Paddington 2

(Warning: contains spoilers for Paddington 2)

I'll be honest, I didn't intend to go and see this.  A friend recommended it and I promised to go and see it before we next met up, so it was a sense of duty more than anything else that made me go.  I don't know why this was the case - Paddington (2014) was a great film and I really enjoyed it.  I guess I was excited to get on with the "Oscars films", and also keen not to be disappointed by a rubbish sequel trying to capitalise on the success of the first film.

Does marmalade count as one of your 5 a day?

Well, what a surprise.  Paddington 2 is that rare gem - a sequel that is better than the original.  Written by Paul King and Simon Farnaby (whose previous works include The Mighty Boosh and Bunny and the Bull) it doesn't seem like a natural progression for either to be working in the family friendly genre.  Paul King directed and co-wrote the first film so there is some link, but Simon Farnaby's only film-writing credit (as far as I can tell) is Mindhorn.  But here we are.

The film opens with the story of how Paddington came to be in the care of Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton) and Uncle Pastuzo (Michael Gambon), and cuts to his life with the Browns in London.  Paddington is now an integral part of the community, and is trying to save up enough money to get a pop-up book of London for Aunt Lucy's 100th birthday.  When the book is stolen, Paddington is wrongfully convicted and jailed for the theft.  Mar-maladies ensue.

Hardened criminal gang

Where Paddington had provided an allegory for the benefits that immigrants can provide to their communities, Paddington 2 expounds on this a little but also just goes all out to emphasise how one little person doing lots of little kind things can change and shape a community for the better.  From helping a friend study for a test, to cleaning someone's windows to let the sunshine in, Paddington throws positivity in the world with no ulterior motives other than helping people be happy.  On a slightly different bent, however, it also has a surprising amount to say about prison reform.  Who knew?

Ben Wishaw returns to voice the eponymous bear, and is rejoined by the cast from the original film.  As well as Imelda Staunton and Michael Gambon, there is also a plethora of British actors lining up for bit parts - Richard Ayeoade, Meera Syal, Peter Capaldi, Ben Miller, Jessica Hynes (amongst others) all pop up momentarily, but their cameos are warmly and richly written and a lot is quickly derived from very brief scenes.  Brendan Gleeson is also in surprisingly family friendly territory as Knuckles McGinty, the hardened criminal in charge of the kitchens who becomes Paddington's boss.  However, the absolute scene stealer is Hugh Grant as Phoenix Buchanan - a faded "luvvy" actor who is now famous for dog food adverts.  Grant chews up all the scenery possible as he talks to the mannequins wearing his old costumes (I'm sure I didn't catch all the film references - that's one for the film buffs), devises dastardly schemes, and dons disguises to achieve his goals (He makes a surprisingly good nun).

You see?

The film looks beautiful.  It's set in modern-day London, but there is a timelessness to that London.  There are an absence of mobile phones and computers.  The pop-up book that the plot hangs off is a nice nod to the artwork from the 1989 Paddington TV series.

This book is beautiful

But for me, one of the reasons that the film works so well is because it is so tightly plotted.  Every joke is well seeded in advance.  From Mr Brown's newfound interest in yoga, to Mrs Bird's fury that Phoenix never remembers her name, each payoff lands brilliantly because of its set up.  None of the jokes feel forced or laboured.  I can't remember the film I last laughed as much at.  It also means that the emotional beats pack more of a punch, because the audience knows exactly what is at stake.  This film is pretty much pawfect (groan).  Watch it, and then watch it again.

And remember that kindness is what makes the world a little more bear-able (last one, I'm done, I promise).

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• I wasn't entirely convinced by Jonathan Brown's attempts to hide his love of steam trains in an attempt to be cool.  That seemed a little weak and too easily thrown away.
  
• Sadly, Michael Bond - creator of Paddington - died on the day that principal photography on the film finished.  Sharp eyes will have spotted him in the first Paddington film.  Paddington 2 is dedicated to him.
  
• Stay for the post-credit scenes.  It's worth it.

The Hitman's Bodyguard

(Warning: contains spoilers for The Hitman's Bodyguard)

There are actors that, when you see their names pop up on a movie poster, you know there's a good chance it will be a good film.  For my money those names include Jennifer Lawrence, Matt Damon, Emma Thompson, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, John Goodman.  The opposite is also true.  Few people see Adam Sandler's name on the poster and believe the film will be ace. 

Samuel L Jackson is a 50/50 gamble.  For every Pulp Fiction, there is a The Return of Superfly.  For every A Time to Kill there is a Kite.  Ryan Reynolds has a similar issue, although he's currently riding the Deadpool high.  But with Gary Oldman in the mix (and who doesn't love Gary Oldman) and a very enjoyable trailer, I reckoned this was worth checking out.  So maybe I shouldn't have been surprised that this film was bang in the middle - it's not great, but neither is it terrible.

The plot is basically thus: Ryan Reynolds plays Michael Bryce, a top of the line bodyguard who provides protection for the great and the good until his client is assassinated at close range in front of him, and he is disgraced in the profession.  This leaves Samuel L Jackson as the hitman of the title (Darius Kincaid) - he can testify against Belarusian dictator Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman) at The Hague.  It becomes Bryce's mission (for various reasons) to protect Kincaid, and get him to The Hague on time.  Hijinks ensue.


The Hitman's Bodyguard - a buddy movie

At heart, the film is an action buddy-movie: two unlikely people thrown together in unusual circumstances, who initially don't get on with each other and eventually work towards a grudging respect.  It's a plotline that generally works well - think Midnight Run, Lethal Weapon, Hot Fuzz, Turner and Hooch.  This film, unfortunately, does not make that list.


Not that kind of buddy movie

It's not without its merits. Reynolds and Jackson are fun together, and the film gets a lot of goodwill from the sparring of the two title actors.  I enjoyed their sing off as they tried to persuade the other of their philosophy of life.  And I particularly liked their retellings of how they met the loves of their lives (in both cases, the women being involved in a particularly slow-motion, violent encounter, while the men watched and power ballads played).  Their one-upmanship of each other makes for a few laughs as well.

But. 

Tonally, it's all over the place.  A little background digging reveals that the script was originally a drama written by Tom O'Connor (whose only other writing credit is for Fire With Fire).  It languished in 2011's black list for a while, before being acquired by Skydance Media and hurriedly being rewritten as a comedy over a two week period.  That really shows.  The film cuts from light-hearted banter to scenes of a man's wife and child being brutally murdered in front of him.  It cuts from quips to scenes of mass executions and unmarked graves.  The tone flipflops so quickly it's like some form of whiplash.  That's not to say films can't switch from serious to funny - Kingsman: The Secret Service, for example, did it admirably well.  I can't quite place why it doesn't work here, but does in Kingsman (and I would love to hear some theories to explain it).
Weirdly, some of the best scriptwriting comes in the emotional beats between Kincaid and discussions of his wife Sonia (Salma Hayek), and his relationship advice to Bryce about his ex, Amelia (Élodie Yung), which again feels very out of place amongst all the action.

The actions sequences aren't as slick as they should be - it feels like there's too many hands at work writing the actions sequences, so they don't know whether to be played for laughs or thrills.  That in itself is odd, because the director is Patrick Hughes who directed The Expendables.

Not that kind of buddy movie either

The performances, while fun, were very phoned in.  Jackson puts in his trademark louche act, Reynolds reprises Deadpool, Hayek is her standard not-to-be-messed-with Latina hellcat, Oldman is a non-descript mid-European bad-guy who seems to have no real rationale other than "just because".

There seemed to be nods to a lot of other buddy films (at one point, the main theme from Midnight Run just plays over the top of the action), and there's a sequence that seems directly pulled from the Bodyguard, so maybe part of the issue is that the film is looking around so much for inspiration that it forgets to get an idea of it's own.

Most damning of all was that I thought all this while watching the film.  I was in no way drawn in by the narrative, and it's never a good sign if you find yourself working out the reasons why a film isn't very good while watching that film.  It's a real shame - a little more time and effort from everyone involved could have made something good.  This isn't it.

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:
1.  Pleasingly, violence seems to mean something in this film - if you get shot, it appears to realistically hurt.  No brushing injuries off as a flesh wound.  Except in the case of Samuel L Jackson who gets shot in the leg, pulls the bullet out himself, and continues to repeatedly run and jump on the same leg.  But occasionally remembers to limp.  Sometimes on a different leg.  It's very distracting.

2.  Mixed portrayals of women.  Although both Amelia and Sonia are essentially relegated to the roles of love interest, neither appear to be sitting around moonily waiting for the menfolk - and indeed, both are keen to reject the sub-par advances of their suitors in favour of something better.

3.  Worth staying until the end of the credits.  Even though you might not want to.

The Lego Batman Movie

(Warning: contains spoilers about The Lego Batman Movie)

When a film has a break out star, a cry almost always goes up that they should have their own film/television programme/breakfast cereal.  This is risky because too much of a good thing can quickly become tiring.  In recent years, breakout stars have included Captain Jack Sparrow (the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise) and the Minions (the Despicable Me franchise).  Arguably, we are already seeing diminishing returns for both (to the extent that an audible groan could almost be heard when Johnny Depp announced his intention to star in the 5th Pirates film).

The Lego Movie came out 3 years ago (Really?  3 years already?) to near-unanimous critical and box-office acclaim, and Batman became one of the stand-out characters.  And, as the opening paragraph would suggest, now here we are with the spin off: The Lego Batman Movie.  

Coming your way to a cinema near you

The plot is fairly simple.  Commissioner Gordon is retiring and his daughter (Barbara) is taking over his role.  Rightly pointing out that despite his vigilantism, Gotham City remains the city with the highest levels of crime ever.  She suggests that the police stop working with Batman, and that the police should try the new tactics of being "accountable and extra legal".  Batman is displeased and strops off to be by himself in his BatCave eating microwaved lobster thermidore, playing electric guitar and watching Jerry Maguire.  And accidentally adopting a child, because he wasn't paying attention.  After hurting the Joker's feelings by suggesting that he isn't his number one nemesis (a kind of love/hate bromance where Batman refuses to commit), the Joker releases everyone from the Phantom Zone (a kind of Guantanamo Bay for villains including Voldemort, King Kong, Sauron, Agent Smith and the Wicked Witch of the West.  And British robots.  Which aren't Daleks.)  Chaos ensues.

Notably, there are no references to The Lego Movie.  If anything, this is a sequel to the Batman films, and arguably should stand in its canon.  Certainly, it is an antidote to the noir Batman movies of Christopher Nolan and Zach Snyder.  Maybe audiences have tired of brooding superheroes with their increasingly dark plotlines for now - the crowd pleasers seem to be the more irreverent and meta Avengers (and their component individual character movies) and Deadpool.  Or (and I'm just throwing this out there), maybe audiences are just responding positively to scripts and characters that aren't dreadful (*awkward cough* Suicide Squad, Batman Vs Superman *awkward cough*).

There are themes worth exploring - Batman/Bruce Wayne fears intimacy after the death of his parents and lacks purpose when his job (and with it, his identity) is taken from him.  His relationship with Alfred. ("I've seen you in this mood before in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2005, 1997, 1995, 1992, 1989 and that weird time in 1966").  The importance of family.  Loneliness.  And those themes are explored well, without hanging heavily. 

It's worth seeing this film at the cinema, and being slightly overwhelmed by the colour and noise of it all.  Films like this benefit from a big screen, and from multiple viewings.  Lego is a cross-generational toy, and it makes sense that the film should be a cross-generational movie.  So while the kids in the screening I saw laughed at Dick Grayson ripping off his pants ("RRRIIIIIPPP"), the reference to the films at Gotham Multiplex (Two Shades of Grey) might have passed them by.  And...it makes Bane better.

He was born in the darkness.  Apparently. 

It lacks a little bit of something (perhaps the innocence of The Lego Movie), but it is a heavy dollop of Batman and makes up for a lot of Batman Vs Superman.  A little less Everything is Awesome, but Everything is Cool if You're Part of a Team.  Pow!  Bang!

Additional thoughts, comments and questions:

• Excellent voice casting, particularly from Will Arnett as a gravel-voiced, Bale-type Batman.  Ralph Fiennes also excellent casting as Alfred, though an odd decision given that Lord Voldemort is also in this film (voiced by Eddie Izzard).  Maybe a licensing issue?
• Nice line from Barbara Gordon "you could be Batgirl!" "Please!  I would be Batwoman."
• Best (and surprisingly moving) use of One is the Loneliest Number since Magnolia.
• Do all animated films now start with a film short?
• This made me laugh:

The Producers

Over the bank holiday, the news reported that Gene Wilder died at the age of 83. Unsurprising news in some ways because of his age, unsurprising also because 2016 continues to mow down all beloved celebrities in its path and it must have been all of 20 minutes since the last one (are you on commission, 2016? Is there a quota??). I digress.

Gene Wilder, to me, is the ethereal eccentric from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and if I'm honest I haven't seen him in much else. Tonight it was suggested that I watch The Producers (1968). Now, 1968 was nearly 50 years ago. The world was a mere two decades out of WW2. People were more repressed, less worldly wise than we are now in 2016.

Or so I thought.

20 minutes into this film and there has been mention of S&M, fetishes, roleplay, cross-dressing and rape. And this is even before a Broadway play is staged in which Nazi stormtroopers goose step around a camp, stoned Hitler while singing "Springtime for Hitler (and Germany)!" in order to con the general public out of a load of cash so the two main Jewish protagonists can run off to Brazil.

No seriously. That's what it's about.  Which begs the following question...

How did this film get made? How did they get away with it? How has this bonkers spectacle not only slipped past the sensibilities of the general public, but also become an Oscar winner (Best Adapted Screenplay), Oscar nominee (Gene Wilder, Best Supporting Actor), be deemed "of significance" by the US Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Library? How? How??

How???

The short answer is that I have no idea. It's not because of the level of fame of the people involved (they weren't that influential at the time). It's not because the public were demanding it. I don't  think filmmakers could get away with it now - the closest thing I can think to compare it to is 2004's Team America, a film that has achieved cult status but I doubt will ever be revered like The Producers. Maybe it was "just one of those things" - a film that hit a zeitgeist at a particular moment, and worked because of a mood or an appetite of the time. Except...that it endures. It reappears again and again in lists of "the greatest film ever".

What can we take away from this story? Closer research tells us that Mel Brooks found the film almost impossible to back until he found a few like minded individuals who believed the following:

"If you stand on a soapbox and trade rhetoric with a dictator you never win...That's what they do so well: they seduce people. But if you ridicule them, bring them down with laughter, they can't win. You show how crazy they are."

All of a sudden, 2016 and 1968 don't seem so different.


So if we can't quite explain how it came to be (and I would be interested if anyone can shed a bit more light on this), we move to the lessons we can take from this barmy piece of filmmaking.  And they are universal. 
1.  Point out the ridiculous. Laugh at it. Laughter is arguably more potent and powerful than anger (a theme referenced in Monsters Inc) Particularly where politics is concerned.
2.  Persevere. Make what you want to make and someone will find benefit and use for it. And if they don't, make it anyways for your own benefit..  
A theme Gene Wilder returned to in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory:

Come with me and you'll be

In a world of pure imagination

Take a look and you'll see into your imagination

We'll begin with a spin

Traveling in the world of my creation

What we'll see will defy explanation

If you want to view paradise

Simply look around and view it

Anything you want to, do it

Want to change the world?

There's nothing to it

There is no life I know

To compare with pure imagination

Living there you'll be free

If you truly wish to be...

Ah go on.  Might as well get a cuppa and watch this while we're here.

David Brent: Life On The Road

The Office is one of the few programmes that I can’t binge watch for fear of putting my fist through the television screen.  But I saw Alpha Papa (I have similar “cringe” issues with Alan Partridge) and enjoyed it.  Giddy with the success of leaving the cinema screen intact, I went to see David Brent: Life on the Road.

Watched more than one episode of The Office - things went badly for the TV.

Television struggles to make the transition to film – partially because a film has to appeal to fans of the show, while not alienating the people who have never seen it.  What we end up watching is often a feature length episode, wacky hijinks, oodles of cameos (in the vague hope that the audience will be so distracted that we won’t notice there’s no plot).  There also seems to be a more notable divide between critical acclaim and audience response – The Inbetweeners Movie (20121) for example, only has a 54% aggregate rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but it set a new record for the most successful opening weekend ever achieved by a comedy film in the UK after grossing £2.5million in its opening day and won a BAFTA for Special Achievement.

More often than not, the television/film crossover takes the main character and plonks them abroad – a fish out of water story without the security blanket of familiar surroundings (The Inbetweeners Movie, Kevin and Perry Go Large (2000), and Absolutely Fabulous (2016).  Not so in the David Brent film.  Its closest comparison is Alan Partridge: Alpha Papa (2013).  A 40-something who has dreams of being famous and believes that the only thing thwarting him is the stupidity of those around him, lacking the self-awareness to understand that the world neither wants nor needs his particular brand of ego.

 

Hello ladies...

The conceit has the potential to be interesting – a film crew are making a follow up to their original documentary and want to catch up with David Brent (Ricky Gervais).  He is no more successful than he was 15 years ago.  Life has been unkind and following a breakdown, admission into “a facility” and ongoing therapy, he’s now a sales rep in (worst of all) an office full of Fincheys.  The women mainly find him repulsive, the men mainly make him the butt of their jokes.  We have no sense of his home life.  There’s no mention of any of the other characters from The Office.  His new plan is to take his band – Foregone Conclusion Part 2 – on tour in an attempt to summon fortune and fame.  

It’s as agonising as usual.  The tour amounts to nothing more than 6 or 7 gigs all within easy driving distance of home, but Brent insists on the full rock and roll lifestyle (all entirely funded by him) including luxury tour buses and hotel rooms.  The band cannot bear to spend any time with him, the gigs are poorly attended.  Brent constantly pushes himself forward to sing unbearable (but well intentioned) songs about Native Americans, disabled people, and terminally ill orphans.

The main issues, however, are these:

·         Stakes: there are none.  We know that David Brent has spent upwards of £20k on this tour and has cashed in a number of private pensions in order to afford this lavish lifestyle.  But nothing rides on this – if this doesn’t work out, he’ll try again later.  Everything’s fine.  So it’s difficult to care too much about whether this plan succeeds or fails.

·         Self awareness: there is none.  The Brent from The Office at least shows moments of self awareness – and these are the moments  that the audience hold on to, to wish better for him (if only so that this will be a little easier to watch and we can stop digging our fingernails into our face).  The Brent from the film just carries on blithely, unaware that when he is being given verbal reprimands by his manager for telling sexist and racist jokes that this is a warning to rein it in.  Unaware that if you have to pay people to come and have a drink with you, they’re not your mates.  Unaware that it’s really not appropriate to ask the only non-white person you know to refer to you as “my nigger”.

·         Salvation: it’s a stretch, really (as are my attempts for alliteration).  After all those cutaways of the band saying that they can’t abide him, after all the interviews with his colleagues saying that they know he’s going to fail, the film ends where they all like him.  It feels like a step gets cut out.  Brent doesn’t change, but everyone starts to like him for no reason.

That said:

David Brent is a horrific comedy character, and my hands bear the marks of where I tried to gnaw off my own fists while watching this film.  However I don’t want bad things to happen him.  I don’t want him to succeed (it would be no good if he achieved all is dreams of fame and fortune), but likewise I don’t want him to lose, stuck forever being crushed by the Fincheys of this world.  And that must be testament to the writing of the character. 

Conclusions:

There’s a better film in here somewhere, and it would only take minor (though significant) tweaks.   I wonder if it misses the influence of Stephen Merchant (notably absent from the writing credits).  And Brent – love him or loath him – always provokes a reaction, which is a kind of a win.  There were a lot of horrified laughs from the audience when I was at the cinema which is still a positive response in itself.  But, like David Brent, the film isn’t a winner.  But neither is it an out and out loser.  It has its redeeming features.  You just have to really look for them.