And there I was, thinking Maleficent: Mistress of Evil would be the prettiest picture I saw in all of 2020. There’s a new champion, and whoever assembled the look of this one should have been honoured at the Oscars. Shot in Barcelona and the Canary Islands, it beats Maleficent by almost entirely avoiding CGI, in lieu of stunning locations such as the former residence of sculptor Xavier Corberó: “a mazelike estate constructed from cement that features nine connected structures and 300 arches.” That quote comes from a feature in Architecture Digest, which is not something every film gets, shall we say. And it deserves one, for the entirety of this is a 95-minute coffee-table book. Even when the plot stumbles, you can wallow in a remarkable visual style, achieved for the relative pittance of $10 million.
That plot concerns Uma (Roberts), who has just refused the hand in marriage of the young man chosen by her family. She is sent off to the titular establishment, on a remote island, to be “re-educated” into a more pliable form, under the guidance of The Duchess (Jovovich). Uma meets others going through the same treatment for various reasons, but plots to escape, with the help of the one she truly loves. Only for this to be derailed when the true nature of the “re-education” is revealed, explaining why Paradise Hills has a 100% success rate with its patients, despite a very low-key approach, mostly consisting of yoga. Yet, it turns out to be an method which can perhaps be leveraged against those who seek to control Uma.
As a modern-day fairy-tale, it works quite nicely, driven particularly by the visual style which feels like the dream of a mad interior designer. However, it’s not as clever as it thinks it is, and occasionally descends into the painfully obvious, such as The Duchess clipping thorns off roses. ‘Cos the roses represent the young women, being shorn of their individuality and essence, y’see? Yeah, I rolled my eyes a bit at that. You also wonder why they bother with flashy stuff like cranking Uma up to the roof on a carousel pony, in order to show her holograms of her intended. It seems entirely unnecessary, given the… considerably more physical, shall we say, nature of Paradise Hills’ true solution.
But it’s fun to watch Jovovich in a role which doesn’t require her to kick ass – except, perhaps of the psychological kind. For she still exudes menace, even when being extremely polite, or perhaps due to this. Managing to make “You’re just a prickly little pear” into a dire threat is no small feat. While Roberts is decent enough, the rest of the supporting cast of inmates (González, Macdonald and the ever-clunkily named Awkwafina) seem largely redundant. We’re never given much reason to care about their characters, and I found the film achieved greater impact when it stayed focused on Uma. But given the beauty on display, I’m largely prepared to forgive its other flaws.
Dir: Alice Waddington Star: Emma Roberts, Milla Jovovich, Eiza González, Danielle Macdonald
The action-heroine genre has seen its share of high-profile flops in the past. But this long-delayed entry, originally due out in February 2019, is among the worst, setting a record for the lowest ever opening at the North American box-office for a wide release. It took in only $2.8 million from 3,049 theaters when it opened in January, and ended with a worldwide gross below $6 million, against a budget of $50 million. While smaller in scale, that’s a Cutthroat Island level of failure. Did it deserve such a fate? Well, it’s not that bad. It ain’t great. But it seems almost defiantly unlikable, going against cinematic norms in a way that’s brave – and, I suspect, ultimately foolish. The result is something whose commercial demise is unsurprising, beginning with a title that makes only tangential sense, even after you’ve seen the film.
It’s the story of Stephanie Patrick (Lively), whose family died in a plane accident, causing her to go into a downward spiral. Three years later, she’s a crack whore, when contacted by journalist Keith Proctor (Jaffrey). He tells her the crash was actually a terrorist attack, basing this claim on information received from a source with intelligence connections known only as “B”. After Proctor is murdered, Stephanie finds B (Law) and convinces him to help her acquire the necessary skills to become an assassin. Stephanie then goes after all those involved in the attack, including the shadowy figure known only as U-17. To do so, she takes on the identity of Petra Reuter, an assassin killed by B, and uses the resources of ex-CIA officer Marc Serra (Brown), now working as an intelligence broker.
I think viewer expectations may have played a part here. Reading the above, and with the film coming from the producers of the 007 franchise, you are likely imagining a slick, Bond-esque slice of escapism. It’s not that. First off, Stephanie is… Well, let’s be honest, a bit shit as an assassin. When she asks B how long it’ll take for her to become good, he replies, “Your menopause will be a distant memory.” They don’t have that much time, and the results are consequently rough around the edges, not least because she almost completely lacks the necessary killer instinct. She has the motive, just not the method.
Frankly, she’s very, very lucky to survive the first couple of missions, and that’s only one of the aspects which strains credibility. The makers get a demerit for using Ireland to fake the North of Scotland, and it appears remarkably easy to track down international terrorists. Perhaps the book on which this was based did a better job? Given the gritty nature of proceedings, I was expecting a greater level of intrigue and deception. For example, despite being officially “unattached”, I was predicting B or Marc to still be working on behalf of their former employers, manipulating Stephanie towards their ends. Maybe I’ve just watched too many episodes of Homeland.
There are some impressive elements. Probably the most outstanding is a car chase, filmed to look like one take, shot entirely from inside Stephanie’s vehicle as she flees the scene. It’s almost as good as the one from Children of Men, the gold standard for such things. I also did like Lively’s performance: she has rather more to do here than she had in The Shallows, and acquits herself well, both dramatically and in the action scenes (she smashed her hand up badly while filming a fight scene with Law). However, on reaching the end, I found myself unmoved, and given the general lack of spectacle present, this isn’t one I’ve much interest in revisiting.
I have to start off with an important confession: I am not a gamer. I’ve never really been one. I might have played… two computer games in my entire life: “Tomb Raider 2” and “No-one Lives Forever 2”. That very special thing computer gamers experience when in front of the consoles? I’ve never felt it, it never got me. But then, I was born in the mid-70s, and this could be the territory of another generation. So maybe I’m not even qualified to evaluate a movie which was based on a computer game. On the other hand, I’m not reviewing a game here, but a film – and I think I know a fair bit about them! Hopefully, I get the details right.
Dragon Age: Dawn of the Seeker is based on the fantasy computer game franchise by Canadian computer game label BioWare. The series started in 2009. In 2012 – to probably the surprise of everyone – it received a movie version. Released in the West and co-produced by American anime label Funimation, it tells a separate story that ties in with the second released game “Dragon Age 2” (2011).
The story takes place in a land called Ferelden, where knights secure the freedom and which is governed by a religious organisation known as “the Chantry”. This is similar to a medieval church with, for want of a better description, a female Pope called “the Divine” at the top. Among the knights are the Seekers; they seem to be the superiors of the knights and hold a special place, reporting directly to the Chantry. There are tensions between the knights and blood magicians who seem to follow (as far as I understand this universe!) their own agenda.
When one of the knights, Byron, leaves the castle with a girl that the Seekers had just rescued from mages, his young colleague Cassandra (Kuriyama) gets in his way, demanding an explanation. Byron is her mentor and a father figure to her, but shortly after he gets killed in an attack. Before dying, he is able to tell Cassandra there is intrigue brewing in the Chantry, and that this was the reason he wanted to secure the girl, who obviously has magical abilities (she looks very much like an elf to me).
Regalyan D’Marcall (Tanihara), a mage whom Cassandra finds on the scene, turns out to be an ally of Byron who wanted to help him expose the intrigue. But having previously lost her brother to mages (there was a decapitation incident), Cassandra is suspicious of him. Still, together, the unlikely duo search out who’s behind all of what’s going on, and in the nick of time, also prevent an assassination attempt (with a dragon!) on the Divine at a jubilee celebration.
First off, the story moves quite quickly and never gets boring, coming in at a viewer-friendly runtime of 90 minutes. Personally, I am really happy to see, once in a while, a fantasy movie that sticks to the length I had been used to in the 80s, before all these Lord of the Rings, Hobbit and Harry Potter movies with their 2½-hour running times. The visual style is something the viewer will have to make up their own mind about. You will either like it or you won’t. It’s not total CGI. It looks as if people were acting, then motion-captured into the computer and their image re-worked. It looks similar to the science fiction movie Vexille that the same director had made earlier. For my personal tastes, I didn’t really embrace this style. Also, I thought for much of the time the movie looked too dark with regard to its colour palette. But then, fantasy seems to be going through a “dark phase” right now, so maybe it’s unfair to count this as a real negative.
The story was smarter than I thought it would be, having ordered the used DVD to a low price, and knowing virtually nothing about the “Dragon Age” universe. To be honest, I still don’t know much about it – but you don’t need to be Albert Einstein to figure out the basics. Interestingly, I believe the character of Cassandra Pentaghast was a side character in the second computer game but was such a well-received badass, the developers decided to make her the main character in the first movie. (Also in 2011, there was another, live-action movie put together from a series of webisodes with the title Dragon Age: Redemption, about an Elvish assassin Tallis, starring Felicia Day. I haven’t seen it, as it’s too difficult/expensive to get here in Germany.)
Some changes in the game character were made to make Cassandra look a bit more feminine, e. g. she gets longer hair here. They also give her a backstory about why she hates mages so much, explaining why she treats the mage Regalyan with strong suspicion. He has to earn her trust: while that underlying subplot doesn’t make the story Shakespeare, it gives the characters enough emotional layers to come across as more than just one-dimensional. That doesn’t lead to a big love story, as would typically have been the cast. but lightens what could otherwise have been a very bare storyline, and leads to a satisfying end. At least he gets a little kiss on the cheek for helping her. Obviously, she is becoming soft, considering how quickly she has been drawing her sword over the entire movie! 😉
There are some surprises along the way, though I wouldn’t call them earth-shattering. There are steady, regularly appearing action sequences, between escape and investigation scenes and a grand finale showing that, while a female knight may not alone be able to prevent an assassination, she can at least deal with a gigantic dragon. But we all need a little help from our friends, right? There are some gory scenes, so this is not for kids, though nothing really shocked me. Admittedly, 8 seasons of Game of Thrones may have desensitized me in regard to the depiction of bloody fantasy violence. If you need them, they’re in here; if you don’t like gore, there aren’t too many to distract you from an otherwise entertaining enough, and comparatively short, fantasy movie.
The end seems to indicate another story will follow. But if that happened, it was probably in the form of another computer game, as the movie didn’t get a sequel. Overall, I think it’s safe to say that the movie can serve as a quick fantasy fix, if there is nothing else for you out there right now. Entertaining enough without being extraordinary, it has some nice developments and the main character is layered enough so that she doesn’t bore you. I give it 3 stars for acceptable, though hardly ground-breaking, solid fantasy entertainment. A fan of the franchise may value it higher or lower; as I’m not in the know about an extended universe that also features several books and comics, I will not presume to decide that for them!
Dir: Fumihiko Sori Star (voice): Chiaki Kuriyama, Shōsuke Tanihara, Hiroshi Iwasaki, Kaya Matsutani