Toy Story 4
The ‘original trilogy’ told the story of the toys lives with Andy and seemed like a complete story, that had us saying goodbye to all the characters moving on to the next stages in their lives. When a fourth film was announced it seemed unnecessary. The trilogy was near perfect, it didn’t need more, and I was worried it would be an unnecessary blight on perfection. I’m not sure whether it was or not.
On one hand, it is a wonderful film. It has great new characters (although that did turn many of the ‘old’ characters into borderline cameos), creative ideas, a solid story, lots of laughs, plenty of action and a huge amount of heart. It looks absolutely stunning with Pixar continuing to push the boundaries of the the technology (the textures, the rain, the lighting), but also designing shots that have the sort of directorial artistry of framing, composition and lighting that any live action director would be seeking.
On the other hand, I wish I’d never seen it. The third film ended on the closing of on chapter of the toys’ lives and the opening of a new chapter. This film shows that it’s not quite that simple, and Woody is put in a situation where he has to chose what he wants to do. It’s tough to explain without spoiling it, but I did not like the choice that was engineered and the option that was taken. I hated it. I just about held off the full on heaving crying in the cinema, but even a week on, just thinking about it leaves me quietly devastated. While Toy Story 3 made me cry as well, I was left with an overall sense of happiness, Toy Story 4 left me very sad. So, an excellent film, that I don’t want to think about any more and I think may mean I can never watch any of the films again.
Emma Thompson as an acerbic late night talk show host is everything I could have hoped for. She is biting and cruel with just enough humanity hidden under the surface to make her likable. Mindy Kaling is the perfect opposite – positive and hopeful with a layer of grit hiding underneath to make her not a simpering push over. The film touches on some very interesting ideas about how to appeal to the masses without undermining your principles, and what discrimination and inclusion look like now. But I think it slightly shied away from those issues before really getting to the crux of them. The film is hugely entertaining, but I found myself a little irritated that it didn’t take some of it didn’t push the issues as far as it could and tied everything up with a nice bow at the end.
New to me
Free Solo: This is one of those classic documentaries that looks like it is about one thing, but is in fact a character study of the person that is doing the thing. The thing in question is the absolutely bonkers idea of climbing nearly 3000ft of cliff face without the aid of any equipment or safety ropes – you fall you die. The film is beautifully shot to really give you a sense of the scale and the difficulty of this challenge and it’s not one for those suffering from vertigo. But, all the way through the film, the real focus is on Alex Honnold as he prepares physically and mentally. Honnold is very good company – introspective, warm and open. I can simultaneously completely relate to him, while also not understanding how he could chose to do the things he does. The people surrounding him (including the film crew) who share fly on the wall scenes and short interviews grounds both Honnold and the film as a whole, showing how ‘normal’ people react to the extreme elements of Honnold’s activities. I was completely gripped throughout the film, blown away by the Honnold’s phenomenal physical and mental achievement and grateful to have been given this insight into an incredible experience and person.
The Beguiled: A film that makes me want to read the original book, because the concepts are so fascinating, but sadly the delivery of them in the film is underwhelming. The twists and complexities of the characters were undermined by a collection of alternately bland and over the top characters, and a script that lurched from ambiguous to overly pointed every few minutes. The whole thing felt quite muddled in tone with most of it trying to be subtle and understated, but occasional characters or scenes trampling through. To add insult to injury, I didn’t get on with the directorial style either, too much of it was in shadows and darkness to hold my attention.
Charade: A really twisting ride where I was pretty unsure at which direction anything was going and who was really on which side. I did spot the ending a fair way off, but there were still plenty of smaller mysteries along the way. Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn are both wonderful to watch and their bantering chemistry is lovely and almost enough to overcome the discomfort of the 25 year old age gap, but sadly not quite.
American Animals: There’s a couple of strong ideas at the heart of this film, but I don’t think it quite managed to deliver on either of them. The film is based on a true story of a group of college students who decide to pull a heist, based mostly on their knowledge from film and TV. The story is more than sufficient to carry the film along, it starts as a lot of fun but grows darker in a very satisfying way. The story telling is augmented by pieces to camera by the real people, and touches upon the fact that different people remember, or tell events differently, which is a really interesting idea but I don’t think it quite lands fully. The pieces to camera interrupted the flow and didn’t quite align with the tone of the film, making the fun bits suddenly serious, and the darker bits more irreverent. Not enough was really made of the potential for different versions of the truth, at first it was treated more for laughs and quirkiness and then it was suddenly thrown in towards the end as a serious point that kind of undermined a lot that had gone before. I did enjoy the film, and it’s worth certainly worth watching, but I think there might have been something truly outstanding possible that didn’t quite stick the landing which left me frustrated.
RBG: It’s quite hard sometimes to separate the subject of a documentary from the quality of the documentary, and this is one of those cases. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an absolute legend, one of the few people that can genuinely be said to have changed the world within her own lifetime. She has fought her whole life for civil rights, battling from within the system that is restricting her, to make it better for herself, those that are victims of discrimination, and for the whole country. She fights not just because it’s not fair, but because the outcome is better for everyone. The story of her life (and those around her, most notably her husband) is a true inspiration. The documentary itself is fairly unremarkable, it’s played completely straight with little embellishment or style, but when the subject stands for itself so strongly, it doesn’t need anything more. I should probably complain a bit about the fact there is minimal attempt to criticise Justice Ginsburg or show any other point of view, but I don’t really want to see that, so I’m happy to just celebrate her amazing life.
Beast: Wow. This is the kind of film best served by a vague review, because the film is best watched if you know little about it. It’s a film that you should fall into, getting sucked into the characters and story as it gradually builds and adds layers and layers of complexity. I didn’t know what the film was going to do and every time I thought I knew where it was heading, it did something a lot more interesting. The performances are very carefully measured to make sure the nuance and uncertainty is embedded rather than deceiving. Just go and watch it.
The Program: The level of systematic cheating and bullying present in cycling in the early 2000’s was truly mindblowing. This dramatisation of that period, focusing on Lance Armstrong’s rise and fall, shows a level of corruptness, bullying and self-denial that is really quite scary. The way that all the people involved justified themselves is well presented, with Chris O’Dowd a charismatic counter voice passionate about the sport that he sees as being destroyed. Ben Foster portrays Armstrong as a complexly ambitious person, the film doesn’t present him as a simple villain, but also doesn’t excuse that he lied and made choices for himself and others that he knew were wrong. The drama is occasionally a little forced, some plot lines should have been either dropped or more developed, and I struggled to keep track of characters sometimes. But overall, a really well put together drama that entertains, engages and informs.
Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Wow, apparently I have never seen Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. I’m really not sure how I’ve managed that. Surprisingly after leaving it so long, I was still actually quite impressed with the film. It’s a lot of fun to watch, and has dated surprisingly well. I think that’s down to two factors – the first is that there’s a strong fantasy element to it anyway, the level of complexity of the capers are far from logical anyway, so it’s obviously pointless to challenge the realism of it. The second is that the emotions of the characters are pretty universal – independent of decade or even age of the audience. My only frustration was that while Matthew Broderick was a star turn, the supporting characters got slightly short shrift, with Mia Sara’s Sloane getting little to work with and Alan Ruck’s Cameron clearly having huge potential that felt unresolved.
The Craft: I watched this on the same day as Ferris Beuller’s day off, having somehow missed both films. While Ferris Beuller was a surprisingly entertaining watch with some impressively timeless, the same cannot be said for The Craft. I just found it rather naff and cheesy, the cast lacked spark, the ideas felt weary and it dragged. I didn’t think it was terrible or anything, but it just sort of trudged through without feeling like it really added anything beyond checking tropes previously delivered by things like Heathers, and updating the soundtrack.
Bright Young Things: I spent the whole of this film going “oh it’s so-and-so” as a parade of actors I like passed by the screen without ever actually managing to engage me. Maybe it’s because, weirdly, the only actor I didn’t recognise was the lead character who was completely bland other than his ability to make stupid decisions. Maybe it’s because there’s very little in the way of plot. Maybe it’s because it’s hard to feel connection, let alone sympathy, for willfully ignorant rich people. Or maybe it’s just not very good.
The Mummy: What a load of rubbish. I’m completely bored by Tom Cruise action hero, there’s not much in the way of acting going on, just the same ‘character’ over and over again and while his commitment for stunts is impressive, I don’t find him charming enough to want to watch him. Some films manage to work around this by providing engaging supporting characters to provide interest (Simon Pegg in Mission Impossible for example) but sadly no one in The Mummy manages that. The plot is dumb, the supporting characters bland, and even the action sequences are flat and unremarkable. So all there really seems to be to the film is Tom Cruise, and that’s really just not enough.
Crooked House: A thoroughly hammy Agatha Christie that’s solid entertaining for a dreary afternoon. The majority of the cast are familiar faces taking the chance to be over the top, and sensibly balanced out by a fairly straight performance from the lead investigator. Being a Christie, the nuts and bolts of the mystery are solid, with enough red herrings and twists to keep the plot moving along. The resolution is one of the darker ones, which is maybe a little disjointed from the overall tone, but overall I enjoyed myself almost as much as the cast seemed to.
To Catch a Thief: Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock, should be a no brainer success, but sadly it’s dull, artificial and flat. The director seems more in love with the scenery than the plot; there’s little creativity to the style and there are some rookie mistakes like bad dubbing. Cary Grant’s usual charm is sadly muted and the 25 year age gap between the romantic leads doesn’t help. Really disappointing.
Despicable Me: The film that spawned a thousand merchandising opportunities! My house is full of minions and they just never fail to make me smile. They are beautifully introduced and utilised with a combination of slapstick and silly noises/words being laugh out loud funny. Although the minions are the standout stars, the film itself is very well put together, with a sweet and engaging plot that holds up to multiple viewings.
Despicable Me 2: The producers of Despicable Me clearly learnt from the first film that while the story was enjoyable enough, what audiences went absolutely nuts about were the little yellow minions, so they take a much larger role in the film too. And it really works. I love those little guys. As soon as they appear I laugh and I hardly stop for breath. The rest of the film is perfectly servicable, and by itself would have been entertaining enough, but whenever you go more than five minutes without a minion, it feels like an eternity.
Despicable Me 3: Not enough minions. I know the point of the Despicable Me films isn’t the minions, but I can’t be the only one that’s mostly watching these films for the minions. I mean the other characters are ok (the little girls are pretty funny and Agnes is really pretty adorable), and the plot is just about ok but I did find myself constantly hunting the backgrounds for minions and generally didn’t find them.
Sense and Sensibility: I’m not a big fan of these sorts of period romances as I tend to find the characters rather soppy and tiresome, but Sense and Sensibility brings just enough spunk to make them tolerable. The wit in the writing and performances brings life to some familiar tropes and I even found myself engaged in the twists and turns of the relationships, unsure where they would actually end up. While the cast is all superb, I’m not sure that they actually work together as some of the ages didn’t seem to match and left some relationships that I wanted to root for, a little unsettling.