It's quite a bold move, having the film's leading character open with a soliloquy stating that the story about to unfold 'won't be sugar-coated'. It's even bolder, considering that The Fault in Our Stars is often so cloyingly caramelised that the cinema-staff were testing the audience for Type-2 Diabetes on their way out*1. I'm sure it comes from a sincere place, I'm sure the novel's marvellous, and I'm sure I'm missing the point, but the film is aimed at an audience who can't understand emotion unless it's spelled out in massive letters for them. It's not enough to have a character with a shitty life acting sad. It's not enough to have sad music playing over the sad acting. You need to have sad lyrics being sung to the sad music over the sad acting. It's sad, do you see?
I can't even really blame the cast, as Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort seem mostly fine in isolation, so I have to throw the blame at either the screenwriting or the direction. Mawkish and clumsily manipulative, the funny parts aren't that funny and the sad parts aren't that sad. Some interesting ideas on the brevity of life and the legacy we all leave seem thoroughly underdeveloped while two teenagers I couldn't bring myself to like (and they're terminally ill, remember, how much of a bastard am I?), traipse around Amsterdam just like every other tourist that's there.
Oh, and the bit where the visitors to the Anne Frank Haus start gingerly applauding Hazel and Gus's kiss? I honestly wanted to stand up and punch someone. I've seen more sincerity in a P*ers M*rgan's interview*2.
After genuinely wanting to like The Fault In Our Stars, I left the cinema more annoyed and depressed than uplifted, but I'm sure it'll be fine for its intended audience. For every one else, the human, relatable film about troubled teenagers you want is The Perks Of Being A Wallflower.
No, the trailer appears to be for a touching and engaging film.
Not nearly enough.
Not for me, but an audience that's had limited exposure to reality might love it.
DVD, if you really must.
Not that much, strangely. Although a little but, admittedly.
I can't see that happening.
There isn't. And I want to know why not.
Those of you that think I'm wrong (I can hear you from here), how close is this adaptation to the book?
*1 Yes, I know that sugar itself doesn't cause Type-2 Diabetes, I just wanted to use that line. No, you shut up.
*2 I haven't. I don't watch that dick.
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.
Maleficent Cert: PG / 97 mins / Dir. Robert Stromberg
In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I didn't get round to re-watching Disney's Sleeping Beauty before going to see Maleficent. And I say re-watching, but I honestly can't remember the last time I saw it. When I was very, very small, certainly. I seem to have more recollection of the accompanying story-book than I do of the film itself. No matter though, I was familiar enough with the story to catch up as I went, right?
Well largely, yes. Although I did clock several moments in the sequel/retelling that are signposted like massive callbacks, and I imagine they'd be quite neat if I had the knowledge to connect them fully. I'm just very aware that this film isn't really aimed at me, while at the same time, it's not not aimed at me (hence the casting of Ms Jolie). Anyhow, despite all this, I really enjoyed it. More a retelling than a prequel, Disney retool their classic iteration of the story from the titular evil fairy's point of view. And while it's not without its fair share of saccharine, the result is a lot more engaging that I was expecting. Not as doom-and-gloom as the trailer would suggest, but not entirely pink-fairy-wings either.
Visually, it's about as close to its predecessor as you can get with live-action, and Disney have gone to great lengths to make Maleficent look and feel like a companion piece. Although part of me (the awkward, old-school, traditionalist part which doesn't always walk in-step with the marketing divisions) thinks that a traditional drawn-animation would have looked just as good, if not better. The film struggles at times with the sheer amount of sprites, fairies and magic flowers on-screen, to the point where it looks like a CGI animation. To have the live-action Angelina walking/flying around in the middle is jarring, and almost reminded me of the fox-hunting sequence in Mary Poppins (except in that film, the effect was intentional). That said, the flying sequences are absolutely astounding in 3D, largely because of the amount of CGI, and there's no doubt as to how meticulously the film's been assembled.
The acting's a slightly different story, however, with poor old Angelina left carrying the load as she plays the role completely straight. Jolie's quite magnificent as the evil/misguided fairy, and it's clear she had a lot of fun while also taking things completely seriously. The rest of the cast are a mixed bag, mostly passable, but I had a problem with Michael Higgins playing young Stefan, and the fairies Flittle, Knotgrass and Thistlewit played by Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple respectively, were slightly too close to Irritating™ for my liking. But as I said, I doubt if anyone in a demographics meeting at Disney HQ had a picture of me on the flipchart as they were planning this out.
Maybe I'm getting old and soft, but the recent Frozen and now Maleficent have both managed to bring a fresh lick of paint to the Fairy Story genre. Well written and fantastic to look at, if you can get over the Disney Princess™ hurdle, there are great things here.
Well, ish. It's not as consistently 'dark' as the trailer.
For the most part, yes.
That's not really for me to say, but it's got to come pretty damned close.
Cinema for full effect (although the 3D is optional, obviously).
Nah.
Yes, but probably not for a while. It's done its job.
I think (think) I heard one low in the mix, but don't quote me on that.
Is Sharlto Copley meant to be attempting that Scottish accent? Is that what the king was like in Sleeping Beauty? Is he taking the piss out of how bad the original one was? Because if that's the case, he's doing it very well…
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.
22 Jump Street Cert: 15 / 112 mins / Dir. Phil Lord, Chris Miller
I'd approached the sequel to 2012's Tatum/Hill cop-actioner with no small amount of caution. Not because I didn't thoroughly enjoy its predecessor, but more because it was something of a surprise hit, and then there's that bit in the trailer where Nick Offerman's police captain tells them "do the same thing; everyone's happy". While it's commendable that the makers of the film are at least aware of the thin ice they're cinematically treading on, is it wise to be so blasé about it?
In this case, yes. Yes, it is. 22 Jump Street is far too self-aware for its own good, but somehow no less funny for it. The knowing winks to unnecessary sequels, ageing actors and formulaic plot devices are pushed past clichéd, through repetitive and on to the point where they're funny again (and as I'm entirely aware that comedy is subjective, you'll just have to take my word for that). It's duly noted that while the screenplay points out how crass or laboured the jokes are, it doesn't refrain from cracking them all the same.
Jonah Hill is on good form, and Channing Tatum proves once again that comedic acting is his forté (going to far as to obliquely reference White House Down on-screen). Also faring far better than he should is Ice Cube (especially when you consider that he played essentially the same role in Ride Along, to far lesser effect). All in all, much like its predecessor, this is a great comedy film, and it doesn't try to be anything more (oh, and bonus points for the closing credits full of faux-sequel clips).
While the film feels far too long (the Spring Break segment almost seems to be from another installment) it never gets boring, and it's largely thanks to the chemistry of Hill and Tatum. There's no great 'reveal' this time round, but I don't think a script as self-referential as this could handle it anyway.
A comedy that concentrates on being consistently laugh-out-loud funny above all else, lightning has struck twice on Jump Street and given life to the rarest of beasts: a sequel which stands shoulder-to-shoulder with its progenitor.
Which is also a nice way of saying that if you didn't enjoy 21 Jump Street, there'll be little for you here.
It is.
I did.
More than.
It'll be just as funny on DVD, it just depends how quickly you want to see it.
A bit.
I will.
Pretty sure there's one when they drive through the 'robot factory'?
As funny as 21 and 22 Jump Street have been, they've been lacking prominent female characters (Amber Stevens and Jillian Bell are woefully underwritten in this). Who would you cast in 23 Jump Street to even the see-saw without tipping 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.
Edge Of Tomorrow (3D) (SPOILERS Cert: 12A / 113 mins / Dir. Doug LIman
Putting its cards on the table, the trailer for Edge Of Tomorrow lets you know exactly what the film's going to be about. There are no great surprises in store, but this is a showcase for the craft and the spectacle, not the reveal. Like a mashup between Aliens and Groundhog Day, Doug Liman's latest movie relies on you buying into the central premise straight away; because if you don't, you'll be left behind. The film doesn't skimp on explaining The Rules™, but there's precious little in the way of downtime, and it expects you to keep up.
Tom Cruise is surprisingly affable as Major William Cage, a PR executive who, by bad luck and bad judgement, finds himself drafted to the front lines in a final push against an extra-terrestrial enemy who seems to know mankind's every move before they make it. Because of Plot Reasons™, he finds he's also doomed to retry every time he fails to win the battle (and he does fail. often). Having to start at smarmy, work through confused and end at determined seems to show that Cruise has got range, and while the film is obviously heading towards Tom Is The Hero™, by the final reel you feel he's earned it.
Emily Blunt is great as ever as Rita Vrataski, one of only two people who know what Cage is going through (although her character is essentially a beefed-up version of the one she played in Looper). Elsewhere, Brendan Gleeson and Bill Paxton have a great time with their relatively minor roles. Oh, and it also stars the paperboy from Spaced, which is fantastic, obviously. He goes into battle in the nude. Yeah, think about that.
Like 2006's Crank, Edge Of Tomorrow is essentially a portrait of a protagonist who doesn't realise he's a video-game character, and the mechanics of repeatedly attempting the same level (with the added bug of the character himself remembering each time, of course) result in a better game-to-movie adaptation than most branded tie-in efforts*1. It shifts the focus from the in-game narrative itself to the experience of the player, and will resonate with anyone who's ever played a first-person-shooter to completion. The scenes of beach-invasion may not be grounded in the reality of war, but they're a battle that will connect with the audience.
The film's strength lies in the sheer joy it takes in resetting, and the way it deftly skips through the buildup for each new/same day*2. Every bit as awesome as it is ridiculous, Edge Of Tomorrow has to be seen - and relived - to be believed.
Kinda, but there's more to it than what you see in there.
I did.
With flying colours.
Cinema if you like big, but the concept will transfer to home-viewing just fine.
I probably will.
I probably will.
Didn't catch one, but there's no doubt it could be buried.
What? I'm too sparing with top-marks, and this film is enormous fun.
Was that caravan park the one in Gravesend which was also used in The Sweeney?
*1 This approach doesn't always work, of course, with the Gerard Butler vehicle Gamer being an example of a film which fails on every level.
*2 A luxury that gamers don't always have, depending on save-options.
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.
