Well-made, fun, but ultimately forgettable. It’s complete fan service so it depends on how much of a fan you are. I think it’s pretty hard to make a Star Wars film now that would be really memorable and would have a lot of re-watchability factor, save for a mood where this is just the kind of thing one needs. I thought Force Awakens was re-watchable, Rogue One and Last Jedi however, not so much.
The relationship between Han and Lando is actually well set-up and believable, for what it eventually becomes in Empire. One really gets the impression that they wouldn’t have seen or heard from each other at all between the time span in both films and their interaction when they meet up again on Bespin feels completely real.
Apparently, Donald Glover is a very well-known actor, but this is the only thing I remember seeing him in. I asked someone why he was famous and the answer was not convincing. I just missed the memo again. He does a really good job of keeping Billy Dee Williams’ speech and movement patterns as part of his performance, without it turning into a simple imitation. Unlike Alden Ehrenreich who makes the role his own, seemingly not trying too much to be like Harrison Ford. This is probably a good idea; the guy has charisma and is likable.
Emilia Clarke is very well-known but I haven’t seen her in anything in which she stood out, including this. Paul Bettany and Thandie Newton give the most memorable performances as far as I’m concerned, bringing something to characters that wouldn’t have been there with lesser actors.
The humor is much better-dosed than it was in Last Jedi, where I found it was often forced and intrusive. Once again, they have a comic-relief droid, L3-37, which was surprisingly engaging and a very well-written character.
I like the nod to the ”Han shot first” incident. Well-played.
There are also some things and characters that are set up to be further explored in future instalments that would have to be resolved before the events of the original trilogy. So if we never get some kind of sequel that would leave a dent in the series’ continuity.
I think it’s a bit unfortunate that it’s ultimately not bringing in the crowds all that much in the theatres, as it’s a perfectly well-constructed piece of mainstream entertainment that succeeds in doing exactly what it was meant to, and has good character moments.
The filmmaking alone is enough to keep one’s eyes and emotions glued to the images and sounds on display. I was viscerally reminded of Rosemary’s Baby pretty early into the film, whether justified or not, by the sheer feelings created from the camerawork and editing. There’s a sense of unease and weirdness, however subtle, that’s apparent from the very first moments that’s all due to the style created by Darren Aronofsky. Not like we’re used to seeing in more mainstream work. The camera follows Jennifer Lawrence in uncomfortable close-ups everywhere. The shots cut quickly but deliberately so, not in a familiar we-have-to-do-it-like-this for-the-modern-audience’s-short-attention-span-and-our-need-to keep-the-length-short that we are used to seeing in Studio films. Things start simple and straightforward enough as we meet our two main characters (played by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem in carefully conceived performances), whose existences becomes gradually corrupted by the arrival of the first visitor that shows up at their doorstep (played by Ed Harris).
This is just the beginning. It gets weird, weirder, and more and more uncomfortable.
Now I’m not a fan of surrealism. I never was. I gave up on David Lynch halfway through Mullholand Drive even though I really liked Lost Highway. This falls into that category so it’s not surprising that most people hated it, as that genre is not popular. Having said that, sometimes a film can give you something despite your pre-conceived expectations. The only other surrealist films I can think of that blew me away as much as this did are The Holy Mountain and El Topo by Alejandro Jodorowsky. Like those works, the religious subtexts are strong here, though they weren’t as apparent to me at first as they probably should have been. My original reading was more psychological than theological. The thing with surrealism is that I may not understand what I’m seeing but it might affect me on an emotional level.
There is a big chunk of the film where it becomes apparent that we are not meant to understand what is really happening, but hope that we will. In the end, I was not let down. Though my interpretation was my own, and somewhat vague, it was enough for me to be completely in awe by the end of the credits. I may not have understood what was happening or why exactly at a certain point but the emotional impact was undeniable. Once one realizes the Big Symbolism of a lot of the actions we see (especially during the second half) you either don’t accept what the filmmaker is doing or you marvel at his audacity. I sure did. And his undeniable mastery of the artistry of filmmaking and storytelling is a huge reason why.
I was never impressed by Jennifer Lawrence. Only because she’s been called one of the best actresses of her generation and I’ve never seen a performance of hers that was memorable. But this is where my opinion changes. Not only is this a great performance but along with Red Sparrow one has to admire her gutsy choices of late. Both films are uneasy, unsafe out-of-the-norm projects (Red Sparrow was surprisingly dark for a big-budget studio film aimed at a mainstream audience). Her character (who, like every other one in the film, is not named) is our guide and we are kept so close to her throughout that we begin to feel through her despite the lack of complete understanding of what is happening. It’s normal, as neither does she. This is a great decision from Aronofsky since we can only empathize with her (she is the subject of every single scene) we are meant to be as confused as she is. It’s to Lawrence’s credit that she makes us care for her and what she is going through throughout the escalating chaos, confusion and horror, which reaches incredible heights.
This is exhilarating filmmaking on all levels. From the first moments there is no respite or downtime. I was constantly in anticipation of what would happen next, questioning why, looking forward to the answers, marvelling at how strangely relatable Lawrence’s character was only through her performance and the camera’s closeness to it. At the end, I wanted to go back and go through every scene and character interaction with the knowledge of the final revelation. Undoubtedly, subsequent viewings will only reveal just how many layers were put into every detail of the story’s structure and its characters’ roles in it.
This may not be for everyone, but for those who appreciate singular vision in their films this is the kind of thing that rewards and excites. Mother! should be studied, written and spoken about for years to come.
Whoo seems like so long ago that we recorded this, our second stab at a group movie review of a classic Hong Kong action theater film. I’m pretty sure I got too high to be entertaining. Good luck with that! As you’ve probably guessed technical difficulties have prevented this week’s 9ES from being, as they say, fresh. Au suivant!
This 150 milestone passed unmentioned. No small commitment of time, when you consider the peripheral hours, editing, traveling, and post-show soaking in pharmaceuticals to ease the troubled mind. The Last Jedi is perhaps an accommodating cultural milestone, injecting a touch of gravitas to our otherwise whimsical conversational meanderings.
Why does The Last Jedi confer gravitas? It’s a dumb action movie about space wizards and laser swords. And we are into that. But this Disney production is a very special kind of parasite, performing the typical Hollywood-blockbuster maximum target audience wallet-suckle, but also carving the path that future films will take to the teat. All movies play this game, of course, the whole of Hollywood benefiting every time a blockbuster becomes a cultural icon, relevance by association. But movies that exist in a cinematic universe distill the whole of the Hollywood-self-propagandizing-circle-jerk into a microcosm. A volatile microcosm. The manner in which boardrooms of executives choose to navigate the conflicting seas of hardcore fandom, the Asian markets and the casual movie-goer are often more interesting than the film itself.
If you think too hard about it, it’s a disjointed collection of characters failing, with tenuous links between individual arcs and the collective narrative, cringe-worthy moralizing and CG horse-rabbits. Looked at under a microscope the cracks are canyons. But don’t! All of that is true, but it is also true that the Last Jedi does successfully capture some of the magic of Star Wars while pointing the way for something different. Rei has acquired some agency and becomes a real character. Finn walks no stereotypical roads. Kylo matures, earns some credibility and becomes a legitimate villain. Maybe Poe grows? Whatever. The characters have matured at the end of the film and I like all of them more than I did at the start of the film. It hurts that so much of the movie was so very stupid.
But the path to the teat. See, The Last Jedi breaks a lot of the rules in the Star Wars universe. Crazy flyboy schemes fail, daredevil missions to infiltrate the enemy base fail and make things worse, people sacrifice themselves for no reason, love doesn’t win. Maybe the rules are broken enough that future Star Warses won’t always be so similar. This would be the real victory of The Last Jedi. If there’s a Last Jedi then after that there can be something new.
I guess I’m a little optimistic for the next one. Not Han Solo though, that one is almost certainly going to be a disaster. Is Disney ballsy enough to straight cancel it?
The bed music during our advertising is an old loop by Dan of Steel!
This Giant Papier Mache Boulder is Actually Really Heavy asks the question:
What ever happened to the good old days of sci-fi — when spaceships were real models, monsters were made of latex, and laser guns were just curling irons painted silver?
And the answer is a fun romp through science-fiction, camp and b-movie films.
Or is it?
Here’s the synopsis from their site:
For three ordinary guys Tom, Jeffrey and Gavin, this just became a reality. One minute they were watching an old b-grade movie, the next they’ve been thrust inside the movie itself and at the helm of a rickety old spaceship. Panic ridden they stumble into a space battle. and make a mortal enemy of the evil Lord Froth while unwittingly saving the space princess Lady Emmanor. Then suddenly Jeffrey starts to change into a sci-fi character called Kasimir. They must adapt quickly if they are to survive long enough to find a way home. For all they know they could be next. If that happens they will be lost in this world forever. They embark on a quest to find a cure for Jeffrey and a way back home. This is an action-packed comedy adventure of giant lizards, space battles, robots, aliens, warlords and amazons that has to be seen to be believed.
All of this is true. This Giant Papier Mache Boulder is Actually Really Heavy delivers on its promise of a tongue-in-cheek look back at the drive-in campy classics and, on the surface, pokes fun at the tropes and delivers a resolution that fits in with the plot. The acting is not terrible, as the cast is asked to swing from the real-world to the over the top genre-speak of bad-sci-fi.
That being said, This Giant Papier Mache Boulder is Actually Really Heavy is a deeply flawed movie. I don’t mean the production values, as many of the sets, props and costumes are bad “on purpose”. (Though I would have cheered if someone from hair and makeup would have brushed Christian Nicolson’s hair out of his face.) The writing is flawed.
Spoilers ahead, as some plot points will need a deeper examination to explain my disdain for them.
Every woman in the film appears as a sexual conquest to be won or a reward for the male heroes’ development. Every single one.
It would have been one thing is this only happened inside the Oz-like world of Space Warriors in Space, the b-movie they’re sucked into. But this also happens to the women in the “real world”. They’re leered at on the convention floor. Both Gavin and Tom make comments about the cosplayers dressed as Amazons. Getting with Emma is the main plot for Tom, even if he is distracted by the actual Amazons who capture him and threaten him with either torture or pleasure.
It was gross and turned me on the protagonists, who act in this way without any ramifications or development, and the women in the film achieve nothing more than gifting themselves to the men once the guys achieve a certain level of confidence. Tom wins Emma! Yay.
There are also a series of gay jokes peppered through the movie. From an awkward fall where one guy lands on another guys’ back (lolz i guess?) to the entire character of Bruce, played by Jarred Tito, is a dated, inappropriate prancing fop whose over-exaggerated gay stereotypes are played for laughs and the result is cringy-er than it sounds.
As well, and this is admittedly a smaller deal, but for some reason this movie sees fit to mock sci-fi and genre fans at every chance it gets. Everyone at the convention is a poorly costumed mega-nerd lacking in any social skills. Jeffrey is treated as pitiable because of his fandom, and Gavin is deeply ashamed of his. Tom points out that he doesn’t care for sci-fi several times, and it is this character trait that of course makes him the hero of the piece, as on fans are affected by the mind-altering powers of the world they’re in.
Who is this movie for? People who want to win women, think gay guys are funny, and laugh at nerds?
I was into this movie when I was watching it, but once everything was over and the credits were rolling, I was left feeling like I’d eaten too much Burger King. Sure, it was okay going down, but now it’s just sitting there like lead.
It’s pretty rare to watch a movie where the sheer joy of those involved in making it drives the film forward, yet that joy is plainly evident when you watch Lowell Dean’s “Another Wolfcop”.
Following in the footsteps of Michael Herz and Lloyd Kaufman (Toxic Avenger), with a touch of Joe Dante (The Howling, Gremlins 2) thrown into the mix, Dean’s continuing saga of a drunk werewolf cop cashes in on charm and gore (sometimes charming gore) to hit it off with his audience. Officer Lou Garou (ben la) does have some problems remembering to read the Miranda rights. But he pretty much always gets his man, like some sort of murder-furry Dudley Do-Right.
Dean had this to say about revisiting the Wolfcop universe:
“My goal with this film (as with the first WolfCop) is to create a unique, immersive “comic book” world. Regardless of how absurd the material gets (and it gets quite absurd), I believe it is important to take a very serious approach to the storytelling.”
A few familiar faces do some good work here. Yannick Bisson (The Murdoch Mysteries and those Scotiabank commercials that were on Hockey Night in Canada for years) is good as the grease-slick villain. Cameos by Kevin Smith and Lawrence Gowan add some ham and cheese to this sammich, filling it out just right.
I don’t want to go too deep into the plot of the movie itself because giving anything away will take away from it. Besides, it’s a movie about a cop, who’s a wolf, and he fights evil. You’re either in or you aren’t at this point.
When you get a chance to watch Another Wolfcop, be sure to bring your friends with you, get a bunch of popcorn, and sneak some booze in. Like joyriding in a dune buggy, it’s a bumpy ride, but buckets of fun.
If you’re into movies, into film as an art, then Blade Runner 2049 is on your list.
It’s easy to understand why. The original, Ridley Scott’s 1982 neo-noir sci-fi masterpiece, has divided critics and audiences for decades. Upon release the film was considered a failure, derided for its Weinsteinian romance, impenetrable themes and bizarre ending. Blade Runner might have ended there. After a staggering 7 versions of the film, we can actually be sure that Blade Runner divides multiple genres of film into pre- and post-Blade Runner eras. The film is one of the true greats.
Meanwhile, Dennis Villeneuve directs Blade Runner 2049, the 35 years delayed sequel. He’s been a director to watch, not because of Arrival, which while stately and beautiful was kind of shallow and tedious, but because of Enemy. Enemy is a patient, haunting character study of two Jake Gyllenhaals and their relationships with woman, with themselves, and with the giant space spiders inhabiting Toronto. Am I kidding? The themes and tones translate perfectly into the Blade Runner scape. Villeneuve’s patience, attention to detail and interest in identity themes make him a perfect fit.
A half hour into Blade Runner 2049 I exhaled relief: they did not fuck this up. Not only that, Villeneuve has the confidence and audacity to do even better: 2049 isn’t a sequel to Blade Runner, it’s a sequel to an excision of the best parts of Blade Runner. He elevates the artistic intent of the original. I want to explain more, but to do so would be to reveal a crucial element of the plot which is best preserved mysterious. I’m ecstatic to write this. I want to go see it again, right now.
That said, the film will have a place in history as a work of art, rather than as a Hollywood blockbuster. This is a slow burn, high concept examination of what it means to be alive, what consciousness really means, how memories do and do not create our reality. The visuals are jaw-dropping. Get ready for long sensuous shots, soaking in the rain and ash of a post environmental megacity. Every inch of it rusting, dripping, decomposing, and crumbling to a score based on and transcending a Vangelis core. Get ready for even longer shots of Ryan Gosling’s face soaked in Refnesque oranges and blues. From start to finish the movie is a visual feast. The apes sitting next to me were squirming in their seats for the last 45 minutes of the film’s nearly 3 hour run time.
There are a few minor problems. An uncharacteristically ordinary performance by Robin Wright (was it the script? needs a rewatch), and Jared Leto’s bizarre character never really seems to find a conclusion. These are small and forgivable flaws in an otherwise incredible production. I do have one major complaint, which contains a spoiler, and I will place it below the next paragraph. Regardless, Gosling delivers intensity while remaining the tabula rasa needed for the character’s role. This is especially great because he’s in front of the camera for so very much of the movie. Harrison Ford’s reprise of Deckard actually builds on both the legacy and performance from the first film, his finest work in years; a compelling performance which does not rely on the stupid lovable scamp hat that he wore for much of his career.
Blade Runner 2049 is visually stunning, neo-noir dystopian sci-fi epic crafted with love by people with talent. Cinema isn’t just a vehicle for tits and ass and explosions and great movies are achievements of technology and talent and creativity and they can address the subconscious (and conscious!) fears of our society directly, and Blade Runner 2049 is one of those great movies. What a triumph. Final thought: the long rumored Dune remake is desperate for Villeneuve’s skilled hands.
Bless the Maker and His water, by His passage may the world be cleansed.
The one gripe (spoilers ahead): Gosling’s K is pursued/observed throughout the film by Sylvia Hoeks’ Luv. Their relationship builds carefully and in their final battle K is victorious. Why the fuck didn’t Luv get a “tears in rain” moment? It would have connected the films and tied the chases and given her character some much needed pathos. What the fuck man?
I sat down with my wife this past weekend for a good old popcorn movie night, and we charged up “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”. I don’t usually offer write-ups of big blockbusters, but it’s been a few days and this movie is still giving me complicated feels. As such, I’m going to try and hammer down a few of them on the keyboard.
The main talking point about this movie in the press has been its box office performance; with a budget of 175 million dollars, it only managed to scrape together 39 million domestic, adding another 107 million foreign, and lost nearly 30 million dollars for Warner Bros.
Those numbers make John Carter look like a smash hit.
Doubling down on that, the critics hated King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. It’s at 28% on Rotten Tomatoes, as critics were pretty savage in tearing it down.
No one liked it, no one went to see it, and it came and went this summer without much hoopla.
But I think I liked it, and I don’t really know why.
It stars Charlie Hunnam from “Sons of Anarchy” as King Arthur and Jude Law as the villainous Vortigern. The supporting cast includes Aiden “Littlefinger” Gillen, Djimon Hounsou, and Eric Bana. The casting is fine, though I can imagine studio executives all promising to never pour so much money into a film helmed by a cable TV star ever again.
It was directed by Guy Ritchie.
And this is where the movie, the box office, the critical response and my feelings all go sideways. “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is absolutely a Guy Ritchie movie. Above and beyond any other plot, theme, genre or experiment.
Nothing else that can be said about this movie can eclipse that fact. It’s not even fair to say that Ritchie’s fingerprints are all over it, as it seems as if he’s grabbed hold of the whole project like it was a wad of playdoh and just squeezed and squeezed until it squished through his fingers, leaving a gooey mould of his grasp behind.
Imagine if “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels”, “Snatch” or even “RocknRolla” were remade to include Excalibur. Hunnam’s Arthur could fit right in with Eddy, Turkish, and One-Two effortlessly with his plotting, scheming and cons.
The thing is, Ritchie has already moved past those smarmy underworld con-game movies with his Sherlock Holmes and even the under-appreciated “Man from U.N.C.L.E.” spy-hommage. King Arthur as a wise-cracking streetwise hustler is really strange, it’s really unexpected. Even the trailer doesn’t quite prepare the audience for this take on the true-born king. It is really quite odd.
So, yeah, but what I wanted to capture was the essence. So, the story, for me, has both an esoteric aspect and more conventional aspect. And if you can marry those two successfully, then you succeeded. So I like the idea that it’s a story about a man’s inner struggles with himself, and he starts off completely dependent and then ends up being completely independent.
…
There is a terrible danger, particularly in the Arthurian legend, of getting bogged down into too many famous characters – and we were liberated from that by just going ‘this is about a kid retaking his throne and he’s got to pull a sword out of a stone in the interim’. I mean, congestion is a big problem in narrative, right? And so, wherever you find congestion, find an efficient way of getting through it. So it just didn’t lend itself to time for a bit of romance. We were dealing with a bit of bromance here and there. But yeah, I think we’ll leave the romance to a latter, another incarnation.
But the movie is bogged down by narrative. There are all these characters introduced that muck up the screen, and Arthur spends most of the time playing Robin Hood rather than conquering England. They spend time with his streetrat friends, but don’t bother introducing Merlin, Lancelot or Guinevere. Mordred attacks King Uther at the start of the film, and Morgan le Fay is a non-entity as well.
Don’t forget that this movie clocks in at over 2 hours in length, so the idea that there isn’t time for these iconic characters is a strange one to justify.
Now, here’s the twist; I agree that this movie is a failure of a King Arthur movie, but it is a wonderfully weird and fun Guy Ritchie caper movie.
Once I was able to turn my expectations over, I realized that this isn’t a movie about a born-king rising to the occasion, freeing the sword from the stone and conquering a fractured nation. This was instead a movie about a street-wise grifter and his colourful gang of friends looking to stick it to the man, who then get in over their heads due to events beyond their control before beating the odds and coming out on top.
With magic swords.
Once I parsed it that way, I was on board. The movie made sense, and it was a fun silly romp that was half-action, half-parody, cruising by on the strength of some witty banter and some sly grifting. It became good.
Sort of the way you can look at a horror movie, and while knowing that it is not a finely crafted piece of cinema, but still appreciate it for succeeding in what it attempts to do, “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” works when put in the right context.
So I’m left tossing around the thoughts in my head:
“Can a movie that failed in its premise but succeeded in finding an identity be good?”
“Can a movie be accidentally good?”
“When a movie fails at everything it sets out to do, can it still be good?”
I don’t know.
I do know, however, that Aiden Gillen looks suspicious no matter what role he’s playing. Even if he’s a noble knight, I can’t shake the idea that he’s not one step away from pushing someone out the moon door.
With a week between me and the official end of the Fantasia International Film Festival it’s time to look back on the films that didn’t get a full review from me but that I enjoyed nonetheless… ↓ Read the rest of this entry…
Just 24 hours ago I was delighted to be at the Canadian Premiere of The Endless, the 3rd film from Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead who back in 2012 endeared themselves to us greatly with Resolution. Hype was at extraordinary levels for The Endless, and I am ecstatic to report that this film both builds upon and actually improves their earlier work. The Endless tells the story of two young UFO death cult survivors who struggle to retain their identities in the modern world and are brought back into the darkness of their past by a mysterious recording. The duo are forced to plumb Lovecraftian depths.
There was a point halfway through The Endless, where some built up tension was dissipated and I was forced to consider for the first time: what kind of movie is this? I was reminded of Resolution‘s schizophrenic nature: heartfelt and touching while self aware, with horror and human drama blended without losing their identities. In both these films Benson and Moorhead juggle genres. This movie weaves mostly successfully between character drama, psychological horror and then otherworldly horror in a way that mirrors and darkens Resolution. Astonishing, in a way.
This is heady stuff for a low budget backyard film, but by playing it straight and by taking the subject and the audience seriously they retain some gravity in what might have become comedic horror. High concept sci-fi/horror also tends towards an inherent danger of overexposition but this is mostly avoided. Ultimately it’s Lovecraftian in a modernized In The Mouth of Madness or maybe The Ring sort of way, part of a new wave of horror which merge technological and supernatural elements.
This is the magic sauce, the ambitious, earnest filmmaking that shows that low budget indie films can still be effective, thoughtful films. I’m thrilled for Benson and Moorhead and eager for what comes next. Catch Resolution first, if you can.
If you’re into movies, into film as an art, then Blade Runner 2049 is on your list.
