch while the cast over-emote against greenscreen backdrops. But the opposite seems to be in play here, as the film's visuals are detailed and vibrant, while it's the acting that's completely weightless. Roland Emmerich seems completely satisfied that his cast have learned their lines, so he doesn't bother getting them to put any actual feeling into reciting them. No-one appears to be enjoying themselves on-set (although with a script as laboured and cumbersome as this, it's hardly surprising), and as I've seen most of the cast be much better elsewhere, that's got to come down to poor direction.
This really feels like a generic alien-invasion movie that's been retrofitted with Independence Day continuity in its third draft, presumably on the promise of a bigger budget. While Independence Day: Resurgence is distracting enough, I didn't exactly find it entertaining.
It's not that the film left me with nothing afterwards, more that it left me with nothing while I was watching it...
Best bit: How, when ex-president Whitmore has his third-act hero shave and pops on his old flight suit, he suddenly doesn't need that walking stick any more. #Bang! #Heroism!
For the visuals? Sure.
For the performances? HAHAHAHAHA!.
Blatantly set up its next installment? Absolutely.
Cast, no.
Director… well that's a tough call. It's certainly not Emmerich's worst.
Nah.
There is.
Level 2: Independence Day: Resurgence stars Charlotte Gainsbourg, who also appeared in 2003's 21 Grams, as did Benicio 'going to be rocking up in Star Wars Episode VIII in an as-yet un-named role' Del Toro.
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.
Heat (1995)
Cert: 15 / 163 mins / Dir. Michael Mann / Trailer
How can a film which is held in such universally high esteem be so difficult to love? Michael Mann's 1995 crime epic owes so much to Tarantino that it's had to take out a loan with Coppola just to keep up the repayments.
For all the fantastic set-pieces and ambitious story-weaving, Heat is three hours of grimacing and mumbling, padded out with needless back-story masquerading as character-building. It feels like a great TV series has been compressed down into a movie, but the writers didn't want to leave anything out so the incidental characters still appear, but without any real purpose or closure.
The real problem (for me, admittedly) is that the film's characters are so inherently unlikeable or poorly drawn that I didn't care if they lived or died come the final credits. And if your characters are that uninteresting to begin with, spending time watching their home-lives deteriorate isn't going to help matters either.
Don't take my moaning to heart, I didn't actively dislike Heat, and the dynamic between Pacino's over-acting cop, Hanna and career-criminal McCauley is the fascinating linchpin of the movie. But aside from their restaurant-conversation scene, it's a drawn-out cops'n'robbers-by-numbers with any actors who didn't star in The Godfather films left to fend for themselves as the plot moves on the the focus is whittled down to two threads.
There's a really great 100-minute thriller in here, somewhere, but Heat needs less characters and more character development.
Really.
*shrugs*
If you like overly-long movies that have been done before in half the time, sure.
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.
Never let it be said that the spirit of Saturday morning moviegoing is a thing of the past, and no 10:30am showing would be complete without an infant bawling the moment the house-lights go down. This is a 12A. Sure, the A stands for advisory, and you know your kids better than the cinema staff do, but a general rule of thumb is that a 12A isn't going to be suitable for a toddler. Especially a toddler who gets freaked out by the dark and has been taken to see a deafening movie in a dark room. I weep for the future.
So, this is Paramount making a tellingly clear statement about where they are, now they no longer have the Marvel Cinematic Universe to bolster their ranks. The latest incarnation of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles looks as if it's had everything thrown at it except restraint and self-awareness, with family-friendly comedy and action jostling for position against a backdrop of an oddly sterile, 3D rendered New York. Among the performers who aren't brought to the screen via motion-capture*1, Will Arnett and Megan Fox carry the look and stench of mid-career desperation, playing second fiddle to four animated reptiles and their guardian rat. The only on-screen human who looks like they're enjoying any of it is Mr William Fichtner, who in all fairness doesn't have to try very hard to be dastardly entertaining, and carries his role as the obviously-evil Eric Sacks with unselfconscious ease.
Truth be told, TMNT is nowhere near as bad as the press its been getting following its stateside release; it's just nowhere near as good as the property deserves. And as much as people will criticise the motion-capture, green-screen, 3D and animation elements of the movie, they're actually what it does best. The fight-scenes are surprisingly satisfying, even if the Turtles' nemesis Shredder is now (more than ever) just Darth Vader in spikier armour. The dynamic between young Raphael, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Donatello and their father/sensei Splinter is touching to the point where it seems out of place in a film as brash and careless as this one.
It seems ironic that a movie from a franchise with such an established history never quite seems to know who it's playing to. A retro-reboot which acts as if it owes nothing to its forebears, unearthing character names and catchphrases from earlier iterations, not out of respect or nostalgia but contractual obligation. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles could have been a great film, if only with a lot more focus and a Nolan-esque darkness to counter the gags, half-gags and nonsense. Visually it passes the test, but thematically it's a mess of juggled demographics and box-ticking. I have no problem with a movie being utter trash, but at least make it enjoyable trash. There's a darkly touching superhero movie struggling to get out here, but it doesn't escape this time round. In fact it barely manages to raise its face to the bars at the window.
And I'm as troubled as most people by Michael Bay's objectification of Megan Fox in the first two Transformers movies; but in all honesty, if you're not going to follow her denim hotpants around at arse-height with a worryingly lingering camera for the duration of the film, why have you put her in it?*2 Because it's sure as hell not for the acting or charisma…
Oh, and 3D + Shaky-cam? No. Just, no.
I suppose it is.
Not nearly enough.
It probably achieves what the studio wants it to, but I'm not so sure about the writers…
If you're going to watch this, the cinema screen will do it more justice than your TV.
Nah.
I may skip through it before the inevitable sequel.
I didn't hear a Wilhelm, but if you caught one, let me know where it is in the comments-box below…
So that bit where April O'Neil leaves the trampolining TV news report mid-morning, pops on her cycle-helmet (good girl) and pedals off into town, and in the very next shot is wheeling her way around the docks and it's night-time? She's been biking around New York for ten hours, has she? I swear the passage of time in this flick is as hyperkinetic as the camerawork...
*1 Although that's arguable in Fox's case, admittedly.
*2 Yep, I'm very aware that the end of that the second sentence in that paragraph totally undermined the first one and makes me look like a terrible hypocrite. The point remains, however; why is Fox in this film? She's terrible in it. Laughably bad. And if she's not dad-bait then the film (or more pertinently the box office figures) won't benefit from her presence. TMNT producer Bay and Megan Fox and have famously had their differences in the past, and her reconciliation speech is about as sincere as anything in the Transformers movies, so I don't buy that he owes her any great favours by giving her a part in TMNT. It's a sad day when a film is let down by the humans in it...
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.
Elysium (Mild-spoilers)
Cert: 15 / 109 mins / Dir. Neill Blomkamp
Well, this was a surprise (although it really shouldn't have been, since I thoroughly enjoyed District 9). Despite a trailer that didn't convince me, I thought Elysium was pretty awesome. Sure, the rich/poor, bad/good scenario is almost as cack-handedly applied as in In Time, and elsewhere the film borrows rather heavily from both Iron Man and The Matrix trilogy; but when it comes down to it, Elysium is compellingly told and fucking good fun.
The credit for this lies with writer-director Blomkamp, who's not afraid to give an also-ran story all he's got, with absolute conviction. He's also not afraid to give us a villain in Sharlto Copley, 'Kruger', who's so genuinely, massively unlikeable that I have to applaud all concerned for his character. The story weaves without twisting or being needlessly complex; just enough to keep everything ticking along nicely and take the characters from one locale (read: shootout) to the next. And what shootouts… the tech and weaponry are duly explained, filed away and then brought back out to play at opportune moments. There's a convincing amount of heft to the violence without it being gratuitous, and the film does earn the 15 certificate.
Keeping things bubbling under the brilliant-bar are the slightly pantomime performances from Jodie Foster and William Fichtner*1, the one-dimensionality of Matt Damon and Alice Braga's characters*2, and the niggling thought that underneath it all, Damon's hero, Max doesn't have any 'divine right' to succeed. As an audience we're willing him to win, but only because he's painted as the protagonist; his isn't an extraordinary back-story, and no special circumstances mark him out for greatness*3 (in fact, it's largely his own actions of self-preservation that bring about the setbacks in his story anyway). Ultimately, if Max hadn't taken up his quest, it's doubtable that things would have gotten any worse for the population of Earth, and for the first two acts of the film none of his actions are born out of altruism. The ending may try to signpost the movie as The Hero's Journey ends here, but the road we've travelled has been a parallel one until that point.
But y'know; there's shouting, swearing and lunatics with knives, guns and grenades. So, every cloud…
I'd have preferred more ambiguity (or just neutrality) between the goodies and baddies, and also less shaky-cam, but Elysium stands head-and-shoulders above most of its class this year. Those punches smart, and it's thanks to Neill Blomkamp.
When you're ready Neill, you can get Halo back on the burner...
Film > Trailer.
I did.
Very, very almost.
For big and loud, cinema (but the frequent shaky-cam may be a problem for you at that size).
No.
Hell, yeah.
Not that I heard. Which is a shame, because there were plenty of moments for it.
In your opinion, which actor would have made a more engaging Max?
*1 Fichtner's not 'terrible' in this, but he had a better part in The Lone Ranger, frankly.
*2 Again, not badly done as such, but a lot of other actors could have played their roles, and many would have brought more character to them.
*3 Having a nun tell him he's special doesn't count, I'm afraid.
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.
There really isn't a lot to say about this latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie*1, other than it does exactly what you expect it to, exactly when you expect it to, and for far too long.
There's nothing inherently bad about the film; it's just not interesting enough. There are flashes of greatness sprinkled here and there, but they're outnumbered by flashes of 'yes, get on with it', as dull characters with no backstory fail to develop because they're supporting Johnny Depp Wearing A Hat™. Visually, the film is beautiful, with some stunning landscapes and a mixture of colour palettes. Audibly, Hanz Zimmer scores the film like only he can*2, so we're in tried and tested hands there. The lead players are all comfortably ensconced in their roles, giving 'reliable' performances. It's just...
…why isn't a film featuring a man riding a horse on the top of a train more exciting? Probably because it feels like it doesn't know what it wants to be. There's a great action movie struggling to get out, bound by a Disneyfied gun-toting hero who steadfastly refuses to shoot anyone until the final climactic scene (and even then he pretty much misses), and a sidekick who's the star of the show, whose Pidgin English becomes remarkably fluent when the plot requires it.
It made me smile, it made me yawn, it made me fidget*3. Despite what I've said about PotC, the framing device with Old-Tonto talking to the child, combined with the horse/train action set-pieces reminded me a lot of Indiana Jones. Only… without the fun.
Interestingly, the pre-trailer ads featured, amongst other things: Haribo, Jack Daniels, Nerf Guns and Cidre. Even the advertising companies don't know who this is meant to be aimed at.
Pretty much..
Sometimes. Not enough. Although the 'hi-ho Silver' line is funny.
Make money for Jerry Bruckheimer? Not from what I hear…
*shrugs*.
Nope.
Only in advance of the sequel.
I think I heard one, yes. When Ian Ranger and Ian Tonto jump off the train (that narrows it down, I know).
Johnny Depp is capable of much better work. When is he going to prove that to everyone?
*1 Seriously, though; you know that's exactly what this is.
*2 Or, 'the only way he knows how', depending on how fond you are of his work.
*3 Not with my phone, that goes without saying. I just lost interest to the point where I was reminded how uncomfortable my non-aisle-seat was.
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.
