Showing posts with label Emily Blunt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emily Blunt. Show all posts

Monday, May 27, 2024

Film Review: The Fall Guy

Tip your local stunt people


The Fall Guy starts out with a premise that I don’t think anyone can really dispute: that stunt people are the real unsung heroes of Hollywood. We all love the thrilling action scenes in big-budget blockbusters, but we so often forget that the actors in those scenes are not the actors who are on the movie posters and advertisements. They go, all too often, completely unrecognized, even as they take all sorts of punishment (I’m reminded of the stunt guy in an episode of iCarly who fell from the ceiling for the part and broke all his ribs. I hope he’s doing okay). So, on some level, that’s what this movie is doing: bringing the trials and travails of stunt actors to the big screen, deliberately, putting the spotlight on their efforts and how they make the movies the world adores.

The Fall Guy, released in 2024, directed by David Leitch and written by Drew Pearce, is loosely based on the 1980s action show of the same name; I’ll admit that I haven’t seen it, nor did I know it even existed before I did the research after seeing the trailers for this film (a look at the internet makes it seem this was not an uncommon experience). It’s a show that has, so far as I can tell, dropped off the map entirely until now. Yes, in some sense it is another incidence of remake mania, but if it’s for things that are basically unknown, and the end result is entertaining, I’ll give it a pass. As TVTropes is fond of saying, tropes are tools, and here the tool is used well.

The Fall Guy is mostly set in Australia, where a big-name Hollywood film production for a blockbuster sci-fi epic along the lines of Mad Max or Dune is being shot by an ambitious director played by Emily Blunt. Through a series of odd events, an old flame shows up on set, a stuntman played by Ryan Gosling, to do some of the stunts. The two had fallen out over certain dramas on a previous film set, and their relationship is tense, but the flame shows signs of rekindling itself. Gosling’s character is a stuntman for a famous action star played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson. Now, all of that sounds like a Hollywood production, understandable even in its odd little relationships, but the star has disappeared, and his producer, played by Hannah Waddingham, suggests that it involved some shady business.

I feel like, on some level, all the characters are stereotypes, but the film uses them knowingly. Perhaps the biggest element of subversion in this domain is that the ambitious director looking for a big break is a woman, who Blunt provides both dogged determination (but, I think, never outright ruthlessness) and deep tenderness. Perhaps the most rote is Taylor-Johnson’s character, who is basically every narcissistic leading man who has gone past the point where he remembers where he came from. To be clear, that is not a bad thing; it’s a character type that works in context, and he gets some great lines, delivered with appropriate presumptuousness.

But the star of the show is clearly Gosling’s character, who is, in something that feels very meta, not the star of the show. He’s a daredevil and a maverick who is good at his job and he knows it, and indeed he loves it. Gosling and Taylor-Johnson play against each other in a thematic sense; Gosling has ambition but has never been corrupted by it, while Taylor-Johnson has fallen so deeply into that abyss that he has no idea which way is up. Gosling’s character is what Hollywood should be: decent people having fun making movies so the rest of us can enjoy it (and perhaps write about them on blogs). Taylor Johnson’s character is what Hollywood unfortunately is: brash, arrogant, and willing to throw lord knows how many people under the proverbial bus to make it to the top and stay there. Gosling’s character knows that he has limits, that he is mortal; Taylor-Johnson’s character has come to think that he is God, and we know what happens when the wealthy play God.

The Fall Guy is something of a romantic comedy, albeit with more explosions and people in odd costumes. This works as well as it does because Gosling and Blunt have a certain chemistry that just works. They have both believable flaws and believable reasons for being attracted to one another in the first place, and all of this is bolstered by some great lines, such as one when she just realized he arrived in Australia and all their issues, long suppressed, have come to the fore, in a way that is both heart-rending and uproariously funny, a combination that is no small feat for all involved.

There’s a certain element of metatextuality here, although one relatively subdued compared to films like Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City, so deftly reviewed by my colleague Arturo Serrano on this blog. The sci-fi epic that is being made in the film (which, in my opinion, looks like it would be an entertaining film in its own right) is a big, bombastic story, and this film is about the not quite so bombastic but nevertheless big (in their own way) stories that come from the process of making those stories. It’s something that works better for a collaborative medium like film (not much excitement in the actual process of writing a novel, for example - although this year’s Argylle did that, and in my opinion succeeded reasonably well). This becomes a little stronger in the end credits, where you see the actual stunt crew for this film about a fictional stunt crew; it makes me wonder if anything interesting happened on this set.

The Fall Guy
is pure and simple fun, and uses its scaffolding to hold up an edifice that knows who built it, and wants you to know that. It’s both high-octane and very human, and balances those two strands well. It’s worth seeing in theaters - there’s an amusing ‘thanks for keeping movie theaters open’ bit at the beginning, which is funny, and there’s a mid-credits scene that is also very funny. I feel like seeing this film at home would lessen the effect somewhat; let the love letter to the genre be seen in its most traditional haunt.

--

Nerd Coefficient: 8/10

POSTED BY: Alex Wallace, alternate history buff who reads more than is healthy.

Friday, July 4, 2014

Microreview [film]: Edge of Tomorrow

An edge-of-your-seat, laugh-out-loud, knock-your-socks-off scifomance! 


First things first: in real life, Tom Cruise may be mad as a haberdasher, but on screen he still has the magic. So even if you find Tom Cruise disagreeable as an individual (and let's face it, who doesn't?), I'd advise against letting your distaste for his craziness spoil a perfectly good movie!


Second things second: director Doug Liman has combined the humor of Swingers with the frenetic action of The Bourne Identity in this, his newest gem. Because of the relatively unusual (though by no means unique) temporal premise of Edge of Tomorrow (about which I will say as little as possible so as to keep unadulterated the joy of discovery for the six people in the world who haven't already heard it compared to Groundhog Day or Source Code), there were almost limitless options for how to depict the story: in a farcical mode, or a deadly serious action mode, or a Shakespearian tragedy, or a humance (humorous human interest romance). But Liman and the film's other creators have struck just the right balance, in my opinion, between the humantic and the sci fi action extravaganza modes.

As with any project of this scope, some aspects strike specific individuals (notably me) with greater pizzazz than others. Certain elements of the movie's plot, including the enemy's bizarre, almost incomprehensible inability to deal with what seems like the mother of all weaknesses/chinks in its armor, and the handful of cases of "we've managed to throw together a doohicky that can deux the crap out of your machina" sci fi babble, left me scratching my head. But then, if the enemy were truly as omnipotent as they seem, the movie would have been about twenty minutes long, so perhaps I should simply accept the pseudo-scientific exposition of gadgets and whatnot as the price one pays for good entertainment.

Everything going as planned...ish.
And what entertainment! In addition to the intriguing references to World War I (Blunt's character being nicknamed the Angel of Verdun, etc.) there are quite a few laugh out loud moments, and twists worthy of an M. Night Shyamalan movie (but without the crappiness!), even for those of us who (sigh) were told beforehand that Edge of Tomorrow is "just like Groundhog Day but with aliens and stuff" and thus instantly had the ultimate shock surprise of the movie spoiled. And the on-screen eye candy of Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt, as well as the film's deliberate attempt (or so I see it) to prevent audiences from too easily identifying with Cruise's character (who starts and remains kind of unappealing personality-wise), are sure to please.

Even scifobics (up to and including old people!) who get the heebie-jeebies whenever movies contain anything that isn't 'realistic' should enjoy this high-octane romp! (Yes! I've always wanted to use that ridiculous phrase, which is only trotted out for Jason Statham movies under normal circumstances but seems appropriate here.)

So in conclusion, happy birthday, America—and what better way to celebrate than by seeing Edge of Tomorrow?

The Math:


Baseline assessment: 8/10

Bonuses: +1 for having plenty of humance and +1 for striking a nice balance between laughs and chills

Penalties: -1 for a few instances of sloppy sci fi babble along the lines of "reverse the polarity of the neutron flow" (though nowhere near that bad)

Nerd coefficient: 9/10 "Standout in its category" (admittedly, it's kind of a small sub-category we're talking about here, but for what it's worth, I'd say this movie trumps the excellent Source Code and even rivals the King of Time Loop movies, Groundhog Day itself!)


See more about our scoring system here. 

Zhaoyun, zompire scifantomance fan, has been keeping it real here at Nerds of a Feather since before Edge of Tomorrow was a gleam in its director's eye (or in any case since early 2013).