Bond Night:Goldfinger Cert: PG / 110 mins / Dir. Guy Hamilton
Oh come on, who doesn't love Goldfinger? Perhaps the ultimate Bond film, with the humour, charm and action all on full throttle. Plus an iconic opening song that's nicely worked into the overall film score.
The terrible acting from the troops in the gas-spray sequence loses it a point, but Connery rocking a blue velour shorts-onesie regains that.
An ageless treat that triumphs over its shortcomings with sheer, auric glee.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yes.
Cinema*1.
Yes.
Yes.
Nope.
*1 It gets fairly regular re-releases and convention showings. If you can, do.
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 main problem, for me at least, in releasing a Die Hard film with a 12A certificate in the UK, isn't the violence being nerfed-down for the rating, but more that it attracts an audience of 14yr old boys unable to shut the fuck up and leave their phones alone for a staggering 98 minutes. I've never been so close to punching someone right in the auditorium.
Anyway. There was a film on. I wasn't expecting much from it. Truth be told, after the Taken 2 fiasco, I expected it to be bloody awful. I was genuinely relieved when director John Moore proved me wrong, although I admit my low expectations may have done half the work, there.
AGDtDH is, in my humble opinion, way more entertaining than it should be, although this is in spite of Willis, not because of him. The script gives him a few sharp one-liners, but this new version of John McClane doesn't have the likeable charm of the first three iterations, and Bruce's reputation for being difficult to work with comes creeping through all too often. McClane's son, in the form of Jai Courtney, pretty much saves the day (despite looking like a terrible character in the trailer), and although the father/son scenes are hampered by the above, young Jack turns out so be way more endearing than his old man.
Elsewhere we've got a fairly pantomime set of Russian bad-guys, twisting and weaving their way through a decent enough (if generic) plotline. At one point, chief henchman Alik stands before the captured McClane boys and boasts "Come now, this isn't 1986!". Less than half an hour later, we're in a safe-room at the abandoned ruins of Chernobyl, and you have to wonder if the screenwriters had intended the aforementioned statement to be quite as ironic, given the largely one-dimensional attitude to Them Ruskies™. Subtle, it ain't; but 'traditional generalisations', it has in spades. That said, the Die Hard films have never been about delicate drama, and the structure of this film still towers over its predecessor, so I can forgive it most of its sins.
For the most part, there's a healthy layer of grime on the camera (probably added in post, but still), and the choppy editing works very well for the action setpieces. The film's spectacularly loud, and the 12A allows for a surprising number of bullets-going-in-to-people (although the shots aren't as wet as something like Django, for example). There are also three fuck-words, which I found quite surprising, under those circumstances. Hey, no use complaining. If you're allowing your 12yr old to watch modern Bruce Willis films, you've already lost the moral high-ground on aesthetics alone .
All in all, I found myself smiling way more than I probably should have. There's a shot which is a direct tribute (read: rip-off) to the Rickman-fall from the first Die Hard, and the look of horror/disappointment on my face quickly switched to a grin as they give it a slightly different spin. I haven't read any of the reviews yet, but I know the film isn't being loved by the press. I don't care. I enjoyed it, and that's what's important.
Is it a great Die Hard movie? No. But it is a good Bruce Willis movie, and those are in short supply these days…*2
…ish.
Mostly.
Mostly.
DVD.
No.
Probably.
No!*3
*1 Yes, really. After the first two being 18s, the next two being 15s and now this, Die Hard 7 is set to be a Pixar feature about a boy detective and his grumpy grandfather. Although I'll probably still watch that.
*2 Obviously, Looper is the exception, not the rule.
*3 I didn't hear one, anyway, and there were plenty of opportunities.
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.
Django Unchained - Second-pass Review (Spoilers)
Cert: 18 / 165 mins / Dir. Quentin Tarantino
You can read my first (mini) review of Django Unchainedhere.
Like any great journey, knowing the destination means you can take a bit more time to look around and enjoy the scenery. And what scenery. The things I loved about the film the first time I saw it were underlined with the next viewing. The jokes are sharper, the gunshots wetter, and Sam Jackson is even more jaw-dropping once you examine his performance. That an actor with Jackson's social conscience would not only take on the role of Stephen, but also embrace it so fully speaks volumes of the mutual trust and respect between him and Tarantino.
I still don't think it's QT's best work, and I do still think it's too long, but it'll definitely stand up to watching again. Let's face it, there a few film-makers today that could get this film made, let alone released on this scale. I, for one, am thankful.
But… if I had to pick faults with Django (and let's face it, you're not reading this for me to be blowing smoke up Quentin's arse, now are ya?), they'd be the same faults that have already been outlined by others…
• The main focus of the film is the relationship between Django and Schultz, and it's detailed and developed beautifully. Now, in the pivotal scene where Shultz tires of playing to Candie's tune and shoots him, not only does he inexplicably then stand and wait to be shot himself (in apparent defiance of the character we've seen shaped over the previous two hours), but he also passes the mantle of the plot to Django and his wife, Broomhilda. This is a relationship that's been described, hinted at and glimpsed, but not really shown to us. And as poorly defined as it is, the film kinda comes undone as Django has to do the heavy lifting for the final act. Jamie Foxx does well as part of the double-act that's been set up, but he's not strong enough to carry the film, and while the audience wants to see the story resolved there just isn't the charm without Waltz or DiCaprio on-screen.
• If the climax of the film had happened when Schultz and Candie faced down, the ending would have been much tighter, not only for the above reason, but also because we'd have had something approaching a normal QT runtime. There's nothing in that final act that couldn't have been comfortably condensed into earlier parts of the screenplay. And we'd also have been spared…
• Quentin, what accent were you trying to do, mate? It's Mississippi in 1885, you don't even need to do a ker-razy voice. Look, you can be Australian, South African or Cockney. Choose one.
• Christoph Waltz turns in another magnificent performance, but I can't help but feel he's a little too similar to Hans Landa from Inglourious. Tarantino penned the part specifically with Waltz in mind (and this is certainly a film where Quentin Gets What Quentin Wants), so I've no doubt he's playing it straight, but is the similarity the responsibility of the writer/director or the performer? In fact, Waltz's brand of Polite Menace™ is largely his main-turn from what I've seen. I am enjoying it, but I don't think he'll be able to coast on it for much longer, even with QT's patronage.
• As engaging and captivating as he is in Django, I just don't warm to Jamie Foxx and I don't know why. I sympathise with the character and want him to succeed, but I never actually like him, and I think that's down to Foxx, for some reason. Answers on a postcard to the usual address, please.
Bottom line: It's like Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises and even Star Wars. I enjoyed the shit out of these films, but it doesn't mean there aren't bits that drive me mad.
Fairly.
Yes.
Almost.
Cinema.
No.
Yes.
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.
Are you sure about that? I gave it an hour and a half and that was too much*1. It's better than the trailer, but still not good quite enough to be its own film.
Essentially a collection of some very funny sketches mixed with awkward stinkers, and like most rom/coms these days, its humour is stymied by All The Whining™.
Some great performances*2, but it doesn't work as a whole.
Kinda.
Kinda.
Kinda.
DVD.
Yes.
No.
Nope.
*1 Yes, I am hilarious.
*2 Minnie Driver is the best thing in this film, seriously. And even Stephen Merchant and Anna Faris are relatively good, and I usually find them to be cinematic Kryptonite.
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.
