Allegiant Cert: 12A / 121 mins / Dir. Robert Schwentke / Trailer
That time already, huh? Well, the third installment of a saga which has so far failed to delight me somewhat was never going to be an easy ride. And in that respect alone, Allegiant*1 didn't disappoint.
Too many characters, not enough development and some atrocious green-screening (for a production of this scale) puts this rushed-feeling sequel firmly into the Must Try Harder bracket, I'm afraid. Especially since the second movie showed far more promise than its predecessor. At times, Allegiant feels like an effects showreel (and not a particularly great one) with a meandering plot that makes itself up as it goes along, trundling through a repeating cycle of:
• Demonstration of unfeasible technology given the resources available;
• Exposition so heavy it has to be legally carried using mechanical equipment;
• Some 'third-act-reveal' which counters what we learned in a previous film, or sometimes just a thing which happened two scenes ago.
Sample scene:
EXT: Post-apocalyptic wasteland. Five teenagers tread warily under an ochre sky, through scorched craters and a stream flowing with red water.
The boy one: This hole looks radioactive. Or at least it was in the last two hundred years.
The girl one: ...what does that mean?
The boy one again: That someone seriously messed up the world!
…that the above exchange made it not only through the drafting process but also shooting and editing suggests that this film has been written as part of someone's GCSE coursework. Although not a GCSE in screenwriting, I'm guessing.
On the acting front, Theo James furrows his brow to the point where you could grow carrots in there, while Shailene Woodley spends the film looking bored and bemused in turn, often opposite Jeff Daniels phoning in one of his most lacklustre performances to date. Meanwhile, young Miles Teller is clearly using the film as an extended audition-tape for his much-vaunted stab at the young Han Solo, and every arched eyebrow and cocky retort demonstrates why he should be kept as far away from the role as possible.
Despite my grumbling, Allegiant isn't an awful film; it's just 'a bit crap', which given its position and platform, is probably even worse. At times it feels like the Children's Film Foundation doing a Saturday Night Live skit of Logan's Run.
Let's be honest, unless you've already got the first two chapters of this saga sitting proudly on your movie-shelf, you don't have to rush out to see this third one. And as I write this ten days after the film's initial release, chances are you probably already have or won't.
…the first two?
As above, you probably already have or never will.
I'd say not, but then it's not really aimed at me.
It's not even the best work of its own series.
Y'know what? I just might ;)
There isn't.
What, other than "Miles Teller wants to play Han Solo and I don't want that"..?
Level 2: Naomi Watts is in this and she was in The Impossible with Ewan 'Kenobi' McGregor.
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.
Dope Cert: 15 / 103 mins / Dir. Rick Famuyiwa / Trailer
Sometimes, you go into a film having only seen the trailer once a few weeks ago, and are expecting a sharp, sassy satire when instead you're handed a goofy, loveable geek-com. Full of loud hip-hop and louder shirts, Dope is the story of three nerds who become unintentionally involved in selling stolen MDMAto appease two street-gangs and one dealer. It sounds incredibly heavy-going and the subject itself is never treated flippantly, but Rick Famuyiwa has a lightness-of-touch which beings the comedy and drama together seamlessly.
Ostensibly a socio-political piece on the state of domestic politics in the US, there's also a vein of humour throughout the film which won't let it take itself too seriously. Dope a little like Jackie Brown rewritten as a classic farce / coming-of-age comedy by Douglas Adams and Kevin Smith*1. There is a more serious message at play (on a higher level than the drugs themselves), although it doesn't really step into the limelight until the film's crescendo and after the dust has settled on the dick-jokes and punch-ups.
The one area where the film falls down slightly is in its depiction of computers, particularly social media, given that the story centres around three geeks selling Molly online. Cue lots of those Generic Movie Computer Displays with over-simplified layouts and huge text. Obviously Facebook, Twitter and YouTube don't really want to sign off their branding to a film where the protagonists distribute narcotics (successfully at that), but the alternative looks amateurish to anyone who's used a computer in the last five years (ie, the target audience), and undermines the film slightly. But only slightly.
Dope is highly enjoyable, far more amusing than it has any real right to be, and well worthy of a watch. If the soundtrack had been a touch less pedestrian and the film's final shot had been cut just a beat earlier, I'd have given it an extra point; always leave them wanting more, Famuyiwa ;)
If you can sure, although it's on a low-key release in the UK.
It'll be a buy-er, for nights in with friends and booze.
Can't say for sure as I hadn't seen (or at least clocked) a lot of the cast before, but everyone can be proud of this movie, yes.
I think it does, but it's quite a close-call in places.
Nope.
Nope.
The film is produced and (occasionally) narrated by Forest Whitaker, who'll be appearing in next year's Star Wars: Rogue One.
*1 Yes, I'm fully aware that I've just complemented a very black film by referencing three white writers, but I'm referring to the quality of their writing, not the colour of their skin. Shit, I shouldn't even have to explain that, but if I hadn't then I've no doubt someone would be thinking it and now that I have explained it, everybody's thinking it. I really can't win, some days.
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.
Now, most reviews you read of Mad Max: Fury Road will spend time concentrating on comparing the movie to its 1970s/80s predecessors, both visually and tonally. I won't be doing that. I believe firmly that a re-cast film released in a different era from the original works should be able to stand on its own merit and act as a complement to its brethren rather than relying on them as a crutch. Also, I've never watched the first three. Whatever. I was a bit too young when they first came out, and nothing that's happened since (other than this film) has made me really want to investigate them. Under the normal run of things I'd have caught up over the last couple of weeks, but it really hasn't been that kind of a couple of weeks.
And so the eagerly awaited George Miller sequel/reboot/re-imagining roars onto our screens in a flurry of dust, oil and blood. Tom Hardy takes on the mantle of the titular Max, whilst Charlize Theron more than holds her own as Imperator Furiosa, and Nicholas Hoult plays Nux - a sort of Jar Jar Binks of the post-apocalyptic outback. The plot involves a heavily pregnant Rosie Huntington-Whiteley (from out of Transformers 3), and a there-and-back-again road-trip picking up a coachload of grannies en-route. That's about it, from what I could gather.
Let me state for the record that I didn't dislike Fury Road; it just didn't hold my interest. Whether this is because of my lack of background or not, I don't know. What I do know is that it felt like watching someone else play Carmageddon for two hours. Fury Road displays plenty of action, yet led to me feeling detached and even bored in places. The film has spectacle in spades, but I struggled to find the substance to back that up. I applaud writer/director George Miller and Warner Bros for making the film and making it well, it's just not one that I particularly enjoyed.
Some breathtaking photography (both landscape and action) courtesy of John Seale sets the striking visual tone for Miller's vision. Interestingly, Fury Road features no sunrises or sunsets, just the very distinct colour signatures of ochre and azure for day and night respectively. It's a beautifully filmed opera of the absurd, and in this respect the film succeeds like few others. The performances are less remarkable, sadly, straddling a script of relatively few words. Although this is just as well, since much of the remaining dialogue is clunkier than the film's array of cannibalised vehicles. I just had the nagging feeling throughout that everyone involved is capable of better.
Oh, and the 3D's relatively good for a live-action, and isn't anywhere as distracting as Tom Hardy's ongoing search for an accent.
Mad Max: Fury Road is by no means a stupid film, but it delights in acting the part. Essentially a two-hour car chase whereby Handsome Bob and Pseudo-Ripley are pursued by a stylistic mashup of Darth Vader and a fat Skeletor.
Which is fine, but that's the basis for a video game, not a movie…
If you're already a hardened fan of the series, yes.
Probably a rental.
Hardy, Theron and Hoult have all done much, much better to be fair.
Pass… oh, probably.
Nope.
I didn't hear one, but the movie is 90% white-noise so I could well have missed it.
Charlize Theron starred in 2003's remake of The Italian Job alongside Seth Green aka droid Todo 360 in Star Wars: The Clone Wars.
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.
Insurgent (3D)
Cert: 12A / 119 mins / Dir. Robert Schwentke / Trailer
It should really go without saying (but I'll say it anyway), that Insurgent*1 is a sequel to Divergent in a very real and direct sense, picking up swiftly from its predecessor with very little in the way of catch-up. And I do have to admire the film for this; Insurgent knows its audience, and plays to them and them alone*2.
That said, of course, aside from a switch of director and a haircut*3 we're largely on the same turf as last time, with the film carrying on the modus operandi of two hours of teenage petulance and foot-stamping, while Shailene Woodley's squeaky voice sends the residents of the nearest dogs home into absolute meltdown. The haircut, incidentally, is self-administered at the top of the film's first act, to give Tris a more practical look and stop press articles using promo shots from the first film. Actually, characters in films seem suspiciously adept at cutting their own hair (cf Blue Ruin), especially when they're going from a style that's clearly taken years to grow, into a short bob or a crop. I only mention this because there's a lady in my office who regularly cuts her own fringe, yet more often than not it looks like she's done it in the dark. Ah, well.
Insurgent is certainly a more focussed film than the first one*4, necessitated by the urgency of the plot, but I still found the protagonists too annoying to want them to succeed. Which is a pretty major obstacle when you're trying to like a film. In addition to this, the villains are every bit as moustache-twirlingly overblown as they were before, with perhaps the most embarrassing being Jai Courtney's scenes as he chews every last bit of scenery he can get his jaws on. It seems sad the think that Die Hard 5 can be the highlight of anyone's CV as Jai hams things up almost as much as Kate Winslet, who's convinced that she's the villain in an animated Disney movie. But at least it looks like Kate's enjoying herself.
And then, just when my mind was really starting to wander, the film's third-act is interesting. Nicely structured, boldly actualised and really interesting. Tris undergoes a series of simulation-trials based around the traits of the five factions*5, and it's like we're watching a different film. Okay, the sequence certainly needs the film-and-a-half beforehand to set it up, and it's faintly reminiscent of the Resident Evil movies, and the ending seems to share a lot with the ending The Maze Runner pulled with only one film, but - most importantly - it's left me wanting to see the next movie. And I'm fairly certain that's the point.
A hesitant step for the Divergent series, Insurgent is a step forward nonetheless. The film knows its strengths, but can't seem to let go of the things weighing it down. I can't say it had much of an impact on me (again), but I don't think the '41yr old men' presentation took up much time at the Summit Entertainment's demographic meetings. I look forward to 'Newsagent' if only because at this pace, I'll be able to rate it "pretty good".*6
…and I can't be the only one who was waiting for hooks and chains to spring out of the box, can I?
If you're an existing fan, yes.
If you're not bolting out the door to the cinema then you can probably wait for this to be on cable/Netflix. If anything, it'd be ideal to watch back-to-back with the first film.
In no way, shape or form.
Oh, probably.
Not really.
There isn't, yet there are plenty of shots of people falling off things. MUST. TRY. HARDER..
Insurgent's pantomime-villain Kate Winslet performed voice-acting in 2006's Flushed Away as did Andy Serkis, he of the as-yet-unspecified role in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
*1 And it's all very well Summit Entertainment registering the film as the standalone 'Insurgent'at the BBFC, but most cinema chains appear to be promoting it with the cumbersome moniker 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent', in a move that either has little-to-no faith in the strength of the brand, or little-to-no faith in the intelligence of the audience. They may as well have tagged it 'The Divergent Series: Insurgent - you know, the one with Thingy Woodley in it from last time. Like a knock-off Hunger Games with slightly less to say about society, but more jumping off things. You quite liked it, remember? She was in that film where her and the other one had the cancer and went to Anne Franks's house, as well. Yes her.'
*2 Although speaking of 'audience', demographically targeted advertising is all well and good, but Insurgent features an ad for Facebook before the film. Yeah, y'know. That Facebook. As if there's a single fucking person in the auditorium to watch a Divergent film who's thinking "Oh, that's what Facebook is… well I think I'll check that out then! Eeeh, whatever next?".
*3 And while I'm on with the superficiality of it all, this post-apocalyptic dystopia has quite a lot of make-up in it, doesn't it? It's almost as if Shailene Woodley's Tris and Naomi Watts' Evelyn are going to be the founding members of the Maybelline faction in the next film.
*4 And probably more focussed than this review, to be fair. Footnotes like these are what happens when my mind wanders during a film. Or, more pertinently, when the cast, director and editor allow my mind to wander during a film. Yeah, like this snarkiness isn't my fault...
*5Brainy, Frowny, Smugly, Hapless and Wishy-Washy. But there's no test for the group for people without any faction, Raggydolls.
*6 Thanks for reading all these, by the way. Yes, you. Thanks.
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.
I think it's about Stacey off Eastenders leaving District 12 to go and join Slytherin and be one of the Lost Boys before Darth Winslet turns them all into her personal clone army. Or something. As a straight-on action movie it's surprisingly watchable if inoffensive, but thematically it's pretty dire…
Rarely has a film worked so hard at conveying one message…
Fairly.
Not as much as I was supposed to.
For me, absolutely not. For its market, I have no idea.
*shrugs*.
A little.
I can't foresee that occasion.
I'm pretty certain I heard one when Winslet gets stabbed in the neck.
That's not as much fun as it sounds.
You know that bit where they're standing by the sorting-bowls and cutting their hands in an unnecessarily lengthy coming-of-age ceremony? Did anyone else see a whole pile of sterilised knives lying around? Only there are hundreds of kids in that auditorium, and I only saw one cutty-handy-knife. It only takes one of the early ones to have Hepatitis and that's a generation of citizens fucked, surely? How is that society-building?
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.
