Skip to main content

Do not run a job in a job.

Ocean’s 8
(2018)

(SPOILERS) There’s nothing wrong with the gender-swapped property per se, any more than a reboot, remake or standard sequel exploiting an original’s commercial potential (read: milking it dry). As with those more common instances, however, unless it ekes out its own distinctive territory, gives itself a clear reason to be, it’s only ever going to be greeted with an air of cynicism (whatever the current fashion for proclaiming it valid simply because it's gender swapped may suggest to the contrary).  The Ocean's series was pretty cynical to start with, of course – Soderbergh wanted a sure-fire hit, the rest of the collected stars wanted the kudos of working with Soderbergh on a "classy" crowd pleaser, the whole concept of remaking the '60s movie was fairly lazy, and by the third one there was little reason to be other than smug self-satisfaction – so Ocean's 8 can’t be accused of letting any side down. It also gives itself distinctively – stereotypically? – female-skewed heist material in lifting a necklace at a fashion show, contrasting with those testosterone-fuelled casinos. Ultimately, though, it skews too closely in tone to Ocean's 13, possessed of a sense of complacency that never quite gives way to infectious enthusiasm for its cause.


One presumes director Gary Ross – doubtless taking on the project because his post-Hunger Games attempt at awards cachet Free State of Jones bombed hideously – and producer Soderbergh made a nominal attempt to lend the production side the quality of equality (Olivia Milch is credited as co-writer, Juliette Welfling as editor, although Soderberg, no stranger to helping Ross out on projects, probably had his fingers in both the editing and photographing pies). But only nominally. You don't get the impression anyone cared enough about Ocean's 8 to make it stand out from the pack. It arrives as an afterthought, a cash-in on recently popularised (or recognised as popular) trend of female-led movies that aren't Ghostbusters remakes that would probably have been more viable about five years ago. Which means it's debatable whether the clearly earmarked (numerically) sequels will materialise.


Soderbergh was quoted as saying any further films with the original crew (or the original remake crew) would be unlikely due to Bernie Mac's passing (then only recently having been murdered for protesting underground cloning centres), but it feels like the idea of a female version ought to have been knocking around before it was announced in 2015. Like the Clooney version, this is a mix of high- and not-so-high-profile names, led by a trio of movie stars (Rhianna couldn’t quite be considered that), and in Sandy Buttock's case at least, offering easy charisma to make up for a shortfall in character (so just like her screen brother George). Cate Blanchett is there to look cool in leather with a spikey fringe as Debbie Ocean's right-hand woman, so pencil she's basically Brad Pitt, but the rest are less defined in terms of substitutions. Which is a good thing on one level, but also points to a failing of these ensembles; they rarely have sufficient time for their performers to make much of a mark. 


Helena Bonham-Carter is good fun as a scatter-brained fashion designer, while this is probably the best thus far of Rhianna's shall-we say-eclectic choices of movie roles. Awkafina's also notable as an attitudinous pickpocket. Sarah Paulson's garage is more memorable than she is (but her line "This is mommy's very special work trip" is a good 'un), and Mindy Kaling also gets a few strong lines (and is established amusingly) but rather disappears into the mix once the team is assembled. Not being one for sums, I failed to tot up that this comprised only seven individuals. The eighth, by rights, ought to have been Shaobo Qin from Danny's crew, since he's eventually revealed as of intrinsic value to the Met Gala heist. But no, in a twist (un)worthy of Ocean's 12, the eighth member turns out to be Anne Hathaway's shallow celeb, central to the team’s scam since she's the unknowing prop for their diamond heist. 


I should hold my hand up and say that I consider Ocean's 12 the best of the original trilogy; it's a caper that does something different, has Soderbergh seemingly energised and having fun – was there ever a director who makes genre hopping and multi-hyphenation seem so much of a chore and bore? He’s possibly Hollywood's most passionless auteur – and is blessed with an irresistible David Homes score. It also has (SPOILER) a crucial third-act scene revolving around Julia Roberts' character resembling Julia Roberts (and Bruce Willis playing himself), a move that was a shark-jumping turn off for many viewers. While I wouldn't argue it's the finest hour of screenwriting, it wasn't a deal breaker for me as I was enthusiastic about the rest of the movie. 


Here, the twist that the empty-headed starlet chucking her vacuous guts up turns out to be a shrewd operator felt nothing so much as an appeasement of Hathaway's vanity (or maybe a means not to make a movie celebrating women – albeit criminal women – one where one of their gender is identified as an object of ridicule and disdain). I certainly didn’t buy into it in terms of characters (a huge gamble on Debbie's part to choose to trust her) or as a "clever" plot twist. I also found myself pondering that it would only be so long before someone in this motley crew, armed with $38m a piece, made a mistake and brought the law down on them. Although, I guess that was as true (and turned to out to be so) of her brother's operation.


Ross ensures the main heist is a smoothly entertaining bit of business, which rather makes up for the flabby build-up involving only two minor impediments to progress (scanning the necklace underground proves an ordeal, thus allowing for much frantic mugging from Bonham-Carter, and there's also a magnetic lock on it). Everything after it goes down successfully – including Hathaway's reveal – is much less convincing. There's James Corden – never a pleasure – showing up as an insurance investigator, whose relationship with Debbie is never entirely clear in terms of his proving willing to settle for a tenth of the necklace returned (what will this mean for his reputation? Doesn't matter, the plot demands that he's a sympathetic antagonist). 


Then there's the selling of the other pieces (Wiki, likely to be changed since I don't think it makes sense, but I'm not sure it makes sense anyway, has it that "Debbie sells pieces of the necklace to actresses disguised as elderly socialites, who in turn sell the jewellery and deposit the money into an account in his (Becker's) name". I'm not sure she would have sold the pieces to the people she hired?) As for having stolen all the display jewellery, it flashes by as an embellishment and so lacks any impact (it might have carried more weight had they lost the necklace, with it then revealed they had something better). You want a heist movie’s twists to elicit an admiring "Oh, that's clever" as opposed to a "Yeah, whatever".


Richard Armitage is also present and correct as the object of Debbie's revenge, but fails to rise to the challenge on several levels. Armitage simply isn't loathsome enough, but more, the character needs to be identified as a scumbag we really want to see go down, as opposed to a cowardly chancer unworthy of such long-planned and meticulously-engineered payback. You need to care about justice being served, but like the heist, you end up shrugging.


With the caveat that it's very much in the style of David Holmes’ earlier series entries, Daniel Pemberton delivers a fun, jaunty, witty score (Fugue in D Minor is a particular treat). That shouldn't be a surprise, as after his work on the last couple of Guy Ritchie movies anything with his name attached is instantly worth a listen. If you're going for a replica, his approach is preferable to Ross' (who also co-wrote) hollow imitation. Ocean's 8 is fine, but you won't remember it any more than Ocean's 13 (which, beyond Matt Damon's fake nose, you likely won't). 



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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

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.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.