A post-modern, fourth wall breaking sarcastic mercenary with superpowers, "Deadpool" has a certain appeal to everyone's inner cynical 12 year old. Combine that with a fair bit of violence and sex jokes and it turned into a pretty successful film a few years ago. But can the amusing diversion of yesteryear survive with a bigger budget and a bigger cast?
Well... mostly. There are stumbles - there are definitely characters who are just back because it's a sequel and they were in the last one, even if they don't really have much new to do with them, and there's some distinct inconsistency in the plot tones - the romp often bashes up awkwardly against some of the darker deeper elements that are in the story. And it doesn't always have the clearest idea what to do with female characters (although Zazie Beets as Domino has a smooth cool charm that almost runs away with the entire film). This is mostly just-about-good-enough -the jokes are a mix of good and bad, the action has a few good (if gory) fights in it, and it never gets particularly bogged down for very long - it's a film that is mostly just keen to please the fanboy nerds and it does that pretty well. I can spot the holes and the slight laziness in the execution, but mostly I understand how people are going to be able to slide over it.
Saturday 19 May 2018
Crooked House
This is Agatha Christie very much by the numbers, and it's pretty clear that this is only in cinemas because "Murder On The Orient Express" did well at the box office last year. It feels very much like it will live comfortably in the Sunday-or-Friday night slot on the ABC as a not-too-grisly crime tale of a family all controlled by their patriach and the investigation when one of them inevitably kills him - dashing around a grand British country house full of eccentrics played by a bunch of British and American actors who relish the chance to chew a little scenery as suspects.
Which is not to say this isn't fun - Glenn Close enjoys her grand-dame rollicking around shooting voles, Gillian Anderson does good theatrical drunk, Amanda Abbington has a lot of snooty rage and Christina Hendrics does depressed ex-showgirl. And Christie does have a way with clues, plot, and finding the most interesting person to have dunnit (though possibly the most over-the-top motive as well).
Unfortunately this isn't one of the Marple or Poirot stories so we don't get a fun character actor as our lead, instead getting the rather dull stylings of Max Irons as a bland private detective (who strikes no great sparks with the suspect who's supposed to be his love interest, either). So this is satisfying more in a "mild diversion" way rather than a "can actually recommend people hunt it out" way.
Which is not to say this isn't fun - Glenn Close enjoys her grand-dame rollicking around shooting voles, Gillian Anderson does good theatrical drunk, Amanda Abbington has a lot of snooty rage and Christina Hendrics does depressed ex-showgirl. And Christie does have a way with clues, plot, and finding the most interesting person to have dunnit (though possibly the most over-the-top motive as well).
Unfortunately this isn't one of the Marple or Poirot stories so we don't get a fun character actor as our lead, instead getting the rather dull stylings of Max Irons as a bland private detective (who strikes no great sparks with the suspect who's supposed to be his love interest, either). So this is satisfying more in a "mild diversion" way rather than a "can actually recommend people hunt it out" way.
Friday 18 May 2018
Unsane
Steven Soderbergh's un-retirement continues with this low-budget thriller (shot on an iphone). When a woman realises the trauma of a previous relationship is still fresh, she seeks counselling - but finds herself committed to a psych ward, where things rapidly spiral out of control. Sodebergh brings a whole lot of style to the setup, using the flat digital iphone look to give the grim normality of the institution an unsavory edge, but knowing when to bring out the flashier moments. There's some nice twists and turns, together with a little bit of political and social edge as health-care and the ease with which abusers can get away with their crimes gets a pasting - though this is ultimately more interested in its woman-in-peril plot than the deeper social underpinnings.
Claire Foy is a long way from "The Crown" in the lead, but she's a great talent to watch - not necessarily easily sympathetic (her character is, understandably, guarded and a little on-edge from the moment we meet her) but consistently watchable. Supporting actors are similarly strong. I can't argue that this is one of Sodebergh's best films, but it's consistently watchable and tense right to the final moment.
Claire Foy is a long way from "The Crown" in the lead, but she's a great talent to watch - not necessarily easily sympathetic (her character is, understandably, guarded and a little on-edge from the moment we meet her) but consistently watchable. Supporting actors are similarly strong. I can't argue that this is one of Sodebergh's best films, but it's consistently watchable and tense right to the final moment.
Monday 14 May 2018
Loveless
This Russian tale of a couple on the brink of divorce whose child disappears is certainly very well done in a technical sense. It's deliberately designed to be grim and moody and difficult. My problem with it was that was also, for long stretches, not particularly engaging.
The two parents are the type of people who should never have come together, or had a child, or, indeed, should ever be involved in anybody else. They are entirely selfish creatures (as we see when they're with their new alternative partners) and in all honesty their kid is well rid of them. The only characters who seem at all engaging to me are the various search party members who are altruistically attempting to help a child. And I found it difficult to be drawn into this level of misery when there's nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about anybody.
This has got critical acclaim elsewhere, and I'm sure if you're in the mood for a slather of misery, this will tick your buttons. But it didn't do it for me at all.
The two parents are the type of people who should never have come together, or had a child, or, indeed, should ever be involved in anybody else. They are entirely selfish creatures (as we see when they're with their new alternative partners) and in all honesty their kid is well rid of them. The only characters who seem at all engaging to me are the various search party members who are altruistically attempting to help a child. And I found it difficult to be drawn into this level of misery when there's nothing even remotely redeeming or interesting about anybody.
This has got critical acclaim elsewhere, and I'm sure if you're in the mood for a slather of misery, this will tick your buttons. But it didn't do it for me at all.
Avengers Infinity War
This is the big blockbuster it's all been leading to. OR at least, mostly been leading to. After 18 Marvel movies over 10 years, here's where everybody comes together to fight the teased-for-six-years intergalactic villain Thanos. Can all this possibly pay off as anything other than a collosal clusterfuck?
Well, yes, it can. Marvel has a base level of skill that ensures that even their worst film still gives a reasonably entertaining time, even if in retrospect sometimes the villains kinda suck and some of the character motivations don't entirely make sense. And this has characters combining in unexpected (and also expected) ways that make this a two-and-a-half epic that rarely feels ridiculously drawn out. Most of our regular heroes are pretty well served (the weakest served is probably Captain America, who just doesn't get anything personally particularly interesting to do beyond do a lot of fighting), and even the big bad Thanos who, coming into this, felt like a cypher, gains gravity, motivation and dimension to him.
I pointed out to someone the title is appropriate as this is a film that doesn't really begin (it's very dependant on at least 16 of those eighteen films to provide character background) and it doesn't really end either (there is a cliffhanger, and it does suffer slightly from comic-book-itis in that it becomes incredibly obvious that the cliffhanging event is going to have to be reversed within the next movie) - but it's a great movie to hang-out with favourite characters (and even a coupla new ones) in a big scale adventure. This serves most of the big comic-book-movie-buttons and serves its audience nicely. I have to kinda withhold some level of judgement as much of my impression of this will be shifted by how they do or don't resolve this next year, but for now ... yeah, as long as I can withold judgement about "the bigger picture", this is pretty darn good.
Well, yes, it can. Marvel has a base level of skill that ensures that even their worst film still gives a reasonably entertaining time, even if in retrospect sometimes the villains kinda suck and some of the character motivations don't entirely make sense. And this has characters combining in unexpected (and also expected) ways that make this a two-and-a-half epic that rarely feels ridiculously drawn out. Most of our regular heroes are pretty well served (the weakest served is probably Captain America, who just doesn't get anything personally particularly interesting to do beyond do a lot of fighting), and even the big bad Thanos who, coming into this, felt like a cypher, gains gravity, motivation and dimension to him.
I pointed out to someone the title is appropriate as this is a film that doesn't really begin (it's very dependant on at least 16 of those eighteen films to provide character background) and it doesn't really end either (there is a cliffhanger, and it does suffer slightly from comic-book-itis in that it becomes incredibly obvious that the cliffhanging event is going to have to be reversed within the next movie) - but it's a great movie to hang-out with favourite characters (and even a coupla new ones) in a big scale adventure. This serves most of the big comic-book-movie-buttons and serves its audience nicely. I have to kinda withhold some level of judgement as much of my impression of this will be shifted by how they do or don't resolve this next year, but for now ... yeah, as long as I can withold judgement about "the bigger picture", this is pretty darn good.
Isle of Dogs
Wes Anderson seems to be considered a divisive figure. Certainly, I can understand his high level of stylisation can be a turnoff to some, and he's arguably mostly written from a fairly middle-upper class Jewish perspective. And taking this to a near-futuristic story set largely in Japan with a cast mostly consisting of dogs is ... different yet familiar - particularly when a large chunk of his familiar supporting cast are back in voice over roles.
I do find there's heart and a bit of grittiness that breaks through the preciousness, though, in all of Anderson's work. And key to the grittiness here is probably Bryan Cranston's Chief, the dog with the least time for humans, the one whose involvement has to be hardest won. There's a rough exterior that is pasted over some very deep inner hurt, and it's his journey we're taking more than anybody else's. Stop-motion animation gives Anderson the precise control that his live-action films so often display accelerated to a highly detailed degree.
There has been criticism that Anderson is indulging in cultural appropriation ... but I must admit I like to see filmmakers tell stories on an international basis, and I don't like the idea that there should be artistic firewalls where they can't use other cultures. There's a large JApanese voice cast, and one of the four writers is a Japanese writer and designer (Kunichi Nomura). I don't find it particularly insulting to the Japanese culture. And I did love this film with its mix of pure Wes Anderson and a Japanese futurism. I hope others do as well.
I do find there's heart and a bit of grittiness that breaks through the preciousness, though, in all of Anderson's work. And key to the grittiness here is probably Bryan Cranston's Chief, the dog with the least time for humans, the one whose involvement has to be hardest won. There's a rough exterior that is pasted over some very deep inner hurt, and it's his journey we're taking more than anybody else's. Stop-motion animation gives Anderson the precise control that his live-action films so often display accelerated to a highly detailed degree.
There has been criticism that Anderson is indulging in cultural appropriation ... but I must admit I like to see filmmakers tell stories on an international basis, and I don't like the idea that there should be artistic firewalls where they can't use other cultures. There's a large JApanese voice cast, and one of the four writers is a Japanese writer and designer (Kunichi Nomura). I don't find it particularly insulting to the Japanese culture. And I did love this film with its mix of pure Wes Anderson and a Japanese futurism. I hope others do as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)