Saturday 30 December 2017

Star Wars: The Last Jedi


Well. Episode VIII. The Last Jedi. I went to the Orana Cinemas in Busselton with Merv to catch this and his first word to me as we were leaving was 'underwhelming?' (it was said as a question). I usually need a few hours to ruminate on films but I had to nod. Here's why I nodded.

First, and most importantly, it seems unsure of what it wants to be. The Force Awakens was an unashamedly nostalgic retread, great as it was. Rogue One was a brilliant, dark cracker, eschewing the sentiment of its forebears. For me, The Last Jedi had a cheek on both stools. I know that Rogue One was a stand-alone film but it still showed what a 'new' Star Wars film could be. Kylo Ren's recurring directive of killing everything old and beginning again has merit but the film took its time to realise this (in fact, it didn't quite and maybe won't until the future trilogy).


Speaking of Ren, the central theme of TLJ is neat and workable. Kylo and Rey being the dark and the light respectively and thus being almost inseperable is an intriguing concept, almost dirty at points (dirty in a good way).The money shot where Kylo shows his intentions with the turning and slicing is very nicely done. More needed to be made of this than just acting as a way for Ren to bitch about Skywalker ("He told you that, did he? And you believed him?")

The film is also packed with herrings of every colour. Disable the tracker! It's the only way to escape the First Order. Oh, hang on. Find the master codebreaker! Umm, couldn't get THAT one, how about Benicio? Kylo did a bad thing, hey but maybe Luke was in the wrong, no wait maybe it WAS Kylo, but, but.....pass the pickling jar.


Extra observations -:

  • Too many unnecessary cutesy fuckers, especially those bird hamster thingies. Fuck off with your Mattel or Hasbro or Lego or whoever spews out these toys. Just concentrate on making a film or two.
  • Not enough Chewie and it obviously misses Han.
  • Gleeson overdoes it as Hux. 
  • Leia and Luke don't have the impact they did in The Force Awakens.
  • Isaac is ok but a bit too Top Gunny for my liking. 
  • Ridley is good when she gets scenes with Driver, not so otherwise. 
  • Boyega has nowhere near the material he did in TFA and suffers accordingly (the jaunt to the Casino city is a flabby waste of time - in overall film length AND narrative - but oooh some cool CGI to show off).

Overall, though the film is quite nice to look at in parts, it feels pretty empty. Kind of like trying to go back to a city where you once lived and had a great time but finding that things have moved on.


See also:

Rogue One (2016) to see that pearlers can be made in this universe and Brick (2005) for Rian Johnson's clever feature debut.

Listen to "ep003 Star Wars: The Last Jedi" on Spreaker.

Sunday 26 November 2017

Thor: Ragnarok

Thor: Ragnarok is the 17th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Yep, 17. Considering they started with Iron Man only 9 years ago, that's quite a pace. And this third Thor film is one of the best. It's certainly the most straight-out comedic in tone, even though it deals with death and destruction - 'The Fate of the Gods' in old Norse mythology. The constant subversion of the super-heroic moments are great (though Shane Black did something similar in Iron Man 3).

For the most part, Earth is a minor player here with the action split between Asgard and a planet called Sakaar - familiar to comic readers as the setting of 'Planet Hulk'. Two of that comic's characters, Korg and Miek pop up in very different roles. Korg is basically a rock man voiced by the director Taika Waititi, and Miek is a non-speaking insect, obviously.

The film doesn't drag at all and things knit neatly, and kind of unexpectedly, at the end but I could have done with more of Cate Blanchett's Hela. I don't know if she was necessarily under-served by the script but she owned the screen when she was on it.

Possibly the best thing about the film is the choice of headline track - 'The Immigrant Song' by Led Zeppelin. So good it appears twice, and rightly so. According to Waititi, they had to get their money's worth as the rights to Zep songs are bank-breaking. Other nice notes were the Matt Damon cameo, Hiddleston's oiliness and Thor's acid trip to meet Jeff Goldblum's Grandmaster accompanied by 'Pure Imagination' from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

The only mild quibbles I have are regarding the occasional looseness of direction. Apparently, a heap of scenes were pretty much improvised and it showed now and then. There's one moment, for example, where Thor and Banner are sitting in the street after escaping from somewhere and the 'banter' seems to lose focus a bit. But minor quibbles, as I said. This weird bromance works extremely well for the most part. Top craic and repeat viewings called for.


See also:

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) because any chance..... What We Do in the Shadows (2014), a Taika Waititi 'mockumentary' and Little Fish (2005) for another great Cate Blanchett performance.

Sunday 22 October 2017

Blade Runner 2049

SPOILERS!!! STAY AWAY IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YET!!

It's been a week since I saw Blade Runner 2049 and it's proving to be a tricky one to chew over. Initially, I was very impressed by its grandeur and ambition. Then I was slightly numbed by the languid pacing. Finally, I found myself appreciating the links between this and Ridley Scott's original masterpiece from 1982 (or later depending on which cut suits). All this while adjusting my ginger cheeks in the cinema. 2 hours and 45 minutes of adjusting. In the preceding seven days, my brain has been catching snatches of film and replaying it to me - of both films. And I think this is one of the key points. Many sequels of well-known films pale in comparison to their forebears (lets say Crystal Skull and Prometheus as examples - though I didn't hate the latter) but 2049 has done something that these others didn't achieve. It's successfully fused the DNA of its predecessor into its structure and done so with style and candour. But only bringing back cast (Ford, Olmos, etc) and crew (Hampton Fancher writes again) isn't it. The atmosphere is eerily similar and that's the key reason I love the original so much - atmosphere. This page shows the similarities well.
The choice of Denis Villeneuve as director was inspired, as he has the confidence to work with all the pressure of slotting his film into this canon. His previous films show he has a recognisable style and he clearly wasn't brought onboard just to tell the actors where to stand. Speaking of actors, here's where I still haven't made up my mind. Harrison Ford is superb in his minimal screen time but I'm not sure about Ryan Gosling. He doesn't have the charisma of Ford, OK given, yet he's fine when paired up with him. But his walk! His fucking walk! I understand you're being careful and I know you're a replicant but just move a bit quicker please. Honestly, this could have cut, I reckon, 5 to 10 minutes off the running time. And is he acting all bland due to his replicant nature or is he just bland? I'm prepared to give him some slack (he was pretty good in The Nice Guys). The rest of the cast is really good, though the main women characters seem to have got the dirty end of a shitty stick. They're either powerful and ultimately beaten (Wright, Hoeks) or weak and ultimately beaten (de Armas). Here's a link to a good piece from the Guardian on that.
The score by Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch was atonal and loud but only irritating some of the time. Cinematographer Roger Deakins has surpassed himself (even better than his work on Barton Fink?) and the production design of Dennis Gassner is brilliant. The story itself centres on a chase with some more profound ideas hovering around it, like what it means to be human and the dangers of meddling with class structures; as Robin Wright's police chief says, "Tell either side there's no wall, you bought a war."
One final thought - I wonder if anyone involved has read any of Paolo Bacigalupi's stuff. I saw some hints of 'The Wind-Up Girl' (this book could make a great film), notably the character of Joi and the massive barrier keeping out the ocean.


See also:

Of course, Blade Runner but also the three shorts that fill in the gaps between that and 2049. These are Blackout 2022, Nexus Dawn 2036 and Nowhere to Run 2048.

Listen to "Blade Runner 2049" on Spreaker.

Monday 21 August 2017

War for the Planet of the Apes




It's been a while since I saw this but I reckon I've made up my mind about it. It shouldn't have taken so long to decide that it's not bad, but there you have it. Of the trilogy, it's probably the weakest in my opinion. None of the character building of ROTPOTA (apes, of course, not humans) and none of the power struggle between Caeser and Koba in DOTPOTA. And for all its nicely shot vistas and the odd battle here and there, the Golden Gate Bridge sequence in Rise is still the best thing across the trilogy. One of the best action sequences ever, I'd venture.

But I said this was not bad so some credit must be given. It goes without saying the CGI is first class, improved yet again from the previous two films. As seen in Rogue One, getting humans out of the 'uncanny valley' is still a hefty task but they've got the apes sorted with this one. There's an interesting way of getting to the Charlton Heston Planet of the Apes. Cornelius and Nova (characters from the original film) are introduced, though the timelines are way out. They're either planning to rejig said timeline of they're just nerd references. Towards the end it goes all Great 'Ape' Escape and anything that pays homage to The Great Escape gets a few free hits.

On that, War shows its influences fairly overtly - a bit of revenge western, a touch of Apocalypse Now but the main touchstone is the biblical epic - Caeser as a Moses/Jesus hybrid (Jemoses?) leading his people to the 'promised land' and sacrificing himself for them as well. I'm not sure if they started out making a biblical allegory for this trilogy but that's where it's pretty much ended. So, 'War' in the title is a bit misleading, as it's much more of the above than a pure war film. Not a lot of battling going on, at least between apes and humans. Caeser's inner conflict with Koba, that stretches back to Dawn, is the main antagonist here, even if Woody Harrelson's Colonel wants a piece of the action. Harrelson comes over all Kurtz, shaved head and maniacal stares, and his ending is nicely done but the simians are the stars here.

Apes together. Strong.


I thought I'd start something new here. Films that are similar or have some connection to the posted film. Let's see how it goes.

See also:

Aside from the ones mentioned above, there are a couple of John Wayne films that share some threads with War for the Planet of the Apes. Red River (1948) directed by Howard Hawks and The Searchers (1956) directed by John Ford are revenge-themed westerns and top films to boot.

Friday 4 August 2017

Dunkirk


So I managed to sneak in a viewing of Dunkirk on Friday morning before work. Pretty happy with the decision. So far, it's the best film I've seen all year. Most of this is down to Christopher Nolan and his command of time. The way he interweaves the three strands of the plot - the beach, the sea and the air - is sublimely novel. If you're not careful, you may even be a little confused at the overlapping timelines (it took my penny a few minutes to drop). Nolan has played with time as a character before of course, in Memento, Inception and Interstellar but here he takes it one step further. The 'snowball' effect is used for the entire film - each situation is established unfussily, then the crosscutting between the 'theatres' picks up the pace until they merge at a single point. I can't remember seeing an entire film play this way. Many films do it in the final third or so (Nolan himself uses this technique) but the full film!? As a great man once said, "Well, Captain, I've got to admire your balls."


Another refreshing aspect is the dialogue, or specifically, the sparsity of it. Events unfold with only the bare minimum of spoken exposition, with Nolan relying on the vision and our historical knowledge of the Dunkirk retreat to fill in any blanks. The action (?) scenes are horrific and very watery - hydrophobes beware! - and the dread is heightened by Hans Zimmer's screeching score. The frustration of almost getting away only to be turned back or worse is hard to watch, nearly unbearable. But there are a few quiet moments amidst all the carnage. A soldier drops his gun and helmet and dives into the surf, presumably to swim to England, though almost certainly to his death. The 'I'm too tired to give a shit' looks on the faces of those watching is pretty powerful.


On those characters - I liked the fact that many of them were painted as cowards, or more prosaically, real people just trying to survive. Cillian Murphy turning his back to walk away near the end is a masterfully understated piece of film-making. Sentimentality and flag-waving is avoided for the most part, save for one sequence where the civilian flotilla arrives and Kenneth Branagh gets a bit misty-eyed. The actors are roundly fine and the mass of unknowns and extras on the beach was a clever touch by Nolan, freeing the viewer from identifying with a 'name' among the desperate hordes.


The Brexit theme (or a more general fear of the other) is illustrated well in the readiness of some soldiers to abandon the luckless French soldier to a likely death and ultimately, an actual death by drowning. And the Dutch guy? Where did he go? Branagh's commander shows where Nolan stands by making it clear he's "staying for the French".

In all, a fantastic film, in form and story-telling. I should really have seen it on a 70mm IMAX screen, as was intended for audiences. Maybe next time.
  Listen to "ep002 Dunkirk" on Spreaker.

Saturday 29 July 2017

Baby Driver

The second day of the double-header brought a slightly more satisfying film (though both were enjoyable). Baby Driver is the film Edgar Wright got stuck into after his Ant Man debacle. Apparently, he's been planning this film for a good while, even before he made the clip for 'Blue Song' by Mint Royale in 2003 (starring Noel Fielding in the driver role, and Nick Frost, Julian Barrat and Michael Smiley as the bank robbers).

It's bags of fun, as technically adept as you'd expect from Wright, full of visual flourishes - the steady-cam coffee run and the foot chase are notable sequences. The pictures almost take a back seat to the soundtrack here, which melds everything together. This is where the energy lies in the film. The titular Baby has tinnitus and needs to listen to his pod most of the time, especially when driving. I have to say, though the system worked well, I didn't like any of the music, aside from the brilliant Queen track, 'Brighton Rock'. This is the third Queen song Wright has used, after 'Don't Stop Me Now' and 'You're My Best Friend' in Shaun of the Dead.

A word or two on the cast. Kevin Spacey and Jon Hamm are fantastic but it's Jamie Foxx who steals the booty here. He's better than I've ever seen him before - properly menacing and funny but not too many eggs in the pudding. The 'leads', Ansel Elgort and Lily James on the other hand, were pretty underwhelming and did just enough to hold the focus until the action or other cast members took the reins again.

It goes without saying that the driving was..........but I reckon the dialogue was the star of this caper. There are a multitude of witty lines and one or two scenes that rival Tarantino and the Coens. The four way face off in the diner was one of the tensest nail-biting moments I've seen in a long time.

One slight issue I had was with the final 5 or so minutes. For me, the ending betrays what came before it a bit. Too sappy and moral, I thought. It was probably the most logical ending but I didn't think it was necessary to show us the nuts and bolts of Baby's penance. At any rate, a new Edgar Wright film is one to mark in the calendar. More please. Listen to "ep001 Baby Driver" on Spreaker.

Friday 21 July 2017

Spider-man: Homecoming


The first of a double header last weekend. This was fine, not outstanding, but better than the other Spider-man films. I reckon this is due to the fact that Marvel have been allowed to bring Peter Parker into their fiefdom though it's a bit of a double-edged sword. Tom Holland is pretty good as the new Spidey but the air is pregnant with the possible entrance of some Marvel icon. In fact, Tony Iron Stark bails out the hero a couple of times and there are one or two other neat cameos.

I quite liked the story line of the working stiff - Michael Keaton - getting stiffed, as it were, by the 'higher-ups' and then plotting to get something back. Understandable and nice of Marvel to attempt this foray into critiquing 'disaster capitalism' but ultimately, we all love Stark. Rich white guy - Huzzah! Working class white guy who turns into giant metal bird - Booo! It was a nice touch, though, to surround Spidey by non-white characters, especially as the love interest, Liz and assorted friends. The scenes with Peter getting used to the functions in his new suit (voiced by Jennifer Connelly) are light and fun and there are some other amusing scenes, especially with Stark in his mentor role. The action scenes, which aren't that frequent, are pretty tense and well-shot too.

Here's a small gripe. That's how I like my gripes, small and purple, if possible. Anyway, this film has similar issues to other Marvel scripts - that of highlighting winks to other pop culture refs where, actually, the characters most likely wouldn't have any idea what the fuck. In this film it's Spidey jumping through backyards (ala Ferris Bueller). So far, no worries. But they actually have Spidey run past a huge TV showing Ferris Bueller's Day Off and saying, "Great film." A film released in 1986, about 15 years before Spidey would have been born. Sure, he may have seen it, but let's assume he hasn't and just leave the references to the viewers who may spot them, and not illustrate the shit out of them. Thanks for humouring me.

And one more item to note. Was the obvious vacating of the Avengers Tower in New York a political nod? Best to not risk any comparison to another rich, white, powerful man with a giant phallic tower on the New York skyline. Overthinking?

Sunday 4 June 2017

Alien: Covenant

This film, Alien: Covenant, takes place around 10 years after Prometheus. I think I get the meaning of the previous title - Greek mythology, creator of mankind, etc, but I wasn't too sure of the significance of the word 'covenant', aside from being a pact or agreement of sorts. So I was slightly disturbed to find this example from a site called the Christian Crier;
This was the same covenant which God made with Abraham (Gen 17:2).  In this covenant Abraham asked God “Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?”  He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.”  And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other” And the Lord God said, "What the fuck, Abe?!? I didn't ask you to slaughter them! Fucking sling your hook, you bloodthirsty clungenut!(Gen 15:8-10).
This is, more or less, gospel, and without wishing to spoil anything for those who haven't seen it, there is a fair bit of cutting, along with slicing, beheading, eviscerating, and so on, in Alien: Covenant. But it seems the wider definition of 'promises made to humanity by god' probably works best for the film. I quite like the attempts Ridley Scott has made with this and Prometheus to imbue some deeper philosophical rumination into what is basically a slasher horror film series. I still don't know if he's religious, agnostic, atheistic or just a massive piss-taker. Not sure it matters, but it's a curiosity.

So the film itself. Let me begin by saying nothing in this series will ever top the original Alien. The films that followed were good to middling but the punch has been and gone. In saying that, I've enjoyed all of the sequels and prequels (even the much loathed Prometheus) for varying reasons and to varying degrees. So I'm not going to start complaining that this new installment is too similar to the original or that it's almost as stupid as its predecessor. Fair points but not really valid considering the gigantic touchstone of comparison that weighs around every Alien film's neck.

Something the prequels have that the original four films didn't is Fassbender's David. In this film he plays against a synthetic model of himself in Walter. A technical upgrade but not as thoughtful or creative. Fassbender is the best thing in the film and his David is an unsettling hybrid of doctors Moreau and Mengele. He's one of the best screen villains in a long time and the final sequence of the film is deliciously downbeat and ominous.

The crew of the Covenant are ostensibly interchangeable, except for Katherine Waterston as neo-Ripley, Daniels. She's our eyes and heart within the escapade and is also the least stupid of all the 'intelligent, professional, practical' people aboard the ship. There needs to be a lot of disbelief suspension to get us through to the 'meat' of the proceedings. And what an array of meat there is too.

There were some freaky mutations of the text-book Alien, including one that had a head like a cloudy white marble and also a few nice touches lifted from Blade Runner (the nail on the necklace and David's line to Daniels, "That's the spirit!"). All in all, a pleasantly gruesome way to spend an evening.

Sunday 7 May 2017

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2


Rightio, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 at Reading Belmont with older sister and younger boyfriend (hers, not mine). I was quite calm going in as I KNEW this wouldn't be as good as the original and was therefore only expecting an enjoyable viewing experience. And that's what I got. And not a lot more. The 'cinematic law of diminishing returns' may explain this feeling but I may also be talking out of my arse. It has been known to happen.

Anyway, this is, for the most part, a fine follow-up to a surprising hit. The tease of Quill's fatherage (apparently not a word) is revealed and is the tent pole issue of several other relationship explorations throughout the film. The Gamora/Nebula battling sisters sub-plot is interesting (though pretty much emanating from another Daddy issue - Thanos). Drax and Mantis have a nice little dysfunctional friendship blossoming. Rocket and Yondu find similarities in character and even Groot has his growing pains. Yet these are all marginalised by Quill's realisation that his father may not have been his 'Daddy'.

The soundtrack doesn't have the impact of the original yet it seems - in the marketing as well as the dialogue - to be the key element of the film. Like it's a 2 hour video clip collection. The 80's pop culture references are as off-putting as they were in the original, even rolling out Hasselhoff for another cringing cameo (this must be all he does these days). Admittedly, I did like the Hoff's vocals on the final song, Guardian's Inferno.

Those gripes aside, GOTGV2 was a lot of fun, not quite up to par with the first and with nothing as exhilarating as that film's prison break sequence but fun nonetheless. Chris Pratt invests Quill with the charm of his first Star Lord outing and Bautista's Drax is basic comic relief but crucially, good at it. Very different from the comics though, where he's a troubled murder machine.


One thing that might be a bit tasty in the future installments is the idea that the Celestials (or GODS!) are the evil in the universe, exemplified here by Kurt Russel's Ego and in the first film by the sneak peek at the damage potential of the orb infinity stone which destroyed the Collector's warehouse/office. Mind you, Ego had to note that he was a god with a small g and I guess Thor is a god also, which means these nutters are plentiful. Perhaps not as ground-breaking as first thought. Carry on.

Thursday 23 March 2017

Logan


Well, how's this for a comic book movie? It's like Peckinpah re-animated. Taking a cue from the altogether different, Deadpool of last year, Logan has been made with the letter R virtually flashing in the corner of the frame. They've gone as far away from the X franchise as possible, even dropping the name Wolverine from the title and suggesting the comics are mostly bullshit. It's a morosely fatalistic film, with a few of the characters seemingly aware of the reaper behind them and slowing down for him to catch up. Oh, and I think it's a peach.

There's a great intro for the third point in the Logan-Xavier triangle, Laura (or X-23). The director, James Mangold, keeps all the initial action hidden, aside from the noise. When we do get to see her in full flow, it's Wolverine on speed - with more blood and gore than previous Marvel films. Pretty ballsy to have a 10 year-old kid deliver a severed head like a bowling ball to the feet of her tormentors.

There are so many things to note in Logan that I'm not sure how to knit them all together. Seeing the legends, Wolverine & Xavier, in unstoppable decline is sad but inevitable, I guess. Huge Action, Patrick Stewart and Dafne Keen (Laura) are all superb. There are few chuckles and any that do occur are played black and bittersweet (Logan and Xavier swearing at each other or bickering in a public toilet). Stephen Merchant's Caliban ('glorified truffle pig') is surprisingly subtle and Richard E. Grant has a few nice moments as nasty doctor Zander Rice. His reaction to Logan telling him he killed his father is just about perfect.

Around the middle of the second act there's an excellently tense sequence where Xavier has a brain degeneration in a hotel. I didn't breathe out until the needle went in. Some immense snail-pace slaughter here too. Nice and confronting.

There's a recurrent motif of Logan waking up. The first shot of the film is him waking up in the back seat of his work limo and I noticed about 3 or 4 more of these where he opens his eyes to a surprise or a new setting. I'm sure this isn't incidental - must have something to do with his impending death (he says at the end - "So this is what if feels like"). The adamantium bullet that he has designs on putting into his own brain kind of foreshadows that his number is up in this film, one way or another.

If there are any negatives, I'd say it got a bit baggy in the middle and the Shane reference is somewhat mug-handed, though poignant.

Oh, and it shares a lot with Mad Max 2 - dystopian landscapes, big vehicles kicking up dust, main character being lifted up a ridge in a makeshift winch.

Right, I reckon that's about all. As far as comic book films go, Logan must rank in the top five, not only for its complete bleakness and contrast to the regular comic film fare, but also because it stands up as a meditation on aging, immortality and hopelessness. And is a lot of fun too. Not many films can carry that off.

Tuesday 14 March 2017

T2 Trainspotting


My sister and I went to the Luna cinema in Leederville to see T2, about 21 years after seeing the first Trainspotting at the very same venue. A quick scan of the punters showed a similar demographic - middle aged, probably fans of the first. No surprises really. For me, Trainspotting is one of two films (along with Pulp Fiction) that epitomise the 1990s, so there was always going to be an audience. Danny Boyle, Andrew McDonald, John Hodge and the principal cast all return and there's a buzz seeing the characters again, in much the same way that people of my generation punched the air when Han Solo appeared in The Force Awakens.

T2 is funny and sad in equal measure (my sister thinks it's funnier than the first but I remember a few chuckles back then too). The 'reunion' scenes are mint - especially Renton and Begbie - and there are loads of Boyle-ish visual flourishes that show how good he can be when he's not making soap. There's one showstopper of a sequence where the lads go looking for some easy money and end up doing a bit of sectarian karaoke. Probably the edgiest moment in the film and also where it shows it's shared DNA with the first.

It's very well handled and it the filmmakers know exactly what they're doing. In fact, it's possibly a bit too clever - showing the flashbacks from the first film and having loads of visual and aural references (Renton starts Lust for Life on a record player but stops it almost immediately, he gets 'hit' by a car, looks into the windscreen and smiles, Diane (Kelly McDonald) tells him that a girl he's with is "too young for him", THE toilet, and so on).These are nice but they do push the film towards nostalgia porn. Sick Boy even says it when Renton tells him a visit to Tommy's grave (?) is a commemoration - "This is nostalgia. That's why you're here!" Could only have been clearer if he'd broken the 4th wall to deliver it.

To be honest, it has more of a story than the first. I've always thought Trainspotting was more a collection of superb vignettes than a narrative driven film. The subsequent T2 is built on the characters' attempts to reconcile with the past, face up to middle age and imminent death and, of course, get some tasty revenge. The only main character NOT to return from the first film tells Sick Boy and Renton (in Bulgarian) that they are in love with the past - and each other - and T2 itself sometimes echoes her sentiments.

Don't get me wrong, it's a ball-tearer, with excellent performances all round and crackling dialogue - Begbie's familiar greeting of "C'mere ye cunt, ye" is a peach and Renton's re-imagining of the 'Choose Life' speech is suitably gnarled and bitter. I'd gladly sit through this again, and probably will soon enough.

Wednesday 1 February 2017

Passengers


A mid-week trip to Busselton allowed us to leave the mini-humans with the ancient ones and take in Passengers at the Orana Cinema. And a few days later, I'm still not sure what I thought of this film. It's cheesy, certainly. It's also sweet. It's minimalist and also fairly bloody grandiose. It poses a couple of existential questions and also has a great big misogynistic hurdle to jump. I usually wince when I hear "You'll either love it or hate it", but I reckon I like and dislike Passengers in equal measure. It's kind of a Jekyll and Hyde film, actually, in that I enjoyed it while watching but then it's hideous alter ego crept up and dribbled hot spit down my back.

The sets up a pretty sweet poser - "Would you choose to 'wake' another human to share your isolation, even if you knew it would be condemning them to death?" I'm guessing most people would say they wouldn't......until they actually experience the situation. The film explores Pratt's dilemma reasonably well but I can't help thinking how it might have played out had Lawrence woken up first. Would she have made the same selfish decision? And would Pratt have handled the situation in the same manner? If any film is begging for a gender role swap, this is it.

There are many things to enjoy aside from the morals, though. The set design is great, the spaceship (left) looks phallic-ly magnificent (it's even used in the old fashioned coital 'train entering a tunnel' style) and the added tension of the ship breaking down is well-handled. There's also a great sequence where the gravity fails as Lawrence is swimming in a pool (below). That was pretty mint. But it's fair to say the film would have suffered if the 'passengers' weren't as shiny as Lawrence and Pratt. They almost make the central conceit work. Almost.


Apart from finding it hard to square Lawrence's ultimate decision, I was also a tad confused as to why Michael Sheen's android would spill the beans as he did, when he did. Another reason why I can't seem to decide whether Passengers is a flawed success or a successful flaw. I'd like to hear other folk's opinions. Cheers.

Wednesday 11 January 2017

Worst of 2016 - End of Year Report

Here we go with the dregs. Actually, that's a bit harsh. Some of these aren't as rubs as recent years.

1. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
A boring, muddled mess with too much going on and a typically over-egged, twitchy performance from Jesse Eisenberg. What a cock he is.

2. Grimsby (2016)
One giggle and lots of eye rolls. More expected from Sacha Baron Cohen. He can do, and has done, better.

3. Suicide Squad (2016)
Like many of the films in this list, it could have been better. Star power in Will Smith, sauce in Margot Robbie, interesting (though dated) concept. But it fell on its arse.

4. Dragon Blade (2015)
Bollocks nonsense from Jackie Chan, attempting to be earnest again. In its favour, it has Adrien Brody heavy-hamming through his make-up. To its detriment, it has John Cusack playing straight through his.

5. Man of Steel (2013)
Back of the net! That's a hat-trick for DC films. A hat-trick of shite. Admittedly, for me, this is slightly better than the two above but not by much. Henry Cavill could put me to sleep, even if he was miming massaging a dolphin with mayonnaise while dressed as Yoda.

6. Mesrine: Killer Instinct (2008)
Dull Vincent Cassel vehicle about a realy-lifey French crim. Formulaic and unnecessary.

7. Kill List (2011)
Odd having films by the same director in my best AND worst list, but hats off to the polarising oeuvre of Ben Wheatley. This was surprisingly lauded in some critical circles. Buggered if I know why.

8. The Legend of Tarzan (2016)
Another unnecessary and boring film. If the best thing to be said of a film is it had a great gnu stampede, you're clutching a bit.

9. Florence Foster Jenkins (2016)
Aside from a winning performance from Hugh Grant, this didn't have much going for it. It wasn't terrible, I just couldn't give a monkey's about any of the characters. Jog on, you rich bastards.

10. The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (2006)
Not all Japanese anime is good. Lesson learnt.

Sunday 8 January 2017

Best of 2016 - End of Year Report

Once again, time for the ten best films I saw, for the first time, in 2016. Not the best selection, to be fair, but I'm sure I missed some belters.

1. Slow West (2015)
As the title says, slow. But somehow, immensely watchable with some great images and memorable characters.

2. A Bigger Splash (2015)
Ralph Fiennes and Tilda Swinton are near-perfect in this. I haven't seen Fiennes give a better performance. This is an odd film that kept popping back into my mind months after I'd seen it.

3. Suburra (2015)
Glistening, strobing, throbbing. And that's only one scene. Italian mafia tale with added gloss and raunch.

4. High-Rise (2015)
Bonkers stab at social strata with Hiddleston in a role suited to his talents.

5. The Revenant (2015)
Gruelling and old-fashioned revenge western. Di Caprio earned his biscuits here.

6. Marshland (2014)
Spanish murder mystery set in the swamps of Andalucia.
A tense and well-paced little gem.

7. Arrival (2016)
Smart, thoughtful and well directed 'Time-Fi' by Denis Villeneuve.

8. The Nice Guys (2016)
Great fun. Nice to see the funny side of Crowe.

9. Doctor Strange (2016)
Just pipped it's bigger brother in the MCU. I think the cast in particular raise the Doctor just above the more crowd-pleasing effort below.

10. Captain America: Civil War (2016)
Marvel's tent-pole for 2016 was assured and exciting, setting up some tasty Infinity Wars in the future.