Set during and in the aftermath of World War I, this feels like a genuine historical epic with unusual twists. The story of two friends who only barely survive the last days of the war and what happens to them afterwards as they get caught up in the fascinations of the post-war period, with hedonistic 1920s parties, the bustling war memorial movement and a determination to avenge themselves on those who endagered them needlessly during the war, this is a beautiful and strange film that deals with disturbing and rough material with style and elan.
Lush and intriguing, with multiple twists and a quirky visual style (a friend described it as Amilie in the First World War, except director Jean-Pierre Jeunet's WWI themed follow up to "Amilie", "A Very Long Engagement", didn't have this film's smooth style, effortless charm and wit), this can be absolutely recommended to anybody who wants to see an old-fashioned epic without the elephantitis that epics can fall into.
Friday 27 July 2018
Sunday 22 July 2018
Mamma Mia: Here we go again!
A decade after the first film, it's time to go back to a small Greek Island where the sun shines (nearly) all the time (one plot-related storm excused), love is constantly in season and everybody sings and dances to Abba songs all the time. And admittedly, this is entirely unnecessary and the choice to do a sequel to a jukebox musical does mean you're either recycling songs or picking a score full of obscurities most of the time - but Abba's a band with a lot of songs, some of which didn't make the first movie, and others that can possibly take another go-around (particularly given that - hey, it is a full decade since the first one).
This does beat the challenge of sequalisng a romantic comedy plot, though, by Godfather 2-ing the whole thing - Lily James playing the young Meryl, arriving in a new country and establishing the family business, while Amanda Seyfried does the Al Pacino job of carrying it on and encountering new problems. All the significant cast members are back (yes, even Meryl who's supposed to be dead by the beginning of this one comes back for another go-around). And if the flashback-heavy structure does seem like a chance to get a whole heap of cheaper actors to pad out the plot, it does mean we get to see three romances as we work our way through the circumstances of why there were three candidates for Seyfried's father in the first one. More importantly, perhaps, Christine Branski gets to sing and dance again, and Cher also gets helicoptered in at the last minute.
Look, this is blatantly unoriginal material. But the scenery is lovely, and if I don't expect James to ever equal Streep at her best, she does a reasonable job of carrying her section of the film. This is a comfortable hug of a movie that you can only object to if you want something like depth. And honestly, I don't really want a third go-around here - Nobody should ever go the full Godfather 3.
This does beat the challenge of sequalisng a romantic comedy plot, though, by Godfather 2-ing the whole thing - Lily James playing the young Meryl, arriving in a new country and establishing the family business, while Amanda Seyfried does the Al Pacino job of carrying it on and encountering new problems. All the significant cast members are back (yes, even Meryl who's supposed to be dead by the beginning of this one comes back for another go-around). And if the flashback-heavy structure does seem like a chance to get a whole heap of cheaper actors to pad out the plot, it does mean we get to see three romances as we work our way through the circumstances of why there were three candidates for Seyfried's father in the first one. More importantly, perhaps, Christine Branski gets to sing and dance again, and Cher also gets helicoptered in at the last minute.
Look, this is blatantly unoriginal material. But the scenery is lovely, and if I don't expect James to ever equal Streep at her best, she does a reasonable job of carrying her section of the film. This is a comfortable hug of a movie that you can only object to if you want something like depth. And honestly, I don't really want a third go-around here - Nobody should ever go the full Godfather 3.
Saturday 21 July 2018
Mary Shelley
This movie's probably unlucky in getting me as its audience, given I'd researched and written a short bio of Mary as part of a recent season of an adaptation of "Frankenstein". Therefore I was uniquely placed to spot omissions, bad choices of emphasis and just-plain-getting-people-wrong. But even if I wasn't, I'm pretty convinced I'd still hate this.
Mary Shelley's early years with the poet and her eventual husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, are dramatic, romantic, intense and full of tumult. This is none of those things. It's perversely determined to present Mary as a sensible, polite, put-upon woman, not someone who makes wild choices throwing herself into a relationship that will be tumultous and incredibly strained. And there is no chemistry whatsoever between Elle Fanning playing Mary and the dully pretty Douglas Booth. This is a project that needs to be all-consuming-passion and instead is relentlessly, painfully logical about everything. There's no energy, no drive - maybe a little moment here and there with the delightfully languid Lord Byron played by Tom Sturridge - but all in all this is a complete failure both as biography and as an interesting drama. Big fat pass on this from me.
Mary Shelley's early years with the poet and her eventual husband, Percy Bysshe Shelley, are dramatic, romantic, intense and full of tumult. This is none of those things. It's perversely determined to present Mary as a sensible, polite, put-upon woman, not someone who makes wild choices throwing herself into a relationship that will be tumultous and incredibly strained. And there is no chemistry whatsoever between Elle Fanning playing Mary and the dully pretty Douglas Booth. This is a project that needs to be all-consuming-passion and instead is relentlessly, painfully logical about everything. There's no energy, no drive - maybe a little moment here and there with the delightfully languid Lord Byron played by Tom Sturridge - but all in all this is a complete failure both as biography and as an interesting drama. Big fat pass on this from me.
Friday 20 July 2018
Skyscraper
I want to like Dwayne Johnson, really I do. But he does pick pretty average movies most of the time. Part of the problem may be that, as a ridiculously muscular unit, there's not a lot that can really physically threaten him, and by the time you get to something superscale like the giant creatures of "Rampage" or the huge building in this one - which then gets to the point where he can sometimes become weirdly superflous. In this case there's also a slight issue where the plotline requires him to risk everything to rescue his wife and kids - except she seems to be doing perfectly fine most of the time without him.
Look, this is perfectly adequate without ever posing any threat of being any better than "Die HArd", the king of "stuck in a tall building" action. There's a few vertiginous sequences, some suitably unlikely architectural features and a baddie who wears her hair over one eye so, presumably, she has no depth perception. And the actual motive for the bad guys when it arrives almost makes some kinda sense. But it's never particualrly surprising or clever (okay, it is nice to see Neve Campbell back in a role that's somewhat better than the standard "I gotta be rescued all the time" wife), and it's screamingly unambitious. So... blah.
Look, this is perfectly adequate without ever posing any threat of being any better than "Die HArd", the king of "stuck in a tall building" action. There's a few vertiginous sequences, some suitably unlikely architectural features and a baddie who wears her hair over one eye so, presumably, she has no depth perception. And the actual motive for the bad guys when it arrives almost makes some kinda sense. But it's never particualrly surprising or clever (okay, it is nice to see Neve Campbell back in a role that's somewhat better than the standard "I gotta be rescued all the time" wife), and it's screamingly unambitious. So... blah.
Sunday 15 July 2018
Ant Man and the Wasp
The first "Ant Man" was a bit of an oddity at the time - in its attempt to be the deliberately light palate-cleanser between "Avengers-Age of Ultron" and "Captain America: Civil War", it occasionally felt mildly inconsequential, with a mid-level corporate villain and some overly-shoe-horned-in references to other Marvel movies. The sequel comes right after the biggest-of-the-big Marvel movies with "Infinity War", with the cliffhanger from that one unresolved (and not resolved in this film either). And its villains are still somewhat smaller scale - there's no big plan to conquer the world or the universe going on here.
But for the most part it works - in particular, the returning Paul Rudd feels a lot more comfortable in the combination of superheroing and quipping the job requires (in the first film he seemed a little flattened by the challenge of carrying a leg in a multi-million dollar franchise, this time he's clearly having more fun with the role). The film still finds fun ways to play with scale as the heroes shrink-and-expand both themselves and various objects around them using the "makes-no-sense-as-physics-but-go-with-it-anyway" Pym particle devices, and has a thrilling "everybody chase the McGuffin" finale to go with it. Michael Douglas remains delightfully grouchy as Hank Pym, Evangeline Lilly gets to kick a lot more butt as his returning daughter, now superheroed as the titular Wasp (although Lily constantly seems to get unnecessary romantic subplots - she's a good looking woman but she doesn't need to be hooked up with the leading man/men just because of that - whether "Lost", "The Hobbit" or this, she plays characters who would have been just as fine without the love plot). Michelle Pfeiffer is more or less the major McGuffin in this one - rescuing her Janet Van Dyne (the original Wasp) is the thread of the movie, but that means she really only shows up for the last fifteen minutes. The villains are more funcitonal than memorable, but they serve to keep things ticking over and the mix of action-and-gags is thoroughly comfortably done.
This isn't looking to reinvent the superhero playbook, but it plays what it has pretty nicely. And it's a damn comforting movie to watch. Rant and rave against that if you wanna, but simple enjoyment has its place and this is definitely in its place.
But for the most part it works - in particular, the returning Paul Rudd feels a lot more comfortable in the combination of superheroing and quipping the job requires (in the first film he seemed a little flattened by the challenge of carrying a leg in a multi-million dollar franchise, this time he's clearly having more fun with the role). The film still finds fun ways to play with scale as the heroes shrink-and-expand both themselves and various objects around them using the "makes-no-sense-as-physics-but-go-with-it-anyway" Pym particle devices, and has a thrilling "everybody chase the McGuffin" finale to go with it. Michael Douglas remains delightfully grouchy as Hank Pym, Evangeline Lilly gets to kick a lot more butt as his returning daughter, now superheroed as the titular Wasp (although Lily constantly seems to get unnecessary romantic subplots - she's a good looking woman but she doesn't need to be hooked up with the leading man/men just because of that - whether "Lost", "The Hobbit" or this, she plays characters who would have been just as fine without the love plot). Michelle Pfeiffer is more or less the major McGuffin in this one - rescuing her Janet Van Dyne (the original Wasp) is the thread of the movie, but that means she really only shows up for the last fifteen minutes. The villains are more funcitonal than memorable, but they serve to keep things ticking over and the mix of action-and-gags is thoroughly comfortably done.
This isn't looking to reinvent the superhero playbook, but it plays what it has pretty nicely. And it's a damn comforting movie to watch. Rant and rave against that if you wanna, but simple enjoyment has its place and this is definitely in its place.
Saturday 7 July 2018
Animal World
Zheng is a virtually broke young man whose violent fantasy life covers for the fact that he's barely staying afloat caring for his sick mother with the aid of Qing, the young nurse whose affection he can barely acknowledge. When an old friend offers him a chance to get financially ahead, he finds himself involved in a strange ship-board gambling competition run by a mysterious businessman (played by Michael Douglas) where high-stakes alliances may be the only way to survive and escape - but who can he trust and who might betray him?
This is a surprisingly tense exercise given the main story, when it kicks in, is pretty much a game like Rock-Scissors-Paper where our hero survives largely thorugh his understanding of game theory. Director Han Yan has a sure skill making the stakes both clear and intense (and keeps the suspension of disbelief at bay). It's not entirely unsurprising that this is based on the first volume of a manga series - there's a lot of visual spectacle going on here, together with a vaguely-hinted-at backstory that may possibly get developed a bit more in an almost-inevitable sequel. I found this kinda irresistable - yes, it's cheesy and somewhat nonsensical, but dammit, it's so stylish I didn't really care!
This is a surprisingly tense exercise given the main story, when it kicks in, is pretty much a game like Rock-Scissors-Paper where our hero survives largely thorugh his understanding of game theory. Director Han Yan has a sure skill making the stakes both clear and intense (and keeps the suspension of disbelief at bay). It's not entirely unsurprising that this is based on the first volume of a manga series - there's a lot of visual spectacle going on here, together with a vaguely-hinted-at backstory that may possibly get developed a bit more in an almost-inevitable sequel. I found this kinda irresistable - yes, it's cheesy and somewhat nonsensical, but dammit, it's so stylish I didn't really care!
Sicario: Day of the Soldado
2015's "Sicario" was a searing look at the battle with Mexican drug cartels, and how police action became increasingly militarised and morality blurred as any-means-necessary battles were fought. The follow up takes this further, for better and sometimes for worse. For one thing, it starts with implications that cartels are now involved in muslim terrorism of types that have been pretty damn rare on US soil, and has the US goverment responding by declaring they're going to treat this like Afghanistan (with very little recognition that Afghanistan isn't exactly a great model for how to run a conflict). The politics in general are unusually suspect and the film doesn't really seem to take the time to properly reflect on this.
Still, the main attractions back from the first film, Josh Brolin as the gung-ho CIA agent and Benicio del Toro as his assistant with a personal grudge against the cartels do well with what they've been given (although del Toro's storyline takes a couple of steps for the ludicrous near the end of the film in scenes that seem chosen more for sequel potential than for logic, and Brolin has an unlikely change-of-heart-right-near-the-end). There's a portrayal of people smuggling wrapped in which could have used a few scenes more of ambiguity (one or two hit exactly the right note, in particular one with a white participant), but in general, this seems to be reaching for smart-blockbuster and falling short into "under-thought" blockbuster instead.
Still, the main attractions back from the first film, Josh Brolin as the gung-ho CIA agent and Benicio del Toro as his assistant with a personal grudge against the cartels do well with what they've been given (although del Toro's storyline takes a couple of steps for the ludicrous near the end of the film in scenes that seem chosen more for sequel potential than for logic, and Brolin has an unlikely change-of-heart-right-near-the-end). There's a portrayal of people smuggling wrapped in which could have used a few scenes more of ambiguity (one or two hit exactly the right note, in particular one with a white participant), but in general, this seems to be reaching for smart-blockbuster and falling short into "under-thought" blockbuster instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)