Skip to main content

Calm down, Mr Brand. You’re a cat. It’s not the end of the world.

Nine Lives
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Something of a departure for Kevin Spacey, who after all, isn’t known for prowling the streets at night, on the lookout for frisky business. Nine Lives was roundly ripped to shreds by critics and viewers alike, which rather ignores its star’s Oscar-worthy performance. Spacey, rightly envious of Bill Murray’s astonishing achievement with two Garfield movies, decided he wanted some of that. It probably doesn’t need stressing that Nine Lives is not a good movie, but it isn’t quite the horrendous one it’s been made out as either; it’s simply lazy, which pretty much sums up Barry Sonnenfeld’s directorial career.


I wonder if Baz ever wishes he’d stuck to cinematography. He was, after all, pretty good at it (his Coen Brothers collaborations from Blood Simple to Miller’s Crossing being particularly emblematic). Since casting his net wider, however, he has evidenced zero appreciation for quality or consistency, from producing Space Chimps to directing the likes of Wild Wild West. There have been upticks; Get Shorty, the Men in Blacks showing a flair for the cartoonish that ought to have translated to this, his most recent movie, and dabbling in TV that sometimes pays dividends (Pushing Daisies, and the good notices for A Series of Unfortunate Events). But why would he want to immerse himself in waters that last elicited a trio of less-than-adored Look Who’s Talking movies?


In fairness, I don’t think there’s anything much wrong with this concept, and on paper, Spacey playing a dyspeptic cat sounds decent enough in terms of laughs potential (which is why I put it on my list of 20 to see last year, inadvisably, maybe even inexcusably, I know). But Sonnenfeld’s take appears to have been inspired by YouTube cat videos (as per the opening sequence) rather than MGM or Warner Bros cartoons, with a budget to match. He has an actual, ostensibly live-action cat made to perform, by the less-than-magic of CGI, various feats an actual, live-action cat couldn’t, but seems to be making a feature of the terrible effects from the first scene onwards, almost as if he’s proud of them (in said first scene, Spacey’s corporate titan Tom Brand dives out of a plane for kicks; it looks really bad, not funny bad). Brand’s a good-guy capitalist, a bit of a grouch whose only real failing is that he doesn’t spend enough time with his family, a mogul who’s opposed to privatising his firm. So basically, this guy doesn’t exist in reality.


Five credited writers have come up with nary a gag to rub between them, but the tried-and-tested plot outline, in which Mark Consuelos’ oozing villain attempts to wrest the company from Tom while he’s in a coma (and in a cat) is inoffensive and at least isn’t dull (for contrast on the latter, see The BFG). Jennifer Garner as the long-suffering wife only gets to be grateful she’s not her real hubby in terms of starring roles you really regret, but Cheryl Hines scores as the brittle ex, while the child actors (Malina Weissman and Talitha Bateman) provide decent showings.


This isn’t Christopher Walken’s finest hour, though. He usually brings something to any role, no matter how nondescript the surrounding movie, but his cat whisperer really is nondescript (and as has been pointed out, is pretty much the part he played in Click, to similarly forgettable results).


Spacey does acerbic with aplomb, even when he’s just picking up a cheque, so there are occasionally lines here that work (“Looks like a cat already ate this” he observes of his food), and I’ll admit to raising a smile as the feline dives off the office roof after his son during the climax (“Mr Fuzzypants?” asks the bewildered Robbie Amell). The problem is, no one seems to be enthused by what they’re doing. Even the cat sound effects are half-hearted (seemingly exactly the same sound dubbed onto any given comic moment). As The Secret Life of Pets and Cats and Dogs (or Barnaby and Me, or The Shaggy D.A.) have shown, this kind of thing has a ready audience if done well. Sonnenfeld just doesn’t seem to care. He even kills the cat. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

Outstanding. Now, let’s bite off all the heads and pile them up in the corner.

Venom (2018)
(SPOILERS) A 29% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes can't be wrong, can it? To go by the number of one-star reviews Sony’s attempt to kick-start their own shred of the Marvel-verse has received, you’d think it was the new Battlefield Earth, or Highlander II: The Quickening. Fortunately, it's far from that level of ignominy. And while it’s also a considerable distance from showing the polish and assuredness of the official Disney movies, it nevertheless manages to establish its own crudely winning sense of identity.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

The whole thing should just be your fucking nose!

A Star is Born (2018)
(SPOILERS) A shoe-in for Best Picture Oscar? Perhaps not, since it will have to beat at very least Roma and First Man to claim the prize, but this latest version of A Star is Born still comes laden with more acclaim than the previous three versions put together (and that's with a Best Picture nod for the 1937 original). While the film doesn't quite reach the consistent heights suggested by the majority of critics, who have evacuated their adjectival bowels lavishing it with superlatives, it's undoubtedly a remarkably well-made, stunningly acted piece, and perhaps even more notably, only rarely feels like its succumbing to just how familiar this tale of rise to, and parallel fall from, stardom has become.

Yes, cake is my weakness.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017)
(SPOILERS) Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is good fun, and sometimes, that’s enough. It doesn’t break any new ground, and the establishing act is considerably better than the rather rote plotting and character development that follows, but Jake Kasdan’s semi-sequel more than justifies the decision to return to the stomping ground of the tepid 1995 original, a movie sold on its pixels, and is comfortably able to coast on the selling point of hormonal teenagers embodying grown adults.

This is by some distance Kasdan’s biggest movie, and he benefits considerably from Gyula Pados’s cinematography. Kasdan isn’t, I’d suggest, a natural with action set pieces, and the best sequences are clearly prevized ones he’d have little control over (a helicopter chase, most notably). I’m guessing Pados was brought aboard because of his work on Predators and the Maze Runners (although not the lusher first movie), and he lends the picture a suitably verdant veneer. Wh…

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …