Year: 2011
Director: Joe Cornish
Screenplay: Joe Cornish
Starring: John Boyega, Jodie Whittaker, Nick Frost
Synopsis is here
Film Critics eh? Who'd be one? Constantly told that one cares about your opinion and yet the moment you say something out of joe six bloggs regular opinion, you're jumped on. Case in point: Robbie Collins one star review on Joe Cornish's Attack the block. The review considers the film as utter rubbish and that it's other hyped by PR, American bloggers and reviewers that should know better. Suddenly out of the woodwork come people who probably haven't seen the movie yet considering Collins as "the worst critic ever" etc. It's not Collin's best critique (in fact his facebook elaboration is far more interesting) however the abhorrent attack from twitter wankers complaining, most probably due to their blinded love for the Adam and Joe show is irritating*.
Such blinkered views have neatly avoided the fact that Collin has posed some points that should be looked at. The most probing for me is the idea that the film lacks likeable characters. Characters within Attack the Block would not look out of place in say Harry Brown, a film with notoriously 2-D gangland chav villians for middle England to revel in their bloodlust at when Michael Caine goes medieval on their asses. If ATB merely transported those same flat characters into a sci-fi flick and yelled "care for them now" then I could easily agree with Mr Collins.
However, Attack the Block is not that film and I disagree with Robbie quite a bit (yep, he's replied to a tweet once so clearly first name terms). Attack the Block is a down and dirty genre picture that I found consistently appealing and entertaining throughout. I loved the vibrancy and urgency, really got into the characters and the stakes and admired the style that Cornish placed into. The film comes off as a robust mixture of Goonies, Predator and Kidaulthood and despite the opening gambit appearing quite harsh (rooting for 5 hoods who mug an innocent nurse) the film displays more than enough footing to allow us to invest in these characters.
There are flaws within the film that did make me question the high prise that many have given it slightly. The dialogue honestly sounds scripted, some of the performances are a little raw, I chuckled a bit but not as much as I had hoped and some of the secondary characters really could have been bulked up. However Cornish manages to over ride these niggles with the difficult main relationship between Moses (John Boyega) and Sam (Jodie Whittaker) which hints at troubled upbringings and urban fears and more importantly keeps such aspects complicated. Interestingly the gangs dramatic change (mainly Moses) come from an attack on their own mortality that they clearly never had before. It's also more subtle than a more usual Holywood-equse "sudden realisation" that one would obtain from something like Avatar.
Serious talk about characters aside, the films enthusiasm shines through so much of the future. There's a neatly put together extended chase sequence, more than enough tension throughout (with some good jump scares) and a wonderfully large scope for a film set within one council estate block. The makers of Skyline for all it's CGI effects could learn a lot from Cornish's use of space. The film also has more than enough chucklesome moments to keep the energy high when we're not running from the aliens.
Performance wise Whittaker does really well with a character that isn't naturally sympathetic; robbery an all. John Boyega carries the film well despite it being clearly obvious that it is his first film, while I was quite fond of the character of Pest played by Alex Esmail. A low-key turn by Nick Frost is also welcoming as he seems to have stolen all the best lines.
Attack the Block is the kind of Brit B movie I hope to see more of. Full of moxie and more than enough style to go with it. It could have been funnier and it is a little rough around the edges, but that's not enough to distract from the fact that the film will be a Friday night fun flick for many cult nights in to come.
*Yeah, that's a generalisation, but no more so than the "worst critic ever" tags labelled on people because they like/dislike something that they did/didn't
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Review: Hanna
Year: 2011
Director: Joe Wright
Screenplay: Seth Lochhead, David Farr
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hollander
Where do I start? Where do I begin?* With my opinions on films like Knight and Day, Battle L.A, Sucker Punch, The Expendables...I wouldn't be surprised if people felt I'm adverse to most action films as a whole. I'm sure some of my regular visitors to my web site garble (yes, I'm surprised too) expect a certain amount of negativity from the guy who really enjoyed Archipelago....
However, after emerging from the darkness of my now new regular cinema (which I may add is very old) I do think it will be safe to say that for me that Joe Wright's Hanna may very well be one of the films I'll still be yammering on about at the end of the year.
I describe Hanna as a teenage female Bourne flick with a fairytale structure. I do not use the Bourne similarity lightly, as the films main story and Euro/Africa destination jumping give that same feel to the proceedings as the spy trilogy. The fairytale aspect is also a large part of the film, borrowing heavily from Snow White (hell even the first landscape is in white snow.). So much so that the characters that we see aren't so much symbols of the grim fairy tale...they are those people. Implanting fairy tale elements into modern day "real" (I use that term very loosely) features isn't anything new. However, for me it's the innocence that is infused into it's lead character that separates this from some of the other modern fairy tale imaginings. Yes she is carefully taught to be a killer, but when Hanna is removed from her closed off world and shoved into our one, she becomes a blank slate.
The way she is taken and once again remoulded is a profoundly liberating. The film's focus never wavers from this fact and constructs it's appeal from this. Yes, the film is fuelled with grandiose sequences (an amazing ship cargo bay scene I found particularly arresting) but the connection to Hanna, her coming of age, and her having to try and understand and navigate this alien world is the allure. The down time with Hanna meeting a family with a girl her own age is a telling one, highlighting that teenage disconnect that many feel while also adding to that the confusing nature of what she has been told by her father. The strikingly choreographed action almost happens to be an added bonus. Wright however doesn't skimp however with the all the action not only having a sense of place but coming off off the films more quiet moments. The set pieces pop off like springs and is extremely satisfying.
Wright's ace in the hole however, is the dazzlingly mature performance from Saoirse Ronan. It's true that I wasn't armoured with Ronan in The Lovely Bones but her display in this reminds me that that may have greatly due to the character and material rather than Ronan. She is magnificent here, balancing the strength and force of her character with the emotional fragility it deserves. Reviews have stated the similarities being Hanna and Kick-Ass' hit girl and it is true. However the affecting aspect of Ronan's performance tips the bar carrying a movie that is actually quite scant on plot details (it tells you enough to keep you enticed) and based more on her characters feelings. Wright has stated that he was inspired by David Lynch on the movie and constructing the movie this way really shows it, as does the brilliant sound design.
Which begins me to the thumping score given to us by the Chemical Brothers. Wright, The Brothers and the various sound designers build a stylish sonic landscape that ebbs and flows beautifully with the image (Alwin H. Kuchler's cinematography is so wonderfully crisp). This is a score that manages to do what Daft Punks Tron score: get me involved. The music of the film (often accompanied by in film sounds by items and character merging with with the music) does't distract, it excites, becoming an integral part of the films DNA.
This is why I enjoyed Hanna so much, because while the film isn't fresh or original from a story or thematic standpoint, the combination of Wrights clean, swift direction of the piece, the thumping techno sound scape and absorbing lead performance come off almost effortless. I haven't even got around to the efficiently creepy turns from Cate Blanchett and Tom Hollander who are both wonderfully sinister (loved how the well the two work in sometimes ghoulish visages in combination with Wright's well placed camera. There's also a neat stoic role for Eric Bana.**
Hanna was almost perfect for a movie goer like myself. It slips from action to drama without difficulty, it shrugs off it's unoriginality and sketchy plot with well drawn out themes, strong character and visual flair. The music is immediate and kept me in the moment and I adored the films quiet loud quiet rhythm. Hanna doesn't say much different, but it has the ability to be more articulate when it's shouting it's message from the hills.
*Yes it's a reference.
**Much as been said about the odd accents but considering the film is based within a fairytale world and structure...I really wouldn't worry about it.
Director: Joe Wright
Screenplay: Seth Lochhead, David Farr
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hollander
Where do I start? Where do I begin?* With my opinions on films like Knight and Day, Battle L.A, Sucker Punch, The Expendables...I wouldn't be surprised if people felt I'm adverse to most action films as a whole. I'm sure some of my regular visitors to my web site garble (yes, I'm surprised too) expect a certain amount of negativity from the guy who really enjoyed Archipelago....
However, after emerging from the darkness of my now new regular cinema (which I may add is very old) I do think it will be safe to say that for me that Joe Wright's Hanna may very well be one of the films I'll still be yammering on about at the end of the year.
I describe Hanna as a teenage female Bourne flick with a fairytale structure. I do not use the Bourne similarity lightly, as the films main story and Euro/Africa destination jumping give that same feel to the proceedings as the spy trilogy. The fairytale aspect is also a large part of the film, borrowing heavily from Snow White (hell even the first landscape is in white snow.). So much so that the characters that we see aren't so much symbols of the grim fairy tale...they are those people. Implanting fairy tale elements into modern day "real" (I use that term very loosely) features isn't anything new. However, for me it's the innocence that is infused into it's lead character that separates this from some of the other modern fairy tale imaginings. Yes she is carefully taught to be a killer, but when Hanna is removed from her closed off world and shoved into our one, she becomes a blank slate.
The way she is taken and once again remoulded is a profoundly liberating. The film's focus never wavers from this fact and constructs it's appeal from this. Yes, the film is fuelled with grandiose sequences (an amazing ship cargo bay scene I found particularly arresting) but the connection to Hanna, her coming of age, and her having to try and understand and navigate this alien world is the allure. The down time with Hanna meeting a family with a girl her own age is a telling one, highlighting that teenage disconnect that many feel while also adding to that the confusing nature of what she has been told by her father. The strikingly choreographed action almost happens to be an added bonus. Wright however doesn't skimp however with the all the action not only having a sense of place but coming off off the films more quiet moments. The set pieces pop off like springs and is extremely satisfying.
Wright's ace in the hole however, is the dazzlingly mature performance from Saoirse Ronan. It's true that I wasn't armoured with Ronan in The Lovely Bones but her display in this reminds me that that may have greatly due to the character and material rather than Ronan. She is magnificent here, balancing the strength and force of her character with the emotional fragility it deserves. Reviews have stated the similarities being Hanna and Kick-Ass' hit girl and it is true. However the affecting aspect of Ronan's performance tips the bar carrying a movie that is actually quite scant on plot details (it tells you enough to keep you enticed) and based more on her characters feelings. Wright has stated that he was inspired by David Lynch on the movie and constructing the movie this way really shows it, as does the brilliant sound design.
Which begins me to the thumping score given to us by the Chemical Brothers. Wright, The Brothers and the various sound designers build a stylish sonic landscape that ebbs and flows beautifully with the image (Alwin H. Kuchler's cinematography is so wonderfully crisp). This is a score that manages to do what Daft Punks Tron score: get me involved. The music of the film (often accompanied by in film sounds by items and character merging with with the music) does't distract, it excites, becoming an integral part of the films DNA.
This is why I enjoyed Hanna so much, because while the film isn't fresh or original from a story or thematic standpoint, the combination of Wrights clean, swift direction of the piece, the thumping techno sound scape and absorbing lead performance come off almost effortless. I haven't even got around to the efficiently creepy turns from Cate Blanchett and Tom Hollander who are both wonderfully sinister (loved how the well the two work in sometimes ghoulish visages in combination with Wright's well placed camera. There's also a neat stoic role for Eric Bana.**
Hanna was almost perfect for a movie goer like myself. It slips from action to drama without difficulty, it shrugs off it's unoriginality and sketchy plot with well drawn out themes, strong character and visual flair. The music is immediate and kept me in the moment and I adored the films quiet loud quiet rhythm. Hanna doesn't say much different, but it has the ability to be more articulate when it's shouting it's message from the hills.
*Yes it's a reference.
**Much as been said about the odd accents but considering the film is based within a fairytale world and structure...I really wouldn't worry about it.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Review: Thor
Year: 2011
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Screenplay: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne
Starring: Chris Hemworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgård, Idris Elba
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Screenplay: Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne
Starring: Chris Hemworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgård, Idris Elba
Thor is another Marvel comic book movie that lands us right back into the realm of The Avengers. How Thor, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and the rest of them are all going to fit into a coherent feature is still beyond me (worried about time constraints, a workable villain etc) however, as long as the Marvel output can still bring about singular features that are as mildly entertaining as this, then the future remains bright.
As someone who knows little about Thor comics, I found myself more than a little weary about how even this movie would come off. It’s quite clear that something like Thor may need an origin story to make sure that those who know nothing can enter in and be kept in the loop. It’s clear however in picking up a director like Kenneth Brannah that we are provided with an entry point that strikes enough balance for those in the know and those who know nothing. In fact, the opening of Thor displays the epic intentions that The Avengers film will need to strive for. The introduction of Asgard is a grandiose one that we would expect from the God of Thunder. This first act however spoils us, as it doesn’t reach such a height again.
It’s an awkward compromise as Thor has a good sense of humour which grounds everything, a study cast who all give enough to be entertaining (if not thin on character) and a father son relationship that provides more than enough backbone to rest a (stronger) plot. The problem is that when we explore Thor’s time on earth, everything feels scaled down a tad too much. All the time spent with Natalie Portman and friends is sweet but after a while glazes the eyes, while the rest of the film’s second act seems to do all it can to muddle the villainous intentions and keep the conflict and stakes almost to a bare minimum. Despite the first act’s action sequences suffering from the horrible hacky slash editing, that reminds us that this is a PG-13 movie, there was still a build of momentum that came with it. Even all the plot nonsense of different realms and intergalactic races with powers that put Sub Zero’s to shame was watchable, as it felt it was building to something. Unfortunately the weakest aspect of Thor is that from an action point of view it seems to decrease in risk and scope as opposed to the opposite.
Don’t attack me for being too negative yet, as Thor’s charm is what pulls it through the quagmire of a muddied screenplay. Chris Hemsworth is solid as the leading man here, giving Thor the charm, arrogance and swagger needed for such a role. Kat Dennings has little to do (there seems to be no point to her character) but provides the most humour. Anthony Hopkins’ Odin has Gravitas in spades, while Tom Hiddleson’s simmering villainy would have been even better if provided with a clearer arc in the script. Idriss Alba and Skarsgard also need more to do but are still formidable enough. The oddest aspect within the casting (apart from Thor’s four friends) is Natalie Portman, whose bright smile and spunk are nice to watch, but suffers slightly be being the cutest scientist in the world ever. Her youth and sex appeal feel slightly at odds with her character.
The most attractive element of the film (save Dennings and Portman) however is how all of Thor looks visually. The vision and cinematography put forth by Brannah and his DP Haris Zambarloukos; is not only epic in scale (mostly when we’re not on Earth) but are full of colour and canted angles that seem to have been missing from the mainstream movie scene for some time. I take my early masters of the universe jibe I shot at film back. The amount of times we’ve had to endure that orange/blue colour grading has been unfair and this boarder approach to the visuals make watching Thor so refreshing.
Thor is visually appealing, humorous and neatly grounded considering its subject matter. The Marvel cameos and nods are all present but shouldn’t suffocate like they did with some people in Iron Man 2. And despite its murky plot (minus the father/son subtext) and decrease in energy, Thor keeps the most important factor in its sights: Fun.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Review: Scream 4
Year: 2011
Director: Wes Craven
Screenplay: Kevin Williamson
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere
Synopsis is here
The problem with Scream 4 was always going to be relevance. Scream's popularity brought forth a slew of similar, self-aware, teeny-bopper slashers all with their own little "thing" to make them feel a little different. Do you remember Cherry Falls? I know what you did last summer? Urban Legends? I doubt those films or other would have seen the light of day if it weren't for Craven and Williamson. By the time the third instalment came around, the series felt more than a little stale. Scream 3 (2000) limped out in the same year as Scary Movie, which in itself was a spoof of a set of films that were of course, send ups themselves. Still it goes further. Scream defined horror films in such a way that even now nearly every mainstream horror film has a post-modern slant; be it retro chic or a remake, there is nearly always a wink or a nod to something else. In essence Scream not only borrowed from the genre, it became assimilated into the DNA itself, even Saw's "game playing" and torture sequences seem to be extended aspects of the deaths of Casey and her boyfriend Steve from that first (brilliant) opening moment.
With the horror film once again feeling like it may have to fall into a transition stage (when doesn't it) what can this forth film bring to the table? Unfortunately not as much as one would hope in this bloggers opinion. Scream 4 opens strongly with an opening ten minutes that once again placed me in the mood for slash happy fun and nearly finishes on a interestingly nihilistic note that reminds one of Craven's Last House days. However what we have in-between is a talkie middle that has none of the zing that made Scream what it was in the first place. Characters mention rules and hint about the state of horror films but the film doesn't bother to incorporate such aspects as well as it could. In an age of reboots and remakes, found footage and so called torture porn, Craven and Williamson refuse to let loose. In fact Scream 4 has such a by the book feel at times that I began to wonder if that was the largest irony.
Much of this is to do with the characters, the actors who played them and the story itself. The likes of Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Illard and Jamie Kennedy aren't the best thespians in the world, but their approach to the material was enough to keep you ticking over; as was Williamson's screenplay, which was crafty in its creation, wrapping a sad melodrama around a knowing wit and a tightly structured horror whodunit. Scream 4's hack, slash, next approach and overload of characters doesn't leave time to make these characters worth watching this time round. this leaves us stuck with a bunch of pretty uninteresting mix of red herrings and victims that really do feel like they're waiting for Ghostface than anything else.
An attempt to cover such cracks are covered with some genuinely brutal set pieces which do hit home as does some of the more meta moments. Meanwhile the films climax isn't perfect in it's execution, but the motive behind the murders is quite revealing in its cynicism and provide the most interesting commentary within the film.
The acting is a mixed bag with David Arquette and Hayden Panettiere being the most noteworthy. Arquette in particular feels more in sync with proceedings with a more understated performance than his earlier, goofier entries. Neve Campbell and Courney Cox have a pretty thankless task (the script also doesn't know what to do fully with the Gail Weathers character) while everyone else are pretty brutal to be honest (although the younger actors at least look high school age).
Craven's direction comes across as uneven and the material in that we get interesting plays on duality, unexpected daytime scares and a warmer look visually to proceedings. However, the lack of full on anger and energy within the films conversational middle is very noticeable. There's a world weary bagginess that is felt around certain aspects and Craven; a man who tries his best to only go back to the well when he has something to say, is let down by a script which feels pieced together from two different films.
Scream 4 does enough work for the hardcore fans to love it unbiasly, however it may come across as too pedestrian to those who think that Saw is the way forward and new fans may wonder what the fuss would be about. Scream 4 has more than enough kills for gore hounds, however, one may find self aware solace in dusting off the original feature.
Director: Wes Craven
Screenplay: Kevin Williamson
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere
Synopsis is here
The problem with Scream 4 was always going to be relevance. Scream's popularity brought forth a slew of similar, self-aware, teeny-bopper slashers all with their own little "thing" to make them feel a little different. Do you remember Cherry Falls? I know what you did last summer? Urban Legends? I doubt those films or other would have seen the light of day if it weren't for Craven and Williamson. By the time the third instalment came around, the series felt more than a little stale. Scream 3 (2000) limped out in the same year as Scary Movie, which in itself was a spoof of a set of films that were of course, send ups themselves. Still it goes further. Scream defined horror films in such a way that even now nearly every mainstream horror film has a post-modern slant; be it retro chic or a remake, there is nearly always a wink or a nod to something else. In essence Scream not only borrowed from the genre, it became assimilated into the DNA itself, even Saw's "game playing" and torture sequences seem to be extended aspects of the deaths of Casey and her boyfriend Steve from that first (brilliant) opening moment.
With the horror film once again feeling like it may have to fall into a transition stage (when doesn't it) what can this forth film bring to the table? Unfortunately not as much as one would hope in this bloggers opinion. Scream 4 opens strongly with an opening ten minutes that once again placed me in the mood for slash happy fun and nearly finishes on a interestingly nihilistic note that reminds one of Craven's Last House days. However what we have in-between is a talkie middle that has none of the zing that made Scream what it was in the first place. Characters mention rules and hint about the state of horror films but the film doesn't bother to incorporate such aspects as well as it could. In an age of reboots and remakes, found footage and so called torture porn, Craven and Williamson refuse to let loose. In fact Scream 4 has such a by the book feel at times that I began to wonder if that was the largest irony.
Much of this is to do with the characters, the actors who played them and the story itself. The likes of Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Illard and Jamie Kennedy aren't the best thespians in the world, but their approach to the material was enough to keep you ticking over; as was Williamson's screenplay, which was crafty in its creation, wrapping a sad melodrama around a knowing wit and a tightly structured horror whodunit. Scream 4's hack, slash, next approach and overload of characters doesn't leave time to make these characters worth watching this time round. this leaves us stuck with a bunch of pretty uninteresting mix of red herrings and victims that really do feel like they're waiting for Ghostface than anything else.
An attempt to cover such cracks are covered with some genuinely brutal set pieces which do hit home as does some of the more meta moments. Meanwhile the films climax isn't perfect in it's execution, but the motive behind the murders is quite revealing in its cynicism and provide the most interesting commentary within the film.
The acting is a mixed bag with David Arquette and Hayden Panettiere being the most noteworthy. Arquette in particular feels more in sync with proceedings with a more understated performance than his earlier, goofier entries. Neve Campbell and Courney Cox have a pretty thankless task (the script also doesn't know what to do fully with the Gail Weathers character) while everyone else are pretty brutal to be honest (although the younger actors at least look high school age).
Craven's direction comes across as uneven and the material in that we get interesting plays on duality, unexpected daytime scares and a warmer look visually to proceedings. However, the lack of full on anger and energy within the films conversational middle is very noticeable. There's a world weary bagginess that is felt around certain aspects and Craven; a man who tries his best to only go back to the well when he has something to say, is let down by a script which feels pieced together from two different films.
Scream 4 does enough work for the hardcore fans to love it unbiasly, however it may come across as too pedestrian to those who think that Saw is the way forward and new fans may wonder what the fuss would be about. Scream 4 has more than enough kills for gore hounds, however, one may find self aware solace in dusting off the original feature.
Saturday, 23 April 2011
Review: Your Highness
Year: 2011
Director: David Gordon Green
Screenplay: Danny McBride, Ben Best
Starring: Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel
Synopsis is here:
Your Highness is a frustrating piece of work as under different circumstances, it might have worked. I mean a spoof of 80's style fantasy features? Why the hell not? In a cinematic world where most spoofs nowadays usually end in the word "movie" and are terrible, it would be nice to sink ones teeth into a comedy that's a tad more substantial than cheap shots at pop culture. Unfortunately, as opposed to crappy celebrity references, the filmmakers have decided that shoehorning unneeded swearwords into the dialogue is the only way to go. So often are the fucks, shits and pisses; that the overall effect is ruined. There's nothing wrong with juvenile humour (see The Farrleys best work) but there's a distinct lack of imagination that ruins proceedings.
This isn't to say I didn't laugh at any point. Other reviewers have commented on the wasted talents of a very strong cast (Charles Dance, Toby Jones, Damien Lewis all show up), however, I had no problem with this as they are all cast well enough considering, and everyone involved is game for a laugh, the issue is of course the script misses constant opportunities. Think of all the possibilities that one could send up of the genre. There's so many absurdities that could have been touched upon that are frequently ignored. Shades of amusement rear their head in the shape of Franco's naive hero character being attractive to not only the princess' of the land, while some of the throw away lines bring the odd grin. However in observing the film's strong effects you suddenly become aware of how unaware the material is. It resorts to easy dick jokes but misses the chance to lampoon the dated effects of old? Shame that.
There's isn't too much to state about Your Highness other than it's a limited comedy that runs in similar circles to the likes of all the Seth Rogan/Will Farrell features that have reared their head. However, Your Highness lacks the wacky abstractness that made films like Anchorman so appealing. Part of this falls on the head of former indie arthouse darling David Gordon Green whose direction is very focused on McBride doling out F-bombs but not in bringing out decent sight gags or any real comedic energy. This lacklustre approach of proceedings makes Your Highness sporadically amusing but mostly anaemic.
Director: David Gordon Green
Screenplay: Danny McBride, Ben Best
Starring: Danny McBride, James Franco, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel
Synopsis is here:
Your Highness is a frustrating piece of work as under different circumstances, it might have worked. I mean a spoof of 80's style fantasy features? Why the hell not? In a cinematic world where most spoofs nowadays usually end in the word "movie" and are terrible, it would be nice to sink ones teeth into a comedy that's a tad more substantial than cheap shots at pop culture. Unfortunately, as opposed to crappy celebrity references, the filmmakers have decided that shoehorning unneeded swearwords into the dialogue is the only way to go. So often are the fucks, shits and pisses; that the overall effect is ruined. There's nothing wrong with juvenile humour (see The Farrleys best work) but there's a distinct lack of imagination that ruins proceedings.
This isn't to say I didn't laugh at any point. Other reviewers have commented on the wasted talents of a very strong cast (Charles Dance, Toby Jones, Damien Lewis all show up), however, I had no problem with this as they are all cast well enough considering, and everyone involved is game for a laugh, the issue is of course the script misses constant opportunities. Think of all the possibilities that one could send up of the genre. There's so many absurdities that could have been touched upon that are frequently ignored. Shades of amusement rear their head in the shape of Franco's naive hero character being attractive to not only the princess' of the land, while some of the throw away lines bring the odd grin. However in observing the film's strong effects you suddenly become aware of how unaware the material is. It resorts to easy dick jokes but misses the chance to lampoon the dated effects of old? Shame that.
There's isn't too much to state about Your Highness other than it's a limited comedy that runs in similar circles to the likes of all the Seth Rogan/Will Farrell features that have reared their head. However, Your Highness lacks the wacky abstractness that made films like Anchorman so appealing. Part of this falls on the head of former indie arthouse darling David Gordon Green whose direction is very focused on McBride doling out F-bombs but not in bringing out decent sight gags or any real comedic energy. This lacklustre approach of proceedings makes Your Highness sporadically amusing but mostly anaemic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)