Sunday 29 October 2017

Going to the Pictures (V)


It’s pretty much November. In about 6 weeks I’ll have had my Cineworld card for a whole year. Apparently I get a replacement card in black, more discounts, and all the sales jazz. However, it’s becoming apparent that getting this card in the first place was one of the best decisions I’ve made in a long time.

But that’s a post for another day. What we want here is reviews, right? Plus a record of what I’ve seen and how I felt about it. So on with the show:

Blade Runner 2049 (28th September 2017)

Warning: this review contains SPOILERS.

Skip to the verdict if you don’t want to know.

I was really looking forward to this. Being a fan of the original (how many times have I used the ‘too bad she won’t live - but then again, who does?’ line on people?), and having rewatched it just the week before, I had hopes that we were in for something of the same. Well, SPOILERS, but yeah, it was pretty much the same - insomuch as Harrison Ford gets the girl and all the replicants die. Same-same. And it took 2.5 hours to get there. It felt like the film was 6 weeks long - and for the most part I felt it totally missed the point on why the film was there and went after other plot threads. For example, I thought the idea of the original, and hopefully this sequel (so glad it wasn’t a reboot) was that we were supposed to be exploring the difference between humans and replicants - what makes humans better, or superior? Why do some people believe that slavery of ‘lesser’ species is ok? Do replicants count as a species, and is that because they now come with implanted emotions to make them easier to handle? Do replicants just follow their programming or do they have limited free will, the same as humans? Does Ryan Gosling’s character, K, have a digital girlfriend in his pocket because he wants love, or because he thinks he should want love because it’s what a human might do and he thinks he should be emulating them? And why does he regard humans as something to emulate? Because he was programmed to, or because he likes any of them? And the girlfriend in the pocket - is she only following her programming doing what she was created for, or does she genuinely feel anything for him, a replicant? Is such a thing possible? The idea that replicants have somehow become the slaves of the human race, made by a completely unnecessary bordering-on-cameo by Jared Leto (who I swear is only hired these days to be weird on set and method-act his way through a few lines that would have been better-used coming from another character that we cared about), was disturbing - as anything is when the word ‘slave’ is used. But then the film veered off into a murder-mystery-cum-resistance flick while only paying lip-service (or camera-service) to the bigger themes, and the point of the movie. And it took its time. I mean, when we got to the point where Harrison Ford shared his feelings for cheese in what amounted to a conversation with absolutely no plot-steering or in fact use in the film, I sat there thinking ‘that’s all very nice, Deckard, but can we have a movie now?’. I could have watched 3 episodes of Star Trek (any Star Trek) in that time and had more metaphysical questions or head-scratchers posed to make me wonder. It was beautifully shot, excellently put together; the CGI department, the wardrobe, make-up, physical effects and all other people involved behind the scenes should all get Oscars. I’m not joking. It was atmospheric and wonderfully executed. Only the plot and the floundering, swimming-through-treacle timing of it all let it down for me. That, and the blatant disregard for why we’re here in the first place.

Verdict: 5/10. And those 5 are for the effects and the effort everyone put into it.

The Death of Stalin (12th October 2017)

I cannot remember the last time I laughed so much in a movie theatre (after things like Kingsman movies). This reconstruction of the power struggle that must have occurred after the actual death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 was hilarious, insightful, and downright slapstick minus the pratfalls. A mixture of English, American and Russian actors with complete disregard of accents or acting styles brought so many belly-laughs from the audience that there were moments when we missed the next line, so loud was the enjoyment. Michael Palin, Steve Buscemi, Jason Isaacs (HILARIOUS), Jeffrey Tambor, Paddy Considine - effortless fun and a brilliant way to bring a version of history to life. And if the English actors play the pawns, the Americans the back-stabbing politicians and the Russians ‘the people’, then who’s to read into that? It was so much fun I cannot wait for the blu ray.

Verdict: 9.5/10; would recommend to anyone who enjoys comedy, history, a fun night in/out, wordplay, witty dialogue, or just plain unashamed entertainment.

The Lego Ninjago Movie (19th October 2017)

A kids’ film, yes. However, it also had quote a few references to keep older people happy. Not as much fun as The Lego Batman Movie, this was however enough to keep up giggling all the way through. Jackie Chan is excellent as Master Wu, and while some of the film was predictable, we do have to remember the target audience.

Verdict: 7.5/10; would recommend as a Sunday afternoon movie or to anyone under 9.

Thor: Ragnarok (24th October 2017)

Fun, bright, colourful, cheerful, hopeful, and a sense of humour a mile wide. It feels completely disposable, except that the ramifications of what went down in the end will, I suspect, have a big impact on what happens next in the Marvel cinematic universe. The only thing that bugged me was that, at times, it felt like Thor was a little out of character; a few too many Earth-isms, maybe, a few too many quips and very Earthlike idioms. However, Jeff Goldblum was Jeff Goldblum awesome as always, and the unexpected characters were a delight. A perfect antidote to more serious (and more soul-destroyingly meaningful and dreary, distopian bollocks.

Verdict: 9/10. How much fun can you have at Marvel’s expense?

Geostorm (26th October 2017)

Full disclosure: we saw the trailer for this before another film and went ‘that looks so shit! We have to watch it!. It truly appears to be a Syfy Original Movie in the vein of Piranhaconda, Two-Headed Shark Attack, or Zombeavers. Unfortunately, it has nothing of the self-deprecating tongue-in-cheek humour, and doesn’t seem to realise it’s not supposed to be a real movie. I would only recommend this film if there’s a drinking game to go with it, centred around manly man having manly male emotions (such as Emo Tears of Unshed Man Pain), wasting time with manly emotional dialogue, and saving the ‘golden retriever’ of the movie when he was clearly slated to die. The only saving grace(s) was the Secret Service agent who was almost comically badass, and the bafflingly always-in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time women in charge of the International Space Station. Finally, will someone explain to me why people keep taking projectile weapons such as GUNS onto a pressurised space station?

Verdict: 4/10. I think that’s a new low.

That’ll do me a for a bit. We have more to come, believe me.

Soopytwist.

No comments: