Sofia Boutella – People Talking

Movie Review – ‘Atomic Blonde’ – “Sound and Fury…”

Directed by David Leitch
Written by Kurt Johnstad, based on the Oni Press graphic novel series “The Coldest City” written by Antony Johnston and illustrated by Sam Hart
Cast: Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, Eddie Marsan, John Goodman, Toby Jones, James Faulkner, Roland Møller, Sofia Boutella, Bill Skarsgård, Sam Hargrave, Til Schweiger, Daniel Bernhardt
Soundtrack: Tyler Bates

When I first saw the trailer for Atomic Blonde, I wasn’t buying it, but, as time went on, it grew on me, and eventually I realized there was quite a lot to be excited for.

Behind the camera, you’ve got the uncredited co-director of the original (and still superior) John Wick, and, based on the trailer for this film, it looks like he had enough sense to pull the lens back far enough to effectively capture the action (avoiding a Jason Bourne-type situation). You’ve got one of the screenwriters of 300, someone with an understanding of adapting stylized graphic novels to the big screen (also worth noting that Tyler Bates did the musical score for 300 and both John Wicks). And, you’ve got a highly respected cast of actors dedicating themselves to what appears to be a genre piece.

So, does it work?

Well…not really, no.

I’d very much compare my experience seeing Atomic Blonde to my experience seeing Carnage Park, in that it lost me, eventually won me over, then lost me again.

I should have absolutely loved this movie: period piece, Cold War, Berlin Wall, East and West Germany, spies, Charlize Theron throwing it down, little nods here and there to other films, but, overall, it just didn’t click.

First of all, almost the entirety of the narrative is framed within a debriefing/interview/interrogation, which just feels tired (a bit film school-y at this point, honestly), but the biggest problem is that the plot is so convoluted (and needlessly so, especially for a film of this type) that by the end I didn’t even care what happened, I was just glad it was over.

Frankly, I don’t think the movie quite knows what it is. At times it feels like it’s going for a John Wick-type vibe, but it’s not quite cool enough or emotional enough to make that work, and other times it feels like it wants to be a real-life clever spy movie, but it doesn’t have enough intelligence to make that work, so, ultimately it’s just stuck in the middle of the road.

As far as the performances go, I think everyone in the cast does okay with what they’re given; nobody strikes me as an albatross, but nobody really stands out either. Even Wonder Woman had at least one character that stuck with me, even if I didn’t particularly enjoy the movie.

In terms of what works, there’s one sequence in particular in this film that people are already talking about, and it is fairly impressive in its own right, but I hesitate to call it truly groundbreaking. Beyond that, I like a lot of the trappings (production design, costumes, period television clips, cool Eighties tunes), but there’s not much else for the film to hang its hat on.

In the end, I didn’t dislike Atomic Blonde enough to give it a failing grade, because there are some good bits, but not enough to justify a theatrical experience.

Ultimately, it feels like a rental (even matinee feels high).

I’m so sorry.

Rating: ★★½ (out of five)

P.S.
There’s no stinger, just in case you decide to not heed my advice.

Movie Review – ‘Star Trek Beyond’ – “Aye, well played.”

Directed by Justin Lin
Written by Simon Pegg & Doug Jung, based on the television series “Star Trek” created by Gene Roddenberry
Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Idris Elba, Sofia Boutella, Deep Roy, Greg Grunberg
Soundtrack: Michael Giacchino

If we’re all being honest here, the initial marketing for ‘Star Trek Beyond’ was, shall we say, worrisome.

Thankfully, someone was listening. and the marketing got better, unlike some other recent release in which every single last trailer was awful (hint: starts with a G). Even so, I didn’t exactly have high expectations for this movie going into it. All I really wanted was for the latest Star Trek installment to be better then the last one (NSFW), which was such a hot mess that even Skyline Chili would call it a hot mess.

Fortunately, I’m happy to report that ‘Star Trek Beyond’ is a fine picture, certainly better than its predecessor, and largely up to the standard of the original 2009 reboot. That’s not to say it’s perfect; frankly, it’s missing something I can’t quite put my finger on, but I’ll definitely watch it again in the future.

Firstly though, let’s talk about the negative. The biggest problem I have with this movie, shockingly, is the visuals. That’s not to say the effects aren’t what they should be; they’re more than adequate. No, I’m talking about the actual movement of the camera, particularly during action sequences. Oftentimes, it’s so close to the action that you can’t even make out what’s really happening (aka “Who’s punching who?”); while other times it is a reasonable distance away, but it’s still shaking so much that you just want to die. Honestly, I got more dizzy watching ‘Star Trek Beyond’ than I did watching ‘Hardcore Henry‘, a movie that takes place entirely in the first person. I mean, seriously, it’s been 40 years since the Steadicam entered the movie-making fray; why is Hollywood trying to kill us with this shaky-cam madness?

But, I digress.

By far the strongest aspect of ‘Beyond’ is the script (especially when compared to ‘Into Darkness’). I’d venture to say it’s the tightest script for a Star Trek movie in 25 years (although that motorcycle is still never properly explained). More importantly, however, is that of the three “new timeline” movies, ‘Star Trek Beyond’ unquestionably comes the closest to matching the tone of the original series, which, even as a casual fan of the franchise, is much appreciated. And yet, the movie has some of its own unique touches, which not everybody may like, but at least the movie’s not merely trying to hit you with as many recognizable Star Trek references as possible.

Other than that, the cast does what they’re there to do, and I actually liked Sofia Boutella as “Jaylah” in particular, although Idris Elba gets the Trooper Award for being buried under all that makeup and prostheses. Most importantly, I appreciated how the filmmakers handled the tributes to the late Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin; it’s literally a moment of silence within the end credits that says it all.

Is it the greatest movie of all time? No. Is it enough to cleanse your palate from the awfulness of ‘Into Darkness’? Yes, and that’s all it needs to be.

Rating: ★★★★☆

P.S.
Thanks again to Alamo Drafthouse and Mondo for the usual opening night accouterments and specials. The “Finagle’s Folly” cocktail was quite…green.

Who says you can’t like both?

Movie Review – ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ – Britannia’s Got Bollocks

Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Written by Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn, based on the comic book The Secret Service created by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons
Cast: Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Caine, Mark Strong, Mark Hamill (yes, THAT one), Sophie Cookson, Sofia Boutella, Jack Davenport, Geoff Bell, Ralph Ineson, Edward Holcroft, Jack Cutmore-Scott, Hanna Alström, Richard Brake, Corey Johnson, Samantha Womack, Tobi Bakare
Soundtrack: Henry Jackman & Matthew Margeson

When initially asked to describe Kingsman in only three words, I simply said, “Quite a cocktail.”

And it is.

And it’s delicious.

Kingsman is a wonderfully-balanced blend of the following spirits: every Eon–produced James Bond motion picture from 1965 to 1985; Men In Black; John Landis; Quentin Tarantino; Wright/Pegg/Frost; Attack the Block; and Harry Palmer.

The result is the most gleefully fun movie I’ve seen since this past summer’s Guardians of the Galaxy.

To put it into better context, 2012’s Skyfall, in addition to being “Bond 23”, was a celebration of fifty years of the James Bond franchise, and a fitting tribute it was; very cool, very classy, and very regal.

Kingsman is also largely a celebration of Bond, but more so of the more, shall we say, ‘B-movie’ elements; those guilty pleasures that serious critics might be afraid to admit they love, but, deep down, we as fans all do. Things like: a villain with some sort of impediment; a henchman with some sort of enhancement; massive underground lairs; unbelievable gadgets; and an outrageous, nefarious plot that puts the whole world in jeopardy; not to mention gunfights, car chases, and proper action.

At its core, Kingsman is a crowd-pleaser. It gives the people what they want, and does so with style and flair. I can almost guarantee I’ll go see it at least one more time in a theater. I know it was originally slated for a fall US release (as you can clearly see at the end of this trailer), but what I can’t figure out is why this wasn’t a summer release. I guess compared to all the remakes, sequels, and amusement park rides on the way, Kingsman is severely lacking in the “name recognition” department, but, then again, nobody had ever heard of Guardians of the Galaxy before, and look how that turned out; it only made three-quarters of a billion dollars worldwide.

Anyway, I hypothesized that Kingsman would be a welcome return to form for director Matthew Vaughn, after about a ten-year hiatus from the British-produced action films he cut his teeth on, and, boy, was I right. I mean, Kick-Ass is pretty good, and X-Men: First Class has its moments, but, on the whole, they’re not that great. Kingsman, at least from an entertainment perspective (I really need to revisit Layer Cake one of these days), is definitely Vaughn’s magnum opus to this point. His passion for his source material (both direct and indirect) is very apparent, and, much like a Wright/Pegg/Frost production, there’s no trace of parody here; this is a love letter.

Performance-wise, I don’t think there’s an albatross in the bunch. Colin Firth is his usual classy self as not-“James Bond”, but also most certainly gets special commendation for pulling off a very high percentage of his own stuntwork, which I can’t imagine he’s ever had to do for a film before; not to this degree, anyway. I mean, can you think of a signature Colin Firth stunt or fight sequence? I can’t, yet he pulls it off like a total pro here. Kudos to you, sir.

Besides that: newcomer Taron Egerton (God Bless the Welsh) gives a very natural performance as the street rat savant “Eggsy”; Michael Caine is his regal self as not-“M”; Mark Strong puts on his best Scottish brogue as not-“Q”; and Sam Jackson gives a delightfully playful performance as not-“Steve Jobs”. Or is it not-“Bill Gates”? I don’t even know anymore.

If I have one legitimate criticism of Kingsman, it’s that some of the action sequences are shot/edited a little too newfangled for my taste (although it’s admittedly better than the shaky-cam madness of Quantum of Solace), and some of the visual effects could have looked better, but that’s more of a nitpick. Given that this movie was produced on a budget one-third that of Skyfall, I’m not going to complain that much about such things.

So, if you like James Bond movies, or need a primer on why other people like James Bond movies, or if you just happen to be both an Anglophile and an action fan, then you should definitely go see Kingsman in your local movie house.

It’s fun. It’s frenetic. And it’s got balls.

You’ll love it.

Rating: ★★★★½

Oh, P.S.
There’s a stinger during the credits, but not afterwards.

You’re welcome.